Nobody's mentioned it yet.

How does everyone feel about all the micro-transaction options and being required to constantly be online, even in singleplayer?

Blizzard Responds to Diablo 3 "Online" Complaints

8:00 AM - August 6, 2011 by Kevin Parrish - source: MTV

 

After fans began to complain about Diablo 3's "always connected" requirement, Blizzard responded with a lengthy answer to their concerns.

Previews of Diablo 3 released earlier this week revealed that the upcoming action-RPG PC game will require a constant Internet connection even when playing the single-player campaign. While the news isn't unexpected, it means that gamers won't be able to hack their way through dungeons on their laptops while the home network is down or if they're on the road where connections aren't available.

According to prior reports, this Internet requirement possibly serves as a means to curb piracy. But it also prevents the user from having to generate a separate character -- a separate "path" --in order to play multiplayer games on Battle.net.

"We thought about this quite a bit," said executive producer Rob Pardo earlier this week. "One of the things that we felt was really import was that if you did play offline, if we allowed for that experience, you’d start a character, you’d get him all the way to level 20 or level 30 or level 40 or what have you, and then at that point you might decide to want to venture onto Battle.net. But you’d have to start a character from scratch, because there’d be no way for us to guarantee no cheats were involved, if we let you play on the client and then take that character online."

Senior producer Alex Mayberry told MTV that gamers can play by themselves, but the characters are stored on Blizzard's Battle.net servers. "You have to authenticate through our servers to be able to play the game," he said. "I think it's not just 'Diablo 3' but with our games as a whole we're tying everything into Battle.net these days...We can provide a much a much more stable, connected, safer experience than we could if we let people play off-line."

In addition to the player character aspect, the single-player mode will have Battle.net elements including a persistent friends list, cross-game chat via the RealID system, player versus player and more. These require a constant Internet connection obviously.

But despite the reasons behind the always-connected requirements, fans are not happy with the decision. MTV uses this posting on Reddit as an example which has more than 2,700 comments, most of which express their distaste for the always-connected requirement.

"I'm actually kind of surprised in terms of there even being a question in today's age around online play and the requirement around that," said Blizzard's vice president of online technologies Robert Bridenbecker. "We've been doing online gameplay for 15 years now…and with 'World of WarCraft' and our roots in Battle.net and now with 'Diablo 3,' it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry. When you look at everything you get by having that persistent connection on the servers, you cannot ignore the power and the draw of that."

He went on to add that piracy and DRM really weren't a topic of conversation when discussing how the team wanted the connection to operate. Instead, they focused on the feature-set and storing the player character in the cloud.

"You're guaranteeing that there are no hacks, no dupes," he said. "All of these things were points of discussion, but the whole copy protection, piracy thing, that's not really entering into why we want to do it. I'm a huge purveyor of online sites and from my standpoint, I don't look at DRM solutions and go, 'Wow, those are awesome.' I look at those and say, 'Wow, those kind of suck.' But if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."

He also offered other explanations such as eliminating the need to have a separate offline and online path.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Diablo-PC-Gaming-action-rpg-battle.net-Robert-Bridenbecker,13187.html

I'm going to try to not purchase Diablo 3, only because Diablo 2 just about gave me carpal tunnel. My favorite is still the original Diablo. What a cool, refreshing game that was! 

You'd think Blizzard would take note of all the flak that Ubisoft got for their "always online" schemes. 

Originally Posted By Slick Wilhelm (20 MAR 2012 8:00am)

I'm going to try to not purchase Diablo 3, only because Diablo 2 just about gave me carpal tunnel.  

Same here, I also have carpul tunnel.  After intense sessions of playing Diablo or Torchlight for a few days I have to refrain from playing computer games for a week to "rest" my right arm.  I keep telling myself to stop playing those type of games but their so damn addicting; one endless search for loot.

Originally Posted By Slick Wilhelm (20 MAR 2012 8:00am)

I'm going to try to not purchase Diablo 3, only because Diablo 2 just about gave me carpal tunnel. My favorite is still the original Diablo. What a cool, refreshing game that was! 

 

You'd think Blizzard would take note of all the flak that Ubisoft got for their "always online" schemes. 

My feeling as well......exactly.

I don't see any new developments. This is old news from last year. Is there something I'm missing here?

Originally Posted By Knavery (20 MAR 2012 9:43am)

I don't see any new developments. This is old news from last year. Is there something I'm missing here?

I was going to say. What about the micro-transactions? There's no focus on that in the linked article?

Anyway, I don't know about the argument of anti-cheating requiring it. Look at BF3. That's an online game an I come across people using hacks daily. They usually get kicked after a few minutes, but still.

You can circumvent software with software I suppose.

The concerns for cheaters in multiplayer with their uber-characters from singleplayer is a valid one for PvP. Co-op, who cares?

I would rather be able to play the game anywhere in SP, but as a general rule I am not against features that need a constant online connection. It should just not cripple your game as much as it does with these schemes.

Cheaters will be cheaters.

Here me now, believe me later:  D3 sells a HOJILLION copies.

SHV couldn't sustain that DRM because a) it's a niche and b) the game wasn't that good.

I'll play because my nephew will, but I absolutely agree with Wilhelm that D1 was truly special in its time.

"Stay a while and listen!"

Best,

Jim

"Cyrano"

:/7)

Originally Posted By Cyrano (20 MAR 2012 10:20am)

Here me now, believe me later:  D3 sells a HOJILLION copies.

 

SHV couldn't sustain that DRM because a) it's a niche and b) the game wasn't that good.

 

I'll play because my nephew will, but I absolutely agree with Wilhelm that D1 was truly special in its time.

 

"Stay a while and listen!"

 

Best,

 

Jim

"Cyrano"

:/7)

It will sell a HOJILLION copies. People like to express their dislike for not having complete control over what they purchase. Hell, I'll probably buy it despite stating I wouldn't. I played D2 more than any other game since and loved every minute of it. Our society is shifting to a more "licensing" rather than "owning" focus. Companies like Blizzard, Ubisoft, and EA are just the first to implement it to the degree they have. The others will follow suit... It's just a matter of time. It could very well happen to music as well, but that would be much harder to control, because all you really need to do is hear music and you can copy it.

Originally Posted By Slick Wilhelm (20 MAR 2012 8:00am)

 

 

You'd think Blizzard would take note of all the flak that Ubisoft got for their "always online" schemes. 

That's exactly what I was thinking.  But you know how the big money dev teams are -  quite out of touch with their customer base.  It's like they're Hollywood stars living in their own reality.

Even though I love the genre, I'll avoid it due to the online req decision.

Originally Posted By Knavery (20 MAR 2012 9:43am)

I don't see any new developments. This is old news from last year. Is there something I'm missing here?

May 15 release date.. pre-orders now available.  Good time to bring it up??

I think it was more the seemingly unconnected quoted article with the other questions in your post, I'd say.

No matter.

I agree though, D3 will sell gazzilions.

This also brings up the question if they will delete your characters if you don't log on b.net for a while. Like they do (did?) with D2 characters.

I loved D1 and D2. But in D2 i was only able to play sorceress and necro bc my hand/finger/forearm can't stand excessive clicking anymore.

Don't trink i'll buy D3, no character looks interesting and the game doesn't look fun to me. I may be wrong and my opinion may be coloured by not enjoying TQ, the last Diablo clone i played.

Well comparing a game from a different company isn't too sensible in relation to a sequel to a game you DID like.

I never got into TQ either, though D2 was fun as heck.

I am looking forward to D3.

But then again, so do I with Grim Dawn, which is a title by the former TQ crew.

Originally Posted By Yskonyn (20 MAR 2012 2:16pm)

Well comparing a game from a different company isn't too sensible in relation to a sequel to a game you DID like.

I never got into TQ either, though D2 was fun as heck.

 

I wasn't comparing them. Just said it was a clone. Implying that i might not enjoy that kind of gameplay anymore.

 

I am looking forward to D3.

But then again, so do I with Grim Dawn, which is a title by the former TQ crew.

Confusing, eh?

Not at all.

I've just seen a short video from GD but if it hadn't been for the different title above it i would have assumed it was from D3.

Disclaimer: I am a Diablo fan and am in the D3 beta

Originally Posted By Slick Wilhelm (20 MAR 2012 8:00am)

You'd think Blizzard would take note of all the flak that Ubisoft got for their "always online" schemes. 

If It was a company other then Blizzard I would agree. I haven't really played alot of other companies games that require you to be online the whole time, but using WoW as a benchmark, I hardly ever see Blizzards servers go down. You get the weekly server maintence period, and the very rare server failure/glitch. IIRC Ubisofts server's were hacked the day SHV was released, I haven't seen that happen to Blizzard. D3 is really no different then an MMO, Blizzard is treating it that way in all but name.

Originally Posted By Fetrik (20 MAR 2012 12:54pm)

This also brings up the question if they will delete your characters if you don't log on b.net for a while. Like they do (did?) with D2 characters.

Don't trink i'll buy D3, no character looks interesting and the game doesn't look fun to me. I may be wrong and my opinion may be coloured by not enjoying TQ, the last Diablo clone i played.

It will probably be like WoW where your character will be there forever. The character name system is the same as Starcraft 2, where there are no unique names. So they dont really have a reason to delete characters.

As far as gameplay, Its Diablo. Its still point and click. The biggest gameplay change IMO is the limit of only 6 skills on your task bar. Combined with the new rune system theres a ton of skill variations, and there all viable. I really like having to choose what abilities I'm going to use, rather then a "cookie cutter" build you get with most MMO's. But there really isn't anything revolutionary here. To me, its the game I'm looking for right now. I'm coming off of playing WoW/SWTOR/Rift on and off for the last 6.5 years and I've spent 3-12 hours a week grinding raid bosses. I can jump into D3 clear a dungeon or two, get some loot and feel like I've accomplished something. Where if I was playign WoW I would have spent that time and maybe have got 1-3 bosses down in a raid, which to me feels like banging my head against a brick wall at the moment.

I actualy will own 3 copies of D3, 2 collector editions and 1 for my year WoW pass.

Originally Posted By Cyrano (20 MAR 2012 10:20am)

Here me now, believe me later:  D3 sells a HOJILLION copies.

 

SHV couldn't sustain that DRM because a) it's a niche and b) the game wasn't that good.

 

I'll play because my nephew will, but I absolutely agree with Wilhelm that D1 was truly special in its time.

 

"Stay a while and listen!"

 

Best,

 

Jim

"Cyrano"

:/7)

I bet they don't sell as many copies as they did D2 which was around 6 million.

Players are going to revolt on this one because you can't DICTATE to a player how he can play a game he bought and paid for in the long run. Look what happened when Starforce came out? That disappeared from the majority of mainstream games in a hurry. It will happen with forced to be online gaming as well. Once the numbers roll in and the profit margin swings in the other direction they'll change just like the others changed. Even STEAM has an OFFLINE OPTION.

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (20 MAR 2012 11:42pm)

 

I bet they don't sell as many copies as they did D2 which was around 6 million.

 

Players are going to revolt on this one because you can't DICTATE to a player how he can play a game he bought and paid for in the long run. Look what happened when Starforce came out? That disappeared from the majority of mainstream games in a hurry. It will happen with forced to be online gaming as well. Once the numbers roll in and the profit margin swings in the other direction they'll change just like the others changed. Even STEAM has an OFFLINE OPTION.

 

That seems like an awful lot, especially in that day. Or do you mean 6 million spread over the time of release up until now?

Do you have a link to fund this?

FIFA 12 hit around 10 million, BF3 11 million, SWTOR 2 million. (http://www.vg247.com/2012/02/01/ea-q3-swtor-moves-2-million-units/) I find it hard to believe D2 has hit 6 million, unless you take into account there must have been sold a lot of extra (double) copies over time until now because people are loosing or breaking their disks and digital versions being easier to get.

Still, I think D3 will sell a LOT of copies.

P.S. DING! My 1000th post, I just noticed!

Oh, D3 will sell buttloads as there are buttloads of frothing Diablo fans.  I think many of us here have considered it, at the least, carpal tunnel be damned.

I wouldn't mind needing to be online all the time so much, like an MMO, if they actually updated and added stuff to it as much as one.  Just being forced to be online so you can save your character there is BS, though, and obviously a method of controlling your use of their software (along with tempting the wallet warriors to instantly give them more money via the micro-transactions).

I don't really see the benefit in forcing you to be online all the time, however, and I doubt it'll get the constant development treatment MMOs do since there's no monthly fee, even though they seem to be taking a Free-To-Play approach after you've spent the initial $60.

What it all comes down to is this -  I don't give a damn about the multiplayer.  From my experiences years ago trying it in D2, it was just a bunch of punks trying to duel each other or looking for trades.  Even when you got a coop run going,  something would annoy the snot out of you.  So I would primarily get it for some singleplayer hack & slash at my own relaxing pace and the online focus just doesn't add any value to that.  It actually detracts from it, I think.  It's all in the value, though.  I somehow doubt the price of D3 will be dropping like most others, if Blizzard's past pricing is any indicator.

Blizzard is cleverly focussing the argument on multiplayer.

I agree that there is little use for a continuous online check if you are a singleplayer gamer.

They claim it will elevate the security measures and makes importing a character out of singleplayer into multiplayer a safer experience. Might be so, but the singleplayer only crowd gets stuck with needing an online connection all the time.

If all works fine then there is no problem at all.

I used to claim that I wanted my games to be able to work when on the go, but in all those time I've never once brought a game with me (and I stay in hotels a lot). I always do stuff on location rather than gaming. So that's not very valid anymore from a personal standpoint. It was more a resistance to the change in policy.

At home I've hardly ever experienced any problems with online games being unavailable. My ISP is solid and the game's servers (save for maintenance) have always been up to snuff too, so my resistance is waning.

Somewhere inside my soul I still think SP gamers should not have to be penalized with a system like the above, but it seems like its common practise these days.

Ubisoft does it, Blizzard does so as well. 

*shrugs*

Originally Posted By Yskonyn (21 MAR 2012 2:57am)

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (20 MAR 2012 11:42pm)

 

I bet they don't sell as many copies as they did D2 which was around 6 million.

 

Players are going to revolt on this one because you can't DICTATE to a player how he can play a game he bought and paid for in the long run. Look what happened when Starforce came out? That disappeared from the majority of mainstream games in a hurry. It will happen with forced to be online gaming as well. Once the numbers roll in and the profit margin swings in the other direction they'll change just like the others changed. Even STEAM has an OFFLINE OPTION.

 

 

That seems like an awful lot, especially in that day. Or do you mean 6 million spread over the time of release up until now?

Do you have a link to fund this?

 

FIFA 12 hit around 10 million, BF3 11 million, SWTOR 2 million. (http://www.vg247.com/2012/02/01/ea-q3-swtor-moves-2-million-units/) I find it hard to believe D2 has hit 6 million, unless you take into account there must have been sold a lot of extra (double) copies over time until now because people are loosing or breaking their disks and digital versions being easier to get.

 

Still, I think D3 will sell a LOT of copies.

 

P.S. DING! My 1000th post, I just noticed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II

As of August 29, 2001, Diablo II has sold 4 million copies worldwide.^[33] The game has received the "Computer Game of the Year", "Computer Role Playing Game of the Year", and "Game of the Year" awards from the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences at the 2001 Interactive Achievement Awards.^[33]

Copies of the Diablo: Battle Chest continue to be sold in retail stores, appearing on the NPD Group's top 10 PC games sales list as recently as 2010.^[42] Even more remarkably, the Diablo: Battle Chest was the 19th best selling PC game of 2008^[43] – a full seven years after the game's initial release – and 11 million users still play Diablo II and StarCraft over Battle.net.^[44]

and that's just up until 2010....looks like it went up from 6 million from the last time I'd checked it's sales figures.

Also that does NOT include all the download sales from online sites so the number could be astronomical by now.

Here's a site http://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_II that claims Diablo series has sold 17 million copies. Sounds reasonable considering how well the game was liked and I recall when Gamespy had their best games of all time it came in the top 10 and I'm thinking top 5 as I recall. Mario something got 1st and then one of those Link games and then Diablo 2 I believe was 3rd.

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (20 MAR 2012 11:42pm)

Originally Posted By Cyrano (20 MAR 2012 10:20am)

Here me now, believe me later:  D3 sells a HOJILLION copies.

 

SHV couldn't sustain that DRM because a) it's a niche and b) the game wasn't that good.

 

I'll play because my nephew will, but I absolutely agree with Wilhelm that D1 was truly special in its time.

 

"Stay a while and listen!"

 

Best,

 

Jim

"Cyrano"

:/7)

 

I bet they don't sell as many copies as they did D2 which was around 6 million.

 

Players are going to revolt on this one because you can't DICTATE to a player how he can play a game he bought and paid for in the long run. Look what happened when Starforce came out? That disappeared from the majority of mainstream games in a hurry. It will happen with forced to be online gaming as well. Once the numbers roll in and the profit margin swings in the other direction they'll change just like the others changed. Even STEAM has an OFFLINE OPTION.

 

They may not sell as many when you take into account lost sales due to piracy. Piracy is a hell of a lot bigger now than when Diablo2 was released.

Blizzard's actions concerning Diablo 3 will not stop piracy; may slow it but not stop it. Their actions only inconvenience the  purchaser.

Originally Posted By Fighting Farmer (21 MAR 2012 1:01pm)

 

 

They may not sell as many when you take into account lost sales due to piracy. Piracy is a hell of a lot bigger now than when Diablo2 was released.

I disagree; the time D2 got released we were doing nothing other than pirating software in high-school, copying the crap out of eachother's games.

There were no real copy protection schemes that were hard to break and Battle.net came later in some update.

With the online schemes of today I would say games are much harder to pirate than before, at least if you want full functionality.

@Wolverine; thanks for the link, though Wikipedia isn't booked as the most reliable source, though.

But I am willing to bet the mentioned 1 million sales within 2 weeks for Diablo 2 is going to be topped by D3.

Blizzard's actions concerning Diablo 3 will not stop piracy; may slow it but not stop it. Their actions only inconvenience the  purchaser.

Actually online schemes are far easier to crack than the older DRM schemes. Most Steam games are on the warez sites weeks before they are available for purchase. We saw this with most big titles like the Sims 3, skyrim, etc, In fact Diablo III beta with patch 6 has been on them for some time-and the full version will likely hit the warez sites before it hits online stores. Mimicking IP's and log in serial checks is simular to what they do with phishing. Any script kiddie can do it. My quess cheating will surface too just because all the steps they've taken looks like a "dare" to the warez community. They eat that stuff up--they thrive on it--"I'll be the first and get respect"- sort of thing.

Piracy is like shoplifting. Every retailer is going to experience it. Dispite that fact most retailers don't strip search you at the exit door-which is what some of these DRM schemes are beginning to look like. My take on it is these schemes cost them buying customers without ever preventing those that will never buy from pirating. DRM if used at all shouldn't hassel me anymore than i am when buying underwear at Walmart. If it does there's going to be blowback and after Starcraft 3 seemed like a redressed 10 year old game there's nothing Diablo III offers anyone to endure all this crap.

Starcraft 3 seemed like a redressed 10 year old game there's nothing Diablo III offers anyone to endure all this crap.

I totally agree. I was completely underwelmed by Starcraft 3, to the point that I never even finished the campaign. I won't be buying Diablo III nor am I really interested in it.

I am most likely the only person on the wargamer who is interested in Torchlight II. Torchlight is the game I currently play if I need my Diablo fix.

Originally Posted By Fighting Farmer (21 MAR 2012 1:01pm)

 

 

Blizzard's actions concerning Diablo 3 will not stop piracy; may slow it but not stop it. Their actions only inconvenience the  purchaser.

 

Actually, I would think the always online requirement would encourage more piracy.

Shows you how backwards some publisher's thinking is these days.