Diablo III Has Single Player Online

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

AhumbleKnight:

Twilight_guy:

Personally I never had a problem with Diablo 2 where you couldn't pause either and I think pauses are kind of unnecessary because Diablo has towns.

Yes you could. Playing in single player you couple press the 'Esc' key on your keyboard (top left) and the game would pause.

Hum guess I had that wrong. I distinctly remember getting killed during a pause screen must have been mutliplayer.

Haakong:

What about town portals? Are they taken out? Always thought they were the "pause" mechanics in the diablo games.

Town portals have been supplanted by the Stone of Recall, an infinitely reusable item that takes up no inventory space and provides essentially the same functionality. That said, as I understand it Stone of Recall has a cast time and is interrupted when you take damage, so it doesn't work in combat. If you have to go pick up a phone in the middle of a horde of monsters, you're shit outta luck.

This game quickly went from a "must-have" to a "bargain bin" game. They definitely lost their $60 sale from me with the always online BS. I just won't support this crap at all. Last week I lost my online connection for a few days, if that had happened when I was playing a game like this man that really would have pissed me off.

Steam pisses me off enough already since you have to continually make sure your games are up-to-date or their offline mode just refuses to work. Screw blizzard and their crappy tactics. I'll still laugh when their game is hacked day 1 (maybe day 2, if they're lucky).

Originally, I thought that people who said they weren't going to buy the game because of the always online were overreacting a bit. It seemed stupid to be, but not so stupid that it made the game not worth buying. After looking at this, I've changed my mind, and I probably won't be getting Diablo III, at least not very soon after its launch. Looking at the comments here, this looks like an atrocious business decision on Blizzard's part.

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: Diablo III Has Single Player Online

Shamus shares his thoughts on the Diablo III beta.

Read Full Article

And so it is when a company becomes so big they can profit from showing pure contempt for their playerbase.

Blizzard is so used to having minimal piracy issues with WoW, due to the login/subscription model. They want that in all of their games. Or, more accurately, they want to prepare all single-player games to become microtransaction oriented, so they can control the game and sell people add-ons that used to be free.

(Allowing player-made mods is a major threat to the profitability of downloadable content, after all.)

Paradoxrifts:
Whenever my government approves the construction of a private toll road the surrounding transport infrastructure will often be strategically altered from its original layout into a different layout. The purpose of the change will enviably be so that more traffic is channelled or encouraged to patron the new toll road and they do this at the expense of reduced functionality for non-users. It is complete utter bullshit and while I certainly won't be buying it, there is a strange sort of inevitability of the game's success and the continued erosion of player privileges. Post release I can see a lot of players shrugging their shoulders at what the big deal was when they stop playing Diablo 3 and trade in their gear at the online store for a small discount on another Blizzard game.

But as Lando Calrissian said, "This deal is getting worse all the time."

This.

Developers are listening to their players, and listening very well. And then they're using that knowledge against us.

They learned, for instance, that little player-made mods and add-ons can keep people playing a game for many, many years past its prime. And now they've found a way to monetize that knowledge: the always-online DRM ensures you have the stock, unmodded client, which ensures that free player-made mods won't distract you from our very affordable DLC.

Players used to get a game that was also a self-entertainment tool kit. But apparently we were just participating in long-term market research that allowed these guys to figure out what we love doing, take it away from us, and then sell it back piecemeal.

jpoon:
This game quickly went from a "must-have" to a "bargain bin" game. They definitely lost their $60 sale from me with the always online BS. I just won't support this crap at all. Last week I lost my online connection for a few days, if that had happened when I was playing a game like this man that really would have pissed me off.

Steam pisses me off enough already since you have to continually make sure your games are up-to-date or their offline mode just refuses to work. Screw blizzard and their crappy tactics. I'll still laugh when their game is hacked day 1 (maybe day 2, if they're lucky).

Wont happen, skills/monsters HP/MP Money/Items are all tracked by the server, they turned This game into a tiny MMO, on the plus side movement is controlled on the side of the client making speed hacking possible from what i see.

ionveau:

jpoon:
This game quickly went from a "must-have" to a "bargain bin" game. They definitely lost their $60 sale from me with the always online BS. I just won't support this crap at all. Last week I lost my online connection for a few days, if that had happened when I was playing a game like this man that really would have pissed me off.

Steam pisses me off enough already since you have to continually make sure your games are up-to-date or their offline mode just refuses to work. Screw blizzard and their crappy tactics. I'll still laugh when their game is hacked day 1 (maybe day 2, if they're lucky).

Wont happen, skills/monsters HP/MP Money/Items are all tracked by the server, they turned This game into a tiny MMO, on the plus side movement is controlled on the side of the client making speed hacking possible from what i see.

Won't happen *quickly*. Always the chance someone will spend the time to either get into their server and find the equations, or start to extrapolate them based on data that can be collected while playing.

Are either of these likely to happen anytime remotely soon (or even sane in the case of the latter)? I'm pretty certain not, but that doesn't make this "always-on" DRM invulnerable.

