• FEATURED

View more

View more

View more

Image of the Day Submit

IOTD | Top Screenshots

The latest, straight to your Inbox.

Subscribe to GameDev.net Direct to receive the latest updates and exclusive content.

Diablo 3 representing the future of Anti- piracy?

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

53 replies to this topic

#21Antheus  Members

Posted 29 May 2012 - 11:25 AM

The new patch has arrived:
- Game now crashes to desktop

gg

#22Servant of the Lord  Members

Posted 29 May 2012 - 12:57 PM

Thanks for the writeup Drew, that was a good read.
It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' or 'SotL' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames -

#23Platinum_Dragon  Members

Posted 29 May 2012 - 01:07 PM

Hash Collision is the method that's currently in used to counter piracy. Participating in torrent with a hash colliding piece allows companies to force the torrent downloaders to download corrupted data. This method is currently in development, and will eventually stop lots of torrents from hosting torrents for copyright materials. Of course, the only way to use this method is to pretend to be a seed entering the system.
I use QueryPerformanceFrequency(), and the result averages to 8 nanoseconds or about 13 cpu cycles (1.66GHz CPU). Is that reasonable?
I though that the assembly equivalent to accessing unaligned data would be something similar to this order:
• move
• shift
• move
• shift
• or
So it seems reasonable to say that it takes 14 cycles for unaligned data since we'll have to do the series of instructions once to access and once to assign?

#24greentiger  Members

Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:18 PM

I don't think they have ever stated that the online connection requirement was intended for anti-piracy. They did give a statement on this, and it was because they didn't want the confusing separation of single-player and multi-player characters. In Diablo and Diablo 2 you could create a single player character, not knowing that you couldn't go online with it for obvious reasons. Going from multi-player to single player wasn't possible either. I, for one levelled my character in single-player and later found out that I couldn't use it in multi-player games, which was very disappointing.

If I remember correctly you could play single player characters using Open Battle.net in diablo2. I played Open Battle.net with friends regularly for years and we never had to worry about spammers or cheating. Seriously--all you have to do is play with friends on a regular basis and you take care of 95% of the "problems" with battle.net. And if you wanted to make sure your characters were legit you could play Closed Battle.net. I see no reason why they couldn't have done the same thing with D3.

This kind of "anti-piracy" is harmful to the community. If people are going to use D3 as the guide for the future of PC gaming, then in my opinion PC gaming is dead except for indies.

As long as anti-piracy is not the main goal, I don't think it'll be harmful to the community.

