One BIG hope...it may beat the pants off DIII

[greylord]

After the fiasco coming out over Starcraft II's draconic DRM (which means though I've bought 2 copies of SC the original, and 5 copies of Diablo II over the years I won't be buying SCII), I'm pretty convinced they'll probably do the same thing for Diablo III. I like playing single player, and as my job dictates that I have to either play single player a lot, or play games over a LAN connection, it means I probably won't be buying Diablo III. Now if it were as open as D2, I'd be first in line, but with the way that SC2's DRM has turned up, it appears that if that's how they do DIII, I WILL NOT BE BUYING IT despite how much a fan of the series I have been in the past.

 

This leaves me with Torchlight (which is a great game, wish they had an expansion or two) and Dungeon Siege II, or the original Diablo II for that type of gaming. Torchlight is the newest, but I'm still looking for the next great Action RPG like Diablo...but with the updated graphics and a tad longer and bigger than Torchlight.

 

Enter Dungeon Siege III. Dungeon Siege II was great. It was the best thing next to Diablo II in the genre to ever be released. It was completely awesome. With Diablo III looking more and more out of the picture...it means Dungeon Siege III is moving more and more towards the focus of my next BIG game.

 

That is if they can avoid making the mistakes of Blizzard, or at least in the direction it looks like they are going.

 

So here's to hopes that they have GREAT gameplay (aka DSII and DII, but updated with better and bigger options, and additional items or change things up a little for III to make it even better), with actual support for MP (besides draconian I must control things like only play on Battle.net), and support for actual SINGLEPLAYER campaign play (such as if they must go the online activation route, at least only have it as a SINGLE one time ONLY activation...none of this need to connect every 30 days just to play singleplayer, and have to remain connected if you want to play as anything other than a guest on your own computer....type stuff. Even better, no online needed for Single player...though I understand activation for MP...at least once. I don't mind that as much, and even understand it to a degree in relation to piracy. As long as I can play online in otherways with my friends as well, I won't mind the activation so much.

 

If you couldn't tell I am completely dismayed over the SCII DRM scheme...and with thoughts that this is the way Blizzard is going...means that now...DSIII is the chief game I'm watching as the new and best...biggest release.

[LadyCrimson]

What exactly is so draconic about SC2's DRM? From what I understand it's just the 'need a bnet account' and 'online check when you install.' While I'm not a huge fan of that, it's not that terrible as far as DRM goes. I don't keep great track of game news tho, maybe I missed something?

 

In terms of D3 and LAN, last I heard Bashiok had hinted at a LAN replacement that should satisfy people. Probably something like, you connect to Battle.net once to ensure that everyone's got legit copies, then you can play over LAN as normal. Or something to that effect. Don't know for sure, but probably won't be a 'need constant online connection/verification to play SP' like Ubisoft. But I do agree that if Acti-Blizzard did do something akin to Ubisoft, I would be....mighty...angry.

 

Edit:I see one thread that mentions the possibility of a bnet LAN server....which if true, I guess necessitates being online for LAN like MP. Hm.

Edited July 28, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Vuguroth]

DSIII is the chief game I'm watching as the new and best...biggest release.

 

I too feel 100x more hype over this than Diablo 3 or others.

 

I've put down a ton of qualitative hours on LOTRO and other games, but this is the one time I actually want to get a great PC. To ensure the enjoyment of DS3. Have had this one for over 5 years, so I guess it's time now

[greylord]

What exactly is so draconic about SC2's DRM? From what I understand it's just the 'need a bnet account' and 'online check when you install.' While I'm not a huge fan of that, it's not that terrible as far as DRM goes. I don't keep great track of game news tho, maybe I missed something?

 

In terms of D3 and LAN, last I heard Bashiok had hinted at a LAN replacement that should satisfy people. Probably something like, you connect to Battle.net once to ensure that everyone's got legit copies, then you can play over LAN as normal. Or something to that effect. Don't know for sure, but probably won't be a 'need constant online connection/verification to play SP' like Ubisoft. But I do agree that if Acti-Blizzard did do something akin to Ubisoft, I would be....mighty...angry.

 

Edit:I see one thread that mentions the possibility of a bnet LAN server....which if true, I guess necessitates being online for LAN like MP. Hm.

 

Right now, it's more than a simple online check when you install. Of course simply to install requires an authentication, whether you just want single player or not. Then you NEED TO BE LOGGED IN TO PLAY singleplayer. The only other way is to log on and play via a guest account on your own computer...as a guest...and not save progress as far as advancements and trophys to your system. If you want that saved, you have to play as singleplayer logged in. Furthermore, you only get one playthrough, or save as a singleplayer...as you can only have one account as a singleplayer and it autosaves. You can have up to 3 guest accounts. Not certain if you can get all the way through, but some guest accounts thus far have been recorded by others stating that they end at the seven hour mark.

 

Finally, your computer will still need to authenticate the game every so often (currently every 30 days) even if you ONLY play as singleplayer, as a guest. To do so it needs to be hooked up to the internet, or you can get locked out.

 

They have a LAN replacement for multiplayer already in place for Starcraft 2 supposedly...and that is their battle.net which they have been pushing. You simply connect supposedly to the locals...I haven't seen it working as anything other than the typical bnet. In fact, that's ALL that exists that you can play over, there is NO REAL LAN play at all, nor any support despite that being a MAJOR push and complaint over not existing during the beta. All this so they can control what is going on during MP, but at the same time it locks out anyone who doesn't want to play over their "battle.net" which also has a bit of lag for some reason, even on high speed. There is no work around on the lag supposedly...working at about (250 ping?) a annoying rate.

 

Overall the game is GREAT, faster moving, and slim lined to be more efficient, but all the tweaks and works to make it so that you have to play it when and where they want you too, is a little too much for me.

[LadyCrimson]

Then you NEED TO BE LOGGED IN TO PLAY singleplayer.

Ok, thanks for the details...I didn't realize you had to be logged into bnet the whole time. That would make it kinda like Steam I guess, except with no single-player offline mode or whatever. It does sound like a pain in the arse. I saw one bnet forum thread where some ppl were having a lot of trouble getting it to work, too (the single-player login part), some kind of tech issue perhaps. *frown*

 

D3 I wasn't originally worried about in this area since the Diablo's are one of the few where I do like playing MP-server most of the time (even if I'm playing solo), but...yeah, understand the objections. Acti-Blizzard hasn't been pleasing me of late.

[Purkake]

You don't need to have Steam open after launching the game if it's a single player game or doesn't use Steam for multiplayer, unless they have changed something.

 

Having to maintain a constant connection is more like Ubisofts DRM than Steam.

[LadyCrimson]

I guess you didn't notice that I said:

 

That would make it kinda like Steam I guess, except with no single-player offline mode or whatever.

 

Sometimes I think you work for Steam, Purkake.

Edited July 29, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Purkake]

Well there is a fundamental difference between the two different mechanics, one of them being that lag isn't a problem.

 

While I might be a Steam fanboy in other threads, I assure you that I'm just clarifying things and I do that all the time with great ferocity and no bias.

 

This isn't really what the thread is about, but I laugh at the notion of anyone beating any article of clothing off Diablo III.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Purkake

[LadyCrimson]

While I might be a Steam fanboy in other threads, I assure you that I'm just clarifying things and I do that all the time with great ferocity and no bias.

I know. My 2nd line was just poking fun at you a little.

 

I agree that what bnet seems to be doing is more akin to Ubisoft DRM as far as the single-player aspect goes.

 

But I was more referring to the concept of Blizzard's bnet seemingly trying to turn their servers into a self-contained entertainment mecca service for all their games. Not just in terms of copy-protection, but the whole 'we want bnet to be an awesome but enforced social-media intertwined gaming platform!' vs. the more individual per-game basis it felt like it was before. Perhaps it's an illusionary perception on my part, based on personal dislikes, but it still makes me uncomfortable.

 

And yeah...Diablo3's sales won't be hurt much, if at all, by these things. Too many people have looked forward to it for years and will probably buy it anyway, if only to check it out for themselves before condemning (or rejoicing) ...and that would include me.

[Purkake]

They are just playing catch up with XBL and Steam at this point. The social part has always been ignorable, should you choose to.

[LadyCrimson]

They are just playing catch up with XBL and Steam at this point.

Yup. And I do understand it, at least from the business side of things. From that side, it was bound to happen. Difference is, to people like me, it's sad that it has to be so.

[greylord]

Then you NEED TO BE LOGGED IN TO PLAY singleplayer.

Ok, thanks for the details...I didn't realize you had to be logged into bnet the whole time. That would make it kinda like Steam I guess, except with no single-player offline mode or whatever. It does sound like a pain in the arse. I saw one bnet forum thread where some ppl were having a lot of trouble getting it to work, too (the single-player login part), some kind of tech issue perhaps. *frown*

 

D3 I wasn't originally worried about in this area since the Diablo's are one of the few where I do like playing MP-server most of the time (even if I'm playing solo), but...yeah, understand the objections. Acti-Blizzard hasn't been pleasing me of late.

 

You can still play, you just have to play as a guest on your machine. Guest accounts are limited however, and you don't get to save any of your achivements or actions. For the full game with trophies, achievements, etc. is where you need to be logged in constantly...which is also known as Single Player mode instead of simply being a guest. Imagine the original Diablo with it's spawn that you could get off the original disk for guest accounts (except with unlimited game, but maybe limited time, and no ability to save certain items for your character such as notable items from ingame such as the Butcher's cleaver, etc). vs. the full game install.

 

Sorry if it didn't give you the full picture. So in order to get the full SP experience with everything and to not play as a guest on your own machine, you need to play logged in. I have heard (haven't tried) that you can install it for others for them to play as guest accounts as well however.

 

PS: I don't agree that it had to happen. I think that they are defeating themselves with the very tools that they think will protect them, they get more piracy and less legit buyers than they would if they simply had a Stardock approach. I think (or perhaps hope from experiences in Asia) that Korea will teach them a thing or two. Starcraft is HUGE over there...but so is piracy. They WILL still play SCII over a LAN...but 0% of those will be legitimate copies...and Blizzard won't get a cut from a single one of those...

 

I imagine Blizzard will lose a LOT of money in Korea. I only hope that it smacks them a live one to realize that this is a stupid money making scheme...but I doubt it. They are acting more like Activision than Blizzard of old (though even Activision wasn't that bad like this in old times). I imagine they'll figure that they need to fight piracy even more and make it even more draconian with Diablo III meaning that it may as well be an MMORPG with all they'll do with it (but one without the updates and added extras like WOW).

 

Which is why I'm hoping for great things from DSIII now. If it's good enough (and of course they don't make the legitimate and paying customer the enemy like other companies are) I'll buy it not only for computer, but for console if they come out with it for the one's I have (I don't have an Xbox 360, but if I buy one and it's out for that I'll get it, I do have a PS3 however, I'll get it for that as well if they come out with a disk for it...though I don't know if the PS3 is worth it to make an adaption-that may actually lose money-unlike the Xbox360).

Edited July 30, 2010 by greylord

[Purkake]

Blizzard will laugh all the way to the bank.

[HoonDing]

Blizzard will laugh all the way to the bank.

It won't even be a speck on Blizzard's radar.

[Jorian Drake]

Then you NEED TO BE LOGGED IN TO PLAY singleplayer.

Ok, thanks for the details...I didn't realize you had to be logged into bnet the whole time. That would make it kinda like Steam I guess, except with no single-player offline mode or whatever. It does sound like a pain in the arse. I saw one bnet forum thread where some ppl were having a lot of trouble getting it to work, too (the single-player login part), some kind of tech issue perhaps. *frown*

 

D3 I wasn't originally worried about in this area since the Diablo's are one of the few where I do like playing MP-server most of the time (even if I'm playing solo), but...yeah, understand the objections. Acti-Blizzard hasn't been pleasing me of late.

DRM doesn't work anyway, I am sure SC2 was already pirated on the day of its release, the only people who get hurt by it are those who actually buy games

[Purkake]

That has always been the case.