Between DLC microtransactions and what Diablo III does, this is the future of all PC titles made by the major commercial developers IMO.  People may give Diablo III a pass because of Blizzard's intentions of making it an online community-based game, but it also promotes tacking on an "integral" multiplayer feature to slip always-online DRM in the back door.

Anyway, while many people might agree it's a bad idea that has the possibility of greatly inconveniencing the player, the fact of the matter is that 3.5+ million people are expected to play Diablo III this year.

The number of people who won't purchase the game because of its online requirement is negligible (As in 'one.' Me.).

Realistically, voting with your wallet will do nothing. The vote was cast years ago when players decided they'd tolerate more than just EULA restrictions to their gameplay. Complaining about it now is pretty disingenous IMO...the crazies warned the gaming community that this was coming and time and again we told them off. As the saying goes, you made your bed, now you have to lie in.

Besides, if Diablo IV came out tomorrow with the exact same online requirement, everybody would be in line at 'Gamestop' waiting for the doors to open (quality not withstanding).

Simple reason to not buy for myself.   They'll be unplayable for the next few years while I'm in the NAVY.

Originally posted by Rockhide

Between DLC microtransactions and what Diablo III does, this is the future of all PC titles made by the major commercial developers IMO.  People may give Diablo III a pass because of Blizzard's intentions of making it an online community-based game, but it also promotes tacking on an "integral" multiplayer feature to slip always-online DRM in the back door.

 

Anyway, while many people might agree it's a bad idea that has the possibility of greatly inconveniencing the player, the fact of the matter is that 3.5+ million people are expected to play Diablo III this year.

 

The number of people who won't purchase the game because of its online requirement is negligible (As in 'one.' Me.).

 

Realistically, voting with your wallet will do nothing. The vote was cast years ago when players decided they'd tolerate more than just EULA restrictions to their gameplay. Complaining about it now is pretty disingenous IMO...the crazies warned the gaming community that this was coming and time and again we told them off. As the saying goes, you made your bed, now you have to lie in.

 

Besides, if Diablo IV came out tomorrow with the exact same online requirement, everybody would be in line at 'Gamestop' waiting for the doors to open (quality not withstanding).

The 'online requirement prevents me from buying' doesn't ring true for most people now due to Steam.

Originally posted by Warmaker

I've always thought the basic idea of having a constant internet connection for ALL gameplay was a terrible idea.  Yes, for multiplayer, it's natural.  But for single-player?  That's asanine.

I even have problems with those 3rd party programs that you purchase and run a game through.  Stuff like Steam.  They supposedly feature offline support, but I've run many problems with Steam in particular over the years to run in offline while travelling abroad.

Yes people, believe it or not, there are places out in the world where fast internet connection isn't possible.  Or *gasp* no internet at all.  Oh noes!  Too bad for some of you that do some extensive travelling to far away places, and can't use those cool games that are on your laptop.

I do miss the simple days where you acquired the game via download or a physical CD, and it was YOURS, and you were free to play it anytime, anywhere, as long as your computer can run.

I've never acquired a pirated game in my life.  All my games are legit and I buy lots of games in the course of a year, yet game companies are setting out to make life more miserable for legitimate purchasers.

         Well said...Ive had some issues over the years with Steam also....

Originally posted by Theocritus

Originally posted by Warmaker

I've always thought the basic idea of having a constant internet connection for ALL gameplay was a terrible idea.  Yes, for multiplayer, it's natural.  But for single-player?  That's asanine.

I even have problems with those 3rd party programs that you purchase and run a game through.  Stuff like Steam.  They supposedly feature offline support, but I've run many problems with Steam in particular over the years to run in offline while travelling abroad.

Yes people, believe it or not, there are places out in the world where fast internet connection isn't possible.  Or *gasp* no internet at all.  Oh noes!  Too bad for some of you that do some extensive travelling to far away places, and can't use those cool games that are on your laptop.

I do miss the simple days where you acquired the game via download or a physical CD, and it was YOURS, and you were free to play it anytime, anywhere, as long as your computer can run.

I've never acquired a pirated game in my life.  All my games are legit and I buy lots of games in the course of a year, yet game companies are setting out to make life more miserable for legitimate purchasers.

         Well said...Ive had some issues over the years with Steam also....

If you purchase something digitally, is it safe to assume that you have an internet connection?

Originally posted by lappas

+1

 

Intelligent thread by the OP. Clearly he has no right to be on these forums lol.

 

 

+1

Good stuff :)

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Theocritus

Originally posted by Warmaker

I've always thought the basic idea of having a constant internet connection for ALL gameplay was a terrible idea.  Yes, for multiplayer, it's natural.  But for single-player?  That's asanine.

I even have problems with those 3rd party programs that you purchase and run a game through.  Stuff like Steam.  They supposedly feature offline support, but I've run many problems with Steam in particular over the years to run in offline while travelling abroad.

Yes people, believe it or not, there are places out in the world where fast internet connection isn't possible.  Or *gasp* no internet at all.  Oh noes!  Too bad for some of you that do some extensive travelling to far away places, and can't use those cool games that are on your laptop.

I do miss the simple days where you acquired the game via download or a physical CD, and it was YOURS, and you were free to play it anytime, anywhere, as long as your computer can run.

I've never acquired a pirated game in my life.  All my games are legit and I buy lots of games in the course of a year, yet game companies are setting out to make life more miserable for legitimate purchasers.

         Well said...Ive had some issues over the years with Steam also....

If you purchase something digitally, is it safe to assume that you have an internet connection?

You may have had an internet connection at that time when you acquired the download.  But at the place where you're moving through or staying at for varying periods of time, short and long?  Not a guarantee.

Think about it next time when you try to be a smartass.  Some of us had to deal with more angles out there than you did.

Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game with optional single player... big difference. Would you rather they make it strictly multiplayer? Will that quiet all the whining about this?

The choice is simple either PC users learn to accept games with inconvenient DRM or no high budget PC games get made. You can write multiple walls of text, but that's what it boils down to.  DRM is not designed to punish purchasers, it's designed to deter piracy, the inconvenience to genuine users is just collateral damage that can't easily be avoided. And in a world where so many feel entitled to freeload off the work of others things don't seem likely to get better any time soon. Perhaps when we have a free and egalitarian world we won't have to lock our doors any more..., perhaps not.  

Originally posted by Warmaker

Originally posted by jpnz

 

If you purchase something digitally, is it safe to assume that you have an internet connection?

You may have had an internet connection at that time when you acquired the download.  But at the place where you're moving through or staying at for varying periods of time, short and long?  Not a guarantee.

Think about it next time when you try to be a smartass.  Some of us had to deal with more angles out there than you did.

Not sure why the defensive tone and why the projection on mine post.

If a company sells a digital product, would it be safe for that company to assume the customer has an internet connection?

Answer for me is 'yes'. I think it is safe to assume the customer has an internet connection since the product is a digital product.

Should it cater for a small niche where the person goes on holiday/move/fly?

I can see why certain companies do not cater for that niche.

You don't have to agree and vote with your wallet.

I accept the 'always on' online checks when I buy games digitally as I am okay with the company not catering for that niche.

  I had read somewhere and i strongly believe that the 'second fall of video game industry" is at hand. The top of tragedy is that Sony announced that their PS4 will no have any kind of optical reader. It will be mandatory to use internet to purchase, let alone play games. Basically, you will not own anything except console.

  This being said, i blame publishers only partially. Gamers with mentallity 'i will buy it only because it is sequell to Diablo/Heroes of Might and Magic/Assassin's Creed/Mass Effect/whatever" will lead to this fall as well. I am not discussing anything about games themselves at this point, some of them are great, some are pretty good, some are bad, its not the point.

  My biggest annoyance is that publishers say "Oh look, here is a great game but we will not sell it to you, we will only rent it to you to play it and we can take it away from you whenever you want and all that will be left to you is useless pieces of plastic. But hey you could play freezbie with it still. You should be thankfull for it" and largest ammount of Gamer community said "Okay, thank you for releasing this fabulous sequel, kind sir".

  "Shut up and take my money" mentallity will kill video game industry once again. Dont shut the big guys up and react to their b.c. with more common sense. Like E.T. wasnt enough to make people learn stuff.

My opinion, have a nice day,

Dzoni87

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Rockhide

Between DLC microtransactions and what Diablo III does, this is the future of all PC titles made by the major commercial developers IMO.  People may give Diablo III a pass because of Blizzard's intentions of making it an online community-based game, but it also promotes tacking on an "integral" multiplayer feature to slip always-online DRM in the back door.

 

Anyway, while many people might agree it's a bad idea that has the possibility of greatly inconveniencing the player, the fact of the matter is that 3.5+ million people are expected to play Diablo III this year.

 

The number of people who won't purchase the game because of its online requirement is negligible (As in 'one.' Me.).

 

Realistically, voting with your wallet will do nothing. The vote was cast years ago when players decided they'd tolerate more than just EULA restrictions to their gameplay. Complaining about it now is pretty disingenous IMO...the crazies warned the gaming community that this was coming and time and again we told them off. As the saying goes, you made your bed, now you have to lie in.

 

Besides, if Diablo IV came out tomorrow with the exact same online requirement, everybody would be in line at 'Gamestop' waiting for the doors to open (quality not withstanding).

The 'online requirement prevents me from buying' doesn't ring true for most people now due to Steam.

Not exactly true. I use Steam but keep it in "Offline Mode" most of the time. I play Steam games 90% of the time with no Internet connection what-so-ever on my laptop. You don't need to be online all of the time to play Steam games.

Bren

Online-only singleplayer? Sure! As long as you have the backend to "back it up" :).

Seriously, thats all there is to it.

Originally posted by Brenelael

Originally posted by jpnz

 

The 'online requirement prevents me from buying' doesn't ring true for most people now due to Steam.

Not exactly true. I use Steam but keep it in "Offline Mode" most of the time. I play Steam games 90% of the time with no Internet connection what-so-ever on my laptop. You don't need to be online all of the time to play Steam games.

 

Bren

You must be the rare creature I've heard about in legends past.

You are someone that got the Steam Offline mode to WORK?!

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Brenelael

Originally posted by jpnz

 

The 'online requirement prevents me from buying' doesn't ring true for most people now due to Steam.

Not exactly true. I use Steam but keep it in "Offline Mode" most of the time. I play Steam games 90% of the time with no Internet connection what-so-ever on my laptop. You don't need to be online all of the time to play Steam games.

 

Bren

You must be the rare creature I've heard about in legends past.

You are someone that got the Steam Offline mode to WORK?!

Umm.... Yeah. You just have to be smart enough to restart it in Offline Mode while you are connected to the Internet before you try to play offline. An ounce of forethought goes a long way. LOL

Bren

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Brenelael

Originally posted by jpnz

 

The 'online requirement prevents me from buying' doesn't ring true for most people now due to Steam.

Not exactly true. I use Steam but keep it in "Offline Mode" most of the time. I play Steam games 90% of the time with no Internet connection what-so-ever on my laptop. You don't need to be online all of the time to play Steam games.

 

Bren

You must be the rare creature I've heard about in legends past.

You are someone that got the Steam Offline mode to WORK?!

 That's more of an argument against the implementation than the idea. Clearly steam could be made to work that way properly.

Why?

Easy - Can't have 1 hit kill style bosses then have server lag...

Talk about peeved lol.

Originally posted by stragen001

Companies with excessive DRM or requiring a constant internet connection are just pissing off legitimate customers, like the previous poster said. They are more concerned with making sure that people dont get an illegal copy of their game, than making actual customers happy.

This is wrong.

When the DRM interferes so badly with a legitimate customers experience that they stop playnig the game because of it, things have gone too far.

I would say that about 75% of the people that get a pirate copy of a game WOULD NOT have purchased it anyway, the other 25% are people that are just pirates. If people want to buy a game, then they will buy the game. If they are not sure, then they might pirate it........

Remember demos for single player games? what ever happened to demos? They used to help people make their mind up.

The reason why I really hate this whole online authentication thing though, is what if I want to play the game I bought in 10 years time, when the servers have shut down and the company has gone bust? I wont be able to. There are a select few games that are THAT good, but I still semi regularly play the original civilisation, and UFO: Enemy Unknown because they are such great games. With online authentication I just would not be able to do that. 

I'm sorry, how is that wrong? A company wanting to make money and make sure assholes around the world don't make a ripped copy of their game and distribute it, allowing less income? Makes sense I suppose.

As for this whole online-only debate, I'm going to have to agree with the people that stated you knew this before you bought it. 

As for 10 years down the line? I'm sure I'll be playing something else. Would I maybe come back to it? Sure, there's always that possibility. But down the line I'm sure something else will grab everyones attention. A lot of people claim "this isn't what I thought it was going to be" so I'm sure they won't be playing past the first month. 

---

Originally posted by lappas
+1

 

Intelligent thread by the OP. Clearly he has no right to be on these forums lol.

 

 

---

Just because it is long does not make it intelligent...

I didn't know people could copy & paste articles written by other people on other sites.  Though, it is thoughtful of you to link the original location of everything you just copied & pasted here.  Matt Miller and GameInformer might be a little upset that you just bypassed their website and advertisers.  I think you should remove the copied article and add some thoughts of your own.  Even something as simple as "I agree with this article 100%" would be better than just taking the work of someone else, in my opinion.