Always On-line is Not a Deal-Breaker for Me.

[Ranorak]

Most of our phones, tables and laptops are connected to the internet.
We criticize Nintendo for it's shitty on-line support, with friend-codes and whatnot.
I can chat with my friend on my xbox while I'm playing Skyrim and he's busy playing Halo.

We also criticized the music industry for not adapting to on-line distribution, fast enough.
News papers are becoming a media of old, because we get our news on-line.

Yet, why is it a problem when a game like Diablo 3, requires you to be on-line all the time?
Diablo 3 is build to be more then just a single player. Yes, you can play solo, you can finish the game without ever playing with someone else. But, like Battlefield games, it's strength and replay value are in multiplayer.

The always on-line feature is not just DRM. I'm not denying that is serves as DRM, but it's not JUST there as DRM, such as Assassins Creed (A true single player game, by the way).
Diablo 2 was plagues with hacks, dubbing of items and a worthless economy due to gold buying.
Always On-line tries to reduce this. Will it work 100%, of course not. But it won't fail either.

But I don't see why people are so mad about this.
If you are just going to play Diablo 3 for it's single player, you might have a reason to complain, but then again, this game was clearly not made for just single player.

If you have an unstable internet connection, I get your frustration, but the internet is the future, and I'm really sorry if your government doesn't support stable 24/7 connections, but the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for it.

Maybe it's because I play on-line a lot, and see it as nothing new. But when my internet drops out, I just play something else for a moment.

And yes, I am aware of the log in problems due to the release, but those problems were both expected, and they will be gone tomorrow.

So, what are your thoughts about this, I for one wouldn't mind if more multiplayer focused games were always on-line, if it makes it easier to play with my friends, or make new ones.

 

[distortedreality]

*cue shit storm in 3, 2, ....*

OT - I tend to agree. I don't have a problem with it at all, much rather have an always online check than a constant disk check.

 

[SaikyoKid]

The one absolute major downside to this kind of always online deal for me, is the lack of non-online multiplayer modes. I grew up playing and still loving my 64 games and the great times we used to have split screening it for long overnight sessions. Not necessarily in regards to D3, but a lan option would have been incredibly nice and non-online mode could also mean we could have massive multiplayer battles without each having to own our own copy of the game (such as with Starcraft and Warcraft 3). Plus, I'll always love killing my buddy right next to me, as opposed to hearing him in a head set.

So yea, not necessarily a deal breaker on any game for me, but when you absolutely take away any form of non-online play it DEFINITELY makes me rethink my purchase quite a bit.

 

[Ranorak]

The one absolute major downside to this kind of always online deal for me, is the lack of non-online multiplayer modes. I grew up playing and still loving my 64 games and the great times we used to have split screening it for long overnight sessions. Not necessarily in regards to D3, but a lan option would have been incredibly nice and non-online mode could also mean we could have massive multiplayer battles without each having to own our own copy of the game (such as with Starcraft and Warcraft 3). Plus, I'll always love killing my buddy right next to me, as opposed to hearing him in a head set.

So yea, not necessarily a deal breaker on any game for me, but when you absolutely take away any form of non-online play it DEFINITELY makes me rethink my purchase quite a bit.

A nice point to bring up, I personally love split screen as well.
Boderderlands on my Xbox has been played a 100% in splitscreen mode.

Still splitscreen is more-or-less a console feature and I hope it can keep it's place next to always on-line multiplayer, as well as off-line pure singleplayer games.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

I don't think you should brush off the Diablo 3 connection problems so quickly, because its really indicative of the entire problem with always online. The technology simply cannot handle the services it is being asked to provide. Which is bad, because people have bought a game they cannot play due to the mandatory online components. That simply isn't good enough.

The crux of the problem with always online DRM is that it adds something else that can cause you not to be able to play a game. I don't like barriers to playing my games.

 

[Fishyash]

It's not a deal breaker for me either. I not against the RMAH, and I can understand why always online is there, as it is primarily for the real money auction house, while serving as DRM. I agree with a couple of your statements, but this one:

If you have an unstable internet connection, I get your frustration, but the internet is the future, and I'm really sorry if your government doesn't support stable 24/7 connections, but the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for it.

I completely disagree. How does one suffer by playing a game that is accessible to people with poor internet connections? Forcing online does not make the game better, it is a necessary evil. A fully online connection to a game like this is a hinderance to it.

 

[endtherapture]

If my internet connection goes down for a week or something for some reason...I can't play a game I paid money for.

That is just pathetic.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

 

[Bertylicious]

I agree with you in theory; if the DRM function works in tandem with other features to enrich the overall product then everyone is well served. Steam is the classic example of where this sort of thing works well.

Windows Live is a classic example of where it can all go wrong. Updates that don't happen in the background and force a restart. No offline mode. Poor response times. These all cause what could be a feature to become an intrusion.

I'm going to buy Diablo 3. That is inevitable. Whether the DRM works more as a feature or as an obstacle will determine whether this happens sooner rather than later.

 

[DoPo]

Most of our phones, tables and laptops are connected to the internet.

That doesn't mean they have internetz all the time, nor does it mean the internetz are fast. and reliable.

We also criticized the music industry for not adapting to on-line distribution, fast enough.

Online distribution =/= online DRM. That was a weak argument - it has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

News papers are becoming a media of old, because we get our news on-line.

Again, you don't have to be online all the time.

Yet, why is it a problem when a game like Diablo 3, requires you to be on-line all the time?
Diablo 3 is build to be more then just a single player. Yes, you can play solo, you can finish the game without ever playing with someone else.

Let me check... yes, it appears that actually Diablo 2 also allowed these exact same options - single- or multiplayer.

Diablo 2 was plagues with hacks, dubbing of items and a worthless economy due to gold buying.

Always On-line tries to reduce this. Will it work 100%, of course not. But it won't fail either.

You're talking about Battle.net here, don't you? Because that requires you to always be online and you can't play with the internet off and all that. Otherwise I don't see why you're bringing up the hacks and the economy. What economy outside of Battle.net (ande yes, there were the servers that allowed offline stored characters, solution - don't play them)

If you are just going to play Diablo 3 for it's single player, you might have a reason to complain, but then again, this game was clearly not made for just single player.

Hey, neither was Diablo 2.

If you have an unstable internet connection, I get your frustration, but the internet is the future, and I'm really sorry if your government doesn't support stable 24/7 connections, but the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for it.

The government? How does the government support my internet? I would have thought this was my ISP's job. And besides, how do you "suffer" from this?

 

[Bertylicious]

Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

This is an entirely reasonable point of view. What are we going to do when Blizzard goes bust (everything ends) and we want to have a quick bash on D3?

Legislation should be passed, or perhaps just a bill to clarify things, to allow consumers to hack the DRM of defunct companies. That way consumers will be empowered to enjoy the creative products of companies after they go to the wall whilst allowing companies to protect their sales.

 

[distortedreality]

Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

This is an entirely reasonable point of view. What are we going to do when Blizzard goes bust (everything ends) and we want to have a quick bash on D3?

Legislation should be passed, or perhaps just a bill to clarify things, to allow consumers to hack the DRM of defunct companies. That way consumers will be empowered to enjoy the creative products of companies after they go to the wall whilst allowing companies to protect their sales.

I'd assume they'd do the same thing Valve have always said they'd do if Steam ever dies - disable all protection.

What's funny about this though is that problems can already happen like this WITHOUT always online DRM - i'm currently unable to play Alpha Protocol due to the authentication server being disabled and the patch not liking my Windows 7 install for some reason.

I don't know if legislation is needed, or really a viable option tbh.

 

[Bertylicious]

Quoting Fail

Is it really neccesary to explode a dude's argument and then pick away at each individual point? It is most, most, un-pithy.

You could have just said:

Diablo 2 is a poor example because it actively provided for offline play with servers that allowed offline-stored characters. Also "The government"? How does the government support my internet? I would have thought this was my ISP's job. And besides, how do you "suffer" from this?

You could then have called him an apologist and compared him to a nazi collaborator.

Y'see? Pithy!

 

[Bertylicious]

Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

This is an entirely reasonable point of view. What are we going to do when Blizzard goes bust (everything ends) and we want to have a quick bash on D3?

Legislation should be passed, or perhaps just a bill to clarify things, to allow consumers to hack the DRM of defunct companies. That way consumers will be empowered to enjoy the creative products of companies after they go to the wall whilst allowing companies to protect their sales.

I'd assume they'd do the same thing Valve have always said they'd do if Steam ever dies - disable all protection.

What's funny about this though is that problems can already happen like this WITHOUT always online DRM - i'm currently unable to play Alpha Protocol due to the authentication server being disabled and the patch not liking my Windows 7 install for some reason.

I don't know if legislation is needed, or really a viable option tbh.

Well yeah, that's a good point of other situations to DRM. I'm just looking for legal protection for fan communities that are fixing a companies game when they no longer support it.

 

[DoPo]

Quoting Fail

Is it really neccesary to explode a dude's argument and then pick away at each individual point?

Because he offered more than one argument. I just wanted to pick on the stupid ones.

 

[Zhukov]

I don't want my games to become inaccessible without an internet connection.

Period.

Therefore, any game that I do not consider a must-have instantly becomes a will-not-buy if it includes always-online DRM.

 

[Smooth Operator]

You don't understand why people complain about things that do not affect you... my that is a shocker, next you will tell us you don't care about the political system on Cybertron!
It's like my dad who complains about medical research, since he is in perfect health why should anyone waste money on something so silly.

Ignorance is quite humorous sometimes, but you should know your opinions are meaningless until you do grasp what this topic is about.

 

[HarryScull]

In terms of games for my computer/console, I completely agree because I'm always using those in a place were I have internet connection, however living in T' north (england) we get very lack lustre internet so having mobile games bound to the internet makes them unplayable 99% of the time and although having to be online isn't to bigger deal, and if its poorly managed it can kill my band-width which annoys others who are trying to use the internet

Also I much prefer being always online to having to deal with DRM