Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 5 Aug 2011.
Stop saying Blizzard. Blizzard wouldn't use this stupid DRM in the first place. Activision-Blizzard however, would.
And really? They're surprised? My god, how screwed up must they be. Did they recently hire Ubisoft ex-workers or something?
And if it was for features, this could have been achieved just as well by using a Cloud-based syc system. It works brilliantly for businesses, so why do they think it's not good enough for gaming?
Yeah and I'm surprised the government want me to pay my taxes every year. After all it's not that I'm primarily looking to keep more cash. By not paying my taxes I'm increasing my cashflow which will help the economy, so the government should welcome the move. Personally I'd be shocked if they thought I was wrong.
I remember in the last Apprentice, Alan Sugar called some guy the biggest bullsh***er in the world. Seems like he has some competition from Robert Bridenbecker. Marketers and politicians do love to obfuscate, don't they? One second he's saying
Then he continues with this:
So if you are not socializing with people, how does storing your character online "enhance gameplay" and when your connection is down and you can't play a game you've paid for, how does it not "suck"?
Diablo 3 was on my list of "must buys" but just like Assassins Creed 2 I won't be buying it after hearing that news. A lot of games publishers need to learn that punishing paying customers is a poor solution to copyright issues. Offering incentives to buy rather than copy is a far better way to go.
This reaction makes no sense no one is saying they are unhappy with the features that online connectivity brings all we are saying is we want and offline play mode!
Fed up with developers and their stupid schemes. Yea, I reckon these muppets have gone and hired a load of ex ubi staff if they think the general public want always on DRM games.
Another game I wont bother buying.
So essentially it's a multiplayer game... where you don't play with anyone else.
I dont see the big deal. Many millions of people are always online anyway.
Starcraft 2 requires an online connection to work and that game isn't doing too bad.
Except of course when you want to play offline?
You're missing the point. It's not about how well a game does, it's about how badly you're limiting the user.
There are two possibilities that would allow them to be surprised by this:
1) They didn't look at the reaction to all other always-on DRM systems, in which case they are incompetent
2) They did know about this reaction but figured that because they are Blizzard they would get a free pass, in which case they are arrogant
Neither looks good
While it's nice to have cloud saving for characters Torchlight manages to do that but without kicking you out of the game if your connection drops and allows you to play without being online.
This strikes me as a planned reaction to the always online DRM. They can claim their features and such but we all know it's a load of nonsense. It may not entirely be about Piracy but it's certainly about control. Control over the people who play the game and how they play it with the only concern really being how much money can we make from them.
Forcing people online means they will be exposed to the various ways Blizzard can make money from them.
Connectivity does not translate to always online at all. Many games can have a coop option or a cloud saving facility or what ever. There is no need what so ever that people always be online.
I really hope that people ignore this game because what was left of old Blizzard is gone now and all they care about is new ways to exploit people for cash. Luckily there are a couple of good alternative games being made (Torchlight 2 & GrimDawn) that will likely be more worthy of being given cash not just because they are smaller devs but because they aren't making cash grabs they are making games.
Why is no one happy about this? Diablo games where TONNES better when you played them with a friend. The fustration I had trying to play Diablo2 with a mate and realising you can only port your offline chars to 'open battlenet' which was code for "cheatZillah's cheat or get left behind" so we started chars on the legit battlenet servers which was great but you could not play them offine.
Flash to the present day, you CAN play your charicters offline all you have to do is have an internet connection, does not have to be mega fast or anything just enough to handshake with the server. You can play alone of with your friends or with randoms as much as you like.
Now for all of those who dont have a good internet connection START DEMANDING IT!
The solution to this little wussy fit you are all throwing is better internet for everyone!
" Now for all of those who dont have a good internet connection START DEMANDING IT! "
Demanding it from who? The hotel manager where I'm staying? The gov't of whatever country I might be in? The Army who deployed me to somewhere without internet? Perhaps the captain of the sub I'm on?
And what about if I'm at home, and my internet connection goes down during the night? Or my ISP has a temporary problem? Should I start demanding then? Ordinarily I would phone my ISP, report the issue and wait for the fix, perhaps passing the time with a little Diablo 3 ....
Re-read what you're saying. That's not offline!
What about if I want to play on my laptop at lunchtime and I'm at work? Or on a 6 hour flight? Or in a deadzone where I can't use a 3G dongle on my PC? Or in an environment where I am unable to handshake to the server? Or where the server is down for maintenance, or even HACKED (which at the moment, it seems everyone is)?
If I purchase a licence to play a game, I expect that game to work on MY principles, not the other way around.
Are people complaining about this because it is thought of as a Solo game?
I think that it has become a bit like Guild Wars tbh..
- You have to be online to play.
- But you don't have to actually play with anyone and can solo through the game*, (which is in your own instance so there are no other players.. basically single-player).
- You can interact with other players to play co-op, pvp or trade stuff.
- When you do, it is with the same character you played Solo with.
- Your character is held online.
*(well, provided you use henchmen)
You're comparing an MMORPG to a RPG. Blizzard aren't making an MMORPG.
So explain to me why my Character can't stay on my own hard-drive?
Does this mean that if my provider decides to kill my connection i can't play D3?
What if I install D3 on my laptop and go somewhere and there is no internet connection?
What if I live in a remote location where there is no infrastructure for internet connections?
Well it still is on my buy list. I only hope the smart hacking groups out there do a crack/patch so I do not need to be on internet to play the game where ever i am.
This game was on my 'to buy' list
It's not any more......
Anyway, I think some are over-reacting a little bit. Regardless of what blizzard wants, people are going to mod this game. I'd guess that one of those first mods will be a client that works offline, with private servers and other mods following closely.
No Diablo 3 for me then. I hate DRM, you're effectively renting a game instead of buying it.
It pisses me off, it really does, when developers simply ignore the players and do whatever they 'think' will be best. Ask any big Diablo 2 fan and i would bet that almost every single one would say that they want Diablo 2 with the new content and graphics and the hacked stuff blocked. Simples.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it and the only thing broken in Diablo 2 was the massive hacks/bots/cheatmods. Stop them, job done.
Gotta say i agree with him, it's becoming exactly like Guild Wars. All of those points are true for Diablo 3 now and, with Guild Wars taking a pay once/no subscription direction again, there is nothing which differentiates the two except central population hubs in Guild Wars which will still have tons of players roaming around (however this is not true of the questing areas as said).
I honestly can't see any difference between them.
Separate names with a comma.