Blizzard "surprised" by Diablo 3 outrage

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 5 August, 2011

Online requirement not about piracy.

Blizzard was surprised by the reaction to the news that upcoming PC game Diablo 3 cannot be played offline.

Earlier this week Blizzard announced that Diablo 3 requires an internet connection to play at all times – sparking an outpouring of anger from PC gamers.

"I'm actually kind of surprised in terms of there even being a question in today's age around online play and the requirement around that," Robert Bridenbecker, Vice President of Online Technologies at Blizzard, told MTV Multiplayer.

"We've been doing online gameplay for 15 years now... and with World of Warcraft and our roots in Battle.net and now with Diablo 3, it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry.

"When you look at everything you get by having that persistent connection on the servers, you cannot ignore the power and the draw of that."

Most gamers believe Blizzard's decision was an attempt to combat PC game piracy, but Bridenbecker denied this.

"Internally I don't think [DRM] ever actually came up when we talked about how we want connections to operate," he said.

"Things that came up were always around the feature-set, the sanctity of the actual game systems like your characters. You're guaranteeing that there are no hacks, no dupes. All of these things were points of discussion, but the whole copy protection, piracy thing, that's not really entering into why we want to do it.

"I'm a huge purveyor of online sites and from my standpoint, I don't look at DRM solutions and go, 'Wow, those are awesome.' I look at those and say, 'Wow, those kind of suck.' But if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."

Bridenbecker stressed that Diablo 3 is still suitable to gamers who prefer the lone wolf approach.

"There seem to be folks that believe that because you have to be connected, it's like you're on Facebook or out there with the rest of the world. That's really not the case.

"Yes, you're going to have a connection, yes, your character will be stored on a server, but it doesn't mean you have to socialise with people.

"It doesn't mean you have to do anything but play the game by yourself. You'll still be able to have a private game. You'll still be able to go off and play the game solo and adventure solo. You can opt to bring other people to your world if you want, but that's up to you."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (116) Latest comment 10 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • The_Captain #1 10 months ago

    Do they live in a perfect world where internet connections always run perfectly?

  • menschenfracht #2 10 months ago

    Do they live in a perfect world where internet connections always run perfectly?
    This world is called World of Warcraft.

    I can understand him though. Diablo 2 was all about loot. And offline means you can take any highlevel character savegame and take all the equip to yourself, eliminating the need to grind.
    Edited by menschenfracht at 05/08/11 @ 09:11

  • StolenGlory #3 10 months ago

    "Do they live in a perfect world where internet connections always run perfectly?"

    No, they live in a world in which any self-respecting gamer who has an internet connection, generally has one which runs on something a little more reliable than a 56K modem.

    Honestly, we're all connected to the internet these days with at least a 1 meg connection. This isn't 1997.

    Edited by StolenGlory at 05/08/11 @ 09:12

  • FuzzyDuck #4 10 months ago

    They just don't get it, do they?

  • mattlee #5 10 months ago

    Unless I'm away from home on my laptop.

  • spongebob #6 10 months ago

    Their decision means that many people will choose not to buy the game but pirate the cracked version that doesn't require online connection.

  • Pirotic #7 10 months ago

    I think the biggest complaint is that they keep mentioning it requires always online due to 'features' but never really explain said features, it's pretty normal for a game such as this to have an offline mode, even if characters created offline are stuck offline. It feels like they are forcing always-online in this and Starcraft II before it for their own long-term goals or turning Battle.net into a subscription service.

  • Mcstrife #8 10 months ago

    For me the 'guarantee' that there will be no dupes is more than worth it.

  • ddeblasio #9 10 months ago

    Cannot play on holiday, cannot play on my Macbook while away from my house/office, cannot play if the internet goes down for some reason.

    I'm sorry but I thing I'll stick to Torchlight 2 (unless they take the same approach...)

  • Murton #10 10 months ago

    Constant internet connection for playing offline single player is a bit poor, while pretty much everyone has broadband and it is fairly reliable there are other issues to consider. Wifi drop out for one, if your router fucks up you'll be booted from the game, but will it auto-save before kicking you back to the menu?

    Then you have to consider that the server has to be online and connected without issue, something which is far from guaranteed with all these high profile DDOS attacks against gaming companies. A sustained DDOS attack on the server on release weekend will not only cripple this game but make Blizzard look stupid as the "fan fury" they're brushing off today becomes every gamer in the world saying "I informed you thusly" and while it would be a kick in the nuts for all fans of the franchise I almost hope that it does happen just to show how stupid constant connection DRM is and how it brings no positives for the gamer or their experience.

  • Dismiss #11 10 months ago

    Hey Blizz, it's really simple. I'll pay for your loot'em'up. It might be fun to play with other people for a while, comparing stats and all. However, why shouldn't I have the option to take the game with me on my laptop to do some grinding while on vacation? Isn't that the whole point of the genre? What if my connection fails? It's not a persistent world like WoW, you can always allow me to sync my auction house stuff with battle.net later.

  • bad09 #12 10 months ago

    "I'm actually kind of surprised in terms of there even being a question in today's age around online play and the requirement around that"

    Does everyone play, or is even interested in online? No.

    There's the reason for the outrage plain and simple, and you seriously can't tell me on a platform where Ubi is almost universally hated across the entire internet and where anytime someone tries this sort of thing on single player modes there is outrage they were surprised. Maybe WOW has blinded them them to what the single player PC gamers want.

  • prudislav #13 10 months ago

    I just cant understand how hard for them is to make complete separate offline SP like in Diablo 2

  • themerlin13 #14 10 months ago

    It reads like a well prepared company bs exercise!
    Online connectivity should be an option we can choose if we want the cloud saves or whatever.

  • UncleLou #15 10 months ago

    Now I personally don't mind the online requirement, but that just sounds like bullshit.

  • DrDean #16 10 months ago

    has it been categorically stated by blizzard that D3 will not have a subscription option?

  • arcam #17 10 months ago

    "But if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."

    I actually agree with this, which is why I'm not too fussed here. It's not just an internet connection for the sake of it like some other games.

