Online woes of Diablo 3
The problem is that players have to be online if they want to play Diablo 3. Here's understanding the impact of the game's DRM.
By now, unless you're living under a particularly large rock, you've probably heard about Diablo 3. And there's a good chance that you've also heard about its controversial and troubleridden launch. Servers that broke down under the load of millions of players trying to log in. Repeated errors and glitches that needed patching on day one. Gamers, as they tend to do, reacted by trolling review scores on Metacritic and spewing venom at game maker Blizzard on forums all over the Internet.
And, despite all the other troubles, the chief target of their ire was Blizzard's decision to implement an 'always connected' DRM (digital rights management) that required players to be connected to the Net to play even the single player campaign. "Why can't I play a game that I've bought when and where I want to?" "What if I want to play on my laptop while on a long plane journey?" "What happens if my Internet connection goes down?" The questions are flying fast and furious, mostly furious. Stories of why the whole thing sucked started crawling out of the woodwork-one player I know was on the verge of beating a particularly difficult boss when he got disconnected from the server-and lost all his progress. Gamers were outraged with the idea that Blizzard was forcing them to stay connected-this was a game that they had waited over a decade for, and felt that Blizzard had let them down. In India, where a large percentage of players (especially in non-metros) still chiefly play single-player games and lack reliable Internet connections, the chief sentiment was palpable disappointment.
This is hardly the first time that a game has required players to be always online to play the single-player campaign. Ubisoft drew huge amounts of gamer rage when it implemented the exact same idea for many of its PC games , including Assassin's Creed 2, Splinter Cell Conviction and Tom Clancy's HAWX. PC gamers complained that their console counterparts didn't have to go through this draconian measure. Ubisoft countered with the usual piracy argument. Gamers sneered at this justification, saying that people who played the pirated version could crack and bypass the DRM anyway, and that the only thing Ubisoft succeeded in doing was punishing honest paying customers, and treating them like criminals, while the pirates could enjoy a better game experience. It's an argument that rages on to this day. Even online services like Steam and Origin have their problems- they both make playing games in their 'offline' modes cumbersome and glitchy.
Blizzard, however, has a very different implementation and very different justifications for its always online requirement. When you're playing Diablo 3 , all game calculations are made server-side-which means that with every game action you take, the information is immediately relayed to Blizzard's servers, which then store, calculate and return information to your PC. This, Blizzard claims, results in a smoother and more seamless experience. Consider the advantages for a moment. There are almost no loading times between levels and stages- if you've played Diablo 3, you would have already noticed this. This results in a relatively uninterrupted killing spree experience-which is what the essence of Diablo is all about. Also, all your characters, stats and save game information is being written to the server in real time, without any need to 'sync' information with the cloud. This means that you can log in to and play Diablo 3 on any PC in the world where it's installed and all your save information will be intact, and instantly available. The connected nature of the game also enables some very cool social multiplayer features- such as the brilliant single-click 'jump in and play' coop mode, and real time
updates from friends who are playing at the same time. Of course, all this is only possible if you have a reasonably stable and speedy Internet connection.
There are also the questions of reliability and preservation. What happens if and when Blizzard eventually takes down the servers for Diablo 3? The millions of players who have legally purchased the game will no longer be able to play what is sure to become a classic. And the game will be irrevocably lost to future generations of gamers, students and researchers (unless the pirates, bless them, find a way). Of course, Blizzard is known for its commitment to old titles-there are still active servers for Warcraft 3 and Starcraft-but what if other studios without the commitment and/or resources of Blizzard decide to take the same route ? Consider the hardly implausible scenario where a studio goes bankrupt after shipping a great game (Remember Team Bondi? 38 Studios ?) and has to shut down its servers.
Customers who paid full price for these hypothetical titles would then be unable to play the game. What happens then ? Sure, with the growth and maturing of browser-based social gaming, the Internet is sure to become a platform for games that is taken for granted, but the questions of reliability and preservation remain relevant. What happens if Zynga decides to shut down Farmville? Will future generations not be able to experience this classic social game and see what it was all about? Game designers and developers all over the world continue to gain considerable knowledge by playing old classic retro games. Students, historians and researchers all delve into classic games to analyse, debate and reinterpret them and generate fascinating new material for anyone interested in games to read. All this is only possible because these old titles have been preserved. It's a no-brainer really-every art form is immeasurably richer because its classics have been preserved. In this regard, games are no different from music, films, painting or literature.
Blizzard is known for making titles that revolutionise the industry. Its success in doing this across multiple genres (RTS, RPG, MMO) has established it as arguably the greatest PC developer. Diablo 3 is a superb game with outstanding design, addictive gameplay and an undeniable fun factor. It would be a pity if this polished, innovative and addictive game were to be remembered chiefly for the negative impact of its DRM implementation.
Courtesy: Gadgets and Gizmos
And, despite all the other troubles, the chief target of their ire was Blizzard's decision to implement an 'always connected' DRM (digital rights management) that required players to be connected to the Net to play even the single player campaign. "Why can't I play a game that I've bought when and where I want to?" "What if I want to play on my laptop while on a long plane journey?" "What happens if my Internet connection goes down?" The questions are flying fast and furious, mostly furious. Stories of why the whole thing sucked started crawling out of the woodwork-one player I know was on the verge of beating a particularly difficult boss when he got disconnected from the server-and lost all his progress. Gamers were outraged with the idea that Blizzard was forcing them to stay connected-this was a game that they had waited over a decade for, and felt that Blizzard had let them down. In India, where a large percentage of players (especially in non-metros) still chiefly play single-player games and lack reliable Internet connections, the chief sentiment was palpable disappointment.
This is hardly the first time that a game has required players to be always online to play the single-player campaign. Ubisoft drew huge amounts of gamer rage when it implemented the exact same idea for many of its PC games , including Assassin's Creed 2, Splinter Cell Conviction and Tom Clancy's HAWX. PC gamers complained that their console counterparts didn't have to go through this draconian measure. Ubisoft countered with the usual piracy argument. Gamers sneered at this justification, saying that people who played the pirated version could crack and bypass the DRM anyway, and that the only thing Ubisoft succeeded in doing was punishing honest paying customers, and treating them like criminals, while the pirates could enjoy a better game experience. It's an argument that rages on to this day. Even online services like Steam and Origin have their problems- they both make playing games in their 'offline' modes cumbersome and glitchy.
Blizzard, however, has a very different implementation and very different justifications for its always online requirement. When you're playing Diablo 3 , all game calculations are made server-side-which means that with every game action you take, the information is immediately relayed to Blizzard's servers, which then store, calculate and return information to your PC. This, Blizzard claims, results in a smoother and more seamless experience. Consider the advantages for a moment. There are almost no loading times between levels and stages- if you've played Diablo 3, you would have already noticed this. This results in a relatively uninterrupted killing spree experience-which is what the essence of Diablo is all about. Also, all your characters, stats and save game information is being written to the server in real time, without any need to 'sync' information with the cloud. This means that you can log in to and play Diablo 3 on any PC in the world where it's installed and all your save information will be intact, and instantly available. The connected nature of the game also enables some very cool social multiplayer features- such as the brilliant single-click 'jump in and play' coop mode, and real time
updates from friends who are playing at the same time. Of course, all this is only possible if you have a reasonably stable and speedy Internet connection.
There are also the questions of reliability and preservation. What happens if and when Blizzard eventually takes down the servers for Diablo 3? The millions of players who have legally purchased the game will no longer be able to play what is sure to become a classic. And the game will be irrevocably lost to future generations of gamers, students and researchers (unless the pirates, bless them, find a way). Of course, Blizzard is known for its commitment to old titles-there are still active servers for Warcraft 3 and Starcraft-but what if other studios without the commitment and/or resources of Blizzard decide to take the same route ? Consider the hardly implausible scenario where a studio goes bankrupt after shipping a great game (Remember Team Bondi? 38 Studios ?) and has to shut down its servers.
Customers who paid full price for these hypothetical titles would then be unable to play the game. What happens then ? Sure, with the growth and maturing of browser-based social gaming, the Internet is sure to become a platform for games that is taken for granted, but the questions of reliability and preservation remain relevant. What happens if Zynga decides to shut down Farmville? Will future generations not be able to experience this classic social game and see what it was all about? Game designers and developers all over the world continue to gain considerable knowledge by playing old classic retro games. Students, historians and researchers all delve into classic games to analyse, debate and reinterpret them and generate fascinating new material for anyone interested in games to read. All this is only possible because these old titles have been preserved. It's a no-brainer really-every art form is immeasurably richer because its classics have been preserved. In this regard, games are no different from music, films, painting or literature.
Blizzard is known for making titles that revolutionise the industry. Its success in doing this across multiple genres (RTS, RPG, MMO) has established it as arguably the greatest PC developer. Diablo 3 is a superb game with outstanding design, addictive gameplay and an undeniable fun factor. It would be a pity if this polished, innovative and addictive game were to be remembered chiefly for the negative impact of its DRM implementation.
Courtesy: Gadgets and Gizmos
