Diablo 3 Requires Constant Internet Connection

[ClayMeow]

I was wondering about something, does Blizzard still delete inactive characters in D3 like they did in D2? That's probably my biggest concern about the game going always online, you really lose that security of always having your characters if they still delete them the way they did in D2. I'm just curious though, I don't keep up with the news as well as others so I don't know if that subject has been covered or not.

I don't think they've said what their policy will be. However, I believe in WoW, you can leave for three years (not paying your sub) and then come back and all your characters will still be there. Everything you unlock in SC2 doesn't go away either, AFAIK.

 

 

"Herp derp screw you, yes we're doing it, we don't care that no one likes it, plus it's not even for piracy *shady look* but for character continuity herp derp.

Don't know why you thought differently or why it deserves a facepalm. It's exactly what I stated all along - that although piracy probably entered the equation as an added bonus, it was mainly the hack/dupe protection that caused them to take this route. It's really not that hard to fathom.

 

And they would totally care if "no one" liked it, but that's not the case. Just because a lot of people are complaining, you've been on the Internet long enough to know that the complainers are always the loudest. If Blizzard thought for a second they'd be losing significant money for this decision, they wouldn't do it. The key word there is "significant". In the grand scheme of things, 2500 rainbow haters are small fries compared to the hundreds of thousands that will buy it.

[Deathmineral]

I don't think they've said what their policy will be. However, I believe in WoW, you can leave for three years (not paying your sub) and then come back and all your characters will still be there. Everything you unlock in SC2 doesn't go away either, AFAIK.

 

 

 

Don't know why you thought differently or why it deserves a facepalm. It's exactly what I stated all along - that although piracy probably entered the equation as an added bonus, it was mainly the hack/dupe protection that caused them to take this route. It's really not that hard to fathom.

 

And they would totally care if "no one" liked it, but that's not the case. Just because a lot of people are complaining, you've been on the Internet long enough to know that the complainers are always the loudest. If Blizzard thought for a second they'd be losing significant money for this decision, they wouldn't do it. The key word there is "significant". In the grand scheme of things, 2500 rainbow haters are small fries compared to the hundreds of thousands that will buy it.

Well if it's something like 3 years then that sounds perfectly fine really. I sure hope it's longer than whatever D2 had, which I think was every 90 days you had to log in but I'm not sure, it's been a really long time since I played it online.

 

We know you've been saying the same thing all along but when a big company says stuff like that, it's pretty hard to take it seriously and think they're doing it for the good of the people. It's like Rupert Murdoch saying he didn't do it, it's not believable.

 

Also, I think that was kind of Andrew's meaning, it's not like he's saying they don't like money, just that they don't like their customers or fanbase, which seems true enough from their actions and your explaining of it.

[ClayMeow]

Well if it's something like 3 years then that sounds perfectly fine really. I sure hope it's longer than whatever D2 had, which I think was every 90 days you had to log in but I'm not sure, it's been a really long time since I played it online.

 

We know you've been saying the same thing all along but when a big company says stuff like that, it's pretty hard to take it seriously and think they're doing it for the good of the people. It's like Rupert Murdoch saying he didn't do it, it's not believable.

 

Also, I think that was kind of Andrew's meaning, it's not like he's saying they don't like money, just that they don't like their customers or fanbase, which seems true enough from their actions and your explaining of it.

 

I guess you never heard the expression, "You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time." What you're asking for is the latter and that is impossible.

 

Again, those that don't buy the game because of the Always-Connected "attribute" is far less than those that will buy the game regardless. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the number of people that support any anti-hacking/duping measures would even be greater than the non-buyers, especially since the majority would play online anyway.

 

It's very naive to claim a company doesn't like their customers or fanbase just because a decision doesn't sit well with a few people.

[Deathmineral]

I guess you never heard the expression, "You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time." What you're asking for is the latter and that is impossible.

 

Again, those that don't buy the game because of the Always-Connected "attribute" is far less than those that will buy the game regardless. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the number of people that support any anti-hacking/duping measures would even be greater than the non-buyers, especially since the majority would play online anyway.

 

It's very naive to claim a company doesn't like their customers or fanbase just because a decision doesn't sit well with a few people.

I've heard the expression, and it's true, but that doesn't mean you can't try to please all the people all the time. It's not impossible, just isn't easy. The thing is that their goal is making money, not pleasing people.

 

If you want an example of what I mean, and sure this won't please all of the people still but I think it would be an improvement. They could allow modding, under the condition that it has to be whitelisted. Similar to the way Killing Floor does it, they have their own maps, then they have community made maps that the release officially into the game, then they have maps that they whitelist to allow for the leveling of the player to work. For example I think there is a community made map that is based on one of the levels in one of the DOOM games and your leveling and experience works as it normally would with an official map.

 

I think they could try something like that to please the people that want to mod the game. Would it please me personally? No, but I honestly don't ask that of them anyway, I won't be buying Diablo 3 no matter what really, that's why I'm not on their forums complaining, and rather just discuss these things with friends.

 

You might be right, maybe I'm being naive, but when I see a company give excuses for why they're doing this or that, I just have trouble believing them. I prefer a company to say something like "hey, we're doing the best we can, we'll see if we can't come up with a way to make everyone happy" or say "well if you don't like it, don't buy it". To me statements like those feel a lot more honest than the kind of thing Blizzard said in that article.

[ClayMeow]

The are saying that in a way though. Maybe reading the full source article will help clarify things, as that joystiq one is piss-poor and taken out of context:

 

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2011/08/04/blizzard-vp-surprised-over-fan-reaction-to-diablo-3-online-requirements/

 

As for the modding, I think I mentioned it earlier, or maybe in another thread, but I think that eventually you will see it done in that manner, similar to maps/mods in SC2, but with a few more restrictions (like passing a review board).

[Andrewr05]

Regardless it's just (in my opinion) a dick move to restrict single player use.

 

Even if it is only once a month.

[Deathmineral]

Regardless it's just (in my opinion) a dick move to restrict single player use.

 

Even if it is only once a month.

That was something I was wondering about, as I was reading through that MTV article I noticed they tried to explain the doing away with single player but I couldn't quite wrap my head around it. I just don't understand how a single player piece of the game would hurt the online piece if you can't use your single player characters on the multiplayer portion.

[Waco]

That was something I was wondering about, as I was reading through that MTV article I noticed they tried to explain the doing away with single player but I couldn't quite wrap my head around it. I just don't understand how a single player piece of the game would hurt the online piece if you can't use your single player characters on the multiplayer portion.

This. So very much this.

[nickk47]

Regardless, I will still buy it. I just hope gold ($) is worth something in-game, unlike d2.

[WhenKittensATK]

Regardless, I will still buy it. I just hope gold ($) is worth something in-game, unlike d2.

It has to be with all the new stuff like crafting and auction house. Chances are we are going to have to pay a lot more for small things. IE. Respec costs, Repair, Crafting material, and etc.

[MandoPatriot]

Regardless, I will still buy it. I just hope gold ($) is worth something in-game, unlike d2.

 

Haha good point. I have billions of gold on my chars and all I do is repair and buy scrolls. Joy.

[greengiant912]

The key word there is "significant". In the grand scheme of things, 2500 rainbow haters are small fries compared to the hundreds of thousands that will buy it.

 

 

I was at blizzcon the year they released the rainbow trailer, I thought it was no big deal personally...

 

 

Regardless it's just (in my opinion) a dick move to restrict single player use.

 

Even if it is only once a month.

 

 

Or it is a genius move to encourage more online play... I personally think the later...

Edited August 6, 2011 by greengiant912