Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3

[Random Fella]

Snip.

But you can't play offline? That's the point i'm making, people without a good internet connect won't be able to play, therefore decreasing sales. Or have I read this wrong?

 

[ElNeroDiablo]

I can count an easy two to FIVE copies of Diablo 3 never being bought by this household (which has at least 1 copy of pretty much every Blizzard release from Warcraft through WoW:Cataclysm).
My main gaming system, my dad's main system, my backup system, 2-3 other computers we have set up at any one time for extra difficulty in a LAN session of D2:LoD... And then there's when we have some game friends/family come over and play, those are gonna be extra copies sitting on the shelves getting cold and dropped into the bargain bin eventually.

Hell, recently I built a Linux machine for a friend who bought a copy of Diablo II to play on it (installed thanks to WineTricks) who doesn't have a friggen landline phone, let alone a modem/router or the internet. So he'll probably never play Diablo III if Activision-Blizzard make it online-only and only supported on Vista/7 (XP's going the way of the dodo now for most game makers) and Mac OSX (though there ~MIGHT~ be some (Linux) community-provided support for Linux back-tracked from the OSX version, but that remains to be seen).

So yeah. Sorry "Blizzard", but you lost an EASY $300 AUD there (assuming $50-60 profit per game), probably even more.

 

[DarkTenka]

Not on a plane. Or while travelling in general. Or in most of the non-urban areas, where people go on their vacations.

Plenty of wireless internet when travelling in general .. some planes actually do offer internet.

If this is not what you think, you're disconnected from reality. Apart from disconnects, high ping and server/client desyncs are bound to happen unless you live right next to Blizzard's servers.

It is not my fault, in any way whatsoever, that people can't figure out they can't play online and offline with the same characters. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. And it's not even the best business decision. Not by far.

You miss the point, most of the time the internet is going to be fine. As hardcore gamers we are going to whinge and complain whenever it goes out or slows down even for a second .. because as hardcore gamers we need everything to be absolutely perfect. Casual gamers on the other hand are basically like "oh well .. its not a big deal".

By the way, this can't be the reason this decision was made (if we grant that Blizzard isn't a bunch of fuckwits), because of one thing. There are simpler solutions to this problem. For instance, what about a *gasp* hint when you start up a game that says you can't use the same characters for online and offline? Pushing this any more is considering your audience a bunch of illiterate, snotty retards. Which, I admit, is close to what Blizzard considers their audience anyways.

Its not what Blizzard "considers" its audience. Its what its audience IS most gamers hardcore OR casual are fucking retards who will run with the first thing they see in front of them. How many people do you think actually thought for a second about this issue with online or the rmt AH for that matter? 50% immediately yell "OH MY GOD ITS A CHANGE RUN FOR THE HILLS" and 49.99% of everyone else saw everyone else running and just joined in they want to be a part of the croud. Individual thought is a rarity among the gaming community .. hell among humanity in general.

And another place where you're wrong. In this case it's precisely the opposite. Hardcore gamers give more of a fuck about lag and the other stuff than any casuals or semi-hardcore ever will. You know why? Because spending your time playing games increases your standards for a gaming experience, not decreases it.

A casual wouldn't even know the difference between 100 and 200 ms ping.

My point was that not so much they dont care .. I mean't that hardcore gamers know how to deal with lag since they are all used to it and they just accept it. Sure they complain about it .. and will stop playing if its too bad on any given day or whatever .. but no hardcore gamer ever really quits for good because of lag. But a newbie will quit for good if he cant continue playing the character he wants. It creats a big divide between the new player and the actual community that is supporting the game.

 

[Croaker42]

Snip.

But you can't play offline? That's the point i'm making, people without a good internet connect won't be able to play, therefore decreasing sales. Or have I read this wrong?

That?s the thing. Even if a portion of the people have spotty or extremely limited internet connection.... we live in a world with options and in a time where the right amount of money/effort can get anyone (almost anyone.... Bullshit figure 90%) a decent connection.

On the sales side. They are making a multiplayer online game. That section of people that don't have the hardware/software/connection to play that game are not even being considered as potential sales. So not a lost sale.
If someone wants to play D3, and this includes those mythical limited connection folks. They will find a way.

 

[Judokast]

Really

Do people still not get it, it's not intended to be a single player game, the comparison with AC2 is false.

It's always online for the same reason guild wars 1 and 2 will be when it arrives, same as world of warcraft or the upcomming star wars the old republic.

If you avoid this game then i must insist that you avoid all thoses others because they are no different.