Side note: Was so hyped about this game since my first time beating Diablo 2 (many years ago), and I'm still sad to think I will pass this one up until it either gains an offline single player or is $5 (very unlikely). I still think single player felt like a more "legit" mode of play (given there was no backup, it was harder to rush/skip content, and finding those special items meant so much more [this all based on my experiences from playing both online and offline heavily] )

ick double post

Dastardly:

Paradoxrifts:
Whenever my government approves the construction of a private toll road the surrounding transport infrastructure will often be strategically altered from its original layout into a different layout. The purpose of the change will enviably be so that more traffic is channelled or encouraged to patron the new toll road and they do this at the expense of reduced functionality for non-users. It is complete utter bullshit and while I certainly won't be buying it, there is a strange sort of inevitability of the game's success and the continued erosion of player privileges. Post release I can see a lot of players shrugging their shoulders at what the big deal was when they stop playing Diablo 3 and trade in their gear at the online store for a small discount on another Blizzard game.

But as Lando Calrissian said, "This deal is getting worse all the time."

This.

Developers are listening to their players, and listening very well. And then they're using that knowledge against us.

They learned, for instance, that little player-made mods and add-ons can keep people playing a game for many, many years past its prime. And now they've found a way to monetize that knowledge: the always-online DRM ensures you have the stock, unmodded client, which ensures that free player-made mods won't distract you from our very affordable DLC.

Players used to get a game that was also a self-entertainment tool kit. But apparently we were just participating in long-term market research that allowed these guys to figure out what we love doing, take it away from us, and then sell it back piecemeal.

Blizzard have not given the consumer a real choice on whether or not they wish to have their time monetised in this fashion, effectively turning the player's time into a form of currency without their direst consent. This is a dangerous & dehumanising shift of how certain sections of the gaming industry have started to envision the leisure hours that consumers pump into their products. I can't get behind the idea of any design philosophy that treats my time as the money of somebody else.

Once upon a time if a player wanted to cheat the game in order to get a particular item then they loaded up a trainer or entered a cheat code and got the item that way. In Diablo 3 you'll use the shop to achieve exactly the same result but you will be spending real world currency to do it.

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.

Haakong:

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

Will buy on midnight launch.

Exactly what I was thinking. Apparently were missing out on something, cause we should be furious about this.

EDIT: Ops, seems Ive entered territory where my positive opinions towards D3 probably will create some hostility... *town portal*

Nothing to see here, internet as usual, you either scream or it's like you aren't talking at all, I know it, you know it and you can bet Blizzard knows it too. In the end, when the reviews start coming in, only thing that will be important is how good, how fun the game is.

When i buy a game, I NEVER EVER buy it because I want to support the way a dev studio conducts it's business, only relevant factor is, is the potential amount of fun i can get from the experience equal or greater to the amount of money spent.

I don't see how this is any different.

mjc0961:

Well, in that case, I can only conclude that like From Software, the people making Diablo 3 are completely incompetent. After Demon's Souls, no pause button for single player (even if you want me to be online) = no buy. Pausing is something we mastered in the 1980's, and if you can't handle today, screw you and screw your game.

key the differenc here is that Demon's/Dark Souls was designed for multiplay, Diablo is a single player primarily. having a no pause in a multiplayer game makes sense, single player doesn't.

Heh. I thought Blizzard already went all out with their DRM when they released SC2, but I was wrong.

So now on top of mandatory online login, the SP game will fail when the connection drops in game and you can have lag in SP.

The lack of pause is just a minor insult on top of everything, since you could prolly use a town portal anytime and nothing ever happens in diablo towns.

Maybe Blizzard think we are like those parents that would let their kids die of starvation rather than being able to pause the game. I wonder what the penalties are for dying in game, they would have to be pretty severe for parents to risk their kids welfare for.

eventhorizon525:

ionveau:

jpoon:
This game quickly went from a "must-have" to a "bargain bin" game. They definitely lost their $60 sale from me with the always online BS. I just won't support this crap at all. Last week I lost my online connection for a few days, if that had happened when I was playing a game like this man that really would have pissed me off.

Steam pisses me off enough already since you have to continually make sure your games are up-to-date or their offline mode just refuses to work. Screw blizzard and their crappy tactics. I'll still laugh when their game is hacked day 1 (maybe day 2, if they're lucky).

Wont happen, skills/monsters HP/MP Money/Items are all tracked by the server, they turned This game into a tiny MMO, on the plus side movement is controlled on the side of the client making speed hacking possible from what i see.

Won't happen *quickly*. Always the chance someone will spend the time to either get into their server and find the equations, or start to extrapolate them based on data that can be collected while playing.

Are either of these likely to happen anytime remotely soon (or even sane in the case of the latter)? I'm pretty certain not, but that doesn't make this "always-on" DRM invulnerable.

Side note: Was so hyped about this game since my first time beating Diablo 2 (many years ago), and I'm still sad to think I will pass this one up until it either gains an offline single player or is $5 (very unlikely). I still think single player felt like a more "legit" mode of play (given there was no backup, it was harder to rush/skip content, and finding those special items meant so much more [this all based on my experiences from playing both online and offline heavily] )

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".

"You Can't Pause the Game" -- This is a major drawback.

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.

Paradoxrifts:
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.

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.

Hammeroj:

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.

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.

Shamus Young:
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.)

Shamus Young:
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.

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?

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.

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

Dastardly:

Paradoxrifts:
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?

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").

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.

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.

Crono1973:
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."

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 <.<

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.

jpoon:

Hammeroj:

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.

I'm just saying that in the particular case of WoW, or what Diablo is very likely to be, the logic does not apply, as the people who pay are in fact getting a better product.

I say old chap:
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.

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.

Dastardly:

Paradoxrifts:
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... ! ! !

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here