Diablo III Has Single Player Online

[BrotherRool]

The interesting thing is that this probably isn't even to defeat piracy. It's because Blizzard wants to create an economy whose sole purpose is to generate Blizzard money, and allowing the player any form of control will destroy that.

So yeah. Sucks.

It's not even like everyone (say students) always have access to fast reliable internet

 

[AsurasFinest]

So how do companies like Blizzard consider their games to be creative and representative of a artistic medium, deal with the eventuality that because of server costs and money decline, that they will have to shut off access to the game at one point.

In ten years time people might not be able to look at these games and what they are at all. What happens then?
What's the point of creating something for people to enjoy, if you deliberately shut large amounts of people out?

Its just so damn sad. People are actually giving companies the ability to do this and literally letting them bend them over the barrel and thrust.

I mean christ you have people defending Project Ten dollar for petes sake. I don't understand how captialist and corporate values that actively screw over the public are actually being defended by anyone at all who always feel the effects of them.
Do you all want them to make enjoying anything as intrusive and irritating as possible? Do you enjoy being exploited as if you were some kind of cow , never given anything of value but milked for all your worth before being left to rot?

 

[That PC Guy]

The interesting thing is that this probably isn't even to defeat piracy. It's because Blizzard wants to create an economy whose sole purpose is to generate Blizzard money, and allowing the player any form of control will destroy that.

So yeah. Sucks.

It's not even like everyone (say students) always have access to fast reliable internet

yep. they want absolute control over their "intellectual property" in order to milk the existing fanbase (which is huge) for more money. and because bnet 2.0 is the only game in town, they won't do more than is necessary to provide a halfway playable service. the customer aka fucktard licensee can either bend over or forget about their starcraft/diablo fix.

 

[Royas]

The whole "no pause" thing baffles me. If it's a single player session, why the hell wouldn't they have a pause function? Obviously a multi-player session wouldn't, but single player? Seriously, who put the stupid juice in the devs coffee?

And I really, really don't like the whole name/password thing. I know it seems small and petty, but last time I checked, I'm giving them money, not the other way around. That means I shouldn't have to be hassled to save them hassle, it works the other way around in the consumer-provider interaction.

When did Blizzard get so moronic? Was it before or after Activsion bought them?

 

[BrotherRool]

The interesting thing is that this probably isn't even to defeat piracy. It's because Blizzard wants to create an economy whose sole purpose is to generate Blizzard money, and allowing the player any form of control will destroy that.

So yeah. Sucks.

It's not even like everyone (say students) always have access to fast reliable internet

yep. they want absolute control over their "intellectual property" in order to milk the existing fanbase (which is huge) for more money. and because bnet 2.0 is the only game in town, they won't do more than is necessary to provide a halfway playable service. the customer aka fucktard licensee can either bend over or forget about their starcraft/diablo fix.

Pssh, existing fanbase? This game is going to grow, I bet they're aiming this as a cross between Team Fortress 2 and WoW as far as money generation goes. And giving the player any form of control damages the pressure auction house economy that's going to do it for them. People will complain but it's not going to stop many from buying the game. Blizzard know what they're doing

 

[Suomimaster]

Here are some ideas how Blizzard could fix some problems:

Singleplayer/Multiplayer characers -> Players could play it offline, but the singleplayer characters would be at the same time multiplayer characters.

Constant Online -> Remove it and replace it with some sort of online pass, where players would have to log in to battle.net and insert a code before they could install/play the game(although it wouldn't help those without internet).

Auction House -> No real money, use only ingame gold(it then would have some other use than resurrecting your stupid hireling).

No Mods -> Create separete Mod-section.

No Pausing -> Would work only if you were playing singleplayer(just like in Diablo II).

Did I forget something?

 

[Uber Waddles]

The more and more I hear about Diablo 3, the more and more I want Torchlight 2.

Seriously. They arent even TRYING anymore with this game. Are they making a shitty game because they know it will sell anyway? OR DO THEY LEGITIMATELY THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA? I honestly would love to sit down with Blizzard and say "Seriously?. You're better than that." Im glad they released the beta, and I hope they fix the game based on beta output.

Always online, while I dont have a problem with it, makes no sence for Diablo 3. Its based on Single Player. Being able to buy power from other players with real life gold? That ruined the Arenas for me. Little things matter - the lack of a pause button is just compliling into a ball of shit. I dont care about the story anymore, Ill wiki/YouTube it. Doesnt seem like it will be worth it

 

[-Dragmire-]

No pausing? In a single player game? Are you fucking kidding me?! I can't believe a company like Blizzard was the first one to make such a horrendous dick move.

You clearly never played Demon's Souls.

Patapon 1 and 2 were some of the worst offenders for the lack of a pause button. A game based around a rhythm mechanic that requires precise button timing on a handheld system meant to be played on the go.

The third one has a button combo that will pause the game but you have to unlock it first...

OT: I'm still undecided about Diablo III. Like Starcraft 2 I'll only play single player so I think I'll wait 6 months after the game comes out to see if Blizzard releases patches to accommodate people playing solo(like an actual solo mode that has a pause function. If only one person is in a "solo locked" world, a pause function won't come into conflict with anyone else).

 

[TheDooD]

I don't really see why the 'no pausing' thing is such a huge deal. Just create a town portal and you'll have all the time in the world.
Unless Diablo 3 has no town portals, in which case you can ignore this post.

I remember they said they were taking town portals out to keep players in the action or some shit like that.

 

[eNTi]

you should rename this from "experienced points" to "stating the obvious... again".

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I think I may actually have to say thank you, Blizzard. These days, with all the excellent games coming out and my time dwindling with extra responsibilities, it gets hard to choose which to buy and finish. And Diablo 3, with it's forceful approach to how games should be in our near future, well you can fuck right off.

 

[Sean951]

The whole "no pause" thing baffles me. If it's a single player session, why the hell wouldn't they have a pause function? Obviously a multi-player session wouldn't, but single player? Seriously, who put the stupid juice in the devs coffee?

And I really, really don't like the whole name/password thing. I know it seems small and petty, but last time I checked, I'm giving them money, not the other way around. That means I shouldn't have to be hassled to save them hassle, it works the other way around in the consumer-provider interaction.

When did Blizzard get so moronic? Was it before or after Activsion bought them?

The security thing exists because it is quite common for people to lose their accounts, and Blizzard decided the best way to protect the user from themselves was an authenticator.

 

[deathjavu]

They're worried about people "cheating", except it's a single player game so there's no one to "cheat". They also have an auction house you can spend real money in, which they claim they won't post items in. But the person who posted the auction is anonymous.

2+2=

 

[Realitycrash]

So, is Diablo III restricted to five worlds as well? Five tiny, fucking levels that feature little to no variety? Or is it more "open world" (dare I say "Sandbox"?) that encourages exploring?

You mean five level themes with dozens of large, open, procedurally-generated levels that can bring almost infinite variety?

Calling Diablo 2 a "short game" given the number of choices, the replayability, the nightmare and hell modes and so on and so forth is seriously narrow-minded.

If you by "infinte variety" mean "Oooh, sometimes the right Temple/Cave/Oasis/Whatever is TO THE RIGHT this time, instead of DOWN AND TO THE LEFT. Gee, this is a completely new experience for me!".

And so what if it is replayable? I never questioned this. I just don't want to replay the same (very short) levels all over again.

 

[Realitycrash]

All I want to know about Diablo III is this; Is it horribly short, as Diablo 2?
I don't buy games to play online (WoW not included, but I'v given that up as well), I prefer singleplayer, and when I ran through Diablo 2 (plus the expansion) in around 16 hours, I got pretty pissed.
So, is Diablo III restricted to five worlds as well? Five tiny, fucking levels that feature little to no variety? Or is it more "open world" (dare I say "Sandbox"?) that encourages exploring?

It's going to be essentially the same. At the very least in the departments of linearity and size of the game world.

Thanks, I know not to buy it then.

 

[Realitycrash]

So, is Diablo III restricted to five worlds as well? Five tiny, fucking levels that feature little to no variety? Or is it more "open world" (dare I say "Sandbox"?) that encourages exploring?

You mean five level themes with dozens of large, open, procedurally-generated levels that can bring almost infinite variety?

Calling Diablo 2 a "short game" given the number of choices, the replayability, the nightmare and hell modes and so on and so forth is seriously narrow-minded.

If you by "infinte variety" mean "Oooh, sometimes the right Temple/Cave/Oasis/Whatever is TO THE RIGHT this time, instead of DOWN AND TO THE LEFT. Gee, this is a completely new experience for me!".

Last time I checked, that's part of the definition of variety, and yes, it does allow for almost infinite permutations. Meanwhile, sandbox games will be exactly the same each time you play them.

The game is DESIGNED to be played through multiple times. You know, like some games are. Devil May Cry and Dead Rising 2, for instance. And the levels themselves actually get much longer on higher difficulties. If you wanna complain about how you personally don't like it go ahead, but don't act like it's objectively bad or I'm going to yell at you over the internet again.

It might allow for "infinite permutations", but doesn't give me any NEW INFO. Instead of the road going left, it now goes right, but both takes me to the Temple of Doom, and both roads had the same amount of enemies and the same environment. It's like 7+5=12, and 8+4=12. It's the same goddamn result and it doesn't impress me. If levels actually get longer in the higher difficulty-levels, then the game gets longer, sure, but it really wouldn't impress me much. More of the same, more of the same.
Even though you can beat every game in only a few hours (or minutes), if you set yourself out to do it, some still take longer, and Diablo II isn't long from that point of view. What do I consider a long game? Dragon Age: Origins is long, it has plenty of sidequests, dialogue and the mainplot is massive in its own. Morrowind was fucking huge, especially with the expansions.
And you say that its ment to be played "over and over again"? Fine. I guess you were one of the guys that grinded it online for years (much like I have done with World of Warcraft), but I play Diablo for single-player action, and where is the point of me to grind it then?
I feel none. Higher difficulty does not equal incentive to continue grinding.

"Objectively a bad thing"? Have you any idea what "objective" means?
Sigh. No one can ever have an OBJECTIVE opinion, then it wouldn't be an opinion.

 

[SonofSeth]

I played WoW a long time, none of these issues affect me in the slightest.

Will buy on midnight launch.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Waah Waah. People just need something to QQ about. I have to go on this internet thing to play my game? But I'm scared and overwhelmed! Get with the times grandpa! If you don't like it go make a better game.

Out the door with you and your trolling. Now.

World of Warcraft "pirate" servers? They are called emulation servers and they do not break any international copy write laws

Wrong on both sides. Hosting private servers is violating WoW's TOS and a bannable offense. Copyright has nothing to do with it.

OT: Isn't it wonderful how gaming has evolved since the 80's but now in the 2010's it's DEVOLVING. It's time to wake up and stop praising the melee of mediocrity and demand developers actually put some fucking effort into their games and stop defrauding us. Yes I'm looking at you, EA.

Captcha: annointed ceesra

 

[AngryPants]

So... it's going to be a Torchlight with lag? Uhm... Why do I have the feeling I'd prefer Torchlight 2?

We all understand that they're trying to shove pirates off, but for how long are they planning to do that at the expense of their customers? Someone got to stop all this DRM/Online Activation(now online single player?) crap soon, before it went too far.

 

[BaronOfStuff]

Looks like I'm STILL going to be playing the first two.