Eh, I think that the average Diablo player would have constant access to the interweb.

@Gav47 said:

Article What do you think? Can Blizzard get away with the same online DRM as Ubi without a complete shit storm?

They have already gotten away with SC2. So yeah why not?

Also at this day&age the number of people who don't have a computer which is constantly connected to the net are so rare. Like virgin brides.

@Gav47 said:

Article What do you think? Can Blizzard get away with the same online DRM as Ubi without a complete shit storm?

They have already gotten away with SC2. So yeah why not?

Also at this day&age the number of people who don't have a computer which is constantly connected to the net are so rare. Like virgin brides.

There is barely anyone out there playing games who doesn't have a permanent inernet connection. Some people out there complain just to complain.

I won't be buying it then. I hope Torchlight 2 is good.

@emem: "What!? I have to be online to play this game? The fuck, time to complain on this internet message board and then pirate the game."

Will treat them just like Ubi.

In other words, not buy D3 with such restrictive DRM.

@emem said:

There is barely anyone out there playing games who doesn't have a permanent inernet connection. Some people out there complain just to complain.

people with laptops don't count apparently

I'm not sure why developers implement this. It may be an anti-piracy feature, but Bulletstorm has the same feature, and it's just as easy to pirate as other games.

It's Diablo 3, nobody cares what kind of DRM etc is applied to it, people want to play it.

@Gav47 said:

@niamahai: No, in Starcraft 2 you could authenticate your account and play offline with this system you can't play anything without being signed into Bnet. But your right it is pretty rare to not be connected to the internet nowadays, it'll be interesting to see the response from the larger gaming community especially since many people avoid like the plague game that require constant online connections.

i though the larger gaming community are mostly indifferent.

If we are talking about the majority of those who post on message boards, then yes, they will definitely be a shitstorm in the flavour of:

A. BLIZZARD IS A SELL-OUT!

B. BOBBY HAVE NOW INFLUENCE BLIZZ!

C. I'MA GONNA PIRATE IT OUT OF PRINCIPLE!

D. All of the above

@emem: "What!? I have to be online to play this game? The fuck, time to complain on this internet message board and then pirate the game."

Doesn't bother me... Man, the gameplay looks kind of boring. Maybe I'm just sick of mindless dungeon crawlers but that video didn't make me want to play it. Also the sound effect... lol wut?

I wouldn't want to play Diablo 3 without an internet connection anyway...

Who plays single player Diablo? Crazy people? I kid, but seriously, the multiplayer's where the meat'll be and where I'm sure people will spend the vast majority of their time with the game. At least that's assuming it's structured similarly to D2.

Overall feelings: *shrugs*

Find it slightly amusing that it's a case of "OMG BOYCOT IT!" when Ubisoft do this for a game nobody cares about, but when it's Diablo, it get's a free pass.

Yes, this is a problem. Most people might have a permanent internet connection, but not everyone does. What if I'm playing on my laptop, or if my internet connection dies or goes down for maintenance (which can sometimes last hours). I'm just not allowed to play a game I paid for? Just because it isn't an issue for you, doesn't mean people are blowing this out of proportion.

Let's not get started on the idea of paying real money for in game items either...

It's Diablo 3, nobody cares what kind of DRM etc is applied to it, people want to play it.

@JJWeatherman: My problem is that I always preferred Diablo 2 on a LAN, playing with friends. Having people in the same room (or the next room) is a much more enjoyable experience, in my opinion.

It feels like they've gone out of their way to make it impossible to enjoy D3 in the same way.

I'm still going to buy it...
 
The only thing that's bothering me is the mass amount of people who claim, 'I'm just going to pirate it." If you pay for the game fine, this small rant isn't directed at you. You paid for your shit so you're cool. However, if you don't pay for the game then still pirate it simply because of DRM, how is that in any way, shape, or form an 'okay' thing? I just don't get it.

@Gav47 said:

@Marz said:

It's Diablo 3, nobody cares what kind of DRM etc is applied to it, people want to play it.

This is what I was thinking. Blizzard gets a past cause they're Blizzard.

Damn straight. All dem biased buyers are ruining the industry. Grrrrr.

@WinterSnowblind said:

Find it slightly amusing that it's a case of "OMG BOYCOT IT!" when Ubisoft do this for a game nobody cares about, but when it's Diablo, it get's a free pass.

Yes, this is a problem. Most people might have a permanent internet connection, but not everyone does. What if I'm playing on my laptop, or if my internet connection dies or goes down for maintenance (which can sometimes last hours). I'm just not allowed to play a game I paid for? Just because it isn't an issue for you, doesn't mean people are blowing this out of proportion.

Let's not get started on the idea of paying real money for in game items either...

I think the biggest difference is that AC2 is a single player game and Diablo is widely regarded as a multiplayer game.

That said, I think it's incredibly shitty that they're doing this, just like removing SC2 LAN support. If I do end up buying the game though, I don't think I'll ever play it single player so I guess that doesn't really matter. But I do disagree with the decision out of principle.

@Laketown: @gike987: Everyone I know who only has a laptop and no internet connection at home or travels a lot has a umts flatrate.

@WinterSnowblind: I've honestly had LANs in 1998 with people playing the same game and we were all online, so..

Doesn't phase me, I don't see what the justification would be for complaining about this. Who doesn't have constant access to the internet these days, even living in a country where wifi is almost nonexistent, I can swing it. SC2 had an 'offline' mode that I never used even once, I believe it disabled achievements anyway. I don't see how this is all that different.

@WinterSnowblind said:

@JJWeatherman: My problem is that I always preferred Diablo 2 on a LAN, playing with friends. Having people in the same room (or the next room) is a much more enjoyable experience, in my opinion.

It feels like they've gone out of their way to make it impossible to enjoy D3 in the same way.

Ah. I've never been much of a LAN guy, so I didn't even think about that.

You've gotta think that a company as large and experienced as Blizzard is doing this for a good reason though. I'm sure they've thought long and hard and weighed each of the possibilities and their pros and cons. It's hard to know what their motivations are exactly without having been in their meetings. But for me personally, it's not a big deal. Definitely not something I'm going to spend much time worrying about after I navigate away from this thread.

It's Blizzard's game and they can do what they want with it, and they will. No amount of complaining about this is going to change their mind. Choose your battles.

OR... play Torchlight 2?

@emem said:

There is barely anyone out there playing games who doesn't have a permanent inernet connection. Some people out there complain just to complain.

That's a bold statement considering Microsoft came out and said that more then half the consoles sold have never been conected to the internet. And while I'm sure there are far more PC's people play on that are connected, a lot of people outside of countries like US/Korea do not have stable connections, which means you can get disconnected from time to time, costing you game progress and preveting further play.

@JJWeatherman said:

I wouldn't want to play Diablo 3 without an internet connection anyway...

Who plays single player Diablo? Crazy people? I kid, but seriously, the multiplayer's where the meat'll be and where I'm sure people will spend the vast majority of their time with the game. At least that's assuming it's structured similarly to D2.

Overall feelings: *shrugs*

The hardcore are indeed those that will spend the bulk of time playing online and they are the people that keep a game like Diablo 2 relevant. But the unwashed masses will never bother with D3 multiplayer (unless forced into it), same situation as with MW2 or SC2. Avarage joe plays the singleplayer and then puts down the game (a few will bother to dip their toes in MP but that's it)

@WinterSnowblind said:

Find it slightly amusing that it's a case of "OMG BOYCOT IT!" when Ubisoft do this for a game nobody cares about, but when it's Diablo, it get's a free pass.

Wait is there already a consensus that D3 gets a free pass? Must have missed it.

The new AH is at the root of this, at least according to Blizz. 'Protecting the player based economy' and such. Anyway, co-op will be the way to play, and I'll bet they figure a way to let people play remotely in some 'safe' way, like SC2. Bigger news to me was that the beta is real close, and will be a pretty small portion of the first act. They're saying the beta's goals are to test new hardware and battlenet, as well as insure a smooth DL, and initial launch. To me this means a relatively short beta window and a 2011 release for sure.

@Tennmuerti said:

@JJWeatherman said:

I wouldn't want to play Diablo 3 without an internet connection anyway...

Who plays single player Diablo? Crazy people? I kid, but seriously, the multiplayer's where the meat'll be and where I'm sure people will spend the vast majority of their time with the game. At least that's assuming it's structured similarly to D2.

Overall feelings: *shrugs*

The hardcore are indeed those that will spend the bulk of time playing online and they are the people that keep a game like Diablo 2 relevant. But the unwashed masses will never bother with D3 multiplayer (unless forced into it), same situation as with MW2 or SC2. Avarage joe plays the singleplayer and then puts down the game (a few will bother to dip their toes in MP but that's it)

I really am not sure I agree with that. I think LOTS of more "casual" players in fact ONLY play the multiplayer in games like MW especially. I know a few people who buy games to play online with friends. They don't care about any single player. I always assumed this was at least fairly common.

@Tennmuerti said:

@WinterSnowblind said:

Find it slightly amusing that it's a case of "OMG BOYCOT IT!" when Ubisoft do this for a game nobody cares about, but when it's Diablo, it get's a free pass.

Wait is there already a consensus that D3 gets a free pass? Must have missed it.

Look at first few comments on this thread, look at them on other sites.. and look at the sales of SC2.

People complain about DRM like it's the death of the industry.. but as soon as a game they care about uses it, it suddenly stops being a big deal.

I was gonna buy it day one but if this rumour is true then fuck you Blizzard I am spending my hard earned money elsewhere. Blizz or Ubi, I don't condone excessive money grubbing at the expense of loyal customers. 

As if I needed more reasons to not care for D3. Blizzard/Activion gives them anyway, well ... the decision to not buy the game gets easier and easier.

Has anyone already brought up the real money marketplace they are going to introduce? Ridiculous. Say goodbye to the best items if you're not willing to invest some serious real money. lol.

@Tennmuerti: I can't really disagree on the whole bad internet connection thing in other countries that are less technically advanced.. who knows how many people in those countries even play PC games? But I think consoles are different from PCs, I personally don't know a single person with a PC who doesn't have an internet connection, which doesn't mean much, of course. Still.. they wouldn't do it, if they'd earn a lot less money by implementing DRM. Most people will be happy about it or they won't bother at all (like me). I don't mean to be selfish here and I feel sorry for the few people who really don't have a way to go online, because of where they live.. 99% of the people complaining though are trolling. People without an internet connection can't even complain on forums, right?

@Henny said:

I was gonna buy it day one but if this rumour is true then fuck you Blizzard I am spending my hard earned money elsewhere. Blizz or Ubi, I don't condone excessive money grubbing at the expense of loyal customers.

So, now please explain to me why it bothers you and what exactly you are complaining about?

that wouldnt affect the way i play the game at all, or any game for that matter. the time between now and the last time i played a video game without an internet connection would be best measured in years.

@WinterSnowblind said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@WinterSnowblind said:

Find it slightly amusing that it's a case of "OMG BOYCOT IT!" when Ubisoft do this for a game nobody cares about, but when it's Diablo, it get's a free pass.

Wait is there already a consensus that D3 gets a free pass? Must have missed it.

Look at first few comments on this thread, look at them on other sites.. and look at the sales of SC2.

People complain about DRM like it's the death of the industry.. but as soon as a game they care about uses it, it suddenly stops being a big deal.

SC2 had different DRM.

We all have to draw a line somewhere (and if you don't well what does that say about those people?). I draw mine at always online for SP.

@Addfwyn said:

Doesn't phase me, I don't see what the justification would be for complaining about this. Who doesn't have constant access to the internet these days, even living in a country where wifi is almost nonexistent, I can swing it. SC2 had an 'offline' mode that I never used even once, I believe it disabled achievements anyway. I don't see how this is all that different.

People with laptops on trips? Doesn't matter if 'everyone's got it' they're specifically taking away something from you. Why is that okay?

@emem said:

@Henny said:

I was gonna buy it day one but if this rumour is true then fuck you Blizzard I am spending my hard earned money elsewhere. Blizz or Ubi, I don't condone excessive money grubbing at the expense of loyal customers.

So, now please explain to me why it bothers you and what exactly you are complaining about?

The problems of the always on internet connection to play a SP game have already been explained to death on these forums, if you are unaware of them, it is really on you.If you are really interested do a search on AC2 forums.

@zoner: Are you going to be playing Diablo 3 on a laptop on a trip, really? Maybe it's cause my laptop has ceased to ever be used (between desktop/ipad, laptop seems useless to me now) but my gaming on the go is mostly conducted on portable game systems. I can't think of any place you're going to be with a laptop where you'd have the time to sit down for a serious game session, and no connection to the internet.

I'm okay with it, because presumably you get the extra content for being online, achievements, friend lists, what have you. Not to mention preventing the rampant hacking that ruined the first two Diablos. Would it be nice for the people that are okay with that and want the offline mode functionality? Probably, yes. Same thing with SC2 not having LANs. On the other hand, is it going to seriously negatively affect anybody? Absolutely not, that's why it's okay. More features are of course, good, but when they are something that most people will never even notice, it's not really worth getting riled up about it.

Myself, if it results in the game not being destroyed by hackers and dupers, that's good enough for me. Otherwise, you'd have to play with a totally separate account/characters for the 'offline' mode, which kinda defeats the point of playing diablo to begin with.

@Henny: ... you are online right now, so you probably wouldn't have a problem with the internet part. The real money auction house is something you don't have to use, if that's even true.

@emem said:

I don't mean to be selfish here and I feel sorry for the few people who really don't have a way to go online, because of where they live.. 99% of the people complaining though are trolling. People without an internet connection can't even complain on forums, right?

There is a big difference between having internet access and having a full time stable internet connection. Which is exactly the problem of this kind of DRM, you get cut off, or your internet is shitty, and you can't play your SP game. This is not even touching on people who travel a lot.

Hell, people who bought AC2 on PC could not even play it at all for the first week or so since Ubisoft servers were down. While the pirates had no problem.

@Tennmuerti: I read something about services being unavailabe and people not being able to play games. Yeah, that is or can be a huge downside, but it barely happens anymore. I remember the problems with Assassins Creed a while back.. things are becoming more stable these days. And that's not even what most people complain about, sadly.

Oh and I get what you are saying about having a bad internet connection, but it has to be a tiny fraction of people otherwise Blizzard and Ubisoft wouldn't do it. I'm sometimes having trouble with my connection as well and I can relate to how frustrating it can be. Most people, however, are not complaining about having a bad internet connection or none at all and those guys whine the loudest.

@Addfwyn said:

I can't think of any place you're going to be with a laptop where you'd have the time to sit down for a serious game session, and no connection to the internet.

I regulary go with my family for ski trips in the mountains during holidays and bring my laptop with me to play games and relax after a full day of physical exertion. That's just me tho. There are also a few GB's I know who are deployed overseas and consequently can only play SP games for long periods, due to non existence or poor quality of internet connection.

@Addfwyn said:

On the other hand, is it going to seriously negatively affect anybody? Absolutely not, that's why it's okay.

Actually yes. Just because it will not affect you does not mean everyone is in the same situation.

So?

This is a 100% multiplayer game for me so I'm fine with it. Sucks for people in other situations, though.

@emem said:

I don't mean to be selfish here and I feel sorry for the few people who really don't have a way to go online, because of where they live.. 99% of the people complaining though are trolling. People without an internet connection can't even complain on forums, right?

There is a big difference between having internet access and having a full time stable internet connection. Which is exactly the problem of this kind of DRM, you get cut off, or your internet is shitty, and you can't play your SP game. This is not even touching on people who travel a lot.

Hell, people who bought AC2 on PC could not even play it at all for the first week or so since Ubisoft servers were down. While the pirates had no problem.

@Tennmuerti: @ShiftyMagician: I was mostly okay with Ubisoft when they did it too, so there's not that much bias (though I think it's a bit stranger in the context of a primarily single player experience vs a primarily multiplayer one). In my country we don't have wifi and internet connections everywhere like they do in the US (though we do have robust cell phone networks) Yet, I still consider this a positive change. Features like keeping the hackers that ruin these kinds of games out alone is should be a good enough incentive. I suppose you could argue for the ability to have a totally separate single player experience, and that could be beneficial for some people, but does anyone honestly want to play a Diablo offline? Maybe they do, and I'm crazy, but to me it seems the same as complaining that you can't play say...World of Warcraft offline. They are inherently multiplayer games. In the case of D3, online-only should generally increase the quality of the title. Didn't Darkspore do the same thing, being a primarily multiplayer only game?

Interesting use case scenarios Tennmuerti, and you may have a point but...well, I just don't think Diablo has ever been a particularly positive single-player experience, so I'd still think those people would rather play something else. I guess it comes down to there being a small minority they can cater to, vs an improved experience for a larger portion of the community. I feel that's why Ubisoft got more flak when they did it, because they were doing it for a game primarily about the single player experience.

I don't play Diablo for its single player, so I'm fine with it.

@Addfwyn: I personally never played Diablo 2 online. Finished it a few times but all in singleplayer. So for me it was always a SP game, just like Diablo 1

Yes Darkspore did the same thing but Darkspore is just an abyssmal and content poor game in SP, and even MP did little to aleviate that.

'When Blizzard does it, I don't care.' Acitivision manipulates pushover fans into accepting something awful as a paradigm. When you know a fan has lost all ability to say no to a franchise, you can use the franchise to introduce all sorts of bullshit.