Always On-line is Not a Deal-Breaker for Me.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Most of our phones, tables and laptops are connected to the internet.
We criticize Nintendo for it's shitty on-line support, with friend-codes and whatnot.
I can chat with my friend on my xbox while I'm playing Skyrim and he's busy playing Halo.

We also criticized the music industry for not adapting to on-line distribution, fast enough.
News papers are becoming a media of old, because we get our news on-line.

Yet, why is it a problem when a game like Diablo 3, requires you to be on-line all the time?
Diablo 3 is build to be more then just a single player. Yes, you can play solo, you can finish the game without ever playing with someone else. But, like Battlefield games, it's strength and replay value are in multiplayer.

The always on-line feature is not just DRM. I'm not denying that is serves as DRM, but it's not JUST there as DRM, such as Assassins Creed (A true single player game, by the way).
Diablo 2 was plagues with hacks, dubbing of items and a worthless economy due to gold buying.
Always On-line tries to reduce this. Will it work 100%, of course not. But it won't fail either.

But I don't see why people are so mad about this.
If you are just going to play Diablo 3 for it's single player, you might have a reason to complain, but then again, this game was clearly not made for just single player.

If you have an unstable internet connection, I get your frustration, but the internet is the future, and I'm really sorry if your government doesn't support stable 24/7 connections, but the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for it.

Maybe it's because I play on-line a lot, and see it as nothing new. But when my internet drops out, I just play something else for a moment.

And yes, I am aware of the log in problems due to the release, but those problems were both expected, and they will be gone tomorrow.

So, what are your thoughts about this, I for one wouldn't mind if more multiplayer focused games were always on-line, if it makes it easier to play with my friends, or make new ones.

*cue shit storm in 3, 2, ....*

OT - I tend to agree. I don't have a problem with it at all, much rather have an always online check than a constant disk check.

The one absolute major downside to this kind of always online deal for me, is the lack of non-online multiplayer modes. I grew up playing and still loving my 64 games and the great times we used to have split screening it for long overnight sessions. Not necessarily in regards to D3, but a lan option would have been incredibly nice and non-online mode could also mean we could have massive multiplayer battles without each having to own our own copy of the game (such as with Starcraft and Warcraft 3). Plus, I'll always love killing my buddy right next to me, as opposed to hearing him in a head set.

So yea, not necessarily a deal breaker on any game for me, but when you absolutely take away any form of non-online play it DEFINITELY makes me rethink my purchase quite a bit.

SaikyoKid:
The one absolute major downside to this kind of always online deal for me, is the lack of non-online multiplayer modes. I grew up playing and still loving my 64 games and the great times we used to have split screening it for long overnight sessions. Not necessarily in regards to D3, but a lan option would have been incredibly nice and non-online mode could also mean we could have massive multiplayer battles without each having to own our own copy of the game (such as with Starcraft and Warcraft 3). Plus, I'll always love killing my buddy right next to me, as opposed to hearing him in a head set.

So yea, not necessarily a deal breaker on any game for me, but when you absolutely take away any form of non-online play it DEFINITELY makes me rethink my purchase quite a bit.

A nice point to bring up, I personally love split screen as well.
Boderderlands on my Xbox has been played a 100% in splitscreen mode.

Still splitscreen is more-or-less a console feature and I hope it can keep it's place next to always on-line multiplayer, as well as off-line pure singleplayer games.

I don't think you should brush off the Diablo 3 connection problems so quickly, because its really indicative of the entire problem with always online. The technology simply cannot handle the services it is being asked to provide. Which is bad, because people have bought a game they cannot play due to the mandatory online components. That simply isn't good enough.

The crux of the problem with always online DRM is that it adds something else that can cause you not to be able to play a game. I don't like barriers to playing my games.

It's not a deal breaker for me either. I not against the RMAH, and I can understand why always online is there, as it is primarily for the real money auction house, while serving as DRM. I agree with a couple of your statements, but this one:

Ranorak:

If you have an unstable internet connection, I get your frustration, but the internet is the future, and I'm really sorry if your government doesn't support stable 24/7 connections, but the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for it.

I completely disagree. How does one suffer by playing a game that is accessible to people with poor internet connections? Forcing online does not make the game better, it is a necessary evil. A fully online connection to a game like this is a hinderance to it.

Ranorak:
Diablo 2 was plagues with hacks, dubbing of items and a worthless economy due to gold buying.

None of which were a problem in the singe player mode. Ergo, there is no need to have always online DRM while playing on your own. Not a valid point.

Ranorak:
If you have an unstable internet connection, I get your frustration, but the internet is the future, and I'm really sorry if your government doesn't support stable 24/7 connections, but the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for it.

