Forced online play

I just cant understand why it needs to be a requirement.

I'm all for online multiplayer. Its pretty cool. Especially with modern games. But why make online a requirement for everyone, even those who just want to play single player? Or those who want to play LAN? Why?

@RoosTa

But it is a single player game. I can play it alone if I want to. I just have to be connected. Why?

You can shout about the virtues of online multiplayer all you want, I'm sure its great fun. But you havent adequately demonstrated why it needs to be a requirement. Why can it not be optional? Everyone seems to be wanting to dodge that question.

Prophet and RoosTa, how does it directly benefit you for the game to be online only? Ignore server downtime and our complaints. How exactly does it make your online experience richer if nobody can play it offline?

I'm putting it here and now that you will not be able to answer me and that there is no benefit to you, and that you put up with the online only requirement even when it irritates you because of server downtime. You put up with it, you dont actually enjoy it.

I'm not saying you dont enjoy online multiplayer - clearly you do. I'm saying you dont enjoy that its a REQUIREMENT. It doesnt add anything to your experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pr⊕phet

Who is forced? No one was forced to buy the game, we are back at the retarded entitlement. I BOUGHT! I OWN IT! I MUST HAVE MY WAY 100% ALL OF THE TIME! UG UG UG! ALL LOGIC OUT OF DOOR!

---

I'm sorry, I fail to see how expecting a product to work 100% of the time (allowing for weekly server maintenance) is entitlement. If you bought a TV and it only turned on three days after you bought it, you would be a little upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

I just cant understand why it needs to be a requirement.

I'm all for online multiplayer. Its pretty cool. Especially with modern games. But why make online a requirement for everyone, even those who just want to play single player? Or those who want to play LAN? Why?

@RoosTa

But it is a single player game. I can play it alone if I want to. I just have to be connected. Why?

You can shout about the virtues of online multiplayer all you want, I'm sure its great fun. But you havent adequately demonstrated why it needs to be a requirement. Why can it not be optional? Everyone seems to be wanting to dodge that question.

Prophet and RoosTa, how does it directly benefit you for the game to be online only? Ignore server downtime and our complaints. How exactly does it make your online experience richer if nobody can play it offline?

I'm putting it here and now that you will not be able to answer me and that there is no benefit to you, and that you put up with the online only requirement even when it irritates you because of server downtime. You put up with it, you dont actually enjoy it.

I'm not saying you dont enjoy online multiplayer - clearly you do. I'm saying you dont enjoy that its a REQUIREMENT. It doesnt add anything to your experience.

---

Online is the future.

No one is forcing you to buy into it, but if you want to play D3, the reality is you need to be online. Blizzard have made people well aware of this fact.

All round the world, business models for software development (including gaming) is changing from being a product you own, to a service that gets provided. Thats how the company I work for, does business. If you take DSTV as an exampe; You cannot (legally) watch DSTV, without the equipment and the subscription, nor do you own any of the content provided by them. The same goes for D3.

It all comes down to what people get for this service. WoW as an example can also be played as a 'single player' game, but what heightens it is the interaction with other players. If Diablo 3 was a traditional offline/multiplayer game, I know many people would prefer to stay offline, but you know what? Because it's online only, me and my friends have had more fun.

Let me explain; Some of my friends are quite multiplayer shy. If D3 had offline gameplay, I highly doubt they would have played online. But, because of the bnet system, I've hooked up with work colleagues, online friends from my old WoW days as well as a very good friend I have not seen for many years. If D3 was just another Steam game, I highly doubt it would have added as much value as battle.net. Yes, Bnet might be a form of 'DRM', but Blizzards adds much more VALUE to this service (eg, did you know that the game updates as you play?) than any other system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoosTa

If D3 had offline gameplay, I highly doubt they would have played online. But, because of the bnet system, I've hooked up with work colleagues, online friends from my old WoW days as well as a very good friend I have not seen for many years. If D3 was just another Steam game, I highly doubt it would have added as much value as battle.net. Yes, Bnet might be a form of 'DRM', but Blizzards adds much more VALUE to this service (eg, did you know that the game updates as you play?) than any other system.

---

Thanks for your inputs Roosta.

The Steam friends system makes dropping in and out of a game just as easy as the battle.net system.

I haven't yet seen a game update whilst I was busy playing it in steam, but this is a very new feature and Rift also just added it in the latest patch. I am sure Steam will be offering the same service shortly.

IMO added offline as an option would not have detracted from the game, but would have added even more value. Then you could have chosen between playing offline when there are issues with the server, or when your friends are offline and playing online when the servers are stable and your friends are online. Being unable to play the game at all because server maintenance is in progress does not add any value.

If Blizzard had added offline probably half of the players would have been playing offline, so the servers would have handled the load much easier and there would have been a whole lot less rage than their is atm.

The reason I am so opposed to this type of DRM is because I have very little time to game and when I actually have time I expect the servers to be up and running, or if the servers aren't running I want to be able to play offline.

