Diablo III: Not Just a Vitality Race!

[Sir Dar]

Of course, in theory you could keep around old machines to play those old games. If the servers go down and they don't patch it to be able to play offline, it doesn't matter what you do.

How did you know i was going to say something like this?

Their maybe work arounds to get the game working.they may or may not work.All a matter of luck.Again may not work.Someone may of made a program out their to help you run old games,which then may take a lot of testing to get it to feel just right or like dos games[which is what i have been basing this on.],end up with a game way to fast to be playable or a game that is way to slow for your liking.

Until the technology advances that your computer can't read the disk anymore, is the counter-argument. I have a good number of games I 'own' on disks that are so old they won't function unless the computer is in the oldest compatibility mode it has, and some that I need a DOS emulator to run. One or two I've had to give up entirely because the video drivers they depend on to animate are so outdated I can't patch/download them anywhere. So owning those disks is still just 'renting' the game, the only difference is that your renter's lease lasts until technology has marched on instead of when a company decides to shut down its servers.

Interesting thing about games is they work or they don't.Cars degrade over time,the words on the pages of books start to fade away.While a game works or it don't.So yeah,things one day break down or stop working for one reason or other.

With needing to be online all the time,a few more things can make your game stop working,for how ever long.Internet connection stops working for some reason or starts acting up.Servers have to go down for some reason, but will be back up soon.Fun little things like lag,which can take away from the fun.To be fair,this can happen to offline single player games,but it is far far more rare or is done by something that is with in the users control.Titan quest with immortal throne, does happen to get laggy when walking past a few areas in the game.Or other offline games can get laggy as well,when trying to run it on higher settings than your computer can handle or something like using a mod to add more monsters every where in the game.With so many monsters on your screen,your computer can't handle it.

If we are talking about online all the time vs install limits.Then yeah i think you may of got me there,in how long you can play the game for.More so if the install limits don't come with any tool to revoke them,in order to get a install limit back.Then yeah in that case,online all the time,may and is more likely to let you play the game for more time in total than the 3 install limit game.

[AgentPaper]

From my experience in the beta, unless you're on a really poor 56k modem internet or satellite or something, you're not going to run into any problems with lag. I was running it from my parent's house using a generally sub-par wireless hotspot, and I didn't run into any problems. There was hardly any difference between that and the super high-speed internet at the office, anyways.

As for whether you'll be able to play the game 20+ years down the line, well first off that doesn't make the game any less fun to play right now, and second off when blizz does eventually take the servers down, I'd bet that they'll put out a patch beforehand that makes it so you can play offline. By that point nobody will really care if you hack the game anyways, and it means more people might buy the game for nostalgia, so I can't see any reason they wouldn't do that.

[Starwulf]

From my experience in the beta, unless you're on a really poor 56k modem internet or satellite or something, you're not going to run into any problems with lag. I was running it from my parent's house using a generally sub-par wireless hotspot, and I didn't run into any problems. There was hardly any difference between that and the super high-speed internet at the office, anyways.

As for whether you'll be able to play the game 20+ years down the line, well first off that doesn't make the game any less fun to play right now, and second off when blizz does eventually take the servers down, I'd bet that they'll put out a patch beforehand that makes it so you can play offline. By that point nobody will really care if you hack the game anyways, and it means more people might buy the game for nostalgia, so I can't see any reason they wouldn't do that.

Not to beat a dead horse, but... 26.4k Dial-up here ><

[AgentPaper]

Not to beat a dead horse, but... 26.4k Dial-up here ><

Erm, why?

No wait, I take that back.

How?

[Starwulf]

Erm, why?

No wait, I take that back.

How?

I live on top of a mountain(surrounded by trees), 8 miles away from the nearest town, which is population 1,300. No DSL lines or cable lines stretch out this far. Satellite is a dicey proposition due to all the trees, in any light wind or rain storm I'd lose connection, in any major It'd be out for hours and hours. Not worth spending 200 bucks on the dish, + installation fees + 50 bucks a month for the lowest tier connection available when I'd probably only have a solid connection 50-60% of the time, plus a 7.5 Gig download cap + satellite and gaming = horrid, which is the primary reason I'd want it.

[AgentPaper]

I live on top of a mountain(surrounded by trees), 8 miles away from the nearest town, which is population 1,300. No DSL lines or cable lines stretch out this far. Satellite is a dicey proposition due to all the trees, in any light wind or rain storm I'd lose connection, in any major It'd be out for hours and hours. Not worth spending 200 bucks on the dish, + installation fees + 50 bucks a month for the lowest tier connection available when I'd probably only have a solid connection 50-60% of the time, plus a 7.5 Gig download cap + satellite and gaming = horrid, which is the primary reason I'd want it.

Do you have cell phone reception? My parent's house is in a similar situation, we were using satellite for a while, but now we've switched over to using wireless hotspot internet. If you have a smartphone, you can probably get it to turn into a hotspot, otherwise you can get a dedicated device like this. (which is what I use)

It's not as good as DSL, but it's far and away better than Dialup or Satellite. (which has a huge delay and is very unreliable in my experience) It costs about $50 a month, which seems to be standard, though unfortunately there is a limit on the data you can transfer. You'll probably never hit it through just normal browsing/playing games, but if you download anything big or watch a bunch of videos you'll probably go over. If you do go over, it doesn't shut off or anything though, they just charge you more for each amount of data over. (at about the same rate as the normal cap costs)

Probably the best part about it, though, is that you can pick it up and bring it with you if you're going on a trip or something, and if the power goes out you don't lose internet access.

[Starwulf]

Do you have cell phone reception? My parent's house is in a similar situation, we were using satellite for a while, but now we've switched over to using wireless hotspot internet. If you have a smartphone, you can probably get it to turn into a hotspot, otherwise you can get a dedicated device like this. (which is what I use)

It's not as good as DSL, but it's far and away better than Dialup or Satellite. (which has a huge delay and is very unreliable in my experience) It costs about $50 a month, which seems to be standard, though unfortunately there is a limit on the data you can transfer. You'll probably never hit it through just normal browsing/playing games, but if you download anything big or watch a bunch of videos you'll probably go over. If you do go over, it doesn't shut off or anything though, they just charge you more for each amount of data over. (at about the same rate as the normal cap costs)

Probably the best part about it, though, is that you can pick it up and bring it with you if you're going on a trip or something, and if the power goes out you don't lose internet access.

Unfortunately, even cell-phone reception is spotty up here. Not the case 2 miles down the road though, my wifes parents have what you're talking about, and it runs just fine, but I spend at least a week or so every month with my cell-phone being unable to make or receive calls >< Also, no smart-phone, lol. My cell-phone doesn't even have texting or internet enabled.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It's not a matter of your internet connection's speed. It's a matter of your internet connection's reliability and Blizzard's server reliability. Unlike SC2, D3 simply won't run at all without a constant connection. Any server interruption boots you. So a storm that knocks out your ISP... gone. Someone spills coffee on the blizzard servers... gone.

Also, I don't believe in paying that kind of money just to rent usage of a game, which is why I don't play MMO's. If you read the EULA, it reads like an MMO's, wherein you don't purchase the game, you simply lease a seat on the game.

[Psyren]

Why would you ever play a diablo game for the single player?

Seriously, this. I never got more than three levels into single player without having a burning need to sign on to BNet.

[AgentPaper]

Unfortunately, even cell-phone reception is spotty up here. Not the case 2 miles down the road though, my wifes parents have what you're talking about, and it runs just fine, but I spend at least a week or so every month with my cell-phone being unable to make or receive calls >< Also, no smart-phone, lol. My cell-phone doesn't even have texting or internet enabled.

I'd suggest asking if you could borrow theirs for a bit just to test it out. If not, well, you might be able to play over the modem as long as the connection is steady.

[Psyren]

I live on top of a mountain(surrounded by trees), 8 miles away from the nearest town, which is population 1,300. No DSL lines or cable lines stretch out this far. Satellite is a dicey proposition due to all the trees, in any light wind or rain storm I'd lose connection, in any major It'd be out for hours and hours. Not worth spending 200 bucks on the dish, + installation fees + 50 bucks a month for the lowest tier connection available when I'd probably only have a solid connection 50-60% of the time, plus a 7.5 Gig download cap + satellite and gaming = horrid, which is the primary reason I'd want it.

Sorry if I sound callous, but there's plenty of other games you can play. Nobody can really fault Blizzard for not catering to the customers that live on mountaintops with dial-up. (Not saying you're faulting Blizzard, but still, it's really a fringe scenario.)

[Sir Dar]

As for whether you'll be able to play the game 20+ years down the line, well first off that doesn't make the game any less fun to play right now, and second off when blizz does eventually take the servers down, I'd bet that they'll put out a patch beforehand that makes it so you can play offline. By that point nobody will really care if you hack the game anyways, and it means more people might buy the game for nostalgia, so I can't see any reason they wouldn't do that.

Well,Diablo 3 is not the only action rpg out there or will be coming out soon.
In fact i could buy touchlight 2 or grim dawn. Both which have offline single player modes. Far cheaper than 60 buck Diablo 3 as well. May have no drm, depending on the version you get.Leaving me with money to spare to buy at least one or two cheap games. Why risk the money on a game that does stuff i don't like and supporting it with my money. leading them to using stuff i dislike over again.When i can use my money, to support stuff i like and get a few fun games?

Blizzard may remove their all ways online drm in the future,again that is maybe, in the future. For now,it does nothing to make me want to risk 60 bucks on their game.

[AgentPaper]

Well,Diablo 3 is not the only action rpg out there or will be coming out soon.
In fact i could buy touchlight 2 or grim dawn.Both which have offline single player modes.Far cheaper than 60 buck Diablo 3 as well.May have no drm, depending on the version you get.Leaving me with money to spare to buy at least one or two cheap games.Why risk the money on a game that does stuff i don't like and supporting it with my money.leading them to using stuff i dislike over again.When i can use my money, to support stuff i like and get a few fun games?

Blizzard may remove their all ways online drm in the future,again that is maybe, in the future.For now,it does nothing to make me want to risk 60 bucks on their game.

You wouldn't be here complaining about this if you thought Torchlight or Grim Dawn were better games than Diablo 3.

You can talk about the principles of things and what might happen or what they should have done all day long, but in the end it comes down to whether it's worth the money or not. Does potentially not being able to play the game 10+ years down the road make it any less fun now? Does not being able to play it without a connection make it any less to play when you do have a connection?

[Starwulf]

Sorry if I sound callous, but there's plenty of other games you can play. Nobody can really fault Blizzard for not catering to the customers that live on mountaintops with dial-up. (Not saying you're faulting Blizzard, but still, it's really a fringe scenario.)

Yes, but it's kind of stupid that they are making a game entirely online only, when in the last 2 games, it had a perfectly fine single-player. And while I may be a fringe case(living on a mountain-top), there is at least(and this is according to verizon) 5% of the country that isn't covered by DSL or the likes(like AgentPapers smartphone connection idea). 5% of a country that has what..300million, is 15million people. If even 10% of those 15million are gamers, thats 1.5million. If 10% of those are into Diablo, that's 150,000 people they are alienating. If the number is 25%, that's 375,000 people they are alienating. That's a HUGE chunk of people they are losing money from. Not to mention the other people who have just fine internet connections, but are appalled by their callousness(and just judging from this thread and the other 3 that have been about D3, that's probably a good many people), that won't buy the game. They could easily be losing 1million people in customers. That's 10% of the estimated people that play WoW. Do you think they can afford to lose 10% of their profits? That's a significant enough chunk of people to make a game a World-Class Super-star, to just Super Star. From Major Leagues, to Triple A.

So, yeah, I may be a fringe case, but those fringe cases add up when you look at it as a whole. It's not like it would be to terribly hard to implement a single player mode. And yes, it's for DRM, but ya know what, the people they are alienating? Weren't going to pirate the game to begin with. the people they are trying to stop, they aren't going to at all. The game will still be pirated by the hackers. It may take a bit longer for them to find work-arounds to the duping, and maphacks, and teleport hacks, but they'll do it eventually regardless. All they are doing is losing money on the honest customers out there.

[Sir Dar]

You wouldn't be here complaining about this if you thought Torchlight or Grim Dawn were better games than Diablo 3.

Wait what? Someone that points out, there is bad sides about online all the time. Is not complaining in my book. Are there good things? Yes. Are there bad things about it as well, yes there is. That is why we are having this debate. Pointing out the good and bad things about it.

I through we were having a debate here? It is true,that these two games are both cheaper in cost than Diablo 3. They both use no drm or use drm that is less of a pain. Depending on where you get it from and your feelings about drm. As seen in this very thread,some are ok with online all the time drm and others are not. All i did was say a few facts, we know for sure about the games. Not sure about you. For me the price of a game, does play a part if i want to buy it or not. Diablo 3 could be fun for you and i can find it the worst thing on earth. Not everyone shares the same taste in games. A game that is the best game ever for you,could be the worst game ever for me.

