Diablo® III

Dear CM

Did no one read my post? Seriously.

Australia is never getting their own servers until Blizzard allow a compact version of their current one-(giant)size-fits-all architecture to be deployed.

No matter how courteous CMs are (and this is appreciated), some straight up honesty and just a proper explanation would go a long way.
Reply Quote
06/21/2012 09:37 PMPosted by Gimped
Oh C'mon how long is "time"? how long have Australian customers been asking this question. long before D3 was released i am sure. so was the improper placement of the oceanic SC2 server a factor in this? who do we have to contact to get real answers?


I can give you real, legitimate answers.

To do what you suggest (Placing servers over there), is expensive. Very expensive. Before doing so a number of things would have to happen. First, a complete analysis of the problem needs to be done. Massive amounts of data collected, and parsed. The first thing you need to do is figure out where the problem lies. Would adding servers solve the problem? Or is it a problem with your local infastructure? If it is, placing servers wouldn't do anything, so it'd be a complete waste of money.

With a RUSH job, a full and total analysis of such a thing would take a couple weeks. At a normal pace, a couple months.

*IF* it is finally determined that new servers would solve the problem, a cost analysis then needs to be done. I'm not going to get into everything this involves, but it is also a lengthy process. The end result of this process will be 1 of 2 things

#1 It is economically sound to place new servers in the region
#2 it is not economically sound to place new servers in the region, so we will continue to look for alternative solutions. If such a solution cannot be found in X amount of time, we will revisit the server issue.

Blizz may or may not have more steps involved than what I mentioned, but the above would be basic protocol. I also couldn't say where in the chain they are, but overall it is a very lengthy process, and until you've completed a full step (which can take weeks to months), there really ISN'T anything to update.
Reply Quote
Oh now you've gone and done it Arc you even gave me a slight glimmer of hope.

Dammit man don't do that! lol. It will fade though and life will go on just as it has for years :)
Reply Quote
here's the thing. I don't suspect the CM is lying. He says it's being looked into. I see no reason to doubt that claim.

What I stated isn't rumor. It's standard business practice. Rumor would be assuming where in that process they actually are, when they actually started it, what decisions they've made, and so on. The process itself is an industry standard.

While you might say "The company has a ton of money, they wouldn't notice the small hit", you can't look at it that way - a business absolutely wouldn't. Everything in business - EVERYTHING - comes down to dollars and cents. If they estimate they will lose money by such a move - they won't do it. If they estimate they'll make money doing it - then they will.

Note: Things like future revenue DO come into play in these decisions. In other words, they WOULD take into account how many customers they may lose by doing nothing, and factor that in. But at the end of the day, it still comes down to money.

If they had previously realized they'd make a small profit doing it, I guarentee you they would have - it's the right business decision to do so. The fact that they haven't proves either the people running the company are complete idiots (They - as you said - have unending pockets, so this obviously isn't true), or they have not previously determined it would be profitable in any way.

And in that regard- lets PRETEND they've decided it's a profit loss to place servers there- so they're looking into alternatives. IF and I stress IF that were the case - they wouldn't say so yet. Why? Because it's quite possible - again, from a business prospective - that they will consider it - because of the goodwill in customer base it could potentially bring in the future- if no other alternative solution is possible.

It's also quite possible they simply haven't gotten to the step of making that determination at all yet.

the long and short of it is this: I'm not stating rumor, I'm flat out telling you how the business end of it works, I know, I've been there many times. What I'm not saying is where they are along the way, or what decisions they have or have not made yet - I don't know, and claiming either way would be nothing but rumor.

