Because they're too lazy to sit down and let it load for thirty extra seconds every two weeks.Grilled Cheesus said:
Why's everyone mad about no offline Diablo 3 single player?
- Thread starter ItsAPaul
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Maybe people want to be able play if they have a connection or not, primarily the people play on laptops, like me. We can travel and most likely we are gonna go through areas with no wifi or wireless connection so they want to be able to play no matter what.
With Diablo 2, I think lots of people liked the single player because they could use mods and hacks to their hearts content, without worry of temp or permabans from battle.net. Thats one reason they may complain about no single player mode.
Uhm.. No? What about the PC gamers that don't have an internet connection? They're totally fucked.ItsAPaul said:
Yes, entirely for this reason. Some people don't like say, sucking up the entire bandwidth whilst not playing multiplayer? Maybe you want to download something large and decide you want to play Diablo III whilst you're waiting? Oh wait, you can't, cause you have to be online.oplinger said:
It's bullshit. Yeah, you have to activate your account on Starcraft II before you can play offline, but at least you can PLAY OFFLINE!
It just seems a bit pointless, maybe have a one time authentication, but that should be all you need, as you must've bought it to enable that original authentication, and you are likely to still have a legit copy down the line after that original authentication, if you didnt have a legit copy it would fail, so it's just arbitry annoyance, I might have a period where I dont have any internet, in which case I will likely still want to play d3, I know I did with D2, and I can use mods and stuff just to have fun without annoying other people.
Why on earth do you need a 15 day repeating authentication?
I mean, have I suddenly stumbled into a reality wherein legitimate copies of games periodically just become pirated copies, and so need to be checked every 15 days to make sure they're still legitimate?
I mean, have I suddenly stumbled into a reality wherein legitimate copies of games periodically just become pirated copies, and so need to be checked every 15 days to make sure they're still legitimate?
Unless of course you can pretty much only connect once every other week, and the server's not up at that time, because you're out in some backwater country doing... er, I think you get the idea. I don't like it, but once every 2 weeks isn't horrible.Ertol said:
Ubisoft is a totally different company then blizzard, the ENTIRE FUCKING POST is about diablo 3 which is made by BLIZZARD.octafish said:
TL
R - diablo 3 has nothing to do with ubisoft
Frankly I won't mind, what I do need to do however, is update my graphics card before the game releases...otherwise I'm ok with whatever they do, blizzard has yet to screw the pooch in regards to their big 3 series. What I want is more class trailers and gameplay dammit!
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?lacktheknack said:
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.