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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Is there any upside to the consumer to having an always-online single player game? I mean, it's pretty apparent Blizzard is doing this to pump the sales of its auction house, but have they even tried to spin it any other way?

Ordinarily I would agree, but this is where we diverge
I have been sitting here all fucking day watching the Diablo servers go up and down and I sit there waiting to play
this is not fun
I paid my $60, and I can't play my damn game.

SonOfVoorhees:
Not me. My console is offline. My phone is old and offline. All this connection online just makes people less connected to others. I rather be living in the real world and not let the online bullshit rule everything i do. Actually, any technology rule my world.

He says on an Internet forum.

I lol'd.

I get what you're saying, but making a statement like that on the net is funny to me.

Arina Love:
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.

blizzard stuff never gets discounted. starcraft 2 still costs 30

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.

Point #1: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.

Point #2: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.

Point #3: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.

Point #4: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.

Point #5: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.

Point #6: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.

Point #7: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.

Where to start? How 'bout the beginning, shall we? Uh-hmm...

Point #1: To begin with, Diablo was never built as "multiplayer first". The series started as a single-player experience with the possibility of sharing that experience in cooperative mode. Diablo 3, if what Blizzard claims is true, is the first time the online component became the central concern. This is part of why the fans are irked over all of this.

And, yes, you're right you can still play the game solo. The problem is, if you for any reason lose connection to the Battle.net servers, you can not play the game AT ALL. Not even in a 'guest' mode like in Starcraft 2.

I don't care if you're "okay" with that. It doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.

Point #2: Actually, it really is just DRM. The Always-On component of Diablo 3 is there simply to give Blizzard control over how/when/where people play the game. Even worse, it gives them a means to control the intake of money from the Auction House.

By that I mean they can analyze how popular certain items are and can then alter the natural, in-game drop rate. Thus, increasing demand.

And, because Blizzard takes a rather substantial cut of EVERY thing that's traded in the Auction House, they can essentially determine for themselves how much money they're scamming the players for. Seriously, think about it for a moment. Apply the same thing to, say, the stock market.

Scary, no?

Point #3: I addressed this in points 1 and 2. But for the sake of repeating, the fact that it's being billed as a multiplayer game first and foremost is part of why people are mad.

It's also pretty hypocritical on Blizzards part to say it's "multiplayer first" when it doesn't even ship with it's PvP component.

Point #4: This part, whether intentional or not, sounds a tad selfish. "I don't have this problem, so screw the rest of you. How dare you try to inconvenience me!"

Believe it or not, it's a big world out there. And even in first-world countries internet connections aren't always consistent.

Neither are servers. As has been seen by the launch issues so far. (and the numerous times I was dropped from the beta because the B.net servers went down)

Point #5: I play online a lot too, but you know what? When one of my online games goes down, in most cases, I can still play the game.

Take Team Fortress 2, for example. When I lose connection I can still play the game against bots or over a LAN with friends. The only functionality I lose is my item backpack; because it's stored on the Steam cloud servers.

This same system could have been used, rather easily, for Diablo 3. Your offline characters and items could never be used online or in the Auction House. Similar to how Diablo 2 was set up.

But see, if Blizzard did that, they wouldn't have complete control over the players and be able to scam people for money with their "pay-to-win" Auction House.

Point #6: I don't care how quickly they "fix" the login troubles. They could have easily avoided them all together if they had included an offline component.

Even if they do fix it, it doesn't mean it won't be a recurring issue. Diablo 3 is bound to have repeated server issues. I guarantee it.

Point #7: I for one hope that more games shy AWAY from Always-On DRM. Multi-player or not. I don't like the idea of not being able to play my games simply because my ISP goes out or because the game servers go down.

Also, I've made lots of friends over the years by playing multi-player games that didn't require me to be online to play them. So I fail to see how a game being Always-On somehow makes it easier to make friends and/or play with friends. That's just extremely weird logic.

