Diablo 3 Will Require Players to be Online When Playing

I really hate this: http://www.1up.com/news/diablo-3-requires-online-when-playing

They're becoming less and less a gaming company and more of a money earning machine, less about creativity and love of games and more of squeezing as much money out of their customers and making sure that they keep control over their product even after you've bought it.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Something that is true in any business.

I don't know anymore. In this day and age majority of the people are connected online. I don't agree with constant online requirement and firmly believe when I buy the product I should have control of it.

Times have changed.

I am always online anyway so I dont really care!

Still a day-1 buy for me :)

I am always online anyway so I dont really care!

Still a day-1 buy for me :)

Daytona_178

Doesn't worries me due Diablo II LOD outside Battlenet was useless (you lost 50% of runewords and the best items, which are ladder only); also playing online you can rise your character X20 times faster, so I ALWAYS did play D II online since I have Internet connection.

On the other side, the items x money is the WORST THING Blizzard never did in a game; Kotick is destroying this company.

So how many people actually care about this?

"oh noes, i still have dial up but somehow have a diablo 3 ready pc"

I really don't see any problems with this anymore...I doubt there are any PC gamers nowadays without an internet connection. I wouldn't even want a computer without internet. And I think everyone agrees on that a Diablo game is best played with others. You can QQ on the forums about these things all you want but it's getting a bit old to be honest.

I am always online anyway so I dont really care!

Still a day-1 buy for me :)

Daytona_178

Stop complaining about being online all the time folks. Everything is online all the time so get used to it for the folks that are **** about being online to play. Its kind of like steam. =D

I am always online anyway so I dont really care!

Still a day-1 buy for me :)

Daytona_178

The hypocrisy is pretty sad.

They're becoming less and less a gaming company and more of a money earning machine, less about creativity and love of games and more of squeezing as much money out of their customers and making sure that they keep control over their product even after you've bought it.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Something that is true in any business.

yellonet

Also Diablo II didnt have mods, im sorry SP gamers, but quite frankly this franchise is Multiplayer Focused regaurdless of early design concepts. Birdy09

[QUOTE="Birdy09"]Also Diablo II didnt have mods, im sorry SP gamers, but quite frankly this franchise is Multiplayer Focused regaurdless of early design concepts. Nerkcon

I can see the issue with this, but I personally dont care. If I cannot play DII online, I am not playing it (that wasnt that case 8+ years ago, but today, it is for me).

lets be fair.. Diablo 2's singleplayer SUCKED.. It was meant to be a multiplayer.. The Co-op experience, the trading etc etc was what it was about.. Singleplayer became repetitive for the lack of those things.. Furthermore people are trying to make it sound like their lazy.. And not like they are trying ot make it more akin to a system like Guild Wars.. Afterall we could claim that the developers of Guild Wars were lazy for not including a singleplayer mode when much of the game could be completed with npc character companions.sSubZerOo

Il rephrase, the online portion. (competitive ladder)Birdy09

It was expected for this to happen when it's using the same Battle.net as Starcraft 2, which also forced you to be online all the time.

If the single player was so bad why does it exist? Some people DO play it that way and some people don't have constant access to the internet. Just because you do it one way doesn't mean the world follows suit.

It doesn't make sense that when Assasin's Creed had this people flipped their **** but since it's the almighty Blizzard we're all willing to take it. Bad design decisions are still bad design decisions.

So when Ubisoft does it, it's unacceptable. But if Blizzard does it AND taxes player transactions AND forbids mods, then it's ok. Because, you know, it's Blizzard.

Guys, I'm all for PC gaming and have defended it many times in these forums, but it's time people realized Blizzard is NOT the saviour of PC gaming. They have talented developpers, make good games, but they are also the greediest, soulless bastards in this industry.

There's no way I'm buying this game. Fortunately, PC gaming is so huge that you can turn your back on a major player like Blizzard and lose nothing, given the huge quantity and variety of good games available. I just wish people stopped giving them undeserved respect. They are now Activision/Blizzard, don't forget that, and the Kotick is strong in these ones.

I am always online anyway so I dont really care!

Still a day-1 buy for me :)

Daytona_178

Agreed, same here, its just what happens if your internet goes out for a few days... No Diablo 3 for that time period.

More and more games will require you to be connected, Major ISP internet caps and such will have to accomodate in the future. So the Connected part doesn't bother me too much, though it must be realized that it is a double edged sword!

Though honestly it doesn't really bother me. Diablo 3 will largely be played online (2 of us in same house, and my sister lives a little bit aways, so 3 of us together will have to be online instead of just LAN.

Now only thing I see visually wrong with the game, is the Animations (not as fluid as I would like) and the wavering framerate (even when there are only a few enemies on screen at once) That being said, they are not finished with it, and hopefully that will be addressed.

So when Ubisoft does it, it's unacceptable. But if Blizzard does it AND taxes player transactions AND forbids mods, then it's ok. Because, you know, it's Blizzard.

Guys, I'm all for PC gaming and have defended it many times in these forums, but it's time people realized Blizzard is NOT the saviour of PC gaming. They have talented developpers, make good games, but they are also the greediest, soulless bastards in this industry.

There's no way I'm buying this game. Fortunately, PC gaming is so huge that you can turn your back on a major player like Blizzard and lose nothing, given the huge quantity and variety of good games available. I just wish people stopped giving them undeserved respect. They are now Activision/Blizzard, don't forget that, and the Kotick is strong in these ones.

milannoir

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

So when Ubisoft does it, it's unacceptable. But if Blizzard does it AND taxes player transactions AND forbids mods, then it's ok. Because, you know, it's Blizzard.

Guys, I'm all for PC gaming and have defended it many times in these forums, but it's time people realized Blizzard is NOT the saviour of PC gaming. They have talented developpers, make good games, but they are also the greediest, soulless bastards in this industry.

There's no way I'm buying this game. Fortunately, PC gaming is so huge that you can turn your back on a major player like Blizzard and lose nothing, given the huge quantity and variety of good games available. I just wish people stopped giving them undeserved respect. They are now Activision/Blizzard, don't forget that, and the Kotick is strong in these ones.

trastamad03

If they can get away with this, get ready for unmoddable Warcraft IV...

And, btw, I don't personnally care about being forced to be online even for sp. It's just that I find it amazing that when Ubisoft does the same thing MINUS the player-transactions taxing MINUS the mods being forbidden, the PC gaming community goes berserk.

This by the same company that's selling Starcraft II in three full-priced parts. Yeah, I know the tune, "each part is worth a full game, and one is enough to play online". I still see a trend, and I don't like it.

As someone with an internet connection (along with every single person who plays games on a PC) I think this is a good thing. Why? It will help prevent the hacking that ruined Diablo and Diablo 2. I don't know if you noticed, but Starcraft is the same way, and nobody cared.

If they can get away with this, get ready for unmoddable Warcraft IV...

And, btw, I don't personnally care about being forced to be online even for sp. It's just that I find it amazing that when Ubisoft does the same thing MINUS the player-transactions taxing MINUS the mods being forbidden, the PC gaming community goes berserk.

This by the same company that's selling Starcraft II in three full-priced parts. Yeah, I know the tune, "each part is worth a full game, and one is enough to play online". I still see a trend, and I don't like it.

milannoir

Warcraft IV is an RTS. It has absolutely nothing to do with Diablo 3. No idea how you can pull something like this out of your bottom.

Ubisoft's games were pretty much SP only. There is NOTHING in them that warrants a connection except the DRM itself. Blizzard games have always been about multiplayer.

I don't get the two "MINUS" things. How is somebody supposed to make sense of that :? Player transactions in a single player game? And do you see any mod for Assassin's Creed 2 except for the graphic ones?

Mind if I ask where did you get that both HotS and LotV will be 60$? Oh, that's right, you didn't, it just an uninformed, baseless bunch of assumptions like the rest of what you said :roll:

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

If they can get away with this, get ready for unmoddable Warcraft IV...

And, btw, I don't personnally care about being forced to be online even for sp. It's just that I find it amazing that when Ubisoft does the same thing MINUS the player-transactions taxing MINUS the mods being forbidden, the PC gaming community goes berserk.

This by the same company that's selling Starcraft II in three full-priced parts. Yeah, I know the tune, "each part is worth a full game, and one is enough to play online". I still see a trend, and I don't like it.

Mograine

Warcraft IV is an RTS. It has absolutely nothing to do with Diablo 3. No idea how you can pull something like this out of your bottom.

Ubisoft's games were pretty much SP only. There is NOTHING in them that warrants a connection except the DRM itself. Blizzard games have always been about multiplayer.

I don't get the two "MINUS" things. How is somebody supposed to make sense of that :? Player transactions in a single player game? And do you see any mod for Assassin's Creed 2 except for the graphic ones?

Mind if I ask where did you get that both HotS and LotV will be 60$? Oh, that's right, you didn't, it just an uninformed, baseless bunch of assumptions like the rest of what you said :roll:

The singleplayer in blizzard's games have always been as robust as the multiplayer.

It was expected for this to happen when it's using the same Battle.net as Starcraft 2, which also forced you to be online all the time.

ArchonOver

You don't need to be online to play starcraft 2.

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

If they can get away with this, get ready for unmoddable Warcraft IV...

And, btw, I don't personnally care about being forced to be online even for sp. It's just that I find it amazing that when Ubisoft does the same thing MINUS the player-transactions taxing MINUS the mods being forbidden, the PC gaming community goes berserk.

This by the same company that's selling Starcraft II in three full-priced parts. Yeah, I know the tune, "each part is worth a full game, and one is enough to play online". I still see a trend, and I don't like it.

Mograine

Warcraft IV is an RTS. It has absolutely nothing to do with Diablo 3. No idea how you can pull something like this out of your bottom.

Ubisoft's games were pretty much SP only. There is NOTHING in them that warrants a connection except the DRM itself. Blizzard games have always been about multiplayer.

I don't get the two "MINUS" things. How is somebody supposed to make sense of that :? Player transactions in a single player game? And do you see any mod for Assassin's Creed 2 except for the graphic ones?

Mind if I ask where did you get that both HotS and LotV will be 60$? Oh, that's right, you didn't, it just an uninformed, baseless bunch of assumptions like the rest of what you said :roll:

You do realize you're the one who mentionned Warcraft in the first place, do you? And I know that it's an RTS quite well, thank you Mr Obvious.

But if Blizzard gets no flack for scrapping mods and forcing online for this game, they might well be tempted to do the same for W4.

Of course it's an assumption, when did I ever said I knew this from my crystal ball? But I can see trends : SC2 doesn't force you to be permanently online to play sp. Now Diablo 3 will. Different game genres? Sure, but both games have some fans that do buy it for single player only (their taste, not mine).

About the SC2 expansions, I of course don't know the price. I have a very bad feeling I'll be right about it, though, seeing what they're doing with Diablo3.

And to clarify the "minus" things :

_Ubisoft for Assassin's Creed uses a DRM forcing players to be constantly online : general uproar

_Blizzard does the same thing, AND forbids mods, AND taxes player transactions and many people are ok with it.

I know Diablo 3 is for many people a mp game, but not exclusively. It would be interesting to know the proportion of people who buy the game and never play mp. I remember the staff at Gas Powered Games telling us in the forums of Supreme Commander (another game considerd by many, like me, to be essentially a mp game) that in fact the huge majority of buyers never played a single online match.

YOU are making an assumption when considerin that Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft buyers are all in for the mp.

The singleplayer in blizzard's games have always been as robust as the multiplayer.

topgunmv

Diablo 2's SP was completely pointless. Once you were done with Baal on Hell it was over.

You do realize you're the one who mentionned Warcraft in the first place, do you? And I know that it's an RTS quite well, thank you Mr Obvious.

But if Blizzard gets no flack for scrapping mods and forcing online for this game, they might well be tempted to do the same for W4.

Of course it's an assumption, when did I ever said I knew this from my crystal ball? But I can see trends : SC2 doesn't force you to be permanently online to play sp. Now Diablo 3 will. Different game genres? Sure, but both games have some fans that do buy it for single player only (their taste, not mine).

About the SC2 expansions, I of course don't know the price. I have a very bad feeling I'll be right about it, though, seeing what they're doing with Diablo3.

And to clarify the "minus" things :

_Ubisoft for Assassin's Creed uses a DRM forcing players to be constantly online : general uproar

_Blizzard does the same thing, AND forbids mods, AND taxes player transactions and many people are ok with it.

I know Diablo 3 is for many people a mp game, but not exclusively. It would be interesting to know the proportion of people who buy the game and never play mp. I remember the staff at Gas Powered Games telling us in the forums of Supreme Commander (another game considerd by many, like me, to be essentially a mp game) that in fact the huge majority of buyers never played a single online match.

YOU are making an assumption when considerin that Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft buyers are all in for the mp.

milannoir

Pretty sure I'm not the first one who posted about Warcraft considering the first post I have made in this thread was the one you just responded to. Are you confused?

Diablo =/= mods. The only way you can play mods in Diablo 2 was in SP...and SP in Diablo 2 was pointless compared to its MP. Again, once you were done with Baal on Hell, you could as well trash that character because there was nothing else to do. Warcraft 4 is an RTS, half of its MP is based on custom games. They won't get away with anything but a laughter at your assumptions.

Your "minus" explanation does NOT make any sense nor does the comparison before it. You CAN'T put player transactions in a SP game for gods sake. And there are no mods for AC2 either outside of graphical overhauls. Ubisoft applied that DRM with single-player centric games, Blizzard is doing it with games that are all about the multiplayer.

I'm not making any assumption. If you think you can play a Blizzard game without touching its MP you're doing it wrong, period.

So when Ubisoft does it, it's unacceptable. But if Blizzard does it AND taxes player transactions AND forbids mods, then it's ok. Because, you know, it's Blizzard.

Guys, I'm all for PC gaming and have defended it many times in these forums, but it's time people realized Blizzard is NOT the saviour of PC gaming. They have talented developpers, make good games, but they are also the greediest, soulless bastards in this industry.

There's no way I'm buying this game. Fortunately, PC gaming is so huge that you can turn your back on a major player like Blizzard and lose nothing, given the huge quantity and variety of good games available. I just wish people stopped giving them undeserved respect. They are now Activision/Blizzard, don't forget that, and the Kotick is strong in these ones.

milannoir

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

The singleplayer in blizzard's games have always been as robust as the multiplayer.

Mograine

Diablo 2's SP was completely pointless. Once you were done with Baal on Hell it was over.

By that logic any singleplayer game is pointless, as once you finish it it's over.

By that logic any singleplayer game is pointless, as once you finish it it's over.

topgunmv

Because there's plenty of games where the SP is the exact same as the MP, with the only exception being there's only 1 player playing.

Seriously, if you want to make a point at least put some thought into it.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

By that logic any singleplayer game is pointless, as once you finish it it's over.

Mograine

Because there's plenty of games where the SP is the exact same as the MP, with the only exception being there's only 1 player playing.

Seriously, if you want to make a point at least put some thought into it.

There are a lot of games like that, not sure what your counterpoint is.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

By that logic any singleplayer game is pointless, as once you finish it it's over.

Mograine

Because there's plenty of games where the SP is the exact same as the MP, with the only exception being there's only 1 player playing.

Seriously, if you want to make a point at least put some thought into it.

There are a lot of games like that, not sure what your counterpoint is.

topgunmv

You misunderstood what I meant.

Singleplayer games are meant to be played for their story, their mechanics, their characters, what have you.

Diablo 2's SP is pointless because you could go on B.net and play alone until you've beaten Baal on Hell and it would be the exact same. There's no point in playing the SP, only downsides.

Your point that once beating Diablo 2 on the highest possible difficulty obtainable after beating the game once and beating the final boss it was over thus making Diablo 2's single player pointless. In other words after spending dozens to hundreds of hours on a game its over and completely pointless. That could be said for the mutiplayer as well.Brean24

"In other words" you're pulling things out of my mouth.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

There are a lot of games like that, not sure what your counterpoint is.

Mograine

You misunderstood what I meant.

Singleplayer games are meant to be played for their story, their mechanics, their characters, what have you.

Diablo 2's SP is pointless because you could go on B.net and play alone until you've beaten Baal on Hell and it would be the exact same. There's no point in playing the SP, only downsides.

I have meant some people over the years that said they prefer Diablo as a single player game. I didn't understand it either. People playing WoW as a single player game were the worst though. WoW was fun in a group but boring to solo. I gave up at level 27. But the leveling is basically a single player story mode, right? I heard everything is instance now.Nerkcon

Yeah, it is.

WoW has always been about istances at high level.

[QUOTE="Nerkcon"] I have meant some people over the years that said they prefer Diablo as a single player game. I didn't understand it either. People playing WoW as a single player game were the worst though. WoW was fun in a group but boring to solo. I gave up at level 27. But the leveling is basically a single player story mode, right? I heard everything is instance now.Mograine

Yeah, it is.

WoW has always been about istances at high level.