Poll:How many of you are with the "always online" policy for D3 and how many against?

[CuriousMike]

2. I am continually plagued by lag in that when I perform an attack nothing happens, then a few seconds (seems like, probably not that much) later, the effect hits. Have died several times due to the latency lag.

Just had to comment on this, since it happens to me frequently.

Annoying to say the least.

 

[gothamhunter]

My argument is this - Guild Wars follows almost the same format as Diablo 3 - you can solo the entire game, only see other people in certain nodes of the game unless they're in your party (I would consider this the chat section of Diablo 3), and definitely could have had an offline mode, but it didn't - it was all online and no one bitched about it. I don't get the difference minus a bunch of people expecting there to be an offline mode for D3 and not receiving it, which is their own fault for having expectations that the company was not obligated to adhere to NOR did they ever make you believe it would exist.

 

[titan131]

The cities are the only place you see other players, unless they are in your party. Once you leave a city, you are in your own instance of the game with your party (other players or NPC's).

MMO or no?

Hmm, sounds like a bit of a hybrid. But D3 has no persistent world at all.

Going off at a slight tangent, when I played Diablo II I played it single player only for a long time and it really was designed to be played that way, by which I mean it was designed with single player in mind to a much greater extent than any MMO I've tried. DIII hasn't really changed in that respect, just now you have to be online all the time to play it. The basic format seems the same as it was in DII.

 

[Aikouka]

Duping of items will flood the market, cut the asking prices and turn rare items into common ones that aren't sellable.

That would only be the case if Blizzard was stupid enough to allow use of the RMAH in a theoretical offline mode.

I am saying that it doesn't NEED to use that.

I think this quote pretty much shows the problem here. You keep trying to interject your own god damn opinion into this, and it doesn't matter. I don't care if you think Diablo III doesn't need server-side processing. Why? Because that's what Blizzard chose!

I started referring to Diablo III as a "MMO Lite" way back during beta, because that's what it looked and played like. This hasn't changed at all. You can argue about what the game needs until you're blue in the face, and that will not change the fact that Diablo III uses server-side processing much like Blizzard's MMORPG, World of Warcraft, and other similar MMOs.

EDIT:

To add, my use of the term "MMO Lite" was merely a quick way to explain the differences between previous always online DRM requirements and what Diablo III uses. I'm just so damned tired of seeing comparisons between how Ubisoft requires you to always be online to play their offline game, and how Blizzard requires you to always be online to play their online game. There's a very staunch difference.

 

[gothamhunter]

Hmm, sounds like a bit of a hybrid. But D3 has no persistent world at all.

Going off at a slight tangent, when I played Diablo II I played it single player only for a long time and it really was designed to be played that way, by which I mean it was designed with single player in mind to a much greater extent than any MMO I've tried. DIII hasn't really changed in that respect, just now you have to be online all the time to play it. The basic format seems the same as it was in DII.

You could consider the chat as being the persistant part, as it basically offers the same as the city hubs did (chat, looking at equipment, showing off, etc...)

 

[Maximilian]

Okay, i'm starting this poll because I'm finding it hard to believe that for every person who is against the "always online DRM" for Diablo 3, there is atleast 1 supporting it, which I find staggering.

The poll is basically a check to see how many, are with the always online shit and obviously, how many against. Personally, I feel that there should be a separate online element with support for offline single player, which means I am against the "always online" policy.

Who said that anyways?

Always online DRM is BS, most hate it.

 

[titan131]

You could consider the chat as being the persistant part, as it basically offers the same as the city hubs did (chat, looking at equipment, showing off, etc...)

Yeah, you could. Whether Diablo III seems MMOish or not kind of depends how you look at it. If you see it as an updated Diablo II with always online DRM (which is how I looked at it) then it doesn't really fit the bill because no one considers DII an MMO. But if you compare it to GW which IS considered an MMO, then there are definitely similarities, I'll concede

If I had to choose one way or the other I would say that GWs isn't a true MMO because I don't think D3 is.

 

[thespyder]

Question - is Guild Wars an MMO?

I never played it so I don't know.

but one for you. Is Neverwinter Nights 2 an MMO?

 

[RPD]

NWN2 has an offline mode.

 

[thespyder]

I think this quote pretty much shows the problem here. You keep trying to interject your own god damn opinion into this, and it doesn't matter. I don't care if you think Diablo III doesn't need server-side processing. Why? Because that's what Blizzard chose!

You are right. it is the defining statement. This entire thread is opinion. that is why it is a poll. so that posters can post their OPINION. specifically their opinion on if the always online policy is a good thing for Diablo 3. Mine is firmly that always online was a mistake and not a necessary part of the design.

But in as much as you don't understand that, you also appear to believe that your opinion trumps mine. Yet can't answer the problem of 'If always online' only some people get what they want. But "with offline mode, everyone gets what they want."

NWN2 has an offline mode.

It does. Or to put it a different way, it has a single player mode. In that, it is very VERY much like Diablo 3. Much more so than any MMO. And therefore a much closer comparison than Guild wars.

 

[RPD]

It does. Or to put it a different way, it has a single player mode. In that, it is very VERY much like Diablo 3. Much more so than any MMO. And therefore a much closer comparison than Guild wars.

Single player =/= offline mode.

This is a much bigger issue when used to compare games.

 

[thespyder]

Single player =/= offline mode.

This is a much bigger issue when used to compare games.

I would agree with you, except that the question being asked makes them equal "In this context".

I see no material difference between NWN2 and Diablo 3. both have a single player component. both were designed specifically with Multi-player focus. Neither are an MMO to speak of. but both play very VERY similar.

One is more adventure oriented and the other more action. but beyond that, the compare much more than say Guild Wars, in both design and execution.

Saying that Diablo 3 'Needed' an always online, I would say Neverwinter Nights 2 doesn't, so why does Diablo 3? If the answer is Auction house, or no duping (which boils down to auction house), then sans that element, it doesn't. And it proves that the decision to always online was the Auction house.

 

[SithSolo1]

It doesn't really bother me. I'm online all the time anyway. All the games I've enjoyed the past few years have been played online so...this is nothing new.

I'd only have an issue if I was a) Connected to the Net and b) It still wouldn't let me play

 

[RPD]

I would agree with you, except that the question being asked makes them equal "In this context".

I see no material difference between NWN2 and Diablo 3. both have a single player component. both were designed specifically with Multi-player focus. Neither are an MMO to speak of. but both play very VERY similar.

One is more adventure oriented and the other more action. but beyond that, the compare much more than say Guild Wars, in both design and execution.

Saying that Diablo 3 'Needed' an always online, I would say Neverwinter Nights 2 doesn't, so why does Diablo 3? If the answer is Auction house, or no duping (which boils down to auction house), then sans that element, it doesn't. And it proves that the decision to always online was the Auction house.

Do you even live in this dimension?

 

[thespyder]

Do you even live in this dimension?

Need more than that. Explain.

 

[Aikouka]

You are right. it is the defining statement. This entire thread is opinion.

Let me make this simple. This entire tangent started after I attempted to show the difference between Ubisoft's always online DRM and Blizzard's always online "DRM". There is a very staunch difference between the two, and it irritates me to see them clumped together like two peas in a pod.

Sometimes, I use the term "MMO" or "MMO Lite" to describe how Diablo III works. The game literally sends your commands to the server. The server will decide whether the command is valid or not and update the world (your character, NPCs, enemies, environment, etc.) accordingly. This information is then conveyed back to the player. This is just what World of Warcraft does. This is why I make the MMO or MMO Lite distinction. This is why I try to separate this always online requirement from Ubisoft's always online requirement.

Actually, a better way to put it is that calling it a "MMO Lite" saves me from having to type all that shit above.

Ultimately, I am ignoring your opinion in regard to this tangent, because it is irrelevant. I don't care if you don't like how Diablo III was implemented when we're discussing how the implementation is "like a MMO", and how that differs it from Ubisoft's always online DRM.

Yet can't answer the problem of 'If always online' only some people get what they want. But "with offline mode, everyone gets what they want."

If an offline mode were introduced, one would assume that the players would be unable to use the in-game auction house. If a significant number of players used the offline mode, they would be unable to sell their gear/items on the auction house. Isn't it possible that this could affect all "pro-online" players?

How about you and everybody else that's "anti-online" answer this question: how many waking hours are you unable to play Diablo III strictly because of an online-only requirement? To make it more interesting, separate non-maintenance and maintenance times.

Do you really suffer because of the game's always online requirement? Also, even if you have been forced to not play it... is it really that great of an injustice?

 

[zinfamous]

Relegating one's right to decide when and how they play [use] their games [product] to a 3rd party sets a bad precedent for consumer rights. Vote with your wallet first, don't buy this game.

this.

It boggles my mind that so many don't understand the central kernel of this issue.

Then again, this is a generation of kids that are perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy for a pittance, so who knows what else they are willing to do.

 

[thespyder]

Let me make this simple. snip.

That is a really inappropriate analogy. That's like saying that I breath oxygen. Therefore anything that breaths oxygen is Human, or Human lite. Being on a server is not what makes it an MMO. Case in point, Diablo 3. And if that is your sole criteria, then I don't see any valid reason to continue this discussion.

If an offline mode were introduced, one would assume that the players would be unable to use the in-game auction house. If a significant number of players used the offline mode, they would be unable to sell their gear/items on the auction house. Isn't it possible that this could affect all "pro-online" players?

How about you and everybody else that's "anti-online" answer this question: how many waking hours are you unable to play Diablo III strictly because of an online-only requirement? To make it more interesting, separate non-maintenance and maintenance times.

Do you really suffer because of the game's always online requirement? Also, even if you have been forced to not play it... is it really that great of an injustice?

Again you completely miss the point. Yes, I am impacted. and more significantly than am I able to use the auction house (which by the way is an option, not a requirement to play and complete the game).

As for the "Number of hours" means you are totally discounting impact and those who are impacted merely because it doesn't impact you enough to bother. Really rather selfish of you. consider that the world is larger than the end of your nose.

 

[zinfamous]

My argument is this - Guild Wars follows almost the same format as Diablo 3 - you can solo the entire game, only see other people in certain nodes of the game unless they're in your party (I would consider this the chat section of Diablo 3), and definitely could have had an offline mode, but it didn't - it was all online and no one bitched about it. I don't get the difference minus a bunch of people expecting there to be an offline mode for D3 and not receiving it, which is their own fault for having expectations that the company was not obligated to adhere to NOR did they ever make you believe it would exist.

Why wouldn't GW be considered an MMO? who cares if much of the explorable is instanced (I like that, anyway--no assholes running up and stealing my mobs).

And yes it's soloable--so is ToR. Is ToR not an MMO because it is completely soloable? If anything, GW is a hybrid--everything an MMo has to offer, but you also get to play your own game, your own way, if you wish.

 

[Bateluer]

Haven't bought D3 myself, but since my Twitter and FB feeds lit up with rants every time the servers went down, I'm guessing its a problem.

And I'm always against an 'always online' DRM policy. If I want to play SP, shouldn't matter whether I have an internet connection active or not. I may want to play a game on my notebook in a hotel room without Internet.

 

[sactoking]

Another example of the "always online" policy being bad for consumers:
The new SimCity game will be online only. It will allow you to save a game for the purposes of picking up where you left off. Saves will not be able to roll back or otherwise revert progress, like if a disaster strikes.

SimCity is not a multiplayer game. It does not need this. It hinders a consumer's ability to play the game.

 

[Iron Wolf]

It doesn't really bother me. I'm online all the time anyway. All the games I've enjoyed the past few years have been played online so...this is nothing new.

I'd only have an issue if I was a) Connected to the Net and b) It still wouldn't let me play

It seems like there is nothing to do about it anyway.

All the same, it was a bit jarring when I woke up last Friday and found that I couldn't play ToR, WoW, SC2, D3, or any of my Steam games because Cox was screwing around with my Internet.

What am I left with? Maybe some old pre-Steam PopCap games.

A scary thought how dependent we are on the Internet, and not just for playing games. I was thinking about some e-mails I had to send and some bills to pay which I couldn't do.

D3 is just poor execution though. That amount of lag in a SP or MP game is just inecusable.

 

[gothamhunter]

Why wouldn't GW be considered an MMO? who cares if much of the explorable is instanced (I like that, anyway--no assholes running up and stealing my mobs).

And yes it's soloable--so is ToR. Is ToR not an MMO because it is completely soloable? If anything, GW is a hybrid--everything an MMo has to offer, but you also get to play your own game, your own way, if you wish.

So why isn't Diablo 3 an MMO?

Also - ToR is completely soloable? (ALL content???)

I'm just saying that the definition of MMO that many are using would show that a game such as Guild Wars is not an MMO, since it is entirely soloable and instanced and theoretically could have had an offline mode.

 

[zinfamous]

So why isn't Diablo 3 an MMO?

Also - ToR is completely soloable? (ALL content???)

I'm just saying that the definition of MMO that many are using would show that a game such as Guild Wars is not an MMO, since it is entirely soloable and instanced and theoretically could have had an offline mode.

I am uber, so yes! FP HM, pshhhh


Of course, GW did not begin life the way it currently stands. It very much became a single-player game online, if that's what you wanted. With Prophecies and Factions only, you had to group, or you were toast.

 

[gothamhunter]

I am uber, so yes! FP HM, pshhhh


Of course, GW did not begin life the way it currently stands. It very much became a single-player game online, if that's what you wanted. With Prophecies and Factions only, you had to group, or you were toast.

Do you know what I mean though? If using the standards people have for what an MMO is, Guild Wars isn't one just as Diablo 3 isn't. If Guild Wars is, then so is Diablo 3. Having outposts doesn't make it an MMO.