Blizzard extends a ginormous middle finger.

[Xor]

Actually, it pretty clearly is a multiplayer-only spin off. I mean, you might not like that (and I agree that it's stupid), but it's pretty clear that that's the direction Blizzard has decided to go in. That's a different discussion, though.

 

[Shannow]

Actually, it pretty clearly is a multiplayer-only spin off. I mean, you might not like that (and I agree that it's stupid), but it's pretty clear that that's the direction Blizzard has decided to go in. That's a different discussion, though.

You heard it here first:
Diablo 3 is multiplayer only and Xor can't be assed to read through the 12 page answer to his his 2 line question

 

[godsend1989]

D3 has single player by default that's why they added mercenary but only for single player.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Any company releases a gaem that requires constant connection:

Codex: OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Blizzard release such a gaem:

Codex: What's the problem? That's very reasonable. Keep up the penis in my butt, Blizzard!

 

[Pika-Cthulhu]

Any company releases a gaem that requires constant connection:

Codex: OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Blizzard release such a gaem:

Codex: What's the problem? That's very reasonable. Keep up the penis in my butt, Blizzard!

This I dont get, its not like its the old Blizzard, with Blizzard North running Diablo. Its ActivisionBlizzard, with the WoW team making everything shittified and Kotick at the helm looking for more profit revenues. I thought Obsidian was the only dev the codex dropped its pants and bent over for, seems to me that half would bend over for the cut cock of Kotick.

 

[Mrowak]

Any company releases a gaem that requires constant connection:

Codex: OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Blizzard release such a gaem:

Codex: What's the problem? That's very reasonable. Keep up the penis in my butt, Blizzard!

I blame goddamn Steam. I honestly can't believe that this piece of crap malware is widely accepted here. Now they endorse Blizzard and their Nazi DRM. What's next?

 

[Shannow]

Any company releases a gaem that requires constant connection:

Codex: OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Blizzard release such a gaem:

Codex: What's the problem? That's very reasonable. Keep up the penis in my butt, Blizzard!

Huh?
We had the same discussion with Risen 2, Shogun 2 and Steam in general. All of those had mixed opinions of: "hate it on principle", "hate it because of xyz", "don't mind", "like it because I don't know that shops have bargain-bins, too" and "like it because for me the advantages (?!?) outweigh the disadvantages"; and some more.
If anything I have the impression that the distaste outweighs in this thread. (But liking DRM and being a moron/troll seem to often coincide, so perhaps that impression only comes from my having cetain posters on ignore. )

 

[Varn]

Remind me again what exactly is everyone bitching about in this thread?

Y'all need to play some more Diablo 2, you seem to get uptight when all you play is Nehrim and Titan Quest.

 

[DalekFlay]

Actually, it pretty clearly is a multiplayer-only spin off. I mean, you might not like that (and I agree that it's stupid), but it's pretty clear that that's the direction Blizzard has decided to go in. That's a different discussion, though.

If that were true (and I don't think it is) then people would still be pissed off because they took a singleplayer franchise and made it multiplayer only. So... you asking what we're mad about would still be a dumb question.

 

[Xor]

Actually, it pretty clearly is a multiplayer-only spin off. I mean, you might not like that (and I agree that it's stupid), but it's pretty clear that that's the direction Blizzard has decided to go in. That's a different discussion, though.

If that were true (and I don't think it is) then people would still be pissed off because they took a singleplayer franchise and made it multiplayer only. So... you asking what we're mad about would still be a dumb question.

I think that is what people are pissed about. Many of the things people are bitching about (real cash AH, constant connection, no way to appear offline, no modding, etc) are design decisions that almost certainly came about because of the heavy multiplayer focus of D3. Of course, in D2 you could create a passworded game and basically play alone on bnet, and I expect the same will be true for D3. But that isn't really a true single player component, although I suppose one could easily play the game that way.

Of course, I know better than to expect rational arguments about anything resembling DRM on the Codex, but I'll still add my 2 cents. Blizzard has a rationale for requiring people to be online to play Diablo 3. They want all save data to be stored remotely so that people can jump seamlessly from playing alone to playing with other people, because they're trying to encourage multiplayer interaction. A consequence of this change is that it will probably be harder to pirate, and that was probably a consideration, but that doesn't make this an "evil" feature. It will certainly be annoying for people who buy the game (I'm probably not), but no more so than for MMORPGs and the like.

 

[DraQ]

D2 was built entirely around non-persistent world, respawns and other typical multiplayer/MMO-lite mechanics, so while it could be played in SP, calling it an SP game is a bit of a stretch.

Then again, those are some of the reasons why it sucked compared to its prequel.

