Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3

[Tony2077]

blizzard may change stuff if enough people say something in a place they can see but i don't think there is enough people willing to or even care about saying anything they just want to play video games end of story

Holy shit how prepubescent are you?

hmm am i missing something

Yes.

Blizzard is known for caring so much as not making a single forum post for various 50,000+ signs petitions.

Which I think is kinda appropriate, various experts and educated stuff doing the job they are paid for, instead of letting the 12 yr old do it.

Well they did get rid of that Real ID thing due to public backlash.

i think we got lucky with that one

 

[Tony2077]

I dunno it looks like we have two choices here: Either buy the game or pass on it. Blizzard makes a million gazillion dollars a year, they need to fill their games with intrusive DRM's (I'm not buying for a second that's not the reason, it totally is) to ensure they keep making a gazillion dollars a year. If we all get pissy and boycott D3 causing it to flop then they will stop making Diablo games and focus on other things and bathe in their big bathtubs of money, cause they can.

And eventually, someone out there will make a better "Diablo" clone that we want to play, and gamers will flock to it.

Just because it has the name Diablo doesn't mean its automatically going to be any good.

no name will mean its good

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

Gahaha.
I don't get it sometimes. It's as if noone on the development teams ever read any gaming websites, magazines or, you know, talk to people. Particularly when you combine it with the real money AH and the "no modz allowed" policy. One wonders if even understood why Diablo 2 was popular.

This smacks of the same rotten scent about the whole "REAL ID" fiasco a while back. What do you expect though? Activision took over Blizzard, the same numbnuts running that company are now controlling Blizzard as well.

Grr.
ACTIVISION DID NOT TAKE OVER BLIZZARD.
Blizzard is owned by Vivendi. Vivendi merged with Activision. Vivendi has the majority stake in Activision Blizzard. Blizzard put in twice as much money into the merger as Activision.
Most importantly, they DO NOT develop games together.

I don't understand why Blizzard enthusiasts are so quick to blame Activision for any fault in a Blizzard game. They're just owned by the same parent company. Take Two own Rock Star and 2K. It's just how it often is in business. Long story short, Blizzard have made their own mistakes, it is not Activisions fault.

 

[LostAlone]

blizzard may change stuff if enough people say something in a place they can see but i don't think there is enough people willing to or even care about saying anything they just want to play video games end of story

Holy shit how prepubescent are you?

hmm am i missing something

Yes.

Blizzard is known for caring so much as not making a single forum post for various 50,000+ signs petitions.

Which I think is kinda appropriate, various experts and educated stuff doing the job they are paid for, instead of letting the 12 yr old do it.

It doesn't matter if the developers like it or not, the players are a stakeholder in the games they pay for. They have a vested interest in making them as good as possible. While some of the online petitions and what not are clearly whining, some of them have good ideas or are asking for something reasonable. Sure, developers should be wary about doing things just because the fans want it, but at the same time, if you just point blank ignore what the fans think then you are going to run into trouble. In fact, you are going to end up pissing off the people who pay your salary. If the guys who make the community (and write the guides and run the clans and make your game world a place that are worth coming back to) desert you, then the non-hardcore guys won't want to play as much or get invested or even buy the game.

Sheep bleet a lot. The do it pretty much constantly. But if the shepherd ignores ALL of it, then when the wolves show up, he'll lose his whole livelyhood. The trick is knowing whats crap and whats important. Sheep might not be bright, but they know about being a good sheep, and they'll happily be good sheep if you let them.

 

[commasplice]

I don't understand why Blizzard enthusiasts are so quick to blame Activision for any fault in a Blizzard game.

People hate Kotick/Activision, so he/they make great scape goats.

 

[Tony2077]

I don't understand why Blizzard enthusiasts are so quick to blame Activision for any fault in a Blizzard game.

People hate Kotick/Activision, so he/they make great scape goats.

people are stupid then blaming someone else for problems seem pretty stupid to me sorry if anyone is offend by this but sadly its the truth

 

[Negatempest]

All arguments against Diablo needing internet connection stems from a game that is mostly going to be played as single player experience needs the connection of a MMO or multiplayer experience. Most RTS and Multiplayer FPS need constant internet connection because their bread and butter is essentially multiplayer. Diablo is in the same boat as Final Fight on PSN. Though they can be enjoyed with others online they both require constant internet connection even for single player. All this talk about everyone having internet and such...well what about Blizzards servers? What is the guarantee that the servers will not go down suddenly? Whats to stop blizzard from cutting off Diablo 3 in a few years because it does not make "extra" money like it used too? All this talk for the constant internet connection ignores the ugly truth that Diablo 3 will soon enough join Halo 2 as a game that can no longer be enjoyed at it's fullest to "protect" a developers license over having customers enjoy their games for infinitum.

