Smiley's Life

UPDATE: Due to the request of a user on Destructoid, I’ve looked for a reliable source to all this and found a post by Blizzard Entertainment themselves. Here it is:

In addition to all the other benefits that we believe ultimately come from having everyone online such as an active, centralized community, a popular arena system, accessible character storage, etc. etc. Diablo III is built on a client/server architecture, which means not all the data for the game or mechanics reside on the client (your computer). 

This is not too unlike World of Warcraft where the world itself, the art, the sounds, etc. are on your machine, but all of the NPC’s and enemies are controlled by the server. Diablo III doesn’t function in all of the exact same ways, but things like monster randomization, dungeon randomization, item drops, the outcomes of combat, among others, are all handled and verified by the client talking to the server, and vice versa. 

We’ve learned a lot from this type of architecture from World of Warcraft, and the added security and oversight it provides. It allows a great deal of control over the game at all times for all players, so if we know there’s an issue or bug we can usually address it right then and there through a live hotfix. Hotfixes can’t be used for everything, we’re still going to have client patches, but we’re definitely looking forward to being able to deliver a consistently high quality experience to all players simultaneously through processes like hotfixes. 

In addition there are some pretty intense security concerns. While there’s never a fool proof solution to stopping hack and cheats, we’ve found that a strict client/server architecture is a huge barrier for their development and use. 

Ultimately we made the decision to make the game client/server based because of the security and quality it can provide to those playing, and as a bonus it reinforces a lot of our ideals for a thriving online community.

Source: A post by Bashiok, a Blizzard employee, on the Battle.NET forums.

Diablo III requires a permanent internet connection to play. However, what it doesn’t tell you is that the requirement is not just forced — it is actually required.

Diablo III servers don’t just keep a constant connection with your computer, they do the number crunching. They calculate damage, AI, loot, actions, the whole thing. You are playing one-user multiplayer, not single-player. Unlike previous Diablo games, your computer does nothing but create the scene. Sure, sometimes it compensates for missing data and lag — just as any online game does — but just like World of Warcraft, you are playing on a server no matter what.

This is more than digital rights management. You are sold an incomplete product. Blizzard market Diablo III is an RPG with online features, implying offline is possible and not the main focus. This is false. Instead, you are buying a MMORPG in which you are playing alone. When Blizzard pull the plug on Diablo III servers, you will have a digital or physical paperweight. (You might question that statement considering Diablo II servers are still up. But that is directed at such products in general, which are only usable as long as the developer or publisher feels like it.)

Unlike Ubisoft’s Online Services Platform, your games are non-functional if you don’t maintain a connection. If your connection is flaky or if the server is far away, you will experience game issues: rubberbanding, lag, errors and maybe even discarded actions — in situations of extreme network congestion your “click” may not register in time or register at all. This is one example of it. (And this is another)

One example of discarded actions prevalent in online gaming is Minecraft multiplayer. If you own a network card made by Atheros or Realtek, you cannot play Survival Multiplayer. Despite efforts made by Mojang to cut back on traffic, Minecraft sends an immense amount of data back and forth that these brand cards simply can’t cope with. The result is lag, changes that aren’t seen until later and sometimes even having the server undo your actions because your network card didn’t send the actions to the server on time. The server thus determined your actions to be impossible and reverted them.

That’s why Diablo III’s online-only requirement is a real requirement and not just DRM, and why it is actually worse than online-only DRM. I’d have less of a problem with it if Blizzard didn’t market the game for what it’s not: a single-player RPG with online features, but instead marketed it as a multi-player RPG with a one-user option.

Packing in a nicely-chilled cocktail of “only-disc-checking-and-street-date-verification” SecuROM and Games for Windows LIVE, BioShock 2 seemed like it would survive a bit without being cracked and pirated. Alas, thanks to 2K releasing it 5 days early (hereby defeating the point of their street date verification, that was implemented to make sure no one played ahead of release), hackers had a few days before the real, grand release to start cracking it. And after hearing about it and checking, I can safely say BioShock 2 has been fully cracked and can be easily found online in PC and XBOX 360 flavors.

I have several issues with Games For Windows LIVE, most importantly the fact its client won’t run on my computer: Because it is a Hebrew version of XP, which requires a patch to run the new version, and because Israel (where Hebrew is the main language) isn’t supported by LIVE, there is no patch for Hebrew versions and because of that, I cannot run the client and buy any DRM for GTA IV, for example. (This will be one of the few times I will pirate content, despite my moral disagreement with it. Hey, if I can’t pay them for it in any way despite wanting to, that’s the only choice I have left.) However, even though SecuROM has yet to cause any issues on my computer - *knocks on wood* - I still don’t like the fact it was included along with GFWL in both retail and digital versions, especially Steam’s. I think they made a mistake using these two in the first place.

Another reason why this type of DRM shouldn’t be used is that a lot of games not using it have easily sold a massive number of copies, and ended up becoming less pirated than protected products. For example, Mass Effect 2 has no DRM at all and yet it sold more than two million units in its first week of release. The only form of DRM I agree with is Steam’s, because it’s the most flexible form of DRM possible that benefits the publisher and customer equally and because it can be circumvented quite easily if the service is unavailable or unstable for some odd reason. (Obviously, I will not post details here. Or anywhere.)

2K Games, I suggest you to learn from this mistake. Using intrusive DRM is never a good thing. Let’s admit it, EA is the last publisher to stop using DRM, so if it decided to stop using SecuROM DRM in Steam versions, and perhaps stop using it altogether in retail versions (Mass Effect 2 is one hint), maybe it’s a sign for you to stop as well. And for crying out loud, don’t release a game without DRM and later bundle downloadable content for the game with DRM like you did with Borderlands. That’s just sneaky and even more unfair to the customer.