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

[spartandude]

When i buy game that have single player i expect it to play offline. Everything else is just bullshit.
That's why i will be buying D3 in discount bin few years down the road.

better yet get Torchlight 2, essentially the same game, about 1/4 - 1/3 of the cost, and lets you play single player offline

also designed by alot of peoplew who worked on D1 and D2

 

[Antari]

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.

The entire problem with the situation that your not seeing is this; When Activision/Blizzard aren't making quite enough money to make them happy. Guess what? You game goes POOF! They shut off the servers to consolidate resources. And your shit outa luck. Thats the deal, cut and dry. Its already happened before, and it WILL happen to you with Diablo 3 in the near future. Because lets say Diablo 4 comes out, and you just don't quite like it as much as Diablo 3 ... your screwed. Too bad. They can force you to buy Diablo 4 because Diablo 3 will stop working.

 

[themyrmidon]

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.

Couldn't have said it better. Living on a college campus and in general in upstate NY where you either have TWC or nothing internet connection is just not reliable and I'd like to play M&M:H6 when the connection goes down.

 

[zachusaman]

you sound like somebody who never leaves home, or somebody who lives in a city/apartment with 50 unsecured wifis.
how about going down to the lakes this weekend and wanting to play your game there? TOO BAD
internet down? oh well, guess those games you "bought" are useless.
think about this one now, (especially for you idiots who bought BF3) what happens when said company goes out of business (like EA will be doing shortly)? how will you play your games then?
oh and how many of you actually got to play D3 when you bought it? error 37 says hi!

 

[Vuliev]

And that is where you see what is actually your opinion isn't a fact.

I disagree.

And more importantly to this discussion the developer disagree. They get to decide on this.

Really? You disagree that a game created in a time where internet access was not only slow but also rather spotty for most people, where every bit of the main content was single-player, was focused on single-player? Sorry, you just lost all credibility as a Diablo fan (and if you've made no assertions thereto in this thread, I apologize.) Moreover, if Diablo wasn't offline 1P focused in the first three installments, why would people be pissed that D3 switched to online-only? Here's a hint: it was focused on offline 1P, and I'm willing to say that most of the people in this thread would back me up on that.

I don't disagree that the dev has prerogative when it comes to single-or-multiplayer focus--that's certainly true--but if online play was their focus in this installment, they should have been forthcoming about it from the beginning. Besides, that's clearly not the case--at the most, they (at the most) want a balance between single-and-multiplayer, which they'd already achieved with the original Battle.net.

It also doesn't change that there might be a guy out there who didn't give a toss about the rest of the server he played his MMO on. He might just be exploring. To deny him a single player is no different that denying you in D3.

What?? Anyone dense enough to expect offline single-player from a massively multiplayer ONLINE game is begging to be ridiculed. That logic makes no sense.

 

[Lunar Templar]

So you posted. Then acted all snarky when somebody responded to you, saying how much you just don't care. On some level you clearly do, or you wouldn't have posted in the first place.

well, he was snarky first, so i was snarky back :3 how it works with me.

and as to me 'not caring about the always online' bit. should i?
i mostly play MMOs, which are more or less the same set up, so why should this bother me in the least?

cause it was a single player game? didn't play those, so such comments are meaningless to me.

 

[gibboss28]

*snip*

The problem is that there is no reason what so ever to not have an offline single player mode.
The sole reason for it is to maximise the potential how many people use that infernal RMAH.

That is the only reason.

Why do I say that?

Well because the thing about hacks and item duping wasn't something that really affected the single player aspect of it, and you sure as shit couldn't transfer items across from a single player character to a multiplayer player character because that wasn't how their system worked.

Now you could argue that if there was a single player they could just simply learn how to item dupe there and bring it across, well the problem with that is there is nothing stopping them from doing that online. They'll just play by themselves, I mean, who's going to be able to report them? If they're going to be using the online system to monitor the games, it won't be able to pick it up because its not really a hack, its a bug exploit. And given the fact this is Blizzard, even if they find out about the exploit, they'll eventually create another, they're good like that.

You also mention the fact that D3 was built as a multiplayer game rather than single player, well so was Diablo 2, but it still had a singe player, so was Borderlands but it still had a single player, so was Starcraft 2 but it still had a single player, the only difference was that if you played SC2 offline you didn't get the achievement stuff which was a fair trade, hell if they'd have done something like that there woulda been a little less moaning.

Thats my take on it anyway.

*snip*

I've read through your other posts and while I can see where your coming from theres just one thing niggling at me, and that's this.

Tf2 and Diablo 3 are not comparable, here's why.

Team Fortress since its start has always been a multiplayer game, no real single player to speak of, sure you could set up a LAN server for TFC and look around the maps, get to grips with a few of the things just as conc jumping, but even then, no real single player to speak of. Sure with a recent TF2 update they added bots but still, never really had a single player.

Diablo on the other hand, while it had the option for online play was fundamentally a single player game, that shifted slightly towards a multi player focus with D2, but even then it still gave you an offline single player, and there really should be no reason for an offline single player with D3, sure its going to be better multi player, but still there is no reason for not including a single player for those who would like to just play by themselves. Just because you have one, doesn't mean you can't do the other, I personally would like both, it won't do any harm in the long run.

Theres also an argument for the fact that in Diablo the only servers being hosted are Blizzards, and with TF2 its whoever wants to set one up, Valve have a few but very little in that regard.

But to be honest it doesn't really matter, those will get it will enjoy it, those who won't will play something else, simple.

I was in the camp of not getting it, but a friend brought it for me earlier so...eh, guess I'll be playing it and hopefully enjoying it...moreso because I didn't spend my money on it, yay for fixing a friends computer I suppose.

 

[Vuliev]

More importantly. You did not understand the last qoute. It is the developer denying him the option to play offline. Just like D3. They wer eup front with the online bit form the start.

Except the developer never once stated or implied that there would be anything but multiplayer. To my knowledge, not a single MMO developer has done anything to that effect--so your assertion that an MMO developer is "denying" that guy a single player is absolutely preposterous.

And actually, no, Blizzard was not upfront with the always-online policy. The first mention that D3 would be always-online came last August (to predictable outrage), and (to tie us into the other argument) Blizzard has never said or even implied that D3 would be multiplayer-focused. Now, it's possible that the "always-online" thing was only decided upon within the last year or so--but that means that it was a recent addition to a game that was at first developed as a single-player focused game like its predecessors.

It is just your opinion. You try to drag out credibility by more or less saying "real diablo players played offline". Ridicules. Makes no more sense than me saying the opposite.

In no way did I say or even imply that (or any of the sentiments that come with the use of that phrase), and now you're just obfuscating the point by twisting my words. No further discussion to be had here.

 

[wfieldb]

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.

But people will play Team Fortress and not have a problem with being online for that, but once it is needed for this DRM its a completely different story.

You can go with the Multi/Single argument for why it is different, but at the end of the day bought 2 games you were unable to enjoy while off line.

might have something to do with the fact that well.... Team Fortess 2 is a multiplayer game

the point is that alot of people want to play D3 single player. why do they need to be online for that? what if the internet goes down through no fault of there own or the servers are really busy? shouldnt they still be allowed to play single player?


edit: and to all the people saying "the internet is the future" yes i agree but remember thats the future not right now. sure a steady interent everywhere is possible in a decade or so but thats then not now

Apply all of those to tf2.

Same result. If you can play team fortress. You can play D3. You can go "Multiplayer" all you want. It still doesn't change, if you can play the one you can play the other.

Just thought I'd point something out, TF2 can be played offline. Whether or not it's enjoyable is irrelevant since i could have fun running around the level shooting at walls, the point is it will run offline whereas Diablo 3 will not.

 

[evilneko]

That's fine, but I'm sorry, always online is a deal-breaker for me. Whatever arguments you may put forth, the fact that I cannot play it even in single player without an internet connection will always be an insurmountable obstacle to me.

 

[Vuliev]

It is just your opinion. You try to drag out credibility by more or less saying "real diablo players played offline". Ridicules. Makes no more sense than me saying the opposite.

In no way did I say or even imply that (or any of the sentiments that come with the use of that phrase), and now you're just obfuscating the point by twisting my words. No further discussion to be had here.

Really? You disagree that a game created in a time where internet access was not only slow but also rather spotty for most people, where every bit of the main content was single-player, was focused on single-player? Sorry, you just lost all credibility as a Diablo fan (and if you've made no assertions thereto in this thread, I apologize.) Moreover, if Diablo wasn't offline 1P focused in the first three installments,

There is no twisting going on here. You just contradicted yourself pretty clearly.

Yeah there is no discussion to be had here.

Except that any Diablo fan should be able to recognize that the developers' primary focus with the first three installments was the single-player. It's evident by simply booting up the games. Whether or not you or I went for offline or Battle.net is irrelevant--the game was designed and balanced primarily for single player, and any modifications afterward were due to Battle.net's popularity.

Whatever, nothing I do or say will prevent you from misconstruing my words.

 

[Aeshi]

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.

But people will play Team Fortress and not have a problem with being online for that, but once it is needed for this DRM its a completely different story.

You can go with the Multi/Single argument for why it is different, but at the end of the day bought 2 games you were unable to enjoy while off line.

might have something to do with the fact that well.... Team Fortess 2 is a multiplayer game

the point is that alot of people want to play D3 single player. why do they need to be online for that? what if the internet goes down through no fault of there own or the servers are really busy? shouldnt they still be allowed to play single player?


edit: and to all the people saying "the internet is the future" yes i agree but remember thats the future not right now. sure a steady interent everywhere is possible in a decade or so but thats then not now

Apply all of those to tf2.

Same result. If you can play team fortress. You can play D3. You can go "Multiplayer" all you want. It still doesn't change, if you can play the one you can play the other.

Just thought I'd point something out, TF2 can be played offline. Whether or not it's enjoyable is irrelevant since i could have fun running around the level shooting at walls, the point is it will run offline whereas Diablo 3 will not.

TF2 went for about 2 years without those bots and offline play though.

 

[wfieldb]

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.

But people will play Team Fortress and not have a problem with being online for that, but once it is needed for this DRM its a completely different story.

You can go with the Multi/Single argument for why it is different, but at the end of the day bought 2 games you were unable to enjoy while off line.

might have something to do with the fact that well.... Team Fortess 2 is a multiplayer game

the point is that alot of people want to play D3 single player. why do they need to be online for that? what if the internet goes down through no fault of there own or the servers are really busy? shouldnt they still be allowed to play single player?


edit: and to all the people saying "the internet is the future" yes i agree but remember thats the future not right now. sure a steady interent everywhere is possible in a decade or so but thats then not now

Apply all of those to tf2.

Same result. If you can play team fortress. You can play D3. You can go "Multiplayer" all you want. It still doesn't change, if you can play the one you can play the other.

Just thought I'd point something out, TF2 can be played offline. Whether or not it's enjoyable is irrelevant since i could have fun running around the level shooting at walls, the point is it will run offline whereas Diablo 3 will not.

TF2 went for about 2 years without those bots and offline play though.

I'm not talking about playing with bots, I'm just talking about running around a map alone. As far as I know the game would always run offline you would just be alone, until they introduced the bots of course.

 

[snekadid]

But, like Battlefield games, it's strength and replay value are in multiplayer.

As Yahtzee stated very sagely, a game should be able to hold up on its single player alone.

you quoted yahtzee... marry me!

I wish people would stop using TF2 as a example for always online being good, yes its always online! Its a competitive multiplayer game! I played it single player once on the orange box and enjoyed the full 10 minutes i spent capping the briefcase and running up walls uncontested.... then i turned it off and felt silly.

Always online is ONLY DRM! its not a service since D2 separated the online only and single player characters so if you wanted to dupe, then fine but you can't use the same character with the law abiding characters. The blizzard not wanting to do that this time isn't a valid excuse for what is essentially punishing the consumer, adding lag when playing single player is not advancement, its taking gaming and putting it farther from the player for the purpose of money whoring and being a troll. No thanks, blizzard can take a running leap, the diablo series is done as far as im concerned and their beating a dead horse will pass by, leaving me unaffected.

 

[Byere]

Contrary to what you say, I WILL be playing it for the single player... but it really doesn't bother me about the whole "always on-line" thing. It's the same with Steam (assuming you want any achievements you earn, etc). If the server goes down, you just have to be patient till they fix the problem.

That's something that really bugs me. Few newer gamers (as in, first console is PS2/Gamecube/Xbox/etc) have any patience whatsoever. That's why the main trend in gaming is action-hacky-slashy-shooty bullshit that's the same thing in every game and why games have become so bland and boring. Then when something like this happens, where there's a CHANCE the servers may go down for more than a few hours at a time that may cut into your precious play time, there's chaos and hatred and screaming and shouting and it's all UTTERLY POINTLESS!!! It's like if you're someone who works first-hand with customers (plumber, electrician, cashier, etc) and when something happens to slow down your work and then the customer gets all in your face, screaming and shouting and not letting you just sort the problem out. If, or when, the servers go down, I can bet you that people will be sending loads of shitty emails to Blizzard, bitching and complaining... and while Blizzard are sorting through all the crap, they'll be less interested in actually working on fixing it and keeping the customers happy... thus it'll take even longer.

Seriously people, learn to just accept the shit as it comes, have some patience, and just get on with your lives.

Ps. yes, I know I was pretty much ranting, but still...

 

[ElPatron]

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

[citation needed]

Take into account that many countries still have shit infrastructure, that a lot of ISPs still have that silly "turn the internet off for 5 min every" (don't really know why, they must need the downtime and don't have multiple servers to deal with the traffic) that imply that you lose progress on many games.

But, like Battlefield games, it's strength and replay value are in multiplayer.

As Yahtzee stated very sagely, a game should be able to hold up on its single player alone.

Battlefield was not supposed to have SP campaigns anyway. Only Bad Company spin offs and BF3 had it.

I agree with Yahtzee most of the time, and I understand and respect his hatred for being randomly paired with assholes.

But if he wanted to review BF3 he could have just skipped it because we all knew the SP was going to be shit. If you don't like multiplayer only games, don't buy multiplayer oriented series.

People have all the right to feel ripped off by BF3's campaing but DICE is not entirely at fault.

 

[zombieshark6666]

It doesn't add anything to my experience, except possible frustration. Why would I be for it?