backtop


Print 137 comment(s) - last by vision33r.. on Aug 6 at 12:11 PM


  (Source: blizzard.com)
New Battle.net and Auction House features have made it so that players cannot play Diablo III offline

It has been over a decade since the release of Diablo II, and while we learned of a Diablo III in the works a few years ago, there hasn't been much talk in the way of specific new game changes -- until now. 

Blizzard's Diablo is a series of dark fantasy-themed action role-playing games. Diablo was first released in 1996, and Diablo II was released in 2000. Diablo III was announced on June 28, 2008.

Blizzard has a lot of changes in the works, but one of the most notable features is the requirement to play online. New Battle.net and Auction House features have made it so that players cannot play Diablo III offline according to 1UP, and the main reason for this is of course authentication (which really means more money and less piracy). In addition to this reason, Blizzard is offering a slew of new game features that the company feels everyone needs to experience in order to enjoy the game to its full extent.

According to Rob Pardo, executive vice president of game design at Blizzard, Diablo II's multiplayer Battle.net platform had some issues that needed to be resolved. For instance, there was a lack of persistence in online characters, which expire if not played on a regular basis. Also, single player characters had divided access to multiplayer mode, and the system for finding and making friends online was inefficient. Player-killing and cheating were also huge problems that needed to be addressed. 

Now, Blizzard is fixing all of the above with a revamped Battle.net system that keeps Diablo III players connected at all times. Some of the new features include a persistent friends list, persistent characters that are stored server-side, persistent party system, cross-game chat via the RealID system (allowing Diablo III players to chat with friends on other Blizzard games like World of Warcraft and StarCraft II), dynamic drop-in/out for co-op, player-versus-player/public game matchmaking, a larger item stash that can be shared with up to 10 of your characters, and the Banner system, which allows players to display their skills in the way of Achievements earned, PVP victories, and other stats tracked.

In addition to the above-mentioned changes, the Auction House has received a few updates of its own. The Auction House's features include an interface that can be pulled up anywhere, auto-bidding/instant buyout price (of course), smart-search mode to automatically loot appropriate items for your characters, listing fees/sale fees (and a number of free listings), optional currency-based Auction House, and nearly everything from gold to items (and even characters, later on) can be sold. In addition, Blizzard itself will not post items for sale in the Auction House (it's for player trading only), characters in the hardcore difficulty mode cannot use the currency-based Auction House (only in-game gold), and if an item is altered in a patch later on, Blizzard will not provide a refund. 

While the online-only requirement may anger customers who don't have an Internet connection, or those who like to play the game offline on airplanes, Pardo noted that the list of new game features will outweigh the negatives.

"I want to play Diablo III on my laptop in a plane, but, well, there are other games to play for times like that," said Pardo.

One new Auction House game feature that is sure to lure in new and old Diablo gamers alike is the ability to sell Diablo III loot for real money reports Kotaku. The Auction House will allow Diablo III players to buy and sell loot for real cash instead of virtual gold, if they choose to do so. 

Diablo III players can partake in anonymous transactions, buying gems, armor, weapons, runestones, etc. with the option to auto-bid or instant buy any of these items. If a seller chooses cash instead of virtual gold, Blizzard will charge sellers a listing fee and a nominal fixed transaction fee if the item has a buyer. The cash proceeds are then either applied to an e-balance, allowing players to buy other Blizzard products, or a third-party payment provider (who is unannounced for now) that will let players cash out their money.

Blizzard said that incorporating real-world money to the game will add depth to the long term game, and will also help monetize the game. 

While there is no set release date for Diablo III quite yet, the new sequel seems like it will not disappoint. Michael McWhertor, senior editor at Kotakuattended a hands-on session with the Diablo III beta at Blizzard's headquarters in Irvine, California, and noted that the new features and levels leading to the Skeleton King are entertaining and true to Diablo form. A few changes to enhance gameplay, however, are the elimination of talent trees and the addition of new character classes. Instead of talent trees, characters can achieve active and passive skills every level or so, utilizing a set number of skills at once. As for character classes, the new set consists of the Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Wizard, Monk and the Demon Hunter. 

Blizzard hasn't announced when the game's beta will begin or end, but it will be available for PC and Mac.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Playing offline
By ipay on 8/1/2011 11:03:21 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"I want to play Diablo III on my laptop in a plane, but, well, there are other games to play for times like that," said Pardo.
That was ok if I hadn't pay for it.
There's no reason not to allow one that purchased the game to play offline, since it's a game designed to also be played solo.

In Diablo2, after finishing the game solo, I had a ton of fun going into hero editor and make up some silly crazy weapons and charms (to play in the "players 8" mode).
In order to avoid piracy, they complicate things for those o give them money so i guess I'll wait and see if someone cracks it so one can have freedom, (freedom and liberty!) in order to buy the game.

I guess Torchlight 2 will welcome my money also.




RE: Playing offline
By bug77 on 8/1/11, Rating: 0
RE: Playing offline
By MikeMurphy on 8/1/2011 11:42:26 AM , Rating: 5
Online only? Auction houses?

Goodbye, Blizzard.


RE: Playing offline
By Mitch101 on 8/1/2011 2:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Diablocraft?

At least it wont have monthly fees but will you need to spend real money to get anything of high value in the game? I hope not otherwise I can live without.


RE: Playing offline
By invidious on 8/1/2011 3:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
It is a reality that any game with an open trading system is going to enable people to buy and sell stuff for real cash via 3rd party systems like paypal. In the case of diablo 2 it was fairly widespread. I dont see anything wrong with blizzard attempting to centralize it to improve player experience. Afterall there's nothing to stop people from resorting to 3rd party methods if blizzard charges too much or whatever.

If you are simply opposed to people spending money to buy stuff in game then I dont know what to tell you. This is the digital age, embrace it or be left behind.


RE: Playing offline
By Reclaimer77 on 8/2/2011 9:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a reality that any game with an open trading system is going to enable people to buy and sell stuff for real cash via 3rd party systems like paypal. In the case of diablo 2 it was fairly widespread. I dont see anything wrong with blizzard attempting to centralize it to improve player experience. Afterall there's nothing to stop people from resorting to 3rd party methods if blizzard charges too much or whatever.

If you are simply opposed to people spending money to buy stuff in game then I dont know what to tell you. This is the digital age, embrace it or be left behind.


Exactly what I have been saying! Good post. In Diablo 2 people still spent money on gear and items, they just did it on Ebay or some seedy website. Nothing has really changed here except they are bringing this practice into the game where it can be monitored and controlled for a better experience for all.


RE: Playing offline
By TSS on 8/5/2011 12:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
For me it's a double edge sword. On the one hand, the hardcore gamer in me is crying because it now (officially) no longer matters how badass you look, players have no way of knowing you spend all that time and effort getting the item or just paid for it, and will asume you paid for it. While that has been shady for a while it'll be official after D3.

But at the same time i see oppertunity, especially because i am a hardcore gamer. I know like no other how to level, grind and farm. Ontop of that i'm a good trader as well (leveled 3 blacksmiths pure off trading in the auction house back in vanilla WoW). I've often considered selling accounts of games i was done with, but never did because it wasn't in the spirit of gaming, i might return to them someday, and often you where ripped off, you account stolen with no cash delivered because it's simply illegal (meaning against the TOS so the account can be closed... not really a word for that). With soley items, it's just the first reason holding me back, but if it's actually part of the game since day 1.... well... i don't know.

I'll probably take advantage of this to make money, i'd be foolish not to. But i seriously don't like where this is going (not that i've liked where AAA games have been going for the past 7-8 years mind you). I'll be putting that hard earned money into indi games. Recently bought terraria (basically 2d minecraft) for 10 euro's. Having loads of fun.

Incidentally, to those claiming i'm crazy paying $15 for a 2d version of minecraft, i beg to differ. Since i bought it sunday and my internet went down and has been down since monday (typing this at my dad's house), it's been keeping me busy for nearly 5 days now since it's actually quite difficultly balanced, and it has a single player mode. Even if D3 came out last monday monday i would've had a 50 euro paper weight all week. Thats really something to consider.


RE: Playing offline
By vision33r on 8/6/2011 12:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hardcore gamer playing Diablo? Lol.

You just invalidated your big wall of text there.


RE: Playing offline
By Skott on 8/1/2011 4:13:03 PM , Rating: 4
Online Only is the deal breaker for me. No interest whatsoever in an online D3. It probably won't hurt them but they won't be getting my money.


RE: Playing offline
By HoosierEngineer5 on 8/2/2011 12:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
Probably will need broadband, not available in my area. I have a choice between not playing it, or downloading a 'patched' version. Either way, Blizzard looses.


RE: Playing offline
By HoosierEngineer5 on 8/2/2011 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
mean, loses


RE: Playing offline
By icanhascpu on 8/1/2011 5:24:34 PM , Rating: 1
You'll be back and you know it.


RE: Playing offline
By cmdrdredd on 8/1/2011 6:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
I have already cancelled my reservation and will never purchase a blizzard product again.


RE: Playing offline
By borismkv on 8/1/2011 6:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sure you won't.


RE: Playing offline
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/2/2011 10:43:49 AM , Rating: 2
5 years ago I said I would never buy another blizzard game. I still havent. I used to love WC3


RE: Playing offline
By riottime on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Playing offline
By inperfectdarkness on 8/3/2011 6:50:47 AM , Rating: 3
as if diablo 2 being flooded by endless bots selling wares wasn't bad enough.

as if SC2 killing off LAN wasn't bad enough.

as if splitting SC2 up into three parts; each with a $50+ price-tag wasn't bad enough.

you know what? no thanks. no, i DON'T need to play games where the developer is actually BUYING IN to virtual property being sold for real money. i don't need to play games where i can't play them off line (i've never even touched WOW). i definately don't need to play games where the developer is more concerned about intellectual property than with user-rights *cough* capcom *cough*.

i was really looking forward to D3, but i'll pass. blizzard has been continually dissappointing me. my consumer dollars for "brand new, off-the shelf opening-day" purchases will be reserved for games that i know will deliver--without the BS. postal 3, please don't let me down.


RE: Playing offline
By ipay on 8/1/2011 11:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
I somewhat liked Titan Quest but that Grim Dawn seams really good.
Torchlight was very ok for what it was (a small updated diablo clone) but i also grew tired of it. Hope the second does better.

I hope I'm wrong but there's something about diablo2... Maybe it's the tristram theme or maybe is the corpse explosion or the good power tree. For all other clones, it feels that there is something missing.


RE: Playing offline
By lagomorpha on 8/1/2011 8:31:26 PM , Rating: 3
Personally I thought Titan Quest was a bit... repetitive. Even more than Diablo 2 was. Click on enemies a lot... click on enemies a lot... click on enemies a lot...

At least Diablo 2 had interesting bosses.


RE: Playing offline
By DanNeely on 8/1/2011 11:23:15 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I spent more time playing D2 mods than anything else. Not really feasible for online play....


RE: Playing offline
By Mitch101 on 8/1/2011 2:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Townkill :)


RE: Playing offline
By adrift02 on 8/1/2011 11:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
Meh, we'll get a "fixed" version with online components removed within a week of its release. Of course paying customers will still suffer, needing to have two versions installed.

I thought Blizzard and Activision operated as separate entities? Hm...


RE: Playing offline
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Playing offline
By FITCamaro on 8/1/2011 12:38:30 PM , Rating: 5
Why would a LAN mode be irrelevant? What about when Blizzards servers are eventually taken down for the game? Starcraft is what? 11-12 years old? And people are still playing it. They don't need an outside internet connection to play with friends either. Just a router.

There are times where people want to game without an internet connection. And for a single player game they should be able to. I personally rarely fall into that problem. But there are those who do more often. And I still like the option to be there.


RE: Playing offline
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Playing offline
By Totally on 8/1/2011 2:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
those crazy asians...which make up how much of the worlds population? On the global scale you're in the minority, bud


RE: Playing offline
By EricMartello on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Playing offline
By MarkHark on 8/1/2011 7:34:38 PM , Rating: 5
Sounds to me like a nazi remark!


RE: Playing offline
By EricMartello on 8/2/2011 2:11:18 AM , Rating: 1
It's a factual statement. China has half of the world's population but is yet incapable of achieving first-world living standards for the majority of its citizens. Outside of the well-known cities, China is largely a third-world wasteland.


RE: Playing offline
By B3an on 8/3/11, Rating: 0
RE: Playing offline
By Farfignewton on 8/4/2011 1:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a factual statement


Having a better standard of living does not make one a better person, so no, it wasn't factual.

quote:
China has half of the world's population


Also not true. China has around 20% of the world's population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population


RE: Playing offline
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Playing offline
By Etsp on 8/1/2011 3:34:20 PM , Rating: 1
Technically, they don't even need a router, just a switch or a hub...


RE: Playing offline
By artemicion on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Playing offline
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 6:09:04 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is that people feel betrayed. Everyone is all hopped up for D3, only to find out that it is getting stuffed full of "features" that flat-out don't belong in a Diablo game, that there's no non-online mode - which was for many the most important feature of the game - so on and so forth.

Blizzard has made another WoW. They can call it Diablo 3 - but it bears little resemblance to the tradition of D1/D2. And therefore people feel betrayed.

That is the problem.


RE: Playing offline
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Playing offline
By inperfectdarkness on 8/3/2011 7:04:32 AM , Rating: 2
THIS.

i'm glad someone gets it. i have ZERO desire to play WOW. diablo 2 was different. it would appear that blizzard (thanks to activision) is now headed to where every product they have can only be played online. i'll pass.

others will rise up to fill the market void from the (arguably) #1 RTS/RPG maker abandoning the ideals that made it such a great company in the first place. if i find a dungeon-crawl game even half as compelling as diablo3--but available for offline play; and without the "gotta pay for items" BS that blizzard LOVES--it will still be a better experience.


RE: Playing offline
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2011 11:43:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
if i find a dungeon-crawl game even half as compelling as diablo3--but available for offline play; and without the "gotta pay for items" BS that blizzard LOVES--it will still be a better experience.


But you won't find one, so it's a moot point.

I hate to sound like a fanboi, but I can't remember Blizzard ever releasing a dud game in recent history. Like them or hate them, they have a proven formula for releasing kick-ass game titles with mass appeal. I don't know why Blizzard is such a lightning rod for gamer controversy when they have done more than anyone in legitimizing and mainstreaming quality gaming.

Also, again, there is no "gotta pay for items". Why do you people insist on spreading this FUD? You will not ever "have" to buy items in Diablo 3. People bought items for Diablo 2 on Ebay for christ sake. All Blizzard is doing is bringing this into the game, there's no difference.

Hell it's still going on to this day! "Godly Items" for sale.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Diablo-2-II-UsEast-Sc-Ladder-g...


RE: Playing offline
By icanhascpu on 8/1/2011 5:43:47 PM , Rating: 1
I highly doubt blizzard is going to take down the servers right as they are comping out with the game. What is the problem again? Oh right yourself bitching about something that MIGHT or might not happen in what 10-12 years?

What the fuck.

Even IF that happens in a decade (lol) that is enough time to develop custom servers and hack in LAN play. Your point is not attached to reality and people that upvoted you are as delusional.


RE: Playing offline
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 6:12:28 PM , Rating: 3
...or, you could accept that it's not the consumer's job to hack a game to work the way it was expected to, or the consumer's duty to accept that a game only will work so long as the publisher cares to keep a server running.

I have *lots* of *really* old games that I still love to play once in a while. If there was something that would have made Heroes of Might & Magic 3 not play 10 years later...or Enemy Nations, or Red Alert 2, or whatever - I'd not have bought them. Even if I expected someone would make a hack for them. The publisher doesn't deserve my money to begin with.

The fact of the matter is that D1/D2 fans feel like they've been baited & switched now. Blizzard isn't producing D3 - this game isn't made in the tradition of D1/D2. It's WoW2. And they can choke on it.


RE: Playing offline
By amanojaku on 8/1/2011 1:49:54 PM , Rating: 5
I ran away from WoW, and online games in general, because most of them are designed for group play. I don't want to play with a group. I don't want to rearrange my real life schedule just to get in on a 6-hour, 25-man raid, only to have some idiot pull a Leeroy Jenkins. Online games need to find a balance of multi and solo play. I hear the new Star Wars MMORPG will try to address this.

Oh yeah. The other reason I hate online games is they cost $15 a month for not much that's new, other than the occasional update with a few zones and bosses. Half the time the updates are patches, new quests, changes in XP, stats or reputation... The game itself is virtually the same. Over five years you pay $500 (assuming discounts) for something you would normally have bought for $50. And you gotta deal with people begging for gold!!! At least we have random group finders now...


RE: Playing offline
By Mitch101 on 8/1/2011 2:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
Id love a bot that responds to voice commands and actually do well. Seems they haven't gotten any better than UT2004. I play a lot of L4D and the bots do well in woods scenarios with smokers/hunters where you physically cant see them the bots can. But outside of getting one to pick up a health pack/gas cans etc or defend correctly is slim to none. At least they dont run off way ahead and isolate themselves.


RE: Playing offline
By LBID on 8/1/2011 3:03:20 PM , Rating: 3
I wish I could give this more than one positive vote. Absolutely sums up the reasons for not wanting an online game.


RE: Playing offline
By tallcool1 on 8/1/11, Rating: 0
RE: Playing offline
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 6:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
This guy doesn't want to play *any* online games - why would he try Guild Wars?

LOTS of people *do not want* to play online games...no matter what the online portion is.


RE: Playing offline
By kaosstar on 8/2/2011 10:35:16 AM , Rating: 1
So don't play them. See how that works?


RE: Playing offline
By Motoman on 8/2/2011 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
That is the point exactly. Thanks for being redundant...again.


RE: Playing offline
By Schrag4 on 8/2/2011 1:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
But we'd LIKE to play Diablo III, offline. See how that works? I understand that since it's not an option, we won't, obviously. Thanks for pointing out how that works.

The reason I personally don't play online games outside of CounterStrike:Source is because I don't want to be tethered to my PC for hours at a time. That's because, well, I have a young family, as I suspect many of you do. I can get away for 30 minutes or so for some CS:S with people I don't know and therefore have no obligation to, but something about my coworkers (or even my close friends for that matter) asking me if I'll join them for a raid tonight just doesn't sit well with me. I mean, these guys all have kids and wives (guess who needs the most attention) just like me but somehow they all get together all the time. I don't get it, and I don't want to get it.

I like games I can pause, or just save and get back to later (or short term games like CS:S and other shooters). D1 and D2 fall into that category. D3 does not. I suspect I'm not alone.


RE: Playing offline
By icanhascpu on 8/1/2011 5:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
What people that unwittingly upvoted you do not realize is the vast majority (%90+) of Wow content is solo-able. You do not have to group if you dont want to. So this is just you whining about a non-existing problem.


RE: Playing offline
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 6:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like you're whining about a non-existent point that you seem to be making.

You still have to be online to play it. And in the case of WoW, you still have to pay a monthly fee to play it.

You're making no point at all to the *many* people who don't want anything to be online at all...but you are being quite effective at whining about it.


RE: Playing offline
By M4gery on 8/4/2011 1:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What people that unwittingly upvoted you do not realize is the vast majority (%90+) of Wow content is solo-able. You do not have to group if you dont want to. So this is just you whining about a non-existing problem.


BZZZZT! wrong answer. Anything worth doing in WoW is not soloable, played it long enough to know. You can hit the level cap solo, but that's about it.


RE: Playing offline
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Playing offline
By Totally on 8/1/2011 2:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you may not venture out of your house, doesn't mean everyone else does the same. I travel frequently and this issue hits squarely home, well whatever seat I happen to be sitting in flying coach.
quote:
"rip Diablo III because no offline play

Not everyone is a social gamer.


RE: Playing offline
By invidious on 8/1/2011 3:50:17 PM , Rating: 1
This is a social game. But just because it requires online access doesn't mean you have to play with other people. You can still be an angry loner all by yourself in a passworded game.

And I bet that almost everyone here complaining about the internet requirement will buy D3 anyway just like they did with Starcraft 2.


RE: Playing offline
By cmdrdredd on 8/1/2011 6:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a social game. But just because it requires online access doesn't mean you have to play with other people. You can still be an angry loner all by yourself in a passworded game. And I bet that almost everyone here complaining about the internet requirement will buy D3 anyway just like they did with Starcraft 2.


Diablo was as solo as they come...sorry dude Diablo ain't no Everquest clone...maybe Diablo 3 will be.


RE: Playing offline
By The0ne on 8/1/11, Rating: 0
RE: Playing offline
By MechanicalTechie on 8/1/2011 11:42:33 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer77 i've noticed your comments are often rated at -1... typically for your short-slighted views, and once again you up to par... seriously i suggect using some logic before blurting out stupid things like 'Why would you want to play anything offline'... just think for a second and figure out why some people would want this... i know you can do it.


