Diablo 3

[Thels]

"All games must stand up on its single-player. If a game is only fun when you and your friends do it together then that's a review of your friends, not the game."

Multiplayer is more fun than single player for action games, doesn't really matter what game, unless multiplayer is implemented pretty crappy, of course.

Still, D3 has several features that only apply when playing by yourself, so D3 is not a multiplayer only game. I just prefer playing that way.

[cacodaemon]

Diablo 3 is pretty cool. Anyone here planning on playing it?

I tried the D3 Beta

There is a walkthrough for the game here:
Diablo 3 Walkthrough

Also the character stats system is pretty extensive, you can find a list here:
Diablo 3 Guide: Character Stats and Details

Always connected = no purchase by me. Torchlight 2 will get my money though.

[earthyearth]

Diablo 3 is pretty cool. Anyone here planning on playing it?

I tried the D3 Beta

There is a walkthrough for the game here:
Diablo 3 Walkthrough

Also the character stats system is pretty extensive, you can find a list here:
Diablo 3 Guide: Character Stats and Details

Always connected = no purchase by me. Torchlight 2 will get my money though.

why not? just think of it as an MMO where its accepted that you are always connected

[Kthanid]

why not? just think of it as an MMO where its accepted that you are always connected

Maybe because it isn't an MMO? You could make this same ridiculous statement of every single player game any of us own. Maybe Almost Human should have included constant-connection DRM with LoG. Sure, it's a single player game, but why not just "think of it as an MMO" and then not be upset by this? I'm sorry, this is terrible logic.

Why don't we turn it around: Why doesn't Blizzard just think of the single player offering of their game as a single player game and NOT an MMO and realize how completely ridiculous it is to shackle people who want to enjoy a single player experience to constant-connection DRM?

[Thels]

Didn't they want to do that with Starcraft II initially, and then changed it so you need to activate it, by logging on-line once? You still need it for multiplayer, so you can't LAN without internet. It felt like bread nor butter, since you could still install it on a friend's PC, activate it, and then let them play with the guest accounts, and you still had the problem that you needed an initial internet connection to play at all.

Constant online feels kind of harsh for a single player game, but in the constant struggle against piracy, I'm assuming that's where all games are going eventually. Of course, eventually this will also no longer be an issue as all computers will eventually always be online.

[Darklord]

I don't really like the requirement to always be online as sometimes the internet does go down, then I can't play any more. I've played MMO's and it's a real pain at times...

Daniel.

[Kthanid]

Didn't they want to do that with Starcraft II initially

Yes, they did. They pushed a little too hard with it up front on Starcraft II, fortunately (for them) doing so paved the way for them to do it even harder with D3 (which they did) and are suffering less complaints this time around. This is the model: Slowly but surely ram this down the customers throat in incremental steps so that they don't abandon the brand entirely. The success of this is evidenced by comments like earthyearth's above: "just think of it as an MMO where its accepted that you are always connected". This is precisely how they want you thinking, and their steps to take us here have been a smashing success from the look of things.

but in the constant struggle against piracy, I'm assuming that's where all games are going eventually.

I'm sorry, but this is exactly what they want you to believe. This so-called "struggle against piracy" is self created by these companies. Piracy has existed for the entire history of gaming (and existed in other mediums long before that). There is no reason to "struggle" against it. Simply accepting it for what it is and delivering a quality product always has and always will continue to allow for success in the face of whatever level of piracy is inevitable. Other avenues for success include other creative models for generating revenue outside initial game sales (or the lack thereof). Take a look at League of Legends as a good example of this.

This is not to mention the fact that the so-called "struggle" in this case from Blizzard's point of view has virtually nothing to do with combating piracy. What it has to do with is ensuring that their Auction House is a viable option that they can place squarely in the face of every single person playing the game.

[Thels]

Take a look at League of Legends as a good example of this.

Define good. I never bothered with LoL, because I dislike that system. I don't mind pay to play, but I do mind games where you can pay to improve or unlock more. Once that's started, where's the limit?

Piracy has existed for the entire history of gaming (and existed in other mediums long before that). There is no reason to "struggle" against it.

That it always existed doesn't mean they can't take measurements to reduce it. If there was no single reason to care about piracy, AH could just put the LoG installer online somewhere with a message underneath "Download only permitted to those that paid for the game".

Copy-protection is always a question of balancing the usefulness against the annoyance it causes the end user. Honestly, I find "being online" nowadays a much less annoying requirement than "having the correct CDrom in the drive", yet the latter was a standard copy protection for ages.

Does D3 come with the "always online" requirement a tad too early? Perhaps. Blizzard has run WoW since 2004, and it of course has the "always online" requirement. It's 8 years later, so they think they can implement it in their other games. Perhaps it's too early, as lots of internet connections are still unstable, and enough people play games in trains or on vacation on their laptop as well.

However, eventually somewhere towards the end of this decennium everyone has stable internet everywhere, and then "always online" comes as zero annoyance to any user as they will be always online. Then it only makes sense for everyone to use it as a copy protection, as by then it no longer comes with a downside.

[Kthanid]

Define good. I never bothered with LoL, because I dislike that system. I don't mind pay to play, but I do mind games where you can pay to improve or unlock more. Once that's started, where's the limit?

I don't play LoL either, but as I understand it nothing you pay for impacts the game in any functional way. People paying are doing so for aesthetic changes only and doing so either for that reason or to support the game. I completely agree with your stance that nothing someone pay's for should give them an advantage in the game for having spent more money. As I understand it LoL doesn't operate this way and neither do plenty of other games (I believe TF2 is probably another good example of this, but I haven't played it either).

[Thels]

I don't play LoL either, but as I understand it nothing you pay for impacts the game in any functional way. People paying are doing so for aesthetic changes only and doing so either for that reason or to support the game. I completely agree with your stance that nothing someone pay's for should give them an advantage in the game for having spent more money. As I understand it LoL doesn't operate this way and neither do plenty of other games (I believe TF2 is probably another good example of this, but I haven't played it either).

Didn't it eventually unlock more classes?

If not, then I'm probably mixing it up with HoN, in which case my apologies.