Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3

[rembrandtqeinstein]

"And, at the end of the day, how many people are going to want to do that?"

I want to do that. And you will provide it for me if you want my money. I didn't buy SC2 because there was no LAN multiplayer. I won't buy this one new because there is no offline single player. And I bought 3 copies of D2 and 2 of LOD for myself and various LAN parties.

This isn't an mmo no matter how much you want it to be, that isn't the nature of the game.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Warcraft started off as an RTS and is now an MMO

It's still an RTS as well, played by quite many people to the boot despite it's age. WoW is separate entity. If Blizzard want's to do Diablo MMO they are free to do so, but don' call D3 an MMO.

Blizzard has been an almost totally online focused company since 2004

That must be why Starcraft2 has fully functional offline play with campaign, challenges and play versus AI, right?

this anger around this game would be like me getting angry because a car company sells a family car that i have no use for from not owning a family.

No the anger is more in line of a car company sells you a city-oriented car but also slaps in mandatory sports car engine that will eat through your gas tank because that's clearly what you need to get around between your home and workplace.

Hey i'm still going to get torchlight 2 much like how the silly contest between battlefield 3 and MW3 doesn't bother me because i'm just going to get both titles anyway

Good for you. I don't like my games, which are playable single player, become unavailable for me only because my internet connection is not working for one of many reasons (cable issues, me being away from my home in a place where i'm limited to still expensive and low bandwidth mobile-internet, ISP maintenance periods to name a few). I still consider the AH a bigger issue however so D3 is already no-buy for me. Hopefully Torchlight 2 will deliver on the polished hack-and-slash fun game front.

the game still exists then why won't people apply the same thing to diablo 2 which you can still play online, offline, closed, open, ladder

Starcraft 2 is an rts that really only has an offline mode so people don't get pasted the first time they face a human multiplayer oponent, also note the qualifiyer word "almost" as in less than but close to 100%
Wow from 2004 gets updated all the time and is the biggest money spinner for blizzard for 6 years, clearly its the biggest project they have

the car bit does not work because this is not something sliped under the radar (or under the hood) nothing here is a secret in a product you have already paid for

plenty of reasons to not play an online game but i won't have it be said that it's bad for diablo 3 to do it than anyother thing like say eve online

"single player" is clouding peoples minds it's like people are telling blizard that they know more about what kind of game blizzard is making than blizzard themselves do

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

no you are factually incorrect

their is no single player as in no offline mode, what you are talking about is soloing something that can be done in most mmo's, you can't play guild wars offline

quest are done in parties as in they can be, guild wars is split in two town area where all players are seen an instanced quest zones where only people you have grouped with are seen and interacted with, diablo has a large player base but game are played in realms which is only a symantic divide

you can reset skills a limited number of times it's not quite the same thing, i don't have time to fully explain how diablo 3 works i just have to assume other are aware of it

a+a
a + a + a
= a/=a
thats like argueing two games can't be games because a third of fourth are also games

i compared it specifically to guildwars, which is not like wow but both are mmo's
which again is like guildwars only your party follows you into quests you only interact with a handlefull of people at once so they are very much the same in that requard (no one comes in univited to kill steal in guildwars), 60 people can't gang up on the same boss, both even seperate the PVP into seperate arena areas

You name points that are not definitive MMO points still. There game is single player with optional co-op/PVP. This is a great many number of games that exist today, many of which are NOT MMOs.

The only thing about unlimited skill resetting is it's dumbed down the game. Just because this coincides with WoW/Guildwars, it's not the same, you can reset your skills an unlimited amount of times in Borderlands, which is not an MMO.

You don't need to fully explain anything, it works like Diablo 2, but with a persistent online connection, which has nothing to do with actual gameplay if you do not want it to. In an MMO, you run by other players all the time, in fact, the only changing part of the world is the other players. In the single player, there are no other players running around, there are no other players. This makes it single player. Not an MMO with optional single player, it's a single player with optional multiplayer.

You fail to show your point, you explain things that are common in many games besides MMO's and call them points enforcing the idea it's an MMO, which it is not.

Also, they are all games, but all games are not MMO's. Only some games are MMO's, the majority of them are not. I'm saying that Diablo 3 is not an MMO because it has more in common with Diablo 2, than it has in common with Guild Wars. Does it share some things in common with Guild Wars? Yes. Are these things only found in Guild Wars or other MMO's? No, they are not. The connection is weak at best, and not enough to call it an MMO.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

I'm kind of upset about this, because I'm a big fan of the Diablo series, I was really looking forward to Diablo 3, but I can't support any game that requires an always-on connection. For one thing, my connection is too unreliable to make it practical (one of the reasons I loathe Steam) and two, I'm not willing to financially support a system that so openly disregards me as a gamer.

But god dammit, I want that game so bad.

Sometimes sticking to your principles really blows goats.

Torchlight 2 buddy, thats all there is to say. The true spiritual heir to diablo will finally have multiplayer. You can play some titan quest if it doesn't melt your video card to tide you over.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Saying that it wasn't meant as DRM is a bad sign; at least before we could attribute the decision to greed as apposed to stupidity.

 

[Worr Monger]

I'm kind of upset about this, because I'm a big fan of the Diablo series, I was really looking forward to Diablo 3, but I can't support any game that requires an always-on connection. For one thing, my connection is too unreliable to make it practical (one of the reasons I loathe Steam) and two, I'm not willing to financially support a system that so openly disregards me as a gamer.

But god dammit, I want that game so bad.

Sometimes sticking to your principles really blows goats.

But if more people were like you, Blizzard would actually feel the backlash of their poor decisions.

Sadly, I'm betting the majority of people wanting to play D3, even if they have a problem with this... will get it anyway.

Blizzard will do fine despite this crap... and it's sad.

 

[Baresark]

"single player" is clouding peoples minds it's like people are telling blizard that they know more about what kind of game blizzard is making than blizzard themselves do

No, single player means single player, but you seem to think it does not. You are trying to cloud peoples minds by trying to redefine what single player means. They claim single player, so people who want single player games mean they do not want to be forced to be around other players if they do not wish to be. Also.... would it kill ya to use some punctuation? I know it's killing me. =]

 

[The V Man]

Bridenbecker was later heard to remark on the subject, "Herp. Herp a derp derp."

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Either he's trolling the world, or he's stupid. Hopefully it's the first one.

Likely as not, he's been chosen by lottery to take deliver the bad news and will take flak for it.

...sorta like this guy.

Oh, oh, can I kill him? Can I? Pleaaaaaaase!

 

[IndianaJonny]

But the two separate auction houses (real/virtual currency) were given the go-ahead. Aren't they a "separate user flow, a separate path that players are going to go down"? I don't understand the technicalities of it all, but would any player demand this 'no-offline mode'?

People want offline for that reason its offline so they'll be able to play whenever. I'm seeing that Blizzard doesn't want it because offline = not using the AH. Which means they aren't getting kickback money from players that use it. Why they don't approve of mods is because of the AH because created weapons and gear = AH is pointless. At the end of the day Blizzard wants your money also I wouldn't even trust buying stuff from the AH because it could be Blizzard staff members being paid to put stuff on there to get even more cash.

I'm well aware of all that but, as I asked in my original post above, why would any PLAYER demand this 'NO-offline' (i.e. 'always-online') mode - I don't see any argument from a player's perspective there.