RE: Playing offline
By Reclaimer77 on 8/2/2011 9:16:23 AM , Rating: 1
Mechanic I get -1's because someone who I beat badly in debates made multiple accounts to rate me there because they aren't mature enough to counter me openly. Also I'm not a flaming Liberal like most of DT, so I make myself a target. No matter, they don't bother me.

But yes, I DO understand why some people would want offline modes. But it's gone past that. When the rabid vocal minority proclaims the game is doomed and sucks because of it, that's where I draw the line. I mean really, it's just kind of silly how everyone is flipping out over this. Like it's even a surprise? After Starcraft II they should have surmised that every major launch from Blizzard is going to be tied into Battle.net.

If you don't like something, fine don't buy it, but don't try to ruin it for everyone else. That's all I'm saying.


RE: Playing offline
By webstorm1 on 8/2/2011 9:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
Offline mode wasn't even remotely a possibility. Those who don't like it can complain sure, but if you really thought that could happen you are deluded. In a couple more years there won't be an offline mode at all, the digital distribution (Steam, Origin) makes that a reality plus the anti-piracy is just to juicy to ignore. Not to mention that the only way to beat the gold sellers is to have your own marketplace. Sure, it will be Chinese farmers selling most of the items in the cash auction house, but Blizzard gets a piece of each and every transaction. From a business standpoint, the people here who really will vote with their wallet pales in comparison to the thousands of item farmers from China.

It's nearly impossible to find a new game that doesn't say on the box "Requires internet connection" and even Indie games are going through Steam which requires you to be connected. It's the new reality. I applaud your wanting to fight it, but there's nowhere near the amount of pushback necessary to slow it down let alone stop it.

I also don't see a pirated version any time soon since the characters and many of the pieces of the game will be online only. At best you'll see a reverse engineered version like with wow but guess what, it'll still be online.


RE: Playing offline
By MechanicalTechie on 8/2/2011 10:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sucks that someone has gone to the effort of giving you -1. For the record i am going to boycott D3 because of the only online gaming... for me thats a total deal breaker. You can't blame people for being upset for what they see as a real disappointment because once again Blizzard's accountants are ruining another quality brand. You may not care.. but some of us will try object... because we feel cheated... and at the end of the day if another company takes note then you will benefit too.


RE: Playing offline
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2011 11:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sucks that someone has gone to the effort of giving you -1.


Nah, sucks for them. They're the ones with no character.

quote:
For the record i am going to boycott D3 because of the only online gaming... for me thats a total deal breaker.


Ok and I respect that. It's your right and all that good stuff. But here is where I take issue...

quote:
once again Blizzard's accountants are ruining another quality brand.


Now see, there's really no reason to say it's ruined because it requires a free Battle.net log in. This is where I have a problem. It's one thing to be angry and to "feel cheated", it's another to judge the game without even having played it and saying that because it's online only, it automatically is going to suck.

So you are welcome to your opinion, sure, and I respect that. But opinions should be based on something tangible. And I just see a lot of people mouthing off because they are angry about something and making bold statements they can't back up.

quote:
and at the end of the day if another company takes note then you will benefit too.


I kinda doubt it. In my time playing WoW there have been like 4 or 5 "WoW killer" MMO's announced. All have failed dismally to achieve large subscription numbers to hurt Blizzard. Will there be a "Diablo3 killer" in the future? We shall have to wait and see.


RE: Playing offline
By MechanicalTechie on 8/3/2011 7:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
OK i'd give you a point for that. Perhaps because I started gaming in the era of C64 and never got into WoW.. i have a problem with paying a subscription for a game.. i naturally object it that... but thats just me and thats not the point

I and many of us don't want to be restricted on how to play a game or use a product(seems like the thing to do these day... apple and sony taking the lead on this one)

If the Battle.net is free and if you dont need to hand over all your personal details just to get an account then fairplay... i can't object to that.

I still dont trust the bean counters and think they are behind this decision.. I mean you would have a much more successful product if they allowed offline gaming not all of us can afford or even get decent internet...

The say its to protect their IP... i dunno speakin as a professional computer geek anythin can be cracked... they are looking for a revenue stream and you can't have that if people can use your product offline.


RE: Playing offline
By derricker on 8/2/2011 11:51:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's 2011. Why would you want to play anything "offline" when we're all connected 24/7 anyway?


who is "we" anyway?? do you suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder or something???

Have you ever considered that you are not the center of the universe???


RE: Playing offline
By slacker57 on 8/5/2011 3:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
See, I would find his comment more inflamtory if he were, say, speaking at a soup kitchen. But this is a comment section on the internet.

"We" are all online right now! And I can't imagine that most people posting here are just on for their once-daily internet coffee break to post on an article about a game that hasn't even set a release date. Thus, the point that most of "us" (this internet forum) are online a lot seems valid.

So I just find it baffling that the people "here," are so upset about an online-only game. Now, if I were reading a "letters to the editor" section of my local paper, then I could understand why those people don't want to have to use the internet. But this is a "Daily Tech" forum! Not Sal's BBS that you are accessing with a 28.8 modem. Why is being online to play a game so problematic for the people here?


RE: Playing offline
By tamalero on 8/1/2011 12:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, it's easy to find the Activision and Kotick's hand in the greed..

bonus.. I bet Blizzard-Activision will get at least 25% of the value of the loot you sell.
Ie, you sell XXX item for 10 USD..
either the client has to pay 12.5 USD
or the seller will only get 7.5 USD for fees.


RE: Playing offline
By Slipgate on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Playing offline
By ipay on 8/1/2011 1:46:03 PM , Rating: 4
Well... it's like sex:
It's much better with a good company but if you are alone, you (should be able to) use what you've got at hand.


RE: Playing offline
By th3pwn3r on 8/2/2011 7:23:08 PM , Rating: 1
Did you ever play the first Diablo?


RE: Playing offline
By Noliving on 8/3/2011 6:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
What about world of warcraft ipay? Or any other MMORPG? You paid to play the game but you can't play it off line. Plus you keep paying it monthly. Lets be honest here we have all referred to Diablo 2 as a free MMORPG. Diablo 3 is further moving it into the direction of being a free MMORPG.


RE: Playing offline
By Wolfpup on 8/5/2011 1:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is all so goofy. If I'm paying them my money, then why are they putting activation on it?

If someone was going to steal it, then the activation doesn't matter.

So what's the point of the activation?

This is yet another game I'd buy if I actually could, although I wasn't a huge fan of Diablo II, so it doesn't pain me much not to play this.

Starcraft though...I would have bought that day 1 if not for the activation. Now? MAYBE if they release all three games for < $10 I'll go for it. But $180 for games I don't even own? No thanks.


In this day and age
By karndog on 8/1/2011 11:10:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
While the online-only requirement may anger customers who don't have an Internet connection


99.99% of people who have the $60+ to buy the game and have a system good enough to run the game will have some form of an internet connection.




RE: In this day and age
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 11:12:31 AM , Rating: 3
~20% of US citizens live in rural areas, where there's no high-speed internet available...at all.


RE: In this day and age
By Zingam on 8/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: In this day and age
By Bubbacub on 8/1/2011 12:26:14 PM , Rating: 1
it may hurt and may be a bit of a sharp comment but its not an entirely incorrect statement.


RE: In this day and age
By karndog on 8/1/2011 12:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
What do you consider "high speed?" In Australia our fastest and most expensive residential internet access reaches a max of 3.3mbps and thats $100 a month for 200gb. I bet your poor rural citizens top that.


RE: In this day and age
By borismkv on 8/1/2011 1:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
My parents can only use satellite or dial-up. Their satellite connection is about 1mbps with latency of near 500ms. It's impossible to play games on that.


RE: In this day and age
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 1:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
That is true. The latency on satellite, which I had to live with for a few years before we got DSL, is *horrific*. Playing any online game is absolutely not going to happen.

I wouldn't wish satellite internet on anyone - a cellular data card is infinitely better than satellite.


RE: In this day and age
By karndog on 8/1/2011 2:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
That's rubbish. The best latency we get on any US WoW server from here is 450-500ms and i used to regularly top damage meters in my guild full of Americans.

First person shooters at the lag are unplayable, ill agree with that, but MMPORPGs certainly are playable.


RE: In this day and age
By borismkv on 8/1/2011 5:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
500ms is a guess, to be honest. All I remember is WoW cutting me off every 2 minutes any time I tried playing. Satellite uses a burst and queuing system for data transfer, so it isn't particularly useful for any type of real-time use. Good for browsing normal pages, kills you when you try to do anything that requires a lot of back and forth communication.


RE: In this day and age
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 1:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
No, they don't. 3Mb is all I can get...and I'm in an area considered a suburb of a major metropolitan area.

MANY people I know have no DSL or cable available - at all. They're stuck with either dial-up (sucks), satellite (might suck less...debatable), or cellular data cards (generally good enough to play a MMORPG on, but not anything else...and very capped).


RE: In this day and age
By gumbi18 on 8/2/2011 2:19:16 AM , Rating: 2
What are you on? For $109/ month I get 100Mbs down and 2 Mbs up on cable in Sydney with 500gb of data, that also includes a phone line. When I lived in a small country town of less than 10 000 people I was on ADSL2+ @ 16Mbs - hardly slow.


RE: In this day and age
By Paj on 8/2/2011 7:34:26 AM , Rating: 1
Thats rubbish, you can get far faster internet than that in Aus.

Maybe youre just too far from the exchange?


RE: In this day and age
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2011 1:04:05 PM , Rating: 3
You don't need "high speed" Internet for gaming. You just need a good connection with decent latency and not a bunch of packet loss. Gaming itself doesn't consume much bandwidth.


RE: In this day and age
By karndog on 8/1/2011 1:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, look at UO back in the day when EVERYONE was on dial up. It still ran fine for the most part and that was with thousands of people on one server.


RE: In this day and age
By invidious on 8/1/2011 3:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
You dont need high speed internet to play an rpg. Even world of warcraft is playable on dial up. You probably wont be in a top guild or have great results in arena play, but if you are casual gamer you can get by just fine.


RE: In this day and age
By icanhascpu on 8/1/2011 5:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
I live 20 miles into the mountains away from the closest city.
This is not 1998 anymore. Just becuse you gave up doesnt mean we all have. Your best bet is 3G. LOOK INTO IT.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UT...


RE: In this day and age
By slyck on 8/1/2011 8:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sure if you're made of money. Ever heard of a data cap?


Whew for a minute there I was going to buy a new PC
By subG on 8/1/2011 11:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
Whew for a minute there I was going to buy a new PC. Now I have no interest. Thanks Blizzard you saved me a lot of cash.

Online only game? Auction houses?! Sigh, I guess my dislike is the sign of being old.




By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2011 12:47:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
While I'm not faulting Blizzard, I call it like I see it. Money has gone to their heads and they are sacrificing content in their games


Sacrificing content? I don't know any game developer that releases content like Blizzard. It costs a lot of money to provide the kind of service that WoW has. I play 3 other MMO's besides WoW, and none of them come close to the massive content patches and game upgrades that Blizzard does with WoW. For example they just added a feature that allows players from completely different game servers to group up together and fight in the same dungeon instance. Cool for me because my best friend and I are on different realms. The last main patch had a new end-game raid instance as well as adding HUNDREDS of new armors, weapons, trade items and profession enhancements to the game. All in a single patch. Do you see anyone else out there cranking out that much content?

Comparing WoW or Starcraft II with Team Fortress is laughable. Are you really that biased against Blizzard? Team Fortress is on such a smaller scale compared to those titles. How much development effort does it take to create small static FPS maps and a few new guns every few years? I mean honestly?

quote:
The thing is though, Valve left it all up to the community. Okay, they do host a store that you can buy items from Valve directly through.


LOL this sounds highly hypocritical. How is this any different than what Blizzard is doing. Valve hosts an official store, so it's officially supported. I don't understand the difference. It's not like you HAVE to buy items anyway. But if people want to, why should Blizzard stop them? It's better to make it officially supported, that way you can control it.

WoW is being assaulted by Chinese gold farmers and sellers. Every day accounts are hacked or keylogged so players gold can be stolen by black market gold sellers to provide this shaddy service to people. I've personally have my account compromised twice because of this. Blizzard is trying to curb this kind of crap with Diablo III, don't you see?

I just don't get this silly knee jerk reaction anytime money and gaming crosses paths. Gaming has been a big business for a while, let's just accept that. If they make a great game that millions can enjoy, so what? When I was younger and buying 3-4 $60 console titles a month, was I really saving money as apposed to playing WoW or Diablo III?


By MrBlastman on 8/1/2011 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Pay note that I said I don't fault them for it. They're in business and have to feed people on the payroll along with their families.

What I'm getting at is that Blizzard transitioned from purely producing a quality one time sale in the past (Warcraft 1/2, StarCraft, Lost Vikings etc.) to a pay to play model with WoW. They were also bought by Activision who, to be fair, was not the greediest of companies back in the 90's (they gave us wonderful games like Mechwarrior 2/Mercenaries and Interstate 76)--but, have increasingly felt pressure to increase their margins in recent years.

I don't fault them for this one bit. They are in business to make money--otherwise, why exist as a company? A company is a money machine and it must be profitable to justify being run.

What I'm getting at though is Blizzard, since moving to this pay to play model, has tried to monetize everything they do. This as well isn't bad. For the consumer though, it potentially gets expensive. Yes, they produce tons of content for WoW--all that you have to pay for monthly to experience. Yes, it adds tons of value or so I hear (I have no idea, I don't have time for MMO's) as well.

All I was trying to do is contrast their constant delivery of content with other systems that have also provided a lot for the player. TF 2 might be on a smaller scale (a lot smaller) but it is still a community of individuals that play it daily. Still, even though it is smaller, new content continues to be delivered without a single requirement over the last few years to pay for it or continue to pay for it.

I'm trying to find a way for people to set their expectations. With Diablo 3, I'm not surprised in the least. I also don't hate the game because of it. I take this news as it was expected. Blizzard has been expected to find a way to create a cash flow for their property which--for all intents and purposes, it looks like they have in a creative way. The moral of the story is though that potentially other areas of the game will suffer as a result like StarCraft II did with only one Terran campaign (instead of also Protoss and Zerg). I'm speculating on this, of course. We'll see if it is true or not.

It doesn't mean though that I have to play it if I don't want to.


By EricMartello on 8/1/2011 3:52:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sacrificing content? I don't know any game developer that releases content like Blizzard. It costs a lot of money to provide the kind of service that WoW has. I play 3 other MMO's besides WoW, and none of them come close to the massive content patches and game upgrades that Blizzard does with WoW.


You must be delusional to say that Blizzard releases worthwhile new content. The cataclysm expansion pack was basically a facelift. Old content was rehashed and the dungeon finder did less to help the game by turning it into "stand around and wait for the queue to pop".

quote:
For example they just added a feature that allows players from completely different game servers to group up together and fight in the same dungeon instance. Cool for me because my best friend and I are on different realms.


Yes, this "tool" made it easier to find groups since blizzard fails at evenly distributing its player population across realms....but because of that tool world PvP is dead, and there is little or no reason to leave the main city. The daily quests are terribly boring and repetitive...but I will say that the new 1-60 leveling experience is a lot better...too bad that the current cap is 85 so you need to trudge through 25 levels of obsolete content to hit the cap.

quote:
The last main patch had a new end-game raid instance as well as adding HUNDREDS of new armors, weapons, trade items and profession enhancements to the game. All in a single patch. Do you see anyone else out there cranking out that much content?


The last patch introduced content that was long overdue. Up until then Blizzard kept people on the treadmill of running the same lame heroic dungeons over and over, and for the PvPers, the "season" oozed along for far too long.

Hundreds of new weapons and armor? LOL, they reskinned old shit and improved the stats. There is very little new being added and the game has been dumbed down far too much in the name of boosting profits.

WoW was reduced from a game with depth and intrigue to a mindless mash-fest for idiots with nano-scale attention spans. The community has long gone to shit as anyone can easily see just by reading a few posts on their forums. It's full of trolls and elitist retards whose only "accomplishment" in life is their character in WoW. The dungeons and dragons side of WoW is dull and repetitive while the PvP side is poorly executed at best, with some classes always having unfavorable advantages over the rest.

Bottom line is that Blizzard got its start by making awesome, innovative and polished games...but since being acquired by activision its interests have shifted from making quality to making revenues. I'm awaiting Guild Wars 2, at which time I may pick up MMOs again.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2011 8:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
These are all just your opinions with nothing of substance. Content is content, just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate what I said. You hate WoW and Blizzard, and you haven't even bothered to hide it. Everything you said is so tainted I'm not going to bother countering it because it would be a waste of time. Just a hater.

If what you said was true, WoW wouldn't have some 14 million players or whatever the hell it's up to now.


By EricMartello on 8/2/2011 2:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
These are all just your opinions with nothing of substance. Content is content, just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate what I said. You hate WoW and Blizzard, and you haven't even bothered to hide it. Everything you said is so tainted I'm not going to bother countering it because it would be a waste of time. Just a hater.


Opinions?

1) Denial <--- You are here!
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance

WoW is bleeding subscribers. Disappointment is at an all-time high and it's quite evident that desperation is setting in since they now allow you unlimited free play to level 20 and include the cost of the first expansion in the base $20 price of the game.

It's funny that you immediately resort to a pathetic ad hominem position...though it is understandable since you can't counter the truth with denial.

quote:
If what you said was true, WoW wouldn't have some 14 million players or whatever the hell it's up to now.


It purportedly has 11 million and it is falling...and while we're talking about subscribers, a solid percentage of those are chinese gold farmers/bot accounts. Of that total 11 million number, less than 1/2 of them are US players. The fact that they needed to create something like the "LFD" tool shows that their subscribers are steadily bailing. Raids used to be 40-man and now they're what...10 or 25? You really believe it was changed to make the game easier? No, it was changed because it's nearly impossible to find 40 willing players to raid on all but a few of the realms.

The writing is on the wall but I'm sure wowtards like yourself will continue playing until they milk you for every last cent your parents are worth. lol


By Reclaimer77 on 8/2/2011 9:04:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Raids used to be 40-man and now they're what...10 or 25? You really believe it was changed to make the game easier? No, it was changed because it's nearly impossible to find 40 willing players to raid on all but a few of the realms.


Case in point. 40 man raids were eliminated in WoW's very first expansion pack. They were certainly not "bleeding" subscribers then, and the decision had nothing to do with player retention. Subscription rates went up from what they were in "vanilla" WoW by a huge percentage.

quote:
The writing is on the wall but I'm sure wowtards like yourself will continue playing until they milk you for every last cent your parents are worth. lol


And you say I made ad hominem attacks? I haven't lived with my parents in almost 15 years. And playing WoW is far more economical than buying $60 console titles several times a month.

I don't know why I'm bothering to debate you, since anyone who enjoys the game is a "wowtard" that you'll just insult out of hand.


By EricMartello on 8/2/2011 5:21:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Case in point. 40 man raids were eliminated in WoW's very first expansion pack. They were certainly not "bleeding" subscribers then, and the decision had nothing to do with player retention. Subscription rates went up from what they were in "vanilla" WoW by a huge percentage.


When TBC was released the subscription rates largely increased globally as the game got more mainstream attention...but that was the beginning of the end. Once blizzard was acquired by activision they were no longer allowed to just make great games that people enjoy...they had to cater to the whims of shareholders and that is easily evident in the most recent expack, cataclysm.

quote:
And you say I made ad hominem attacks? I haven't lived with my parents in almost 15 years. And playing WoW is far more economical than buying $60 console titles several times a month.


Really? Because the average age of a wowtard seems to be 13...

There are multitudes of quality games available for $15 or less as downloads on Steam, Xbox Live and even PSN. We play games for fun, not for finding an "economical" way to piss time away.

quote:
I don't know why I'm bothering to debate you, since anyone who enjoys the game is a "wowtard" that you'll just insult out of hand.


What? I'm just trying to make you feel as you would in your great WoW community, where everyone is "terribad" and no matter what you have "no skill" and if you win it's because "your class is OP" but you are still "a scrub". Seriously, anyone who willfully participates in that or enjoys the constant trolling has got to be retarded.


By rvertrees on 8/1/2011 1:01:44 PM , Rating: 3
Do you even play Starcraft 2? I can name at least 10 openings per race. How can you seriously say that it has been constrained down to 1 opening.

Just another blizzard hater that makes up stuff to make them look bad.


By MrBlastman on 8/1/2011 1:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think I know what I'm talking about here. I never like to brag or bring things like this up but I was #1 in 2v2 (team of three of us) competitive StarCraft for some time back in the day (1998-1999) and played extensively on Kali. I wasted a year of college playing the darned game. :P

You might be able to name 10 openings per race--as I can see a few. The only ones that count to me are the ones that can lead to a win a significant percentage of the time versus both noobs and top tier players.

StarCraft was a completely different game at the highest level. StarCraft II so far though fails to live up to that immense complexity.

I'm not a Blizzard hater at all. I, as I mentioned in my previous post, call it like I see it and have played enough RTS to be able to see these things. I quit playing SC 2 a while ago. I might give it another shot--we'll see, if they fix what is missing though.


By rvertrees on 8/1/2011 2:13:33 PM , Rating: 3
Ok so your saying that very few openings work on top tier players? Go watch some NASL or GSL games and see how many opening you can spot. These are the most talented players in the world and they all have their own styles and take games off of each other. And the strongest ones like NesTea and oGsMC have insanely varied play.


So in other words...
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 11:11:22 AM , Rating: 3
...it's WoW with different enemies. *YAWN*

I can't even begin to describe how excited I, and everyone else I know (who used to LAN party like crazy with D2) was about D3.

But now...I can pretty much guarantee that I won't be buying into it. Or probably anyone else I know. I'm not paying monthly fees for more than one MMORPG. Period.

I'd have bought this the instant the store opened if it was a normal, non-online game (and/or had the old-style optional online Battle.net play), almost regardless of what the price was. Slim chance now.




RE: So in other words...
By bah12 on 8/1/2011 12:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree with the one MMORPG, however I look at it as a price for entertainment. If that game gets me 10+ hrs or more of play time each month for $15, then to me it is no different than other forms of entertainment such as a movie.

In fact of all the things I pay for on a monthly basis my WOW account is by far the biggest bang for the buck in terms of cost benefit per hour. I pay $100 + for TV but probably only watch <10 hours per week. WOW on the other had sees 15+ hrs for <$15/week. A buck and hour is pretty cheap imo.


RE: So in other words...
By bah12 on 8/1/2011 12:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry meant <$15 per month of course.


RE: So in other words...
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 2:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know any general email addresses to contact Blizzard?

An email campaign, if they got thousands of emails telling them that people want offline, single-player capabilities, might make a difference.

Also, contact them via Twitter and FB if you're on those things. Bombard Blizzard with an avalanche of requests for a "real" Diablo game...one that can be played on your own, without an internet connection. And inform them that if it's not there, you won't be buying the game. And then don't if it comes out without it.

...alerting a publisher that you won't buy their product because of <something> and then actually *not* buying it is the one and only way to get anything done. If you go ahead and buy it anyway...the message you're sending is that you didn't really care.


RE: So in other words...
By icanhascpu on 8/1/2011 5:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
You'll be back and you know it. Maybe not the first in line, but as months go by you will find reasons.

Because in reality, you want to play this game, and while I understand the pain of some of their choices, ultimately im not going to pull a sky-is-falling mentality. Ive played since D1, and still sometimes play DII to this day. I understand, believe me. But their core demographic is oriented around online play. You will never get the same feeling on hardcore (or even normal) ladder that you do in offline lan. I've done both extensively. And you're not forced to play with people you dont want to anyway. So what exactly is the problem there?

If you want single player mode, play get TourchlightII. Good game.


RE: So in other words...
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 5:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nope.

Case in point: Spore. I was *pumped* for that game. I mean, I thought it was going to be the greatest thing ever.

My wife got my father-in-law to buy it for me as a gift...the ultimate edition. But I'd learned by then, like everyone else, about it's horrific DRM system, and had concluded it was something I was categorically not going to put up with.

So when I unwrapped my deluxe-version Spore from my father-in-law, I duly thanked him...and then returned it unopened to the store the next day.

Have never looked back - and I did send an email to the company informing them of what I'd done and why. Even when it was someone else's money that bought the game...I'm not going to abide by BS.


RE: So in other words...
By Motoman on 8/1/2011 5:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and as for:

quote:
So what exactly is the problem there?


The problem is that as a rule I *did not* play D2 online. Almost never. I did play the $hit out of it in single-player though. I didn't WANT to play it online.

I *do* want to install it on my laptop...play when I'm someplace without any internet at all...or when I'm in a hotel with droptastic wireless. Forcing me to be online at all times when I play it is unacceptable, and defeats the concept behind the wildly-successful D1 and D2.


RE: So in other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/11, Rating: 0
welp..
By gibb3h on 8/1/2011 11:26:48 AM , Rating: 3
will they be charging a monthly fee to connect?

to be honest, the removal of the skill tree is enough reason for me to not play it




RE: welp..
By nafhan on 8/1/2011 12:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
will they be charging a monthly fee to connect?
I'm guessing they'll make enough money off the listing/transaction fees to make a connection fee completely unnecessary.


RE: welp..
By ClownPuncher on 8/1/2011 12:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
Removal of the skill tree? Do you mean removal of stats?


RE: welp..
By gibb3h on 8/2/2011 6:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A few changes to enhance gameplay, however, are the elimination of talent trees and the addition of new character classes. Instead of talent trees, characters can achieve active and passive skills every level or so, utilizing a set number of skills at once.


sounds like skill tree to me, could be wrong I guess, dumbing down the game either way though


RE: welp..
By Slipgate on 8/1/2011 1:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
No there will not be.


Game overload
By FITCamaro on 8/1/2011 10:56:31 AM , Rating: 3
Gears of War 3, Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, The Old Republic, and more this holiday season (ToR isn't official but likely in my opinion).

We need sleep!




RE: Game overload
By th3pwn3r on 8/2/2011 12:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
GOW and MW3 are lame, you're not 12 are you? Now BF3 and TOR will be good games.


Pros and Cons
By therealnickdanger on 8/1/2011 11:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I've shifted away from online games in favor of single-player games. I also no longer buy games until there is a "Game of the Year Edition" with all the DLC for one low price.

The online-only model makes perfect sense from a publisher/developer perspective. It ensures that they get paid for their hard work and that players get a consistent experience.

From this gamer's perspective, I don't like the lack of control. I can be honest, playing games is a selfish pursuit, one that I enjoy greatly. I wish I was a better person and spent that time helping the needy, but I'm not. I want to have fun where and when it is most convenient for ME.

Server authentification? Key verification? Please, STFU. I just want to play the game I paid for no matter what computer I load it on.




RE: Pros and Cons
By Uncle on 8/1/2011 12:56:28 PM , Rating: 3
"The online-only model makes perfect sense from a publisher/developer perspective. It ensures that they get paid for their hard work and that players get a consistent experience." It also means they don't have to create something new, for awhile, and just do patches and upgrades. Richer people seem to forget that the average person only has so much discretionary spending money and should accommodate both, keep SP and MP. Its worked in the past made companies million. This just is a sign of greed to the Nth power of 10.


Too bad...
By n0b0dykn0ws on 8/1/2011 10:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
That's a shame. I was really looking forward to this game.

Diablo II was okay online, but I really loved having it loaded on my laptop and being able to play it when I had free time away from home.

Until there is an offline version of this game, I will not be buying it.

n0b0dykn0ws




RE: Too bad...
By Anubis on 8/1/2011 11:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
im sure there will end up being an offline mode for single player just like there is for Starcraft 2


Phew!
By bug77 on 8/1/2011 11:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
One more game I can ignore now.
For me, there is no "new game feature" that outweighs removing the single player experience. Lag, rude kids, inability to go afk whenever you wish. No, thanks.




RE: Phew!
By Slipgate on 8/1/2011 1:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming you can create game lobbies like DII: Lag, rude kids, and the ability to go afk are not a problem. Just create your own lobby, password protect it, and there you go, online single player. get over it.


Not this time...
By brotj7 on 8/1/2011 12:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
Lan party is the way to go. I still have 4 DII original copies, 3x expansions, and have given away many copies when we graduated college and as people have moved away. We don't play nearly as much as we did 2+yrs ago, but I was hoping DIII would bring us all back for one last hurrah.
People have family's now, I don't think I'll be able to convince people it is worth our time if we get stuck with all the foul mouthed brats battlenet brings.




RE: Not this time...
By StephR on 8/1/2011 1:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
Diablo III will get bought in the millions in the frist week or 2 like Starcraft 2 did. But personally, I tought that even if they splitted starcraft 2 in 3 game, it would still be great and I tought that single player game would last longer and there would have been more content. But I was disappointed since it took me 6 hours to complete the game and the only option is to either battle your friends (only if they have bought the game since it's internet-only) or play custom games. I won't be buying the other 2 games comming in a log time for so little story/gameplay for 40+ $$.. I paid 10 $ for minecraft and I play Minecraft alot more that starcraft 2 :P (note: I'm not comparing minecraft top starcraft here)


Yayyy Guildwars II
By Yeah on 8/1/2011 2:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
I was really wondering how I would seperate my time between Guildwars II and DIII.

In light of the online only play of DIII; I'd rather put my time in Guildwars II. Everyone complaining should just play something else.




RE: Yayyy Guildwars II
By danskmacabre on 8/1/2011 3:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree just playing (and buying) something else is the best way to protest.
I for one find myself playing games made by smaller companies anyway.
The games made by big companies are increasingly more and more samey and boring.
Still I don't feel the need to criticise those who buy into games with a business model like D3, if they want to throw their money at it, it's fine with me.


Na Na
By Tiborticus on 8/2/2011 7:31:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well my father used to say "Na na all good things come to an end". From what I understand about the game right now I won't be purchasing D3. I run a small business, I also manage my servers and network not to mention managing the house and we have a small child. One of the Beauties of Diablo for me was the ability to play anywhere on my laptop for a moment or longer, on the plane, in a hotel with no connection etc. I'm in my fourties so I don't "gotta have it". Unless I find out more that indicates I can play it the way I want to then I'll be playing Rage, Torchlight2 and perhaps Mass Effect 3 or F3AR. The online only thing simply has no appeal to me. No doubt Blizzard did its reseach and is comming up with an effective business model and clearly I'm not in the majority of its demographic so loosing me as a potential customer won't effect its bottom line. Sales of course won't be affected unless people don't buy it like someone alluded to earlier. So long Diablo it was a great run...




RE: Na Na
By wempa on 8/2/2011 12:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm totally with you on this one. I find myself quite often in places without internet access where I love to break out my laptop and kill some time by gaming. This is not some bizarre concept, as some of these people are claiming. I was a loyal Blizzard customer ever since I first played Warcraft 2. The Diablo series was my favorite and I bought multiple copies of all the Diablo games. My opinion has changed since they left LAN play out of Starcraft 2. This decision is even worse for me. I could have dealt with separate offline and online play like they did with Diablo 2, but this decision kills the entire experience for me. I won't be buying any Blizzard games with such limitations. With technology improving so rapidly, the gaming experience should be getting better . Decisions like this are a huge step back in my opinion.


Why do people sound surpised?
By Miqunator on 8/2/2011 8:51:29 AM , Rating: 2
If they did anything differently from Starcraft 2 I would have been surprised. I wasn't expecting the real money AH though, wonder how big cut Blizzard is taking from that




By th3pwn3r on 8/2/2011 11:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't see the big deal in it being online only. I remember playing Diablo 2 when it first came out and couldn't wait for my internet to be hooked up for online game play. The only reason I could see wanting to play OFFLINE is if you have either no internet connection, you're anti-social OR you have no friends.

Don't worry though, Starcraft2 has already been cracked a la Starfriend so this will also be cracked for people more than likely. I'll be buying though, I'll be going back and forth between this and Dota2


Hah
By dusteater on 8/1/2011 12:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
We knew this was going to happen. The future of gaming is grim indeed. I am overseas all the time and have a fair amount of downtime where I will sometimes play a game, though these days it is pretty impossible with all games requiring an internet connection. Oh well, guess I will have to be satisfied with Minesweeper.




RE: Hah
By Slipgate on 8/1/2011 1:14:46 PM , Rating: 1
the FUTURE. keyword there. You know you don't really have to play pc games to have fun, right?


Real Cash?
By VahnTitrio on 8/1/2011 11:19:39 AM , Rating: 2
Time to put in a marathon session when the game first comes out and sell items at ridiculously inflated values. If in fact you can sell things for real cash, and this game is as popular as DII, making serious chunks of change will not be difficult.




As a player...
By WoWCow on 8/1/2011 1:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diablo III players can partake in anonymous transactions, buying gems, armor, weapons, runestones, etc. with the option to auto-bid or instant buy any of these items. If a seller chooses cash instead of virtual gold, Blizzard will charge sellers a listing fee and a nominal fixed transaction fee if the item has a buyer. The cash proceeds are then either applied to an e-balance, allowing players to buy other Blizzard products, or a third-party payment provider (who is unannounced for now) that will let players cash out their money.


I understand from a developer/sole administration point of view this is an extremely profitable venture...

But as a player, even when I was on WoW with the 'illegal' gold sale, hacks, and bots on a high pop server it really degraded my experience.

Sounds like the automated farmers wins again, but Blizzard stands to profit as well this time around instead of spending money and barring the cheaters out.




Newbies need not ap#!*
By dxf2891 on 8/1/2011 2:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of newbies are intimidated by the online community. Even those who are gamers with a newbie mentality will scoff at this. In essence, you just got rid of an entire paying audience.




By frozentundra123456 on 8/1/2011 5:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
I am very disappointed in this. I have no problem with having to be online to authenticate the game, but all the other online aspects make it seem distressingly like an MMO. As someone else posted, I want to play alone, whenever I like, for as long or short time as I like. I dont really game to meet up with people.

And I especially dislike the ability to purchase in game items with real money. Dont see how they can make this fair for those that dont want to keep pouring money into the game after paying 60.00 originally. And I also bet that Blizzard will get a cut of these transactions.

I dislike microtransactions even in a free to play game, but in a game that already costs 60.00, forget it!!




By ie5x on 8/2/2011 2:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
...and introduce pricing model on quests, trade etc. Isn't this similar to what AoE Online is doing? IMHO, this can attract lot more players and increase the odds of a casual player turning into a customer.




Well that's a shame
By M4gery on 8/4/2011 12:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
I wont be getting this one then. No offline play killed this for me

And since characters are stored server-side, doesnt look like any simple hack will fix it.

Seems to me like they are trying to make D3 into a psuedo-mmo. If I wanted to play an mmo, I'd play one.




By vision33r on 8/6/2011 12:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Back when Battle.net was 1st created people would complain, it was free and D2 still had local play. Some people didn't like it.

Now it is 2011, same whiners and now Blizzard did what many people actually wanted was selling of in-game goods without going through the web and paying ridiculous amount for it and people scamming others too.

This will prevent lots of scams.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki