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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

loa:

tony2077:

Hammeroj:
Relaxing" doesn't solve problems.

neither does complaining.

You sure you know what "complaining" means?
Cause I don't think it means what you think it means.

maybe maybe not but the rest still stands

AdamRhodes:

tony2077:
snip

In all likelihood, he is on the Blizzard forums complaining there too. This is an issue that needs publicity and the only way to do that is to go around and bring it to peoples' attention. I don't care about Diablo, and I don't go on Blizzard forums, so if people weren't here complaining, I'd have no idea that there was even an issue.

but will you take up the torch becuase you now know about it.

ObsidianJones:
March 2010, New York state. There was a giant storm here. Trees were put down all over the place. One right outside my complex. Because of my great complex having it's own generator, I wasn't one of the literal millions without power.

But because some of those trees hit communication lines, I was without internet. I couldn't watch tv, so I figured 'whatever', I'd play some video games on my pc.

All my video games are from steam. That was the first time I found out that to actually play games on steam, I had to connect online first.

I sat there for 3 days without anything to do.

I went online the second I could to find a fix for it. I played games before when my connection was out. Come to find out that steam was just a giant DRM and I was ignorant to it. I couldn't understand it, Steam KNOWS I bought the game because I did it through them. Why am I punished for mother nature? When it checked once that I legitimately bought my game through them? Why can I not have constant access to them no matter what?

There are a few other experiences that I had with mother nature preventing my access. Or Cablevision going down to update something. To say 'There's no reason that a consumer shouldn't have access to the internet' is a smoke screen. Because these things have happened to everyone of these developers and they know it will happen again. Frequency is not important. But when you pay for a product, you deserve the product. Not the product on a leash by the company.

/agree completely, but I just wanted to point out you can manually set Steam to "offline" mode. It's possible it won't work (Valve's web programming works like early Microsoft web technology, meaning not well nor very often), but at least there's a button to push.

Draech:

Hammeroj:
snip

I already made my point clear, but when the best you can do is going "you are just a D3 apologist! You argument is invalid!" Then you are wasted effort.

Fact: Paying for Tf2 in 2007 you bought a game that could only be enjoyed online.
Fact: Paying for D3 in 2012 you bought a game that could only be enjoyed online.
Fact: In 2009 TF2 got bots proving that the game could be enjoyed offline by adding a much smaller feature than what you are asking D3 to do.

If you didn't complain in 2007 you have no right to complain now unless you have a blatant double standard.

You can't really compare a game like TF2 to D3. TF2 was meant to be played with other people. D3, as mentioned several times in this thread, is about a single player experience as well as an online community. D3 can be played either as multi-player or single-player while TF2 was designed with only multi-player in mind. A game like TF2 isn't as enjoyable alone as a game like D3.

Irridium:

Draech:

Irridium:
What happens when the company supporting the servers for the always-online DRM does under?

What'll happen to the game? The most likely scenario, is that everyone's shit out of luck.

Just remember, last year THQ was doing pretty well. Look at 'em now. It is a very strong possibility that that could be any company.

Also, this is a good read.

again

is this any different than other games that focuses on an online component?

Are you protesting the same thing when someone you know plays an MMO or League of Legends?

All your complaints right there can be applied to Valve and Steam. Do you just trust them and not Blizzard?

MMO's don't have single-player components that require you to be online. League of Legends, and most games like it, are free. So the only risk of trying those is that you might waste a few hours of your time.

And no, I don't trust Valve or Steam as much as Blizzard. It's why I always try to avoid buying games that use Steam. It's also why I'm excited that GoG is putting more recent games up for sale on their site. I've stopped buying from Steam and am now just waiting for the games go up on GoG so I can buy them DRM-free.

Bolded is false.

Even thou you are required to be online in an MMO 90% of the content can be enjoyed by yourself. In some instances a 100% can be enjoyed solo player. That you play on the same server by logging in doesn't change when you get locking in a localised solo instance. They do in fact have solo player content that requires you to be logged on.

DRM is primarily about controlling your product. In no way does it benefit the customer. That in itself is bad enough. And don't give me that "But Steam.." talk. I don't like the way steam works as DRM either, I think it should just be a digital store for games. However, at least Steam has an offline mode, even if it often sucks balls...Blizzard/Activision just want to be able to control the consumer and their product and push their RMAH to make more money.

tony2077:
neither does complaining. talk to them don't vent on a forum where nothing will change. besides it a video game not being able to play it all the time isn't a bad thing unless you can't play it at all but take it up with your isp or them don't vent on this forum

No, actually, complaining is the only thing that'll solve anything. Whether it's directly or indirectly is irrelevant. If you think the few positive changes in Battle.net 0.2, for instance, were not the result of people constantly pointing out just how bloody shitty the system was, you're wrong. People have a right to complain, and I'm happy at least some of them do.

Not being able to play the game when you want is bad. This isn't up for you to bloody decide. And taking it up with the ISP is generally not going to do anyone anything.

Are you actually saying everyone should say nothing but positive things? Or simply that whatever negative stuff they have to say, they should do so in a robotic tone not to insult you?

Draech:
I already made my point clear, but when the best you can do is going "you are just a D3 apologist! You argument is invalid!" Then you are wasted effort.

Fact: Paying for Tf2 in 2007 you bought a game that could only be enjoyed online.
Fact: Paying for D3 in 2012 you bought a game that could only be enjoyed online.
Fact: In 2009 TF2 got bots proving that the game could be enjoyed offline by adding a much smaller feature than what you are asking D3 to do.

If you didn't complain in 2007 you have no right to complain now unless you have a blatant double standard.

First off, that's not the best I can do. Second off, at no point did I call you a Blizzard apologist, all I did was point out the deep fallaciousness of your posts. Don't just disregard everything I said while hiding under something I never said.

Did you miss the part where I said that TF2 having bots is irrelevant? Did you miss the part where I said "if the gentleman is right"[1] at the beginning of the point related to TF2's bots, and did you miss everything else I fucking said just to get hung up over a non-sequitur?

[1] Meaning that if he's not, or at least partly right, you can stop getting worked up over it.

AdamRhodes:

Draech:

Hammeroj:
snip

I already made my point clear, but when the best you can do is going "you are just a D3 apologist! You argument is invalid!" Then you are wasted effort.

Fact: Paying for Tf2 in 2007 you bought a game that could only be enjoyed online.
Fact: Paying for D3 in 2012 you bought a game that could only be enjoyed online.
Fact: In 2009 TF2 got bots proving that the game could be enjoyed offline by adding a much smaller feature than what you are asking D3 to do.

If you didn't complain in 2007 you have no right to complain now unless you have a blatant double standard.

You can't really compare a game like TF2 to D3. TF2 was meant to be played with other people. D3, as mentioned several times in this thread, is about a single player experience as well as an online community. D3 can be played either as multi-player or single-player while TF2 was designed with only multi-player in mind. A game like TF2 isn't as enjoyable alone as a game like D3.

Im sorry no deal.

I never played Unreal Tournament against anything bots. That doesn't change it was meant to be played multiplayer.
D3 is meant to have an online component. Werther it being trade or group play. That you can play 90% of the content in WoW by yourself doesn't change that the game were designed to make you play with others.

On a personal opinion here. I dont think D3 is as enjoyable alone as it is with others others. If your personal opinion counts as a fact, then so does mine.

tony2077:

AdamRhodes:

tony2077:
snip

In all likelihood, he is on the Blizzard forums complaining there too. This is an issue that needs publicity and the only way to do that is to go around and bring it to peoples' attention. I don't care about Diablo, and I don't go on Blizzard forums, so if people weren't here complaining, I'd have no idea that there was even an issue.

but will you take up the torch becuase you now know about it.

At the least, I'm definitely not buying Diablo 3. Some of my friends enjoyed the beta and, while I never got my hands on Diablo 2, I was actually looking forward to seeing how this RMAH is implemented after seeing the Extra Credits episode.

Hammeroj:

Draech:
I already made my point clear, but when the best you can do is going "you are just a D3 apologist! You argument is invalid!" Then you are wasted effort.

Fact: Paying for Tf2 in 2007 you bought a game that could only be enjoyed online.
Fact: Paying for D3 in 2012 you bought a game that could only be enjoyed online.
Fact: In 2009 TF2 got bots proving that the game could be enjoyed offline by adding a much smaller feature than what you are asking D3 to do.

If you didn't complain in 2007 you have no right to complain now unless you have a blatant double standard.

First off, that's not the best I can do. Second off, at no point did I call you a Blizzard apologist, all I did was point out the deep fallaciousness of your posts. Don't just disregard everything I said while hiding under something I never said.

Did you miss the part where I said that TF2 having bots is irrelevant? Did you miss the part where I said "if the gentleman is right"[1] at the beginning of the point related to TF2's bots, and did you miss everything else I fucking said just to get hung up over a non-sequitur?

About the bold. What I quoted.

Hammeroj:

Yes it does fucking matter, and no there's not a double standard there. The content of the game is relevant as well, not only whether there's an online requirement or not. The fact that you think the content of the game is irrelevant is bloody astounding, and ties directly into what I said in my post.

You're one of the types I mentioned.

Here is the type you mention

Hammeroj:

Fucking Blizzard apologists man, I swear to god.

Please clarify if you mention any other types of people.

Otherwise you seem to be just bailing out.

[1] Meaning that if he's not, or partly right, you can stop getting worked up over it.

Draech:

AdamRhodes:
snip

Im sorry no deal.

I never played Unreal Tournament against anything bots. That doesn't change it was meant to be played multiplayer.
D3 is meant to have an online component. Werther it being trade or group play. That you can play 90% of the content in WoW by yourself doesn't change that the game were designed to make you play with others.

On a personal opinion here. I dont think D3 is as enjoyable alone as it is with others others. If your personal opinion counts as a fact, then so does mine.

I meant that D3 could be enjoyed alone as well as online, but that a game like TF2 is boring if only fighting against bots. But you're right, that's my opinion.

But from what I've read on this thread, people just want to play alone even if they are unable to connect to the internet. That's the real issue. If online-only DRM becomes a "feature" for every game, that becomes impossible. Maybe I just want to relax and kill some whatever-the-Diablo-enemies on a long train ride where I can't get service.

Draech:
Please clarify if you mention any other types of people.

Otherwise you seem to be just bailing out.

You'll notice that in that post I wasn't talking to you, and didn't mention the "Blizzard apologist" as a type.

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.

There.

Now go through my posts again and actually address the points, while avoiding red herrings.

well i suppose i should put this out as long as the servers work and i can play the game I'll never join the people who are attacking it. there is the truth it may not be the best but its worked for me so far.

Hammeroj:

Draech:
Please clarify if you mention any other types of people.

Otherwise you seem to be just bailing out.

You'll notice that in that post I wasn't talking to you, and didn't mention the "Blizzard apologist" as a type.

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.

There.

Now go through my posts again and actually address the points, while avoiding red herrings.

My mistake. I mistook 1 of your pigeon holes for another.

tony2077:
well i suppose i should put this out as long as the servers work and i can play the game I'll never join the people who are attacking it. there is the truth it may not be the best but its worked for me so far.

I think the main issue is that "as long as the servers work" bit. That shouldn't even be a factor in enjoying the game alone on single-player.

They should have just marketed this as an MMO set in the Diablo universe akin to Warcraft -> World of Warcraft if that's what they wanted.

Ranorak:
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.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster/

There's some good stuff in there, but I'd also like to address something else in this quote. "I just play something else for a moment". Well, it's great that you can do that now, but what happens when all of your games have the always online DRM and your internet goes down? What then?

Draech:
My mistake. I mistook 1 of your pigeon holes for another.

You're not doing a good job of avoiding those red herrings. I'll repeat a couple of things, since you haven't even begun to address them, instead taking the "I'm so offended" route yet again. This is at least the third time I'm seeing you do this within the last couple of weeks.

There's not a double standard there. The content of the game is relevant as well, not only whether there's an online requirement or not. The fact that you think the content of the game is irrelevant is bloody astounding, and ties directly into what I said in my first post in reply to you.

Why do you think nobody is having problems with when an actual MMO or multiplayer-centric game is online-only?

AdamRhodes:

Draech:

AdamRhodes:
snip

Im sorry no deal.

I never played Unreal Tournament against anything bots. That doesn't change it was meant to be played multiplayer.
D3 is meant to have an online component. Werther it being trade or group play. That you can play 90% of the content in WoW by yourself doesn't change that the game were designed to make you play with others.

On a personal opinion here. I dont think D3 is as enjoyable alone as it is with others others. If your personal opinion counts as a fact, then so does mine.

I meant that D3 could be enjoyed alone as well as online, but that a game like TF2 is boring if only fighting against bots. But you're right, that's my opinion.

But from what I've read on this thread, people just want to play alone even if they are unable to connect to the internet. That's the real issue. If online-only DRM becomes a "feature" for every game, that becomes impossible. Maybe I just want to relax and kill some whatever-the-Diablo-enemies on a long train ride where I can't get service.

But it still doesn't change my original point.

If being online didn't prevent you from enjoying game A then it wont prevent you from enjoying game B. Doesn't matter if it is arbitrary or not.

That it give your game limited funktion (cant be played on trains), then judge it by that standard. It still doesn't change I bought other games I cant play on trains.

That Blizzard cut of the part of the market couldn't enjoy a game because of the online requirement is there problem more than anything.

Haven't read everything, so probably going to repeat some things others have said. (Also, been a while so Hi Escapist!!!)

I don't mind it at all. My computer is connected to the internet 100% of the time. If I lose internet for some odd reason (very rare), I go do other things (play a non-online game, or something else altogether).

Even if there are reasons it needs internet connection, I can't fault a company for trying to protect itself from theft. DRM, no matter how it's handled, will be an annoyance to players. But as long as the community "justifies" theft as being ok, game companies are going to have to take steps to protect their intellectual property. And I certainly prefer companies handling it themselves than trying to handle it with SOPA, PIPA and CISPA. I don't even want to see Pirate Bay shut down, as there are circumstances where I feel its appropriate to download a game (old/hard to find games from long-dead companies, if a developer can't/won't release in your area). Unfortunately, a large portion of the community believes "Well, I can't afford this game, but I should get to have it anyways" is a viable attitude as well (speaking to the outrageous sense of entitlement in our society).

But I daresay the number of people that can maintain regular internet connectivity when they want to play outnumbers those that don't.

And if nothing else, it is not as though this DRM came as a surprise. Be a savvy consumer. Check DRM policies before you buy the game. If you disagree, don't buy it. If there is a significant hit to sales, developers/publishers will try a new tactic. But at the same time, you need to understand that if there is *not* a significant hit to sales, you may just have to suck it up.

They can't please everyone, and you may have to accept that you're not in the majority and therefore your opinion and needs will not be catered to.

Hammeroj:

Draech:
My mistake. I mistook 1 of your pigeon holes for another.

You're not doing a good job of avoiding those red herrings. I'll repeat a couple of things, since you haven't even begun to address them, instead taking the "I'm so offended" route yet again. This is at least the third time I'm seeing you do this within the last couple of weeks.

There's not a double standard there. The content of the game is relevant as well, not only whether there's an online requirement or not. The fact that you think the content of the game is irrelevant is bloody astounding, and ties directly into what I said in my first post in reply to you.

Why do you think nobody is having problems with when an actual MMO or multiplayer-centric game is online-only?

Sigh

Lets roll then.

There is a double standard there.
It does for a fact not matter to whether on not you can enjoy, if it is arbitrary or not. All that matters is if you can have an online connection. You still cant play them on a train.
Both games I used as examples could have been made so they could be enjoyed offline, but they wern't. If you can say "TF2 requires people to be fun" I can say to same god damm thing. It is opinion at best. TF2 was 2 years of before playing the game offline was an option, but no one whined. Here people are whining from day one. That is a double standard.

On your MMO's example. 90% of the content can be enjoyed by yourself. The only reason people dont complain there is because people never had the option to play an MMO offline. If I am doing missions by myself in SWTOR without any interference from the outside world, how is that different that playing single player D3?
I said SWTOR, but I could have said any other MMO or multiplayer "centric". If a game has a possibility for PvE the "It is multiplayer centric" falls to ground. You can do PvE by yourself. I do it in every single player game.

I have no problem with the people who didn't accept it in those other games, and doesn't accept it now. It is logically consistent. However picking D3 out when you accepted the others is a double standard.

Good for you, OP. I suppose you'd like a cookie or something.

Breaking news: People who want to play D3 bad enough are willing to deal with always-on DRM, and people who have a problem with it aren't buying D3! More coverage as our story develops.

Coming up this hour: Trolly McDerpson still screaming that gamers are "entitled". Plus, Al Roker with the weather!

Back to you, Trolly.

Eh I can deal without D3, 1st releasing about half a game, 2nd at an higher then standard PC retail price, 3rd Attaching stupid always on DRM to it just makes it a bad deal.

And Yes you people may have internet 99% of the time, but You also can't play when their network go down, or their network are having problems, or their network needs to update.

imagine what would happen if something like sony or steam getting hacked to blizzard ;p

I'll join the fray. Always online is no topic to me. Having constant connection is required for the stuff I do so I always have connection. And if I don't I have a far more serious issue than the inability to play 1-5 of the 200+ games I own.

That's fine, OP, but it's an absolute deal-breaker for me. "Always on" is inconvenient and intrusive. I never purchase or play games that require it.

It was only really a deal-breaker for me because I lived in a small rural town with shitty internet which would go out for an hour if somebody so much as breathed in the wrong direction. Now that I'm in a city I'm not totally opposed, but it's also not ideal and I try to avoid it where possible.

Good for you, but my internet constantly disconnects itself for about 15 seconds before reconnecting, making any dungeon crawling game that has to be online impossible, so I won't be getting it

Okay, say I want to play Diablo 3, but I don't want to touch the multiplayer, don't want to chat with anyone over Battle.net, and don't care about the auction house.

Why should I be required to be connected to the Internet?

Honestly, how does an offline option hurt anyone? If people want the option, why can't they have it? It's not like it effects your game any. More options never hurt anyone.

personally i dont care about diablo 3. but yeah the always on drm is a pain in the ass for single player games. look what happened with ubisoft people lost access to their games for a week because of ubisoft servers being down while pirates continued to play the games.

my major concern is that in 10 or 15 years when i sit down to play a game what happens when those servers no longer exist for my single player game

Aeshi:
Playing Diablo singleplayer is like playing Chess singleplayer in that you can do it but it won't be much fun.

Qitz:

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.

Under that "logic" we may as well not do anything. Why make new Anti-Virus software? Hackers will just make new Viruses! Why cure diseases? Resistant versions will just show up! Let's just all lie down and die because if the Universe doesn't hand it to you forever on a silver platter on the first try it's doomed to eternal failure and isn't worth trying!

So you know what you do? You change the system to encourage people to do the right thing. Yes, there will always be the bad apples who steal and crack everything because they just don't give a fuck, but the people sitting on the fence between piracy and purchase can be swayed. Know who does this extremely well? Valve. Reasonable prices, amazing sales, integrated social networking, very fast download speeds, great convenience of library management, and (more or less) guaranteed offline mode for everything that isn't completely multiplayer.

You don't stop piracy by bolting everything to the floor, you beat it by offering a better product.

That's all well and good, but there are still decent sized chunks of America, even, that don't have the highspeed stable connection to play always-online games. I know I'm on a monthly allowance and even if it's a meg a minute that sixty megs an hour. I'd be able to play like three hours a month tops, and that would be even if it was possible.

I don't like that Blizzard has done it to a single-player franchise with a multiplayer component just because they're greedy bastards. Don't rebut this, you're not going to change my mind, ever.

w00tage:

/agree completely, but I just wanted to point out you can manually set Steam to "offline" mode. It's possible it won't work (Valve's web programming works like early Microsoft web technology, meaning not well nor very often), but at least there's a button to push.

I thought so too. Here's there stupid thing about the offline button. You have to sign online first to go offline. That's right. To make it so you don't need an internet connection to play, you have to sign on (I guess to show steam that all the games in your library are actually yours), then click the offline mode. If you aren't able to connect to the internet, you aren't able to connect with steam.

captcha: love-hate

I'm getting tired of pointing this out. If you people don't realize Captcha has now evolved, you deserve to get stepped on by the giant random phrase quoting robots when the uprising comes.

Aircross:

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.

Yahtzee also hates multiplayer, so his view is a little biased in this case.

"I don't like playing with the rest of you, so it should cater to my tastes!"
Sorry yahtzee, some games aren't created with the loner in mind. And he knows this I'm sure.

Draech:

On your MMO's example. 90% of the content can be enjoyed by yourself.

That is one of the biggests loads of bollocks I've ever seen. In no way is 90% of the content in WoW single-player. Raiding, dungeons, Arathi Highlands, the arena, and even just general PvP all require significant amounts of players. Without players, the game loses a huge chunk of its enjoyability. Have you ever tried playing on a server that's become a ghost town? It's not very fun, is it?

There's a reason we call them MMOs: they're massive, multiplayer, online games. Says "online" right in the freaking description.

Also, when D3 has been heavily pushed by Blizzard as "single-player focused," the argument for always-online falls immediately flat. If it's single-player focused, why the honest-to-goddamn-assjesus does it require an online connection?

ObsidianJones:
I thought so too. Here's there stupid thing about the offline button. You have to sign online first to go offline. That's right. To make it so you don't need an internet connection to play, you have to sign on (I guess to show steam that all the games in your library are actually yours), then click the offline mode. If you aren't able to connect to the internet, you aren't able to connect with steam.

Thing is, though, that Steam saves your profile to your machine on that first time. If you so chose, you'd only need to sign in once to download/patch the games you wanted. That's it.

EDIT: I should clarify this to say "once per shutdown cycle." If you shut down your computer, then Steam forgets your login and you'll have to regain internet before you can boot straight into offline mode, but that's pretty easily circumvented by just hibernating instead of shutting down. Of course, a forced shutdown through a power outage can still mess that up for desktops, but you probably have more important things to worry about if your power goes out for any significant amount of time.

Ranorak:
Snip

Diablo 3 out for nearly 12 hours now, I've had it in my possession for about 14. I've hardly been able to play it, not because of my internet but because of their servers.

Also I like how you continually changed your timeframes for when servers should be good in my thread. "It'll be ok in an hour. A couple of hours. A few hours. A day."

What next? A week? A month? If they weren't ready (as they clearly weren't) why release the damn game? It was already delayed for over a year.

Ranorak:
Snip

I'm probably saying something that has already been said before, but I don't mind "Always Online" so much as I mind "Absolutely NO WAY for you to be offline!"

Being strictly prohibited from playing the single-player portion of a game because my internet decided to crap out is fairly frustrating. It won't be a deal breaker for me (I've been playing WoW for five years now, and I got Diablo III for free because of Blizzard's promotional year-long sub thing so why shouldn't I have fun with it) but it certainly puts me off the idea of actually investing a lot of time into the game when after I've installed it, it still has the chance of not even letting me start the game because the servers are down.

Captcha: Never give up. Hm.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked