Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3

[icame]

Just buy the game, then download a cracked version without this necessity if you want to play online play. It doesn't make what they are doing alright, but it works for those who want to play offline.

 

[Zulnam]

This exact thing happened when they announced that Starcraft 2 will have no LAN support. People all over the internet going "FIUK IU BLIZZARD! I R NOT BUYING DIS SHIT!!"... That's why it sold a gazillion copies.

Yeah, it sucks. Diablo 3 will still sell enough copies to cover the moon with them. Let's face it. At the end of the day, if the game's good, players will accept the developer's bullshit.

 

[Continuity]

Quite frankly if he was genuinely surprised by the negative reactions then he is possibly one of the dumbest people I've ever heard of.

Thread win right there.

Either this guy is clueless or he's a moron... or more likely this is actually about DRM and he's spinning us a bullshit line about being surprised.

At the end of the day, if the game's good, players will accept the developer's bullshit.

Sad but true... I guess this guy at Blizzard isn't the only moron eh?

 

[Blood Countess]

well Blizzard lost several sales of this game from me and my friends for this act of stupidity

 

[IndianaJonny]

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?"

But the two separate auction houses (real/virtual currency) were given the go-ahead. Aren't they a "separate user flow, a separate path that players are going to go down"? I don't understand the technicalities of it all, but would any player demand this 'no-offline mode'?

 

[n00beffect]

How bloody predictable, they're making it a mumorpuger, what a surprise... What did you expect? With WoW's head boggling success, it was eye-gouchingly evident that they'd go down this path. You have only yourselfs to blame, blizzard fanboys, for if it wasn't for your life dedication to mumorpugers, the case might've been different. How disappointing, but thank goodness I am not such a fan of Blizzard games in general. However, I was kind of looking forward to this game, since Diablo II was an essential part of my childhood, and I had been waiting for D3 since the first news came out for it's development, nearly 10 years ago. Too bad I won't get the chance to expirience it myself, since, in my opinion, having to expirience it solely with 100000000 twats running around being stupid, is not my ideal for an expirience of any kind, other than a bad, frustraiting, annoying-as-hell one.

 

[Alar]

Do people still not get it, it's not intended to be a single player game, the comparison with AC2 is false.

It's always online for the same reason guild wars 1 and 2 will be when it arrives, same as world of warcraft or the upcomming star wars the old republic.

If you avoid this game then i must insist that you avoid all thoses others because they are no different.

This, a thousand times this. People don't understand that Blizzard isn't trying to create a 'single-player' game. They want a multiplayer online game with the ability for you to play 'alone' without anyone else joining in on your specific game, if you so desire.

I'm not saying I wouldn't appreciate an offline mode as well (with the characters therein being unable to join Battle.net, or at the very least unable to trade or use the AH features), but I can see why they're doing this and I don't think it's because they're being "DRM overlords." Is DRM part of it? Probably somewhat, yes. Is that the only reason? Hell no.

 

[Liudeius]

Regardless of PC elitism and whether it's right or not, I'm so glad I don't have to deal with that kind of stuff on consoles. Now just to find a way to get mod support on consoles and the pitiful, destitute console-race shall rule the world! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[jamesworkshop]

Do people still not get it, it's not intended to be a single player game, the comparison with AC2 is false.

It's always online for the same reason guild wars 1 and 2 will be when it arrives, same as world of warcraft or the upcomming star wars the old republic.

If you avoid this game then i must insist that you avoid all thoses others because they are no different.

