Forced online play

[Ancalagon]

The simple reason is that the development cost of D3 was far, far higher than that of TL2. If you have a look at the credits of both games, you will see the difference in the number of people involved. Also I know TL2 uses the Ogre engine (at least TL1 did), which would save the TL2.

But the thing is, you are right. Look at it from the consumers point of view - only immediate and obvious difference is the cutscenes, which I can watch on YouTube in HD. Other than that, similar number of characters, graphics look similar except for the style. So if I was looking to buy one, on what basis is D3 worth 3 times the money. Only 2 reasons - the name, and the fact that because of that name, more people will be playing the multiplayer. Number 2 matters not one white for me, I would rather LAN with friends. Or online multiplayer with friends, whatever.

Thats what I think the problem with the gaming industry is - the business model they use is not very clever. They invest so much into a game that they have to do all sorts of crazy things to break even.

[Thepoofbear]

Numerous ISPs (MWEB, WA, etc) have offered their servers and bandwidth for hosting the game and have been in contact with Blizzard. But Blizzard didn't budge.

This is Blizzard shooting themselves in the foot to be honest :/

[Ancalagon]

This is Blizzard shooting themselves in the foot to be honest :/

Why? South African gamers bought the game left right and center. Blizzard already has its money, why bother providing servers now?

[Gamy]

Regardless of any arguments for or against the game requiring an internet connection, there's no reason (other than them wanting DRM) we shouldn't be able to play offline even if it means an offline character can never go online to avoid cheating.

[Necuno]

So because we don't have a big voice we should just keep quiet? Nice!

No, but you could drop a little in the entitlement and "just because they make a lot of money" area. Seems there is an illusion of just because company X makes XXXXXXXX they have to sell at -X rate instead of XX.

You are the one who is continuously blaming all of our Internet related issues on our government and local infrastructure. So tell me, what latency are you expecting? What difference will it make to your d3 latency if our local network is on par with South Koreas?

So no links then, hey? Seems I didn't say those things you said I've said.

You might want to brush up on why our local grid needs attention over just cables and cables arriving. There's more than enough material on this. I'd suggest myadsl and its searching function.

Are you playing all of them on international servers? Or are you playing on local servers?

So now the question changed. First you wanted to know if they were online, but since most of my games are you cunningly changed it to INT/LOCAL split. Without connection I can safely say my games wont function and I'd be forced to play some of my older games.

IMO it will ruin the gaming industry in SA if we are forced to play online and the companies refuse to host local servers.

Is this now INT and or Local since you've changed the question quickly (see above)

Just have a look at the amount of people complaining about the latency on sites like http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/di...ems=100&page=1 or even the comments on http://mygaming.co.za/news/features/...w-roundup.html

Do you think all of the people complaining are in countries outside of the US and EU?

And so was WoW and about every other game in its initial days. Please link an online title that ran flawlessly 24.7 on launch.

Numerous ISPs (MWEB, WA, etc) have offered their servers and bandwidth for hosting the game and have been in contact with Blizzard. But Blizzard didn't budge.

I think you need to sit down and think hard about all the costs involve. Just because its hosted here doesn't mean blizzard don't have to be involved ever. Ever done cross country sever setup and support? I doubt it.

Couldn't agree with you more. I have also decided that I won't be buying D3, and I have already bought Torchlight II en mass(8 copies and counting now).

I wonder how Blizzard can justify selling D3 with all of its issues for R450 when you can pick up Torchlight II (with Torchlight I thrown in for free, and none of the D3 issues) for $20, or $15 (if you buy the 4-pack).

I will PM my email address to you and we can join up in Torchlight some time

Once again another financial misconception. The scope of TL2 really isn't the same of Diablo3. If writing an application has is so many facets involved, how much more would a game that they had not only developed, but also implement a whole new bnet?

TL2 is simple in comparison. I would say so.

[Jabberwocky]

I don`t have a problem with it if it works, in diablo`s case the login errors and latency is detracting from the experience of what it could have been.
Its blizzard`s right to implement whichever model they want, they could have made it a facebook game if they wanted to, as long as they fulfill their end of the bargain.

[Wyzak]

No, but you could drop a little in the entitlement and "just because they make a lot of money" area. Seems there is an illusion of just because company X makes XXXXXXXX they have to sell at -X rate instead of XX.

I decided not to buy the game because Blizzard removed the features that I valued most. As for the entitlement I agree with http://www.destructoid.com/jimquisit...i-227792.phtml The people who bought the game ARE entitled to getting what they paid for.

So no links then, hey? Seems I didn't say those things you said I've said.

Sorry boet, life doesn't revolve around you. I actually have other stuff to do than go and read through all of the stuff you post.

You might want to brush up on why our local grid needs attention over just cables and cables arriving. There's more than enough material on this. I'd suggest myadsl and its searching function.

Nice attempt to dodge the actual question. How does the local grid negatively affect d3?

So now the question changed. First you wanted to know if they were online, but since most of my games are you cunningly changed it to INT/LOCAL split. Without connection I can safely say my games wont function and I'd be forced to play some of my older games.

Yes because local servers vs int servers make a fundamental difference. So please answer the question.

Is this now INT and or Local since you've changed the question quickly (see above)

It is primarily INT, however I don't agree with local only servers either if its not an MMO which actually justifies the servers.

If you look at the number of people complaining and actually read the comments you will see that it is not just people outside of the US and EU complaining. There are people in those countries who are unable to get good Internet connections for whatever reason. The US is also so enormous that you won't necessary get a good ping to servers everywhere in the US.

And so was WoW and about every other game in its initial days. Please link an online title that ran flawlessly 24.7 on launch.

It's not just the launch. It has been a week now and people are still complaining and the complaints won't suddenly stop once everything is running smoothly due to the reasons that I posted above. This model of theirs will always result in pissed off customers.

I think you need to sit down and think hard about all the costs involve. Just because its hosted here doesn't mean blizzard don't have to be involved ever. Ever done cross country sever setup and support? I doubt it.

That's only a problem if they force the always-online model. Those companies are willing to help with the costs because it will improve the experience for the customers. Isn't that suppose to be important?

Once again another financial misconception. The scope of TL2 really isn't the same of Diablo3. If writing an application has is so many facets involved, how much more would a game that they had not only developed, but also implement a whole new bnet?

They forced the customers to use the bnet. Not the customers problem.

[Ancalagon]

Also if it were not forced online, a company could make a dedicated server program available, and allow people to run their own servers. So say Mweb could host a server here. But no, that would make it too easy for all the nasty pirates, says Blizzard, sheepishly ignoring the results of a Google search for Diablo 3 torrent.

Regarding battle.net 2, its a sunk cost anyway. It was paid for by the sales of Wow and SC2. That Diablo 3 has kept its higher than average price is just price gouging, and they get away with it because of their strong brand name and the fact consumers are sheep. As I said before though, D3 really cost so much because of things like cinematics.

EDIT: Really, I could swallow the price if the online part were optional. Prophet, why does it need to be forced online? Forget latencies and whether it works and prices and what not, why is it good for the consumer for blizzard to not allow me to plan LAN play with my friends?

[TBlaar]

tl;dr

If you are a gamer and you STILL do not have an always-on internet connection, then you do not deserve to play Diablo3

[Wyzak]

tl;dr

If you are a gamer and you STILL do not have an always-on internet connection, then you do not deserve to play Diablo3

That's not the point, most of us have always-on internet connections.

It sucks not being able to play when your line is down for 3 weeks.
It sucks not being able to play where you want to when you want to on the version that you want to. People still go on vacations to places where there aren't Internet and if you are bored why can't you play the game that you bought?
It sucks having to play with a 250ms latency when I could have played with the same people with a latency of 25ms.
It sucks not being able to play single-player with a 0ms latency.
It sucks having to "LAN" the game at the friends house with the best connection, not the friends house with the nicest setup...