Poll:How many of you are with the "always online" policy for D3 and how many against?

[zinfamous]

Interesting. Then in that case, making Guild Wars always online WAS a bad design (IMHO), if the game is as you say.

It is not as he says. he only played for a few days, as he says, so he knows dickall about it.

GW was released in what, 2004? as a MMORPG. It wasn't until ~2006 or 2007 that Heroes showed up, and made single player "possible," but unlikely. Only last year, I believe it was, could you make a full 8-man team of your heroes, In which case, Single player is certainly doable...assuming you already completed all of the regular content with other players.

In the end....it's an absurd description of the game from those who haven't really played it.

 

[railven]

of course it depends on how casual the player is. it is not meant to be a blanket statement, but for those that take things so seriously: I.e--"You should want D3 to be online, multiplayer-only, because your insistence to play single-player only ruins my gaming experience!" (yes, that pathetic argument was made earlier in this thread)

I think you are twisting that argument out of context. The same twist can be, and has been, applied to those that wish for an offline mode. Each side is making some what understandable points - however they aren't the ones that have to agree on some sort of compromise, and that is ultimately in Blizzard's hands.

And your edit is hilarious--because that is the EXACT point I am making. People do buy these games, and understand what "always online" means in terms of this type of DRM.

This is NOT what Blizzard means by "always online" with D3. That is the point.

That is what Aikouka is arguing, but to an end user regardless what the system is doing with you having to be online, the end affect is the same - you are required to always be online. Be it some random CD key check or server-side processing, the user is tied. They bought the product, hopefully, knowing this and their decision was already made.

I'm personally interested in how you know, or anyone at that, what Blizzard means by this point. I read counter-points about the RMAH - yet that system isn't even up yet. And there is an offset to the RMAH which is the standard gold AH which generates no money to Blizzard unless they'll start selling gold directly (as they get a cut from Gold AH transactions too.)

These experiences color their expectations of understanding "always online." So, more people buy into Diablo on release than would ever buy into an MMO, because many of them are not the people that want to play WoW (or any MMO), or be beholden to "similar" mechanics or types of gameplay--much less their play time be determined by the whims of flaky WoW servers.

I think we are getting somewhere.

I disagree here only because Diablo 3 is the third in a highly successful and highly cherished series. Cataclysm outsold WOTLK, and that outsold TBC, which outsold WoW at launch - see where I'm going.

This has zero to do with a person's casual-ness (actually I've run into some people who play Diablo 3 as hardcore as some who play WoW hardcore.) Have you not seen the videos of people soloing Inferno content? My friend, that is not casual.

I'd also argue that there is a large chunk of cross over, in the tune of about 20-25% because of week one total sales, about that much percentage were people who got their copy free from their WoW yearly subscription (1.2 million WoW copies to 4.3 million copies sold.)

Again, you are making some general blanket statements.

EDIT: Hell since my hamster is on the wheel, I can support the RMAH argument because Blizzard probably knows this game will be played by hardcore players, more so than casuals, because they are hoping to get a piece of the pie when these hardcore players start trying to sell their wares. But of course, it could all backfire as possibly no real hardcore player would spend real money when they already have a boatload of gear. So it would be the more casauls who buy since they want to increase their compete level.

This is almost starting to sound like Free 2 Play games with their content gating. Hmmm...

I need to give the hamster a Red Bull and write my state representatives

 

[thespyder]

I told you to stop with this off-topic bullshit.

I don't care if you don't like the term. If you're incapable of reading the description of how Diablo III is a client-server networking setup, and you become confused by me using "MMO Lite". Well, um... I don't care?

So it is off topic to discuss your sub-topic? which you are discussing.

Or is it off topic to disagree coherently with your invalid name for the very valid reason that it makes no sense what so ever? And you can't formulate appropriate responses to the arguments put forth against the naming?

I get that you don't like the Ubisoft scheme. And I get that you think diablo 3 is different. Congratulations on having an opinion.

