Always Online with Blizzard

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 1 September, 2011

Co-founder Frank Pearce and StarCraft 2's Jonny Ebbert speak.

Blizzard goes big at GamesCom, and this year was no exception. Gargantuan queues wrapped around its Diablo 3 booth on the show floor, and its 20th anniversary press conference was packed to the rafters. With Diablo 3, StarCraft 2 expansion Heart of the Swarm, an unnamed World of Warcraft expansion and Project Titan all in the works, these are exciting times for the company.

But Blizzard is not beyond controversy. In recent months fans have reacted strongly to the fact that you cannot play Diablo 3 offline. The always online debate has raged, with gamers polarised on the issue. It was with this in mind that we sat down with co-founder Frank Pearce and StarCraft 2 lead designer Jonny Ebbert to get Blizzard's take.

Eurogamer: Congratulations on 20 years of Blizzard. What is Blizzard's greatest achievement?

Frank Pearce: It's difficult to point to one specific thing, because we've had a lot of success over the last 20 years and we've created a lot of great games. Definitely, World of Warcraft is one of the things you have to point to. 12 million active players at one point is a lot of really passionate fans sharing a common experience. That's probably the biggest impact we've had on the industry in the last 20 years.

Eurogamer: Is it your favourite Blizzard game?

Frank Pearce: It's definitely near the top of the list. I've probably devoted more hours to World of Warcraft than any of the other games we've done.

Eurogamer: How many?

Frank Pearce: It's totally measured in days. But I haven't checked it recently. It's probably in the neighbourhood of 100 days played. I only have one main, so I don't have to add it up across multiple avatars.

We offer a great value proposition. $15 a month and the number of hours you can devote to it in a given month, it's a pretty good deal. It's cheaper than drinking. It's cheaper than the movies.

Eurogamer: What about you Jonny?

Jonny Ebbert: I've only been at Blizzard for two years, but shipping Wings of Liberty was big.

Eurogamer: Now you've had a year to reflect on StarCraft 2, how successful has it been?

Jonny Ebbert: We keep a close eye on the eSports community and how much the eSports is thriving. Also, how much the mod community is thriving, and concurrency on Battle.net. When we're watching MLG matches or other league matches, it's just how exciting the games are and how creative people are able to be with our game and how much entertainment it can provide to the viewers is really our version of Blizzard Bucks. It's like, yeah! We're really rolling in Blizzard Bucks.

Eurogamer: From a commercial perspective, how successful has it been?

Frank Pearce: I don't think we want to look at sales. Certainly we had good sales out the gate and set some records for that genre. But we still have a lot of work left to do. It's only been a year. If you look at the original StarCraft, that's been around for 12 years, and it's still passionately played and used and leveraged by the eSport community.

We've got a couple of expansions planned, including Heart of the Swarm. We've started asking team leadership to take more of an ownership of product line P&L, but honestly, I don't want them to stress too much about that right now because StarCraft 2 was a long time in development, but we still have more things that we want to achieve with it. They all know that.

For me and for the other leadership at Blizzard it's more about an active, thriving community around that game, and putting us in a position to take advantage of that in the future. So it's a very long-term view. A year might seem like a long time in most products' life cycles, but for us, a game that's only been around for a year is still in its infancy, and we still have a lot of things to do.

Eurogamer: You hope this game will have a similar life span to StarCraft?

Frank Pearce: Yeah. And with that in mind it's really hard to say whether or not we've achieved the success we want to with that product. StarCraft, 12 years later, people are still playing it passionately. Warcraft 3, there are still millions of people passionately playing maps and mods around the world. You can look at Warcarft 3 and say that was the beginnings of the idea for creating a game client like that as a platform for the community to do more than just experience the game the dev team creates. We've certainly carried that further with StarCraft 2.

Eurogamer: You've talked about Heart of the Swarm gameplay details. It seems you're focusing on one central character this time.

Jonny Ebbert: That's exactly the direction we're trying to go with this campaign. The fantasy we're trying to fulfil is, you're Kerrigan. A lot of people, when they picture what Kerrigan does, is, she manipulates the Swarm. She always has these god-like powers. Those are the two main tracks we're trying to explore.

Eurogamer: How will Heart of the Swarm impact on the eSports scene?

Jonny Ebbert: We have a lot of plans for eSports. I can't get into the details of what we're planning for Battle.net or multiplayer, but what I can tell you is, we're thrilled with the meta-game we have now. When we watch the eSports scene and the bets replays, we're just stupefied, really, by the creativity of the players.

We want to preserve and enhance that meta-game. That's probably been the most agonising part of this. It's trying to make changes to the multiplayer meta-game and preserving everything that's awesome about it, and maybe shoring up any of the weaknesses and adding something new. Players are going to be really excited about what they see at BlizzCon and when they finally get their hands on it.

Eurogamer: It sounds like a design nightmare.

Jonny Ebbert: Well, the good kind, right?

Frank Pearce: That's what they get paid to do, though. They don't get paid to do this stuff because it's easy.

Eurogamer: You have to keep existing players happy while adding new things. It sounds like a tricky juggling act.

Jonny Ebbert: It's the best kind of problem to have. You have something that's incredibly successful, and you want to try to make it even more successful. It's hard to picture a better position to be in as a designer.

Eurogamer: Frank, what's your personal take on the always-on internet debate? Are gamers overreacting?