What I can say with fair certainty, is that, while you may be unhappy with the situation - as you should - if the CM is flat out saying it's being looked into, then chances are you can believe him.

edit: oh, and there's a LOT more than 3k players at any time. Maybe you mean 3k AU/NZ players? I don't know the data on that. I'd personally estimate the number of players at peak hours likely in the millions, globally. I wouldn't know about regional though.
Edited by WHISTLERDASH#1901 on 6/21/2012 10:16 PM PDT
Reply Quote
We Brazilians play with >200ms on good days too, we have "our servers" but they are located on US, "our servers" means they excluded us Brazilians with a game translation to portuguese... but i don't really care about the language i just want a low latency to survive inferno.. as a hc-only player i find it very hard to deal with 250ms on a perfect scenario.
Reply Quote
actually i did get an answer on this from customer service a while back, basically they said that they did look into hosting a server here, actually for world of warcraft, when it began, but our datacenters and ISP's were way to expensive, so that is why they didn't then... however they did say that they have not revisited the idea since then, and would be looking into it in the future.

It's not much... but that's what they said.
Reply Quote
sorry white i @ the wrong person in that response, it was at crowbar and maybe i should of actually posted it in his thread on the same subject.
what u say seems pretty logical, but i have been playing wow since 2004 and i am still waiting for an answer to this question which has been asked ever since back then - they must have decided in the past that its not viable and didn't tell us, they obviously reconsidered for SC2, but they put there servers in the wrong location, which caused it to flat out FAIL, go go redirect. i don't remember SC2 having any revenue apart from the copy's sold? so if they can do it for sc2 whats with d3?

there's a LOT more than 3k players at any time. Maybe you mean 3k AU/NZ players? I don't know the data on that. I'd personally estimate the number of players at peak hours likely in the millions, globally


right now in "public games" for the "US" region my client says 2087 - the US is where all aust\nz players are forced to play by default, under game setting we can change to Asia\Europe but the connection is no better.

other posts on the general forums can also confirm its hovers around this number. maybe its not showing solo games maybe it is


I know you prob don't believe CMs, but it was posted last night that the number of people playing D3 has not changed from last week to this week, just the number of people playing in public games has.

So they are not loosing players, just people are being more antisocial. I blame the fact their is to many morons in public games.

Seriously though the number of people in public games is not the number of people playing the game.
Reply Quote
Just so people understand this is the full quote from Simon Hackett, CEO of Internode talking about his negotiations with Blizzard regarding an Australian WoW server:

The limitation seemed to be the same one that gets in the way of various other things for Australian Internet users – which is that we are very big country with a relatively very small population. That generates high relative (per capita) costs compared to higher population density situations (like... Singapore and Asia in general)

That, combined with the fact that WoW server clusters are very very expensive (they have a certain minimum size of deployment they refuse to go below, and that minimum size is so expensive – and takes a hell of a lot of data centre power, rack space and resources). You'd probably be shocked at just how large the smallest deployment actually is.

This isn't just 'a few racks of servers'. Its (in modern parlance) a major cloud computing hub. Think data centre rooms, not data centre racks.

As a result, Blizzard don't have a business case to do it here because on their numbers, it'll never make the costs of the deployment back from revenue out of the (relatively small) player base here.


Full article: http://www.ausgamers.com/news/read/2976629

The same rationale still applies here to Diablo 3. They'll be running all their game servers in the same data centre (WoW, SC2, D3). If they would just deploy some racks in a data centre managed by an ISP it would cost them very little, but their current policy won't allow it.
Reply Quote
Thank you Arcagnion for the closest thing to information regarding this topic ever given to us. I trust that if what you say is true that an answer regarding the alluded to question in the OP will not take too many months to be arrived at. Furthermore I trust that if a decision is reached that is not viewed favourably by the AUS/NZ community that this information would be openly disclosed rather than witheld in favour of silence or misdirection.


+1

Thanks, please keep the information flowing.
Reply Quote
•Using the words "Blizzard," "Blue," or any community team members' names in a thread topic is frowned upon.

Everyone would like Blizzard to read and acknowledge his or her post, and we understand that; however, use of such words in the subject line does not help that come to pass. Please make your thread title relevant to the post subject. Threads violating this guideline are subject to deletion.


This is true for the forum rules.
But I'll give a update anyway, just keep in mind this is a exception to the rule :)

Yes, we are continuing to review how to improve the player experience for the Aus/NZ region. So what does that mean exactly?
It means that we haven’t ruled out any option which includes looking into the solution by the original poster.
What is certain is that even looking into these suggestions will take time. So once we have something more solid then I will definitely update everyone here in the Aus/NZ forums.


Vague and dodging the question, you guys should run for office
Edited by Monkylord#2262 on 6/21/2012 11:38 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Crowbar: im not saying the info is inaccurate, but things may change since then. The article is written in 2010. Blizz manage to change diablo 3 from an offline game into online only in less than that time frame.

The other difference is when it was WoW, it is still barely tolerable under that latency. Diablo 3 had showed us it has problem under high latency, and the development team agrees to that, as indicated by Arcagnion since it is actually in discussion. I am not saying they NEED to provide us local server, but is either they can fix it, or they will need to consider putting it in. If there are other ways to fix it, none of us would have any arguement against no local server.

As for the public game thingy, as narull pointed out, it just means less ppl playing in public game. Fact is normal ppl gets put off by jerks, so the leave, and the jecks population ratio increase, and the normal ppl leave more and more, in the end public game will jus be full of those...... I said it before even pre-release, the current model of online-only mode is flawed at best. I know i am not good enough to design anything, nor have anything constructive to suggest, but i know it is flawed. There was a reason why after 1 decade D2 evolved into a mainly single player game, and it was just disregarded for the "how the game should be played to fully enjoy it". An assumption of the whole population will be civilised and enjoy each other's company was made. Of coz im not saying all the peeps in the public games are the same, but as i pointed out, the good ones will just decrease, while the bad ones will stay around coz they enjoy being a jerk to others. Cant do that playing alone.
Reply Quote
I can deal with living with 220~ AU latency on WoW, because a lot of the pve content is scripted and can be avoided with doing some research.

On the other hand, D3 is very and I mean very unforgiving when it comes rubberbanding or movement sensitive fights with the latency, I can't tell you how many times I have died to rubberbanding or something else completely outside of my control because of latency, it is not an enjoyable experience.
If D3 is going to be around for a long time, Oceanic servers would have to be considered sooner or later, cause hey, Torchlight 2 is out sooner or later. :p
Reply Quote
Well, I've said all I can to convince you we're never going to get a server.

Keep up the noise though, I wish you the best of luck (truly).

The lack of any definitive response only supports my reasoning though. Some people will continue playing in the vain hope that we'll one day get an Australian server and they know this. If they say a definite "no" those people may leave, so they'll just keep stringing us along with vague answers and uncertainties.

The decision to make this game "online only" is the worst precedent in gaming history, but we all bought the BS "all the hit calculations will be done client side and server latency won't be an issue", or the "this is just the beta client, the full release will be optimised".

Don't get me wrong, the game is actually playable for me and I do enjoy it most of the time but decisions that sacrifice gameplay at the cost of making a few extra bucks is just disgusting. It makes me want to stop gaming completely because of how cynical the industry is making me. Either that or just stick to indie developers. Blizzard have totally destroyed the huge amount of brand loyalty that I used to have for them.
Reply Quote
•Using the words "Blizzard," "Blue," or any community team members' names in a thread topic is frowned upon.

Everyone would like Blizzard to read and acknowledge his or her post, and we understand that; however, use of such words in the subject line does not help that come to pass. Please make your thread title relevant to the post subject. Threads violating this guideline are subject to deletion.


This is true for the forum rules.
But I'll give a update anyway, just keep in mind this is a exception to the rule :)

Yes, we are continuing to review how to improve the player experience for the Aus/NZ region. So what does that mean exactly?
It means that we haven’t ruled out any option which includes looking into the solution by the original poster.
What is certain is that even looking into these suggestions will take time. So once we have something more solid then I will definitely update everyone here in the Aus/NZ forums.
That was the worst 'answer' I've ever seen. It was just a nice way of saying "we're not doing anything right now but we're thinking about the possibility of looking in to it.......maybe".
Reply Quote
06/22/2012 12:30 AMPosted by Crowbar
Blizzard have totally destroyed the huge amount of brand loyalty that I used to have for them.


This this and this again. Blizzard have to know that abusing your customers can only have a negative impact on your business.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]