Diablo III Has Single Player Online

[Dastardly]

The last straw for me will be when they go after somebody for modding the game that I payed for in such a way that threatens their ability to properly monetise my time.

They're not having to "go after" anyone -- they just require that your client be linked to their system and put under constant surveillance, so you simply can't do it.

To my mind, it's not so much malicious as it is childish, as if you were a child playing over at a friend's house, and that friend suddenly said, "No! If you won't play the game the way I want you to, then I'm not letting you use my toys!"

Does that 'friend' have the right to do that? Sure. They are his toys, after all. But that kind of attitude doesn't promote fun, and it doesn't promote that sort of "partnership of imagination" that playing really requires. So while it's within his rights, it's a counter-productive idea for the friendship -- he has forgotten that you may have to follow his rules at the moment, but you don't have to stay his friend.

 

[Alar]

Were people actually expecting it to have a pause? It would've had to be like the StarCraft 2 pause... and Blizzard has shown that, at times, if the fans make a big enough uproar and word their criticism intelligently and constructively enough, they'll change features. If you guys really want to have a pause, push it over on their forums. Tell them that if SC2 can have it, then Diablo 3 can have it too.

 

[jpoon]

Actually I would bet my life on it being hacked. The fact that it is mostly server-side certainly hasn't stopped hackers from hacking almost every MMO that is worth hacking. Take WoW for example, you can get on hacked servers if you did a bit of research. I'm almost positive that it's going to be the exact same for this game.

The act of telling hackers they will never be able to hack a game is only fuel for the fire, it's going to happen eventually. Especially for a game of this "magnitude".

There are indeed hacked WoW servers, but there aren't any to come anywhere close to being as good in terms of functionality and reliability as Blizzard's servers. The whole "pirates get a better product" shtick kind of falls on its ass when this is the case, and I'll bet my life that if (when) Diablo does indeed get hacked, the servers will have shortcomings, and lots of them.

That would be an entirely case-by-case basis. There are many situations when hackers do in fact get the better product, quite a few are better off from the hacking. The issues (draconian DRM) being stripped away from the game, thus ending up a better game without it. Even though I'm not saying hackers should hack a game, I completely understand why they do it, it's the devs and publishers fault for thinking they can screw the paying customer over just to get back at the hackers, while the hackers see it as a good time trumping them and rising to the challenge.

 

[Uristqwerty]

Would it really have been too much effort to split characters as "online" and "offline", where offline characters are singleplayer and LAN only, while online characters are multiplayer and one person multiplayer as they have it now?

I can see the simplification they get by making the game ONLY a client, so that they don't have to put any effort into ensuring that the server can run on a regular system, and the client itself can be smaller, simpler, and faster (with the hidden part that it is now limited by the network as well, and any limits from the CPU, RAM and disk speed are only slightly reduced).


... though I wonder how well it would work if they sold a LAN server program separately... At least they could justify it as another source of profit.

 

[Atmos Duality]

For some this is a terrible betrayal, for others it's a minor inconvenience, and for others it's just the natural evolution of things.

The loss of functionality cannot be considered "evolution" if that term used to describe a form of improvement. But I'm guessing at the context here.

A more accurate description would be "rationalizing" or "marginalizing" the impact of the loss of offline single player to a player's experience. For some, it's no big deal or even nominal.
But the trap I so commonly see now is when some of these players start telling others who ARE effected by these changes that their arguments are invalid and they should support the game anyway.

(Or the flipside argument where the people complaining are telling those who aren't effected to not buy the game.)

One final note is that I'm noticing this odd trend where online games are offering more solo-friendly content and single player games are adding more online features. This suggests a future where the line between "free-to-play online" and "single player game" is one of marketing, not functionality.

Every year, it it appears that more of the Big Publishers have made it their proverbial "Manifest Destiny" to turn mainstream gaming into a total-control opt-in service that they can milk repeatedly for years.

This change is something I directly oppose because it *WILL* lead to higher costs (primarily for the consumer) and decreased incentive for competition; as the ultimate goal becomes that to further monopolize the player's time (this keeps their players away from their competitor's services, and stymies the development of alternatives).

That, in turn, ultimately creates new trends for business to directly interfere with the quality of the player's experience (something we're already starting to see). Concepts such as grinding and unnecessary-forced-inconvenience (which takes a variety of forms; product placement springs to mind) will become more common compared to challenge, story/presentation and mechanical execution.

Of course, it cannot replace everything, but you can expect MANY more of these elements to pop up if the publishers ever do move into that "service-only" gaming medium they dream of.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Would it really have been too much effort to split characters as "online" and "offline", where offline characters are singleplayer and LAN only, while online characters are multiplayer and one person multiplayer as they have it now?

Yup. Diablo 2 did EXACTLY THAT before!

... though I wonder how well it would work if they sold a LAN server program separately... At least they could justify it as another source of profit.

They cannot do that based on their business model and objectives.
The full explanation would take a long time to describe, but Blizzard is legally protecting their game (and more directly controlling their player's habits) by FORCING EVERYONE ONTO THEIR SYSTEM.
This converts Diablo 3's behavior from that of a traditional game PRODUCT (you turn it on, you play it, you turn it off) to a SERVICE (you log onto their system and use THEIR resources).

There are both legal and economic consequences for doing that; very few of which are beneficial to the consumer (in fact, compared to Diablo 2 and Bnet 1, there are ZERO benefits).
Blizzard is NOT providing LAN is partly key here because it undermines their agenda (it has in part to do with fighting piracy yes, but it also aims to eliminate Hamachi and other VLAN/tunneling systems from the equation).

I must emphasize: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO TECHNICAL REASON THEY CANNOT PROVIDE LAN/SINGLE PLAYER.
NONE. WHATSOEVER.

 

[znix]

All those reasons, especially no pausing, instant kick-off if the connection breaks and the lag death... Seriously crappy.

 

[Epona]

The last straw for me will be when they go after somebody for modding the game that I payed for in such a way that threatens their ability to properly monetise my time.

They're not having to "go after" anyone -- they just require that your client be linked to their system and put under constant surveillance, so you simply can't do it.

To my mind, it's not so much malicious as it is childish, as if you were a child playing over at a friend's house, and that friend suddenly said, "No! If you won't play the game the way I want you to, then I'm not letting you use my toys!"

Does that 'friend' have the right to do that? Sure. They are his toys, after all. But that kind of attitude doesn't promote fun, and it doesn't promote that sort of "partnership of imagination" that playing really requires. So while it's within his rights, it's a counter-productive idea for the friendship -- he has forgotten that you may have to follow his rules at the moment, but you don't have to stay his friend.

Well, if you paid $60 to play with the toys then would the friend still have a right to do that?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm sort of relieved. At this point my backlog is looking less like a stack and more like a pile, so it's nice to have reasons not to buy games like D3 (online only, generate more revenue) and BF3 (show us your hard drive, "please").

 

[SyrusRayne]

Amen to FieryTrainwreck. Another game I don't need to buy. You've done me a favor, Blizzard, by ensuring I will not buy your game.

 

[Rouzeki]

it gives me a smug satisfaction (wow, ME feeling smug?) to know that the issues I had with this game have not fallen entirely on deaf ears.

Always online is at BEST troublesome for a game such as this, especially when the prior games worked on or off. i can think of 3 people who can't buy it based on locale alone, let alone because they don't want to champion this.

Blizzard wants to increase their long term revenue when the biggest cash cow of MMO's for the last 6 years is still pumping strong? fine, but not this way. its a shame your own fanbase has to turn against you now (i was a big one), but your just in the wrong by cutting people this way.

their surprise at this backlash is what cemented it. I no longer care for Blizzard.

 

[Dastardly]

snip

Yes, if you and that friend agreed upon that price before you started playing. Sorry, but there's no room for debating the legal right of a company to do this -- and it's obvious that's what you're getting at.

Now, if you'll notice, I also do not like this practice. But arguing it on legal grounds is a lost battle. I choose instead to argue it on the grounds that it is not a smart way to do business when it begins pissing your customers off or forcing them to use your product in a way that is less fun for them.

Defeating a practice you don't like is more about choosing the right tactic than it is choosing the right outcome. You'll never get a court to say, "These people don't have the right to sell their own product in this way." But you might get a company to say, "People are not fans of un-mod-able games or being unable to pause. If we want their money, we might need to choose a different approach."

 

[DTWolfwood]

they keep saying activision has no say in what they do but the blizzard of old would not have gone thru all this trouble to fuck with what works. Just seems like the company is run by accountants rather than game devs <.<

 

[FunctionZ]

I can understand from their POV the online DRM thing, They did the same with Starcraft.

But the no pausing? Really? Starcraft has this for single player and even the multilayer (granted its only for 1-2 minutes so your not wasting other players time but still its a pause).

I can never see myself getting this game with all the other things that I dislike about it, money trading for items etc.

 

[squid5580]

Ha ha! No pausing? Need to be on the net all the time?

I'll be sitting this one right out. Who do they think they are?
Wonder if they will start treating the customer with some respect?
And we waited so long for this?

Not as long as 11 million people keep throwing 15 bucks a month at them and don't ask for respect.

 

[somethingprofound]

Ho Hum looks like a fun game to play to me, that's what matters right? and if i'm able to get real money from obsolete loot by selling to (for example) a person with minimal gaming time to grind for loot, so much the better...

but NO PAUSING! ALWAYS ONLINE! OMG MUST NOT BUY, MUST PIRATE... wut?
If something needs doing whilst you are gaming, be an adult and prioritise.
If your internet cuts out feel free to get annoyed at lost progress (I know I would rage a little bit) then get over it and go do something else or return to gaming.
Oh, and the always online is so friends can drop in and out of a game you're currently running (and vice versa) if you want them to (there's a pop-up on whether or not to allow them).

And I shall leave this topic after delivering a single hypothetical; Blizzard catches wind of this, creates it's own hacked single player only version (with no ties whatsoever to online D3) sells it at minimal price under a pseudonym and makes it glitch at the finale... because hell that's what I would do.

 

[CaptDom]

The last straw for me will be when they go after somebody for modding the game that I payed for in such a way that threatens their ability to properly monetise my time.

They're not having to "go after" anyone -- they just require that your client be linked to their system and put under constant surveillance, so you simply can't do it.

To my mind, it's not so much malicious as it is childish, as if you were a child playing over at a friend's house, and that friend suddenly said, "No! If you won't play the game the way I want you to, then I'm not letting you use my toys!"

Does that 'friend' have the right to do that? Sure. They are his toys, after all. But that kind of attitude doesn't promote fun, and it doesn't promote that sort of "partnership of imagination" that playing really requires. So while it's within his rights, it's a counter-productive idea for the friendship -- he has forgotten that you may have to follow his rules at the moment, but you don't have to stay his friend.

THIS x2.

goddamn fools trying to monetise my leisure time AND get away with it?
Why, I oughta... ! ! !

 

[grigjd3]

Not being able to pause the game is an absolute deal breaker for me. Anyone with even a hint of responsibility should feel the same.

 

[walrusaurus]

Always on DRM? Modding against the ToS? Lag, and login issue? And Seriously when did having a goddamn pause button become an optional feature?

Blizzard really is trying as hard as they possibly can to stop me from buying D3, aren't they?

Well congratulations Blizzard. It's working: you've got me seriously thinking about it

 

[escapador]

Also this is an interesting article about the deeper reasoning why they are doing this, albeit somewhat long: http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/the-creation-of-battle-net-2-0-part-one

Everyone should read this article. No really people. Read it and read it good. Although Blizzard is the focus, it highlights what the big video game companies are aiming for right now.