So a bunch of new info has been released.

Looks like in addition to getting a computer capable of playing it...I'll need to pay for an internet connection in order to play. But that shouldn't be a problem since YOU CAN SELL YOUR **** ON THEIR MARKET FOR CASH. I made a lot of money off d2. But ebay was a hassle.

I'm even more pumped for this game now.

It requires you to be online to even play single player. That right there makes it a guaranteed "Do Not Buy" for me.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/diablo-3-will-let-you-buy-and-sell-items-for-real-world-cash.ars

That's the only thing that I know about the game but it was an interesting read.

oh "wahh"

I dont get this stupid attitude towards games forcing you to be online. If you buy it who cares? If you don't, I'm sure its only a matter of time til its cracked. Not buying the game altogether because of some stupid bull**** like that is just dumb.

Excuse me for having principles and not supporting a company that thinks it's all right to put out a game with ridiculous usage restrictions that are not necessary.

And no, I will not pirate the game, and I will not buy it and then crack it if that's possible. I'm not contributing my money to Activision/Blizzard and validating their notion that it's OK to do this.

Games are serious business.

Aren't you always on a 24/7 broadband connection unless you live in bum**** nowhere? Stop complaining so much. Oh no, it's such a TRAVESTY that the entertainment you consume doesn't follow some kind of moral code. Game publishers can do what they want to do, you can just as easily not buy the game, and opinions from both sides will be regarded like the tiniest fart in the wind. Because no one gives that much of a **** about video games.

It's cute, but this is 2011. Everyone has internet now. I have Starcraft 2, and it works on the same concept. I have never, not once, ever had a complaint about how that system works. I have never been in a position where I was unable to play the game. And in fact, besides the online requirement, it's actually very lax. You can install Starcraft 2 on as many PCs as you like, because they can ensure you're only playing it on one system.

Not to mention, online play is so crucial to Diablo now anyway. Single player was rather weak and boring in Diablo II, and it'll be even moreso now.

This isn't Ubi-Soft, it's not going to erase your save files if you get disconnected, and it's not going to have servers unavailable.

Also, this online requirement is a strong way to fight the rampant cheating that went on in Diablo II. It's not the only reason they're doing it, but it's one.

Finally, these little tirades really get old after a while. You're not making a statement by avoiding the game. You're not going to convince Blizzard to do anything different. All you lose out on is a really solid and fun game.

If you really believe this is the case for everyone, then you are living in a fantasy land. There will be plenty of people out there who just want to play the game single player who will have a very crappy experience due to unreliable internet connections. Believe it or not, there are still people who live in rural areas where they can't get/can't afford a reliable connection. Just because they're a small minority doesn't mean it's OK to screw them over like this.

The online requirement fights cheating in the multiplayer version of the game. That's great, but why should my single player game be affected by that? I don't care if they made single player only characters that couldn't be used online, it'd be a thousand times better than this.

No, I'm being realistic. You're suggesting that there is a statistically significant number of people who:

A. Have a machine fast enough to play Diablo III
B. Can't afford any sort of internet connection

Meanwhile, I propose the far more likely scenario that anyone with a computer fast enough to play Diablo III likely has some sort of stable internet connection. Hell, even satellite is more than enough for Diablo III, for rural areas. I don't see what you could come up with to support your whacky theory.



Why bother? Online play is obviously encouraged here anyway. Single-player Diablo II was VERY boring after your first run-through. If that's not their target audience, then why should they waste resources on it? Instead, they've realized cut the crap they don't need and focused on their target audience. And for some inexplicable reason, you feel burned because of it.

This single-player connection requirement, is that like Assassin's Creed's SP DRM where as soon as you lost connection, your game ended?

Think of it as if you're playing multiplayer except no one is there with you (because that's literally how it works). Naturally if you disconnected you couldn't continue. However, it's not going to destroy your progress if it happens, unlike AC.

I'll buy Diablo 3 when it's on Steam.

I sincerely doubt that Diablo 3 will play well with 1-2 seconds of latency.

Might as well come out and say never. Why Steam?



I sincerely doubt latency will have any problem if implemented correctly. It would if you're playing with someone else, not by yourself.

For reasons you will consider inadequate.

I think the requirement for being online all the time is stupid and a waste of time and energy for everyone involved. Tell me there won't be private servers within 3 months.

As for selling items, I haven't decided how I feel about that, yet. I think I'd rather get paid by a 3rd party monthly for giving them all of the items I can find than pay to post items and hope they sell. I will wait to see if this makes sense, but I really hope I don't end up not only sinking my life into this game, but actually convince myself I'm using my time productively because "Hey I can just sell my good stuff if I get bored..."

That's a fair bit presumptuous, I was only asking because I wonder if you have misconceptions about how that'd even work.



Why does it matter if there are? You still miss out pretty majorly. There's lots of private WoW servers, and those aren't exactly successful. It's not a waste of time or energy for anyone who has internet. You act like it's some major hassle.



All it's for is to legitimize such sales. Diablo II items were sold on eBay fairly regularly, and this system would be similar, except it would be safer and directly integrated.

I think blizzard is genius for the selling items market. Every game prior has frowned upon it, but sales still went down. They decided to make money on what would happen anyway. good for them...and make it easier for me? Hell yea.


And requiring internet will finally get my cheapo ass to pay for internet.

If you don't have reliable internet...stop being a pansy. A crack will come out. get the game for free and play it for free

Is it presumptuous? Look at the way you people responded to Darth:

"If you buy it who cares? If you don't, I'm sure its only a matter of time til its cracked. Not buying the game altogether because of some stupid bull**** like that is just dumb."
"Finally, these little tirades really get old after a while. You're not making a statement by avoiding the game. You're not going to convince Blizzard to do anything different. All you lose out on is a really solid and fun game."

I respect the fact that you can admit that you don't really care why I'm not buying it, just whether or not you can correct my decision. Blizzard games are just one of those things that people take way too seriously and I'd like to spare you the inconvenience of having to delete your own posts like the Portal 2 thread.

My internet connection drops every few hours for between a minute and half an hour, if I have to keep my game constantly on line to play then that's a deal breaker, get out of here blizzard with that stupid crap that doesn't help anybody, but hurts everybody.
Test Drive Unlimited 2 is the only game I own, and the first game I bought, that has "Always on" DRM, I never play it because my internet will drop for 10 seconds and kick me off AN SP GAME.
It's also the last "Always On" game I will ever buy, and yet I adore steam because it only authenticates once. It also doesn't kick you off when it drops.
Hope you enjoy not having my money blizzard.

Must be nice not being able to ever play a multiplayer game, Tibby. Seriously, if your internet drops every few hours, get it fixed. There's no excuse for that. Diablo III or otherwise, if my internet died every few hours, my ISP would be hearing from me. A lot.



Well with your post, I guess I can just make the leap and go as far as to suggest that Steam really has nothing to do with it, and you're just trying to get a rise. After all, if anything you said was truth, what would you have to lose by actually stating your reasons? If I were to do what you said, you'd be easily able to come back with a definitive statement about my reaction. But instead, you just come off as being presumptuous.

Edit: Oh, and I'm sure you know the real reason why those posts were deleted. It was to do everyone a favor and delete off-topic crap. But since I'm certain you don't have a derailing response for this post, it's not going to be applicable here.

You realize you are being a complete ass to everybody who has said they aren't going to buy this game, right?

Hey Jon`C, now you're outright trying to start an irrelevant debate, so either keep it to Diablo III or don't post. I'm not even going to glorify that with a response, just to keep things on track. Feel free to PM me if you want the answer bad enough.

I will buy and I will play with my bro-in-law and some other friends. And Tibbs, you need to have that checked out. I live in a rural location and they have to come out and fix my net a couple times a year.

If you can sell items acquired in single player play for real cash, the online requirement may be to prevent hacking to create lots of sellable items.

Blizzard themselves said that cheating was only one reason (piracy being another). Considering how rampant cheating was on Diablo II, anything they can do for Diablo III I can stand behind.

I made most of my money legit off d2, but I did scrape together a few dollars from duped sojs....at the time then they were pretty worthless but a few bucks is a few bucks. online only doesn't prevent glitches, but certainly helps stabilize things.

When I said legit, I mean legit as in you weren't breaking Blizzard's EULA.

agreed, its a f***ing liberty

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

There are no Starcraft private servers. Even at pro-level tournaments they play through Battlenet.

Also, didnt they see what happened when ubisoft's first games with the system came out? Their servers were immediately hammered as EVERYONE who bought the game was accessing their servers at around the same time. I recall that at least one of their games was essentialy unplayable in Australia due to a server glitch.

Actually, it's perfectly okay. This is a video game we're talking about ffs. It's not some kind of essential good where rules about the welfare of society apply.

Starcraft 2 had no such issues, and it works under the same concept as Diablo III. Just because Ubi Soft can't do anything right doesn't mean Blizzard can't.

Also, in general to all the OMG INTERNET naysayers: Diablo III is hardly a single player game in the first place. It's more like a co-op game that you can occasionally play by yourself. Think of it more like Left4Dead. If that's not your type of game, that's cool, I just don't get why people think there is some direct correlation to classic SP that is being ruined by this Internet requirement. The way SP existed in old diablo games just doesn't exist anymore. If THAT is what you don't like, then say so

I don't know man, I think some Chinese folk survive off of the game economy.

Or sell their children for money for more game time.

So you don't experience problems with connect-to-play-titles, or at least with one other game by this developer. Your example with SC2 is far more persuasive than mentioning what year it is. See, people that aren't you and also live in rural places have a different experience that makes them feel "burned for some reason" and it's perfectly within Blizzards rights to not support those people, and it's also perfectly reasonable for Darth and others to complain about something that inconveniences them. What makes complaining about not being able to play a single player game because of where you live unreasonable or a fruitless "tirade?"

Not to mention most of the LAN parties I've been to either didn't have internet or it was so overloaded that it was essentially useless. Even if the constant connection is just a small amount of bandwidth every few minutes, I anticipate having problems.

Oh also, I bought the game and own it and shouldn't have to ask to play it on a fundamental level. I really don't care if it's "just videogames."

As someone who grew up in a rural area with lots of gamers that still to this day doesn't have broadband availability, I can safely say that a lot of these people are indeed "serious" gamers & many of them have "serious" gaming systems. Many of you would probably be surprised to hear that one of the top Quake 2 & Quake 3 (CTF) clans on the planet when that game was quite popular consisted of players that lived in this rural area (they would drive to the city for each match just so they could compete on something better than a 28.8 connection). Most of these people have moved to the city now (except for one of them that still commutes to his workplace in the city where he has broadband access) but I can assure you that there's a new generation of children that are growing up in this country that don't have broadband access & they love their games as much as any kid living in the city or suburbs. I used to pay 75/month for a 26400 connection through Bellsouth (now AT&T). You can complain all day long to a monopoly & speak to as many supervisors as you'd like but at the end of the day, if you live in a rural area you're going to get the same response, time & time again; "it's not cost-effective for us to supply broadband to low population areas".

I just want to make it clear that I'm only interested in the subject of broadband access & not whether or not these games should require you to be always on. I wouldn't expect Blizzard to care about a small portion of society that the broadband companies don't care about & that the average population doesn't even know about.

As for Diablo 3, I wouldn't be caught dead playing an overhead RPG. Jesus H. Christ those types of games are boring.

I would also point out that the US isnt the only place that this game will be sold, there are many other places where there are rural areas without any high speed internet access that otherwise are quite well off.

But they have Internet, so they can sign in. What is the problem here? They will have MORE problems trying to play their Quake 3 than this. But you don't have such unrealistic expectations for those FPSes? Besides, we live in a world now where multiple-hundred megabyte patches are a common occurrence. What do these people do, just never update? They must have hated Fallout New Vegas then. Finally, satellite is available almost anywhere, so I don't see your problem.



I would say nearly every PC game requires a broadband connection of some sort, if for nothing else than patches. If satellite isn't an option for some crazy reason, then they need to understand they're going to miss out. If I am on a cruise ship, I don't expect to have Internet, so why should people who live 20 miles from their nearest neighbor?



Because as far as I know that doesn't actually apply to anyone here. Complaining about an inconvenience that actually isn't seems rather trite. Finally, you still think it's a single player game for some reason. I think it's been made abundantly clear that single player mode, well, less than optimal for Diablo III. It wasn't particularly good in Diablo II.

First off, LAN parties should all have Internet now, there's no excuse for that. If there's a LAN without Internet, the organizers didn't do their research. I wouldn't go to it without Internet, not even because of this.

You don't have to have broadband to be signed in.

Actually, it was made clear that YOU didn't like Diablo 2's single player. My best friend lives way out of town and owns a gaming laptop so he can come into town regularly when he wants to play online games. He plays a lot of single player titles, or when I go to his house we play multiplayer games in LAN: Diablo 2 being one of the primary games we played together. If Diablo 3 requires internet access to play LAN and single player, he won't be buying it, which will significantly lower my experience of the game since part of playing Diablo has been sharing it with my friend.

Maybe you could just admit that there are people who aren't you in the world that thinks a single player game shouldn't require internet access to be played considering it's a single player game? Maybe it is a "tirade" that you're sick of hearing, but that doesn't automatically make it wrong or unwarranted. Your retorts show that you clearly aren't in the same boat as these people, so of course you're not going to have a problem with it. You're literally coming off as saying "**** those people, move to a city."

Earlier you said that not buying the game makes these people miss out on a solid title, but you're missing the point. They can't play the game from their homes. They're going to miss out on a solid title because of an arbitrary anti-piracy mechanism, not because they didn't buy it. Arguing it's an anti-cheating policy is also a farce because we're talking about single player and local connections, not online play.

(The argument that requiring a connection to play curbs cheating is perplexing anyway, as I'm sure Blizzard isn't concerned with single player cheating. If I'm online where they don't want me to cheat then I'm always connected in the first place. This is an anti-piracy move and nothing else.)