bit-gamer.net

Blizzard surprised by Diablo 3 DRM reaction

Blizzard surprised by Diablo 3 DRM reaction

Blizzard has said that piracy was not a deciding factor in designing Diablo 3's online features.

Blizzard has said it is 'surprised' by the reaction gamers have had to Diablo 3's always-online requirement, saying that this decision was made based on game features, rather than because of piracy fears.

Earlier this week Blizzard unveiled a number of new features for Diablo 3, including an auction house that operates on real money, a lack of mod support and an always-online requirement to play the game at all.

'We've been doing online gameplay for 15 years now... and with World of Warcraft and our roots in Battle.net and now with Diablo 3, it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry.' said Blizzard's Robert Bridenbecker in an interview with MTV.

'I'm a huge purveyor of online sites and from my standpoint, I don't look at DRM solutions and go, 'Wow, those are awesome.' I look at those and say, 'Wow, those kind of suck.' But if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome.'

'Your character will be stored on a server, but it doesn't mean you have to socialise with people,' continued Briderbecker. 'It doesn't mean you have to do anything but play the game by yourself. You'll still be able to have a private game. You'll still be able to go off and play the game solo and adventure solo. You can opt to bring other people to your world if you want, but that's up to you.'

Check out the latest Diablo 3 video below, then let us know your thoughts in the forums.

105 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Phalanx 5th August 2011, 12:02 Quote
Stop saying Blizzard. Blizzard wouldn't use this stupid DRM in the first place. Activision-Blizzard however, would.

And really? They're surprised? My god, how screwed up must they be. Did they recently hire Ubisoft ex-workers or something?

And if it was for features, this could have been achieved just as well by using a Cloud-based syc system. It works brilliantly for businesses, so why do they think it's not good enough for gaming?
Whirly 5th August 2011, 12:16 Quote
Yeah and I'm surprised the government want me to pay my taxes every year. After all it's not that I'm primarily looking to keep more cash. By not paying my taxes I'm increasing my cashflow which will help the economy, so the government should welcome the move. Personally I'd be shocked if they thought I was wrong.

I remember in the last Apprentice, Alan Sugar called some guy the biggest bullsh***er in the world. Seems like he has some competition from Robert Bridenbecker. Marketers and politicians do love to obfuscate, don't they? One second he's saying
Quote:
"... if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."

Then he continues with this:
Quote:
"Your character will be stored on a server, but it doesn't mean you have to socialise with people"

So if you are not socializing with people, how does storing your character online "enhance gameplay" and when your connection is down and you can't play a game you've paid for, how does it not "suck"?

Diablo 3 was on my list of "must buys" but just like Assassins Creed 2 I won't be buying it after hearing that news. A lot of games publishers need to learn that punishing paying customers is a poor solution to copyright issues. Offering incentives to buy rather than copy is a far better way to go.
atlas 5th August 2011, 12:17 Quote
This reaction makes no sense no one is saying they are unhappy with the features that online connectivity brings all we are saying is we want and offline play mode!
Sensei 5th August 2011, 12:18 Quote
Fed up with developers and their stupid schemes. Yea, I reckon these muppets have gone and hired a load of ex ubi staff if they think the general public want always on DRM games.
Another game I wont bother buying.
Ending Credits 5th August 2011, 12:22 Quote
So essentially it's a multiplayer game... where you don't play with anyone else.
BigBenja 5th August 2011, 12:25 Quote
I dont see the big deal. Many millions of people are always online anyway.

Starcraft 2 requires an online connection to work and that game isn't doing too bad.
Phalanx 5th August 2011, 12:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBenja
I dont see the big deal. Many millions of people are always online anyway.

Starcraft 2 requires an online connection to work and that game isn't doing too bad.

Except of course when you want to play offline?

You're missing the point. It's not about how well a game does, it's about how badly you're limiting the user.
Cobalt 5th August 2011, 12:26 Quote
There are two possibilities that would allow them to be surprised by this:

1) They didn't look at the reaction to all other always-on DRM systems, in which case they are incompetent

2) They did know about this reaction but figured that because they are Blizzard they would get a free pass, in which case they are arrogant

Neither looks good
Centy-face 5th August 2011, 12:28 Quote
Quote:
"Your character will be stored on a server, but it doesn't mean you have to socialise with people"

While it's nice to have cloud saving for characters Torchlight manages to do that but without kicking you out of the game if your connection drops and allows you to play without being online.

This strikes me as a planned reaction to the always online DRM. They can claim their features and such but we all know it's a load of nonsense. It may not entirely be about Piracy but it's certainly about control. Control over the people who play the game and how they play it with the only concern really being how much money can we make from them.

Forcing people online means they will be exposed to the various ways Blizzard can make money from them.
Quote:
'I'm a huge purveyor of online sites and from my standpoint, I don't look at DRM solutions and go, 'Wow, those are awesome.' I look at those and say, 'Wow, those kind of suck.' But if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome.'

Connectivity does not translate to always online at all. Many games can have a coop option or a cloud saving facility or what ever. There is no need what so ever that people always be online.

I really hope that people ignore this game because what was left of old Blizzard is gone now and all they care about is new ways to exploit people for cash. Luckily there are a couple of good alternative games being made (Torchlight 2 & GrimDawn) that will likely be more worthy of being given cash not just because they are smaller devs but because they aren't making cash grabs they are making games.
Jqim 5th August 2011, 12:28 Quote
Why is no one happy about this? Diablo games where TONNES better when you played them with a friend. The fustration I had trying to play Diablo2 with a mate and realising you can only port your offline chars to 'open battlenet' which was code for "cheatZillah's cheat or get left behind" so we started chars on the legit battlenet servers which was great but you could not play them offine.

Flash to the present day, you CAN play your charicters offline all you have to do is have an internet connection, does not have to be mega fast or anything just enough to handshake with the server. You can play alone of with your friends or with randoms as much as you like.

Now for all of those who dont have a good internet connection START DEMANDING IT!

The solution to this little wussy fit you are all throwing is better internet for everyone!
CashMoney 5th August 2011, 12:39 Quote
" Now for all of those who dont have a good internet connection START DEMANDING IT! "

Demanding it from who? The hotel manager where I'm staying? The gov't of whatever country I might be in? The Army who deployed me to somewhere without internet? Perhaps the captain of the sub I'm on?

And what about if I'm at home, and my internet connection goes down during the night? Or my ISP has a temporary problem? Should I start demanding then? Ordinarily I would phone my ISP, report the issue and wait for the fix, perhaps passing the time with a little Diablo 3 ....
Phalanx 5th August 2011, 12:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
Flash to the present day, you CAN play your charicters offline all you have to do is have an internet connection

Re-read what you're saying. That's not offline!

What about if I want to play on my laptop at lunchtime and I'm at work? Or on a 6 hour flight? Or in a deadzone where I can't use a 3G dongle on my PC? Or in an environment where I am unable to handshake to the server? Or where the server is down for maintenance, or even HACKED (which at the moment, it seems everyone is)?

If I purchase a licence to play a game, I expect that game to work on MY principles, not the other way around.
TraumaticHug 5th August 2011, 12:42 Quote
Are people complaining about this because it is thought of as a Solo game?

I think that it has become a bit like Guild Wars tbh..


Guild Wars:
- You have to be online to play.
- But you don't have to actually play with anyone and can solo through the game*, (which is in your own instance so there are no other players.. basically single-player).
- You can interact with other players to play co-op, pvp or trade stuff.
- When you do, it is with the same character you played Solo with.
- Your character is held online.



*(well, provided you use henchmen)
Phalanx 5th August 2011, 12:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TraumaticHug
Are people complaining about this because it is thought of as a Solo game?

I think that it has become a bit like Guild Wars tbh..


Guild Wars:
- You have to be online to play.
- But you don't have to actually play with anyone and can solo through the game*, (which is in your own instance so there are no other players.. basically single-player).
- You can interact with other players to play co-op, pvp or trade stuff.
- When you do, it is with the same character you played Solo with.
- Your character is held online.



*(well, provided you use henchmen)

You're comparing an MMORPG to a RPG. Blizzard aren't making an MMORPG.
[USRF]Obiwan 5th August 2011, 12:44 Quote
So explain to me why my Character can't stay on my own hard-drive?
Does this mean that if my provider decides to kill my connection i can't play D3?
What if I install D3 on my laptop and go somewhere and there is no internet connection?
What if I live in a remote location where there is no infrastructure for internet connections?


Well it still is on my buy list. I only hope the smart hacking groups out there do a crack/patch so I do not need to be on internet to play the game where ever i am.
entigy 5th August 2011, 12:45 Quote
This game was on my 'to buy' list
It's not any more......
hyperion 5th August 2011, 12:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
you CAN play your charicters offline all you have to do is have an internet connection
LOL.

Anyway, I think some are over-reacting a little bit. Regardless of what blizzard wants, people are going to mod this game. I'd guess that one of those first mods will be a client that works offline, with private servers and other mods following closely.
Throbbi 5th August 2011, 12:49 Quote
No Diablo 3 for me then. I hate DRM, you're effectively renting a game instead of buying it.

It pisses me off, it really does, when developers simply ignore the players and do whatever they 'think' will be best. Ask any big Diablo 2 fan and i would bet that almost every single one would say that they want Diablo 2 with the new content and graphics and the hacked stuff blocked. Simples.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it and the only thing broken in Diablo 2 was the massive hacks/bots/cheatmods. Stop them, job done.
Throbbi 5th August 2011, 12:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
You're comparing an MMORPG to a RPG. Blizzard aren't making an MMORPG.

Gotta say i agree with him, it's becoming exactly like Guild Wars. All of those points are true for Diablo 3 now and, with Guild Wars taking a pay once/no subscription direction again, there is nothing which differentiates the two except central population hubs in Guild Wars which will still have tons of players roaming around (however this is not true of the questing areas as said).

I honestly can't see any difference between them.
mighty_pirate 5th August 2011, 13:03 Quote
I understand the system & potential benefits (though insignificant in my eyes); live background updates, store special offers, live DLC notification, etc.
But my laptop doesn't have wireless & even if it did, half the places I'd be trying to connect are locked down like crap, nothing like battle.net or Steam works. So I have no problem plugging a cable in every now & again at home to install/register/update a game. But I want to be able to play those games offline while I'm sitting in a hotel or airport or such.
Diablo is, to me, a predominantly single player game, that I might play mp once or twice a year at a LAN party.
Always online DRM won't completely stop me buying it, but it will bump it a fair way down my priority list, behind a number of other releases that I'll get better use out of.
Jqim 5th August 2011, 13:04 Quote
I am excited about Diablo 3, but then.
I have a good connection,
I take a walk and read a book at lunchtimes
I read or listen to music on trains.
If I have to play a game wilst im out and about its probly somthing like peggle or angry birds.
I completly see diablo 3 as a MMORPG minus the fist M
Jqim 5th August 2011, 13:05 Quote
Skyrim = RPG
Diablo 3 = Online hack and slash and Share loot
do_it_anyway 5th August 2011, 13:07 Quote
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I moved house. I had to wait a week for my internet to be connected. I played singleplayer.
I would NOT be able to play this at all. Therefore this sucks.

With intel and AMD releasing ever more efficient processors, with at least one eye on the laptop market, game developers HAVE to start thinking that people are heading towards portable gaming. And that means tht people will NOT have internet connections all the time.

If all we had were desktop PC's tied to the wall with cat5 cable it would be LESS of a problem. But this is simply not the case.
I'm afraid we are feeling more than just poorly ported graphics and textures from developers who think console. It now seems the "your gaming machine is tied to your telly" mentality is hitting these decisions too.
Did the developers even think about laptops when they decided this?

(PS. I hate laptops too; not as much as consoles, granted; but that is a subect for a different thread entirely)
Jqim 5th August 2011, 13:12 Quote
Gaming laptops? is there realy enough of a market to aim you buisness at this demographic?
Phalanx 5th August 2011, 13:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
Gaming laptops? is there realy enough of a market to aim you buisness at this demographic?

No. But you can't ignore it entirely either. You don't "aim" for it, but you don't purposely isolate them either.
do_it_anyway 5th August 2011, 13:15 Quote
Sales of desktops PC's are down.
Laptops are getting better and better.
Intel and AMD are going for power efficiency over speed when developing new chips.

Right now, no there isn't enough of a market. But if you are developing for the PC you ought to be thinking laptops as well, as that is where the immediate future lies. (IMHO)
do_it_anyway 5th August 2011, 13:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
Gaming laptops? is there realy enough of a market to aim you buisness at this demographic?

No. But you can't ignore it entirely either. You don't "aim" for it, but you don't purposely isolate them either.


+1

What he said. (And better than me!)
Throbbi 5th August 2011, 13:18 Quote
Torchlight even has a specific netbook mode for the graphics settings. Nothing like as demanding of course but it shows that some developers are sensible enough to not alienate large potential markets, clearly Acti-Blizz are not.
Jqim 5th August 2011, 13:19 Quote
ok im convinced. a 2 - 4 week 'check in and sync' should be avalable and would alow all the benefits
Steve @ CCL 5th August 2011, 13:22 Quote
Why not just do it like Diablo II, single player chars and multi player chars... Diablo I was offline chars that were loaded for online too which is why they were easily exploited. But having to be online? What if I fancy a blast on my laptop while on the road and don't have an internet connection.
dyzophoria 5th August 2011, 13:23 Quote
quite frankly im surprised they are surprised, of course im not "uh oh im not gonna but that game coz uh oh..", **** that reaction really, it sucks coz it has no offline mode but im gonna buy it, test it and play it, but honestly blizz, I like your idea of expanding outside of the box of giving people new things to explore with, but basically this is a not a good idea of not providing an offline mode for diablo, think of a better way to integrate the game to battle.net instead of completely devoiding the game of an offline mode, I maybe online 99% of the time. but what about the 1% im offline,lol, it happens, internet reliability is still not where its supposed to be quite yet
Roskoken 5th August 2011, 13:32 Quote
Honestly very surprised a company like Blizzard would force something like this. Always had a lot of respect for them, but its pretty criminal they are going to force you to have an internet connection to play it. And reason i think that is essentialy this.

After i pay rent, council tax, gas, electric, food, diesel and the odd pint at the weekend, im f***ing broke. I essentialy break even. For my internet i tether a cheap pay as you go phone for a tenner a month, it only supports HTTP traffic. I simply do not have the money to enter into some mad financial contract for a year. And if i wanna treat myself to one of the most anticipated games of recent times I F***ING WELL CANT.

Why Blizzard live in this magical fantasy world of orcs and elves where everyone[children] use there parents broadband to harvest eP1XXXXXLOLZ!!!!! i dont know.

Blizzard can pretty much go f**k themselves.
DarkFear 5th August 2011, 13:35 Quote
I find it rather odd that they thought always-online DRM wasn't going to be badly received. It's hurting my brain trying to figure out how anyone can even begin to think that it might be a good idea...

Surely a better way would be to let people make a online and offline character? You can still transfer items between the two, but check the items coming from the offline character against a list of 'approved' items. If it's not on the list, it's not coming in.

It also gives players who want to create ungodly powerfull items to mess around in the game offline, the chance to do so .

Obviously not the ideal way to do it, but it beats being online all the time.
trickster 5th August 2011, 13:38 Quote
I agree with the minority on here actually, I couldnt care less if its always online. Never had a single problem with any DRM with any games.

Then again, my life isnt so dependant on my ability to be able to play a computer game or not that I feel its ruining my life like some people seem to suggest.
Yes, I understand that not everyone has an always on or a reliable connection, if any connection at all, thats not good, but 5h1t happens and you deal with it.
I dont have cable in my town so i dont have the extra choice of virgin media stuff and super fast broadban, but I'll live, its not the end of the world! There are always alternatives.
If you're somewhere where you dont have internet access, play something else! There are millions of games out there! Hell, go out and get some fresh air (doesnt apply to you guys stuck on a submarine!) or find another hobby that doesn't wind you up so much.

Everyone these days seem to think everything that exists is a basic human right!
If you dont wanna buy the game for whatever reason, then dont, the game sales will be the only way to know if this works for Ac-Bliz or not.
Canon 5th August 2011, 13:41 Quote
Hands up who saw this coming? Havn't been looking forward to this for some time now.
Ola.l 5th August 2011, 14:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by trickster
[snip]Everyone these days seem to think everything that exists is a basic human right![/snip]
.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048 "Finland makes broadband a 'legal right'
";)

For me Diablo 2 was largely a singleplayer game.
I would saythat this change is for the better, although it would be even better if characters created on singleplayer would be stored offline only (and not able to ever go online) and that multiplayer characters would be stored online. To make the whole game dependant on a stable broadband connection makes it feel like it is a bad excuse to implement DRM and not a recipe for "awesome"-ness.
trickster 5th August 2011, 14:13 Quote
Ola.I
Yeah okay you got me there!
Doesn't mean it'll always work 100% of the time though i guess
Faunus 5th August 2011, 14:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
Gaming laptops? is there realy enough of a market to aim you buisness at this demographic?

No. But you can't ignore it entirely either. You don't "aim" for it, but you don't purposely isolate them either.


+1

What he said. (And better than me!)

If you are serious about gaming on a laptop, then surely you would also be serious enough to have some kind of mobile internet sorted out also. It's not like 3G or 4G is unobtainable in large parts of the World. To me, the "what if I want to play offline" argument is getting weaker all the time.

Seems like people are so used to whining about DRM, that it's just trendy to do so regardless of the facts.
Phalanx 5th August 2011, 15:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faunus
If you are serious about gaming on a laptop, then surely you would also be serious enough to have some kind of mobile internet sorted out also. It's not like 3G or 4G is unobtainable in large parts of the World. To me, the "what if I want to play offline" argument is getting weaker all the time.

Seems like people are so used to whining about DRM, that it's just trendy to do so regardless of the facts.

So if I'm a hardcore RPGer I am expected to keep a constant connection on my laptop to the rest of the world? Really?

I'm not serious about gaming on a laptop, but I am serious about being able to play my games on the move. As an IT consultant I don't often stay in one place for any length of time. A laptop could be the only bit of IT kit I see for weeks on end before I get back home.

Expecting someone to hold a line open whenever their laptop is on is a step too far.
runbmp 5th August 2011, 15:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faunus
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
Gaming laptops? is there realy enough of a market to aim you buisness at this demographic?

No. But you can't ignore it entirely either. You don't "aim" for it, but you don't purposely isolate them either.


+1

What he said. (And better than me!)

If you are serious about gaming on a laptop, then surely you would also be serious enough to have some kind of mobile internet sorted out also. It's not like 3G or 4G is unobtainable in large parts of the World. To me, the "what if I want to play offline" argument is getting weaker all the time.

Seems like people are so used to whining about DRM, that it's just trendy to do so regardless of the facts.

PC gamers are just used to going back to old games they loved, heck I've fired up Grim Fandango this year... Being dependent on a 3rd party server has long term consequences which everyone seems to ignore.

I mean, servers go down eventually. Its not to say Actishit - Blizzard will have the server running for another 20yrs but it would be nice to know I have my character on a back up HD.

Its a shame blizzard has lost some of its traditional values it once had. However on the other end, it leaves room for new developers to rise up and get noticed. I think Torchlight and Guild Wars 2 are looking much better now. Sadly for me, this is my first blizzard title I'll be passing up on.
Phalanx 5th August 2011, 15:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbmp
...Torchlight...

Absolutely! I can't wait for the sequel!

And this will be the second Blizzard game I've missed now. Sad times.
Denis_iii 5th August 2011, 15:28 Quote
Dear Blizzard, the problem is that I would like the option to play Diablo 3 when I don't have an internet connection such as when traveling or when the internet is down or when I can't afford internet access etc etc etc etc but that is quite alright evil Activision I'm sure the community will provide a crack to allow playing without internet access.
Why can't they just make it like SC2?
And why no mods?
And I heard that the auction house will charge to list an items, then will sold will take a percentage of the sale price and charge again for the sale transaction?

I will still buy Diablo 3 but this is very disappointing especially from Blizzard of all companies...suppose I can just play SC2 or Torchlight when no internet access.
Evildead666 5th August 2011, 15:35 Quote
I will *never* buy any game which requires a continuous Internet connection to play offline.

I own Trackmania United, which is more fun online than not, but this seems to be an exception to the rule in my books.

Whats worse, is that the Offline version of the game will probably be hacked and uploaded somewhere, so those who don't buy it will be able to play through the offline without probs.
The only people they are shafting, are their own customers.

We do not want to be in a world where we are 24/7 online. Offline games should stay offline, anyone requiring a full time internet connection for an offline game needs to explain himself better than this guy.

Why not give the user the choice at the creation of the character ?
"Would you like to use this character in online play ? Yes/No"
"btw, in the case of yes, you will need to be connected all the time you play the game."
For the rest of us, we then have the choice of playing offline, having been fully warned.

I believe they have another reason for being online in all cases.
Statistics and information gathering among them.
-=ByteMan=- 5th August 2011, 15:52 Quote
Ive been looking forward to this game for ages, I only have 3G/HSPDA mobile internet access. Why force an always online connection requirement a single player game WTF?. Im very disappointed
AstralWanderer 5th August 2011, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
Now for all of those who dont have a good internet connection START DEMANDING IT!

The solution to this little wussy fit you are all throwing is better internet for everyone!
Clearly the problems gamers had with Ubisoft's similar system has passed you by.

It isn't just an Internet connection that's needed, a running server at Activision/Blizzard's end has to be there (so if they don't provide enough bandwidth, don't admin the server properly or get hacked, then people can't play) and a valid account (which means having to suck up to every provision in Blizzard's EULA or risk having your account and game disabled).

However if the idea of paying to be subject to the whims and fits of an arrogant and uncaring overlord appeals to you, then Diablo 3 will almost certainly be cheaper than the more traditional means of sating such desires, and has less risk of chafing, bruising or other injuries too.
ZERO <ibis> 5th August 2011, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirly
Yeah and I'm surprised the government want me to pay my taxes every year. After all it's not that I'm primarily looking to keep more cash. By not paying my taxes I'm increasing my cashflow which will help the economy, so the government should welcome the move. Personally I'd be shocked if they thought I was wrong.

I remember in the last Apprentice, Alan Sugar called some guy the biggest bullsh***er in the world. Seems like he has some competition from Robert Bridenbecker. Marketers and politicians do love to obfuscate, don't they? One second he's saying
Quote:
"... if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."

Then he continues with this:
Quote:
"Your character will be stored on a server, but it doesn't mean you have to socialise with people"

So if you are not socializing with people, how does storing your character online "enhance gameplay" and when your connection is down and you can't play a game you've paid for, how does it not "suck"?

Diablo 3 was on my list of "must buys" but just like Assassins Creed 2 I won't be buying it after hearing that news. A lot of games publishers need to learn that punishing paying customers is a poor solution to copyright issues. Offering incentives to buy rather than copy is a far better way to go.

B/c when your hdd fails you do not lose your character? Although if there server fails you do... unfortunately you have more control over your own drive than their server so there is nothing you can do when they have it to better protect your data.
Jqim 5th August 2011, 16:21 Quote
for me this is like saying 'what if i want to play world of warcraft offline?'
You dont, its not how the game is designed.

If you realy tihnk that this is an invasion of civil liberties I sugest you find a new hobby and good luck finding one that dosent have its own rules and oppressors.
Jqim 5th August 2011, 16:26 Quote
Also, if this game gathers 'enough' people it will probably go free to play and make money off the auction house and other sutch stuff.

Would you still be bending over then?

This will go free to play in time mark my words. (of course this would not be a good idea for blizzar/activision to tell everyone right now)
Phalanx 5th August 2011, 16:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
for me this is like saying 'what if i want to play world of warcraft offline?'
You dont, its not how the game is designed.

Except this one WAS designed for singleplayer.
Quote:
If you realy tihnk that this is an invasion of civil liberties I sugest you find a new hobby and good luck finding one that dosent have its own rules and oppressors.

Civil liberties? OK, I think you're going slightly OTT here. Noone said anything about civil liberties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
Also, if this game gathers 'enough' people it will probably go free to play and make money off the auction house and other sutch stuff.

I doubt that VERY much. They would have done it with SC2 otherwise. This will go the same way. No sales, same price years after release, etc.
Quote:
Would you still be bending over then?

No, because I'm not paying MY MONEY to have it, so I expect less from it.
Quote:
This will go free to play in time mark my words. (of course this would not be a good idea for blizzar/activision to tell everyone right now)

I'll mark your words, sure. However This IS ActiBlizz. I doubt they will give anything for free. Christ, I imagine they'd charge to piss on you if you were on fire, then call it the "Elite" option! ;)
Throbbi 5th August 2011, 16:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
for me this is like saying 'what if i want to play world of warcraft offline?'
You dont, its not how the game is designed.

No, it isn't. World Of Warcraft is specifically designed to be played online. You also pay a subscription which is, in effect, a licence fee to provide you with access to their servers in order to play the game.

Diablo 3 is not an online game. Yes, is has online modes and multiplayer etc. etc., but ultimately it's a single player hack and slash dungeon crawler which has absolutely no need to be permanently hooked to a net connection.

If there was any truth to your statement then surely the whole marketing model for Diablo 3 should be changed to be subscription based. To be honest i would prefer it that way if DRM is involved because it at least gives it a point, no pay - no play. That, however, would never work since a game such as Diablo will never have anything like the amount of content required to substantiate a subscription business model.

As it is, Diablo 3 is a straight up PC game. You'll be able to walk into a shop and buy it in a box from the shelf. Therefore you are purchasing something which belongs to you. I, personally, don't give two shits what any 'needs a connection' blurb bullcrap says on the back, if i've paid for it then i want access to it whenever and however i ****ing well want. Period.
Jqim 5th August 2011, 16:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jqim
Also, if this game gathers 'enough' people it will probably go free to play and make money off the auction house and other sutch stuff.

I doubt that VERY much. They would have done it with SC2 otherwise. This will go the same way. No sales, same price years after release, etc.

I think it will go free to play because its a game centered around loot and the urge to have better things. Acti/bliz could offer those things or in a creative way offere services like the auction house.

I think some one in accounts said 'WoW makes loads of money, make this more like wow'

If you let 100 people play for free and 10 of them spend £4 a month on micro-transactions then that still makes money.
Jqim 5th August 2011, 16:59 Quote
The real money is in getting you where they want you so they can see your playing habits and motivations and pander to them.
fatty beef 5th August 2011, 17:44 Quote
I was unimpressed with Star Craft II, Though you could play it "offline" you didn't get achievements and what not. There was an option though.

Storing characters online not only lets them control the hacks but maybe (100% speculation) gives them rights in their ULA to data-mine your character for items used, picked up, skills used, not used, % of people playing by themselves, % of people who play with strangers, blah blah blah. Which can be used for balancing and making the game better and also used as a marketing tool based on region, age or whatever else you have loaded in your Blizzard profile. They will be able to do a lot of powerful stuff at a insignificant cost to them which is kind of a big deal.

I do however think it is kind of silly to make a "single player" game limited to online only. It'll probably still end up being fun.

Anyways, with Dues Ex, SkyRim, the Old Republic, Arkham City, Torchlight II, ect... You could just wait until its 29.99 sometime next summer and buy it then. There is enough stuff IMO to justify not purchasing this on release day.
thehippoz 5th August 2011, 17:45 Quote
don't care, not buying.. waiting for guildwars 2 but they're taking their sweet time
KayinBlack 5th August 2011, 18:10 Quote
Blizzard's not surprised?

Then they shouldn't be surprised I instead preordered Rise of Isengard and reupped my sub to LOTRO, which will function well even on minimal connections.

If I wanted a new MMO, I'd look for one. Diablo should be offline, single player capable (like the last two) or I'm not interested. Constant online in an MMO is acceptable to me, it makes sense in context of the program. In Diablo, it just doesn't.

I already own Torchlight, and am eagerly awaiting Torchlight 2. There's a response for you, Blizzard. Play a different game? Sure, I'll play one of your competitors. Exclusively.
Throbbi 5th August 2011, 18:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by KayinBlack
Blizzard's not surprised?

Then they shouldn't be surprised I instead preordered Rise of Isengard and reupped my sub to LOTRO, which will function well even on minimal connections.

If I wanted a new MMO, I'd look for one. Diablo should be offline, single player capable (like the last two) or I'm not interested. Constant online in an MMO is acceptable to me, it makes sense in context of the program. In Diablo, it just doesn't.

I already own Torchlight, and am eagerly awaiting Torchlight 2. There's a response for you, Blizzard. Play a different game? Sure, I'll play one of your competitors. Exclusively.

No one can resist the chance to slap a hobbit
salarus 5th August 2011, 19:21 Quote
I am getting increasingly disgusted by the nonsense I hear from game companies, they must think us all iditos not to see through their veiled attempts at quelling outrage over obvious intrusion into purchased products. Apparently we should all just be content with the fact that some of us won't have the ability to play our purchased products when we might want to due to circumstances outside of control.

Here's one for you Blizzard, Go To Hell.
jimmyjj 5th August 2011, 20:37 Quote
On the strength of the video linked to this news post it looks crap. Graphics remind me of Warcraft 3.
XXAOSICXX 5th August 2011, 20:38 Quote
'But if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome.'

Maybe it's just me....but I missed the "compelling reason" altogether....as far as I can see there isn't a single benefit to the consumer of always-online DRM.

All this has done is given me a compelling reason not to further feed the Activillain-Blizzard money-machine.
brave758 5th August 2011, 21:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlas
This reaction makes no sense no one is saying they are unhappy with the features that online connectivity brings all we are saying is we want and offline play mode!

This. When i travel i want to be able to play where ever when ever
XXAOSICXX 5th August 2011, 21:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by brave758
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlas
This reaction makes no sense no one is saying they are unhappy with the features that online connectivity brings all we are saying is we want and offline play mode!

This. When i travel i want to be able to play where ever when ever

Exactly. It literally makes no sense that some people are arguing the case FOR always-online DRM, or giving the usual "I don't see what the big deal is" response.

To those people who DO think that it's no big deal, consider:

1) So you're always online. Your internet connection is stable. You never travel on business. You're never deployed overseas. You never move house. Your ISP is totally reliable. Awesome. You're lucky. You're cool with the "always online" idea, that's great! You don't lose anything by this always-online DRM. You don't gain anything either, but hey, who cares!

or

2) You're not *always* online, even though you'd love to be. Your internet connection isn't that stable. Maybe sometimes you travel on business. Maybe you're in the forces and are deployed overseas. Maybe you've just moved house and can't get a connection for a few days or week. Maybe your ISP is a bit crap but you're locked into a contract for another few months. Not so awesome. You're actually not that bothered about DRM most of the time - it's really no big deal - and you understand the need for a publisher to protect it's product. Unfortunately, this always-online DRM means you can't play the game you bought whenever you want to - like you did when you first played Diablo 1 and 2. You also don't gain anything from the DRM, but it doesn't matter - cos you won't be buying the game.

Most people fit into one of the above two categories.

Category 1 stands to gain nothing and lose nothing.
Category 2 stands to gain nothing and lose something.

Are all those people in Category 1 so selfish as to completely dis-count the needs of those in Category 2? Why be so quick to encourage (and even contribute financially towards) something which brings no benefit to EITHER category of people?

Always-online DRM has NO benefits to the consumer - regardless of your need. If the Government introduced a tax that said "we're going to tax you for every website you visit", and you only ever visited bit-tech.net would you say "well, it's fine, I only look at one website - it doesn't affect me"? Or would you think "it doesn't really affect me, but, ****, it affects a ton of other people I know - that's not cool!"

Think about it.
brn_gomes 5th August 2011, 21:25 Quote
Okay, so imagine I was Warner Brothers, and from now on, because we simply assume that most people have internet, all of a sudden I require a person who buys a DVD video, to register online, sign in every time... And unless he does so, he won't be able to see the movie he paid for, while someone who just pirated or downloaded the damn movie is hassle free... That's stupid... Or let's imagine something even worst... I buy a Windows Operating System, and because Microsoft simply assumes I will be online all the time, I'm only able to use my computer at all if i am connected and logged in... Yes Microsoft might say... but unless you're connected you won't be able to update or windows or whatever... Yeah, but at least all be able to work! Or see my movie, or play the damn game! Screw you blizzard.
hyperion 5th August 2011, 21:46 Quote
There are other games to play.
Quote:
Think about it.
;)
XXAOSICXX 5th August 2011, 22:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperion
There are other games to play.
Quote:
Think about it.
;)

Which is exactly what I'll be doing - playing (and buying) a different game. It doesn't make it right, though, does it?
hyperion 5th August 2011, 22:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Which is exactly what I'll be doing - playing (and buying) a different game. It doesn't make it right, though, does it?

There's no right and wrong. It's Blizzard's game, not yours or mine. Do musicians listen to what their fans want for their next album or just release the album they want to release? Being a mega-rich corporation doesn't automatically deprive them of their artistic entitlements (if you can call anything blizzard has ever released "artistic").

If anything is bad, it's that Blizzard has earned the reputation of a company which bends over for the whining kids on their message boards; so much so that their customers have come to believe that they're entitled to their demands and Blizzard is obligated to comply.

Now excuse me while I go and throw up because with this post I'm practically sticking up for that shitty company.
XXAOSICXX 5th August 2011, 23:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperion
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Which is exactly what I'll be doing - playing (and buying) a different game. It doesn't make it right, though, does it?

There's no right and wrong. It's Blizzard's game, not yours or mine. Do musicians listen to what their fans want for their next album or just release the album they want to release? Being a mega-rich corporation doesn't automatically deprive them of their artistic entitlements (if you can call anything blizzard has ever released "artistic").

If anything is bad, it's that Blizzard has earned the reputation of a company which bends over for the whining kids on their message boards; so much so that their customers have come to believe that they're entitled to their demands and Blizzard is obligated to comply.

Now excuse me while I go and throw up because with this post I'm practically sticking up for that shitty company.

I completely agree. It's their product - they can (and of course will) do whatever they want with it. What's really grating against me is not the decision to include the DRM - it's the willingness of people to blindly accept without question the nonsense that Activision-Blizzard and the other publishers put out there and THEN defend it against all logical and rational arguments to the contrary.

I'm going to head off to the Grim Dawn forums now where the developers actually respect their fan-base.
Sloth 5th August 2011, 23:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX

Category 1 stands to gain nothing and lose nothing.
Category 2 stands to gain nothing and lose something.
+1. I'm in category 1 but am not an always online fan for the simple reason that there are category 2 people out there.


Just shame, too. As others have said, if the purpose is entirely for gameplay (and I believe they're truthful is saying it's a big reason, though no the only one) why not have an offline only option? There are alternatives, the only obvious reason not to implement them is to have a restrictive DRM system and kill two birds with one stone.
Yslen 6th August 2011, 00:20 Quote
Come on, seriously, who doesn't have a full time internet connection these days? Stop complaining. It's a small price to pay for what you're getting in return - an online community where people won't be able to cheat and hack. Diablo II sucked online, remember?
XXAOSICXX 6th August 2011, 00:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Come on, seriously, who doesn't have a full time internet connection these days? Stop complaining. It's a small price to pay for what you're getting in return - an online community where people won't be able to cheat and hack. Diablo II sucked online, remember?

You're an actual moron.

You can HAVE an online community and servers where people won't be able to cheat and hack WITHOUT requiring *every single player* to be connected to their servers at all times.

How about letting us have offline single player chars stored locally for single player games that can't connect to the official servers, and then - if you want multiplayer, through their servers - you're required to have a constant connection?

There are more people without the full-time internet connection in the world than you think. If you'd been paying attention to the posts above, and on the forums, you'd know this.
KayinBlack 6th August 2011, 00:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Come on, seriously, who doesn't have a full time internet connection these days? Stop complaining. It's a small price to pay for what you're getting in return - an online community where people won't be able to cheat and hack. Diablo II sucked online, remember?

I don't. I spend my time with my wife traveling back and forth to Children's Hospital for my sick son. Imagine how much time I spend without one but with a machine I might want to play games on. My portable machine weighs less than my monitor, so it comes to the hospital with us.

Not to mention when I have heart surgery, I'll be unplugged for a bit, but I can be propped up to play games.

Let's not talk about our servicemen and women overseas with shoddy or no connections. There's LOTS of people that have itermittent or nonexistent net, and yet still enjoy games. Blizzard just said get bent. So did I.
AstralWanderer 6th August 2011, 00:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Come on, seriously, who doesn't have a full time internet connection these days?...
Yet Another. Who Doesn't. Get It.

Seriously, at least read threads before jumping in - access to the Internet is not the problem (for most), constant access to a working account on Blizzard's server is. Plenty of posts mentioning this above...
Jqim 6th August 2011, 00:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Diablo II sucked online, remember?

i remeber
brave758 6th August 2011, 00:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Come on, seriously, who doesn't have a full time internet connection these days?

Umm me for one
west 6th August 2011, 04:37 Quote
Not a big deal. I will be pirating it ether way to bypass this stupid online-only thing. I may even buy the game if I think its fun enough to support with my moneys (but will be playing offline on my cracked version).
Hooray DRM - screw the people who don't know how to torrent and make sure everyone else is stealing it.
Gotta love corporations.
XXAOSICXX 6th August 2011, 10:54 Quote
Torchlight 2: "Play with your friends over the internet for free. No subscriptions, no item sales. And, our new matchmaking peer-to-peer service lets you find friends, start and join games for exciting co-op play. Of course, you can play single-player offline as well."

Perfect. Buh-bye!
Yottos 6th August 2011, 15:45 Quote
My problem with this is that I am active-duty Navy. I can't exactly connect on-line while I'm on a 6-10 month deployment out to sea. I want to play the game regardless of my location. I don't want to buy a game which requires me to find an open wi-fi connection 1/4 of the time I want to play. I just don't see enough positives with this. Especially when I have to pay $59.99 for the product...
Gurgulio 6th August 2011, 18:13 Quote
To be honest, whatever happens with Diablo 3, just because it's the Diablo 2 sequel, I'm making sure I buy it. I just hope the PC gaming community may overcome silly things such as this...
knuck 6th August 2011, 19:19 Quote
Torchlight devs using the DICE card ?
Yslen 6th August 2011, 19:30 Quote
Okay, sorry for seeing this only from my own perspective. There's no reason to be rude though, I wasn't trying to be a troll. All I can say is that every game I know of that requires a permanent server connection while playing is automatically highly resistant to the kinds of cheaters and hackers that ruined the last Diablo game as an online experience.
XXAOSICXX 6th August 2011, 20:05 Quote
The two things are unrelated. Online *only* characters, stored on official servers, to prevent cheating - 100% behind that.

Offline only characters for Single-player action - if people want to dick around with those, who cares, they can't put them on the online servers anyway.

Doesn't that sound better?
KayinBlack 6th August 2011, 20:06 Quote
Nobody contested that, but honestly Blizzard is punishing people who can't or won't have a 100% steady always on connection.

For those of us that will not play it online, they just showed us the door.
Yslen 6th August 2011, 21:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
The two things are unrelated. Online *only* characters, stored on official servers, to prevent cheating - 100% behind that.

Offline only characters for Single-player action - if people want to dick around with those, who cares, they can't put them on the online servers anyway.

Doesn't that sound better?

Yes, I suppose you are right there. I was assuming there was some legitimate reason for not allowing offline play at all though. It would be nice if Blizzard could actually clarify why they are doing this, though I suppose if they did have a legitimate reason they would have told us already, thinking about it.
XXAOSICXX 7th August 2011, 02:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
though I suppose if they did have a legitimate reason they would have told us already, thinking about it.

Because the biggest publisher in the world wouldn't lie, right?

They do have a legitimate reason: preventing piracy with little consideration for the needs of their paying customers. Simple as that.
rollo 7th August 2011, 13:24 Quote
diablo 3 will sell millions whatever drm they put on it so i cant really say the always online requirement is a shock
Whindog 8th August 2011, 01:28 Quote
With the real money system there implementing its a neccecity to stop cheaters making real money by hacking and getting rare **** to sell when online.

The sooner you all relise that the better. Its a minor thing, the majority of ppl are always online anyway. And to make the systems there implementing work, they need to do this.

I dont consider this DRM this is balance/cheat protection. This is buyer protection from cheating mofo's

Deal with it and move on. Im sure there will be an offline mode just like starcraft 2. So you can still do all the adventure pizaze.......but not with your online character.

Rly ppl need to think about these things before jsut going off into a rant because they see DRM.

Use your heads ppl.
deadsea 8th August 2011, 02:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whindog
With the real money system there implementing its a neccecity to stop cheaters making real money by hacking and getting rare **** to sell when online.

I dont consider this DRM this is balance/cheat protection. This is buyer protection from cheating mofo's

Deal with it and move on. Im sure there will be an offline mode just like starcraft 2. So you can still do all the adventure pizaze.......but not with your online character.

^ This. But still, the OTT response of all save files go to the cloud is a but much. Is their security so bad that giving the user a copy of the save files might allow someone to crack their data methods and later edit their memory in real time during a game?

As for the possible "ofline" mode? It doesn't seem that way from the article. He seems to describe gaming alone online rather than off.
dark_avenger 8th August 2011, 04:15 Quote
I've played quite a lot of Starcraft 2 which uses the same system without issue so I'm not really worried.