Of course, I know better than to expect rational arguments about anything resembling DRM on the Codex

OTOH the 'Dex is unusually accepting and open minded when it comes to baby cuisine, which is, by far, a lesser evil than DRM.

that doesn't make this an "evil" feature.

Wrong. Being forced to store a state of a game I bought on remote server means I will be unable to play it should something happen with my connection, company, the company decides that it dislikes me having an account there or simply ceases support for dated title.

In all but first case my access to something I have paid for using pay-once model, which, for all practical considerations related to everyday use is equivalent to ordinary purchase, will be irrevocably lost and you fucking call it not evil?

Are you fucking insane?

It's like trusting random stranger to stick his dick up your ass and rationalizing that, you're not homophobe, it isn't all that uncomfortable if he will be so nice as to avoid sudden movements and all that STD paranoia is a result of shit getting blown out of proportion.

fAnalCircumference++

Bonus point for posting that on a forum where most favourites are from companies that have long since went bellies up, and where playing anything less than decade old is often met with logorrhea containing multiple instances of words like "newfag", "decline" and "consoletard".

 

[Sordid Jester]

The idea that Blizzard has even the slightest care for the comfort of its player-base is the funniest joke yet. The system has nothing to do with seamless hopping from game to game (the option was there before to play singleplayer, online, in Diablo 2's Battlenet if you wanted a 'legal' character! But you could still play singleplayer offline! Amazing.), simply more dictatorship over what you can and can't do with the game.

Lower and lower down the ownership chain, and higher and higher goes the price for it.

It'd be fun if Diablo clones would start advertising, "It's your game - You can play it offline, at your own perusal, and mod it as you like!".

 

[DraQ]

D2 was built entirely around non-persistent world, respawns and other typical multiplayer/MMO-lite mechanics, so while it could be played in SP, calling it an SP game is a bit of a stretch.

Then again, those are some of the reasons why it sucked compared to its prequel.

No. As with the rest of the late 90's/early 00 hack'n'slash spinoffs D2 is, by default, a singleplayer game and was marketed as such. Extra multiplayer content was added in later patches.

So? Skyrim is being marketed as RPG.

If a game includes some elements like bosses that fail to stay dead between saves or mundane PCs that revive for no reason over and over again, to respawn in the city, I won't be fooled by claims that it's an SP game or by tacked-on SP mode. Hell, by such logic Unreal Tournament series is composed entirely of Single Player games, since they all include structured campaign or tournament mode (that are played using exact same mechanics as MP - just like in Diablo 2).

 

[DalekFlay]

I think that is what people are pissed about. Many of the things people are bitching about (real cash AH, constant connection, no way to appear offline, no modding, etc) are design decisions that almost certainly came about because of the heavy multiplayer focus of D3. Of course, in D2 you could create a passworded game and basically play alone on bnet, and I expect the same will be true for D3. But that isn't really a true single player component, although I suppose one could easily play the game that way.

Of course, I know better than to expect rational arguments about anything resembling DRM on the Codex, but I'll still add my 2 cents. Blizzard has a rationale for requiring people to be online to play Diablo 3. They want all save data to be stored remotely so that people can jump seamlessly from playing alone to playing with other people, because they're trying to encourage multiplayer interaction. A consequence of this change is that it will probably be harder to pirate, and that was probably a consideration, but that doesn't make this an "evil" feature. It will certainly be annoying for people who buy the game (I'm probably not), but no more so than for MMORPGs and the like.

Right. Either way though, whether you want to look at it as shitty DRM or the killing off of singleplayer, I don't want to support either one. Therefore no money from moi into the Blizzard coffers.

And since there will be a real singleplayer version on a torrent somewhere eventually...

 

[Shannow]

Of course, I know better than to expect rational arguments about anything resembling DRM on the Codex, but I'll still add my 2 cents. Blizzard has a rationale for requiring people to be online to play Diablo 3. They want all save data to be stored remotely so that people can jump seamlessly from playing alone to playing with other people, because they're trying to encourage multiplayer interaction. A consequence of this change is that it will probably be harder to pirate, and that was probably a consideration, but that doesn't make this an "evil" feature. It will certainly be annoying for people who buy the game (I'm probably not), but no more so than for MMORPGs and the like.

