Guild Wars isn't a MMORPG though it's an online RPG that's virtually identical to how Diablo 3 will work. It has some content streaming bobbins and a graphical lobby that might make things more difficult but structurally Diablo 3 is almost infinitely closer to that than Assassins Creed 2. We may find that Blizzard have just hacked this in at the 11th hour and it's a simple measure of cracking it like Creed2 but it's far more likely that this is built into the fabric of the game and to break it requires coding a whole spoof server.Strazdas said:
Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am surprised how people still defend this as anti-cheating tool after the first 4 pages.
It is obviously a form of DRM, it is to gain more power over the customer and it is there to bring the customer near the AH.
They could have easily implemented offline play and allowed mods (+maybe open battle.net and lan mode) and a seperated closed battle.net.
On top of dumbing down the skill system, health orbs, automated stats etc I won't buy the game and the argument most of the complainers will buy it anyway is just redundant.
It is obviously a form of DRM, it is to gain more power over the customer and it is there to bring the customer near the AH.
They could have easily implemented offline play and allowed mods (+maybe open battle.net and lan mode) and a seperated closed battle.net.
On top of dumbing down the skill system, health orbs, automated stats etc I won't buy the game and the argument most of the complainers will buy it anyway is just redundant.
Riiiight, Blizzard. Way to go.
I hear Torchlight 2 is coming out next month. I already preordered it.
I mean, seriously: It's got that Diablo feel, a multiplayer and costs half the money. Why would anyone choose Blizzard's always-on-no-you-can't-mod-it-NOW-GIVE-US-YOUR-MONEY crap.
But when I look at the games of the last year, I guess we'll have to stick with small-scale productions when we want something that takes the players wishes into account.
I hear Torchlight 2 is coming out next month. I already preordered it.
I mean, seriously: It's got that Diablo feel, a multiplayer and costs half the money. Why would anyone choose Blizzard's always-on-no-you-can't-mod-it-NOW-GIVE-US-YOUR-MONEY crap.
But when I look at the games of the last year, I guess we'll have to stick with small-scale productions when we want something that takes the players wishes into account.
As stupid as this is, I've waited 10 long years to return to the land of Sanctuary...and I'll be damned if a constant Internet connection stands in my way.
Every time a company reveals an online only game play and there's outrage, the developers always act surprise. It's happening so much now you'd swear they'd get the hint. Also, Ubisoft's online should have been a lesson. But no. Developers remain with their head in the dirt.
I actually agree with Blizzard in this case. Online and offline experience were never the same in Diablo and Diablo 2. In fact, the offline component of the game actually made the online component less secure.
Personally, I don't see how anyone can argue against this "on principles". There are no principles here at stake - simply put, Blizzard does not want to invest the effort in creating a seperate governance mechanism for offline play when they want to invest those resources into the secure online play - and their right in the regards that most people are going to hop online and join multiplayer games anyway so they'd not only be investing resources into a development path that comprimises their model, they'd be doing it to placate a very small minority of players.
I don't actually think they're "surprised at the reaction" to sort of speak, but just using that phrase to point out that it's not 1999 anymore and people should get over themselves. But nicer like.
Personally, I don't see how anyone can argue against this "on principles". There are no principles here at stake - simply put, Blizzard does not want to invest the effort in creating a seperate governance mechanism for offline play when they want to invest those resources into the secure online play - and their right in the regards that most people are going to hop online and join multiplayer games anyway so they'd not only be investing resources into a development path that comprimises their model, they'd be doing it to placate a very small minority of players.
I don't actually think they're "surprised at the reaction" to sort of speak, but just using that phrase to point out that it's not 1999 anymore and people should get over themselves. But nicer like.
Like it could stop piracy - it didn't work with AC 2 either.
How naive. The only way to stop piracy is... well, I'm not sure there is one. So you might as well spend your anti-piracy budget on pro-gameplay or storywriting stuffs.
How naive. The only way to stop piracy is... well, I'm not sure there is one. So you might as well spend your anti-piracy budget on pro-gameplay or storywriting stuffs.
The solution is simple. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Your life will be no less reach for having missed out on Diablo 3. And if you just HAVE to know what happens, you can always wait a month after the game comes out and go watch some Let's Play videos on YouTube just to see the story. Remember that along with Diablo, Blizzard is still working on another MMO outside of World of Warcraft, which I believe they are set to announce and give details about some time next year. They're business model has always been about making money and since the merger it has become that even more. If you don't care for it, don't give them your business. Just like you don't have to buy the magical sparkly horse for WoW, you don't have to buy this game.
Tell that to the 30% of Americans that don't have any internet at all, the 10% that could not get even basic internet, let alone reliable internet that would allow for always-on capability.Jake Martinez said:
You're right, Blizzard is too lazy to invest in something that a huge portion of the potential base is interested in: single-player gaming. I also find your assertion that having single-player portions somehow makes multiplayer portions "less secure" to be baseless at best, and lie-filled propaganda at worst.
Blizzard is planning to have their servers keeping all of the item data, meaning no chance of client-side cheating. Having a single-player that is client-based would not, in any way, compromise the multiplayer that operates in a completely different fashion.
That's what this thread is about, herp. We're discussing why it is or is not appropriate to give Blizzard money for what is argued to be a very stupid DRM scheme.Chad Brumfield said:
You know, I'm aware that you're being ironic, but please don't paraphrase me in such a way that makes it appear I'm doing nothing but whining.Traun said: