<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fighting a Lost Battle for the Wrong Reasons &#8211; the Diablo 3 DRM Controversy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gamingtrend.com/2012/05/22/fighting-a-lost-battle-for-the-wrong-reasons-the-diablo-3-drm-controversy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gamingtrend.com/2012/05/22/fighting-a-lost-battle-for-the-wrong-reasons-the-diablo-3-drm-controversy/</link>
	<description>by gamers, for gamers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:02:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://gamingtrend.com/2012/05/22/fighting-a-lost-battle-for-the-wrong-reasons-the-diablo-3-drm-controversy/#comment-13262</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:10:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamingtrend.com/?p=33262#comment-13262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re so, so wrong!

First, you claim online-only singleplayer is required to prevent exploits. Not at all. A simple separation of singleplayer and multiplayer characters would be sufficient. Multiplayer characters and all their items would be stored server-side, so there could be no exploits. If you want to play with a multiplayer character, you would need to be online constantly, just like now.

On the other hand, a singleplayer character would not ever require an internet connection to create or use. However, it should be possible to use SP chars in LAN multiplayer.

Second, you claim online-only games are comparable to games with singleplayer modes. This couldn&#039;t be further from the truth. In an online-only game, server-side storing of your progress is a feature. It&#039;s an effective way to prevent exploits. But if a game has singleplayer, then not letting you play offline is not a feature, but intrusive DRM. No one is trying to stop MMOs, clearly. Gamers simply want to play an offline mode... well... OFFLINE.

This seems quite obvious and you seem to be aware of it in your article, so I&#039;m clueless as to why you would make such a statement. Maybe someone is paying you to act stupid?

Third, you claim this battle has been fought and lost in the past. As I said above, you either don&#039;t understand what the battle is or pretend not to. The real battle, against singleplayer online DRM, has been fought for years and still isn&#039;t anywhere near over.

The main criticism against Steam remains the existence of its DRM. Over the years it&#039;s become a great, if still rather buggy program, but its main function is still DRM. And I doubt many people would use it if not for the big sales. What&#039;s ironic is that Steam&#039;s DRM is pointless. Nobody gains anything from it. Or, at least, I&#039;ve not not heard any arguments in its favor.

Games for Windows Live is another example. However, unlike Steam, GFWL successfully alienated the majority of the gaming population and now there is a significant amount of people that outright refuse to buy anything that requires GFWL activation.

Ubisoft and EA are other examples of bad DRM schemes causing an outcry and lost sales.

The fight is still on and not about to end anytime soon.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re so, so wrong!</p>
<p>First, you claim online-only singleplayer is required to prevent exploits. Not at all. A simple separation of singleplayer and multiplayer characters would be sufficient. Multiplayer characters and all their items would be stored server-side, so there could be no exploits. If you want to play with a multiplayer character, you would need to be online constantly, just like now.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a singleplayer character would not ever require an internet connection to create or use. However, it should be possible to use SP chars in LAN multiplayer.</p>
<p>Second, you claim online-only games are comparable to games with singleplayer modes. This couldn&#8217;t be further from the truth. In an online-only game, server-side storing of your progress is a feature. It&#8217;s an effective way to prevent exploits. But if a game has singleplayer, then not letting you play offline is not a feature, but intrusive DRM. No one is trying to stop MMOs, clearly. Gamers simply want to play an offline mode&#8230; well&#8230; OFFLINE.</p>
<p>This seems quite obvious and you seem to be aware of it in your article, so I&#8217;m clueless as to why you would make such a statement. Maybe someone is paying you to act stupid?</p>
<p>Third, you claim this battle has been fought and lost in the past. As I said above, you either don&#8217;t understand what the battle is or pretend not to. The real battle, against singleplayer online DRM, has been fought for years and still isn&#8217;t anywhere near over.</p>
<p>The main criticism against Steam remains the existence of its DRM. Over the years it&#8217;s become a great, if still rather buggy program, but its main function is still DRM. And I doubt many people would use it if not for the big sales. What&#8217;s ironic is that Steam&#8217;s DRM is pointless. Nobody gains anything from it. Or, at least, I&#8217;ve not not heard any arguments in its favor.</p>
<p>Games for Windows Live is another example. However, unlike Steam, GFWL successfully alienated the majority of the gaming population and now there is a significant amount of people that outright refuse to buy anything that requires GFWL activation.</p>
<p>Ubisoft and EA are other examples of bad DRM schemes causing an outcry and lost sales.</p>
<p>The fight is still on and not about to end anytime soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victor Grunn</title>
		<link>http://gamingtrend.com/2012/05/22/fighting-a-lost-battle-for-the-wrong-reasons-the-diablo-3-drm-controversy/#comment-13257</link>
		<dc:creator>Victor Grunn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 06:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamingtrend.com/?p=33262#comment-13257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yeah, I didn&#039;t even think of hardcore mode. Really, I think in that particular case the tradeoffs are nothing but negatives for HC players.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I didn&#8217;t even think of hardcore mode. Really, I think in that particular case the tradeoffs are nothing but negatives for HC players.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Burke</title>
		<link>http://gamingtrend.com/2012/05/22/fighting-a-lost-battle-for-the-wrong-reasons-the-diablo-3-drm-controversy/#comment-13254</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Burke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 00:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamingtrend.com/?p=33262#comment-13254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The always on thing is frustrating and prevents me from playing in Hardcore mode.   When I fought one of the bosses (no spoilers) I punched it in the face just a handful of times and killed it easily with my monk.   When I played through this section again with a friend I ended up dead - thanks Lag Death.   If I had just lost a hardcore character I&#039;d have been pretty pissed.   The always-on requirements for the AH make perfect sense though...it&#039;s a double-edged sword.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The always on thing is frustrating and prevents me from playing in Hardcore mode.   When I fought one of the bosses (no spoilers) I punched it in the face just a handful of times and killed it easily with my monk.   When I played through this section again with a friend I ended up dead &#8211; thanks Lag Death.   If I had just lost a hardcore character I&#8217;d have been pretty pissed.   The always-on requirements for the AH make perfect sense though&#8230;it&#8217;s a double-edged sword.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victor Grunn</title>
		<link>http://gamingtrend.com/2012/05/22/fighting-a-lost-battle-for-the-wrong-reasons-the-diablo-3-drm-controversy/#comment-13238</link>
		<dc:creator>Victor Grunn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 22:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamingtrend.com/?p=33262#comment-13238</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree, that&#039;s one lingering issue about this sort of thing. I wish they could deliver that guarantee, which sounds simple enough. &quot;If we ever stop hosting it, we&#039;ll release the server software.&quot; I imagine it&#039;s not as easy as that, but for a game like this it would be a major step in the right direction.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, that&#8217;s one lingering issue about this sort of thing. I wish they could deliver that guarantee, which sounds simple enough. &#8220;If we ever stop hosting it, we&#8217;ll release the server software.&#8221; I imagine it&#8217;s not as easy as that, but for a game like this it would be a major step in the right direction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abdullah Hanisah on Facebook</title>
		<link>http://gamingtrend.com/2012/05/22/fighting-a-lost-battle-for-the-wrong-reasons-the-diablo-3-drm-controversy/#comment-13235</link>
		<dc:creator>Abdullah Hanisah on Facebook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 02:09:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamingtrend.com/?p=33262#comment-13235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For me, I just hope that 10,20,30 years down the road, people will still be able to play this game. Who knows if Blizzard will still be around then. If they can guarantee me that, I have no problems with always-online requirement.Continue reading...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For me, I just hope that 10,20,30 years down the road, people will still be able to play this game. Who knows if Blizzard will still be around then. If they can guarantee me that, I have no problems with always-online requirement.Continue reading&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Krystal Wilson on Facebook</title>
		<link>http://gamingtrend.com/2012/05/22/fighting-a-lost-battle-for-the-wrong-reasons-the-diablo-3-drm-controversy/#comment-13205</link>
		<dc:creator>Krystal Wilson on Facebook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 05:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamingtrend.com/?p=33262#comment-13205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[great article!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>great article!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ronald Smith on Facebook</title>
		<link>http://gamingtrend.com/2012/05/22/fighting-a-lost-battle-for-the-wrong-reasons-the-diablo-3-drm-controversy/#comment-13204</link>
		<dc:creator>Ronald Smith on Facebook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 05:43:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamingtrend.com/?p=33262#comment-13204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t think that, sadly, Blizzard will ever understand that we really don&#039;t like the whole always-on crap.  That&#039;s the #1 reason I don&#039;t have Starcraft 2 yet, though I would if I could afford to buy it, lol.Continue reading...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that, sadly, Blizzard will ever understand that we really don&#8217;t like the whole always-on crap.  That&#8217;s the #1 reason I don&#8217;t have Starcraft 2 yet, though I would if I could afford to buy it, lol.Continue reading&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