See, this is usually when I put morons on ignore. (Won't put you on cause you're usually a good poster, brofist)
1. Rational arguments: You simply ignore all arguments that were given on 13 pages, the majority of which are anything but irrational. Why?
2. Understanding Blizzard's rationale: I understand their rationale just as well as I understand Hitler's or banksters'. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it.
3. It'd be the first to be "harder to pirate" because of more viscious DRM. This one point is worth repeating: Pirates don't suffer from DRM. Never have. The only ones ever bothered by it are legit customers.
4. Comparing D3 to an mmo is just a cop-out. When you buy a car you're not expected to pay taxes and insurance as for a truck. Even if it has a very large trunk, it's still a different product. If they want to impose mmo rules, they need to sell (and design) it as an mmo.

 

[Warlock]

They are greedy bastards. But what is even more astounding is the sheer people stupidity. 90% of the "gaming" forums I randomly browsed are compromised of idiots who gobble Blizzards fat dick like it's their game and they'll make money with "always online, auction house, etc.". So kids, here goes the future of gaming.

 

[Xor]

Are you fucking insane?

Yeah, probably. But I don't want to get dragged into a discussion about semantics, so call it evil if you want.

*snip*

Eh, I could have gone back through the thread and picked out the best arguments before posting. On reflection, I probably wouldn't have posted at all if I had thought about it a little more.

 

[DraQ]

4. Comparing D3 to an mmo is just a cop-out. When you buy a car you're not expected to buy train tickets for it, then have a bunch of stranger fill it with cig smoke or let their retarded children spoil your entire trip.

Upgraded.

So? Skyrim is being marketed as RPG.

That's an absurd comparison. Making a multiplayer-centric game and then marketing it as a single-player experience with a bullet point or two referencing multiplayer functionality would be beyond reason.

Most of which are a bastardized legacy of singleplayer roguelikes

I thought single player roguelikes were mostly about permadeath and had stuff persist between sessions (not games!).

There is an option in D2 to activate permadeath, but without it my character will unreasonably rise from the dead so often he would be really enthusiastic about the idea of revolving door afterlife. Besides, with or without ironman I can still raid poor Baal infinity+1 times in hope something interesting falls out of him.

Dig into the previews being written in the late 90's and early 00's. Multiplayer was - at best - an exciting feature being expanded from D1, but it was nowhere near the central focus.

So WHY has no one bothered to actually include mechanics for SP mode that wouldn't reek of MP?

Like Diablo staying put where I have skewered his frog-leaping ass rather than rising again and again, taunting me with futility of my actions?

If a game is built around MP mechanics it's primarily an MP game, no matter what does it say on the box and no matter whether it's Diablo 2 or Unreal Tournament.

 

[Grimlorn]

Of course, I know better than to expect rational arguments about anything resembling DRM on the Codex, but I'll still add my 2 cents. Blizzard has a rationale for requiring people to be online to play Diablo 3. They want all save data to be stored remotely so that people can jump seamlessly from playing alone to playing with other people, because they're trying to encourage multiplayer interaction. A consequence of this change is that it will probably be harder to pirate, and that was probably a consideration, but that doesn't make this an "evil" feature. It will certainly be annoying for people who buy the game (I'm probably not), but no more so than for MMORPGs and the like.

See, this is usually when I put morons on ignore. (Won't put you on cause you're usually a good poster, brofist)
1. Rational arguments: You simply ignore all arguments that were given on 13 pages, the majority of which are anything but irrational. Why?
2. Understanding Blizzard's rationale: I understand their rationale just as well as I understand Hitler's or banksters'. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it.
3. It'd be the first to be "harder to pirate" because of more viscious DRM. This one point is worth repeating: Pirates don't suffer from DRM. Never have. The only ones ever bothered by it are legit customers.
4. Comparing D3 to an mmo is just a cop-out. When you buy a car you're not expected to pay taxes and insurance as for a truck. Even if it has a very large trunk, it's still a different product. If they want to impose mmo rules, they need to sell (and design) it as an mmo.

If they can make it so you have to play on their servers then they will effectively prevent piracy. Of course that costs more to maintain, so there will be more and more micro-transactions and DLC to maintain those costs. Eventually they'll be able to advertise everytime you load up their games unless you pay extra or something. That's where they are trying to take the industry with this online always DRM. In 10 years you will probably have to play a new game on the publisher's servers even if it's just single player. Might not even be any single player games at that time.

 

[DraQ]

DraQ you faggot why can't you make seperate posts like normal people instead of editing stuff in every five minutes?

Because my postcount already makes me look fat.

The randomization, world resets and (in the context of the time) grinding of Roguelikes were specifically cited during Diablo and Diablo 2's development by blizzard.

Except D1 had no grind apart from regular gameplay and I have no problem with randomization - it actually made D1 more interesting. My beef is with lack of persistency

No singleplayer gamer was going to encounter a respawned Diablo unless they consciously avoided proceeding to the next stage of the game.

You could still travel.

Why bother putting SP-exclusive elements in when there was no need? The average D2 player would go through the content once - perhaps briefly farming an area or two in order to gain a level or some better equipment before they had to face the end-of-act boss, and the vulgar mechanics of the game didn't really become manifest until they got into multiplayer.

But they were specifically tailored for multiplayer. Someone designing an SP game would be utterly baffled if you suggested to him that a unique boss in SP should resurrect on reload so that the blayer could backtrack and kill him again.
The difference between D1 and D2 is maybe less glaring than the difference in SP gameplay between Unreal and Unreal Tournament, but it's still very conspicuous.

 

[Pika-Cthulhu]

I can see why Blizz has decided to not introduce SP. Its because the game lacks any variance between characters now except for gear, runes, and the characters name. There is no reason to load up a character editor to test viable builds with the removal of stat allocation and skill point buy. The game has become even more shallow, and adding a single player aspect would just have that shine on through.

I did play often in Singleplayer, Had a realm account on the release date, but the connection from Australia to Asia or USWest was always average at best (Asia being an incredible joke, what with our routing to mainland US to get there) and having a singleplayer character to play LAN games with some mates was always fun (D2 is a pretty good LAN game, sure it takes time to grind up levels and shit, but you have fun with people you know, not some random Korean begging for 'potal tp tp' and then 'baba pk pk' because he wants to pvp. .........................

But having D3 Multi only really will highlight how samey all the characters will be, seeing as you cannot point buy and invest long term in a devastating build, I guess it makes balancing much easier for the scrub WoW team to organise seeing as nobody from D1 or D2 is left at ActivisionBlizz.

In short, Only difference between characters is Gear. You can now buy said gear from the RMAH. No reason for SP due to them making design decisions gutting any variance other than gear, so you need an economy/access to more gear to change your character. Seeing as the choice to be only MP and no Mods, one must question what kind of Mod would be available to Singleplayers, something like ATMA, and seeing as the RMAH is a revenue stream for ActivisionBlizz, having Singleplayer with a mod such as ATMA allows the player to play their game without having to spend any money in their new revenue stream takes money away from them......

 

[Leonard DeVir]

I dont know why people still defend their policy with D3. Its too obvious that they want to force you to invest even more money by auctioning (anonymous, ofc), and to prevent customization ( therefore altered drops/dropchance) they require you to be online, and no mods. If that isnt the most blatant try to scam customers, I dont know what it is otherwise.

It may not be the best comparison, but I usually compare video games to other entertainment media, like books, movies, and whatnot. You are allowed to do whatever you want with your product in privacy, altering it in any way - because you bought it. And you are still allowed to use it, even in teams with other people if they dont mind your changes.
And you dont have to justify every use of your product, i.e. by checking in your bookstore for reading or in yout local theatre for watching a movie.
And nobody tries to sell you additional stuff which should be free and/or included into the main product from the very beginning.

You may not alter it, they more or less tell you how to use it, and if you want to be a hgh roller, you will have to buy stuff from the auction house. To be honest, the auction house may be the least worrysome idea, because I can understand the resoning behind it, but in the end its just another way to milk money from their cow..er, customers.

So, why should someone want to buy a product which you basically dont own? If I own a book, I can do whatever I want with it (singleplayer), and if I want to participate in a reading contest, I have to play by the rules (multiplayer).

Being online may not be an inconvenience today, but come on. Thats the very attitude why everything is fucked up as it is. Being indifferent to privacy breach after privacy breach will bite us n the ass some day, and by buying D3 you allow Blizzard to control how and when you are allowed to play the game you bought for money.

 

[waywardOne]

Fortunately, it's looking like a shit game so they can require anal dildo insertions to play for all I care.

 

[Shannow]

If they can make it so you have to play on their servers then they will effectively prevent piracy.

If. AFAIK, they will put saves on their servers, thus requiring the connection. Now I may turn out to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that that'll be cracked the same way similar stuff was cracked before.

 

[DwarvenFood]

It may not be the best comparison, but I usually compare video games to other entertainment media, like books, movies, and whatnot. You are allowed to do whatever you want with your product in privacy, altering it in any way - because you bought it. And you are still allowed to use it, even in teams with other people if they dont mind your changes.
And you dont have to justify every use of your product, i.e. by checking in your bookstore for reading or in yout local theatre for watching a movie.
And nobody tries to sell you additional stuff which should be free and/or included into the main product from the very beginning.

Well, funny you look at it that way, in the early days it was not allowed to copy movies, and if you play music in say a snackbar (being the owner), you pay extra royalties even though you own the CD. Seems like the companies are trying to keep and enforce their control over the products.