Video Games

[Kaelik]

It's certainly not buggy an unplayable, most of the problems fall into two categories:

1) Lag
2) Server overloads that happened at different times, including launch.

The second one is not a bug and doesn't make it unplayable. It's fucking retarded for people to complain about the server overloads that happened on the first day as making the game unplayable, I bet there will be no server problems 90% of the time starting from tomorrow.

The lag is honestly not that bad, certainly better than Diablo II in it's heyday, so I don't know what people are bitching about, it's rarely an issue at all, and if you die because of some lag once every 8 or 9 hours of play, who gives a shit.

Now, the one thing about the lag that is tied into the DRM that wasn't the case in Diablo II is that you can only ever play online.

Now, obviously that means if you are having lag problems, you can't go offline, but as above, that lag really not that bad.

Now as for the DRM as DRM, this is literally the least offensive DRM that exists and works. Would I prefer if I could play offline, sure, but let's be honest, if you are going to sit down to play Diablo III for a bit, you probably have access to some goddam internet.

Does absolutely nothing to your computer.

[ishy]

It's certainly not buggy an unplayable, most of the problems fall into two categories:

There are some game breaking bugs out there though, like if you equip a shield to a merc you can't play the game anymore.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012- ... n-diablo-3

The lag is honestly not that bad, certainly better than Diablo II in it's heyday, so I don't know what people are bitching about, it's rarely an issue at all, and if you die because of some lag once every 8 or 9 hours of play, who gives a shit.

Seeing as how some people find the only way to have fun in the game is to play hardcore, dying every 8-9 hours makes the game unplayable for them.

Would I prefer if I could play offline, sure, but let's be honest, if you are going to sit down to play Diablo III for a bit, you probably have access to some goddam internet.

Actually if I go abroad for work, I sometimes don't have internet access. And there other times that you don't have internet access.

[name_here]

Yeah, I personally tend to play single-player games the most when my internet craps out. Also, I am offended that Blizzard released a game with a game-breaking bug in it. I thought better of them.

I mean, from anyone else the hotfix would earn my forgiveness, but I tolerate Blizzard's incredibly long development cycles because they don't have that kind of problem.

[RobbyPants]

Now I'm kind of glad I'll be about five days behind everyone. It's not like I had to be playing on opening day or anything, so I might as well let everyone else find the bugs for me.

[Koumei]

Now, obviously that means if you are having lag problems, you can't go offline,

Not legally, you mean.

Actually, if you purchase a game, is it against the law to then download a crack for it to circumnavigate the DRM if you don't then go and share it? If not, you can safely and legally tell Blizzard to go fuck themselves and play the game offline.

[RobbyPants]

Now, obviously that means if you are having lag problems, you can't go offline,

Not legally, you mean.

Actually, if you purchase a game, is it against the law to then download a crack for it to circumnavigate the DRM if you don't then go and share it? If not, you can safely and legally tell Blizzard to go fuck themselves and play the game offline.

Would that even work, though? I thought you need to communicate with the server to for the game to be playable (as in the server sends your machine updated info of the world) rather than just for DRM. If so, I suppose you might be able to get an emulator, but someone would need to make one first.

[DSMatticus]

Actually, if you purchase a game, is it against the law to then download a crack for it to circumnavigate the DRM if you don't then go and share it? If not, you can safely and legally tell Blizzard to go fuck themselves and play the game offline.

Prior to the DMCA, no. You could do whatever the fuck you want with whatever you own. This pissed software companies off, so there were a few things that happened.

1) They tried to transition from "we sell you a physical good" to "we sell you a license to use a product (the game) which we own." That's where half of all that EULA shit comes from; apples and chairs don't have those. U.S. courts, depending on where you are, have responded with either "sure, sounds reasonable," or "fuck you, that's retarded, it's a purchased good and we'll apply the relevant laws to it."

2) Then they passed the DMCA, and it all became moot. This outright made it illegal to circumvent DRM. The act itself is illegal, license, good and ownership issues aside.

Excuse to piss on Apple: Apple previously encrypted their iTunes music with a key, and then each account had a library of keys (one per song) which was also encrypted. They called this Fairplay, because they are ironic assholes. It wasn't too hard to break, but it really served no purpose other than this: any program or device which could play iTunes music without Apple's approval was in violation of the DMCA and was illegal. Because encryption counts as a DRM, and if you built a device that could play iTunes music it would have had to circumvent the encryption and the encryption was DRM.

And that's it. That was their goal; if you want iTunes music, you will buy an iPod, because it is illegal to sell anything else which could play iTunes music.

[Kaelik]

There are some game breaking bugs out there though, like if you equip a shield to a merc you can't play the game anymore.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012- ... n-diablo-3

Wait, you mean the thing were if you try to interact with the follower before he's your follower that applies to one class the game crashes, and it's already fixed.

Yeah, Diablo III is fucking unplayable. This is clearly worse than every other game released in the last 5 years like fallout games, skyrim, ect.

Apparently I have to specify this, but I'm not claiming that literally no bugs exist at all. I'm saying that an example of an extremely buggy, but not unplayably so game was Fallout New Vegas at release.

If Diablo III has 600 times fewer bugs than New Vegas, I'm not sure how it can be called unplayably buggy, or even buggy. The existence of one or two bugs that are unlikely to come up in play does not make a game buggy.

Seeing as how some people find the only way to have fun in the game is to play hardcore, dying every 8-9 hours makes the game unplayable for them.

Um... Then they should probably go through all the work of playing slightly more conservatively because they know lag is possible. You don't get to play Hardcore and explain that you specifically run the line of allowing yourself to be one hit from death, then try to teleport at the last second, but then you lagged and died. You shouldn't do that if you are playing hardcore and don't have lag. And people who played hardcore in Diablo II mostly played online anyway, so I'm not sure how this is appreciably different.

Actually if I go abroad for work, I sometimes don't have internet access. And there other times that you don't have internet access.

Yes, it's almost like I realize that such situations exist, and thus qualified my statement with some sort of word indicating probability.

Yes, it means that if you lose internet, you have to play some game that is not Diablo III. Cry me a river. It's DRM, when you run across the perfect DRM that has no disadvantages let me know, but in the mean time, I'll take this over all the other shitty DRM that exist. And no, I don't prefer the existence of this DRM, but it's the best so far.

[Sir Neil]

But this got me thinking, are there any games like MUA/MUA2 for the xbox/xbox 360.

Hunter the Reckoning series (x3), Justice League Heroes, Lord of the Rings Return of the King, and Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance (x2) were all available for X-Box and PS 2.

About MUA, would the platinum edition be cheaper than gold? It comes with the extra characters also and only cost me ~$30.

[Istred]

If Diablo III has 600 times fewer bugs than New Vegas, I'm not sure how it can be called unplayably buggy, or even buggy. The existence of one or two bugs that are unlikely to come up in play does not make a game buggy.

No bug in Skyrim blocked you from playing the game itself (since that what blocking BN basically was).

Yes, it means that if you lose internet, you have to play some game that is not Diablo III. Cry me a river. It's DRM, when you run across the perfect DRM that has no disadvantages let me know, but in the mean time, I'll take this over all the other shitty DRM that exist. And no, I don't prefer the existence of this DRM, but it's the best so far.

Apart from the fact it can have a negative impact on the gameplay itself - which most - if not all - other DRM lack.

[Kaelik]

If Diablo III has 600 times fewer bugs than New Vegas, I'm not sure how it can be called unplayably buggy, or even buggy. The existence of one or two bugs that are unlikely to come up in play does not make a game buggy.

No bug in Skyrim blocked you from playing the game itself (since that what blocking BN basically was).

Are you retarded? Lots of Skyrim bugs prevented you from playing large parts of the game.

This bug doesn't do that. It does not prevent you from playing the game. All it does is force you to wait a minute and a half before equipping a shield to a guy who comes with a shield already.

Apart from the fact it can have a negative impact on the gameplay itself - which most - if not all - other DRM lack.

So... you've never played any game with DRM ever? Lots of DRM fuck up the gameplay. And this one doesn't, as much as a bunch of people bitch about the evil lag, it's fucking Diablo, no one even plays this single player. In Diablo II, you could play the game single player, but that character couldn't play multiplayer. So you already had to deal with exactly the same thing in diablo II, except you could also play the game single player, but no one who cares enough to through a hissy fit about dying to lag ever did.

I seriously think that everyone who is bitching about how this is the worst thing since murder needs to go back and play diablo II for like 10 minutes. You will quickly discover that all the exact same things were already true of Diablo II.

[RobbyPants]

I played Diablo 2 single player.

[Istred]

Are you retarded? Lots of Skyrim bugs prevented you from playing large parts of the game.

Parts. Not the whole damn thing.

This bug doesn't do that. It does not prevent you from playing the game. All it does is force you to wait a minute and a half before equipping a shield to a guy who comes with a shield already.

If you're aware of it.

So... you've never played any game with DRM ever? Lots of DRM fuck up the gameplay. And this one doesn't, as much as a bunch of people bitch about the evil lag, it's fucking Diablo, no one even plays this single player. In Diablo II, you could play the game single player, but that character couldn't play multiplayer. So you already had to deal with exactly the same thing in diablo II, except you could also play the game single player, but no one who cares enough to through a hissy fit about dying to lag ever did.

Newsflash - many people do play Diablo in singleplayer all the time. For them this is worse than anything that earlier games did. And the lag currently can be so bad, it makes playing impossible. Blizzard f*cked up big time with the release.

[DSMatticus]

Yes, it means that if you lose internet, you have to play some game that is not Diablo III. Cry me a river. It's DRM, when you run across the perfect DRM that has no disadvantages let me know, but in the mean time, I'll take this over all the other shitty DRM that exist. And no, I don't prefer the existence of this DRM, but it's the best so far.

Note this: why are we taking DRM at all? That's kind of like saying "this is the least painful punch in the face we've ever had." Protecting intellectual property rights is great. DRM has not been shown to do that to any measurable degree; if anything, all of the evidence suggests that DRM has pretty much fuck-all to do with anything.

Most people overreact to the DRM on its specifics, which is pointless; yes, it sucks that the game doesn't work offline, but that's relatively minor and D2 single player was barely a thing. But on the matter of principle, you're pretty much totally justified in being pissed at the stupidity of it; it is literally nothing but an inconvenience that they spent money implementing. The videogame industry has a fetish of beating on consumers because pirates don't love them anymore. It's counter-productive for pretty much everyone involved.

[Kaelik]

I played Diablo 2 single player.

And are you going to bitch for 40 minutes about a slight stagger that occurs every once in a while and basically doesn't get in the way of play?

Newsflash - many people do play Diablo in singleplayer all the time. For them this is worse than anything that earlier games did. And the lag currently can be so bad, it makes playing impossible. Blizzard f*cked up big time with the release.

And those people wouldn't bitch about a tiny amount of lag that barely ever effects anything. And you are fucking joking if you think the lag is bad at all, much less making it "impossible to play" which just tells me you haven't tried playing the game at all.

Note this: why are we taking DRM at all? That's kind of like saying "this is the least painful punch in the face we've ever had." Protecting intellectual property rights is great. DRM has not been shown to do that to any measurable degree; if anything, all of the evidence suggests that DRM has pretty much fuck-all to do with anything.

Which would totally be a point... if it weren't for the fact that this "DRM" IE, forcing people to play on server, is extremely motherfucking successful.

When you compare piracy figures of WoW or the multiplayer function of Diablo II to any other game, you see that it fucking works. Not just because they have something to offer to people who play on their servers that pirate servers don't offer, but also because it takes a lot of goddam work to steal the info needed to make a pirate server, and then manage that server and run it all the time.

There is just factually less piracy of this specific version of "DRM" because it actually does fucking work.

So yes, I would like to be able to play singleplayer without an internet connection or some minor lag, but I'm not going to fault blizzard for choosing to implement a specific, empirically effective method of protection.

[Istred]

And are you going to bitch for 40 minutes about a slight stagger that occurs every once in a while and basically doesn't get in the way of play?

How about being annoyed by lag which currently can make the game nearly unplayable? The fact YOU didn't happen to get such doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[DSMatticus]

Which would totally be a point... if it weren't for the fact that this "DRM" IE, forcing people to play on server, is extremely motherfucking successful.

When you compare piracy figures of WoW or the multiplayer function of Diablo II to any other game, you see that it fucking works. Not just because they have something to offer to people who play on their servers that pirate servers don't offer, but also because it takes a lot of goddam work to steal the info needed to make a pirate server, and then manage that server and run it all the time.

Helpful hint: decreasing piracy is not the correct measure for the commercial success of a DRM scheme! The correct measure is actually increasing sales. I.e., you're making the totally faulty assumption that a reduction in piracy is an increase in sales. Sure, you can piss on pirates for the fun of it. But your DRM hasn't actually succeeded unless those pirates then turn around and buy the game instead. And that has never been demonstrated to happen with... well, any fucking consistency whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, there are some really obvious edge cases where it is simply wrong and it doesn't really match our understanding of consumer behavior.
1) To go to an extreme example, consider China: software generally has pretty shitty regional pricing schemes. Consider Windows OS; it has basically the same raw price here as in China, but in China an IT professional makes about half of what he does here in terms of purchasing power. So the already super-f'ing expensive Windows OS takes twice as large a chunk out of your wallet in China as it does here. That's simply not affordable. China has a terrible lack of respect for copyright law, but a lot of that's just because legal prices are unaffordable to them. Preventing piracy in China does not translate to increased sales, it just translates to pissing on Chinese people.

2) 'Pirates' (which is a really misleading name, because pretty much everyone is simultaneously a pirate and a consumer) actually pirate way more than they could ever buy with their budgets. We have ubiquitous access to entertainment and a high demand for it, but prices are super-fucking-too-high. Most people buy some shit and pirate other shit. Best-case scenario, you're playing a shell-game where Diablo III gets a piece of their entertainment budget and now something else gets pirated. The end-result of that scenario is everyone implements DRM, and suddenly half the world's quality of life drops precipitously as the amount of entertainment they had access to diminishes to whatever they can afford. Considering entertainment companies aren't actually hurting for money right now, this is not really a desirable end state.

[name_here]

The reason why forcing people to play on servers for WoW and multiplayer worked is that the servers actually had something to offer that people wanted. But they have nothing to offer to users of single player except cloud backups. So for people who only want to play single player (which is a shitload of people; there's a reason Blizzard at one point seriously suggested selling the SCII trilogy at full price for each) this DRM is in the same boat as all other DRM; once someone figures out how to disable it all pirates need to do is torrent the cracked version. That is precisely what happened when EA tried this with C&C4. And when Ubisoft tried it with approximately all of their games.

[Lago PARANOIA]

2) 'Pirates' (which is a really misleading name, because pretty much everyone is simultaneously a pirate and a consumer) actually pirate way more than they could ever buy with their budgets. We have ubiquitous access to entertainment and a high demand for it, but prices are super-fucking-too-high. Most people buy some shit and pirate other shit. Best-case scenario, you're playing a shell-game where Diablo III gets a piece of their entertainment budget and now something else gets pirated. The end-result of that scenario is everyone implements DRM, and suddenly half the world's quality of life drops precipitously as the amount of entertainment they had access to diminishes to whatever they can afford. Considering entertainment companies aren't actually hurting for money right now, this is not really a desirable end state.

Considering that most pirates actually spend a large chunk of their money on the entertainment, this actually makes me think that what's going on is a Tragedy of the Commons thing. See, everyone benefits from the net effect of piracy, but it hurts specific people in specific instances. So people are encouraged to defect from the system by implementing their own DRM while benefiting from the overall atmosphere. Of course if it goes too far the system crashes.

Viewed in that light, people who implement strong DRM -- even if it did increase their own sales -- shouldn't be viewed as Jeffersonian protectors of property but selfish defectors and free riders. I mean, if they REALLY upheld principle above profit (sort of like Psychic Robot's weird preference to pay extra money to avoid paying taxes) that's one thing, but I think that they should be viewed more as people who work in a closed shop that don't pay dues or draft-dodging Chickenhawks.

[Kaelik]

Helpful hint: decreasing piracy is not the correct measure for the commercial success of a DRM scheme! The correct measure is actually increasing sales. I.e., you're making the totally faulty assumption that a reduction in piracy is an increase in sales.

1) Except that it is obviously true in this case. When games using this form of "DRM" experience literally the least piracy ever while simultaneously selling more copies than almost any other game it is very obviously true that giving the games away for free would reduce sales.

2) How do you know what the correct measure of the DRM is? Here's an alternative theory. The correct measure of this DRM is it's ability to prevent people who obtain items by illegitimate means from using the auction house where they can sell them for real goddam money.

The obvious requirement to police the creation of items by players demands some level of protection, and this DRM makes that much easier.

2) 'Pirates' (which is a really misleading name, because pretty much everyone is simultaneously a pirate and a consumer) actually pirate way more than they could ever buy with their budgets. We have ubiquitous access to entertainment and a high demand for it, but prices are super-fucking-too-high. Most people buy some shit and pirate other shit. Best-case scenario, you're playing a shell-game where Diablo III gets a piece of their entertainment budget and now something else gets pirated. The end-result of that scenario is everyone implements DRM, and suddenly half the world's quality of life drops precipitously as the amount of entertainment they had access to diminishes to whatever they can afford. Considering entertainment companies aren't actually hurting for money right now, this is not really a desirable end state.

So fucking what? I'm exactly as much an information communist as Frank, but unlike you, I am capable of understanding the concept of other people disagreeing with me. Blizzard is not going to start giving away its games any time soon. Knowing this, I am approaching this problem from the perspective of reality, where Blizzard wants to make money, and will therefore attempt to claim the largest share of everyone's entertainment budget to the exclusion of other companies. The fact that they are smart enough to do it in a way that works and has no significant negative impact on the game is good on them. The fact that Blizzard has not personally taken over the South Korean government and implemented political and economic policies I advocate has nothing to do with this decision.

The reason why forcing people to play on servers for WoW and multiplayer worked is that the servers actually had something to offer that people wanted. But they have nothing to offer to users of single player except cloud backups. So for people who only want to play single player (which is a shitload of people; there's a reason Blizzard at one point seriously suggested selling the SCII trilogy at full price for each) this DRM is in the same boat as all other DRM; once someone figures out how to disable it all pirates need to do is torrent the cracked version. That is precisely what happened when EA tried this with C&C4. And when Ubisoft tried it with approximately all of their games.

Except that this isn't what Ubisoft or EA tried. And you are also wrong about everything else.

Once they figure out how to pirate Diablo III, the person with all the code that is only on the server and not on all the individual machines will have to create and run a server constantly while everyone else who wants to pirate it will have to find and pick servers they like, and those servers will often quit, screwing with your ability to play the game.

We already know exactly how games with actual server information run when they are pirated, and it's not easy. We have WoW and EQ to compare it to, and if you go try to pirate either of those right now you discover that it's actually a lot harder.

You can also compare the ability to pirate the multiplayer of Diablo II. In order to play multiplayer in Diablo II, you actually have to either have bought the game, or gone through a fuckton of work to find one of the two pirate servers that exist. Bottom line, you are factually wrong about how easy this will be to pirate because we have every other game that used this same system to compare it against.

Now, there is also the separate thing where as long as pirated copies can't access Blizzard servers, the auction house can run without being crashed from illegitimate items, and since the auction house was one of the specific reasons given for the always online play, that alone may be all they care about.

[DSMatticus]

1) Except that it is obviously true in this case. When games using this form of "DRM" experience literally the least piracy ever while simultaneously selling more copies than almost any other game it is very obviously true that giving the games away for free would reduce sales.

And cue mocking laughter, because Kaelik is surprised to see a Blizzard game selling. Lolno. How Blizzard games do is not good evidence of anything, because it's a small, heavily biased sample size. It shows exactly zero causation.

2) How do you know what the correct measure of the DRM is? Here's an alternative theory. The correct measure of this DRM is it's ability to prevent people who obtain items by illegitimate means from using the auction house where they can sell them for real goddam money.

The correct measure of a DRM is whatever makes the company who invested in it more money. And that's obvious, because that's how companies work; they are profit-driven entities. Look at your "alternative theory:" what's the purpose there? Oh yeah, reduce illegitimate sales and then hope those people will go out and buy legitimate copies. Except that's almost a joke. Physical piracy is high in areas where people don't have any fucking money to begin with. In places where customers actually potentially exist, physical piracy is so small as to be laughable.

[name_here]

Okay, simple explaination time.

The thing with MMOs and multiplayer is that the point is doing things over the internet with other people. Single player is not about doing that. So one person gets the server info, and then they store it on their computer and have everything that is supposed to communicate with the server communicate with the version on their computer instead. And they put this data on bittorrent and millions of other people download it. Now they can play single player whenever they want. Meanwhile, paying customers can only play it when the servers are up.

[Kaelik]

The correct measure of a DRM is whatever makes the company who invested in it more money. And that's obvious, because that's how companies work; they are profit-driven entities. Look at your "alternative theory:" what's the purpose there? Oh yeah, reduce illegitimate sales and then hope those people will go out and buy legitimate copies. Except that's almost a joke. Physical piracy is high in areas where people don't have any fucking money to begin with. In places where customers actually potentially exist, physical piracy is so small as to be laughable.

No you dumb ass, stop talking about something you know nothing about.

Diablo III has an auction house. In that auction house, Blizzard has specifically arranged for people to be able to sell items for real goddam money, IE US dollars or Yen or whatever.

Th purpose of the DRM under my alternative theory is not to reduce illegitimate sales. It is:

1) To enforce scarcity, thus raising the prices of all the items.
2) To increase demand by preventing people from playing the game with hex edited characters, thus raising the prices of items, and increasing the number of sales done in the auction house.
3) (Maybe) to encourage multiplayer so that people will actually feel jealous of other people's shit, and are more likely to use the auction house.

This has nothing to do with "physical" piracy, whatever the fuck you even mean by that. It has to do with the fact that they are attempting to create a real goddam money market for their items, and that if people can create items without playing, then that market will crash overnight.

Now of course, you are also factually wrong about how all pirates are poor people who just can't afford the game, but I don't care, because that's more stupid shit were you are trying to argue that Blizzard should give their games away because it will make other people's lives better. But Blizzard doesn't care about that, it cares about making money, and one of the ways it is going to make money is the auction house for real money, which it is damn well going to go implement policies to protect the market of.

Okay, simple explaination time.

The thing with MMOs and multiplayer is that the point is doing things over the internet with other people. Single player is not about doing that. So one person gets the server info, and then they store it on their computer and have everything that is supposed to communicate with the server communicate with the version on their computer instead. And they put this data on bittorrent and millions of other people download it. Now they can play single player whenever they want. Meanwhile, paying customers can only play it when the servers are up.

So... how about all those people playing WoW and EQ single player? Oh right, those don't exist, because it's fucking hard to do.

I realize you live in a bubble where you cannot possibly imagine that anyone doesn't have access to a computer capable of running a Diablo III Server at the same time as Diablo III, but in fact, that is the majority of all people, to say nothing of the fact that it will take much longer and be much harder for someone to get all the code to run the server and figure out how to interface it.

[DSMatticus]

No you dumb ass, stop talking about something you know nothing about.

Diablo III has an auction house. In that auction house, Blizzard has specifically arranged for people to be able to sell items for real goddam money, IE US dollars or Yen or whatever.

Th purpose of the DRM under my alternative theory is not to reduce illegitimate sales. It is:

1) To enforce scarcity, thus raising the prices of all the items.
2) To increase demand by preventing people from playing the game with hex edited characters, thus raising the prices of items, and increasing the number of sales done in the auction house.
3) (Maybe) to encourage multiplayer so that people will actually feel jealous of other people's shit, and are more likely to use the auction house.

This has nothing to do with "physical" piracy, whatever the fuck you even mean by that. It has to do with the fact that they are attempting to create a real goddam money market for their items, and that if people can create items without playing, then that market will crash overnight.

Now of course, you are also factually wrong about how all pirates are poor people who just can't afford the game, but I don't care, because that's more stupid shit were you are trying to argue that Blizzard should give their games away because it will make other people's lives better. But Blizzard doesn't care about that, it cares about making money, and one of the ways it is going to make money is the auction house for real money, which it is damn well going to go implement policies to protect the market of.

Wait. What? Seriously, what? See, I misunderstood because what you just fucking said is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard!

It's like you forgot Diablo II existed. See, they had this thing called a closed server. It was a lot like they had now, except there was a single player button to go with it. It lets them do all of your three bullet points without the DRM, except 3 but 3 is the stupidest of the bunch anyway, because they aren't encouraging multiplayer 'by making you feel jealous,' they are forcing you to play multiplayer directly. If they wanted to make you jealous, they would enable single player and not put awesome item drops in it.

[hyzmarca]

Blizard doesn't need hex editing to flood their real money economy. There'll be warehouses full of underpaid Chinese people to do that.