Legal Opinion: How Cloud Gaming Turned Piracy Into Espionage

[PalZer0]

One thing you have to say about Blizzard though is that their track record for long term support is vastly superior to EA's.

[Spooler]

[


Is the game client uninstalled every time you lose connection?
no
It is on your PC even when offline, thus in this context the game client is offline, rather then being a 'thin client' where the server does everything and your end only displays the results.


I higly doubt they're running enough server hardware to do all the CPU work for a million + game instances.
MMOs can do it where much of the game world is 'open', but thats not how this game is.

You can try to argue semantics about "program client" Vs "client", but its pretty clear what was being talked about in the context of this thread where the discussion was client side Vs server side and how [as marius said] there would have to be "vast" changes in how the game works to support an offline mode.

and I pointed out there loads of games successfully run offline modes where the save data can't be used in the online game and yet those games aren't suddenly getting their server side hacked.

Suddenly ? no but find me one game that has not been hacked in some way go on, you're back ? what's that ? all of them have ? you don't say ?

The more information stored locally the easier it is to script map hacks or botting programs, why would a primarily multi-player experience give the small % of it's population a 100% offline game ?

The argument "but I want to play X while I'm flying is silly and no longer valid thanks to in flight wifi".

But you know what I can accept he the net crashed or their's server trouble, know what you do then ? That essay you have been putting off or that bit of house work that needs doing or you could play a different game while you wait.

I hate always on DRM it's an idiotic concept but this is an ONLINE game not a offline game with online DRM there's alot of benefit to doing things this way

[Spooler]

O wait you were serious ? ahhh my god you cannot make this stuff up, you sir win the dunce cap.

I wonder if a day will come where it's possible to have an open exchange of views on the internet without people getting all pissy. Comments like the above (sorry chaps, you were the two most readily to hand) are really unnecessary

Sorry Mellie just trying to get a larf, I'll refrain from it next time... maybe... if I remember to.

**edit**
Also sorry for the double post meant to edit my previous post

[Otto-matic]

I think people are missing one of my points if nothing else. The primary number one reason Activision Blizzard are enforcing online only is DRM. They can dress it up all they want and claim innocence that they didn't realise some people would be annoyed.

Hacking reasons are weak at best. They could secure it if they want. The existing measures they hopefully have to stop in-stream hacks are probably sufficient.
Feature reasons are extremely weak. No reason these couldn't be available to online players keeping offline players separate (auction house is difficult without other people).
Platform control. This ties in with DRM essentially meaning they dictate everything. This is the part where my concerns lie as they could start doing things like enforcing local pricing in a global market.

I'm sure somebody has put in other reasons why, but they put it the requirement in for DRM purposes. Pretending they did it 'for the player' is delusional IMO, they are a business and they want the most money for their shareholders.

[PalZer0]

The argument "but I want to play X while I'm flying is silly and no longer valid thanks to in flight wifi".

Name me one airline servicing Australia that has in-flight Wi-Fi.

[Mekon]

Name me one airline servicing Australia that has in-flight Wi-Fi.

Emirates for one, on their A380s - I flew back in on one from Europe a few weeks back.

Wasn't cheap Wifi, mind you (well out of my willing price range)... that said, as soon as you're out of Australian airspace, you're allowed to use mobile devices (including phones), assuming you can get a connection.

[Marius]

I'm sure somebody has put in other reasons why, but they put it the requirement in for DRM purposes. Pretending they did it 'for the player' is delusional IMO, they are a business and they want the most money for their shareholders.

Well speaking from a player's perspective, I'm glad that it's online-only. Diablo to me has always been a multiplayer game, and I think above all else, online-only will lead to a lot more people discovering the multiplayer game.

They can dress it up all they want and claim innocence that they didn't realise some people would be annoyed.

Blizzard won't need to claim innocence. This is a deliberate decision to please some players at the expense of others. And that's perfectly OK.

[Otto-matic]

I know people can be dumb, but having a big menu option saying 'Multiplayer' should have been kind of obvious. If they wanted to, it's only a click away.

Robert Bridenbecker, the Vice President of Online Technologies at Blizzard, has said that he's 'surprised' at the fan reaction to Diablo 3's online requirements.

It's a DRM decision that they have been trying to dress up.

[Spooler]

The argument "but I want to play X while I'm flying is silly and no longer valid thanks to in flight wifi".

Name me one airline servicing Australia that has in-flight Wi-Fi.

I had free Wi-fi on Delta airlines flying to the U.S it wasn't free for everyone but meh I was special.

Forgetting that Australia is a tiny % of the worlds population and Blizzards customer base why focus your energy on making a tiny portion of your player bases experience better when you can focus on making the majority happy ?

I think people are missing one of my points if nothing else. The primary number one reason Activision Blizzard are enforcing online only is DRM. They can dress it up all they want and claim innocence that they didn't realise some people would be annoyed.

When they add things like a real money auction house, every tiny bit of cheat prevention becomes worth while to keep the economy balanced and stop people item duping/botting/etc.

Why focus on improving the online Experience with things like drop in and out play and making this vast client/server infrastructure when they could just make a offline co-op game and then chuck always on DRM into that ?

Always online is because it is a multiplayer game anyone who says differently is delusional.

[Vashta]

Am I the only one who thinks that this entire backlash isn't really about DRM/piracy? It's not really about Blizzard using an excuse about co-op play or game availability or any of the stuff being discussed here. It's really about Blizzard's problem with public relations where many of the old school Blizzard gamers are watching their once favourite company turn into a flying spaghetti monster no different to EA. The DRM is just the handy excuse of the disillusioned to explain the lack of a want to buy a game due to Blizzard turning into a pack of corporate animals. I'll admit here, I don't like the 'new' Blizzard and I'm not touching Diablo 3 out of principle. The DRM can be considered part of why I dislike Blizzard, but not the sole reason I'm not touching the game. This'll seem like a tangent, but it'll get back to the DRM issues.

Let's face it - Blizzard isn't the same company it used to be at the time of SC, D1, etc. You know, the one that allowed mods, offline play or, to put it bluntly, didn't attempt to rob you for all you're worth as a consumer and treat you like a faceless lump of meat. The last point is especially valid - consumers are not stupid and do not like to be treated as such. Then Blizzard, after years of sailing along with normal development, magically changes their business model to the cash cow variety which depends on high income from low quality garbage (a la WoW). Not only did WoW destroy an existing Blizzard franchise for many of the old school fans with the modifications to the storyline/whatever but it added insult to injury with the cash cow model. The franchise quality was dropped into a steaming pit yet it was painted as the greatest thing since sliced bread and had a huge price tag slapped onto it as well as monthly fees. So the consumer is now expected to pay for the game with the addition of fees for what is a low quality spin off compared to the original three games. Enter consumer discontent and Blizzard's changing image. From that point onwards Blizzard dived out of the closet and revealed its corporate $$$ nature and, to the consumers of old, became more about making a quick buck than a decent game. And, if there's anything consumers like, it's getting what they've paid for which is exactly what the cash cow model of Blizzard doesn't provide in its games. WoW left a huge, dark blot on Blizzard's PR and effectively stated to the consumers "We think you're an idiot so cough up some cash for trash products" and it's been hanging over all of their releases ever since.

Then this model of "the customer is a moron" continues: SC2, a much anticipated sequel from the Blizzard classic, is now online only for multiplayer components with the LAN options completely removed. The removal of this feature is utterly pointless, unless of course - le gasp - they're trying to make more of a profit through veiled DRM where now everyone has to have an individual copy! Oh look, guest passes for more shameless promotion of Blizzard, likewise le gasp! Who'd have thought it possible with the release of WoW where the exact same thing which was already occuring on a grander scale? It's another blot against Blizzard's declining PR with the increased perception that they're now purely focused on making money regardless of the product quality and price ratio. SC2 may not have been a huge problem as single player was still possible without a connection but it still foreshadowed to many consumers what was to come with future releases. They were proven right with Diablo 3 where it's now purely online only regardless of game mode where the online DRM is purely to make people buy the game and deter pirates/ninjas. To make it even worse, Blizzard has lept out of its corporate closet once more with the real money auction houses where they take a slice of the action and it's a service purely designed to make tangible cash as opposed to 3rd party gold farming for WoW in-game currrency trade. For many, Diablo 3 is the nail in Blizzard's coffin. It cements their status as a cash cow business out to treat their comsumer like a faceless lump of meat and rob them blind for sub-standard products and the removal of consumer independence from the company. It's the largest black mark against Blizzard since the creation of WoW in just how blatant these actions have been and thus returns all of the those long held doubts about placing trust in a company which has consistently proven it's out to make money by any means.

Finally, returning to how this links to DRM, it's not about the DRM. If Blizzard hadn't done all the aforementioned and destroyed its reputation with the cash cow model, then people wouldn't care about the DRM - they'd buy it purely to loyaly support a company which had treated them well. They would trust the company enough to accept its implemention of such a system and wouldn't have these concerns over the apparent money grab. As Blizzard hasn't treat its consumers well, the doubts about the company's treatment of the consumer have skyrocketed and people are looking for any excuse which allows them to explain their decision of not buying the game in a convenient manner. Instead of doing what I've done above they can just say "I don't want spyware on my computer" which is something that's a hell of a lot easier to explain than "Here's a brief history of the company and how it went from being decent to ripping people like me off". Hence this has never been about DRM itself, but the reason for the DRM and the lack of consumer trust towards a company which has destroyed its credibility in regards to caring about its consumers.

I hope I explained this properly. Dx

[DarkMellie]

Replace references to Blizzard with Activision and it all sudden makes sense

[Vashta]

Replace references to Blizzard with Activision and it all sudden makes sense

Blizzard/Activision are effectively the same thing in regards to PR with the public but you have a point. That and I'm lazy. xD

[DarkMellie]

I don't think anyone's going to call your above post lazy

[Vashta]

I don't think anyone's going to call your above post lazy

Thank god. It's about 1000 words and if someone called that lazy for a forum I'd have to resort to a 15k thesis.

[Nekosan]

Well speaking from a player's perspective, I'm glad that it's online-only. Diablo to me has always been a multiplayer game, and I think above all else, online-only will lead to a lot more people discovering the multiplayer game.

I'm not sure about that, if its been well implemented then it should feel no different to a game without the requirement, it isn't like the game is going to spam you over and over with "multiplayer, come play", there's just the same menu as always.

It's a DRM decision that they have been trying to dress up.

I think i would probably disagree with that, DRM is a factor but i think it's just as much(if not more) about controlling their IP and the game experience as it is about stopping piracy. I think that's why there was so much backlash, a lot of people enjoyed the longer lifespan of d2 due to modding but in 2012 developers don't want that, they want to release DLC make more money (which is reasonable) rather than having players provide their own amusement.

I think the era of mods like CounterStrike and DOTA popping up is slowly coming to an end, most developers just don't want their software being used to do things that aren't going to make them money or are outside the play style they dictate.