look the only reason they have online play for single player game is to stop the guy down the street with no money copying a game and playing it for free .
millions of $$ is lost on piracy and to combat it now we have to log in to verify that we purchased the game basically .
They probably lost a good chunk of money with the online only issue too. I didnt buy it and wont for that reason. Have a best friend who is a Diablo fanatic. He refuses to buy it for that reason too. Wonder how many others there are. Which you have to admit is kind of ironic.
Companies always go on about how piracy affects them and then give these extreme revenue lose numbers. As though every single pirated copy would have been a sale otherwise which is just absolutely not the case. It assumes that if they didnt pirate it, they would have bought it. That is false entirely. It also some what assumes that pirates never buy games. Thats probably also entirely false.
But as many have said, an online only mode for a single player game is stupid. It shows a lack of reason and intelligence. Im all for a company finding a way to validate the game and make sure its bought, but I would assume there are many other ways besides making it online only. And now its come back to bite Blizzard and its poor Diablo fans in the rear. I dont feel sorry for Blizzard. I do feel sorry for the customers intensly.
Basically... if you don't like the way Blizzard or any other company makes, runs or otherwise handles business surrounding their games.... DO NOT BUY THEM. Nobody is forcing you to hand them $$$.
It is still annoying when devs turn a game bad just because they want you to be online all the time for copy protection or in this case so they can have a real money auction house.
I'm kinda hoping this turns into a complete nightmare for them, I really hate having to play single player online and I would love it, if this turned into a lesson of what not to do.
This is the kind of innovation that is bad for gamer's
This needs to backfire bad for the gaming community as a whole...
Last thing we need is for this to become the norm.
I wonder if people are finally starting to see how much pull Activision has on Blizzard's decisions. The online only gameplay is one of them for instance.
Also just so you guys are aware, this system has already failed to stop hackers from cracking the single player, which in this case makes it entirely useless anyhow.
One should always be aware that, for every type of defense that exists, there exists many numerous ways to undermine each one.
How dare the OP rate this game against cryptic! Star trek launch appears to have been a much better launch than the diablo 3 single player game. I know I certainly played through the star trek online launch and only experienced a minimal amount of lag and was never kicked out of the game. Glad I didnt buy diablo 3. that always on drm is absolute crap and the only way to stop companies from putting that crap into their games is to not buy them and then to add insult to injury, make sure that the media knows and reports on stuff like this so that others decide not to buy it also. Hurt them bad enough in the wallet and they will stop doing crap like this.
Thanks everybody for buying this game, I'm sure it will sell extremely well.
Other publishers will take note and more single player games will require you to be online all the time to play. Or even worse don't allow mods anymore like Diablo. If the next Elders Scrolls doesn't allow mod support I'm throwing a hissy fit.
Did you guys really expect a smooth launch? This is Blizzard we are talking about. When WoW came out their servers had more errors/disconnects than there are words in the Oxford dictionary. It will all start to get better in the next couple of days. That's what you get when you have so many people wanting to play.
Why is everybody crying so much about the single player bit. Who the hell played single player in Diablo 2? IF there was offline single player that means that those single player characters will not be going anywhere near battlenet. So why bother at all?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Basically... if you don't like the way Blizzard or any other company makes, runs or otherwise handles business surrounding their games.... DO NOT BUY THEM. Nobody is forcing you to hand them $$$.
It is still annoying when devs turn a game bad just because they want you to be online all the time for copy protection or in this case so they can have a real money auction house.
The way I see it, it would be even more silly to want a RMAH, but not take drastic steps to make sure people can trust the items being sold on the RMAH. In particular when there are so many stories about Diablo 2's duping and how it ruined the economy.
Besides, I'm of the opinion that Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game that also allows people to play it alone.
The way I see it, it would be even more silly to want a RMAH, but not take drastic steps to make sure people can trust the items being sold on the RMAH. In particular when there are so many stories about Diablo 2's duping and how it ruined the economy.
Besides, I'm of the opinion that Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game that also allows people to play it alone.
The RMAH is silly in any case but what would have made sense is to allow players to either play on their own computers with no auction house or to play on the regular Blizz servers. Thet way if your net is down you could still play but just not sell the items.
It would be as secure as it is now.
I see no reason for people who want a singleplayer game to play on a server. And it would be a easy fix.
The way I see it, it would be even more silly to want a RMAH, but not take drastic steps to make sure people can trust the items being sold on the RMAH. In particular when there are so many stories about Diablo 2's duping and how it ruined the economy.
Besides, I'm of the opinion that Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game that also allows people to play it alone.
The RMAH is silly in any case but what would have made sense is to allow players to either play on their own computers with no auction house or to play on the regular Blizz servers. Thet way if your net is down you could still play but just not sell the items.
It would be as secure as it is now.
I see no reason for people who want a singleplayer game to play on a server. And it would be a easy fix.
You sir are a true scholar among idiots!
That would have been a perfect solution to this... bullshit we SP peons have to go through. But money talks, logic walks I guess.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
The way I see it, it would be even more silly to want a RMAH, but not take drastic steps to make sure people can trust the items being sold on the RMAH. In particular when there are so many stories about Diablo 2's duping and how it ruined the economy.
Besides, I'm of the opinion that Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game that also allows people to play it alone.
The RMAH is silly in any case but what would have made sense is to allow players to either play on their own computers with no auction house or to play on the regular Blizz servers. Thet way if your net is down you could still play but just not sell the items.
It would be as secure as it is now.
I see no reason for people who want a singleplayer game to play on a server. And it would be a easy fix.
Im not saying this is a huge security issue, it is just very attractive for a developer, not having the "server functionality" in the client.
Back in the day i just needed a memory editor and i could spawn ANY item via the horadric cube in a single player or tcpip game, because blizz at that time had a very healthy development style, all the required data, tables chances attributes, for that was in the client in a nearly readable form, imagine what could someone capable of spying on the client server communication do with that in battle.net . And they did, bots, maphacks, which will probably exist anyway, but i think it makes sense to make things harder for them, but we can talk about the fallout on offline players.
I wonder if people are finally starting to see how much pull Activision has on Blizzard's decisions. The online only gameplay is one of them for instance.
Also just so you guys are aware, this system has already failed to stop hackers from cracking the single player, which in this case makes it entirely useless anyhow.
One should always be aware that, for every type of defense that exists, there exists many numerous ways to undermine each one.
Lies... unless you can prove me otherwise.
Got a link to the "cracked" single player game? the game needs a sever to serve the client with information such as loot, mobs, dungeon layouts, events etc... it's client/server just like an MMO.
I suspect you're refering to the hack that lets you walk around an empty word, no mobs, no NPC, no dungeons), thats cus that data is on the client and its just the outside maps and graphics.
Thanks everybody for buying this game, I'm sure it will sell extremely well.
Other publishers will take note and more single player games will require you to be online all the time to play. Or even worse don't allow mods anymore like Diablo. If the next Elders Scrolls doesn't allow mod support I'm throwing a hissy fit.
D3 was always designed to be a mutli-player game you could solo, it's client/server just like an MMO, what next an offline WoW or EQ? Diablo was never officialy moddable people hacked the game files there were no official mod tools or support.
Blizz could provide an offline mode but they would need to create a server that runs localy on the client and by doing so you expose the techniques and systems used to generate content in the online game which is just handing the game to hackers.
Note to self, last time I try and expain why there is no offline mod in D3,
look the only reason they have online play for single player game is to stop the guy down the street with no money copying a game and playing it for free .
millions of $$ is lost on piracy and to combat it now we have to log in to verify that we purchased the game basically .
Oh wow, there are people who still believe that? Hasn't the "Losing money to pirates" thing been debunked numerous times already?
Their 'lost' figures are all based on expected purchases, and they count the people who weren't going to pay in the first place. Therefore, they will always be losing money because their expectations were set so high. Meanwhile, it ends up being like Avengers in the movie ring. Hollywood believed "OH NOES! IT LEAKED! PEOPLE DOWNLOADED! THE PIRATES HAVE KILLED IT BEFORE IT HAS EVEN HIT THE SCREENS!" It then went on to break records in profit. Do you know why? Because it was a fantastic movie worthy of peoples money.
Meanwhile, there is actually a fairly sizeable group who pirate games to demo them. If they don't like the game, they aren't going to cough up money they worked hard for. Do you know why? Because they don't believe the developer deserves it. It's not that groups fault demo's aren't really given by the bigger companies anymore. Only the indies seem to do that these days, and it does them a great service.
Look back to those Indy companies. They have no sales projections. If they make money, they make money. Score. They don't have some publisher with massive expectations both pushing them as hard as possible to get their game out the door, nor do they lose any revenue to these publishers. Blizzard ARE their own publisher, but they still make sales projections in the exact same way every other big publisher does. If they set their sales projections lower, discounting the people unlikely to buy their game at all, and discounting those who only may end up buying their game, they're more than likely to be right on the money. In fact, those who 'may' buy their game often won't until the price comes down for games anyway. I myself am usually a 'maybe' person, willing to wait a year or two for a price drop.
