The problem of having to be online, even to play solo, is that one day the servers WILL be shut down, and you'll be left with a coaster.

If someone isn't concerned about it, then chances are you're not considering the long-term impact of these measures. By buying into games that have this handicap, you're basically telling the developers and publishers that you're ok with being robbed of your game when they decide to pull the plug.

So yes, it's an anti-consumer measure, since it's the people who pay good money for the game that will suffer the penalty. Pirates get the game for free anyway, so they have nothing to lose.

And here's another game that enforces you to be online to be able to play it, so I won't buy it.

Don't get me wrong, I think I'd enjoy this game, but I will not support the current "anti-consumer" practices that are slowly becoming a norm, it seems. I'd rather go back and play the older Diablo games, and spend my money on other games that don't do these things.

I'm not currently familiar with pirates cracking abilities but if someone does crack Diablo 3 so it runs without this gimmick, then MAYBE it's will be worth my time.

If the day does come when every game works like this, I'll just quit being a gamer then. Plenty of other hobbies in the world, I guess.

@Ninjiz Exactly, which is also the reason why it's pointless to try and reason with those people, since they lack reasoning skills to begin with. People who justify this kind of business practice are either arrogant or downright stupid. Arrogant when they lack a thing called "social conscience" and are only willing to care for what affects them personally, with complete disregard for what their actions do to influence the world around them. Stupid when they honestly don't even realize they're being used and abused.

@lance_7 That's being part of the problem, not the solution, I'm afraid. The minute a gamer says "I'm willing to pay extra for this map-pack or extra-character", you're basically saying you don't mind being robbed of content. You're basically telling the industry that it's ok to take out content from the original product, so they can make larger profits later. Game content should be fully included on the original package, not split into portions so you buy the main portion (the disc), and then pay extra for the rest of the content as DLC. As an analogy, you don't buy 45 minutes of a movie, and then download (or unlock) the rest of the movie with extra payments (although, I wouldn't be surprised if they started doing that, by the way things are going these days...) Collector's Editions or paid DLC should only be focused on stuff that goes beyond the main game experience, like the OST of a game, for instance. If a developer truly forgot to include a certain item or character in a game, maybe because of tight schedules, then fine, release it as DLC, but make it free.

Also, on another note... of course DLC is prepared ahead of time. Is that news to you? I suggest you check "Fable 2" interviews (I think they're even available on Xbox Live, for free). On one of the interviews, one of the guys specifically says part of the project was "deciding what to keep out for DLC" referring to the two quests you have to pay for, and were later included in the GotY edition. So, yes, they've been doing this for years. No DLC is though of AFTER, except, of course, patches (which are free, so they're beyond the point here).

I wonder why some people are criticizing the article for "defending" on-disc DLC. That's not how I interpret it. Judging by the last paragraph, what I get from the article is, in short "on-disc DLC isn't the problem... ALL DLC is the problem". I'm referring to this quote: "[...]let publishers know that they've already blown past the pain point and to tell them we've had our fill. But it can't just be about on-disc DLC, or day-one DLC, or collector's editions, or season passes. It needs to be communicated to the publishers in sweeping fashion that gamers want a complete experience for a fair price or we simply won't pay." So, basically, stop buying DLC (on-disc or otherwise) and send the message that we're not dumb and are perfectly aware that they're ripping our skin off.

And... that is the reason I never bought a single DLC item to this day, nor do I have any intention to ever do so. Unfortunately, I'm sort of alone in this behavior, so the industry doesn't care since they don't need me, in particular. However, if thousands of other people were to do the same, and simply NOT buy a single DLC, then maybe developers/publishers would go back to selling complete games, instead of milking the gaming community.

(part 2) Videogames HAVE artistic elements, as I already pointed out before as well, but they are not the main point of the product. In fact, take music for example... if you turn down the music in the options screen, are you kept from playing the game? If you change the OST for a custom soundtrack, does it destroy the experience? No, the game is still there. Try doing that with a song (commercial or free, doesn't matter). You kill it right there, right? Same with the examples I gave you. If you're in a car, you can add artistic elements to it. Check "Pimp my ride" for some really extreme examples. But the point of the car is still to be a transport, and if take all the paintjob or the stereo, it still does what it's suppose to do. Same with a house. You can paint like a rainbow and add surround systems to every room, selecting specific mood themes for each room. Those are artistic elements that may enrich the house, but take them all off and it's still a house. Boring, maybe, but it fulfills its mission. I believe people want videogames to be art for various reasons. It's "hip" to be artistic. It allows you to say you like something when it's clearly broken. It gives developers more freedom to experiment, while it gives players more excuses. But I'm sorry, with the exception of very few games that are light on the gameplay department (with good reason), there's hardly any videogame that I'd classify as pure art.

@Decessus As you say, I do not agree with you, but I don't particularly appreciate the discussion either since it's pointless - I'm pretty sure it won't change anyone's opinion, including our own, nor will it even reach the developers ears. Still, I respect anyone who can maintain a decent argument without having to recur to insults so here's another take on the subject. First of, no person or entity has the god-like power to define an abstraction, like "art", as an unquestionable fact, so whatever the Smithsonian Institute says (let alone the Supreme Court) is irrelevant, even if they did consult with a panel of people who were professionals in the industry. Case in point: astronomers and the scientific community in general have considered Pluto a planet for almost a century, but guess what, just a few years ago they redefined what a planet is, and Pluto shifted classification. In other words, nothing is set in stone, just because someone says it is. Second, I already gave you my definition of art in two of my three previous comments. I don't see why you want me to keep reiterating it. Art, as I understand it, is anything that's meant to be passively appreciated. I never even mentioned the word "money" in any of my posts because, obviously, anyone can choose to make their creation a commercial product... that was never part of my argument. (continues in part 2)

@glack123 The comparison is irrelevant. I was sarcastically pointing out how some people still think (and perfectly ok to be verbal about it) that if you're not statistically relevant, then you don't matter.