Hammeroj:
=snip=
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.

Yes, you can. You can download TF2 for free and play it forever offline, if you want to. You can play against bots or other humans over a LAN connection.

I've said my fill on the subject countless times before, and I had prepared my usual mile-long analysis, but instead of boring everyone with a wall of text, I opted for brevity:

Blizzard wanted another Digital Cattle Farm (like WoW), and that's the game they made.
It's the only logical explanation for why they lied about piracy/DRM, stripped Single Play and LAN out, implemented the Real Money Auction House and forced everyone to play on their system to eliminate any possible alternative to the grind.

You can rationalize all you want with "convenience of the auction house", "hackers/scammers were going to do this with real money anyway, so Blizzard is getting the jump on them", "everyone played online already (gross generalization fallacy, but whatever)", but the ultimate truth is that the way Diablo 2 was marketed was ideal, and Diablo 3 (even if it's a better game), is still strictly worse, because it takes that choice away from the player.

Byere:
Seriously people, learn to just accept the shit as it comes, have some patience, and just get on with your lives.

That's a horrible attitude to take. Why should people just accept whatever bullshit people decide is best for them?

To me, it's as silly as requiring you to have audio capabilities to play a game.

Atmos Duality:
I've said my fill on the subject countless times before, and I had prepared my usual mile-long analysis, but instead of boring everyone with a wall of text, I opted for brevity:

Blizzard wanted another Digital Cattle Farm (like WoW), and that's the game they made.
It's the only logical explanation for why they lied about piracy/DRM, stripped Single Play and LAN out, implemented the Real Money Auction House and forced everyone to play on their system to eliminate any possible alternative to the grind.

You can rationalize all you want with "convenience of the auction house", "hackers/scammers were going to do this with real money anyway, so Blizzard is getting the jump on them", "everyone played online already (gross generalization fallacy, but whatever)", but the ultimate truth is that the way Diablo 2 was marketed was ideal, and Diablo 3 (even if it's a better game), is still strictly worse, because it takes that choice away from the player.

I'll also add I suspect the reason Blizzard took out the ability to customize our stats on level up was so that the only way now to make you characters truly powerful (unless you get some damn lucky drops) is to use the auction house. And I won't put it past Blizzard to keep the rarest most powerful items as auction house only items after a few months and a patch or 2.

I read a lot of these posts and weep.

The reason we even have this kind of problem is you: those selfish gamers that say "Not my problem. I got my internet 24/7 and you know if I really have some trouble, whatever got a shit load of games to get through anyways."

Think about it for a second. Why for the love of all that's holy, are you defending a security measure that doesn't add anything good to the game? It doesn't make it run better, it doesn't make it safer, it doesn't make your life any more convenient. All it does is make hell for other legit consumers. That doesn't apply to you though, so congratz.

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.

TheKasp:
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.

Huh, so what I'm hearing is "Meh, works for me. Fuck y'all"

Selfish.

Then when Mother Nature comes along or you have some unforeseen connection problems, you turn into this guy.

pspman45:
Ordinarily I would agree, but this is where we diverge
I have been sitting here all fucking day watching the Diablo servers go up and down and I sit there waiting to play
this is not fun
I paid my $60, and I can't play my damn game.

Even if you don't, and it doesn't matter to you in the least when you're cut off, you're still condemning a whole lot of others by defending DRM like this.
Why? Just Why? -.-

Kuzlo:
I read a lot of these posts and weep.

The reason we even have this kind of problem is you: those selfish gamers that say "Not my problem. I got my internet 24/7 and you know if I really have some trouble, whatever got a shit load of games to get through anyways."

Think about it for a second. Why for the love of all that's holy, are you defending a security measure that doesn't add anything good to the game? It doesn't make it run better, it doesn't make it safer, it doesn't make your life any more convenient. All it does is make hell for other legit consumers. That doesn't apply to you though, so congratz.

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.

TheKasp:
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.

