Recommended Posts

Battle.net servers went live at 12:01 PDT, which is 3:01AM my time. I have been in touch with a multitude of users who from the very first moment have encountered the dreaded "Error 37" explaining that the servers were busy. While I understand that there are probably hundreds of thousands of users trying to log on, this only shows a complete failure on Blizzard's behalf on several fronts:

1. Being one of the most anticipated game launches in years, Blizzard knew what to expect in load and should have planned accordingly, even if it required leasing additional servers for launch.

2. Blizzard insists on requiring all users to authenticate with their servers each time a user wants to play. Single Player anyone? Not if Blizzard has anything to do with it.

3. Blizzard caused massive unnecessary network traffic by not staggering launch times based on locale

4. Blizzard also caused massive unnecessary network traffic by forcing all game data to go through their servers.

5. Blizzard removed LAN play option that was present in Diablo 2 forcing users who want to play with friends to use Battle.net servers, yet again, causing massive unnecessary network traffic.

This is not the first time Blizzard has caused something to be totally fubar. Starcraft II launch was also plagued with these problems.

Message to Blizzard: Stop screwing your customer base!!! Listen to what they want and give it to them. You are in the entertainment industry and as such the customer truly is always right.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1077335-diablo-iii-launch-epic-fail/
Share on other sites

Message to Blizzard: Stop screwing your customer base!!!

I could be wrong here, but the last time I checked Blizzard were quite good with their customers. The actual message you want Blizzard to hear is, "Guys, how about some better preparation when launching future products?"

Considering that's the message you want to send, it would be worth pointing out that Blizzard isn't the only group to have launch issues. All games have launch issues, especially looking at the multiplayer aspects.

I could be wrong here, but the last time I checked Blizzard were quite good with their customers. The actual message you want Blizzard to hear is, "Guys, how about some better preparation when launching future products?"

Considering that's the message you want to send, it would be worth pointing out that Blizzard isn't the only group to have launch issues. All games have launch issues, especially looking at the multiplayer aspects.

The only games that I am aware of that have these sorts of launch issues are those who use an online authentication system such as what Blizzard employs. I understand fully a companies desire to protect there profits and prevent piracy but their is a tipping point when they begin to alienate their user base. This is an example of just such a case.

I could be wrong here, but the last time I checked Blizzard were quite good with their customers. The actual message you want Blizzard to hear is, "Guys, how about some better preparation when launching future products?"

Considering that's the message you want to send, it would be worth pointing out that Blizzard isn't the only group to have launch issues. All games have launch issues, especially looking at the multiplayer aspects.

If Blizzard had listened to that, they would have on what the previous 5 WoW expansions.... and would have allowed offline SP for those that just want to do just that in WoW...

If Blizzard had listened to that, they would have on what the previous 5 WoW expansions.... and would have allowed offline SP for those that just want to do just that in WoW...

I don't have a problem with how Blizzard handled WoW because of the genre of the game. It is assumed that you must authenticate with a server in a MMORPG. Diablo III is not an MMORPG and thus should not be handled as one.

If Blizzard had listened to that, they would have on what the previous 5 WoW expansions.... and would have allowed offline SP for those that just want to do just that in WoW...
I might have misunderstood you, but if you mean what I think you mean ("If Blizzard listened to the advice 'be prepared' then we wouldn't have had the launch issues with the previous 5 WoW expansion packs") then I'll point out again that Blizzard aren't the only company that have launch issues, especially when the game is multiplayer/internet based. It's just the way things are.

I admit, I have no idea as to the relevance of the suggestion to have a singleplayer aspect put in to WoW, other than Blizzard being responsible for both the Diablo series and the WoW series.

Well since a large group of players only have an interest in playign the game in single player, they could have prevented this by allowing offline single player mode.

and not being the only one is not an excuse, not for a game like this anyway, for am MMO it's somewhat excusable, this is not an MMO.

I don't have a problem with how Blizzard handled WoW because of the genre of the game. It is assumed that you must authenticate with a server in a MMORPG. Diablo III is not an MMORPG and thus should not be handled as one.

Actually I meant Diablo 3 at the end ;)

I have been watching all of the FB posts from my friends expressing the same frustration... But lucky for me (in a way) my copy doesn't arrive until next week. Hopefully the dust settles by then and I can have an enjoyable experience :)

Battle.net servers went live at 12:01 PDT, which is 3:01AM my time. I have been in touch with a multitude of users who from the very first moment have encountered the dreaded "Error 37" explaining that the servers were busy. While I understand that there are probably hundreds of thousands of users trying to log on, this only shows a complete failure on Blizzard's behalf on several fronts:

1. Being one of the most anticipated game launches in years, Blizzard knew what to expect in load and should have planned accordingly, even if it required leasing additional servers for launch.

2. Blizzard insists on requiring all users to authenticate with their servers each time a user wants to play. Single Player anyone? Not if Blizzard has anything to do with it.

3. Blizzard caused massive unnecessary network traffic by not staggering launch times based on locale

4. Blizzard also caused massive unnecessary network traffic by forcing all game data to go through their servers.

5. Blizzard removed LAN play option that was present in Diablo 2 forcing users who want to play with friends to use Battle.net servers, yet again, causing massive unnecessary network traffic.

This is not the first time Blizzard has caused something to be totally fubar. Starcraft II launch was also plagued with these problems.

Message to Blizzard: Stop screwing your customer base!!! Listen to what they want and give it to them. You are in the entertainment industry and as such the customer truly is always right.

uh the game had a staggered launch, i was playing for hours before my american mates got on, and while i was ****ed off at the lauch - after 45 minutes i could freely login and out without issue - i have logged in this morning without issue and the game is running and working fine.

as to the always online thing, they do the same thing with starcraft, and I'm always connected so i don't particularly care

This is what happened in the stress test a month or so ago. Apparently, they still didn't prepare enough.

And because the game has MANDATORY always-online mode, they could have easily assumed that everyone who bought the game would HAVE to connect as soon as they could just to play it. It wasn't rocket science to scale up from the beta test to that sales number...

Like many people, I have no interest in locking my game to their servers 24/7 (because of this very problem and ones like it) and chose not to buy it yet after playing the beta test. It was boring and exactly the same as Diablo2 except with better graphics.

But without a proper 3d mode (with rotation), adjustable zoom (what decade is this anyway?), and offline single player, I'll be buying Torchlight 2 for 1/2 the price but without all of the BS, thank you very much.

I can't remember exactly, but I think I read somewhere that they had 10 million pre-orders or something like that. I don't see how you can prepare for such a massive amount of people wanting to log in at the same time and, at least in Europe, I was able to log in fine after a while which is more than acceptable to me.

Also, it is a very multiplayer and community-based game, much like Diablo II. I guess they learnt that most people do play it for the multiplayer and went all out for it. As previously mentioned, it's also an excellent way to protect yourself from piracy. There were already sandboxes for the beta though, so just keep an eye out if you can't stand the idea of logging into Battle.net. :)

Why? Since when is it normal for such substandard service to be considered BAU?
It's business. I'm assuming Blizzard couldn't justify the costs of having the ability to deal with the initial surge of users when a few weeks from now things will be more balanced and bearable. That said, I'm only speculating on that. Maybe they honestly thought that they had the ability to deal with the mass of players and were just caught off guard, but that would surprise me given people's admiration of the Diablo series.

Mandatory online connection is to prevent piracy...Blizzard works on Diablo 3 game for many years and they do not want to see their hard works will be pirated in day 1 by the likes of Skidrow, Reloaded , Razor1911 etc

Yes I understand this as I have already posted. I have also mentioned my disdain for how companies push their anti-piracy measures so far that it alienates their paying customers. I don't have a problem with anti-piracy measures, they just need to be implemented in a way as to not **** off paying customers.

*sigh* yay for more: "Zomg online only" trolling. Online only in my eyes is awesome and the way to go. The launch was Staggered, the rest of your comments are just "Boo hoo it's online only".

And you keep with your argument that "I don't mind, so it doesn't affect anyone else and it's just fine"

It's business. I'm assuming Blizzard couldn't justify the costs of having the ability to deal with the initial surge of users when a few weeks from now things will be more balanced and bearable. That said, I'm only speculating on that. Maybe they honestly thought that they had the ability to deal with the mass of players and were just caught off guard, but that would surprise me given people's admiration of the Diablo series.

If they cannot scale their server infrastructure up and down flexibly, they have a problem. In a way, they brought it on themselves by having so many components tied to online back-end. Yes, it is their right to design and engineer the game to work they way they want to. However, it is unjust to the customers to expect them to suck it up and bite the bullet.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • This sounds like underneath the nice marketing spin, either someone at Adobe got tired of their lazy devs and asked Microsoft to help them sort at least some of Adobe's ancestral spaghetti code to make it go faster, or Microsoft wanted Adobe's crap to run better on Windows to make it look better when compared to Apple, so they offered to intervene. Either way, GOOD.
    • My favorite file manager for Windows 11 finally gets a long-requested feature by Taras Buria Files is among the best File Explorer alternatives for Windows 10 and 11. This free app is packed with all sorts of features and conveniences, but there is one crucial feature that is still missing—Tree View. Fortunately, the latest update in the Preview channel finally delivers it. With version 4.1.4, which is now available for download in the Preview channel, developers implemented Tree View, a new mode that displays folders in an expandable hierarchy. Windows 11's stock File Explorer always had this feature, but it was nowhere to be found in Files until now. Starting with the latest preview update, you can expand each drive and its nested folders without leaving the current location and then open the folder you need in the main view. To try Tree View in Files, update the app to the latest preview version, then click the small arrow next to a drive to expand its content. The developers say they are rolling out Tree View in Preview first to gather feedback from users and improve the feature before bringing it to all in the stable channel. In addition to Tree View, Files 4.1.14 improves the Windows Fonts folder. You can now preview each font directly in Files with no need to open the built-in font viewer. For now, these two features are only available in the Preview channel. For those using the stable release, developers recently released version 4.1.3, with improvements for the built-in tag system, on-demand folder size calculation, and plenty of various fixes. You can check out the full release notes here. You can download Files from the Microsoft Store (paid version) or its official website (free).
    • Who is paying for this 30x scale-up? Its sounds expensive.
    • Millions of users to benefit from Windows 11's new performance boost on Adobe Photoshop by Sayan Sen Despite the advent of AI-generated imagery, Adobe's Photoshop remains one of the most popular tools on this planet. Adobe does not have a publicly reported total user count but it's probably not wrong to assume there are millions. As of 2025, Adobe Creative Cloud has had approximately 41 million paid subscribers, many of whom likely use Photoshop. In addition, more than 166,000 companies worldwide are apparently also using the app. These figures are according to a very recent report by SQ Magazine. Out of them, it is fair to assume that many are probably running Windows. As such, there is good news for these users as Microsoft has announced Photoshop is getting a big 20% performance boost on x86-64 (AMD64) systems and a 13% bump-up on Arm devices. This is definitely great news for them as many have complained about the slow performance and general sluggishness of Photoshop on Windows 11 ever since the advent of the latter back in 2021. If you are wondering how Microsoft managed to do this, the answer lies in a combination of compiler-level optimizations and a technology called Sample Profile Guided Optimization (SPGO). According to Microsoft, Adobe worked closely with the company’s Visual C++ team and adopted the latest MSVC toolchain enhancements together with SPGO to squeeze more performance out of Photoshop’s CPU-bound workloads. Unlike traditional Profile Guided Optimization (PGO), which requires developers to create special instrumented builds and run lengthy training workloads, SPGO gathers performance data directly from optimized release binaries. This means Adobe could collect real-world usage information which gives a major advantage to this technique, as companies could leverage data collected from actual customer workloads rather than only relying on synthetic benchmark runs. In theory, this should allow optimizations to better reflect how users interact with software in the real world. Thanks to this, there are improvements to code layout, function inlining, hot-and-cold code separation, and other low-level tweaks that help processors execute instructions more efficiently. Essentially the compiler is better able to identify “hot” code paths, those which are most frequently executed, and optimize them accordingly.
    • "The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months¨ I'd prefer to see the lowest price in over a year
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Prasann earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      521
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      81
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!