What I Don't Understand

[Shiftyshifty]

Is how after 7 years of Wow and almost 2 years of SCII, how can Blizzard still not handle DIII server issues? Everyone says that "all mmo's go through this at launch" but this is not Blizzard's first rodeo. Or their second. I just don't understand how it could go this poorly.

On another note, isn't saying "all our servers are full" like a bank saying "sorry, we don't have enough money to cover your withdrawal"?

[Krathdar]

it's actually possible for this to happen to a bank, as they carry less money on hand than actually are in accounts...

[Nyanmaru]

On another note, isn't saying "all our servers are full" like a bank saying "sorry, we don't have enough money to cover your withdrawal"?

Uhm, that happens regularly on cash machines where I grew up. 5/10/20/50 and on weekends the 5's and 10's were usually empty before Saturday evening. And by Sunday night you'd be only able to get 50's.

The reasoning on Blizzards side is quite easy to understand: The average load is 50, the load on launch is 500 and the following weeks it's at 200. Why would you go and buy capacity for a high load when you don't need it later? The angry customer factor isn't as high as the extra cost for hardware factor. It's what they call "risk management".

[bloodwine77]

My only beef with this sort of issue happening with DIII is that this game is not an MMO. Yes, it is technically an online game, but the Battle.Net issues bother me much more in DIII than they ever did in WoW. Blizzard really needs to get their act together on Battle.Net.

[Deleted]

Uhm, that happens regularly on cash machines where I grew up. 5/10/20/50 and on weekends the 5's and 10's were usually empty before Saturday evening. And by Sunday night you'd be only able to get 50's.

The reasoning on Blizzards side is quite easy to understand: The average load is 50, the load on launch is 500 and the following weeks it's at 200. Why would you go and buy capacity for a high load when you don't need it later? The angry customer factor isn't as high as the extra cost for hardware factor. It's what they call "risk management".

This, this exactly.
The amount of people actually willing to not buy the game due to the logging in issues in the first week is so astronomically low, that it's worth potentially losing the few amounts of purchases. Not to mention they probably WILL end up buying it down the line when the game has settled down a little.
You need to remember that the game has no sub fee, so they are only making money from box sales and the RMAH, and to receive said logging in issues you must have already bought the game. So, to kindly put it, why should they care that your feelings are hurt?

[Strah]

My only beef with this sort of issue happening with DIII is that this game is not an MMO. Yes, it is technically an online game, but the Battle.Net issues bother me much more in DIII than they ever did in WoW. Blizzard really needs to get their act together on Battle.Net.

It is an MMO.
Diablo 1 was not an MMO, diablo 2 was not an MMO. Diablo 3 is an MMO.

[bloodwine77]

It is an MMO.
Diablo 1 was not an MMO, diablo 2 was not an MMO. Diablo 3 is an MMO.

At most you can play with 3 other players at any given time. You never see any other players in the world if they are not in your group. I do not consider that an MMO since it does not even remotely approach being massively multiplayer.

[Kujako]

And after many years, cars still break down, food still gets burned, clothing still rips, etc. Even in the far distant future, the holodeck will malfunction and the holograms will turn real and run amuck.

[Strah]

At most you can play with 3 other players at any given time. You never see any other players in the world if they are not in your group. I do not consider that an MMO since it does not even remotely approach being massively multiplayer.

Yet it is a game that can support hundreds of thousands of players simultaneously. There are MMO racing games which also do not have a persistent world where you can't interact with many players at the same time except for the lobbies, yet they are labeled MMO's.
It might not be a classic MMORPG, but it is definitely an MMO.

[Daedius]

It is an MMO.
Diablo 1 was not an MMO, diablo 2 was not an MMO. Diablo 3 is an MMO.

Learn what an MMO is... -.-;

Here's a lil copy/paste of it's definition:

A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously.

Now, do you play with 'hundreds' of other players simultaneously ? No you don't, you play with up to 3 others...

[obdigore]

Learn what an MMO is... -.-;

Here's a lil copy/paste of it's definition:



Now, do you play with 'hundreds' of other players simultaneously ? No you don't, you play with up to 3 others...

It says 'supporting', not 'playing with'. You don't do a 5-man in WoW with hundreds of others simultaneously. In fact, interaction in D3 is almost the same as WoW became. 5 mans with your friends, because DS is boring, then messing with the AH to make money for MoP.

SSDG.

[BLSTMASTER]

Learn what an MMO is... -.-;

Here's a lil copy/paste of it's definition:



Now, do you play with 'hundreds' of other players simultaneously ? No you don't, you play with up to 3 others...

Well it says 'supporting' so the definition could be interpreted in different ways I guess.


But I agree, D3 isn't an MMO (In my definition of the genre). It just requires online connection to play. (Bad comparison, but you can play farmville alone entirely but you still need connection to play.)
Agreeing with them or disagreeing with them would be the consumer's choice. I think their reasoning was good enough but I would have loved for them to 'figure out' a way to have offline mode that didn't compromise the multiplayer (Which was the reason why they went for online only. They didnt want their game easily hacked. Pirating could have been one of the reasons but this is the reason they 'publicly' went for)

EDIT: You mention SC2, and from what I can recall, SC2's launch was pretty smooth. (I was able to play right away, and that game had online requirements as well.) The initial number of users wanting to log in could have been smaller, but it was still big if I recall correctly.

They know how to get things done well, and the fact that D3's launch had such a hiccup shows me that something happened that they did not anticipate (Unintentional glitch that came with the intense server load that was specific to the way D3 was coded for example)

[Nyanmaru]

Now, do you play with 'hundreds' of other players simultaneously ? No you don't, you play with up to 3 others...

If I'm breathing where I am right now and you are breathing where you are right now. Aren't we breathing simultaneously?

Just by definition, any game that offers a lobby and parallel games can call itself an MMO.

[Twotonsteak]

Uhm, that happens regularly on cash machines where I grew up. 5/10/20/50 and on weekends the 5's and 10's were usually empty before Saturday evening. And by Sunday night you'd be only able to get 50's.

The reasoning on Blizzards side is quite easy to understand: The average load is 50, the load on launch is 500 and the following weeks it's at 200. Why would you go and buy capacity for a high load when you don't need it later? The angry customer factor isn't as high as the extra cost for hardware factor. It's what they call "risk management".

So your defense is that Blizzard knowingly screwed over the D3 customer base. As such everyone should be understanding and not complain.

Please never become a Defense Attorney.

Addendum: Is it possible that Blizzard would have retained more D3 players had their server and other issues not been so large? That is very possible. I know more than a few guild mates from my WoW guild that have left D3, fed up with not being able to actually play the game.

[Buck-Shot]

Uhm, that happens regularly on cash machines where I grew up. 5/10/20/50 and on weekends the 5's and 10's were usually empty before Saturday evening. And by Sunday night you'd be only able to get 50's.

The reasoning on Blizzards side is quite easy to understand: The average load is 50, the load on launch is 500 and the following weeks it's at 200. Why would you go and buy capacity for a high load when you don't need it later? The angry customer factor isn't as high as the extra cost for hardware factor. It's what they call "risk management".

Your sir should get a cookie...

To the poster, take Swtor as an example.. When it launched most servers became way too pack and que lines began, so bioware increase server cap amount.. Now that persons play time has decreased most of what you see now is servers saying "low pop", because the capacity for the server have increased soo much, that even if a good size is online, your most likely to see "Low PoPulation or normal"

[0oglitcho0]

Yet it is a game that can support hundreds of thousands of players simultaneously. There are MMO racing games which also do not have a persistent world where you can't interact with many players at the same time except for the lobbies, yet they are labeled MMO's.
It might not be a classic MMORPG, but it is definitely an MMO.

Thats like saying call of duty is an MMO.

[BLSTMASTER]

At least the multiplayer aspect of it could be called MMOFPS

You know what I can't understand... How people out there are so stupid. Can you predict the total number of people attempting to log in the day of? Tell me OP... How would you test for 6.5 million players logging into your servers at once? No company in the world has the ability to simulate that kind of load. When you have a solution to that, then you can call out Blizzard or any other company. Until you can provide the world with a solution to this, shut the fuck up.

I wouldn't use such harsh words, but the the OP's title is what I don't understand :P

[Buck-Shot]

So your defense is that Blizzard knowingly screwed over the D3 customer base. As such everyone should be understanding and not complain.

Please never become a Defense Attorney.

Addendum: Is it possible that Blizzard would have retained more D3 players had their server and other issues not been so large? That is very possible. I know more than a few guild mates from my WoW guild that have left D3, fed up with not being able to actually play the game.

What he's trying to say is if needed blizz can increase server room/cap without added hardware but if they were to go ahead and try to please 100%, that would require more hardware which Blizz themselves later down might run into the problem of having too much hardware and so so amount of players once they start leaving...

Its what has happen to WoW now, alot of those servers don't need to be there anymore, blizz can close them down and X-fer those that was on it to another server, but why do that when you offer the services for persons to do it themselves if they so really desire..

Its a double edge sword really, damn if you do damn if you don't...

---------- Post added 2012-05-29 at 11:22 PM ----------

You know what I can't understand... How people out there are so stupid. Can you predict the total number of people attempting to log in the day of? Tell me OP... How would you test for 6.5 million players logging into your servers at once? No company in the world has the ability to simulate that kind of load. When you have a solution to that, then you can call out Blizzard or any other company. Until you can provide the world with a solution to this, shut the fuck up.

True also,
6mil, Heck even if 2000 person try to access a server all at once, the security software they have in place would probably think the server is been bombarded by hackers..
What follows next, server shut down.. Seen it happen to Microsoft, so blizz is no different..

[Strah]

Thats like saying call of duty is an MMO.

Yeah, i'm inclined to believe you could call it an MMO if you would need to have a constant connection in order to play it in single player mode. It does not have that requirement, however.

[Stormspellz]

mmo by text book definition covers d3, how ever "mmo" term has evolved into a persistent world setting, which d3 is not. The down time of the servers for a launch game of this size even not being a "mmo" has been minimal at best, while granted it has happened at some inconvenient times it still has been overall minimal.