Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3

[Salad Is Murder]

I'm surprised whenever I see "Game CEO is shocked at negative response from gamers". It's like, HELLO, have you been on the internet, like, EVER!?

Yea, what rock did he crawl out from...oh right, he works at Blizzard.

The rock in this case may be a very large pile of money.

 

[Baresark]

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 excatly 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

What about this game screams that exactly? In an MMO, you pass by, interact, fight with other players. There is a PVP in this game, but it's a separate mode that in no way has any direct consequence on the main game. There is nothing in this that screams MMO. No persistent world after you stop playing. When you connect to their servers, you are not playing on their servers, the game is played on your PC with information stored on your PC. I have not seen anything that makes it anything like an MMO. The only thing that is like that seems to be the fact they want to store you save games externally. But, if you play a G4WL game, you store your save games externally as well, but they are not MMOs. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but besides a store most players don't seem to embrace, how is this like an MMO exactly?

 

[darksaber64x]

i find it odd the people are putting the devs up on the block for DRM systems.
hell if anyone is at fault its any and everyone who pirates.

Not to get into an argument about piracy, but people that pirate games generally wouldn't buy them in the first place.

Plus it probably helps the company in the long run, due to the fact that some people that would play the game for free, decide they like it, and get it legit so that they COULD play online, as well as drumming up more awareness for the game in general.

 

[jamesworkshop]

The Auction House is a crazy weed dream but I can handle that. As long as it doesn't sell items not found in the gameworld, I can ignore that. .

the auction house sells the randomly drop monster items

do people not read press releases

I think its the best addition I have seen, player trading was a nightmare in diablo 2, a similar system is in hellgate global which works brilliantly.

 

[Sojoez]

Maybe its because he never went out of his own little town where cable is a birthright instead of a luxury.
Its not a serious problem in the US, but in Europe stable internet is not a given thing. Just go to some EU WoW servers and ask around.

Then again, most income for Blizz comes from asia where people play in internet cafés.

Why bother with the 3 million gamer fans that wont buy it when you have 15 million that will buy it?

 

[bakan]

So it´s not the DRM, so why the online always on connection?
To pay another hidden cut? To spy us?

To force players near the ah, and don't allow mods which could give you a lot more in offline play

 

[UbarElite]

He also claimed that the always-on requirement has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. "I don't think [DRM] ever came up when we talked about how we want connections to operate," he said. So why not just make an offline mode for people who want to play that way? "You're introducing a separate user flow, a separate path that players are going to go down," he explained. "And, at the end of the day, how many people are going to want to do that?"

Oh, of course. Come on guys, he said it wasn't DRM, what are you all worried about? It just looks exactly like Ubisoft's always-on DRM due to coincidence and has the same problem of always-on DRM of dumping you out when you lose connection.

Ugh...I really thought Blizzard should have known better..."How many people are going to want to do that?" EVERYONE WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT THE ONLINE REQUIREMENT!

 

[figday]

oh god..
what is up with disappointments (at least for me) with sequels this year

DA2, Crysis 2, DNF, and now this..

And really Bridenbecker? surprised? at least don't spout crap to tone it down, we're not dumb FFS.

 

[Murray Kitson]

To me, requiring an internet connection means they have servers running. Servers cost money. A lot of money. Sounds like they just want to keep people from hacking the game. What other reason is there?

I am the kind of guy who would likely only play online. but sometimes you just wanna piss around with some people on a lan. and running 10 computers on one internet connection can be taxing and laggy... not MY internet connection, but others. It just seems like an un necessary hassle for both Blizzard and their fan base.

Oh, another time i may want to play without using my internet connection. If i am downloading something and am using almost all of my bandwith... i dont wanna be playing a laggy game.

 

[theultimateend]

When you look at everything you get by having that persistent connection on the servers, you cannot ignore the power and the draw of that."

Yeah, but when you look at everything you don't get when you're offline, you see why it's a bad idea :-/

I didn't get this at first.

Then I realized you don't get the entire game.

That's alot of missing things.

Spoiler

I like your avatar.

i find it odd the people are putting the devs up on the block for DRM systems.
hell if anyone is at fault its any and everyone who pirates.

Not to get into an argument about piracy, but people that pirate games generally wouldn't buy them in the first place.

Plus it probably helps the company in the long run, due to the fact that some people that would play the game for free, decide they like it, and get it legit so that they COULD play online, as well as drumming up more awareness for the game in general.

Yeah it is generally safer just to ignore people who still follow that victim of piracy logic. Same reason I don't argue with folks who say evolution has no evidence to support it. That conversation is starting way too low on the sensible scale to be worth engaging.

I suspect the real reason behind this is hacking, they probably want to secure the investment of the game by thwarting cheaters.

 

[samsonguy920]

"I'm actually kind of surprised in terms of there even being a question in today's age around online play and the requirement around that," Bridenbecker told Battle.net [http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2011/08/04/blizzard-vp-surprised-over-fan-reaction-to-diablo-3-online-requirements/] and now with Diablo 3, it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry. When you look at everything you get by having that persistent connection on the servers, you cannot ignore the power and the draw of that."

See, this is the problem. He's not surprised about how people would not want online only play. He's surprised at how we're not accepting that this is "the nature of how things are going", and why we don't roll over and accept it.

What exactly do we gain? Nothing. (Seriously, can anyone tell me a thing the player gains by having an always on connection?)
What do we lose? Well...dial up (Yes there are some about still) are pretty much screwed. Bandwidth chokers are up in force...generally we're just being told that if we want to play the latest game, we must be wired up to Blizzard HQ at all times. And that's a benefit to us.

It isn't. It never has been, and until you can show something that means that the always on is a benefit to us, then it's unlikely we're going to stop complaining about having to alter the way we play games.

And if you knew anything about your customers, you'd have known that from the start. Which is why I'm suspecting that you did, and you're trying to play it down.

It isn't just those with untrustworthy connections who live in BFE. More ISP's almost daily are putting caps on their broadband, which would make a proposition like this only all the more expensive for them. Having to budget their MMO and Multiplayer time is one thing, but then also having to budget your singleplayer time as well because of internet caps? Uh uh.
Yes, there can be some benefits to being online while you are playing. Chat, online score upkeep, store access. But it should not be nor ever a requirement to play.
It is high time I tried out Torchlight.

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.

As it is right now, Starcraft 2 does not have to be online all the time or there would be a different reaction to D3 being online all the time. But if they keep this system, I would expect to see that change come Heart of the Swarm where S2 would have to be online all the time.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

A lot of people will play D3 ultimately for the multiplayer, to them it won't matter.
That was why there was so much less outcry when StarCraft 2 had the always online requirement, people get SC2 for multiplayer and little else. D3 however has a compelling singleplayer side and I can certainly see where the resistance to an always online policy comes from, however to me it is irrelevant.
Usually I will have internet regardless of where I am staying, so it's no issue. While travelling it's a different matter but my gaming is more restricted by my laptops battery life at that point than the presence of an internet connection.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I'm surprised whenever I see "Game CEO is shocked at negative response from gamers". It's like, HELLO, have you been on the internet, like, EVER!?

Yea, what rock did he crawl out from...oh right, he works at Blizzard.

The rock in this case may be a very large pile of money.

Most people with really large piles of money are completely out of touch.

 

[jamesworkshop]

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 excatly 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

What about this game screams that exactly? In an MMO, you pass by, interact, fight with other players. There is a PVP in this game, but it's a separate mode that in no way has any direct consequence on the main game. There is nothing in this that screams MMO. No persistent world after you stop playing. When you connect to their servers, you are not playing on their servers, the game is played on your PC with information stored on your PC. I have not seen anything that makes it anything like an MMO. The only thing that is like that seems to be the fact they want to store you save games externally. But, if you play a G4WL game, you store your save games externally as well, but they are not MMOs. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but besides a store most players don't seem to embrace, how is this like an MMO exactly?

online only, no single player = guildwars

quests are done in parties, otherwise you don't meet players in quests that are not part of your team = guildwars

characters saved onto servers = guildwars

able to re-asign skills = guildwars

game level data stored on HDD, server handles network connections + updates only = guildwars

it even does the same business model of one time retail boxed product payment

It couldn't be more the same if it tried

 

[Shirokurou]

Apparently Blizzard's VP is an idiot...
I mean, seriously, saying "We've been doing online gameplay for 15 years now... and with World of WarCraft and our roots in Battle.net and now with Diablo 3, it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry" is like saying "Oh come on, you know we're assholes who can make you buy our shit however we make it..."

 

[snowfi6916]

Sigh...thank you Blizzard for fucking me over. Since I only have access to a dial up connection this means I can't play diablo 3. I have been a huge blizzard fan forever but seriously fuck this...

 

[samsonguy920]

The Auction House is a crazy weed dream but I can handle that. As long as it doesn't sell items not found in the gameworld, I can ignore that. .

the auction house sells the randomly drop monster items

do people not read press releases

I think its the best addition I have seen, player trading was a nightmare in diablo 2, a similar system is in hellgate global which works brilliantly.

As I said, the Auction House isn't that big a deal, as long as it doesn't sell stuff that isn't found ingame. Considering this pipedream that Blizzard is suddenly having, I wouldn't put it past them to start including such stuff in the AH sold by Blizzard to make an extra megabuck for themselves. What it starts with doesn't equal what it eventually ends up with after a few months of gametime.

 

[Speakercone]

So why not just make an offline mode for people who want to play that way? "You're introducing a separate user flow, a separate path that players are going to go down," he explained. "And, at the end of the day, how many people are going to want to do that?"

Uh yeah. I'm gonna go ahead and say that I want to do that. Also everyone who's complained about this was complaining, essentially, about not being able to do that.

Diablo 2 was essentially an excellent single player game with a solidly integrated multiplayer component. That's what we wanted from Diablo 3. Instead, we're getting what appears to be WoW but with hack n' slash gameplay instead of hotkey gameplay.

I loved D2's lonely warrior feeling. That I had to be strong enough and smart enough to get through whatever challenge was ahead of me. That I couldn't rely on anyone else. I felt, in short, like the last Paladin on earth fighting against entire legions.

That's what I want from D3. That's what a lot of people want from D3.

EDIT: spelling mistakes.