Why's everyone mad about no offline Diablo 3 single player?

[lacktheknack]

I shouldn't have to be online ever for single player. In any game. Wouldn't have bought it anyway, now its going on my "wouldn't piss on it if it was on fire list" along with everything recently from Ubisoft.

It's blizzard, not ubisoft

snip

Splinter Cell Conviction (which was a shit game as well as having bullshit DRM), Ass Creed 2, Silent Hunter 5 (because software pirates are wannabe submariners), Settlers 7 and possibly some others that I am unaware of. Are any of these published by Blizzard? No? Its Ubisoft that I am talking about as well as Diablo 3: The clickening.

Ubisoft is a totally different company then blizzard, the ENTIRE FUCKING POST is about diablo 3 which is made by BLIZZARD.

TLR - diablo 3 has nothing to do with ubisoft

He just communicates really badly - he's trying (and failing) to say that he now equates Diablo 3 DRM with Ubisoft's DRM. Which is stupid, because it doesn't require a constant connection for single-player.

 

[lacktheknack]

If I'm going to be playing Single Player, by myself, why do I need to be connected to the internet to play? :l

You don't... you need to be connected for thirty seconds every two weeks.

Okay, even assuming that this won't inconvenience the user in any way (big assumption, but let's just bear with it for a second) the question still remains: why should I condone with my purchase of their product a decision by a company to alter their product in any way that does nothing to make it a more desirable product to the end user?

Sure we can accept that, ultimately, it's their product and they as a company can sell it with whatever reservations they can legally get away with but this does nothing to answer my question; I do not doubt that they can do whatever they wish with their product, I question why I should condone their doing anything with the product that in no way adds to its ability to sate my demands of it.

The immediate, and insufficient, retort to this argument is 'why should you care if the changes do nothing to negatively affect your gaming experience?'. This argument does not work because even if we assume that any changes to the product do nothing to negatively nor positively impact my experience of the product, the fact still remains that when I purchase a product I am purchasing the entire project, not just those aspects of it that I like, and in doing so I express my approval of a business strategy which wastes time and money doing things that in no way improve the end user's experience. I do not approve of such a business strategy: everything the company does should be an attempt to improve the end user's satisfaction with the product so time spent creating facets of the product which do not fulfil this goal is time (and ergo money) wasted.

The next retort to this argument is that the decision by Blizzard to monitor, however briefly, our game is done in our best interests as an attempt to prevent cheating. I do not consider this an improvement. I do not consider a more limitedly accessible game an improvement over a less limitedly accessible game. If I want to change a facet of the game, be it hexing my character or changing the texture of something that gives me a headache, then forcing me to choose between doing this and passing an integrity check is not a benefit to me. I would far rather have a game full of cheaters than accept limited access. Yet this dichotomy is false: Valve has already shown that it is possible to allow users to host their own servers with any combination of security checks provided by VAC, from integrity checks to application monitoring. Blizzard wants to unnecessarily homogenise my gaming experience and centralise control over content, this is not something I wish to condone.

I simply think it's foolish to not protect one's product in some way. Blizzard's DRM is much less intrusive then any other (including Valve's). Therefore, I approve.

 

[StBishop]

Just putting it out there, what if you could install a game offline using some sort of randomly generated code which is packaged with your game when you buy it?

I'll be getting d3. I am not impressed as I don't particularly like the idea of not being able to play if I am without Internet for a month.
Like if I was moving house every 6 months and all the ISP companies in Australia seem to lack an understanding of the fact that leasing a property for 6 months and then moving might be a pretty cool way to keep refreshing your surroundings. For some reason moving house is some inconceivable notion to then as they can take up to 2 months to shift your connection, after you've given them notice before moving that you need your account moved.
The billing dpartment are pretty good though. I always get my bills sent to the right place even if I'm getting billed for a service that I'm not recieveing.

Moral of the story; sometimes people don't have the Internet, this shouldn't stop them from playing single player games.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

I deleted due to being a snide remark.

 

[GRoXERs]

Hey, you know what's funny? Not everyone who wants to play a single-player game HAS an internet connection on their home computer. Like me. If I want to play this when I'm not at my university, or any other game that requires online authentication so I can play fucking single player (*coughcoughAC2cough*), I HAVE to download the cracked version on my Mac laptop then use a USB drive to get it to my PC.

...Which is why I don't fucking bother any more. Hooray for the xbox.

DRM has turned me into a console 'tard.

 

[Arehexes]

Seeing how my home network doesn't work half the time and cuts out randomly, I think it's stupid. That's why I won't buy C&C4.

 

[Gudrests]

If I'm going to be playing Single Player, by myself, why do I need to be connected to the internet to play? :l

i think its just a ..show your alive at least once every 15 days kinda thing...

 

[StBishop]

I simply think it's foolish to not protect one's product in some way. Blizzard's DRM is much less intrusive then any other (including Valve's). Therefore, I approve.

Once I install a game through steam I can play offline forever, so long as my computer doesn't die.

I think this is less intrusive than making me go online before playing if I've not done so already in the last 15 days.

 

[BGH122]

I simply think it's foolish to not protect one's product in some way. Blizzard's DRM is much less intrusive then any other (including Valve's). Therefore, I approve.

I don't approve of any DRM at all for the reasons I stated above: I approve solely of business decisions which will benefit me, the customer. That's not to say that companies should just make a maximally perfect experience at a loss to their own return on the product, indeed if a company made no attempts to sustain its profitability then this would represent a loss to the customer as we'd soon be without that product. Rather, businesses should attempt to provide as maximally satisfactory experience with as little waste as possible. The problem here is that DRM of any sort represent one gigantic waste.

It's just a fatally flawed theory that an application which will be run client side can be protected from the client, it simply doesn't work. If a client is to run an application it must first be presented to the computer in such a way as to be compatible with the operating system i.e. wholly decrypted. As as soon as this occurs, a highly proficient user can simply use this decrypted data to figure out how the DRM is working and just disable it. The flawed theory of DRM holds that not enough people are technologically proficient enough to achieve this goal so most people will be prevented from circumnavigating DRM, yet, as we all know, this isn't a valid hypothesis as it rests upon the axiom that every user must individually 'crack' the DRM. Obviously, 'the scene' has the knowledge and does all the actual cracking and then (for whatever reason) releases these cracks for free which the technologically deficient public then uses to circumnavigate the DRM. Thus, DRM is a waste of time and money and I do not wish to subsidise companies who choose to waste money on it.

The sole way that DRM would work would be to process all data server-side and use dummy computers on the client's side to play the pre-processed data, vis a vis OnLive.

 

[Zeromaeus]

To me, the only reason to be mad that you have to authenticate every 15 days if you play offline (plus goign out of your way to play offline to begin with) is if you plan on pirating the game. This isn't Ubisoft, they're not paying money to develop something that will decrease sales or anything.

What about people like my friend... Bob, who don't have internet. They just don't get to play the game, right?

 

[Arehexes]

To me, the only reason to be mad that you have to authenticate every 15 days if you play offline (plus goign out of your way to play offline to begin with) is if you plan on pirating the game. This isn't Ubisoft, they're not paying money to develop something that will decrease sales or anything.

What about people like my friend... Bob, who don't have internet. They just don't get to play the game, right?

Then people will just go LOL you friend is teh gayz for not having internz

 

[archvile93]

If I'm going to be playing Single Player, by myself, why do I need to be connected to the internet to play? :l

You don't... you need to be connected for thirty seconds every two weeks.

Okay, even assuming that this won't inconvenience the user in any way (big assumption, but let's just bear with it for a second) the question still remains: why should I condone with my purchase of their product a decision by a company to alter their product in any way that does nothing to make it a more desirable product to the end user?

Sure we can accept that, ultimately, it's their product and they as a company can sell it with whatever reservations they can legally get away with but this does nothing to answer my question; I do not doubt that they can do whatever they wish with their product, I question why I should condone their doing anything with the product that in no way adds to its ability to sate my demands of it.

The immediate, and insufficient, retort to this argument is 'why should you care if the changes do nothing to negatively affect your gaming experience?'. This argument does not work because even if we assume that any changes to the product do nothing to negatively nor positively impact my experience of the product, the fact still remains that when I purchase a product I am purchasing the entire project, not just those aspects of it that I like, and in doing so I express my approval of a business strategy which wastes time and money doing things that in no way improve the end user's experience. I do not approve of such a business strategy: everything the company does should be an attempt to improve the end user's satisfaction with the product so time spent creating facets of the product which do not fulfil this goal is time (and ergo money) wasted.

The next retort to this argument is that the decision by Blizzard to monitor, however briefly, our game is done in our best interests as an attempt to prevent cheating. I do not consider this an improvement. I do not consider a more limitedly accessible game an improvement over a less limitedly accessible game. If I want to change a facet of the game, be it hexing my character or changing the texture of something that gives me a headache, then forcing me to choose between doing this and passing an integrity check is not a benefit to me. I would far rather have a game full of cheaters than accept limited access. Yet this dichotomy is false: Valve has already shown that it is possible to allow users to host their own servers with any combination of security checks provided by VAC, from integrity checks to application monitoring. Blizzard wants to unnecessarily homogenise my gaming experience and centralise control over content, this is not something I wish to condone.

I simply think it's foolish to not protect one's product in some way. Blizzard's DRM is much less intrusive then any other (including Valve's). Therefore, I approve.

That doesn't change the fact that it will annoy legitimate customers, and will have no affect on pirates of any kind once they crack it in all of 3 days after launch.

 

[captainwalrus]

So, like I totally missed something. I thought D3 was gonna have an offline single player mode. Link to news release, please? I couldn't find anything on it.

 

[lacktheknack]

If I'm going to be playing Single Player, by myself, why do I need to be connected to the internet to play? :l

You don't... you need to be connected for thirty seconds every two weeks.

Okay, even assuming that this won't inconvenience the user in any way (big assumption, but let's just bear with it for a second) the question still remains: why should I condone with my purchase of their product a decision by a company to alter their product in any way that does nothing to make it a more desirable product to the end user?

Sure we can accept that, ultimately, it's their product and they as a company can sell it with whatever reservations they can legally get away with but this does nothing to answer my question; I do not doubt that they can do whatever they wish with their product, I question why I should condone their doing anything with the product that in no way adds to its ability to sate my demands of it.

The immediate, and insufficient, retort to this argument is 'why should you care if the changes do nothing to negatively affect your gaming experience?'. This argument does not work because even if we assume that any changes to the product do nothing to negatively nor positively impact my experience of the product, the fact still remains that when I purchase a product I am purchasing the entire project, not just those aspects of it that I like, and in doing so I express my approval of a business strategy which wastes time and money doing things that in no way improve the end user's experience. I do not approve of such a business strategy: everything the company does should be an attempt to improve the end user's satisfaction with the product so time spent creating facets of the product which do not fulfil this goal is time (and ergo money) wasted.

The next retort to this argument is that the decision by Blizzard to monitor, however briefly, our game is done in our best interests as an attempt to prevent cheating. I do not consider this an improvement. I do not consider a more limitedly accessible game an improvement over a less limitedly accessible game. If I want to change a facet of the game, be it hexing my character or changing the texture of something that gives me a headache, then forcing me to choose between doing this and passing an integrity check is not a benefit to me. I would far rather have a game full of cheaters than accept limited access. Yet this dichotomy is false: Valve has already shown that it is possible to allow users to host their own servers with any combination of security checks provided by VAC, from integrity checks to application monitoring. Blizzard wants to unnecessarily homogenise my gaming experience and centralise control over content, this is not something I wish to condone.

I simply think it's foolish to not protect one's product in some way. Blizzard's DRM is much less intrusive then any other (including Valve's). Therefore, I approve.

That doesn't change the fact that it will annoy legitimate customers, and will have no affect on pirates of any kind once they crack it in all of 3 days after launch.

It annoys you minimally, and give Blizzard three days of non-hacking.

 

[teutonicman]

(Disregard, was really out of it when I wrote this. Never keep yourself awake for more than 24 hours with energy drinks, kids!)

Sage advice right there. There are still people that are unable to access internet, nevermind being having an iffy connection.

 

[UnusualStranger]

This is really starting to piss me off.

Look, I will not always have an internet connection. I WILL NOT. It is just how it works. Sometimes, I do not have internet on hand.

Next, lets look at who this is affecting most....people who buy the game. Thats right. It doesn't affect pirates. It makes paying customers have to be connected to the internet, at certain times, or else they can't play the game. The pirates will just hack a way around this, and have a good time.

With this in mind.....let me pose a simple question. What exactly am I paying for? If I don't stay connected to them, I can't play the game at all. I pay for what....an idea that I always have to get their permission to play with? A game that if they feel I am not "Playing properly" they can ban me from?

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Eponet]

This form of DRM is the LEAST intrusive as most if not all players now have some form of internet access. Hell, you can go to the local coffee shop and authenticate, you don't even have to be inside lol. A company has to protect it's profits and this seems very very reasonable to the other alternatives out there.

Activation codes are probably the least intrusive forms of DRM that I can think of, it's far better than online activation requirements. Also, it'd probably look very strange for someone to go to a coffee shop, case and monitor in their arms.

This game will essentially become useless if the Blizzard ever terminates their support, which is stupid. I can't see how this is less intrusive than simply entering a one time code that can be activated online or offline.

 

[ethaninja]

Some people don't want to compete with 15 other people over who gets to kill the next monster that respawns?

...er, it's not multiplayer only, but online single player.

Online single player... isn't that sort of an oxymoron?

 

[Nackl of Gilmed]

So, to clarify:

Offline single player exists, but you have to authenticate online once every 15 days or the game locks up? Or is there really no offline single player?

 

[archvile93]

If I'm going to be playing Single Player, by myself, why do I need to be connected to the internet to play? :l

You don't... you need to be connected for thirty seconds every two weeks.

Okay, even assuming that this won't inconvenience the user in any way (big assumption, but let's just bear with it for a second) the question still remains: why should I condone with my purchase of their product a decision by a company to alter their product in any way that does nothing to make it a more desirable product to the end user?

Sure we can accept that, ultimately, it's their product and they as a company can sell it with whatever reservations they can legally get away with but this does nothing to answer my question; I do not doubt that they can do whatever they wish with their product, I question why I should condone their doing anything with the product that in no way adds to its ability to sate my demands of it.

The immediate, and insufficient, retort to this argument is 'why should you care if the changes do nothing to negatively affect your gaming experience?'. This argument does not work because even if we assume that any changes to the product do nothing to negatively nor positively impact my experience of the product, the fact still remains that when I purchase a product I am purchasing the entire project, not just those aspects of it that I like, and in doing so I express my approval of a business strategy which wastes time and money doing things that in no way improve the end user's experience. I do not approve of such a business strategy: everything the company does should be an attempt to improve the end user's satisfaction with the product so time spent creating facets of the product which do not fulfil this goal is time (and ergo money) wasted.

The next retort to this argument is that the decision by Blizzard to monitor, however briefly, our game is done in our best interests as an attempt to prevent cheating. I do not consider this an improvement. I do not consider a more limitedly accessible game an improvement over a less limitedly accessible game. If I want to change a facet of the game, be it hexing my character or changing the texture of something that gives me a headache, then forcing me to choose between doing this and passing an integrity check is not a benefit to me. I would far rather have a game full of cheaters than accept limited access. Yet this dichotomy is false: Valve has already shown that it is possible to allow users to host their own servers with any combination of security checks provided by VAC, from integrity checks to application monitoring. Blizzard wants to unnecessarily homogenise my gaming experience and centralise control over content, this is not something I wish to condone.

I simply think it's foolish to not protect one's product in some way. Blizzard's DRM is much less intrusive then any other (including Valve's). Therefore, I approve.

That doesn't change the fact that it will annoy legitimate customers, and will have no affect on pirates of any kind once they crack it in all of 3 days after launch.

It annoys you minimally, and give Blizzard three days of non-hacking.

Yes, it annoys me for the rest of the games existence just so Blizzard gets...nothing that matters. Hey I know, I'll pirate the game, then I won't have to put up the the pointless and annoying DRM.