Not all of us have the money for insta-buying every game that releases. I only just bought Space Marine for $15NZ. Well worth the price imo
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
Originally posted by Corehaven Originally posted by Grailer look the only reason they have online play for single player game is to stop the guy down the street with no money copying a game and playing it for free . millions of $$ is lost on piracy and to combat it now we have to log in to verify that we purchased the game basically .
They probably lost a good chunk of money with the online only issue too. I didnt buy it and wont for that reason. Have a best friend who is a Diablo fanatic. He refuses to buy it for that reason too. Wonder how many others there are. Which you have to admit is kind of ironic.
Companies always go on about how piracy affects them and then give these extreme revenue lose numbers. As though every single pirated copy would have been a sale otherwise which is just absolutely not the case. It assumes that if they didnt pirate it, they would have bought it. That is false entirely. It also some what assumes that pirates never buy games. Thats probably also entirely false.
But as many have said, an online only mode for a single player game is stupid. It shows a lack of reason and intelligence. Im all for a company finding a way to validate the game and make sure its bought, but I would assume there are many other ways besides making it online only. And now its come back to bite Blizzard and its poor Diablo fans in the rear. I dont feel sorry for Blizzard. I do feel sorry for the customers intensly.
The reason why I din't buy it...even though I loved D2 and Hack&Slay in general.
Comments
They probably lost a good chunk of money with the online only issue too. I didnt buy it and wont for that reason. Have a best friend who is a Diablo fanatic. He refuses to buy it for that reason too. Wonder how many others there are. Which you have to admit is kind of ironic.
Companies always go on about how piracy affects them and then give these extreme revenue lose numbers. As though every single pirated copy would have been a sale otherwise which is just absolutely not the case. It assumes that if they didnt pirate it, they would have bought it. That is false entirely. It also some what assumes that pirates never buy games. Thats probably also entirely false.
But as many have said, an online only mode for a single player game is stupid. It shows a lack of reason and intelligence. Im all for a company finding a way to validate the game and make sure its bought, but I would assume there are many other ways besides making it online only. And now its come back to bite Blizzard and its poor Diablo fans in the rear. I dont feel sorry for Blizzard. I do feel sorry for the customers intensly.
no this is blizzard something worse then ea and cryptic :P
It is still annoying when devs turn a game bad just because they want you to be online all the time for copy protection or in this case so they can have a real money auction house.
This needs to backfire bad for the gaming community as a whole...
Last thing we need is for this to become the norm.
I wonder if people are finally starting to see how much pull Activision has on Blizzard's decisions. The online only gameplay is one of them for instance.
Also just so you guys are aware, this system has already failed to stop hackers from cracking the single player, which in this case makes it entirely useless anyhow.
One should always be aware that, for every type of defense that exists, there exists many numerous ways to undermine each one.
How dare the OP rate this game against cryptic! Star trek launch appears to have been a much better launch than the diablo 3 single player game. I know I certainly played through the star trek online launch and only experienced a minimal amount of lag and was never kicked out of the game. Glad I didnt buy diablo 3. that always on drm is absolute crap and the only way to stop companies from putting that crap into their games is to not buy them and then to add insult to injury, make sure that the media knows and reports on stuff like this so that others decide not to buy it also. Hurt them bad enough in the wallet and they will stop doing crap like this.
Thanks everybody for buying this game, I'm sure it will sell extremely well.
Other publishers will take note and more single player games will require you to be online all the time to play. Or even worse don't allow mods anymore like Diablo. If the next Elders Scrolls doesn't allow mod support I'm throwing a hissy fit.
Did you guys really expect a smooth launch? This is Blizzard we are talking about. When WoW came out their servers had more errors/disconnects than there are words in the Oxford dictionary. It will all start to get better in the next couple of days. That's what you get when you have so many people wanting to play.
Why is everybody crying so much about the single player bit. Who the hell played single player in Diablo 2? IF there was offline single player that means that those single player characters will not be going anywhere near battlenet. So why bother at all?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
The way I see it, it would be even more silly to want a RMAH, but not take drastic steps to make sure people can trust the items being sold on the RMAH. In particular when there are so many stories about Diablo 2's duping and how it ruined the economy.
Besides, I'm of the opinion that Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game that also allows people to play it alone.
The RMAH is silly in any case but what would have made sense is to allow players to either play on their own computers with no auction house or to play on the regular Blizz servers. Thet way if your net is down you could still play but just not sell the items.
It would be as secure as it is now.
I see no reason for people who want a singleplayer game to play on a server. And it would be a easy fix.
You sir are a true scholar among idiots!
That would have been a perfect solution to this... bullshit we SP peons have to go through. But money talks, logic walks I guess.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
Im not saying this is a huge security issue, it is just very attractive for a developer, not having the "server functionality" in the client.
Back in the day i just needed a memory editor and i could spawn ANY item via the horadric cube in a single player or tcpip game, because blizz at that time had a very healthy development style, all the required data, tables chances attributes, for that was in the client in a nearly readable form, imagine what could someone capable of spying on the client server communication do with that in battle.net . And they did, bots, maphacks, which will probably exist anyway, but i think it makes sense to make things harder for them, but we can talk about the fallout on offline players.
Flame on!
Lies... unless you can prove me otherwise.
Got a link to the "cracked" single player game? the game needs a sever to serve the client with information such as loot, mobs, dungeon layouts, events etc... it's client/server just like an MMO.
I suspect you're refering to the hack that lets you walk around an empty word, no mobs, no NPC, no dungeons), thats cus that data is on the client and its just the outside maps and graphics.
D3 was always designed to be a mutli-player game you could solo, it's client/server just like an MMO, what next an offline WoW or EQ? Diablo was never officialy moddable people hacked the game files there were no official mod tools or support.
Blizz could provide an offline mode but they would need to create a server that runs localy on the client and by doing so you expose the techniques and systems used to generate content in the online game which is just handing the game to hackers.
Note to self, last time I try and expain why there is no offline mod in D3,
Oh wow, there are people who still believe that? Hasn't the "Losing money to pirates" thing been debunked numerous times already?
Their 'lost' figures are all based on expected purchases, and they count the people who weren't going to pay in the first place. Therefore, they will always be losing money because their expectations were set so high. Meanwhile, it ends up being like Avengers in the movie ring. Hollywood believed "OH NOES! IT LEAKED! PEOPLE DOWNLOADED! THE PIRATES HAVE KILLED IT BEFORE IT HAS EVEN HIT THE SCREENS!" It then went on to break records in profit. Do you know why? Because it was a fantastic movie worthy of peoples money.
Meanwhile, there is actually a fairly sizeable group who pirate games to demo them. If they don't like the game, they aren't going to cough up money they worked hard for. Do you know why? Because they don't believe the developer deserves it. It's not that groups fault demo's aren't really given by the bigger companies anymore. Only the indies seem to do that these days, and it does them a great service.
Look back to those Indy companies. They have no sales projections. If they make money, they make money. Score. They don't have some publisher with massive expectations both pushing them as hard as possible to get their game out the door, nor do they lose any revenue to these publishers. Blizzard ARE their own publisher, but they still make sales projections in the exact same way every other big publisher does. If they set their sales projections lower, discounting the people unlikely to buy their game at all, and discounting those who only may end up buying their game, they're more than likely to be right on the money. In fact, those who 'may' buy their game often won't until the price comes down for games anyway. I myself am usually a 'maybe' person, willing to wait a year or two for a price drop.
Not all of us have the money for insta-buying every game that releases. I only just bought Space Marine for $15NZ. Well worth the price imo
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
They probably lost a good chunk of money with the online only issue too. I didnt buy it and wont for that reason. Have a best friend who is a Diablo fanatic. He refuses to buy it for that reason too. Wonder how many others there are. Which you have to admit is kind of ironic.
Companies always go on about how piracy affects them and then give these extreme revenue lose numbers. As though every single pirated copy would have been a sale otherwise which is just absolutely not the case. It assumes that if they didnt pirate it, they would have bought it. That is false entirely. It also some what assumes that pirates never buy games. Thats probably also entirely false.
But as many have said, an online only mode for a single player game is stupid. It shows a lack of reason and intelligence. Im all for a company finding a way to validate the game and make sure its bought, but I would assume there are many other ways besides making it online only. And now its come back to bite Blizzard and its poor Diablo fans in the rear. I dont feel sorry for Blizzard. I do feel sorry for the customers intensly.
The reason why I din't buy it...even though I loved D2 and Hack&Slay in general.
You babies are incredible. Keep it up.
Snowflakes don't like it when the world doesn't revolve around them, good thing they have this online diary to post their worries on.