I think if this is the way the industry goes I think big commercial titles are done for me and I have been supporting and playing more and more indies. Frankly if you look at the development of D3 and Torchlight 2--sure, Torchlight 2 missed it's deadline but it's releasing this summer now and it's 2 year development cycle is still shorter than Diablo3 team's "polish mode" of 2 years. It may not be as fancy as D3 but considering how much fun TL1 was and the price (20$) is almost ridiculously low. Yes it has Steam for is distribution and DRM but at least you can play Steam games offline. #25DvDmanDT GDNet+ Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:57 PM Am I the only one who would never consider Diablo 3 a single player game with multiplayer capabilities? For me, D3 is a multiplayer game that can be played alone (with stupid/annoying followers instead of friends). #26GameCreator Members Posted 29 May 2012 - 06:27 PM Honestly, it feels like they ran out of time and had to put out something for the money, and will be spending the foreseeable future, "finishing the game". Is this surprising or new? Have you ever heard of a game called Starcraft II? Blizzard recently released news that they'll be adding features that were expected in the original release. To be included "at or around the launch of Heart of the Swarm." For a game that was released almost 2 years ago. To a game that has no release date yet. As someone famous once said: "wtf, mate?" You've heard of post-release patches? Welcome to the future: post-release games. Edited by GameCreator, 29 May 2012 - 06:29 PM. #27ChaosEngine Members Posted 29 May 2012 - 08:38 PM So no, I don't count the "record breaking sales" as any kind of valid measure of the worth of this game. Neither do I. The worth of the game is irrelevant to my point. My point is a lot of people seem to be complaining bitterly about issues and then buying the game anyway. BTW, I'm not accusing you of this. Feels like there's a lot of noise being generated around this, but not much actual "not purchasing the game". Either that or their record breaking sales would have been even better without the drm. Perhaps because it's possible to both like a game, and hate the way it's been crippled with DRM? (Plus the first buyers are not going to know until after they've bought the game.) It seems perfectly consistent that more criticism is generated for the most popular games - of course you won't get much noise over a game that no one cares about. Would not buying really help? Or would they just blame the lower sales on piracy, like they always do? What about games that get lots of sales without this system? Well, not buying the game would give your argument a bit more legitimacy. Would they blame it on piracy? Probably. But it's kinda hard to take someone seriously when they can't even be bothered to stick to their guns (kinda like all those l4d2 boy-cotters who then pre-ordered the game in droves). For the record, I haven't bought D3, but I was never really a big fan of the series anyway Personally, I don't really care about always online DRM. I care about my experience. My gaming pc is always connected to the internet anyway. If I go out or go away, then I can just not play pc games. No big deal. I have a smartphone to keep me amused and playing a triple A game on a poky laptop screen defeats the purpose anyway. Sure, though not everyone has the same views, or circumstances, as you do. And the examples given in the article show problems even when at home. And as I said, this has been monumentally badly handled. Edited by ChaosEngine, 29 May 2012 - 08:44 PM. if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight #28Koobazaur Members Posted 29 May 2012 - 11:33 PM Honestly, I almost feel it is futile to try to bitch or whine about this scheme. While I hate it with a passion and want to burst into laughter every time I hear another reviewer say "lag" and "single player" in the same sentence, the endless masses of fans who ensure Diablo is the best-selling game ever, and will undoubtedly keep playing despite its crappy state, ensure that this practice only becomes more and more common. And the pattern has repeated enough times already, with the CoD MW2 boycott and L4D2 boycott - people bitch and whine, but ultimately give in. That is the way of the masses Who cares what the metacritic score is, what your angry forum is yelling, and what the reputable news sources state; if you're rolling in more cash than ever before, that it all the incentive a business needs. Honestly, it feels like they ran out of time and had to put out something for the money, and will be spending the foreseeable future, "finishing the game". With increasingly DLCs and pre-order early access, we are entering an age where games are never really finished and you are effectively buying a Beta game. That will never come out of Beta. Edited by Koobazaur, 29 May 2012 - 11:37 PM. Comrade, Listen! The Glorious Commonwealth's first Airship has been compromised! Who is the saboteur? Who can be saved? Uncover what the passengers are hiding and write the grisly conclusion of its final hours in an open-ended, player-driven adventure. Dziekujemy! -- Karaski: What Goes Up... #29Hodgman Moderators Posted 30 May 2012 - 04:27 AM I count it as a big scam; a flim-flam, if you will. A swindle. Had someone told me, "Hey, Blizzard is going to make you pay$60 for what you think is a complete game, only here's the rub: you'll have to nickel and dime yourself on the auction house if you want to complete it, because they are going to deliberately nerf your in-game drops based on the Auction House to force you to pony up additional cash," I would have given them a great big "Screw you, punchy" and walked away to spend that $60 elsewhere. Until yesterday, I had no inkling that they would do that; I was under the impression (as were many others) that the game I bought would be "complete", and the Auction House purely optional. To find otherwise honestly leaves me feeling like I've been punched in the stomach. It leaves me feeling ripped off. It makes me feel like I've been played for a fool. after reading that, I'm left thinking "wtf". Can you elaborate on this, such as what's incomplete or how real-money extra costs are required? #30JTippetts Moderators Posted 30 May 2012 - 07:41 AM after reading that, I'm left thinking "wtf". Can you elaborate on this, such as what's incomplete or how real-money extra costs are required? Bashiok stated that the Auction House factors into the frequency/quality of items that are dropped in any given game: http://us.battle.net...opic/5149013410 Given that this affects all players (the always online requirement) I am left in the awkward position of being one of those few guys that only plays solo, and refuses to use the auction house. That means I play with nerfed drops, without the counter (the AH) to balance it out. Is it silly of me to want to play without the Auction House? Yeah, maybe. I never traded in D2, either, but at least there my drops weren't nerfed to compensate for trading. I'm not in this to participate in some kind of virtual economy meta-game. I want to play the game by making use of what I find, self-sufficient and self-contained. In fact, it boggles my mind that anyone would want to use the AH, rather than, you know, actually playing the game. Given that gear in D3 is the sole means of customizing your character, what you are doing by buying the best gear you can find on the AH is in effect paying to skip past the best parts of the game. The only reason you need gear is to be able to take on tougher enemies. Tougher enemies drop better loot, better loot helps you take on tougher enemies. It's a feedback loop that forms the very core of the game. The real money auction house allows you to skip all that and go right to "I win teh gmae!!!" Where's the fun in that? Blizzard has gone the route of free-to-play, pay-to-win, whatever you want to call it; only with the added fiendish cleverness of making you pay$60 bucks up front.

My character when I quit, in Act 3 Nightmare, was still wearing most of the equipment he was wearing when he finished Normal, because stuff just wasn't dropping. I was getting lots of loot, sure, but it was an overabundance of gear that was not an upgrade. Plenty of stuff with Strength; I even found a couple magic wands with +Strength. How stupid is that? Coupled with the lack of character customization, and the fact that the skills and runes I wanted to use had all been unlocked for quite some time, meant that I was effectively playing a character who had not progressed, at all, in over 10 hours. That's when I decided to hang it up. The feedback loop was broken, even though I wasn't using the AH to purchase "I WIN" gear. Now, sure, if I had grabbed my ankles, bit my lip and hung on I eventually would have squeezed out an upgrade. But 10 hours without any progress was enough for me. Funny that if they had retained the incremental upgrade system of D2s skill trees (instead of eschewing them in favor of this recycled FPS weapon loadout crap) I would have hung in there. The incremental progression would have kept me on the hook.

I guess I've kind of overreacted on all of this, though. I wasn't nearly as angry as I seemed to be. Mostly sad, because like many others I looked forward to this game for so long. But I'm pretty much over the whole thing now. Got my refund after a couple hours on the phone, I'll probably use some of it to buy Torchlight 2. That game, at least, is shaping up to be a worthy Diablo 2 sequel.

I reckon this'll be the last time I gripe about D3. Done is done. The world has moved on, the writing is on the wall.

Edited by JTippetts, 30 May 2012 - 07:49 AM.

#31greentiger  Members

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:33 AM

With increasingly DLCs and pre-order early access, we are entering an age where games are never really finished and you are effectively buying a Beta game. That will never come out of Beta.

A poem is never finished, only abandoned. ~Paul Valéry

As far as the L4D2 comparison Valve actually invited the organizer of the protest to Valve HQ to play L4D2. That same organizer said "yeah this isn't that bad" and then basically told everyone to go home. Valve responded to the protest directly. It still annoys me to no end that you can play all the L4D1 content in L4D2 but only added one 3 map campaign to L4D1--I'd still like to see L4D1 supported with community maps (becoming official like Cold Stream) and new weapons introduced or maybe new modes (fix the L4D1 versus so that bots fill in empty spots like L4D2).

Bashiok stated that the Auction House factors into the frequency/quality of items that are dropped in any given game:

http://us.battle.net...opic/5149013410

Given that this affects all players (the always online requirement) I am left in the awkward position of being one of those few guys that only plays solo, and refuses to use the auction house. That means I play with nerfed drops, without the counter (the AH) to balance it out. Is it silly of me to want to play without the Auction House? Yeah, maybe. I never traded in D2, either, but at least there my drops weren't nerfed to compensate for trading. I'm not in this to participate in some kind of virtual economy meta-game. I want to play the game by making use of what I find, self-sufficient and self-contained.

Well there was gambling in D2, and near the end game when I had more cash than I could carry, I would always gamble. Not actually owning D3 I don't know if gambling is in the game but I'd wager the GAH currently replaces the gambling aspect.

Edited by greentiger, 30 May 2012 - 12:01 PM.

#32FLeBlanc  Members

Posted 30 May 2012 - 12:56 PM

I hear D3 does have gambling. They call it blacksmithing, and it's shitty and expensive and not worth leveling.

#33Nytegard  Members

Posted 30 May 2012 - 02:49 PM

I hear D3 does have gambling. They call it blacksmithing, and it's shitty and expensive and not worth leveling.

I wouldn't know about that. While this is also tied to the AH apparently, and the odds of getting something good are slim, at least you're guaranteed an item of minimum stats. Through cowardice and other tactics (I basically forgo the elite monsters and rush to the boss now and just kite them to death), I've managed to progress my monk pretty far. Yet it's frustrating that I need at least Act 3 gear of the next difficulty level to properly gear for this difficulty level's Act 1 when it comes to random drops. At least with the Blacksmith, I can be guaranteed of acquiring a proper leveled item, even if the stats are horrible.

Someone else made this statement, and I honestly have to agree with the person, that the game seems to be less "Diablo 3" and more "World of Diablo", only without the monthly subscription fee, in terms of how the gameplay feels so far.

#34DvDmanDT  GDNet+

Posted 30 May 2012 - 06:19 PM

I've personally used the blacksmith pretty much, and a large part of the gear I've used have been from him. I'd say he usually produce pretty cool stuff, it's just not necessarily for you character (ie +80 dex, +76 str, +90 dex is pretty nice at level ~36, but useless if you're a wizard or which doctor). I don't think it's particularily expensive either, unless you count the fact that you need to 'salvage' your items instead of selling them which doesn't give you the tiny sum they're worth.

#35Koobazaur  Members

Posted 30 May 2012 - 07:04 PM

And now there's this to add to the hilarity:

Then I logged in to my

Diablo III

account earlier today and found that I had become one of those careless victims, my character stripped bare and my gold balance drained.

Think about it. Someone hacked and robbed your single player game. And there I thought single-player Lag was an oxymoron!
Comrade, Listen! The Glorious Commonwealth's first Airship has been compromised! Who is the saboteur? Who can be saved? Uncover what the passengers are hiding and write the grisly conclusion of its final hours in an open-ended, player-driven adventure. Dziekujemy! -- Karaski: What Goes Up...

#36mdwh  Members

Posted 31 May 2012 - 08:20 AM

So no, I don't count the "record breaking sales" as any kind of valid measure of the worth of this game.

Neither do I. The worth of the game is irrelevant to my point. My point is a lot of people seem to be complaining bitterly about issues and then buying the game anyway.

Do we have evidence of this?

Perhaps because it's possible to both like a game, and hate the way it's been crippled with DRM? (Plus the first buyers are not going to know until after they've bought the game.)

It seems perfectly consistent that more criticism is generated for the most popular games - of course you won't get much noise over a game that no one cares about.

Would not buying really help? Or would they just blame the lower sales on piracy, like they always do? What about games that get lots of sales without this system?

Well, not buying the game would give your argument a bit more legitimacy.

I don't see how. The issue of whether this is a good thing is not affected by whether one has bought the game. Indeed, generally we expect people are more likely to complain about something they have bought, than something they haven't, or even don't care about. By this logic, no one should ever complain about the immensely commercially successful Windows.

It would only affect an argument of "I'm not going to buy this game because of this" or "We should stop this by not buying the game", but I'm not sure people are saying that, and even if they are, are those people then buying it?

Anyhow, if the sales are booming, I'll remember that the next time I hear them complaining about piracy killing sales.

Edited by mdwh, 31 May 2012 - 08:20 AM.

http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://conquests.sourceforge.net/ - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

Posted 31 May 2012 - 12:14 PM

Bashiok stated that the Auction House factors into the frequency/quality of items that are dropped in any given game:

I didn't read it like that at all.

They purposely lowered the ingame drops because they account for the existance of the AH. When you say it, it sounds like they dynamically alter the droprates based on what's on AH at the time. I'm not sure that's what Bashiok is saying.

#38SimonForsman  Members

Posted 31 May 2012 - 01:46 PM

Looks like some hackers made a 100% compatible web based Diablo 3 client and server emulator now: http://www.error37.com so people can get the full Diablo 3 experience without paying a dime.
I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

#39FLeBlanc  Members

Posted 31 May 2012 - 01:58 PM

Looks like some hackers made a 100% compatible web based Diablo 3 client and server emulator now: http://www.error37.com so people can get the full Diablo 3 experience without paying a dime.

#40ChaosEngine  Members

Posted 31 May 2012 - 06:54 PM

Neither do I. The worth of the game is irrelevant to my point. My point is a lot of people seem to be complaining bitterly about issues and then buying the game anyway.

Do we have evidence of this?

As I said before, the evidence is largely anecdotal. But given the vocal complaints that are kinda hard to miss on the web coupled with the huge sales figures, I think it's a reasonable assumption.

Perhaps because it's possible to both like a game, and hate the way it's been crippled with DRM? (Plus the first buyers are not going to know until after they've bought the game.)

It seems perfectly consistent that more criticism is generated for the most popular games - of course you won't get much noise over a game that no one cares about.

Would not buying really help? Or would they just blame the lower sales on piracy, like they always do? What about games that get lots of sales without this system?

Well, not buying the game would give your argument a bit more legitimacy.

I don't see how. The issue of whether this is a good thing is not affected by whether one has bought the game. Indeed, generally we expect people are more likely to complain about something they have bought, than something they haven't, or even don't care about. By this logic, no one should ever complain about the immensely commercially successful Windows.

It would only affect an argument of "I'm not going to buy this game because of this" or "We should stop this by not buying the game", but I'm not sure people are saying that, and even if they are, are those people then buying it?

Anyhow, if the sales are booming, I'll remember that the next time I hear them complaining about piracy killing sales.

Er, that was exactly my point with my first post in this thread. Mostly I just wanted to post this penny arcade comic.

My point is pretty simple. On one hand, people are angry. Whether that anger is justified or not is irrelevant. On the other hand Blizzard are seeing obscene amounts of money being thrown at them.

Companies are ultimately pretty simple entities. If an action is perceived to increase profits, they will continue to take that action regardless of whether that action is actually responsible for their profits or not. Until you stop giving them money, they will keep doing whatever they want.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.