When you are rubber-banding all over the place or you lose progress because of a DC: Are you annoyed? Or do you think: Wow I am so glad Blizzard added all of these nice features. Now it's not just me offline but all of my friends as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyzak

IMO added offline as an option would not have detracted from the game, but would have added even more value. Then you could have chosen between playing offline when there are issues with the server, or when your friends are offline and playing online when the servers are stable and your friends are online. Being unable to play the game at all because server maintenance is in progress does not add any value.

If Blizzard had added offline probably half of the players would have been playing offline, so the servers would have handled the load much easier and there would have been a whole lot less rage than their is atm.

---

Thats the problem, it would have actually segregated the community. I believe that most people would get bored after completing it on normal, because the incentive to play is lessened when playing on your own.

There is an old saying, the more the merrier. The more friends there are the better the experience.

Blizzard realised this in WoW, which is why they are pushing the whole online-only thing.

Quote:

---

When you are rubber-banding all over the place or you lose progress because of a DC: Are you annoyed? Or do you think: Wow I am so glad Blizzard added all of these nice features. Now it's not just me offline but all of my friends as well!

---

Yes it is annoying, but so is it when playing any online game. Don't you get annoyed when the BF3 servers go down or when your power cuts at home or when the international cables break?

Thats just life for you. It's annoying when you can't always get what you want.

Just to sum it up:
So far I've played 43 hours for a game that cost me R450.
I received the game last week Thursday. I normally get home from work at 7pm and play between 8-12pm.
(I warned the wife well in advanced :) )

Thurs = 4 hours
Friday = 6 hours
Saturday = 12 hours
Sunday (10am - 3pm [emergency maintenance] then from 8pm - 12pm) = 9 Hours
Monday = 4 Hours
Tuesday = 4 hours
Wed = 4 Hours

(I always go a bit over the top in the first week for AAA titles)

So, 4 hours downtime + 15mins last night. Which means that the service has been down for probably a total of 10% during 'normal' gaming hours. My 3 friends and I have yet to encounter serious lag that makes this game unplayable. We've completed it on normal and busy working our way through nightmare - mountain out of a mole-hill comes to mind. For a 24h online environment, these are mere hiccups.

Could Blizzard have created an offline/online game? Yes they very well could have what every single developer has done in the past, but I honestly believe it would not be the same experience. It would not have been the same game.

You make several good points Roosta.

But because there are lots of BF3 servers, if a couple go down its not a train smash. If the international cables go down I can still play my other games offline.

They could have offered the same online experience while allowing you to personally host the game on your machine. Remember when we say offline we don't really mean offline, we just mean that you are hosting the game yourself and you have 0ms latency.

With the same b.net running it would have been possible for friends to hop in and out of your "offline" game.

What I am trying to get at, is why couldn't blizzard offer the same experience whilst allowing you to host your own game? Then if the servers went down you would only lose the "value added" part, but you would still be able to enjoy the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyzak

But because there are lots of BF3 servers, if a couple go down its not a train smash. If the international cables go down I can still play my other games offline.

---

If the BF 3 authentication servers are down, no one can play regardless of how many local servers there are.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3...4624893374434/

Anyways, my point was that it does suck when these issue occur, but these are the nuances of online games. I've been playing online games since '98, so I guess my skin is much thicker to these nuances.

Quote:

---

What I am trying to get at, is why couldn't blizzard offer the same experience whilst allowing you to host your own game? Then if the servers went down you would only lose the "value added" part, but you would still be able to enjoy the game.

---

Again, that comes down to security and the way battle.net works, coupled with the "Value Added Services" such as AH and RMAH. Its much easier to hack a server that you can install locally and intercept all its network data sent to the "master" server.

It's also probably much easier (and cheaper) to maintain your own servers than to support an additional layer of 'client' servers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoosTa

It's also probably much easier (and cheaper) to maintain your own servers than to support an additional layer of 'client' servers.

---

I highly doubt that. Allowing the clients to host their own games would be considerably cheaper than hosting the games for them. A dedicated server app is then just a client hosting without the client joining himself.

Let see how you like always online when your lvl 60 hardcore demon-hunter rubber-bands into a mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fivel

You are not forced to do anything, you are not forced to buy the game. If you want to play the game that's what is being offered to you. It is clearly stated on the box.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoosTa

Because it was never sold as a single player game. It was marketed as an online game.
I received what was sold; An online game that I can mutli-play with my friends.

---

I would like to point out the Italicized/Bold text 2 concepts that where OBVIOUSLY over looked in this thread.

If you did'nt or don't like the always on connection requirements don't buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyzak

The reason I am so opposed to this type of DRM is because I have very little time to game and when I actually have time I expect the servers to be up and running, or if the servers aren't running I want to be able to play offline.

---

Blame the timezone we live in? Maintenance is a massive part of keeping a server active and healthy, without it you'ed spend more time in the log in screen than in game.