Diablo® III

How will Diablo 3 servers be funded?

60 Undead Warlock
340
Posts: 33

But it's not. Only 4 players per game, so they can completely compartmentalize their infrastructure. Easy peasey, nothing like an MMO. MMO's need bigger infrastructure because they need to create the illusion for hundreads or thousands of players that they are all cohabitating the same "world" at the same time.

With 4 players per game, all they need is a matchmaking brain, an auction house brain, and then a bunch of redundant servers running the same game for no more than 4 at a time. Easier, lighter. As I understand it.

Also, as others said, I bet they're gonna make bank on RMAH.


I can accept that it will be easier and lighter to run, thanks for the clarification. But it's still not free right? It's an ongoing service they are providing with no clear model for sustaining it in the long run that I can see. Maybe the RMAH will be a huge cash cow but I don't see them resting the future of the franchise on it. They've got something else up their sleeve to make me open my wallet and throw money at them, I can feel it!
Reply Quote
Posts: 834
09/22/2011 05:47 AMPosted by Breyna
How did they manage it with Diablo 2? I doubt the infrastructure for that was a slouch, though might not be as big as what they're doing with D3.


Would have cost as much though, if you remember the cost of hardware back then versus now.
Reply Quote
Posts: 968
diablo 3 is probably not peer to peer hosting. The ai scripts/loot drop %/monster spawns are all server side. I imagine the server load to be pretty big on this release. However, they will likely sell ad space as they did with the original b.net. As long as it is not in game I won't care.
Reply Quote
Posts: 185
I don't believe Diablo 1 and 2 were peer to peer... Where did you get your source about them using P2P? Also, if it was peer to peer, they wouldn't be using the beta to stress test the servers. Why do you think there aren't that many people playing the beta?
Edited by Apbowler on 9/22/2011 7:06 AM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Troll Mage
14285
Posts: 943

Especially since they don't actually host the games, the players do. They only get updates trickled out to their servers maybe once every 2-3 seconds on average to keep character progression up to date. Just stuff like gold, loot, exp, and skill changes. Compare that to having to update your character's position, orientation, movement, and skill usage, on top of those other things, over 30 times per second and you can see the difference in server load.


I think you're making a pretty big assumption that battle.net will just be a matchmaking service and players will be hosting the games themselves. I thought the whole point of not offering single player was to take all the power away from the client and let the server handle everything.


Babysitting like that is not the same as actually hosting the server. There are ways to detect shenanigans that don't require B.net actually host your game, only that it be hooked in, and the client will not allow a game to run if it doesn't detect that hook. Likewise, the server will not accept data if the client has been tampered with. It's similar to PunkBuster which many Valve games make use of. Neither PunkBuster nor Steam hosts your game, but Steam provides the indexing and PunkBuster hooks into the server and "listens" to the game on the client side, only sending a violation error to the server when a violation is detected. In Diablo 3's case their PB equivalent will always be active and will cause all sorts of trouble for you if it detects items appearing out of nowhere, monsters where they shouldn't be, teleportation, and other exploits. You can't hack the security process either because the master server checks the integrity of the process before it accepts data, and it will throw a fit if it detects that the hook process has been tampered with. So there's two tiers of security, one being server-side which you cannot hack unless you hack Blizzard themselves.
Edited by Dreyfuss on 9/22/2011 7:08 AM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Troll Mage
14285
Posts: 943
09/22/2011 07:06 AMPosted by Apbowler
I don't believe Diablo 1 and 2 were peer to peer... Where did you get your source about them using P2P? Also, if it was peer to peer, they wouldn't be using the beta to stress test the servers. Why do you think there aren't that many people playing the beta?


There aren't that many people in beta because... they're not using the beta to stress test servers? Pretty much what you said? I think you mistyped something there. Regardless, a stress test of B.net would be to see if it could keep track of that many games, players entering and leaving, and characters updating. Even without mapping out every character, monster, and ability hitbox in game there's still a big load. The point is just that it's not WoW big.

I think it was P2P because I know Blizz is a good development team and they're smart guys. Dedicated servers work for FPS with server browsers where players pay for the costs to get the low latency and high performance servers they need to have a good FPS experience, but an aRPG or RTS has much, MUCH lighter requirements on latency to be playable, so dedicated servers are just overkill. Why would Blizzard shoulder that burden if P2P would do the job?

However, I did look into it further, and strangely, it looks like D2 was client/server.

Does Warcraft III have a Client/Server Model?
No. Due to the amount of units and the number of players in a game of Warcraft III, it is not possible to implement a straight Client/Server architecture as in Diablo II. We are using a variation of the peer-to-peer model that allows us to eliminate some of the abuses found in StarCraft games.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/faq/features.shtml

I suppose it kind of makes sense since PunkBuster type programs weren't very advanced then, so you didn't have much in the way of monitoring for hacks if you didn't host everything, but D2 got hacked to hell (pardon the pun) and back anyway. With today's software I think P2P could work for D3, but who knows?

However I was right about their RTS games being P2P. Even SC2 is P2P. Bear in mind that's routed P2P, not true P2P, meaning B.net still reads all the data, it just isn't hosting.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117158&currentpage=7

R1CH Administrator April 27 2010 08:07
After some more research it appears SC2 is routed peer to peer rather than server based. Very disappointing.


I don't see what's disappointing about it though, it works fine.
Edited by Dreyfuss on 9/22/2011 7:36 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 88
Hmmm... lol
Firstly, Diablo isn't an MMO or MMORPG... Just an online RPG.

Secondly, Diablo and Diablo 2 ran on the same servers/realms as SC1 and WC2 without any fees other than the purchase price. So I'm pretty sure it'll run on the same servers as SC2 as they will be classed under Battle.net 2.0. The others were Battle.net 1.0 and correct me if I'm wrong but I was told WC3 ran on Battle.net 1.5? WoW must run on entirely different servers due to the population which I believe also use Battle.net 2.0

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure there's more than enough money coming from the purchase sales of all previous games, SC2, D3 and WoW subscription fees alone even without the RMAH =P

There's nothing to fear!
Edited by ToXiN on 9/22/2011 8:00 AM PDT
Reply Quote
110 Human Death Knight
8065
Posts: 40
Not to derail this thread, but to 'True' who called the RMAH a ponzi scheme: no.

Paying a percent to use a service is not a ponzi scheme, it is a common basic and essential method of receiving payment for a service. Real Estate agents, travel agents, stock brokers, and money launderers all use this or a similar payment system to receive their paycheck.

A Ponzi scheme is where people paying in to an 'investment' are the sole method of paying off the early investors, creating an illusion of liquidity and success thereby tricking more into 'investing'.

Edit: reworded for cohesiveness: A commonly used, yet inappropriate example of a Ponzi scheme is Social Security. Real ponzi schemes don't use coercion and imprisonment to get people to invest, and a small few investors actually make money in a ponzi scheme.
Edited by Objectivism on 9/22/2011 8:19 AM PDT
Reply Quote
85 Draenei Paladin
2180
Posts: 4,543
Hmmm... lol
Firstly, Diablo isn't an MMO or MMORPG... Just an online RPG.

Secondly, Diablo and Diablo 2 ran on the same servers/realms as SC1 and WC2 without any fees other than the purchase price. So I'm pretty sure it'll run on the same servers as SC2 as they will be classed under Battle.net 2.0. The others were Battle.net 1.0 and correct me if I'm wrong but I was told WC3 ran on Battle.net 1.5? WoW must run on entirely different servers due to the population which I believe also use Battle.net 2.0

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure there's more than enough money coming from the purchase sales of all previous games, SC2, D3 and WoW subscription fees alone even without the RMAH =P

There's nothing to fear!


the beta is to test the new server hardware the put together for the game.. with the security to make the rmah effective . they are spending the money because they feel there will be a payoff

Reply Quote
Posts: 88
Not to derail this thread, but to 'True' who called the RMAH a ponzi scheme: no.

Paying a percent to use a service is not a ponzi scheme, it is a common basic and essential method of receiving payment for a service. Real Estate agents, travel agents, stock brokers, and money launderers all use this or a similar payment system to receive their paycheck.

A Ponzi scheme is where people paying in to an 'investment' are the sole method of paying off the early investors, creating an illusion of liquidity and success thereby tricking more into 'investing'.

Social Security is a poor example of a ponzi scheme because you are forced to 'invest' at threat of imprisonment, and no-one expects it to make them any money.


True...what is it? 15%? I believe that will cover their use of paypal and other things right?
Reply Quote
100 Troll Mage
14285
Posts: 943



See my other popst. No, no a game like this does NOT require the same infrastructure as an mmo like you describe. (pesistant world with hundreds of players coinhabiting the same space.)

Also: You're being rude. You don't need to be a condescending jerk face to be right. In this case, since you're not right, it's REALLY the wrong way to go.


And I'm still saying, you're wrong. Sure, the servers may only have to house 4-player games. They also have to house exponentially more of them (thousands and thousands of concurrent games as opposed to only a few dozen realms), and constantly has to clear and create games due to the aforementioned lack of persistence. While it may not be identical, the amount of work required is in no way lessened; this is not a peer-to-peer system.


SC2 has to house thousands and thousands of concurrent games, and constantly has to clear and create games. How is that not like an MMO, but this is?

Not to derail this thread, but to 'True' who called the RMAH a ponzi scheme: no.

Paying a percent to use a service is not a ponzi scheme, it is a common basic and essential method of receiving payment for a service. Real Estate agents, travel agents, stock brokers, and money launderers all use this or a similar payment system to receive their paycheck.

A Ponzi scheme is where people paying in to an 'investment' are the sole method of paying off the early investors, creating an illusion of liquidity and success thereby tricking more into 'investing'.

Social Security is a poor example of a ponzi scheme because you are forced to 'invest' at threat of imprisonment, and no-one expects it to make them any money.


I'm pretty sure he was joking...
Edited by Dreyfuss on 9/22/2011 8:18 AM PDT
Reply Quote
110 Human Death Knight
8065
Posts: 40
I'm pretty sure he was joking...


When I try to determine a person's wit to ignorance, I err toward the most likely answer.
Edited by Objectivism on 9/22/2011 8:22 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 291

But it's not. Only 4 players per game, so they can completely compartmentalize their infrastructure. Easy peasey, nothing like an MMO. MMO's need bigger infrastructure because they need to create the illusion for hundreads or thousands of players that they are all cohabitating the same "world" at the same time.

With 4 players per game, all they need is a matchmaking brain, an auction house brain, and then a bunch of redundant servers running the same game for no more than 4 at a time. Easier, lighter. As I understand it.

Also, as others said, I bet they're gonna make bank on RMAH.


I can accept that it will be easier and lighter to run, thanks for the clarification. But it's still not free right? It's an ongoing service they are providing with no clear model for sustaining it in the long run that I can see. Maybe the RMAH will be a huge cash cow but I don't see them resting the future of the franchise on it. They've got something else up their sleeve to make me open my wallet and throw money at them, I can feel it!



Based on how many people will buy diablo 3, if blizzard put say 5-10 dollars of each diablo 3 sale into a pile to just spend on server fees i am pritty sure it would cover the fees for a Long time. Alot of the idea that server structure for D3 will be the same as wow isnt correct. Server costs on wow are HUGE for the main reason the servers are constantly running a HUGE online world with thousands of people moving in it. D3 servers will not need to be nearly as expensive because they might be running alot of worlds but its not constant running of one giant world were everyone goes and logs in and off. D3 when you leave the game closes it doenst need to sustain the world because unlike wow if No one is on a server at all i mean ZERO people the server doesnt stop rendering the wolrd its going 24/7 no matter what until blizzard takes it down for maintance. if no one is playind D3 on the other hand the servers will basicaly be in sleep mode. nothing using the servers during periods of rest really cuts into the cost of running them.


Sorry for wall of text. Oh and sorry for my grammar.
Edited by AdmiralZooze on 9/22/2011 8:25 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,968
Edited for spam.
Edited by Jacka on 1/3/2012 1:02 AM PST
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)

Reported!

[Close]