• 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by skyline7284 (497 posts) -


#2 Posted by alternate (2654 posts) -

Should? Of course not, but if the companies feel it is necessary to protect them for whatever reason it is down to consumers to boycott it. Given Diablo sales figure this is not going to put publishers off the practice, even if Blizzard are a special case.

#3 Posted by wemibelec90 (1279 posts) -

Should it? Not necessarily. Will it eventually be that every single-player game (at least on the PC) will require it? Hell yes.

#4 Posted by Jeust (10334 posts) -

If people welcome that change, it will happen. It is sad that players endorse it.  
 
With things like this isn't the quality of the experience provided by games declining? 

#5 Posted by Marcsman (2876 posts) -

You would think not.

#6 Posted by cid798 (239 posts) -

Absolutely. For the longest time it has been this that or the other isn't available in my area. The more pressure from outside companies helps make utility companies get off their asses.

#7 Posted by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -

Whoever says yes to this is a fucking moron who deserves no respect as a human being. There, I said it.

#8 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

Nope.

Because if all games were like that I wouldn't be able to play about 75% of my collection. That I paid for. With money. That I actually do play with some regularity.

#9 Posted by BonOrbitz (2089 posts) -

Hell no. That's bullshit.

#10 Posted by Clonedzero (3720 posts) -

absolutely not. thats crazy.

#11 Posted by Jimbo (9709 posts) -
@wemibelec90 said:

Should it? Not necessarily. Will it eventually be that every single-player game (at least on the PC) will require it? Hell yes.

Doubtful, just because of the costs involved in setting it up and the ongoing costs of running it.  It won't be viable for every game.
#12 Posted by BiG_Weasel (524 posts) -

This is like asking "Should console games be locked to the original system they were played on?". Of course not.

#13 Posted by JJOR64 (18782 posts) -

No. Plan and simple.

#14 Posted by sashimi_biscut (99 posts) -

No. What if I can't connect to the server when the zombie apocalypse comes? What will I do with my free time?

#15 Posted by sins_of_mosin (1556 posts) -

I think single and MP should be separate.  Honestly I dislike MP a lot and think it ruins a lot of games and D3 is another example of it.

#16 Posted by AndrewB (7190 posts) -

Why is this even a poll? Is anyone seriously going to give an all-encompassing "yes" to the idea of being hampered if it isn't a necessity (obviously they'll jokingly click yes).

Really, if there's a valid reason for it, then sure. Diablo III (the game that is obviously spawning all of these threads) comes very close to legitimizing the idea with the promise of not messing with any of their online economy stuff, but ultimately fails to hide the fact that it's mostly just for the added benefit of DRM because they could easily have a single player only mode that marks your character and never allows it to interact with the rest of the world.

#17 Posted by Deusx (1879 posts) -

Naw.

#18 Posted by EXTomar (4125 posts) -

Where is "maybe?" or "depends"? This is more a question of "What does the platform support?" than the game.

#19 Posted by RedRoach (1158 posts) -

No, but there are extenuating circumstances in diablo 3. The real money auction house could be horribly exploited if players could play offline. Dupe a rare item 50 times and make a ton of money

#20 Posted by Zor (653 posts) -

No... Always on DRM systems are bad for numerous reason, one of them is the fact that tiered pricing is likely coming to normal wired internet services (link), any always on drm system would then increase your data usage / bill, so i would prefer if companies wouldn't use them.

#21 Posted by EXTomar (4125 posts) -

So how would one implement a DOTA style game on something like the 3DS where connectivity is never guaranteed? The answer maybe: It doesn't run offline. Some game designs require some pieces of tech that if they are missing they don't run well or if at all. I'm not sure there is blame either way.

#22 Posted by Jeust (10334 posts) -

@EXTomar said:

So how would one implement a DOTA style game on something like the 3DS where connectivity is never guaranteed? The answer maybe: It doesn't run offline. Some game designs require some pieces of tech that if they are missing they don't run well or if at all. I'm not sure there is blame either way.

is DOTA a single player game?

#23 Posted by TheActionFigure (23 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

Whoever says yes to this is a fucking moron who deserves no respect as a human being. There, I said it.

What he said.

#24 Posted by Toms115 (2314 posts) -

nah. completely unnecessary.

#25 Posted by Dad_Is_A_Zombie (1225 posts) -

No. I sympathize with the piracy problem but punishing a customer that bought your game in good faith can't possibly be the answer.

#26 Posted by McGhee (6091 posts) -

No, but when the fastest selling PC game ever has it, then people obviously don't care that much.

#27 Posted by iam3green (14388 posts) -

no, it shouldn't that is kind of bad thing for companies to start doing.

#28 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6077 posts) -

No.

#29 Posted by Danteveli (1081 posts) -

hell no

#30 Posted by KamasamaK (2406 posts) -

@Jason_Bourne said:

No, but there are extenuating circumstances in diablo 3. The real money auction house could be horribly exploited if players could play offline. Dupe a rare item 50 times and make a ton of money

There is a difference between requiring an online connection for single-player and allowing players to participate in the multiplayer. Have you played Diablo II before? The real money auction house could have easily been restricted to a closed Battle.net always requiring an online connection. Meanwhile, the single-player people could continue doing what they want offline, and be allowed to participate with that character online in a different way.

#31 Posted by Triumvir (408 posts) -

Nay, sir!

#32 Edited by louiedog (2330 posts) -

I understand how always online benefits Diablo 3 beyond DRM for Blizzard, but it sure would be nice if there were separate offline characters and online characters. You could never take your offline characters online no matter what, and you could still play alone with your online characters. However, you'd also be able to download a trainer and have fun with your offline character or play the game on an airplane without wifi or when the servers are down.

