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

https://twitter.com/DoesItPlay1/status/1483126058325090304

by 2pEXgD0fZ5cF • 5 years ago

232 207 5 years ago

twitter.com

fsflover2• 5 years ago

We really need to fight against DRM: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/.

mattl• 5 years ago

DBD doesn't really have any solutions to any of this other than "free software"

rjzzleep• 5 years ago

Diablo 2 resurrected was the most infuriating experience I have had. I bought it in the Switch store against my better judgment, partly because in their support forum they said that offline mode would of course always be offline.

For the first few days people could hardly even start the game, I tried to return it right away, because it's basically a bricked game at this point, but Nintendo doesn't want to refund switch games unless you're in North America.

I had already forgotten about it, but I get angry just reminded of that. Yeah, it's just 50 bucks, but when you got cheated on those 50 bucks that leaves a bad taste in ones mouth.

iqanq• 5 years ago

I don't understand. Have the servers been down ever since?

kmlx3• 5 years ago

Have the servers been down ever since?

no, it works just fine.

the issues the original poster highlighted had to do with launch problems.

jug2• 5 years ago

It had severe launch issues that was long ongoing even for 1-2 months. It's much better now though and they are still optimizing it with the latest row currently in testing, which I think may solve these issues for good.

The problem as I understand it was an architectural decision to remove the realms (regional groups of servers like USEast/West/EU/Asia) of Diablo 2 "Classic" so that everyone can play with each other. More fun that way, right? However, Diablo 2 has pretty lousy netcode (consider it's two decades old!) and turns out that one does not simply rewrite it to sync your heroes regularly to a centralized location as you played, turning out to cause a terrible bottleneck. Many such sync requests seem to have just straight out failed at peak hours, with characters losing hours of gameplay or even losing the characters altogether!

This is, again, much better now thanks to more or less emergency mitigations. But it took them a few months and it's of course a major goof up to not think this through better. By the time it was fixed, many had started losing interest in the game.

It's hard to extrapolate networking from testing to massive scales, I understand that, but these are network architects with years if not decades in the business of launching games and MMORPG's. _Someone_ should have been waving a little red flag here and told "hey, you do realize we're centralizing a core part of the game that was never planned to be centralized, and if these sync requests fail it's going to ruin their gameplay. So we're taking a risk and with very real fallout as well."

But maybe someone did... Maybe many in fact did. Such warnings may not be the end of the story unfortunately.

alickz4• 5 years ago

Consumers need to demand better refund systems from the big console makers.

On Steam if you don't like a game, or if it doesn't work for you, you can get a full refund no questions asked as long as it's within 14 days and with less than 2 hours playtime. In certain circumstances they even give refunds after 2 hours playtime (e.g. you spend 2+ hours debugging the game and trying to get it to run)

This should be standard in games, including console games. It benefits the user AND the developer, as I've taken way more risks on games on Steam knowing if I don't like the game I can always return it, which leads to more devs getting my money and me playing games I otherwise wouldn't have.

darkteflon• 5 years ago

Honestly all of the refunds I’ve done on Xbox have been completely painless.

3pt14159• 5 years ago

It benefits the user AND the developer

Notably it benefits good faith developers. I.e., the developers we actually want making games. The developers that lose under this model are the ones that make poor quality games.

Though I admit it does not solve every dark pattern.

pteraspidomorph• 5 years ago

It's legally mandated in the EU.

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua...

Wowfunhappy4• 5 years ago

The only problem is that—ironically for a thread about the problems of DRM—this forces stores to implement some type of DRM scheme. GOG can't reasonably offer as generous a refund policy as Steam, because once you've downloaded a game, there's no way to give it back.

jug2• 5 years ago

I heard it was pretty easy to get refunded for Diablo 2 Resurrected by Microsoft on Xbox at least.

KennyBlanken• 5 years ago

Consumers need to demand better refund systems from the big console makers.

Nope. Don't let them self-regulate. They had their chance, free market blah blah blah.

We need to demand legislators update consumer protection laws for all this "you don't own, you rent" crap, because it's become way more pervasive than just video games and movies.

Heated seats in BMWs are now a "service"; I wish I were joking. And Tesla full self driving and supercharging, even though they are purchased features, do not pass to a new owner if the car is sold.

rickosborne2• 5 years ago

On Steam if you don't like a game, or if it doesn't work for you, you can get a full refund no questions asked as long as it's within 14 days and with less than 2 hours playtime.

There's a hole here: that 14 days is from time of _purchase_ not _access_.

I preordered _Humankind_ a month or two before launch, because it was listed as supporting MacOS. At launch, it didn't. It didn't get Mac support until 3 weeks later, even though that functionality was barely alpha quality with huge graphics and playability bugs. (Even today, months later, Mac support is barely at beta quality. And if you're on M1 you've got to manually configure the app for being run on Rosetta.)

I waited 12 days after launch before giving up and requesting a refund. That refund was denied, because they had taken my money months before. Steam support was unmoved by my assertion that the developer was flat out lying about Mac playability, and that I literally had no way of playing the game as advertised.

Be careful with your preorders, y'all.

girvo3• 5 years ago

That refund system for Steam only exists because the ACCC forced them to comply with Australian consumer law.

And Valve still punish Australia for that by refusing to sell hardware here directly. No Index or Steam Deck for us.

juanse• 5 years ago

Thanks for sharing this. Diablo 2 was an amazing experience back in my youth. I was decided to make the purchase. But this is a no deal.

pixel_tracing2• 5 years ago

Just a note I had an amazing experience with D2: Resurrected after they fixed their shit a bit.

sph• 5 years ago

Stop giving these hacks money, it's fucking easy. I love Diablo 2, but the current Actiblizzard can go bankrupt before I enable their shitty practices and my purchase figures on some MBA's slide as a positive signal that customers are happy, let's keep doing what we're doing. Yes, that's what your $50 you've written off are doing.

It's not rocket science, especially in the current golden age of gaming, where there's plenty of excellent choice on indie, AA and some AAA publishers portfolio.

Yet people keep complaining and then lining up to buy the latest Battlefield and CoD and shitty remaster.

ryandrake• 5 years ago

Exactly, it’s like Frog And Toad. “These game companies must be punished so they stop abusing customers!” cried Toad as he bought another game.

cultofmetatron• 5 years ago

if you're looking for a good alternative to diablo, I highly recommend the torchlight series

hsbauauvhabzb2• 5 years ago

I recently setup pihole, which subsequently went down while playing PS5, Effectively taking out my internet. My PS5 basically refused to play the most recent Star Wars after about 30 minutes. Next time I’ll just pirate the bloody thing.

kmlx3• 5 years ago

I recently setup pihole, which subsequently went down while playing PS5

i think this is the issue right here.

hsbauauvhabzb2• 5 years ago

The issue is their toxic drm.

mschuster913• 5 years ago

A game should work in single player mode no matter the network quality or censorship by any of the layers in-between.

It's one thing (and annoying enough) if multiplayer servers are shut down after a couple years without opening the source of the server or at least distributing VMware images. But single-player functionality should always work, because why should I otherwise buy a game for 50+ €?!

anthk• 5 years ago

Get a libre engine to play Diablo I and II. Also, try Flare RPG.

ddtaylor10• 5 years ago

DevilutionX is awesome (and I'm a contributor!) but D2R is on an entirely different level.

pqb• 5 years ago

I also recommend FlareRPG [0] to try out. It has way more pleasant navigation than Diablos, reminds me a bit of the Divine Divinity [1], which is also awesome single-player game.

[0] https://flarerpg.org/

[1] https://www.gog.com/game/divine_divinity

kroltan2• 5 years ago

It's an entirely different game (more of a CRPG than action), but the more modern Divinity Original Sin games are excellent too. DOS2 is my favorite RPG, and it can be played by itself (its story has basically no links to DOS1)

marcus_holmes2• 5 years ago

At this point I'm just not buying anything by the dumpster fire that used to be Blizzard.

ddtaylor10• 5 years ago

Most of us don't care and we just want to play vidya games.

mdp20219• 5 years ago

You are responsible for your actions. What you fund, you encourage.

headsoup3• 5 years ago

Yes there are a lot of good little unthinking consumers around sucking at corporate mother's teats. The future is bright.

AlwaysRock4• 5 years ago

You are getting down voted but that is what most players care about it. It's the reason COD and every 2K or sports game gets worse every year. It's the reason Pokemon somehow continues to become more and more souless. It's the reason companies can put out shit and still print money.

baud1472588• 5 years ago

well, you can buy the older version which can run under nearly any version and doesn't require to phone home before launching, afaik

hlbjhblbljib• 5 years ago

Would be nice to only play good ones. If only you could predict the experience you'd have by the developer.

marcus_holmes2• 5 years ago

I'm not even talking about the politics. Just the shit games with the crappy player-hostile business models.

Blizzard used to make awesome games that were fun to play. They came up with some of the most enduring game franchises, and their games are still classics. Now, not so much. Actually, not at all. It's all just repetitive shite based on the same old tired universes.

girvo3• 5 years ago

Blizzard is long dead. Such a shame. I’ll never pay for another of their games until… actually I’m not sure when, or what they could do to bring me back. They’ve poisoned their brand so completely, and their latest releases have been either somewhat mediocre or mismanaged into the ground over time.

kmlx3• 5 years ago

Blizzard is long dead.

i'm still in somewhat of a denial since i really like their IPs. and diablo 4 is still very much on my radar. if that one tanks then I hope something changes as their IPs are just too good...

asdfasgasdgasdg8• 5 years ago

AAA development slog like what is apparently happening with D4 rarely bodes well for fun. Dev work apparently began in 2014 and it's not likely to be released until 2023 at the earliest.

wayoutthere• 5 years ago

Most of their IP is dead at this point; Warcraft is a dead horse they’ve been beating for the last decade, StarCraft is effectively abandoned, and Diablo 3 was a blatant cash grab from day 1 with a mediocre game behind it. Hearthstone and Overwatch are doing ok as esports but those aren’t the Blizzard IP I actually like.

To think that any future games will be better than what we’ve gotten over the last decade is just being in denial that they’re Activision now. They have continued to mine the nostalgia of the player base with mediocre remakes and retread content and, combined with the fact that it’s now public knowledge how toxic Blizzard culture was during the “golden era”, it has destroyed most of the cultural value that IP had.

da_chicken2• 5 years ago

They botched the Warcraft III remaster hard, and I can't forgive them for that. It doesn't matter that they farmed it out. They chose to farm it out, and they chose to ship it in the state we got.

Take all that along side all this sexual harassment and anti-worker BS they've been pulling for decades, and I just don't care enough anymore. I don't need anything Blizzard wants to sell any more. I don't need to buy something to tarnish my memories of fun games. I don't need to replay those games if they're made under atrocious conditions. I'm no longer willing to give my money to a company that is emblematic of everything wrong with video games.

Now with other companies pulling that same BS, and now some are coming out in favor of NFTs?

Fuck 'em. I don't need AAA games. Indie titles are just as good, and I've got a hundred other things vying for my free time.

BlueTemplar9• 5 years ago

Yes, since WoW it was basically not Blizzard any more, but Activision-Blizzard ("ActiBlizz"), a quite different company...

shitloadofbooks• 5 years ago

They just got bought by Microsoft for almost 70 Billion dollars.

fifticon• 5 years ago

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.

jonny_eh• 5 years ago

Apparently the execs at Microsoft don't read Hacker News.

AlwaysRock4• 5 years ago

Gaming companies are incredible. Anyone who loves games tend to hate the large gaming companies. Yet they print money and will continue to put out shit products year after year. So people can say X company is dead while they get aquired for 70 billion dollars.

What a crazy industry.

mrits3• 5 years ago

I don't like the game but they are just a hand full of years off from creating a huge success in Overwatch

freeflight• 5 years ago

Overwatch released over a hand full of years ago, it already had its "couple of months of hype" since then.

Jyaif• 5 years ago

It serves no real purpose

Oh common. You may not like it, but DRM was invented for a reason.

ipaddr• 5 years ago

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

MattPalmer1086• 5 years ago

Probably to restrict secondary markets, not to stop piracy.

trinovantes• 5 years ago

Need to boost that MAU number

ddtaylor10• 5 years ago

It really depends on how you define piracy. With movies and music it doesn't work at all because they don't evolve and change over time. Once that 4K BluRay content hits The Pirate Bay it's game over. But, with games, it's a very different story. Many games have intricate design with their servers that make ripping them apart and creating standalone pirated copies extremely difficult. Even some single player games, while pirated, don't get as much adoption from the pirate community because of the ongoing patch support they receive that is usually lacking in the pirated versions.

umanwizard• 5 years ago

It doesn’t stop piracy, but it decreases it by making it much more difficult and higher-friction.

Claiming DRM does nothing is a bit like anti-vaxers claiming the Covid vaccine “doesn’t work” because the virus can still spread…

mardifoufs• 5 years ago

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.

Koiwai3• 5 years ago

"It's invented for a reason", didn't say it fulfilled it's duty.

dspillett• 5 years ago

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.

acdha4• 5 years ago

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.

baq2• 5 years ago

yes. it is to line publisher's pockets. it's a nuisance for both developers and users.

nomel• 5 years ago

it is to line publisher's pockets.

Which is the reason the games were funded.

me_me_me• 5 years ago

Yes so the people that cannot afford to buy games will not buy them.

I have disposable income now and buy games as its easier than pirate it from random source.

DRM is thinking of old people forced onto new world.

cannabis_sam• 5 years ago

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.

Koiwai3• 5 years ago

This post being flagged shows that people think with their butt.

olsgaarddk• 5 years ago

This reminded me of a recent experience on WeChat. I hadn't used it for a few years and recently tried to log in.

I was told, that my account had been deactivate due to inactivity and that it was against my agreement with Tencent not to use WeChat regularly. After that I had to check a checkbox promising to log in regularly.

Luckily I haven't paid for WeChat, and I don't need it anymore to keep in contact with friends, so I was far enough removed from the situation to laugh at it.

oefrha• 5 years ago

To be fair, there is a known problem of social media / messaging accounts being hacked and reanimated by botters / scammers long after the actual account owners have stopped using them.

But it makes no sense at all for games.

ddtaylor10• 5 years ago

D2R at launch was bad. Everyone, including Blizzard, admits that. But, after launch it's been pretty good. They are releasing the first balance/content patch in over 10 years and everyone is pretty hyped about it.

With regards to the whole "30 days offline" thing - this was well known way ahead of launch. This is how all Blizzard games have worked for many years now. When they cancelled TCP/IP local play support the community asked them about it and they put an questions and answers segment out that included information about how you would need to connect to servers every once in a while to unlock game files.

If that's not your thing then don't play or grab a crack. shrug

mdp20219• 5 years ago

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"

ddtaylor10• 5 years ago

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

acdha4• 5 years ago

With regards to the whole "30 days offline" thing - this was well known way ahead of launch.

If this was true, wouldn’t it be listed on the sale page?

ddtaylor10• 5 years ago

It is listed on the sale page: https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/product/diablo_ii_resurrect...

Internet connection, Battle.net® desktop app and Battle.net® Account required to play.

hfourm• 5 years ago

I also quite enjoyed D2R on the Switch. Controller mapping worked VERY well, and it was a great mindless addiction for a month or two after release.

Yes, there were some annoying server problems, but the game was great and still felt fresh even though it was a remake. I have stopped playing now (not trying to be on that eternal grind...) but overall thought it was pulled off MUCH better than the WC3 remaster.

ezconnect• 5 years ago

Microsoft just bought them I am sure they will be more convenient for the gamers now.

ladyattis• 5 years ago

This is why I'm glad I still have my old copy of D2 to play Median XL and the like. Blizzard can kiss my butt if I'm gonna pay for their DRM'd copy of the game I already own.

gfd• 5 years ago

Do people not remember losing their characters/mules after 90 days of inactivity in the original diablo 2?

aerique• 5 years ago

Yes :-(

charlieyu1• 5 years ago

You can still play the old D2x that only expires your account after 90 days of inactivity, which is three times as good

throwawaysea• 5 years ago

I can believe the introduction of frustrating DRM. But I can’t believe they changed all the characters’ appearance to fit to their new woke sensibilities. There’s no reason these give these guys your money.

danlugo92• 5 years ago

Not your code not your software.

bradhensen• 5 years ago

What absurdity did the developers make? This is why I stopped supporting their games years ago. It's this rollercoaster of experience that I had, and it's not worth it.

daneel_w• 5 years ago

What is the actual effect? Are your characters deleted? Is your legally purchased copy (license) of the game forfeited?

wodenokoto• 5 years ago

Yeah, the post is so low on information it really doesn't seem like its worth taking seriously. Not even the screenshot supports the claim.

robrtsql• 5 years ago

I assume it's sensationalized, and that the truth is that "You cannot play Diablo 2 resurrected after 30 days of being offline (until you go online again to re-affirm your ownership of the game)".

I still very much do not like this, given that someday the server which affirms your ownership of the game will be taken offline.

exdsq• 5 years ago

Doesn’t the Xbox require this for all games?

Linosaurus• 5 years ago

Neither, but the game refuses to run until it can call home. (Edit: after which you can enjoy it for another 30 days without Internet access if you want to)

For some official confirmation of the policy:

https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/298306

KyleBerezin• 5 years ago

This is the kind of question that should be the top comment on HN. I'm surprised to see so much jumping on the bandwagon for an obviously exaggerated claim. note: I am not defending what blizzard is doing.

mdp20219• 5 years ago

The points are

-- that they are mandating your machine to be online, and

-- that the working state of the product will depend on infrastructure outside your power

and possibly more.

Pinegulf• 5 years ago

As consumer use our power. Vote with your wallet.

asdfasgasdgasdg8• 5 years ago

I know folks on this site don't like it, but in the wider gaming community, there is essentially no demand among legitimate buyers for an always offline gaming option. We have access to the internet almost no matter where we are, or can easily get it. Why should we care if a game needs to check in periodically? What harm is it likely to do to any given legitimate buyer?

It's almost certainly worth it to Blizzard to lose the tiny fraction of sales from people who care about this issue to prevent the buy-offline-return pattern that some folks might opt to use without this check in place. Yes, it won't prevent all piracy, but it's probably a net positive for revenue.

lmilcin• 5 years ago

The problem isn't requirement of being online.

The problem is forcing people to be playing the game regularly or loose whatever they have "accomplished".

asdfasgasdgasdg8• 5 years ago

The problem is forcing people to be playing the game regularly or loose whatever they have "accomplished".

That problem isn't the one documented in the link we are discussing. Can you point me to some kind of citation that shows this is happening? I've not heard about it and a brief google search does not reveal anything.

BlueTemplar9• 5 years ago

That's the worst part of playing Diablo 2 "classic" over Battle.net (rather than open Internet) : after 6 months of inactivity, your character and all the items you had stored on them are deleted from Blizzard's servers ! (And you don't get to keep an open copy of them.)

salamandersauce2• 5 years ago

What happens when Activision decides its no longer worth keeping the server up? Or some other problem occurs keeping it from checking in, e.g. death of Nintendo Switch Online.

I can still play Gameboy games I bought 20+ years ago with no problems besides maybe replacing the save battery and the occasional contact clean. Will I be able to do the same with Switch games I bought? For some titles that already seems to be a no.

asdfasgasdgasdg8• 5 years ago

For the tiny tiny tiny fraction of users who will still be playing the game at that point, it will be a sad day. Most gamers do not make purchasing decisions based on something that might happen twenty years from now, since >99.9% of them will have moved on from the game by that point.

I can still play ...

But do you? I mean, perhaps you do, but most folks don't. That's why I emphasized the question of harm a gamer is likely to suffer.

anthonypasq• 5 years ago

well the Diablo 2 servers have been online continuously for over 20 years already, so I'm not exactly sure this is a valid concern for the vast majority of people.

hungryforcodes• 5 years ago

The problem is OBVIOUSLY that it tethers you to servers or some such application somewhere that needs to validate your game. And it could (and will) be turned off at some point. So the game is CLEARLY not yours.

We can run games from the 90s and 2000s, because there is no need for servers.

asdfasgasdgasdg8• 5 years ago

So the game is CLEARLY not yours.

What's important to me, and to most gamers, is whether I can play a game for the duration of time that I desire to do so. So when I'm looking at D2 resurrected, I'm thinking something like this:

"If I buy this game, the longest I'd probably play it for is about a year. In future years I may return to it for briefer and briefer windows, asymptotically decreasing toward zero minutes per year as time approaches infinity. I think it's likely that Blizzard will keep the servers running for at least 20 years based on past performance. What is the area under the curve outside of twenty years proportional to the total value I intend to extract from the game?"

For me, I estimate the area at around 0. Even if I thought that a tenth of my total playtime would occur outside the initial 20 year window (extremely unlikely and generous estimate -- probably nobody exists like this), what is the present value of that future enjoyment? At a 4% discount rate and a fifty dollar initial purchase, the present value is $3. There's just not enough there for most people to be bothered about.

f6v• 5 years ago

It’s just that people put up with a fact that offline-first games started requiring logging in with an account. Why do I have to do that for Doom Eternal? And this enabled publishers to push even more rediculous online handicaps. Their wet dream is to make every game “a service”.

rhino369• 5 years ago

I think its a fairly reasonable requirement if:

1) you advertise in bold/black letters that internet service is required every X days. No bait and switch.

2) you are required to release an update disabling the call home feature if you plan to take down the activation server.

hydrok92• 5 years ago

Probably it's an issue more with older people who remember when this kind of thing was unheard of. In the modern day people are online all the time anyways, it doesn't make a big practical difference, which makes the ethical issues seem overblown.

Regardless, I paid for my "license" to use the software on my personal machine, I shouldn't have to rely on someone else's machine to make that happen.

mdp20219• 5 years ago

there is essentially no demand

And? You remove the 'Z' key from the keyboard because it is the least used letter?

we have access to the internet almost no matter where we are, or can easily get it

No, not everywhere - secondarily. Primarily, some people keep some devices airgapped, and only specialized ones online.

Why should we care if a game needs to check in periodically?

Because it is absurd - the worst sin.

akeck• 5 years ago

This reminds me of the 100 Rabbits folks having to ditch their standard creative software (Adobe) and Apple hardware during their Pacific Ocean traversal. After a month or two offline, every single token timed out and those apps and hardware stopped working.

Groxx• 5 years ago

There is zero usable information here. Just a claim with no details whatsoever and a link to a petition.

Shadonototra• 5 years ago

i'm glad i didn't buy a copy, even though i loved the original diablo 2

blizzard is dead, diablo is dead, it'll be very challenging for microsoft to make profits with that company

Koiwai3• 5 years ago

D2R is a disgrace, local LAN multiplayer is removed.

Even D3 on consoles had that.

daveroberts• 5 years ago

It seems almost self evident the game would not have been greenlit without a form of DRM. Most of the comments here are lamenting the game having DRM, but they're comparing having the game with DRM vs having the game without DRM, not having the game with DRM vs not having the game at all.

beaugunderson• 5 years ago

Ugh, wasn't aware of this and it's an issue because I now live on an RV and thus won't have Internet access all the time. Just opened a chargeback because of this.

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

Related Stories