    Still doesn't help those people who can't play the game because of their connection, which sucks for them, but the internet connection is an important feature, not just a security measure, so it's cool with me.

  • butler` #18 10 months ago

    "When you look at everything you get by having that persistent connection on the servers, you cannot ignore the power and the draw of that."

    That we get? Or that you get?

  • geox30 #19 10 months ago

    I look at what you are saying and say "wow,you suck".Don't feed us your bullshit,people were going to buy your game without all these nonesence..
    Edited by geox30 at 05/08/11 @ 09:33

  • DrizztP #20 10 months ago

    Well that's 12 lost sales in my country for Diablo 3. Sadly we have limited internet connectivity. Also it sucks that I can put it on my laptop and take it anywhere.

  • JahB #21 10 months ago

    Not a fan of this. Starcraft 2 uses the same online system, and while trophies and multiplayer are disabled when offline, I can still happily play all the other single player content. Why does this have to be different for Diablo?

  • Subdominator #22 10 months ago

    The only reason why it's online only is so you can't cheat to get good items and instead have to pay real money for them on Blizzard's marketplace. What they don't get is that people would like to be able to play their games for the next ten to fifteen years and are annoyed by the thought that somebody will turn off those servers when Diablo 4 comes out or if too few people play the game anymore. Cloud features are great if they are additional to local saves. As a backup.

  • PenguinJim #23 10 months ago

    I'm surprised they're surprised.

    This reaction must have crossed their minds.

    Online-only for D3 might not bother me if the features genuinely make it worthwhile, and I often play PC games with no internet access. I'm one of the ones who stopped buying Ubi (not just because of their DRM, but because they lied about removing the DRM after it was cracked) and I travel a lot, so as long as Blizzard makes being online worth it, I'll still be interested.

    Don't disappoint me, please!

  • Aradiel #24 10 months ago

    Note, this is a repeat of what I stated on a Ubisoft article, but it is no less relevant here.

    @to-all-those-who-say-there-is-no-problem-because-their-connections-are-constant

    Congratulations on being lucky enough to have a persistent connection that is never interrupted.
    However, some of us are not so lucky.

    The ISP's connections sometimes fail.
    Sometimes the modems fail.
    Sometimes the connection from my computer to the modem fails.

    If you study computing, there is one particularly pertinent point that gets drilled into you - everything has a "mean time to failure"
    That means that, even if your code is programmed perfectly, even if the hardware is manufactured perfectly, even if every single aspect that could possibly result in a fault is as perfect as can be, it will eventually fail.

    That means that, by using this DRM, Blizzard is ignoring one of the most basic principles in computing - either due to ignorance/incompetence, or because they just don't care about their customers enough.

    Personally, I often game on my desktop, but at weekends I go away to visit people in Uni, and I will game on my laptop. However, the Uni's very restrictive firewall does not allow for this kind of thing.
    If I go on a journey on a train, I might game on my laptop. Except, even if there is a wifi connection on the train, it will not be constant.
    If I go on a long-haul flight, I might want to game on my laptop. But this DRM would prevent me from doing so.

    These may never be a problem for you, because that is not your lifestyle. That's fine, but to say it's a non-issue because it doesn't effect you, is utterly self-centred and idiotic.
    Edited by Aradiel at 05/08/11 @ 09:40

  • TheApologist #25 10 months ago

    It must be tiring living in a world where things either 'suck' or 'are awesome'.

    Take toast. It's just good, y'know. It's fine. Ah, toast.

  • Eisenstein #26 10 months ago

    Unless I'm away from home on my laptop.

    Even then you are more and more surrounded by open WiFi-nets. People who have mobiles that can be set to tether other stuff and 1-3 GB transfer limit a month should be good enough for Diablo III too. Airplanes and the parts without even mobile coverage are still an issue though. I would like at least the possibility SC 2 had - offline play, but you can't take anything of your offline-time with you to your BN-account.

  • arcam #27 10 months ago

    Nobody says it's a non-issue for people travelling, or with a flaky or non-existant internet connection. We all know those people are going to be shit out of luck.

    The question is whether they are acceptable casualties in a move towards an online game (there's no point complaining you can't play WoW on a plane), or whether it's just a security feature that is damaging people's enjoyment and ability to play the game for the sake of keeping out pirates and earning money through microtransactions.

  • FireMonkey #28 10 months ago

    @Aradiel - I agree fully.
    BT screwed up my broadband for more than a month recently and so when I needed to connect I had to you a pay-as-you-go mobile broadband stick. No way am I playing a game over that. It's the same situation for those that have a capped download limit. If you hit that limit you can't access the net. I know games may not use much, but if you still could hit the limit with other downloads.

  • Markusdragon #29 10 months ago

    Better hope that the time you want to play the game doesn't coincide with server maintenance.

  • smoison #30 10 months ago

    After having several disconnects in Starcraft 2 LAN games BECAUSE of a split second disconnect from the Battlenet servers, I have no faith in this system.

    Such a shame, Blizzard used to be the number 1 developer to watch out for. (before WOW and Activision)

  • djarcas #31 10 months ago

    Cue comments from the 0.001% of people with unstable internet connections in 3...2...1...

  • Djimm #32 10 months ago

    And suddenly I'm reminded why I ditched PC gaming a couple of years ago...

    What lies. DRM is the ONLY justification for requiring a persistant online connection. If it were otherwise, they would have made it optional for all the reasons mentioned.

    Good move Blizz, you've just lost a load of sales AND upped the numbers of people who will pirate D3.

  • Cherub007 #33 10 months ago

    Well, in a world where many publishers seem hell bent on squeezing every penny out of gamers, it's almost refreshing to see a company insisting on a feature of minimal, as-yet-unidentified benefit which will actively reduce the number of copies sold. Sticking it to the MAN.

  • Eisenstein #34 10 months ago

    Well, in a world where many publishers seem hell bent on squeezing every penny out of gamers, it's almost refreshing to see a company insisting on a feature of minimal, as-yet-unidentified benefit which will actively reduce the number of copies sold. Sticking it to the MAN.

    I don't want to post the old picture of the CoD: MW2-boycott group all playing CoD: MW 2 online, but I doubt the number of people not buying the game because it requires an online connection will really influence Blizzard's bottom line by more than a very low single-digit percentage.
    Edited by Eisenstein at 05/08/11 @ 10:18

  • Frosty840 #35 10 months ago

    Frankly, my singleplayer experience is massively enhanced by the ability to cheat so hard I break the game. I like doing it. It's fun.

    These days, cheats seem to be locked behind paywalls, or behind "achievements". This nonsense has no doubt come about so that Blizzard can "provide players with the choice between paying for equipment, or spending time grinding equipment." You know what the other option is? Fucking *cheating*. For *free*.

    Ah, but that would dilute the hard work and effort of their dedicated player-base who sit around all goddamn day sitting at a soulless idiot-box, watching the result of an infinite random number generator. Wouldn't want that gameplay experience devalued for the loyal player base, now, would we?

    I'm not in any mood to tolerate this hind of horseshit. If I weren't already staying the fuck away from Activision, I'd be crossing this off my list. As it is, I wouldn't touch ActiBlizzard product with a barge pole anyway, so the point is moot.

  • Stoatboy #36 10 months ago

    Well, with Ubisoft's always online security working flawlessly, not denying anyone from playing the game they'd bought ever, and garnering nothing but unbridled praise from players, I can understand them being surprised for being criticised for doing something simil...

    Bugger! I ran out of sarcasm before I could finish my sentence.

  • urbanphilosopher #37 10 months ago

    "You're guaranteeing that there are no hacks, no dupes THAT WE DON'T BENEFIT FROM FINANCIALLY" - fixed for you Mr Bridenbecker. Seriously, what's the difference between hacking your way to the best gear or buying your way to be gear - oh yes, profit. Just to clarify - if have no significant objections to the cash AH thing (except for game immersion considerations) but to claim your implementing online only to prevent hacks, and then authorising cash-based workarounds is just hypocritical.

    But as has been said many times - if you want companies to take note then vote with your wallet, and I will be.

  • Gearskin #38 10 months ago

    Don't understand how this is an issue. I see the "Can't play on the move" comments coming in... but where would you play? On a train? If you're on a long journey, the train has Wifi for business, no?

    If you're gaming at home you are permantly connected. What's the big?

  • Toothball #39 10 months ago

    I'm not surprised there's an outrage, there usually is whatever the news. I don't consider my PC or consoles functional without an internet connection, single player or otherwise. And on the few occasions where I do have internet problems, I get by.

  • arcam #40 10 months ago

    If you're on a long journey, the train has Wifi for business, no?

    No.

  • FortysixterUK #41 10 months ago

    Your character will be stored on a server?
    So not only do you not own the game, as it can't be played offline, but you also don't own the characters you develop?
    Fuck right off.....it winds me up that you don't own a character in an MMO but can let it slide, just.
    But now you don't own a character on a single player game?
    NO SALE.

    Frankly, the Torchlight franchise is already a better option. Bye Bye Diablo.

  • ubergine #42 10 months ago

    It's absolutely about the dBay money-for-nothing plan they've come up with. The integrity of dBay will require no one being able to use hacks or whatever to gain items to sell in their pawn shop for second-hand non-existent items. Taking a penny 3 ways from each transaction is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to them, an income stream that could outlast religion if the longevity of their previous games says anything. In this case they probably genuinely aren't inconveniencing you directly for anti-piracy reasons, in fact it sounds like Diablo 3 would make them more money in the long run if they simply hand it out for free.

    Which, once it's hacked and leaked in the weeks before it's released, is surely what will happen, but it will be an online-free version of the game.

  • Khosrau #43 10 months ago

    I really think this is a disturbing trend.

    When I buy a game, I simply expect it to work. Whenever, wherever. Be it now or ten years from now.

    I play games for fun. As a mainly singleplayer gamer, I hate the fact I'm dependent on third parties I have little to no influence on. It's not that I don't want to be online when playing, it's when that's a REQUIREMENT. I play my own game and if I choose so I don't want anyone involved. Especially not when that 'anyone' is a publisher capable of terminating my gaming experience for whatever reason.

    Where is the time you only needed to install a PC game to fire it up, without the hassle of creating profiles, installing download managers or updating clients. Something increasingly rare on PC, sadly. I admire the simplicity of my PS3 in that respect.
    Edited by Khosrau at 05/08/11 @ 11:02

  • Apaar #44 10 months ago

    This is pretty much all positive for me. I have a stable internet connection, and now I just get great extra features like cloud storage of all my characters and tight protection from cheaters. All in all it might have been even better had they included some sort of offline mode, but as it is it's already amazing.

    I think much of this general crying is about people thinking it's cool and admirable to hate things/people/entities that are popular, rich, and succesful - in this case Blizzard.

  • Vortextk #45 10 months ago

    Urban, that's a really dumb argument. You're not buying stuff from blizzard, you're buying stuff from people. Blizzard makes a little cut. Newsflash, you've been able to buy items on WoW and Diablo II for half a decade+. What's the difference then compared to now? The company that makes said kick ass games actually gets to benefit from chinese gold farmers and 24/7 no lifers(I'm god damn close right now) selling items for real money...why is that bad? It already happened in their other games. It was going to happen in this game 100% guaranteed even if they tried to stop it.

    And what, you're whining that you can't hack so they're forcing you to spend money? You can't hack because it's unfair to other people. You can spend money on gear if you want, AS YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO FOR YEARS, or not. This time it's legit though. My friend geared up 1 character once with like 30 bucks. I personally never did, but it was cheap enough I could have.

    Yes, to have a system like that requires a god damn iron fist of rules to stop any kind of cheating or abuse, which I imagine will still happen somehow because no one is perfect and I just wonder what the fall out will be from that.

    I get it, diablo never used to require an online connection and they should offer some form of offline play with characters that can never go onto the network, and I'm not sure why they aren't. However MOST gaming IS dedicated online gaming now and if you still have a shit net connection, blame every other game company as well. You can still play as much diablo II as you want for free with your 28.8k or awful dsl that disconnects a lot.

  • Buran #46 10 months ago

    The worst decision wasn't the mandatory constant connection, but the real money auction house. Known that you will be able to just buy all the top end gear without the need of to spent months and months of gameplay in it destroys both the sense of fair play and the rewarding experience of play and the endurance and lifespan of the game.

    One of the reasons of the Diablo II Lord Of Destruction huge endurance along the time is that top tier equipment and runewords as Exile, Last Wish, Faith... needs items that are extremely rare. Of course you can buy Enigma in a illegal site, but once you get items buying it the game lost all sense and motivation.

  • neems #47 10 months ago

    Just give people the option, it's a little something called 'giving the customer what they want'. It goes a little something like this -

    *Create new profile*
    *Create Offline Profile* - warning, this profile may only be used for offline / singleplayer and is non-transferable. You will need to create another profile if you then wish to play online or use any of BattleNets online features, such as stats, achievements or the Auction House.
    *Continue*

  • ColdCoffee #48 10 months ago

    This is great. Cloud characters means its a lot harder to cheat. I for one want levels and gear to mean something. Having the char files client side makes it to easy to dupe and do more devious things. People just like cry, they obviously can't see the big picture. Making a separate component for the .001 percentage is a waste of dev time.

  • FuzzyDuck #49 10 months ago

    @Apaar

    I think you'll find that this is about people not being able to access a product that they've paid for in full when they want.

    My own personal distaste with the subject is that publishers are gaining too much control over how the end consumer uses the product and the fact that we don't see this in any other mainstream entertainment medium.

  • Whitster #50 10 months ago

    What if you have a perfectly fine and stable and fast internet connection, then some pikeys decide to nick a load of the fibreoptics or copper wireing as has been known to happen? That'll put you out for a few days.

  • suzakuseven #51 10 months ago

    Does not bother me in the slightest. As an online gamer I am used to not being able to play certain games if my internet connection craps out. I certainly won't deny myself a game as brilliant and polished as Diablo 3 for a tiny reason such as this.

    It's like League of Legends. I won't be boycotting that simply because it must be played online. It's an online game, even if you play it on your own. Them's the breaks!
    Edited by suzakuseven at 05/08/11 @ 10:53

  • bad09 #52 10 months ago

    "However MOST gaming IS dedicated online gaming now"

    Wow I must be imagining all those single player games I'm looking forward to and better give up gaming seeing as I rarely play online anymore ;)

    I think you'll find MOST gaming is actually offering MP and SP now.

  • Buran #53 10 months ago

    @tjtj: I didn't buy Left 4 Dead, in fact I didn't buy anything from Valve since HL-2.

  • FooAtari #54 10 months ago

    @stolenglory
    "No, they live in a world in which any self-respecting gamer who has an internet connection, generally has one which runs on something a little more reliable than a 56K modem.

    Honestly, we're all connected to the internet these days with at least a 1 meg connection. This isn't 1997

    Some people simply don't have the option. High speed stable internet access is not available to 100% of the population in the UK. Im going to assume you maybe live in a large town or city. As do I, but I grew up a little in the sticks. My folks have a 1.5Mb connection, thats the fastest they can get, which sure should be fine. BUT, the latency on the connection is pretty high, which for gameing is more important than speed. Also it is pretty damn unstable. They regurlarly suffer periods of slow speeds and the connection dropping.

    BT have been to the village serveral times to try and resolve these issues, but still they persist.

    Some people need to wake up and realise we don't all live in cities and towns with excellent broadband.

    Anyway my issue is not having to be online permantly as much as what happens if for some reason the servers go offline and in ten years time I want to play the game? I want the publisher/dev to give me some gaurantees I'll awalys be able to play the game.

  • HL706 #55 10 months ago

    In all honesty I'm also very surprised by the backlash. I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding on the gamers part. Companies like Ubisoft require online connectivity because they instantly assume players to have a balaclava and a swag bag, this is wrong. However, more and more single player games will have online elements as the internet becomes more and more commonplace around the World.

    EDIT: In saying that - I do feel these things should be optional!
    Edited by HL706 at 05/08/11 @ 11:06

  • actionfitz #56 10 months ago

    Blizzard fail.
    Pirates win.

    I know people who played a ripped off version of SC2, looks like there will be plenty of demand for D3 as well...

    Instead of trying to find 'compelling reasons' that a persistent connection is good for us... try giving people a compelling reason not to crack your game... such as: pirates don't have a better version of the single player game - ability to play offline.

  • penniegrim #57 10 months ago

    The Devs live in a bubble, everything seems to surprise them. realID, this.. what's next?

    "But if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."
    Like RMT for single player mode? yea right, so awesome I'm gonna puke. I would not be surprised if they put in RL ads in there as well.
    Just keep SP chars and MP chars separate, PLEASE!

  • arcam #58 10 months ago

    try giving people a compelling reason not to crack your game

    I honestly think that's what they are trying to do. A cracked version of Diablo 3 that doesn't go online will not be as much fun as the real thing, I really think that. It will have advantages, the main one being you don't have to be online, but I guess it remains to be seen which will be the better version. I think the real game will be better than the cracked one.

  • Vixremento #59 10 months ago

    You know I'm actually a lot calmer about this all now so hopefully I can just say this: I didn't buy AC2 because of the always online requirement however I bought AC brotherhood as you only needed to be online to invest in shops. Did I use it? Sure, sometimes but most of the times I didn't even bother (playing on my laptop with wifi drops my connection rather often so I just switched it off...so sure - let me upgrade to wireless N allround because of a required pesistent connection).

    Also a question (perhaps they've already detailed this?), if your hardcore character dies it's gone for good right? As in only one life? I'm whacking a boss and my connection drops is there a chance I can die because I'm no longer slashing at it or will they have some sort of instant lock put in place that'll prevent this?

  • MaxiSleep #60 10 months ago

    Blizzard are tuning into the new activision Oh.....

  • tankboi #61 10 months ago

    My ISP fails at least once a month. They are good enough not to swap, but still...

  • DavidSebb #62 10 months ago

    Shut up Blizzard, the always-online feature was pushed only because of the implementation of the real money AH, to create a sense of MMO like feeling so the players would spend alot of dough on the shop.

  • Toothball #63 10 months ago

    I love the way that all the people who aren't outraged are getting a big pile of negs. There's no shortage of "What if it doesn't work?". What if it does though? It doesn't always have to end in tears. For a hobby so steeped in technological advances, gamers can get really stuck in the past sometimes.
    Edited by Toothball at 05/08/11 @ 11:44

  • paketep #64 10 months ago

    Instead of leading with a title we all know to be a complete lie (yeah, sure, they were surprised), you could just confirm the news item we all expect, i.e., "Blizzard won't do shit to address player concerns despite having repeated time and again on the last years that they really care about what players think".

  • Gurgeh #65 10 months ago

    I'm starting to think that what I want is Torchlight 2 with Diablo 3's polish, but I'm not decided yet whether the Activision money-grab will tip me to Torchlight.

  • gandhimaster #66 10 months ago

    its so ironic that gamers all take to the internet to complain about a game requiring an internet connection.

    ;-P

  • jetsetwillie #67 10 months ago

    @whister

    what if some pikey nicked the power cables to your house. we going to blame blizzard that the game need a perminant supply of power too are we. are we!

  • urbanphilosopher #68 10 months ago

    Vortex, bascially learn to read - I didn't say I was against the real cash shop, in fact I specifically said that my only objections to it are based on game immersion considerations.
    I also didn't say I was pro-hacking, I just said that Blizzard are clearly anti-hacking and then raised the point that the difference between a hack-based workaround and a cash-based workaround is the method, not the result.
    Finally I said nothing about my network connectivity, whether it limits my ability to play online or indeed any opinions about the online-only aspect of the game at all. Once again I was pointing out the contradictory nature of Blizzard's arguments - that's it.

  • FooAtari #69 10 months ago

    @Eisenstein
    "I don't want to post the old picture of the CoD: MW2-boycott group all playing CoD: MW 2 online, but I doubt the number of people not buying the game because it requires an online connection will really influence Blizzard's bottom line by more than a very low single-digit percentage."

    Sadly this is true. If people moan but buy the game anyway the publishers and devs are just laughing all the way to the bank. They got their way and they got your money. Who's the mug here? Certainly not them.

    The only way to change the sense of entitlement the game industry has to do these things is NOT BUYING THE GAMES. Hurt their bottom line and they will soon reconsider these things.

    Moaning about it but buying the game anyway acheives nothing.


    I don't get why some people have no issue with the amount of control Blizzard will have over your copy of Diablo 3.

    Everything is realiant on their servers.

    They could shut down the servers whenever they want
    They could delete all you charachters whenever they want
    They can completely deny you access to the game whenever they want.
    Or they could do any of the above by accident. Wouldnt be the first time.
    Every large company seems to be the targets of hackers and DDOS attacks, no reason why Blizzard might not get hit with one or many.

    I admit, this is unlikely, but the possibility still exists. If it were possible to play the game completey offline these issues would not be a problem for anyone.
    If you're happy with the having to be connected to the servers all the time, fair enough. But if any of the above happened you would be screwed just as much as anyone else.

    For me it's all about ownership and control. I don't see any compelling reason for making a persistant connection an absolute requriement. I buy the game, I want to be in complete control of how and when I play it.
    Edited by FooAtari at 05/08/11 @ 12:05

  • Darren #70 10 months ago

    I want Diablo III but only to play solo as I have no interest in multiplayer games at all. Personally, I would prefer to have my single player games offline to reduce the risk of interruptions due to my ISP going down (which does happen from time to time) or, as happened with UbiSoft, DDOS attacks but so long as it works and I don't have any problems then I guess I can accept it. It's either that or I don't buy the game at all.

  • GozuTennai #71 10 months ago

    bunch of dumbass noobs tbh.

  • mingster #72 10 months ago

    Good i'm glad its online only. It cuts down on cheaters and hackers.
    They should go the whole hog and make it download only .. no disc.
    Even go 1 more step and make it so you don't even install the game locally you run it remotely from the cloud.
    Its not the 90s anymore.
    I dont want physical media.. i don't want locally stored content.. Cloud based is the way forward.

  • Quak #73 10 months ago

    Lots of people here assuming Blizzard's internet connection must be perfect, but I'd argue that it never works - they clearly haven't been online at all to see the backlash that Ubisoft gets with its DRM if fans' reaction really did come as a surprise.

  • Tricky #74 10 months ago

    2 things here. /prepares to be negged to oblivion

    1. All of you bitching about how Blizzard own your copy of Diablo III... well welcome to the real world - all media, regardless of whether it's music, movies or games are actually owned by the company that you 'rent' it from. Yes, rent; because all you do when you buy something is purchase a license to use that media. You can moan about it or learn to accept it because that's the way things are and will be forever more. If you're in any doubt then go read some T&Cs for your DVDs/Blu Rays/Digital Downloads etc.

    Those of you worrying about whether you'll be able to still play it in 10 years time... well I'm kind of with you on that part at least and it would be good to know what publishers plans are regarding that.

    2. For those of you who keep harping on about the real money auction house, that's not the only auction house - there's an in-game gold auction house too you y'know? Also, it's entirely optional as to whether you use it or not. If having a sense of progression with your character and not buying your way to success is important to you then that's completely fine - that's up to you. What the hell do you care if someone else wants to buy their way to having better equipment? Surely that's up to them and should in no way affect your game?

    Put simply, it's not forced on you and the repercussions of it being used by others shouldn't affect you, should it?

  • whatfruit #75 10 months ago

    Fuck you Blizzard! You used to be cool.

  • arcam #76 10 months ago

    @Tricky

    1. People don't really care about the technical legal status of their license. The fact is, normally buying a game gives you ownership of that game in all practical ways - this time it doesn't, and that's what people are annoyed about. So technically pepole don't have something to complain about, but practically speaking, they do.

    2. People can object to things on principle, even if it doesn't affect them. As an over-the-top example, News International hacking Milly Dowler's phone doesn't make any difference to me personally, but it's wrong so I will speak out against it.

  • Khosrau #77 10 months ago

    @FooAtari: Well said!

    @ Quak: true, but that does not stop Ubisoft from putting always online DRM again in Driver San Francisco.

    @ Tricky: You're right of course about the licensing part. But I'm a person who always buys entertainment in retail, and I don't need an internet connection to be able to watch a Blu-Ray or play a CD. That's not what a license is about. So why should this be the case with games? Give me at least the illusion I can do whatever I want with my game, as long as it does not detract from the experience of other players of course.

    For me it's all about control and storing my information locally. I dislike it very much publishers now can get all this information, be it personal details or how I choose to play a game.

    Of course there is an exception for pure multiplayer games. In that case I choose so, knowing beforehand what I reasonably can expect. But to have these things in games with a single player side is ridiculous. I don't need nor want this kind of involvement from a publisher.

    I am also very curious about how these games can be played 10 years from now. As a person who plays older games regularly, I wonder if I can play a D3 then as I can play a Baldur's Gate or the very first Prince of Persia (on DOSBox) now. It's pretty important to me.
    Edited by Khosrau at 05/08/11 @ 15:19

  • xuiton #78 10 months ago

    No, we're more up set that you are including a cash shop in the game.

  • DwarfyP #79 10 months ago

    @The_Captain
    Do you live in a sub standard world where they don't work all the time?

    Years of BT connections and never had an outage.

  • nbringer #80 10 months ago

    "I'm actually kind of surprised in terms of there even being a question in today's age around online play and the requirement around that," - well fuck you too!

  • nbringer #81 10 months ago

    @tjtj
    "Eisenstein is right. It's the same with Left 4 Dead 2. We all complain. We all buy it."

    Well you are both wrong. I did not buy L4D2, I will not buy this crap either!

  • Toothball #82 10 months ago

    @FooAtari

    I'm not as concerned as most over the apparent control over the game that developers retain as it's much the same argument that has been had about digital distribution in general. "What if Steam/PSN/XBLA were to shut down tomorrow!?" is a question that has been asked by many, but few problems have really come from that. There have been games removed from sale on these services (and presumably others) but those who own them can still access them.

    Despite a predominantly offline past, Blizzard seem to just be considering Diablo 3 to be an online game. Sure there are disadvantages to this, but there are no doubt numerous advantages to that are getting lost in the outrage. For example, if your character is stored server-side then you don't have to worry about losing all your progress if your computer explodes. Or potentially you could go to an internet cafe in a faraway land, load up your D3 character and play from where you left them.

    Presumably though it will reach a point where the servers are switched off, as all online games are destined to do one day. That generally only happens when either the company producing it folds or the game simply isn't active enough to support it. Blizzard don't seem likely to be going anywhere, and I'd expect that the game will still be popular enough to support for many years to come. Maybe in ten years you'll want to play it again, or maybe you'll want to play one of the many games released between then and now. Who knows?

    Assuming the worst has been one of my hobbies for a while now, but I find that it's been a refreshing change not to do so recently. That the main reason for my lack of concern on this, more so than any other.

  • Kikizosan #83 10 months ago

    What you do offline is should be your own business - if you don't have internet (yes, it is possible) or it drops or whatever, or if you want to use other people's saves, cheat codes, blah blah blah, then you should, as a player and customer, have the option to do that.

    Absolutely, for multiplayer, everyone should be (start) on a level playing field, but having an internet connection then is kind of a given.

    Decisions like this just limit what customers can do with the product they've bought. What's not to get, Blizzard?

  • mousearmyone #84 10 months ago

    Well, that's saved me some money from 2 preorders.

  • super_monty #85 10 months ago

    I am think about cancelling my preorder and holding out for a cracked version now. I don't like the way drm is used, there is no real reason why I have to be on line to play. It's all about control and it means the game I have paid for is not future proof.

    Ps I am normally anti piracy and don't have any copys in my collection on any format

  • vegard #86 10 months ago

    "it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry"

    It might be the nature of the industry, but that doesn't mean us consumers have to be OK with it and not raise our voices. Oh well, if I decide to get D3 I'll pick it up and just download a crack.

  • George-Roper #87 10 months ago

    Awesome, just like they were 'surprised' by RealID.

    Of course they were.

  • Vedfolner #88 10 months ago

    "it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry"

    What a consumer-ignoring, arrogant statement. Are publishers and developers the only ones who get to decide what the future of the games industry is like?
    I will have another round of Torchlight and wait for Torchlight II with great anticipation instead.

  • George-Roper #89 10 months ago

    @Toothball

    Or potentially you could go to an internet cafe in a faraway land, load up your D3 character and play from where you left them.

    You'd have to be a fucking mong to enter any online credentials whilst sat in an 'internet cafe'. Fuck me....

  • Toothball #90 10 months ago

    @George-Roper

    Perhaps, but I've still passed a good number of internet cafes and gaming places that have PCs with World of Warcraft installed, just waiting for people to log in an do whatever it is they do there. Besides, you may also be visiting a friend or relative and want to do the same there. Stranger things have happened!

  • George-Roper #91 10 months ago

    @Toothball

    Perhaps, but I've still passed a good number of internet cafes and gaming places that have PCs with World of Warcraft installed, just waiting for people to log in an do whatever it is they do there. Besides, you may also be visiting a friend or relative and want to do the same there. Stranger things have happened!

    All of that is meaningless. Internet cafes are notorious for using keyloggers to trap login credentials. For games like WoW and now it seems D3 why would any intelligent person even risk it, regardless of availability and ease of access?

    Add in some hardware, like an authenticator and you're going some way to reducing the concern but until this becomes the defacto, and confirmed 100% secure method of authentication I wouldn't go anywhere near an internet cafe for online gaming.
    Edited by George-Roper at 05/08/11 @ 14:49

  • 5h1nj1 #92 10 months ago

    Blizzard used to be the gamer's company. The number one choice.
    Now they're just like every other mega-corporation out there. The simpliest things surprise them, can't predict what a normal gamer wants, they don't know what worries their average customer...
    We don't like always online policy! We don't like real money ingame without even an option to play in a non real money environment (no, those "you don't have to use it" don't cut it). Don't take the liberty to choose from us!

    Btw, how can he say those things about online gaming being without problems with a straight face?! Even if I disregard end-user's trouble to get a permanent and stable connection everywhere (a fiction, really), there are all these huge issues with ddos attacks, server hacks and stuff like that. Did they already forget? Also, servers are down for maintenance/upgrades/other reasons every now and then. All that for a single player experience, that many of us want?

    Blizzard should certainly reconsider this approach.

  • Tyronne #93 10 months ago

    YOU dare question our motives?...foolish mortals /evil laughter

  • Toothball #94 10 months ago

    @George-Roper

    Ok granted you may want to avoid security issues like this, but surely you don't assume that your friends and family also run key loggers just so they can steal your details? I only mentioned internet cafes as it was the first place outside the house that has computers that I happened to think of. For example, I've gone over to a friend's house before, logged in via Steam and played some of my games there. I've even done that with some Xbox games. It was very convenient and I didn't feel like my credentials were in any way compromised. Some people might actually like playing D3 in this way.

  • cyber_nicco #95 10 months ago

    Yes, but I sometimes want to play in a park, or on a plane flight, etc.

    This is why I bought a gaming laptop.

  • George-Roper #96 10 months ago

    @Toothball

    For example, I've gone over to a friend's house before, logged in via Steam and played some of my games there. I've even done that with some Xbox games. It was very convenient and I didn't feel like my credentials were in any way compromised. Some people might actually like playing D3 in this way.

    The percentage of people who might actually get 'use' out of the D3 cloud system, in this example is minute. It in no way justifies the changes and frankly it looks like you're desperately grasping at straws.

    Blizzard should be very, very careful about how they treat their core playerbase. Nintendo got a touch too happy that they had full control of theirs and suddenly half a billion dollars was wiped off their shares.

  • Toothball #97 10 months ago

    @cyber_nicco

    I bought a gaming laptop too. Good stuff, but I wouldn't expect to get more than an hour or two or hard gaming in on battery power alone. Not flown in years though, so no idea what the power situation is like on planes.

    @George-Roper

    Fine, so I'm grasping at straws. I just don't care enough to get angry about something like this, and for a change of pace was trying to suggest some things about it that may not be so bad. I don't even plan on getting D3, but I like change and this seems to be a significant one. The most boring comment thread I can think of would be one where someone posts one comment and everyone agrees.

  • George-Roper #98 10 months ago

    @Toothball

    Fine, so I'm grasping at straws. I just don't care enough to get angry about something like this, and for a change of pace was trying to suggest some things about it that may not be so bad.

    So apathy then. Forget the implications of companies moving further and further towards controlling games?

    If D3 is going to become an 'MMO' then just say so. Blizzard are desperately trying to hide behind other reasons but if this massive change is actually going to happen then they should just have the balls to say so and be prepared to take the inevitable hit on sales.

  • Toothball #99 10 months ago

    @George-Roper

    It's not so much apathy. I've had similar discussions before and have been asked what I'd do if a company brought this to the table with a game I wanted to play. I thought about it and came to the conclusion that I probably would moan in some comments threads but then buy the game anyway. So this time I'm trying to consider things differently so I'm better prepared for when it does matter to me.

    It does seem like they're setting this up more like an MMO than a regular RPG, but of all people Blizzard have done particularly well from that. With the internet becoming increasingly more pervasive throughout life in general, this seems to be an experiment in further blurring the distinction within games. And I hope they don't reverse this decision because I'd like to see how it pans out once the fuss has died down. It could have an effect on all kinds of games to come.
    Edited by Toothball at 05/08/11 @ 18:27

  • Ninjabreadman #100 10 months ago

    I've always been a big fan of Blizzard but i read this today and have now alas, cancelled my D3 pre-order. Makes me very sad.

  • agw #101 10 months ago

    I feel bad for those folks this will exclude, but it totally makes sense from Blizzard's perspective, given how many dedicated WoW users they have -- it seems like they don't need to worry about people with bad internet connections.

    I'm with you Toothball, I'm interested to see how it pans out. Forcing everyone to use the online and (hopefully) cheat-proof system will protect the economy they are creating in their auction house, giving real value to powerful items since you can't just go to single player and cheat to try them out or whatnot, which in turn means that if you happen to find a powerful item, you can sell it for a lot.

    That being said, I personally really enjoy hacking single player games for fun, so it'll be a pity that I can't do that with this one...

  • super_monty #102 10 months ago

    @agw it's not about good or bad internet connections it's about control.

    If the company goes bust or is bought out or decides to no longer support the product then the game bought is useless. And D3 is is mainly a single play game.

    I am sorry I bought SC2 i am new to pc gaming and this DRM is something that is pissing me off no end.

  • silversun #103 10 months ago

    Reading the comments the PR person made about it i couldnt help but laugh at it.
    not going go into my views on this things anymore but lol.

    The torchlight people did better job on explaining why it needed the internet.
    Edited by silversun at 05/08/11 @ 19:55

  • jabberwoky #104 10 months ago

    The only thing that annoys me more than permanent internet connection is when the company says its a great thing and whats the problem? Anyway, there are so many good games out there that I have a choice, I don't have to put up with this, bye bye Diablo 3.

  • Toothball #105 10 months ago

    @agw

    Hooray, someone agrees!

    @super_monty

    This isn't really a new thing though. All online games eventually go offline even when people have bought in up front. EAs server shutdowns are much the same too, as while are left with online content some may argue that the multiplayer was a reason for buying those games as the rest. Perhaps this is an experiment in making a Single Player Online game, rather than a Massively Multiplayer one.

  • dennett316 #106 10 months ago

    @Toothball

    Why on Earth would a single player game ever need to be online? It makes so little sense it's almost laughable. If it's not an anti-piracy measure, then they should make it optional. If they don't, that tells you all you need to know.
    If people are daft enough to pay real money for digital items, that's their business and good luck to them. But forcing people to be constantly online without providing assurances about lost progress or allowing them to even play the game while a connection may be down for countless reasons is arrogance at best, stupidity and pig headedness at worst. Why would you want to alienate so many potential customers by not providing one simple option?

  • SG #107 10 months ago

    I find it hard to believe that he's surprised at the anger. What a moron.

    Also: There seem to be folks that believe that because you have to be connected, it's like you're on Facebook or out there with the rest of the world. That's really not the case.

    "Yes, you're going to have a connection, yes, your character will be stored on a server, but it doesn't mean you have to socialise with people.

    "It doesn't mean you have to do anything but play the game by yourself. You'll still be able to have a private game. You'll still be able to go off and play the game solo and adventure solo. You can opt to bring other people to your world if you want, but that's up to you."

    ...that's what makes it even more stupid.
    Edited by SG at 05/08/11 @ 22:36

  • FooAtari #108 10 months ago

    @Toothball

    "I'm not as concerned as most over the apparent control over the game that developers retain as it's much the same argument that has been had about digital distribution in general. "What if Steam/PSN/XBLA were to shut down tomorrow!?""

    Well if nothing was put in place to somehow backup your games there is going to be some problems. But at least you can still play those game as long as they remain on your Xbox.

    "For example, if your character is stored server-side then you don't have to worry about losing all your progress if your computer explodes."

    True. Or I could just take responsibility for my own game and back crucial files up regularly

    "Blizzard don't seem likely to be going anywhere, and I'd expect that the game will still be popular enough to support for many years to come. Maybe in ten years you'll want to play it again, or maybe you'll want to play one of the many games released between then and now. Who knows?"

    Yes I admit loosing access to Diablo 3 any time soon due to blizzard shutting down is unlikely. But it's a possibility, and one day it is likely to happen. Weather I will want to play the game in ten years time
    is irrelevant. I bought the game and want to have the option to play it in ten years time. Right now I'm playing Lemmings. Just bang in the disc and go. No worries over 20 years after release.

    "Assuming the worst has been one of my hobbies for a while now, but I find that it's been a refreshing change not to do so recently. That the main reason for my lack of concern on this, more so than any other."

    Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. But I'm paying good money for games. Money I can easily spend elsewhere if I don't like what I'm getting from a game. Some say "games are going this anyway" Well, only if consumers let it. Moan, shout and most importantly don't buy the games. When the cash stops rolling in they will very quickly rethink their ideas. If that doesn't happen devs/publishers will just take more and more liberties until you are paying a subscription for every game you play.

    I also read elsewhere that multi-player is locked to the region you are playing from.
    E.G Anyone in Europe can't join games with anyone is USA.

    WTF?
    Edited by FooAtari at 05/08/11 @ 22:21

  • Devox #109 10 months ago

    Well, i live out in the country in the UK. My Net connection is as stable as a 4 year old after a pint of Lucozade. Already given up on Darkspore because of its stupid need for an online connection so Diablo can go whistle. Oh and heres another word those lovely Americans won't understand.....Wankers

  • chanandler #110 10 months ago

    That's crap, I can't always be connected to the Internet at times that I am able to play!

  • IxianD #111 10 months ago

    Right then, so what happens when the servers go offline for whatever reason? Can you still have a 'single player game'? Likely the answer is NO.

    The only other sore point I have is Blizzards security. Will you need to pay extra for a security app/dongle/keyring just to play your 'single player' game?

    Blizzard, you make amazing, top quality games, but you really need a whap round the chops from time to time.

  • Kovacs77 #112 10 months ago

    People complaining because they won't be able to play this when they're "on holiday". Fucking hell, get a life. You go on holiday to sit on your hotel room playing computer games?

  • Code_R #113 10 months ago

    "Internally I don't think [DRM] ever actually came up when we talked about how we want connections to operate,"

    Pull the other one mate, this is probably the biggest advantage to having something like this. BT pulled the plug on the internet for my whole area yesterday without warning, what are they on? If they want to sell a MMORPG then they should market it was one.
    Edited by Code_R at 07/08/11 @ 19:19

  • ThyCheesyLord #114 10 months ago

    To those who have stated that one is renting software or any other form of entertainment, I don't think it quite works that way. The standard EULA is a contract of adhesion and attatches to the product on sale, regardless of whether the individual accepts knowingly or not, the acceptance is automatic upon purchase. All EULAs do is license the user to be able to use the IP without falling foul of the Copyright laws in default and protect the producer from liability from damage caused by use or misuse. Yet, the actual software is yours indefinately and the right to use the IP, you are not renting it, were the tangible item is not your property. The software is your property, but the Intellectual rights are not ie: you can't sell that right as your own, but you can re sell the product/music/DVD etc and the license to exempt the user from legal action which asheres to the product.

    There are others such as the limitations on the number of installations and the constant online requirement which are an attempt by the licensor to extend copyright protection beyond what was actually envisioned by law, by forcing a contractual arrangement as part of the contract of adhesion, effectively limiting personal use of the IP which is contradiction of Copyright law which makes no mention of this.

    So technically once the sale has been completed as per standard contract law the access to the IP is subject to the first point of purchase idea, so it can be sold on without the licensor having jurisdiction, other than standard laws, over its use, that is now the right of who ever owns the licence to use the IP, although the IP itself remains the licensor's. Which is why illegal downloads don't have the permission of the licensor to use so fall foul of the copyright protection, you are not so much stealing the IP, but you don't have permission to use it

    I don't think there has been a definitive case setting precident on this, as such the legal theory is somewhat of a "cluster fuck" So comments of this is the way it is and always will be are daft, laws change.
    Edited by ThyCheesyLord at 08/08/11 @ 03:26

  • shadowdogg #115 10 months ago

    oh stfu Blizzard, go play with Koticks dong.

  • Spiders #116 10 months ago

    Thank you Blizzard, for your games over the years, but this is where we part ways. I'll only buy games which aren't being sold to me by a company which practically treat me like a criminal for paying for their product.