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

[ThunderCavalier]

To some point, I want to respect the developer's decision to make whatever game they want, free of the complete influence of the "popular crowd" basically forcing them to make the game they want instead of the game they wanted to make.

... But at the same time, it still doesn't really make a lot of sense. Diablo seems like one of those games where it seems perfectly acceptable to play it alone, and I don't see why they wouldn't acknowledge that crowd. I mean, sure, there might be some gripes with offline characters not being able to play with online ones, but I think that's a far smaller, annoyed audience than trying to make DRM work when other examples, such as SimCity and Diablo 3, have already shown that always online requirements on games that do tend to function as single-player games tend to... well... end poorly.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

diablo is old and busted

torchlight 2 and path of exile are both better, and grim dawn by the makers of titan quest is just around the corner

and if you haven't tried it check out titan quest, it still looks good and is still a ton of fun, imo titan quest out-diablod diablo

just say no to corporate games

my money is going to DEVELOPERS, not stockholders or ceos or boards of directors

 

[Zeraki]

And just like that any interest I had in this expansion and the changes being made to the game immediately evaporated.

Not to mention this is bullshit because if you wanted to play online with your offline character in Diablo II you could have simply used an IP connection like I did for years. I never even touched Battle.net.

So Blizzard can go screw themselves.

I didn't think it was possible for me to get so massively disappointed about this game for a second time.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Okay, I'll give you guys that it was annoying when I had an offline character and suddenly couldn't play with my friend who got online... but that was the risk I took when I made an offline character. Oh, and guess what, I had characters to play both online AND offline with. One for my friends, one for myself.

I think if you actually polled your community instead of just telling them what they want based on a product released over a decade ago, you'll find most of your community would prefer to have the options. And given all the flak Blizzard got the first time, you'd think they wouldn't even have to post a normal poll to figure this out.

Publishers, please... please stop acting like you're doing us a favor when you try to exert more control over us.

 

[sageoftruth]

Ok. I was a bit confused at first, but I kind of see what he was getting at. I never did multi-player myself, but I can see how someone would like to use his single player character in multiplayer. Gameplay-wise, what does this mean? Does this mean that you simply cannot play without running into other players, or is this just an always-online single player game?

 

[vashthblackseed]

Ummm... I know for a fact that I've joined friends' online games with my offline characters during D2. Also, if your playing with friends/family they probably already know if you hacked your character and you would know the same about theirs.

 

[Virgilthepagan]

Behold, the reason I didn't buy Diablo III.

Strangely enough I'm a huge fan of Dark Souls, but I went through most of the game hollowed. I liked having the online component, but when I got invaded I usually found my character horribly outmatched by someone dedicated to scalping guppies like me. It was nice having the option to play online, and as I improved I merged more into the community, but I still never like the sense of being pressured into an optimal pvp just to survive as I played the main game.

That's sort of what I'd hoped to see here, an option. Blizzard seems less than keen on that. It'd bother me less if it wasn't for the attitude Blizzard has in this interview and others like it. It's weird to see them talk without irony about their evolving understanding of the player base and things like the auction house on one hand, and then abruptly segueing into "well we're older than you" when justifying the online requirements.

I'm disappointed, I've got such fond memories of WIII and Diablo II Blizzard...

 

[Dragonbabz]

I won't argue about having offline/online in Diablo 2 caused issues to players. Back in the day, I wasn't even aware people play it online since the internet in my piss poor country was so freaking lame. Nowadays however, the problem isn't just connectivity - it is Blizzard's lame ass excuse for a server. I usually play on Sundays when I assume, most working people tend to play and the lag is unacceptable. On weekends especially severs lag reaches up to 1k ms making the game virtually unplayable. Compare this to any other day of the week and the ms usually stays under 100. What's their excuse? Latest reports claim that the game is played by roughly 10 % of the 14 million that bought it, so what the hell is this? Didn't they fix the damned servers or just lost interest in it?

Bottom line, if they plan on people returning with the expansion, they better buckle up and fix their shit. If not, another launch disaster is in order and I doubt people will return for a third time.

 

[Royas]

I'm so glad this tool is here to tell me how I felt about Diablo II when it came out. Why, my recollection of really loving the game and playing the hell out of it for months (all in offline mode) must be incorrect. Damn, I was really hoping to make 50 before dementia set in like that....

Seriously, this guy has a hell of a lot of gall to tell me how I felt about offline mode in DII. Not only was I not upset about it, I don't recall a single post talking it down. He may have been there, and he may have studied this stuff for a living, but he obviously wasn't all that good at it. Revisionist history for the win, I guess.

 

[AmstradHero]

Gee, I was so disappointed when my offline character in Diablo 2 couldn't be played with my friends... oh wait, that's right, that wasn't a problem because I could play on lan or open battle.net. Did you EVEN PLAY DIABLO 2, Martens?

While you have always online for your games because you're demanding people connect to your servers, you won't be getting my money. It's that simple. I don't like putting up with your blatant lies, or the wonderful problems that come with your netcode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ky8QFiA3Ks&feature=plcp

Getting hit by melee creatures who are 1/4 of the screen away... no thanks Blizzard. Come back when you've remembered that you used to make GAMES rather than skinner boxes. Please remember that.

Hey, there's another game that does the local/open MP versus closed MP characters NOW - Dungeon Defenders. But I suppose you couldn't translate that your experience since it doesn't have PvP and has a player limit of 4...
Oh...
wait...
It does have PvP... and up to 8 players.

Err, your move, Blizzard...

 

[Atmos Duality]

Kevin Martens is either implying that people made a bigger deal out of this and is exaggerating the truth, or he's employing a Red Herring to deflect discussion away from the true source of the Always-Online controversy.

First, anyone who was "mad" at not being able to use Offline/LAN/Open Bnet characters in Closed Bnet did what anyone with half a brain did:
1) Create a Battle.net account and played on Closed Bnet.
OR
2) Played with their friends on Open Bnet using their existing character.

From personal experience, the "outrage" Mr Martens claims only ever came from people who were too stupid to not learn about what each mode entailed and they were by FUCKING FAR a tiny minority.

It never became a major issue because players had the OPTION of how they wanted to play:
-Local characters: Open Bnet(Online), LAN & Singleplayer (Offline)
-Server characters: Closed Bnet (Online)

This was the best system possible because local characters let modders, cheaters etc do their thing while Closed Bnet offered a (more) stable environment for people who wanted to cooperate or compete in a more controlled environment.

I won't claim that Closed Bnet was a perfectly stable environment; quite the opposite, people hacked/duped/glitched to hell and back for quite a while. However, policing for hack/exploit detection is an issue every game with an "official server" system must deal with. (They can't blame the offline players either as they aren't even on the system to exploit it!)

When it was getting real bad towards the end of version 1.09 (when people were desynching servers like mad to the point where they were becoming unstable and crashing), I just retreated to Open Bnet sessions between friends and LAN games.

No such option exists in D3.
Plus Blizzard has to police the entire player population now instead of just those who play on Closed Bnet to attain a similar level of overall gameplay quality.

And that's all besides the fact that even if I were to take Kevin at his word, what so many people want NOW; y'know, the very people Blizzard are addressing by openly trying to defend Always Online, is the option for Offline play.

His Red Herring argument isn't timely given that he has the full benefit of hindsight after a year and a half since D3's launch AND a console version that proves just how unnecessary Always Online has always been.

So really, I can't take his pleas for acceptance as anything more than yet another veiled statement of contempt for old players like myself and reaffirmation for the brainless spineless shills who feel the need to defend this crap.

Martens could have stated "If your internet sucks or you don't want to deal with the hassle, don't buy Diablo 3" and been done with it.
While such a statement is no less of a veiled Fuck you, it's our game and our business., we would have to accept that Blizzard is stubbornly sticking with a worse system than D2, and move on.

But no. Instead Martens goes on to stretch a single, irrelevant point well past the breaking point in an attempt to convince.

Why? I have no idea. Anyone that played Diablo 2 and participated in its community (at risk of their own sanity, admittedly) knows he's exaggerating to the point it's total bullshit.

And anyone who enjoys Diablo 3 currently doesn't really need any affirmation (unless things are more dire than they appear); it's not a statement that's relevant to them.

In summary: It's more of the same shit Blizzard spewed last time they defended D3's Always-Online.
Don't be fooled by Martens' claim; he's full of shit and his claim has no relevance to dissenters of today.

My BS detector is ringing a bit here.

But then I do not "study games for a living" so I could be wrong, anyone else wanna weight in on this? Were people back in 2001 really incensed and foaming at the mouth that there was both an online and offline mode in d2?

It's just my word against his, but I did play Online and Offline (all modes) for ~8.5 years from the launch of the Original D2: No, this was never a hot button topic. People loved that they could LAN, play Online two ways and offline. (a LOT of people; D2 had an extraordinarily long shelf life)

Far as I'm concerned, he's full of shit.

EDIT:

So amusing. Any time I read reactions to Blizzard posts, I immediately envision this:

You know what's really funny? Apologists that come to defend Blizzard by pushing the same broken logic as always.

Let me guess:
"Always Online is inevitable, because it is?" (Circular Logic)
....

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

...Yup!
How about "It doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother anyone else."

....

If I'm playing Diablo, it's on my main rig ... which is online all of the time. I don't see any kind of problem with this. If I'm on an offline machine I'm playing.. something else, or doing something else.

...Nailed that one too!
(hate to break it to you, buddy, but you ain't everyone, so your argument applies to precisely NOBODY but you.)

So all that's left is you taking shots at those "butthurt" people without offering a single iota of relevance. How delightfully pretentious.

 

[Schmeiser]

Soooooo, it still doesn't make any sense. They could've just made offline and online chars, you can't transfer from one mode to another and BOOM all that hacking and duping means shit since only you have it. And with that, who gives a fuck if someone dupes items or hacks in HIS SINGLEPLAYER game. STill stupid as fuck

 

[Faraja]

So, they're defense for a system that has been pretty much a complete failure all of the time is a game that came out 13 years ago? I'm pretty sure Blizzard makes enough money to be able to put in an effective toggle that lets you play the same character on-line or off-line. Personally, I'm starting to wonder if the dev team for Diablo III has ever actually played an always on-line game?

 

[Robert Marrs]

He should have translated that to "I know there are still a bunch of people who refuse to buy our game because of its always online requirement but we don't really need the money so fuck them". Hell if he came out and said that I might actually go buy the game. Honesty goes a long way.

 

[weirdee]

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.

 

[MrBenSampson]

The always-online DRM is the reason why I waited for the console version. That, and the ability to have multiple players on one screen. I also love that you can have 4 people on two consoles, playing in the same game online or over LAN. Diablo 3 on consoles is the perfect co-op game.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

If you read what he quoted you might see the criticism

"We did not make that game"

Except the game that they did not make, has been available on the PS4 without any always-online bullshit and no auction-house.

Edit: And you know nothing about consoles preventing cheating. Heres how you do it; You put your save on a USB stick, go to your computer, open it up with a hex editor or whatever editor you want, change what you want, plug it back in and play.

tada

Its really easy to do on Boarderlands 2 for example.

The console versions of Diablo 3 are not "that game". "That game" is a game in which there is an offline mode with segregated characters from the online mode. This is very clear from the article, the interviewer accepts that always-online prevents cheating and asks "Why not have offline play as an option?" Blizzard guy responds: "We did not make that game."

Yes it's possible to hack on consoles, but it is not as simple and quick as on PCs. The punishments for caught cheaters also tend to be harsher on consoles, often preventing the console itself from online play rather than just the account. Therefore far fewer people will cheat on consoles.

If you'd like to argue that having offline-only characters is preferable to most people than no offline play at all then you would be having an actual disagreement with Blizzard instead of a misunderstanding.

 

[00slash00]

Okay I usually defend Diablo 3 because as underwhelming as it was, I still had fun playing it (the first time through, anyway), but this is just a load of crap. If you want to have DRM to discourage hacking and piracy, I can live with that, but don't make up another reason why this is all just a service for the players. It isn't. I hated the spam bots in Diablo 2 and if always online keeps them out then sure, yeah I can live with it, but don't say Diablo has been primarily an online series. I never went online in Diablo, I finished Diablo 2 with every character before even creating an online account, and I can count on one hand the amount of times I played with other people in Diablo 3. I like going at my own pace and exploring every inch of them map to find all the enemies and items. Most people online do not like to play that way, so it's more fun for me to play solo. I'm sorry buddy but this is not an mmo, you very much do have a game that can be played solo or with other people. Keep telling yourself that, "You don't make that game," but you do. You don't have the always online requirement because this is a multiplayer game that doesn't work if you play it solo, you have the always online requirement because you don't want people pirating your game. That's fine, I can live with that, just fucking own up to it and stop trying to act like you're just the misunderstood hero.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

"I'm really mad that I have to start a new character to play with you." - No one ever, because a few hours of Tristram/Tombs/Council/Baal runs would give you a decently geared level 30.

Conversely, ask someone who bought Diablo III at launch about 'Error 37', and see just how fondly they speak of it.

 

[RicoADF]

Meh, I'd rather have a little bit of lag now and then rather than having a hack-fest like it was for D2. There haven't been any proper hacks made so far so at least it's actually working. Unlike pretty much every other form of DRM that devs have used.

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.
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.