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

    • Simple answer is yes, you will still get the Windows updates and as long as browser is up to date, you will be good. Only thing secure boot does is protect you against boot level threats and make it harder to install other OS's. I've been looking into this pretty thoroughly lately myself as wifes computer has secure boot disabled plus my other, older computers that run Linux, don't have secure boot enabled. Have seen all kinds of questions about this on the Linux Mint and MX Linux forums. Just don't suddenly enable secure boot now.
    • How many other companies will follow Ford's lead? Or, have they already gotten lazy and become enslaved to AI--and now can't figure out how to get out of that mess.
    • Why would any self-respecting intelligent person follow any recommendation by Donald's GOP administration? With almost two years of fabrications, deceit, and blatantly illegal behavior, why believe them now? They had best be gone after the November 2026 election, so we'll wait and see.
    • AltSendme 0.4.1 by Razvan Serea AltSendme is a minimal, cross-platform application designed for fast, secure, and private peer-to-peer file transfers. It allows users to send files or entire directories directly between devices without relying on cloud servers, accounts, or any personal information. Everything is encrypted end-to-end using modern protocols like QUIC and TLS 1.3, ensuring both strong security and low-latency performance. Transfers are verified with BLAKE3 for data integrity, and interrupted downloads automatically resume, making the experience reliable even on unstable connections. You can transfer anything—images, videos, documents, and more. Integrity checks are performed on both ends, so your files are automatically verified for correctness during both sending and receiving. AltSendme works seamlessly across local networks or long-distance links, capable of saturating multi-gigabit connections for extremely fast delivery. With built-in NAT traversal and encrypted relay fallback, it connects devices almost anywhere. The app integrates with the Sendme CLI and will soon support mobile and web platforms. Fully free and open-source, AltSendme offers a lightweight, privacy-first alternative to traditional cloud-based services, removing size limits, upload costs, and unnecessary data exposure. AltSendme 0.4.1 changelog: Release Highlights Self-hosted relays: Run your own iroh relay so transfers don't rely on public infrastructure. Includes a full deployment template in deploy/relay/ with Docker Compose for a VPS and configuration examples for production use. Fly.io support: One-click deploy template for Fly.io, including a quick-start config (fly.dev.toml) for testing without a custom domain, plus production setup with Let's Encrypt and your own hostname. Relay settings UI: New Settings → Network panel to choose how AltSendme connects: automatic public relays, custom self-hosted URLs (with optional auth token), or disabled. Test connections, verify latency, and see live relay status in the footer. Disable relays: Turn off relay servers entirely when you only need same-network transfers (e.g. LAN). Direct connections only. No relay hop required when devices can reach each other. Android graduates from beta: Android is now part of the regular release cycle alongside desktop. APKs ship with each version (universal, arm64, and armv7). Other improvements Private relay access control via shared auth token Relay fallback notifications when a custom relay is unreachable Broadcast mode toggle in sharing settings Android release build fixes (split-per-ABI APKs, universal APK preservation) UI polish: mobile safe-area insets, dropzone layout, transfer progress animation Bug fixes for minification-related serialization issues and system tray icon loading What's Changed feat(relay): add relay status functionality and settings UI (a120cdf) feat(relay): implement custom relay server configuration and verification (51276c7) feat(relay): add configuration for private relay access and enhance observability features (48fbabf) feat(relay): enhance relay URL validation, display connection status (d4fffa0) feat(relay): add RelayChangeGuard component and enhance relay-related translations (16ba514) feat(broadcast): add toggle setting for broadcast mode in sharing UI (ca6d977) fix(relay): correct QUIC discovery port, pin image, templatize fly.dev (52a2ba5) fix: More broken serialization due to minification (67491a9) fix(android): preserve true universal APK across per-ABI builds (e9f256f) fix(ui): conditional safe-area insets padding on mobile (1182f0e) refactor(transfer): CircularRing component animation fix (944572b) chore(android): drop x86 and x86_64 release APKs, keep universal+arm64+armv7 (34ada0b) Download: AltSendme 0.4.1 | ARM64 | ~9.0 MB (Open Source) Download: AltSendme for MacOS | Android Links: AltSendme Home Page | GitHub | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • You are mostly right about the ephemeral nature of it. As I mention in the article, if you dont add a second device or take a backup of your account before uninstalling it, then yes you will lose access to your account. That said, in terms of actual user experience when you sync multiple devices your message history carries across and there's also a Saved Messages chat like there is on Telegram to send messages and attachments between your installs. But yh, what you point out are correct and its not trying to emulate Messenger or Telegram.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      495
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      225
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      150
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!