Huh, so what I'm hearing is "Meh, works for me. Fuck y'all"

Selfish.

Then when Mother Nature comes along or you have some unforeseen connection problems, you turn into this guy.

pspman45:
Ordinarily I would agree, but this is where we diverge
I have been sitting here all fucking day watching the Diablo servers go up and down and I sit there waiting to play
this is not fun
I paid my $60, and I can't play my damn game.

Even if you don't, and it doesn't matter to you in the least when you're cut off, you're still condemning a whole lot of others by defending DRM like this.
Why? Just Why? -.-

its a video game there are more important things for me to think about this online stuff just doesn't make the list at all. why not defend it its not hurting anyone

tony2077:
its a video game there are more important things for me to think about this online stuff just doesn't make the list at all. why not defend it its not hurting anyone

Until, you know, they begin to add even more intrusive DRM measures with the baffling mandate you've given them. Calling it now, this launch has set consumers' rights back fifteen years, and will be the precedent for widespread always-online DRM, even in consoles.

Vuliev:

tony2077:
its a video game there are more important things for me to think about this online stuff just doesn't make the list at all. why not defend it its not hurting anyone

Until, you know, they begin to add even more intrusive DRM measures with the baffling mandate you've given them. Calling it now, this launch has set consumers' rights back fifteen years, and will be the precedent for widespread always-online DRM, even in consoles.

you doomsayers are one of the more important things i think about.

tony2077:

Vuliev:

tony2077:
its a video game there are more important things for me to think about this online stuff just doesn't make the list at all. why not defend it its not hurting anyone

Until, you know, they begin to add even more intrusive DRM measures with the baffling mandate you've given them. Calling it now, this launch has set consumers' rights back fifteen years, and will be the precedent for widespread always-online DRM, even in consoles.

you doomsayers are one of the more important things i think about.

As you should be. Provided there isn't some miraculous shift in the psyche of the major publishers in the next fifteen years (and provided the Escapist is still around), I will gladly come back and say "I told you so."

Vuliev:

tony2077:

Vuliev:

Until, you know, they begin to add even more intrusive DRM measures with the baffling mandate you've given them. Calling it now, this launch has set consumers' rights back fifteen years, and will be the precedent for widespread always-online DRM, even in consoles.

you doomsayers are one of the more important things i think about.

As you should be. Provided there isn't some miraculous shift in the psyche of the major publishers in the next fifteen years (and provided the Escapist is still around), I will gladly come back and say "I told you so."

well if it comes to that then so be it
oh btw what i think about you doomsayers isn't good so don't be happy about it

tony2077:
well if it comes to that then so be it

I was about to bring out the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" response, but then I realized that I wasn't sure what you were referring to. Though I suppose it's appropriate in either case, so:

image

Vuliev:

tony2077:
well if it comes to that then so be it

I was about to bring out the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" response, but then I realized that I wasn't sure what you were referring to. Though I suppose it's appropriate in either case, so:

image

well its not all bad so don't leave just yet

tony2077:
well its not all bad so don't leave just yet

Why not? You're actively destroying the capabilities and flexibility of a new medium, a medium that deserves more than the brutish punishment of major publishers and the mindless consumers that support them.

Sure, there's more to life than games, but why stay on a planet with a culture that actively brutalizes its own forms of expression and entertainment?

Vuliev:

tony2077:
well its not all bad so don't leave just yet

Why not? You're actively destroying the capabilities and flexibility of a new medium, a medium that deserves more than the brutish punishment of major publishers and the mindless consumers that support them.

Sure, there's more to life than games, but why stay on a planet with a culture that actively brutalizes its own forms of expression and entertainment?

destroying it isn't that a bit much

tony2077:
its a video game there are more important things for me to think about this online stuff just doesn't make the list at all. why not defend it its not hurting anyone

Sure there are always more important things in life, but you can take a little time out of your busy schedule to reflect on what it is you're doing no?

