As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Video Game Industry Thread] Nobody is Buying Anything.

1235797

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Cade wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    The RMAH was never a problem for me in Diablo 3. It being present or not, either way is fine. But the game being offline on the consoles? Fuck you Blizzard, that's just mockery.

    Even Blizzard has admitted the RMAH has become a problem with people "farming it" instead of monsters and are looking to try and fix things but said it can't be removed. The why no one said but we all know why.

    The thing is, everyone and their little dog too told Blizzard that this was exactly what was going to happen.

    Blizzard just ignored them.

    Because the people who whinged endlessly about it were missing the point that people buy shit with real money anyway. Tons of it. D2 had a massive black market. Blizzard wanted, like most multiplayer games these days, to kill the black market and the only way to do that is to legalize and control the sales people want to do anyway.

    The problem is mostly that the RMAH is too good. IT's too efficient and convenient. Black market sales are full of scams and hacking but they have the "benefit" of being just annoying enough that it's not always worth it. So you can't kill it unless you feel they should have done nothing about the black market and you can't just make your AH system really badly designed on purpose, so you ... well, nobody fucking knows.

    What Blizzard said is that the RMAH is too good at it's job and they are trying to find some way to redirect item acquisition more towards the game itself.

    Aegeri wrote: »
    I just love how consoles get a superior version of the same game, solely because the always online requirement is gone. Considering that it also has a feature I really want in split screen coop, which if I can get my wife into the game is going to be a huge deal for me I am feeling really happy about this. I would never have bought the PC version but I will be all over this one. Hopefully the next Xbox will get it, but if that console is always online that can go stuff itself: Thankfully the PS4 will totally be there if I want it.

    I have to wonder how the DRM defense brigade is going to react to this.

    What's superior about it? All it's got is split-screen coop which is cool but just ... not a PC feature.

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Aegeri wrote: »
    So this makes Diablo 3 on consoles a must buy for me, because I still really want the game and think it looks great fun. Especially if they adopt many of the changes I have read about over the past near year or so of feedback. I would not be surprised to see the console versions sell gazillions as well and I have to say, I hope they crush the always online DRM PC version in sales. Nothing would be better to see for me then that.

    Yeah, no. They are likely dropping online because of the low online rate of consoles and there's no way it's going to end always online DRM cause D3 kinda sold a shit-ton of copies if nothing else.

    shryke on
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Not being always online, that would be a huge thing for many people frankly and I think the RMAH was a gigantic waste of time, space and effort. Glad to see it gone as well. The fact I can play it coop, any time I want, with my wife is just icing on the cake.

    Oh and not having 300+ ms of lag all the time in single player.

    Frankly, that alone automatically makes it superior.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    If nothing else the real-money auction house was an interesting experiment to see if it could effectively counter the black market. It's something somebody needed to try at least once. That said I'd rather it not have come at the expense of single-player offline, but I'm not technically-minded enough to really know if that would be possible without introducing the ability for duping/theft in the auction house.

    The SimCity always-online was just a hamhanded attempt to squash piracy and possibly encourage more DLC-buying, considering how easily pirates have turned it off.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    No interest in Diablo 3 myself, but neither do I have a lot of sympathy for people who bought Diablo 3 knowing it couldn't be played offline. If they really thought it was that big a deal, they never would have supported Blizzard's shitty draconian DRM in the first place.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    No interest in Diablo 3 myself, but neither do I have a lot of sympathy for people who bought Diablo 3 knowing it couldn't be played offline. If they really thought it was that big a deal, they never would have supported Blizzard's shitty draconian DRM in the first place.

    *waves hand*

    Yes, hello reason why I didn't get Diablo III.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    If nothing else the real-money auction house was an interesting experiment to see if it could effectively counter the black market. It's something somebody needed to try at least once. That said I'd rather it not have come at the expense of single-player offline, but I'm not technically-minded enough to really know if that would be possible without introducing the ability for duping/theft in the auction house.

    The SimCity always-online was just a hamhanded attempt to squash piracy and possibly encourage more DLC-buying, considering how easily pirates have turned it off.

    This isn't the first time this has been tried. Far from it. MMOs have been trying similar schemes for awhile now. Make real money purchases safe and "legal" and you mostly kill the black market and make your game far more secure and get less customer care issues.

    As for including an offline options, that requires you to both develop one as a slightly parallel game (and thus pay for it, test it, yada, yada, yada) and to make the main game less secure because you have to give the player access to all the server-side. Those are, afaik, the two main reasons you'd just go "Fuck it, always online" for a game like D3.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    If nothing else the real-money auction house was an interesting experiment to see if it could effectively counter the black market. It's something somebody needed to try at least once. That said I'd rather it not have come at the expense of single-player offline, but I'm not technically-minded enough to really know if that would be possible without introducing the ability for duping/theft in the auction house.

    The SimCity always-online was just a hamhanded attempt to squash piracy and possibly encourage more DLC-buying, considering how easily pirates have turned it off.

    This isn't the first time this has been tried. Far from it. MMOs have been trying similar schemes for awhile now. Make real money purchases safe and "legal" and you mostly kill the black market and make your game far more secure and get less customer care issues.

    As for including an offline options, that requires you to both develop one as a slightly parallel game (and thus pay for it, test it, yada, yada, yada) and to make the main game less secure because you have to give the player access to all the server-side. Those are, afaik, the two main reasons you'd just go "Fuck it, always online" for a game like D3.

    I thought this was the first time individual players could sell to other players?

    Though yeah, I figured having an offline component would be a pain in the ass to develop for this kind of setup.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    If nothing else the real-money auction house was an interesting experiment to see if it could effectively counter the black market. It's something somebody needed to try at least once. That said I'd rather it not have come at the expense of single-player offline, but I'm not technically-minded enough to really know if that would be possible without introducing the ability for duping/theft in the auction house.

    The SimCity always-online was just a hamhanded attempt to squash piracy and possibly encourage more DLC-buying, considering how easily pirates have turned it off.

    This isn't the first time this has been tried. Far from it. MMOs have been trying similar schemes for awhile now. Make real money purchases safe and "legal" and you mostly kill the black market and make your game far more secure and get less customer care issues.

    As for including an offline options, that requires you to both develop one as a slightly parallel game (and thus pay for it, test it, yada, yada, yada) and to make the main game less secure because you have to give the player access to all the server-side. Those are, afaik, the two main reasons you'd just go "Fuck it, always online" for a game like D3.

    I thought this was the first time individual players could sell to other players?

    Though yeah, I figured having an offline component would be a pain in the ass to develop for this kind of setup.

    EVE online probably did it first.

  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I think most of us in the 'DRM defense brigade' (I say this a lot, but really people? Are we 12?) would say the offline Diablo 3 thing pretty comically undermines a lot of what Blizzard has said. I don't have an issue with one version requiring the connection and the other not, but it should be interesting to see what effect it has on the auction house and how the final game shakes out when players aren't forced (or handheld) into that ecosystem.

    That said, there might be three or four better places to have that part of this discussion.

    I am curious how big the market actually is for this product at this point. Sony made a pretty big deal out of it at the PS4 reveal, but I wonder if they aren't vastly overestimating the game's draw after a year of 'meh' from so many sources tainting the name.

    OneAngryPossum on
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    subedii wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I have to wonder how the DRM defense brigade is going to react to this.

    I probably shouldn't ask, but... is there really a DRM defense brigade? Outside of the companies themselves, of course.

    The games industry is going to have to reconcile with DRM at some point. We're reaching a kind of DRM singularity where it becomes an inevitability. Budgets are exploding and piracy is rampant. Games are becoming monolithic and year after year more games 'bomb' by being swamped by the biggest of big hitters.

    There's not so much of a DRM defense force as there is a 'shitty DRM attack brigade'. If we're going to have to swallow this shit then the least these companies can do is not fuck us over in the process.

    Steam, for example, is DRM done right. And I'd argue there is a huge amount of support for Steam here and elsewhere, despite its flaws.

    Believe me, I'd happily take GOG over Steam any day. But as you say, Steam at least does it in a fashion where when I get disconnected from the internet (or simply want to game on the laptop), it doesn't matter. I play my games offline all the freaking time, and I'm happy to be able to. And as far as systems go, Steam offers a ridiculous number of features that make good use of online functionality when you do go online, to the point where it feels like added value instead of a freaking ball-and-chain. Everyone else pretends they're adding in value, but it's all lip service and almost never any actual content..

