id Software Praises "Always On" in Diablo 3

[CM156_v1legacy]

Also, this comes to mind:

I probably wasn't going to get this game in the first place.

Yeah, I lost a huge ammount of respect for PA when they made that.

Here's a hot debate tip: Making a strawman, and having that strawman envoke the name of Hitler is a sign that you've nothing to say of any importance

OT: I'm not a huge fan of Always-on DRM. I've yet to hear a good reason why Bliz is forcing this on the players.

 

[Firgof]

I can also tell you never played D2 because of your accusation of "cheats and hacks". They were only common if you played on open b.net, which is the exact reason why you don't play on open b.net. Anyone who actually PLAYED the game would know that difference.

Despite lots of statements in this here and elsewhere to the contrary you're actually right: I never played the game online. I only had friends who did. And that's what they complained about all the time.

D2 was a multiplayer game with a nailed on single player mode, just like many other games of its time. I take it you spent you spent extensive amounts of time playing CS and UT single player as well, eh?

I played a *lot* of singleplayer UT and UT2k3. Not so much Counterstrike. That was just too repetitive. And why would D2 get "too repetitive"? The maps are procedurally generated. The weapons I find are procedurally generated. The items and loot I get are dependent on how hard I'm playing the game. There are mods that became recently (in the past four~ years) available that completely change the base game. There's *plenty* of things to do in Diablo 2 and that you don't know that just screams to me that you, sir, haven't played Diablo 2.

For me, D2 was a singleplayer game with a nailed on multiplayer mode. Just like many other games of its time.

I could see one or two playthrougsh on single player with D2 if you were afraid to go online at first, but the game loses all replay value diminishes without multiplayer.

That's completely untrue. You're assuming that I must play games exactly like you, play them for the same reasons, and get enjoyment from my gaming exactly the same way you do. Again, you can't live outside your experience. I've played plenty of Diablo 2. I'd show you screenshots of my current run, but you wouldn't believe me. I could elaborate on the specifics of some of my goals in D2 in prior runs, but you wouldn't believe me.

Because it's "easy to lie on the internet", see. Just like I'm now going to accuse you of never having played Diablo 2. Your move.

It's not like you won't be able to get a single player experience in D3. This is another reason why I cannot believe anyone who thinks D2 was a single player game actually played it. If they had actually played it, they would have known it was pretty easy to password a server and play by yourself if you needed to farm.

Why should I *ever need to set up a server to play a singleplayer game*. What does that offer me other than the most aggravating experience I could ever concoct as my inputs are *delayed* and *reliant on my internet connection and available bandwidth*.

If you ever played Diablo 2 you'd recognize how *immensely infuriating* it would be to lose your character in hardcore mode because your internet "hiccup"ed. Saying "so don't play hardcore" is childish, so let's not even go there. The game should *work*, that's the first expectation of any game. Singleplayer *should work*. But instead it "maybe" works. And then you treat that like a *big feature* of the game when you've hardly even justified its existence? That's just insanity.


EDIT: Next you're going to tell me I "didn't play X-Com" because it's "too repetitive". I still have that game installed and play it from time to time. Why? Because it's fun.

 

[Inkidu]

I just love the sheer audacity of Blizzard. They think they can come back after ten years with an updated version of Diablo II and tell consumers what to do.

I'll tell you what you get with Diablo 3.0 folks.

New classes, but they'll probably be akin to something Blizzard has done before and have one or two minor changes in tech trees.

Pallet swap (or not even that) loot that's only better by one or two stat points.

New locals because I mean the locals in Diablo II were such a big draw. You had the forest, the desert, the jungle, and hell. Which hell wasn't so cool. Dante's Inferno had a much cooler hell.

The ability to chose the gender of your character. Welcome to 2004 Blizzard great to have you here. Now just seven more and you'll actually be on the ball.

The ability to slay every perverted little chunk of fauna and flora and have it all come back when you save and quit. Even bosses, because this is Blizzard. Why kill a hard boss once we won't stop until it becomes just another thing to kill, we must remove all since of accomplishment.

And you have to be online all the time to play it.

Yeah, no thanks, not for a PC game which I don't actually own. Good luck with that guys. Really I hope you do well. *Sigh*

 

[Callate]

When did "you have an always-on connection with the Internet" become conflated with "so you won't have any problem with a company using that connection to make changes on your computer system largely to their own benefit and possibly track your information or deactivate your software at will as permitted by the four-mile-long EULA you had to sign off on to play the game you just paid $60 for?"

