EPT
D3 hacked already, was it worth no LAN?
| Blogs > Deleted User |
|
Deleted User 61629
1664 Posts
| ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
Like walking... | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
| ||
|
Seditary
Australia7033 Posts
On September 21 2011 14:23 Inori wrote: Basically there's a server emulation hack out in the open already. It has its problems and limitations (like you can only play DH atm), but other than that it works fine. You have a rather odd definition of 'works fine' | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On September 21 2011 14:40 Seditary wrote: You have a rather odd definition of 'works fine' it works fine as in you can load the first area and that's it. given time i suppose they could find and root out what the server side does in item generation etc and emulate that but w.e diablo is a multi player game. Why no lane because of shit like hamachi and garena emulated lan servers where people can illegally download the game and play it for free pretty much. Really who was using diablo 2 to play lan no one leaving it out and focusing on a closed battle.net structure was a fine choice. I don't see people complain about no lan for wow because it's an mmo. They just made an mmo structured around diablo and how it plays i mean there is an AH and everything. Anyways with games like diablo that aren't mmo in the sense of a subscription, putting such a heavy burden to fully emulate a server takes time and during that time, el cheepo pirates will buy a legit copy of diablo 3. If it was subscription based i'd see them taking action to shutting down those servers but like sc2 the scene that plays on emulated servers is small so they already locked in the people who were going to buy the game. | ||
|
Ome
Canada157 Posts
If your talking about playing at LAN with your friends while you each own a copy, you should have internet access, which was a rarity for sure back in 98-2000. | ||
|
wonderwall
New Zealand695 Posts
These measures will get more and more draconian with things like one computer per game copy until game companies eventually push themselves out of the market with their rules and they have to relax. | ||
|
Deleted User 61629
1664 Posts
| ||
|
Seditary
Australia7033 Posts
On September 21 2011 14:48 Inori wrote: Yeah, I realized the wording was wrong, fixed it. What I meant is that you can emulate D3 server, launch the world and run around it. Anything after that is just details and a matter of time. I see the edit, coolies. | ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On September 21 2011 15:05 NotSorry wrote: Yea the whole "anti-hack" and crap is a load of shit, aside from player hosted servers there are already "working" bots on the bnet beta server. (I say "working" because they are not the best programmed things in the world, but they run around and kill shit and loot it so it's only a matter of time before the minor details are worked out) botting isn't exactly hacking to how most people think of it, bot don't manipulate in game code often they just read the screen and tell what commands to do following a crude ai, i doubt there are still any bots that actively inject code at least take that risk. You want to know why diablo 3 wont be hack able. How often does wow get hacked, your account gets hacked but ppl aren't hacking items etc, because all your info is being saved server side. The best you can get around on that is exploits in the code for duping/pking or map hacks. You call the game hacked but you'll never log into a blizz server, as it looks for a d3 attached to the account | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On September 21 2011 15:05 NotSorry wrote: Yea the whole "anti-hack" and crap is a load of shit, aside from player hosted servers there are already "working" bots on the bnet beta server. (I say "working" because they are not the best programmed things in the world, but they run around and kill shit and loot it so it's only a matter of time before the minor details are worked out) About the bots: It's very likely that the beta doesn't have any version of the warden implemented. Upon launch there will be bots, but there also will be bans and fixes to obscure Diablo's memory footprint. The situation will be similar or a little worse to WoW, since actual money can be made with the items. Still, if you don't play competitive PvP (which i think D3 is the wrong game for) you shouldn't notice that much aside from slightly lower prices for items. | ||
|
mtn
729 Posts
| ||
|
English
United States475 Posts
| ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
| ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
leads into "With Blizzards new "anti-hacking" policy, it seems that only people suffering from it are those that are trying to use their software honestly." You dont see why they limit you to online only? Anti-hacking is only half of the reason, and it is a pretty solid reason. There is no need to have LAN for a game like D3. | ||
|
Vansetsu
United States1454 Posts
| ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
you know why, its cause people buy their products regardles,s because its a "must have" thing. why should I have my fun to enjoy it however I please, where and whenever I please, and with whoever I please, be limited by being forced to go through their server for it? ultimately, its consumers that make the goalposts though. and when consumers keep buying products instead of abstaining, or, more illegally, just ripping the company off to shove it in their faces, they're going to Promote this type of behavior from companies. its just like a dog. if you give it a cookie when it shits on the carpet, don't you think you're going to see a lot more turds in the future? A company CANNOT keep saying "screw you" when all its customers leave. Companies DO look at the bottom line, and they have to cater to what gets them that best one. if it helps, think of companies as amoral monsters, who can either be continually petted and soothed despite becoming worse and worse, or can be disciplined by market shares into behaving exactly how you want. On September 21 2011 15:39 mtn wrote: The thing is that D3 isn't even released yet, and there are already not really playable, but still ARE server emulators. That really is something. this. | ||
|
chiboni
15 Posts
So it sounds more like 'Why do i have to pay X copys when i want to play with my friends,even so one of us owns a copy'. Also that with the emulated server is no big suprise.. WOW Addon Cataclysm was emulated/datamined the day F&F Alpha came out. So i guess its common for client sided games ? | ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
On September 21 2011 17:19 chiboni wrote: Pretty much what some people said. There is no reason for LAN (expect for major tournaments, no lagg etc.) because now everyone is ONLINE. I doubt you sitting in a room with your friends, having a 'LAN' and you are not ONLINE while playing. So it sounds more like 'Why do i have to pay X copys when i want to play with my friends,even so one of us owns a copy'. Also that with the emulated server is no big suprise.. WOW Addon Cataclysm was emulated/datamined the day F&F Alpha came out. So i guess its common for client sided games ? because everyone has infinity bandwidth, herpaderp. Let me break it down for you: the more people at your house playing, the laggier it gets, NOT just because of going through the internet, to a server thats far away, and then back to your house, for THE EXACT SAME GAME IN THE SAME ROOM, but because that also taxes your internet throughput and your ROUTER throughput, especially when it has to wait for more info to come from the far away internet. people who say there's no reason for lan becauise everyone can connect ot the internet, blah blah blah, are just apologists who don't understand how the internet actually works, and who don't care about people being denied the right to play their game wherever, without a connection to the internet neecessary. As its been said, piraters and hackers already can do these things. tl;dr, anyone who argues that having internet at a location means LAN is useless doesn't understand bandwidth and is an idiot. Or maybe, they could be one of those people hired at .2 cents by blizz/activision to keep pushing their agenda on forums in droves so that everyone else starts thinking the same way. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
LAN isnt just to remove internet requirement, it is to remove input lag and allow for far better micro and control | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6255 Posts
| ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On September 21 2011 15:39 mtn wrote: The thing is that D3 isn't even released yet, and there are already not really playable, but still ARE server emulators. That really is something. That happened for EVERY beta blizzard did since War3. Dia3 is just the first game that included a singleplayer portion in the beta. So while it is certainly a feat to reverse engineer this so fast ... it's not like this hasn't happened before. | ||
|
NonConGuy
United States416 Posts
On September 21 2011 17:24 Truedot wrote: because everyone has infinity bandwidth, herpaderp. Let me break it down for you: the more people at your house playing, the laggier it gets, NOT just because of going through the internet, to a server thats far away, and then back to your house, for THE EXACT SAME GAME IN THE SAME ROOM, but because that also taxes your internet throughput and your ROUTER throughput, especially when it has to wait for more info to come from the far away internet. people who say there's no reason for lan becauise everyone can connect ot the internet, blah blah blah, are just apologists who don't understand how the internet actually works, and who don't care about people being denied the right to play their game wherever, without a connection to the internet neecessary. As its been said, piraters and hackers already can do these things. tl;dr, anyone who argues that having internet at a location means LAN is useless doesn't understand bandwidth and is an idiot. Or maybe, they could be one of those people hired at .2 cents by blizz/activision to keep pushing their agenda on forums in droves so that everyone else starts thinking the same way. how much bandwidth you think you need to run this game? Most household nowaday can probably support 7-8 computers online playing. If they were streaming, then thats a different story. Yes there will be ping from home router to their server and back, but it isnt so bad that lan is a must. We look at sc2 and yes there is issues crossing servers and that one mlg incident but beside that it was pretty much smooth sailing. | ||
|
Sc2Requiem
United States121 Posts
Trying to hardcode all that data in the blind would be nearly impossible, but of course there's that saying about monkeys and typewriters. If it's possible to get a fully functional crack I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. It'd likely take years, long after Blizz has made enough profit off of sales and merch to cover the costs of production. What happens in that time? Expansions! Constantly changing data stores and security software. Just thinking about such a daunting task makes me want to chop off my hands so I can never write another line of code. On another note. R.I.P. LAN. I will remember you fondly; an artifact from the days of yore. Fading into the ages, a distant memory; a painful longing reminding me of times gone by. But seriously, Blizz would be in deep shit if one person could buy a copy of D3 and share it with all their friends for offline multiplayer. Logging into Bnet would just be an extra cherry on top of the sundae. I know it sucks that the gaming industry has evolved this way, but it's a necessary evil. Production costs aren't the low budget ordeals they used to be and making sure you at least pay for the cost of development is a real concern. It comes down to the gaming community having to open our wallets and support the companies that bring us hours of entertainment. Hell, if you're a RMAH wizard, then Blizzard will be paying you to play the game. If D3 doesn't turn a decent profit for the ~5-7 years it took to create you can just about guarantee that we will never see a Diablo IV, or even continued expansion content. I don't want to see that happen to my all time favorite game series. | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On September 21 2011 17:24 Truedot wrote: people who say there's no reason for lan becauise everyone can connect ot the internet, blah blah blah, are just apologists who don't understand how the internet actually works, and who don't care about people being denied the right to play their game wherever, without a connection to the internet neecessary. Bandwidth is not the issue here. Dia3's traffic per player, even if it exceeds that of WoW (which it technically shouldn't) is not more than 25kb/s up/down per player. On a 500kb/sec upstream (since upstream will almost always be the limit) you can technically fit 20 people, realistically 15 people. If you plan on hosting a bigger LAN, a line with more than 500kb/sec up should be availible as you will also need a bigger room. But philosophically you are right. For the singleplayer portion there should be no need of an active internet connection. Sc2 too has an offline mode for singleplayer and so should D3. For multplayer, they should implement a virtual lan mode that only sends authentication to bnet but data just within the LAN like with the Valve games. But multiplayer without any internet connection is not gonna happen as it opens the door too wide for early and easy piracy. And yes, there will still be multiplayer piracy even with the mandatory internet connection. But it will be not nearly as widespread. While this is unfortunate for players in remote locations that wanna play via LAN, they represent a very tiny fraction of the playerbase and are justifiable to "cut". Blizzard will get more money from people buying the game because they can't easy pirate the multiplayer than they lose of players that can't play multiplayer because they have no internet access. Same rational goes for singleplayer but quantities of both parties shift a little and it's not immediately clear if it pays of for them to haunt consumers with required internet access for singleplayer. But it's still a decision they have to make. You have every right to boycott and i understand your motives, but please remember that a vast majority of the playerbase sees the required internet as a non-issue as long as the service is reliable on Blizzards side. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On September 21 2011 17:56 jacen wrote: Bandwidth is not the issue here. Dia3's traffic per player, even if it exceeds that of WoW (which it technically shouldn't) is not more than 25kb/s up/down per player. On a 500kb/sec upstream (since upstream will almost always be the limit) you can technically fit 20 people, realistically 15 people. If you plan on hosting a bigger LAN, a line with more than 500kb/sec up should be availible as you will also need a bigger room. But philosophically you are right. For the singleplayer portion there should be no need of an active internet connection. Sc2 too has an offline mode for singleplayer and so should D3. For multplayer, they should implement a virtual lan mode that only sends authentication to bnet but data just within the LAN like with the Valve games. But multiplayer without any internet connection is not gonna happen as it opens the door too wide for early and easy piracy. And yes, there will still be multiplayer piracy even with the mandatory internet connection. But it will be not nearly as widespread. While this is unfortunate for players in remote locations that wanna play via LAN, they represent a very tiny fraction of the playerbase and are justifiable to "cut". Blizzard will get more money from people buying the game because they can't easy pirate the multiplayer than they lose of players that can't play multiplayer because they have no internet access. Same rational goes for singleplayer but quantities of both parties shift a little and it's not immediately clear if it pays of for them to haunt consumers with required internet access for singleplayer. But it's still a decision they have to make. You have every right to boycott and i understand your motives, but please remember that a vast majority of the playerbase sees the required internet as a non-issue as long as the service is reliable on Blizzards side. Great post! Sums it up very nicely I think; particularly the last sentence. | ||
|
SolHeiM
Sweden1264 Posts
On September 21 2011 14:23 Inori wrote: Note: I'm not giving any links, those who want can find themselves. Also this more of a rant, which is why I'm posting it in blogs and not in D3 section. Basically there's a server emulation hack out in the open already. It has its problems and limitations (like you can only play DH atm), but main point is that it works. While no LAN support isn't as much of a needed feature for D3 as it was for SC2, this type of game is still very good and fun to play at a LAN party. Few friends, few beers, whole night to play, etc. Back in d2 days we could OFFICIALLY just get 1 copy of d2+lod, install it on all of our computers and play via LAN, no problem. Going online on battle.net was a different story - only 1 cd-key allowed, which was fair enough. Those who were diehard fans ended up buying their copies, those who just wanted to have fun for a night didn't. All good. Now, with D3 we'd need a copy of D3 each AND all be online just to play together, even if we're physically in the same room. Blizzard tries to justify it with better anti-hack, yet game is already hacked without even beta being fully out. (And judging by the looks of it, no, they won't fix it before release, problem is in the architecture itself). TL;DR: With Blizzards new "anti-hacking" policy, it seems that only people suffering from it are those that are trying to use their software honestly. How is piracy in any way an honest way of using their software? Can you please explain that to me, because it doesn't make any sense at all. You and your friends want to have your cake and eat it too, using a great misunderstanding of how the internet works in order to try and back up your claims. In the 21st century we have access to home internet connections in almost every corner of the world that is fast enough to support 20 people to play a game simultaneously, online. And the ludicrous notion that only "diehard" fans are going to buy the game also just blows my mind. How are you a diehard fan if you enjoy playing a game online, as opposed to just playing it once a month when the rest of your friends can be arsed to move their computer over to your apartment? The term diehard doesn't make any sense. The game is in no way hacked. Someone has coded a sandbox server, which is far from coding a complete emulation of Blizzard's own Battle.Net. We are years away from a fully operational Battle.Net emulator, which will still be inferior to Blizzard's own Battle.Net, as it will be way less people playing, which means it'll suck. | ||
|
HornyHerring
Papua New Guinea1058 Posts
| ||
|
LayZRR
Germany449 Posts
I really dont unterstand how the industry can be so dump! The true customers pay for ever SHIT (excuse me) like overpriced DLC which were before for free before they invetend them! I always thought blizzard would do the best for their gamers. For me i can live without LAN-Support but i can not be all the time online! I am sorry for the people that make their living from making games but i will not stay a true customer after i heard what Blizzard is doing with D3..... | ||
|
SolHeiM
Sweden1264 Posts
It seems we have another case of someone wanting to have his cake and eat it too. | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
LayZRR
Germany449 Posts
On September 21 2011 18:27 SolHeiM wrote: I'm pretty sure they have the ability to give you mobile internet in Germany, allowing you to "be all the time online!" It seems we have another case of someone wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Well of course. But if you dont live in a big town your bandwith is not the best. I live in a small village and we have not very good internet atm. It seems we have another case of smart-ass..... | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On September 21 2011 19:03 LayZRR wrote: Well of course. But if you dont live in a big town your bandwith is not the best. I live in a small village and we have not very good internet atm. As long as it's reasonably stable, it should have no problem handling 15 concurrent diablo 3 players. If you are on DSL 16k, you can even handle up to 30. If your internet is not stable, you can also not watch internet streams fluently and you should complain with your ISP to fix it. | ||
|
FractalsOnFire
Australia1756 Posts
