Diablo 3

[Freecare Spiritwise]

This is what I like to call the "Activision effect". Bleed your playerbase for all its worth, if they don't like it they can play elsewhere.

From what I've read they treat their employees the exact same way.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

That would not come as a shock to me. I personally hate the fact that Activision and Blizzard are even remotely connected as companies, but I think we have Vivendi (aka owning company of Blizzard before the merger) to blame for that.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

[Nadia]

minor news but still news
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/08/22 ... #continued

In Diablo II, players progressed from level 1 to 99 through three difficulty levels: normal, nightmare and hell.
At Gamescom this week, Blizzard revealed that Diablo III will feature all three of these difficulty modes plus an additional Inferno mode.

The level cap has been reduced to 60, and the enemies in Inferno mode will start at level 61.
A full team of highly skilled level 60 players will be needed to tackle Inferno content, making it a form of co-operative endgame that was sorely lacking in the game's predecessors.
The best gear in the game will drop here, with better stats than equipment dropped in hell and unique visual styles.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

You know, if they were going to push it as a nigh-exclusively multiplayer game where you could buy your gear, they really shouldn't have waited a decade to announce it as such. They've effectively announced that Diablo 3 will be "MMO Lite" given everything mentioned these last few weeks.

Waiting 10 years to even hear that the game's being worked on, only to have to wait another 3 years to be told "the game isn't going to have half the functionality of its predecessors, and by the way, we don't give a shit about soloers and offline players" is kinda fucked up.

Oh well. Torchlight was pretty cool. Torchlight 2 should be a suitable substitute for Diablo 3, and when Torchlight MMO comes out, I'll have been fully informed ahead of time that it's actually an MMO, so I won't be disappointed that it's an enormous deviation from the core series.

[Kulaf]

Hehe I think the complaining is rediculous. Everyone is online now. Wi-Fi is everywhere and every laptop has Wi-Fi built in. A new difficulty level doesn't mean you are missing anything, because you never had it in the first place.

[Nadia]

Wi-Fi is everywhere and every laptop has Wi-Fi built in.

wifi may be everywhere but signal strength sure isnt

I dislike no offline but I'll adapt

[Kulaf]

I plan to pretty much solo on Bnet so it really doesn't impact me at all. I might group with some guildmates or my buddy back in WI every once in a while, but I have no real desire to play on "Inferno" difficulty so I won't miss it. The level reduction doesn't mean anything because levels beyone 60 in the original game didn't really add to your character anyway.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Everyone is online now.

Oh really?

In a survey of more than 100,000 people in more than 50,000 households across the U.S., 40 percent reported no broadband or high-speed access to the Internet, while 30 percent said they have no Internet access at all.

Of course, i don't need to mention that without broadband, online gaming is extremely difficult. Back in the day, dial-up lagged the shit out of EQ1 on mine and my friends' machines, and DSL wasn't much of an improvement. Somehow I'm wagering Diablo 3 will be much more graphic intensive than EQ was. I may be wrong on the total volume of data being streamed between the servers and the users, but I expect lag to be a consistent issue for those without broadband.

Without a rock-solid connection, you risk getting booted. I have the best connection available in my area, and it drops out at least once a day. When playing a game like Diablo, that's a guaranteed death if you're anywhere near mobs. For a game that's being played single-player, that's literally inexcusable. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to require a persistent internet connection for single-player play - it's exclusively a ploy to increase exposure to the RMAH, and any reason they give beyond that, as far as I'm concerned, is complete bullshit.

A new difficulty level doesn't mean you are missing anything, because you never had it in the first place.

So coding, testing and tweaking the new difficulty level and the items it will drop doesn't take time and resources that could be spent working on the rest of the game that literally everyone will play? Interesting.

I plan to pretty much solo on Bnet so it really doesn't impact me at all.

I had planned to solo exclusively too, which is exactly why it impacts me - I apparently need to log into their servers and maintain an internet connection to play a single player game, and I don't get to back up my characters on my end. Nope, not going to happen. I don't like the way they've structured their game, I won't be purchasing their game.

Besides, as Rob Pardo said himself: "I want to play Diablo 3 on my laptop in a plane, but, well, there are other games to play for times like that." In short: "Don't play this game when you want to."

You're exactly right, Rob - there are other games to play. There are plenty of other games to buy, too.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

They did this on SC2 too... I don't see what the BFD is about doing it in D3 when it was clearly successful in SC2.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I don't play SC, so I don't know personally, but as I've heard there's still an offline option under a "guest" login or something. You still have to connect to their servers to authenticate every 30 days or some such bullshit, but the option to play offline is still there in some (Limited?) capacity. With character data being saved server-side for D3, any "guest" play will be completely meaningless as it's a hack-&-slash character growth RPG, and not a campaign-style RTS.

IMO the cash grab with SC was releasing each race's campaign as a separate game entirely, and charging $60 each. But like I said, I don't play SC, so I don't give two squirts about that game.

What does SC have to do with Diablo 3 again?

[Kulaf]

Everyone is online now.

Oh really?

In a survey of more than 100,000 people in more than 50,000 households across the U.S., 40 percent reported no broadband or high-speed access to the Internet, while 30 percent said they have no Internet access at all.

Yes really.

Internet users are more likely to play games than those who are not online. Seventy-five percent of adults use the Internet, and 64 percent of Internet users play games. Pew finds 20 percent of non-Internet users play games.

Of course, i don't need to mention that without broadband, online gaming is extremely difficult. Back in the day, dial-up lagged the shit out of EQ1 on mine and my friends' machines, and DSL wasn't much of an improvement. Somehow I'm wagering Diablo 3 will be much more graphic intensive than EQ was. I may be wrong on the total volume of data being streamed between the servers and the users, but I expect lag to be a consistent issue for those without broadband.

Without a rock-solid connection, you risk getting booted. I have the best connection available in my area, and it drops out at least once a day. When playing a game like Diablo, that's a guaranteed death if you're anywhere near mobs. For a game that's being played single-player, that's literally inexcusable. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to require a persistent internet connection for single-player play - it's exclusively a ploy to increase exposure to the RMAH, and any reason they give beyond that, as far as I'm concerned, is complete bullshit.

That's why most online gamers already have broadband access.....as the study I linked shows. Your hobby drives your access. You are obviously an online player since you have "the best connection available in [your] area". Why fight the future. Adapt and overcome or get run over.

A new difficulty level doesn't mean you are missing anything, because you never had it in the first place.

So coding, testing and tweaking the new difficulty level and the items it will drop doesn't take time and resources that could be spent working on the rest of the game that literally everyone will play? Interesting.

Same irational arguement that we hear about every game......why or why did they work on that thing when they could have devoted more time to the thing I care about instead. Assuming you played Diablo 2, I would assume you are aware that the different difficulty levels just add hp's and immunities to the mobs. It would take next to no time to code it.

I plan to pretty much solo on Bnet so it really doesn't impact me at all.

I had planned to solo exclusively too, which is exactly why it impacts me - I apparently need to log into their servers and maintain an internet connection to play a single player game, and I don't get to back up my characters on my end. Nope, not going to happen. I don't like the way they've structured their game, I won't be purchasing their game.

Besides, as Rob Pardo said himself: "I want to play Diablo 3 on my laptop in a plane, but, well, there are other games to play for times like that." In short: "Don't play this game when you want to."

You're exactly right, Rob - there are other games to play. There are plenty of other games to buy, too.

I play games on Steam already that require a constant internet connection to play. No one seems all that outraged about it.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

You are obviously an online player since you have "the best connection available in [your] area".

No, I'm not an "online player." I'm not currently active in any MMOs, and I don't give a shit about co-op or competitive play over the internet. Never have. We have the connection we do because it's bundled with our cable television (Which we never use, but the bf insists on having it for some reason) and because it's basically the cheapest provider in our area. I do like how you ignored the point I made regarding getting service interruptions on a daily basis, though.

Assuming you played Diablo 2, I would assume you are aware that the different difficulty levels just add hp's and immunities to the mobs. It would take next to no time to code it.

I did play D2. Still have a level 90-something Necro and 80-Something Sorceress saved backup on a thumb drive. Of course, you're ignoring that the new difficulty is being tweaked specifically for necessary co-op play, and includes completely unique items, including unique graphics. This is a great deal more difference from the "just add hp's and immunities to the mobs" that defined the difficulties in D1 and D2.

I'm not saying it's a huge re-allocation of resources, but it's certainly much more than the "next to nothing" you're suggesting.

I play games on Steam already that require a constant internet connection to play. No one seems all that outraged about it.

How many of them are single-player games? Or have single-player options that still require a constant connection?

See, I've bought games through Steam. I've bought games that required authentication through Steam (Fuck you, Civilization V - you weren't even a good game). I have not and absolutely will never buy a game that requires persistent connection to play single-player.

Adapt and overcome or get run over.

Saving the best for last here, and all I have to say is lulz. Getting "run over" because I choose not to purchase a product that operates in a way I dislike? Bitch, please. Like I said, there are plenty of games I can purchase that don't force me to jump through bullshit hoops. Torchlight 2 looks very nice, won't require internet access to play single-player, and it's being created by the actual Diablo team that brought us Diablo and Diablo 2.

No one's getting "run over," and I'm adapting by choosing other games to spend my money on. This is Blizzard losing out on my sale (And the sales of tens-of-thousands of other potential buyers who either refuse to submit to this nonsense or simply can't maintain a constant connection), not me losing out on Blizzard's game. But hey, when the game finally gets cracked and there's a pirated offline version, I may give it a try.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

By the way,

That's why most online gamers already have broadband access.....as the study I linked shows.

This is a completely false. The study you linked says absolutely nothing about the quality of access that the users have.



Note that there's a shitload of white and light blue on this map, which is from March of this year. Link.

If this were some little sleeper-indie game, I seriously doubt anyone would much care. But this is one of the most highly anticipated games of the last decade. More than 10% of the US population lives in areas that simply won't have consistent connectivity to the game's servers, not to mention people in other countries (I have no idea regarding those statistics, but I've seen similar complaints from Canada and Europe). Frequent travelers are shit-out-of-luck. Deployed military personnel can fuck off, apparently.

As I said before, there is absolutely no excuse for persistent-connection as a requirement for single-player gaming. None. Absolutely nada. Blizzard is compromising the long-term survivability of Diablo 3 as a powerhouse of a game for the short-term profits they can milk from RMAH. And they're giving a big "FUCK YOU!" to anyone who doesn't have broadband access 24/7.

[Kulaf]

I highly doubt Blizzard is concerned that 10% of the US population won't have the ability to play their game......because they are certainly not anticipating being able to sell it to the other 90%. This is one of those times where you have to look at that map......and who those 10% of the population are and realize that most of those areas a rural......and most of the people living there probably don't worry about not having broadband because they don't own computers. Computer use in US housesholds is only at 80%.

World of Warcraft seems to be doing just fine and it has the same limitations that D3 is going to have. Blizzard is in the business of making money......and they seem pretty damn successful at doing it. Are they going to retain every customer that played D2? Of course not. Is D3 going to be even more successful than D2 was......I'm pretty sure it will be.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I highly doubt Blizzard is concerned that 10% of the US population won't have the ability to play their game.

I don't disagree. In fact that wanton disregard for 1 in 10 (Realistically a higher number when you count everyone with all related factors*) of their dedicated fanbase is a big part of what's got me pissed off, in case you hadn't noticed.

*People living in rural areas.
*Teenagers living at home, with no control over service provider.
*Deployed military.
*People with travel jobs.
*College students with no control over service provider.
*People whose best available service provider is crappy, even in urban areas (Like me!).

most of the people living there probably don't worry about not having broadband because they don't own computers.

I've seen quite a few complaints about this exact situation on other message boards from people living in rural areas. They own computers, they have dial-up or satellite internet, and they won't reliably be able to maintain their connection so they're cut out of the ability to play altogether. You think there are no 18-29 year-olds living in rural areas? Your own article said that gaming as a hobby in rural areas is less than 10 percentage points below urban areas. Did you even bother to read it? Here, I'll quote it for you:

Those who live in more populated areas are slightly more likely to pick up a game: 56 percent of people in urban areas play versus 47 percent of those in rural areas.

I know several people who travel (Or did travel) for work, lived out of hotels, and subsisted entirely on gaming for their entertainment. They didn't have consistent internet access. Certainly not consistent or solid enough to play EQ2 with me. That was ~2 years ago, and I doubt a majority of hotels have upgraded since.

But hey, like you said before, everyone is online now. Because being able to post to a message board somewhere is, of course, exactly like having an uninterruptible connection that lets you raid every evening in WoW. And paying $60 for a game that has single-player functionality but requires you to play on their servers is just "adapting and overcoming" - it's certainly not bending over and taking it up the ass sans lube, right?

Like I said - there's absolutely no reason for a persistent internet connection requirement for single-player play. They're trying to force exposure to the RMAH. Interestingly enough, I'd wager they're going to lose overall - the RMAH would still be there for those who played online, and they're cutting out at least 1 in 10 sales of the game off the top by not including an offline mode. I think it's a stupid move, but either way they're going to make fucking millions. It's just clear that, in addition to being a for-profit company (No one ever suggested otherwise), they simply don't give a shit about what their users want.

[Kulaf]

They make their money on box sales. If anything the auction house might pay for 10% of the cost for providing a free place to play.I always thought is was rather silly for them to provide Bnet free of charge but they did it because that is just the money grubbing bastards they are when they aren't taking their customers up the ass sans lube.

Sorry you won't be buying it. But feel free to pirate it like you said you were going to.....that'll teach em.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

1) DSL is still broadband. It is capable of streaming in HD. Cable/Fiber is not required to be considered "High speed broadband".
2) Dial-up (at good connections speeds, 36.6+) is perfectly suitable for online gaming, I did it for ages. I raided in EQ with dial-up with absolutely no problems.
3) Better graphics in a game does not require more bandwidth, because that is not data that is being sent or received.
4) Your argument is weak at best.

At the end of the day though you're going to stick to your strange belief that Blizzard is somehow screwing a ton of customers (when they're not) and you're going to try and pirate the game.

You may be waiting a while... and even then may be required to be connected to some sort of server.

[Ddrak]

Wait - which Steam games require a constant internet connection? They almost exclusively require a single connection when you first run them, after which they are available in offline mode just fine.

I can absolutely understand why Blizz are going online-only from both technical and marketing reasons, and it's all tied into the RMAH as Jaro says. I don't think it's the best idea because perma-online really is a pain and is going to result in a higher return rate for their box sales, along with causing lots of vocal pissed off fanboys and all sorts of associated PR headaches. Still, their game.

My biggest worry isn't bandwidth - it's latency. Depending on how it's implemented, the half-second delay picking up items really annoyed the shit out of me in D2.

btw - I couldn't raid in EQ on dialup, at least with 50+ people in a small area. One of my worst memories is my first "real" raid in Hate with Minute leading and having to bail from endless lag/LD.

Dd

[Freecare Spiritwise]

For me it's a matter of principle. What happens when you need an always-on internet just to use MS Word? Or Windows itself?
"We're sorry, but Calculator.EXE needs to be connected to the internet."

It used to be you either bought a single player game (wife *loved* playing Morrowind), or you bought a multi-player game, or you bought one that had both. And if you bought one that had both you could play the single player aspects of that game without the requirements that it be connected.

Look at Team Fortress. It's a multi-player game but if you wanted to you could play it offline with AI players that are actually pretty good. I used that once in a while to fart around exploring new maps and to test macros like rocket jumps. But to get the most of the game you really wanted an internet connection.

So if a game has single player aspects then you shouldn't need a connection to play it in single player mode. To do so is just an artificial restriction. If I'm paying for a game then I want as few restrictions possible. As it stands now all these games get cracked a millisecond after release and it's only the paying customers that are penalized with those restrictions.

So if the non-paying customers have a better product than the paying customers then where's the value in that? When I spend my hard earned money I want the most value I can get for that money. Free shouldn't have more value, and they should go out of their way to make me see that value. Maybe a cool poster, or coupon for another game, or free upgrade down the line. It's not that hard to compete with piracy for the people who love the game. That and you can't download prestige...