Criminy, how did this argument get a foothold? It's like, "So, you have always-on electricity in your house, therefore you shouldn't object to us giving you small random shocks."

Yes, Willits, I'm sure you would love it if Blizzard got away with it, and I don't doubt your company would love to get away with it, too. Funny thing, though? That's not a good reason for doing it from the perspective of anyone outside of a video game company.

 

[JMeganSnow]

The people who describe this as "DRM" are starting to piss me off. It is NOT DRM. It is an online-only game. There is no separate single-player mode that requires some kind of online check-in server. You play ONLINE, you just play BY YOURSELF.

Personally, I think Blizzard has hugely underestimated the number of people who like to play Diablo alone or in small LAN groups, which makes this potentially a really dumb business decision. Diablo and Diablo 2 came out in a world with far less online competition, so, yeah, the online portion did get rather a lot of play even though it was pretty lousy from my experience. Now, they've decided to put Diablo 3 in competition with every MMO, including their own, while simultaneously eliminating most of its appeal to the single-player or lan-coop groups. In essence, they have marginalized the Diablo franchise, which is sure as hell not going to bring about some kind of gaming revolution.

But Blizzard has been proving how out-of-touch they are since they made the announcement.

 

[Baresark]

Wow, he likes it just because.... And then he mentions what Steam does and calls it revolutionary. I pity this guy, he is just so disconnected from reality. Truthfully, I wanted this game so bad, but now, I simply don't. They have cured me of wanting to buy almost all of their products. I played WoW intermittently because I had some friends who did. But, this will not really apply here, since I have always enjoyed the single player experience of Diablo games. Also, the multiplayer looked fun, but I was cured of caring about that too. And I can't in good conscience support a company that wants to do this.

PS. I know I have had this Capcha before.....

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

You`re right Tim Willits. We should all be forced to stay permanently connected because God knows if you force us to always be connected that automatically fixes all the world`s connection problems and complications. So I`ll take this quote Tim as you offering to pay for my ISP? Thanks!

 

[drummond13]

The problem is it won't. Assassin's Creed 2 pirate copies were playable just days after the game was released. Pirates were enjoying their copies while legitimate customers were unable to play their game when a server went down.

Most EULAs, TOS, and such do not guarantee you constant, reliable access to the game you bought. You agree to that whenever you play a game, so you really can't complain about it. When you bought and played that game, you said you were cool with the possibility of not being able to play it for whatever reason. Someday you should read through those TOSs and EULAs instead of just scrolling down and hitting "accept" blindly.

So, the point is that you basically brought up a non-issue.

I'm confused, how is that a non-issue?

And what do you mean "hit accept blindly"? I specifically didn't buy Assassin's Creed 2 because of this issue. I still haven't bought it. I have no intention of buying it.

The same is true for Diablo 3, though this is somewhat abetted by the fact that I'm not really a Diablo fan. But seriously, how is this a non-issue? Just because it's mentioned by the company along with a bunch of other legal jargon doesn't make it right.

Hey, if it doesn't bother you then that's great. More power to you. I suspect it won't bother a lot of people. But why do you have such an issue with the fact that it DOES bother some people other than yourself? How does the fact that I feel that if I pay for an off-line game I should be allowed to play it at my leisure, whether my internet is up or not, upset you?

 

[kitolz]

snip

I share your concerns over this game. I was already on the fence on whether I'd get it or not because while I'm a huge fan of D1 and D2, D3 looks like the same old shit with updated graphics to me. I've also played high-end WoW raiding before, and I've already tired of it. Now internet connectivity requirement. I'm also in an area with really high latency, so playing online is a no go right there (unless I want to be 3 seconds behind everyone else).

I just don't see any added value this always on connection requirement will give me as a consumer.

 

[Stall]

I'm confused, how is that a non-issue?

And what do you mean "hit accept blindly"? I specifically didn't buy Assassin's Creed 2 because of this issue. I still haven't bought it. I have no intention of buying it.

The same is true for Diablo 3, though this is somewhat abetted by the fact that I'm not really a Diablo fan. But seriously, how is this a non-issue? Just because it's mentioned by the company along with a bunch of other legal jargon doesn't make it right.

Hey, if it doesn't bother you then that's great. More power to you. I suspect it won't bother a lot of people. But why do you have such an issue with the fact that it DOES bother some people other than yourself? How does the fact that I feel that if I pay for an off-line game I should be allowed to play it at my leisure, whether my internet is up or not, upset you?

I was more or less trying to convey that it is a very common practice. Even Steam doesn't guarantee you access to your games. If the Steam server went down, and you can't play your games, then you really can't complain, since you said that was fine whenever you use Steam. It's a non-issue, since every time you play a game (not just ass creed) and agree to those TOSs and such, you are saying "yeah, that's fine," hence is why I said it is a non-issue. It's a very, VERY common practice. You really should read a TOS or EULA for a game sometime... some of the stuff in it might surprise you.

Further, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've played MMOs for 7 years. Do you think I'm at all alienated by the concept of not having my game if my internet goes down? That's why I referred to D3 as a sort of faux-MMO, since it is clear there is going to be a very strong multiplayer emphasis (this is the major flaw with most of the arguments, since people want D3 to be a single player game... entitlement I suppose). The always-on DRM system works amazing for games with strong multiplayer focuses. If you are going to be playing this game online a vast majority of the time, if not all the time, then why would you complain about DRM that forces you to be online? It seems rather silly to me.

 

[Baresark]

snip

I have watched your debate a little, and it's a lost cause man. I agree with everything you say, but no matter how blue a color is, and no matter how you insist it's blue, he will always say green.

I have had this debate multiple times in multiple topics every time this game comes up. If you ask them to give reasons as to why they say what they say, they will give you a list of arbitrary items not specific to games such as MMO's and say this is why they say what they say. I went on and on with a guy who insists that D3 is in fact an MMO and you aren't playing single player, but "soloing" as compared to Guild Wars.

If you think about it, you should pity these people, the media tells them what they should believe, then they use their sometimes formidable intelligence to backup what they are told to believe, rather than think for themselves.

 

[Olrod]

One word: LAG.

This is why I'm NEVER going to buy a single-player game that requires me to be online to play it.

 

[drummond13]

I'm confused, how is that a non-issue?

And what do you mean "hit accept blindly"? I specifically didn't buy Assassin's Creed 2 because of this issue. I still haven't bought it. I have no intention of buying it.

The same is true for Diablo 3, though this is somewhat abetted by the fact that I'm not really a Diablo fan. But seriously, how is this a non-issue? Just because it's mentioned by the company along with a bunch of other legal jargon doesn't make it right.

Hey, if it doesn't bother you then that's great. More power to you. I suspect it won't bother a lot of people. But why do you have such an issue with the fact that it DOES bother some people other than yourself? How does the fact that I feel that if I pay for an off-line game I should be allowed to play it at my leisure, whether my internet is up or not, upset you?

I was more or less trying to convey that it is a very common practice. Even Steam doesn't guarantee you access to your games. If the Steam server went down, and you can't play your games, then you really can't complain, since you said that was fine whenever you use Steam. It's a non-issue, since every time you play a game (not just ass creed) and agree to those TOSs and such, you are saying "yeah, that's fine," hence is why I said it is a non-issue. It's a very, VERY common practice. You really should read a TOS or EULA for a game sometime... some of the stuff in it might surprise you.

Further, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've played MMOs for 7 years. Do you think I'm at all alienated by the concept of not having my game if my internet goes down? That's why I referred to D3 as a sort of faux-MMO. The always-on DRM system works amazing for games with strong multiplayer focuses. If you are going to be playing this game online a vast majority of the time, if not all the time, then why would you complain about DRM that forces you to be online? It seems rather silly to me.

Okay, I think we're misunderstanding each other here. In my original post I specifically said that I was fine with the always-on-internet requirement for Diablo 3 because it seemed like Blizzard had reasons for this related to the game itself and not purely for copy protection. Obviously games that focus on a multiplayer aspect, such as MMOs, have good reason to require this connection beyond verifying that the user has a legitimate copy of the game.

I was responding to Tim's hopes that Diablo 3's doing this would allow other games that DON'T require online access for any aspect of the gameplay to do this because Diablo 3 had made this acceptable an practice. I suspect his only real motivation here stems from a desire to stop piracy. A reasonable desire, to be sure, but not a good enough reason to make a game that has a solid single player mode (again, not talking about D3) require a constant internet connection to play.

 

[Firgof]

Given that he seems utterly incapable of stepping outside his shoes for even the briefest period of time, I have to agree with you Baresark: It is a lost cause.

He didn't even bother responding to my last post. Instead he just called singleplayers "entitled". Because I'm not going to expect X-Com to be a TBS Squad game when it comes back and instead it's a barely-beyond-Bioshock shooter. Because I should expect that, and it shouldn't surprise me, and it should be just fine with me.

Because if it does surprise me, or if it does shock me, or if it does annoy me: I'm obviously an entitled bespectacled oddity. Because nobody played X-Com for the TBS just like nobody played Diablo 2 for the singleplayer or UT2k4 or Jagged Alliance 2 or...

He'll just come back to this post with "But they -do- have singleplayer!" to which I'll respond "Online singleplayer, which is so ludicrous it's almost a literal oxymoron or at best an ignorant design decision that's wasteful at best and narrow-minded and short-sighted at worst". And so on and so forth.

EDIT: In my opinion: Call it "massively singleplayer", call it "online campaign"; heck you can even call it "A Lone Quest" if you want and I won't complain. But it's not Singleplayer. Singleplayer is well established, with well appreciated norms and meaning. When I say multiplayer, you don't think "recorded footage of other people stuffed into a singleplayer game". Why? Because it defies your expectations because it defies the norm.

 

[Helscreama]

Well I see people that weren't going to buy it and didn't like diablo 1 and 2 or people who are going to buy it even with DRM because they love diablo.

Me? I've never play Diablo (I know sinner) and I was going to take the step of playing with Diablo 3 but with this DRM..... I'm sorry I'm not going to buy it.

P.S. I do understand that my single "non-purchase" isn't going to break the bank for Blizzard but Diablo 3 is not the only game I've avoided because of DRM.

 

[EvilScoop]

Given that he seems utterly incapable of stepping outside his shoes for even the briefest period of time, I have to agree with you Baresark: It is a lost cause.

It's kind of funny that you would say that, safely nailed into your own single player shoes.

 

[Firgof]

It's kind of funny that you would say that, safely nailed into your own single player shoes.

I choose not to play D2's online section because it's just worse than SP in a functional manner of speaking. I get less where I get more in Singleplayer. I get less lag, I get harassed less, I don't have to pay attention to my messages. I don't have to care at all about bots or any such thing. I can mod and hack to my heart's content. I can even save-scum if I really want to.

Now I play Counter-strike from time to time online. That's different. I'm not an "elitist" in any sense of the word; I don't refuse to buy games just because they're multiplayer and there are quite a few multiplayer games that I adore (BF 1942 having been one such great game). I've played a lot of online shooters: SW: Battlefront 2, CS:S, TF2, etc. but they just don't hold my attention as much as D2, X-Com, and so forth. I've played a lot of online/LAN RTS and TBS (Heroes and SC among my favorites). But I always come back to my bread and butter.

I understand why some people might find D2 multiplayer fun: they enjoy playing with their buddies and finding a greater variety of builds to come quest with you is good. Sometimes you even get to meet new people and build new friendships or rivalries. That's the distinction: I don't enjoy D2 multiplayer, but I recognize why its popular and why people enjoy it.

 

[TheDooD]

Well I guess Blizzard likes negative publicity. Basically hype your game up with udder bullshit nobody would like, piss off a majority of the fans and stir them into a frenzy of hatred that'll make outsiders buy it because they want to see if it is so bad.

Fuck you Blizzard I see through your games.

 

[StrixMaxima]

I am glad to say that I will not buy Diablo 3, just because the draconian and half-stupid business decisions they made public so far. I would love to play the game, but I'll stick to my guns on this one, just as I did on Starcraft 2.

Funny thing is: I bet there will be a playable pirate version, without any always-online crap, within a month after the release (yes, I am a pessimist, a week is more like it). Thus, the almighty Ubisoft Law will still apply: you only punish your legal customers with DRM.

If you asked me if I would ever rant about Blizzard 8 years ago, I would look at you with a VERY funny face. Heh, things change. My biggest disappointment is that Blizzard is using all its muscle not to change the gaming market in a good way, promoting a better developer-customer relationship while still keeping profits up (something perfectly possible). Instead, they chose the most narrow-sighted approach, and will try to make gamers bend over repeatedly if they want to play their games. It is a tragedy.

 

[Uriel_51]

Not a fan of this; gamers are like any crowd and that is to say the vast majority act like a herd. Having said that, Blizzard exists because of customer loyalty, blizzard exists because they put out products that people loved and wanted. When that changes, they loose customers. When we're gone, they're gone.

Blizzard has changed in my eyes over the last 6-8 years, and the stuff they've been up to lately has them in a perilous position as far as I'm concerned. I was on the fence about Diablo III and with this kind of shinnanigans, they're definitely not getting my money at launch. Later on down the line, perhaps, but I'm leaning towards the "Naw, not going to support that BS" side of the fence.

I'll let better action RPGs fill that void in my life. Ones that don't force shit I don't agree with. I'm down for protecting developers, I'm not down for being bullied with my hobby held hostage. I'll find my fun somewhere else thanks.