Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 211 posts

Re: You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

#71

Post by HideousKojima »

mschuster91 wrote: post #62
BlueTemplar wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no excuses for no real online multiplayer either : even on PC Diablo 2 Resurrected sucks, because (AFAIK ?) they added always online DRM requirement (via Battle.net launcher), but especially removed real online multiplayer (leaving only their walled garden Battle.net) play, and finally removed (most) modding potential. Which were the main reasons why Diablo 2 classic was still played in the first place !

The problem with multi-player is that there is an immense amount of cheaters and trolls. It already was a problem fifteen years ago, nowadays game providers don't have another (realistic) choice. Cheating morons ruined the fun for everyone else.

The original Diablo 2 had a simple solution for this: Open Battle.Net and Closed Battle.Net.

On Open Battle.Net you could use your offline characters in online play, meaning you would run into a lot of hackers, but you could also play together with your friends online (there was also a LAN option). Closed Battle.Net meant your character was stored on Blizzard's servers, which prevented the most blatant cheating.

But starting with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 (and arguably WoW) Blizzard decided they could make more money by shitting their games up with always online DRM.

Re: You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

#73

Post by fsflover »

acdha wrote: post #69
ddtaylor wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure then as a tax paying citizen that I'm responsible for drone assassinations etc., so by comparison the entire Blizzard drama would be pretty low on the priority list by that logic.

It’s low, sure, but also much easier to do: you’re legally required to pay taxes and political change takes years, but you can simply choose to save money.

> to save money

Or to spend them elsewhere: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v12/. (No games there yet, but I hope they can be added.)

Re: You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

#74

Post by Majromax »

ddtaylor wrote: post #60
mdp2021 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the whole "30 days offline" thing - this was well known way ahead of launch "The clause about the rights to dating your sister was well known way ahead of launch"

It's actually explained in the FAQ section of this post: https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/diablo2/23658118/diablo-ii-r...

I don't see any explanation about 30-day online requirements at your link. However, you may have provided the wrong link: the FAQ is about a technical alpha build rather than the full release.

Re: You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

#75

Post by Wowfunhappy »

josefx wrote: post #47
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but reportedly if you do this more than a few times they'll get upset with you.

I would expect that there is a problem on your end if you have to refund everything you buy. I can't remember the last time I bought something refund worthy, thought I was tempted the last time I bought a game on steam that required uplay.

I suppose it depends on what the purpose of the refunds are. For example, many online clothing retailers will encourage you to buy more clothing than you need so you can try it on at home, and return whatever you don't like.

A lot of people definitely treat Steam's refund system this way, and Steam's automated refund process seems built to encourage it. You could also make a strong case that this is better for everyone, since consumers are more likely to take a chance on a game they're not sure about. On the other hand, it's a problem for games that are designed to be less than two hours—and it does basically require a DRM implementation.

Re: You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

#76

Post by acdha »

dspillett wrote: post #37
Jyaif wrote: post #14

> It serves no real purpose Oh common. You may not like it, but DRM was invented for a reason.

> DRM was invented for a reason In its current forms: to prevent secondary sales and lending, to increase primary sales. Piracy is not the reason, at least not the main one, it is the excuse they give because people won't be happy with the actual reason. If stopping piracy is the goal then we can categorically call it an utterly failed experiment.

> If stopping piracy is the goal then we can categorically call it an utterly failed experiment.

Are you sure about that? From what I’ve read, the studios are less concerned about stopping piracy forever than for the first few weeks when they get most of their full price sales. I’m sure shutting down secondary sales is a big benefit, too, but that’s balanced against the the fairly sharp discounts they usually start offering.

Re: You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

#77

Post by mardifoufs »

ipaddr wrote: post #17
Jyaif wrote: post #14

> It serves no real purpose Oh common. You may not like it, but DRM was invented for a reason.

To frustrate those who legally purchased the game? It doesn't stop piracy, it makes the pirate version higher quality.

Denuvo seems to stop piracy just fine. Even when it doesn't permanently protect a game, it usually does so for at least half a year before getting cracked. That is more than good enough, considering most of game sales happen early after launch. Some denuvo protected titles haven't been cracked for years now.

If anything I think denuvo is just paving the way for a pretty gloomy future of "almost perfect" DRM. It might still be crackable, but the effort needed would be immense (or just downright impossible if you take into account the incredible resource discrepancy between the two sides). Even the mood in parts of the scene seems to have shifted towards resignation w.r.t to denuvo.

Re: You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

#78

Post by Fnoord »

ChoGGi wrote: post #66
fifticon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their IP and player base just got bought for 70b. They will make new 'blizzard' games, the way Disney makes StarWars movies. But I actually welcome it. Kotick has run blizzard into the ground, on the formula 'maximize profits instead of player satisfaction', which is the opposite of the formula that made the blizzard name. At least MS will, presumably, milk the IP long-term-responsibly.

Bobby isn't going anywhere yet, he's reporting to Phil.

After the transition period (in 2023), he's out.

Re: You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

#79

Post by cannabis_sam »

Jyaif wrote: post #14

> It serves no real purpose Oh common. You may not like it, but DRM was invented for a reason.

Yes, to placate clueless executives who actually believe they have any right whatsoever to colonize culture.

Moreover, DRM is literally designed to deny you the right to use your own property (i.e. the computer you bought and paid for), by extending the ludicrous concept of “intellectual” property, which is quite literally completely imagined “property”, to restricting your use of your actual property.

Why would anyone accept or agree to this kind of insane transitive ownership, where a corporation squatting on our culture can economically destroy the lives of ordinary citizens by suing them for engaging in culture?

No wonder the recording industry flocked to fascist Italy in the 1930s to establish their extremist anti-intellectual cartel.

Re: You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline

#80

Post by Fnoord »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #75
josefx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect that there is a problem on your end if you have to refund everything you buy. I can't remember the last time I bought something refund worthy, thought I was tempted the last time I bought a game on steam that required uplay.

I suppose it depends on what the purpose of the refunds are. For example, many online clothing retailers will encourage you to buy more clothing than you need so you can try it on at home, and return whatever you don't like. A lot of people definitely treat Steam's refund system this way, and Steam's automated refund process seems built to encourage it. You could also make a strong case that this is better for everyo…

When Rocket League, a game I never played, ditched support for macOS I asked for a refund. I described how I disliked that they removed support for macOS. I wouldn't play Rocket League on my MBP, mind you, but I do have Steam installed on it. I got a refund, no questions asked (though I did buy it on sale, judging by the amount I got refunded). Steam doesn't need DRM to figure out how long a game is being played, btw. Steam tracks that without DRM, too.
Post reply on HN