Blizzard Defends Always-Online For Diablo III: Reaper of Souls

[vun]

I was hoping they'd remove the always-on crap when the auction house went, but so much for that...

Heck, I was even slightly excited for Reaper of Souls, but nope.
Not that internet connection is much of an issue to me, as I have good and stable connection, but I don't want to have to rely on having a stable connection just to play a singleplayer game on my own, that's BS.

So yeah, I might get it on console, but I'm done with D3 on PC until they do a 180 and remove this junk. Until then I'll stick to D2.

Or better yet get Torchlight 2, its pretty much and updated and more modern version of Diablo 2 made by the people who did Diablo 2 and its pretty cheap.

I've played quite a lot of Torchlight as well as a bit of Torchlight 2, but while they're good they don't really do it for me. Hard to put my finger on why that is though.

its worsth checking out titan quest.. i had the same issue with torchlight it never quite grabbed me in the same way as diablo 2 did. also out early next year i hope is grim dawn which looks good

I did try Titan Quest as well, but that just felt like a beta at best. Ironically; Path of Exile did work for me even though that was an actual beta, but by then I'd sorta lost interest in the hack-and-slash games, so I didn't play much of it.

 

[Makabriel]

There is -nothing- wrong with what they are doing. It may not be popular, but there is no legitimate tangible reason for taking it offline. Player hate just doesn't cut it.

Sure, but do connection problems, lag, item loss, account theft, server downtime and lack of features that properly take advantage of the multiplayer (good PvP, raid-style events etc) cut it?

If a large enough section of the playerbase was affected by these technical problems, I'd agree with you. It's not. And there are plenty of new features in the expansion that will add more to do.

And for the record, I will side with you on PVP. I don't do it personally, but they did drop the ball pretty hard on that one.

Indeed, there is no need for a company to care about what their customers think. Maybe Blizzard will keep your advice in mind, all the way to bankruptcy.

They've been making unpopular decisions for dozens of years. Don't see it hurting their bank account very much, and don't think it ever will. That's actually one thing I "admire" about blizzard. They don't cater. They build the game the way they want it to be, not according to player opinion.

Hmm. You may have a point, But then Riddle me this.

Is there a legitimate tangible reason for taking it always online?
If offline characters cannot access online, server's security should be tight, while people can enjoy offline!(GENIUS.)

I could make millions!

Oh wait.

Spoiler

WHAT IS THIS SORCERY

Yup.. it's called Diablo 2, which they have said plenty of times, they did not want to remake. I'm fine with that and so are millions of other players.

 

[thisbymaster]

Fuck you Blizzard, your game sucks and you refuse to fix it because it isn't your vision for the game. You are scared to come to light and understand that your vision of the game is something no one wants to play. You get nothing, you lose, good day sir!

 

[WeepingAngels]

They've been making unpopular decisions for dozens of years. Don't see it hurting their bank account very much, and don't think it ever will. That's actually one thing I "admire" about blizzard. They don't cater. They build the game the way they want it to be, not according to player opinion.

Their luck won't hold out forever. Remember how everyone used to love Bioware?

I'll tell you what I have learned from this mess. I have learned to wait for the superior console port for the next Blizzard game that isn't an RTS.

 

[Something Amyss]

"If someone has no Internet access, then yeah, Diablo III is not the game for them,"

I always hate that argument. It really isn't an all-or-nothing sort of thing, guys. Some people have bad, spotty, or slow internet. I mean, this is ALWAYS Online. The Xbone had a daily check-in. I can see them using the "all or nothing" approach, because you don't need to connect all the time.

But this?

Yeah.

"We didn't make that game. That's the straight-up answer. We did not make that game, and we're not going to turn this game into that game."

And yet, the console versions exist...

That's different. Because...Ummm...Reasons.

 

[00slash00]

Oh, okay. So, it's not a matter that people were promised things that didn't happen, it's just that they BOUGHT THE WRONG GAME. Sorry, folks! Should have just gotten something else. Maybe Path of Exile? Torchlight?

Mystery solved! Everybody go home now.

Don't both those games also require internet? They may not be the best examples

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

There is -nothing- wrong with what they are doing. It may not be popular, but there is no legitimate tangible reason for taking it offline. Player hate just doesn't cut it.

Sure, but do connection problems, lag, item loss, account theft, server downtime and lack of features that properly take advantage of the multiplayer (good PvP, raid-style events etc) cut it?

If a large enough section of the playerbase was affected by these technical problems, I'd agree with you. It's not. And there are plenty of new features in the expansion that will add more to do.

And for the record, I will side with you on PVP. I don't do it personally, but they did drop the ball pretty hard on that one.

During the launch, account hacks, error messages locking you out, extra server downtime, random lag that caused unfair deaths and occasional item loss were all rife. The game might be smoothed out now but I really don't care. I lost interest in the game after my character was hacked and I read the forums for advice, only to discover that I was considered an 'idiot' for not buying an authenticator to go along with my account.

Did I ever have any of these problems playing singleplayer Diablo? No. What has online Diablo III offered me that I wasn't able to get out of Diablo II? Umm...

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Yup.. it's called Diablo 2, which they have said plenty of times, they did not want to remake. I'm fine with that and so are millions of other players.

Stop evading my questions.

Quoted just in case of confusion.

Is there a legitimate tangible reason for taking it always online?
If offline characters cannot access online, server's security should be tight, while people can enjoy offline!(GENIUS.)

 

[thatonedude11]

Seriously, folks. The world is becoming always online, all the time.

Except Blizzard's servers, which still experience regular maintenance, and let's not forget about error 37.

Some might say that it is unreasonable to expect Blizzard's servers to be functional 100% of the time, to which I respond "Fuck that!". If I pay $60 for an experience that I have been able to get at any time in the past (single-player), than I should continue to expect to get that experience at any time. If I am unable to do that, it represents a complete failure from the company who made that product.

 

[Vylox]

I believe me and this Kevin Martens guy are familiar with different games called Diablo 2.
I bought it at launch, I was an active member of the community forums (on Blizzards website) and I don't recall folks being upset about the offline/online divergence system that was used. As a matter of fact, the blizzard forums archive (dating back to 1997) doesn't seem to have anything regarding that either.....

If you want to play an always online single player game, fine you have that right. But for a finished product that you need to pay for up front, it shouldn't require me to jump through hoops to actually play at my leisure.

Always online DRM is not what it is claimed to be. It is touted as a thing to prevent software piracy, and for the most part doesn't work. It is used to prevent cheating and for the most part it doesn't work. Don't believe me about it not stopping cheating ? Look up the reason that the auction house in D3 was shut down and removed.

If a company wants me to play online (and I play a lot of different online only games, all on my tablet) then you don't need to charge me a fee to purchase the game itself. Publish it for free, and after that you can require a subscription or use a micro transaction system of added perks/benefits in order to get money out of my wallet. There are thousands upon thousands of games that do business in this manner, and they are very profitable. In this day and age, the business strategy that is being used by Blizzard in regards to their games is outdated.

 

[Lunar Templar]

love how he's lieing to our faces about not 'making that game' when the consoles version exsists and is that game.

 

[black_knight1337]

First off, you could do what Torchlight 2 did and just not give a shit if people cheat. I'm guessing most people play these games with their friends anyway (correct me if I'm wrong), so who cares if someone that you're not playing with is cheating? (This isn't exactly hack-free, but it is a possible solution to the hacking problem)

Pub games are very common too, you know socialising and all that. And that isn't a solution to hacking at all. Torchlight 2 pretty much says "hey guys, we'll let you hack whatever you like". Sure they have an anti-cheat system in place but it does shit all. It takes all of 5 minutes and you can have all your stats at whatever you want. It's alright enough for Torchlight 2 though as it's just pure co-op. When you add competitive elements like pvp and ladders(upcoming for Diablo 3) you have a responsibility to make it at least somewhat fair.

Another possible solution is to keep the online working like it does now (with most calculations done server-side), and then have the offline work like Diablo 2 or the console versions (with all calculations done client-side). This would require a lot of work, but Blizzard has a lot of money, and I don't doubt that they could make it work.

The only way that would turn out any way other than what happened in Diablo 2 would be to code the offline version completely different to the online version. Which in turn makes the production costs skyrocket, but we'd all be happy to pay $120-160 for the base game right?

Look, I'm no expert, and I don't know the ins and outs of how Diablo works (I've never played any of those games). All I really know is that while the system Blizzard implemented does prevent cheating, it does so in a way that hurts the customers that don't cheat, and have no intention of cheating.

I know, same as any form of drm. But at least it's actually working and provides some benefits.

So someone cheating and ruining their own gaming experience is SO important to you that you'd rather others have their game unplayable. Yep you've got your priorities straight..... /Sarcasm.

No that isn't what bothers me with hacks. People can do what they like in their single player games because it has no effect on me. It's when this gets transferred into the closed competitive systems(ie. ladder) that it becomes a problem. This is exactly what happened in Diablo 2.

And before you say "get a better net connection" I have 100mb/s cable, speed isn't the issue, it always being down when I go to play it after work for 'maintinance' because I have the hide to live outside the US and thus they don't care about taking the game down during our peak hours of play. Blizzard can get fucked for all I care I'm not getting another shitty BZ game again if this is how they treat me, like a 3rd class citizen on the Titanic. Oh and I also suppose losing the game when the servers are turned off is also not as important as stopping cheaters too? I got this game to play with mates and only got the chance once due to their stupid system.

I wouldn't tell anyone to "get a better net connection", well unless they are still on dial-up or something. The thing is, I play regularly on mobile broadband that chugs along at a massive 10kB/s and yes I get a bit of lag every now and then which usually only happens when there's a bunch of cm wizards in my party(ie. huge clusterfuck on screen). And it "always being down when I go to play" is bs. The only way that can be true is if the only time you want to play is within their weekly scheduled maintenance because outside of that there is very little down time. And yes, I live outside of the US, more specifically Australia. We're supposed to have one of the worst connections around to Blizzard's servers. Also, fun fact: The biggest contributor to latency issues on Blizzard's server is AT&T. And I'd presume, because it's Blizzard, that when they eventually drop support(probably a good 10+ years uptime) they will patch the game to make you run a local server.

Simple solution, have a off line mode and a online mode. Make it so YOU CAN NOT TAKE YOUR OFF LINE PLAYER ONLINE, that way there is a barrier preventing the two to mix will not tainiting the online.

Diablo 2 did this, it was also filled with hacks. The hacks I'm talking about aren't hex editors and the like that edit you character's stats. They are stuff like map hacks, making your movement become teleports, duping, forcing people to drop their gear etc.

 

[Nazulu]

snip, blip, ship and flip

I just have to say, I've played Diablo 2 for a very long time and I hardly ran into hackers. In fact, I didn't see any of the hacks you mentioned in your last paragraph. Then again, I usually made my own game for people to join, mostly friends. I hardly encountered any problems and there was always a way to work around them. So are ladders and what not really that important to make it that much more restricted?

You make it sound like it is hopeless. Yeah, with any online game people will find a way to cheat through the system, but they can make that very risky by making everybody able to report those who break the rules, especially when you can record games easily now as evidence. I've played many MMO's and they had their ways to track bots and hackers, and these people were eventually caught. Even the farmers in L2 who took very careful precautions making money by selling in game money were found at some point, the patterns of how certain people played made it obvious over time as well.

Just deleting something that has been a part of the series because of whatever, even like a holy excuse 'we want to make it a safer experience' is still ridiculous. So they have to choose between putting up with some pricks that like to hack the game and annoy some people, or piss of a whole lot of people by not adding the original single player experience at all. This lowers the value of the product as well.

This is for everybody, not just you.

 

[Stryc9]

So I guess they don't want my money then. Also, I don't EVER remember a time where I wished that Diablo II was online all the time because I played the game entirely single-player. I've never once played the game in any for of multiplayer mode.

 

[likalaruku]

If they had just named it "Diablo Online" or "Diablo MMO" instead of Diablo III, no one would have cared. But by calling it Diablo 3, they're implying that it's a sequel in a series of singleplayer offline games. Same thing for the last Sim City.

 

[black_knight1337]

I just have to say, I've played Diablo 2 for a very long time and I hardly ran into hackers. In fact, I didn't see any of the hacks you mentioned in your last paragraph. Then again, I usually made my own game for people to join, mostly friends. I hardly encountered any problems and there was always a way to work around them. So are ladders and what not really that important to make it that much more restricted?

Mhmm, I've played Diablo 2 for a long time as well. Probably 10 years or so. Mostly playing with friends is probably why you didn't encounter those kind of things. A quick google search will tell you all about them. And yes, if you introduce competitive elements then you have a responsibility to do what you can to make it "fair".

You make it sound like it is hopeless. Yeah, with any online game people will find a way to cheat through the system, but they can make that very risky by making everybody able to report those who break the rules, especially when you can record games easily now as evidence. I've played many MMO's and they had their ways to track bots and hackers, and these people were eventually caught. Even the farmers in L2 who took very careful precautions making money by selling in game money were found at some point, the patterns of how certain people played made it obvious over time as well.

Stopping hackers is hopeless really, at least with a full offline version available. It's all just a matter of time. Always online, at least the way it's done in Diablo 3, makes it significantly harder. It's still possible and will eventually happen, but if they can keep it secure for 5 - 10 years then I'd say they've been successful. And Blizzard do that as well, going through reports and having Warden keeping players honest.

Just deleting something that has been a part of the series because of whatever, even like a holy excuse 'we want to make it a safer experience' is still ridiculous. So they have to choose between putting up with some pricks that like to hack the game and annoy some people, or piss of a whole lot of people by not adding the original single player experience at all. This lowers the value of the product as well.

This is for everybody, not just you.

There's no winning when it comes to this. You have offline mode and online becomes covered in hacks so people get shitty. You have it all online and people get shitty because of not being able to play offline. Either way Blizzard get screwed over. And, for me, when it comes to DRM as long as the benefits of the system outweigh the drawbacks then I'm "fine" with it. And the "deleting something that has been a part of the series" holds no weight whatsoever. A good sequel is one that "innovates" on the concepts of it's predecessors and brings new ideas to the table. A bad sequel is one that just does whatever it's predecessor does while wearing a new costume.

 

[Dajmin]

I've only played D3 online a handful of times (because I found it totally pointless and frustrating), so for me having it always-online is pointless. Likewise, I had to suffer the launch problems with login servers falling over. Which as a single-player gamer isn't fair. I shouldn't have paid my money just to suffer because of a feature I'm not using.

In addition to that, for a game I primarily bought for single-player, my account has been hacked and recovered twice. The last time was a while ago now, but again this is a potential problem with any game which forces you to create an online account even if you don't want to play online. So although the account hacking problems might be partly my fault for not choosing a secure enough password or whatever, I was forced into that position for a feature I didn't want. Again, not fair.

And those are only two of the many reasons I'll fight against any always-online single player stuff.

 

[beez]

Diablo One by Microsoft, coming next fall for the holiday season