Look I have a bigger problem with throwing your fellow man under the bus because you can't be bothered. Fine don't think about it, but in that case don't come in and defend something that hurts others and doesn't affect you at all.

Your post that basically said you didn't care as long as you personally could access the game, was basically a kick in the balls to those who do have those problems.

There are numerous examples in this thread of the problems always on-line causes. May not be life threatening physical hurt, but it's an unnecessary hindrance that intrudes on privacy and gives no benefit to the consumer.

I'm sure you've got no time to respond to this, but what are some points you have in favour of this DRM? Most can probably be solved in simpler less intrusive ways.

Kuzlo:

tony2077:
its a video game there are more important things for me to think about this online stuff just doesn't make the list at all. why not defend it its not hurting anyone

Sure there are always more important things in life, but you can take a little time out of your busy schedule to reflect on what it is you're doing no?

Look I have a bigger problem with throwing your fellow man under the bus because you can't be bothered. Fine don't think about it, but in that case don't come in and defend something that hurts others and doesn't affect you at all.

Your post that basically said you didn't care as long as you personally could access the game, was basically a kick in the balls to those who do have those problems.

There are numerous examples in this thread of the problems always on-line causes. May not be life threatening physical hurt, but it's an unnecessary hindrance that intrudes on privacy and gives no benefit to the consumer.

I'm sure you've got no time to respond to this, but what are some points you have in favour of this DRM? Most can probably be solved in simpler less intrusive ways.

its not hurting anyone and your the one kicking me in the balls here. tell me online drm hurt or killed someone then I'll care

Well, it's a deal breaker for me. I don't like games that place any sort of restrictions on me accessing the game I payed for.
You can access online all the time, good for you and people like you, but the people who can't, then they either can't play the game at all, or they waste 60 bucks on a new drink coaster.

Vuliev:

tony2077:
well its not all bad so don't leave just yet

Why not? You're actively destroying the capabilities and flexibility of a new medium, a medium that deserves more than the brutish punishment of major publishers and the mindless consumers that support them.

Sure, there's more to life than games, but why stay on a planet with a culture that actively brutalizes its own forms of expression and entertainment?

Holy Crap. This. This exactly. Well not the leave the planet thing, got plenty to live for.

We are setting a precedent every day, for how publishers will act towards consumers. If the consumers don't stand back and go "Whoa guy! I'm actually not comfortable with supporting that kind of action. I'm not going to buy your game." then well they'll keep on doing it, because you know they really like money.

And indifferent consumers only interested in the product will shell it out by the bucketful.

I have a bad feeling its going to start some kind of trend...not to mention affect single player

tony2077:
its not hurting anyone and your the one kicking me in the balls here. tell me online drm hurt or killed someone then I'll care

No idea how I'm kicking you in the balls. Just trying to get you to think about how it might affect others. And if not that, just don't contribute to a topic you don't care for.

Not everything important is life and death. Maybe you believe the opposite, and if that's the case it's probably why you don't find it an issue.

If so then damn I dunno man. I got nothing.

Kuzlo:

tony2077:
its not hurting anyone and your the one kicking me in the balls here. tell me online drm hurt or killed someone then I'll care

No idea how I'm kicking you in the balls. Just trying to get you to think about how it might affect others. And if not that, just don't contribute to a topic you don't care for.

Not everything important is life and death. Maybe you believe the opposite, and if that's the case it's probably why you don't find it an issue.

If so then damn I dunno man. I got nothing.

i can't think of any real reason to oppose it just because someone else doesn't get to play it doesn't mean i have to attack it there are too many games and other hobbies out there for it to matter as much as you people like to think it does

Most games I play are multiplayer or mmos, so I don't have a problem.
I see how some gamers don't like the idea of a predominately single player game being server hosted, but since most games that require a constant internet connection are multiplayer centric, I haven't had a problem with any games yet.
I'm almost on the fence with Diablo 3, but since I and most people I know are going to play with others, it doesn't effect me that much.

tony2077:
i can't think of any real reason to oppose it just because someone else doesn't get to play it doesn't mean i have to attack it there are too many games and other hobbies out there for it to matter as much as you people like to think it does

So what is the reason to defend it then? There are too many games and other hobbies out there, why does it matter to you what happens with always online requirement?

