Diablo 3 Will Require Players to be Online When Playing

No, I meant when leveling the game world changes like in a single player RPG. A level 15 character wouldn't be able to meet a level 50 character. I knew dungeons were always instance. Everquest 1 used to have none instance dungeons, and it didn't turn out so well. :PNerkcon

The "phasing" system only works in certain zones, not in the whole world. There are very few cases where you could meet somebody else but the phasing system gets in the way. I only ever noticed it when entering Icecrown 5-men before Blizzard introduced LFD.

worse than the UBIsoft issue, because they actually got rid of the constant connection BS(Driver is bringing it back...joy) I am not a big blizzard fan (after the release of WOW they have gone down hill IMHO) and this DRM, no mods, constant connection crap is the worst thing that they could have done. so if my net connection fails in the middle of a BOSS run, I get screwed... what a load of crap!

Valve is by far the better dev here (to those thinking that blizzard is the best) they still have offline LAN in all their games, and they dont require a 24/7 online connection to play their games, and they still support mods.

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

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.

Mograine

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.

You're absolutely right, I was the one to first mention WC4. Posting in many different forums ftl. My bad.

About the rest, I still disagree with you. Basically all you points rely on one terribly false assumption : unlike AC2 which is only sp, you say that Blizzard games are only for mp. People only buy and play them for that, because in comparison the sp is boring.

That is your opinion (and, btw, mine. Especially regarding RTS games) and many other's. But you are ignoring the millions of people who bought those games for the sp and only ever played that.

Yeah, I agree with you, they have awful taste. Still, let's not be selfish and admit these people also have the right to enjoy the game as they see fit.

At this point both of us are in a situation where we can't prove our points without reliable statistics on the mp/sp ratio. But I have heard some GPG staff members repeat many times in Supcom's forums that a huge majority of buyers never played mp once, and that game was just as mp-centric as Blizzard's games.

You're absolutely right, I was the one to first mention WC4. Posting in many different forums ftl. My bad.

About the rest, I still disagree with you. Basically all you points rely on one terribly false assumption : unlike AC2 which is only sp, you say that Blizzard games are only for mp. People only buy and play them for that, because in comparison the sp is boring.

That is your opinion (and, btw, mine. Especially regarding RTS games) and many other's. But you are ignoring the millions of people who bought those games for the sp and only ever played that.

Yeah, I agree with you, they have awful taste. Still, let's not be selfish and admit these people also have the right to enjoy the game as they see fit.

At this point both of us are in a situation where we can't prove our points without reliable statistics on the mp/sp ratio. But I have heard some GPG staff members repeat many times in Supcom's forums that a huge majority of buyers never played mp once, and that game was just as mp-centric as Blizzard's games.

milannoir

I didn't say the SP is "boring", I said it's pointless. It's not an "opinion". If you compare it with playing alone on Battle.net, which is pretty much the same as SP at a first glance, you'll see that there are only downsides. You can't use that character in multiplayer, you can't trade the items you collect, both of which are kind of a big deal in a game like Diablo 2.

[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.

You give up the social aspects to be independent from an internet connection.

I had a full stockyard of both offline and online characters in d2 for that reason(until blizzard deleted all my online characters because I hadn't logged in for several months).

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

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.

You're absolutely right, I was the one to first mention WC4. Posting in many different forums ftl. My bad.

About the rest, I still disagree with you. Basically all you points rely on one terribly false assumption : unlike AC2 which is only sp, you say that Blizzard games are only for mp. People only buy and play them for that, because in comparison the sp is boring.

That is your opinion (and, btw, mine. Especially regarding RTS games) and many other's. But you are ignoring the millions of people who bought those games for the sp and only ever played that.

Yeah, I agree with you, they have awful taste. Still, let's not be selfish and admit these people also have the right to enjoy the game as they see fit.

At this point both of us are in a situation where we can't prove our points without reliable statistics on the mp/sp ratio. But I have heard some GPG staff members repeat many times in Supcom's forums that a huge majority of buyers never played mp once, and that game was just as mp-centric as Blizzard's games.

It's still better than Microsoft's "Games for windows live" or Relic's "stupid loggin account" or Steam's "Your game is not available right now".

Am I missing something? WHy are people getting so worked up about this?

Am I missing something? WHy are people getting so worked up about this?

Morphic

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

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.

sSubZerOo

You're absolutely right, I was the one to first mention WC4. Posting in many different forums ftl. My bad.

About the rest, I still disagree with you. Basically all you points rely on one terribly false assumption : unlike AC2 which is only sp, you say that Blizzard games are only for mp. People only buy and play them for that, because in comparison the sp is boring.

That is your opinion (and, btw, mine. Especially regarding RTS games) and many other's. But you are ignoring the millions of people who bought those games for the sp and only ever played that.

Yeah, I agree with you, they have awful taste. Still, let's not be selfish and admit these people also have the right to enjoy the game as they see fit.

At this point both of us are in a situation where we can't prove our points without reliable statistics on the mp/sp ratio. But I have heard some GPG staff members repeat many times in Supcom's forums that a huge majority of buyers never played mp once, and that game was just as mp-centric as Blizzard's games.

If he says people only bought and played it for the mp based on no evidence, who says I can't say that millions bought it for sp?

If you can read correctly, you'll notice the part where I say that neither of us can prove his point without statistics.

You will also notice the part were I recall staff members from an RTS game developer (Gas Powered Games), saying that the majority of their customers never even logged once online to play mp. Which tends to remind us people here on gaming forums that many people are in fact not like us, and that even a heavily mp-oriented game like Supreme Commander can have most of its sales come from people who only do sp. Get it?

I don't want to have to log into an online account to play single player.

If he says people only bought and played it for the mp based on no evidence, who says I can't say that millions bought it for sp?

milannoir

I never said that, learn to read ;)

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

If he says people only bought and played it for the mp based on no evidence, who says I can't say that millions bought it for sp?

Mograine

I never said that, learn to read ;)

Don't make me morph into an Overlord and slowly float towards you while wiggling my limp arms!

p.s.: god i hate the gs edit button!

Back into your Ultralisk Tavern you drink Ultra >:C Don't make me morph into an Overlord and slowly float towards you while wiggling my limp arms!trastamad03

My kaiser blades pierce through your 10 armor, puny larva. I will kill you before you can finish morphing :twisted:

[QUOTE="trastamad03"]Back into your Ultralisk Tavern you drink Ultra >:C Don't make me morph into an Overlord and slowly float towards you while wiggling my limp arms!Mograine

My kaiser blades pierce through your 10 armor, puny larva. I will kill you before you can finish morphing :twisted:

And my Void Ray destroys your pathetic ultra as it flails it's useless blades to no avail. scar-hawk

I just have to turn around and fart Scourges. Your Void Ray will be easy prey.

I think a constant online connection to be necessary to play a video game to be retarded. There are instances where someone will want to play any sort of game when they do not have Internet access readily available. I mean, heck, what if I want to go back home for vacation? I know my parents are stuck with some real crappy dial-up that's tied to their only phone line. Playing Diablo 3 is not going to work well in that case. Anyway, it's not a big enough factor for me not to consider purchasing D3. I'll keep my eye on it, but it might not be a day 1 purchase for me.XIntoTheBlue

I think people are misinterpreting the game.. Its not that its removing singleplayer its being designed around a system alot like Guild Wars for multiplayer.. in which it will add far more features for being specifically multiplayer than Diablo 2 ever did.. Diablo 2 was a awesome experience multiplayer wise.. But it was horribly basic.. I could only imagine how amazing would have been if it had the kind of features we see in something Guild Wars.. or MMO's in general... Lets face it, that was the main draw of Diablo 2.. Collecting and trading loot.. Something that multiplayer was geared towards.. And the Battle.net feature was seen as the main draw to it.. Its the reason why people still play in LARGE numbers Diablo 2.. (In fact I just got back into playign it again for the 6th time online)..

Alright, I feel as though this isnt the same as the Ubisoft DRM and that it is for different reasons. There are a huge ton of features that are going into the game that all require an internet connection. ONE way to look at this is as if its GW2 or WoW. It isnt an MMO but incorporates MMO features such as the Auction House. That is the main point. Like GW2 - you'll buy it once and then have the online world to explore. They make money off of people buying the game and later off of expansions. D3 will be bought once and incorporates all the features in WoW but doesnt require a fee. Also - if you think about it - even if Starcraft 2 has an offline mode it still requires an internet connection to be able to use all of the features you actually want to use. WoW also, obviously, needs a persistent internet connection. It honestly makes perfect sense if you're going to provide all those features. And the quality of this game is already set to be magnitudes larger than anything Ubisoft will EVER make. Ubi is a true douche. And while Blizz is pulling crap here and there with $25 mounts and whatever else they still havent decreased their quality and Im happy for that. I played WoW recently cuz I got a free copy - and I loved it. It was truely sooo much better than it was so many years back. Sure vets are jaded cuz of the changes but for a newish player like me...it was so nice to play. Gamesterpheonix

Yeah but the micro transactions are meaningless vanity items though.. In a game where vanity items is at no shortage.. There are no items that give players unfair advantages or what not they have tried to sell so far.. Furthermore Diablo 2 was all about the cooperative service.. If people are seriously pissing and moaning about this.. Then really they would never play Diablo 2 game.. Because people literally have bought entire sets for their characters from these third party sites every where..

Times have changed.

Sokol4ever

[QUOTE="Gamesterpheonix"]Alright, I feel as though this isnt the same as the Ubisoft DRM and that it is for different reasons. There are a huge ton of features that are going into the game that all require an internet connection. ONE way to look at this is as if its GW2 or WoW. It isnt an MMO but incorporates MMO features such as the Auction House. That is the main point. Like GW2 - you'll buy it once and then have the online world to explore. They make money off of people buying the game and later off of expansions. D3 will be bought once and incorporates all the features in WoW but doesnt require a fee. Also - if you think about it - even if Starcraft 2 has an offline mode it still requires an internet connection to be able to use all of the features you actually want to use. WoW also, obviously, needs a persistent internet connection. It honestly makes perfect sense if you're going to provide all those features. And the quality of this game is already set to be magnitudes larger than anything Ubisoft will EVER make. Ubi is a true douche. And while Blizz is pulling crap here and there with $25 mounts and whatever else they still havent decreased their quality and Im happy for that. I played WoW recently cuz I got a free copy - and I loved it. It was truely sooo much better than it was so many years back. Sure vets are jaded cuz of the changes but for a newish player like me...it was so nice to play. sSubZerOo

Yeah but the micro transactions are meaningless vanity items though.. In a game where vanity items is at no shortage.. There are no items that give players unfair advantages or what not they have tried to sell so far.. Furthermore Diablo 2 was all about the cooperative service.. If people are seriously pissing and moaning about this.. Then really they would never play Diablo 2 game.. Because people literally have bought entire sets for their characters from these third party sites every where..

There are a huge ton of features that are going into the game that all require an internet connection. ONE way to look at this is as if its GW2 or WoW.Gamesterpheonix

[QUOTE="Gamesterpheonix"]There are a huge ton of features that are going into the game that all require an internet connection. ONE way to look at this is as if its GW2 or WoW.skrat_01

Diablo 2 was heavily focused on online play. You think it would have been such a hit without single player? What was the biggest complaint about Torchlight? It didn't have mutliplayer.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Gamesterpheonix"]There are a huge ton of features that are going into the game that all require an internet connection. ONE way to look at this is as if its GW2 or WoW.ArchonOver

Diablo 2 was heavily focused on online play. You think it would have been such a hit without single player? What was the biggest complaint about Torchlight? It didn't have mutliplayer.

I don't see why they couldn't include an offline mode. I admit I didn't play diablo 2 offline very often once I got high speed internet, but it was still a lot of fun sometimes to download hacked up items for single player. It was also really nice to test out weird builds to see if they were viable by downloading a bunch of rare drops and adding them to my single player character. I guess being able to switch out skills at any time will help there, but as more of a hardcore player I like having a testbed. I'm pretty sure I will get the game near release, but I will wait for a few reviews first.