Why should people with a non-stable internet connection suffer for those among us who do have a good one? Works both ways.

If my internet connection goes down for a week or something for some reason...I can't play a game I paid money for.

That is just pathetic.

Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

I agree with you in theory; if the DRM function works in tandem with other features to enrich the overall product then everyone is well served. Steam is the classic example of where this sort of thing works well.

Windows Live is a classic example of where it can all go wrong. Updates that don't happen in the background and force a restart. No offline mode. Poor response times. These all cause what could be a feature to become an intrusion.

I'm going to buy Diablo 3. That is inevitable. Whether the DRM works more as a feature or as an obstacle will determine whether this happens sooner rather than later.

Ranorak:
Most of our phones, tables and laptops are connected to the internet.

That doesn't mean they have internetz all the time, nor does it mean the internetz are fast. and reliable.

Ranorak:
We also criticized the music industry for not adapting to on-line distribution, fast enough.

Online distribution =/= online DRM. That was a weak argument - it has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Ranorak:
News papers are becoming a media of old, because we get our news on-line.

Again, you don't have to be online all the time.

Ranorak:
Yet, why is it a problem when a game like Diablo 3, requires you to be on-line all the time?
Diablo 3 is build to be more then just a single player. Yes, you can play solo, you can finish the game without ever playing with someone else.

Let me check... yes, it appears that actually Diablo 2 also allowed these exact same options - single- or multiplayer.

Ranorak:
Diablo 2 was plagues with hacks, dubbing of items and a worthless economy due to gold buying.

Always On-line tries to reduce this. Will it work 100%, of course not. But it won't fail either.

You're talking about Battle.net here, don't you? Because that requires you to always be online and you can't play with the internet off and all that. Otherwise I don't see why you're bringing up the hacks and the economy. What economy outside of Battle.net (ande yes, there were the servers that allowed offline stored characters, solution - don't play them)

Ranorak:
If you are just going to play Diablo 3 for it's single player, you might have a reason to complain, but then again, this game was clearly not made for just single player.

Hey, neither was Diablo 2.

Ranorak:
If you have an unstable internet connection, I get your frustration, but the internet is the future, and I'm really sorry if your government doesn't support stable 24/7 connections, but the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for it.

The government? How does the government support my internet? I would have thought this was my ISP's job. And besides, how do you "suffer" from this?

Adam Jensen:
Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

This is an entirely reasonable point of view. What are we going to do when Blizzard goes bust (everything ends) and we want to have a quick bash on D3?

Legislation should be passed, or perhaps just a bill to clarify things, to allow consumers to hack the DRM of defunct companies. That way consumers will be empowered to enjoy the creative products of companies after they go to the wall whilst allowing companies to protect their sales.

Bertylicious:

Adam Jensen:
Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

This is an entirely reasonable point of view. What are we going to do when Blizzard goes bust (everything ends) and we want to have a quick bash on D3?

Legislation should be passed, or perhaps just a bill to clarify things, to allow consumers to hack the DRM of defunct companies. That way consumers will be empowered to enjoy the creative products of companies after they go to the wall whilst allowing companies to protect their sales.

I'd assume they'd do the same thing Valve have always said they'd do if Steam ever dies - disable all protection.

What's funny about this though is that problems can already happen like this WITHOUT always online DRM - i'm currently unable to play Alpha Protocol due to the authentication server being disabled and the patch not liking my Windows 7 install for some reason.

I don't know if legislation is needed, or really a viable option tbh.

DoPo:
Quoting Fail

Is it really neccesary to explode a dude's argument and then pick away at each individual point? It is most, most, un-pithy.

You could have just said:

Diablo 2 is a poor example because it actively provided for offline play with servers that allowed offline-stored characters. Also "The government"? How does the government support my internet? I would have thought this was my ISP's job. And besides, how do you "suffer" from this?

You could then have called him an apologist and compared him to a nazi collaborator.

Y'see? Pithy!

distortedreality:

Bertylicious:

Adam Jensen:
Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

This is an entirely reasonable point of view. What are we going to do when Blizzard goes bust (everything ends) and we want to have a quick bash on D3?

Legislation should be passed, or perhaps just a bill to clarify things, to allow consumers to hack the DRM of defunct companies. That way consumers will be empowered to enjoy the creative products of companies after they go to the wall whilst allowing companies to protect their sales.

I'd assume they'd do the same thing Valve have always said they'd do if Steam ever dies - disable all protection.

What's funny about this though is that problems can already happen like this WITHOUT always online DRM - i'm currently unable to play Alpha Protocol due to the authentication server being disabled and the patch not liking my Windows 7 install for some reason.

I don't know if legislation is needed, or really a viable option tbh.

Well yeah, that's a good point of other situations to DRM. I'm just looking for legal protection for fan communities that are fixing a companies game when they no longer support it.

Bertylicious:

DoPo:
Quoting Fail

Is it really neccesary to explode a dude's argument and then pick away at each individual point?

Because he offered more than one argument. I just wanted to pick on the stupid ones.

I don't want my games to become inaccessible without an internet connection.

Period.

Therefore, any game that I do not consider a must-have instantly becomes a will-not-buy if it includes always-online DRM.

You don't understand why people complain about things that do not affect you... my that is a shocker, next you will tell us you don't care about the political system on Cybertron!
It's like my dad who complains about medical research, since he is in perfect health why should anyone waste money on something so silly.

Ignorance is quite humorous sometimes, but you should know your opinions are meaningless until you do grasp what this topic is about.

Mr.K.:
You don't understand why people complain about things that do not affect you... my that is a shocker, next you will tell us you don't care about the political system on Cybertron!
It's like my dad who complains about medical research, since he is in perfect health why should anyone waste money on something so silly.

Ignorance is quite humorous sometimes, but you should know your opinions are meaningless until you do grasp what this topic is about.

But people will play Team Fortress and not have a problem with being online for that, but once it is needed for this DRM its a completely different story.

You can go with the Multi/Single argument for why it is different, but at the end of the day bought 2 games you were unable to enjoy while off line.

In terms of games for my computer/console, I completely agree because I'm always using those in a place were I have internet connection, however living in T' north (england) we get very lack lustre internet so having mobile games bound to the internet makes them unplayable 99% of the time and although having to be online isn't to bigger deal, and if its poorly managed it can kill my band-width which annoys others who are trying to use the internet

Also I much prefer being always online to having to deal with DRM

For Team Fortress it is normal to be online and it is normal people dont rage about it because it would be as relevant to rage at League of Legends or WoW to be online only ( true that a LAN feature is always nice) because at their core they are "massive" multiplayer games, unlike D3 were alot of people like to play solo.

So yes always online is soooooo great when you cannot play because of "server maintenance", shitty ISP, yada yada ... especially when all you want is to play solo.

It is true that internet is the future, it is a great thing but one should always (at least when it is technicly possible) an alternative, servers down? oh well i can still play LAN with my friends.

Also i do like when games support modding because you can have so much more when you give creative tools to your comminity, like in D2 got a mod that replaced all my arrows by glowing easter eggs, too bad big developers see mods as EVIL PIRATES THINGYS.

Its a big issue at the moment, but it doesn't bother me that much either. I don't like it, I see no reason I need to be connected to the internet to play singleplayer (since I NEVER play multiplayer) but I'm never going to be one of these people boycotting games just because of it. I find THAT ridiculous.

Draech:

Mr.K.:
You don't understand why people complain about things that do not affect you... my that is a shocker, next you will tell us you don't care about the political system on Cybertron!
It's like my dad who complains about medical research, since he is in perfect health why should anyone waste money on something so silly.

Ignorance is quite humorous sometimes, but you should know your opinions are meaningless until you do grasp what this topic is about.

But people will play Team Fortress and not have a problem with being online for that, but once it is needed for this DRM its a completely different story.

You can go with the Multi/Single argument for why it is different, but at the end of the day bought 2 games you were unable to enjoy while off line.

might have something to do with the fact that well.... Team Fortess 2 is a multiplayer game

the point is that alot of people want to play D3 single player. why do they need to be online for that? what if the internet goes down through no fault of there own or the servers are really busy? shouldnt they still be allowed to play single player?

edit: and to all the people saying "the internet is the future" yes i agree but remember thats the future not right now. sure a steady interent everywhere is possible in a decade or so but thats then not now

my internet is usually perfectly fine, but sometimes it will go down for varied amounts of time

i have family spread across a continent.
when i visit them i wont be guaranteed an internet connection...but i can still bring my laptop, meaning an always on-line system either means i would have to get a crack for the game or not play it

which means i do not buy games with always on-line requirments

As people have already explained, always online prevents me from playing the game in the event of internet outage/server problems/apocalypse. This is annoying and unnecessary.

However, my big problem is what this represents: the reduction of consumer control. Want to play the game without internet? Can't. Want to replace all of the monster files with bunny rabbits? Can't. Want to play LAN with your friends? Can't. Want to give yourself all of the best gear in single player? Can't. And Yet people who pirate the game don't have this problem.

Sure, it's reasonable to play by the developer's rules on the developer's multiplayer servers. But when I'm playing by myself or with some of my friends, why can't I do whatever the hell I want?

Ranorak:

If you have an unstable internet connection, I get your frustration, but the internet is the future, and I'm really sorry if your government doesn't support stable 24/7 connections, but the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for it.

wait...so how exactly are you suffering if a game doesn't have an 'always online' requirement?

thatonedude11:
And Yet people who pirate the game don't have this problem

Here is the #1 problem with ANY DRM. Legit consumers are the only ones punished by it. Pirates won't give a shit, they'll work their way around it in a matter of hours.

Everything else has already been brought up. ISP derps the connection, Blizzard gets a huge amount of traffic, THEY GO INTO SERVER MAINTENANCE, really you're running around lampooning the people who want this kind of draconian garbage off their games because they don't like the whole "If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about" ideal that comes with DRM. Even though they get the most Inconvenienced.

Ranorak:
But, like Battlefield games, it's strength and replay value are in multiplayer.

As Yahtzee stated very sagely, a game should be able to hold up on its single player alone.

The only reason Diablo 3 is always-online is so that Blizzard can rake in extra cash from their real money AH. It is not there for the benefit of the players. At all.

The only reason single player games are always-online is because developers/publishers think we cannot be trusted and need to be kept under surveillance so that we will not steal their products. It is not there for the benefit of the players. At all.

So you've never been annoyed once when you haven't been able to play a Steam game due to being offline/on a train or something?

It's bloody annoying for me, but won't stop me from getting a game if I really like it. Diablo 3 doesn't qualify.

Been repeating this a lot over the past couple of weeks.

You don't have to be outraged by the fact that a game is made online-only when it is clearly not necessary. Hell, you don't even have to care about the people who have a problem with it. But if you are at least somewhat reasonable, you are bound to at least recognize those problems.

But the most important question to me, here, is, why the hell are you coming out against the people who have a problem with it? Do you have something to gain from opposing people who try, however lightly, to fight for consumer rights? Do you stand to lose something if, indeed, the game would include an offline+LAN option? Explain your train of thought, please.

Fucking Blizzard apologists man, I swear to god.

P.S. For the record, my internet is fast and stable so I'm not really speaking out against this out of self-interest. Not directly, anyway.

spartandude:

Draech:

Mr.K.:
You don't understand why people complain about things that do not affect you... my that is a shocker, next you will tell us you don't care about the political system on Cybertron!
It's like my dad who complains about medical research, since he is in perfect health why should anyone waste money on something so silly.

Ignorance is quite humorous sometimes, but you should know your opinions are meaningless until you do grasp what this topic is about.

But people will play Team Fortress and not have a problem with being online for that, but once it is needed for this DRM its a completely different story.

You can go with the Multi/Single argument for why it is different, but at the end of the day bought 2 games you were unable to enjoy while off line.

might have something to do with the fact that well.... Team Fortess 2 is a multiplayer game

the point is that alot of people want to play D3 single player. why do they need to be online for that? what if the internet goes down through no fault of there own or the servers are really busy? shouldnt they still be allowed to play single player?

edit: and to all the people saying "the internet is the future" yes i agree but remember thats the future not right now. sure a steady interent everywhere is possible in a decade or so but thats then not now

Apply all of those to tf2.

Same result. If you can play team fortress. You can play D3. You can go "Multiplayer" all you want. It still doesn't change, if you can play the one you can play the other.

Tell all those facts about the internet to all the people who can't play Diablo 3 at the moment

Draech:

Apply all of those to tf2.

I'm currently playing TF2 in offline mode with bots, I can't access my loadout but the game works fine...what of it.

When i buy game that have single player i expect it to play offline. Everything else is just bullshit.
That's why i will be buying D3 in discount bin few years down the road.

Draech:
Apply all of those to tf2.

Same result. If you can play team fortress. You can play D3. You can go "Multiplayer" all you want. It still doesn't change, if you can play the one you can play the other.

You're missing the point. Both games are coded as multiplayer games, but only one of them should require a connection in its nature. Unless you're one of the people who believe just slapping an online requirement on a game makes it necessarily an online game and there's no problem, you have no leg to stand on.

Are you saying Assassin's Creed 2 was an online game for however many months before the requirement was dropped? Are you saying Diablo 2 is less of an online game than Diablo 3? Blizzard has repeatedly and explicitly stated that the game is being made as a singleplayer game with a co-op option, and not the other way around.

Nobody is flipping their shit when an actual MMO or multiplayer-centric game is online-only. Learn to discern why people have problems with stuff. Hint: It's not because they're idiots and you're smart.

Edit: And if the poster slightly above me is correct, apparently, you can even play fucking TF2 offline as well. You couldn't have failed harder.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked