Diablo III Beta Preview

What's new, what's changed, what's in the test.

Diablo III has hardly been under wraps since its Paris unveiling three years ago. It's been playable at BlizzCons and other events, and Blizzard's currently open mood has allowed press and punters to follow its development in some detail.

But last week was the first time the studio has invited press to its Orange County campus for a full briefing on the game - from first principles to latest developments, including a hands-on preview of the coming public beta. Despite the game's familiarity, we emerged from a 100-minute presentation and Q&A with our heads spinning - from the accumulated mountain of detail on this apparently simple and visceral game, from its quite dizzying quality, but also from the boldness of the thinking behind it.

The big shock is an officially sanctioned real money auction house - an in-game eBay - where players will be able to sell loot to each other in their local currency. This development is so daring, complex and potentially controversial, we'll discuss it separately in a full article soon. There'll be a separate but functionally identical auction house where players can trade using game gold.

The game's online features on the Battle.net platform were also confirmed. It will, of course, support achievements and the same Real ID centralised friends list as StarCraft II and World of Warcraft. You'll be able to broadcast invites to all your Real ID friends simultaneously and join each other immediately at any point in the game, the difficulty and rewards dynamically scaling to the number of players. There'll be a public game finder for co-op with strangers, and matchmaking similar to StarCraft II's for the 'Versus' competitive multiplayer mode.

'Diablo III Beta' Screenshot 1

Your banner can show achievement tallies, whether you're a hardcore player, a Versus enthusiast and so on.

A 'banner' system visually represents your play style and achievements to other players in a customisable pennant that stands behind your chosen character on select screens. Game characters are persistent and cloud-saved, and you can instantly swap items between them using an account-level shared stash, accessible in any town.

All of this comes at a considerable cost: Diablo III will not be playable offline in any form. Blizzard points to the deep integration of the online features (especially the character persistence) and to its zero-tolerance approach to cheating and account security to excuse this decision. It's a good argument - but it's no coincidence that it makes the game impervious to piracy, too.

The famous five

Lucky players who've registered interest on their Battle.net profile will be able to experience much of the above, excluding Versus but including the game gold auction house, in the beta test soon. This very short but alarmingly replayable snapshot covers the very beginning of the game - around 8 levels or so - and offers all five character classes to play: the barbarian, monk, wizard, witch doctor and demon hunter.

It's primarily a hardware test for the game's server infrastructure, says lead designer Jay Wilson, and its brevity is to save players from spoilers. "Really, we just don't want to ruin the story."

So you can beat the beta in an hour or so - although you can spend many more trying it out with friends online and experimenting with the five characters, who even at this early stage of the game, with few skills unlocked, display a breadth of tactical choice and an inventive capacity for spectacular slaughter. It will be very, very hard to choose which of these to roll first when Diablo III is finally released (and no, we still don't know when that is). The crossbow-slinging demon hunter, so impressive at BlizzCon last year, is a little muted at this early stage. But the barbarian has been given a huge boost by recent changes, while the martial-artist monk has recovered from a recent slump in form ("he was getting the crap kicked out of him" in the internal alpha, according to Wilson) to become an instant favourite with the visiting press.

'Diablo III Beta' Screenshot 2

Online only: the dream of playing Diablo III on a plane dies today.

The witch doctor's voodoo zoo of weird pets gets more insane with every viewing: human ladders of body-slamming zombies, totems that turn enemies into chickens. I spend the most time with the wizard, a class that instantly obliterates the quaint echoes in its name in a storm of withering lightning.

In previous demos, most classes were using placeholder mana pools to fire off skills, but they've all now had distinctive resource mechanics ironed out. The wizard spams spells with fast-regenerating arcane mana (I typed 'arcade mana' - a telling slip) while the demon hunter has a curious split pool of of Hate (fast-regenerating, offensive skills) and Discipline (slow, defensive).

Wilson's team has achieved an exquisite balance between the relentless, onrushing slaughter of traditional Diablo with a more tactically sophisticated and spatially aware style of play. "Spammable" attacks are blended with big-spending "breakout" skills and a new focus on defensive and crowd-control abilities, slowing being a favourite tactic. And thanks to the latest brave revision of the game's skill system, you can experiment with them all with complete freedom.

Skilling in the name

Each character now has just six active skill slots (and three powerful passives, replacing the more complex traits from last year). Skills simply unlock as you level up, as do the slots - you start with two. Skill points and character respecs have followed attribute points into the bin, and skills can be swapped in and out of slots completely at will. The system is breathtaking in its simplicity and flexibility.

Wilson explains the change of heart. Players faced difficult choices on whether to go deep or wide in their skill investment - yet those choices were subsequently trivialised by the ability to respec, and the whole system conflicted with the Diablo player's desire to swap disposable early skills out for shiny new ones.

"What the system wanted to be [is] almost, in some ways, more like Borderlands," he says. "If you played Borderlands, the primary thing that you're doing all the time is shooting a gun. And that changes frequently because you always get new items that change what you're doing, and that's what keeps the combat really interesting. Diablo is the same model, except we don't base our skills off weapons, we base them off of the skill system.

"If changing [skills] was a really big deal, we're basically telling the player, 'You're not really supposed to do that.' But they are supposed to do that. What's the problem of just letting players change the skills whenever they want?"

'Diablo III Beta' Screenshot 3

It's a deeply beautiful game, achieving painterly atmosphere and striking depth despite the isometric camera and simple tech.

The runes that increase skills' power and alter their effects are the counterbalance to this freedom: this is where choice, investment and customisation come in, and where long-term players can start to build highly specialised variations of the classes.

Wilson demonstrates the amazing flexibility of the rune system by turning his wizard, normally the definition of a fragile 'glass cannon' caster, into a melee-focused battle mage - a build that took him a couple of hours to design ("it was a lot of fun") and for which he rejected another seven entirely viable skills. A ranged attack is transformed by a rune into orbiting armour. Other skills gain healing properties and reflective damage, have their delays removed, or leave crowd-controlling frost trails on the floor.

"One of the things we tried when we came up with each one of the classes is to come up with as many different alternate fantasies as we could think of for that class and then try to make sure that we accommodated those. We don't pretend to know all the variations... It's no mistake that there's a lot of options for making a battle mage with the wizard - it's because I think that's cool," Wilson says.

It's also a "highly inadvisable" way to play the class, he admits, but he's happy that playing Diablo doesn't have to be about 'theorycrafting', the obsessive fine-tuning of optimal character builds at the heart of World of Warcraft raiding culture. "One of the things I've always liked about Diablo is that, to a certain degree, the audience doesn't care as much about what's the best. They care a lot about what they want to make."

The many deaths of the Skeleton King

If Diablo III's systems are the last word in finely-crafted freedom, then the same unobtrusive care is being taken with the game's storytelling, a neglected element in the previous two games in the series. Chris Metzen, Blizzard's world-builder in chief - or senior vice president of creative development to you - thinks that's been a waste.

'Diablo III Beta' Screenshot 4

An introductory cut-scene is delivered in a sepia-toned monochrome animation in a hand-drawn style - not Blizzard's usually glossy cinematics.

"The dirty secret is, Blizzard North, who built most of those games, they didn't love story," he tells me. "It facilitates this and that, but they were much more about the items and the slot-machine type gameplay of it all... It was always just a bitch to put you in the midst of the narrative for Diablo games.

"I've always held that Diablo was by far the most interesting universe we were sitting on top of. I've always believed this. 'Cause you know, Warcraft and StarCraft have their roots in... the zeitgeist of pop fantasy and science fiction, in many ways their worlds are built to substantiate any wacky idea. Especially Warcraft, goblins with jet bikes and all that kind of shit. I really think [Diablo] has the most thematic potential of any of our universes to be... I don't know, a bit more personally engaging."

Along with lead world designer Leonard Boyarsky, who worked on Fallout, Metzen believes that it's been necessary to shed a little light in Diablo's relentlessly dark world, to leaven the bleakness, to give players hope and something to fight for. But their biggest challenge was to find a way to deliver story - including the backstory about the creation of Sanctuary, Diablo's world, by the rebel demons and angels who sired mankind - without slowing the game's voracious pace.

"Even if you don't stop and listen to all the quest text, the context of where you are and what you're doing strings together a little more directly in a way that I think is non-cumbersome," Metzen says. "That's a concern we've heard from Diablo players for years and years: 'Don't bore me with it, I'm really just interested in the slot-machine.' I think we've found a good compromise. We're not attempting to build Dragon Age here."

It's mostly, says Boyarsky, about keeping the word count down. But the elegant direction of the adventure and the discreet, optional delivery of backstory - mostly using dialogue and audio clips, so you can listen while you kill - are also hugely effective. That much is clear even from the beta's mini-adventure.

'Diablo III Beta' Screenshot 5

Every time you discover a new monster, you can play an audio clip of Deckard Cain's scholarly ramblings on it.

Your character arrives at New Tristram, a gold rush town thriving on the ruins of the village that was the setting of the original Diablo. Or it was thriving until a meteor drove straight into the old cathedral and raised a plague of undead commanded by the Skeleton King, an old foe from the first game.

Your journey takes you through some light skirmishes to a mission to rescue the series' aged sage, Deckard Cain, from the cathedral, at the urging of his adopted niece Leah. Once saved, Cain sends you off to find the Skeleton King's crown in a series of crypts so you may return to the cathedral to summon and then slay him. (This guy is going to die a lot while the beta is running.)

On the way, you're helped by a blacksmith - the first of the crafting artisans who will follow and supply your campaign against the Burning Hells - and, in the final battle through the cathedral, a Templar knight. The Templar is a 'follower', a sort of customisable henchman. These will join you at certain points to throw the story into relief with their comments as well as assist you in combat.

This first episode is simple stuff, but what's striking is how smoothly it flows, how much clearer your sense of place and purpose are than they were in the earlier games, how heightened the flavour and more varied the pacing. Like everything else about Diablo III, its narrative has an effortlessness about it that belies how carefully put together it is.

'Diablo III Beta' Screenshot 6

There's a two-tier checkpointing system that saves your progress, while waypoint teleports remove travel time.

Little efficiency savings are everywhere. You now have three permanent utility items: a Stone of Recall to get you back to town (no longer viable as an escape skill); a Cauldron of Jordan that you can use to sell items wherever you are ("'My bag is full' is not an awesome reason to go back to town," says Wilson); and a Naphalem Cube which converts items into crafting material. There's less makework and more time to spend on new systems like that crafting, which balances the randomised loot by allowing you to predictably plug gaps in your equipment with decent-quality items.

But Boyarsky reveals that the team didn't get to include every novelty that it wanted to. "At one point, we were putting player choice in," he says. "You'd choose to finish quests in different ways, and with the speed of the gameplay and multiplayer and the flow of Diablo game, it just did not work... It just stopped the game in its tracks. It was a great idea, but it really didn't fit." The restraint is typical.

Diablo III is more game, cunningly disguised as less. Even after completing the beta twice over, it was painful tearing myself away from it; it's so disarmingly gratifying and deceptively sophisticated, and so, so much fun. This tantalising preview will only stoke your cravings. The game itself - now quite obviously, and vastly, better than its predecessors - can't come soon enough.

Comments (72) Latest comment 4 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • nowayman #1 7 months ago

    @EnglishAndProud

    Yea, like World of Warcraft right? Or even Starcraft 2 for that matter?
  • beardboy #2 7 months ago

    finally diablo 3 isnt millions of miles away :)
  • ShiftyGeezer #3 7 months ago

    I *hate* PC point and click dungeon crawlers. Would love this if it controlled like BGDA, but otherwise no amount of features and functions could attract me to the foulsome mouse interface.
  • UncleLou #4 7 months ago

    Awesome. Words can't express how much I am looking forward to this. Only Dark Souls comes remotely close.
  • Lord_Gremlin #5 7 months ago

    Well, Dark Souls seems somewhat more appealing. And all this online requirements, Battle net... Seriously? And if my inet is freking out? Well, release it on PS3 then so that I can play offline. Wait, Sony will probably allow Battle.net integration...
    Ah, screw you and your online only....
  • albertofustinoni #6 7 months ago

    Requiring an internet connection for single player instantly killed my interest in the game. Shame, because I was genuinely looking forward to this.
    Down with boneheaded DRM schemes like this.
  • Hypnerotomachia #7 7 months ago

    'Cause you know, Warcraft and StarCraft have their roots in..."

    Warhammer and Warhammer 40K?
  • Zozzilla #8 7 months ago

    Yes, damn them requiring an active connection, because internet connections are really rare on PCs these days meaning only a couple of people will be able to play this beast of a game. HOW DARE YOU BLIZZARD!
  • Inmediasress #9 7 months ago

    @Shiftygezzer
    Well since it looks shit and requires real money to auction the console crowd can have it and enjoy it to the fullest in fact I recommend it to them.
    This just goes to show why people think console gamers are idiots.
  • technotica #10 7 months ago

    Diablo 3 will probably be a really great game, but I am always wary when people play a small part of the game and get all enthusiastic about it. When you first play a game it will feel great because its new and you anticipated it for so long, after playing it a few days people will get more objective about their feelings for the game.
  • el_pollo_diablo #11 7 months ago

    Something about the username EnglishAndProud makes me feel uncomfortable.
  • mortiz666 #12 7 months ago

    It'll score 9/10's accross the board because it's a Blizzard game, however reading the article I'm not entirely convinced about some of the decisions they've made.

    I'm a big fan of the first two games so I'll buy it, however it won't be without a certain degree of skepticism.
  • Ahskay #13 7 months ago

    Guild Wars 2 it is then!
  • Gearskin #14 7 months ago

  • magicpanda #15 7 months ago

    "'Cause you know, Warcraft and StarCraft have their roots in..."
    Warhammer and Warhammer 40K? "

    That did make me smile. He should have just said Diablo is our only vaguely original IP.

    That said I can't wait for this.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/11 @ 10:06
  • moflea #16 7 months ago

    Yeey I'll get to hire 1k small eyed people and make a decent living through a game
  • FluffyTucker #17 7 months ago

    More interested by Torchlight 2, most of the original Diablo dev team, and no Activision taint of greed.
  • obscured021 #18 7 months ago

    ill run a crack version on my lap top and the proper payed version on my desktop, they should have included an offline mode.
  • Zpardi #19 7 months ago

    Going in the right direction
  • tankboi #20 7 months ago

    looks great, shame i will never play it because requiring the internet to play SP is something I stand firmly against. I would rather place my interest in less fascist releases...there are plenty of great games this year to keep me busy. Ones that DO NOT require being connected to the fucking Matrix for some SP action...FFS.
  • velimirius #21 7 months ago

    yeah and Real money auction house and permanent internet connection is awesome too....
  • Nephirion #22 7 months ago

    I think it is wrong that you pay Ł30 for a game and then your access to it is determined by the reliability of your ISP and on Blizzard ensuring the servers are allways on. It is dissapointing that a great studio would make the decision to gimp what could be a great game with such a backward approach to its paying customers.
  • SilentTristero #23 7 months ago

    Has the 'Always online DRM' thing been misunderstood?

    I think they're saying that all your campaign progression and loot will simply be automatically part of your online experience, whereas before you'd choose to play either 'locally' or online.

    So, as I understand there is no single-player; every game will essentially act as an instanced dungeon, unified by trade and chat hubs (and PvP arenas?) It's a step towards MMO-lite, almost like Phantasy Star.

    Not quite the same as 'Internet Connection Required to play Single Player'.
  • Apaar #24 7 months ago

    I doubt I could be more excited for any game. Blizzard are the true grand masters of pure game design.
  • velimirius #25 7 months ago

    Not to mention that gold farmers will flood the game and AH with items... i guess you will be able to gear up for in rare for 10$.
  • neems #26 7 months ago

    Well at least you get the much vaunted Blizzard 'account security'. It's not like spammers and hackers have managed to get hold of the email I used for my Starcraft 2 account. And I certainly don't get constant fake emails asking me to log in to Battle.net via suspicious looking web based forms, sometimes in relation to games I don't even own (really, a security issue on my WoW account? If I had ever played Wow that would be a real worry). And I'm sure this isn't an issue that has affected thousands of Battle.net users.

    Why can't developers just make games, and then sell them to you? I probably will end up getting this, as a whole bunch of us are getting it for online play, but why all the constant bullshit? Maybe half a dozen of my clan will get this, and you know how many of us will give a shit about Battle.net? Zero.

    All these developers and publishers seem to be obsessed with these centralised accounts these days. I've got news for Activision, Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft and anybody else with grand designs for their own 'platforms'. I do not have any brand loyalty where gaming is concerned, and I do not care about stats, and centralised meaningless pap. No fucker does. If your game is good, and appeals to me, I will buy it. If not, then I won't.

    Just sell me the game and then fuck off.
  • rottingyoda #27 7 months ago

    Day 1 purchase. Can't wait for this. PC gaming at its best.

    I can forsee the next few years gaming between me playing this a few hours then switching to battlefield. Throw in some heart of the sworm for good measure. Future is bright again

    edit - guild wars 2 may very likely end up overshadowing this but ive no problem with an amazing title overshadowing an incredable title
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/11 @ 11:58
  • Megalodon #28 7 months ago

    Online only? Not even a crippled offline like in Starcraft 2? Blizzard, you suck. Really. Ever since you integrated with Activision you really turned to the dark side. Paying a large sum for Starcraft 2 (larger than usual, anyway), only to get home and being unable to play because of a bug that somehow didn't detect my serial number and having to wait for 3(!) stinking days after the official release until it was resolved (and no, I tried every known 'proven' trick to activate my copy, to no avail) was bad enough, but this tops it.

    I want Diablo 3 so very much, but being force to playing online only drops my enthusiasm sharply. Too bad I won't be able to resist the urge to purchase this abomination.

    Shame on you guys. Really. Not that you'd care, you already sold your soul ages ago.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/11 @ 11:52
  • nooneyouknow #29 7 months ago

    I am keen to see how the real-money auction house works... and more importantly how Blizzard will stop it being abused. I guess if anyone can do it, it lessens the value making it a less attractive proposition for gold farmers?
  • FooAtari #30 7 months ago

    @EnglishandProud
    These are the days of CoD and Gears, and Uncharted.

    And thats a good thing??

    Those games bore me to tears, especially CoD, I can only take so many sequels. Each to their own and all that

    If you don't like the mouse, I assume you don't like a keyboard for games either. Yet that is the control method for games like Starcraft 2 and Warcraft, both of which sold in large numbers. Both of which are also from Blizzard. Diablo has a huge fanbase and being developed by Blizzard means it's pretty much gauranteed to sell, regardless of what the game is like. Bit like CoD in that regard.

    With regards to Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance, I hope your not actually trying to compare that BG and BG2 on the PC, and that DA is the better game...

    As for being "like the 90's". You are aware of how huge Starcraft was before Starcraft 2 was released last year. It was a hugely popualr games right up until 2010.

    I assume your also aware of all the large selling PC games of recent years? There are quite a few of them.

    New doesnt always equal better you know, in fact these days it often means quite the opposite. The games industry of 2010 would do well to look back to how things were done in the late 90's from time to time.

    Now, quit being a fucking troll, you just look like a child.

    Back on subject.

    Are Activision now making their prescence felt? I don't see the need for permanent connection. If I want to play offline and don't care about taking my charachter online, bloody let me. Although I don't buy any of that as the reason, all about the piracy isn't it.

    Anyway I was looking forward to this, but after seeing these 'features' I'll live without it thanks. There's always torchlight. Idiots
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/11 @ 12:07
  • Daeltaja #31 7 months ago

    Seriously, Lol @EnglishAndProud, if he's serious. Plonker.

    Anyway, this is sounding like it could be a new addiction. Not sure I can commit to it.. But I definitely won't be able to resist!
  • quadfather #32 7 months ago

    @ UncleLou - Amen to that
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/11 @ 12:48
  • Seoh #33 7 months ago

    Wow that article is amazingly positive, reallly looking forward to this and hope i can get into the beta.
  • Spekingur #34 7 months ago

    Always-online required. I guess that might kill the interest for some. I'm too excited for this game to care :|

    Edit: They seem to be making it more MMO-ish.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/11 @ 13:50
  • fragglerocks #35 7 months ago

    /prepares to lose weeks of her life to this game!
  • geeza2020 #36 7 months ago

    Internet Connection require for singleplayer???I thought it was only Ubisoft who used this kind of bullying, I mean, DRM in their games? Blizzard just lost a few kudos points in my book. (Not that they care)
  • UncleLou #37 7 months ago

    Those games bore me to tears, especially CoD, I can only take so many sequels. Each to their own and all that

    The most amusing thing is that he seems to think there were no games like CoD or Uncharted around when Diablo 2 was released. And that he doesn't seem to know that Diablo 2 still has a massive online community, 10 years later. Guess he's a very young, inexperienced gamer who was brought up on a very one-sided diet of console action games.
  • swills #38 7 months ago

    Why do so many people complain about internet only in this day and age? It's 2011 people, if you can't be arsed to source and/or pay for a decent internet connection then yes, you WILL miss out on some great games.

    It's not even totally DRM related. Anyone who played Diablo II will confirm that the vast majority of hacks/cheats were possible BECAUSE your character was saved offline. Now we have online character saving, online shared stash between characters, etc. All of these are welcome additions for me.

    Saying "but I want to play when my internet goes down" is like saying "I want to play when my power goes out". :-/
  • Vixremento #39 7 months ago

    Sadly for me this just means no Diablo III. I tried Assassins Creed 2 and eventually just gave up (until the offline "patch" came along). I settled for SC2 with it's 1000 little patches everytime I wanted to get some single player action as I could at least still always play without always being online (i.e. if my connection was down I could still play) plus I didn't experience any lag in the single player campaign.

    However, when I played with my GF (2x2 - us against the AI) in the SAME ROOM we got lag spikes every few seconds that made it less enjoyable because we were forced to be online with battle.net...this for me means that during a single player game in D3 (while being forced online at all times) that I'll also get similar lag spikes and I'm afraid I personally just don't find that acceptable.
  • geeza2020 #40 7 months ago

    Swills - Are you retarded? If your internet goes down, your PC still works, ergo, so should ALL your singleplayer games. No power, and nothing in your house works whatsoever, so i doubt getting your PC working would be your priority anyway. You're really ok with handing over Ł30 -Ł40 for a game you never truly own, and can be taken away from you at any point? If so, you're one of the problems with the games industry today, blindly taking any old shit the greedy publishers and devs want to ejaculate down your throat. Have fun with your always online games, up to the point where they cant be bothered to keep the authentication servers running anymore, at which point you've got a bunch of useless dead data on your HDD. Happy trails.
  • Buran #41 7 months ago

    What a pile of crap- It lost 3 characters, 4 players, runewords, atribute points and grim art replaced by Warcraft III environments and a monetized item system.

    An even more sad: some people liked the changes.
  • FieryBalrog #42 7 months ago

    @ geeza: Hope you don't buy games on Steam then. Valve can ban you from all your games at any time, offline mode sucks for a lot of games (TF2 never works for me), and you can't resell.

    Welcome to "next-gen".
  • bad09 #43 7 months ago

    "Saying "but I want to play when my internet goes down" is like saying "I want to play when my power goes out". :-/ "

    That is the 2nd time today I've read this extremely silly statement. Worrying there are actually consumers out there with this "logic".
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/11 @ 17:04
  • jamesworkshop #44 7 months ago

    Diablo 3 is really no different now from guild wars 2, a online non subscription mmo, I don't get this hate when everybody and their pet dog is loving whats been shown of the new guild wars.

    Diablo 3 is not a single player game just because Diablo 2 was, it's absolutly nothing like what Ubisoft do with Assassins creed which is simply an internet connection for the sake of it, Diablo 3 is meant to be an single account totally online experience.

    Blizzard is merging their 3 main games into the facebook inspired battle.net 2.0, hell the profits from in game item selling can pay for your wow subscription.
  • syra #45 7 months ago

    I love all the seriously jealous console types who are like "OMG ITS PC ONLY", "OMG CLICKING WITH A MOUSE IS SO HARD!!1111! LETS COMPARE THIS TO CALL OF DUTY" (which by the way originated on PC too, and involved clicking - to shoot; still does actually).

    Seriously, you made my day.
  • Velvetmeds #46 7 months ago

  • swills #47 7 months ago

    @ geeza2020 - "Have fun with your always online games"
    Thanks, I will.

    I will have fun playing TF2/3.
    I will have fun playing WoW.
    I will have fun playing Guild Wars 2.
    I WILL have fun playing Diablo III.

    They'll be even more fun cos people like you, who want to remain stuck in the 1990's era of gaming where being online was not an essential part of the games you were playing, won't be playing them.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/11 @ 19:26
  • darc #48 7 months ago

    A preview of a beta... does not entirely compute.
  • darc #49 7 months ago

    " players will be able to sell loot to each other in their local currency. This development is so daring, complex and potentially controversial"

    Indeed. I hate it already.

    "Really, we just don't want to ruin the story."

    We'll leave that for the reviewers. ;)
  • aplsin #50 7 months ago

    Normally I'm against Actvision style always-online DRM bullshit but I think this isn't the same as in Diablo even single player is basicly multiplayer as you can take your single player character and play online with other people. So this is a really good decision from Blizzard! Why? Because games with similar offline->online character systems that don't have this protection makes the online part unplayable. Just look at Terraria where you can take your single player character and play it online, you can just use some hack inventory editor and get all the items and 10000000 HP offline and then take that character online. Needless to say I only ever play that game in single player mode. :/ Even Diablo 2 had big problems because of offline character saving.

    TLDR: The only other solution would be for Blizzard to ban single player characters from multiplayer which is a big no-no.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/11 @ 20:05
  • aplsin #51 7 months ago

    The real money auction house seems kinda fishy tho, that probably means the best gear will only be sold for real money and not for in-game money. Atleast that's what I would do if I got a really rare item and saw it being sold in the real money auction house, no way I'm putting it for sale for in-game money if I can get real cash for it.

    Could be a genious decision from a business standpoint tho as if this picks up steam Blizzard is gonna get filthy rich as they are probably going to take a small fee for each item sold (like eBay). But FUCK the business standpoint, I don't want the boring horrors of real life economy to infect my games as gaming for me is kind of an escape from reality.
  • Inmediasress #52 7 months ago

    @swills
    Yeah 3 of the games you listed are MMO/online shooters you oh so hip youngster of the 21century.
    Seems to me todays youth is even stupider than yesterdays 90's era oldschool people.
    Must be some educational problem or too much PR indoctrination from the internet that you can't seem to exsit without for a second.

    Then again it seems they made Dio3 a complete MMo anyway which is sad but the hipster boys like it anyway.
  • CouldntResist #53 7 months ago

    I don't really see what all the fuss is about re the 'always online' requirement for a predominantly multiplayer game. I would even go so far as to say Blizzard no longer caters for the single-player crowd.

    They will certainly lose some revenue from those that oppose the idea, but take it or leave it but it's a business model that will probably work for them. High-speed, stable, internet connectivity is the future and games companies will increasingly seek to leverage that.
  • swills #54 7 months ago

    @Inmediasress
    lol at "today's youth". I was editting my autoexec.bat file to run games while you were still in nappies I'd wager.

    The fact is gaming has changed from those days. Being online back then was a rarity, not the norm. Requiring an internet connection now is no different to games that first required a 3D accelerator card. Gaming evolves over time - evolve with it, or get left behind. If games companies want to provide additional features/security via an online connection I have no problem with that. If you do, don't buy it, that simple.
  • frenzal #55 7 months ago

    What I'm really curious about is if the money auction house only allows you to take the money you made to buy other items on the money auction house, otherwise gold and item farmers will just flood it and be able to make money even more easily...
  • Megalodon #56 7 months ago

    @aplsin: They already resolved this 'issue' ages ago in Diablo 2 by simply restricting the online experience to characters that were created specifically online. You couldn't bring your Uber-cheated character to the closed Battle.net where everyone had legit characters. That is really a bad excuse.

    @CouldntResist: I think you got their business model just right, and I agree with you, but the the bottom line here is that Ubisoft are getting flamed and boycotted on every turn, while Blizzard, which have the same draconian DRM (or even a worse one, when you consider the fact that I wasn't able to play my overly-priced purchased game for 3 days after release due to it), are getting away with it without a single outcry just because people treat them as some form of an untouchable deity in the gaming industry, and that really pisses me off.

    Think about it - Diablo 3's gameplay could be the ultimate pass time for flights and vacations, yet they turned it into something else for no apparent reason. I mean, come on, it's Blizzard, people will buy their games by the millions regardless of piracy, why did they choose that path?
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/11 @ 08:01
  • CamberGreber #57 7 months ago

    Piraters will Crack This for Offline just the way they did with Ubisoft's DRM and Cloud Saving.
  • UncleLou #58 7 months ago

    are getting away with it without a single outcry just because people treat them as some form of an untouchable deity in the gaming industry, and that really pisses me off.

    I visit 3 to 4 gaming sites regularly, and everywhere people have been crying about it. I am completely at a loss what you mean with "without a single outcry".

    Besides, at least Blizzard does have a few good reasons (items generated server-side, so no client ever sees the co de etc.) as it's almost an MMO - as opposed to Ubisoft's games, even if their main motive might as well be copy protection - and I can't really blame them for at least trying it. Starcraft 2 set a new world record for illegal downloads, several million within 2 or 3 months.
  • jonfon #59 7 months ago

    Always on? Urrgh. No thanks Blizzard. If I want to play something single player I shouldn't need to be online to do so. I've never played any Diablo as a "predominately online game", I'm not going to start now, especially since nowadays I use a gaming laptop and like to bring it on trips with me.

    So whens Torchlight 2 out then?

  • gav082 #60 7 months ago

    I wish they would release Diablo 2 on the 360. I know me and all my friends would love to buy it again and play over x box live
  • 5h1nj1 #61 7 months ago

    Real money auction house? Really? There wil be REAL MONEY ITEMS? Are they crazy? Why do they destroy it with such bul***it? I hope this is just some misunderstanding, cause if something sounds like a bad idea, this is it. :-/
    Also, always online? WTH?
  • Megalodon #62 7 months ago

    Thanks for the clarification, UncleLou, but when I wrote 'outcry', I meant something in the caliber of what happened with Assassins Creed Brotherhood and The Settlers, not just a measly line in the entire article and 1 or 2 comments here and there (and I've checked many sites).

    The fact that you mentioned that items are generated server side is enough to ruin the entire Diablo experience for me, but no skill trees, no town portals (not the way they were used in the past, anyway), fetching dropped orbs instead of relying on potions stock, and to top it all - items' auctions with real money, this is getting worse the more I hear and read about it, honestly. They mentioned that it's like Borderlands, and I agree, it does sound like it, but this is Diablo, not Borderlands. Blizzard shaped the Action-RPG genre to what it is today, and now they rely on such an uninspired game for their outside influence? Too bad you defend their flaky choices, because as a long time Diablo fan, this is really as bad as it gets, in almost every aspect.

    It was one of my most anticipated games. A shame, really.
  • UncleLou #63 7 months ago

    Thanks for the clarification, UncleLou, but when I wrote 'outcry', I meant something in the caliber of what happened with Assassins Creed Brotherhood and The Settlers, not just a measly line in the entire article and 1 or 2 comments here and there (and I've checked many sites).

    The RPS article was basically an "Uh oh, here's the very bad news", followed by 600 comments, for example.

    The fact that you mentioned that items are generated server side is enough to ruin the entire Diablo experience for me

    What do you mean, because it requires an internet connection (fair enough) or because it is a bad thing per se (which I'd ask you to elaborate on - mods?)

    Too bad you defend their flaky choices, because as a long time Diablo fan, this is really as bad as it gets, in almost every aspect.

    I've been a Diablo fan since the launch day of the first one, and I politely disagree.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/11 @ 14:48
  • Megalodon #64 7 months ago

    I didn't know about the RPS article. Fair enough, then I'm glad people are not discriminating just because this is a Blizzard's game.

    Items being generated on the server side means exactly that: No Internet or a load on the servers in a certain day equals no game, and that's that. It means that just a few steps separate this title from being a full MMO. Since I never played Diablo or Diablo 2 online, despite the fact that I purchased multiple copies of both games and their expansion packs back in the day, and since I simply can't enjoy World of Warcraft, Guild Wars or any other MMO out there, despite giving them all my best efforts time and time again with the encouragement of hooked-friends and family members, it is easy to understand why I'm quite unhappy about these steps. If I wanted an online game, I would purchase on online game. But I want Diablo.

    As a devout fan of the first Diablo back in the end of 96' as well (see? my e-penis is just as small as yours, ha! :) ), I feel like they're shoving this bitter pill of theirs down my throat and demand that I either like it or go away. I think that's unfair and I doubt this is the Diablo I was catering for. I will not declare that I won't purchase this game because being such a fan of the Diablo line of games, that will be an ugly lie, but I'm really very unhappy about what I know already, and it truly dampens my enthusiasm.

    I'm not afraid of changes and I don't want a Diablo 2.5 with better graphics, but I do want a Diablo, and this turned out to be (on paper, at least) something else.
    Edited by 2 at 02/08/11 @ 15:32
  • UncleLou #65 7 months ago

    See, I see where you're coming from. I am more of a single-player Diablo player as well (though I've also played it in mp) - I think that for the long-term success of the franchise though, the (still active) multiplayer community is more responsible than those of us who bough the game ten years ago and played it once or twice (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course), so it's those people they are catering for - and those are the very same people who suffer from cheats (like items generated offline and brought back into the game). Obviously, DRM is a strong motive as well.

    I'll totally admit that I'll be disappointed as well if it's not a good single-player game anymore, but on the other hand I adore the idea of a game like Diablo, with no subscription fee, being tightly integrated into some sort of "persistent" multiplayer world, which will also (at least I hope so) generate a stream of more content over the years than just one expansion pack. That's what I liked so much about Hellgate: London as well - you could play it solo, but had the "social hubs" for item trade, chatting, etc., and if Diablo 3 pulls that off as well, I'll be happy, and I can see me playing it for years to come with the multiplayer integration being an added incentive.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/11 @ 16:05
  • Megalodon #66 7 months ago

    Thanks, but I know that long time single play fans like you and me are not where their money is coming from and their games' long-term success. It is, after all, my entire point (the whole 'sold their souls' part). I understand what you mean, it's just that it simply doesn't justify this behavior, in my opinion. Especially since fans that only want their Diablo fix in single play and fans that can appreciate this new approach can co-exist by simply allowing us to play offline.

    And again, offering more content online is still not good enough of an excuse, sorry. Especially since I could always connect whenever I want and update my game to the latest update that has the latest and greatest new content. And if I want to connect to a hub of friends, why not keep Diablo 2's model of Open Battle.net vs Closed Battle.net so players that want online can have it and players that don't, won't?

    I understand what you mean, but please understand what I mean: what Blizzard are doing is basically giving me the finger and saying - 'Yes, you've had your fun, but you're just not economical enough for us so shut up and play only as we tell you'. It's good enough for you, I'm sure, but too bad you don't understand and get even slightly upset that Blizzard simply kick long-time fans off without a hint of remorse in the name of the all-mighty dollar.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/11 @ 17:20
  • CouldntResist #67 7 months ago

    I don't think it's a case of people not understanding the implications of this move, or even a case of rabid fanboys blindly defending their honour.

    I honestly believe that the core audience for Diablo III will not be adversely affected to a significant degree. Like it or not, single-player is not the focus of this game. They obviously cannot please everyone and the benefits of the always-online requirement are certainly justified in the context of serving their primary target market. That's why i think this game will succeed and that's why i don't think Blizzard have made their decision on a purely commercial basis.

    Yes, there are hundreds of comments on game sites far and wide decrying this news but as with anything, people love a good moan, especially the internetz. Those that are happy with the decision or apathetic will stay silent. Let's wait for sales figures, server population sizes, player retention rates etc to see how well this is received.

    Now watch as i get negged for daring to disagree with (observed) popular opinion.
  • Megalodon #68 7 months ago

    Oh, I doubt you'll get negged, mainly because us gamers have extremely short attention span, so I doubt anyone is still browsing in this little debate anymore :)

    Well, I can't blame anyone for being a rabid fanboy, since I AM a rabid fanboy, myself. And I'm sure everyone understands the implications of this move, but saying stuff like 'well, that's how it's going to happen, so deal with it' is wrong. I'll tell you a little story. I doubt you'll believe me, but I swear it is true:

    Back in around 1999 or 2000, or maybe even 2001, I'm not entirely sure, Blizzard published that their great new game in a long running series called 'Warcraft 3' is planned, but it will be a RPG/RTS hybrid, where the player will control a single hero, gain levels, and just control a handful of units with him (League of Legends, anyone?). Being a long time fan of the series, I've sent Blizzard an email, saying that what they're doing is wrong, that they neglect the fans, that they ruin the entire RTS legacy Warcraft was based on. I received a quick email back from an employee that read: 'Don't worry, we're not ruining anything. It will be great, you'll see'. A few months later, and Warcraft 3 is a full fledged RTS with a few RPG elements, as it should be.

    I know, I know, it's all thanks to little old Megalodon, who saved Warcraft 3 from being a bad RPG/RTS hybrid, hooray for him!
    No, what I'm saying is that we CAN make a difference. I'm sure many other little Megalodons sent their ranting emails to Blizzard, until they've decided to change it. Sure, things were much more simple and naive back then, but all I'm saying is that simply rolling over and accepting everything they say as a fact is not the right way. The main difficulty, though, is actually convincing enough people (or enough influential people, that is) that what Blizzard are doing is wrong, and that just moaning in these little debates is really counter-productive, but that's what I'm trying to do.
    Edited by 3 at 02/08/11 @ 18:26
  • CouldntResist #69 7 months ago

    Megalodon - two things really:

    1. I'm not saying take it lying down at all. I said they were catering to their core market for this game, which i think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. By all means fight for what you believe suits you. That is your opinion, your perogative and your right as a consumer, and if all else fails simply vote with your feet by not purchasing the product.

    2. When you say what Blizzard is doing is 'wrong', i would counter by saying 'well only from your perspective'. Your example is different in the fact that it was probably a significant minority or even a majority that were dubious of Blizzard's plans for WCIII. In this instance i think you're going to be in small minority, although i obviously have no facts to back this up! We will have to wait to see if they follow through and on sales figures etc to judge.
  • layleeloo #70 7 months ago

    God, in the time this game was announced I have bought, ran and since got bored of a state of the art gaming PC. By the time the fucker comes out it may as well be a spectrum I have. Talk about being dragged out - nothing is worth that much of a wait.
  • Suecotero #71 7 months ago

    I really do not understand all this rage about requiring internet connection.

    I literally cannot remember the last time I gamed without Facebook, Grooveshark and Skype running in the background. If everyone here has so much time online that you can come and post your opinions on a message board, how is internet connection a problem to you? And look at what we're gaining. Cheater protection, instant contact with your gaming friends, and persistent character saves. I remember when internet was a 56k pain in the ass but nowadays, owning a gaming computer that is not online seems like a waste of money. Seriously, get with the times ppl.

    I played the hell out of D1 and D2, but I'm glad they redesigned the character progression. D2 skill points were an inferior version of WoW's talents, and stat allocation always followed a set path once you knew what you are doing, few real choices existed, only the illusion of choice. This removes that stiff model altogether, giving us the experimentative freedom that WoW's cookie cutter builds never allowed by giving us extreme skill modification.

    This game sounds ever more ridiculously awesone, day 1 buy for me.
  • uzu_afk #72 4 months ago

    Hehe, nice article. A few of my takes on this matter tho... I've played D1, D2 like a mad and I also played WoW for 5 years. I do agree on one thing with full heart. When the goal becomes money, all is lost. What most companies DO NOT UNDERSTAND is that good products bring good revenue. Blizz used to be the perfect example. But the dark side is becoming strong in this one ;). Examples? Even tho I fully understand the need and desire to protect your product, the online thing isn't nice :p, it might give you a lot of control and feedback or statistical data on the usage but still ... this isn't your style. You know what my FAVORITE thing bout Blizz was? It's care about the game and the gamer, not what it counts for as a resource. If you change that you will most likely lose me, and I don't think I speak only for myself... as a general opinion and from chit-chat with other costumers of yours, this is more like a conclusion.

    As for the AH ... it does pose as an interesting option, I can't fully disagree on it but I can't also fully buy the reason you put out for this choice... "stopping gamers from using 3rd parties, scams and so on and so forth", I think it has a much broader implication. This will be very tricky for the future of this game for reasons easy to guess: how to keep gold farmers out, how will the 1000$ budget of someone affect your MOST trusty fans with 10$ budgets? How will pvp work with this "chinese" tactic etcetc.

    Other things that made me think you are leaning to the dark side: "guild usurping thing" in WoW = forcing some players to keep an active subscription even if not playing, on a break or anything else for that matter. This opens the possibility to scam in ways it hasn't been open before. Access to guild bank and much more. IMO it should take atleast 3 players to vote for the new GM. That would sound fair and not a well hidden tactic to keep WoW going and it's core players: THE REAL GUILD MASTERS.

    2ndly. Unable to comment when not having WoW active subscription after 5 years of fees and playing it, after buying 4 expansions is also complete and total BS! How can you do that ???? And don't go for: servers capacity, spam and such BS cuz then you will be forever lost in my eyes. Aren't your WoW servers empty enough to hold the text? :"> :p. It is unfair, retarded and a f---in ripoff to be unable to use forums ONLY cuz you didn't pay up! WHO DOES THAT?????!!!

    I do hope Blizz and their damn masters get this in time, before ruining one of the BEST brands and games in GAME HISTORY! It is no longer the right of manager pricks to call such changes! Don't kill your initiators! You will ruin what we love and in the end you will be the ones to lose.

    You can read much more stuff and join in for debate on my blog:
    [link url=http://arreatsummit .blogspot.com/
    ]http://arreatsummit .blogspot.com/
    [/link]

    Cheers, uZu.