You do realise they're punishing the people that actually buy the game. The people in the warez scene always find a way to crack a game. I don't think there is one game (barring MMOs, even then there are some hacked servers even if its not the best quality) that hasn't been cracked and put up on torrents and warez sites. But of course if you liked to get stooged and screwed by a game company by all means keep supporting them. Truedot has the right idea. + Show Spoiler + On September 21 2011 17:24 Truedot wrote: because everyone has infinity bandwidth, herpaderp. Let me break it down for you: the more people at your house playing, the laggier it gets, NOT just because of going through the internet, to a server thats far away, and then back to your house, for THE EXACT SAME GAME IN THE SAME ROOM, but because that also taxes your internet throughput and your ROUTER throughput, especially when it has to wait for more info to come from the far away internet. people who say there's no reason for lan becauise everyone can connect ot the internet, blah blah blah, are just apologists who don't understand how the internet actually works, and who don't care about people being denied the right to play their game wherever, without a connection to the internet neecessary. As its been said, piraters and hackers already can do these things. tl;dr, anyone who argues that having internet at a location means LAN is useless doesn't understand bandwidth and is an idiot. Or maybe, they could be one of those people hired at .2 cents by blizz/activision to keep pushing their agenda on forums in droves so that everyone else starts thinking the same way. | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On September 21 2011 19:24 FractalsOnFire wrote: You do realise they're punishing the people that actually buy the game. Punishing might not be the right word. Diablo 3 is a luxury good and if you feel punished by it, you have the very viable option of not buying it. Especially in the light of other games, such as torchlight, providing an almost identical experience with different features (LAN, offline Singleplayer). Blizzard has no monopoly or patent on hack&slay games. On September 21 2011 19:24 FractalsOnFire wrote: The people in the warez scene always find a way to crack a game. I don't think there is one game (barring MMOs, even then there are some hacked servers even if its not the best quality) that hasn't been cracked and put up on torrents and warez sites. You seem to confuse the data of the game with it's actual experience. As i said before, yes there will be hacks out for Dia3. Depending on what amount of data is actually stored on the Blizzard servers, it might take a long time or almost impossible to reverse-engineer. As you can see with SC2 Multiplayer there is no crack to conveniently play the game without an enabled battle.net account. As you have seen with MMORPGs you can actually reduce illegal copies to an absolute minimum even if you throw out the game client. The same will happen with Diablo3. On September 21 2011 19:24 FractalsOnFire wrote: But of course if you liked to get stooged and screwed by a game company by all means keep supporting them. I think you are demonizing not only Blizzard but also it's customers. You fail to realize that the company just has evolved and may not be providing the experience you are looking for. Fortunately for you, other companies do. I really hope you bought Torchlight and plan on buying Torchlight 2 also. On September 21 2011 19:24 FractalsOnFire wrote: Truedot has the right idea. No he has not. See my above rebuttal of his factual arguments. Of course he is perfectly entitled to his opinion on what features games should provide and he might even find them in other games. | ||
|
m1LkmaN
Australia82 Posts
| ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On September 21 2011 20:19 m1LkmaN wrote: I refuse to pay money to a company who does this. Same as with SC2, I will be pirating a product that I otherwise would happily have paid for if it had LAN capabilities. While it's unfortunate for them that you won't buy it, think that for everyone that pirates it just because of that there are many other players that will buy it, because the pirated version just won't be the same. It happened with WoW and SC2, and will probably continue with Dia3. It's sad to see that people fight non-intrusive DRM methods like internet authentification. I gladly take this over securom any day. | ||
|
Tuthur
France985 Posts
| ||
|
chiboni
15 Posts
On September 21 2011 17:24 Truedot wrote: because everyone has infinity bandwidth, herpaderp. Let me break it down for you: the more people at your house playing, the laggier it gets, NOT just because of going through the internet, to a server thats far away, and then back to your house, for THE EXACT SAME GAME IN THE SAME ROOM, but because that also taxes your internet throughput and your ROUTER throughput, especially when it has to wait for more info to come from the far away internet. people who say there's no reason for lan becauise everyone can connect ot the internet, blah blah blah, are just apologists who don't understand how the internet actually works, and who don't care about people being denied the right to play their game wherever, without a connection to the internet neecessary. As its been said, piraters and hackers already can do these things. tl;dr, anyone who argues that having internet at a location means LAN is useless doesn't understand bandwidth and is an idiot. Or maybe, they could be one of those people hired at .2 cents by blizz/activision to keep pushing their agenda on forums in droves so that everyone else starts thinking the same way. LAN != SP !!for me LAN ist more people playing offline multiplayer!! (or online... mostly together in one room) creator of this blog said: ... Few friends, few beers, whole night to play, etc. Back in d2 days we could OFFICIALLY just get 1 copy of d2+lod, install it on all of our computers and play via LAN, no problem. Going online on battle.net was a different story - only 1 cd-key allowed, which was fair enough. Those who were diehard fans ended up buying their copies, those who just wanted to have fun for a night didn't. All good. ... I just dont think the argument is ok to say 'cant play together with mates, cause we all need to buy it' to have a offline multiplayer... I dont know if the Singelplayer needs an internet connection or not (If so, THAT would be stupid and dumb). But the multiplayer ist there that you can play together, with people who actualy OWN the game. So imo it is ok that the multiplayer is online. So Blizzard can atleast try to prevent pircay (Even so it wont work). And like people above said, the bandwidth is not a big deal with (people playing online) < 5 - 15 ! tl;dr  IMO: Singeplayer = Offline ; Multiplayer = Online | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
| ||
|
NoobStyles
Australia257 Posts
On September 21 2011 20:43 Doraemon wrote: i travel a LOT and hotels in australia doesn't have free wifi =[ really bugs me that i can't play offline when i want to Shut up, stop bitching you should have internet available everywhere! Its your own fault or something like that. JK WTF is everyone in this threat defending blizzard smoking? Because I want some! 1. Pirate dont pay ether way 2. Why punish you paying customers? 3. Im 100% ok with logging into battle.net first. Then ounce I've logged in, let me play LAN with my friends sitting across the table form me, without lag. | ||
|
Horrde
Canada302 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On September 21 2011 17:24 Truedot wrote: because everyone has infinity bandwidth, herpaderp. Let me break it down for you: the more people at your house playing, the laggier it gets, NOT just because of going through the internet, to a server thats far away, and then back to your house, for THE EXACT SAME GAME IN THE SAME ROOM, but because that also taxes your internet throughput and your ROUTER throughput, especially when it has to wait for more info to come from the far away internet. people who say there's no reason for lan becauise everyone can connect ot the internet, blah blah blah, are just apologists who don't understand how the internet actually works, and who don't care about people being denied the right to play their game wherever, without a connection to the internet neecessary. As its been said, piraters and hackers already can do these things. tl;dr, anyone who argues that having internet at a location means LAN is useless doesn't understand bandwidth and is an idiot. Or maybe, they could be one of those people hired at .2 cents by blizz/activision to keep pushing their agenda on forums in droves so that everyone else starts thinking the same way. For now, I have faith Blizzard will be somewhat successful at eliminating most of it. And Truedot... no, just no. No more of that. That post was terribly wrong, despite your efforts for all the right reasons. | ||
|
SolHeiM
Sweden1264 Posts
On September 21 2011 21:19 NoobStyles wrote: Shut up, stop bitching you should have internet available everywhere! Its your own fault or something like that. JK WTF is everyone in this threat defending blizzard smoking? Because I want some! 1. Pirate dont pay ether way 2. Why punish you paying customers? 3. Im 100% ok with logging into battle.net first. Then ounce I've logged in, let me play LAN with my friends sitting across the table form me, without lag. The reason I'm defending Blizzard is because all the reasons for LAN are ridiculous laments of "loyal customers" because they want to play the game for free. I'm a pirate, and if I deem a game worth paying for, I'm going to buy it to support that company so they can make more great games. How are they punishing paying customers exactly? Have you considered that allowing LAN is hurting and punishing the company more than your itty bitty little feelings of entitlement as a paying customer who should get whatever he wants? Your third option isn't possible because of the way the game works. Everything that happens in the game happens on the battle.net servers, not in the game client. | ||
|
Order
Lithuania231 Posts
| ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 21 2011 16:56 TheRabidDeer wrote: There is no need to have LAN for a game like D3. The reason is that the actual D3 will get stale very quickly, just like D2 did. Of course it was addictive, but objectively D2 wasn't a very good game and was extremely shallow. What LAN/Open Bnet allow are mods, which are what make most modern games better. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
| ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
Even if D3 becomes fully hacked, it is simply irrelevant in regards to the future of LAN. Why? Because there is no future for LAN and it has been stated many times. Just because Blizzard w as coaxed to add chat channels, don't think the community has any power deciding anything at all in regards to Blizzards stance anti-piracy procedure, online-only (aka maximizing business profits.) The existence of work-arounds only effects those savvy enough to use them. Eliminating LAN mode forces casual mcDad and his son casual mcJoey, who purchase games not out of a hardcore mindset, but as impulse consumers, to buy two copies of the game instead of one if they want to play together. Believe it or not, our kind is a vocal minority. Of the 11 million World of Warcraft subscribers, for example, the Blizzard forums only contain posts from a couple million at the most. r/diablo on reddit has less than 10,000 subscribers of which know about the D3 Hack, plus the word of mouth it drove to other websites. While that number probably adds up to be something substantial, it is nowhere near the millions of to-be players in the market, the majority of which would rather buy a copy of the game than even consider looking for work-arounds or reminiscing the days of LAN games. Yes, LAN would make it better for the gamers, for many many reasons, but it is foolish to think that, from a business standpoint, it is a good idea. Yes, I have read certain indy developers and musicians articles where they welcome piracy because it introduces their product to a larger crowd, whereupon the more exposure a product gets, the more customers it gets. Such a system works better when things cost $10-20. When you have full fledged games for $50-60, though, I imagine you'll get more business forcing people to play on battle.net than you would expecting people to steal a game, beat it, and invest such high amounts of money in to it for what may or may not have the re-playability of a music CD. That isn't to say I wont have 10 level 60 d3 characters and be replaying it out the ass, but consider that casual mcDad and his son casual mcJoey won't. | ||
|
NoobStyles
Australia257 Posts
On September 21 2011 21:32 SolHeiM wrote: The reason I'm defending Blizzard is because all the reasons for LAN are ridiculous laments of "loyal customers" because they want to play the game for free. Maybe the only reason you buy games is because the publisher make it completely impossible to play for free, personally I buy games I play I'm a pirate, and if I deem a game worth paying for, I'm going to buy it to support that company so they can make more great games. How are they punishing paying customers exactly? Have you considered that allowing LAN is hurting and punishing the company more than your itty bitty little feelings of entitlement as a paying customer who should get whatever he wants? The paying customer gets what ever the paying customer pays for. And in this case it will be a game without LAN for this paying customer. But, why are you talking about the removal of LAN like its the best thing since sliced bread? Hell I'd be lucky to play a game like D3 over LAN ounce a year, even if it was in the game. That docent mean I'm going to come onto a forum and start defending Blizzard for removing a feature. If Apple one day decided to remove mouse support for OSX, would I defend that decision even though I don't use MACs? of course not. Why are people defending a company for removing a feature? Your third option isn't possible because of the way the game works. Everything that happens in the game happens on the battle.net servers, not in the game client. Not really my problem I know blizzard if under no obligation to me, to provide LAN. That docent mean I need to be happy about it being removed. Blizzard is actively choosing to no include LAN in future games. Why would I be happy with this and defending it?I know Ive sad some variation of that about 4 times this post, but I simply cannot understand why people are defending a company for removing features they traditionally have offered in their products. | ||
|
SolHeiM
Sweden1264 Posts
On September 21 2011 22:36 NoobStyles wrote: Maybe the only reason you buy games is because the publisher make it completely impossible to play for free, personally I buy games I play cool The paying customer gets what ever the paying customer pays for. And in this case it will be a game without LAN for this paying customer. But, why are you talking about the removal of LAN like its the best thing since sliced bread? Hell I'd be lucky to play a game like D3 over LAN ounce a year, even if it was in the game. That docent mean I'm going to come onto a forum and start defending Blizzard for removing a feature. If Apple one day decided to remove mouse support for OSX, would I defend that decision even though I don't use MACs? of course not. Why are people defending a company for removing a feature? Not really my problem I know blizzard if under no obligation to me, to provide LAN. That docent mean I need to be happy about it being removed. Blizzard is actively choosing to no include LAN in future games. Why would I be happy with this and defending it?I know Ive sad some variation of that about 4 times this post, but I simply cannot understand why people are defending a company for removing features they traditionally have offered in their products. Right. If you think that Blizzard removing LAN is the same thing as Apple removing the Mouse for their computers, I'm going to give up right now. Because there is no point in arguing with an idiot. | ||
