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

[Kuzlo]

well its not entirely unnecessary and obtrusive well yeah that i can see but that's just going by what some people think about it and the meaning of the word

don't worry my lurker stuff goes out the window because of this stuff too

Ah I give up. It's a fact, undeniable fact that the DRM creates problems for legit consumers. There's a bunch of personal testimony on this very thread.


Hmmm...okay here's something.

I'm currently studying Spanish and living in Honduras for the next month. If I had bought Diablo 3 before arriving I'd be unable to play the game I bought. I'd have it installed on my computer, all that data already there, and I'd be stopped from playing the single player of the game because you have to be online all the time. The house I'm living at doesn't have the best internet and it's one of the nicest houses in town.

Don't you think that's kinda dumb? I've got my disk here, bought the hard copy from the store, don't wanna play online, but I can't play my single player campaign.

You got any hypothetical sympathy for me as a fellow gamer? If so then thinking back my plight and the plight of hundreds of other gamers could have all been avoided if single player was offline and multiplayer was online. That's all anyone has to push for.

I don't know maybe it's because I remember having complete and total control over the games I bought when I was younger, but the whole concept of being told when I can play this separate, solitary campaign strikes me as....wrong.

 

[Tony2077]

well its not entirely unnecessary and obtrusive well yeah that i can see but that's just going by what some people think about it and the meaning of the word

don't worry my lurker stuff goes out the window because of this stuff too

Ah I give up. It's a fact, undeniable fact that the DRM creates problems for legit consumers. There's a bunch of personal testimony on this very thread.


Hmmm...okay here's something.

I'm currently studying Spanish and living in Honduras for the next month. If I had bought Diablo 3 before arriving I'd be unable to play the game I bought. I'd have it installed on my computer, all that data already there, and I'd be stopped from playing the single player of the game because you have to be online all the time. The house I'm living at doesn't have the best internet and it's one of the nicest houses in town.

Don't you think that's kinda dumb? I've got my disk here, bought the hard copy from the store, don't wanna play online, but I can't play my single player campaign.

You got any hypothetical sympathy for me as a fellow gamer? If so then thinking back my plight and the plight of hundreds of other gamers could have all been avoided if single player was offline and multiplayer was online. That's all anyone has to push for.

I don't know maybe it's because I remember having complete and total control over the games I bought when I was younger, but the whole concept of being told when I can play this separate, solitary campaign strikes me as....wrong.

well i hate to admit this but i got nothing and sympathy i lost that long ago

you win this round but I'll be back and um with a giant twinky

 

[Signa]

I can't believe I read all 6 pages of this. It's like reading a conversation between a bunch of druggies and non-druggies about how little they care if their habit supports the cartels in South America. They just need their fix and the murders down there don't affect them.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

Additionally, since dialup is still the biggest userbase in the US (One of the largest markets), why would you want to restrict who enjoys it?

Got figures on that?

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0703/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6741959/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/broadband-use-tops-dial-up-us-homes/

http://www.nasrecruitment.com/docs/white_papers/Internet_Usage_United_States.pdf

All of these state otherwise.

The first two are several year sold and the last is 3 years old. All of them state that boradband usage in the States is above 50%.

This is my entire problem with this arguement, broadband is more simply more popular now, so the "unstable internet" thing is becoming even less relevant. If a majority of internet users have high speed internet that is on all the time, I see absolutely no problem with a game requiring your internet to be on to play it.

If you went back 5-6 years then YES your opinion would be perfectly valid, it isn't right now.

 

[Strain42]

In my case it's simple.

Video games are generally what I do to kill time when I have no internet to use. So having a game that requires me to be on the internet is not my idea of a good time because I won't be able to play it when my net goes out.

 

[Joccaren]

'cause when I'm oversees with my laptop, I can't play it as I don't want to pay $40 for Internet in my hotel room.
'cause my Internet is patchy at best at home, and will keep dropping.
'cause I don't have that much bandwidth, and I don't want to waste it.

ALWAYS online is stupid, and purely DRM. No question about it. Online components can be logged into when wanted, or a seperate exe if need be. I can play BF3 offline. I can play all my Steam games offline. I can play Minecraft offline. All of these require a loggin to start up, but you can launch them in offline mode after the first install and you know what? You can play the SP side - what D3 is supposedly designed for - without being connected to the Internet. *Shocking*

It is a deal breaker for me as if it has an always online requirement, I'm unlikely to be able to play it too often. Offline games are the vast majority of what I play, and when a Single Player game forces me to be online, I lose what should have been an offline game because of DRM.

 

[bpm195]

I'm browsing the escapist right now because the Diablo server's are down again and I can't play.

Usually online only is enough to make me not even consider a game, as the potential benefit is pretty small in comparison to the potential detriments. However, a while ago I Steam got me to compromise and proved that you could make a system that actually benefits the player as much as it harms the player. Because of them I let my guard down, and purchase Diablo 3 in spite of a few things I disagree with.

Unfortunately, Diablo 3 is playing out a nearly worst case scenario. It was definitely a foolish decision for me to purchase it from an ethical stand point, but I'm not sure I regret it.

 

[Tony2077]

well playing games is a good way to escape from reality so online or not doesn't really matter

captcha panic stations does it know something i don't

 

[Baldr]

I've been a Hardcore MMO player since 1998(Ultima Online). Always online, that not a DRM, that a way of life.

 

[kingthrall]

I agree BUT how are these security checks and keeping a game safe meant to help IF YOU CANT ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME because of the internet??????

 

[skywolfblue]

I didn't mind for Starcraft 2. Starcraft is a very multi-player based game, and it's online achievement system is also pretty neat, so it kinda had a decent reason to be always-on.

But I think I'd be pretty upset if all my console single-player games went always-on. I think it would be a dealbreaker for me if console games started adopting it.

 

[Baldr]

I didn't mind for Starcraft 2. Starcraft is a very multi-player based game, and it's online achievement system is also pretty neat, so it kinda had a decent reason to be always-on.

But I think I'd be pretty upset if all my console single-player games went always-on. I think it would be a dealbreaker for me if console games started adopting it.

I was expecting SC2 to be online only, I was surprise there was an off-line mode. I guess with the whole mod community and such, it was easier not to.

Diablo 1&2 had a notorious reputation for cheating and hacks, no real modding available, so no modding community. I could understand online only.

 

[Awexsome]

We are moving more fully into the digital age. Transitions aren't easy but necessary.

There's always consoles if you want to be sure to not have to be online too, just sayin'.

 

[girzwald]

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.

Yes, because I'm sure that will be top priority for a company that is going bankrupt and trying to liquidate its assets, giving their former customers who didn't buy enough games to keep them in business a way to play their games, for free.

 

[Aprilgold]

We are moving more fully into the digital age. Transitions aren't easy but necessary.

There's always consoles if you want to be sure to not have to be online too, just sayin'.

Because I can totally pack up all of my gear for the 360, treck down to a train and then play using their TV or packing my own. Totally realistic. Lets face it, video-gaming takes place everywhere, and requiring a internet connection is more of stopping people who legally bought your game letting them play on-the-go. If it was for the fully-digital age it would be smart enough to notice the fact that Piracy will break any DRM eventually.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't stop it from being terrible. Lets do this simple, Diablo 3. A totally single-player game that requires always on to stop piracy [BTW, it doesn't] and only exists to pat the wallets of Blizzard. It is not there to make your experience better, its online only, its not there to do anything but try and discourage the piracy that will happen.

There shouldn't be this DRM for single-player games, I don't need to be connected to the interenet to play Mario, so why the fuck do I need to be to play Diablo.

Simply put, just because you have a good internet always, doesn't mean that everyone always does. And the fact that this type doesn't do shit but delay the inevitable. Someone will always find a way to play DRM games, and as such trying to stop them is as futile as trying to stop a assassin organization or some shit from killing the president, its going to happen eventually.

 

[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.

Yes, because I'm sure that will be top priority for a company that is going bankrupt and trying to liquidate its assets, giving their former customers who didn't buy enough games to keep them in business a way to play their games, for free.

How would it be free? The games have already been paid for.

If you're referring to pirates - by the time Blizz go under, i'm sure crackers would of found a way around the DRM, as they have with every other form of DRM, so I don't see how turning off the DRM would make games any more free than they already have the possibility to be right now.

 

[Kuzlo]

Huh, so what I'm hearing is "Meh, works for me. Fuck y'all"

Selfish.

Then when Mother Nature comes along or you have some unforeseen connection problems, you turn into this guy.

Nah, I'm still this way after I had no internet for 6 months because I moved and something was fucked up. That I wasn't able to play some of my games was no problem at all during that time.

And yeah, I am selfish in that regard. I pick my battles and fighting always on DRM is no battle worth fighting in a time where I have always internet.

Just so we are on one page: I'm not defending online DRM, I just don't care about it. Maybe if the gaming "community" would get up to a state where I can have some sympathy for them... But right now? Nah.

Edit: Also, I did not buy D3 and neither will I. There are some things I dislike and instead of being a crybaby who cries about shit EVERYONE knew was going to happen (serious, whenever was a Blizz game playable on Day 1 after they released WoW and transitioned into online play only?) I vote with my wallet.

Damn that sucks. Eh it's the principle, sure for some people it's not going to matter (same here honestly), but why should it even be a problem?

Used you as a quote because of the "Always online is no topic to me". I dunno, just because something doesn't personally effect you, doesn't mean it's irrelevant to you in the long run.
The problem doesn't hurt me personally either, but instead of going on the thread and saying it don't matter to me; I went ahead and lent my voice to a side in the argument. If you don't care for the issue then why do you post in a thread discussing it?

And I can truthfully say this is the first I've posted on the topic. I'm not out there campaigning against the DRM. I just feel strongly on the issue, and posted my thoughts. Just looking at a few posts you can see the problems it causes for people.

Also yeah it'd be nice if more people voted with their wallets D:

 

[Triangulon]

Few games sucked life out of me more than Diablo 2. Perhaps Morrowind, perhaps Civilization. I played it a LOT. I purposefully played unwieldy build to make the game harder on Hell difficulty. I gladly purchased it and its expansion. Blizzard got my money, I got the product I wanted, everyone's happy, life goes on.

With Diablo 3, it's the polar opposite. The AH practices and always-online policy completely destroyed any desire I had to play this. I have an excellent computer, and a stable cable Internet. But that's besides the point. Blizzard wants to teach me how to play single-player games. Blizzard wants to educate me that money Auctions are acceptable. Blizzard wants to control how I play the game, when I play the game, and where I play the game. Again, in a debonair manner, telling me that this is 'the future'.

Well, good for those who don't care about this. I do. I mailed them a lengthy explanation on why I would not buy their games anymore, and I will NOT purchase it. I even told friends not to give Diablo 3 as a gift for me.

My values and beliefs are much more important than a game. And, ever since I've played in the Beta events for Guild Wars 2, Diablo 3 is just a faded memory for me.

I agree with everything you said.

At the end of the day it is a disappointing decision by Blizzard to go down this route. When it was announced and I decided not to buy Diablo 3 I was a bit bummed. Now, I couldn't really give a hoot. I'm glad that the issue is being raised in the hope that it doesn't become commonplace but having seen all the issues at launch I'm glad I gave it a miss. I know GW2 still doesn't have a release date but I've got a pretty big backlog to get through until then. May even kick up Diablo 2 again!