 

[jamesworkshop]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

no you are factually incorrect

their is no single player as in no offline mode, what you are talking about is soloing something that can be done in most mmo's, you can't play guild wars offline

quest are done in parties as in they can be, guild wars is split in two town area where all players are seen an instanced quest zones where only people you have grouped with are seen and interacted with, diablo has a large player base but game are played in realms which is only a symantic divide

you can reset skills a limited number of times it's not quite the same thing, i don't have time to fully explain how diablo 3 works i just have to assume other are aware of it

a+a
a + a + a
= a/=a
thats like argueing two games can't be games because a third of fourth are also games

i compared it specifically to guildwars, which is not like wow but both are mmo's
which again is like guildwars only your party follows you into quests you only interact with a handlefull of people at once so they are very much the same in that requard (no one comes in univited to kill steal in guildwars), 60 people can't gang up on the same boss, both even seperate the PVP into seperate arena areas

You name points that are not definitive MMO points still. There game is single player with optional co-op/PVP. This is a great many number of games that exist today, many of which are NOT MMOs.

The only thing about unlimited skill resetting is it's dumbed down the game. Just because this coincides with WoW/Guildwars, it's not the same, you can reset your skills an unlimited amount of times in Borderlands, which is not an MMO.

You don't need to fully explain anything, it works like Diablo 2, but with a persistent online connection, which has nothing to do with actual gameplay if you do not want it to. In an MMO, you run by other players all the time, in fact, the only changing part of the world is the other players. In the single player, there are no other players running around, there are no other players. This makes it single player. Not an MMO with optional single player, it's a single player with optional multiplayer.

You fail to show your point, you explain things that are common in many games besides MMO's and call them points enforcing the idea it's an MMO, which it is not.

Also, they are all games, but all games are not MMO's. Only some games are MMO's, the majority of them are not. I'm saying that Diablo 3 is not an MMO because it has more in common with Diablo 2, than it has in common with Guild Wars. Does it share some things in common with Guild Wars? Yes. Are these things only found in Guild Wars or other MMO's? No, they are not. The connection is weak at best, and not enough to call it an MMO.

There game is single player with optional co-op/PVP.

no you say that it is, blizzard however are not, and thats not what they have built

In an MMO, you run by other players all the time, in fact, the only changing part of the world is the other players. In the single player, there are no other players running around, there are no other players.

again in guildwars players do not randomly meet your quest party only in towns does everybody appear only grouped party members get to follow you to the important part of the game, now another mmo like wow isn't like that and people do steal your kills

The connection is weak at best, and not enough to call it an MMO

well what we are really saying is this, that you require a stronger link then I possibly do which is simply a disagreement, i'm fully aware it's not a code for code copy but it's enought to satisfy me.

if two games that can only be played with an active internet connection and both are unplayable if connection issues occur, one simply cannot be said to be more inconvieneced by that fact than the other.

 

[GrimSheeper]

And what if the servers are offline for maintenance? In an MMO, you come to expect that. With a game that I personally always enjoyed playing alone, going through the story of the aspiring champion before having LAN games with a friend (you can't tell me sitting alone in a room with a headset is more fun than having a good friend next to you to riff on when the game gets hard) which are also now absent. With the servers offline for scheduled maintenance or because someone spilled their coffee by accident, the single player game I paid 60$ (presumably) for is not working. And my internet connection is not very good, did they consider that? Not everyone has a 2 megabyte connection, even that would be amazing for me. I don't like anything about being forced to constantly be online, I hate Games for Windows Live and I hate the idea of being online 100% of the time I would play Diablo 3. I don't want to play with other people normally. If I do, I will go on battle.net, but usually I will want to play at my own pace, on my own.

This whole thing just doesn't sit right with me. Just like the online marketplace. If people want to charge for a mod, it should be a good mod, or a full-sized game, at least on the level of Natural Selection or Nehrim and those still are free.
I can see people making the same items they made in Diablo 2 LoD, only now selling them for 99 cent and it'll just unbalance the game again. I'm talking about 1 square items that grant every aura and 255% stat boni to everything and +99 to all skills. And now people could charge for that? I don't expect Blizzard to constantly and minutely monitor that new marketplace for items they don't like. It's Diablo 3, there will be a few hundreds of thousands of players even with all the bullsh*t they announced and thousands of items every month. Now not only will there be hackers, they and Blizzard will profit off of hacking.

 

[Akexi]

They're seriously surprised that the community doesn't want to be required to have an internet connection for a single player game? Well, guess it shows you how out of touch they're getting at Blizzard.

 

[Baresark]

What exactly do we gain? Nothing. (Seriously, can anyone tell me a thing the player gains by having an always on connection?)

While I'm an opponent to constant connection there are benefits to it.

1. Constant access to the community - you are always connected to your fiends and various community groups.

2. Access to online content - the AH is a prime example of this, you can always go and buy the item you wish (for gold or cash or whatever).

3. Helping make a better game - while you are online you constantly send data to the company so they can analyze the performance of gamers, see what they did and didn't do and work off that (why do you think Dragon Age 2 has only human as a race option? Over 50% of the gamers chose a human origin in DA:O. This is why the new class in ME3 is combat-orientated, instead of magic or engineering).

4. Events - you can participate in events.

That's all fine and dandy, but people do not want to be forced to participate in these things. If you choose to, you can be part of that a great many ways, most of which do not mean being connected to their servers all the time.

I'm kind of upset about this, because I'm a big fan of the Diablo series, I was really looking forward to Diablo 3, but I can't support any game that requires an always-on connection. For one thing, my connection is too unreliable to make it practical (one of the reasons I loathe Steam) and two, I'm not willing to financially support a system that so openly disregards me as a gamer.

But god dammit, I want that game so bad.

Sometimes sticking to your principles really blows goats.

What I did for StarCraft 2 was buy the game, then download a crack that did not necessitate me being online. It worked quite well. I bought their game, and then I was never bothered by their online BS. They don't like this, but I don't really care.

 

[A-D.]

Le Big Snip.

Okay lets put this into perspective because apparently you either are playing devil's advocate, simply try to counter-argue without any point or somehow you dont get the reason people are pissed at this.

You can do comparisons between Games of the same Franchise to hell and back as much as you like, it doesnt change fundamental Facts. For example, MMOs are essentially Multiplayer Only Games who evolved out of said Multiplayer Games. They created Games which the Players essentially were made into Content. A MMO is a failure by any definition of no one plays it, as said Players are the content of that type of Game.

Diablo 1 and 2 by themselves share a few pointers with some MMO's, hardly suprising given where MMOs came from, or to put it into a weird example, the Chicken and the Egg Question. However Diablo 1 and 2 were never MMOs or even straight Multiplayer Titles. They were Singleplayer Games who had a very good Multiplayer component. A Component does NOT equal a Requirement. A MMO has the online Requirement as it otherwise is UNABLE to function in its intended form. Diablo so far is however not required for that to be present. It could be played on your own, just your character against the spawns of Hell. Multiplayer was optional, it was not forced, you did not have to consider it if you didnt want that. Now both Games in that Series have followed this. May i remind you Diablo 2 came out 10 Years or so ago, give or take, a Time where Dial-up was already beginning to phase out of common use. That doesnt mean it doesnt exist anymore, it certainly does. So do Internet Providers which use a Limit on how much you can use per Month. If the Limit is reached, your provider cancels your internet for the rest of the month.

Now lets consider this. You either have a really bad/slow Internet Connection. Or you live in a Area that is somewhat prone to sudden, short Internet Failures. Or perhaps you have a very strict Limit on your Connection. Those are not just a few handful of People that have this. Do they need to be told they are somehow worth less because you, and by extension, the Gaming Industry feel that being online all the time 24/7 is now the "normal thing"? No they dont. Neither do they have to play online FOR ANY REASON other than that they want to.

Diablo as a Series is about you against the forces of hell. Both Titles so far have offered a very good Singleplayer Campaign with the optional Multiplayer so you could go slap Diablo or Baal around with a Friend, or a couple of Friends even. Diablo 3 now makes it a requirement to be online even though you may just want to play offline, on your own. So lets face it, this isnt Blizzard just moving forward with the Industry, its the Industry making Decisions that we SHOULD want because THEY want them. Its purely a DRM, a Control Factor. Nothing else.

