This game cannot be online only.

  • 103 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

I am playing the BETA in singleplayer and getting crazy lag at the moment. Like, hitting attack and nothing happens for several seconds, jumping around the area because it's not keeping track of my movement. This is ridiculous. I'm never going to use that fucking Auction House and I don't need to connect to a server, why do I have to put up with this bullshit? Is this game going to be playable on a slow connection even when the servers aren't being hammered?

#2 Posted by Neon25 (22 posts) -

As of now only the US servers are open. On 15th of May, additional servers in US, EU and Asia will open.

#3 Posted by dr_mantas (1792 posts) -

That's why they call it a stress test. They stress their servers to stretching point.

Yesterday, I couldn't even get on. Now I can.

On the other hand, I'm not gonna buy it, because I don't believe single player games should be always online. And their justification for it is insufficient (at least for me)

#4 Posted by Giefcookie (583 posts) -

In some dark cave somewhere the business people used their mathemagics and came to the conclusion that making sure people cant cheat, therefore making the real money auctionhouse valid, is going to make blizzard enough money to ignore the people who won't buy the game cos of the always online part.

#5 Posted by Canteu (2821 posts) -

Diablo is not a single player game.

#6 Posted by Gargantuan (1881 posts) -

@Canteu said:

Diablo is not a single player game.

I played through Diablo and Diablo 2 in single player mode before I even touched multiplayer. Spent most of my time in single player.

#7 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@dr_mantas said:

On the other hand, I'm not gonna buy it, because I don't believe single player games should be always online. And their justification for it is insufficient (at least for me)

What is their justification anyway?
#8 Posted by AndrewB (7490 posts) -

@Gargantuan said:

@Canteu said:

Diablo is not a single player game.

I played through Diablo and Diablo 2 in single player mode before I even touched multiplayer. Spent most of my time in single player.

And I will only ever play Diablo 3 single player.

I understand what Blizzard is trying to do, but they really should have an offline mode. Make it invalidate your character and never allow them to go online if your goal is to prevent online cheating... but I've already seen what happens when there's a problem connecting to a server (whether it's a local or remote issue).

#9 Posted by RIDEBIRD (1230 posts) -

I'm gonna sell the fuck out of the auctionhouse. Thirteen year old's with daddy's credit card - BRING IT ON

#10 Posted by Canteu (2821 posts) -

@Gargantuan: Same here, but that doesn't mean it's a single player franchise.

#11 Posted by zyn (2591 posts) -

@Ertard said:

I'm gonna sell the fuck out of the auctionhouse. Thirteen year old's with daddy's credit card - BRING IT ON

QFT!

#12 Posted by Zero_ (1973 posts) -

The times where it lags out , your character does shit all and then suddenly WAMPAPBAMPMBLAMLAMVBBALM is pretty awesome.

#13 Posted by Giefcookie (583 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@dr_mantas said:

On the other hand, I'm not gonna buy it, because I don't believe single player games should be always online. And their justification for it is insufficient (at least for me)

What is their justification anyway?

Just control. Having players always connected to Battlenet gives them a lot more ways to keep track of people, gather statistics and prevent cheating.

@Ertard said:

I'm gonna sell the fuck out of the auctionhouse. Thirteen year old's with daddy's credit card - BRING IT ON

Real money auctionhouse is probably the most interesting thing about the game. Not that I'll use it but it will be fun seeing what kind of crazy stories come out of if. But if you are planning on selling stuff, you might check your Paypal account to see what kind of fee they will be taking. Doubt its a ton but losing 4-5% on every sell you make kinda sucks.

#14 Posted by onarum (2013 posts) -
@Giefcookie said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@dr_mantas said:

On the other hand, I'm not gonna buy it, because I don't believe single player games should be always online. And their justification for it is insufficient (at least for me)

What is their justification anyway?

Just control. Having players always connected to Battlenet gives them a lot more ways to keep track of people, gather statistics and prevent cheating.

Will be awesome when I can't play a freaking SINGLE PLAYER campaign when the internet goes down, and even more awesome when I get terrible LAG on a SINGLE PLAYER campaign because my bandwidth is being used up (shared internet), let alone the fact that I live in Brasil and the connection with the servers will already be poor no matter how my bandwidth looks like, absolutely awesome. 
 
Also I couldn't give two fucks for that stupid auction house.,
 
Well, I guess that's why all the cracks/hacks are there for.
#15 Posted by RIDEBIRD (1230 posts) -

@Giefcookie: Prolly around there, can't do anything about it anyways. I have way too much time on my hands this summer and very little money, planning on trying to make a few bucks on the auction house. Will probably be a shit salary per hour but I've been unable to find a summer job, so

#16 Posted by Animasta (14648 posts) -

here's the solution: get torchlight 2

#17 Posted by Brodehouse (9585 posts) -

Noticeable that despite all these issues and anger the concept of just not buying the game didn't even float up once. At this point, I'm not sure gamers are capable of it.

In the real world, you don't just throw the money at it and then get angry when it is exactly what it said it was. You don't buy a car with a console in the back and then go "WHY DOESN'T THIS CAR HAVE A BACKSEAT?!?!"

#18 Posted by Pop (2605 posts) -

I know it's probably going to work fine for me when the european servers go on, but I kind of think this is a stupid idea there are ways around it like making a multiplayer character which you can use online and find items that you can put on the auction house and an offline character that you can do shit all to, what do they care what you do with a character that has 0 impact on other players, and maybe you can use the multiplayer character offline but then you can't take it back online but you would still have that old version of it.

There are plenty of ways to make it work offline and online. I can't believe I'm going to say this but when diablo 3 comes out Ubisoft won't be the company with the worse DRM.

#19 Posted by ajamafalous (11846 posts) -

@Canteu said:

Diablo is not a single player game.

#20 Posted by ajamafalous (11846 posts) -
@Pop said:
I can't believe I'm going to say this but when diablo 3 comes out Ubisoft won't be the company with the worse DRM.
What? How is it any different than Diablo II?
#21 Posted by DeanoXD (608 posts) -

How is any of this different from Starcraft 2? Won't both games work in the same way? and SC2 seems to be doing just fine.

I personally don't see the issue here if by some chance my internet is down well there are plenty of other things to do.

#22 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2129 posts) -

@ajamafalous said:

@Pop said:
I can't believe I'm going to say this but when diablo 3 comes out Ubisoft won't be the company with the worse DRM.
What? How is it any different than Diablo II?

Isn't Diablo 2 completely playable from start to finish without ever being connected to the internet?

So far from the options available there is no way to play in an offline state. Also with an online login as a mandatory gate there might never be one (hope I'm wrong there). I'm getting the game anyway to see if it affects me at all or not being in Australia so hoping no latency issues when only playing by myself in private mode. Also getting it because I still have that feeling it will be fine as Blizzard isn't known for making horribly made games now.

#23 Posted by pweidman (2297 posts) -

@Animasta said:

here's the solution: get torchlight 2

BOOM. And $20 gonna make y'all holla.

#24 Posted by RedRoach (1176 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@dr_mantas said:

On the other hand, I'm not gonna buy it, because I don't believe single player games should be always online. And their justification for it is insufficient (at least for me)

What is their justification anyway?

Well not that they have a real money AH, people need to be online to prevent cheating and exploits giving people massive loot that they can make money on.

#25 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2682 posts) -

Hey, it's 2012 and someone is still complaining about always-on internet games.

#26 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

The fact that you have to be online at all times to play it is awful. The fact that you actually get lag when you're playing alone is even worse.

#27 Posted by AssInAss (2541 posts) -

As soon as I heard the "always online" news, I was put off from ever purchasing the game. I don't have much allegiance to the franchise, so it's easier for me, but for the Diablo fans, it's harder so they try to vent to change it. But you know what's an easier way to change it?

Vote with your wallet.

#28 Posted by ajamafalous (11846 posts) -
@ShiftyMagician said:

@ajamafalous said:

@Pop said:
I can't believe I'm going to say this but when diablo 3 comes out Ubisoft won't be the company with the worse DRM.
What? How is it any different than Diablo II?

Isn't Diablo 2 completely playable from start to finish without ever being connected to the internet?

Suppose you're right about never having to connect to the internet to play through D2, but for me D2 has always been a multiplayer game.
 
Instead, I'll say: how is this any different than StarCraft II?
#29 Posted by S0ndor (2715 posts) -

Please paint me a realistic picture of a scenario where always-online would be a constant hassle. Are you people all on dial-up or something? Are you connecting from a house where people are downloading porn 24/7?

#30 Edited by Matthew (1911 posts) -
@Azteck said:

The fact that you have to be online at all times to play it is awful. The fact that you actually get lag when you're playing alone is even worse.

Who's to say that is what is actually going to happen? You're probably getting lag simply because this is a stress test. The things to be distraught about at this point would be the mechanics, because you know they're not going to be making any changes between now and release, which is what, like 3 weeks away? The connection to the 'net is probably going to be most miniscule, so much so that lag is going to be the furthest thing from your mind. Best case scenario.  
 
@S0ndor: 2 people on the same network watching HD Netflix?
#31 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -
@Matthew said:
@Azteck said:
The fact that you have to be online at all times to play it is awful. The fact that you actually get lag when you're playing alone is even worse.
Who's to say that is what is actually going to happen? You're probably getting lag simply because this is a stress test. The things to be distraught about at this point would be the mechanics, because you know they're not going to be making any changes between now and release, which is what, like 3 weeks away? The connection to the 'net is probably going to be most miniscule, so much so that lag is going to be the furthest thing from your mind. Best case scenario. 
Even so, every server breaks down at some point. I mean look at League of Legends, it's been basically unplayable the entire week because of server issues, and that game has been running for nearly three years. I realize that it's probably unlikely that you'll experience it once it actually hits retail but that still doesn't excuse the fact that it does happen. Besides, how is it okay for Blizzard to demand that you are constantly online but Ubisoft gets boycotted and thrown to the wolves years after they stopped using that form of DRM? It's ludicrous and hypocritical.
#32 Posted by Irvandus (2818 posts) -

Your a little late to the party with this.

#33 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

@Canteu said:

@Gargantuan: Same here, but that doesn't mean it's a single player franchise.

If you could play through the first two games without an internet connection, it also means it wasn't a multiplayer game. So the third one shouldn't require a internet connection either. Still gonna get it though.

#34 Posted by Jimbo (9772 posts) -

Not buying it because of the always-online / IRL money auction thing. But whatevs - they'll make back far more money from monetising OCD than they'll ever lose from the few people that decide not to buy into it.

#35 Posted by Matthew (1911 posts) -
@Azteck
@Matthew said:
@Azteck said:
The fact that you have to be online at all times to play it is awful. The fact that you actually get lag when you're playing alone is even worse.
Who's to say that is what is actually going to happen? You're probably getting lag simply because this is a stresstest. The things to be distraught about at this point would be the mechanics, because you know they're not going to be making any changes between now and release, which is what, like 3 weeks away? The connection to the 'net is probably going to be most miniscule, so much so that lag is going to be the furthest thing from your mind. Best case scenario. 
Even so, every server breaks down at some point. I mean look at League of Legends, it's been basically unplayable the entire week because of server issues, and that game has been running for nearly three years. I realize that it's probably unlikely that you'll experience it once it actually hits retail but that still doesn't excuse the fact that it does happen. Besides, how is it okay for Blizzard to demand that you are constantly online but Ubisoft gets boycotted and thrown to the wolves years after they stopped using that form of DRM? It's ludicrous and hypocritical.
True. Ideally, the developers of Diablo 3 have a better track record with servers and their issues than the developers of League of Legends. And Blizzard gets a pass with draconian drm methods because they have 11 million people sucking from their collective breast. I don't think Ubisoft is in the same situation in that manner.
#36 Posted by BaneFireLord (2909 posts) -

@Ertard said:

I'm gonna sell the fuck out of the auctionhouse. Thirteen year old's with daddy's credit card - BRING IT ON

This is the main reason why I'm buying it day one.

Online
#37 Posted by Artigkar (189 posts) -

This seems strange to me, why is there lag in single player? While Starcraft 2 used "always online" you still could play single player fine...

#38 Posted by Canteu (2821 posts) -

@TheDudeOfGaming: You can play Battlefield, hell even counter strike, without an internet connection. That must mean that these are single player games.

#39 Posted by benjaebe (2783 posts) -

Holy shit, you're telling me a beta version of a game opened to the public to stress test their servers that aren't even all operational yet DOESN'T WORK FLAWLESSLY?

I swear sometimes the purpose of a beta flies completely over people's heads. If you're experiencing issues when the full game is released then feel free to complain, until then this is a bug and stress test for Blizzard and not a free demo of a final retail product for you to enjoy.

I don't have a problem with requiring an internet connection anyway, I can't think of a time when my PC isn't connected online.

#40 Posted by Aronman789 (2676 posts) -

@Rolyatkcinmai said:

Hey, it's 2012 and someone is still complaining about always-on internet games.

Hey, it's 2012 and people still don't understand that not everyone has a solid internet connection.

Many places still don't have good connection in the US, places that aren't even rural by the way, and I'm going to go ahead and say it's still a problem with many other countries too. It was only a couple months ago that I was able to get a good connection going, for a very long time I had to deal with a connection that would disconnect every couple hours for very long periods of time, and it's not like I live somewhere in the desert or the mountains, I live in Florida.

#41 Posted by Hailinel (23875 posts) -

@Animasta said:

here's the solution: get torchlight 2

#42 Posted by Toxeia (728 posts) -

The online only thing is a less invasive form of DRM. If you'd like, I'm sure Blizzard would love to accommodate you with some Ubisoft-style DRM.

Honestly, other than war-torn third world countries and soldiers away from home no one's going to really notice this. I do think it's a shame that active military that want to play some Diablo III on their downtime might not be able to, but you don't put out a 50-60 dollar game without some sort of protection against piracy.

And if you're really so upset about it, or for some reason you're just unable to get anything above 56k in your area then I suppose you could always pirate it but then you're just making the problem worse later down the road, aren't you?

#43 Posted by Gargantuan (1881 posts) -

@Toxeia said:

The online only thing is a less invasive form of DRM. If you'd like, I'm sure Blizzard would love to accommodate you with some Ubisoft-style DRM.

Honestly, other than war-torn third world countries and soldiers away from home no one's going to really notice this. I do think it's a shame that active military that want to play some Diablo III on their downtime might not be able to, but you don't put out a 50-60 dollar game without some sort of protection against piracy.

And if you're really so upset about it, or for some reason you're just unable to get anything above 56k in your area then I suppose you could always pirate it but then you're just making the problem worse later down the road, aren't you?

Isn't online only the DRM Ubisoft use?

#44 Posted by Canteu (2821 posts) -

@Aronman789: Hey, it's 2012 and for some shit reason we don't have flying cars, robot butlers or infinite free internet for every single person.

Man, the future sucks :(

#45 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2129 posts) -

@ajamafalous said:

@ShiftyMagician said:

@ajamafalous said:

@Pop said:
I can't believe I'm going to say this but when diablo 3 comes out Ubisoft won't be the company with the worse DRM.
What? How is it any different than Diablo II?

Isn't Diablo 2 completely playable from start to finish without ever being connected to the internet?

Suppose you're right about never having to connect to the internet to play through D2, but for me D2 has always been a multiplayer game. Instead, I'll say: how is this any different than StarCraft II?

I'd say that Starcraft 2 doesn't jerk you back in the campaign when playing by yourself when you get a little laggy, indicating that even by yourself you have to send a consistent stream of info to justify it. Even if the Diablo 3 Beta weekend was a stress test that they needed to do, it was weird for me playing by myself to see my guy pause slightly then jerk back a little to a previous location, indicating online lag. I understand completely if it had more than one player in it but it is a little odd to see and I don't personally welcome it.

Sure I can take a bet that it will be fine soon after launch and I get why they have to do it. That doesn't mean I personally agree with their design philosophy for their game regarding online features and mechanics though, even if they are forced to do it so that they can ensure they can secure their potential large profits over the long-term of the game's lifetime (which is an understandable thing).

#46 Posted by Cronus42 (274 posts) -

@Canteu said:

Diablo is not a single player game.

#47 Edited by Gargantuan (1881 posts) -

@Cronus42 said:

@Canteu said:

Diablo is not a single player game.

Baldurs Gate is not a single player game. Mass Effect 3 is not a single player game. Dead Space 2 is not a single player game. Splinter Cell is not a single player.

Saying that Diablo is not a single player game is fucking stupid.

#48 Edited by Canteu (2821 posts) -

@Gargantuan: Well the difference there is, I am right, and you are wrong. Keep saying more games though, makes you look smart.

Oh, and Diablo is not a single player game, just thought you should be made aware.

#49 Posted by Toxeia (728 posts) -

@Gargantuan: There's some other shady shit that's gone down. Anno 2070 for instance can only be installed 3 times before having to contact Ubisoft for what's basically permission to install it on a new machine. There's also multiple reports of Ubisoft not responding to those requests.

#50 Posted by Gargantuan (1881 posts) -

@Canteu said:

@Gargantuan: Well the difference there is, I am right, and you are wrong. Keep saying more games though, makes you look smart.

Oh, and Diablo is not a single player game, just thought you should be made aware.

It has a single player mode, therefore it is a single player game. Single and multiplayer is not mutually exclusive. What's your argument?

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.