Frank Pearce: The opinions of the people who feel like they don't want to be online when they're playing is valid. But for us, our goal is to have an always-connected community, and not just necessarily a community around World of Warcraft, and not necessarily a community around StarCraft or StarCraft 2, but an overarching Blizzard community. To create that community and provide everyone who's part of that community the benefits of that community, we want them to be connected and playing online.

Eurogamer: Does piracy have anything to do with your decision to make Diablo 3 always-on?

Frank Pearce: I would never say it's not a factor, but it's definitely not the driving factor. Ultimately, if people want to pirate the game, they're going to find ways to pirate the game whether we require an online connection or not. Our focus is not on preventing piracy, but rather on creating an online experience that's so compelling for people that they aren't thinking about pirating the game because they want to be part of this community and they see value in having this community, almost as if this vibrant community is a bullet point you would put on the back of the box as a feature.

Eurogamer: Are current internet connections stable enough to facilitate always-on video games?

Frank Pearce: It depends on the region. It depends on the hardware. It depends on the location of the person. Certainly the technology is getting better and better every day. You can see evidence with World of Warcraft of the fact a lot of people have the connectivity that's required for that.

Eurogamer: We won't be able to play Diablo 3 on a commute. Does that matter?

Frank Pearce: It's a valid request. For us, the server software is going to be running on our hardware infrastructure and not on the client hardware. To allow the server software to run on the client hardware is additional effort on our part, and we want to get Diablo 3 into the hands of our players as quickly as possible. It's already going to be a challenge for us to do that this year.

Part of the decision as it relates to that is, is it more important we give the people who are on occasion going to want to play offline the ability to do that? Or is it more important we get this game into the hands of our players as quickly as we can? We decided we wanted to get it into the hands of our fans as quickly as possible.

Eurogamer: I'm sure they will appreciate that.

Frank Pearce: Some of them will. Some of them will have complaints about the fact they can't play offline.

Eurogamer: It's better people care than they don't care at all.

Frank Pearce: This is a very high-class problem. To have a community that's so passionate about our games and what we're doing that they have strong opinions about this is a really nice position to be in. We definitely listen to the feedback from all the fans. Hopefully they trust us to make the right decisions for the games and for the community, not just for the short term but for the long term.

Eurogamer: Most people who are upset about your decision will buy your games.

Frank Pearce: Yeah. It's true that sometimes people's actions are different than their words.

Jonny Ebbert: I don't think they would be posting that vigorously if they weren't invested enough to buy it. You would almost expect it. If they're an online activist lobbying for something in a game, it's like, you're so invested at that point you'd almost have to buy it.

Frank Pearce: People are online all the time with their social networks and grabbing information off the internet. Potentially, some of these people are WOW players, that are online gaming for WOW. An always connected experience is something that at some point soon, I don't know if it's months or years, but soon, everyone is going to have the expectation that they are connected when they are gaming.

Eurogamer: It's just the way things are going?

Frank Pearce: Yeah. And the exception will be the games that aren't connected.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (76) Latest comment 9 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • prudislav #1 9 months ago

    don't like their opinion :-( Blizzard was so "activisioned :-("

  • nimzy #2 9 months ago

    I think they'd better talk to their design team re: World of Warcraft. An absolutely enormous percentage of the players play solo, don't join guilds, don't ever join groups.

    Always connected does not mean always social, and it's a mistake to conflate the two. Always connected means the possibility is there, and that's what people are looking for. Some of the people. And yet others want the choice to go dark and enjoy the game at their own pace with no distractions. So what's the harm in letting them?

  • paketep #3 9 months ago

    "Part of the decision as it relates to that is, is it more important we give the people who are on occasion going to want to play offline the ability to do that? Or is it more important we get this game into the hands of our players as quickly as we can? We decided we wanted to get it into the hands of our fans as quickly as possible."

    Bullshit. NOT forcing online would have gotten the game in the hands of the player faster than what they're doing.

    I agree with #1. This is not the Blizzard of old. The only thing they care about now is just money, money, money.

  • bad09 #4 9 months ago

    "we want them to be connected and playing online."

    So if they don't want to screw 'em? Nice.

  • CaptainKid #5 9 months ago

    "Also, how much the mod community is thriving"
    Funny, I read in Gameplay magazine there weren't that many mods..

  • MaxiSleep #6 9 months ago

    So basicly enjoy it our way or the highway

    Difficult not to dislike what blizzard is becoming. The "it would take too long" is frankly bullshit. They designed it this way from the start and knew what the implications were, There clearly was never an intenetion to allow offline.

    After the money grabbing exercise that was the cataclysm half expansion they can bugger off. If i want a mmo online experience I will be playing Rift and offline torchlight 2 sounds tasty for my hack and slash needs.

  • Ryuken #7 9 months ago

    Good interview, it's about time a Diablo game went online-only. It's how the previous games were played mostly... until you hit the hacks and exploits. Having no offline client will hopefully eliminate the bane of this series.

    And from the sound of it it doesn't seem like Blizzard rules out offline play in the future.

  • tankboi #8 9 months ago

    I am so glad I don't really like any Blizzard games. This would annoy me beyond belief if I did.

    That said, I was going to play DiabloIII to give it a shot, but that won't be happening any more.

    Fuck this 'always online' bullshit. Absolute tosh.

  • Khosrau #9 9 months ago

    I understand they want us 'connected'.

    But the 'why' continues to elude me. They really seem to dodge that question. I suspect it's all about control and gathering information for marketing purposes.

    And for the record: screw being connected.

  • Ahskay #10 9 months ago

    We are not online all the time. We are online when we connect to the internet. Is it really that much to ask for a single player included that's playable offline just like starcraft 2, the witcher 2, deus ex, ...

    I know C&C 4 requires to be online all the time just to play. It hasn't been very succesful to date. I understand the decision to make an overarching community, i even applaud it but don't assume everybody is online all the time. Just last month i had a total of 5 days offline because of some thunderstorm that took down our gsm connection and internet. I get refunded by my isp when i'm not able to go online. Will Blizzard refund me aswell?

  • prudislav #11 9 months ago

    MaxiSleep:
    They designed it this way from the start and knew what the implications were, There clearly was never an intenetion to allow offline.
    - this is bullsit - in June they still had in Dibalo 3 FAQ mentioned offline mode

  • Inmediasress #12 9 months ago

    @Khosrau
    Compeltely agree it's just simply about forcing people to sign away any freedom they may have and yes now it may seem harmless but if this continues what will be the next step?
    Maybe they force you to watch advertisements and so on or they can experiment on the fan base how they can monetise it even further.
    With the real money auction they really gave away what an amoral company they became.
    Chinese gold farmers are bad but they won't go away and by legalizing such things in game, Blizzard take the stance that it's compeltely okay if we take our share of it.
    No it's f*ckin not okay to encuorage this.
    Edited by Inmediasress at 01/09/11 @ 18:40

  • swills #13 9 months ago

    They haven't really been coy about the 'why' at all. Online all the time means:

    1) The server code is actually *on* the server, not on your local machine.
    2) Server code on the server means far less possibility of hacking (that PLAGUED D1 and D2) and some extra protection (but not total) against piracy.
    3) It means your characters are saved online, which means no character editing (another form of hacking).
    4) Cloud saves of your chars & stash is also useful if you ever want to play on a second PC (friend's, laptop, etc).
    5) You'll always have the temptation of the Auction halls. Ultimately, D3 will be running for years and, like it or not, the real money AH is how they pay for the servers 4 years down the line. They want you to be tempted & perhaps participate.
    6) They are serious about the whole Blizzard community thing.

    There are obviously losses too, but these are all valid reasons. You are free to disagree, you are free to not buy D3, but please don't go all "These money-grabbing DRM bitches!" as that's just not the whole story at all.

  • Inmediasress #14 9 months ago

    @swills
    Then why not allow offline mode with characters that are saved on my drive and I can't go online with it and have an online mode where they can enforce their cloud saves and characters?
    Edited by Inmediasress at 01/09/11 @ 18:43

  • butler` #15 9 months ago

    I tell you what, this interview really shows the Blizzard PR machine at work.

    They're astoundingly adept at deflecting questions regarding sales or piracy or anything that has negative connotations, or could be perceived as being overly commercial or 'business-like'. (They are actually a business, remember?)

    They should be politicians.

  • immateriaux #16 9 months ago

    @swills, that's six pretty paltry reasons you've come up with there; it still reads as "they are very serious about continuous trawling through players pockets for sources of more and more of revenue" .

  • soviet_ #17 9 months ago

    Hurry up and release Diablo 3

  • jabberwoky #18 9 months ago

    "Most people who are upset about this decision will buy your games". If that isn't the ultimate insult, what is. Youre going to get screwed whether you like it or not, and you are so weak you will roll over, and thats why we're doing it. Well I've got news for you, I'm not going to. And the reason, you arrogant ****, is that I don't have to, there are a ton of other ace games out there, I don't even have time to play them all and yours has suddenly crashed to the bottom of the list. To others out there who care and are still wondering what to do, I suggest you get some spine, grow a pair, and do the same. Becauase thats all these jokers understand. So.... make them understand, make them fall flat on their own arrogance - the power is in you're hands!!

  • nbringer #19 9 months ago

    "I don't think we want to look at sales." - I fell you man! The sales don't look as good as planned, I know.

  • nbringer #20 9 months ago

    "there are still millions of people passionately playing maps and mods around the world." - Shit! He mentioned the "mo." word as a positive aspect. Blizz should fire this guy.

  • nbringer #21 9 months ago

    "If they're an online activist lobbying for something in a game, it's like, you're so invested at that point you'd almost have to buy it." - he,he, the keyword is "almost" ... which sometimes is not enough.

  • nbringer #22 9 months ago

    "And the exception will be the games that aren't connected." - Amen to that!

  • Khosrau #23 9 months ago

    @Jabberwoky

    So true. I too was offended by that.

  • Inmediasress #24 9 months ago

    @jabberwoky
    Yep only problem is that they have an army of fanboys who think Blizzard is synonymous with religion.
    Hell they could make a private army out of them.
    I do agree and said it many times that ultimately the customer decides so if we would stop buying into shit maybe they'd change.

    Looks like my comment hit a nerve lol.
    Edited by Inmediasress at 01/09/11 @ 20:43

  • hiddenranbir #25 9 months ago

    Don't want to be connected don't buy the game. Simple!
    Edited by hiddenranbir at 01/09/11 @ 19:40

  • Sevens #26 9 months ago

    "To create that community and provide everyone who's part of that community the benefits of that community, we want them to be connected and playing online."

    You don't (just) want them to be connected. You force them to be connected.

  • overcorpse #27 9 months ago

    "Don't want to be connected don't buy the game. Simple!"

    Couldnt agree more,if you dont like the way Blizzard runs their buisness no one is forcing you to buy their product.

    But then again the average PC gamer isnt happy unless he/she is moaning about something.

  • CouldntResist #28 9 months ago

    I tend to agree with them. I think "Always connected" is going to become more and more prevalent in future, and not just in gaming.

    Many people will disagree with that and disagree with Blizzard's stance. I know it's going to sound patronising, but they have no obligation to give you exactly what you want. If you like what they're doing, buy the game. If you're against, or if you're annoyed by their PR antics, then simply don't buy the game. Vote with your feet and let consumer forces do the rest.

  • number3son #29 9 months ago

    "Eurogamer: I'm sure they will appreciate that."
    "Eurogamer: It's better people care than they don't care at all."
    "Eurogamer: Most people who are upset about your decision will buy your games."

    Boy, it sure is nice to know that us consumer's can count on gaming's "journalists" to ask the tough questions and to remain neutral on hot-button issues like these! Keep up the great work, EG!

  • Golgo #30 9 months ago

    Meh. Just makes Torchlight 2 even more attractive, imho.

  • Red-Moose #31 9 months ago

    I get a little sick when I realise they have a gross income of €90 million or so, every month. It's like having a pretty successful Hollywood movie, every month. Phenomenal.

  • flyinghirose #32 9 months ago

    To this day, I'll still get a couple of mates round mine and we'll hit up Diablo 2 over offline LAN. I'd play a bit more in single-player after they left. At the moment, my internet cuts out without warning about three times I day. I couldn't feel comfortable playing this, even if I wanted to.

    I was really excited, and planned on getting a new pc to coincide with D3's release. Much as I'd love it to be the case, that's not going to happen anymore, and that's a real shame.

  • UncleLou #33 9 months ago

    Yep only problem is that they have an army of fanboys who think Blizzard is synonymous with religion.

    A far bigger problem: there's just too many people who think everyone who disagrees with them over something must be a fanboy of some sort. It's those often very vocal, but hardly very clever people who drag the discussion down.

  • Machiavellian #34 9 months ago

    So basicly enjoy it our way or the highway

    Has it ever been different??

    Anyway the big question is if this decision was not related to the PR but is a respond to piracy, it would be interesting to see what data prompted the move. Starcraft sold a huge amount on the PC so I am sure Blizzard made a decent amount of cash for the game.

    I also wonder if the success of Starcraft prompted this move since Blizzard got rid of lan play and still sold a boatload of copies.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 01/09/11 @ 22:19

  • DisneyJon #35 9 months ago

    Oh noes! Blizzard are in it for the money? Well screw them eh?

    .....

    Everyone in the industry is, no matter what they claim, in it for the money. Blizzard have their vision, and it's up to them to sell that vision. People will vote with their money. They do not have to please everyone, especially a vocal minority.

    Always online Diablo? Who on earth, as a PC gamer, doesnt actually have their PC always on broadband all the time when it is switched on? Even my TV does that.....as do the majority of phones, and videogame consoles. It is only a big issue as a concept, and even then only to that vocal minority who work in imagined scenarios and events.

    Blizzard made MMO mainstream, and they stuck to Starcraft even though it was never going to be as profitable as another WoW expansion. In the past they canned Ghost, because they didn't like the quality. Everyone who knows about Blizzard knows they could have let it been released and it would have sold regardless. They could have rushed Diablo, giving us a shitty experience like Dungeon Siege III, but they didn't.

    Some people need to take the rose tinted blinkers off and stop living in some kind of fantasy about the videogame industry.....

  • prudislav #36 9 months ago

    and the surprise :-D console version will sure have offline sp :-D

  • UncleLou #37 9 months ago

    swills makes some very good points. The people who will benefit from always online are the same people who kept the franchise alive in the last 10 years - those who play the game online to this very day.
    Take these as the target audience, plus the WoW audience who will hardly mind to be online, mostly, plus another big faction who falls in neither category, but won't mind either (that would be me, for example), and what's left is an understandably annoyed group of people who is, however, probably just a vocal minority. The same minority who would probably have played the single-player once or twice on their own, and put the game on the shelf - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it's pretty easy to see why this is the group of people that a company like Blizzard, who makes very few games that are each meant to last for a decade, does not have the biggest interest in.

    DRM will obviously be a reason as well, but I am pretty sure it's not the only one, probably not even a major one.

    I understand both sides of the argument, particularly also those who don't want to be or can't be always online, but sometimes these things happen in gaming, when things move into a direction you don't agree with. Vote with your wallets, hope for the best, but as someone who has never bought a Microsoft console because I disagree with their PC/consoles policy, I can only warn you not to expect too much. ;)
    Edited by UncleLou at 01/09/11 @ 22:42

  • sep007 #38 9 months ago

    I agree with Ryuken, D2 multiplayer was at times ruined by cheaters I'm more than okay with being always online to stop that happening in D3.

  • azix2 #39 9 months ago

    @sep007

    "I agree with Ryuken, D2 multiplayer was at times ruined by cheaters I'm more than okay with being always online to stop that happening in D3."

    yuo wouldn't need to worry about cheaters if you weren't online... Get it? The online system having cheaters doesn't mean online is necessary. Wtf kind of logic is going on here?

  • Firann #40 9 months ago

    I still don't understand what the fuss is about having to be connected to play... Unless you are in some third-world country you should have an ADSL connection (minimum).

    Its funny that most ppl complain about always online and yet spend 99.9% of their time online in one form or the other. I bet everyone on this forum is offline only when they sleep :p

  • nodiablo #41 9 months ago

    This is sort of a strange interview if you're in the camp that says an always-on internet connection is ridiculous for single-player games. Would definitely like to read an interview with the same guys but conducted by someone ready to challenge some of the thinking behind Blizzard's decision.

    At any rate, for anyone who's interested in coming together to publicly express your intention NOT to buy Diablo 3 over the "MMO restrictions", I encourage you to visit http://www.nodiablo.com. Still tweaking the site, but I'd like to start getting word out there about it. It's definitely not for everyone, I know, but if you're feeling like making a statement, please consider lending your name.

  • Laminator #42 9 months ago

    Blizzard were such a great company once, devoured in the sea of corporate asshats with dollar signs in their eyes. I think most the original Blizzard crew long ago jumped ship to other developers and I don't blame em. I won't be buying another Blizzard game, they succumbed to greedy practices and their games no longer even stand up to the competition. For example Starcraft 2 is inferior to many RTS released years ago - World in Conflict, Company of Heroes, Dawn of War even Supreme Commander just to name a few - have more technical merit and originality yet many people seem blinded by Blizzard fanboyism with each new product being treated as a gift from god by both gamers and the media. I wonder if they'd take a step off the hype train and take an objective look for a moment they might see a well polished but very unremarkable outdated game.

    Regarding the always connected thing, I am a person with a very solid cable connection, low ping, consistent bandwidth that hasn't gone down in several years to my knowledge. I did not object to always connected games until I found out the hard way when playing Deadspace 2 why this is a very bad idea. Many hours of gameplay lost due to archaic DRM, my reward as a paying customer.

  • super_monty #43 9 months ago

    I have learnt the following:
    1) Frank Pearce is a lying ignorant twat
    2) Euroagamer interviewers are a gang of shit houses
    3) Where that cancel pre order button is on amazon
    4) Billzard is now spelt Activision

  • Vixremento #44 9 months ago

    "To allow the server software to run on the client hardware is additional effort on our part, and we want to get Diablo 3 into the hands of our players as quickly as possible."

    Fair enough - I'll wait then but just make it happen then. I'm pretty serious about not buying it if I'm forced to play with the same latency that I had in WoW especially when I care very little about interacting with anything other than the ingame NPC's

  • bigbadbeasty #45 9 months ago

    A lot of non-answers for the tough questions, disappointing but expected.

    There is no real justification for the always online policy. If it is piracy, well we fall into the arguement that you are punishing the people who actually buy the game, because the pirates will find a way round.

    As for those saying 'only third-world countires have bad internetz', I am sorry anyones internet could go down, and at any time. After being on a Virgin fibre optic line since the days of NTL, my connetion went down for a month(!), due to a severed cable. Having a full refund didn't make me feel better, just imagine if that was a day after the launch of Diablo 3?

  • Segnit #46 9 months ago

    I absolutely love Blizzard games and respect them as a compnay, I think they do an outstanding job with their games. I put them in the collective trio of holy devs with Nintendo and Valve.

    Fact is though, I have have no interest in online only single player games. And if I've learned one thing in this industry it's that there is so much opportunity cost for time that I can easily go without playing any Blizzard game ad infinitum.

    With my time, I have to balance work, family, friends, working out, reading books, watching films, following real life news and events, AAA games, Indie Games, and presistent hobbies such as watching sports and participating in racing simulations and minecraft.

    No game is too holy. I genuinely wish Blizzard - the path they've chosen - and their community all the best :)

  • CraigMcG #47 9 months ago

    "And the exception will be the games that aren't connected."
    Fuck That

  • Apaar #48 9 months ago

    I'm probably in the minority in that I think every decision they have made with Diable 3 is a thought-out and ultimately wise one. Sure, there are limits that in a perfect world wouldn't be there, but on the whole I'm pretty sure the experience will be the best it can be, not just now but also years in the future.

  • Khosrau #49 9 months ago

    @Firann # 40

    2 reasons:

    Control and value.

    When I cough up the cash for a singleplayer game, I expect it to work right out of the box. I expect to be in control regarding the way I enjoy the game (as long as I’m not hurting other peoples experiences – which is hardly possible in a singleplayer game – and am not infringing copyrights). Every requirement they force upon us is ridiculous and unneeded. Why should I be dependant on the servers/mood/whims of a greedy publisher to have a singleplayer experience whenever and wherever I want? I don’t want that!

    I don’t see the need of being connected in a singleplayer game and I don’t like to be reliant on a third party to play my game, especially not a third party who is only in there for the money, I can not influence in any way and who does not have the interest of customers at heart. I hate handing over control to a third party I can’t wholly trust. Because as soon there is no more money to squeeze out of you, you can say bye-bye to your game. This brings me to my second point:

    And this is something the publishers refused to answer so far: Can I still play that game in 10, 15 years? That might not be a valid question for you, but as someone who plays and replays older games regularly it is to me.

    You know, in 10 years anything can happen. What does it mean to my purchase when Blizzard/Ubisoft/Steam/… goes bankrupt? Or shut down the servers? Or… anything? Can I still play? I would like that my purchase retains some value over the years, is that too much to ask? Good chance I’m not interested in gaming anymore in 10 years, but that’s beside the point.

    And for the people saying ‘if you don’t like it, vote with your wallet’ – I will. Maybe I’m just old-fashioned (sigh) but as a customer I really don’t see the need of this crap (again, in singleplayer games. Like D3 still is at heart). Is a bit of control too much to ask? It really seems it is these days.

    Of course they have their reasons for this, but obviously they can’t tell us their real reasons.
    Edited by Khosrau at 02/09/11 @ 09:42

  • actionfitz #50 9 months ago

    "is it more important we give the people who are on occasion going to want to play offline the ability to do that? Or is it more important we get this game into the hands of our players as quickly as we can?"

    Im calling bullshit.
    Time is and never will be a factor for Blizzard. The company who famously answer 'when it's ready' to any questions about about when stuff will be released.
    Looks like the company contracted a chronic dose of AIDS - 'Acquired Integrity Deficiency Syndrome' - since merging with Activision.

  • Bigmac1910 #51 9 months ago

    A year ago I was 100% sure that I would buy D3, but as I don't care about the online experience or community, I have decided that I won't be buying it. I also think they will loose quite a bit of the single player user base.

    Will it be successful, sure, but now days there is a lot more competition, and so many games are coming out that it's actually quite easy too choose something else.

    And I agree with some people, Blizzard is starting to loose it's soul and becoming more and more like Activision. And to Blizzard, if you want a thriving community, maybe you shouldn't force things upon them as it will alienate your user base sooner or later.

  • Subquest #52 9 months ago


    @Khosrau I expect to be in control

    Your expectations conflict directly with the only effective method of anti piracy on PC. You should reset your expectations, or else find something else to do. Lost sales from people protesting versus lost sales from people pirating. Which do you think is the bigger number?

  • bigbadbeasty #53 9 months ago

    @Subquest

    I think you'll find that this will ENCOURAGE piracy. As the pirates will have the 'better' version of the game- one they can play offline.

  • Khosrau #54 9 months ago

    @Subquest # 52

    It's not effective. So why punish honest customers for that? There's no reason. At least THAT is no reason (I'm sure publishers have their own dubious reasons for it, and they do not want us to know them).

    Look at Ubi's games. They have always online DRM, but are still pirated, right?

    If anything it will only turn more people pirates. (+1 bigbadbeasty)

    And for the record, if gaming really goes that way in the future I'll indeed probably refocus my interest. Be it indie games, f2p games, mods or another hobby.

    Edited by Khosrau at 02/09/11 @ 10:46

  • UncleLou #55 9 months ago

    @sep007

    "I agree with Ryuken, D2 multiplayer was at times ruined by cheaters I'm more than okay with being always online to stop that happening in D3."

    yuo wouldn't need to worry about cheaters if you weren't online... Get it? The online system having cheaters doesn't mean online is necessary. Wtf kind of logic is going on here?

    You miss the point - item generation, characters, etc. is all happening on the servers. Players never have access to the code, they only see the "result", so to speak. If there was an offline mode, they couldn't do it like this. Without access to the code, it will be much harder for hackers/cheaters to do anything dodgy.
    Edited by UncleLou at 02/09/11 @ 11:17

  • Subquest #56 9 months ago

    @bigbadbeasty - How many people successfully pirated World of Warcraft? They're talking about hosting the D3 game world from servers in the same way, at least partially, whether you play with other people or not. I'd be surprised if the pirates manage to get around that.

    It's a bit like inventing the car immobiliser, and having closet thieves everywhere wailing "but what if we lose our keys". I'm sure there are a handful of legitimate complainants, but I'm also sure there are a great number of duplicitous complainants who can feel their gravy train about to derail.
    Edited by Subquest at 02/09/11 @ 11:21

  • plasdas #57 9 months ago

    While I agree no form of offline is acceptable, they don't rule out what they have done with starcraft2, in that you can play it single player offline.

    They just mention that their server software won't be running on the client, which to me means that you can't host a mulitplayer game yourself, so no mulitplayer without being connected to battle.net.

    A trade off. If you don't like it, don't buy it. As mentioned previously, I'm sure it'll be hacked to play offline eventually.

  • Perjoss #58 9 months ago

    what makes me laugh is I'm pretty sure 95% of people complaining about 'always online' will be playing Diablo 3 on a computer that is always connected to the internet.

  • Khosrau #59 9 months ago

    @Perjoss

    Of course. Since that is a requirement it has to be (so make it 100% already).

    And to me it's not about being always online, it's when that is made a requirement. It's about transfering control from the player to the publisher in singleplayer games when there's absolutely no need for it. I don't want anyone dictating (or able to) when or where I can play and when/where not.

    Edit: by anyone I mean a party like a dev or publisher ofc.
    Edited by Khosrau at 02/09/11 @ 12:35

  • bigbadbeasty #60 9 months ago

    @Subquest
    Actually WoW has been pirated, hugely, never heard of private servers? Massive in certain territories. This doesn't stop piracy.

    Your immobiliser analogy isn't really appropriate, losing your keys is in your control; losing or not having internet access isn't (necessarily).

    This isn't about closet piracy, this is about us (you know the paying players) getting the best service, and ofc what we pay for. Not everybody only plays games on a static desktop PC, with an (imaginary) perfect flawless internet connection.

  • 5h1nj1 #61 9 months ago

    I have given up hope on Blizzard already. This online crap and real money items in D3 have done it for me.
    It's not the company we knew in the past, sadly. I don't know anyone from my friends (friends I have shared the great experience of playing previous Diablo games with a passion) who would plan to purchase D3 after these announcements.
    Obviously, Blizzard knows all the other guys and is not interested in us anymore.

  • Subquest #62 9 months ago

    @bigbadbeasty This isn't about closet piracy, this is about us (you know the paying players) getting the best service, and ofc what we pay for.

    But not just about that. It's about developers / publishers investing millions and then losing hundreds of thousands of unit sales. It's about the future of the industry. It's about whether there's a Diablo 4. Sadly there's a serious fucktonne of people out there who don't pay for their games, because it's so easy not to. If you want to blame anybody for the onset of the always online gaming era, blame them.

    I'd rather take a slightly diminished customer experience, than watch developers move further and further away from PC.

  • Khosrau #63 9 months ago

    @Subquest # 62

    Yes that is sadly true. Piracy is an immense problem.

    But adding more and more requirements to honest, legitimate gamers is not a solution. It will only alienate more and more people from them and subsequently driving them to piracy.

    Why? because it's easier and you get to play the best / most accessible version of the game.

    That's why I think publishers do it mightily wrong these days. Publishers should make it as easy as possible for the legitimate gamer. Pirates will be pirates. Honest consumers may turn to pirates. And who knows, by being consumer-minded you might actually convert some pirates. Use the carrot, not the whip as someone said in another thread about this subject.

    I want to see publishers to lower the budgets for many games, so the risks become smaller and the game can launch at a lower price. I think that will combat piracy in a good way, because you'll actually be able to BUY MORE games for your monthly/yearly entertainment budget.

    Not only that, it'll also spark innovation and originality and make blockbusters more distinctive and unique.

    Sadly, I don't think that will happen, as gaming becomes more and more mainstream (which is not only a bad thing, mind you).

  • Lemming81 #64 9 months ago

    They can honestly do what they want for all I care, I've already invested in getting Torchlight 2.

    The thing I find insulting is that this whole thing was such a bait and switch. Something this inherent to the design could have been mentioned long before we had all those teases about character classes. They should have been up front with it. The fact they weren't says to me they knew they weren't going to get the best reaction.



  • Subquest #65 9 months ago

    @Khosrau Pirates will be pirates. Honest consumers may turn to pirates. And who knows, by being consumer-minded you might actually convert some pirates.

    Who knows indeed. Suffice to say, I don't think it makes good business sense to think this way. I dare say the vast majority of the industry would agree with me. If you had a problem in your business that was costing you a huge chunk of your revenue, you'd make every attempt to deal with it. My position is that as a customer who has an interest in playing PC games for many years to come, I'm prepared to accept the limitation of playing with an internet connection to ensure the games of the future are made.

    EDIT: Although I do agree about game prices.
    Edited by Subquest at 02/09/11 @ 13:14

  • Khosrau #66 9 months ago

    Yeah, but I'm not saying 'do nothing'.

    I'd say it works better to reward your loyal, honest customers than to annoy them with requirement upon requirement and more and more privacy infractions. Like they are the guilty here. So, invent a system that rewards your paying customers instead of restricting them.

    Also, many pirates wouldn't buy the game in the first place, even if piracy was not an option. 1 torrented game does not equal 1 sale (even if only because for most people the amount of free money at hand is rather finite). So it's impossible to say how much revenue is lost. This is a classic miscalculation.

  • bigbadbeasty #67 9 months ago

    Subquest: My position is that as a customer who has an interest in playing PC games for many years to come, I'm prepared to accept the limitation of playing with an internet connection to ensure the games of the future are made.

    I work in the games industry myself, and I completely understand this point of view. I just don't think it is as simple as that, or as extreme. Piracy has been around for a very very long time in the industry, and been across all formats (look at the Nintendo DS and PS1), and the industry has grown and grown, not just in size, but in financial terms. We are very far from it being jepordised by piracy.

  • Inmediasress #68 9 months ago

    @Subquest

    You make it sound like that was my problem or any gamers for that matter.
    No it's the other way around who told them to invest boatloads of money into something?
    Who is responsible that today if you sell 1 mill of a game that's not considered a success ?
    I don't think that is the fault of pirates that is the fault of the industry itself by allowing costs to spiral out of control and now they scratch their heads on how to milk you better.
    Do you think if piracy stopped this instant, game prices would decrease or that they would stop selling you half finsihed games and revoke these online DRM functions.
    You make it sound like blizzard or better said Activision or EA are in dire need of my wallets help because they are unprofitable.
    So far if piracy didn't cause a gaming crash until now and made these giants bankrupt it sure as hell won't do it now.
    If anything the gaming crash willl be tied in with their own greed jsut like how the whole system of capitalism will in the end suffer from it's own greed induced problems.
    Some people don't seem to grasp how soulles corporate capitalism works, if they had all the worlds money it still wouldn't be enough.
    Basic flaw of capitaqlism is that you can't keep on growing exponentially.
    That's why we have such a big shit strom in world economy right now because the whole of capitalism struggles to keep itself afloat under it's own weight.
    Well and a lot of other problems directly related to the failures of capitalism.

  • Lin #69 9 months ago

    Like almost every house I have lived in, the wireless here is intermittent and can only be depended on 80% of the time. A significant proportion of the time, there is no internet.
    Every time I move house, it takes a fortnight to get a new internet account set up, and I do this every year, which amounts to about another 5%.
    I cannot do anything about either of these things. I am far from alone. Blizzard could easily make their games work for me, but instead they choose to sell me a game that will be broken 25% of the time. No other company selling any other product would sell a 25% broken product.

  • Subquest #70 9 months ago

    @khosrau to annoy them with requirement upon requirement and more and more privacy infractions.

    Honestly, I've played a good deal of pc games in my time and I've no idea what you're on about here. I've got 60 odd games in my Steam list, none of which are any hassle to play, even my recent Ubisoft DRM'd purchases, From Dust and AC Brotherhood, require just a extra mouse click to play. I'm not advocating making the legit customer's life a misery for the sake of combating piracy. But people with dodgy internet connections should be looking at alternative services, adding wireless extenders, or if they live out in the middle of nowhere, sucking it up as part of their lifestyle choice.

    All of this will be irrelevant several years down the line anyway. Everything will be server based and on demand. Like Onlive, but with zero lag and uncompromised gfx. Music, TV, gaming... everything. We're almost there already.
    Edited by Subquest at 02/09/11 @ 14:36

  • Khosrau #71 9 months ago

    @Subquest

    I'm talking about clients (yes, that's including Steam, though as a digital distribution platform it has it's uses I admit, and you can play offline), needing an account for every publisher, DRM, and being always connected. Thus needing a stable internet connection and being limited in when or where you are able to play your game. That is one huge requirement in itself and one step too far for me, not to mention you are at the mercy of the whims of publishers.

    Where are the days the only requirement was entering a cd-key? That's what I'm talking about. I don't need teh interwebz in any way when playing a single player game or mode and don't want to depend on it.

    For you it all seems about combating piracy. Fair enough. However, the premise here is that it must be an effective way to reduce / kill piracy. And it's proven it is not. Are you still willing to 'accept these limitations'?

    That whole on demand thing and gaming as a service just doesn't do it for me. And I really hope there will always be a market for people who like to physically 'own' things and value that they can do what they want with it - as long as it doesn't affect other people (yeah I know we're technically speaking about licences here).

    Edit: Oh, and to be perfectly clear: it's not that I can't stomach one or two more actions when I fire up a game. At least for me it's above all about principle and treating your customers with respect.
    Edited by Khosrau at 02/09/11 @ 15:03

  • UncleLou #72 9 months ago

    but instead they choose to sell me a game that will be broken 25% of the time. No other company selling any other product would sell a 25% broken product.

    Er, yes, your ISP does seem to sell you exactly such a product. Not Blizzard.

  • Subquest #73 9 months ago

    Where are the days the only requirement was entering a cd-key? That's what I'm talking about.

    But they don't work, do they? That's what I'M talking about! The move towards always online gaming as a means to combat piracy is driven almost entirely by the fact that previous methods do not work.

    Time will tell whether this latest attempt will work in combating piracy, but if the only requirement on me is to have an internet connection, then no problem. I'll say it again, the internet is so ubiquitous in everything we do these days. If your electricity kept cutting out would you blame your fridge for needing it the whole time? People who have unstable internet connections should be changing their ISPs, or improving their home infrastructure using wireless extenders.

  • Khosrau #74 9 months ago

    @Subquest

    Sorry, but you keep missing my point, so your analogy about electricity is not appropriate.

    It's not the internet requirement in itself that bothers me the most, but the fact that I need to log on to the servers of a PUBLISHER to play a freakin' SINGLE PLAYER game. Servers that tend to get shut down after a while. Servers of publishers that might go bankrupt. Publishers that have the power to deny me playing the game I payed for (not that they'll do that easily or soon, but they CAN). As I said earlier I (re)play older games on a regular basis so that IS important to me. Is it unreasonable to expect I can still enjoy my purchase in say 10 years time? It's not that I rented it, right?

    If my electricity breaks down, I can wait for the cable to be repaired and use it again, or pay my bills or get my electricity from another company. I have a certain amount of control about these things. But when a publisher pulls the plug from the servers for whatever reason, what can I do?

    My statement about cd-keys was merely an illustration about the direction this whole thing is going. I'm not advocating a return, I know they don't work, but the same goes for always online drm. So why are we accepting crap that is restricting US (paying gamers) and does not even do what it is supposed to (preventing piracy)?

    Anyway, I have to leave now and will probably not be able to respond for the rest of the day. Let's just enjoy PC-gaming while we still can because I don't think we can persuade each other :-)

    Nevertheless, I enjoyed our little debate!

  • Subquest #75 9 months ago

    but the fact that I need to log on to the servers of a PUBLISHER to play a freakin' SINGLE PLAYER game.

    I don't get what the problem is here. Your details are saved, it's not like you're having to type stuff in each time. After the first time, you're just clicking ok. It's hardly a chore now, is it?

    I do take your point that a company may cease to exist, potentially taking with it access to their games. Perhaps in an ideal world, companies could unlock their games after x number of years. Or as a final act before they go under.

    This, of course, is the same ideal world where cheap games and weak copy protection makes pirates go legit. All markets tends to gravitate towards where the path of maximum revenue is located. If all new releases were £10, games didn't get cracked and everybody made more money, why has the industry not picked up on this?

  • Sunyavadin #76 9 months ago

    Always online DRM - The #1 factor fueling game piracy!