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

[Aikouka]

I’m against all forms of DRM, but a constant internet connection is the worst kind. I’ll not buy any game that ships with that crap.

I own the game so I shouldn’t need constant a connection to the mother-ship to use it.

Diablo III is nothing more than a dumb client (very similar to how WoW works), which means you aren't going to get very far without that connection to the server. Although, hey... if you really enjoy staring at the main menu that much, go right ahead!

I'm actually wondering if Blizzard reused some of the instance server technology from WoW in Diablo III. Essentially, when you create a Diablo III game, it is kind of like joining an instance in WoW. Better yet, it might explain why they're so flaky given all the fun WoW players have had in the past with instances ("Instance server is down.").

 

[thespyder]

Why not? By your definition, Guild Wars has a single player component and by being always online is bad design.

Apples are red. Therefore anything that is red is an apple?

I have never played Guild wars, so I don't know what the game play is like. But from what I have read and heard about the game, it is a non-typical MMO in the form of instance game worlds (I could be totally wrong about this). The point is, it is designed mainly to be played both with and against other players. Hence the name "Guild Wars".

Diablo 3 is a very different game. The game play is very VERY similar to games like Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Torchlight. The main focus of the game isn't PVP fighting other players. It isn't only "Possible" to play the game solo, it is actually designed with single player game style of play as part of the base design. Maybe not "The Main Focus" but absolutely as part of the base design.

Now, if I am wrong? If You believe that an average player could play Guild Wars solo and complete every single mission. Could defeat the end boss solo. Could fully enjoy and realize 90% or more of the content of the game without encountering a single other player, then YES. I would say Guild Wars has a single player component. But I don't think that is the way it is designed.

DIABLO 3 IS!!! Pure and simple, I have never once encountered another player in the 30-40 hours I have put in thus far. I have defeated every Boss I have encountered without major issues or problems. I have been able to complete every single quest put forth. I have encountered nothing what so ever that even remotely made me wish I had another player to tackle in game. And I am not an Elite player.

If you can't see that simple truth, then I can't help you.

Diablo 3 is very like other games that have an off line component. Guild wars is not (to my knowledge). The ONLY thing that ties the two together is the a single design decision (that of being online) that, if removed (which is to say made playable as either an online OR offline game), would not fundamentally change anything about the game play. Can the same be said of Guild Wars?

It would be analogous to using a tablet as your cell phone. yes, you can do it, but a cell phone is designed to be a cell phone (i.e. MMOs are designed to be Massive and online). A tablet "Can do online calling", but that isn't all they are made for. and they aren't as good at it. hence it could be seen as a "Tablets are a Bad design FOR A CELL PHONE". but that doesn't mean that Cell phones are bad designs.

If I am wrong about this, prove that Diablo 3 would change fundamentally (for the worst. Clearly it would change for the better) if there was an option to play off line (single player or Multi-player in a LAN environment).

At the end of the day, people like you cling to the single lame "But Guild Wars" claim because it is the only instance even remotely that supports your claim. yet to do that you have to ignore all of the other games that disprove your claim. One outlier (always assuming that Guild Wars is) does not make an argument. Particularly when I can provide 4 solid other games that counter the example.

 

[Chiropteran]

What, you don't know about battlenet accounts getting hacked and people logging in to find nothing on their character or their bags/stash? Which btw could've been avoided if there was a single player only component.

An ACCOUNT getting hacked has nothing at all to do with how the game is programmed or run. Also, it never impacts anyone except for the person who is hacked. I could care less if 100k players get hacked every day, it won't affect me.

On the other hand, GAME hacks such as item duplication, unlimited gold, cheated stats etc, affect me greatly- they would instantly destroy the auction house economy, and they would make progression through normal means vastly inferior. AFAIK none of these have been an issue yet in Diablo 3, largely due to the "always online" factor. On the other hand, Diablo 2, which allows offline play, is infested with hacks dupes and various cheat methods.

 

[Chiropteran]

Diablo 3 is very like other games that have an off line component. Guild wars is not (to my knowledge).

I hated guild wars, so I only played for a few days, but IIRC it was basically Diablo 2 with non-random maps and slower leveling pace. There may be other ways to play, pvp arena and such, but the basic game was "very like other games that have an off line component".

 

[cmdrdredd]

Another issue. If your save file all the sudden decides to get corrupted or you have a power outage at a bad time you are out of luck because you don't keep your character saves locally.

 

[thespyder]

I hated guild wars, so I only played for a few days, but IIRC it was basically Diablo 2 with non-random maps and slower leveling pace. There may be other ways to play, pvp arena and such, but the basic game was "very like other games that have an off line component".

Interesting. Then in that case, making Guild Wars always online WAS a bad design (IMHO), if the game is as you say.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm against, I don't like being tied to a service just to play the game.

 

[railven]

Another issue. If your save file all the sudden decides to get corrupted or you have a power outage at a bad time you are out of luck because you don't keep your character saves locally.

Not really sure what this means?


Eitherway, back on the subject:

Dungeon Defenders has two modes of play - Ranked/Non-Ranked. You can't use players from Non-Ranked mode on Ranked mode and you can't use Ranked mode players on Non-Ranked mode.

Ranked mode requires you to log onto the Trendy Net servers and do EVERYTHING on their servers (ala what Diablo 3 is doing now.)

Non-Ranked mode lets you play "offline" even though you are "online" playing with friends. The Offline references is to Ranked mode (being on the Trendy Net Servers).

The big catch is, Non-Ranked mode has items (just to use an arbituary leveling grade) up to Grade B. Ranked Mode has items up to Rank AAA.

Would current Diablo 3 players who wish for an offline mode be happy with such restrictions if Blizz patched in an offline mode?

IE, you won't have access to robust loot table (since items are randomized server side) and instead get a loot table like most games (8 items from this boss, with each item having a percentage chance to drop) and of course the requirement of offline characters can't go online and online character's can't go offline?

Seems that might be the only way to satisfy people, but if they do it like Trendy did (which they did from the start) I wonder how people would react to the "fine, you get offline mode but you don't get all the luxurious items online mode offers" because then I'd see that becoming an issue.

 

[thespyder]

Personally, so long as I got loot that allowed me to continue to progress in the game, I care not if (or how) it compares to the PHAT LOOT that some guy in Brazil has. So that scenario would work for me.

I think a similar solution could be had wherein the item generation tool in the off line mode was such that it was merely incompatible with the online version of the game would be just as acceptable and would answer any concerns on the subject of hacking and duping. Separate but equal more or less. Being something of a programmer myself, I understand that you can make fundamentally different code that does the same thing, and this would work (based on my understanding).

 

[Aikouka]

Why is it so hard to understand that I first used the "MMO Lite" term (way back during beta) to describe how the Diablo III client (the software that you run on your computer) interacts with the server? Diablo III is like World of Warcraft with the realm servers removed, and you only play on instance servers. Whenever you start a game, you get your own instance, and (up to four) people can join you.

Much earlier in this thread, I put forth that same comparison, because it really irks me to see people say, "I hate Ubisoft's DRM, which means I hate this one too!" An example of a similar restriction would be if Blizzard made you log into Battle.Net (and stay logged in) to play Diablo II. Diablo II has an offline component with all logic existing on the client-side, which means there isn't a necessity to be logged in. Diablo III is not like this.

Now, before you hit that Quote button, just keep in mind that this post is purely written about the differences between Ubisoft's always online requirement and Blizzard's always online requirement. A response to this post should not contain your opinion on whether or not you like Blizzard's decision to implement Diablo III that way. That is not what I'm discussing in this sub-topic. If you start jabbering on about that while quoting my post (I'm looking at you, thespyder), I will ignore it. You're more than welcome to have your opinion, but it does not pertain to this sub-topic.

 

[thespyder]

The problem with you premise is in the naming. Calling it "MMO Lite" inappropriately ties the mechanism to the MMO gaming when there is no logic or reason.

An MMO is not exclusively defined by being always online, which is how you want to use it. It is a type of game designed to be played fundamentally in a Massively Multiplayer manner. Hence the "M" for Massively and the "M" for Multiplayer.

I could create a game of Solitaire that required it to be always online, and that wouldn't make it an MMO (or MMO Lite). Just a bad design for Solitaire. Which isn't to say that always online always is a bad design. WoW with an offline mode would be stupid. As would Chess with no AI opponent.

And throwing in the Ubisoft solution in a thread entitled "Poll:How many of you are with the "always online" policy for D3 and how many against?" is just off topic, so not sure why it is being discussed at all. Unless the poster is tying relevantly to Diablo 3.

 

[railven]

Why is it so hard to understand that I first used the "MMO Lite" term (way back during beta) to describe how the Diablo III client (the software that you run on your computer) interacts with the server? Diablo III is like World of Warcraft with the realm servers removed, and you only play on instance servers. Whenever you start a game, you get your own instance, and (up to four) people can join you.

Much earlier in this thread, I put forth that same comparison, because it really irks me to see people say, "I hate Ubisoft's DRM, which means I hate this one too!" An example of a similar restriction would be if Blizzard made you log into Battle.Net (and stay logged in) to play Diablo II. Diablo II has an offline component with all logic existing on the client-side, which means there isn't a necessity to be logged in. Diablo III is not like this.

Now, before you hit that Quote button, just keep in mind that this post is purely written about the differences between Ubisoft's always online requirement and Blizzard's always online requirement. A response to this post should not contain your opinion on whether or not you like Blizzard's decision to implement Diablo III that way. That is not what I'm discussing in this sub-topic. If you start jabbering on about that while quoting my post (I'm looking at you, thespyder), I will ignore it. You're more than welcome to have your opinion, but it does not pertain to this sub-topic.

I think while your peeve is with the comparative, the user's experience is no different. Regardless of the science, they are still required to be online, like Ubisoft's scheme, to play a game they deem single player, whether you agree with the concept or not.

I think once I made that distinction in my head - I sort of understand where they are coming from. For starters: A) I didn't get far into D1/D2 since I didn't want to cheat and the circle of people who were playing seem to now know how to play legit haha, and B) I didn't pay for Diablo 3.

Last night I played for about 15 minutes (exhausted, lots of OT at work) and I finally got some server lag to the point where the game was unplayable. In that instance some kind of revelation (or probably just fatigue) made me realize - both camps can easily be satisifed with some limitations.

It reminded me of Dungeon Defenders. Which I posted above.

 

[Chiropteran]

An MMO is not exclusively defined by being always online, which is how you want to use it. It is a type of game designed to be played fundamentally in a Massively Multiplayer manner. Hence the "M" for Massively and the "M" for Multiplayer.

What?

When you were spelling out what the "MM" part of MMO stood for, did you forget about the "O"?

An MMO is absolutely defined by being online, that is why they are MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE games. Do you have some game in particular which calls itself an MMO but has an offline gameplay mode?

 

[railven]

What?

When you were spelling out what the "MM" part of MMO stood for, did you forget about the "O"?

An MMO is absolutely defined by being online, that is why they are MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE games. Do you have some game in particular which calls itself an MMO but has an offline gameplay mode?

I think you missed his point, he already covered that. Being Online doesn't make it an MMO even if it covers the O portion of MMO.

 

[thespyder]

What?

When you were spelling out what the "MM" part of MMO stood for, did you forget about the "O"?

An MMO is absolutely defined by being online, that is why they are MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE games. Do you have some game in particular which calls itself an MMO but has an offline gameplay mode?

Yes an MMO absolutely has to be online. I am not discounting the "O". but I am saying that a Massively Multiplayer Online game is not defined EXCLUSIVELY by the "O" component as some would have it.

Again, see my further explanation. I could make a solitaire game that was required to be played online. Would it then be an MMO?

 

[zinfamous]

From my perspective, the way Blizzard created Diablo 3 no longer made it a single player game. Mainly because everyone can use the Auction House, whether they want to or not, and their friends could hop in their games even if they play it themselves.

Just because a person chooses to corner themselves off to the rest of the community does not make it more of a single player game. Some gamers wishes to play it like a single player game, that is fine. But it wasn't designed for it to be a standalone single player game. Just like GW2 wasn't designed to be a standalone single player game.

It's all about the actual game design, no what gamers feel the game should be.

I don't know why some of you insist on comparing this to GW or GW2, repeatedly. There is absolutely zero comparison between these models, and especially what 100% of players going into GW expect of those games, and what, maybe 50% of Diablo players go into D3 expecting.

It's quite absurd. (Again--GW currently exists as a game that can be played single player with the more recent stand-alone campaign--one can not have NF, at all, and be completely unable to play GW without groups--but it is an MMO; it was born as an MMO, so it will always be an MMO).


As for the bolded: now we're getting somewhere. The central argument, here, is that your perspective of "always online" is quite different from the perspective of millions of other gamers from what "always online" means.

The MMO community is a fart in the wind considering the total number of people out there that play games. Diablo sells shit tons because the much, much, MUCH greater number of people that do not play MMO or online games want to play it. THey are casual players that don't treat gaming like a job. They have expectations, and their expectations were not met. They have a different understanding of these terms (and rightfully so), because their gaming experience is different, and their assumptions are validated by their experience with the Diablo series.

The MMO crowd does not rule the gaming world. It's important to keep that in mind.


Again, and this is a very important point: GFWL = a game that is "always online." Pretty much all of these games, are single player games. Gamers have come to understand this. It is completely unreasonable to expect the Diablo fans to assume that "Always online" means the server can boot you due to the whims of another game and/or that this game is "supposed" to be multiplayer when many other "always online" models exist for single player games, and many already understand this concept.

If anything, I imagine many expected Borderlands--isolated single-player content, the ability to jump into MP servers if one chooses. Hell, I played Borderlands almost exclusively single player, and enjoyed every second of it.

 

[railven]

I don't know why some of you insist on comparing this to GW or GW2, repeatedly. There is absolutely zero comparison between these models, and especially what 100% of players going into GW expect of those games, and what, maybe 50% of Diablo players go into D3 expecting.

It's quite absurd. (Again--GW currently exists as a game that can be played single player with the more recent stand-alone campaign--one can not have NF, at all, and be completely unable to play GW without groups--but it is an MMO; it was born as an MMO, so it will always be an MMO).


As for the bolded: now we're getting somewhere. The central argument, here, is that your perspective of "always online" is quite different from the perspective of millions of other gamers from what "always online" means.

The MMO community is a fart in the wind considering the total number of people out there that play games. Diablo sells shit tons because the much, much, MUCH greater number of people that do not play MMO or online games want to play it. THey are casual players that don't treat gaming like a job. They have expectations, and their expectations were not met. They have a different understanding of these terms (and rightfully so), because their gaming experience is different, and their assumptions are validated by their experience with the Diablo series.

The MMO crowd does not rule the gaming world. It's important to keep that in mind.

Really lost you here, because as an MMO player (WOW in this case) I never once thought of that game as a job. Nor the has the group of people (the guild I run) have. Now if your counter is I'm doing it wrong, but more so along of the lines of your perspective is also different from "millions of other gamers."

Trying to counter someone's blanket statement with your own is ironic, at the least.

EDIT: I wonder how many of these millions of other gamers buy Assassin's Creed 2 for PC or other DRM games (such as some Steam/Origin/GFWL titles). I bet you they cross-over very often.

 

[Wyndru]

Single player Diablo used to be one of my "offline" go-to games that I play when I'm not going to have inet connection (airplanes, hotels that charge $ for inet, passenger in a car, etc...). I guess I'll be playing D2 for a long time to come.

 

[zinfamous]

And the fact that they tipped us off D3 was going to be always online does not excuse from the fact that it's always online. If I invite you to hang out and get a beer and then kick you in the balls sack when you get there, does it make me any less of an asshole if I warned you before hand that I was going to kick you in the balls?

perfect analogy!

Though, I think it needs to be: invited you out for beer, but didn't warn you about being kicked in the balls. With D3--one knew they were going out for a beer, but were unaware of the injury involved. If you had given that warning about what "going out for a beer" means to you, many would have avoided.

 

[zinfamous]

Really lost you here, because as an MMO player (WOW in this case) I never once thought of that game as a job. Nor the has the group of people (the guild I run) have. Now if your counter is I'm doing it wrong, but more so along of the lines of your perspective is also different from "millions of other gamers."

Trying to counter someone's blanket statement with your own is ironic, at the least.

EDIT: I wonder how many of these millions of other gamers buy Assassin's Creed 2 for PC or other DRM games (such as some Steam/Origin/GFWL titles). I bet you they cross-over very often.

of course it depends on how casual the player is. it is not meant to be a blanket statement, but for those that take things so seriously: I.e--"You should want D3 to be online, multiplayer-only, because your insistence to play single-player only ruins my gaming experience!" (yes, that pathetic argument was made earlier in this thread)

And your edit is hilarious--because that is the EXACT point I am making. People do buy these games, and understand what "always online" means in terms of this type of DRM.

This is NOT what Blizzard means by "always online" with D3. That is the point.

These experiences color their expectations of understanding "always online." So, more people buy into Diablo on release than would ever buy into an MMO, because many of them are not the people that want to play WoW (or any MMO), or be beholden to "similar" mechanics or types of gameplay--much less their play time be determined by the whims of flaky WoW servers.

I think we are getting somewhere.

 

[I4AT]

I hated guild wars, so I only played for a few days, but IIRC it was basically Diablo 2 with non-random maps and slower leveling pace. There may be other ways to play, pvp arena and such, but the basic game was "very like other games that have an off line component".

lol I beat Guild Wars and spent a lot of time in the end game, it's NOTHING like Diablo. If they were so similar why would you enjoy Diablo and hate Guild Wars?

I had Prophecies and I bought the Nightfall and Eye of the North expansions (Factions also came with the account I bought, so basically the entire game) exclusively for the Heroes which were buffed henchmen that you had limited control over designed to make solo play more viable. It helped, but soloing the game with heroes alone was still impossible, and that's why I eventually quit Guild Wars cause I'm not the type of player that likes to stand in the lobby spamming "looking for group" and playing with random strangers that half the time would run off alone and get themselves killed making the party less effective and we'd all slowly die and have to restart the instance.

Anyone who has played Guild Wars knows the pain of sitting in town for 15 minutes while the party leader spammed "LOOKING FOR MONK". It's a team based game, and most groups refused to start an instance without a healer because support roles were required to round out an effective team.

Anyone comparing Diablo to Guild Wars really doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[zinfamous]

What about Guild Wars 1?

Guild WARS 1 is very much an MMORPG with a different model than other MMORPGs. because it follows a different model from the other standard, does not make it less so. (Some people actually like griefing, I guess.)

It has a PvP environment at least as strong, if not stronger and more varied, than any other MMORPG out there.

again, no reason to bring it up--as it has nothing to do with D3.

 

[zinfamous]

Why not? By your definition, Guild Wars has a single player component and by being always online is bad design.

spyder was very specifically referring to GW2 regarding your response here.

Try playing GW2 single player. Seriously...just try it.

GW2 is as similar to GW1 as Oregon Trail is to Mass Effect.

 

[Aikouka]

The problem with you premise is in the naming. Calling it "MMO Lite" inappropriately ties the mechanism to the MMO gaming when there is no logic or reason.

I told you to stop with this off-topic bullshit.

I don't care if you don't like the term. If you're incapable of reading the description of how Diablo III is a client-server networking setup, and you become confused by me using "MMO Lite". Well, um... I don't care?

And throwing in the Ubisoft solution in a thread entitled "Poll:How many of you are with the "always online" policy for D3 and how many against?" is just off topic, so not sure why it is being discussed at all. Unless the poster is tying relevantly to Diablo 3.

...because multiple people mentioned Ubisoft?

 

[zinfamous]

At the end of the day, people like you cling to the single lame "But Guild Wars" claim because it is the only instance even remotely that supports your claim. yet to do that you have to ignore all of the other games that disprove your claim. One outlier (always assuming that Guild Wars is) does not make an argument. Particularly when I can provide 4 solid other games that counter the example.

I hate to keep bringing up--because it is so irrelevant--but this is the thing about the insistence that GW1 is single player.

Can you play the general story mode (non elite dungeons) single player? well, yeah--kinda. Assuming:

1 You have the Night Fall stand along campaign, which unlocks all heroes
2. You have all 3 major games, + EotN, to unlock all of the best elite skills and regular skills, to unlock all of the various heroes. (and only recently, did GW allow full hero teams--you generally still needed at least 2 players for most content)
3. You gear your heroes, know proper builds for hero teams, and have generally unlocked all areas of the game to understand the various mob mechanics.


So, basically, once you have a few of your characters max leveled (took me 8 characters, got them all through most of the entire GW world), and having unlocked a significant number of skills from all classes, geared your heroes...yeah, you can then go back to places that you have already beaten, and play single player, if you wish. Wnat to try it on HM...well, you really need some solid heroes. It's certainly doable, but again, requires hundreds of hours of teamwork with real people to even get to these places and unlock all there is to unlock, to be able to go back and do it on your own.

Now, I started playing long before there were Heroes, so the game is certainly quite different. But even with newer players, I've had to offer to join them and let my heroes do the hard work in higher-end NM content.