Diablo 3 - System Requirements

Would never buy a game no mattter how much I wanted it if it requires me to be connected to the internet. Though it would seem I always am in some way during the day. Iphone, home systems, work systems...but to force me for no reason what so ever to have to be is insane. If they want to track how much I play or what I do in the game then pay me. I am not here for there research for your next game or games...

Yeesh said:

Jesus can we get over this? It's 2011 going on 2012. Everyone's computer has been connected to the frigging internet all the time for a while now. Yes, you have to play other games while you're physically in an airplane or something. Listen I'm old enough to remember when games started requiring you to use a mouse even when I could clearly see how they could have implemented them with my preferred keyboard-only setup. But then I got over it because welcome to the present.

ONLY 10 characters? Those rat bastards. Obviously they're trying to get you to pay for the game 5 times so you can have the 50 characters you need to enjoy the game properly.

Click to expand...

Word.

And for those wondering why, reduction in hacks and cheats is a primary reason.

There's also this little RMT auction house thing. I think it would be prudent to ensure no offline version of the game exists - as it would potentially help hackers wanting to gain access to real money that don't belong to them.

To me, this online only thing makes perfect sense for Diablo 3. I can only scratch my head at people who claim to know for a fact that Blizzard are doing this "because they can", and because they're oh-so-arrogant. It's not like they're making a game that they think will be a good one, and doing what they think is right for that game. No, it couldn't be that simple.

Maybe they ARE arrogant, and maybe they DO exploit the market with this decision - but that doesn't mean it isn't the 100% correct thing for the actual game as well.

At the end of the day, if you don't like what they're doing - don't support it. No one is forcing you to buy it, and seeing as how gaming is all about providing the most entertaining experience - it's hardly a bad thing if Diablo 3 is so alluring that you feel you MUST buy it regardless.

As far as I can see, this will be a marvelous hack/slash game with absolutely fantastic production values. If they provide a safe and secure environment for my experience, with no cheating and a watchful eye on my money (I fully intend to experiment with selling items) - I'll gladly pay for the game, even knowing there's a risk I won't be able to play for a few days one day if the servers crash - or my connection is on strike. That's pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things.

Also, I consider it 100% inevitable that ALL non-indie games will require an online connection eventually. That's simply how it's going to be.

Lemonhead said:

I thought you had to be online all the time while playing it?

Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't realise that. Presumably the only info that gets transmitted in single player is going to be a fairly small trickle of data (character status, quest states etc.)

DArtagnan said:

Also, I consider it 100% inevitable that ALL non-indie games will require an online connection eventually. That's simply how it's going to be.

Click to expand...

As long as its like steam or origin I will have no problem as all you do is logon to steam and go offline. No need to play online.

I'm sorry to say but Blizzard has come off as arrogant with there latest press releases.

Couchpotato said:

I'm sorry to say but Blizzard has come off as arrogant with there latest press releases.

Click to expand...

They were definitely much less diplomatic then they probably should have been. But these are game designers and not politicians so they aren't always going to carefully consider every word that they say. In the end they made a decision that they were willing to lose a small percentage of their customers to provide what they view as a better product, and that small percentage would have been upset no matter how nicely they said it.

chamr said:

Word.

And for those wondering why, reduction in hacks and cheats is a primary reason.

Click to expand...

Sure, they say that, but I'm sure that "reduction in piracy" is closer to the truth.

Santos said:

Sure, they say that, but I'm sure that "reduction in piracy" is closer to the truth.

Click to expand...

Bah the the beta is already cracked. Hows that for security.

Santos said:

Sure, they say that, but I'm sure that "reduction in piracy" is closer to the truth.

Click to expand...

Well you have to realize that having to deal with hacks and cheats costs Blizzard money just like piracy does. Blizzard has staff whos job it is just to deal with these things, and the more of a problem it is the more people to have to hire. So yeah from a business perspective Blizzard may be more interested in reducing hacks and cheats then piracy, because not only does this make their customers unhappy, but it effects their bottom line as well.

Couchpotato said:

Bah the the beta is already cracked. Hows that for security.

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Not even WoW has a reliable server emulation at this point.

There's a difference between getting past the login screen and a working crack of a fully functional game.

Maybe they will one day get a playable version out of it, but it won't happen until months after release. Even then, it will be a version without any of the online advantages - around which the game is designed.

Well, I don't know what's going on with those PC requirements, but if they're the real thing, then I'm more satisfied to hear that, because I have surpassed them.

The point of being low is the graphic details of 2000. They stalled this game's development too much resulting the graphic details to be so poor. If they were of the best, I think they'd go for much higher PC requirements.

Not to mention the lag with the connection and the frame drop, thanks to Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, which forced me to upgrade my RAM to 4 GB.

DArtagnan said:

No it isn't.

Not even WoW has a reliable server emulation at this point.

There's a difference between getting past the login screen and a working crack of a fully functional game.

Maybe they will one day get a playable version out of it, but it won't happen until months after release. Even then, it will be a version without any of the online advantages - around which the game is designed.

Click to expand...

Does it really matter just a matter of time to its fully cracked Dart. I could care less about the added options. The first step is taken. They said the same about C&C 4 and it was emulated fast. Hell I may even give it a try since I still help trying to improve the wow emulators better.

DArtagnan said:

No it isn't.

Not even WoW has a reliable server emulation at this point.

Click to expand...

http://www.therebirth.net/

Somewhat reliable

Melvil said:

http://www.therebirth.net/

Somewhat reliable

Click to expand...

True, but that's Vanilla WoW. I'm talking about "Full WoW" and specifically Cataclysm - and AFAIK there's no reliable version of that. Years after release, you can get to play one version of the game that's not up to date. Also, you have to play with a tiny population - which completely goes against the design of the game. Diablo 3 might not need a lot of people to enjoy it, but even with a good emulator - you'll miss out on the entire trading aspect of the game.

The point is that it's not a trivial matter to crack a game with an online and persistent server structure requirement.

Couchpotato said:

Does it really matter just a matter of time to its fully cracked Dart. I could care less about the added options. The first step is taken. They said the same about C&C 4 and it was emulated fast. Hell I may even give it a try since I still help trying to improve the wow emulators better.

Click to expand...

I think it matters a lot, yeah.

People who're willing to play these games in this way, might prefer a fully featured and functional version - even if you do not.

Essentially, it means that no matter if they ever manage to "fully crack" it, it will help them reduce piracy to have an intricate online structure. C&C 4 was essentially just a traditional RTS with a pointless online requirement, so that hardly proves anything.

A lot of people prefer to play fresh games upon release or close to it, and they also tend to prefer all the latest content and updates.

DArtagnan said:

I think it matters a lot, yeah.

People who're willing to play these games in this way, might prefer a fully featured and functional version - even if you do not.

Essentially, it means that no matter if they ever manage to "fully crack" it, it will help them reduce piracy to have an intricate online structure. C&C 4 was essentially just a traditional RTS with a pointless online requirement, so that hardly proves anything.

A lot of people prefer to play fresh games upon release or close to it, and they also tend to prefer all the latest content and updates.

Click to expand...

Oh phooey you just like to ruin other peoples days dont you. I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that since I hate writing long replys. I enjoy my private servers thank you.

That ok with me

Oh, and no - I don't enjoy ruining the days of other people. I do "enjoy" speaking my mind in terms of how I perceive reality. It's not so much about my enjoyment, as it's about simply believing in that approach as the only worthwhile one.

There are quite a few fake WoW servers that usually end up about one patch behind the real WoW. In Diablo 3, such content patching will not be needed, especially for single player gamers, so I have no doubt it'll be cracked. This is not an MMO that keeps evolving through monthly subs and frequent content patches.

Anyway, I suspect the 10 character limit will be increased in time. I know a lot of people that have played far more than 10 characters in Diablo 2, and in games like Gothic and BG2 I've passed 50+ easily. I have no intention of deleting any characters every time I feel like trying out something new. I'm not too worried though, as I very much doubt I'll be hooked on Diabo 3 - I'll probably play through it once with each class and leave it at that.

It might be an issue in several years, but like I said - I expect them to increase the number of character slots in time.

Reyla said:

The same kind of debate raged when publishers first started selling games by digital distribution only.

That's (almost) accepted now.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

I think it's safe to say the internet connection topic has already been beaten to death at this point.

I'm not a fan of the idea, but I have to wonder when people are going to realize that constantly bitching about it isn't going to change anything.