Diablo 3 - "No Mods, Online-Only, Cash Trades"

I thought the blizzard explanation of the always-online requirement was a little hilarious. They talked for about a paragraph about how its there primarily as a function and service to help players and then threw in the fact that it also helps prevent piracy as though it were an afterthought.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
1,710
It requires a constant internet connection even for the SP campaign? Then I'm out.
Or did I overlook something and there won't be a SP campaign?
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
So in the new move of ultimate corporate greed they decided to encourage and legalize Chinese "Gold Selling" exploitation shops. And cut their share of deal too.

I never seen a game so utterly killed with one single press release.

For me this is not only "not buy" game now. Its active boycott and protest against.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
481
In the end it will be the most successful Diablo ever.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
So basically it's the same as Starcraft 2, so we shouldn't be surprised for the most part. Requirement for battle.net works fine there (apart from inability to play with your friends in other parts of the world).

The big surprise is the auction house. This won't affect people's playing in the slightest, but it does at least provide a legal avenue for an activity that was going to happen on the black market anyway, and I'd rather Blizzard got the money from it than organised crime, making it regional will hopefully help avoid some of the hacktastic problems other games like guild wars suffer from due to this activity.

Of course, you could just think of it as user generated DLC ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,877
I don't get the internet issues people have. Do you have an internet connection at home? Is it somehow onerous to have it on while you play a game? I never turn my connection off at home. Why would anyone do that?

I get that some people may still be on dial-up, but that has to be a tiny percentage, and certainly a very tiny percentage of the people who will have a PC capable of playing this game.

Why is having to have an internet connection a deal-breaker?
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,561
Location
Downtown Chicago, IL
So basically it's the same as Starcraft 2...

I was actually put off by the mediocrity of SC2 overall. And the battle.net overhaul was a step backward with its exclusion of old-style chat rooms (unless I missed something in that convoluted interface).

So, no, not exactly eagerly anticipating D3. This latest bout of news just adds fuel to the "will not buy unless in the bargain bin" fire.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
This is so controversial the backlash has started before the news release. They must know there is going to be hell to pay in negative word of mouth, unlike any before.

activision want's gamers to be their bitch and is tying to shove something down gamers throat. I can't imagine ever playing this, whether it's great game or not. As a matter of fact this will assure I never play any activision game in the foreseeable future.

Not only that, activision has just created at least one online anti-actitivisionist. It's quite possible Every Negative Situation in gaming will now draw a direct corollary reference association to activision. Bet I'm not alone in thinking, if activision thinks it has been a whipping post in the past, they've seen nothing yet.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,772
I get that some people may still be on dial-up, but that has to be a tiny percentage, and certainly a very tiny percentage of the people who will have a PC capable of playing this game.
It's a matter of principle for some. Requiring an active online connection means it is no longer a product you bought and paid for but a time-limited service. For mmos it is acceptable since the game is dependent on the server services of the provider. For singleplayer games it makes no sense and is strictly an artificial lock-in for controlling the consumer.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
1,163
Location
Scandinavia
Blizzard are to Activision what Bioware are to EA. They're partners and they're going along with this because they WANT it that way.

Let's not pretend Blizzard are not about the money. You don't need to think hard to realise that.

Personally, I fully expected this game to require constant online connection - and I think it makes sense given the game. I always considered Diablo, and indeed the entire genre, a multiplayer thing first and foremost.

I do admit I would have preferred a LAN option, but there's really no reason for them to do it. It's just too easy to defeat piracy by going this way - and the auction house was always going to be an integral part of Diablo 3.

To me, the RMT aspect is what worries me. I DO NOT appreciate when fantasy and reality mix - because it ruins the illusion of what you're doing. If I have to sit down and consider whether I should be playing or paying - the game is ruined.

Thankfully, they're going to make Hardcore mode separate from the RMT auction house model. That means there's a way to play without mixing my bank account with my character's inventory.

Still, it might very well be just the first step on the quest for more money.

Going by WoW and how they've "evolved" the game since its inception, Blizzard are all but lost in the sea of greed.
 
hishadow said:
It's a matter of principle for some. Requiring an active online connection means it is no longer a product you bought and paid for but a time-limited service. For mmos it is acceptable since the game is dependent on the server services of the provider. For singleplayer games it makes no sense and is strictly an artificial lock-in for controlling the consumer.

This. For single player, this is no different from Ubi's DRM whatever they try to dress it up as. I never bought SC2 so I wasn't aware Blizzard had done this before.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
542
Location
Englandland
the Future

hi all.

sigh.

I see the Future, and I have misgivings.

I read in Wired magazine, and in other computer articles, that the "cloud computing" is our future and everything will be Streamed, thus no DVDs, no movies, no cds, all combined with television, even now computer monitors and large screen tvs are Converging. Everything is online.
soon every "important" game will be online and no one will have any of these on the hard drive.

the desktop itself will be at risk as smartphones are the future and everyone will carry one of these around all day, everyone connected all of the time.

but of course there WILL be old timers who are into the INDIE game worlds and the small developers. these will still be sold, albeit from downloads. thus Blizzard might see that they have to "side" with the Cloud/Streaming as they have a Big Game!

freestone
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
19
Location
tallahassee, florida, usa
Why is having to have an internet connection a deal-breaker?

a) The artificial lock-in already mentioned.
b) Safety of my investment. Now I'm at Activision's mercy to be able to play my SP game. If they disable the server or for whatever reason decide to ban my account, I can't play. Does this make sense for a SP game from a consumer perspective?
c) Data security. User data is valuable! So valuable that there's a war behind the scenes between manufacturers and retailers (for all goods, not only games!) about who collects which data from the user and which parts of it he has to share with his suppliers.
This is a very complex topic, but the short version is that it's in the user's best interest to give out as little information as possible, simply because he cannot know in whose hands his data will end and what this company will do with it.
"Always on" allows the publisher to collect a lot of data and transfer it to their server. Valve for example is well known for doing this. At least they're quite open about it.
Why would I want to give out any data at all if I only want to play SP?
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
I don't care about the 'real money' auction house - that is totally optional and players that find it to be a 'scam' can simply ignore it.

On the other hand, I don't find the concept of 'constant Internet connection required' for the single player aspect of the game acceptable - so blizzard will go without my $59.99.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,897
Location
Oregon
I see the Future, and I have misgivings.
There is this quote, "The only way to predict the future is to invent it!", which is basically what Blizzard is doing. Well, allow me to modify it for the consumers, "The only way to predict the future is to prevent it!".
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
1,163
Location
Scandinavia
OK, I guess the points you guys make about the necessary online connection can be seen as valid, but I for one don't care that much. I just don't get worked up over games. There's lots of stuff to do, and limited time to do it.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,561
Location
Downtown Chicago, IL
a) The artificial lock-in already mentioned.
b) Safety of my investment. Now I'm at Activision's mercy to be able to play my SP game. If they disable the server or for whatever reason decide to ban my account, I can't play. Does this make sense for a SP game from a consumer perspective?
c) Data security. User data is valuable! So valuable that there's a war behind the scenes between manufacturers and retailers (for all goods, not only games!) about who collects which data from the user and which parts of it he has to share with his suppliers.
This is a very complex topic, but the short version is that it's in the user's best interest to give out as little information as possible, simply because he cannot know in whose hands his data will end and what this company will do with it.
"Always on" allows the publisher to collect a lot of data and transfer it to their server. Valve for example is well known for doing this. At least they're quite open about it.
Why would I want to give out any data at all if I only want to play SP?

Thank you for wasting your time. You answered the wrong question.

The question is not "why should the game not support online connection?" but "why should it support online connection?"

For some games, the online connection is no brainer.
It is a must have because the gameplay could not exist without the online connection.

For some other games, it is much less obvious.

Whatsoever, it is to people to provide causes how online connection benefits the player.

Commonly, the answers show how the online connection benefits the developper, publisher and all and how they are not supposed to be detrimental to the player.

Starting to discuss what is supposedly not detrimental is deeply different from starting to discuss what is benefitial. It is a dangerous slope actually as indeed of buying something because it benefits you, you end buying it so that it is not detrimental to you.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Let me stop you right there. If you're playing a game with 50 levels, 45 of which are boring… You should probably consider playing another game.

Why? You obviously skipped the part where I recalled that making money can be fun, but does not have to.

If people want and make money playing that game, why should they play another game? Save they can make more money playing another game, of course...
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
- In-game RL money auctions? Its natural that it'll exist. If you followed fan-based sites from diablo 2, wow, etc, there's already a massive parallel market for items, blizzard is just capitalizing on that potential revenue. I'm gessing most people would rather use a blizzard-made system than rely on fan-sites/paypal transactions.
I'll personaly not use it, but if people are into that kind of stuff, then its a safer bet.

Two different things.

Diablo 3 will include a saler/buyer relationship. While previous games did not. Parallel markets can not provide the same constraints as an ingame market.

Here's a list of constraints that are going to be included:


-Developper/publisher: they want to sell as much as possible games. They must cater to the largest audience possible.

-salers: they want the items they sell to provide buyers with as much fun as possible (one could imagine in a powergaming game) and they shall want the ways they acquire those extraordinary items not to be that fun so that players do not engage massively in cropping items.

-buyers: they want the items they buy to provide fun but not that much fun the auctions commonly skyrocket. They want the ways to acquire extraordinary items to be fun so that many players engage into them.

Not naturally conciliating trends. In order to alleviate the stuff, developpers could introduce a bingo effect, an extraordinary item introduced x per months, and that would sell very high compared to other items.

Developpers could also rely on a fourth party, a patsies group. They will buy the game so satisfy developpers' constraints.

And they might be between, neither enjoying the fun high end items provide as the buyers do and never making money as the salers do, allowing buyers and salers to conciliate opposite pulsions on their back.

Nothing very natural in the way stuff could arrange.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
I wonder if having to be online all the time will also introduce lag due to gameplay control, which will be necessary to prevent cheating.

Having said that, I look forward to the inevitable development of bots capable of playing Diablo 24/7 better than any human could ever hope to. Sounds like a good game for the entrepreneurial young hacker with too much time on his/her hands!

Personally, I might just skip this one. There is likely going to be too much gameplay luggage just to support an — in my point of view — ethically dubious venture. I am thinking of kids wasting their parents money here, btw.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
471
Back
Top Bottom