Blizzard coughs to Diablo III level cap bug
Security features introduced in the latest Diablo III patch have left some gamers unable to progress past Act I and level 13.
Diablo III is unique in the action role-playing game series as being the first version to require an always-on internet connection, even for offline play. Introduced to curb piracy, the feature has left Blizzard facing criticism for not-infrequent server outages that render the game completely unplayable when the servers are overloaded.
The introduction of an auction house service, which allows players to trade in-game virtual items for real-world cash and vice-versa, has led to Blizzard upping the security - and it's doing that by introducing temporary restrictions for buyers of the downloadable version.
'For security reasons and to help ensure the integrity of the game and auction house service, players who purchase the digital version of Diablo III may have to wait until payment verification is complete before they can access certain game features,' Blizzard confirmed in a statement to press today. 'While most payments are approved and restrictions are lifted within a day, in some cases it can take up to 72 hours to complete this process.'
Those who have purchased a digital downloadable copy of the game will find themselves unable to access public multiplayer games, unable to make purchases or sales through the auction house for real-world money or in-game gold, unable to trade items or drop items for other players to pick up, unable to chat in public or game channels, and unable to customise messages sent as part of a friend request. Players will also be unable to access the Global Play feature until their payment has been verified.
'Again, we want to be perfectly clear that these are temporary restrictions (often lifted within a day and at most 72 hours) associated with digital purchases for the protection of players,' Blizzard added. 'We appreciate player feedback and will continue to evaluate the best methods for ensuring a positive game experience for everyone.'
While that's a fairly hefty list of restrictions, some players are finding their games locked down even further. 'As an unintended consequence of these security measures, players who purchase the game digitally after patch 1.0.3 are temporarily being capped at level 13 and not able to proceed beyond Act I,' Blizzard admitted. 'We are working to correct this as soon as possible and will provide another update when we have more details to share.'
So far, no timescale for fixing the bug has been provided.
Previous Article
47 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyKill piracy, please, I hate it.
What exactly are they pioneering? Did you miss the whole "All our Ubisoft games will be protected with always on DRM!". That started with Assassin's Creed 2......
Finding it's a little laggy at times but, meh..
kill piracy by treating the honest has pirates and post game sale demand them to verify themselves becos of something in the game that they might not never want to use?
No penalty at all. You get all. Just have to wait up to max. 3 days. I see no issue here, except some people who might lack patience. But that is not Blizzards fault, it's their own for a lack of maturity.
Also, Instagib, I'm f****ng tired of people like you who complain no matter what. WoW turned **** partly due to people like you, loudly complaining about stuff that was just right.
D3 is a perfectly good game. Millions play it, love it, have fun, do not complain. Then some 50 tards go on the forums and cry because they're spoiled brats and Blizzards to some degree bends over. It's sad.
I give you big kudos though for at least not playing it then. But then again, if you even gave it a miss, why do you think you have the right to form an opinion about a game you haven't even played?
Makes me wish sometimes that writing something in the internet should not be allowed to be anonymously. Would mean a lot less bullshit. Maybe there will be some kind of private-www some time, where you have to apply for access and then are identified by an ID. Maybe that would permit an internet-area that has a consistently high (and thus useful) level in the quality of its contents.
/rant off.. :)
I'm in exactly the same boat. I'm giving it a miss because I don't want to play online, don't have a 100% stable internet connection, like to play in locations that don't have internet at all & even when I do I have rather specific & limited amounts of spare time in which I don't want to decide to play a game only to find I can't due to connectivity issues on either my end or Blizzards. I'm not angry about it. But there's no reason why I shouldn't say that's why I'm not playing their game. If anything, that feedback is useful. Also, I didn't really like it that much. A lot of what I liked in Diablo II (& had hoped to see in III) was missing.
I have the right to form that opinion because A: Everyone has the right to form an opinion. And B: I put a good half a dozen hours into the closed beta across several of it's stages & wasn't particularly enamoured with what I saw.
So, the future of gaming is to make it inaccessible to a large part of the gaming community across the world?
If I'm proud of ActivisionBlizzard for one thing, it's for being so capable as to be able to convince millions of people that something as backwards as always-online DRM is actually a good thing, even for those people who only want to play single player, offline. Either someone at A/B has a doctorate in psychology and is really, really good at making people believe that bad is good, or there's a room full of people with pointy-hats and magic wands doing something extremely clever.
Either way, if you have actually allowed yourself to be tricked into thinking that there are any benefits of this DRM to the consumer who wishes to play D3 in Single Player/offline mode only then I'd love to hear them.
Ridiculous on the face of it.
I thought this game had a beta, is that not meant to sort things like this out?
WOW. Why don't you get off your high horse? Do you never put your two cents in? I am an avid gamer, playing many genes on many platforms. If i hear good things about a game I have not played, then I will go check it out. Having heard nothing but problems from friends with Diablo 3, then i do not feel especially compelled to spend my hard earned cash on a game that has issues.
Admittedly my original post was uncharecteristically negative, but, do you know what? Get over it.
Not sure if you've played this, but this game single player is pretty pants. (Personally I don't think it's that great multiplayer but game quality is another story) If you bought this for single player you're missing the point.
Either way, the gaming audience this game is designed for (developed and parts of the developing world, ie, the US, EU and SE Asia) has, for the most part stable internet connections. Those parts of the world without stable net connections probably weren't meant to play this. Heck, they probably don't know this game exists. Those less developed countries are playing a totally different set of games in totally different ways.
Anyways, back to the point. Game devs and publishers need to evolve and adapt in order to stay around and push forward great tech. Whilst D3 didn't live up to my expectations, Blizzard are an excellent dev, survive very well on a PC platform that was supposedly dying, bought about innovations such as BattleNet and this, whilst a controversial decision, will probably evolve into something bigger and better for the gamer.
@Riffler: Blizz's most profitable customers will be those who use the RMAH, and they definitely need an online connection!
I would have respected Blizzard far more if they had thought up something different.
And for the record I played both online, and I played LOD to death. I could solo the Ubers with my Smiter Paladin alone. Earned some serious gold with it. Me and a friend used to pool our resources and sell it all on a forum for gold. And I used to solo rush a full team through Hell with my HammerDin. I did this frequently for the chance to get the nice Gold items.
Seeing as I never got to play the first two, its a good job they did ;)
I am the audience. Ok I am only 1 member in that club, but I played both games to destruction. I rinsed that sh*t!
There was no need for a sequel.
It was never going to live up to the hype, and it was never going to make much sense.
And look at the gap between games 2 and 3. It is a big gap, a gap that tells me they had no idea how to continue. They had to make up some shi*t to continue. I know companys do this all the time, but it is nice when we can't see the gears working. And when they finally pulled all the hairs out of their collective asses it was only average.
It is a graphics upgrade with little else...little else that is positive to mention. Lap it up by all means..I need more. I'm tired of all this re-patching-upgrading ****.
Am I the only One? Am I? Do you all just want endless copies with different graphics?
I feel like an old fart in an arcade moaning that nothing has changed in 10 years.
it is a penalty, i play when i have time to play, i run my own business, so play time is limited, i want to be able to play when i want, not get so far, then have to wait up to 3 days before i can continue.
Can you back this up with a quote from ActivisionBlizzard?
Perhaps you have some research which illustrates which countries are playing which types of games?
I'm sure you've also got a detailed list of which parts of the world do and don't have stable internet connections?
If you look back through the Bit-tech forums for when this DRM when first announced you'll find dozens of posts from people from the UK who:
Travel frequently for work and have to rely on very unreliable hotel or 3g connections
Are deployed overseas with no internet connection
Live in areas of the UK countryside that do not have reliable connections
Have unreliable ISPs but are not in a position to switch provider
Have recently moved house/flat and are waiting for their service to be enabled
...and this is just the UK.
I don't believe you speak for the people this game was designed for. You're clearly not very well travelled and have very little empathy for those who would spend their hard-earned money on this game only to find they cannot play at their convenience.
Put it another way. You've just bought a shiny new car - lets call it the "D3". The dealer tells you this car is the most secure car ever made and that no-one can steal it. It's main security feature is that the dealer will hold on to the keys for your car and your garage for you so that nobody can take them from you without you knowing. It's cool, though, because it's for your own good. He says he'll unlock your garage whenever you want to use your car. Sounds fine, you think....very secure! Next he tells you he wants to keep your keys for the first couple of days. Reckons it's for your own good. Oh, well that's fine then, and you wait. [time passes]. You wanna take it for a drive now? Sorry mate - I'm a bit busy at the moment - we call it Error 37 in the trade. I'll pop round with your keys later yeah?
It's nonsense. You'd throw the keys at the dealer, get your money back and buy a car from a dealer who takes your money, gives you the keys, and leave you to enjoy your purchase.
If this was ANY other product at all we wouldn't stand for this and yet somehow because it's made by "Blizzard" people line up in defence of them dreaming up all sorts of ridiculous arguments for why it's better than we, the consumers, are being treated like dirt.
It's really, really, not acceptable....
...and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me one single positive reason FOR the always-online DRM from a single player standpoint.
</rant>
You will continue to wait for this as there is no valid reason from a single-player perspective.
Don't be deluded by their speak. This has nothing to do with single player, nor will it ever have. They don't give a shit about single player.
It is all about control. Control of their IP. And I understand...right up to the point they tell me to eat my own poo because it is tastes good online.
Poo tastes bad always, and if I want to play a game offline then I damn well need to play that game offline. I mean I paid £35..I should be able to do my own thing...right?!
Must I eat corporate cock just to do my own thing?! Am I failing in life? This single player thing?...Is it wrong?.. I should suck on old man cock to make it right?! I feel so conflicted!!
WAIT!...No I don't..it is just these bullshit artists trying to make me feel this way.
Blizzard/Activision..I won't suck cock. I wont play ball. I will pirate your games not because I am some dirty fiend, but F***. I don't even want to play them! .But simply because your games are worthless. You don't deserve my money. Screw Ubisoft too. You all have forgotten what games are.. you butchered them. F**k you!
I actually emailed CDProjekt recently telling them how I felt and how much I loved them. You know what? They replied. That doesn't sound like much but it is. They bothered to reply to me..ME! One sodding fan. They cared enough. They passed on my love to the rest of the team. THEY are the future. Everyone else can adjust..or die.
<end rant>
Good god, this.
You aren't just buying a game, when you pay for it you are committing to the game requirements such as a permanent internet connection. If you don't like those then don't buy it.
Imo there should be some kind of legislation to restrict what terms of service a game can have. Right now games are scanning my memory and media, and they can ban me for any reason or even for no reason at all. That's crazy. You own nothing, you have no rights, sell your soul and play this game. They're out of control.
Then don't buy it.
There is no need for legislation to control the games market.
Agreed...which is why I didn't, of course, and cancelled my pre-order the second the DRM was announced. Vote with your wallet, I say.
Damn straight. +1
look at the way EA is tanking - swtor is falling.hard - and theres allready `cleaners` for origin malware . next will be the privacy laws used against EA etc for what they can and cant scan - only time now , and law > EULA everytime.
Seriously you ppl need to get out more. This is to prevent scammers and gold farmers so the game economy is not totally fked up.
But you ppl just want to see DRM and rage. Good luck to you all in your future endeavours, you should all move yo greece so you can rage all day everyday about everything. Might actually get your ego stroked a bit, rather than u all make fools of yourself on these forums.
One of u im sure is raging right now at my grammer. But guess what......NO ONE CARES..........go rage at a game with always on DRM that has no need for it in anyway AKA assassins creed 2. Not a game that requires it for the economy to remain in balance and controlled. Where real money changes hands. Damn them for protecting there customers.
Do you all rage when asked for password, keyword and these 3 digits from your 8 number code when accessing your bank or credit card facilities? Didnt think so.....so stop raging here....this is the same thing.
It's really not the same thing.
The most critical complaint, in my non-Diablo 3 owning mind, is that the system is always on. Even when you just want to play alone. A completely detatched offline mode would not have any influence on an online economy and since there's obviously no interaction between players there's no issue of fairness. The only remaining reason for an always on system in a singleplayer setting is DRM. It's exactly like Assassin's Creed 2 in this case.
The second complaint of mine is that the system is there to protect a feature which is already questionable. It helps keep the economy fair and balanced so people can go on spending in the Auction House, a feature which profits Blizzard and, in my opinion, is a negative feature of the game as it defeats the purpose of a dungeon crawler.
My third complaint is that it's setting a precedent. Look at Blizzard's three most recent games: Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, and World of Warcraft. All of them include a strong tie-in with Battle.net which has been getting stronger and stronger with each newer game. It seems likely that all future Blizzard games will follow this trend causing complaints such as the first two to be present in all future games.
Open and then ladder Bnet.
It probably wouldn't have been to difficult, but at least then it allows for single player. And if you wanted to play single on Ladder, you could. But you were in their economy.
http://en.thewitcher.com/community/entry/265
Point proven..again. These guys are the best. They really are. EA would complain their product was being sold on the cheap, but CDP? Nah they embrace it. They really do know what they are doing. I'll buy their games even if not to my taste just because they earned it. (the steampunk one tho is gonna be to my taste..like wow)