So stop comparing Diablo 3 or any of the Others to some other MMO simply because you are out of any real valid argument beyond listing similarities that are painfully evident because MMOs evolved out of Multiplayer Games to begin with. In short, People are pissed because they are told what to do, not given a Option or Choice. They dont get asked if they want to play online, they have to play online, even if they prefer playing on their own.

 

[mrwoo6]

Yeah, though this is a bit of a dick move, its not really that big of a deal Trying secure a revenue of income from customers and minimize piracy is something I can understand.

Blizzard aren't stupid, they don't do shit for no reason and despite playing dumb they know that they will sell, and sell well.

It will be pirated and cracked to allow people who download illegally to play without a net connection on day one. This does nothing to stop piracy

This isn't about "fighting piracy", it's a shameless money-grab so they get a cut of 5-10 dollar auction house sales in a game people pay full price for.

Once again, paying customers are getting the worst end of the deal, and "loyal fan" just means "sucker" to the execs as they nickle and dime more money out of someone.

"And, at the end of the day, how many people are going to want to do that?"

A lot of people you jackass! Wouldn't it be amazing if the creators of games would listen to the people talking like right here in forums? What about if they would listen so much they would completely redesign a playable race in their game just to make their consumers happy? That would not be Blizzard ... It would, on the other hand, be ANet. Funny how the founders worked at Bliz and decided to jump ship.

This is the corporate age of gaming. Ever since around 2003-04, most games are no longer created and controled by people who love gaming. People who enjoyed playing video games and made them didn't do shit like DLC to soak customers for more money between expansion packs. Day-one DLC and online leashes are things guys in suits come up with to appease stockholders

Yeah, I din't claim it would stop piracy, but it will sure as hell slow it down, just a bit.

And it IS a cash grab, everything by most company is designed for them to make money from you, how the fuck is it a bad, or indeed surprising thing if they are. Blizzard are a company, not your friends.

 

[Wicky_42]

SC2 requiring an online account to work and all that crap, even if you're not interested in the multiplayer scene, was annoying. Getting rid of LAN has meant I'm the only one in my group of friends with the game because there was no opportunity to play the game together at lans or Cyber Cafes. To go and make the same mistake Ubi made with their broken 'always on' internet DRM crap (which, I believe, they later patched out of AC2) whilst claining ignorance that people dislike being forced to be online to play a single-player game, to have their single-player experience interfered with by other players and their ability to play hampered by the availability of their connection? Christ Bliz, respect points lost :/

Way to lose sight of the real picture, not some marketing fantasy.

 

[Serenegoose]

I'm kind of upset about this, because I'm a big fan of the Diablo series, I was really looking forward to Diablo 3, but I can't support any game that requires an always-on connection. For one thing, my connection is too unreliable to make it practical (one of the reasons I loathe Steam) and two, I'm not willing to financially support a system that so openly disregards me as a gamer.

But god dammit, I want that game so bad.

Sometimes sticking to your principles really blows goats.

Yeah, I feel more or less the same - my internet connection is pretty much stable so it's not really personal, but I might not always have that luxury and I'm not big into shooting myself in the foot even if it's with a slow bullet. Additionally, I've never played a diablo game online and I don't wish to play a diablo game online. I don't want to use their auction house or buy items from other players or anything like that. I just want to walk into a cave and left click on absolutely everything and then leave the cave looking slightly more like I'd just fallen through a clothes horse backwards than when I entered. I shouldn't have to be online to do any of that.

 

[amazinglettera]

After my Blizzard account was stolen for the umpteen-bazillionth time, I decided Blizzard can suck it. I wanted to play offline skirmishes on SC2, but I couldn't even play the damn game unless I was able to log in.

Screw this, I am boycotting Blizzard and Diablo 3, as much as I would have liked it.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

It's OBVIOUS that people don't want a leash on their necks. But when you're filthy rich, you lose touch with reality.