Offline Single-player

#1 Posted by AnxiousTube (180 posts) -

Do you think, in the coming weeks or months, that Blizzard will offer an offline mode for single-player? There seems to be a lot of ruckus over the fact that this game is a single-player game at heart, yet holds the trappings of a multiplayer game. Is it just me or could Blizzard have found an actual happy-medium between multiplayer and single-player? I feel like they went in to battle with blinders on by putting Diablo out in the state that it is in. I mean it's horrible; accounts getting hacked left and right, players can't login because the single-player game is server based, and Blizzard is keeping its noes in the air as it dismisses and continues to try and make the multiplayer better. What is Blizzard actually trying to attempt by making a game like this, yeah it's a fun game, but is it worth all of the trouble that people are going through?

#2 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1740 posts) -

No. Don't see it happening.

#3 Posted by yoshisaur (2668 posts) -

No, that would take a dramatic over haul of the game and there are no sign's but a bunch of whiny individuals on the forums crying out for the change. Obviously people are playing, and obviously people bought it. It would be moronic to make that switch...it would ruin their reputation.

#4 Posted by AnxiousTube (180 posts) -

Why though? What's stopping it?

#5 Posted by AnxiousTube (180 posts) -

@ccampb89: how could this ruin there reputation? Isn't there reputation already going down the shitter? How dramatic would the change actually be? It's the exact same game except it's offline.

#6 Edited by Pop (2610 posts) -

@AnxiousTube said:

Why though? What's stopping it?

nothing is stopping it, Blizzard just wants to control every aspect of the game. And it's not that easy to make it offline just like that, they have all the data on the servers they would have to make it so all the data is stored locally, I'm not a coder but that doesn't sound easy to me.

#7 Posted by AnxiousTube (180 posts) -

@Pop: I'm not saying it would take a day but I definitely think it should be done. I mean they made the sales, I'm sure they could pay their legions of employes to figure it out, sending it out as an update in the next few months. I don't really know anything about code, but I do know that sheer manpower can accomplish a lot.

#8 Posted by Skytylz (4031 posts) -

No. The auction house.

#9 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

It's not going to happen, they want people using Battle.net and the auction house.

#10 Posted by yoshisaur (2668 posts) -

@AnxiousTube: You seem to forget how the online-mode works. Everything is connected to servers, thus it would take an entirely new system to put that kind of workings in an offline mode. Second of all, it would ruin their reputation because they have been trying to push Battle.net ever since it evolved on the WoW servers and to back down from it would be backing down from a long time investment and telling everyone "I was wrong."

I find nothing wrong with the online-only aspect of this game, and never have for anything else. Gaming is an entertainment product, not a necessity. The idea that we as the consumer deserve everything our way is absurd. If a company wishes to push a new system, let them. Don't buy it, that is truly the only way you can boycott such a move. With as many copies as Diablo 3 sold, all which knew that it had Online-DRM, I doubt people are really that bothered with this as much as all the hype is making it out to be.

To be honest, if I wanted anyone to find a way to make Online-DRM work (and so far, they have) it would be Blizzard. They are implementing the service for adding security, auction housing, and the social aspect that almost all games lack. I don't play single-player games because they feel lonely and lack any form of interaction that I play games for. And just in case you haven't read, the security issues are being thrown down as in-conclusive, so we can't really use that kind of argument in any form of debate. People just need to start securing their accounts better, that is all.

#11 Posted by yoshisaur (2668 posts) -

@AnxiousTube said:

@Pop: I'm not saying it would take a day but I definitely think it should be done. I mean they made the sales, I'm sure they could pay their legions of employes to figure it out, sending it out as an update in the next few months. I don't really know anything about code, but I do know that sheer manpower can accomplish a lot.

(Sorry for double post)

But you have to ask yourself this question. "Why would they?" They have a working system right now, that in the beginning was laggy, but that's everything in this world. They would still have these problems if they allowed a single-player mode, so nothing would have been really added in the end. I think Blizzard honestly understands their fans can go without Diablo III every now and then due to the outtages of the servers and lag. You know, like normal people.

Don't fix something that isn't broken, and their Online-DRM isn't broken. Just look at the number of people logging in every day, and those that have reached high-level tiers. They wouldn't have been able to do that if the Online-DRM was as borked as the internet makes it out to be.

#12 Posted by EXTomar (4519 posts) -

Blizzard didn't relent for Starcraft 2 and that has way more visibility and advertising money behind it. I'm unsure how a smaller group of people whining about Diablo 3 is going to make them change their mind.

#13 Posted by Mnemoidian (955 posts) -

Could, they, technically, create a local server that just allows you to play "offline"? Yes, very likely. (though it'd very likely be a lot of work anyway)

Are they going to? No. Because all of this silly ruckus is going to pass, and in 5 years, every game will have an online-component, and no one will care because everyone is always connected. And a downed internet connection means a lot bigger infrastructural issues than just being unable to play games for a while.

#14 Posted by AnxiousTube (180 posts) -

@ccampb89: "people need to start securing their accounts better, that is all." Um, would that be a problem if the game was offline in the first place? "Gaming is an entertainment product, not a necessity. The idea that we as the consumer deserve everything our way is absurd." first of all, I never said that we need it to be, 'our' way, second of all there are a number of legal court cases that prove your statement is fallible. Just because a game is entertainment means it is immune to critical reaction and the voice of the individual? And Battle.net, people are going to think less of them because they pulled out a little bit from Battle.net, really? I mean that's is so absurd. It's like saying people in the Middle East are going to hate us forever because we left Iraq, rather then stay and continue to bleed and toil for their country. If the blizzard really wanted to stop pirates, I think they should find a way to do it without harming the experience of the individual who actually bought the product fairly.

#15 Posted by AnxiousTube (180 posts) -

@ccampb89: I'm not saying the DRM is broke, or their game is broke. IN FACT, I have bought the game and played it, it's just fine. However, I just want the ability to play it offline. There isn't internet everywhere I go, which means I paid for a game that I can't play, a SINGLE-player game, anytime I want.

#16 Posted by Slither_Maggot (221 posts) -

I would like to think they would but for many of the reasons stated about (mainly advertising and the $ they rake in) I don't see it happening. :-(

#17 Edited by Gonmog (580 posts) -

Cause at its heart...it is not a single player game?

#18 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@AnxiousTube said:

@ccampb89: how could this ruin there reputation? Isn't there reputation already going down the shitter?

Whose reputation? Blizzard's reputation is, "already going down the shitter?" The company that breaks pc gaming records whenever they put out games? The company that created the model for what we know today as the MMO? The company that has created a national pass time in Korea and has spawned the world of e-sports? Are you talking about that Blizzard?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say their "reputation" is, and will continue to be, just fine.

#19 Posted by winsol (73 posts) -

@ccampb89: Excantly, you see what people don't seem to realise is that it's Blizzards vision for the game to be online all the time. If they were to change it now then they would lose all 'artistic integrity'.

#20 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@Mnemoidian said:

Could, they, technically, create a local server that just allows you to play "offline"? Yes, very likely. (though it'd very likely be a lot of work anyway)

Are they going to? No. Because all of this silly ruckus is going to pass, and in 5 years, every game will have an online-component, and no one will care because everyone is always connected. And a downed internet connection means a lot bigger infrastructural issues than just being unable to play games for a while.

Sense. Thank you.

The other day my internet went out and I couldn't play D3, and I though, "Damn, that sucks." Then I went to watch something on my computer and went, "Damn, I can't watch Netflix." So I decided to try to do something productive, so I went to my e-mail, and once again, you guessed it, "Damn! I can't do any work without an internet connection." The moral of the story is that being without an internet connection froze up no just my playing of Diablo 3, but further, a rather large facet of my life as a whole which was a much bigger problem.

If people want to complain, they ought to be complaining about server latency or something that Blizzard might be able to effect. The internet connection is a reality that permeates our daily lives as it is. D3 is just another aspect of it. Our modern lives require the internet for all kinds of things and if it goes down, not being able to play D3 is only a minor worry.

#21 Edited by Tennmuerti (8013 posts) -

@AnxiousTube:

It's never going to happen because of the very basic way the entire game is built.

The entire game code is designed like an MMO with a client server architecture, it's not just DRM you are literally playing on Blizzard servers. The game is effectively just a client with all the behind the scenes calculations, randomization, storage, tracking, control happening server side.In order to enable people to play it single player offline Blizzard would have to release their server code into the wild, people would be basically running their own personal servers, which completely opens the game up to piracy and hacking. Not to mention the hoops Blizzard would have to jump through to push a server to people, this is something that is not on the disk and would have to be downloaded by players.

Effectively asking them to enable people to play D3 single player offline is about as much effort, hassle, security risk as allowing something like this for an MMO infrastructure. It's not going to be done for technical/security reasons at this point.

I'm pro offline option, but it's not going to happen.

#22 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

@drGiggless said:

Thankfully I have a PS3 and don't have to deal with shit like this. It's amazing how many pc gamers willingly put up with all the bs and hassles associated with these games. The sheep go bahhhhh.

And now you seem like a hater. Trust me, many aren't happy with this but what else can they do? Not play it? It's the sequel to the greatest action RPG ever created, people have been waiting for 10 years, of course they'll play it. Shit even I'm gonna get it when Blizzard handles the situation.

#23 Edited by drGiggless (222 posts) -

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@drGiggless said:

Thankfully I have a PS3 and don't have to deal with shit like this. It's amazing how many pc gamers willingly put up with all the bs and hassles associated with these games. The sheep go bahhhhh.

And now you seem like a hater. Trust me, many aren't happy with this but what else can they do? Not play it? It's the sequel to the greatest action RPG ever created, people have been waiting for 10 years, of course they'll play it. Shit even I'm gonna get it when Blizzard handles the situation.

I am more hating on society in general than PC gamers. The same thing happens with political corruption or when they pass a law that takes away some of our freedoms. People get mildly upset for about a week, and then just accept it and completely forget about it. I don't mindlessly accept everything that authority tells me to do. I probably am a hater. Oh well.

#24 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

@drGiggless said:

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@drGiggless said:

Thankfully I have a PS3 and don't have to deal with shit like this. It's amazing how many pc gamers willingly put up with all the bs and hassles associated with these games. The sheep go bahhhhh.

And now you seem like a hater. Trust me, many aren't happy with this but what else can they do? Not play it? It's the sequel to the greatest action RPG ever created, people have been waiting for 10 years, of course they'll play it. Shit even I'm gonna get it when Blizzard handles the situation.

I am more hating on society in general than PC gamers. The same thing happens with political corruption or when they pass a law that takes away some of our freedoms. People get mildly upset for about a week, and then just accept it and completely forget about it.

Yeah, but see, freedom is an illusion. The government, i.e. Blizzard, will do whatever the fuck they want regardless of what you do or think. But i do see where you're coming from. The incredible sales of Diablo III will no doubt influence some other fucktards into putting in an internet connection requirement. I just hope Bethesda doesn't get the same idea.

#25 Posted by drGiggless (222 posts) -

@TheDudeOfGaming: That's a fair point. Realistically I have no power to change anything, but out of principle I will not support these things nor will I forget about them.

#26 Posted by StarvingGamer (8032 posts) -
@drGiggless

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@drGiggless said:

Thankfully I have a PS3 and don't have to deal with shit like this. It's amazing how many pc gamers willingly put up with all the bs and hassles associated with these games. The sheep go bahhhhh.

And now you seem like a hater. Trust me, many aren't happy with this but what else can they do? Not play it? It's the sequel to the greatest action RPG ever created, people have been waiting for 10 years, of course they'll play it. Shit even I'm gonna get it when Blizzard handles the situation.

I am more hating on society in general than PC gamers. The same thing happens with political corruption or when they pass a law that takes away some of our freedoms. People get mildly upset for about a week, and then just accept it and completely forget about it. I don't mindlessly accept everything that authority tells me to do. I probably am a hater. Oh well.

Wow, that's an incredibly stupid comparison.

Do you also not eat at restaurants because they don't freely release their recipes to the public?
#27 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

@StarvingGamer: Principles man, gotta stand by them.

#28 Posted by DeF (4812 posts) -

not gonna happen, they made their point, they knew about the backlash when they announced this. it's just the same people complaining again because not everyone has to actually deal with it.

I'd love an offline option but they made the only part so essential and were so stubborn about LAN modes and stuff in SC2, there's no way they all of a sudden will cave and say "uh, okay guys ..here's your offline mode".

#29 Edited by MrOldboy (868 posts) -

I think it would be fine to add an offline mode, but keep that mode off of battle.net. Sure people would figure out a way to crack it and people would pirate it. But holy shit have a lot of people already bought it. Once sales trickle down in a few months why not add it? Unless sales keep steady of course. Act like you're giving your fans what they want and turn it into a positive PR event.

Better yet, have it as a feature in the inevitable expansion. Explain how the amount of dev time it took to add justifies it being part of the paid expansion. Act like you give everything to your loyal fans and that they deserve to pay you more money for more content.

#30 Posted by StarvingGamer (8032 posts) -

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@StarvingGamer: Principles man, gotta stand by them.

Principles are fine, but acting like a public organization taking away civil liberties and a private organization trying to maintain secure control over their product are the same thing, or even similar, is painfully inane.

#31 Posted by gamefreak9 (2345 posts) -

This is NOT a single player game at heart. This is a COOP game at heart.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.