Yes, because Diablo 3 is an MMO.

yes that is excatly what they have made, people are thinking that diablo 3 was just some graphical update/remake of diablo 2 which clearly is not the case.

everything about this game screams guild wars, mmo, instanced player groups, single one time payment and subscription free.

soloing a mmo is not the same thing as a single player game

What about this game screams that exactly? In an MMO, you pass by, interact, fight with other players. There is a PVP in this game, but it's a separate mode that in no way has any direct consequence on the main game. There is nothing in this that screams MMO. No persistent world after you stop playing. When you connect to their servers, you are not playing on their servers, the game is played on your PC with information stored on your PC. I have not seen anything that makes it anything like an MMO. The only thing that is like that seems to be the fact they want to store you save games externally. But, if you play a G4WL game, you store your save games externally as well, but they are not MMOs. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but besides a store most players don't seem to embrace, how is this like an MMO exactly?

online only, no single player = guildwars

quests are done in parties, otherwise you don't meet players in quests that are not part of your team = guildwars

characters saved onto servers = guildwars

able to re-asign skills = guildwars

game level data stored on HDD, server handles network connections + updates only = guildwars

it even does the same business model of one time retail boxed product payment

It couldn't be more the same if it tried

Wow, a good many of those things are not true.

There is a single player, but you must maintain a connection to the server. Co-op is optional and you do not run across other players in the single player campaign.

Quests are not done in parties, that is the single player aspect of the game. Just like Diablo 1 and 2. You can play it cooperatively, but it's not necessary.

Characters saved onto servers is right, that is one of the many things that people are mad about. But as I mentioned, G4WL does this exact same thing by storing your player data externally.

You could reset your skills in skills and stats in Diablo 2.

Game stored locally, and the servers handling network connections and updates are not a hallmark of an MMO. They include these things, but you get this with any game on Steam, for example. Not proof of being MMO like.

The only games that don't have the one time retail boxed product payment are games with a monthly fee, this has existed since videogames, VHS or beta max tapes, the entire music industry... when you buy a car (all at once, not financed)......

This has almost nothing in common with an MMO besides basic functionality of how business is done, and now a constant online connection. Also, I feel stupid for pointing this out, but MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online. It's not massively multiplayer.... you are in your own world and no one come in uninvited, just like Diablo 2. PVP only has 8 total players. You did not make your point. =p

no you are factually incorrect

their is no single player as in no offline mode, what you are talking about is soloing something that can be done in most mmo's, you can't play guild wars offline

quest are done in parties as in they can be, guild wars is split in two town area where all players are seen an instanced quest zones where only people you have grouped with are seen and interacted with, diablo has a large player base but game are played in realms which is only a symantic divide

you can reset skills a limited number of times it's not quite the same thing, i don't have time to fully explain how diablo 3 works i just have to assume other are aware of it

a+a
a + a + a
= a/=a
thats like argueing two games can't be games because a third of fourth are also games

i compared it specifically to guildwars, which is not like wow but both are mmo's
which again is like guildwars only your party follows you into quests you only interact with a handlefull of people at once so they are very much the same in that requard (no one comes in univited to kill steal in guildwars), 60 people can't gang up on the same boss, both even seperate the PVP into seperate arena areas

 

[thiosk]

I like playing with myself.

I do it every day.

I don't want to play with myself on the internet. Or do I? SO CONFUSING.

 

[BoTTeNBReKeR]

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?"

This is just soo much bullshit... Any "You need to be online" is a DRM method. if you implement it, atleast have the balls to say it to our faces.

Everything I've heard from Diablo III the past few days just made me lose a lot of respect for Blizzard. It's almost as if they're trolling us.

 

[jamesworkshop]

this anger around this game would be like me getting angry because a car company sells a family car that i have no use for from not owning a family.

Except I'm still sure that car would still work if you tried to drive it without you having a family in it at the time. The car may have been designed with families in mind but it will still function perfectly well as a car without there being a family in it.

Does an "internet connection always required" singleplayer game still fit that analogy?

no but you missed the fundimental point the clinging on to the term "single player" is why people are having difficulty with this idea it's simply not true to say that "diablo 3 is a single player game"

when blizzard is next to explicitly telling people it's NOT a single player game

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

You mean to tell me that the thing people were pissed about in Starctaft 2 are also pissed about in Diablo III? What nonsense is this? [/sarcasm]

 

[Atmos Duality]

Either he's trolling the world, or he's stupid. Hopefully it's the first one.

Likely as not, he's been chosen by lottery to take deliver the bad news and will take flak for it.

...sorta like this guy.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I'm kind of upset about this, because I'm a big fan of the Diablo series, I was really looking forward to Diablo 3, but I can't support any game that requires an always-on connection. For one thing, my connection is too unreliable to make it practical (one of the reasons I loathe Steam) and two, I'm not willing to financially support a system that so openly disregards me as a gamer.

But god dammit, I want that game so bad.

Sometimes sticking to your principles really blows goats.

Respect for staying true to your values. I'm neutral when it comes to the Diablo series but it's safe to say I'll never buy any now that I know the third game would require my terrible net to be on it's best behavior. Blizzard doesn't have any of my money yet and the way it is treating it's loyal fanbase isn't inviting me.

 

[fix-the-spade]

"And, at the end of the day, how many people are going to want to do that?"

When the servers crash on release day, I think the answer will be 'everyone'.

What's the betting that the first D3 mod will be a crack to make it run offline...

 

[Liudeius]

All that stuff

I'm not that interested in the subject matter and haven't really been following the debate, so I probably shouldn't say anything, but the ability to co-op does not make something an MMO.

Saint's Row 2 also has Co-op ability throughout the entire game, yet anyone who calls it an MMO is, to put it bluntly, an idiot.

The ability to play with a group does not determine the standing of the game. Design choices are what determine that. It seems to me like Diablo 3 is designed as a single player game, with the option for co-op for help/extra fun.

Also, co-op is no where near the standing of an MMO. A limited number of players are temporarily moved to your game to help you out, this is not equivalent to an MMO where you are all sharing the same game world and can party for the same purposes (to assist each other).

Although you can play an MMO as a single player game (for the most part, barring a few requirements for parties), you are never without the presence of other players, questing, leveling, and exploring alongside you.

But I don't know much about Diablo, for all I know, you're right and it's WoW in a can. I doubt it, but what do I know? (not much)

 

[Traun]

What exactly do we gain? Nothing. (Seriously, can anyone tell me a thing the player gains by having an always on connection?)

While I'm an opponent to constant connection there are benefits to it.

1. Constant access to the community - you are always connected to your fiends and various community groups.

2. Access to online content - the AH is a prime example of this, you can always go and buy the item you wish (for gold or cash or whatever).

3. Helping make a better game - while you are online you constantly send data to the company so they can analyze the performance of gamers, see what they did and didn't do and work off that (why do you think Dragon Age 2 has only human as a race option? Over 50% of the gamers chose a human origin in DA:O. This is why the new class in ME3 is combat-orientated, instead of magic or engineering).

4. Events - you can participate in events.

 

[MarsProbe]

no but you missed the fundimental point the clinging on to the term "single player" is why people are having difficulty with this idea it's simply not true to say that "diablo 3 is a single player game"

when blizzard is next to explicitly telling people it's NOT a single player game

Can you play the game on your own, without other people having to join you in the game? If not, then okay, it's not a singleplayer game. If the answer to that is no, however, then Diablo 3 is just as much a singleplayer game as any other singleplayer game with a nice side helping of co-op or whatever thgat yhou may care to mention.

 

[TheDooD]

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?"

But the two separate auction houses (real/virtual currency) were given the go-ahead. Aren't they a "separate user flow, a separate path that players are going to go down"? I don't understand the technicalities of it all, but would any player demand this 'no-offline mode'?

People want offline for that reason its offline so they'll be able to play whenever. I'm seeing that Blizzard doesn't want it because offline = not using the AH. Which means they aren't getting kickback money from players that use it. Why they don't approve of mods is because of the AH because created weapons and gear = AH is pointless. At the end of the day Blizzard wants your money also I wouldn't even trust buying stuff from the AH because it could be Blizzard staff members being paid to put stuff on there to get even more cash.