Diablo III

[deanb]

People are having their legally purchased products completely removed from them, it's not really hard to present that as a bad thing. And if I was also someone who had purchased this game I'd be getting a bit wary that Blizzard are perfectly happy to just turn off your access to the entire game. Oh you're using a "mod" that makes the game a bit darker? Oh well that's cheating, naughty person, no Diablo III for you.

 

The car thing at least you only lose access to driving on the roads because you broke the law. This is being locked out of your car because you decided to play music from your iPod instead of using the in-built cd-player. Maybe I'm just a bit odd in thinking that you should be able to use your products how you want to?

 

Many many many other games from developers supposedly much less skilled than Blizzard many to make actual fully functioning singleplayer modes, so why can't Blizzard? They've done it in the past, it's not like some technical impossibility. And it wouldn't need to draw away dev time for patches if they'd have made it all work properly in the first place. As my gran always says "If it's worth doing it's worth doing right". She'd certainly be surprised that given 13 years of time you'd still mange to fuck it up n not finish it all in time.T

[TheMightyEthan]

I feel like that argument stems from the opinion that Diablo 3 should be an offline game, and I think it's an invalid argument because it is in fact not an offline singleplayer game, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

That's exactly where it comes from and that does not make it an invalid argument. Blizzard made a shitty-ass decision in making it online-only, and now that shitty-ass decision is leading to more shitty-ass consequences. Just because this current result is a result of a different decision they made doesn't mean they're not responsible for it.

[Eleven]

You may be right in arguing that the single player argument is invalid because diablo doesn't have single player.

 

But the root of all the complaint is that they could have added real single player to it. It's not that hard to grasp why people want it to be this way. The predecessors in the series were like this, it was never marketed as an MMO. Yes, it was announced basically multiplayer only a year ago, and yes as expected there was resistance to it. Just like now, when some people just really want to play single player diablo.

 

That is why (I assume) people hate it. Plus the fact that Blizzard can do this, and still sell a crapload of copies would encourage companies to copy the approach and implement their own. Then we'll have all these games without single-player content. And with all the complaints about forcing multi-player in games, imagine the anger that would be generated when our AAA titles release only with multiplayer modes.

[Johnny]

That's exactly where it comes from and that does not make it an invalid argument. Blizzard made a shitty-ass decision in making it online-only, and now that shitty-ass decision is leading to more shitty-ass consequences. Just because this current result is a result of a different decision they made doesn't mean they're not responsible for it.

 

Regardless of whether it was a good idea to have it be an exclusively online game or not, that is what the game is. And in the context of what the game actually is, not what anyone might feel it should be, I do not think the argument that you should not deal with hackers is valid.

 

@elev3n That is indeed why people hate it. I do not have trouble understanding where people come from on the matter. If I was a person who saw the Diablo franchise as primarily single player, I would probably be annoyed by it being an online game. I just don't think that people wanting the game to be an offline singleplayer experience means that Blizzard should treat hackers like if it was.

 

People are having their legally purchased products completely removed from them, it's not really hard to present that as a bad thing.

 

This is quite the norm in online games and I don't see the problem with the practice.

[TheMightyEthan]

No one's saying they shouldn't deal with hackers, we're just saying they shouldn't ban them from playing alone when the game is clearly already designed to accommodate people who want to do that. Ban them from playing with other people and the RMAH? Sure. But don't ban them from playing alone.

 

@Dean: I see what you were referring to now with the rosebud thing. That's not really a good comparison. If Blizzard built cheat codes into the game, like rosebud, and then banned people for using them I don't think there's anyone who would be okay with that.

Edited June 14, 2012 by TheMightyEthan
Fixed a missing "n't", which completely changed the meaning of a sentence.

[MasterDex]

I agree with all that. I think that Blizzard wants to send a message with this though. That they're the ones in control and if you don't like it you can fuck right off.

 

As many have, wilfully. As I have. Many here are probably aware of my opinion regarding Activision-Blizzard as a whole and I've been boycotting their products for some time now. For Diablo III, because of my love of the Diablo series - which I only ever played offline and alone - I was feeling ready to make an exception. Then Blizzard did this. It annoys me to no end that people are so willing to relinquish so much control over the software they purchase.

Whether it's actually legal or not, I'm not sure how you can spin the removal of cheaters and hackers from the game as a bad thing.

In an online game with an online economy, they are hardly just cheating themselves, especially with the PvP patch incoming.

 

I feel like that argument stems from the opinion that Diablo 3 should be an offline game, and I think it's an invalid argument because it is in fact not an offline singleplayer game, no matter how much you want it to be.

When people hack and cheat, and then put their items into the economy via trading and the auction house, that fucks up the balance of the whole economy. You saw it in Diablo II.

 

That said, would I like to see the "Cheaters can not do anything to impact other players" solution? Yes. I just wonder if it's feasible to implement in Diablo III without taking away too much dev time from the upcoming patches. I feel like they are more of a priority than accommodating cheaters.

I understand that view completely. As someone who's spent far too much of their lives playing multiplayer FPS games, I can attest to the damage that hacks and cheats can do to the fun and integrity of the game. However, we're talking multiplayer here. Yet in Diablo III, you can play completely alone, not encountering another player whatsoever through your entire game. So why did Blizzard need to control so much? Why didn't they keep the single-player and multiplayer modes separate? The cost of doing so would be entirely minimal and I'd bet money that it would have been a better received solution to the problem of hacks and cheats than the current one.

 

There'll always be people who want to cheat the system, in anything. That's why I groan every time some little bitch goes on Battlelog to gripe about "ALL THE HACKERS!" Why I laugh every time some noob calls me a hacker and why, put simply, I accept that there will be hacks and cheats. It doesn't matter whether singleplayer is present, whether everything is connected, whether profiles are persistent or whether mass bannings will occur. There will be hacks and cheats. It's human nature to try and escape the box they've been put in. Accepting such leads me to believe that dealing with hacks and cheats requires a certain level of fairness. I'm all for banning people from playing the multiplayer portion of a game if they've been caught cheating in multiplayer but to ban them entirely from the product they purchased, even if they affected nobody? That's unjust.

 

No one's saying they shouldn't deal with hackers, we're just saying they should ban them from playing alone when the game is clearly already designed to accommodate people who want to do that. Ban them from playing with other people and the RMAH? Sure. But don't ban them from playing alone.

 

@Dean: I see what you were referring to now with the rosebud thing. That's not really a good comparison. If Blizzard built cheat codes into the game, like rosebud, and then banned people for using them I don't think there's anyone who would be okay with that.

 

If you think about it, it's a better option for them. Why allow people continued access to their product after cheating when they can ban that person, especially when time and time again, history has shown that many will just buy the product once more. As long as they can come out and say "See! We're dealing with this!", they don't really care how they deal with it. They'll simply choose the option that's best for them and continue on.

[deanb]

People are having their legally purchased products completely removed from them, it's not really hard to present that as a bad thing.

This is quite the norm in online games and I don't see the problem with the practice.

1. Not so. Even games that are entirely multiplayer you're still not having your product removed from you. Take for example CS:S/TF2. You can cheat/hack whatever and be VAC banned. But all that means is you can no longer play on VAC protected servers, you're free to play on non-VAC servers with other cheaters or there's bot modes included. A multiplayer FPS based on a mod is more feature complete than the campaign mode of Diablo III.

2. I'm sure you'll change your tune once you get your games taken off you. "The came for the jews but I did not speak.."

 

 

@Dean: I see what you were referring to now with the rosebud thing. That's not really a good comparison. If Blizzard built cheat codes into the game, like rosebud, and then banned people for using them I don't think there's anyone who would be okay with that.

It's a cheat that easily popped in my head as I made frequent use of it. There was something else in Civilization as well iirc, you had to check a box to enable cheats though. With Fallout 3 I'd use the console to bypass locks, make the dog immortal etc. If people wish to make a game easier for themselves then I see zero reason why the developer should be there to slap them on the wrist for that. I see no reason why Blizzard should be so controlling. in their game, as many of us here can agree with in their terrible run of decisions in making Diablo III n the after effects of that. Be fun to see how far the rabbit hole goes. (Well not fun, cos it'll suck for the rest of us that don't like this form of control in our games)

[Johnny]

Even games that are entirely multiplayer you're still not having your product removed from you.

 

There are MANY games in which you just get banned completely. Heroes of Newerth, League of Legends, Tribes: Ascend to name three current titles off the top of my head.

 

A multiplayer FPS based on a mod is more feature complete than the campaign mode of Diablo III.

 

Are we really doing this? Ok then, TF2 doesn't have an auction house, or a real money auction house, so it's obviously less feature complete.

Or we can avoid that whole discussion altogether because it's quite meaningless.

 

I'm sure you'll change your tune once you get your games taken off you.

 

I've been playing Blizzard games since StarCraft 1 and I've never had an account of mine banned. Because I don't download third-party programs to hack the game and cheat.

One of my friends got banned once. He was using speedhacks and botting in World of Warcraft. As far as I'm concerned, he got what he was asking for.

Another one of my friends had his account banned when someone hacked it and got it banned for him. He contacted customer support and got his account restored.

 

I'm quite frankly not that worried. If we start seeing Blizzard randomly ban a bunch of legitimate users, then I will be. I sincerely doubt that will happen any time soon though.

 

"The came for the jews but I did not speak.."

 

I shouldn't have to point out why this is beyond ridiculous.

 

There was something else in Civilization as well iirc, you had to check a box to enable cheats though. With Fallout 3 I'd use the console to bypass locks, make the dog immortal etc. If people wish to make a game easier for themselves then I see zero reason why the developer should be there to slap them on the wrist for that. I see no reason why Blizzard should be so controlling. in their game, as many of us here can agree with in their terrible run of decisions in making Diablo III n the after effects of that. Be fun to see how far the rabbit hole goes. (Well not fun, cos it'll suck for the rest of us that don't like this form of control in our games)

 

I pointed out in my previous post why it isn't quite as cut and dry as just cheating themselves, in this particular game.

[Connorrrr]

The facts of the matter are, while Blizzard made the game online only, they can't allow cheaters. It's kinda just that simple. Sure, had they not made it online only, then they could've done something for the cheaters, had they chose to, but they didn't and that's it.

 

I don't reallyyyyy want to get involved in the "online vs. offline" debate of whether it was the right move or not. Far as I'm concerned, I don't care because I'm not a cheater, and it gives me opportunities like the auction house that I otherwise wouldn't have, or would have to risk being scammed through some dodgy outside the game trading.

 

The reason this argument about the bans is going to go on FOREVER is because it boils back down to the original argument. Whether or not it was a good idea to make it online only. The simple truth of the matter is while the game is online only, yes, they should be banned from the entire game. If it had offline play, they should have been banned from multiplayer only, but it isn't that way and so them's the breaks, as it were.

 

And as I said I don't really want to debate the offline/online thing too much, because I've seen it go around in circles forever.

[TheMightyEthan]

I do want to clarify that, for me at least, while I think this is stupid it's all somewhat academic and I don't actually care what happens to the cheaters. To go back to the car analogy, it makes me think of this guy I know of (don't really know him) who got a DUI a couple years ago, and now his license suspension is up but they won't give him back his license unless he proves that he hasn't drank any alcohol for a least a year, which is obviously impossible to prove. Stupid policy? Hell yes, and they shouldn't be able to do that. Do I feel too bad for the guy? Not really.

 

Disclaimer: Not saying cheating in an online game is anywhere near as serious as driving drunk.

[deanb]

Even games that are entirely multiplayer you're still not having your product removed from you.

There are MANY games in which you just get banned completely. Heroes of Newerth, League of Legends, Tribes: Ascend to name three current titles off the top of my head.

Ah yes, the free-2-play games that you never own in the first place. And rather than having to go out n splash another £45 on a copy you just make a new account. Not really the best rebuke there.

 

A multiplayer FPS based on a mod is more feature complete than the campaign mode of Diablo III.

Are we really doing this? Ok then, TF2 doesn't have an auction house, or a real money auction house, so it's obviously less feature complete.

Or we can avoid that whole discussion altogether because it's quite meaningless.

You spend real money on the game, and on top of that can also purchase user made items and trade them (with purchased games too). Why does an auction house give a game special abilites to remove peoples access from their paid games? TF2 having hats doesn't really give Valve any special privelages to dick around customers.

 

I'm sure you'll change your tune once you get your games taken off you.

I'm quite frankly not that worried. If we start seeing Blizzard randomly ban a bunch of legitimate users, then I will be. I sincerely doubt that will happen any time soon though.

Won't be long until they do. Especially attempting to ban people by the thousands, and in a game that's sold as many copies as it has there's bound to be people that won't to get by a bit easier and do a google search, find some cheat for infinite cash, or better items, or turning the game off while saving etc, and get kicked from the game. Little timmy, spending his pocket money on his game and getting banned from it by the big bad Blizzard.

 

"The came for the jews but I did not speak.."

I shouldn't have to point out why this is beyond ridiculous.

Why is it beyond ridiculous? We know the games industry is all one long giant simon says game. Activision say jump and make $1billion off it, the rest of the industry jumps too. Blizzard make a game that comes with an incomplete singleplayer campaign and still shift a few million units, and get to completely remove access to that game for customers without complaint, then rest of the industry hops along merrily. Which is a shame because UbiDRM was starting to look so unappealing to other publishers, then Blizzard repackage it, make it even worse (at least Assassins Creed ran locally), and make it look all the more appealing again.

I like games, I like owning my games, I like tinkering with my games. What Blizzard are currently marketing to the rest of the industry kinda runs counter to the things I like doing.

 

There was something else in Civilization as well iirc, you had to check a box to enable cheats though. With Fallout 3 I'd use the console to bypass locks, make the dog immortal etc. If people wish to make a game easier for themselves then I see zero reason why the developer should be there to slap them on the wrist for that. I see no reason why Blizzard should be so controlling. in their game, as many of us here can agree with in their terrible run of decisions in making Diablo III n the after effects of that. Be fun to see how far the rabbit hole goes. (Well not fun, cos it'll suck for the rest of us that don't like this form of control in our games)

I pointed out in my previous post why it isn't quite as cut and dry as just cheating themselves, in this particular game.

Well that's particular problem with the game is particularly Blizzards fault and their paying customers shouldn't have to bear the brunt of that particular bad decision. People shouldn't be needing to get the developers sanction to tweak the game just to make the a bit darker so they don't get their game taken off them. When did that become okay? "God the FOV in this game sucks! Bethesda am I allowed to tweak the ini?" "Blurgh, I hate having to spend all this time levelling my pokemon, Gamefreak can I battle MissingNo?". Sod that.

[Johnny]

Ah yes, the free-2-play games that you never own in the first place. And rather than having to go out n splash another £45 on a copy you just make a new account. Not really the best rebuke there.

 

People still spend money on their account for those free to play games, and all of that is removed when the account is banned.

 

You spend real money on the game, and on top of that can also purchase user made items and trade them (with purchased games too). Why does an auction house give a game special abilites to remove peoples access from their paid games? TF2 having hats doesn't really give Valve any special privelages to dick around customers.

 

My point was that the "not as feature complete" thing is completely irrelevant because each game has so many features that the other does not. You're reading weird things I never said into my words.

 

I'm sure you'll change your tune once you get your games taken off you.

I'm quite frankly not that worried. If we start seeing Blizzard randomly ban a bunch of legitimate users, then I will be. I sincerely doubt that will happen any time soon though.

Won't be long until they do.

 

Oh wow. Are you serious? Wow.

Why the fuck would they do that, again?

 

"The came for the jews but I did not speak.."

I shouldn't have to point out why this is beyond ridiculous.

Why is it beyond ridiculous?

 

...Because you're making an analogy between banning hackers and slaughtering Jewish people. That's why it's beyond ridiculous.

 

I pointed out in my previous post why it isn't quite as cut and dry as just cheating themselves, in this particular game.

Well that's particular problem with the game is particularly Blizzards fault and their paying customers shouldn't have to bear the brunt of that particular bad decision. People shouldn't be needing to get the developers sanction to tweak the game just to make the a bit darker so they don't get their game taken off them. When did that become okay? "God the FOV in this game sucks! Bethesda am I allowed to tweak the ini?" "Blurgh, I hate having to spend all this time levelling my pokemon, Gamefreak can I battle MissingNo?". Sod that.

 

I love moddable games as much as the next guy but I'm not going to be the guy who gets all Angry Internet Man because not every game is that.

It is far more practical and fitting in some games than others.

[deanb]

Ah yes, the free-2-play games that you never own in the first place. And rather than having to go out n splash another £45 on a copy you just make a new account. Not really the best rebuke there.

People still spend money on their account for those free to play games, and all of that is removed when the account is banned.

But a large part are the dudes playing for free. And they still don't cost £45 a pop. It sucks, but they're still F2P titles, when you can show people being banned completely from COD that'd be a more fitting comparison.

 

You spend real money on the game, and on top of that can also purchase user made items and trade them (with purchased games too). Why does an auction house give a game special abilites to remove peoples access from their paid games? TF2 having hats doesn't really give Valve any special privelages to dick around customers.

My point was that the "not as feature complete" thing is completely irrelevant because each game has so many features that the other does not. You're reading weird things I never said into my words.

Most games with a singleplayer mode has all the features of a singleplayer mode, i.e not having network lag, server downtime, crtical flaws where MP features can lead to your singlepalyer game being removed etc. Those kind of features tend to be pretty standard on most games. The bother here isn't that Diablo III doesn't have hats, or 360 controller support. Those aren't the kind of "incomplete features" we're discussing.

 

I'm sure you'll change your tune once you get your games taken off you.

I'm quite frankly not that worried. If we start seeing Blizzard randomly ban a bunch of legitimate users, then I will be. I sincerely doubt that will happen any time soon though.

Won't be long until they do.

Oh wow. Are you serious? Wow.

Why the fuck would they do that, again?

Dude you said yourself your friend was banned incorrectly, so yes I'm serious. You think when banning on the scale of thousands at a time their system is done by hand with some blizzard dev sat watching to check you're not cheating then hitting the "ban" button when it looks like you are. No it'll be some automated system like Warden that'll be scanning your files, RAM etc and if something doesn't match up to their database they'll ban you. edit: Turns out it is Warden. For those at home; you know how there was a bit of bother with Origin scanning your HDD? Well Warden is definitely doing that, and your running programs in RAM too. It's cheat-centric anti-virus that you didn't choose to install basically. EFF classifies it as Spyware.

 

I shouldn't have to point out why this is beyond ridiculous.

Why is it beyond ridiculous?

...Because you're making an analogy between banning hackers and slaughtering Jewish people. That's why it's beyond ridiculous.

Sorry I went for an obvious phrase, how unfortunate that it seems to invalidated the rest of the paragraph of my point.

 

I pointed out in my previous post why it isn't quite as cut and dry as just cheating themselves, in this particular game.

Well that's particular problem with the game is particularly Blizzards fault and their paying customers shouldn't have to bear the brunt of that particular bad decision. People shouldn't be needing to get the developers sanction to tweak the game just to make the a bit darker so they don't get their game taken off them. When did that become okay? "God the FOV in this game sucks! Bethesda am I allowed to tweak the ini?" "Blurgh, I hate having to spend all this time levelling my pokemon, Gamefreak can I battle MissingNo?". Sod that.

I love moddable games as much as the next guy but I'm not going to be the guy who gets all Angry Internet Man because not every game is that.

It is far more practical and fitting in some games than others.

You not being the guy to be Angry Internet Man? Come now. As for being fitting, I'd say it's pretty fitting "oh I'm stuck at this point, let's tweak the file n get better armour/more money/higher stats" etc. It's an ARPG, modding, tweaking, "cheating", etc is part of the genre. This isn't a case of "I like my chest high walls in Gears, why can't Splinter Cell have chest high walls too?", it's a case of basic features like, owning a game, and having working singleplayer.

[Johnny]

But a large part are the dudes playing for free. And they still don't cost £45 a pop. It sucks, but they're still F2P titles, when you can show people being banned completely from COD that'd be a more fitting comparison.

 

I really don't think it matters to the guy who put in 40 when he gets banned. And I know a lot of people put in way more than that.

 

Dude you said yourself your friend was banned incorrectly, so yes I'm serious.

 

I said my friend had his account hacked and the hacker got him banned. His account was not banned in error; it was banned because it had been used with cheats. After my friend explained to Blizzard the situation, his account was restored.

 

I was going to continue on but with that I'm just done. I can't be arsed to discuss when it's clear my posts are not being read thoroughly.

[deanb]

I'm reading and responding to all of them, not just trimming them down to to bits I feel like responding to.

 

Will Blizzard restore everyone else's accounts, or just the ones that got hacked into due to not picking up Blizzards $6 keychain? You know, if the games weren't so heavily tied into online restrictions and worked locally they'd be much more resilient to hacking. You don't hear of people having their Assassins Creed hacked into.

 

Just this one simple choice has had so many negative repercussions to the games customers.

[TheMightyEthan]

Here's why I think it's disingenuous to defend Blizzard on the basis that Diablo 3 is an "online multiplayer game" and try to treat it as such: it is not an online multiplayer game. It's online, sure, and it does support multiplayer, and I'll even grant that it's multiplayer-focused, but it's also designed to allow people to play singleplayer. Not offline, but singleplayer nonetheless. Blizzard obviously considered that people would want to play that way and designed the game to accommodate it, and as a result trying to say that banning people from that singleplayer option is justified because it's an online multiplayer game is just deceiving yourself. The singleplayer option exists, and when banned you should retain access to it.

 

Also, I maintain that we do not need to just accept the online-only requirements when discussing this issue. That was a decision that directly led to the current issue, and as such is relevant to the discussion. The fact that it was made in the past does not render subsequent decisions that follow from it immune from criticism.

[Geck0_k]

 

"The came for the jews but I did not speak.."

 

Stopped reading and invoking Godwin's Law. Good night

[TheMightyEthan]

Oh come on, that's a stretch to say that's comparing Blizzard to the Nazis. He's just pointing out people's tendency to not care about an issue until it directly affects them, using a famous poem. Yes, the poem was about Nazis, but that wasn't the point he was making.

[Hot Heart]

Yeah, you can only ever use that poem when referring to nazis...

Edited June 14, 2012 by Hot Heart

[MasterDex]

Yeah, you can only ever use that poem when referring to nazis...

 

Personally, I love it. Neimoller put it so eloquently and despite its origin, it's perfectly relevant here.

 

 

First they came for our money,

And I didn't speak out because "who cares, it's $60!"

Then they came for our LANs,

And I didn't speak out because "Pffft! LANS! NERDS! I have broadband!"

Then they came for our singleplayer,

And I didn't speak out because "It's an online game! Duh!"

Then they came for me,

And there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2012 by MasterDex

[Vargras]

And now for something completely different.

[Mister Jack]

17,000 damage? What the fuck? Is that normal?

[Connorrrr]

In the later modes, depending on your class and build, sure. I'm on inferno, act 2 (but farming act 1) and am doing 10k damage as a primarily defensive monk, so an offensive Demon hunter or wizard would hit 17k easily

 

Edit: Just noticed they're actually hitting 31k. A lot, but still not out of the question, considering they're a witch doctor (judging by the toolbar)

Edited June 15, 2012 by Connorrrr

[Hot Heart]

"Yeah! Watch the numbers get bigger! Woooo!"

[TheMightyEthan]

There's something immensely satisfying about seeing numbers like that get bigger. It's almost as satisfying as filling up bars.

 

(While this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it's also entirely true.)