Do people's connections never go down? Do people never travel? Do people not have bandwidth caps? It is pretty astounding that so many people are cool with this now that it's Blizzard doing it.guynamedbilly

sad isn't it. Another company and all hell breaks loose.

for the people defending the online garbage, I have some questions here I would like to be answered

1.- is diablo 3 a persistent world? (I'm a assuming no)

2.- does diablo 3 have a huge expansive world ala WoW, GW (yeah, it was instanced based, but the world itself was big enough), Conan, ToR, Lineage 2?

3.- is diablo 3 comprised of chapters until the game finishes? (I'm assuming yes, much like Diablo 2)

4.- does the game HAS AN ENDING? (I'm obviously assuming yes)

5.- is diablo 3 "session based"? (in which you go with a couple of friends thru chapters killing stuff?, I'm assuming yes, much like Diablo 2 was)

if the answers are the ones I'm assuming, then I have another question

1.- why THE HELL, would you compare Diablo 3 with persistent MMORPGS like WoW and GW? and WHY THE HELL would you see the need to be 24/7 in online mode when not even the freaking world is persistent, has an ending, is neither expansive nor huge to begin with?

THIS is intended for stuff like WoW or mmorpgs in general, a game that weights the ammount of a Small Hard drive and the world it's so incredibly Huge, have so many instances and raids that exploring and doing all of it completely alone it's the work a group of people or a madman or outright impossible?, when DIABLO-like games consisted of your character against the miriad of monster and finishing the game by yourself? the group of people was not something that was needed because you could sit there one night and just you know...go kill stuff by yourself if you wanted to, along with the deep item/skill customization and the plettora of things

did you all know that Diablo 1 was the epithome of games like these and not one single time you needed to be online to do ANYTHING?, and the reason the phrase "diablo like games" was coined was because of it?, seriously guys, just think it through for a momment and realize why 24/7 online requirement to play single player mode it's completely ridiculous and even more so in a game like this

"When asked about the justification of the decision, Wilson stated that 99.9 percent of gamers have an Internet connection. He added that if a player's connection drops, a player could die but the in-game penalty wouldn't be harsh (specifically a 10 percent decrease in durability for equipped weapons and items) unless the player is on Hardcore mode, in which case he or she loses the character permanently." So in addition to the life of my character being dependent upon my ability to not suck, it is also dependent upon.....Comcast. Wonderful. I see both sides of this issue, but I have to admit that a required internet connection bothers me. I hope fans do the right thing and give Blizz reps all sorts of hell at Blizzcon. attirex

This whole "log in to play single player game" crap sucks. It needs to stop. You know what the worst part is? People will find a way to crack it, as always, and the pirates will get to play it offline. Nice, Blizzard.

At least Torchlight 2 is looking really good.

Really the only problem I can see with this is if I'm playing hardcore mode. If I lose connection for whatever reason, I lose my entire charLOLChris360

for the people defending the online garbage, I have some questions here I would like to be answered

1.- is diablo 3 a persistent world? (I'm a assuming no)

2.- does diablo 3 have a huge expansive world ala WoW, GW (yeah, it was instanced based, but the world itself was big enough), Conan, ToR, Lineage 2?

3.- is diablo 3 comprised of chapters until the game finishes? (I'm assuming yes, much like Diablo 2)

4.- does the game HAS AN ENDING? (I'm obviously assuming yes)

5.- is diablo 3 "session based"? (in which you go with a couple of friends thru chapters killing stuff?, I'm assuming yes, much like Diablo 2 was)

if the answers are the ones I'm assuming, then I have another question

1.- why THE HELL, would you compare Diablo 3 with persistent MMORPGS like WoW and GW? and WHY THE HELL would you see the need to be 24/7 in online mode when not even the freaking world is persistent, has an ending, is neither expansive nor huge to begin with?

THIS is intended for stuff like WoW or mmorpgs in general, a game that weights the ammount of a Small Hard drive and the world it's so incredibly Huge, have so many instances and raids that exploring and doing all of it completely alone it's the work a group of people or a madman or outright impossible?, when DIABLO-like games consisted of your character against the miriad of monster and finishing the game by yourself? the group of people was not something that was needed because you could sit there one night and just you know...go kill stuff by yourself if you wanted to, along with the deep item/skill customization and the plettora of things

did you all know that Diablo 1 was the epithome of games like these and not one single time you needed to be online to do ANYTHING?, and the reason the phrase "diablo like games" was coined was because of it?, seriously guys, just think it through for a momment and realize why 24/7 online requirement to play single player mode it's completely ridiculous and even more so in a game like this

Vlashkgbr

I know. It's pretty sad. But hey, the defense force will find a way to refute you. I don't give a flying crap about playing online with other people, that's why I enjoyed

torchlight, titan quest and freaking sacred. But if a company wants me to pay 60 bucks for a non mmo game that requires a persistent online connection just to play single player........no way. No matter how good the game is. You can argue that diablo is best played online and such, don't care. It's got a single player mode and that's the sole reason I got the first 2 games.

2011 or not, it's one thing to be connected all the time to play an mmo, but it's another thing for a non mmo game without a persistent world. I played d2 to the end without ever touching the multi. Why? Because I could. Anywhere, anytime, I could enjoy the setting and loot hunting without dealing with super-nerds online.

They have to ensure people don't pirate this game. Unless there's a better way of doing it, constant online verification with a server will prevent all but the most persistent pirates.

I could not care less.

People keep getting all up in arms about these constant internet connection things... In this day and age, if you are a gamer and don't have internet/slow internet that drops connections a lot/etc... then upgrade. This is like getting pissed at having to have a PS3 to play PS3 games. Just get a job, put up the money, and enjoy your amazingly great game.

They have to ensure people don't pirate this game. Unless there's a better way of doing it, constant online verification with a server will prevent all but anyone with access to google.

airshocker

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.

topgunmv

As with the real life, the more obstacles you put in a person's way, the less inclined they will be to reach the finish line.

If this wasn't in place, it only stands to reason that more people would pirate it.

They have to ensure people don't pirate this game. Unless there's a better way of doing it, constant online verification with a server will prevent all but the most persistent pirates.

I know of an excellent way to alleviate piracy, and it's something no developer has ever try for a while, here it is...prepare yourselves

the best way to alleviate piracy it's to...create a freaking good game that people will love, the ammount of people who will buy your excellent product will alleviate the fact that pirates will still pirate the freaking game

its laughable how these developers seems to have their brains fused to their behinds thinking some sort of draconian DRM will prevent piracy, piracy will exist as long as there are people, heck, even WoW which is a mmorpg has private servers, sure they don't have the ammount of bug ridden perfomance as the real deal, but it still exist, just to prove a point of how even a serial code validated mmorpg will still be pirated

Diablo 3 will be pirated, no matter what, a crack will be released much like they did with AC 2's and AC: brootherhood and every freaking ubisoft game to ever exist, and you know why those games sell so low?, it's because they freaking stink and reek of mediocrity, not because of piracy alone, it's the same reason Dragon age origins outsold it' sequel and it's still doing it to this day, it's because Dragon age 2 it's freaking garbage for christ sakes

I could not care less.

People keep getting all up in arms about these constant internet connection things... In this day and age, if you are a gamer and don't have internet/slow internet that drops connections a lot/etc... then upgrade. This is like getting pissed at having to have a PS3 to play PS3 games. Just get a job, put up the money, and enjoy your amazingly great game.

The double standard is almost painful to witness. Ubisoft does it and they're the worst company in the world. Blizzard does it and it is all of a sudden it's no big deal? Come on......

The double standard is almost painful to witness. Ubisoft does it and they're the worst company in the world. Blizzard does it and it is all of a sudden it's no big deal? Come on......SF_KiLLaMaN

The double standard is almost painful to witness. Ubisoft does it and they're the worst company in the world. Blizzard does it and it is all of a sudden it's no big deal? Come on......SF_KiLLaMaN

Agreed. Where are all of the boycotting threads?

I mean, I don't care either way, but anyone who has ever complained about Ubisoft's latest DRM should be completely up in arms about this.