Yes, because Diablo 3 is an MMO.

yes that is exactly what they have made, people are thinking that diablo 3 was just some graphical update/remake of diablo 2 which clearly is not the case.

everything about this game screams guild wars, mmo, instanced player groups, single one time payment and subscription free.

soloing a mmo is not the same thing as a single player game

Its actually called Blizzard trying to shoe-horn their "Battlenet 2.0" into everything they are making now. That's why you have to always be online to play Starcraft 2, that's why you can only have ONE account per CD-key for it. That definitely ain't an MMO though.

Diablo 3 is about as much of an MMO as Diablo 1 or 2 was. You're just confusing unnecessary bullshit with "features".

battlenet 2.0 a single profile cross-title xbox live style system for blizzard titles much like the single account that hold your characters in an mmo

no starcraft is not an mmo but thats fatuous when the comparision i made was with guildwars which diablo 3 clearly is 99% the same

i'm still baffled why people are soo confused by greater online intergration in an industry moving towards non-local machine rendering (cloud) from one of the most online focused developers on the planet.

No one seems willing to take me up on this point because their simply is no difference between diablo 3 and guildwars 2 which a ton of people are hyped for.

This man knows what he is talking about. D3 is an MMO, only not an open world MMO. Its a cloud based fully instanced world. That, by definition, is an MMO. People are morons buddy. That is why they are not taking your point.

D3 is about as much an MMO, as StarCraft was a turnbased tactical roleplaying game. The Diablo series was always about a single player game, with mulitplayer added for those that enjoyed online, or Lan, for those that enjoyed playing with friends. Guild Wars..jeez.

Think about it, though. In Guild Wars, you can play the shit out of that game by yourself, as you can in most MMO's. You can finish the story-line by yourself, solo-farm, etc etc, all you need is an internet connection. If you choose to play with someone else you go into an outpost and get yourself a party. When you go outside, you get your own copy of the world so no one else is there. So the guy above does speak some truth.

Perhaps, i will give you that point about Guildwars being playable solo..however any and all comparisons end there as D3 is NOT a game you "pick up a party to play" or any of the usual MMO crap you deal with. If you ask people what they remember about playing Diablo 1-2 and what they expected Diablo to be, you will definatly get that they enjoyed it as a single player, played from a CD, on their OWN computer. Basically all the changes made in D3 no longer qualifies it in my book to be called Diablo, it's turned into a generic, money grabbing, cashcow milking RPG.

 

[Urh]

1. Internet is everywhere, you can play everywhere.

That totally isn't the point, and I'll spell it out for you, just in case you have difficulty understanding peoples' objections. A constant internet connection should never, EVER be a requirement for the single player component of a game, end of discussion. The fact that internet access has become far more ubiquitous in recent years is utterly irrelevant. Plus your rather bold statement that "internet is everywhere" is laughable to say the least.

As far as I'm concerned, the Blizzard Entertainment that I grew up with and loved is dead. I guess I should be sad, but I'm actually kinda glad - it means I'll have more time and money for drinking and dancing.

EDIT: I do not wish to advocate cyber-crime, but am I the only one who thinks that Battle.net should be LulzSec's next target?

 

[evilneko]

It doesn't matter whether or not I actually have an internet connection at home or anywhere else.

You know what I usually want to do when my internet connection isn't working?

Play some fuckin' games.

 

[silasbufu]

Really

Do people still not get it, it's not intended to be a single player game, the comparison with AC2 is false.

It's always online for the same reason guild wars 1 and 2 will be when it arrives, same as world of warcraft or the upcomming star wars the old republic.

If you avoid this game then i must insist that you avoid all thoses others because they are no different.

Yes, because Diablo 3 is an MMO.

yes that is exactly what they have made, people are thinking that diablo 3 was just some graphical update/remake of diablo 2 which clearly is not the case.

everything about this game screams guild wars, mmo, instanced player groups, single one time payment and subscription free.

soloing a mmo is not the same thing as a single player game

Its actually called Blizzard trying to shoe-horn their "Battlenet 2.0" into everything they are making now. That's why you have to always be online to play Starcraft 2, that's why you can only have ONE account per CD-key for it. That definitely ain't an MMO though.

Diablo 3 is about as much of an MMO as Diablo 1 or 2 was. You're just confusing unnecessary bullshit with "features".

battlenet 2.0 a single profile cross-title xbox live style system for blizzard titles much like the single account that hold your characters in an mmo

no starcraft is not an mmo but thats fatuous when the comparision i made was with guildwars which diablo 3 clearly is 99% the same

i'm still baffled why people are soo confused by greater online intergration in an industry moving towards non-local machine rendering (cloud) from one of the most online focused developers on the planet.

No one seems willing to take me up on this point because their simply is no difference between diablo 3 and guildwars 2 which a ton of people are hyped for.

This man knows what he is talking about. D3 is an MMO, only not an open world MMO. Its a cloud based fully instanced world. That, by definition, is an MMO. People are morons buddy. That is why they are not taking your point.

D3 is about as much an MMO, as StarCraft was a turnbased tactical roleplaying game. The Diablo series was always about a single player game, with mulitplayer added for those that enjoyed online, or Lan, for those that enjoyed playing with friends. Guild Wars..jeez.

Think about it, though. In Guild Wars, you can play the shit out of that game by yourself, as you can in most MMO's. You can finish the story-line by yourself, solo-farm, etc etc, all you need is an internet connection. If you choose to play with someone else you go into an outpost and get yourself a party. When you go outside, you get your own copy of the world so no one else is there. So the guy above does speak some truth.

Basically all the changes made in D3 no longer qualifies it in my book to be called Diablo, it's turned into a generic, money grabbing, cashcow milking RPG.

That's exactly the definition of a MMO, so what I'm saying, it won't be like older Diablo games and it might in fact start to look like MMO's , even if it won't be exactly one. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I really don't understand why can't they make an offline mode and just disable the loot that you receive while playing offline/singleplayer to not be able to auction it in the real life auction house.

I have a stable connection and all,but like a few guys mentioned above..what will happen if Blizzard's servers won't be able to sustain so many players playing at the same time and lag will ensue.What then?

 

[LoneFullmetal]

Not everyone wants every game to be like WoW, but Blizzard does cause they make shit-tons of money off it.

 

[Nesco Nomen]

I am traditionally a Blizzard apologist,

...

I won't be pre-ordering D3, and there's a reasonable chance I won't be buying it


[ WALL OF TEXT ]

Ahaahahahaha

 

[Kandon Arc]

Snip.

But you can't play offline? That's the point i'm making, people without a good internet connect won't be able to play, therefore decreasing sales. Or have I read this wrong?

That?s the thing. Even if a portion of the people have spotty or extremely limited internet connection.... we live in a world with options and in a time where the right amount of money/effort can get anyone (almost anyone.... Bullshit figure 90%) a decent connection.

I think you might mean country instead of world there. Large parts of the rural USA are without decent internet connection even for those who can afford it (unless you're trying to argue that the average consumer should pay to build infrastructure too). Let's not even discuss internet coverage in the BRIC nations, which have sizeable middle classes with hefty disposable incomes, who would normally be ideal customers.

What has surprised me the most in this debate is some peoples attitude that because they have wonderful internet connections, everyone else must do as well. It's a little bit sad to be honest that some are so unwilling to look beyond their own priveledged existences.

And the other thing you're missing is that even if we lived in this fantasy world of yours where everyone has abundant internet, the game we bought is still held hostage to Blizzards whim. They could decide to turn off their servers or go bankrupt. More likely though, there will be temporary server crashes, server updates or 3rd party attacks. I would like to see the reactions of people like you when some Lulz Sec-esque group crashes the Diablo servers and you start to question whether the internet is so integral to single player after all.

 

[EvilScoop]

Fast cars, Fast women, Fast internet

Sometimes you just can't afford them.

Well, you know...

Telle est la voie de luxe

 

[Joseph Alexander]

to lend credit to my theory of" blizzard is lying to you there will be an offline mode for D3"
they just announced that cross realm grouping and queing(which was free for public testing for a month or so now) will be staying free forever, they originally had said it would be a premium service costing money.
so yes, they're lying about theres no cake left then handing you a huge slice of triple chocolate.
community response:"blizzard listened they are teh awesomesauce"
and people say they don't know their community, they sure do know how to manipulate them into worship.

 

[sorpaqq]

How in the fuck could anyone possibly be retarded enough to be surprised that their fans don't want them to do DRM after all the controversy about it? That's like a man punching another man in the face and then being surprised that he hits back.

 

[PingoBlack]

How in the fuck could anyone possibly be retarded enough to be surprised that their fans don't want them to do DRM after all the controversy about it? That's like a man punching another man in the face and then being surprised that he hits back.

Oh look, a post after a month and a half!

In the meantime, the hullabaloo mostly quieted down, the vocal minority ran out of badly formed arguments and beta has started for general public.

So yeah, no punch back really. Just hot air, followed by begging to be "punched" into beta test.