Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
arrowPress Releases
April 23, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM TechWeb sites:


Blizzard VP 'Surprised' Over Response To  Diablo III  Online Requirement
Blizzard VP 'Surprised' Over Response To Diablo III Online Requirement
August 5, 2011 | By Kyle Orland

August 5, 2011 | By Kyle Orland
Comments
    130 comments
More: Console/PC, Business/Marketing



A Blizzard vice president says he's "actually kind of surprised" over the negative reaction many players had to this week's revelation that Diablo III would require a persistent online connection for its single-player mode.

While critics see Blizzard's decision as a draconian DRM scheme along the lines of those recently implemented by Ubisoft, Blizzard VP of online technologies Robert Bridenbecker told MTV Multiplayer the requirement actually stemmed from a desire to maintain "the sanctity of the actual game systems."

"You're guaranteeing that there are no hacks, no dupes," Bridenbacker said of the system, which guarantees single-player Diablo III characters wouldn't be unduly overpowered if and when players brought them online.

"What are we going to have to do about those players that are in the offline environment coming into the online environment?" he asked by way of hypothetical. "We said we don't want to look at that... let's just keep everything clean."

"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 added.

Bridenbecker went on to clarify that a persistent online connection would not prevent players from playing by themselves. "Your character will be stored on a server, but it doesn't mean you have to socialize with people," he said.


Related Jobs

Turbine Inc.
Turbine Inc. — Needham, Massachusetts, United States
[04.23.14]

Director, Analytics Platform Development
Linden Lab
Linden Lab — San Francisco, California, United States
[04.23.14]

Sr. Front-end Web Developer
Linden Lab
Linden Lab — San Francisco, California, United States
[04.23.14]

Sr. Software Engineer, Back-end
Linden Lab
Linden Lab — San Francisco, California, United States
[04.23.14]

Lead Engineer










Comments


Cordero W
profile image
...



I don't even know what to say to this.

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
+100



Still trying to pull a wool over our eyes.



Basic Qn ... what does it offer gamers in return for the inconvenience? Taking into account the lack of LAN, tedious log in to Bnet just for a quick single player session, subjecting yourself to the lag and latency issues over the net and home network etc ... I would say, very little.



So, I am not buying this game. It is ES5:Skyrim, ME3, Deus Ex : HR for me. And perhaps torchlight 2 if it proves to be good.

Mathias Backstrom
profile image
Blizzard is really jumping off a slippery slope...

Greg Wilcox
profile image
As I noted elsewhere, anyone who's living in areas with ZERO broadband service, spotty bb that's subject to nature's whims or hell, is too broke to get a high speed connection is out of luck in terms of playing DIII. Why Blizzard didn't take into account that MANY types of players enjoy their games is beyond me. Sorry, but ignoring that segment of the market is only a way to not make money from those who might want to play your games but can't be online (or hell, don't want to be online) persistently.



Good luck with the game, though... it'll sell like water in the desert, no doubt.

Nick Kinsman
profile image
Really? After no LAN in SC2 can we be so shocked at their ignoring large sectors of the player-base?

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
Couldn't agree more. They and acti is emulating Apple's motto : Do it my way or no way!



I will go for the games that allow me to play it the way I want it, when I want it and with the people I want to play with.



While this issue is not going to affect me as I am able to get a reliable wireless connection, it pisses me off and with other of their design decision, is putting me off ALL blizzard games forever. For Startcraft II I only spent $3 for a one week pass and finish the single player campaign as a token geature. I won't even bother with this for Diablo3.

Matthew Fairchild
profile image
well as long as we still hear some kind of uproar when something like this is introduced and we don't just accept it because ' well we thought they'd do that ' there's still hope this kind of practice doesn't take over more and more games .... maybe -.-

Mathias Backstrom
profile image
Agreed

Bart Stewart
profile image
Why is Blizzard insisting on assuming that many players -- especially those who prefer a single-player experience -- will want to "[come] into the online environment"? Why do they keep believing that a meaningful majority of players perceive the same value in Battle.net that Blizzard's executives apparently see?



This reminds me of the same level of obtuseness demonstrated by Blizzard suits when they proposed the "Real ID" system for their Battle.net environment. (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/31094/Canessa_Blizzard_Trying_
To_Wrap_Its_Head_Around_Anonymity_Issues.php) I actually supported that idea, but Blizzard showed an incredible lack of awareness of how the user community could be counted on to react.



The folks running Blizzard may all be great people, but I'm starting to think they're collectively suffering from a severe case of Reality Distortion Field, where layers of people telling them only what they want to hear insulates them from how the universe actually functions....

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
I wonder if WoW has something to do with their perception of reality.

Martain Chandler
profile image
Yes, they are making D3 for WoW fans, not D1, D2 fans.

Thierry Tremblay
profile image
I love Diablo. I really do. But I am "actually kind of surprised" that Blizzard think I want to play it online and care about cheaters / dupes. I just want to fire it up whenever I have a few minutes and play it, not deal with internet access, latency, imposed patches/downloads, server downtimes and other peoples.

Jen Bauer
profile image
+1! This is precisely how I feel about single player games, and why I play them more often than their online counterparts.

E Zachary Knight
profile image
"Bridenbecker went on to clarify that a persistent online connection would not prevent players from playing by themselves. "Your character will be stored on a server, but it doesn't mean you have to socialize with people," he said. "



Playing by yourself is not the source of the complaint. It is the potential of not being able to play due to issues outside the player's control.



ISP loses your connection

Battle.Net servers go offline

Playing on a plane or train etc

Hitting a monthly data cap

Network hardware dying

Living in rural parts of the world



I think there are plenty of other reasons why a persistent connection is bad, but this list is plenty. In each of these instances, the person who paid money to play the game, would not be able to do so, which are outside their control.

Franck C
profile image
those are valids reasons, but now you are forewarned so you can make your purchase of the game base on which factors apply to you.

On Blizzard side of the fence they have been running this little game called Wow for a few years now ( and sold it to many more time the numbers of customers to which they ever sold D2, and more casual people at that) which has clearly demonstrated that needing a stable constant internet connection to play a game isn't really that big of an issue for many people..........

E Zachary Knight
profile image
It isn't a big deal for people who want to play a game in a persistent multiplayer environment. Everyone else is screwed. I very rarely play games in multiplayer and those that I do play multiplayer it is local multiplayer.



So Yes, I have been informed and will not be buying Diablo 3.

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
And a quick look at the forum will show you that many people are not enamoured with WOW. They have also been losing subcribers, so how long can it last? I wonder.

Dan the gaming Guy
profile image
I love what they are doing. As a religious hardcore mode player, after you have had multiple lvl 70+ hardcore characters killed by hacks, any security is welcomed.



I too am surprised by the critics of this decision, Xbox Arcade, Steam and Onlive don't receive criticism for being online only and the whole industry is going in this direction. Why all the Blizzard hatred?

Daniel Boy
profile image
Steam has an Offline Mode.

Dan the gaming Guy
profile image
My mistake, I have never used that feature and don't see why I would need to. If you have internet, why would you ever want to disable it?



Even in the event it was down or I was traveling one weekend, would it really be that hard to just not play the game for those few days of the year...



I still don't understand the inconvenience here other than principle. Is this a complaint for people who use laptops or Australians who have to pay for data usage?

Travis Terlinden
profile image
It's an inconvenience for anyone who doesn't have a 100% reliable connection or who doesn't have a connection at all. Spotty satellite connections, flaky ISPs, faulty network hardware (see list in previous post) can render a persistent connection a PITA for a single player experience. It's one thing to expect bad times in multiplayer game when your connection sucks, but why should you have to worry about it for single player?

Dan the gaming Guy
profile image
Perhaps Blizzard is not positioning this product appropriately in that people still perceive it as a single player experience. Clearly they are taking the game in a multiplayer direction with many similarities to WoW (love it or hate it).



Sure people will still complain, but if its branded as a multiplayer game then this game is clearly not suited for the single player audience and they can stop complaining and move on. WoW was always positioned as a multiplayer game and I don't recall people complaining that the title was Online only or lacked single player and WoW arguably is one of the best and most profitable games of all time (but not for everyone).

mark cameron
profile image
Steam is something to concider. Id rather buy the software there anyway. :P

Christian Belmont
profile image
Because it causes complications. Many of the cons of being connected detailed in a previous post are valid (i.e. post just prior to yours) are very, very valid - even from a principles perspective regardless of the quality of the internet connection. Suddenly you cannot play if - for whatever reason - you are suddenly sans internet? Rubbish.



That aside - I love gaming although I never got into Diablo (I did try it out), so I am kind of agnostic on the game itself. But the question I have is: If you want to play single-player, what possible reason could you have for being connected (from a gamer perspective)? What hacks could you suffer and consequent security would you need for the single player experience? The fact that the industry is heading in a particular direction is not a good reason for this feature. It isn't even a good argument.



I believe it was Rob Pardo himself in a recent interview who said (and I paraphrase) that you should play another game if you found yourself without internet..... I found this comment astounding. But what you really have to ask yourself is why.



I can only conclude DRM. Even StarCraft2 was hackable and pirated by the fact that it did offer single-player offline - you couldn't play multiplayer, but the campaign was open to a pirate. My guess is that this is the answer Diablo3 has to that - gaming in the cloud. The whole single-player being overpowered schpiel is just an excuse



If you don't understand the inconvenience, then I guess you are not realizing that the industry has taken a turn for the worse. I buy games to play at my convenience, not at the publishers. I don't hate Blizzard at all. My enourmous respect for them flows from their history. However, I question their latest products and the strategies under which they are marketed. And their public responses show a total disconnect with what I expect as a gamer.

David Paris
profile image
That perception is based on the last two Diablo titles that caused the current interest in Diablo III. This is a successful franchise with an existing style of gameplay. Blizzard hasn't been positioning Diablo III as something new and different, rather as the latest iteration of the game people already enjoy. Telling them they can only play it if they change their approach (multiplayer online vs single player offline), leads to a lot of discontent.

Franck C
profile image
I can understand not liking the feature but seriously , if you have issues with internet connection you have more serious problems than being able to play D3..

My TV is constantly connected to the internet, my cellphone is, my books are ( kindle) so I am not going to bitch about my PC not being able to do the same....

Daniel Boy
profile image
@ Danny:

What is the inconvenience of Blizzard to put single player back in?

I'm not sure that more hacks will be the first answer, but they sell it that way. I think, it's a design/DRM decision.





full disclosure:

I own Assassin's Creed 2 on the PC. Never had any problems.

Dan the gaming Guy
profile image
DRM is a very legitimate reason from a business stand point, I agree with this point.



Regarding:

"What is the inconvenience of Blizzard to put single player back in?"



Well, development and testing costs for developing a single and multiplayer product for one. For a product of this scope it would be far easier to focus on one mode and do it well rather than build two completely different systems, each with unique feature sets and accommodating different types of use for the same game is no small feat.



They must have done the math and said we would rather risk losing 10% of users who have internet instability and build a better experience for the other 90% who will likely enjoy the experience more. I can testify that Diablo is much more fun in a party than solo (not saying that playing alone is not fun).

Nick Kinsman
profile image
Live and PSN also have offline modes. The original point of "Why Blizzard hate?" is ... not that good.



However, I know what your first point is your main one, and I don't disagree with it. The problem is that you, as a hardcore player, represent a great minority among the player-base. And you it's also foolhardy to try and sell people on logic and reason. Wants far outweigh needs these days. Or rather it is fair to say many people get the two confused regularly. They NEED to always be able to play game X, apparently.

Martain Chandler
profile image
"Xbox Arcade, Steam and Onlive don't receive criticism for being online only and the whole industry is going in this direction." I have, they have, we have. I think it's inevitable and unstoppable but I'll still fight it.

Dan the gaming Guy
profile image
I like your point about wants outweighing needs. True that.



Also, for good or bad, majority of people resist change instead of embrace it.



At the end of the day, as long as they release a good product, the complaining will stop and people we get back to slaying demons. If they made it single player only the complaints would be even greater. Data shows its making less and less sense to make games both single and multiplayer as people usually prefer one over the other and trying to do both in this market drives up development costs and usually impacts overall product quality (even though marketing would disagree with this point).

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
I beg your pardon? Which of the other games FORCES you to be online ALL the time just to play the game?

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
1) latency and lag

2) any unstability in the net work is going to affect your play, unlike in offline mode

3) when you travel, or go out and have to access public wireless network don't even mention that latency and unreliability

4) time lag and performance issue just to have the data routed through the internet to the server to authenticate and THEN back to your comp.

5) add to the internet traffic, which is critical for those on limited broadband plan that charges by the volume of data used.

and other issues .. too lazy to list.



And what do we get in return? A false sense of security, while the Auction House itself is already opening the floodgate to an uneven playing field for those who are richer than the rest.



And nothing else.

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
mm is this the same Dan Amrich in facebook? If not then my apologies.



Anyway, I don't see the difficulty in having an offline mode for players who do not want to play online. There is not that much to code just for this with OO programming. Heck, almost all games from TA have it, it is not as if they are being asked to redesign the whole game world.



And to shot the red herring dangling here over the barrel ... there aren't TWO different systems to build. Basically the core game remains the same, mechanics are similar and all the basic program routine can be called for both multiplayer and single player. The only thing is whether if you need to route it through to BNet isn't it?



So just create a game profile and make sure that this game profile do not have the authority to go online in the BNet and that will make many many people happy.



And no ... I do NOT want to play Diablo online with all those people. Nor am I interested in. The only time I might be interested in playing coop is with my friends who know me. That means that I would do it over the LAN system instead of BNet system.

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
and which data from which research are you talking about? Wow .. that means that the sales of ME1 & 2 must be a fluke of nature?

Trevor Howden
profile image
I read in an interview somewhere that Blizzard thought about giving the player the option of creating an offline single player character but decided against it.



Imo by creating this anti cheat system (stealth DRM) and marrying it with the auction house is just setting themselves up for a fall. They've just made themselves a nice juicy target for hackers

Michael Wade
profile image
I hate to break it to you, but XBLA doesn't require you to be logged on to play single player, nor does Steam (you can play in offline mode). This is a horrible implementation for preventing cheating, If they wanted to do that they should have kept the single/multiplayer components separate. Instead, they are (in their ignorance) giving the finger to many Diablo series fans. As Ephriam Knight posted, there are a number of reasons not to force players to be online to play a single player component, but the biggest one is that some people don't have access to a "persistent" connection.

Eduard Ruzga
profile image
Honestly, after my StarCraft2 experience I lost trust in Blizzards ability to provide good enough service to justify their "cloud" approach to games.

I am big fan of their WarCraft and Diablo franchises and Starcraft is a very good game too.

Sadly for me buying and trying to play was a horrible 3 months experience of continues problems with BattleNet services, mostly on maps downloading side. 3 weeks in email correspondence with generic "robot" like answers from support that do not help a tall. Months of no official answers to hundreds of people with similar problems in forums, and very bad and uninformative design of how game works with such problems... I gathered so much hate, suffering and frustration from this that I can't still bring myself to try install it again.

Sadly after open not attached to Blizzard with ability to play in lan WC3 SC2 was such a fall in to an abyss...



Here actually http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/search?q=maps&f=post&forum=11815 thousands of topics of maps download problems.

And no official answers that help.



So I do not have trust in new internet age Blizzard ability to handle all the "instability" of internet and provide a good service anymore. Will try D3 beta but am not buying it, may be someone will hack and pirate it to provide true single player local experience. The experience Blizzard provided with SC2 was not worth it to me.



So here it is, that's your BattleNet online experience from home with pretty good broadband connection from eastern Europe.

Travis Terlinden
profile image
I'm guessing this VP doesn't exactly understand the issue here. No one's looking for a guarantee that they can play by themselves, they just don't want to have to be completely reliant on their internet connection to play a single player game. They didn't like it when Ubisoft did it and they won't like when Blizzard does it.



@Danny: Steam can be used in offline mode. Granted you have to log in first to set it up to use offline mode, but it's better than nothing.

Shane G
profile image
This is 2011, how many people play Call of Duty offline?



As a huge Diablo fan, I have seen what duping and hacks have done to the previous games, and I welcome this FEATURE.

Daniel Boy
profile image
30%+? More than used Doom 1's or Dead Space 2's MP I would think.



But I'm not sure that you did understand Bridenbacker: This system would have only prevented any dupes or hacks if there had been a way to use a sp character in mp and vice versa (think D2's open realms). This system will do nothing for mp-only characters. Segregating sp and mp characters (or only allowing switches from mp to sp) would have done the same. But that is not a "clean" way. Maybe this will sharpen the menu aesthetics, or avoid customer confusion and angry posts from beginners, or it's is all about piracy. I don't care. But please don't sell it to me as a feature. This is not a feature, they are just cutting away sp and open realms. And then Blizzard is shameless enough to hide their motives. It's their game, they can design it any way they like. But I don't like that rhetoric style one bit.

Trevor Howden
profile image
Removing free features & content, changing it slightly and pretending to their customers that they are getting a good deal is becoming all too common lately.



Normally everyone falls for it hook line and sinker but maybe ppl are starting to wise up to it.

Wylie Garvin
profile image
If their claimed reasons were true (preventing hacking of off-line characters who then go on-line), there is an easy way out for Blizzard.



They could just let players create either off-line or on-line characters, and let the off-line ones play in single-player and LAN games only. Their refusal to do this suggests that the decision was really made for DRM reasons (to reduce piracy etc).



I have no interest in playing Diablo 3 online. If it requires a persistent net connection even while playing in single-player mode, that equals "no sale" for me. I haven't played Starcraft 2 either, for the same reasons (no LAN mode? puleeease.)

Daniel Boy
profile image
As I mentioned above: Bridenbacker talks about exactly this. He feels that the D3 way is "clean". Maybe there are piracy concerns involved but the longer I think about it the more i feel that is was a design decision in pursuit of the purity of uniformity.

But you're right: Bridenbacker is just using the disastrous hacks situation in Diablo 2 to sell this decision.

Dan the gaming Guy
profile image
Daniel Boy, I'm in agreement with your theory.

Randy Napier
profile image
That's pretty much exactly what they did for Diablo 2 and it worked fine. You could play offline or you could play your battle.net character. Offline characters could only be played in single player or "unsecure" LAN games, and battle.net characters could be played online. All you had to do to play your battle.net character solo was create a new room, password protect it, and you can play online by yourself.



As you point out, the only reason to move away from this system is as DRM to reduce piracy.

Daniel Boy
profile image
I don't point out that DRM is the only reason. On the contrary: I think that they implemented it for design reasons. This is the "clean" way to do it.

Wylie Garvin
profile image
Blizzard is free to make their design as "clean" as they want, and customers are free to not buy the result.



I vote with my wallet--I buy dozens of games a year. But I won't buy this one unless I can play single-player campaign off-line.

Dan the gaming Guy
profile image
Have fun not playing it lol.

Adam Rudd
profile image
I would like to point out that for a lot of people "not buying it" can and will translate to "torrenting and installing the offline crack because I don't think Blizzard deserve money". This is simply alienating a potential market who want to pay; it's not going to stop people playing it

Kailas Dierk
profile image
This was the first idea that popped into my head when I read the article. I assume that at some stage of the development of Diablo 3, someone might have suggested this too. I can only hope that their reason for not implementing it is a damn good one.



One other point I'd like to make is that they won't be stopping people from playing the game offline. They will only be stopping the people that legitimately paid for the game from playing offline. In other words, they're giving people a reason to pirate rather than preventing it. This video explains my point a little better:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Pi
racy

On a side note, I rather like the quote from 2:30 in.

Andrew Collier
profile image
> Have fun not playing it lol.



I will: I'll be playing Torchlight 2.

It's not like Blizzard operate in a vacuum, whatever they might like to think.

Claes Engdal
profile image
There are two sides of this coin. You could say that Blizzard is turning their backs on part of their player base, and you would be right. You could also say that Blizzard is choosing to focus on serving the other part of their player base better and this would also be right. This comes down to being a design decision and Blizzard have decided to take Diablo further in the direction of a purely online game. Seeing as cheats and hacks was a major stain on the Diablo2 online experience this will probably end up making the game a whole lot better for the ones who prefer to play online.



If I'm gonna analyze Blizzard based on the games that they have made I would say that they love making long lived games with equally long lived player communities tied to them. They don't aim for the "sequel every year" and get 10 million first week sales. They rather stagnate to a continuous flow of sales over a period of 10 years. And lets face it, it's the multiplayer parts of games like Diablo 2 and Starcraft that have survived the ages. Sure you could play these games in single player and you might even replay them 5 years later, but it's the multiplayer that brings the truly dedicated players. If these games where single player only they might have been good, but would anyone talk about them 10 years later?



To me this move is completely in line with what Blizzard "is" and has always tried to be. Sure, if you are on the losing end of this trade they may seem "evil" or "corporate" to you. But it's every game developers right to aim for making the kind of games that they really want to make. And if you make infinite amounts of money you can actually go ahead and do exactly the game you want to make. I support that.

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
The funny thing is, in the earlier day of development they said that they are not going to make Diablo III into another Starcraft ... i.e. not a pro-gamer centric game. But the more they develop it, the more it seems that they are catering ONLY to the crowd who actually bothered about their BNet Ranking on the League Table. ...



For for players like me who like a basic Hack and slash RPG ... I will have to look for other pasture to graze .. at least that is the message. If that is so, then I will definitely phycho my other friends and we will all go for other games such as Torchlight 2, ME3, Skyrim, Deus Ex and perhaps even reboot some of our older goldies.



Conclusion .. not worth my money and effort, it seems.

Robert Boyd
profile image
The ideal solution would be to separate the offline and online modes. If you think that playing online might ever matter to you, then you need to play in the persistent online mode. If you don't care about online and just want a single player game, then play in the offline mode.

steve roger
profile image
Robert Bridenbecker told MTV Multiplayer the requirement actually stemmed from a desire to maintain "the sanctity of the actual game systems."



Blizzard sounds like they don't want to reconsider any of their plans to force all players into their draconian plan to combat piracy by maintaining an intrusive electronic tether between all players and the all knowing corporate eye in the sky.



And the real reason these executives want to be constantly attached to players--combatting piracy is merely a derivative benefit of their real agenda---to be able to utilize any and every bit of personal information about players that maximizes monetary charges and sales.

Christian Belmont
profile image
Wholeheartedly agree. In a previous response I suggested that the real reason for this is DRM to control piracy which wasn't combated in SC2 for single player. But a great by-product of this is to receive constant marketing information as to what gamers are doing in their game, which will feed their future commercial successes.

Todd Boyd
profile image
This just in: A Blizzard VP is EFFING STUPID. Seriously, he's surprised? I think he completely missed the boat.

Harry Fields
profile image
Get out the tinfoil hats everybody!

Jose Talbott
profile image
Vocal minority, ya'll talk loud but carry a VERY little stick, it's not 1998 by and large internet connections are pretty stable, if your internet is really that crappy I think playing Diablo is the least of your concerns. Vocal and extremely annoying minority please stop your persistent bitching this is the nature of the industry now either jump on board or get left behind or just play Diablo II and talk about the good old days.



And two all those people who say their not gonna buy the game most of you are BS and the very few who don't well your not going to effect the bottom line anyways but yeah keep complaining it's really helping your cause.

E Zachary Knight
profile image
I don't know. I am perfectly happy playing my awesome DRM free games that I have purchased from the Humble Bundle and Gog.com. I really don't need a DRM scheme disguised as a game.

Martain Chandler
profile image
You obviously live in the city. Rural America's connectivity is crap.



And thank you very much we know we are little stick, that's part of why it's so frustrating.



EK is right. Indies end up profiting by this kind of corporate blindness. Good for them.

Greg Wilcox
profile image
+10 Martin



and JT, your city folk/country folk argument is a bit insulting. You think people is shitty service areas WANT that? Thanks a lot for understanding... Maybe if you get hit with a long service outage and can't do all that stuff you like, you'll see the point.

Josh ua
profile image
Anyone with basic knowledge of the PC games landscape knows that there are tons of alternative companies to give your money to. Not buying an Activision game is actually quite easy.



I live outside the city and my dsl is terrible. It is the only option besides satellite. I don't mind losing connection in League of Legends because I can reconnect to the game easily. With a game like Diablo, losing any sort of single player progress due to internet is a ridiculous concept that I won't tolerate.

Brian Bartram
profile image
How about, instead of dictating the terms, you give players options and let them choose what's right for them?



Of course, after their reaction to the RealID debacle nothing they say surprises me anymore. But honestly, Blizzard, I expect more from you. Guess Kotick's mentality is rubbing off on them more than they'd like to admit.

Michiel Hendriks
profile image
As mentioned on an other forum, give people a choice when they start a game:

1) pure offline character

You can never ever bring that character online, so it's just offline SP stuff

2) online character

Requires you to be online, but gives you the privilege to use the character in an online game.



Seriously, it's not that difficult, and everybody will be happy. Blizzard will only miss collecting data from a small segment of the gamers. But they shouldn't still gather enough info to sell to advertisement companies.

Craig Dolphin
profile image
You, sir, are simply far too intelligent to be involved in the game publishing industry. :)

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
Hahahaha ... good one.

Jen Bauer
profile image
Common sense FTW!

Trevor Hallihan
profile image
You're my hero

Simon T
profile image
What, and actually fulfill the wishes of their user base!?

Jason Schwenn
profile image
Once again I don't understand why the RMT AH isn't seen as the root problem.



You do not have offline play with a sanctioned RMT AH.



At least complain about the proper issue..

Harold Myles
profile image
I agree for the most part. However, it is debatable if RMT support is bad at all.



First recognize the fact: If you have trading then there will be RMT, sanctioned or not.



Since Diablo would lose alot of its appeal if the was no trading, then its seems best to legitimize the RMT.



What I found odd is they disallowed RMT for hardcore AH. Its still going to happen.

Claes Engdal
profile image
It would be too risky for Blizzard. I can easily see people sue, claiming to not have been properly informed, after permanently losing items they had paid real money for.

Harold Myles
profile image
This seems like a good idea.

Franck C
profile image
Not really sure I agree with the majority of the complains.

The thing is I played all my D2 single player on closed battlenet due to battlenet providing more rich content ( better loot, rune words, uber diablo,...)that offline single player so personally I won't even notice the difference...

Craig Dolphin
profile image
Look, if the rationale for this is to protect the MP experience then fine: require constant internet connection and up-to-date patches for MP games. But do not infliuct this crap on the SP gamer who has no interest in MP whatsoever.



I bought SC2, and have a satellite internet connection that is capped (I'm nin the USA and it's not just the australians/new zealanders that have no choice but to deal with caps!!!), slow, and very high latency. I no longer play it because I dread the F-ing patch updater every I time I want to just log in for a quick vs-AI game. Instead, I almost always end up waiting for the latest patch to download for a half hour or so. Then the scenario maps go AWOL for several hours each time.



End result: never going to buy another SC game again with such a requirement. And given that D3 is even more draconian, not going to be buying any further Diablo Blizzard products either.



If Blizzard thinks I'm all talk and will give in to the impulse because their game is all awesome-sauce, then they've just gotten too big for their britches IMO. I'm 100% not interested because their 'awesome' SC2 product has pissed me off far too many times for me to want to ever touch it again. Never, ever again.

Kale Menges
profile image
Everyone just pick up Torchlight 2, 'k?;)

Martain Chandler
profile image
OK! And the Humble Indie Bundle!

Andrew Hernandez
profile image
This really shouldn't be a discussion about pro's and con's relating to this system. Last time i checked a single player experience was an isolated experience that is best enjoyed with no one else around, hence the name single player. If they are going for an online only system that implements the ideals of anti-hacks and anti-cheats, then why call it a measure to protect the single player experience? At this point it's starting to look like world of diablo.



Either way, online only DRM is a really cluster of a mess to deal with. With the latest storms rocking the midwest, i have found it almost impossible to stay within the confines of my broadband service because it keeps going down. It doesn't take much to annoy someone who is trying to enjoy their overall purchase, and i really hope they decide against going with this DRM plan. Online only DRM doesn't make my single player experience feel safe, just monitored.

Franck C
profile image
By the way, yes they are doing this to fight piracy, no matter the reason given.

But put yourselves in their shoes for a second.

They've been running one of the successful and less pirated games of all times for several years ( WoW).



They are getting ready to release a new game in a franchise that was quite heavily pirated in the past.

The majority of the customers that will purchase D3 will be current or ex-Wow players.

So why not apply the same thing that is working with Wow when you know that it :

- is effective against piracy

- won't be a big issue for the majority of your customer base as they are used to that model ( no matter what the vocal minority says).

Dan the gaming Guy
profile image
Amen.

Josh ua
profile image
Blizzard can't talk out one side of their mouth and say they want a fair online experience, and then have a cash shop at the same time so anyone with a full wallet will be unstoppable. Duping will be replaced by heavy farming. Regardless of duping or farming, the online portion is screwed for the casual user.

Cordero W
profile image
So, looks like we're only renting games in the end.

Trevor Hallihan
profile image
that was my thought aswell.

John Woznack
profile image
IMHO, VPs don't have the luxury of being "kind of surprised" by the negative reactions towards the decisions concerning their products. Being "kind of surprised" is admitting that he's out of touch with the market and the players.



If you were the CEO, would you fully trust one of your VPs who's admittedly out of touch with his market?

Turing Eret
profile image
So, I'm not a fan of any DRM, but I don't foresee us convincing publishers to stop using it. But here's a novel compromise in this situation. When you log in, you get a token that is valid for a period of time, say, one week. Whenever you log in, you get a new token. You can play single player as long as you have a valid token. This would solve most (but not all) of the use cases where needing a constant internet connection fails. If your internet is spotty, no problem; the token will outlast any momentary outages. Same with a plane ride or other trip. The token will outlast the trip itself, so as long as you're not spending a week in the Himalayas and wanting to play Diablo 3, you're probably going to be good.

Scott Lepthien
profile image
I think in this case "kind of surprised" is a euphemism for, "We knew some people were going to be angry, but we already proved that a similar system worked for Starcraft 2 and that game sold great, so bitch and moan all you want we know you'll still buy it."

Richard Chompff
profile image
What I want to know is, if this is an upfront fee game, not a monthly membership like WoW, who is going to pay for the servers in the long run? When the money from the release dries up and if the "off the top" skimmings from the RMT AH doesn't cut it, does that mean that everybody will be forced to stop playing just because they didnt fully embrace RMT?

Franck C
profile image
Diablo 2 had upfront fees and as of this day you can still play the game on battlenet.

I think whatever advertising they run on the service must help and don't forget that a lot of the battlenet infrastructure is shared among the latest blizzard games ( even Wow now uses battlenet login) so if the player base for one game goes down Blizzard can reallocate some of the resources to another game without totally shutting down the servers.

Zenas Bellace
profile image
I've been playing a lot of Minecraft lately and if I'm not mistaken it requires registration and log in as well. I don't hear much griping about that requirement and to be blunt, it hasn't really hindered my ability to both play and fully appreciate the game. This is simply the new paradigmn for protecting the investment needed to create the games that we all love but are becoming increasing more expensive to produce.



To be honest, I'd rather see this type of "rights management", as it comes with additional services, the value of which the player can decide for themselves if the cost of membership is worth paying. Given this model, Blizzard is less incline to go the route of copyright infringement suits against it's own potential customers for "copying" their software onto multiple computers. In fact there doesn't seem to be any reprocussions to installing WoW or StarCraft 2, two other Blizzard games that require active accounts (in good standing) to gain access to content, on any number of machines desired. And while it's no doubt frowned upon by the ToS, account sharing is a definite possiblity should a player so desire to do so.



While I am truely sympathetic to those folks who are interseted in offline play, I am also enthusiatic at this shift in business models. What we are seeing is the gradual shift of video games as a commodity in and of it self, to be bought and sold by the media format of the day to that of a service provided to players. This second choice, like a membership at the local gym, is in my opinion friendlier to the consumer in that we remove from the equation the question of copyright infringment, a threat more dangerous to our culture then the inconvience of not being able to play a favorite video game offline.



At the end of the day I want to see the hard working and talented pool of developers rewarded for their efforts and if this shift in business model keeps the paychecks flowing while maintaing a sustainable balance between player enjoyment and cost of doing business, then so be it. :)



Oh, one conscern I do have about such a model, and I think this was alluded to in an above comment, what happens to the game when the servers hosting access to it go dark? As mentioned earlier, there are those of us who are still playing games from ages past, online authentication was not an issue back then. Still, how many of those companies are still in existance. LAN play was way more popular because of it's stability to the then primitive internet connections. LAN play has since gone the way of the dodo bird, yet I can still think of some some games that needed community support to maintain and active game server and match making service. Bungie's own bungie.net for Myth I & II are just such a service that is no longer available. Luckly for fans of the game, a community driven service is now available. Which gets be to thinking, perhaps legacy support for such game services could open up avenues of entrepenurship one the parent company goes under or discontinues service... If the player base is large enough to keep it's own service running yet too small for the AAA companies to maintain at a profit, perhaps deals could be worked out for future titles. Just a thought.

Franck C
profile image
I wouldn't worry too much about how long servers will stay up for a game like Diablo 3.

Diablo 2 released 11 years ago and you can still play the game on battlenet now.

Otherwise I fully agree with your post.

Bart Stewart
profile image
Buying Minecraft requires a login, but it can be played offline.



If D3 allowed the same -- if Blizzard, like Mojang, grasped the reality that some players have zero interest in playing their game online and supported that preference -- then this comment thread would not exist.

Claes Engdal
profile image
The game going dark after 10 years just comes with this business model. It is the same with all the games out there that are actually called mmogs. It's not necessarily a problem if you compare it with other things in life.



Consider that you went on a trip to Hawaii 10 years ago. You may have memories and pictures from that time, but you cannot actually be there on that trip 10 years ago again.



Normally I am strongly against DRM when it is applied to primarily single player games such as Assassins Creed. Requiring an Internet connection just isn't natural with these games and the player doesn't get any additional value for it.



When it comes to online games the player actually gets value for the requirement to log in. Usually in these cases you don't call it DRM either, you just call it, well.. online games. With this in mind I think it's ironic that people call this move from Blizzard DRM when their beef is actually with the game being an online game instead of the singleplayer/online hybrid they hoped it to be. No one would be upset if a game labeled an "mmog" wouldn't support offline play.

Franck C
profile image
One thing to consider too is that this shift in the way games work should allow Blizzard to do one thing that players often asks but developer rarely provide. I am speaking of the ability to provide free trials or demo that customers can try for free for a certain lapse of time. Traditional demo usually contains portions of the game but with this shift nothing prevents Blizzard for providing the full game as a demo and either limit it to a certain amount of play time or a certain level ( the same way they offer free trials for WoW) and once those have been reached they can lock the character on the server and if the customer likes what he saw he can probably get the game and keep playing with the same character he was playing in the demo whereas most old school demos force you to start anew when you purchase the game...

Dan the gaming Guy
profile image
If they decide to reimplement offline play because of a loud minority bluffing they wont buy the game, we can kiss any chances of the game coming out this year goodbye.

Chang Fong Chua
profile image
Actually, it will make it easier to come out as they can continue and use their OLD code which includes both Offline single player and Online Mode.

Simon T
profile image
Why is it minorities are always vocal and majorities are always silent?



Do people get cold feet in larger groups?

Erik Hieb
profile image
No, the majority is busy playing the games they like while the minority is bitching about the same game. You see it in MMOs all the time. The majority are too busy having fun.



I'll probably play D3 at some point, but honestly everything Blizzard has done has gone down hill for me after Starcraft 1. Since I saw the graphics, I told my friends that there were going to be more questionable choices made with this game and they tried to shrug it off and after this week they haven't been able to and are complaining more than I am now.

Greg Wilcox
profile image
No, they just get VERRRRRY Sheepy. Look at Apple consumers. As much crap as they have had to put up with since the iOS line has been released, they keep buying in year after year. Sorry, but any device where I can't change a damn battery on my own (without voiding a warranty) and ties to my personal info (f#@ you, but no thanks) while offering less features and/or updated models with awful problems has no place in my home.



That said, they DO make stuff that's pretty and works fine (and is marketed as if it's the second coming each time)...

Wylie Garvin
profile image
Who's bluffing? I'd like to be able to play Diablo 3 offline. I'm certainly not going to play it online. But apparently I'm not part of Blizzard's target market for this product.



I'm not going to pirate it, either. I'll just do without, like I did for SC2. (I can still play Diablo 2 just fine without an internet connection, in fact I was playing it on saturday. I've got a lot of value out of that purchase over the years, so I'd love to be able to give Blizzard some more of my money, but their current DRM stance prevents me from doing that.)

Kailas Dierk
profile image
If they actually go ahead with this plan, I will probably both buy and pirate the game.

- Buy it because it's no doubt going to be a pretty good game and I might want to play multiplayer at some point.

- Pirate it or use whatever method pirated copies use to trick the game into thinking its online to remove the problem.



It seems unlikely (but not impossible) that there will be anything Blizzard can do against this strategy.

Q: how do you stop people from playing a game offline?

A: you either make the actual game data itself solely online and have players use a client to download it as needed or ... you can't. If the game data is on the player's computer, a pirated version will be able to simulate whatever network messages the game would normally get from the server and tada, game no longer needs the interwebs.



It also seems unlikely that there will be many people who do the same (most will simply do one or the other), meaning that piracy rates will (in my opinion) remain largely unchanged from many other games.



Apparently Blizzard seems to disagree with all or at least some of what I just said (and I'm sure they have reasons for it that they believe to be perfectly valid).

samuel huggins
profile image
When I find myself in a place that doesn't have an internet connection (mom's house, car dealership etc.), I still play D2 or Warcraft3. I can do that because no internet connection is required!



That is why I did not buy SC2 and do not plan to buy D3 as it stands now.



I f I want to play an online game I play a MMO or MOBO.



I feel D3 going online connection required is a poor decision. I vote with my wallet. This will be yet another Blizzard game I pass on.

Dave Smith
profile image
there is no way this topic deserves over one hundred comments. its not that big of a deal.

Matt None
profile image
Good thing I was never to invested in the Diablo series. One more game to add to my boycott list.

Kyle Horne
profile image
How can you be surprised

Dennis Crow
profile image
This is not DRM, it's a client-server architecture. There is irony when people use the internet to complain about having to use the internet to play games.

Malik Matty
profile image
"Digital rights management (DRM) is a term for access control technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the use of digital content and devices. The term is used to describe any technology that inhibits uses of digital content that is not desired or intended by the content provider."



I fail to see how this is not a form of DRM as it does in fact limit the use of the content.

Malik Matty
profile image
"What are we going to have to do about those players that are in the offline environment coming into the online environment?"



Umm... Make them create a new character for online play? I dunno... It sounds sensible to me.

John Hoe
profile image
Why Blizzard lost me:



1. Outdated Graphics

2. Console Game Prices on PC Games

3. Long Release time for Games & Expansions

4. Online DRM - Single player

5. Piracy, yes pirates have more fun than consumers reason #4!



They make games for money now, not for consumer satisfaction.



Blizzard died long ago when Activision acquired them!

wes bogdan
profile image
NEWS FLASH......once valued and trusted consumers now treated like thieves what's surprising that people who love blizzard and have legally purchased and enjoyed many a game must now be online because big blizzard wants to watch you and if you're grinding away and loose internet but not power too bad so sad.



Honest people would be the most offended by this as they simply want to enjoy their game that they earned the money to buy it and not be guilty until proven innocent by the overlords at blizzard.



There needs to be a set of rights everyone has online which would not be able to be violated and the guilty until proven innocent must go so we can again be valued consumers,not treated with disdain.



I know capcom should be learning this as well...the last game i bought from them was m vs c 3 but with the disrespect they showed the industry with res evil 3ds and requiring online without telling anyone in psn games they've lost a customer-if they prove to me they care again i'll consider their games but not until i feel valued again.

Clarence Smith
profile image
Yeah I really don't see why they don't just split offline and online accounts. If you want to play online your simply required to create a character for online play only. I was interested in this game till I was told that I would forced to be online at all times. This is really dropping the ball and the reasoning is weak at best. By making an offline character only I miss out on the online features, well okay. I work up North of Canada a lot and the majority of the places I work have zip for internet connections. Gaming is something I enjoy in my downtime and it is a massive bummer to see that Diablo 3, something I have been itching for for nearly 10 years is not going to be on the menu.



At this point I am rooting for the pirates. I hope when Diablo 3 comes out that it will be enabled to play offline by pirates. Its pretty damn sad when the game I have been dying to play is something I want to see pirated just so I can play it.



Yeah I know I could wait to play it when I come home (usually my work runs for 4 - 5 month stretches) yadda yadda but those arguments are weak when simply adding an option to play offline and forego online "perks" would just solve the problem and net Blizzard my dollars.



So bummed.....

thomas pinetz
profile image
In my honest opinion I think this is a sad day for gaming in general.



I'm still going to school and live in a boarding-school where video games are blocked from the web, so i cant play online even if i want to.



We still played countless hours of d2, mostly over LAN, and we were waiting for d3 for an eternity.



Now they are telling me that i neither can play with my roommates via LAN, nor can i play on my own there.



Seems like i am not gonna buy this game now, even though i played most of the games made by blizzard

Gil Salvado
profile image
Let's put it the other around: I don't mind, if singleplayer characters manipulate their gaming experience as long as it doesn't interferes with online multiplayer experience. And if I want to have my own little private slaughter I usually put a password on my multiplayer session and reduce the the player count down to 1. Just like in Diablo 2.



But ... I gonna buy it anyway -_-

Richard Carrillo
profile image
It's sad consumers still don't see pirating as a big deal. These features are what comes from everyone's bittorrent downloads. Simple cause and effect. Bravo to Blizzard for pulling the trigger on something that will be on every PC game in the next 10 years.

Alan Rimkeit
profile image
Pirating has been around for decades. It used to be people trading floppy discs back in the 80's. People have copied tapes and books and what ever other media has ever been made. So far it has not killed the any of the entertainment industries. I am not saying it is right, but it is a thing that will never be stopped. Anyone who thinks it can be stamped out is delusional to the extreme.



And if all PC games have this kind of DRM then I guess I will not be a PC gamer anymore.

Cody Scott
profile image
its not that consumers dont see the problem, its the fact that the consumer is being punished for crimes they did not commit.

Cody Scott
profile image
As a huge Blizzard fan since i was 5, I really dont see whats wrong with the guys making decisions here. there was negative feedback when a persistent online presence for SC2 and the removal of lan play, why would there be positive feedback on it now. My cousin enabled offline play for SC2 on his laptop and when we were visiting family at my grandmothers he could not play because it claimed he had not enabled the computer.

Its just one big headache.

Jose Resines
profile image
I am actually surprised (and insulted) that some PR guy from Blizzard expected us to believe that they're surprised. They know perfectly well what they are doing, they just don't care about what gamers want. It would be SO much easier for them to offer options and keep the offline mode for anyone that prefers playing that way. None of the excuses they have given justifies removing offline play, or LAN play for that matter. They just want to control how everybody is playing. They made that clear with SC2, and this is just another step.



Not with me, though. And not with any of my friends. All of us have always been Blizz fanboys, but they are not getting our money. This is not Blizz anymore, just a carcass of what it was with the only objective of making money for Bobby Kotick, in any possible way. If they have to milk Chinese gold farmers, so be it. And if they lose those with rural ADSL or dial up (a LOT of those in the world, commenters up there), so be it. The rich customers will compensate by buying all their shit from the Auction House.

Chris Moeller
profile image
I'm guessing that just from the number of people that plays WOW (which requires persistent online collection) buys the game, they'll still make an outrageous profit.



Sure, they are alienating people, but based on the numbers from their "money making game", they don't have to worry :o



I'm against DRM that really only inconveniences paying customers (since pirates always find a way), but I can see how it's a non-issue in their eyes- They are in the business of making money, and keeping a majority of their players happy, although it sucks for a bunch of other people, the majority of their core audience probable won't even be aware that it's a problem :o

Italo Capasso Ballesteros
profile image
Certainly the Torchlight 2 developers have a golden oportunity to capitalize here... better have that marketing rebuf on Blizzard quickly! They could actually topple the big (Activision-)Blizzard on this one (just topple, not actually bring it down)...



Looks like Activision's "evil schemes" (lol) are taking on Blizzard. And it also look like this might their "Guitar hero" tale.



In short term they'll sell but in the long term? Does crediblitiy really matter, or are their fans indescructible zombies and cannot change their minds?

Alan Rimkeit
profile image
LOL! This is very well said.

Jason Sharp
profile image
This is definitely not targeted just at the US / Australia.. I think people on here forget places like China, where boxed games are pirated at a rate near 100%, yet played for years by the entire population. That is reason enough for the "online only" single player and taking away LAN from multiplayer. Sure, it's an inconvenience (look at disconnections in starcraft 2 tournaments), but honestly it's a smart business decision that is going to keep them #1 for years to come.



They could lose ALL of the US / EU / Aussie players that have internet connections too poor to play this online / don't like the inconvenience and still make WAY WAY WAY more money on the game internationally.



Yet still.. they shouldn't be shocked by the English speaking community's reaction. That's just silly.

Julian Pritchard
profile image
Another comment to get lost in the heap.



Diablo II is to this day my favorite video game. I also happen to live in a country with very unreliable internet. So obviously I will be missing out on the next part of my favorite video game. So obviously the 'always online' decision is one I am not happy about.



I, and I am sure many other people, would love for a single player only mode. Or even better a LAN mode. We actually LAN a significant amount in my country.



Also in response to people saying that this is just the cry of a loud minority. Firstly do you have any evidence to back up that claim. As much as the the average WoW player may not care about persistent internet connection, that by no means shows that they support it. I believe one might find a 'loud minority' that supports these 'features'.



Redundantly this is also serves as an an anti-piracy measure. But as is the case with most draconian DRM systems the pirates shall enjoy off-line and LAN play. This in no way means that I support piracy, or that I will even touch the game now, but show how companies treat their clients like criminals while the criminals enjoy the game.



I now see Diablo 3 in the same way I see Hellgate. Something I really wanted, but failed to do right by the fans. Each in their own way.

Joseph Gaspar
profile image
This has probably been mentioned before in other variations, but what is the point of making single player online only? Their reasoning seems to be that player's will have the opportunity to take their characters into multiplayer, while allowing them to maintain stability in their online realm, but doesn't it serve the same purpose to have single player characters separate from multiplayer characters?



The only other reasoning I could see them getting away with from a technical standpoint is that they will no longer store your characters on their servers, thus eliminating the need for them to maintain a little extra database space, but space is cheap and proper normalization and incorporation of concepts from OO would reduce the redundancy of having to store every player's item, even though another player has the exact same item. Perhaps they are approaching this possibility from a quality of service standpoint, meaning that they no longer have to delete characters and accounts after 60 days (or was it 90?) of inactivity, which probably upset a number of players that wanted to come back to their level 99 Pally with Schaefer's Hammer (when it was the best item) only to find that their character was deleted (so annoying).



If they do happen to still store the characters online, then, again, what is the point other than to simply enforce DRM? While I have little doubt that this game will be successful and profitable, this move will most likely harm their revenue stream in the long run.

Jason Long
profile image
I agree with the complaints; one additional reason not yet mentioned is that I enjoy having an offline, single-player experience that I can hack up and cheat and just play around with. I would not want it interacting with a "clean" multiplayer experience, but it's still fun to do. I will miss that optional way to enjoy the game.



However, this this entire thread reminds me of when Starcraft 2 came out. Suddenly, "lack of LAN" was a major concern and everyone threatened to not purchase the game and the complaints were pretty much the same as now: and in the end a zillion people bought it anyway. I suspect a similar story will be told here.



The sad truth is that in all aspects of gaming the player base is losing ground: we no longer own games, we simply rent a copy of the (usually beta) code for a period of time that is up to the developer to determine. You can barely trade games anymore; even consoles have their ways to make sure players purchase their own copies. The development model that could sustain the old system is gone: now games are multi-million dollar projects that require multi-million dollar returns on investment, and to do this everyone has to buy the game new. (Personally, I feel that all the emphasis on marketing and product placement ends up taking away from the game experience, but what do I know.) In the end, gamers keep willingly giving up ground because they either don't know any better or don't care. Fickle attention spans and a glut of content means that typically no one plays games for years and years anymore - so who cares if we just "rented" the experience for a short while?



Games are becoming more like movies everyday - specifically, more like seeing a movie in a movie theater. And gamers are voting with their wallets that this is ok. It's hard to complain when money is talking. And in the end, if no one cares, does it really matter?

Anders Toedten
profile image
Since the topic of DRM came up several times… I really fail to see how DRM is a problem, unless you plan on pirating a game. It's actually kinda funny how you people talk as if game companies provide some life-sustaining necessities for you.



You don't like the game? Don't buy it. Don't like how games work these days? Don't buy them. It really doesn't matter, there are still enough customers left for the new games and enough old games for you to enjoy.



Chill, people. They're not cutting off your water or threaten to kick you out of your home. It's games. Try board games or RPGs, they're fun and don't need internet access either.



And if you really love Blizzard's products that much that you actually get angry because they didn't think about your (rather special) situation, bitching really won't help your cause. Start groups, collect signatures and ask politely for a re-consideration, but don't blow your top if they fail to see your point. It's their game and they can sell it any way they want.

Kailas Dierk
profile image
DRM isn't a problem if you plan on pirating the game. When the game is pirated, I guarantee it will have this system removed or completely incapacitated. Since this is done by the pirating groups and not the people that download from them, the people who download the game illegally will simply have the same game (the singleplayer and LAN multiplayer anyway) without the DRM.



You seem to understand the concept of "Dont like the game? Don't buy it" perfectly fine.

But did you consider the alternative? "Do like the game but (insert reason why you don't want the DRM here)? still don't buy the game, just pirate it.



I'm not saying that I won't buy the game. I'm saying I don't understand how Blizzard think this system will work. People who would have pirated the game before will still pirate it. Such people who would have been stuck with singleplayer or LAN multiplayer on their pirated copies before will still be in exactly the same situation. This system is unlikely to make the game significantly harder for pirating groups to crack, meaning it won't affect players who pirate the game in the slightest.



TL;DR: the only people affected are those who legitimately buy the game.

Harold Myles
profile image
In this case the DRM will be effective if what the Devs have stated is true. One of the reasons for removal of offline play was that much of the game logic was moved server side. This will more than likely delay pirating significantly.

cliff munsami
profile image
If you have a good internet connection then the DRM issue will not be a big issue for you, but I have have only recently aquired a stable internet connection for less than a year now. I live in South Africa so our internet infrastructure isn't as good as many other countries so I could never play those games that required a stable internet connection. I never even played multiplayer. I hated DRM because even though I could afford those games I could never play them so I always checked the back of the case, swore loudly if I saw DRM and left the game back on the shelf. Now though its not such an issue.

My main issue with Diablo 3 is the game itself. I loved Diablo 1 and 2 and really loved all the starcraft games. When starcraft 2 was released I relished everything about the game. The fantastic story, the amazing graphics nad the smoothness the game plays online even when my connection abit wonky.

I expected much of the same from Diablo 3 and I am sad to say that I am deeply dssapointed. I've had the game now for 4 days and have no real desire to play it further. The story is dreary, the graphics reminds me of Titans Quest and the gameplay does not feel fluid at all. Titans Quest atleast allowed you to customise your character in whichever way you wanted. The only way I think Blizzard can make it up to me is by making the multiplayer really kickass with PvP and give it to us for free since we have already paid for the damn thing.


none
 
Comment: