Originally posted by Corehaven

Way it should have been to prevent hacks and cheats.  3 playing options as follows: 

 

OFFLINE SINGLE PLAYER ( You can not transfer characters or gear to online play.  This mode is seperate from the other two modes Diablo 3 offers. ) 

 

ONLINE SINGLE PLAYER ( A single player option that allows you to take any gear and character into full multiplayer) 

 

ONLINE MULTI PLAYER ( Play Diablo 3 with friends using a new character, or a character you already have created while playing Online Single Player ) 

 

 

And then?  Everyone is happy.  Its very simple.  And Blizzard should have had the brains to do it.  Its not rocket science.  There are a lot of people that are refusing to buy D3 because its online only.  Me?  I only really ever played single player mostly.  So to me D3 is a single player game with a multiplayer option.  And I will not buy a game that requires me to have a net connection just to play.  Just on principle I will not buy into that. 

Pretty much agree with all of the above.

Greed was the driving force behind no offline mode, nothing else.

Should have just redone open and closed battlenet like they had in Diablo 2 and added some of the features they developed for Diablo 3.

Closed Battlenet for Diablo 3 could essentially be the same as it is now, where things are stored on a server so you don't have saved characters to tamper with and you need to maintain a connection so it maintains the same security the game has in it's present state. 

And then open battlenet could have been a clinetside hosted system. Less secure, but it lets you take your game offline to enjoy it where you won't be in threat of server load lag, server failures, server times, or any other server related malarkey.

And seriously, can they find no way to encrypt their client information effectively that they must feel the need to store as much as possible server-side? What is it Turbine did so much better with DDO and LoTRO that these fellers can't figure out?

DRM, by and large, is a failure. It penalizes and alienates paying customers while doing nothing signifiacnt  to prevent priacy. We have seen in the past few years, that customers are willing to pay for quality goods. We are not thieves and we don't deserve this treatment. If you think you are outsmarting the hackers, your deluding yourself.

The diablo seriese has always been designed at a fundamental level as a single player game, that you could play with friends. I still belive that is the case with D3.

The irony to me is that I felt that D3 just plain did not progress as a game at all from D2, apart from some nice streamlineing elements. Its just too much the same old same old for me. They one MAJOR thing they did change, the always on requirement, strikes me as a terrible decision. 

---

Originally posted by Everket
It's probably mention 100 times before in this thread, but your arguments are invalid. Because they should have the online part as it is now, but there is no good argument for not having an offline mode. They could be completely seperate and you would still have your beloved online mode without hacking. How do people not see that? 

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Everket
It's probably mention 100 times before in this thread, but your arguments are invalid. Because they should have the online part as it is now, but there is no good argument for not having an offline mode. They could be completely seperate and you would still have your beloved online mode without hacking. How do people not see that? 

---

People do see that. They just aren't worried about it. But if you're really wanting a reason, there's a simple one (or two).

1) It would cost more to develop. Blizzard would either have to allow people to run a modified version of the full server on their own machines, or write a totally different client. Either of which would increase the development time, maintenance, testing and QA.

2) Blizzard doesn't have to do any of that extra work. What is the incentive for Blizz to do all the above work, when they'll sell just as many copies without doing it? The few people who aren't going to buy the game because of the online requirement don't matter. There aren't enough of them.

What Blizzard does need to do is to make sure that the people who did purchase the game do not experience enough lag to stop playing the game. The RMAH is going to depend on a lot of people trading stuff, so it's in their best interest to make everything run as smooth as possible. I expect this will happen soon enough and most everyone will forget about the online requirement and move on to the next proclamation of doom.

 

Well, although I am one of those who did not buy the game because of the online all the time and RMAH, let me say that if Blizzard does not get a handle on people's accts getting hacked, they are not going to make  jack from the RMAH.

Even worse, when people start paying real money for items, and their accts get hacked, whether through their on fault or not, and those items start geting stolen, there will be hell to pay.

And if you don't think that is going to generate some PO'd customers, think again.

Originally posted by Aori

I'm just going to sum up the read thus far.

Me the OP has been deemed a naive QQing ignorant moron who has no concept of what a real game is. The masses deem Diablo 3 a flop, the millions of players who bought the game never knew you had to have the internet to play it. Somehow Diablo 3 is officially a singleplayer game with multiplayer as an afterthought that had a shitty DRM attached to it to piss off the millions of players. Only a small minority wants to play online, everyone else is happy trollin away in their caves. Pirating can't be stopped completely so why try. Cheating can't be stopped so why bother. Blizzard should have made 2 Diablo 3 games $120 for the set. Blizzard is a moneygrab company, so much so that they pushed back the RMAH to get money quicker.

I'm sure there is more but you all get the point.. maybe.. probably not.. nevermind.

 

You sound rather pouty in this post and I am not sure what it contributes to this discussion. You started the conversation by saying why you defend it and then go sulk when people say why they don't like it?

One does not have to hate D3 and Blizzard to be annoyed by the online-only play. I have been a fan of Blizzard games for a long time, as I am sure a lot of other people here have been too, but the online-only play does REALLY bother me.

Blizzard in the best of worlds should have given us, the players, a choice, but they did not, for whatever reason. It does not matter to me if it is because of DRM or anti-cheats. In the long run, the result is the same: no internet? No D3.

If D3 were an MMO with a persistant online world, that would be different, even though it seems anymore that MMOs are becoming single player games with a thin veneer of MMO added on as an afterthought (yes, thinking about you ToR here). Is that right? I do not think so.

Why do I not think so?

I have already discussed elsewhere: how not everyone is online all the time. I am not going to go into it again.

But how about what it also means on the level of internet traffic that is not really needed? Contrary to what some people here might think, internet subscriptions are not the same everywhere. I know that here in France there was talk by the major operators to no longer offer unlimited downloads for any price because the increase in internet traffic was becoming too expensive to maintain. I am sure the French operators are not the only ones facing this issue. If we are looking at a future where the internet becomes more limited and that everyone is slapped with download limits, would you feel so enthusiastic about playing a game like D3 that has a very strong single player component online only? I know that if I had to choose between a real MMO and D3 for my monthly online play quota, I would choose WoW over D3 anyday.

Being forced to play a game online that has a strong single player component is pretty wasteful: the more games and other media that become online only means we are putting pressure on our already over-saturated systems which means that we are looking at a future of either more limits, more cost to us, or loss of service. That is actually not too cool.

How about privacy and internet security? I dislike the whole real ID thing very much. I don't like having real ID up and running all the time when I play D3 single player. I also don't like the idea that someone could hack me and get my D3 account and WoW account compromised. If I didn't have to play D3 online, I could have kept my offline toons safe from being hacked.

Originally posted by lizardbones

People do see that. They just aren't worried about it. But if you're really wanting a reason, there's a simple one (or two).

1) It would cost more to develop. Blizzard would either have to allow people to run a modified version of the full server on their own machines, or write a totally different client. Either of which would increase the development time, maintenance, testing and QA.

2) Blizzard doesn't have to do any of that extra work. What is the incentive for Blizz to do all the above work, when they'll sell just as many copies without doing it? The few people who aren't going to buy the game because of the online requirement don't matter. There aren't enough of them.

What Blizzard does need to do is to make sure that the people who did purchase the game do not experience enough lag to stop playing the game. The RMAH is going to depend on a lot of people trading stuff, so it's in their best interest to make everything run as smooth as possible. I expect this will happen soon enough and most everyone will forget about the online requirement and move on to the next proclamation of doom.

 

How about those people who never ever plan to get involved with the RMAH. You are assuming most people will. I believe that actually a lot of people will not engage in it. And then there are those who will engage in it only a little bit but not often enough to really generate a lot of revenue for Blizzard.

Originally posted by Aori

Alright i'm going to start off by saying, my only intention of playing Diablo 3 is multiplayer. I find singleplayer games a waste of money for what I personally get out of them.

Now the big argument right now is that Diablo 3 is a singleplayer game with an online requirement. Personally I missed the memo, Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game with a singleplaying option.

People think that the "DRM" is to prevent piracy. It may help, however I do know that it will eventually be emulated. The online only thing is to prevent corruption of a persistant online game.

We have some big things in Diablo 3. First one being the RMAH and while some people don't like this system it is there. Now if Blizzard can prevent this from being flooded with illegal items then I want them to do what they can. If online only is one of the best measures to prevent most of the problems that plagued Diablo 2 then i'm all for it.

The next one which isn't there yet is PvP. Now I personally don't want to play against people who hack, dupe and cheat. Again if online only helps prevent this then I want it to work.

Now when cheats do appear and i'm sure some may rear their heads eventually, I hope blizzard will handle it. More or less I know it isn't a sure fire way to stop cheating, piracy and the like. However if it can keep an epidemic far more contained, i'm happy its there.

I'll stop defending it if Diablo 3 starts showing the corruption that plagues Diablo 2.

Points towards the current hacks and damage being done accounts lost etc, how anyone on your 7 years of wow friends list can join your game without asking, how all there archaic online only has not in any way stopped people loosing things.

I would go as far to say that a purely offline version of diablo either to play solo or on secure personal server OR lan would be a hell of a lot safer and more secure than what those morons at Bliz put together.

Originally posted by MurlockDance

Originally posted by Aori

I'm just going to sum up the read thus far.

Me the OP has been deemed a naive QQing ignorant moron who has no concept of what a real game is. The masses deem Diablo 3 a flop, the millions of players who bought the game never knew you had to have the internet to play it. Somehow Diablo 3 is officially a singleplayer game with multiplayer as an afterthought that had a shitty DRM attached to it to piss off the millions of players. Only a small minority wants to play online, everyone else is happy trollin away in their caves. Pirating can't be stopped completely so why try. Cheating can't be stopped so why bother. Blizzard should have made 2 Diablo 3 games $120 for the set. Blizzard is a moneygrab company, so much so that they pushed back the RMAH to get money quicker.

I'm sure there is more but you all get the point.. maybe.. probably not.. nevermind.

You sound rather pouty in this post and I am not sure what it contributes to this discussion. You started the conversation by saying why you defend it and then go sulk when people say why they don't like it?

One does not have to hate D3 and Blizzard to be annoyed by the online-only play. I have been a fan of Blizzard games for a long time, as I am sure a lot of other people here have been too, but the online-only play does REALLY bother me.

Blizzard in the best of worlds should have given us, the players, a choice, but they did not, for whatever reason. It does not matter to me if it is because of DRM or anti-cheats. In the long run, the result is the same: no internet? No D3.

If D3 were an MMO with a persistant online world, that would be different, even though it seems anymore that MMOs are becoming single player games with a thin veneer of MMO added on as an afterthought (yes, thinking about you ToR here). Is that right? I do not think so.

Why do I not think so?

I have already discussed elsewhere: how not everyone is online all the time. I am not going to go into it again.

But how about what it also means on the level of internet traffic that is not really needed? Contrary to what some people here might think, internet subscriptions are not the same everywhere. I know that here in France there was talk by the major operators to no longer offer unlimited downloads for any price because the increase in internet traffic was becoming too expensive to maintain. I am sure the French operators are not the only ones facing this issue. If we are looking at a future where the internet becomes more limited and that everyone is slapped with download limits, would you feel so enthusiastic about playing a game like D3 that has a very strong single player component online only? I know that if I had to choose between a real MMO and D3 for my monthly online play quota, I would choose WoW over D3 anyday.

Being forced to play a game online that has a strong single player component is pretty wasteful: the more games and other media that become online only means we are putting pressure on our already over-saturated systems which means that we are looking at a future of either more limits, more cost to us, or loss of service. That is actually not too cool.

How about privacy and internet security? I dislike the whole real ID thing very much. I don't like having real ID up and running all the time when I play D3 single player. I also don't like the idea that someone could hack me and get my D3 account and WoW account compromised. If I didn't have to play D3 online, I could have kept my offline toons safe from being hacked.

Yet there is a persistant element in Diablo 3, namely the auction house. For some reason people haev no problems with Guild Wars being online only, while they get all riled up about Diablo 3. Both games are pretty much about the same thing, killing mobs and getting random loot to make you character better. Guild Wars has the towns were you can see other players and Diablo 3 does this through the Public Games menu. I wonder, if Diablo 3 did it like Path of Exile, if we would've had all these complains too.

Diablo is more of a mulltiplayer game, that you can play solo. Mainly for security reason (the RMAH being very important) the desided to make the servers hold all the crucial data, like pretty much every MMO out there. For Blizzard and in my opinion the players too, this method has the benefit of a more secure playing environment. It's much harder to manipulate data with the way Diablo 3 is setup. If I want to use the RMAH, I want to be sure that I'm not buying an item that can disappear when Blizzard decides to wipe all dupes or something. I remember something like that happening in Diablo 2. Always online has also the benefit for Blizzard that less people will download the pirated version, whenever it will appear.

I can't say that I like it when the servers go down for maintenance like this Sunday. It's also annoying when I get some rubberbanding. However, in a few weeks these annoyances will most likely go away.

Regarding privacy, no one is forcing you to register Diablo 3 and World of Warcraft to the same Battle.net account. Same with Real ID (not sure if Diablo 3 still has a seperate friendslist as WoW does, though it does), no one is forcing you to use it. Besides, if Diablo 3 had an offline component, you can't guarantee that your saves wouldn't get corrupted or anything. Safe from being hacked, yes, I can dig that, but what would you do when they can't be loaded anymore?

why bother making this thread if you're the most biased single player game player to post ever.  Personally i don't mind the online thing too much, I'm playing ALOT.  But, the servers just went down 4 8hours.  Would i like to play some single player just to experiemnt and get to know the game better?  You're damn right i would.