Blizzard: Diablo 3 requires constant internet connection

  • 188 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by JohnDead80 (301 posts) -
Dudes. It's 2011, everyone's gaming PC is always online. Always.
#102 Posted by delta3074 (17798 posts) -
[QUOTE="casharmy"]

If there is any legitimate reaon to hate on PC gaming it's this.

This new 'game must be online' trend alot of new PC games are having is almost as bad as MS requireing payment to play games online, except it's not for every game--yet.

When I buy a game I feel like I to know I haveto access to all the parts of the game*without any hindges or limits attached*, otherwise why does it still cost full price to have game?

Ravensmash
How likely are you to be on your PC when it has no internet access....?

there are people out there who don't have an internet connection dudeor even spotty internet connections, but that's besides the point,it'd pretty draconian measures that will do very little to stop piracy, it's the people who cannot crack games and don't have an internet connection,paying customers that will lose out, you should be able to play a games single player offline, i can see the benefits of getting rid of cheaters, but they will find a way and the measures far outweigh the benefits of this kind of DRM.
#103 Posted by delta3074 (17798 posts) -
Dudes. It's 2011, everyone's gaming PC is always online. Always. JohnDead80
are you sure? http://bigthink.com/ideas/21222
#104 Posted by JohnDead80 (301 posts) -
[QUOTE="JohnDead80"]Dudes. It's 2011, everyone's gaming PC is always online. Always. delta3074
are you sure? http://bigthink.com/ideas/21222

I doubt those people are PC gamers if they have no internet... And you'll probably still be able to play offline somehow. Didn't the same thing happen with Starcraft 2? And wasn't there a way to play offline? This is a pretty massive nitpick.
#105 Posted by delta3074 (17798 posts) -
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="JohnDead80"]Dudes. It's 2011, everyone's gaming PC is always online. Always. JohnDead80
are you sure? http://bigthink.com/ideas/21222

I doubt those people are PC gamers if they have no internet... And you'll probably still be able to play offline somehow. Didn't the same thing happen with Starcraft 2? And wasn't there a way to play offline? This is a pretty massive nitpick.

massive nitpick is a contradiction dude, and what do you think 'always on' actually means,lol
#106 Posted by JohnDead80 (301 posts) -
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="JohnDead80"][QUOTE="delta3074"]are you sure? http://bigthink.com/ideas/21222

I doubt those people are PC gamers if they have no internet... And you'll probably still be able to play offline somehow. Didn't the same thing happen with Starcraft 2? And wasn't there a way to play offline? This is a pretty massive nitpick.

massive nitpick is a contradiction dude, and what do you think 'always on' actually means,lol

massive nitpick is not a contradiction. Learn2Engrish l0l
#107 Posted by delta3074 (17798 posts) -
[QUOTE="JohnDead80"][QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="JohnDead80"] I doubt those people are PC gamers if they have no internet... And you'll probably still be able to play offline somehow. Didn't the same thing happen with Starcraft 2? And wasn't there a way to play offline? This is a pretty massive nitpick.

massive nitpick is a contradiction dude, and what do you think 'always on' actually means,lol

massive nitpick is not a contradiction. Learn2Engrish l0l

if it's massive it can't be nitpicking Nitpick to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details. you can't have a massive nitpick dude,you should have just said nit pick, and it may be inconsequential to you but it ain't for the people in those countrys, oh, and it's not wise to to tell somebody from england how to speak english, especially in the form of text speak and you didn't even spell english right
#108 Posted by JohnDead80 (301 posts) -
[QUOTE="JohnDead80"][QUOTE="delta3074"]massive nitpick is a contradiction dude, and what do you think 'always on' actually means,loldelta3074
massive nitpick is not a contradiction. Learn2Engrish l0l

if it's massive it can't be nitpicking Nitpick to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details. you can't have a massive nitpick dude,you should have just said nit pick, and it may be inconsequential to you but it ain't for the people in those countrys, oh, and it's not wise to to tell somebody from england how to speak english, especially in the form of text speak and you didn't even spell english right

rofl hilarious dude. First off you can say massive nitpick, theres nothing wrong with that, it accentuates the absurdity of the nitpick, and the Learn2Engrish bit was a joke.
#109 Posted by Ravensmash (13862 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="casharmy"]

If there is any legitimate reaon to hate on PC gaming it's this.

This new 'game must be online' trend alot of new PC games are having is almost as bad as MS requireing payment to play games online, except it's not for every game--yet.

When I buy a game I feel like I to know I haveto access to all the parts of the game*without any hindges or limits attached*, otherwise why does it still cost full price to have game?

delta3074
How likely are you to be on your PC when it has no internet access....?

there are people out there who don't have an internet connection dudeor even spotty internet connections, but that's besides the point,it'd pretty draconian measures that will do very little to stop piracy, it's the people who cannot crack games and don't have an internet connection,paying customers that will lose out, you should be able to play a games single player offline, i can see the benefits of getting rid of cheaters, but they will find a way and the measures far outweigh the benefits of this kind of DRM.

I'd imagine those people are in the minority though, especially when it comes to PC gaming - due to the rise of a DD-centric market. Blizzard want to try and secure their products - it's not an unreasonable demand.
#110 Posted by Wasdie (49556 posts) -

The fact is the vast majority of gamers are connected. It's also a fact that the Diablo seires has always been about online play.

#111 Posted by dsgsdfgf (1004 posts) -

Won't buy this. Not that I think I was going to in the first place but now it's settled. I play almost only singleplayer games and I should not have to have an internet connection to play.

That reminds me, I still haven't finished Titan Quest.

#112 Posted by lordreaven (7236 posts) -

$60 and I have to use Ubi style DRM.............*sigh* I love Diablo to death, but it's a no go for me now.

#113 Posted by delta3074 (17798 posts) -
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="JohnDead80"]massive nitpick is not a contradiction. Learn2Engrish l0lJohnDead80
if it's massive it can't be nitpicking Nitpick to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details. you can't have a massive nitpick dude,you should have just said nit pick, and it may be inconsequential to you but it ain't for the people in those countrys, oh, and it's not wise to to tell somebody from england how to speak english, especially in the form of text speak and you didn't even spell english right

rofl hilarious dude. First off you can say massive nitpick, theres nothing wrong with that, it accentuates the absurdity of the nitpick, and the Learn2Engrish bit was a joke.

how was my nitpick absurd, oh yeah, because it proved your statement wrong, what's absurd is your belief that people in china,saudi arabia, north korea,maldives, tunisia, belarus,vietnam and uzbekistan don't game on Pc's, that's the silliest assumption i have ever heard, in fact, i know people in this country that game on Pc's yet don't have a constant internet connection or even an internet connection at all.
#114 Posted by lordreaven (7236 posts) -
#115 Posted by Mograine (3666 posts) -
#116 Posted by casharmy (6821 posts) -

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

If there is any legitimate reaon to hate on PC gaming it's this.

This new 'game must be online' trend alot of new PC games are having is almost as bad as MS requireing payment to play games online, except it's not for every game--yet.

When I buy a game I feel like I to know I haveto access to all the parts of the game*without any hindges or limits attached*, otherwise why does it still cost full price to have game?

Ravensmash

How likely are you to be on your PC when it has no internet access....?

Does that even matter? It's the priciple of the thing to me.

#117 Posted by GD1551 (9155 posts) -

This is an online focused game anyway, how do people expect to play without internet? It's like complaining about needing internet for WoW :| . When I think about it I am not really seeing the problem, the SP part of this is like playing the SP in Battlefield.

#118 Posted by Ravensmash (13862 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="casharmy"]

If there is any legitimate reaon to hate on PC gaming it's this.

This new 'game must be online' trend alot of new PC games are having is almost as bad as MS requireing payment to play games online, except it's not for every game--yet.

When I buy a game I feel like I to know I haveto access to all the parts of the game*without any hindges or limits attached*, otherwise why does it still cost full price to have game?

casharmy

How likely are you to be on your PC when it has no internet access....?

Does that even matter? It's the priciple of the thing to me.

What principle? If your internet works like it should (and if it doesn't, talk to your ISP) then you're going to be using it whilst on a PC. Who turns off their broadband now?
#119 Posted by shakmaster13 (7138 posts) -
It's funny how Ubisoft gets flamed for this but Blizzard gets defended.
#120 Posted by Filthybastrd (7124 posts) -

The fact is the vast majority of gamers are connected. It's also a fact that the Diablo seires has always been about online play.

Wasdie

It's also a fact that it's really annoying to be booted from an SP session because your internet acts up. I've had this happen with AC2 a couple of times, no connection is 100% stable.

I find your point about Diablo being all about online rather subjective.

#121 Posted by Ravensmash (13862 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The fact is the vast majority of gamers are connected. It's also a fact that the Diablo seires has always been about online play.

Filthybastrd

It's also a fact that it's really annoying to be booted from an SP session because your internet acts up. I've had this happen with AC2 a couple of times, no connection is 100% stable.

I find your point about Diablo being all about online rather subjective.

Contact your ISP then. Your internet shouldn't be booting you off.

Edit: and if course it's never going to be 100% stable, but unless your internet has a habit of acting up every day...

#122 Posted by hoogiewumpus (152 posts) -
PC. It only does DRM! :)
#123 Posted by Filthybastrd (7124 posts) -

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The fact is the vast majority of gamers are connected. It's also a fact that the Diablo seires has always been about online play.

Ravensmash

It's also a fact that it's really annoying to be booted from an SP session because your internet acts up. I've had this happen with AC2 a couple of times, no connection is 100% stable.

I find your point about Diablo being all about online rather subjective.

Contact your ISP then. Your internet shouldn't be booting you off.

Edit: and if course it's never going to be 100% stable, but unless your internet has a habit of acting up every day...

I'm not saying it's a huge issue but it does happen for a variety of reasons. It's still annoying.

Besides, I don't really see why you can't have offline characters that simply can't interact with any online component. Apart from the fact thet you're not going to spend more money on the game that is.

#125 Posted by Frostbite24 (4534 posts) -

My question to all you gamers is, does TF2 being an online only game make it a bad game and not one of the best competivive multiplayer experiences around? nope.

#126 Posted by ethanradd (654 posts) -

After the (several) death(s) of PC gaming, it seems the new thing is the death of "PC centric" developers ...bear with me for a min ...Obsidian (dead and buried, living on past glories) ...Crytek (Dying - Crysis 2) ...Bioware (Dying - DA2 + The Old Republic will flop big time) ...Blizzard (Dying - as evident from this thread) yet "console centric" developers are alive and kicking! Just look at what EPIC Games and Naughty Dog are doing, just amazing, who's next to jump into the PC graveyard ...maybe our beloved Valve? :o

#127 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -

[QUOTE="shakmaster13"]It's funny how Ubisoft gets flamed for this but Blizzard gets defended.Mograine

Ubisoft had no reason to do introduce that DRM.

Blizzard is making the life of cheaters extremely complicated with this.

Goes to show how much thought you put behind that post :roll:

Uh huh. Sure. Yeah, Ubisoft has no trouble with pirates or hackers or cheaters. You keep telling yourself this. You pretend that only Blizzard is the victim here.
#128 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -

My question to all you gamers is, does TF2 being an online only game make it a bad game and not one of the best competivive multiplayer experiences around? nope.

Frostbite24
Seeing as I don't really care about that game, I dunno. But I know Battlefield 2 at least had an offline mode. It wasn't much but it didn't require you to be online if I recall
#129 Posted by Merex760 (4284 posts) -
[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="NAPK1NS"] True. [QUOTE="delta3074"]interesting *drops diablo 3 from to buy list*delta3074
Why would you do that? Don't you have a constant internet connection anyways? It's not like this authentication DRM stuff is going to kill your performance or anything. Unless you have a terrible ISP provider? :)

firstly, it's draconian and buying this is giving them a thumbs up i am not selfish and i am not just thinknig of myself i am thinking about all the people out there who really want to play this game but don't have an internet connection (it's more than you think) not everyone can afford 15 quid a month for the internet at the moment, secondly, i share a single connection with my wife and she uses it 85% of the time and we cannot afford a router at the moment and we will probably have to drop the internet as well at some point in the future, i work damn hard to support my wife and kids and unfortunately for blizzard i can think of plenty of other games to buy instead that don't require a constant internet connection.

Rent a few games instead of buying, and you have a router!
#130 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -
Believe it or not, people, there are people out there who still don't have internet or find themselves in situations where they cannot access the net. Maybe no wireless, maybe they're moving. Maybe financial problems DO come up where the internet has to bite it. I don't like the idea of a game I can't play under the most basic of circumstances (such as having only a computer with some kind of screen and power or a console and tv with power). There are new communities springing up where (highspeed) internet hasn't gotten to. Where the situation is less than ideal. Areas of service can go down for hours to days, and I remember there was even a case of a week. All I'm saying is it's kind of a d-bag move to require you online while you play. And people may STILL find ways to crack it.
#131 Posted by Merex760 (4284 posts) -
Believe it or not, people, there are people out there who still don't have internet or find themselves in situations where they cannot access the net. Maybe no wireless, maybe they're moving. Maybe financial problems DO come up where the internet has to bite it. I don't like the idea of a game I can't play under the most basic of circumstances (such as having only a computer with some kind of screen and power or a console and tv with power). There are new communities springing up where (highspeed) internet hasn't gotten to. Where the situation is less than ideal. Areas of service can go down for hours to days, and I remember there was even a case of a week. All I'm saying is it's kind of a d-bag move to require you online while you play. And people may STILL find ways to crack it.AncientDozer
Unfortunatelty, it's the way PC gaming has become. If you can't afford internet, consoles might be better for you.
#132 Posted by gamer620 (3367 posts) -

Wow that's just like Ubisofts stuff. I mean it doesn't affect me personally but it's a pretty low move.

GD1551
Considering there is real money involved... it makes a hell of a lot more sense than any other game or service that utilizes the same mechanic.
#133 Posted by Mograine (3666 posts) -

Uh huh. Sure. Yeah, Ubisoft has no trouble with pirates or hackers or cheaters. You keep telling yourself this. You pretend that only Blizzard is the victim here.AncientDozer

Hackers and cheaters are a problem in single player games?

I'm so going to add this to the list of atrocities that spawned out of System Wars.

#134 Posted by The_Capitalist (10838 posts) -

Does this mean that there is no single-player mode?

Granted, my interest in Diablo 3 (or any Blizzard game) is zero anyways, but I guess online-play is the future...

#135 Posted by psn8214 (14924 posts) -

It's not as big of a deal as you would think. I never once had an issue with this system in Assassin's Creed 2, and to be honest, it actually helped me out (saved my game mid-mission when the power cut out once).

#136 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -
[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]Believe it or not, people, there are people out there who still don't have internet or find themselves in situations where they cannot access the net. Maybe no wireless, maybe they're moving. Maybe financial problems DO come up where the internet has to bite it. I don't like the idea of a game I can't play under the most basic of circumstances (such as having only a computer with some kind of screen and power or a console and tv with power). There are new communities springing up where (highspeed) internet hasn't gotten to. Where the situation is less than ideal. Areas of service can go down for hours to days, and I remember there was even a case of a week. All I'm saying is it's kind of a d-bag move to require you online while you play. And people may STILL find ways to crack it.Merex760
Unfortunatelty, it's the way PC gaming has become. If you can't afford internet, consoles might be better for you.

Truly is sad. I feel for our fellow gamers. The minute they lose internet, they can't play. But then who knows, they may rediscover reading and the outside. Or pick up a cell phone and play angry birds. Me, I have so many games it doesn't matter. If I want to game, I'll find a way. If I end up bowing out of the newer generation of PC titles, so be it.
#137 Posted by Ravensmash (13862 posts) -

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"] Uh huh. Sure. Yeah, Ubisoft has no trouble with pirates or hackers or cheaters. You keep telling yourself this. You pretend that only Blizzard is the victim here.Mograine

Hackers and cheaters are a problem in single player games?

I'm so going to add this to the list of atrocities that spawned out of System Wars.

Why did you ignore pirates?
#138 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"] Uh huh. Sure. Yeah, Ubisoft has no trouble with pirates or hackers or cheaters. You keep telling yourself this. You pretend that only Blizzard is the victim here.Mograine

Hackers and cheaters are a problem in single player games?

I'm so going to add this to the list of atrocities that spawned out of System Wars.

You. . DO realize that Ubisoft has multiplayer games, right? I mean. . you HAVE heard of Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood? Do you always burn straw men? And I realize you made no effort to address piracy. Way to pretend I didn't mention that as another reason why Ubisoft might justify their actions. No, of course not. Everyone else does wrong but Blizzard. Right? Blizzard is justified but other companies are not?
#139 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -
[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"] Uh huh. Sure. Yeah, Ubisoft has no trouble with pirates or hackers or cheaters. You keep telling yourself this. You pretend that only Blizzard is the victim here.Ravensmash

Hackers and cheaters are a problem in single player games?

I'm so going to add this to the list of atrocities that spawned out of System Wars.

Why did you ignore pirates?

I am so glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.
#140 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16744 posts) -

I am not really sure what we should discuss here. I am fine with what they are doing, so I don't really know what to say here. I just can't wait for the damn game to release already so I can play it.

#141 Posted by Mograine (3666 posts) -

Why did you ignore pirates?Ravensmash

Because I can understand they *are* a problem.

#142 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Why did you ignore pirates?Mograine

Because I can understand they *are* a problem.

Yet not enough for Ubisoft to justify the "always stay online DRM", apparently.
#143 Posted by Mograine (3666 posts) -

You. . DO realize that Ubisoft has multiplayer games, right? I mean. . you HAVE heard of Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood? Do you always burn straw men? And I realize you made no effort to address piracy. Way to pretend I didn't mention that as another reason why Ubisoft might justify their actions. No, of course not. Everyone else does wrong but Blizzard. Right? Blizzard is justified but other companies are not?AncientDozer

Wtf are you talking about? You're talking about multiplayer portions. The fact that they are multiplayer itself forces you to be online and THAT is the DRM against hackers and cheaters.

Ubisoft however put the constant connection at work in the single player portion too.

They are completely different scenarios. Start talking some sense.

#144 Posted by Mograine (3666 posts) -

Yet not enough for Ubisoft to justify the "always stay online DRM", apparently.AncientDozer

Pirates got around the always online thing. And everyone with a grain of salt between his ears knew that would have happened.

#145 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"] You. . DO realize that Ubisoft has multiplayer games, right? I mean. . you HAVE heard of Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood? Do you always burn straw men? And I realize you made no effort to address piracy. Way to pretend I didn't mention that as another reason why Ubisoft might justify their actions. No, of course not. Everyone else does wrong but Blizzard. Right? Blizzard is justified but other companies are not?Mograine

Wtf are you talking about? You're talking about multiplayer portions. The fact that they are multiplayer itself forces you to be online and THAT is the DRM against hackers and cheaters.

Ubisoft however put the constant connection at work in the single player portion too.

They are completely different scenarios. Start talking some sense.

Words can not describe my disbelief with you. Either you're trying so hard to deliberately skew things or. . . you're some kind of denial and it just sails over your head like a murder of crows.


Let me explain something to you, because you seem to forget everything two posts after your current.

It was suggested that somehow Ubisoft is terrible for implementing "online always DRM" in its games but Blizzard is somehow exempt from criticism for doing the exact same thing to which you respond by saying that Ubisoft has no reason to put DRM in its game where as Blizzard does.

My response was to point out that Ubisoft also faces CHEATERS, HACKERS, and PIRATES to which you A.) disregarded the piracy issue and B.) scoffed at the notion of single player games having to be online always. Which, by the way, I pointed out that Ubisoft games also have multiplayer. . and then you start this nonsense.

The situation is not at all different, considering that Diablo has never been an online-only game.

So do you STILL stand by this belief that Ubisoft is wrong but Blizzard is right? That Ubisoft apparently has no justification (piracy, cheating, hackers, et cetera) while Blizzard has all the justification in the world (piracy, cheating, hackers, et cetera)?

Because in my eyes? They are either both right or both wrong (I believe they are both wrong, by the way).

#146 Posted by Da_lil_PimP (4242 posts) -

Meh I don't care. My computer is always connected to the internet and rarely ever drops. The only thing I'm not too happy about is that there are no mods, but whatever.

#147 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]Yet not enough for Ubisoft to justify the "always stay online DRM", apparently.Mograine

Pirates got around the always online thing. And everyone with a grain of salt between his ears knew that would have happened.

So then pirates, hackers, and thieves will get around Blizzards thing, too? Then why bother?
#148 Posted by Mograine (3666 posts) -

Words can not describe my disbelief with you. Either you're trying so hard to deliberately skew things or. . . you're some kind of denial and it just sails over your head like a murder of crows.

Let me explain something to you, because you seem to forget everything two posts after your current.

It was suggested that somehow Ubisoft is terrible for implementing "online always DRM" in its games but Blizzard is somehow exempt from criticism for doing the exact same thing to which you respond by saying that Ubisoft has no reason to put DRM in its game where as Blizzard does.

My response was to point out that Ubisoft also faces CHEATERS, HACKERS, and PIRATES to which you A.) disregarded the piracy issue and B.) scoffed at the notion of single player games having to be online always. Which, by the way, I pointed out that Ubisoft games also have multiplayer. . and then you start this nonsense.

I didn't disregard the piracy issue. And I'm the one who seems to forget everything two posts after my current :lol: Read through the thread.

You're the one talking nonsense. Blizzard games are ALL ABOUT THE MULTIPLAYER. You're applying the "always online" thing as if they are the same. They are NOT.

Ubisoft applied the "always online" DRM for its single-player portion too. THEY HAD NO REASON TO. It doesn't matter if they had multiplayer because MULTIPLAYER ITSELF FORCES AN ONLINE CONNECTION.

Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2's single player portions are INTEGRATED with the multiplayer one.

The situation is not at all different, considering that Diablo has never been an online-only game.

I can tell you've never played Diablo 2 the way it was meant to be played then.


So do you STILL stand by this belief that Ubisoft is wrong but Blizzard is right? That Ubisoft apparently has no justification (piracy, cheating, hackers, et cetera) while Blizzard has all the justification in the world (piracy, cheating, hackers, et cetera)?

You're the one mixing up things for no reason WHATSOEVER.

Ubisoft has applied the always online thing to its SINGLE PLAYER PORTION. Again, there is no standalone single player portion in Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3.

Because in my eyes? They are either both right or both wrong (I believe they are both wrong, by the way).

AncientDozer

#150 Posted by evilross (1884 posts) -

I would rather have single player characters offline and not able to cross over to multiplayer or ladder characters then sever side characters for all game types.

It will help a lot with hacked characters and cheaters on battle.net, but honestly, mandating server side single player characters is all about anti-piracy, not anti cheats.

And another thing... when Diablo III does roll around to the consoles, I think this 100% confirms there will be a "Battle.net Pass" type system to prevent used sales.