|
psychopat
Canada417 Posts
On September 21 2011 22:40 SolHeiM wrote:Right. If you think that Blizzard removing LAN is the same thing as Apple removing the Mouse for their computers, I'm going to give up right now. Because there is no point in arguing with an idiot. Maybe you should look at the actual intent of the guy's very simple simile instead of resorting to nitpicking and ad hominems... or provide counterpoints that aren't strawmen because all you've managed so far is to make youself look like you don't have a leg to stand on... | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Big Jim Slade
United States14 Posts
On September 21 2011 14:23 Inori wrote: Blizzard tries to justify it with better anti-hack, yet game is already hacked without even beta being fully out. From what I read of you're post, you're mistaking a 'hack' for an 'emulator'. Someone developed a program that emulated Blizzard's server signal, thus making D3 think it is online. This was always going to happen, it was just a matter of time. (I'm actually pretty impressed by how fast this happened, but not surprised). The important thing you're missing here: Blizzard's 'Online Only' stance was never intended to completely stop people from pirating the game (that's impossible). This move was necessary because of the Real Money Auction House. The fact that items in D3 will have a real world value means that Blizzard has to do everything they can to prevent people from 'duping' items like they did in D2. The 'online only' mode they have chosen means that the list of all items your character has will reside on their servers, not on your computer. This "hack" you're talking about will not affect any legitimate characters you have on the Blizzard servers; what you do in the hack, stays in the hack. The RMAH stays untouched. I can completely understand where you're coming from, offline and lan play is a feature I will miss too. But let's not kid ourselves, the online only mode is still serving its purpose. Someone will either need to directly hack Blizzard's servers or pull an inside job in order to subvert their goal of a secure RMAH. (P.S.: While I'm not entirely sold on the trade for an RMAH by losing offline play, its starting to grow on me. That's more to do with the interesting legal implications of virtual items in games becoming real personal property that can be traded, as it pushes legal boundaries and I'm looking forward to watching the development.) | ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
On September 21 2011 23:33 Big Jim Slade wrote: This move was necessary because of the Real Money Auction House. The fact that items in D3 will have a real world value means that Blizzard has to do everything they can to prevent people from 'duping' items like they did in D2. The 'online only' mode they have chosen means that the list of all items your character has will reside on their servers, not on your computer. This "hack" you're talking about will not affect any legitimate characters you have on the Blizzard servers; what you do in the hack, stays in the hack. The RMAH stays untouched. Closed battle.net has been like this in D2. LAN/Open Bnet characters are separate. Of course the auction house makes only sense on the on the closed bnet part. Duping in D2 worked despite storing that stuff on the server. It exploited the server in some way. Often desynchronizing the way multiple bnet servers interact. Preventing dupes requires careful design of the server side, but is no reason to disable LAN. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
Few friends, few beers, whole night to play, etc. Back in d2 days we could OFFICIALLY just get 1 copy of d2+lod, install it on all of our computers and play via LAN, no problem. Going online on battle.net was a different story - only 1 cd-key allowed, which was fair enough. Those who were diehard fans ended up buying their copies, those who just wanted to have fun for a night didn't. All good. lol this is exactly why it was worth it to Blizzard | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On September 21 2011 23:33 Big Jim Slade wrote: The important thing you're missing here: Blizzard's 'Online Only' stance was never intended to completely stop people from pirating the game (that's impossible). This move was necessary because of the Real Money Auction House. That's what they say. They pretty much bullshitted their way when they said SC2 was going to be online only and gave shady reasons to make themselves look good. The game is perfectly playable without real money auction house, so LAN would have absolutely no effect on that. I would argue that Blizzard is just lying about D3's online-only also. My opinion (which may be wrong) is that the main reason is to reduce pirating (not shut it down). | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On September 22 2011 00:26 Djzapz wrote: That's what they say. They pretty much bullshitted their way when they said SC2 was going to be online only and gave shady reasons to make themselves look good. The game is perfectly playable without real money auction house, so LAN would have absolutely no effect on that. I would argue that Blizzard is just lying about D3's online-only also. My opinion (which may be wrong) is that the main reason is to reduce pirating (not shut it down). It is wrong. They're not stupid. They know you can't stop hackers no matter how hard they try. Even with 256-bit encryption its merely a matter of time before someone cracks the code. Online-only has the same effect; only slowing them down. The real purpose of Online-only is exactly what they've described; so people can play their Single-player characters in a hack-free environment, then choose to join the online world without having to reroll - the #1 reason why people didn't play multiplayer in the first two, and similar games. And everyone knows that a more vibrant multiplayer base leads to a long-running franchise. It's their attempt to evolve a genre, not another futile gesture to stop hackers. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On September 21 2011 21:45 Jibba wrote: The reason is that the actual D3 will get stale very quickly, just like D2 did. Of course it was addictive, but objectively D2 wasn't a very good game and was extremely shallow. What LAN/Open Bnet allow are mods, which are what make most modern games better. open b.net vs closed b.net in d2 was hackers vs botters. Problem was hackers way of playing was just hack an item till op see if you can kill other ppl, bots was like running a sim game where you collect shit, tweak a few things then sell it for FG in d2jsp. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On September 22 2011 01:09 Bibdy wrote: It is wrong. They're not stupid. They know you can't stop hackers no matter how hard they try. Even with 256-bit encryption its merely a matter of time before someone cracks the code. Online-only has the same effect; only slowing them down. The real purpose of Online-only is exactly what they've described; so people can play their Single-player characters in a hack-free environment, then choose to join the online world without having to reroll - the #1 reason why people didn't play multiplayer in the first two, and similar games. And everyone knows that a more vibrant multiplayer base leads to a long-running franchise. It's their attempt to evolve a genre, not another futile gesture to stop hackers. It's to stop piracy i'll reiterate it, If it takes hackers a few months maybe half a year to get a proper emulated server up and running during that time the cheap shits that would maybe pirate the game play it for a week and never touch it again will probably buy the game. This is a move to increase sales no forever stop piracy. hack free environment isn't really the reason they could have just offered single player characters that were only allowed to play solo but that open it up to pirates much quicker. Look at sc2 where multi-player is the attraction there are emulated b.net servers that you can play but it took so long the number of people who do use it are small, and so vast majority are on legit copies. WoW there are emulated servers but blizzard tends to shut those down as they still make money on wow, ie that monthly subscription they care about that. This isn't a move to end all piracy of their games it's to maximize their sales on the cheap skapes. Not every game wants a like 40% of all players playing on pirated copies like Modern warfare was =p | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 22 2011 01:49 semantics wrote: open b.net vs closed b.net in d2 was hackers vs botters. Problem was hackers way of playing was just hack an item till op see if you can kill other ppl, bots was like running a sim game where you collect shit, tweak a few things then sell it for FG in d2jsp. You used Open Bnet to connect to a private server running a specific server/mod, like Median XL. The problem with always-connected Bnet is the same problem we've seen with SC2. Bnet is a piece of shit and Blizzard's games lack a lot of features/functionality that certain gamers prefer (such as LAN pings or new skill sets) that mods take care of. There's no doubt that SC2 would be improved by LAN support and that D3 would be improved by mod support. Neither of those is going to happen for the same reasons. The difference in this case is that Blizzard will just lose players to Torchlight 2. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
Also torchlight is a small time game it doesn't attract as much attention as diablo would, the chances of large mass of players skipping diablo for torchlight is remote. Maybe they will get both but play torchlight for a longer time but that's not cutting so much into the blizzard bottom line. | ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
On September 21 2011 17:56 jacen wrote: Bandwidth is not the issue here. Dia3's traffic per player, even if it exceeds that of WoW (which it technically shouldn't) is not more than 25kb/s up/down per player. On a 500kb/sec upstream (since upstream will almost always be the limit) you can technically fit 20 people, realistically 15 people. If you plan on hosting a bigger LAN, a line with more than 500kb/sec up should be availible as you will also need a bigger room. But philosophically you are right. For the singleplayer portion there should be no need of an active internet connection. Sc2 too has an offline mode for singleplayer and so should D3. For multplayer, they should implement a virtual lan mode that only sends authentication to bnet but data just within the LAN like with the Valve games. But multiplayer without any internet connection is not gonna happen as it opens the door too wide for early and easy piracy. And yes, there will still be multiplayer piracy even with the mandatory internet connection. But it will be not nearly as widespread. While this is unfortunate for players in remote locations that wanna play via LAN, they represent a very tiny fraction of the playerbase and are justifiable to "cut". Blizzard will get more money from people buying the game because they can't easy pirate the multiplayer than they lose of players that can't play multiplayer because they have no internet access. Same rational goes for singleplayer but quantities of both parties shift a little and it's not immediately clear if it pays of for them to haunt consumers with required internet access for singleplayer. But it's still a decision they have to make. You have every right to boycott and i understand your motives, but please remember that a vast majority of the playerbase sees the required internet as a non-issue as long as the service is reliable on Blizzards side. my downstream is 90 kb/s, my upstream is ~30. And I live next to a major city (major being ~300,000 people) in my state. And this is the best internet I can get where I live due to a communications monopoly. So screw you. | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On September 22 2011 02:06 Truedot wrote: my downstream is 90 kb/s, my upstream is ~30. And I live next to a major city (major being ~300,000 people) in my state. And this is the best internet I can get where I live due to a communications monopoly. Well it should still be enough for one client. Realistically, you should be able do fit 2-5 clients on that line. But yeah, your bandwidth kinda sucks, i have more bandwidth over my mobile phone ... Where do you live? US? Europe? | ||
|
Kassploj
Sweden67 Posts
And for all you people saying, "np no need LAN": well, maybe *you* don't need it, or at least think you don't. For me I'd pay more if I got my damn LAN support. Of all the LANs I've attended, only ONE has had an actual internet connection. All the other's have just been a bunch of computers connected by a switch. Besides actual LANs, I sometimes go to my father's country house. No internet there. Apparently I'm not allowed to play D3 while I'm on vacation. What about when you're riding a train? I'm not allowed to make the time pass by doing some quests in single player? I see. You're all making sense now that I think about it. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 22 2011 02:04 semantics wrote: Also torchlight is a small time game it doesn't attract as much attention as diablo would, the chances of large mass of players skipping diablo for torchlight is remote. Maybe they will get both but play torchlight for a longer time but that's not cutting so much into the blizzard bottom line. Blizzard will obviously win in games sold dollars, but I bet a lot of the hardcore players, the ones who are still playing 3 years down the line, will consider jumping ship. I don't know that they mean that much to Blizzard but I do think it's a problem if they can't hold onto their base. | ||
|
pred470r
Bulgaria3265 Posts
| ||
|
enCore-
98 Posts
| ||
|
Neo27
United States154 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I played D2 on battle.net exclusively. I am excited about D3 and the fact that you would need to buy a copy of the game to run a bot. Hopefully there will be limited advertisements as well. But, all of this is non-issue while playing on LAN with friends. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On September 22 2011 06:20 Jibba wrote: Blizzard will obviously win in games sold dollars, but I bet a lot of the hardcore players, the ones who are still playing 3 years down the line, will consider jumping ship. I don't know that they mean that much to Blizzard but I do think it's a problem if they can't hold onto their base. Hardcore players don't really buy that much games though so devs don't really care much about them. | ||
