Diablo 3 - "No Mods, Online-Only, Cash Trades"

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I had expected this.

The transactions also consume time & money (current ! computing power !) from Blizzard's side.

 

[kalniel]

My personal question is a little bit different.

It sounds like this :

"Why pay real, hard money for a game that's lost as soon as the servers are taken off and is unplayable, then ?

We have preseved board games that are 3000 or so years old. They would be still playable - if only the rules had not been lost.

Putting a game on some weird digital format and pressing a DVD already makes it unplayable in 3000 years - they won't be able to read or convert the data, or have it run on any system that survived.. even ignoring the exaggerated time scale, computer stuff is sufficiently transient that opting for a server provided service over local only disk isn't going to make a significant difference to the long term availability of the game.

 

[DArtagnan]

Putting a game on some weird digital format and pressing a DVD already makes it unplayable in 3000 years - they won't be able to read or convert the data, or have it run on any system that survived.. even ignoring the exaggerated time scale, computer stuff is sufficiently transient that opting for a server provided service over local only disk isn't going to make a significant difference to the long term availability of the game.

Except if the provider of the service no longer exists, or is no longer obligated by law to provide the service.

No matter how old physical media gets - at least so far - there are ways to make personal copies and preserve them as you see fit. That means you're fully capable of playing the game on suitable hardware - if you go through the effort of preserving what's required.

Putting faith in the provider of a service is quite a different matter.

 

[kalniel]

So you choose your service provider accordingly. I'm still able to download Starcraft (1) from Blizzard servers as many times as I like, some 13 years after the game was originally released. Would I be happy with 13 years worth of play from the next Diablo title? Yes. Video games are nice, but they're not treasures for me. Even within a few years a video game is noticeably poorer in quality due to the advancement of the genre. I played through Starcraft before starting Starcraft 2, and it wasn't as enjoyable.

 

[DArtagnan]

So you choose your service provider accordingly. I'm still able to download Starcraft (1) from Blizzard servers as many times as I like, some 13 years after the game was originally released. Would I be happy with 13 years worth of play from the next Diablo title? Yes. Video games are nice, but they're not treasures for me. Even within a few years a video game is noticeably poorer in quality due to the advancement of the genre. I played through Starcraft before starting Starcraft 2, and it wasn't as enjoyable.

So, you apparently think you can safely predict the future for any individual service provider based on their history - so far.

I find that obscenely unrealistic, but such is how we differ. I guess you're not aware of the countless big reliable names in the history of business that went down the tubes for one reason or another.

In any case, you're making the argument that there's no significant difference between a physical copy and a digital copy that's only available through a service provider.

Obviously, you're very wrong - and now you talk about how you don't really value games as treasures. How is that, in any way, relevant to the original point?

SOME people DO value these games as treasures. Your own personal opinion about them is not the point.

 

[kalniel]

So, you apparently think you can safely predict the future for any individual service provider based on their history - so far.

Where did I assign any value of confidence to my statement? There's no measure of safety, however there's also no indication in past history that you'll be screwed by Blizzard either.

In any case, you're making the argument that there's no significant difference between a physical copy and a digital copy that's only available through a service provider.

Yay, more 'significance' without reference. In the time frame I referenced, no, there's not.

Obviously, you're very wrong - and now you talk about how you don't really value games as treasures. How is that, in any way, relevant to the original point?

SOME people DO value these games as treasures. Your own personal opinion about them is not the point.

Oh I DO apologise. Fancy thinking that people might be reading posts on a discussion board to hear other people's opinions. Had I known you were not interested in other people's opinions I would have put a disclaimer at the top of my post saying 'NOT FOR DArtagnan' or something. Feel free to put everyone on ignore if you're not interested in our personal opinions.

 

[DArtagnan]

Where did I assign any value of confidence to my statement? There's no measure of safety, however there's also no indication in past history that you'll be screwed by Blizzard either.

Are you making these statements without there being a point?

If there's no confidence - then what exactly are you saying here. That because Blizzard haven't screwed you over - they will assuredly or VERY probably exist forever and provide you with the service?

Yay, more 'significance' without reference. In the time frame I referenced, no, there's not.

Oh, and we all know that the 3000 years was the crux of the point, right?

Oh I DO apologise. Fancy thinking that people might be reading posts on a discussion board to hear other people's opinions. Had I known you were not interested in other people's opinions I would have put a disclaimer at the top of my post saying 'NOT FOR DArtagnan' or something. Feel free to put everyone on ignore if you're not interested in our personal opinions.

Don't be a baby. Your opinion is irrelevant - however interesting it may be. Personally, I find it mildly interesting - but not very useful in this case. Incidentally, I don't "treasure" games either, and I personally don't give a shit about them after I'm done. That's why I don't have a problem with this kind of service - but unlike you, I can fully appreciate that there are people in the world with a very different AND valid idea about these things.

You're telling people there's no difference between two very different things - and then you finally reveal that YOU don't care about the difference, as if that meant the difference wasn't there.

Try to be accountable for your claims, and you may be taken seriously.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

My personal question is a little bit different.

It is one of the questions I stated, you think how your trade operation could be detrimental to you, not benefitial to you.

"Why pay real, hard money for a game that's lost as soon as the servers are taken off and is unplayable, then ?

The answer is contained in your question. That is the beauty of the trade relationship advocated here.

In a mutually benefitial trade relationship, for it to last, both sides have to keep providing benefits one to another.
When this relationship ends, both side lose their benefits.
If one side fails to provide benefits to the other, this side breaks the agreement and inflicts the loss of benefits on the other side.

Now, it is different in a "one side benefits, the other side gets no detriment" trade relationship.

In this kind of relationship, for it to last, one has to keep benefiting from it while the other gets no detriment from it.

When this relationship ends, one side loses the benefit and it is where it grows interesting, the other side might find itself into a detrimental situation.

This does not end here though, it grows even better. The other side of the deal self inflicts this new situation to itself. It has nothing to do with the one side who keeps providing a situation that is not detrimental to the other side.

That is why the concern that the side who benefits from the deal will end it is easily insured against: why should one end a situation that is benefitial to oneself?

Developpers/publishers are unlikely to end the relationship as it benefits them. They have to provide no benefits, only something that is not detrimental.

Yet a large number of players list this option (the publisher opting out) as one of their primary concerns against this kind of deal. It is not.

Developpers/publishers can easily warrant they will keep up the service as long as the players want. It benefits them and they have no benefit to provide against the benefit they receive.

So the answer is contained in the question: people must keep spending their hard earned money so that the situation that is detrimental to them (removal of the game from the server here) does not happen. They must hold to the deal.

Anytime a developper/publisher in this kind of deal, can put players face to face with a fact, if the players want to keep the original deal for what it is, that is a situation that is not detrimental to themselves, they have to keep their side of the deal, meaning that players must provide developpers with their benefits.

Players have agreed to trade benefits against a non detrimental situation. It is how they wanted it to work. Nothing unfair. Players' choices.


That is why the concern about publishers removing games from the servers is moot. It has no ground. Developpers can easily cast off this kind of worries. They are highly unlikely to turn true.
In such situation, the concern for the player should be how to opt out of the deal without falling into a detrimental situation.

This is what is put on the table and will show at the end of the relationship:
the benefitial side loses the benefit, the non detrimental situation side loses the non detrimental situation. Which can mean falling into a detrimental situation.

At this point, players might start keeping to buy to keep their non detrimental situation.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Clearly, Sir_Brennus either did not read them or he did not understand them. Anyway, very nice analysis, Chien, both on the influence of the business model on the gameplay and regarding the continuous shift in perception by the players towards a more doggish mentality of accepting increasing limits imposed by the developers.

Doggish might not be the word. You are Coyote whose name in latin is Canis Latrans, which means dog that barks and I am Chien Aboyeur, which means in french barking dog.

Not so far one from another and definitively dogs.

 

[coyote]

Doggish might not be the word. You are Coyote whose name in latin is Canis Latrans, which means dog that barks and I am Chien Aboyeur, which means in french barking dog.

Not so far one from another and definitively dogs.

A valid point, why drag innocent animals into a human affair? 'More servile mentality' fits well what I had in mind; a lack of independent, enquiring thought beyond the immediately obvious.

I did not know about your name Chien Aboyeur, but it's a fitting name for someone who provides a critical perspective.

P.S.: I think I just ran out of compliments for the rest of the week.

 

[Sin]

I boycott Ubisoft for their permanent internet connection policy, and while I can see the reasons behind it in the case of Diablo III's real money economy, I'm still not budging. It saddens me that such measures are necessary in the first place, and that so many gamers have no honor.

 

[aries100]

Goes too far for me. I'll wait until the always-online requirement is patched (or hacked) out, like it was in AC2. If not…well too bad, no buy for me.

Just found this (via google) - link: http://www.tweakguides.com/AC2_1.html

Update 5: As promised by Ubisoft, after a period of time the requirement for this DRM to remain online at all times while playing AC2 has been patched out of the game. You now only need to be online during the initial activation, and for authentication at the start of each session, after which an active Internet connection is no longer necessary during gameplay.

It still sems like the game phones home every time people start it; 'and for authentication at the start of each session.'

so for AC2, you'll need to be a) be online during activation and b) be online every time you start the game.

It seems to be that the only thing they've taken out is the c) always having an active onlince connection.

Anyway, I digress...

Back on topic:

I wasn't even awarew that there mods for DA1 and DA2? On the other hand, this is more earnest than say Bioware/EA that won't confirm if there will be a toolset for DA2 or not. My bet is not - since this means no selling of dlc or not as much selling of dlcs.

As for online only - I still don't get it. Many people, at least in 3rd world contries have only access to modem line, even people in some remote places in Norway or Sweden only have access to a 1 MB line. And I guess it is the same in other countries as well. Why alienate potential customers...

In regards to the Auction Housesw here can trade items for real money, I think Blizzard needs a little visit from the TaxMan. If this is being done, we must expect people gaining income from this - and income, at least to the state, need to be -ahem- taxed.

 

[Elwro]

I only have minimal hack'n'click needs and all of them are properly satisfied with Torchlight, which is a cheap, fun retro-looking game. Now this Diablo thing is also retro-looking but doesn't seem to be cheap (when it's released) or to offer anything valuable for a person who likes single player games. I'm wondering - does the Diablo franchise really have such a huge following that Blizzard can simply say "hey, screw the "single" players, they have this ridiculous small titles like Torchlight, while we will be making real money with our game"?

 

[DoctorNarrative]

I boycott Ubisoft for their permanent internet connection policy, and while I can see the reasons behind it in the case of Diablo III's real money economy, I'm still not budging. It saddens me that such measures are necessary in the first place, and that so many gamers have no honor.

None of their excuses hold up because they could have offline be a completely separate system and character just like Diablo 2.

 

[kalniel]

I only have minimal hack'n'click needs and all of them are properly satisfied with Torchlight, which is a cheap, fun retro-looking game. Now this Diablo thing is also retro-looking but doesn't seem to be cheap (when it's released) or to offer anything valuable for a person who likes single player games. I'm wondering - does the Diablo franchise really have such a huge following that Blizzard can simply say "hey, screw the "single" players, they have this ridiculous small titles like Torchlight, while we will be making real money with our game"?

I think they'll get the majority of their income from D3 from people playing the game single player. It's an AAA game, and priced accordingly (if you didn't pre-order when it was a bargain). I expect to get an AAA game experience from it. I'm really looking forward to torchlight 2 as well, but it's also looking like it's going to cost within a few pounds of diablo 3 for me, so not particularly cheap.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

I'll personaly not use it, but if people are into that kind of stuff, then its a safer bet.

Bold claim to make.

It uses Diablo and Diablo 2's gameplay as reference points and none of these games had an auction house feature integrated and moulding the gameplay.

Marketing techniques are now quite efficient. And marketing techniques aims at that, creating demand.

This recalled, it becomes a wild claim. Claiming that a player will not feel the need of using the auction house in the game.

Given the high quality in marketing today, this leads the population that claim they wont use the feature to three outcomes:

- the cant do. People who wont use it because they cant.
-the rationalizers: they will use it but keeping in mind their former words, will feel to the urge to devolve in cheap excuses to explain why they use it.
-the dogmatic: they will cling to their words, even if they suffer from it.

Because, if the marketing sector does half a bad job, Diablo 3 will feel like an okay/good game without using the auction house and will feel awesome as soon you start to spend a few bucks in the auction house.

Very hard to believe that the developpers are not now working at creating a demand through the gameplay for using the auction house. They might fail to achieve that but they are certainly looking at it.

That is going to be all the differences between a game that is designed to include a merchandizing feature and games that were not.

People who state they wont use the auction house might have better to consider that their reference to a world where water runs everywhere might grow outdated, that they might enter a world sprinkled with oasis, springs and wells and that claiming they wont buy water because water runs everywhere does not forcefully correspond with the landscape they will have to walk through.

 

[wolfing]

just think that basically almost every game in the GoG catalog would be unplayable today if they had that type of restriction