 

[gothamhunter]

It is not as he says. he only played for a few days, as he says, so he knows dickall about it.

GW was released in what, 2004? as a MMORPG. It wasn't until ~2006 or 2007 that Heroes showed up, and made single player "possible," but unlikely. Only last year, I believe it was, could you make a full 8-man team of your heroes, In which case, Single player is certainly doable...assuming you already completed all of the regular content with other players.

In the end....it's an absurd description of the game from those who haven't really played it.

The entire game, since release, could be played solo with henchmen. Would it be difficult? Absolutely, but it was possible. That's how I played the entire game because I only had one other person who would play with me regularly but even then he was almost never on.

In fact, if you remember from the Guild Wars post, I just completed the entire game over only single player again for HoM (granted, they have allowed Heroes now which makes it easier), minus you helping me with one quest because I didn't want to take the time to go get my skills to get 3-star on the mission.

 

[zinfamous]

I think you are twisting that argument out of context. The same twist can be, and has been, applied to those that wish for an offline mode. Each side is making some what understandable points - however they aren't the ones that have to agree on some sort of compromise, and that is ultimately in Blizzard's hands.



That is what Aikouka is arguing, but to an end user regardless what the system is doing with you having to be online, the end affect is the same - you are required to always be online. Be it some random CD key check or server-side processing, the user is tied. They bought the product, hopefully, knowing this and their decision was already made.

I'm personally interested in how you know, or anyone at that, what Blizzard means by this point. I read counter-points about the RMAH - yet that system isn't even up yet. And there is an offset to the RMAH which is the standard gold AH which generates no money to Blizzard unless they'll start selling gold directly (as they get a cut from Gold AH transactions too.)



I disagree here only because Diablo 3 is the third in a highly successful and highly cherished series. Cataclysm outsold WOTLK, and that outsold TBC, which outsold WoW at launch - see where I'm going.

This has zero to do with a person's casual-ness (actually I've run into some people who play Diablo 3 as hardcore as some who play WoW hardcore.) Have you not seen the videos of people soloing Inferno content? My friend, that is not casual.

I'd also argue that there is a large chunk of cross over, in the tune of about 20-25% because of week one total sales, about that much percentage were people who got their copy free from their WoW yearly subscription (1.2 million WoW copies to 4.3 million copies sold.)

Again, you are making some general blanket statements.

EDIT: Hell since my hamster is on the wheel, I can support the RMAH argument because Blizzard probably knows this game will be played by hardcore players, more so than casuals, because they are hoping to get a piece of the pie when these hardcore players start trying to sell their wares. But of course, it could all backfire as possibly no real hardcore player would spend real money when they already have a boatload of gear. So it would be the more casauls who buy since they want to increase their compete level.

This is almost starting to sound like Free 2 Play games with their content gating. Hmmm...

I need to give the hamster a Red Bull and write my state representatives

what did Cataclysm do in sales compared to D3, to Skyrim, to Batman AA, ot Battlfield 3? etc...

yes, D3 certainly outsold WoW on release, because WoW really made MMO what it is today (so sales would have been expectedly more tepid on inception).

So, you are right, it is more fair to compare Cataclysm and more recent expansions (and Rift, Conan, ToR, etc) to single player/non-MMO games released at the same time.



My point that you address here is simple, really: The market for single player games dwarfs the MMO market. Yes, there is crossover--but that only goes to prove my point, in that far more people will be interested (especially if crossover is only 25%, as you say?) in the single player component. So based on your guess, this means 75% of people want something that is not MMO, that is not determined by the status of MMO servers. etc. Correct?

Is it unreasonable, then, to accept the fact that 75% of people buy this game expecting "online only" to mean nothing more than all of their other experiences with "online only" in the current gaming industry?

And, to digress:
Is there not issue with Blizzard actually detailing their flavor of "online only" to their consumers, before purchase? this gets into the other real issue, of course, and far more insidious (if indeed it is, insidious :\), and has nothing to do with "butthurt" gamers, but general consumer rights.

Interpreting such complaints as coming from "butthurt" ludites is both frivolous and naive. If there is something smelly over at Blizzard, then this could be a serious problem with consumer advocacy. Tread carefully, those issues with which one choses to toss into the dustbin. They could be more serious than one wants to accept.

(I agree--this is just a fucking game. But when one looks at it as a product, and the legal/consumer issues involved with producing a consumer commodity, and consumer rights, we tread on very serious water. Again--not saying that is all there. But the issue has been raised, and lawsuits, I believe, have already been filed, no?)

 

[Chiropteran]

Yes an MMO absolutely has to be online. I am not discounting the "O". but I am saying that a Massively Multiplayer Online game is not defined EXCLUSIVELY by the "O" component as some would have it.

Again, see my further explanation. I could make a solitaire game that was required to be played online. Would it then be an MMO?

Er, yeah I guess I did misunderstand you, but I still don't agree. The "massive multiplayer" just refers to the number of players in the "world", not neccesarily in a party or raid all at once doing something. The earliest MMO, ultima online, had no content at all that required a party at release, it was all soloable. There was a massive number of players playing the game, but you could easily do stuff solo or in a small group. MMO is not solely defined by being online, no, but it also isn't defined by 25+ player raids.

Diablo 3, with 4 player parties, could be stuffed into the MMO category even if it doesn't follow all the typical MMO, and calling it an "MMO lite" isn't inaccurate at all. There are plenty of instanced MMOs now where you never run into other players in major game zones unless you choose to group with them, and they aren't that far off from what D3 is.

 

[zinfamous]

The entire game, since release, could be played solo with henchmen. Would it be difficult? Absolutely, but it was possible. That's how I played the entire game because I only had one other person who would play with me regularly but even then he was almost never on.

In fact, if you remember from the Guild Wars post, I just completed the entire game over only single player again for HoM (granted, they have allowed Heroes now which makes it easier), minus you helping me with one quest because I didn't want to take the time to go get my skills to get 3-star on the mission.

yes, I remember that. My Heroes rock!

But pre-NF--those henchmen were essentially useless. Well, healers anyway. You simply could not do Ring of Fire in Prochecies with them, as they would instantly melt against those Mursaat.

I know this was debated at the time--whether or not the henchies were infused--and despite whether it has been updated since then, they very much were not infused for quite some time. I know I didn't simply make up the fact that they would melt behind me when aggroing one Murssat.

 

[gothamhunter]

yes, I remember that. My Heroes rock!

But pre-NF--those henchmen were essentially useless. Well, healers anyway. You simply could not do Ring of Fire in Prochecies with them, as they would instantly melt against those Mursaat.

I know this was debated at the time--whether or not the henchies were infused--and despite whether it has been updated since then, they very much were not infused for quite some time. I know I didn't simply make up the fact that they would melt behind me when aggroing one Murssat.

Might be why I was a Monk

 

[MountainKing]

Not really. People are making a mountain out of a molehill and complaining about always online requirement. you don't like it, you don't buy it.there is nobody forcing you to buy it. I find it a good move by blizzard to prevent cheap people from having a free ride and playing the cracked game offline. As it stands, the game has yet to be cracked.
The bottom line is that it is your choice. If you don't like online always dont buy. People should really stop complaining about anything especially something as petty where you are not even forced to buy it....

Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chiropteran]

It is not as he says. he only played for a few days, as he says, so he knows dickall about it.

GW was released in what, 2004? as a MMORPG. It wasn't until ~2006 or 2007 that Heroes showed up, and made single player "possible," but unlikely. Only last year, I believe it was, could you make a full 8-man team of your heroes, In which case, Single player is certainly doable...assuming you already completed all of the regular content with other players.

In the end....it's an absurd description of the game from those who haven't really played it.

