'Diablo 2 Resurrection' Includes 30 Day Online Check In For Reasons Nobody Can Figure Out
from the DRM-is-the-devil dept
When we've talked about any plans to put in online DRM pings when it comes to console gaming, we've typically centered that discussion around the console makers themselves. For older Xbox consoles and, well, all things Nintendo, this has been a particularly annoying problem. Nintendo wanting online checks is just so on brand so as to be only mildly annoying. If you buy Nintendo, you know what you're getting. Microsoft's plan to have online checks for the Xbox made less sense. Piracy of console games isn't nonexistent, but it isn't exactly a massively huge problem given the technical know-how needed in order to use pirated games on modern consoles. Even for game publishers like Activision Blizzard, which has found itself in the headlines for entirely more significant reasons as of late, DRM was typically only included on PC ports of games, not on the console versions themselves.
Until now, it seems. Owners of Diablo 2 Resurrected have discovered that it has an online check that makes the game unplayable if the game hasn't checked in within 30 days, even on consoles.
Here’s an interesting turn of events: it seems that those who own Diablo 2 Resurrected, if you don’t log in (online) at least once in 30 days, you cannot play it offline regardless of platform. This was brought to our attention by Twitter user DoesItPlay1, who tweeted that this can be removed with hacks, and servers no real purpose.
You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline, one of the first console games to feature check in drm.
It serves no real purpose and can be removed with hacks.
Dark times pic.twitter.com/EVnPVhXisD
— Does it play? (@DoesItPlay1) January 17, 2022
This was later confirmed independently. As the post notes, there doesn't seem to be any real purpose to this. Again, console piracy is not to be equated with PC gaming piracy. Putting this check in place for thousands of legit customers to stave off whatever level of console piracy there is for this Diablo title is essentially solving the math problem wrong. On top of that, for those motivated enough, this online check is easily patched out of the game.
So, annoying paying customers to combat a problem that really isn't that big a problem via a method that is wildly ineffective. Yup, sounds like DRM to me! As the post notes, this is both an annoyance and a poorly timed one.
Given how much bad publicity Activision and Blizzard Entertainment has been in the past few months, this is probably the last thing gamers want to see from the developers. While I understand that this is a way to combat piracy, why is it activated on consoles too? Or better yet, wasn’t there a better way of implementing it without restricting players who bought it legitimately?
With DRM? Nah, dawg. The only real solution here would be for Activision Blizzard to be more forward-thinking and realizing this online check DRM was fit only for the dumpster to begin with.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: diablo 2 resurrected, drm
Companies: activision blizzard
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And the ultimate punchline to this and all DRM:
Actual copyright infringers are, as always, completely unaffected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is to not buy these games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Reasons Nobody Can Figure Out
Not true. It's called, Manager. Not brilliant and not deterred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"While I understand that this is a way to combat piracy"
But, of course, as already mentioned it's really not. People wanting to pirate will still do so, and when they do they will still have a better product than the one bought legally. I fact, as often seen, the presence of this DRM is actually a driver for "piracy", since some people who recognise this fact will download a cracked copy after they buy the legit version, safe in the knowledge that they're not "stealing" since they paid for a copy, they just want access to the version that doesn't try to stop them playing the game they bought.
"Or better yet, wasn’t there a better way of implementing it without restricting players who bought it legitimately?"
No, there isn't. DRM is software whose entire purpose is to try the stop people from running the software it's attached to. Like all software, it may have bugs or design issues that make it work imperfectly. It can never operate as well as it not being present in the first place for legal owners of the software it's infected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DRM: They were so preoccupied with whether they could, they never asked if they should!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprise you don't actually cite the source of the supposed independent confirmation and wrote this entire thing off one worthless tweet. You are the worst. I know you saw this bullshit on reddit like four days ago and it took you this line to produce this. Jfc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The independent confirmation, as in the linked article where the author states that their named colleague tested it and it gave the error message mentioned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From the linked article:
I know, clicking links and reading them is hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some people refuse to provide any evidence for their arguments or claims.
To level up, you have to start disputing other people's claims while studiously ignoring all the evidence they provide. Bonus points for asking for the evidence already provided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is fine, and doesn’t really hurt anything… until they turn the servers off in 2028 and the game becomes forever unplayable. It’s an annoyance now but a fatal flaw later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless you go off grid for more than a month, like a soldier, mining engineer etc. might do, and take a computer with them for relaxation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're talking about a company that released a product (Diablo III) that supported an OS (MacOS Snow Leopard) and then forced users of that OS (myself) to upgrade to a new version that no longer supported my OS. Then they changed their OS Requirements page to say that "You may need to upgrade your OS in order to continue to play this game."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nintendo
Hold on a sec, I have a Nintendo Switch, and I have never, ever needed an online check to play any offline Nintendo Switch game. It would also hobble the console when people play it on the Subway (at least the inferior ones in the US that don't have Wi-Fi on board), on car trips, or on cruises or wherever. What do you mean by "online checks" o Timothy Geitner? I'm legitimately confused.
Nintendo does indeed deserve a lot of criticism for their draconian enforcement of their IP but I've never seen them have an always-online system for the Nintendo Switch (which, as I had explained, would defeat the functionality of the system).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nintendo
I don't know how it works on the Switch, but online check doesn't necessarily mean that they're checking every single time you load the game. It might check in the background on a regular basis and cache the result, only failing if it hasn't been online for a certain amount of time.
To give a completely different example - Netflix allows you to download, but the licence will expire after 30 days if it hasn't been able to connect and confirm you're still subscribed. But, this happens in the background and the counter will reset if it's been able to perform a check within that time, so you'd not notice that it's doing the check unless your app has been offline for longer than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nintendo
Your reading skills, or understanding of English leave a lot to be desired, as the system under discussion is a once a month online check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nintendo
I can confirm this isn't a problem for the Switch (I didn't even connect mine to WiFi for six months after buying it) but the Nintendo link above goes to an article about the WiiU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One thing to hopefully come of the buyout...
At least upcoming new owners Microsoft learned their lesson when they went for the market leader in the 7th console generation, to losing so much of that share in the 8th before their console even launched by trying to introduce this kind of DRM. It took them eight full years, a commitment to game preservation, and services like Game Pass to build back the consumer confidence they lost from just that XBox One prelaunch announcement of a feature they wisely removed from it prior to the actual launch.
With luck these lessons will be applied to Activision titles going forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing to hopefully come of the buyout...
I was literally still meeting people in 2019 who refused to get an XBox One because they had seen that 2013 announcement and believed the console had regular online check-ins for your disc-based games, a stark lesson in how much more reach a big global announcement at a huge trade show can have over any amount of backtracking and "we have heard you and changed our policies based on your feedback" statements issued in interviews and on social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One thing to hopefully come of the buyout...
Which is why the new system is a subscription plan (GamePass).
It's still flat out telling you from the get go that you don't own anything. But because Microsoft didn't scream it from the heavens and people's perception of it is "wE gEt So MaNy GaMz!", the general public has welcomed Microsoft's Extend with a warm Embrace yet again. Guess we'll have to wait and see how much longer it will be until Microsoft's Extinguish comes into play....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given how much bad publicity Activision and Blizzard Entertainment has been in the past few months,
The bad sentence construction makes it even funnier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We keep shitting on paying customers we don't know why the number of pirates is growing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]