Diablo 3

[Plinko]

Steam is not always-online DRM. TF2 is an MP-only game, yes, but I can play all my Steam games that have offline elements when the Internet is down. I can play them on 14-hour international flights, I can play them in hotel rooms with no/restricted Internet access when I'm overseas. Telling me I can't do that because of the excessive controls and hassle they want to put me through instead of because it's integral to the game is a deal-breaker to me.

[Bronze Fox]

Steam is not always-online DRM. TF2 is an MP-only game, yes, but I can play all my Steam games that have offline elements when the Internet is down. I can play them on 14-hour international flights, I can play them in hotel rooms with no/restricted Internet access when I'm overseas. Telling me I can't do that because of the excessive controls and hassle they want to put me through instead of because it's integral to the game is a deal-breaker to me.

I respect your opinion, and understand it, but who really wants to play Diablo III's singleplayer?

[Roirdan]

...I do. I very rarely played Diablo 2 multiplayer. Maybe, like, 5 times. It might sound kind of weird, but I prefer single player over multiplayer more often than not....

[One_Medic_Army]

Steam is not always-online DRM. TF2 is an MP-only game, yes, but I can play all my Steam games that have offline elements when the Internet is down. I can play them on 14-hour international flights, I can play them in hotel rooms with no/restricted Internet access when I'm overseas. Telling me I can't do that because of the excessive controls and hassle they want to put me through instead of because it's integral to the game is a deal-breaker to me.

I respect your opinion, and understand it, but who really wants to play Diablo III's singleplayer?

I played D2 singleplayer to take advantage of some interesting mods I found, long after I stopped playing the actual game.

[Ixtab]

Most games that you can play single player, I do so. I usually have at least one single player character, and one multiplayer one. Usually a few of each. D2, Hellgate, Borderlands, etc. Even some MMO's I've played, I quite often have a solo character. I find it fun to just go and do my own thing sometimes. It's definitely more fun than joining up with a bunch of really random people more often than not.

Just because some people wont play games alone does not mean that they should force people who do to be connected all the time. For games like TF2 or MMO type things, obviously they are meant for multiplayer, and you have to be connected, but for any type of RPG or any game that can (or that you should be able to) play solo has no reason to be constantly connected to the internet. There is simply no reason for it other than limiting peoples playing experience... and annoyance.

Edit: even TF2 has single player practice mode.. you dont have to be online for that, I dont think.

[THE Flying chihuahua]

...I do. I very rarely played Diablo 2 multiplayer. Maybe, like, 5 times. It might sound kind of weird, but I prefer single player over multiplayer more often than not....

I agree with this.

[Bakuryu]

Single player - nez mod. Best D2 experience I ever had.

[El_Hefe]

...I do. I very rarely played Diablo 2 multiplayer. Maybe, like, 5 times. It might sound kind of weird, but I prefer single player over multiplayer more often than not....

I agree with this.

i agree with both!

[Boss Llama]

I never had any desire to play the Diablo games multiplayer - especially not with random people I don't know. I love a good single-player dungeon crawl. Also, I despise any DRM beyond a CD key or single-time verification on install. Never stops the pirates, always hurts the customer.

[ShadyJane]

I think I’m in the minority that is really pleased about these recent announcements. I like skill points being removed in favor of the Guild Wars-esque system. I think the auction house move is simply brilliant. The best articulation I’ve heard about why the AH is such a smart move is here: http://www.diablofans.com/topic/26397-t ... explained/

Basically, everything they are now supporting in-game already existed out of game anyway (D2JSP). The article is pretty good and definitely fleshed the idea out a lot more. Actually that site/blog/whatever has been really informative about D3 in general for those interested.

As for the always online thing…I really don’t care. I understand people overseas, in the military, in very rural areas, etc are being squeezed by this but the sad fact is that this is the vast minority of their target market. We all know they can’t please everyone and to try and do so is simply uneconomical.

They probably sat down and thought “is it worth including an offline single player experience for the 1% of the market that cannot or refuses to always be online?” Their conclusion is actually quite practical and makes perfect business sense (imo). WoW, by itself, shows that millions of gamers around the world are willing to always be online to play Blizzard games. You want to know why? It is because their games are refined, entertaining, and social.

To me it comes down to a very simple premise: Will I enjoy their game? Yes? Then I am willing to spend money on it.

The only thing that bothers me about any of this is the ongoing issue of ownership. We no longer buy any games. We only buy the license to play a single copy and to be quite honest Steam paved the way for this to become main stream. A few years back my roommate had some financial discrepancy with Steam during the winter sale and they locked out ALL of his games…even the ones without any financial discrepancies. The ordeal actually lasted weeks too. That is just wrong to me. I really don’t understand how Steam can be some bastion of heavenly light while any other form of the same system is inherently frowned upon. Steam still has the ability to take away what you already bought. It’s actually completely ridiculous if you think about it.

[Ixtab]

I think you may be missing the point here on a lot of things, Shady. It is not a matter of 'including an offline single player' mode at all. You are talking like this is an MMO, but there is nothing to indicate that they are MMOizing it. That is like saying games like Neverwinter Nights, Brink, Civilization, etc have 'included offline experiences'. These games can be played alone offline, or you can play them online. It is more like they have included an online experience. D3 should be the same as this. D2 was the same - it had online multiplayer as an option. It was not an MMO, and therefore not built around the multiplayer with an sp campaign tacked on.

As for the '1% of the market that cannot or refuses to always be online?', that number is just pulled from thin air, and wildly inaccurate. There are still quite a few rural areas with bad/no internet, as well as people who cant afford to have the best internet available. There are a lot of college kids out there who game a lot but have either no internet, slow internet, or share a connection with a bunch of people. Then there are people with low incomes, and the people who simply dont use the internet enough to need the higher speed packages. If the numbers really were that low, then I am sure that internet companies wouldnt even offer so many different levels of service.
That doesnt even include those of us who have sated some things that you ave completely ignored - limited usage and outages are the big ones that come to mind. Most ISPs around here have usage caps.... and the very few that do not dont offer the higher speeds, and aer only available in very limited areas. Outages can happen to anyone at any time. It isnt even simply the ISP... your router could disconnect for a second, or there could be a momentary issue with any number of things between a computer and the vast interwebs. Having the internet go out for a second or two is always annoying, and is especially a pain if playing an actual online game. But if you are sitting at home enjoying your single player campaign, an internet outage should not affect you. That is just ridiculous.

It is not 'unecenomical' to please everyone. Adding an 'offline mode' isnt a new thing or anything. Like I mentioned, D2 has single or multiplayer options. Many... in fact most games nowadays have online modes, as well as just the normal game. Again, we arent talking about trying to make an MMO available to menonites or anything here. This is a normal game here that you should be able to play by yourself... They are not talking away 'offline mode', they are simply making it constantly phone home while you play it.

People are willing to be online to play WOW. But it is an MMO. You cant really compare, and use it as an example, because it is apples and oranges. People who dont play online wouldnt go buy an MMO, but theres a good chance that some people would go buy D3 to expecting to have to be connected to the internet.

Sorry if I came off as a little ranting here, but I jsut feel that some comments were made without real thought put into them, and you really cant go out and assume that just because you have your game experience, 99% of people will have the same experience as you.

Besides, Alizee has a point... things like this arent really going to stop the people who crack games. It has been done in the past, and it has been cracked in the past. It wont stop pirates, and even if it really did only affect 1% of the buyers, thats still 1% of their market that they could have avoided issues with by not having stupid DRM.

[Roirdan]

Hrm. I can't delete my post so I'm just getting rid of the link I posted here.

Coming back to cover something small and kind of nitpicky that neither Ix or Alizee touched on below, as it doesn't pertain to the whole always on DRM-thing:

I like skill points being removed in favor of the Guild Wars-esque system.

What they're doing with the skill system in D3 is nothing like Guild Wars. Yes, in GW you automatically get some skills, but they are rewards for finishing quests. Guild Wars has HUNDREDS of skills to customize your character with, which you have to buy with skill points that you get as you level (also gold). The only similarity is the limit on how many skills you have active (which is one of the only things I've disliked about GW in all the years I've been playin').

[Boss Llama]

I think I’m in the minority that is really pleased about these recent announcements. I like skill points being removed in favor of the Guild Wars-esque system. I think the auction house move is simply brilliant. The best articulation I’ve heard about why the AH is such a smart move is here: http://www.diablofans.com/topic/26397-t ... explained/

Basically, everything they are now supporting in-game already existed out of game anyway (D2JSP). The article is pretty good and definitely fleshed the idea out a lot more. Actually that site/blog/whatever has been really informative about D3 in general for those interested.

I have no problem with them including things that fans already made outside of game. That's generally a good move, and shows that at least somebody is paying attention to the fan base. While I think real-money auctions utterly destroy almost any gaming experience, they'll happen anyway, and I'd rather they be run by the company than the grey market.

As for the always online thing…I really don’t care. I understand people overseas, in the military, in very rural areas, etc are being squeezed by this but the sad fact is that this is the vast minority of their target market. We all know they can’t please everyone and to try and do so is simply uneconomical.

This makes no sense. They aren't pleasing anybody by doing always online - they're simply doing it on a whim. Nobody would be displeased not to have always-online, but plenty of people are displeased when they do have it. It takes work to make an always online DRM, and screws customers in the process. Having a non-invasive DRM would be easier, more economical, and not hurt anybody. It's a jerk move.

They probably sat down and thought “is it worth including an offline single player experience for the 1% of the market that cannot or refuses to always be online?” Their conclusion is actually quite practical and makes perfect business sense (imo). WoW, by itself, shows that millions of gamers around the world are willing to always be online to play Blizzard games. You want to know why? It is because their games are refined, entertaining, and social.

This is not an MMO, and your 1% number is absurd. Broadband penetration in the United States (as an example) is at 63.5% of households. These are the only people who have the ability to be "always online." Of these, it's also worth noting that 39.4% of US broadband subscriptions are DSL and operate over phone-lines, rather than cable or fiber. Quite beside the more than one third of the American households that cannot be online continuously, things like bandwidth caps render many of those with broadband simply unable to be continuously connected. Additionally, that 63.5% household penetration represents only a 27.7% subscription rate, indicating that the average broadband connection is shared by 2.3 people - it's not dedicated just to a gamer. This restriction by Blizzard is pointless and harmful.

Also, the programming of the game itself would not be significantly different in single player mode than in multi-player. The MP mode is most likely built on a perfectly viable SP shell that was created and tested before any MP elements were used. It's not like they'd have to write a new game. If you can play an online game with one person, you can play an offline game with one person - no reason for their to be any big difference. Simply allow people to host a local server without being online.

To me it comes down to a very simple premise: Will I enjoy their game? Yes? Then I am willing to spend money on it.

That's fair, and more power to you. Plenty of other people would enjoy the game, but won't be able to play it.

The only thing that bothers me about any of this is the ongoing issue of ownership. We no longer buy any games. We only buy the license to play a single copy and to be quite honest Steam paved the way for this to become main stream. A few years back my roommate had some financial discrepancy with Steam during the winter sale and they locked out ALL of his games…even the ones without any financial discrepancies. The ordeal actually lasted weeks too. That is just wrong to me. I really don’t understand how Steam can be some bastion of heavenly light while any other form of the same system is inherently frowned upon. Steam still has the ability to take away what you already bought. It’s actually completely ridiculous if you think about it.

Agreed. Though I am an a regular user of Steam and can't complain about their sales, I hate many aspects of it, and that is definitely one of them. I posted quite a few rants about it back in the earlier days.

Statistics drawn from the OECD statistics on global economic indicators, here

[crimsonshootingstar]

In COH if you lose connection to the relic stat tracking servers for even a second while playing with another person it dumps your match. Now mind you when we get this error we are both still connected to the internet and we are still connected to each other (often we are playing lan) but we have had an issue connecting to the server due to high traffic or a hiccup in the transfer of information. Thats what i don't like the thought that at any moment for no reason I just get dumped.

[Ixtab]

The only thing that bothers me about any of this is the ongoing issue of ownership. We no longer buy any games. We only buy the license to play a single copy and to be quite honest Steam paved the way for this to become main stream. A few years back my roommate had some financial discrepancy with Steam during the winter sale and they locked out ALL of his games…even the ones without any financial discrepancies. The ordeal actually lasted weeks too. That is just wrong to me. I really don’t understand how Steam can be some bastion of heavenly light while any other form of the same system is inherently frowned upon. Steam still has the ability to take away what you already bought. It’s actually completely ridiculous if you think about it.

Agreed. Though I am an a regular user of Steam and can't complain about their sales, I hate many aspects of it, and that is definitely one of them. I posted quite a few rants about it back in the earlier days.

I agree with this as well. A billing issue with one game, even if it does end up being completely the fault of the individual making the purchase, should never affect the other games they have legitimately paid for. That is the one thing I really dislike about steam. I myself havent had much issue, but I have what I feel to be quite a bit of money put into my steam games, and I would hate to have it all be taken away for one mistake. They really should have a better way to deal with things, like taking away the one game tat had the issue, or perhaps even banning the account from making further purchases. I feel that they really shouldnt have a right to take away things that someone has paid for for any reason.

I know thats a bit off topic, buuuut I feel tat I havent quite ranted enough this morn.