Andy Chalk said:
"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.