Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3

Recommended Videos

Nesco Nomen

New member
Apr 13, 2010
77
0
0
commasplice said:
Nesco Nomen said:
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.
OK I'll admit you have a case here.

It's a hassle, no doubt, and few things need to be solved prior to even considering a purchase :)
 

Olrod

New member
Feb 11, 2010
861
0
0
What happens if your internet connection drops, and you've not saved your game for an hour?

What happens if you get a lottery-win level of quality drop *just* as your connection dies?
 

Stg

New member
Jul 19, 2011
123
0
0
Is it just me or is Blizzard quickly turning all of their games into something that your everyday drooling retard casual gamer would want to play? Personally, with a title such as Diablo 3, I would think that they would be tailoring it to the franchise fans but every time I hear something new about something they added, it reeks of casual gamer.

I played Diablo 2 for over a decade (single player for about half of that time frame) and the only reason I don't go back to it now is because it just got old. Once you have several level 99 characters with ebugged gear, etc. etc. etc. the only thing left is Baal runs or PvP. It got old and I let my characters and accounts expire. I was hoping I could get another ten or more years out of D3, but my hopes of that happening are diminishing with every new announcement Blizzard releases.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
I just won't buy it until someone has released a hack that bypasses it. I'd say fully half of the time I spent playing d2 was offline single player while traveling and such.
 

Gothproxy

New member
Mar 20, 2009
196
0
0
Well, that seals the deal for me. When it finally comes out, if it still requires an internet connection to play, even in single player mode, not gonna get it right away. I'm really hating gaming companies trying to force online play (even inadvertently)down everyone's throat. Sorry Blizzard, I can wait 6 months to a year to pick it up if that's the case, and that's if it's good.
 

walrusaurus

New member
Mar 1, 2011
595
0
0
Stg said:
Is it just me or is Blizzard quickly turning all of their games into something that your everyday drooling retard casual gamer would want to play? Personally, with a title such as Diablo 3, I would think that they would be tailoring it to the franchise fans but every time I hear something new about something they added, it reeks of casual gamer.
Its just you. How does anything in the recent announcements have anything to do with casual gamers?
Not to mention the fact that always-on DRM actually makes the game less accessible.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
Yeah Blizzard, I think I'll pass on this game. Seriously, all the info that's come out in the past couple of days has been discouraging rather than encouraging. I've already spent enough time venting about the shitty idea of a real money auction house, and the idea of not being able to play offline is pretty irritating. But what trumps both of these is this kind of feigned ignorance of the idea that there would be a backlash to it.

Seriously Blizzard, it is not good enough to claim "this is the way the world is going, deal with it" as a reason why we should all just roll over and accept it. As someone else in this thread brought up, internet is not free, and if you live in Australia like me then you get to deal with retarded download caps - and there's no information about exactly how much data is going to be transferred through this system. This means that potentially I could have to budget my time allowed to play the game. It happens. My brother played WoW so much for a couple of months that we came crossed our limit twice. Now why should I have to do that for a game that has always previously had offline singleplayer? Oh, and there's no LAN. I've played Diablo 2 LANs with so many people over the years... it's something you do when you want the relaxed atmosphere of direct communication. Playing it together over the internet doesn't provide the same experience, at all.

But the worst part of this, the absolute clincher, is the utter apathy they have towards even convincing us WHY this is necessary. This isn't like Starcraft II, where they at least had the decency to claim that it was supposed to make the game more social, and was also an anti-piracy measure. And heck, they at least offered a way of playing it offline with all the social and achievement stuff cut out. But there's none of that here: they're actively denying it has to do with piracy, they're not touting any kind of social benefit to being always online, and they're spouting some weak idea that they don't want people to feel like they have to start over again when they go from offline to online play. They don't sell it at all, and then they have the gall to act 'surprised' when people are hostile to the idea.

Blizzard just doesn't care anymore. They know that the game will sell regardless of what they do to it. I'm not going to be so egotistical as to pretend that my not buying it will change their attitude: I'm simply not going to buy it because I'm no longer interested if I can't play offline whenever I like. You know what? Say what you will about Steam: I'm able to boot it up any time I like in offline mode and play Torchlight. I'll just get the sequel to that instead.
 

SmugFrog

Ribbit
Sep 4, 2008
1,239
4
43
Surprise! Another game company screws over those of us in the military in favor of DRM. My friends and I were hoping to sit down and play LAN together in our free time on deployment, but now we can't even PLAY the game?

I hope so many will boycott this game to really send a message to Blizzard.
 

BaconBitz04

New member
Dec 1, 2009
23
0
0
I don't know about you, but the Diablo games were always my go-to when my internet was spotty or completely out. This defeats the point of me even owning the game.

Not to mention if I'm here at my parents house, they live in the boonies and have to use satellite connection to get any kind of reasonable speeds, and they pay out the nose for a piddly little 375mb download limit a day.
 

PissOffRoth

New member
Jun 29, 2010
369
0
0
Salad Is Murder said:
I'm surprised whenever I see "Game CEO is shocked at negative response from gamers". It's like, HELLO, have you been on the internet, like, EVER!?
Who has time for the internet when you're a Blizzard exec lounging in your endless pools and coffers of money?
 

Nesco Nomen

New member
Apr 13, 2010
77
0
0
Stg said:
Is it just me or is Blizzard quickly turning all of their games into something that your everyday drooling retard casual gamer would want to play?
Yeah just u.

Real-money AH SCREAMS pro-gamers [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pc53tFAo1g#t=1m45s]

And if you're that much offended by it HARDCORE has only gold AH, and is anything but casual.
 

Schlen

New member
Feb 11, 2009
93
0
0
I was thinking a little, at first I thought about the argument people would have to start over when they wished to start playing online.

Yes, well if they didnt want to start over then good for you, less people to crowd your servers = win? NOOO! Less people online = less people selling stuff on the AH that they can make profit from.

Then the DRM solution of having an online requirement.
Seriously, how long do you think it will take for the quite skilled pirate crackers of our day to bypass that allowing both pirates to steal it and legit owners to use cracks to play offline?
I'd give it 2 weeks, tops.

It feels like the whole argument is SELL SH*T ON OUR AH, DAMNIT!



If you make something free, the people who paid for it is going to be angry, If you add a cost to something people are going to be angry, add something more powerful the people who had the most powerful :item ,etc.: is going to be angry, remove it and people will be angry, nerf it and people will be angry

To be suprised about negative feedback on ANY 'requirement for /change to' your game is just plain stupid, no matter what you do, a crapload of people are going to hate you for it.
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
How many players are going to want to play the game they paid for when your servers go down?

A lot, Blizzard. A lot.
 

Tumedus

New member
Jul 13, 2010
215
0
0
There is no reason he should have been surprised because gamers are easily outraged, but the outrage is pretty silly.

We live in an era of mobile apps, MMOs, twitter feeds as news, and appliances that text you. The best selling games are FPS titles where online functionality is expected. Even Nintendo's casual box is fully integrated with the internet.

If you don't have full time internet and you are a gamer, rather than complaining to the game companies, it is probably time you find a way to fix the internet issue. The tech is advancing and this trend is not going away. You may as well complain that the game is not compatible with a 486 DOS box.

Would it have been nice to have an offline mode? Sure. But I would venture that the metrics showed the majority of likely Diablo players played online. At a certain point, adding game modes and features to facilitate a niche consumer base just isn't reasonable.
 

EvilScoop

New member
Oct 19, 2008
35
0
0
drummond13 said:
How many players are going to want to play the game they paid for when your servers go down?

A lot, Blizzard. A lot.
Because that happens so often.
 

Arluza

New member
Jan 24, 2011
244
0
0
on a connection like the one here at my parents house (where the connection blinks out every 5 minutes) or at college where the guy with the router goes home a week early, and campus internet blocks this type of info from their servers, yeah. I'm gonna be pissed. Or. I would be if I were gonna buy Diablo 3. Always On is a HORRIBLE idea for people because not everyone has a constant connection. Sure, for TF2 or WoW, where the ENTIRE GAME is online, it makes sense. but for an OFFLINE SINGLE PLAYER MODE there is no reason to REQUIRE an internet connection, except to install a patch. I am SURE that there will be more copies pirated and more cracks downlaoded than were the game not given this STUPID type of, ironically, 'anti-piracy' stuff
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
EvilScoop said:
drummond13 said:
How many players are going to want to play the game they paid for when your servers go down?

A lot, Blizzard. A lot.
Because that happens so often.
It honestly doesn't matter how often it happens. The fact that it CAN happen is bad enough, like it did with the Assassin's Creed 2 servers. When you pay for a single player game you should be able to play it regardless of whether or not your internet is running.
 

commasplice

New member
Dec 24, 2009
469
0
0
Tumedus said:
There is no reason he should have been surprised because gamers are easily outraged, but the outrage is pretty silly.

We live in an era of mobile apps, MMOs, twitter feeds as news, and appliances that text you. The best selling games are FPS titles where online functionality is expected. Even Nintendo's casual box is fully integrated with the internet.

If you don't have full time internet and you are a gamer, rather than complaining to the game companies, it is probably time you find a way to fix the internet issue. The tech is advancing and this trend is not going away. You may as well complain that the game is not compatible with a 486 DOS box.

Would it have been nice to have an offline mode? Sure. But I would venture that the metrics showed the majority of likely Diablo players played online. At a certain point, adding game modes and features to facilitate a niche consumer base just isn't reasonable.
This whole argument is ignorant if for no other reason than the fact that there are several people in this very thread who have given personal accounts for why they would not be able to play this game. Many of these accounts are much more complex than just deciding to pay for cable.

There are plenty of circumstances that one cannot control that can keep one from being able to have internet access. You can ctrl-F my user name on this very page if you want one such example. Fact is that even if the majority of people play online, it's completely fucking ridiculous to be expected to have an online connection to play a game that is single player AND installed on your machine.

Edit: And really, the bottom line is that if I'm on such a tight budget that I can't afford internet service, it is much more realistic for me to be able to just pay a one-time fee for a game and play it by myself than to pay that fee AND pay for service. I know we're living in the future and yadda, yadda, yadda, but that doesn't fucking mean that everybody lives in upper-middle-class white suburbia, where everybody has access to a reliable and affordable internet provider. Even discounting the boycotting, Blizzard is cutting themselves out of sales this way, plain and simple, and that should matter to them, if nothing else.