Diablo 3 Requires Constant Internet Connection

[Flibo]

So this was mainly a PvP issue then? I guess that's why I never noticed it, I hate the PvP part of games like D2.

Well, not really. I never played a lot of PvP to begin with. But I remember the time before everyone had insane items. I used to repeatedly kill Mephisto in order to have a small chance to get some rare items, but now there are thousands of bots running all kinds of bosses 24/7 and nothing really pays off anymore. There are also lots of bots repeatedly running Baal runs so leveling up in their games is ridiculously easy. There's no challenge to ANYTHING in Diablo II unless you play on LAN or something.

[Deathmineral]

Well, not really. I never played a lot of PvP to begin with. But I remember the time before everyone had insane items. I used to repeatedly kill Mephisto in order to have a small chance to get some rare items, but now there are thousands of bots running all kinds of bosses 24/7 and nothing really pays off anymore. There are also lots of bots repeatedly running Baal runs so leveling up in their games is ridiculously easy. There's no challenge to ANYTHING in Diablo II unless you play on LAN or something.

That sounds more like a problem in your personal playing style than the game really. I mean if you aren't fighting other players, it really shouldn't matter what items they're using, it doesn't really affect you. If you really wanted to play the game for a challenge you would play single player, that's where it's really hard to play through all the way.

[Guest_Jim_*]

Torchlight 2, FTW!

Sorry but that entered my mind the moment I started reading the thread title.

Before getting to my own opinion on this decision by Blizzard, there are two things I would like to say. First is there appear to be two specific reasons for anyone to feel one way or the other: are they against DRM or not against DRM; do they have a stable connection or do they not. That makes a total of four different different groups on can be in and I have in the, "not against DRM and stable connection" group. Second is one does not actually buy a game but a license to the game (that long text thing that we just check off and move onto the next window). That license, like every other license I can think of, has conditions on it.

As I already said (here's the opinion part, by the way) I'm not against DRM and I have a stable internet connection, so this decision does not affect me, which will bias me one way or the other. I do believe game publishers have the right to protect their property from piracy and that because it is their property it is their choice for how they protect it. I also believe games are an entertainment and luxury item, meaning it is your choice to buy them/the license. Seriously, just don't buy the thing if you don't like the DRM, just like you shouldn't buy the game if you don't like the image you have of it pre-purchase. I understand that some people have a principle against extreme DRM measures that requires them to be vocal, and some will then defend their stance as, 'defending the consumer.' What about the publisher and developer? Perhaps their defenses are too strong, but they are still defensive measures, not offensive.

My train of thought is slipping on and off the tracks right now, so I'm going to stop my opinion here. I must stress though that I am not trying to say anything about anyone here or be offensive myself. I'm just trying to share my own perspective and opinion, which I also suspect I didn't do a great job at. I would like to see an offline SP for this game, but that's not a no-sale for me. (Darkspore is another always connected game, and I do play and enjoy that. Even helped when I had power outage issues, as the server kept me in level. My character died, but I was able to pick up from there with another member of the squad.)

Okay, on 3. 1...2...3 TL:DR!

[Flibo]

That sounds more like a problem in your personal playing style than the game really. I mean if you aren't fighting other players, it really shouldn't matter what items they're using, it doesn't really affect you. If you really wanted to play the game for a challenge you would play single player, that's where it's really hard to play through all the way.

I see it like single player and multiplayer have completely different goals. Beating the game in the hardest difficulty is a piece of cake in multiplayer but not so in single player. In multiplayer there's not much else to do than get the best equipment available and perhaps do some PvP. I love the trading aspect in Diablo II and playing with other players, so single player isn't such an attractive option to me. I'm not good at putting these things into words but I played the game for years and really did everything worth doing.

[edwardquilo]

Here's an interesting defense by Blizzard on its online-only restriction.

 

PC Gamer: what about the players who just want to tune out the world?

Blizzard: I don’t think that individuals want to isolate themselves and be solitary cave people. But I definitely believe that individuals prefer to play in more isolated environments at times. That doesn’t necessarily have to compete with the goal of having things online. The capabilities that get presented when you push people into an online connected environment are so much broader.

[imm0rt41]

This is a very common DRM technique these days. They just want to validate that the game was A) purchased, and B) purchased by the account using it. If you buy your games, this won't be an issue for you.

[Deathmineral]

Torchlight 2, FTW!

Sorry but that entered my mind the moment I started reading the thread title.

Before getting to my own opinion on this decision by Blizzard, there are two things I would like to say. First is there appear to be two specific reasons for anyone to feel one way or the other: are they against DRM or not against DRM; do they have a stable connection or do they not. That makes a total of four different different groups on can be in and I have in the, "not against DRM and stable connection" group. Second is one does not actually buy a game but a license to the game (that long text thing that we just check off and move onto the next window). That license, like every other license I can think of, has conditions on it.

As I already said (here's the opinion part, by the way) I'm not against DRM and I have a stable internet connection, so this decision does not affect me, which will bias me one way or the other. I do believe game publishers have the right to protect their property from piracy and that because it is their property it is their choice for how they protect it. I also believe games are an entertainment and luxury item, meaning it is your choice to buy them/the license. Seriously, just don't buy the thing if you don't like the DRM, just like you shouldn't buy the game if you don't like the image you have of it pre-purchase. I understand that some people have a principle against extreme DRM measures that requires them to be vocal, and some will then defend their stance as, 'defending the consumer.' What about the publisher and developer? Perhaps their defenses are too strong, but they are still defensive measures, not offensive.

My train of thought is slipping on and off the tracks right now, so I'm going to stop my opinion here. I must stress though that I am not trying to say anything about anyone here or be offensive myself. I'm just trying to share my own perspective and opinion, which I also suspect I didn't do a great job at. I would like to see an offline SP for this game, but that's not a no-sale for me. (Darkspore is another always connected game, and I do play and enjoy that. Even helped when I had power outage issues, as the server kept me in level. My character died, but I was able to pick up from there with another member of the squad.)

Okay, on 3. 1...2...3 TL:DR!

First of all, I just want to say that I think you did a fine job conveying your opinion without being offensive or sounding like a know it all, something I wish I was capable of but often times probably fail to do and don't even realize it when it happens.

 

As for the DRM and how I feel about it, I would say you're probably right about the factors there even if you described them a little black and white. Personally I would probably fit into the categories, "against DRM and stable internet connection". I'm pretty much 99% against DRM, the only way I'm ever for DRM is if it can't hurt the customer, which I pretty much haven't seen any DRM method do. I don't have the best ISP ever and my connection isn't 100% perfect but it's certainly good enough for what this DRM is asking of me.

 

Something I find interesting about the EULA you're mentioning is that it doesn't work like a real contract does for the most part. When a baseball player signs on with a team, they look over the contract first and then they are allowed to make their decision, and this is basically how any normal contract works. However with games you have to make the decision first and then agree to the contract, they don't really give you any choice as far as the contract goes I guess is what I'm saying. This is something I always notice on my PS3 specifically, whenever it needs to update the OS, and when it does these updates it will ask you to agree to a contract each time, as if you have a choice in the matter right? Well you really don't have any choice, you can have the PS3 sitting there but it won't let you do anything until you've updated really, you can't play any games or watch netflix. (don't take these too seriously, I haven't actually tested what you can and can't do without updating, just giving an example) Now don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying they trap you into it or anything, we all know that there is going to be a EULA involved when we buy the game after all, it's not like a pop quiz or anything, just pointing out that these contracts in games are pretty unrealistic.

 

As for a persons stance on it, I don't think you can actually say the companies aren't getting offensive if a consumer feels they must be defensive. I'm guessing what you mean is that it's intended as a defensive measure by the companies but it's the outcome that matters, not the intentions, and the outcome here is that people feel DRM is a threat.

 

I do agree with you about the player having a choice however, personally I take advantage of that and do what I think is right and refuse to buy certain games. However I believe it's difficult for people to just stand by and watch others purchase the game, and I think that's why people feel the need to voice their opinions on DRM or any other matter, simply because one person can't effective in this kind of situation.

[WhenKittensATK]

I don't know how many of you know, but there's a trading forum called d2jsp.org where you can trade items for forum gold (fg) and vice versa. You can also buy forum gold by donating to the site

I use D2JSP, you seem to run into less scammers and you can get a trade mediator to help on those really important trades. I think at one point I had near 1500 FG, but now I'm at 741 FG all through regular trading items and services for FG. Blizzard sort of filled that gap with the new Auction House feature, however you could easily trade in between many different games with D2JSP FG. Saves players a lot of time of going into trade channels or trade rooms.

 

Even as useful as that site is, no one will trade for my perm Armageddon Fletch amulet

 

How did duplicating and trading items ruin the fun?

Some duped items would disappear after you've traded them. So to the unaware recipient, he would get screwed after he logged out of a server a few times. Also lets people copy the best of the best and just stack it on all their characters. People would get large amounts of duped Stone of Jordan rings farm Uber Diablo to get one of the rare and popular items Annihilus Stone charm.

 

So this was mainly a PvP issue then? I guess that's why I never noticed it, I hate the PvP part of games like D2.

Only effected PVP, unless you were racing to a boss against another player who didn't join your group and he kills them first.

 

I see it like single player and multiplayer have completely different goals. Beating the game in the hardest difficulty is a piece of cake in multiplayer but not so in single player. In multiplayer there's not much else to do than get the best equipment available and perhaps do some PvP. I love the trading aspect in Diablo II and playing with other players, so single player isn't such an attractive option to me. I'm not good at putting these things into words but I played the game for years and really did everything worth doing.

Diablo 2 really doesn't give much for players to do once you've finished. There was only trading, doing boss/rush/etc runs, leveling to 99, and PvP.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Krazyxazn

[nickk47]

Yeah, after you've completed all the quests whether someone rushed u or not, theres really not much to do, so I always played the game based around PvP.

 

Trading in-game was a pain, but never used JSP because Ive seen my cousin dealing in and around it, and it's really just a bunch of scammers and little immature kids. Honestly, the game was the best when I didnt know about all the godly items and I just played with my friends, and we were like level 30 and just got our first stat on the lvl30 skill, haha.

[ClayMeow]

I never bothered with PvP. After completing the game, I'd just do MF boss runs, cow runs, or blood runs, either alone or with random people.

 

Item hacks/dupes still affect players even if they don't engage in PvP unless they never play or trade with others at all.

 

As I stated before, in D3 it will be even more important to squash that because of the auction house. Even if you don't think you'll ever play with others, if you wind up getting an amazing item that is of no use on your character, I'd find it hard to believe that even "single player" people wouldn't consider putting it up on the AH instead of muling it.

[Fogel]

I can think of one of group of people legimately affected by this - deployed military. Some are fortunate enough to where they can update enough to keep their SC2 account active but no way can most of them deal with an constant online dependancy ...especially with the connection speeds they usually have.

 

I can't pretend I can solve the issues that D2 had, but something tells me even if D3 didn't solve those issues and just improved upon the gameplay/grahics then it would still be an immensely popular game.

 

 

Maybe because I wasn't caught up in the whole MP aspect as some were, but I have a hard time justifying giving up freedom all purely for the sake of trading items. I still don't agree with SC2's model despite how much I praise the game, but that system is far better than D3's always online and no official/unofficial modding allowed.

[tkrow21]

Another reason (besides bugs/glitches and price) to wait awhile to get D3.

 

I will guarantee that within a few months of release there will be a hack that seamlessly integrates integrates into the game.

 

Don't get me wrong, they mean well with this, they just don't understand how many people they're going to alienate.

 

Actually, a lot of people said this for Starcraft II, but it never happened.