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

[Ranorak]

"What about people that don't have internet?"

What about people that don't have pc's?
What about people that don't have power?

Well, sucks to be you. This is the year 2010 we're talking about.
Not having internet is like complaining you still don't have a colour tv.

 

[spinFX]

Can't believe the whinging. I doubt anyone here is without net for more than 2 weeks at a time. I don't many were going to play offline singleplayer anyway. It sucked in Diablo 2. Even with my Australian dialup online was better.

Absolute pointless whinging.

 

[seditary]

Complete lack of information, give a proper link please.

From this ridiculous thread I think this move has pretty much nothing to do with piracy and is more a measure to help against people doing untoward things to gain advantages in multiplayer or achievements.

 

[seditary]

Damn double posting.

 

[Caliostro]

Because Blizzard's "convenience" inconveniences the legitimate customer.

Why should I have to go online every 15 days so I can keep playing my offline game? If I'm a legitimate customer, why should I be penalized for buying and supporting the game? I can assure you one thing:the pirates don't have to deal with that bullshit.

That's right, when blizzard does this they're actually telling us "So, you can either pay us for the privileged to be harassed and inconvenienced, or you can download it for free and not have to deal with this crap".

You wanna stop piracy? Stop fucking with your customers. Gabe Newell has been saying this for fucking EVER. Want people to buy your game? Provide enough value for the money you ask.

It is that simple.

 

[veloper]

Meh.
Now if only the game was something more than diablo 2 with just better gfx, I'd consider it.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Ah, so basically they went with the same system they did with Starcraft 2, eh?

 

[oplinger]

Oddly, some people don't have a stable, or constant connection to, the internet. So anything requiring internet access is a bit iffy.

..Was a bigger problem back when steam did it, but I don't see the issue now. ...Other than the more rural areas of the US..maybe some other countries.

Steam doesn't at all require any type of internet connection to play games anymore?

I have I guy I need to tell this to. He hated having to be connected. He kept saying he would be kicked out of some offline type games.

You need to be online to say...play games online, but steam has an offline mode now, it didn't used to. So if you didn't have internet, any steam game could not be played.

I'm going to see my friend who is anti steam tomorrow, I could probably look this up myself, but I am in lazy mode. About when did this start to be, with steam being offline, okay?

I remember he wouldn't try Dawn of War 2 Chaos Rising (we both loved Dawn of War 2) because of steam. I am guessing he's a bit grumpy about this, any other points I can use to get him back inline? I know millions use it everyday, and it's a great method for downloading games and all.

If I lend him my copy of a store bought game, will steam not let him play it?

if its store bought it doesn't involve steam, unless its a game released on steam then usually it installs it and puts it on steam and such, but you can link non-steam with a steam account I think to get the benefits of steam in-game. and being able to launch it from the steam client.

Also steam got an offline mode around HL2's release, However games need to be verified upon first run. Then you can play them whenever you want in offline mode.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

..Was a bigger problem back when steam did it, but I don't see the issue now. ...Other than the more rural areas of the US..maybe some other countries.

I doubt those rural areas have the kind of mega-nerds that would actually be interested in a Blizzard game.

Oh how you'd be wrong.

Rural doesn't mean farmers. Just means low population density. Imagine the suburbs only with less people.

Oh. So like the place I live in... >_<'

I guess I knew I was wrong when I typed it, I was picturing a place with no games store.

Because Blizzard's "convenience" inconveniences the legitimate customer.

Why should I have to go online every 15 days so I can keep playing my offline game? If I'm a legitimate customer, why should I be penalized for buying and supporting the game? I can assure you one thing:the pirates don't have to deal with that bullshit.

That's right, when blizzard does this they're actually telling us "So, you can either pay us for the privileged to be harassed and inconvenienced, or you can download it for free and not have to deal with this crap".

You wanna stop piracy? Stop fucking with your customers. Gabe Newell has been saying this for fucking EVER. Want people to buy your game? Provide enough value for the money you ask.

It is that simple.

This much is true; but you gotta admit, when compared to Ubisoft's massive pile of dogcrap, needing to be online once every half a month is a rather small inconvenience. Everyone has some kind of internet connection if you're playing a game like this (I would hope so anyway, and here I am in the internet suckage capital of the world!), is being asked to check up every 15 days so bad?

Besides, you mention Gabe Newell; and Valve's Steam double-checks every second you're online to make sure your license is legit. Granted it offers more than JUST that, but regardless, this kind of DRM is small. Small. The worst DRM, to me, is the kind that limits installs though... Crysis Warhead has been reduced to a coaster for me.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

I have games from 2002 that I enjoy playing from time to time. There is a vast sense of satisfaction that I can KNOW for a FACT, that my desktop does not need to be hooked into the Internet EVER to get those games running. There is a vast sense of satisfaction that I can KNOW for a FACT, that the DRM support for game authentication has not been scrapped because not enough players were using it anymore to warrant the continued support that component was receiving from the company.

I bought a product. I put my property on my computer, and played the hell out of the game repeatedly over several years. I did this without interference or inconvenience, however small it may have been.

 

[thahat]

Yeah... pirates wont have to authenticate every 15 days. Or you know... ever.

Yea, that's really the issue. Whenever a company does some arbitrary loose DRM like this, it just ends up hurting the paying customers, while pirates aren't inconvenienced in the least.

no, they just wait for some russion guy to go. 'darn! my wodka is out! lets play diablo 3'
'aargh! blusjka* this drm! /removes 'lets get kudo's from the rest of the world by uploading my fix!'

*insert random curseword for blusjka, i just made it up cause it sounded russian to me XD

 

[thahat]

I can see the issue people would have with this, but its not nearly as horribly constricting as other DRM models out there. Authenticating every fifteen days is a lot easier to work with than having to have a constant connection.

I'm willing to let Blizzard slide on this occasion und this occasion ONLY.

-mumbles something about a tiny files hidden somewhere that wrote down 'this is te last date i was online! wheee!, look mom, i can write!'
-sees a big bad russian man giving him a book with prescribed dates that go up to the year 2100 with 14 day intervals, just to be sure.. -

anyone able to decipher my idea (a)?

 

[bloodychimp]

Where the hell do you people live that you don't have your computer connected to the internet every 15 days?

You have to get updates for your operating system (or you should) more often than that, so I don't really see the problem.

 

[Callate]

How about "because there's no direct consumer benefit to requiring a paying customer to check in every fifteen days?" Because it smacks of control issues? Because requiring an Internet connection for a single-player game is a ridiculous burden? Because it likely involves an auto-patching system, and not all patches in all games have been enjoyed by their user base, and someone who plays such games solo in particular should have a right to choose how they play? Because some people travel with their notebook computers for more than two weeks at a time, and no, there is no guarantee that they'll have Internet access? Because software companies in general have a bad reputation for keeping validation servers online in the long-term, this company's bottom line is being overseen by Bobby Kotick, and there are people still playing Diablos 1 and 2? Because there's no good reason that a customer should have to continue to prove their legitimacy over and over again, having proved it in the first place? Because Activision-Blizzard seems to have an ever-increasing desire to have constant oversight over everyone who's playing one of their games, and the "Big Brother" approach needs to be slapped down before someone decides that's the industry norm?

[contempt]Oh, I'm sure the only people concerned about any of that are pirates.[/contempt]

 

[RIOgreatescapist]

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT
DIABLO3 DOESNT HAVE WHAT?

 

[Gardenia]

I'm fine with this, but I think it's a bit unnecessary. Assassin's Creed got cracked pretty easily.

 

[AlexanderAstartes]

What if you wanted a LAN party, which isn't wholly uncommon among my friends? Now we have to rely on what will swiftly become an overloaded internet connection if we want to play in the same house.

 

[Zanaxal]

Main reason is people can't work on their hacks without getting Court Marshalled and sued for a million dollars, poor poor cheater nerds

/irony.