You can talk about the principles of things and what might happen or what they should have done all day long, but in the end it comes down to whether it's worth the money or not. Does potentially not being able to play the game 10+ years down the road make it any less fun now? Does not being able to play it without a connection make it any less to play when you do have a connection?

I think we have said this before. These with spotty connections will find it less fun. And be disconnection far more from their game then others. These with internet connections that are not spotty or work perfect will not have these things happen to them. I would say,a lot of it comes down to how well your connection is and your feelings about drm. Along with what your price point for games is and what you feel safe spending.

Edit:I my self have a spotty connection. So yes i would find it less fun,having to be online all the time. So yes,i would see my self getting mad a lot,over something i should of been getting joy from. For i was unable to play it or my connection would keep going down,making me unable to play it.
I would rather not have the joy,that if i would have enjoy Diablo 3. Than have the joy of it and then have it be taken away. Or worst yet, have that joy turn in to rage. I do think we should just end this debate here. Does not seem to be going any were. So sorry if you were enjoying this,but i must bow out. I tip my top hat to you good sir or ma'am. I will be enjoying some other game[s] and i hope you enjoy Diablo 3.

[faceroll]

So, yeah, I may be a fringe case, but those fringe cases add up when you look at it as a whole. It's not like it would be to terribly hard to implement a single player mode. And yes, it's for DRM, but ya know what, the people they are alienating? Weren't going to pirate the game to begin with. the people they are trying to stop, they aren't going to at all. The game will still be pirated by the hackers. It may take a bit longer for them to find work-arounds to the duping, and maphacks, and teleport hacks, but they'll do it eventually regardless. All they are doing is losing money on the honest customers out there.

Lose 150,000 customers, prevent 15,000,000 pirates.

[Meta]

All of these numbers are estimates at best and wild guesses at worst. Blizzard has decided DRM is the correct business decision. Perhaps they will change it in the future. Until then, any discussion on its supposed merits and faults seems rather fruitless.

In other news: this little tool is fun
http://d3db.com/tool/planner/witchdoctor

[Starwulf]

Lose 150,000 customers, prevent 15,000,000 pirates.

It's not going to prevent 15million pirates. The game will be pirated a week after release, and hacked a month after. Again, all they are doing is punishing their loyal customers. End of story.

[AgentPaper]

Ok, so there's definitely downsides to this. I think some people are blowing things out of proportions, but that's just a matter of scale, so I won't nitpick that much.

It's not going to prevent 15million pirates. The game will be pirated a week after release, and hacked a month after. Again, all they are doing is punishing their loyal customers. End of story.

Maybe it will be pirated a week after release...but those people won't be able to play on the Blizz servers. If it were really that easy to hack an online-only game, then WoW would be filled with hackers and pirated accounts, and there'd be no reason to steal other people's accounts.

Also, I think you guys are downplaying the difficulty of making the game work in singleplayer. It's not like they can just flip a switch and make this happen. The game seems to be built around being online, so changing it so that all that data that's stored and processed by the server to instead be stored on your computer, is a big deal. It would probably take weeks to months just to develop, and then even longer to work out all the bugs.

Maybe there will be single-player eventually, in a patch or expansion or something, but I honestly doubt it. Saying that 10% of the potential buyers of the game won't buy it because of this honestly seems a bit absurd. I would guess that maybe 1% of the potential buyers will be flat-out unable to play because of it. As for people not buying the game on principle, I'm sure you could find a million people that will say that, but 49% of them are going to buy the game anyways and 49% weren't going to buy it in the first place.


Also on the topic of hacking, I wouldn't be surprised if people eventually hacked the game and got it to run offline through some sort of fake-server shenanigans, so if you're really desperate maybe you'll have that as an option for offline play eventually.

[Starwulf]

Ok, so there's definitely downsides to this. I think some people are blowing things out of proportions, but that's just a matter of scale, so I won't nitpick that much.

Maybe it will be pirated a week after release...but those people won't be able to play on the Blizz servers. If it were really that easy to hack an online-only game, then WoW would be filled with hackers and pirated accounts, and there'd be no reason to steal other people's accounts.

Honestly? The people who hack the accounts in WoW aren't doing so in order to play the game, they are doing so in order to sell the gold and gear, ie: Chinese gold farmers. What's the point of hacking an account you don't have to pay for, when you can just STEAL one, strip it entirely, then cancel it, or steal a high-level account, strip it to the bare-bones, then use it to farm menial things repeatedly at a fast pace(because it's high level). Or, alternately, they are hacked because the hacker doesn't want to start out at level 1 and grind their way to max level, then spend more time grinding for good gear, so they just hack a high level account that they've targetted through forums where the person talks about their exploits(Clan websites and the like). Why hack the servers to make a level 1 account, when you can hack a high level account and save yourself a few months?

Not to mention, If you believe the pirates are going to hack D3 so they can play on private servers, you're wrong. I can guarantee that they'll figure out a way to hack the servers and make accounts on the regular public servers. And if they are found out, so what? It didn't cost them anything but a bit of time. They'll just find a new work-around and start up again. They don't do it to actually play the game, they do it for the challenge, and to piss off major corporations that they feel are money-grubbers.

[AgentPaper]

Honestly? The people who hack the accounts in WoW aren't doing so in order to play the game, they are doing so in order to sell the gold and gear, ie: Chinese gold farmers. What's the point of hacking an account you don't have to pay for, when you can just STEAL one, strip it entirely, then cancel it, or steal a high-level account, strip it to the bare-bones, then use it to farm menial things repeatedly at a fast pace(because it's high level). Or, alternately, they are hacked because the hacker doesn't want to start out at level 1 and grind their way to max level, then spend more time grinding for good gear, so they just hack a high level account that they've targetted through forums where the person talks about their exploits(Clan websites and the like). Why hack the servers to make a level 1 account, when you can hack a high level account and save yourself a few months?

Not to mention, If you believe the pirates are going to hack D3 so they can play on private servers, you're wrong. I can guarantee that they'll figure out a way to hack the servers and make accounts on the regular public servers. And if they are found out, so what? It didn't cost them anything but a bit of time. They'll just find a new work-around and start up again. They don't do it to actually play the game, they do it for the challenge, and to piss off major corporations that they feel are money-grubbers.

If you could really hack the game to that extent, what I'm saying is that you'd be able to do stuff like hack in new items and such.

I'm sure people will figure out ways to steal other people's accounts, though I'm also sure that blizz will have ways to make that very hard to do, after learning so much about it with WoW over the years.

[Runestar]

Seriously, this. I never got more than three levels into single player without having a burning need to sign on to BNet.

I have played only D2 singleplayer. Never ventured into multiplayer. No real reason, just never felt like it.

[Starwulf]

If you could really hack the game to that extent, what I'm saying is that you'd be able to do stuff like hack in new items and such.

I'm sure people will figure out ways to steal other people's accounts, though I'm also sure that blizz will have ways to make that very hard to do, after learning so much about it with WoW over the years.

I'm sure they will hack in new items ^^ Ever seen Open realms for D2? Some crazy **** there. At one point, some of that stuff managed to get hacked into the Closed Realms, but it was gone about 12 hours after it occurred. Which of course, I suspect would happen in d3 as well, though probably on a much faster time basis(Probably 2 hours instead of 12). My point is: Their online DRM isn't doing anything but hurting the honest customers. hackers and pirates will still hack the game. They'll still figure out ways to play on the regular Battle.net servers without ever having paid for the game. They'll probably still hack in outrageous items. If they keep them to themselves, it might be a while before Blizzard finds out and deletes them. If they distribute them, it'll be much quicker process of them getting deleted. On the other hand, the honest, loyal customer like myself, and others on this thread who only play Diablo for single player(I actually LIKE multi-player, but I both take issue with the no single-player, AND their arrogant attitude towards people with slow internets), are getting punished by a DRM that is doing nothing.

[Spartacus]

If you could really hack the game to that extent, what I'm saying is that you'd be able to do stuff like hack in new items and such.

Hacking into a game is a rather different order of magnitude than hacking content into a game.

I'm sure they will hack in new items ^^ Ever seen Open realms for D2? Some crazy **** there..

Which is possible because the open realms are using information from your computer. I assume the closed realm shenanigans tricked b.net into thinking that their own pcs were the legitimate character servers, which seems rather tricky and easy to stop.

[Starwulf]

Hacking into a game is a rather different order of magnitude than hacking content into a game.



Which is possible because the open realms are using information from your computer. I assume the closed realm shenanigans tricked b.net into thinking that their own pcs were the legitimate character servers, which seems rather tricky and easy to stop.

Oh, it was easy to stop. as I said, it was 12 hours or so for blizzard to become aware of the situation, shut down the servers, fix the problem, and institute character roll-backs to take care of the problem. To my knowledge, it never happened again, but the point remains, it is possible, and I'm sure at some point in time it will happen for D3 as well, it'll just take a little while for it to happen(the incident I refer to didn't happen until a year or two after LoD was introduced). I'm just making the point that the online-only DRM will not stop the hackers and pirates, it's just making us, the loyal customers, be at an dis-advantage. There has to be other forms of DRM they can institute that will slow down the pirates/hackers that won't affect the loyal customers, or that won't take away an integral part of the game for some people(those who play single-player only(again, not me, I like multi-player), due to various circumstances).

[AgentPaper]

I'm sure they will hack in new items ^^ Ever seen Open realms for D2? Some crazy **** there. At one point, some of that stuff managed to get hacked into the Closed Realms, but it was gone about 12 hours after it occurred. Which of course, I suspect would happen in d3 as well, though probably on a much faster time basis(Probably 2 hours instead of 12).

It's not a stretch to believe that the framework for D3 will be at least as difficult to hack as WoW's, and will probably be much harder. The data for what items your characters have is stored on the server, not on your computer, so hacking in an item is practically impossible. It's never happened in WoW, so I seriously doubt it'll ever happen in D3.

My point is: Their online DRM isn't doing anything but hurting the honest customers.

It does hurt honest customers, but so does having high(ish)-end graphics that some people can't afford a computer to run.

hackers and pirates will still hack the game. They'll still figure out ways to play on the regular Battle.net servers without ever having paid for the game.

I'm sure a skilled hacker or clever thief will find ways to get to play the game for free. However, what they won't be able to do is upload a hacked copy of the game and let thousands of other people download it without having to know how to hack it themselves, which is the real threat of pirating.

They'll probably still hack in outrageous items. If they keep them to themselves, it might be a while before Blizzard finds out and deletes them. If they distribute them, it'll be much quicker process of them getting deleted.

Like I said above, this isn't going to be possible, exactly because the game is online-only.

On the other hand, the honest, loyal customer like myself, and others on this thread who only play Diablo for single player(I actually LIKE multi-player, but I both take issue with the no single-player, AND their arrogant attitude towards people with slow internets), are getting punished by a DRM that is doing nothing.

I've never seen Blizz show an arrogant attitude towards people with poor internet connections. Everything I've read has been along the lines of "It really sucks that some people might not be able to play, but we've decided that this is the best option for the overall health of the game". or something to that degree.

[Starwulf]

I've never seen Blizz show an arrogant attitude towards people with poor internet connections. Everything I've read has been along the lines of "It really sucks that some people might not be able to play, but we've decided that this is the best option for the overall health of the game". or something to that degree.

Did you not read the article that interviewed one of their guys? he was as arrogant as can be, talking about how slow-internet didn't exist, and even if it did, to bad?(that's para-phrased). There was quite an outcry about it, and it's even mentioned in this months Game Informer magazine. if I had a link, i'd give it to you, unfortunately I'm not sure if it was mentioned in another D3 thread, or on the "Worst gaming moments of history" thread. Actually, give me a moment, I'll go and find it if I can, then edit my post with it. give me 3-4 minutes before checking the thread again ^^

Edit: Ok, it was in the "Bad moves by gaming companies" thread. here it is: http://www.pcgamer.com/.../diablo-3-...9s-not-online/

[toasty]

Lose 150,000 customers, prevent 15,000,000 pirates.

I lived in a country where games are pirated and you can't actually buy real games.

It took them a month to get a ****ty crack for Assassin's Creed II. Another month for a good crack.

I'd assume, by then, people have gotten better at figuring out how to stop these "online only" singleplayer game bull**** stuff. Or they're just creating their own servers.

The truth is, DRM doesn't stop Piracy. Believe me, I lived in Asia. Piracy is a way of life in Asia. It can't be stopped.

[AgentPaper]

The truth is, DRM doesn't stop Piracy. Believe me, I lived in Asia. Piracy is a way of life in Asia. It can't be stopped.

It can be stopped by putting all the relevant data on servers which a physically impossible for people to access.

[Starwulf]

It can be stopped by putting all the relevant data on servers which a physically impossible for people to access.

That's likes saying that the Pentagon can't be hacked. it not only can be, it HAS been. If there is even the smallest connection to the servers, it can be gotten to.