Diablo 3 Discussion

[greylord]

Do you really want me to go down listing all the states which lack high speed internet in their Rural areas?

That's kinda the idea, I mean it's you who's trying to make the case that these mythical gamers without INTERNET are out there. I'm only responding to what you claim.

 

The original question was "But what about those without a stable internet connection? What should a player do if, say, the internet wiring in his house is flawed? ", I don't see any mention of BROADBAND. And that's because you do not need broadband to play online, don't try to shift the argument to something it wasn't in the first place.

 

Here's a study about internet usage in the US during 2010:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm

 

Users with any type of access: 239,893,600

Users with broadband: 85,287,100

 

Actually, I think you were the one who shifted the argument.

 

My unhappiness was with the guy's arrogant "take it because we'll force you to take it" type attitude more than anything else. If you see, I was already planning on buying Diablo 3, it's his attitude that's turning me off. If that's the attitude they are going to cop, and keep copping, we'll, that's one which basically puts the customer last and puts the pirates, the developers, the cats, the Hollywood movies, the zoo animals, the plants in the forest, and everything else before those who actually are buying and supporting your game.

 

If that's the attitude that they'll take towards anyone, that "screw you, you guys need to change the way you live, and stop playing our games the wrong way, play it only how we tell you too because we are so much smarter than you" type attitude...well that actually CAN turn me off from playing the game or even buying it. I can live with their DRM scheme for one copy...but it's the attitude that's going to completely turn me off of this game.

[Malcador]

Mod support would delay the game

[Drowsy Emperor]

Mod support would delay the game

 

Mmm yeeeah.

 

Good thing the whole online only thing and the services it encompasses didn't slow down development.

 

That's some Blizzard class sophistry there.

[Purkake]

As far as I remember, the only D2 mod got you banned from Bnet...

[entrerix]

But it is uncomfortable, the idea at least, of having a single player game you can't play without going online.

Or at least not having the choice to do so, if you want to.

 

 

this is pretty much my feelings. the whole thing makes me uncomfortable and i dont want to support it.

 

unfortunately, its diablo, so i'll end up buying it anyway. but 99% of other games with this drm scheme i would completely ignore. sometimes a product is so desired though that people are willing to jump through some hoops to have it

[Gizmo]

... you do not need broadband to play online...

These days you do... I remember trying to play Dungeonkeeper over dialup and it was a synced slideshow

 

(Can you imagine multiplayer D3 and tracking all of the swarm with dial-up connection?)

 

**What of those on a paid plan were just connection costs them money.... They would have to pay every time they wanted to play a singleplayer game at home.

 

**What of those with Satellite Internet? Those unlucky folks won't be able to play when it rains.

 

Its nuts to require this on the single player campaign. I'm sure they had options... This is just the most commercially advantageous. IMO they should rather of prohibited Online play without an online character ~and/or the option to convert a Singleplayer PC (which they could control, or even interpret as a means of filtering out hacked PCs) ~or just not allow single player PCs to ever access battle-net.

 

I'd have bought it, and likely never bothered with Battle-net. Between Diablo 1 & 2, I think I played Battle-net less than 20 times total (and that's double what I recall).

Edited August 24, 2011 by Gizmo

[Drowsy Emperor]

As far as I remember, the only D2 mod got you banned from Bnet...

 

That is however, not a reason for the lack of mod support in general.

 

The fact is, that if you look at the way Starcraft II maps are regulated and the omission of LAN, its quite apparent that Blizzard simply wants total control over every aspect of their product and to make sure that absolutely no one other than them can in any way profit from their product.

 

They are of course fully within their rights to do so, but when its justified with the ridiculous: "its all for your own good" corporate PR lingo it just leaves a bad taste.

 

sometimes a product is so desired though that people are willing to jump through some hoops to have it

 

Indeed. If it were Homeworld 3, and BG3 and was favorably received I'd probably do the same.

 

But the industry did lose about a dozen purchases from me [not that they're gonna lose any sleep over it] over the last few years, because games in general fall into the: "I'd play it but I'm not dying to" category, and faced with these schemes, I just opt out.

[Fighter]

I have a good Internet connection. But something still happens to it once in a while. At one point it took the phone company two months to fix my line. Not being able to play single player would piss me the hell off. Besides I just plain don't like the idea of having less and less privacy. Now some dude at Blizzard HQ is going to know what I do with my game.

[Purkake]

The corporate PR is just that, who cares what the exact wording is. Sure it would be nice if they just said "we don't support user mods" and leave it at that, but it's a corporate culture thing and not going to change any time soon.

[greylord]

Mod support would delay the game

 

Mmm yeeeah.

 

Good thing the whole online only thing and the services it encompasses didn't slow down development.

 

That's some Blizzard class sophistry there.

 

Yeppers...I remember they actually had AN OFFICIAL mod for the original Diablo...as it wasn't by blizzard at all, but sponsored by them. It was made by Sierra and called Hellfire. Sierra called it an expansion...many called it simply an official mod. (There was one for the original Starcraft too, not Brood War, there was another official Mod but called an expansion by another company than Blizzard, can't recall the name for it right off the top of my head right now).

 

You don't get much more Mod support than giving your official sanction to another company for them to Mod your game and call it an expansion.

 

D2 never had official mod support...BUT it didn't have Mod denial either. You were allowed to have as many mods in use as you wanted as long as you weren't on B-net...if you played SP or played via Lan...play mods to your open desires (I think they also were allowed in open B-net, never tried that though).

 

With them no longer having a true SP mode like the other Diablos, or open multiplayer...so closed BNet is your ONLY choice...I suppose it makes sense that they wouldn't allow Mods to be supported....

 

But taking a few years to have Mod support....unless he's talking about how long he thinks it would take for them to institute an unhackable SP offline (since SP is always hackable...a few years is probably an optimistic outlook, more like a few decades)...I think is BS.

 

WoW has Mods and Bots and other things and it wasn't designed to really accept them either if I recall correctly. Of course Blizzard bans those that it doesn't like regularly...BUT...it's not about not supporting them so much as actively working to deny them from being played in the game period.

 

And for the AH/RMT it's vital that they don't allow mods, as if you get a mod that creates certain things or does something to disrupt the flow of cash for the AH/RMT...well that's bad for Blizzard (no matter how much the fans may like it)...regardless of whether it is SP only mod or not (remember, no true SP...that SP character they want you to continue MP, probably so they can attract you to the AH/RMT market eventually).

[trulez]

Blizzard launched their new Diablo 3 community site:

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/

 

Seems like 1:1 copy from WoW.

[greylord]

Blizzard launched their new Diablo 3 community site:

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/

 

Seems like 1:1 copy from WoW.

 

And look, they even have a Diablo style pet for WoW...Merkablo...

 

They should just stop the charade and state they REALLY REALLY wanted to make D3 into a pure MMORPG...sovle a lot of the debates if they just went ahead and called it a free to play MMORPG like Guild Wars (which you can also have a single character on your server and have a size limit of a party once you start quest...at least from what I understand it in the sequel, you can even do it SOLO!!) but with a better plan for bringing in funds (AH/RMT instead of Guild wars 2 nothing?)

[Thorun]

I'm not entirely pleased about the online only thing, as I do get a lot of service interruptions in my suburban community in Massachusetts, mostly because the lines they're using are 15 years old and just in terrible condition. But anyway, there are some fairly valid reasons why D3 should be online only.

 

First of all, take a look at Diablo 2. Anyone who played the game probably heard about d2jsp, mousepad, c3p0, etc. The reason all of those programs were able to work was because of the sheer amount of work that was done client-side. Random maps were generated by the client, so all the information was there for maphacks to extract and display everything. Since all the map stuff was client-side, d2jsp and other bots were able to work by interacting with waypoints that were created in the client-side data when the map was formed. If the maps are generated server-side, the server load isn't significant as they're basically just text documents that hold all the information, even if there are a lot of them. Storing that information, the random map generator, and other stuff server-side basically breaks most implementations of hacks and bots, while also allowing Blizzard to actively monitor such programs, rather than them being practiced and perfected offline before being implemented online.

 

If they did want to have an offline available singleplayer, it would take a massive code overhaul for that singleplayer game, as all the drops, map generation, and everything else would have to be handled client side. Maybe in a future patch they will have it as an option, with a slightly different version of each mechanic so that offline play isn't just a testing ground for improving bots. Whether they think an offline singleplayer is worth the time needed to implement new code though, remains to be seen.

[LadyCrimson]

So? Did anyone get into the beta? Impressions?

 

I've been watching some of the gameplay vids of people who have, and it looks .... boring. I don't mean that in a sour grapes way, I know watching is nothing like playing. But I was hoping it'd be a bit more interesting to watch. Many of the outdoor environments look flat and dull for some reason, like muddy watercolors. Anyway, nothing special visually at least. Hope/expect the skills & combat are fun for all the fans who'll be buying it.

 

...I was highly amused, however, to hear DS3's Lucas' voice coming out of the male wizard's "mouth." (Crispin Freeman, who voiced Lucas, voices D3's m/Wizard, & he seems to still be in Lucas-mode ).

[tripleRRR]

Eh, I'm not too surprised that the beta seems a bit dull. How exciting was the first hour or so of D2? I remember running around right clicking quill boars and getting excited at seeing the first boss guy in the den of evil. So the first part of D3 definitely looks much better.

[Humodour]

My point was that the characters are window dressing, created to match the overall style of the setting and the skills/roles that Blizzard wants in D3. You don't play D3 to be a barbarian or a demon hunter, you play it to mash monsters with whirlwind and tank or to shoot at monsters with sweet crossbows and debuff(or whatever the DH does) in an exceedingly polished and satisfying way.

 

You're trying to diminish the role-playing Diablo actually does have. That's a bit silly, Purkake.

[LostStraw]

I don't know how to feel about the skill/level up system in Diablo 3. The player has access to all skills upon meeting certain level requirements and there are no points for character customization. I understand that there will be lots of customization through equipment and skill runes but I'm uneasy about a staple of the genre being removed. Hopefully it turns out alright.

[Purkake]

My point was that the characters are window dressing, created to match the overall style of the setting and the skills/roles that Blizzard wants in D3. You don't play D3 to be a barbarian or a demon hunter, you play it to mash monsters with whirlwind and tank or to shoot at monsters with sweet crossbows and debuff(or whatever the DH does) in an exceedingly polished and satisfying way.

 

You're trying to diminish the role-playing Diablo actually does have. That's a bit silly, Purkake.

Oh? Please enlighten me of this hidden aspect of Diablo, apparently it has eluded me all these years.

[Morgoth]

The fact is, that if you look at the way Starcraft II maps are regulated and the omission of LAN, its quite apparent that Blizzard simply wants total control over every aspect of their product and to make sure that absolutely no one other than them can in any way profit from their product.

 

Now that's a bit far fetched, no? Ever thought about that Blizzard got tired of hunting down cheaters/hackers and shut down their accounts? Not to mention constantly issue patches because some funny hacker screwed up the whole online infrastructure because Blizz decided to make everything open? Why even bother with these people? That's like trying slapping a NDA on the Diablo 3 beta in an age of youtube, facebook, and "You are connected" age.

 

Not even worth it.

 

And LAN? Who even uses that today? LAN used to be cool, like 10 years ago when internet speed used to be a lot slow(er).

Edited September 10, 2011 by Morgoth

[trulez]

The fact is, that if you look at the way Starcraft II maps are regulated and the omission of LAN, its quite apparent that Blizzard simply wants total control over every aspect of their product and to make sure that absolutely no one other than them can in any way profit from their product.

 

Now that's a bit far fetched, no? Ever thought about that Blizzard got tired of hunting down cheaters/hackers and shut down their accounts? Not to mention constantly issue patches because some funny hacker screwed up the whole online infrastructure because Blizz decided to make everything open? Why even bother with these people? That's like trying slapping a NDA on the Diablo 3 beta in an age of youtube, facebook, and "You are connected" age.

 

Not even worth it.

 

And LAN? Who even uses that today? LAN used to be cool, like 10 years ago when internet speed used to be a lot slow(er).

This is scary, I actually agree with Morgoth on this issue.

 

Enabling LAN would COMPLETELY negate the online DRM, and since it's going to be only DRM for D3 that would be bad. Pirates can play any game with LAN over the internet using software like Hamachi which emulates LAN over WAN.

[pmp10]

And LAN? Who even uses that today? LAN used to be cool, like 10 years ago when internet speed used to be a lot slow(er).

People who attend LAN parties, organize offline e-sport tournaments and game in internet cafes.

Just because Blizzard highly values centralized control and DRM Battle.net gives them doesn't mean that demand is not there.

[Purkake]

Internet... cafes? You mean every cafe that can afford a $20 router?

[pmp10]

I mean one that can afford a good internet connection.

That's not a given everywhere.

[Purkake]

Why would you play Diablo 3 in a cafe in the first place?

[pmp10]

Besides getting a good connection you can play with several of your friends in the same location.