 

[geizr]

He also claimed that the always-on requirement has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. "I don't think [DRM] ever came up when we talked about how we want connections to operate," he said.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/01/diablo-3-cannot-be-played-offline/

If you?re finding this reasoning weak, you?re not alone. The more believable reason to deny players any kind of offline mode would be to prevent piracy. I asked Alex if that was the reason.

?One of them, yes.?

Ask PC gamer about D3 DRM and piracy.


Also, you didn't see this coming?? Maybe its not his job to pay attention to community reactions to things and just program the damn network, but seriously? There was a pretty shitstorm kicked up over AC2's ridiculous plan, though apparently according to Ubisoft, the DRM worked anyway.

Clearly a lot of gamers don't have the same priorities I do.

I and a friend have been looking forward to this game for years, and, now, I have been forced to completely reconsider my decision to purchase. This hurts, Blizzard; this hurts a lot. I did not tolerate this kind of shit from Ubisoft, which is why I do not buy any of their games, and I will not tolerate this from you.

You guys don't realize that the always-on requirement is actually hurting you more than it gains you, because you have significantly limited your marketing appeal. Surprisingly, there are a number of people that do not have sufficient Internet access to support an always-on internet requirement. These people absolutely cannot play the game and, therefore, no longer have reason to purchase the game; whereas, before this knowledge of the always-on requirement was made known, they were very much intent on purchasing the game. You have, in fact, cost yourselves sales by this decision, real sales, not the petulant outrage of the entitled few.

There are also a number of circumstances in which a person may have available the resources to play the game, i.e. a computer such as a laptop, but may not have an available Internet connection due to being on travel or a power outage(you can play off the battery of a laptop for some period of time while waiting for power to be restored). You have now made the game such that it is unavailable for play in these circumstance whereas it would have been available otherwise. This significantly reduces the value of the game and brings the gamer to question the purchase decision, whereas before this was made known, the decision was a no-brained impulse purchase.

One could make reason that this is part of getting rid on the LAN playability. While that is an undesirable scheme, it is one that is livable, because one is not forced into circumstances that occur normally, yet, preclude being able to play the game. However, this decision creates a set of circumstances that do occur normally, and quite frequently, and completely eliminate the ability to play the game.

The argument of merging the single-player character into being able to play in a multi-player environment is weak. Most gamers have no trouble, whatsoever, with acting separate characters, one for single-player and one for multi-player. Some may find it slightly inconvenient, but they mostly get over it and get on with enjoying the game. However, simply not being able to play the game, single or multi-player, is a completely unacceptable situation. The game is absolutely worthless if it cannot be played, regardless if I'm able to migrate single-player to multi-player or not.

Blizzard, please, reverse this decision. I don't care about LAN play, but do not become Ubisoft. Do not make me have to make the decision to never buy your games, as I have had to do with Ubisoft. I like your games, but I cannot accept this decision. It is wrong from both a technical and business perspective.

 

[alinos]

Grr.
ACTIVISION DID NOT TAKE OVER BLIZZARD.
Blizzard is owned by Vivendi. Vivendi merged with Activision. Vivendi has the majority stake in Activision Blizzard. Blizzard put in twice as much money into the merger as Activision.
Most importantly, they DO NOT develop games together.

I don't understand why Blizzard enthusiasts are so quick to blame Activision for any fault in a Blizzard game. They're just owned by the same parent company. Take Two own Rock Star and 2K. It's just how it often is in business. Long story short, Blizzard have made their own mistakes, it is not Activisions fault.

But you've pointed it out exactly

People can't comprehend that blizzard have become money grubbing assholes.

I don't care that theres an AH, my issue is how many times Blizzard has decided to take a cut to make it work.

But then i wouldn't be using the thing anyway since i "Planned" to just play singleplayer which is no longer viable

 

[Tony2077]

ok this one part is driving me nuts will there still be a sp part forget about the about the internet stuff for a second

 

[Matt Dellar]

I seriously don't believe anyone would be shocked at a negative reaction to an "always online" requirement. Maybe this guy lives in an area where he gets reliable Internet everywhere, all the time. More power to him. But darnit, I want Diablo 3, and my Internet connection is the furthest from reliable you can get without being dial-up. Come to think of it, I don't know very many people in my entire city whose Internet connections are actually good enough to support an always-online game.

My Internet sucks. My friends' Internet sucks. We live in the middle of a forest, where 3g signals are about as stable as pre-service pack Vista. My dad takes the hotspot/phone with him to work, and I work for most of the day as well, so I only get an hour or two per day of Internet access before it's turned off at 10:30.

No. Just ... no. I really, really hope they change that system. As it stands, I'm not gonna buy Diablo 3. Even if I did, $60 for two hours of choppy, slow gameplay per day wouldn't be worth it. I don't support piracy, but if someone rips out the online requirement somehow, I'll be all over it.

I don't even like multiplayer in the first place. And I know for a fact I'm not the only one.

 

[Levethian]

I never saw Diablo 2 as a 'single-player' game. I'm as surprised as Blizzard :/

Sometimes you just want to play by yourself.

I played a great deal by myself online.

I don't think forming party's will be compulsory.

1. Internet connections can be unstable
2. Being online all the time costs money.
3. Laptops are portable

There are plenty of reasons why people might want to go offline, and not having the option in a single player game is just ridiculous.

1 - True. Not a massive problem for most, though.
2 - Not sure anyone uses 'pay-as-you-go' internet nowadays.
3 - The option would be nice, true.

Diablo 3 is not a single player game. We should try and deal with it...

 

[RevRaptor]

I dunno it looks like we have two choices here: Either buy the game or pass on it. Blizzard makes a million gazillion dollars a year, they need to fill their games with intrusive DRM's (I'm not buying for a second that's not the reason, it totally is) to ensure they keep making a gazillion dollars a year. If we all get pissy and boycott D3 causing it to flop then they will stop making Diablo games and focus on other things and bathe in their big bathtubs of money, cause they can.

And eventually, someone out there will make a better "Diablo" clone that we want to play, and gamers will flock to it.

Just because it has the name Diablo doesn't mean its automatically going to be any good.

They have it's called Torchlight and now Blizzard have right royaly pissed in the face of gamers everywhere I expect a lot of people are going to go to Torchlight 2 for their dungeon romping fun.

 

[Nesco Nomen]

Sheep bleet a lot. The do it pretty much constantly. But if the shepherd ignores ALL of it, then when the wolves show up, he'll lose his whole livelyhood. The trick is knowing whats crap and whats important. Sheep might not be bright, but they know about being a good sheep, and they'll happily be good sheep if you let them.

Percentage of people who'll end up not buying Diablo III, because SP requires Internet will be checked by the percentage of those who'll buy it because of the achievements,because of teh sense of homogeneity, guaranteed no cheating, or some other cool network feature.

And of course....majority of complainers will still buy the game

All in all - no sheep will be lost AND Blizz will still achieve the goals they are pursuing with this

Of course that my uneducated guess, and I may be wrong, but we all know D3 has absolutely NO CHANCE of not being a smashing hit.

@Matt Dellar

You'll be able to play SP with the crappiest possible connection. Don't u guys know that you're NOT REALLY CONNECTED TO THE HOSTING SERVER, but instead just authenticated and are only sending/receiving bits and pieces here and there

 

[Lunar Templar]

no name will mean its good

>.>
there is so much truth there

 

[commasplice]

You'll be able to play SP with the crappiest possible connection.

Actually, bro, I'm pretty sure the crappiest possible connection is no connection. So, yeah.

 

[Nesco Nomen]

Yet I see u posting. So Internet ON requirement should not be a concern FOR YOU!

Or are u also playing from a train

 

[commasplice]

Yet I see u posting. So Internet ON requirement should not be a concern FOR YOU!

Or are u also playing from a train

Not sure if you're talking to me or not, but I'm currently at my aunt's house. I don't technically have a connection because I don't really live anywhere. I'm going to move in with my grandmother this week, but a) she has never had cable television and only pays for the internet when she gets tired of renting DVDs and b) even when she has the internet, she doesn't like people logging on with other computers because it "knocks her off" the connection. I really have no idea what she's talking about, but you get my point. Being able to authenticate even for a second is likely going to be a hassle for me. And even if it weren't, I would still think this was a horrible idea. I had a great connection back when Ubisoft implemented their always-on. I thought it was miserable then and I think it's just fucking stupid now.

 

[mysecondlife]

of course if you restrict consumers in some ways you're going to get negative reaction...

for quality developer like Blizzard, this is a stupid thing to say.