-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Waiting in queue to play my $60 single player game. The future is awesome (Diablo 3)
- Thread starter djfist
- Start date
- Status
faceless007
Member
There are those of us who haven't bought the game but are railing against it anyway because we're afraid of what it represents.
No. Fundamentally you can't evaluate the efficacy of Diablo 3's online only system in deterring hackers and botters 3 days out of the gate, you're inconvenienced by the system and would prefer it to be another way, that's reasonable, but there is a benefit to those who wish to participate in the game long-term, the degree of this benefit remains to be seen, is difficult to quantify, and even then can only reveal itself over the long term, but it still exists.
CecilRousso
Member
While I like the general idea of that RPS article, it´s pretty futile, since it really doesn´t matter how much you complain about these things. The biggest publishers are not going to turn around just suddenly and start caring about their customers. Always online DRM is just one thing of many they do cause they know that they can get away with it. When you buy games from Activision, EA, Ubisoft and the rest like them, you just have to accept shit like this, or stay away from their games.
Luckily on PC at least, you have quite a lot of options in terms of quality games from smaller studios, so it is possible to to play something else. I know that people wants to play the games that everyone else is talking about, but Diablo 3 really isn´t a "must play" title.
Luckily on PC at least, you have quite a lot of options in terms of quality games from smaller studios, so it is possible to to play something else. I know that people wants to play the games that everyone else is talking about, but Diablo 3 really isn´t a "must play" title.
Glass Rebel
Member
That's arguable. Ubisoft tried it once but it backfired and sales suffered as a result.
The RPS article is spot-on. Everybody in the industry is keeping a close watch and if you think this won't have any effect you're pretty naïve. People on the supporting side of the fence have to realize something: While you may be ok with this because it's Diablo III and/or you actually prefer Blizzard's solution you're indirectly making PC gaming worse by supporting and defending it. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy or enjoy the game, it's your money after all, but remember next time you can't play a game because of server issues that you helped make this happen.
faceless007
Member
I think you missed the whole point of the article. It's not about Diablo III, it's about what this means for the future of the PC market.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
This thread is shameful. I can´t believe that some people would defend this shit.
This thread is impressive.
After my years of experience with WoW, I was willing to buy and play D3 with full knowledge that, on top of the always online requirement due to storing character and world data server side, NOT because of DRM, the first couple of days would be a shitstorm that would even out eventually.
If D3 is wildly successful and other companies follow suit, I may or may not purchase those games based on their indIvidual merits. Blizzard is an exception in the game world because they have built up enough trust to pull off something like this. If others want to copycat the system they'll have to deal with the risk of failing, which would be higher for any other developer except for a few, such as Valve. This isn't endangering anything as long as people continue to make informed purchases.
It really sounds like people are arguing over necessities when they are in fact commodities. If a company makes a game that does shit you are not into, don't buy it. There will always be plenty for you to choose from.
After my years of experience with WoW, I was willing to buy and play D3 with full knowledge that, on top of the always online requirement due to storing character and world data server side, NOT because of DRM, the first couple of days would be a shitstorm that would even out eventually.
If D3 is wildly successful and other companies follow suit, I may or may not purchase those games based on their indIvidual merits. Blizzard is an exception in the game world because they have built up enough trust to pull off something like this. If others want to copycat the system they'll have to deal with the risk of failing, which would be higher for any other developer except for a few, such as Valve. This isn't endangering anything as long as people continue to make informed purchases.
It really sounds like people are arguing over necessities when they are in fact commodities. If a company makes a game that does shit you are not into, don't buy it. There will always be plenty for you to choose from.
One thing i have realized about the internet there is a defense force for everything. People will make up analogies that make no sense and bend the truth to further their agenda.
Any Capcom on disc DLC thread is just as shameful.
Glass Rebel
Member
Ah yes, massive influx of players and extreme popularity leading to server crashes. PC gaming must be dead alright.
carbonbased
Member
so blizzard is responsible for the actions that all future devs take? i think it is pretty clear that there is a distinction between ubi's always-on drm in say assassin's creed and what is present here in diablo 3.
i feel for those that just want to clear the game in single player and experience the story or whatever, but for someone like myself the very thought of single player diablo is borderline nauseating. maybe back in the first months of diablo 2's launch it was novel to mess around with (and i won't deny that i spent some time trying out a mod or two which sadly will be impossible in d3) but the long term appeal of the series has always been rooted in social, commerce based interactions. i don't see how diablo 3 is any different than guild wars besides the fact that guild wars has never had an entry with an offline mode so expectations are different going in.
if diablo 2 was more secure (and it was so far from anything remotely resembling secure) i would say the forced online was indefensible. however, my own lengthy past experience with that game and it's hacked-to-hell-and-back *server side* online play contrasted with how world of warcraft has turned out tells me that i could easily benefit from blizzard's decision here.
yes their main motivation is anti-piracy, promoting the real money auction house, and their bottom line in general. that doesn't mean it's a straight lose-lose situation.
CecilRousso
Member
I hope you didn´t take my post as a defence of Diablo 3´s system. It´s not, I´m staying from that game, and pretty much everything Activision has their hands in.
Of course it will have some effect, but the big publishers are still going in one direction. If people rage against always online DRM, but they will just try the next thing, with server depencies a little here and a little there, which basically means the same but will be enough to please people, until they get streaming working good enough for their big games.
I´m not naive, but very cynical about these companies, and I take my stand much earlier than this. I refused to play even Tropico 4 during the free weekend becaused it forced me to create an account just for single player, I regret having bought Company of Heroes even for 2€ because it uses a similiar system.
Diablo 3 is a no go in terms of purchase for me for many many reasons. I have enough games to play to be able to just stay away from some publishers.
This. By supporting Diablo 3 with your money and your words, you're ensuring that other publishers will try the same thing with their games. Remember how much you hate UbiSoft DRM? Yep, this is even worse, and it will become more common if we don't speak up.
Glass Rebel
Member
In a way, yes. It's not their fault by any means but the same way Activision and CoD have a huge influence on the console/FPS landscape Blizzard has a hand in shaping PC gaming. It's just how it is.
I think everybody sensible can see the benefits of this system but it's still like saying "I don't mind companies fucking me in the ass as long as you use lube." The apologists in this thread (not saying you are one) don't seem to realize that you can enjoy the game but still complain about it.
The "naïve" part wasn't directed at you, sorry for not being clear. And I'm not saying you're supporting it, I just don't share the sentiment that it's futile and we might as well give up.
Yes, publishers are going in this direction but that's why it's our "responsibility" to push against this movement. If you just suck it up and let publishers do as they please you're doing yourself a disfavour.
carbonbased
Member
except i'm not being fucked one bit. that's the problem with what you are saying here. you and others might be losing out, but this system doesn't affect me one bit and in fact will probably end up being a straight improvement to how i play the series. i spent thousands of hours playing diablo 2 and 99.99% of the time it was on servers (with queues!) in an almost identical fashion to how diablo 3 is structured. trading a single player mode i will never touch for the potential to have a clean, possibly even hack free entry in a series notorious for exploits? i'll take it every time.
Glass Rebel
Member
It's still a problem to others and what some are doing here is trying to shut people with legitimate concerns up. It's the GFWL situation all over again.
By all means, I'm glad you and others enjoy the game and it's system but on the other hand I also feel for the people who can't enjoy a game they paid $60 for because of this.
Somehow, my Internet crapped out on me on Tuesday, and it wasn't fixed until today.
Instead of raging over not being able to play Diablo, I played Journey. That was nice ^_^
but for real always on drm is some bullshit larry david
This post is hilariously hilarious.
Loved Diablo 1/2/LoD but I think it's good that I skipped 3. If I'm not mistaken, they're making a console version any ways so I might just wait till then and see if I'll be interested then.
GW2 and Torchlight 2 will be my go to games for this type of game this year.
Separate the offline single/lan characters from the bnet servers. if you want to play on bnet then you get much better drop rate and some exclusive loot (I remember D2/LoD working this way... I think). have both data bases be different. Yes it's more work but for a game this big it's not a waste of resources. This isn't a bioware game after all.
Fact of the matter is, they want to make as much return on investment as they can and that's why we're getting this piece of crap. Just like I've done with other games associated with anti-consumer practices, I'm voting with my wallet and not buying this.
PetriP-TNT
Member
It's not like Atvi-Blizzard couldn't have afforded a billion of new servers. They just didn't... want to. $$$
Anyone defending this is insane.
Anyone defending this is insane.
Brofist
Member
I don't think a console version will ever happen personally.
Brofist
Member
Hope that GW2 offline mode works out for ya.
Dark Souls is single player but has online elements. The catch is the game doesn't comprise the single player feature in the name of corporate greed, which is why nobody blew the fuck up when the game launched with online issues. You could still play the whole game, but there were minor/extreme issues with online connectivity.
Just because Blizzard pulled out the rug that allows offline single player does not change the fact it too can be a single player game. It's just the coat of paint they're using for that tends to be feces instead of a beautiful color.
Yup. That's about all I have to say too. Some gamers deserve everything they're going to get.
Troll post is obvious.
I've been playing GW and all its expansions on two accounts (yes this means I bought two of each disc) since 2006. Switching back and forth from a PVE oriented guild to a PVP one as balance changes ruin PVP for me ;-)
The ranger and mesmer classes were some of the most feel good online gaming experiences I've had in an rpg. Haven't tried the beta even though I had an invite because I want to go in fresh. I just hope it will be as good for me as the original.
Edit:
Regarding a Diablo 3 console port, I remember a thread on the official forums pretty much confirming that they're working on it.
game informer article with an update which doesn't completely rule it out. We'll see.
Not buying the game until they fix this. I have a shitty internet connection at home so I'm not willing to live in agony just to play it.
Watching some vids where people are faced with laggy gameplay due to connection issues in single player mode... shit is infuriating.
If there is no way to play D3 hassle-free, this is one game I can live without.
Watching some vids where people are faced with laggy gameplay due to connection issues in single player mode... shit is infuriating.
If there is no way to play D3 hassle-free, this is one game I can live without.
The worst thing for people in my situation (ie Western Australians) is that even when the servers are 100% working with no random disconnects and kicks, I can still only play the game with a ping of ~250ms. There's still that annoying hitch every single time I open a chest or door. If my character is is walking and changes direction suddenly, they occasionally teleport.
And I'm exclusively playing single player, so I don't get any benefit of whatever they've achieved on the multiplayer side.
And I'm exclusively playing single player, so I don't get any benefit of whatever they've achieved on the multiplayer side.
Did I miss something about Diablo 3 being a Massively Multiplayer Online game like GW2?
bee
Member
since 11pm monday when it launched, i've not managed to play more than 5 mins yet, constant error 37's early on and now i just get kicked out of my single player game with error 3007 within 5 mins of starting and that 5mins of play is the most ridiculous stutter fest i've ever seen, good shit! its client side u say? pc is ridiculously over specced and the router which has zero problems with anything else is currently showing 255 days uptime
appalling tbh but at least i've got PoE and a load of others to play, if ANY other game that blizzard made had this protection on it in the future i 100% would not buy it
appalling tbh but at least i've got PoE and a load of others to play, if ANY other game that blizzard made had this protection on it in the future i 100% would not buy it
I don't know were to post this (should we start Diablo 3 review thread?) but here's a mini-review by RPS that speaks for itself:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/18/how-diablo-iiis-solo-experience-reveals-a-hollow-game/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/18/how-diablo-iiis-solo-experience-reveals-a-hollow-game/
Glass Rebel
Member
I haven't played the game yet but I've yet to read an unfair review from RPS so I'm torn. It's gonna be interesting to see how they review Torchlight 2 and Grim Dawn.
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
All this 'it's not a single-player game' stuff confuses me. Do you have to pay a subscription for D3, or are the rabid fanboys just reaching desperately for another lifeline in their crusade to defend their fellation of their favourite company, pro-consumer attitude be-damned?
I think the review is fair, but I will still argue that people who buy Diablo for the single player experience are missing the point. I think it's in the same vein as buying CoD solely for the campaign. I'm not saying people don't have valid reasons to only play these games by themselves, but to me personally it seems like a waste of money. I'm playing through Diablo 3 on Normal by myself for the most part, but plan on doing co-op throughout the rest of the summer.
As far as continuing server issues, I played 3 hours on Weds night, 3 hours last night, and no issues. My ping was outrageously high, like in the low 300s for the most part, but it didn't really impact my gameplay in any perceptible way. I didn't see the "hitching" issue the Aussie guy had.
However, I did read that if you join the General chat, you won't get kicked off. I join the General chat because I find it semi-useful, so perhaps that's why I'm not joining in the bitchfest.
Jesus. Not everybody is a fanboy. Some of us just don't get worked up so easily. It's a piece of software, software is easily fixed.
Yeah I didnt want to make a new thread for this but Ill just repost this from the Diablo 3 OT.
Honestly as someone who didn't buy Diablo 3, this is just stupid. But how many of you did or did not expect this? I honestly wouldnt buy this this if I had a competent pc until server issues are sorted out or they patch it so you can play your singleplayer game whenever you fucking feel like it.
Not trying to troll here, but since this is the OT I feel this is a legitimate question and I didnt want to make a new thread for it.
Btw I'm not saying your purchases aren't validated or whatever, I mean if you think this is the GOTF then great. I really would love to play this but my pc sucks.
But honestly I wouldnt have given my money to Blizzard until this shit is actually patched or cracked or whatever, so you can play it when you want.
its possible to know they have always-on DRM but expect the developer to be able to plan on how to handle things. Two obvious things they could have done:
- have enough servers. Were they not expecting it to be popular? Its Diablo III!
- for single player, ping the server. Server not responding? Let player play single player anyway, check again in 15 minutes.
Glass Rebel
Member
Sadly the issue some of us have with the game can't be easily fixed and probably won't.
captainnapalm
Member
Companies take a huge risk with the online-only option. Look at Diablo 3's Metacritic user rating and all the articles written about their server problems. All that bad press is going to cost them sales, no doubt about it, and gamers will be more wary next time something like this comes around.
I've gotten used to having to be online to install games, but when it comes to playing the damn things, there should always at least be an option to play the game in some form offline. Blizzard would have gotten a lot less flack for this launch if they'd done this and they really only hurt themselves.
I've gotten used to having to be online to install games, but when it comes to playing the damn things, there should always at least be an option to play the game in some form offline. Blizzard would have gotten a lot less flack for this launch if they'd done this and they really only hurt themselves.
Oppo
Member
At the risk of sounding very, very rude: I DON'T FUCKING CARE. I don't care that you think playing a game by yourself is weird, or sub-optimal. No, in fact I did not exhaustively research D3. I knew it was another Diablo.
Am I the only one that saw that Diablo 3 was coming out, and said Great!, and basically didn't read anything about it (desperate attempt to avoid spoilerage), and bought it? So yeah, I fully intended to make my first play through solo, then do more passes with multi, like I do with almost every other game. And yes I'm surprised and irritated that there are login issues affecting this, like so many others.
p.s. played CoD for the campaign,was a good 1-night rental. sue me.
plagiarize
Banned
right. how can they possibly know why people who were considering it at one point changed their minds and didn't buy? how can they possibly know how big that group is? if the game sells brilliantly, why would they even care?
i always tell people who hate on disc DLC to buy the base game and not the DLC, if they like the base game, because bad DLC sales will kill on disc DLC, where as no sale doesn't send any kind of a message by itself. you can see 'we sold two million copies of the game, one million unique players played the game connected to the internet but we only sold 50,000 copies of the dlc' and understand that, but of the billions of people alive who don't buy Diablo 3, how are you going to figure out which of them didn't because it's an always online experience?
i defend the concept of this. i understand why they've done it, and in principle i think it's a good idea... but the execution has been terrible clearly... and any and all complaints about bad ping in certain countries, waiting in queues, and disconnects are all completely 100% valid. no one should have expected the game wouldn't work as advertised.
This makes me want to see a pic with Diablo 3 photoshopped over ET.
I didn't say it was "weird". I just said it seemed like a waste of money. Which, if you routinely drop $60 on games while doing zero research, you shouldn't be surprised if you get routinely burned.
- Status