I'm fine with this. It's 2011, and I don't remember the last time i didnt have an internet connection.
Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not interested in D3, but I have to comment on the flaw of his argument: The industry can claim all of the "nature of how things are going" as much as they want, but the internet hasn't quite caught up yet. Not everyone has 100% constant online feeds available, and from my experience, the cable (internet) company isn't too concerned about that, so long as they can monopolize most of the region and shove it down everyone's faces with their ads and only their ads. Because if I don't go with their service, even if I were not living out in the boondock-sticks, I would have no internet to connect with in the first place.Andy Chalk said:
So if I was hypothetically a potential D3 customer, I'm relying on the above asshole corporation, praying there isn't a randomly downed line, and that the same asshole company won't get hacked (which has actually happened in the past in different states).
I sure hope that Blizzard considers the possibility that squirrels find wires tempting treats on occasion, as well.
I am OK with this.
Diablo 3 is an action MORPG (not MMORPG), think Dragon Nest or Phantasy Star Online.
I don't see people screaming when SEGA release Phantasy Star in 3D with always-on Internet connection.
Someone mention that D3 is not an online game because player don't run into other players.
That is because this is an instance/room based online game, like Dragon Nest or Lost Saga. No one can run into each other uninvited in those game too.
Another say D3 cannot be an online game because the previous title were not online game.
Technology advance and people really need to keep with the times.
It is like saying Dungeons & Dragons, Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, Star Trek, Star Wars, Final Fantasy, Grandia, Megaman, Dragonball and etc cannot be online game because their previous title were not online game.
I am fine with D3 being an online game.
And if I want to Solo, I could always create a password-locked room. What is the big deal?
However I understand, some people don't have always-on or stable or on limited internet access. Sadly this is a basic requirement to playing online game, it is a fact of gaming life.
The same thing with having a good graphics card to support the latest and greatest games.
Diablo 3 is an action MORPG (not MMORPG), think Dragon Nest or Phantasy Star Online.
I don't see people screaming when SEGA release Phantasy Star in 3D with always-on Internet connection.
Someone mention that D3 is not an online game because player don't run into other players.
That is because this is an instance/room based online game, like Dragon Nest or Lost Saga. No one can run into each other uninvited in those game too.
Another say D3 cannot be an online game because the previous title were not online game.
Technology advance and people really need to keep with the times.
It is like saying Dungeons & Dragons, Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, Star Trek, Star Wars, Final Fantasy, Grandia, Megaman, Dragonball and etc cannot be online game because their previous title were not online game.
I am fine with D3 being an online game.
And if I want to Solo, I could always create a password-locked room. What is the big deal?
However I understand, some people don't have always-on or stable or on limited internet access. Sadly this is a basic requirement to playing online game, it is a fact of gaming life.
The same thing with having a good graphics card to support the latest and greatest games.
Persistent connectivity DRM on single player games is the best argument for piracy that exists. If you are to offer your paying customers a worse product than what The Pirate Bay can offer them for free, they are not going to buy your inferior product. By penalizing legitimate players like this, you are making piracy inevitable.
Within a week, there will be a cracked version that will allow people to play the whole game, for free, without constant connectivity. It is always the case. Don't they see that they are making the legitimate version of the game less appealing than the pirated version with this?
Valve games on motherfucking Steam don't require constant connectivity, and the way you buy them you, by necessity, have to be connected to the internet to access your games library. They have the most justification of any group to require constant connectivity, but if your internet crashes once you are already logged into your Steam account you can still play all your single-player games.
I know this is a bit of a rant, but this shit ain't nuclear physics. If you offer an unnecessarily limited version of a game for 70 USD, and somebody else is offering a totally unrestricted version of that same game for free, nobody rational is going to use your version.
I, as a gamer, am willing to pay 70 USD to get a legitimate version of a game that is of equal or greater quality to the pirate version. Once the pirate version is better than the legitimate version, then I do not care about the developer. They certainly don't care about me as a customer.
Within a week, there will be a cracked version that will allow people to play the whole game, for free, without constant connectivity. It is always the case. Don't they see that they are making the legitimate version of the game less appealing than the pirated version with this?
Valve games on motherfucking Steam don't require constant connectivity, and the way you buy them you, by necessity, have to be connected to the internet to access your games library. They have the most justification of any group to require constant connectivity, but if your internet crashes once you are already logged into your Steam account you can still play all your single-player games.
I know this is a bit of a rant, but this shit ain't nuclear physics. If you offer an unnecessarily limited version of a game for 70 USD, and somebody else is offering a totally unrestricted version of that same game for free, nobody rational is going to use your version.
I, as a gamer, am willing to pay 70 USD to get a legitimate version of a game that is of equal or greater quality to the pirate version. Once the pirate version is better than the legitimate version, then I do not care about the developer. They certainly don't care about me as a customer.
I'm going to say a tonne. That's why I'm buying Torchlight 2 instead. $15 instead of $110, with a higher max number of players and no DRM.Andy Chalk said:
I'm sorry this is stupid! If your worried about your AH being cheated then why not allow for an offline and online character, one saves to your pc the other to your servers, offline character can't be used online the end! I refuse to buy this game now and I really like the Diablo series.
Since Blizzard joined Activision their reputation has gone to the dogs!
And how the frak can you be surprised by the backlash seriously everytime a developer mentions "Always On Internet" the internet erupts with screams of thousands!
Since Blizzard joined Activision their reputation has gone to the dogs!
And how the frak can you be surprised by the backlash seriously everytime a developer mentions "Always On Internet" the internet erupts with screams of thousands!
It's an awful idea that has NO merit. Their reasoning for removing offline single player is that their customers are too retarded to understand that an offline character cannot be used online. So, better to axe the offline mode so none of the poor idiots playing their game will get confused.
Seriously, that is their official reason.
Unofficially, they are probably hoping to curb piracy (we all know how well THAT works) and to push more people to use their new money making auction house which will also feature micro transaction crap available for purchase.
Yes, Blizzard make good games (mostly) but there is no way they could NOT try and monetize the game in every single way possible, considering their shareholders would be pissed if they didn't.
Blizzard are no longer gamers who make games. They're a corporate entity that works according to a formula. A formula they've been honing for years now and keep tweaking to eek the maximum amount of money from their customers.
Certain other companies simply try to make quality games without trying to rape the customers. They make something great, which they believe in, and are then rewarded by customers who pay for their excellent product.
Of course profit is always a motive, but in Blizzard's case it has been raised to a whole new level. Their new games are made for profit, according to skinner box principles and using the very latest in psychological conditioning and addiction research. You can be sure of it, because not doing so would disappoint their shareholders who have come to expect huge throngs of addicted players wasting their lives and cash on blizzard games.
Seriously, that is their official reason.
Unofficially, they are probably hoping to curb piracy (we all know how well THAT works) and to push more people to use their new money making auction house which will also feature micro transaction crap available for purchase.
Yes, Blizzard make good games (mostly) but there is no way they could NOT try and monetize the game in every single way possible, considering their shareholders would be pissed if they didn't.
Blizzard are no longer gamers who make games. They're a corporate entity that works according to a formula. A formula they've been honing for years now and keep tweaking to eek the maximum amount of money from their customers.
Certain other companies simply try to make quality games without trying to rape the customers. They make something great, which they believe in, and are then rewarded by customers who pay for their excellent product.
Of course profit is always a motive, but in Blizzard's case it has been raised to a whole new level. Their new games are made for profit, according to skinner box principles and using the very latest in psychological conditioning and addiction research. You can be sure of it, because not doing so would disappoint their shareholders who have come to expect huge throngs of addicted players wasting their lives and cash on blizzard games.
A lot of people obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be getting a bad reaction like you are. Did he really not only say that, but answer a question with another question? (oh god! I just did it too!! nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!)Andy Chalk said:Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3
Blizzard's Robert Bridenbecker says he's surprised at the negative reaction to the news that Diablo 3 [http://www.amazon.com/Diablo-III-Pc/dp/B00178630A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312484335&sr=8-1] will require an always-on internet connection to play.
In my mind, the reaction to Diablo 3's always-on internet requirement [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/previews/9055-Diablo-III-Hands-On] was entirely predictable. Whether as a point of principle or practicality, a lot of gamers just don't like the idea of being forced to connect to the internet to play a single-player game. But Bridenbecker, Blizzard's vice president of online technology, apparently didn't see it coming.
"I'm actually kind of surprised in terms of there even being a question in today's age around online play and the requirement around that," Bridenbecker told Battle.net [http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2011/08/04/blizzard-vp-surprised-over-fan-reaction-to-diablo-3-online-requirements/] and now with Diablo 3, it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry. When you look at everything you get by having that persistent connection on the servers, you cannot ignore the power and the draw of that."
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. So why not just make an offline mode for people who want to play that way? "You're introducing a separate user flow, a separate path that players are going to go down," he explained. "And, at the end of the day, how many people are going to want to do that?"
Permalink
People raged just as much for sc2. I believe 90% of the escapist forum said "I will never buy this game", and then proceeded to buy it anyways..because its an awesome awesome game. The same will happen with Diablo III.
Also, this is not DRM. This is because of battlenet 2.0. Every new blizzard game is going to be online only. I don't see them losing any costumers from this.
Also, this is not DRM. This is because of battlenet 2.0. Every new blizzard game is going to be online only. I don't see them losing any costumers from this.
I would expect something liek this from dumbisoft (ubisoft), but blizzard, ahve you GONE MAD?
No wonder your being accused of ruining pc gamers industry, if this is the future of industry - gaming is going t be lost cause.
correction: billions.
So, im not getting it. i boycott ubisoft for their Always-on DRM, looks like im going th ave to do same for blizzard. tough, they relly have potential to make good games.
problem with gamers are they talk a lot but dont do a lot. they are going to hate it and still buy it. if all games who dont like it would not buy the game, they would see the drop in their sales tenfold and maybe then start thinking. but while you talk and still buy, they dont need to be worried do they.
I'm not so sure, I mean it will happen, I don't doubt that but try finding an offline version of Guild Wars. While I'm sure this is about piracy I'm also sure it's built into the very thread of the game and that's a very difficult thing to untangle, not at all on par with hacking together a save system for Assassins Creed 2.2012 Wont Happen said:
guild wars are a mmorpg. diablo is not mmorpg. assasin creed 2 was cracked in 3 days. after that, other ubisoft DRMs were hacked same day (by same guy so he knew what he was doing). lets see what else, oh right, no other company was stupid enough to put such thing yet. it will get cracked. when gta 4 came out WLG got cracked in a week. and that was some bloody big securities inside the game.Rack said:
And if pirated version is the only one that runs while im sitting in a train for 3 hours travelling, then i certainly not going to pay the company.
I know this is in vain, but i wish company would loose enough money to start to care about it. it wont happen though. majority of gamers are idiots, which can be easily seen by playing any of the online-priorized games. heck, most of them dont even turn singlepalyer on, go striaght multiplayer then cry that they dont know how to play.
"You're introducing a separate user flow, a separate path that players are going to go down," he explained. "And, at the end of the day, how many people are going to want to do that?"
Well, apparently the huge hoard of people not liking the always online part, including me.
My interest in D3 went from 75% to 0% after getting all the news.
Well, apparently the huge hoard of people not liking the always online part, including me.
My interest in D3 went from 75% to 0% after getting all the news.
The key line here is "you introduce a separate user flow." What that means is they want to keep their "revenue stream" flowing. Blizzard has shown that they are trying to create a rival for Steam/XBoxLive; they don't want customers to be able to opt out of being bombarded with ads or tempted with one-click DLC purchases. What really bugs me is its the same condescending attitude we got with the lack of LAN in Starcraft 2. Instead of admitting they are removing a feature for profitability reasons, they insist that anyone who wants the feature is dumb.
Blizzard has been blinded by success and thinks they dictate what their customers want and not the other way around.
Blizzard has been blinded by success and thinks they dictate what their customers want and not the other way around.