I have no doubt that there will be a offline play mode just as there is in Starcraft 2.
impar 8th August 2011, 11:19 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_avenger
I've played quite a lot of Starcraft 2 which uses the same system without issue so I'm not really worried.
You never had a router reset ou a connection lost message while playing the SP campaign?
Raijin 8th August 2011, 16:50 Quote
This is why console gamers play on the console, even though there are no mods or all of that good stuff we don't have to deal with this BS. But still this is seriously stupid, why the heck can't they just add an offline mode, Me and my friends don't spend every minute of game time online on the 360, nor do we spend every minute on the computer online either. Diablo 2 was probably one of the best games I've ever played specificaly because it had both and offline and online version. Most people play differently while online in a party, you're more conservative with materials, and less likely to spam meteors while running around like a headless chicken.
iggy 8th August 2011, 20:40 Quote
why the **** is anyone actually defending this?
impar 8th August 2011, 21:41 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy
why the **** is anyone actually defending this?
Some advanced form of geek S&M.
Eiffie 8th August 2011, 21:46 Quote
While this really doesn't cause me any trouble since I don't travel much and my pc is rooted to my desk at home, I'm always going to have internet except when my ISP is having issues but those are few and far between for me. My heart goes out to all those working-gamers who have to travel with their laptops to remote locations or those with a limited amount of web data a month from their ISP.

If some sort of offline mode were to be added similar to how Starcraft 2 works then I could see that as being a huge plus for many gamers.
XXAOSICXX 9th August 2011, 10:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eiffie
While this really doesn't cause me any trouble since I don't travel much and my pc is rooted to my desk at home, I'm always going to have internet except when my ISP is having issues but those are few and far between for me. My heart goes out to all those working-gamers who have to travel with their laptops to remote locations or those with a limited amount of web data a month from their ISP.

If some sort of offline mode were to be added similar to how Starcraft 2 works then I could see that as being a huge plus for many gamers.

At last - somebody with some sense. +1 to you, Sir.
Locruid 15th August 2011, 20:39 Quote
Ive been fighting my ISP for over a year cause I get 3-6 random disconnects a day. Sometimes I can go a week without issues, other days its so bad I quit playing for the day. They are the ONLY Internet provider out here. We dont get Cable at all and the only other option is Satellite which would cost a damn fortune.

Im severely disappointed in Blizz... I mean Activision. This was my #1 game to buy and even had $100 set aside for it. Since the announcement of DRM, I've spent that money. Im sick and tired of DRM crap and as much as I would like to see a protest, it aint gonna happen. Too many people live in the perfect world of Always on Internet from somewhere or even free Wifi so they have no issues. These people half the time stay within the concrete jungle at all times.

Well sorry, Blizz some of us live out in the boonies and get away from time to time. My Family sometimes goes camping for a week or two and even then I fire up the old Laptop and get an hour in here and there of playing.

it was fun Diablo but I fear for now im playing Torchlight. And as long as they keep off the DRM ill be there. you still get my World of Warcraft Subscription though LOL
notacat 21st August 2011, 21:43 Quote
I don't consider myself a big gamer, I only buy maybe one or two games a year to play in my limited spare time. When I play computer games, I play them for the content and story in single player mode, and often when I am travelling to help pass the time. When I want to socialize, I hang out with people offline. I'm not willing to pay for internet access in the airport or wherever just to play this game. There are plenty of other options that don't place these restrictions on me. And I certainly have no interest in paying cash for items in their "auction house."

I absolutely loved Diablo and Diablo 2, played both of them through multiple times. I had been really looking forward to Diablo 3, seemed like Blizzard was investing a lot of time to make it a great game. I realize I'm not really their target consumer, it's just sad that they've alienated players like me...

Might just wait for the inevitable crack that allows for offline play before buying. Sorry Blizzard!
impar 12th September 2011, 12:28 Quote
Greetings!

Related:
Quote:
The day I realised always-on DRM moaners have a point
Ubisoft and Blizzard have angered many in the past year by insisting PC gamers maintain an internet connection during play, but I’d always been on the fence. Until this week.
I am going to bore you with the details.
...
Hutchy 12th September 2011, 12:35 Quote
I'm in two minds about this.

On one hand I can see Blizzard using the online only argument to better their service, literally because of the companies track record. On the other hand you have Ubisoft who won't be doing it to try and improve their service, putting people at a disadvantage only, without trying to better the experience from requiring an internet connection.

I think it would be pretty cool for example, to log in into say Diablo 3 to find things have been improved in game since the last time I played it, or automatic bug fixes etc.
jelderkin 16th September 2011, 15:47 Quote
online games are by far better then those offline ever since I first played online I fell head over heels in love
AstralWanderer 23rd September 2011, 17:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Related: The day I realised always-on DRM moaners have a point...
An interesting article - not least since it shows that major ISP outages can last quite some time (6 days here, which would mean problems with Steam also since offline mode reportedly times out after 3 days).

Another example: Office 365, Hotmail and SkyDrive hit by outage - if a company with Microsoft's resources can't maintain online services 24/7, how is a (comparatively) smallfry gaming publisher going to manage it?
impar 23rd September 2011, 19:28 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
An interesting article - not least since it shows that major ISP outages can last quite some time (6 days here, which would mean problems with Steam also since offline mode reportedly times out after 3 days).
Dont know if it takes three days. But, you only need to login to Steam, that can be made with any kind of internet access.
The problem the article writer had was the always-on DRM that forces a permanent online access.
Blademrk 26th September 2011, 00:11 Quote
I've got steam installed on 3 PC's in my house:
  • My old system (which is not connected to the net at all) which is still running the old interface in offline mode.
  • The 2nd is connected to the internet with steam running in offline mode (Password is also not stored on this machine, so that the 7yr old in the house cannot go on-line and accidently buy stuff - this is quite a low powered machine so it struggles to play anything other than the casual games I've installed on there - PvZ and so on),
  • My main PC which is nearly always logged into steam.

I've had no issues with the 2 off-line PC's at all. Can't say the same about my Internet connection, the router seems to lose connection a couple of times a day (you can guarantee it'll be when I want to play a game)
Hadryon 8th May 2012, 21:05 Quote
I live in the south end of Mississippi, 60 miles from the coast, in the deep woods. I'm far enough from cell towers to make it impossible to use a 3G connection, the landlines don't support DSL here (and dialup happens at 14.4kbps at best). There is no cable connection possible.

So, since I'm not going to move just to play Diablo 3, and I cannot obtain an always-on connection, my options are three-fold: (1) don't play Diablo 3; (2) buy the game, then let it sit on the shelf; (3) buy the game, then go download the full cracked version at some coffeeshop on the coast. Guess which I'll go for?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums