did they end up adding an offline mode to SC2 or no?
Yeah I guess people don't really like throwing their money away.
Who'da thunk it...
Until now most of the frustration was vented at Ubisoft and EA, but now that Blizzard has also joined suit it becomes apparent that always on DRM is going to become the rule instead of the exception, and also that we are relying on developers to provide stable platforms in order to regulate it.
[q]Duration of the "On-line" Component.
The Game is capable of both offline and online player modes, both of which require that you obtain authorized access to the Service. You understand and agree that the Service is provided by Blizzard at its discretion and may be terminated or otherwise discontinued by Blizzard pursuant to the Terms of Use.
[/q]
Hmm that is not very true then. Unless...their definition of 'obtaining authorized access' means that you need to obtain it every 1 second LOL
I paid $100 for the Collector's Edition, and you don't hear me complaining about the stability. About other aspects of the game, sure, but at least I'm complaining about the gameplay itself not the lack thereof.
I don't get why people keep calling this "Always Online DRM", because it's not. You do have to be online while playing Diablo III, which is similar to always online DRM schemes; however, as the phrase goes, "the difference is in the details."
Ubisoft requires you to be online while you play their game, which does not have any need to actually talk to a server. The game is all played locally (barring any multi-player feature that may require you to connect to another player).
Blizzard requires you to be online while you play their game, which requires all commands to be sent to a server, which will then provide unit (character, NPC and enemy) positioning as well as terrain detail. The game is always played on the server regardless of whether you are playing alone (because the server still vets everything you do) or playing with others.
I said many times before Diablo III ever came out that the game is a "MMO Lite." The only difference between Diablo III and other MMO games is that it lacks a combined persistent world. An example would be if you took Guild Wars and removed that combined city that you can see everyone in. In Guild Wars, you get your own instance when you run out into the world. Although, to my knowledge, maps aren't randomly generated.
Offline and online are used here a bit oddly, but consider replacing them with "single player" and "multi player" (respectively) and it makes more sense.
So, you don't think the reason Blizz made the single player mode online only has anything to do with preventing piracy? Because I think that it's the main reason and if I'm right then it is DRM, just a new type of always online DRM.I don't get why people keep calling this "Always Online DRM", because it's not. You do have to be online while playing Diablo III, which is similar to always online DRM schemes; however, as the phrase goes, "the difference is in the details."
Ubisoft requires you to be online while you play their game, which does not have any need to actually talk to a server. The game is all played locally (barring any multi-player feature that may require you to connect to another player).
Blizzard requires you to be online while you play their game, which requires all commands to be sent to a server, which will then provide unit (character, NPC and enemy) positioning as well as terrain detail. The game is always played on the server regardless of whether you are playing alone (because the server still vets everything you do) or playing with others.
I said many times before Diablo III ever came out that the game is a "MMO Lite." The only difference between Diablo III and other MMO games is that it lacks a combined persistent world. An example would be if you took Guild Wars and removed that combined city that you can see everyone in. In Guild Wars, you get your own instance when you run out into the world. Although, to my knowledge, maps aren't randomly generated.
Hey, if you choose not to complain about not being able to play a game you paid good money for, through no fault of your own, that is your business.
People are calling it 'Always online DRM' for the very simple reason that Blizzard keeps on saying the reason even single player mode has to be online is because that is how their DRM works.
So, you don't think the reason Blizz made the single player mode online only has anything to do with preventing piracy? Because I think that it's the main reason and if I'm right then it is DRM, just a new type of always online DRM.
For me, the thing that defines an MMO is a persistent world, where many players can play at once. If a game doesn't have those things then it isn't an MMO, end of story.
Frankly, everyone complaining is just too naive and uneducated in how online-only games work. Perhaps if they would have actually experienced one first, they would realize what they are getting themselves into. After playing World of Warcraft for over seven years, I'm not the least bit surprised at how Diablo III has gone so far.
While reading through the Diablo III thread post release, one of the things that I've picked up on pretty quickly is that (usually) the people that bitch about server stability did not play World of Warcraft.
I played Diablo II on the closed battlenet and never experienced any problems with cheating, nor did any of my friends as far as I know. The downside of course was that I could not play with my single player characters on the those servers. Instead, if I wanted to play online with my characters, I would have to use open battlenet, where there was a lot of cheating.No. Way before the release, I stated that my thought on why the game is always online actually has to do with reducing the amount of cheating in the game. Even post release, I still hold to this as being the reason for the game requiring an active Internet connection.
Yeah, Guild Wars is an interesting one, I wonder if there was no central hub at all whether it would still be considered an MMO?Is Guild Wars not a MMO? The game only has a central hub that is shared amongst players, but the rest of the world is instanced. In fact, you can hire "underlings" rather than playing with other people. If anything screams "single player", it's concepts such as that; however, the game is considered a MMO.
I did not know that playing wow was a requirement for D3.
The best possible thing Blizz could have done, from my perspective, would have been to give the player a choice, either you can make a single player character that you can play offline and, if you want, you can use open battlenet (where there is cheating). Or you can create an online only character who can play single player or multiplayer on a secure server, but you must be online at all times to ensure there is no cheating.
Yeah, Guild Wars is an interesting one, I wonder if there was no central hub at all whether it would still be considered an MMO?
Now that South Korea's Fair Trade Commission has raided Blizzard's offices, gathered up the paper work and are looking things over, the general gist is that they feel that the sales contract terms may be unfair, especially to unsuspecting consumers. So why is it unfair? Mainly because it's looking as if Blizzard may have set up terms to be absolved of all issues, problems, glitches, outages and down-times associated with Diablo III that could result in people wanting a refund for the game. In other words, they void themselves of accountability so they don't have to issue a refund.
What makes matters worse is because even people who don't plan to play with others and just want to log-on and loot and wank for a bit will still take up space on the network highway. This means that even people who are playing single-player are still clogging up the infrastructure as if they were playing multiplayer. There really isn't any way around this, so Korean gamers whether they play solo or in a party are experiencing horrible lag, rendering their gaming experience unplayable.
If Blizzard can't find a way to fix the situation fast, investigators are expecting that the FTC will issue a mandate to enforce Blizzard to issue refunds to everyone who requests one...in Korea, of course.
Frankly, everyone complaining is just too naive and uneducated in how online-only games work. Perhaps if they would have actually experienced one first, they would realize what they are getting themselves into. After playing World of Warcraft for over seven years, I'm not the least bit surprised at how Diablo III has gone so far.
While reading through the Diablo III thread post release, one of the things that I've picked up on pretty quickly is that (usually) the people that bitch about server stability did not play World of Warcraft.
You and everyone else keep failing to grasp this very simple concept. It's a matter of why the game requires you to be online. Ubisoft requires me to be online simply because that's their form of DRM. Blizzard requires me to be online, because THE ENTIRE XXX XXXX GAME IS PROCESSED THROUGH A XXXX SERVER.
How is that really so hard to grasp!? Sheesh.
Explaining why something is broken and how it is a poor design, doesn't excuse the design defects. Which apparently YOU don't understand.
It would be nice if that were true but I'm a bit more cynical of their motives.It's my thought that Blizzard really likes the idea that you are free to join in on a friend at any point in time. What's kind of amusing (and the reason why I italicized "free") is that by doing this, they forced you to be not-so-free in the way you play the game.
Hmm, I get what you're saying, but I think people expect an MMO to have a persistent world where hundreds or thousands of people can play simultaneously. Starcraft II isn't like that because only handful of people can play in a game together and ofc there is no persistent world.MMO is kind of a muddied term as it is. I mean... MMO in itself just means "massively multiplayer online." In some ways, even StarCraft II is a MMO, because everyone from a region goes into a massive pool of players.
While I think a persistent world is pretty much considered very commonplace in MMOs, I guess it's not really a requirement.
He didn't say anything was broken nor that they used a bad design. That's simply your (and many others') opinion. There are some design aspects I dislike about the game, but online only isn't one of them. It's subjective.
Here's another kicker... hardcore mode.
Dying cause your character is too weak to face the enemies = OK. The next one will be better prepared. Stronger. You'll take less chances, etc.
Dying cause the server lagged for 2 seconds on a decked out lvl60 character... yea... not fun.
Getting irreversibly killed for a reason that's completely out of your hands is the most annoying thing I can imagine in a game. No amount of gear or skill can help with that...
but then that could merely be MY assessment of the defects of the game. And my point was, we ARE saying these are defects. He was claiming that we were stupid because we were not understanding how the game was designed (with the defects as we see them). In other words, ignoring and invalidating our concerns about game elements by explaining "That's just the way it is."
Here's another kicker... hardcore mode.
Dying cause your character is too weak to face the enemies = OK. The next one will be better prepared. Stronger. You'll take less chances, etc.
Dying cause the server lagged for 2 seconds on a decked out lvl60 character... yea... not fun.
Getting irreversibly killed for a reason that's completely out of your hands is the most annoying thing I can imagine in a game. No amount of gear or skill can help with that...
Yep. Add that to the increasing list. To have a hard core mode that is subject to failure of server side hardware is an epic fail in my book.
Here's another kicker... hardcore mode.
Dying cause your character is too weak to face the enemies = OK. The next one will be better prepared. Stronger. You'll take less chances, etc.
Dying cause the server lagged for 2 seconds on a decked out lvl60 character... yea... not fun.
Getting irreversibly killed for a reason that's completely out of your hands is the most annoying thing I can imagine in a game. No amount of gear or skill can help with that...
????Well, that aspect is no different than D2 hardcore...just sayin. In single-player offline mode, you'd have no need of a hardcore mode...you could enforce it yourself as a player, or not, and satisfy both camps.
Well, that aspect is no different than D2 hardcore...just sayin. In single-player offline mode, you'd have no need of a hardcore mode...you could enforce it yourself as a player, or not, and satisfy both camps.
When I went to WonderCon a few months ago, Chris Metzen was theur signing autographs for a new Transformers comic that he apparently did some artistic work for. I ask him point blank what the deal was with the Always Online DRM and why Blizzard chose to go that rout. His 1 and only answer? Piracy and that's it.
I'm not saying that's a 100% fool proof argument, but I see his point.
I do however, get upset at the fact that when I play Diablo 3 by myself, that I can lag as if I am playing on a 64 man BF3 server. Effing stupid IMO.
Faulty logic.I blame pirates.