No, but I was never that interested to begin with. I felt it was going to be a dealbreaker when I first heard AC:II was online only, but in the end that worked out fine for me. It will mean I can't play it at my dads but other than that theres no major downside.
Poll: Is Diablo 3's no offline play feature really a dealbreaker?
- Thread starter fatal2704
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm sorry, but anyone saying "yes" never played D2. If they say so otherwise, then they are just lying. I cannot possibly understand how anyone who played D2 could have ANY problem with the online only game.
Let's break it down like this. So you had "closed battle.net," which as your online-only mode in D2. This is where a VAST majority of players exclusively spent their time. If your internet went down or you didn't have internet for some reason or another, you weren't going to be able to play your characters. Sure, you had single player mode, but honestly, what is the point of that? You'd have to start a totally new character, and you'd never end up playing it again once you got your internet back. Yes, you had the option, but you never used it, nor did you need to, since you had no reason to invest any time in it.
And then there was "open battle.net," which is where you could take your single player characters online. But this was full of hackers and other unsavory characters because it was not moderated and did not have as many anti-cheat guards in place. So, if you wanted to play online, then you would only use closed b.net, thus you would fall under the category of the above. Fuck, even if you wanted to play by yourself, it was smarter to have a toon on closed b.net and play in a passworded server, since it would give you the OPTION to play online in a better enviroment.
Face it: there was literally no reason for single player to exist in D2. People are just looking for a reason to *****, or are too busy getting caught up in controversy to see logically. Do I like the AH? Yes and no. I have some problems and concerns about it, like everyone else, but I am not prematurely judging it. But the online only mode just seems like a natural decision to me.
Let's break it down like this. So you had "closed battle.net," which as your online-only mode in D2. This is where a VAST majority of players exclusively spent their time. If your internet went down or you didn't have internet for some reason or another, you weren't going to be able to play your characters. Sure, you had single player mode, but honestly, what is the point of that? You'd have to start a totally new character, and you'd never end up playing it again once you got your internet back. Yes, you had the option, but you never used it, nor did you need to, since you had no reason to invest any time in it.
And then there was "open battle.net," which is where you could take your single player characters online. But this was full of hackers and other unsavory characters because it was not moderated and did not have as many anti-cheat guards in place. So, if you wanted to play online, then you would only use closed b.net, thus you would fall under the category of the above. Fuck, even if you wanted to play by yourself, it was smarter to have a toon on closed b.net and play in a passworded server, since it would give you the OPTION to play online in a better enviroment.
Face it: there was literally no reason for single player to exist in D2. People are just looking for a reason to *****, or are too busy getting caught up in controversy to see logically. Do I like the AH? Yes and no. I have some problems and concerns about it, like everyone else, but I am not prematurely judging it. But the online only mode just seems like a natural decision to me.
That makes zero sense, sorry. Since your characters are stored locally in single player, so there are plenty (if not more) ways to lose them. Unless you remembered to back up your characters and somehow kept that backup for five years, or just left D2 installed on your computer and NEVER EVER got another computer for five years, nor had to ever reinstall your OS or wipe your drive, then sure, you are right. But I don't see the probability of either of those being very high. I think you are just trying to find reasons to get in the "bandwagon of hate," dare I say. Hey... what not? Activision is cool to hate, thus Blizzard is cool to hate as well.The7Sins said:
Diablo 3 is single player game. That's the problem. There is no point in this.XinfiniteX said:
And no everyone does not have "constant" internet connection, internet can drop down either yours or blizzards, which would mean that you are not allowed to play your "single player game".
I really can't see how you can't see the problem in that.
Not everyone has an internet connection or connection of high enough quality to play games online, and it really doesnt make any sense to not provide discreet online and offline modes for the game.
But yes Im still buying it and yes Im still hyped for it, all this whining and "OMG GAEM is RUIND!" stuff strikes me as reactionary and a touch ridiculous.
But yes Im still buying it and yes Im still hyped for it, all this whining and "OMG GAEM is RUIND!" stuff strikes me as reactionary and a touch ridiculous.
Very, very, very untrue.XinfiniteX said:
... But, 99% of people who own computers that can run modern games do.
So yeah.
I don't see a problem either
I don't see why people are whining so damn much. I played Diablo 2 back when it came out, my internet wasn't perfect, and I still NEVER played the offline mode. I can honestly say I never clicked that button in the main menu.
Why are people so upset that some will not buy the game based on features they don't want to support?
Gaming's future is shaped in large part by the consumers. That whole "vote with your wallet" saying isn't just a cliche, it's a truth. If you don't like a certain practice, then don't support it. If the practice is unprofitable, then it won't continue. Is the principle that important? Yes, it is.
Gaming's future is shaped in large part by the consumers. That whole "vote with your wallet" saying isn't just a cliche, it's a truth. If you don't like a certain practice, then don't support it. If the practice is unprofitable, then it won't continue. Is the principle that important? Yes, it is.
Personally I have no problem with at at all. When I played D2 I thought the single player was, to be honest, a bit dull. Playing it online made the game so much better in my opinion. Now it does suck to force this on people, but for me it's makes no difference, so yeah, I'll still buy it.
Really? Because save about 2 hours on one random day, that's all I ever played. And your assumption that I am the exception and the vast majority of players exclusively spent their time online is just that, an assumption.Stall said:
From personal experience, I knew perhaps 7 people who were into D2 back when it was popular in my early high school days and it was split pretty evenly between those who played together online and those who just played offline on their own.
I think I'll just answer with this cracked article. Should explain things. http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster/
And he is a gamer parent.
And he is a gamer parent.
Yes. Absolute deal-breaker.
Sometimes internet connections go down. Sometimes they take a while to get fixed.
I refuse to pay for games that can be crippled by a connection dropout.
Granted, in this case I wasn't hugely interested in the game to begin with. But the no-offline thing turned me from a "Eh, maybe" to a "No fucking way!"
EDIT: By the way, you messed up the poll. The question above the poll is the opposite to the one in the thread title. Now you don't know which question people are answering when they vote. Are they voting, "Yes, I'm still going to buy it" or "Yes, it's really a dealbreaker"?
Sometimes internet connections go down. Sometimes they take a while to get fixed.
I refuse to pay for games that can be crippled by a connection dropout.
Granted, in this case I wasn't hugely interested in the game to begin with. But the no-offline thing turned me from a "Eh, maybe" to a "No fucking way!"
EDIT: By the way, you messed up the poll. The question above the poll is the opposite to the one in the thread title. Now you don't know which question people are answering when they vote. Are they voting, "Yes, I'm still going to buy it" or "Yes, it's really a dealbreaker"?
You know, when you make a thread title a question, and have a poll in that thread that is a DIFFERENT question, it tends to skew results. I voted "no" because it isn't a deal breaker, and I DO still plan on getting it. I'm always online anyway, and I tend to launch all my games through steam for the group chat interface.
Really it's all the other news (no skill trees or stat points? REALLY?) that almost kill it for me. So far, still planning on getting it, but my expectations are much lower, and Torchlight 2 will be a day one.
Really it's all the other news (no skill trees or stat points? REALLY?) that almost kill it for me. So far, still planning on getting it, but my expectations are much lower, and Torchlight 2 will be a day one.
Protip when making polls: Make sure the question in the thread title and the poll question align. The answer to the thread title is "Yes, it is a deal breaker" while the answer to the poll question is "No, I won't sill buy the game."fatal2704 said:
A lot of people will wind up voting based on the title question, giving you bad results.
On topic: Yes, it is a dealbreaker. The next step from here is requiring a subscription to play single-player games, or to have the games become heavily microtransaction dependent. Not only do they want more than the $60 for a new boxed copy now, but they're sacrificing the quality of the user's experience in order to provide the hooks to get you to spend that money.
I'm not really sure I even want to play DIII anyway now. The people running Blizzard now are clearly not the people who made some of my favorite games of yesteryear. It's time to move on and find a new up-and-coming developer to give my money to.