- Apr 24, 2007
Titanium Dragon said:I can see this multi-player aspect being a good idea in theory, but as you can see, on paper doesn't really work in practice. With all of the downsides to this online-only aren't outweighed by your one bonus.Lord_Jaroh said:Did you not read my earlier post?Titanium Dragon said:If I may ask, how? How is an online only experience better for my gameplay? Explain how an always online connection improves my experience? How are Battle.net 2.0's features so good that players would not even want to play offline?Diablo III. Most MMOs.I'm still waiting on a game which can be pointed to as an example of how Always-On games are improving my gaming experience. I'd appreciate it if you could provide some examples of games where Always-On play has truly improved the experience.
The long, the short, and the middle answer is that every single character is playable online. If you have separate online and offline modes, this is not the case. By combining the two, such that all characters are online characters, it lowers the barrier to multiplayer play, encouraging more people to try it out, and as that is the funnest way to play the game, it both raises player enjoyment and makes them more likely to play longer, which leads to a better community, meaning more players stick around and more players encourage their friends to buy in.
Good for the developer, good for the player.
It has to be this way because Diablo III is a gear-based game (it is a grindfest), so the ability to store your character locally and manipulate their stats/items would be cheating. In a game where this is irrelevant, then there would be no such rationale for no offline mode.
As well, for those that don't play multiplayer, your "bonus" is non-existent. Considering how long D2's community stayed around with its multiple options of play seems to counteract your argument of games will last longer with online only, especially considering the game can be "shut off" at any time that Blizzard wishes, and then you'll have no game...