    That's the thing, you can play offline with steam games. As an anecdote I was playing Wargame E.E. last time in a multiplayer match.My IP dropped my connection disconnecting me from the match. The game dumped my back not to desk top, not to the steam screen, but instead to the main menu where I could watch replays or play the single player skirmish or campaigns.

    I could still play the game in-spite of being signed out of steam and loss of connection to Eugen/Wargames servers. Diablo 3 makes that experience impossible.

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I think most of us in the 'DRM defense brigade' (I say this a lot, but really people? Are we 12?) would say the offline Diablo 3 thing pretty comically undermines a lot of what Blizzard has said. I don't have an issue with one version requiring the connection and the other not, but it should be interesting to see what effect it has on the auction house and how the final game shakes out when players aren't forced (or handheld) into that ecosystem.

    Well it affected it by its complete removal, which is pretty much what I and many have said all along: The DRM was there to encourage and protect the usage of the RMAH. Bear in mind cheating with offline split screen is pretty trivial and so duping stuff will be simple as hell (just save your game to a USB stick, transfer items to character b, then out your original save still with items back on your character). The solution to this is pretty trivial, just have online and offline characters saved separately, with bnet saving characters played with online. You know, what just about everyone said they could do with the PC version. But you know.

    Also your "DRM defense brigade" card is revoked for using logic. Sorry about that.

    Edit: Also I do wonder how well the game will sell, but to me I have tried to ask people why Diablo 3 is disappointing (like in the game of the year thread) but never had coherent or satisfying answers. Outside of the DRM, I don't know what is supposed to be so bad about the game at all. I suspect that there is definitely a market on consoles for a well made action RPG like Diablo 3 - but how big that market is I can't say. I really hope it does well.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I just love how consoles get a superior version of the same game, solely because the always online requirement is gone. Considering that it also has a feature I really want in split screen coop, which if I can get my wife into the game is going to be a huge deal for me I am feeling really happy about this. I would never have bought the PC version but I will be all over this one. Hopefully the next Xbox will get it, but if that console is always online that can go stuff itself: Thankfully the PS4 will totally be there if I want it.

    I have to wonder how the DRM defense brigade is going to react to this.

    Honestly, my PC is always online anyway. I don't think it bothers the overwhelmingly majority of players out there.

    steam_sig.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    http://www.gamespot.com/events/pax-east-2013/story.html?sid=6405809
    Aliens: Colonial Marines for Wii U is scheduled to launch by the end of the month, but Gearbox Software is not sure if the game will make it or not.

    "We'll see," CEO Randy Pitchford told GameSpot today.

    "That's not our call. I think [developer Demiurge Studios] did amazing work. I think it's really cool, but Sega's got to figure that out," he added. "We're doing the best we can."

    Gearbox did not have a direct hand in developing Aliens: Colonial Marines for Wii U, but Pitchford reportedly sees the game "regularly."

    Sega and Demiurge have two times declined to comment on the status of Aliens: Colonial Marines for Wii U. Sega told GameSpot today, "No news."

    The Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC versions of the game were met by a cold critical reception at launch in February, though it was the month's sixth-best-selling title in the United States during that month, according to NPD data.
    That does not sound very hopeful.

  • skeldareskeldare Gresham, ORRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.gamespot.com/events/pax-east-2013/story.html?sid=6405809
    Aliens: Colonial Marines for Wii U is scheduled to launch by the end of the month, but Gearbox Software is not sure if the game will make it or not.

    "We'll see," CEO Randy Pitchford told GameSpot today.

    "That's not our call. I think [developer Demiurge Studios] did amazing work. I think it's really cool, but Sega's got to figure that out," he added. "We're doing the best we can."

    Gearbox did not have a direct hand in developing Aliens: Colonial Marines for Wii U, but Pitchford reportedly sees the game "regularly."

    Sega and Demiurge have two times declined to comment on the status of Aliens: Colonial Marines for Wii U. Sega told GameSpot today, "No news."

    The Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC versions of the game were met by a cold critical reception at launch in February, though it was the month's sixth-best-selling title in the United States during that month, according to NPD data.
    That does not sound very hopeful.

    It sounds like a blessing.

    Nintendo Console Codes
    Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
    PM Me if you add me!
    HAIL HYDRA
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    With how the Wii U is going watch it eventually come out and be even worse.

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    skeldare wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.gamespot.com/events/pax-east-2013/story.html?sid=6405809
    Aliens: Colonial Marines for Wii U is scheduled to launch by the end of the month, but Gearbox Software is not sure if the game will make it or not.

    "We'll see," CEO Randy Pitchford told GameSpot today.

    "That's not our call. I think [developer Demiurge Studios] did amazing work. I think it's really cool, but Sega's got to figure that out," he added. "We're doing the best we can."

    Gearbox did not have a direct hand in developing Aliens: Colonial Marines for Wii U, but Pitchford reportedly sees the game "regularly."

    Sega and Demiurge have two times declined to comment on the status of Aliens: Colonial Marines for Wii U. Sega told GameSpot today, "No news."

    The Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC versions of the game were met by a cold critical reception at launch in February, though it was the month's sixth-best-selling title in the United States during that month, according to NPD data.
    That does not sound very hopeful.

    It sounds like a blessing.

    They had a massive patch recently on the pc that made the game go from awful to slightly mediocre, so maybe that's similar to what the WiiU version will be like? Wouldn't it benefit SEGA just to kick it out anyway and try to recoup at least some of the losses? I don't know (and I guess I am asking) if it is more expensive to actually release the game post disaster or just forget about it.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I just love how consoles get a superior version of the same game, solely because the always online requirement is gone. Considering that it also has a feature I really want in split screen coop, which if I can get my wife into the game is going to be a huge deal for me I am feeling really happy about this. I would never have bought the PC version but I will be all over this one. Hopefully the next Xbox will get it, but if that console is always online that can go stuff itself: Thankfully the PS4 will totally be there if I want it.

    I have to wonder how the DRM defense brigade is going to react to this.

    Honestly, my PC is always online anyway. I don't think it bothers the overwhelmingly majority of players out there.

    My PC is also almost always online. Always-on is still completely stupid, because there's simply no way to justify keeping me from playing my singleplayer games because some servers somewhere are on the fritz.

    I do certainly hope that after we've heard all this bullshit about how always-on is absolutely necessary for singleplayer games from Blizzard and EA, the backlash from it turning out that the DRM is anything but necessary will be massive and severe enough that the industry will forget about this stupid garbage and quit wasting their money and our time on it.

  • skeldareskeldare Gresham, ORRegistered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I just love how consoles get a superior version of the same game, solely because the always online requirement is gone. Considering that it also has a feature I really want in split screen coop, which if I can get my wife into the game is going to be a huge deal for me I am feeling really happy about this. I would never have bought the PC version but I will be all over this one. Hopefully the next Xbox will get it, but if that console is always online that can go stuff itself: Thankfully the PS4 will totally be there if I want it.

    I have to wonder how the DRM defense brigade is going to react to this.

    Honestly, my PC is always online anyway. I don't think it bothers the overwhelmingly majority of players out there.

    My PC is also almost always online. Always-on is still completely stupid, because there's simply no way to justify keeping me from playing my singleplayer games because some servers somewhere are on the fritz.

    Or god forbid I lose my internet.

    Nintendo Console Codes
    Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
    PM Me if you add me!
    HAIL HYDRA
  • CuvisTheConquerorCuvisTheConqueror They always say "yee haw" but they never ask "haw yee?" Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I just love how consoles get a superior version of the same game, solely because the always online requirement is gone. Considering that it also has a feature I really want in split screen coop, which if I can get my wife into the game is going to be a huge deal for me I am feeling really happy about this. I would never have bought the PC version but I will be all over this one. Hopefully the next Xbox will get it, but if that console is always online that can go stuff itself: Thankfully the PS4 will totally be there if I want it.

    I have to wonder how the DRM defense brigade is going to react to this.

    Honestly, my PC is always online anyway. I don't think it bothers the overwhelmingly majority of players out there.

    Until the servers go down, anyway. Error 37, anyone?

    xderwsaxganu.png
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    And even when you are connected you can get fucking lag playing D3 by yourself.

    That is just awful and unacceptable to me.

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    We should NOT do the always online debate here.

  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/hmv-slashes-wii-u-premium-to-just-199-99/0112943
    Nintendo's Wii U is currently on sale for an all-time low price on the UK High Street.

    HMV is selling the Wii U Premium bundle including copies of both NintendoLand and Ubisoft's ZombiU for just £199.99. That's a £140 discount on the RRP.

    In-store POS confirming the price was spotted by MCV reader Andy James at the chain's Stoke on Trent store. Of course, with HMV in dire straights and its gaming aspirations up for question, the price could in part be driven by a desire to empty warehouses of video games stock.

    The price significantly undercuts GameStop's £244.97 – the previous lowest price the machine was available for.

    The move comes after MCV yesterday revealed that retailers are increasingly dissatisfied with the console's performance in the UK.

    “We have taken the decision to reduce the price of the Basic Wii U to test the market and assess the impact of a price change for a short period of time,” ShopTo purchasing director James Rowson stated. “This has resulted in a smaller than desired increase in sales at this stage.”

    UPDATE: CVG has word that the price promotion will begin on Monday March 25th and run for as long as stock lasts.
    There have also been a bunch of temporary price cuts in the USA.

    Fuck I was literally in the Stoke store yesterday. Might pick myself up a WiiU next week for that price.

    Someone remind me: what is the WiiU again and why do I want one? I'm not bullshitting, it's launch has literally passed me by.

    It's the follow up to the Wii, a console that everyone bought, played a few times, never touched again, then acted surprised when the follow-up bombed.

    Hoiyoooo!

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    And even when you are connected you can get fucking lag playing D3 by yourself.

    That is just awful and unacceptable to me.

    Not to point any fingers, but are you sure it isn't your ISP? I'm not trying to be a white knight or anything, I shelved D3 a long time ago... but I never had any problems with latency after the launch woes were resolved.

    steam_sig.png
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    And even when you are connected you can get fucking lag playing D3 by yourself.

    That is just awful and unacceptable to me.

    Not to point any fingers, but are you sure it isn't your ISP? I'm not trying to be a white knight or anything, I shelved D3 a long time ago... but I never had any problems with latency after the launch woes were resolved.

    Plenty of people get lag. It is a natural consequence of the way they designed the game.

    Like I'm not talking constant lag but a hiccup here and there? Absolutely. And in a game like Diablo a hiccup at the wrong time can be an awful thing.

  • LorahaloLorahalo Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    And even when you are connected you can get fucking lag playing D3 by yourself.

    That is just awful and unacceptable to me.

    Not to point any fingers, but are you sure it isn't your ISP? I'm not trying to be a white knight or anything, I shelved D3 a long time ago... but I never had any problems with latency after the launch woes were resolved.

    I'm Australian, so I get a constant (never ever ever dropping) 150+ ping to US servers. Guess where I got to connect to D3? I will never, ever like online only so long as companies focus entirely on the US and tell the rest of the world to suck a fat one. I get enough of that shit already in multiplayer games, keep it the fuck away from single player.

    EDIT: Yeah sorry, I really shouldn't have brought this up. My bad, I'll stay out of any more online-only discussions.

    Lorahalo on
    I have a podcast about Digimon called the Digital Moncast, on Audio Entropy.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I think most of us in the 'DRM defense brigade' (I say this a lot, but really people? Are we 12?) would say the offline Diablo 3 thing pretty comically undermines a lot of what Blizzard has said. I don't have an issue with one version requiring the connection and the other not, but it should be interesting to see what effect it has on the auction house and how the final game shakes out when players aren't forced (or handheld) into that ecosystem.

    I don't see how it undermines anything they've said. They've never claimed it wasn't possible like EA. They just didn't want to because of security and the RMAH and just generally not wanting to split the experience up.

    I do certainly hope that after we've heard all this bullshit about how always-on is absolutely necessary for singleplayer games from Blizzard and EA, the backlash from it turning out that the DRM is anything but necessary will be massive and severe enough that the industry will forget about this stupid garbage and quit wasting their money and our time on it.

    Why would it be? Only EA has gotten burned on this and that's for being comically inept.

    It really seems like there's a small group of people who feel really strongly about this and keep thinking that the next time is gonna be the last straw. And then there's everyone else who doesn't care.

    I mean, D3 sold 10 million fucking copies. Unless the inevitable expansion sells like shit, that's the message the industry is getting. This works. WoW had server issues at launch too. Didn't do shit there either.

    With shit like Simcity and some previous DRM schenanigans, the industry has learned there are some limits to this stuff. But they are far, far, far past what a game like D3 does.

    shryke on
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I think most of us in the 'DRM defense brigade' (I say this a lot, but really people? Are we 12?) would say the offline Diablo 3 thing pretty comically undermines a lot of what Blizzard has said. I don't have an issue with one version requiring the connection and the other not, but it should be interesting to see what effect it has on the auction house and how the final game shakes out when players aren't forced (or handheld) into that ecosystem.

    I don't see how it undermines anything they've said. They've never claimed it wasn't possible like EA. They just didn't want to because of security and the RMAH and just generally not wanting to split the experience up.

    I do certainly hope that after we've heard all this bullshit about how always-on is absolutely necessary for singleplayer games from Blizzard and EA, the backlash from it turning out that the DRM is anything but necessary will be massive and severe enough that the industry will forget about this stupid garbage and quit wasting their money and our time on it.

    Why would it be? Only EA has gotten burned on this and that's for being comically inept.

    It really seems like there's a small group of people who feel really strongly about this and keep thinking that the next time is gonna be the last straw. And then there's everyone else who doesn't care.

    I mean, D3 sold 10 million fucking copies. Unless the inevitable expansion sells like shit, that's the message the industry is getting. This works. WoW had server issues at launch too. Didn't do shit there either.

    With shit like Simcity and some previous DRM schenanigans, the industry has learned there are some limits to this stuff. But they are far, far, far past what a game like D3 does.

    D3 sold on D2's merits, not it's own. Most of my gamer friends bought D3. None of them still play it.

    Blizzard claimed the always on was due to artistic vision (and other such bullshit) as well just as EA did. It's standard issue PR bullshit.

    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    Lorahalo wrote: »
    And even when you are connected you can get fucking lag playing D3 by yourself.

    That is just awful and unacceptable to me.

    Not to point any fingers, but are you sure it isn't your ISP? I'm not trying to be a white knight or anything, I shelved D3 a long time ago... but I never had any problems with latency after the launch woes were resolved.

    I'm Australian, so I get a constant (never ever ever dropping) 150+ ping to US servers. Guess where I got to connect to D3? I will never, ever like online only so long as companies focus entirely on the US and tell the rest of the world to suck a fat one. I get enough of that shit already in multiplayer games, keep it the fuck away from single player.

    EDIT: Yeah sorry, I really shouldn't have brought this up. My bad, I'll stay out of any more online-only discussions.

    I can't agree with this post hard enough. Until Australian servers become standard, I will continue to despise always-on when it has anything to do with latency back and forth regularly between my computer and the server.

    AND NO, BLIZZARD/OTHER COMPANIES, SEA/OCEANIC/SINGAPORE/KOREAN SERVERS ARE NOT THE FUCKING SAME AS AUSTRALIAN SERVERS

  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    Surely that's a blessing in disguise. You live in Australia. Any time spent playing silly little computer games is time not spent battling to the death for three quarts of motor oil and a gallon of fresh water. That DeathRoller aint gonna fuel itself, so get out your Bat'Leths and your venom kits, and don't come back until dusk you lazy gits.

  • AZChristopherAZChristopher Registered User regular
    And even when you are connected you can get fucking lag playing D3 by yourself.

    That is just awful and unacceptable to me.

    Not to point any fingers, but are you sure it isn't your ISP? I'm not trying to be a white knight or anything, I shelved D3 a long time ago... but I never had any problems with latency after the launch woes were resolved.

    Doesn't really matter if it is the fault of the ISP or the server. Either way the user is still stuck with lag.

    Personally, I'm looking forward to D3 on consoles. My PC has been reserved for Kickstarted games and other independent dev games. Not sure how it will sell though. Ports aren't usually great sellers for new consoles.

  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    The point is that a bad ISP or any other internet access problem should NEVER EVER IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WHATSOEVER be an obstacle for single player gaming (once the game is installed and authenticated once).

    A lot of people cannot circumvent a bad internet connection and many of them resort to single player gaming due to that exact reason.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    It shouldn't. Naturally. But it will. Because they are big and you are small and also lazy and will just take whatever you're given without even the most insignificant of two day protests. People don't even vote, let alone vote with their wallets. Diablo 3 sells ten million. Sim City sells 1.1 first month. Better start getting used to it because we lost the fight a long time ago.

    Which is to say nothing of American ISPs being just as deserving of ire for taking the money and running. Shittiest companies in America right now? Probably.

    The future is online-only. End of story. Just as the future of the internet isn't anonymous, and the future of financing is plastic. Terrible, yes. But also inevitable because people just don't care. They don't. Two weeks of Fuck EA, Fuck Sim City and then we've all forgotten, only to be reminded in another year when some other company does the same thing and we all collectively go 'oh right, they already did that didn't they'.

    All it takes for the slow erosion of consumer rights and privileges is the appearance of an interesting enough distraction. And video games are the distraction business.

  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    So why did Ubisoft drop their always on DRM?

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think most of us in the 'DRM defense brigade' (I say this a lot, but really people? Are we 12?) would say the offline Diablo 3 thing pretty comically undermines a lot of what Blizzard has said. I don't have an issue with one version requiring the connection and the other not, but it should be interesting to see what effect it has on the auction house and how the final game shakes out when players aren't forced (or handheld) into that ecosystem.

    I don't see how it undermines anything they've said. They've never claimed it wasn't possible like EA. They just didn't want to because of security and the RMAH and just generally not wanting to split the experience up.

    I do certainly hope that after we've heard all this bullshit about how always-on is absolutely necessary for singleplayer games from Blizzard and EA, the backlash from it turning out that the DRM is anything but necessary will be massive and severe enough that the industry will forget about this stupid garbage and quit wasting their money and our time on it.

    Why would it be? Only EA has gotten burned on this and that's for being comically inept.

    It really seems like there's a small group of people who feel really strongly about this and keep thinking that the next time is gonna be the last straw. And then there's everyone else who doesn't care.

    I mean, D3 sold 10 million fucking copies. Unless the inevitable expansion sells like shit, that's the message the industry is getting. This works. WoW had server issues at launch too. Didn't do shit there either.

    With shit like Simcity and some previous DRM schenanigans, the industry has learned there are some limits to this stuff. But they are far, far, far past what a game like D3 does.

    D3 sold on D2's merits, not it's own. Most of my gamer friends bought D3. None of them still play it.

    SURE. Right...

    And of course, you have nothing to back this up whatsoever, just like people who say this always do.

    This is exactly what I was talking about "Sure it sold 10 million copies, but I disliked X about it, so obviously everyone must dislike it and the massive sales numbers are all duped people who hate the game as much as I do!!!".

    Fucking please, can we stop pretending like someone's personal internet grudge and anecdotes are just as meaningful if not more then sales data? Especially in the industry thread.


    Blizzard claimed the always on was due to artistic vision (and other such bullshit) as well just as EA did. It's standard issue PR bullshit.

    This is what was said:
    One other common topic we’ve seen in the forums is the always-connected experience, and the perception that the online requirement is nothing but an ineffective form of copy protection that has already been cracked. While we’ve never said that this requirement guarantees that there will be no cheating or game cracks, it does help us battle those problems (we have not found any fully functional cracks). More important to us is that the online requirement is critical for the long-term integrity of the game experience. I fully understand the desire to play Diablo III offline; however, Diablo III was designed from the beginning to be an online game that can be enjoyed with friends, and the always-online requirement is the best way for us to support that design. The effectiveness of the online elements -- including the friends list and cross-game communication; co-op matchmaking; persistent characters that you can use by yourself, with others, and in PvP; and some of our customer support, service, and security components -- is tied directly to the online nature of the game. These and other online-enabled features are essential to our design for Diablo III. That said, there are still improvements we believe we can make to expand the online experience and make co-op play even more rewarding, and this will remain one of our priorities moving forward. Overall, while there are some downsides to the online-only approach, I still believe this was the best long-term decision for the game.
    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/6080663481#1

    Which is completely consistent with anything they've said afterwords. Unlike EA, who we know lied through their teeth about the ability of Simcity to function off-line.

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    So why did Ubisoft drop their always on DRM?

    Because they are limits to how far you can go, but those limits are not "never do always online".

    And because there's a difference between "Always online DRM" and "Always online experience". The movement is not away from always online, it's away from always online just to make sure you aren't a filthy pirate. Now the key is adding extra features and such to use/justify the online requirements/experience.

  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    Guys, I would strongly recommend taking this to the other thread.

  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    So why did Ubisoft drop their always on DRM?

    Because Ubisoft is a console publisher. PC sales account for about 5% of Ubisoft's total revenue. And of that minuscule amount, there was a 70% increase in the amount sold through Steam and Origin, which are themselves a form of DRM, in the last quarter alone. They have shifted completely away from their failed UPlay system to a third party middle man because it's a fairly insignificant market for them, not worth the investiture.

    It wasn't a concession to consumers. It was cost savings. They don't need always online DRM for their PS3/360/Wii sales, which account for well over 80% of all their sales, anyway. So why bother? Why try to protect what doesn't matter and what does't risk your company's future?

    Compare that to Activision/Blizzard. Their PC sales (and online subscriptions) account for well over 50% of their entire business. And if you look at their earnings reports every quarter, their biggest risk assessed variable is a reduction in their market cap in the PC space. They need DRM because it protects their whole house of cards. They have so much tied up in World of Warcraft and Diablo and Starcraft, that if any were to be significantly hit by piracy, the whole company would be in serious financial trouble and facing the fury of investors looking for their dividend checks that didn't arrive. Diablo 3 had DRM and sold like gangbusters. What reason do they have not to do this? PR? They're too big for PR.

    And Electronic Arts. While not as invested into PC games as Activision/Blizzard, PC sales for them are still miles ahead of Ubisoft. It's nearly 30% of their business, not including Origin which they are pushing as a serious contender to Steam. And they need DRM even more because they are in far more tricky situation. EA has been walking a knife edge for three straight years now. They make less money than I do, and yet their total assets are worth more than God himself. They are exposed to more risk, have less financial stability, and PC gaming is an even bigger chunk of their revenue stream.

    So why are we seeing fewer and fewer EA games on the PC. Let's ask Peter Moore, who many bet will be Electronic Art's next CEO to replace Riccitiello.
    Piracy is an issue. Sorry, I know many of you disagree with me on this, but the numbers don't lie. Companies spend millions developing content, and deserve to see a return on investment for their risk. The employees developing the game design, writing code and creating art deserve to get paid for their work. Period

    The two most pirated PC only games of all time are The Sims 3 and Starcraft 2. From, guess who, Electronic Arts and Activision/Blizzard. Precisely why they are the ones pushing always online DRM the hardest. Almost no Ubisoft games make the top twenty, and if you narrow it down to PC only titles, you have to go all the way down to the latest Anno to even register.

    That's why Ubisoft dropped always online DRM. And it's also why EA and Activision/Blizzard are going to force it upon the entire industry. A combination of poor performance and high risk. They have too much riding on the PC space to let consumers be in control.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Sooooo yeah. News anyone?

    I'm amazed at how PAX has become an event the industry truly rolls out stuff for. Here's just a few of the brand-new things announced:

    Duck Tales
    Broken Age (the Double Fine adventure)
    WoW card game
    XCOM: Enemy Unknown for iOS (as in, the full game)
    Eve Online Odyssey expansion
    Transistor (Supergiant's new thing)
    Ms. 'Splosion Man iOS (odd, since Twisted Pixel is now owned by Microsoft)

    Not to mention a bunch of indie stuff, and the first time a lot of things are playable (like Elder Scrolls Online). It's not quite E3 or anything, but it's beyond "may as well haul out what we've got for the fans."

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • MichaelLCMichaelLC In what furnace was thy brain? ChicagoRegistered User regular
    Which came first - the announcements or the press coverage at PAX?

    Cynical me thinks the only reason there's anything oat PAX is because the press went there to cover the concept, then publishers picked up on it so started rolling out more stuff to get more coverage; bonus points for shots of super excited fans and not journalists just mashing buttons to get a story out.

    Not been to PAX, so just my thoughts.

This discussion has been closed.