|
Tommylew
Wales2717 Posts
| ||
|
Aelonius
Netherlands432 Posts
On September 21 2011 17:17 Truedot wrote: The whole idea that you're tethered to require an internet connection in itself is proof that blizz/activis doesn't give a shit about its customers. you know why, its cause people buy their products regardles,s because its a "must have" thing. why should I have my fun to enjoy it however I please, where and whenever I please, and with whoever I please, be limited by being forced to go through their server for it? ultimately, its consumers that make the goalposts though. and when consumers keep buying products instead of abstaining, or, more illegally, just ripping the company off to shove it in their faces, they're going to Promote this type of behavior from companies. its just like a dog. if you give it a cookie when it shits on the carpet, don't you think you're going to see a lot more turds in the future? A company CANNOT keep saying "screw you" when all its customers leave. Companies DO look at the bottom line, and they have to cater to what gets them that best one. if it helps, think of companies as amoral monsters, who can either be continually petted and soothed despite becoming worse and worse, or can be disciplined by market shares into behaving exactly how you want. this. Perhaps you should stop buying Blizzard's games then from now on, and stop gaming al together. I expect this trend to grow more and more, you see it everywhere with major games like Mass Effect (requires steam) and DE:HR. They will make money one way or another, and if people stay cheapskate then it'll only get worse. | ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
On September 22 2011 19:15 Aelonius wrote: Perhaps you should stop buying Blizzard's games then from now on, and stop gaming al together. I expect this trend to grow more and more, you see it everywhere with major games like Mass Effect (requires steam) and DE:HR. They will make money one way or another, and if people stay cheapskate then it'll only get worse. oh really china? You see, I bought mass effect for Xbox, and I don't require steam to play it. Hrmm, guess you're wrong. In fact, I can play it without even hooking up to the internet at all. I'm glad Im not a collectivist conformist with no critical thinking skills. | ||
|
Garaman
United States556 Posts
On September 21 2011 17:19 chiboni wrote: Pretty much what some people said. There is no reason for LAN (expect for major tournaments, no lagg etc.) because now everyone is ONLINE. I doubt you sitting in a room with your friends, having a 'LAN' and you are not ONLINE while playing. So it sounds more like 'Why do i have to pay X copys when i want to play with my friends,even so one of us owns a copy'. Also that with the emulated server is no big suprise.. WOW Addon Cataclysm was emulated/datamined the day F&F Alpha came out. So i guess its common for client sided games ? you've never lanned with a group of people during college? It is one of the fun things you can do if you enjoy computer games. the last one i went to was at univ of rochester where we had a SC competition over lan, along with other games like w3. it was easier to set up since you couldn't join each other's games because of IP issues, and it was much quicker too. if you have no friends i can believe that you won't have friends to sit with and play together. you end up sharing games through pirated versions just to play for the session. but whatever. you are just a loyal fanboy | ||
|
oBlade
United States5394 Posts
On September 22 2011 01:09 Bibdy wrote: The real purpose of Online-only is exactly what they've described; so people can play their Single-player characters in a hack-free environment, then choose to join the online world without having to reroll - the #1 reason why people didn't play multiplayer in the first two, and similar games. And everyone knows that a more vibrant multiplayer base leads to a long-running franchise. It's their attempt to evolve a genre, not another futile gesture to stop hackers. It's about volume sold. In D2 if you wanted to keep your solo character when you moved to multiplayer you could just connect to the closed ladder and play by yourself. But you still had the option to play single player and LAN, or play with whatever third party crap you wanted, including hacks and mods, in the sandboxes of Hamachi or open battle.net. Fewer features is not a better game. The reason people don't play multiplayer is because they don't give a fuck about it, and they didn't buy the title for that. It's not a problem, and it doesn't need fixed. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On September 22 2011 06:20 Jibba wrote: Blizzard will obviously win in games sold dollars, but I bet a lot of the hardcore players, the ones who are still playing 3 years down the line, will consider jumping ship. I don't know that they mean that much to Blizzard but I do think it's a problem if they can't hold onto their base. Jibba how u so smart. I came here to say just about that. Looook D3 will be superhyped beyond belief but at the end of the day its longevity will be shit. I can't stand to play the original D2 anymore. I can imagine myself thinking similar things within a year or two of D3. I'm still enjoying the intensely farm happy Eastern Sun mod. What will I say about D3 ten years from now? | ||
|
thatsundowner
Canada312 Posts
server emulators are inevitable, the real test is actually making something that comes within lightyears of resembling the actual game | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
On September 25 2011 12:35 Probe1 wrote: Jibba how u so smart. I came here to say just about that. Looook D3 will be superhyped beyond belief but at the end of the day its longevity will be shit. I can't stand to play the original D2 anymore. I can imagine myself thinking similar things within a year or two of D3. I'm still enjoying the intensely farm happy Eastern Sun mod. What will I say about D3 ten years from now? D2 is ranked 8th on Amazon's "Best Sellers in PC Action Games" http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/videogames/229577/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_vg_3_3_last look at the games the D2 chest is ahead of Blizzard games last and Diablo 3 won't be any different | ||
|
nBk
174 Posts
All games get hacked/manipulated in some form, not really a big deal anymore. Also, as anyone can see LAN is the "past" as much as that probably sucks to hear. Every company is trying to go fully online with their products sadly. | ||
|
Kaal
Djibouti2489 Posts
On September 25 2011 16:08 nBk wrote: People did this very same thing when SC2 beta came out as well, that didn't last very long. All games get hacked/manipulated in some form, not really a big deal anymore. Also, as anyone can see LAN is the "past" as much as that probably sucks to hear. Every company is trying to go fully online with their products sadly. There are hacked Starcraft 2 servers that exist. And you can pirate the single player. | ||
| ||