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

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.

agreed, they are just shooting themselves in the foot with always online DRM, it is completely unnecessary and it 100% influenced my decision to not buy d3 (among a other reasons, but that did solidify that molding)

thatonedude11:
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?

this.

if i go to the store and buy a baketball and wanna shoot hoops outside, am i required to drive all the way to EA's mandated gym's? can i not color the ball or pump as little or as much air as i want into it? can i not use it as something to sit on if nothing else?

is that affecting ANYONE else's experience with THEIR basketballs? hell no, which is why this is complete bullshit (weird example i know, but i still feel it reflects it the same way)

DoPo:

tony2077:
i can't think of any real reason to oppose it just because someone else doesn't get to play it doesn't mean i have to attack it there are too many games and other hobbies out there for it to matter as much as you people like to think it does

So what is the reason to defend it then? There are too many games and other hobbies out there, why does it matter to you what happens with always online requirement?

its doesn't but the way you people condemn it doesn't help either so i picked the lesser of two evils

DoPo:

tony2077:
i can't think of any real reason to oppose it just because someone else doesn't get to play it doesn't mean i have to attack it there are too many games and other hobbies out there for it to matter as much as you people like to think it does

So what is the reason to defend it then? There are too many games and other hobbies out there, why does it matter to you what happens with always online requirement?

Yeah Escapist cut out and I got ninja'd, but pretty much this.

You don't have to attack it. Just don't defend it, because it really is unnecessary and it really does have a negative impact on others.

Cheers.

Edit:

tony2077:
its doesn't but the way you people condemn it doesn't help either so i picked the lesser of two evils

D: The lesser of two evils is to support something that gives no good just bad? O.O What kind of devils do you think we are? Condemning a non-consumer-friendly product seems the right thing to do and helps more than standing to the side and being silent.

Mr Pantomime:

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.

Or cause people to go look for not entirely legal copies that have the always-online feature turned off.

Because there's absolutely no multiplayer in most of the games. People don't want to have to be online to play a single player RPG or third person shooter or what ever.
Now, Diablo 3 is a strange exception. It doesn't have actual multiplayer but has that market thing... as far as I'm concerned, there's no point in not actually having full blown multiplayer.

To put it as simply as possible. I am in a high intensity internet usage neighbourhood that runs on an archaic infrastructure that cannot guarantee a connection for more than a few minutes before disconnecting and reconnecting. Usually a time-frame of no more than five seconds and goes unnoticed while doing something like youtube but makes multiplayer gaming and always online fucking impossible during the day and in turn the school week.

Kuzlo:

DoPo:

tony2077:
i can't think of any real reason to oppose it just because someone else doesn't get to play it doesn't mean i have to attack it there are too many games and other hobbies out there for it to matter as much as you people like to think it does

So what is the reason to defend it then? There are too many games and other hobbies out there, why does it matter to you what happens with always online requirement?

Yeah Escapist cut out and I got ninja'd, but pretty much this.

You don't have to attack it. Just don't defend it, because it really is unnecessary and it really does have a negative impact on others.

Cheers.

Edit:

tony2077:
its doesn't but the way you people condemn it doesn't help either so i picked the lesser of two evils

D: The lesser of two evils is to support something that gives no good just bad? O.O What kind of devils do you think we are? Condemning a non-consumer-friendly product seems the right thing to do and helps more than standing to the side and being silent.

well to be honest i was making fun of you guys with that last part since its not evil picking the lesser evil doesn't work when there is no evil . i just don't see why you people get so upset over stuff like this it doesn't make sense any way i try to think about it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked