necrosis wrote on Jan 12, 2012, 15:33:
Ruffiana wrote on Jan 12, 2012, 14:16:But these are not MMO's. They have no solid need for constant internet access. Yes I know you need internet for multiplayer (duh) but why the hell do I need a constant internet connection (or even one at launch) for a single player/the single player portion of a game?
nin wrote on Jan 12, 2012, 14:12:
Rob wrote on Jan 12, 2012, 14:06:
And what happens when those servers go down?
Remember people not being able to play Spore? Or Assasin's Creed? Or Bionic Commando Rearmed?
And we've come full circle! Everyone back to the "Diablo III in February" thread!
It will function exactly as MMOs have for 2 decades now. Occasional outage, miniscule inconvenience, thunderous fist-shaking, and then people will get back to their digital crack a few minutes later.
More OT, this is an insult to the term "witch hunt". Unlike piracy, witches aren't real. And the standard test for determining whether ot not someone has illegally distributed copyrighted material is not 'toss them in a body of water and see if they fail to drown'.
Also it is like the witch hunts of a time long past. They are searching for people and prosecuting them for something they have little (if any) solid proof of.
It's a semantics arguement. A great deal of the time, MMOs are played exactly like single player games. ArenaNet took the Diablo II battlenet model, made one minor tweak to it, and launched a genuine MMO game.
Just because something isn't required for every aspect of a game does not mean it will fail. Requiring a persistent online connection for gameplay is what MMOs have been doing for a long time. It's when single-player developers jump blindly into this structure that things go tit's up. But Blizzard has a ton of experience with it and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they can provide a smooth, stable online experience for Diablo III.
Don't like it, then don't buy it. The market will undoubtedly be there without you.