Peeeling wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 16:50:

Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 12:16:

And mouse/keyboard controls were until then an INHERENT part of FPS games

.

ON A PC. Has THAT been taken away? NO.

Console exclusives? Yes.

So... we should keep doing things the way they've always been done because it was popular at the time - a time at which the 'new' way of doing things wouldn't have been remotely practical. I see.

Are you actually saying SP games are not popular NOW?

Number 1 on the Steam Top 10 - The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Certainly pure single player experiences are no longer the core territory of (big budget) gaming, but that wasn't what I said, no. I said (or rather implied) that invoking tradition for its own sake is a poor argument.

And I repeat, the Diablo fan base that has been playing Diablo for years and years and have used the SP offline OPTION, don't care about "online", what is it that your missing about this?

I'm missing the bit where you were appointed spokesman for all Diablo fans, including me. I get it: you don't care about the 'connected' part of D3's integrated single/multiplayer whole. And if the requirement to be online were an onerous one, I'd take your side. As I keep trying to help you see, this is not a black and white, single/multiplayer issue. All the factors involved lie on a continuum.

Look, we've been through all this once before with graphics cards. To begin with, support for them was patchy and nobody would think of shipping without a software renderer. Now they're a requirement. The interesting period between is analogous to where we are now with connectivity. It's not yet an absolute given that you will have an internet connection 100% of the time, but it's getting close enough that some companies are starting to design around the assumption of connectivity.

Factors lying on a continuum? The extra effort required to balance the game around purely single player ( the auction house effectively reduces the grind time for items by 1/(number of classes) ). The difficulty of actually staying connected to the servers. The attitude of gamers towards separation of online and offline progress, and towards entirely solo gaming in general, and so on. Things change, and the right decision changes with them. We are, as I said, in the interesting bit between, where not everyone agrees with the new decisions but the momentum is only going one way.

Diablo 1 and 2 had pure offline modes. They also had software renderers and did not, I think, support graphics cards. All these decisions made perfect sense - in context. Clearly Blizzard feels times have moved on to the point where their new decision makes sense.

Think about a few years down the line, when the expansion set comes out. If Blizzard support pure single player now, they have to continue to support it then, or else everyone with a high-level offline D3 character will need to start again. Where will we be, connectivity-wise, in the next few years? How obsolete will a pure offline mode be then?

Right now, I can agree that the decision is controversial - I can hardly dispute that. But that's not the same as thinking it's wrong. Nothing you're saying suggests that requiring a constant connection is going to actually make it difficult for you to play. You seem to be objecting on principle, a principle based on a 'tradition' unquestionably shaped more by the technical realities of the time than actual merit.

I can't give you one

Of course you can't, because there IS NO REASON for it.

Thanks for playing though, good times.

Damn; if I'd known the aim of the game was to quote-mine and declare victory, I'd have beaten you to it

PS: Sorry about the change of name; I don't have access to the email where my password was sent from this computer. And no, I am not blind to the irony of that.