lurkerator wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 20:02:
I usually lurk, but this is just too much.Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:23:
The only strawmen in this discussion are the pitiful ones you are building to avoid addressing the obvious point: there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.
...to a game designed and balanced to be played in connection with others? Hmm.
It's clearly not an MMO-game, and they've stated several times that the game can be played solo.
How does forcing connectivity help me if I can't play online, in a place with bad (or no) Internet connection?
This all especially if I don't want to play with other people, but I still want to play the game solo, and without using any fancy auction houses or whatever. I want to beat the game alone, and where I do that should not matter.
Also, no "offline" LAN play? That's wrong as well. If someone wants to play in a LAN with friends and the above mentioned problems arise, they can't play. For no good reason.
Sepharo wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 19:22:Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:
I know your reasons, and those of others here, but I don't know why they are your reasons. I don't know why it's so desperately important that the (technologically mandated) 'tradition' of pure unconnected single-player be continued. I don't see how the game would be improved as a result.
You don't understand that a game that can be played both offline and online is an improvement over a game that forces you to always be online?
Of course this is an improvement though, nobody plays games without an internet connection, and nobody would ever want to play a Diablo game by themselves.
Bhruic wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:31:
Now, Blizzard can just say "fuck you" to those people, which they've done, and that's fine, it's their business, and they are welcome to ignore whomever they wish. But apologists like you coming in here and acting as if we don't even have the right to be upset about it, on the other hand, is not kosher. You're like the idiot coming in to a thread to say that a game works fine for him, so anyone complaining about bugs is wrong.
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:15:
Shared what? So any single player game that has a walk through on a forum thread or faq for example is not truly a single player game? Is that actually what you just tried to say? Are you fucking kidding me?
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:08:Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 04:58:So, my play is handicapped if I don't spend money buying items from other players? Great balancing! *ugh*
1. D3 is balanced around being connected. Specifically, loot drops are balanced around being able to trade on the AH. It is part of the design of the game in a way that was not true of D1 and 2. You can play through it entirely solo if you want, in the same way many games allow you to deliberately handicap yourself, but explicit support for that option would give a misleading impression.
2. Pure offline support is extra work - extra work that creates a clunkier user experience. Offline progress that can't go online. Online characters that have to be duplicated and made permanently offline if played offline once. Locally saved progress. Confirmation boxes saying "Yes, I'm sure I want to sit here, connected to the internet, leveling a character that can't trade or play with anyone else because I find the enforced option of being able to trade or play with others unaccountably offensive." It all adds up.So much work that they already did it years ago. Even if it was a lot of work, which it isn't, Blizzard has the money.
4. It's useful, as someone already pointed out, for Blizzard to be able to track their players' activities in order to refine future products. In general, I'm not a fan of being tracked. In this case, I don't have a problem with it because better games from Blizzard are something I'm already interested in.Ah, finally some truth. Not anything any customer wants, but a truth.
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 11:53:Pure offline support is extra work - extra work that creates a clunkier user experience. Offline progress that can't go online. Online characters that have to be duplicated and made permanently offline if played offline once. Locally saved progress. Confirmation boxes saying "Yes, I'm sure I want to sit here, connected to the internet, leveling a character that can'ttrade or play with anyone else because I findthe enforced option ofbeingable totrade or play with others unaccountablyoffensive."It all adds up.
I'm almost insulted at how stupid developers must think gamers must be to believe a load of crap like that quoted above. So we are actually supposed to believe that the Blizzard of 15 years ago, with fewer resources, fewer developers, less available technology, and WAY less money could pull off something that modern day Blizzard can't? It absolutely boggles the mind.
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 08:27:I said that pure single player experiences are no longer the core of big budget gaming.
I actually almost choked on my bagel (onion...mmmm!) when I read this. Do I really need to point out that Deus Ex and Skyrim had no MP and were critical and commercial successes by any metric?
If you want to make MP-only games, that's your business. But let's not distort the facts to make you and your company's decision seem more valid. And if you are making said decisions based on such laughably erroneous assumptions, that's not a good thing.
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 18:14:
Diablo 2 had options for 3DFX Glide FYI.
Incidentally not every game needs MP to be successful, look at Skyrim, the recent fallout games, Dragon Age: Origins, Deus Ex HR just to name a few. You've rambled on paragraph after paragraph but have still managed to not name one good reason D3 should require a forced always on connection to play solo.
So is that the new mantra? PC Gaming is dying will be replace by PC Single player games are dying? Sorry, still not convinced.
Prez wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 17:56:
No disrespect Peeling, but in light of that... unflatterring name (or is it not supposed to sound like an amalgam of "peon" and "underling "?) , your walls of text defending (badly) an unpopular and controversial move, and your developer status as indicated by your name highlighted in green, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you're a low-level employee at Blizzard who has been given the unenviable task of defending this garbage by your benevalent overlords. The "clubbing all detractors over the head with novel-length banal posts that say nothing" seems to be your tactic of choice.
You don't have to asnwer; just nod your head if I'm right.
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 11:50:It's not unreasonable to envision people wanting a lot of things.
Yes, it's mind-boggling that loyal fans of the Diablo franchise would expect a feature such as SP offline mode when it was included in both Diablo and Diablo 2. Oh, the humanity!
For every person you make happy, you'll make another miserable because they chose the wrong option on creation and find they can't drop their established character into a friend's game, or sell that fantastic Barbarian loot their Monk picked up on the AH.
Right, because this was a huge issue with Diablo and Diablo 2?
Sorry "Peeling", still waiting for a legit reason for this legacy feature to be dropped.
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 11:30:This is not a new phenomenon. If I want to play a game on the XBox, I have to use a controller, even though playing a FPS with one feels like driving a forklift after a bottle of tequila. I'm not allowed to use a mouse and keyboard.
Thanks for this, it actually proves our point. Consoles have ALWAYS used a controller regardless of the type of game being played on that console. They haven't made console folks move to the keyboard and mouse layout because controllers are an INHERENT part of consoles.
LIKEWISE, the Diablo franchise has always provided a true offline SP mode.
Because people have been playing SP mode games now for decades they generally understand that the character can't be transferred to the online experience. You know what, THEY DON'T CARE, that's WHY they went the SP route to begin with! For some reason D2 thrived with this idealogy, amazing.
Neither is requiring a connection
Still waiting for a VALID reason for requiring this connection for a game that has always provided a pure offline SP mode.
Verno wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 10:23:Peeling wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 10:13:
But it's not single player, any more than wandering off into a deserted part of WoW makes it 'single player'.
I'd call that a bit disingenuous. Most people think of story advancement as single player content and historically the series has offered that functionality. The expectation isn't without reasonable foundation.
Ok, let's add such a token. Now all your progress while that token is set has to be lost when you go back online, because Blizzard can't possibly trust it. You end up with some ugly online/offline separation where you end up having to play the game twice if you make the wrong choice to begin with.
I think there's a reasonable solution in the middle other than dropping you to the lobby and losing progress.
If I'm going to have all of the potential pitfalls of an MMO title then I'd expect a more advanced feature set. To use your example, I don't lose progress in most MMOs when the connection is dropped. It might interrupt my gameplay but at least I can pick up where I left off.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for such things, this take it or leave it approach isn't really conducive to discussion.
Laptops now outnumber desktops and mobile computer usage is on a vast upswing. I don't think it's totally unreasonable to envision someone wanting to play Diablo 3 without an internet connection.
Verno wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 09:58:I think some people are getting hung up on the generic 'single player therefore should be offline' angle. Diablo 3 isn't a 'single player game'. It's a game you can play single player, AND take the character you build and jump into games with your friends AND trade the items you find, and to have THAT kind of game you need to be continuously connected.
I don't understand how your example applies, the mouse and keyboard are not standard input peripherals for that platform. That's also hardware functionality and a whole different ballgame IMO. The consumer does have an expectation of separated functionality based on both history of this series and others. You present bringing a character online as some sort of new feature but that sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
As for "single player should be offline", I don't think most people are necessarily hung up on that as they are that going offline should not harm the singleplayer experience. Even if they are, maybe they're hung up on "single player should have the option of going offline" which isn't exactly an unreasonable expectation.
Why not offer functionality that would let people set an offline token in case they need to travel or get temporarily disconnected? That's certainly more helpful than "you can bring your toon online and talk to friends". There are other considerations like security but again these are issues Blizzard has previously dealt with already. I see what they're getting from a design perspective but it seems to me that consumers potentially eat a lot of crap with this and don't get much in return.
nin wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 09:45:I think some people are getting hung up on the generic 'single player therefore should be offline' angle.
Wow, imagine that.
Verno wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 09:22:Peeling wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 09:10:Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 22:01:It is a pretty sad day in PC gaming when people need to defend their right to play a singleplayer game offline.
This.
No, this.
Yeah no, snobbyinsidejoke.jpg, sorry.
Every industry member thinks of the consumer as PA sees them and every consumer thinks of the industry as Yahtzee sees them. Neither is right. Starcraft 2 sold well but it wasn't exactly a Call of Duty success story. It's an industry filled to the brim with other games to purchase, no one is special anymore.
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 22:01:It is a pretty sad day in PC gaming when people need to defend their right to play a singleplayer game offline.
This.
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 6, 2012, 00:10:nin wrote on Jan 5, 2012, 23:04:
If that were the case nin their high settings wouldn't look like ass as well.
That would be your opinion, and not based in fact.
It's fact imo, SC2 looked like a shiny SC1 with obviously better textures. D3 looks to be about the same. I'm sorry but graphically Blizzard titles just aren't impressive and never have been.
GrenadesNHam wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 19:34:
The current design involves minimal client side calculations. From my knowledge, Blizzard servers control much of what happens to prevent exploiting and cheats and protection of the economy (which I hope this time is meaningful and intact, (less of the rune/soj market bs.)
Things like monster spawn and movement, loot drops, toon position checking, and more are communicated to you from the serv, not done by your machine.