#33 Posted by Vinny_Says (5630 posts) -

EA can't even keep their own servers up. Imagine buying Dead Space back in 2011 and not being able to play it....what fun!

#34 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5117 posts) -

No, because if Blizzard can't handle the load no company can.

#35 Posted by css_switchfoot (116 posts) -

For something like Dragon Age (1) with no multiplayer - no it should not be. Diablo III was designed as a multiplayer game with, and its Blizzard's property. Its up to them to do what they want with their property. They felt that their multiplayer-focused game would be better protected by making it always online. They are very clear this is the case before you buy the game. Since World of Warcraft, Blizzard has made multiplayer the focus of all of their games. That is what is most important to them, and that's what they want to protect.

I leave for deployment next week and would love to play Diablo III, but I can respect a developer's wishes to do what they want with their property. No amount of internet raging is going to change this fact. The only thing you can do if you disagree is not buy the product, and if enough people do that then maybe they will change their stance.

If you don't agree with it, then don't play it.

#36 Posted by LiquidPrince (15606 posts) -

No. As someone who is just getting into PC gaming, I find this idea really annoying, and one of the reasons it's harder to get into PC gaming. Steam was messing up for me a couple days ago and I couldn't play Portal 2 offline... So stupid.

#37 Posted by Salarn (445 posts) -

Games that benefit from an always on connection should have one.

#38 Posted by Rapid (1333 posts) -

Responding No to Poll, but it inevitably will and is happening. It's only a matter of how long until it becomes a standard.

#39 Posted by CornBREDX (4454 posts) -

Because this poll is dumb I chose yes. The obvious answer.

#40 Posted by seannao (223 posts) -

Like how Hardcore Auction House and Normal Auction House are separated for gameplay concerns, they could have created offline mode with the same cheating concerns in mind, but due to being offline permanently: increase the drop rates.

#41 Posted by OllyOxenFree (4969 posts) -

It's the worst thing. An internet connection (at least mine) can disconnect randomly every now and then so losing progress due to that would be terrible for a single player game.

#42 Posted by Kerned (1168 posts) -

@cid798 said:

Absolutely. For the longest time it has been this that or the other isn't available in my area. The more pressure from outside companies helps make utility companies get off their asses.

I'm not sure if you understand the question, but I am completely sure that I don't understand your response.

#43 Posted by Apparatus_Unearth (3031 posts) -

Sure, at least on downloadable games.

#44 Posted by kindgineer (2485 posts) -

No, but in order to facilitate certain mechanics, it's needed. Years from now Online DRM won't be an issue because it will be normal. I think it's safe to say the only reason people hate O-DRM is lack of good Internet in their area and the in-ability to play when servers off-line.

#45 Edited by FateOfNever (1758 posts) -

This isn't a yes or no question. It depends on the systems involved, the experience offered, if multiplayer and single player are interchangeable, and so on.

But, since, let's face it, you're asking about Diablo 3 - Should it absolutely positively be required? No. But, after that no comes - but then you need giant blaring signs that say "single player characters will not be able to be taken online or interact with the online portion of this game in any way shape or form. Only proceed knowing this and knowing that no exceptions will be made to this rule." And then Blizzard customer service would still be so completely bogged down by people bitching and complaining about not understanding why they can't take their single player character online in any way or buy them things off of the AH or post things from them onto the AH instead of letting them deal with real issues and problems. So... it probably should be always online anyway?

#46 Posted by SteamPunkJin (1286 posts) -

Already bad enough that you need a connection to validate and play your DLC on games that don't require it for base play, so I think it's easy to say: fuck no.

#47 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

It shouldn't be, but it's not a GIANT hassle if it is. I live in a fairly remote location and my internet connection is still good enough for it to work. It should not be an issue for most people who buy the games anyway, especially not if the game is multiplayer focused.

In Diablo 3's case I can definitely understand it because the RMAH would be retarded if you could just dupe stuff in offline and take it online. To fix that, you'd need a split between online and offline characters, and I think people would be grumpy about that too, even if it was like that in D2.

#48 Posted by Stonyman65 (2405 posts) -

Always on DRM is the worst thing since Ryan and Jeff dyed their hair blonde.

Okay, maybe not THAT bad, but it still sucks.

#49 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

Whoever says yes to this is a fucking moron who deserves no respect as a human being. There, I said it.

This and where in the name of all things good is the 'Hell No!' option?

#50 Posted by Mirado (948 posts) -

@FateOfNever said:

This isn't a yes or no question. It depends on the systems involved, the experience offered, if multiplayer and single player are interchangeable, and so on.

But, since, let's face it, you're asking about Diablo 3 - Should it absolutely positively be required? No. But, after that no comes - but then you need giant blaring signs that say "single player characters will not be able to be taken online or interact with the online portion of this game in any way shape or form. Only proceed knowing this and knowing that no exceptions will be made to this rule." And then Blizzard customer service would still be so completely bogged down by people bitching and complaining about not understanding why they can't take their single player character online in any way or buy them things off of the AH or post things from them onto the AH instead of letting them deal with real issues and problems. So... it probably should be always online anyway?

You don't even have to make it that restrictive. "Single player characters cannot sell items on the AH or trade to multiplayer only characters." Done. If the goal is to prevent duped items from flooding the AH, then there should be no problems with letting people play online or even purchase things from the AH, so long as the flow of items is only one way.

As long as you can (try to) contain any farmed (via trainers) or duped items to the character in question, then I can't see why you should restrict legitimate players from bringing an offline characters into a multiplayer setting.