Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BloodBird]

Well, yeah, a bit Miz.  You know how EVE has those people who do nothing but spam level 4 missions in high sec and then end up raging because "There is nothing to do and they are bored"?  Playing single player Diablo is sort of like that, in my opinion.

EVE Online is marketed as a Massively MULTIPLAYER ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING Game. Multiplayer. Online. Role-playing. These things combined promote playing with other people online.

The Diablo series are a series of hack-slash role-playing games. There are no part of this that demand you play it online, or with anyone but yourself. This makes for a very large difference in the two games, so your 'herps, missioners play solo in an MMO, derpa' example is rather flawed.

Mizara's issue is what my issue and many other's issue is; he, me and others would like the ability to turn the game on, internet or no internet, and play the game's singleplayer without crashing from an online server or having issues when/if said server fucks up.

Alone.

For fun, with ourselves, offline. (Thus, minute to random internet crashes etc.)

You want to play it online, with others? By all means, go ahead. But don't give me any bull about the game being designed as a multiplayer game where the one's who play the singleplayer are doing it wrong. The mission-runner in EVE who does nothing but run missions and grow bored with it have countless other options to pursue for their entertainment in a massively multiplayer universe filled with tens of thousands of other players. He can do other things than mission, so long as he's logged into a dedicated online game.

The guy who wants to play Diablo in singleplayer and grows tired of it when it's finished/interest drops has multiplayer, and that he has to go online for the multiplayer makes total sense, unless we talk LAN-parties. To force the single-PC singleplayer person with no internet to get internet access and be at the mercy of the server's whims is not cool.

Meeh, this could have been so much shorter. Gonna go to bed now, before I rant on. o/

[Vikarion]

Oh, wonderful. Can't log in for the second day in a row.

You know, it's pretty sad when your paying customers have to hope that someone cracks the game so that they can play what they paid for.

[BloodBird]

Oh, wonderful. Can't log in for the second day in a row.

You know, it's pretty sad when your paying customers have to hope that someone cracks the game so that they can play what they paid for.

Funny fact; The following line, though laced with sarcasm, pretty much sums up my entire previous post, minus the complain against Tib:

Would it not be great if the singleplayer campaign was available offline, so that you could at least play it while you wait?

[Vikarion]

Oh, wonderful. Can't log in for the second day in a row.

You know, it's pretty sad when your paying customers have to hope that someone cracks the game so that they can play what they paid for.

!@#$. Yes.
Funny fact; The following line, though laced with sarcasm, pretty much sums up my entire previous post, minus the complain against Tib:

Would it not be great if the singleplayer campaign was available offline, so that you could at least play it while you wait?

[Matariki Rain]

Portal 2's already been released, so the only sabotage I can foresee there is entirely caused by user error >.>

Of course, my more likely distractions are going to be [...] Portal 2 if Matariki ever gets around to playing Portal.

[Wanoah]

Oh, wonderful. Can't log in for the second day in a row.

You know, it's pretty sad when your paying customers have to hope that someone cracks the game so that they can play what they paid for.

Welcome to the wonderful future of gaming.

[Ursa Dropsus]

It's worse than you might realize, Wan.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/17/opinion-why-the-problem-with-diablo-isnt-diablo/

Love this article. Pretty perfectly sums up my own feelings and fears. While not exactly being known as innovators, Blizzard is a trailblazing studio in a different kind of way (through sheer force / juggernaut power). Mass acceptance of the Blizzard model means every other studio will feel more comfortable copying it (just like every other MMO studio these days copies Blizzards MMO model).

I fear the future is pretty bleak.

Also, in Australia, where the internet is essentially an intricate network of tin cans and twine, and some of us still deal with things like *gasp* limited bandwidth and monthly data caps, the concept of always-online is particularly troubling. That's before you factor in the inherent lag that comes from connecting to US/EU servers (typically, dedicated Australian servers aren't provided, even for AAA titles like D3). Granted, we should get our shit together and build a proper broadband network, but still...

[Matariki Rain]

Also, in Australia, where the internet is essentially an intricate network of tin cans and twine, and some of us still deal with things like *gasp* limited bandwidth and monthly data caps, the concept of always-online is particularly troubling. That's before you factor in the inherent lag that comes from connecting to US/EU servers (typically, dedicated Australian servers aren't provided, even for AAA titles like D3). Granted, we should get our shit together and build a proper broadband network, but still...

This Kiwi agrees.

[Mizhara]

So does Cracked, apparently.

I have to say I agree with this being a scary development in general. It is now accepted to fuck your paying customers up the ass and there will be hordes standing ready to defend the developer's right to do so.

[Victoria Stecker]

Well, yeah, a bit Miz.  You know how EVE has those people who do nothing but spam level 4 missions in high sec and then end up raging because "There is nothing to do and they are bored"?  Playing single player Diablo is sort of like that, in my opinion.

EVE Online is marketed as a Massively MULTIPLAYER ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING Game. Multiplayer. Online. Role-playing. These things combined promote playing with other people online.

The Diablo series are a series of hack-slash role-playing games. There are no part of this that demand you play it online, or with anyone but yourself. This makes for a very large difference in the two games, so your 'herps, missioners play solo in an MMO, derpa' example is rather flawed.

Mizara's issue is what my issue and many other's issue is; he, me and others would like the ability to turn the game on, internet or no internet, and play the game's singleplayer without crashing from an online server or having issues when/if said server fucks up.

Alone.

For fun, with ourselves, offline. (Thus, minute to random internet crashes etc.)

You want to play it online, with others? By all means, go ahead. But don't give me any bull about the game being designed as a multiplayer game where the one's who play the singleplayer are doing it wrong. The mission-runner in EVE who does nothing but run missions and grow bored with it have countless other options to pursue for their entertainment in a massively multiplayer universe filled with tens of thousands of other players. He can do other things than mission, so long as he's logged into a dedicated online game.

The guy who wants to play Diablo in singleplayer and grows tired of it when it's finished/interest drops has multiplayer, and that he has to go online for the multiplayer makes total sense, unless we talk LAN-parties. To force the single-PC singleplayer person with no internet to get internet access and be at the mercy of the server's whims is not cool.

Meeh, this could have been so much shorter. Gonna go to bed now, before I rant on. o/

I think this is where the issue is, and I think Blizzard should have done more to let people know ahead of time. Diablo 1 and 2 were essentially single player games with very strong multiplayer. It has, however, been 12 YEARS since D2. That is an eternity in game design. I think it’s entirely reasonable that D3 is a significant evolution from D2, just as SC2 was from SC. I think the problem was Blizzards failure to let everyone know how different the design would be ahead of time. People went in expecting D2 with a 12-year graphics update, what they got was D3.

And from everything I’ve seen, Blizzard didn’t design this as a single player game. They designed it as a multiplayer game that you can play alone if you really really want. They didn’t really want to tell anyone that because that bit of info might have cost them sales (like mine, I’m going to wait a bit before I consider buying this).

So the issue then (like so many) is one of communication. What Blizzard made and what people were expecting were not the same, and there are a lot of people unhappy about this. The blame either lies with blizzard (if they didn’t do a good enough job letting people know what to expect beforehand) or with the people (if Blizzard did put the info out there and people just didn’t read because they were expecting Diablo 2 with better graphics).

[BloodBird]

So does Cracked, apparently.

I have to say I agree with this being a scary development in general. It is now accepted to fuck your paying customers up the ass and there will be hordes standing ready to defend the developer's right to do so.

As much as I face-Desk about the issues listed in this article, the way it's told is hilarious. I'm in the weird position to be laughing out loud and despairing at the utter foolishness of the developers in Blizz at the same time. Talk about conflicting emotions and mixed signals...

I am so glad I did not get Diablo III, and that I've not had much interest in playing SCII the last few days. It's likely that I would not be able to log in... because Diablo III melted the battle.net log-in server.

/face-desk.

*thud*

*thud*

*thud*

*thud*

[BloodBird]

That may be so Victoria. The problem I have with this persists, however; you have to be online, on their server, to play solo. And even then, you also have to turn off the option for random friends on Battle.net to be able to join your single-player game if you don't want them to.

I can see the benefits of this; if you want to play co-op, this is now very easy... *IF* you get the option to allow/deny anyone that wants to join your game, instead of randomly being swarmed by other players in your single-player game.

On the other hand, your play is still Dependant on the server's stability or traffic, you can still lag in your single-player game, because the game was designed to be online all the time.

Would it really have killed them to make the option for going offline and playing the single-player entirely single, and install a hard barrier between offline toons and online toons? This way, if you want to import your single-player toon to a multi-player match, or utilize the auction-house, buying items for RL money, you have to play that toon online.

And while you play your single-player game, not only are you at the mercy of the server's stability and traffic, you are contributing to it's traffic even when playing alone. There could be several hundred thousand players online, and the ones among them who play together gets an equal share of the immense lag (if any) because thousands more play solo and add to the traffic, even if this should and could be wholly possible to do offline where the only limitation to your enjoyment is your own hardware, and you are not adding to the traffic for the one's playing multi-player.

It seems like a really poor choice to me, and adds to the huge problem of server traffic. No wonder their day-one and day-two work-days was putting out the electrical fires in burning server computers, as both the single and multi parts of the player-base combined to fry their hardware. All for the sake, of selling pixels and stat-boosters for RL money.

I used to be naive enough to think that gaming becoming mainstream was a good thing.

[Wanoah]

Repeat after me:

Single player gaming should NEVER need an Internet connection.

Maxis should take note.

[Kala]

Repeat after me:

Single player gaming should NEVER need an Internet connection.

Single player gaming should NEVER need an Internet connection.

o7

[Ursa Dropsus]

Would it really have killed them to make the option for going offline and playing the single-player entirely single, and install a hard barrier between offline toons and online toons? This way, if you want to import your single-player toon to a multi-player match, or utilize the auction-house, buying items for RL money, you have to play that toon online...It seems like a really poor choice to me...All for the sake, of selling pixels and stat-boosters for RL money.

You know, it very well might have (killed them). This is just a thought, and I don't claim to have any kind of special insight or anything here, just a feeling.

But consider everything you're saying. It really was a poor choice, one that burned them badly in the gaming media and many gamer's minds. They're many things, Blizzard, but they're not outright stupid. They knew this was going to be the reaction going in. Does it then strike anyone else as strange that they were and are so utterly committed to it? Sure, for Activision/Blizzard the money is everything, but you do have to wonder if they saw long-term financials and concluded that the RMAH (real money auction house) wasn't optional.

Consider also that WoW subscriptions are falling off and their (lol) panda-based expansion isn't likely to stop that slow bleed. Consider as well, that Diablo III's release tried to help in that regard.

There are things about Blizzard's behavior that remind me of Bank of America, specifically: "It’s a very bad sign that a bank is in a desperate cash crunch when it tries repeatedly to gouge its customers."

Just a thought. I know they aren't a bank, but the echoes of "cannibalizing your baseline customer to stay afloat" resonated with me.