I made it to level 7 in GW1, with the cap being 20 I feel that should have given me a fair understanding of the game. The main reason I quit playing was lack of any sort of challange at all. I think I made a monk/warrior or whatever the fighting healing class was, and you basically had infinite mana for healing in most fights due to how fast it came back and how little the damage you took was. It was certainly never too hard to solo as far as I played.

Is there some dramatic change halfway through the game where it becomes absurdly harder?

But don't put words in my mouth, I never said it felt like a single player game. I said it felt like diablo 2 with non-random maps. Diablo 2 is not a single player game either. You can play single player in either case, but it's not required.

 

[zinfamous]

Might be why I was a Monk

Funny thing, Monks have been completely useless as healers for some time, now. And generally, not a single player will use a monk for healing, either. They are all Spike/DPS, ad Heroes--either Nec or Rit--are both better at healing (intelligence), and flat out better builds for healing. lol

Elementalists, too.

I actually liked healing with my monk, though. But he was primarily used for farming, so...whatever.

 

[-Slacker-]

I told you to stop with this off-topic bullshit.

I don't care if you don't like the term. If you're incapable of reading the description of how Diablo III is a client-server networking setup, and you become confused by me using "MMO Lite". Well, um... I don't care?







...because multiple people mentioned Ubisoft?

Fff... I'm running out of analogies here.

D3 is an mmo "lite" because it's server-based in the same way China Town is China-lite because it's dim-sum-based.

 

[gothamhunter]

I made it to level 7 in GW1, with the cap being 20 I feel that should have given me a fair understanding of the game. The main reason I quit playing was lack of any sort of challange at all. I think I made a monk/warrior or whatever the fighting healing class was, and you basically had infinite mana for healing in most fights due to how fast it came back and how little the damage you took was. It was certainly never too hard to solo as far as I played.

Is there some dramatic change halfway through the game where it becomes absurdly harder?

But don't put words in my mouth, I never said it felt like a single player game. I said it felt like diablo 2 with non-random maps. Diablo 2 is not a single player game either. You can play single player in either case, but it's not required.

The difficulty of GW ramped up quite a bit at the end. Being level 20 at max, you could still fight enemies in the 30+ level ranges; being at a higher level didn't matter but the skills you had available and your ability to use them is what mattered.

 

[gothamhunter]

Funny thing, Monks have been completely useless as healers for some time, now. And generally, not a single player will use a monk for healing, either. They are all Spike/DPS, ad Heroes--either Nec or Rit--are both better at healing (intelligence), and flat out better builds for healing. lol

Elementalists, too.

I actually liked healing with my monk, though. But he was primarily used for farming, so...whatever.

I was referring to the beginning; now I wouldn't use a Monk at all.

 

[zinfamous]

I made it to level 7 in GW1, with the cap being 20 I feel that should have given me a fair understanding of the game. The main reason I quit playing was lack of any sort of challange at all. I think I made a monk/warrior or whatever the fighting healing class was, and you basically had infinite mana for healing in most fights due to how fast it came back and how little the damage you took was. It was certainly never too hard to solo as far as I played.

Is there some dramatic change halfway through the game where it becomes absurdly harder?

But don't put words in my mouth, I never said it felt like a single player game. I said it felt like diablo 2 with non-random maps. Diablo 2 is not a single player game either. You can play single player in either case, but it's not required.

Depends on a lot of things--with Prophecies (the first game), it took forever to reach max level (20)--pretty much very, very late game. With the newer games, you were at ~level 16 or 17 once you got off noob island (same as pre-searing in Prophecies, where you tend to finish ~level 6-8).

Factions and Nightfall focused on developing characters for PvP play (both games expanded PvP content considerably), so leveling and gearing were meant to be near instantaneous (you also get significantly more cash for all rewards, so you weren't really money-limited when it came to max gear, like in Prophecies)

It's possible that you never left pre-searing, then (if you were in Prphecies). And yes--game gets much harder when you actually start the game. That part is a bit of a prologue, just getting used to the mechanics. Mobs are not aggressive--they do not aggro, they do not patrol (iirc), they are often single mobs, etc. As a W/Mo, the self healing will not get you very far in the rest of the game. The mobs simply become too vicious. You would eventually need 2 healer-types to keep your party going (1 healer in 4 or 6 man team zones). And, typically, depending on your build, Monk healing skills will sap too much mana for a warrior (whether or not you tend to use mana or adren based weapon skills). You end up, with more advanced builds, taking no more than 1 self heal with you, because the typical role as either a DPS or tank Warrior depends on warrior skills more than any self-heal skills. That isn't to say that Wa/Mo isn't effective throughout most of the game--it's just that the more skills one unlocks (GW is about using skills in effective builds, for the proper situation--not gear-based usefulness; like most other MMO), the more important it becomes to find an effective balance (and efficient).

hell, I started as a W/R, without any of the other games being released...and it mostly worked for the majority of the game.

to compare difficulty--getting off of noob island in Factions is not impossible in ~1 day. That puts you at level 16 or so. Maybe even 18, but would take longer. The next stop (The main missions of the game), gives you max gear--and very ruthless, large, evil mobs for someone just starting out. That's just normal mode.

 

[zinfamous]

Fff... I'm running out of analogies here.

D3 is an mmo "lite" because it's server-based in the same way China Town is China-lite because it's dim-sum-based.

 

[Golgatha]

I'm for it for multiplayer, but dead against it for a single player. I think you ought to be able to play the game by yourself or on a LAN with a character that's separate from your multiplayer characters if you would like to.

 

[zinfamous]

I was referring to the beginning; now I wouldn't use a Monk at all.

yeah, I know. That's what the was for. Monk would have made things much easier for more parts of the game (+ it's always instant group find, then).

It's like ToR, for me: My main is an Assassin. It can solo pretty much the entire story mode of the game, and some of the earlier Flashpoints quite easily. Actually--I feel like I can back and take on some of the level 35 or so Flashpoints with very little damage, on my own. :hmm:

yes, there is always content that needs groups: HM, OPs, blah blah, but It strikes me as no-less soloable than the same amount of content in GW. (well, you need the proper class for it in ToR, I guess. GW is at the point where any class you choose can pretty much play any role you want them to. The amount of skills and build types make this so).

 

[Aikouka]

Fff... I'm running out of analogies here.

D3 is an mmo "lite" because it's server-based in the same way China Town is China-lite because it's dim-sum-based.

I really don't see why you care so much about the term "MMO Lite" when I've explained exactly what I mean by it every time. It's not like "MMO Lite" even has a standard definition anyway... you know, because I made up the term. However, if those of you really have that large of a fucking redwood stuck up your ass, I'll spend the extra second typing "client-server architecture" instead.

I'm glad that we've resolved such an IMPORTANT debate.

 

[I4AT]

Funny thing, Monks have been completely useless as healers for some time, now. And generally, not a single player will use a monk for healing, either. They are all Spike/DPS, ad Heroes--either Nec or Rit--are both better at healing (intelligence), and flat out better builds for healing. lol

Elementalists, too.

I actually liked healing with my monk, though. But he was primarily used for farming, so...whatever.

Invincimonks were popular for a while, but they can only farm specific areas. Anytime you run into an enchantment stripping mob your monk pretty much takes it up the butt. Elementalist/Monk has a lot of mana, but their heals are also a little less effective because they lack the divinie favor buffs. I suppose if you had some elite mana regen skills an Elementalist could be a pretty effective healer?

Also I find it very hard to believe that anyone beat the entire campaign using only henchmen lol, they were worthless after about level 10, I couldn't even do it with heroes. The only time I ever enjoyed the game was when I got lucky with a really competent group, probably cause I never cared to join a good Guild. Most of the random pick up groups I joined were pretty bad... but even the worst players I found were better than henchmen.

 

[gothamhunter]

Invincimonks were popular for a while, but they can only farm specific areas. Anytime you run into an enchantment stripping mob your monk pretty much takes it up the butt. Elementalist/Monk has a lot of mana, but their heals are also a little less effective because they lack the divinie favor buffs. I suppose if you had some elite mana regen skills an Elementalist could be a pretty effective healer?

Also I find it very hard to believe that anyone beat the entire campaign using only henchmen lol, they were worthless after about level 10, I couldn't even do it with heroes. The only time I ever enjoyed the game was when I got lucky with a really competent group, probably cause I never cared to join a good Guild. Most of the random pick up groups I joined were pretty bad... but even the worst players I found were better than henchmen.

I played with patience - I had nothing better to do

 

[I4AT]

I played with patience - I had nothing better to do

What class/build did you use? I tried really hard for a long time to solo the game but couldn't do it with a Warrior, Elementalist, Assassin, Ranger, or Paragon. Never tried a monk cause I didn't think the henchmen would have the DPS to take down certain elites/bosses, especially after racking up a few death penalty stacks. Did you go as a healer with a few DoT skills and just try to stay away from the action? That would probably bore me to tears.

I wish D2 would get an update that allows all the good rune words in single player, all I want is a legit offline Enigma skelemancer. People HATE it when you bring summoners online, but it's the only way to have a legit teleporting necro.

 

[railven]

what did Cataclysm do in sales compared to D3, to Skyrim, to Batman AA, ot Battlfield 3? etc...

yes, D3 certainly outsold WoW on release, because WoW really made MMO what it is today (so sales would have been expectedly more tepid on inception).

So, you are right, it is more fair to compare Cataclysm and more recent expansions (and Rift, Conan, ToR, etc) to single player/non-MMO games released at the same time.

Quick Google search brought me to the Wiki page for Cataclysm which puts it at 4.3 million for the first week, considering money up front it equals Diablo 3, not including money up front, it is behind by about 1.2 millions (by which I mean the subscription sales of Diablo 3.)

My job blocks a lot of sites, but I can answer that question (or if someone wants to look it up for me using VGchart numbers)...let me see if WIki has em listed:

Skyrim:

During the first day of release, Steam showed over 230,000 people playing Skyrim concurrently.[63] In the first week of release, Bethesda stated that 7 million copies of the game had been shipped to retailers worldwide, and that total sales through the following Wednesday were expected to generate an estimated US$450 million.

Note: shipped != sale, but assume they did, they "sold" roughly 7 million copies across 3 platforms.

I won't look up Battlefield 3 since I'd wager more people buy that for MP than SP.

Batman: AA and AC:

Worldwide, the game sold 2 million units in its first week of approximately 4.6 million shipped units, compared to Arkham Asylum which sold 4.3 million units in its entire release. This made Arkham City one of the fastest selling games ever.

Note: They sold half of their shipped units.

Yeah that got dwarved by both Cata AND Diablo 3.

My point that you address here is simple, really: The market for single player games dwarfs the MMO market. Yes, there is crossover--but that only goes to prove my point, in that far more people will be interested (especially if crossover is only 25%, as you say?) in the single player component. So based on your guess, this means 75% of people want something that is not MMO, that is not determined by the status of MMO servers. etc. Correct?

Based on the top played games on consoles and PCs, I can't really refute that players are looking for Single Player games, but are mostly investing their times on multiplayer games. Since this game had an always online requirement, and you can dip into Spyder and Aikouka's debate on whether this game is an "MMO Lite" or not an MMO at all, is a testament that people had no qualms WITH it always being online.

So, would you argue 75% of purchases were made for an "Always Online game" and now one of the major complaints is the game requires it? Even Ubisoft's CD-Key checking servers went down rendering their Always Online scheme from negatively impacting the users, yet they still bought a known single player game with the restriction.

Be it marketing or my own ignorance to D1/D2, but I was under the impression Diablo 3 would be more multi-player based than it actually is. But then again I haven't opened up my games to the public. And even knowing that, I really never considered the game single player - more so me holing myself off. Like WoW, unless I'm playing with a friend I mostly quest on my own.

Is it unreasonable, then, to accept the fact that 75% of people buy this game expecting "online only" to mean nothing more than all of their other experiences with "online only" in the current gaming industry?

This is where it is starting to get hairy, because it seems almost everyone will have a different view/opinion on this, and is evident in this thread.

I'll admit after playing the game, this is probably the first *REAL* game I've played that required "Always Online" on in terms of it being a multiplayer game AND single player game. While I don't open up my games to the public, my friends can come and go as they want (which they usually do) until I turned that function off due to the hack scare (which was recent.) Now they just PM me and I invite them.

This is completely different to say PSO in which I'd have to completely abandon my offline session, switch to online and thus continue forth.

So, I'd have to say I can fully understand both sides of the fence. Blizzard should just stick an offline mode to satisfy both sides, and then build a wall to prevent both sides from ever meeting haha.

And, to digress:
Is there not issue with Blizzard actually detailing their flavor of "online only" to their consumers, before purchase? this gets into the other real issue, of course, and far more insidious (if indeed it is, insidious :\), and has nothing to do with "butthurt" gamers, but general consumer rights.

Interpreting such complaints as coming from "butthurt" ludites is both frivolous and naive. If there is something smelly over at Blizzard, then this could be a serious problem with consumer advocacy. Tread carefully, those issues with which one choses to toss into the dustbin. They could be more serious than one wants to accept.

(I agree--this is just a fucking game. But when one looks at it as a product, and the legal/consumer issues involved with producing a consumer commodity, and consumer rights, we tread on very serious water. Again--not saying that is all there. But the issue has been raised, and lawsuits, I believe, have already been filed, no?)

There are legit complaints here, and there will most likely be some legal battles. Clearly not everyone has a rosy opinion. I've only experienced game breaking lag once, perhaps twice, but reading some other people's experience - woof. If I were them I'd be in a frevor against too.

I'm not sure on the percent of users who are negatively affected - because if it were a greater portion we'd see this every where - not just forums. Or it just hasn't escalated to that point yet.

Eitherway, I'm going to enjoy this game as best I can haha.

 

[thespyder]

Kind of, I don't think that there is any reason what so ever to marginalize any demographic of gamers. Single player, MMO, FPS, RTS, Role players, social, whatever.... Who cares what flavor of gamer you are. You like to game? Welcome to the club. Even if you are 1% of 1% of the demographic. You are still a gamer.

Diablo is one of those games that speaks to a lot of different types of gamers. The LAN play of D2 was just all kinds of awesome. You could sit around with your buddies till all hours of the night and just have a blast. Or you could play solo and just blow off some steam killing demons. Which is where the strength of the game lies. It really crosses boundaries.

And this in a nut shell is where I think that D3 really falls short of the mark. The always online, regardless of if you think it is a good thing or a sucky one, limits the game in ways that others in the genre and it's predecessors were never limited. It limits the consumer base. It limits the game play options. And it sells short those who might otherwise have been a fan of the franchise.

In the annals of gaming, Diablo 2 spoke to single player masses and Multi player masses. You could play in groups of your friends or with people from across the internet, or you could play solo. The new direction and the always online limits that.

People who don't have solid online connections can't or won't play the game. So even if they are exactly the types of people who would enjoy the type of game play, it's a lost sale. and a limited market. Same with people who travel or people who merely don't want always online.

You can say what you like about the reasons why it is always online. You can be a Blizzard fanboi and claim that they made a game that wasn't intended for people who don't want always online. At the end of the day, they limited their audience. And polarized the community. And lost sales pure and simple.

And considering that the (hypothetical) inclusion of an offline mode doesn't substantively change the game play in it's purist state (hacking not withstanding, and presumably a different solution could have been worked out to address even this), it splintered the market to the detriment of everyone.

 

[Grooveriding]

Why so much drama and angst over such a shit game ?

I can't believe Blizzard actually released this piece of shit. First time I've seen them put out a crap game.