On August 14 2011 13:36 hoby2000 wrote: You actually aren't understanding this argument. The fact that there's no single-player means that players will be REQUIRED TO, no matter the circumstances, to connect to the game. They save money because this means that anyone who wants to play the game, will have to pay for it no matter what, instead of just pirating it.
Eventually, Diablo 3 will be pirated, but it's going to take awhile. So what Blizzard has done is forced people who were planning on stealing the game via piracy, to think if they actually want to wait a few months (or longer or shorter) to play the game, or just buy the game when it comes out because they don't want to wait.
So basically, for those people who were going to pirate the game, but now are deciding "Hmmm... maybe I'll just buy it instead" which then gives Blizzard more sales on their game.
The production of a single player mode itself is not going to cost them really anymore money, because I'm sure it's a simple implementation for them to do.
Your argument is somewhat different though. The previous poster's argument is that Blizzard is cutting off features just to save money, which really isn't the case since single-player would actually be very cheap to implement. Your argument is more along the lines of "Blizzard is cutting features to stop pirating", which may or may not be true. The reason why is because many people are actually being shut out from Diablo 3 because they have no reliable internet connection, so there's no guarantee that pirates are just going to give in and buy the game because we have no way of knowing whether they are able to play.
I find it pointless to push the notion of "Blizzard is just doing this for money", because what Blizzard is doing has just as much potential to lose customers as it is to gain. We really don't know the numbers of how many pirates will give in and buy, nor do we know how many players are unable to play D3 due to lack of reliable internet. This is mainly just about Blizzard using a different business model which, like all models, has its pros and cons.
Eh its not really about piracy at all...I'd say its 5% about piracy and 95% about Blizz doing everything in their power to prevent hacking/exploiting. Do people really think Blizz is worried about pirating and not selling enough copies of Diablo fucking 3 without forcing people to play online? This isn't some random developer releasing a no-name game. Fact is that Diablo 2 is the most hacked/exploited/botted game of all time among those who have huge multiplayer bases. With the implementation of RMAH it would be a disaster for blizz if D3 even has 1/10 as much crap go on as in D2. Making everything online allows them to control and monitor things like this a lot better. Personally I don't have an issue with it....I like the fact that Blizz seems to be taking lessons learned from Diablo 2 in implementing all of the new non-gameplay related features we're hearing about in D3.
The exact percentages are just semantics, of course it's a huge interest to prevent piracy. The important idea is understanding how much always-online will help the community of the game.
On August 14 2011 13:36 hoby2000 wrote: You actually aren't understanding this argument. The fact that there's no single-player means that players will be REQUIRED TO, no matter the circumstances, to connect to the game. They save money because this means that anyone who wants to play the game, will have to pay for it no matter what, instead of just pirating it.
Eventually, Diablo 3 will be pirated, but it's going to take awhile. So what Blizzard has done is forced people who were planning on stealing the game via piracy, to think if they actually want to wait a few months (or longer or shorter) to play the game, or just buy the game when it comes out because they don't want to wait.
So basically, for those people who were going to pirate the game, but now are deciding "Hmmm... maybe I'll just buy it instead" which then gives Blizzard more sales on their game.
The production of a single player mode itself is not going to cost them really anymore money, because I'm sure it's a simple implementation for them to do.
Your argument is somewhat different though. The previous poster's argument is that Blizzard is cutting off features just to save money, which really isn't the case since single-player would actually be very cheap to implement. Your argument is more along the lines of "Blizzard is cutting features to stop pirating", which may or may not be true. The reason why is because many people are actually being shut out from Diablo 3 because they have no reliable internet connection, so there's no guarantee that pirates are just going to give in and buy the game because we have no way of knowing whether they are able to play.
I find it pointless to push the notion of "Blizzard is just doing this for money", because what Blizzard is doing has just as much potential to lose customers as it is to gain. We really don't know the numbers of how many pirates will give in and buy, nor do we know how many players are unable to play D3 due to lack of reliable internet. This is mainly just about Blizzard using a different business model which, like all models, has its pros and cons.
For some reason I don't think internet connection is the problem really. I have never known diablo to be internet intensive at all. But I could be wrong.
And a while back, some people were cut off towards diablo 3 because diablo 3 isn't so "emo" enough (not dark and gothic art-style where everything is fucking grey).
This post makes no sense its like comparing windows to commodore 64 and saying windows is better. Of course those games have better antihack theyre fucking newerand cost a monthly subwhich of course will produce a better anti hack as opposed to being a old ass year 2000 game that is free to play
A big reason were 'better' is because of online only and server side play. The monthly fee is for new content being added all the time to WoW, as well as anti-hacking measures. Hopefully the RMAH will go a great length to making sure Blizz takes care of D2, and even adds new content a lot, without users having to pay a monthly fee.
The anti-piracy also goes a loooong way to make sure Blizz makes the money to do server maintenance and anti-hacking.
Literally, every single person on hardcore hacked. You had to have at least anti-drop running (which got many people banned, by the way) or you would be dropped 100% of the time in public games. Not to mention anyone in endgame D2HC ran hacks because the community was way too small. While not everyone botted, everyone benefitted from botters and dupers allowing epic gear to be accessible to everyone.
To play without Enigma (teleportation armor), for example, as most non-sorc characters, was impossible in D2HC unless you actually spent time walking to baal every time (which had glitched out, broken mobs that killed you in 1 hit if you weren't a barb, and killed even barbs, although they patched this in the most recent patch).
Diablo was absolutely ridden with hacks, and it got to a point where people hacked to not be hacked themselves, and everyone benefitted from hacks for allowing a trading community to exist to give end-game gear and content to people who would have no psosible way to play without such gear in the end-game.
Do people really think Blizz is worried about pirating and not selling enough copies of Diablo fucking 3 without forcing people to play online? This isn't some random developer releasing a no-name game
Yea, pirating really hurts a company. Blizzard is investing at least a few hundred million into Diablo3, and if turns out to go negative, that would really fuck the company over as well as future endeavors. Considering how taxes and business, as well as competition works, Blizzard does not expect to see a huge, billions of dollar profit from this venture. They will probably break even, and then make the extra money over time or with additional content. They may sell a lot of copies, but that is because they are dumping an inordinate amount of money into the game.
To say Blizz should just 'let it go' (that few hundred million dollars) would just be absolutely ridiculous, and I guarantee a few less people would have jobs at Blizz if they foresaw less money coming in. Blizz has already spent millions upon millions into D3 and so far they have made $0 from it. So that's something to consider as well, since they are having to pay huge bills (rent, utilities, wages, salaries, upkeep, promotion, development, capital, etc) for over 3 years for a game that could possibly just bomb.
Needing to be on the net to play is kinda stupid. It's especially bad for those people who don't have a good connection / can't be online whenever they want. I understand why they are doing it ( to cut down piracy ) but its almost feels like they'll lose some customers from this decision, I don't know if it's the smartest thing.
On August 14 2011 20:27 AugustDreams wrote: Needing to be on the net to play is kinda stupid. It's especially bad for those people who don't have a good connection / can't be online whenever they want. I understand why they are doing it ( to cut down piracy ) but its almost feels like they'll lose some customers from this decision, I don't know if it's the smartest thing.
Welcome in 2011 (or probably 2012 by the time this game comes out).
On August 14 2011 20:27 AugustDreams wrote: Needing to be on the net to play is kinda stupid. It's especially bad for those people who don't have a good connection / can't be online whenever they want. I understand why they are doing it ( to cut down piracy ) but its almost feels like they'll lose some customers from this decision, I don't know if it's the smartest thing.
Welcome in 2011 (or probably 2012 by the time this game comes out).
where anyone who can afford the gas prices has internet worth using?
On August 14 2011 20:47 DannyJ wrote: I don't think Blizzard cares when their games come out. They are pretty much above competition or needing some sort of holiday boost.
There's a lot of truth to that. When your company releasing a game means at least a month of mass television advertising as well as having a diehard fanbase of 20+ million, you don't really need a holiday to justify release.
On August 14 2011 20:47 DannyJ wrote: I don't think Blizzard cares when their games come out. They are pretty much above competition or needing some sort of holiday boost.
This. Blizzard is so big that they don't even need to show up to E3 or any other big gaming convention. They hold their own, awesome one (Blizzcon) :D
I actually didn't find that part too impressive because if you have shit internet you deserve the results lol.
What I did find interesting is that they're dumbing down the game quite. It saddens me, but it could still be interesting enough to keep my attention over a long period of time. I did however like that they were allowing the storyline to branch out in many different directions from the responses of a NPC, to you character, to your follower, from your decisions. That should be a pretty cool addition.
On August 14 2011 19:56 Perseverance wrote: I can't wait for this to FINALLY come out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cmon December!!! (Crosses Fingers)
Do you know that Elder Scrolls V is coming out in November? I might actually miss D3 release with it. It is pretty terrible timing from Blizzard.
While Elder Scrolls V is going to be a great game it is still a "simple" RPG. Yes, I know it is not simple when compared to Dragon Age or Fable, but it is simple. 400 hours of gameplay is fun, but if I were going to rush into a game it would be D3 > Skyrim because I can play those 400 hours for Skyrim anytime, but cannot get nearly as good of a grip on D3 if I start 5-10 months after everyone else. Also from Blizzard's standpoint I don't think they care about the timing when faced against again a "simple" RPG.
On August 14 2011 20:27 AugustDreams wrote: Needing to be on the net to play is kinda stupid. It's especially bad for those people who don't have a good connection / can't be online whenever they want. I understand why they are doing it ( to cut down piracy ) but its almost feels like they'll lose some customers from this decision, I don't know if it's the smartest thing.
They said the bandwidth needed to play was going to be relativly low. For them it is all about making the extra buck from those who would pirate it over the very few who have bad internet or cannot afford internet.
On August 14 2011 20:47 DannyJ wrote: I don't think Blizzard cares when their games come out. They are pretty much above competition or needing some sort of holiday boost.
While I agree they don't care when it comes out don't underestimate the "holiday boost." Cod WaW released and it would have a standard 500k people online during peak times. After Christmas morning though it had 5 million.
On August 14 2011 15:31 Belial88 wrote: Literally, every single person on hardcore hacked. You had to have at least anti-drop running (which got many people banned, by the way) or you would be dropped 100% of the time in public games. Not to mention anyone in endgame D2HC ran hacks because the community was way too small. While not everyone botted, everyone benefitted from botters and dupers allowing epic gear to be accessible to everyone.
To play without Enigma (teleportation armor), for example, as most non-sorc characters, was impossible in D2HC unless you actually spent time walking to baal every time (which had glitched out, broken mobs that killed you in 1 hit if you weren't a barb, and killed even barbs, although they patched this in the most recent patch).
I've played D2HC for several months (around patch 1.11) with a few friends without any hack, any trade. Items we got were not the best ones, for sure, but we still managed to get a complete Tal Rasha, a complete IK, a few nice runes (1 Ber, a few Ist's and Gul's). And we did enough Baal runs to have 5 characters above lvl 90. And it's absolutely possible to play without Enigma. You're a bit slower, but safer. Because teleporting blindly in the middle of mobs (possibly mana burn) is just stupid anyway.
I liked this thread a lot more when it was just people getting hyped.
I'm soooo looking forward to this game, both single player and multiplayer. I will probably mostly play SP, but several of my buddies will buy it as well, can't wait to lan this game with them. (By lan I mean sitting in the same room, I know it requires constant internet access.)
This is Bashiok's message on battle.net forums. These is offline single player option guys. Everybody can relax:
There is offline single player, but it's something we're going to attempt to discourage as best as possible.
A lot of us, myself included, and probably a lot of you and your friends had the exact same Diablo II experience. You get the game, start playing, your friend says let's try co-op, and when you log in your characters aren't there. After a slight freakout moment and potentially some use of Webcrawler to search the World Wide Web with Netscape 6, you realized or figured out that you had to start over. That's actually an experience that can cause someone to stop playing the game. Maybe you or I let out a huge sigh, and maybe a brief mourning period after realizing the last 60 hours were completely wasted, but we pressed on. That's not the case for everyone. Maybe most people. I actually refused to start over for a while and continued on in single-player before finally jumping on Battle.net. Who knows what a lesser man would have done...
So, if we can get people online and creating character on Battle.net from the get-go, there's less chance of that catastrophe. But there's still a play offline option, if you should need it.
EPT
