Diablo 3 Will Require Players to be Online When Playing

[LeninGHOLA]

then what's the point of Eyefinity?

I'd assume you'd still see buildings and landscape you've passed. Once something leaves sight radius, it doesn't go back to fog of war, it just darkens a bit. So I guess just for the sake of immersion.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I dont think Eyefinity will ever be more than a niche market (at least that's how I feel having used 3 monitor set ups a few times, m aybe I'm wrong ).

Meh, if smaller studios can support it right out of the box, why not support it? Making money isn't really about imposing more restrictions on customers, unless they are taking notes from Apple.

 

[limitedaccess]

I'm not interested in fairness, I'm interested in having the best possible gaming experience, if I have an Eyefinity setup, then I'm left out in the cold by this.

Eyefinity and multi-monitor gaming is the future, and Blizzard isn't supporting that.

While that may the best experience for you personally, fairness for single monitor users is likely the best experience for the vast majority of their user base.

Meh, if smaller studios can support it right out of the box, why not support it? Making money isn't really about imposing more restrictions on customers, unless they are taking notes from Apple.

Because the issue is in arguably competitive or even semi competitive multiplayer games it is will cause a negative experience for the majority of the user base.

 

[Climber]

While that may the best experience for you personally, fairness for single monitor users is likely the best experience for the vast majority of their user base.



Because the issue is in arguably competitive or even semi competitive multiplayer games it is will cause a negative experience for the majority of the user base.

Then lets set the resolution to 1024 x 768, it would be a step up over the old 800 x 600. Why aren't we all still using low resolution monitors? Large resolution monitors isn't a niche market, especially with the extremely low prices of HD resolutions, it is only inevitable that resolutions higher than 1080 become mainstream.

If Blizzard is planning on their online servers keeping the hacks, exploits, and dupes at bay then why not support high or widescreen resolutions on non pvp servers. They are making various rulesets for the Hardcore servers so it isn't out of the realm of possibility to make different rulesets for closed or non pvp servers. It has been stated several times that D3 won't be a competitive game so no reason not to support varied resolutions; otherwise lets set the resolution at the most common mainstream resolution of 1024 x 768.

 

[Shalafi]

Then lets set the resolution to 1024 x 768, it would be a step up over the old 800 x 600. Why aren't we all still using low resolution monitors? Large resolution monitors isn't a niche market, especially with the extremely low prices of HD resolutions, it is only inevitable that resolutions higher than 1080 become mainstream.

If Blizzard is planning on their online servers keeping the hacks, exploits, and dupes at bay then why not support high or widescreen resolutions on non pvp servers. They are making various rulesets for the Hardcore servers so it isn't out of the realm of possibility to make different rulesets for closed or non pvp servers. It has been stated several times that D3 won't be a competitive game so no reason not to support varied resolutions; otherwise lets set the resolution at the most common mainstream resolution of 1024 x 768.

You're absolutely correct sir, there is NO compelling reason not to have Eyeinfinity other than "oh, we are too lazy to implement it".

 

[rampantandroid]

While that may the best experience for you personally, fairness for single monitor users is likely the best experience for the vast majority of their user base.



Because the issue is in arguably competitive or even semi competitive multiplayer games it is will cause a negative experience for the majority of the user base.

Enable Eyefinity, limit the total viewable area of the playing field to be the same as a single monitor.

I'll agree, it can be unfair if in competition, but then you enable an option to say that only one monitor may be used.

Let's not do the BF2 widescreen fiasco all over again.

 

[Shalafi]

They already said that there will be nothing competitive about Diablo 3.

You guys are creating a false dilemma.

Let me say it again, there is NO REASON not to have Eyeinfinity Support.

 

[NotJay]

They already said that there will be nothing competitive about Diablo 3.

You guys are creating a false dilemma.

Let me say it again, there is NO REASON not to have Eyeinfinity Support.

o there is
whats b.net 2.0 for? control
why does sp require internet connection? control
why do they not allow eyefinity? control'
they want to have 100% control over user experience

 

[jeremyshaw]

o there is
whats b.net 2.0 for? control
why does sp require internet connection? control
why do they not allow eyefinity? control'
they want to have 100% control over user experience

well, blizzard relented in SC2, allowing Eyefinity after one of the patches

Since the FOV is based on 16:9 (ANY other ratio gets something cropped off, 16:9 get's the most FOV no matter what), 1920x1080 monitor will see more game space on screen than a 2560x1600 monitor, though the 2560x1600 display will allow for finer detail of it's smaller FOV

In the above example, the 1080p monitor would see about one command center width of more data on the screen, that would simply be cropped off sides of the 1600p FOV.

So for a competitive player, a 16:10 monitor may be run at a lower 16:9 res to gain the max FOV.

 

[Daggah]

o there is
whats b.net 2.0 for? control
why does sp require internet connection? control
why do they not allow eyefinity? control'
they want to have 100% control over user experience

Reminds me of Apple...and why I have a 100% do not support policy in place for Apple products.

 

[Superhuman]

This would've bothered me in 1999.

It's 2011, so I don't give a fuck.

 

[limitedaccess]

Then lets set the resolution to 1024 x 768, it would be a step up over the old 800 x 600. Why aren't we all still using low resolution monitors? Large resolution monitors isn't a niche market, especially with the extremely low prices of HD resolutions, it is only inevitable that resolutions higher than 1080 become mainstream.

FOV can be independent of resolution, which is the case for most modern games. 1600x1200 will display the same FOV as 1024x768 for instance.

Also you have to consider what is "reasonably" within reach. Moving up to a 16:9 monitor with a resolution of 1920x1080 in terms of hardware costs is relatively trivial compared to any multimonitor solution (which also suffers from practicality for most users).

Enable Eyefinity, limit the total viewable area of the playing field to be the same as a single monitor.

I'll agree, it can be unfair if in competition, but then you enable an option to say that only one monitor may be used.

Let's not do the BF2 widescreen fiasco all over again.

I'm not sure if anyone would accept that type of solution, making the extra complication of implementing it even more pointless. The vertical view would be extremely low by comparison, I would think to the point of being impractical, for multimonitor users.

They already said that there will be nothing competitive about Diablo 3.

You guys are creating a false dilemma.

Let me say it again, there is NO REASON not to have Eyeinfinity Support.

Competition in a different sense. Most MMO type games tend have a strong "keeping up with the joneses" type of competitive attitude within even if there is no direct competition.

You're absolutely correct sir, there is NO compelling reason not to have Eyeinfinity other than "oh, we are too lazy to implement it".

This is somewhat more likely part of the actual reasoning. People tend to want clear scapegoats (if D3 were a multiplatform game guess what that would be) but the real reasons usually aren't directly sinister. There is lack of interest for them to include support with a possibility of backlash, making the effort not worth it in their eyes.

One thing to keep in mind with Blizzard games such as Diablo 3, they have a very high fan base outside of North America and Western Europe. Interest in mulitmonitor gaming is even lower in those regions.

 

[Godmachine]

They already said that there will be nothing competitive about Diablo 3.

You guys are creating a false dilemma.

Let me say it again, there is NO REASON not to have Eyeinfinity Support.

When they said that I have to admit I was and still am bummed to hear that. I may not competitively game but I do enjoy watching the sub-culture and E-sport base that comes with competitive gaming. It seems like they missed out something that could have been even better.

Blizzard does what it wants though , look at SC2 at MLG this year ..complaint after complaint about lag because of lacking LAN support.

 

[CryingGod]

No Eyefinity/Surround support

http://widescreengamingforum.com/news/blizzard-confirms-no-eyefinitysurround-diablo-iii

No mods, no eyefinity, banning those who mod to get eyefinity, no offline play or LAN support. I'm looking forward to some Torchlight 2 action.

So you cannot mod a game you paid for, sound's like we're just fucking renting the game if we cannot play it without internet, and we cannot play it the way we choose(multi-monitors).

Sorry Blizzard, I loved Warcract(1, 2 and 3), Starcraft(1, and Broodwar), and the Diablo series, but you're latest shit isn't cutting it anymore.

 

[Plague_Injected]

This is the future of PC-exclusive gaming right here - piracy is sooooo evil and takes so much money from hard-working people with babies and not executives with $500,000 sports cars, so they are going to fuck purchasers at every chance.

The saddest part of it all is there will be so many people ready to metaphorically open their mouths and/or bend over, and will seek to crucify anyone who doesn't do the same.

 

[Deleted member 174368]

I dunno dude, because it doesn't change anything for the vast majority of users.

I don't have eyefinity, wasn't planning on playing D3 offline, don't buy virtual items, never was interested in Diablo mods, so why should I boycott this game?

 

[hhara]

What is the big deal... Blizzard games are always rock solid and have no issues so who cares if you have to be online. You cannot compare it to Ubisoft's DRM because that is on a different level. It never works and hinders the player's experience. Blizzard's online requirement does not.

 

[PornoSatan]

Blizzard has a very good reputation, it's like they're cashing out part of that reputation into an extremely risky investment. No other company could get away with this, but when you have by far the largest MMO and years of other game franchises of quality to back you up

Well they have balls atleast.

 

[Gorankar]

Blizzard has a very good reputation, it's like they're cashing out part of that reputation into an extremely risky investment. No other company could get away with this, but when you have by far the largest MMO and years of other game franchises of quality to back you up

Well they have balls atleast.

SC2 was a letdown at launch, mostly fixed now though, Diablo3 is a no buy til it's fixed.

It is far easier to ruin a reputation than it is to build one. Considering that they are rolling in WOW gold, it makes no sense to try cash in at a loss to reputation unless those at the top are looking to move on, and are just doing a bit of raping b4 they leave.

 

[Valshistixol]

What is the big deal... Blizzard games are always rock solid and have no issues so who cares if you have to be online. You cannot compare it to Ubisoft's DRM because that is on a different level. It never works and hinders the player's experience. Blizzard's online requirement does not.

Bnet 2.0 for sc2. I rest my case.

 

[Wizardhawk]

Prime example of what I'm talking about. You won't see that you're being abused until years later.


It's a good thing all games aren't like Diablo 3, Assassin's Creed, or other upcoming Ubi and Blizz titles. Imagine not being able to play all your old NES/SNES/PC games because someone shut down the server that gives you permission to play the game you purchased.

I'm not 100% sure, but i'm pretty sure the Diablo 2 servers are still online and that game is old.

As others have said, how is it abuse when the vast majority of people who will be getting D3 are going to be playing it online anyways? It might be abusive towards someone who only wants to play single player... do people actually buy diablo games for strictly single player?

Imagine not being able to play all your old nes/snes games because you couldn't use an emulator... I don't know many people who still have an actual working console .

 

[wiploc]

Heh I still have an original NES we fire up on occasion. The games are pretty cool on the big screen.

I really just don't like Blizzard telling me when and where I can play the game I bought. Oh, we took the servers down for maintenance... play tomorrow. Sure that makes sense for the online component, but no amount of spin from their PR department is going to make me think requiring online connectivity to play single player is a good idea.

And add me to the list of people that really like single player games. I'd buy D3 even if it had no multiplayer component at all. I'm sure I'll play a fair amount of co-op with some buddies, but a lot of times it is much more relaxing when it's just me and the game, and I can pause whenever I want and play however long I want with no hassles.

 

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

It's a double-edged sword I guess. Server maintenance is technically a good thing because they're backing their product to that extent, but of course the downtime itself sucks.

I personally don't have a problem with the lack of single player but I totally understand that it would have made a great single player game like its predecessors. Again another consequence of added security (including a form of DRM). It's a matter of demand (or lack of demand) to determine if these systems will survive or not.

 

[Netrat33]

I
As others have said, how is it abuse when the vast majority of people who will be getting D3 are going to be playing it online anyways? It might be abusive towards someone who only wants to play single player... do people actually buy diablo games for strictly single player?

Just in general I hate when people make sweeping comments like this. You have nothing really to back that up. I have a lot of friends who never utilize the multiplayer aspect of many of their games. Diablo is after all supposed to be a RPG right? Torchlight sold really well without any multiplayer!

 

[Wizardhawk]

Just in general I hate when people make sweeping comments like this. You have nothing really to back that up. I have a lot of friends who never utilize the multiplayer aspect of many of their games. Diablo is after all supposed to be a RPG right? Torchlight sold really well without any multiplayer!

Torchlight is also < $10, and there hasn't been a diablo style game besides it in a few years.

I also never said that people wouldn't play D3 in single player ever, or even that there wouldn't be people who only play single player.

It's ok to complain that some people who don't mind always online for this game are "being abused and can't leave their husband" but it's not ok to point out that other people don't care?

 

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

Just in general I hate when people make sweeping comments like this. You have nothing really to back that up. I have a lot of friends who never utilize the multiplayer aspect of many of their games. Diablo is after all supposed to be a RPG right? Torchlight sold really well without any multiplayer!

I think there's a distinction to be made between multiplayer (whether cooperative or competitive) and the online requirement. I'm one of those people that can't handle playing competitively for very long, but I don't mind, for example, to log into SC2 to do things solo (campaign, comp stops, etc.). So I can imagine that a lot of people may not like to play with others online, but there are probably far fewer people (interested in the game) who don't have stable/constant internet connections to do things solo. And yeah, it sucks for them.

 

[Actuary]

I'm not interested in fairness, I'm interested in having the best possible gaming experience, if I have an Eyefinity setup, then I'm left out in the cold by this.

Eyefinity and multi-monitor gaming is the future, and Blizzard isn't supporting that.

They already said that there will be nothing competitive about Diablo 3.

You guys are creating a false dilemma.

Let me say it again, there is NO REASON not to have Eyeinfinity Support.

I'm sure the <1% of people who buy the game that have Eyefinity will be very disappointed. You can repeat yourself all you want, but it doesn't make what you're saying true.

I dont think Eyefinity will ever be more than a niche market (at least that's how I feel having used 3 monitor set ups a few times, m aybe I'm wrong ).

Exactly. The number of people looking to use Eyefinity is miniscule, so why bother supporting it.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Exactly. The number of people looking to use Eyefinity is miniscule, so why bother supporting it.

So those people will buy the game too? I would, even if it was only 5-10k more people buying the game.

 

[Climber]

I'm sure the <1% of people who buy the game that have Eyefinity will be very disappointed. You can repeat yourself all you want, but it doesn't make what you're saying true.


Exactly. The number of people looking to use Eyefinity is miniscule, so why bother supporting it.

You're not making any sense. The majority of PC gamers use 1024 x 768 why bother supporting anything other than that? However, the growing number of HD resolutions and higher suggest that the market is changing and changing quicker than ever before. Most companies that are interested in supporting growth and technology look to push the boundaries of what their product can do, not stimy it.

There is zero reason to not support widescreen gaming at this time and you can tell yourself whatever you want but it doesn't make what your saying true.

 

[Actuary]

You're not making any sense. The majority of PC gamers use 1024 x 768 why bother supporting anything other than that? However, the growing number of HD resolutions and higher suggest that the market is changing and changing quicker than ever before. Most companies that are interested in supporting growth and technology look to push the boundaries of what their product can do, not stimy it.

There is zero reason to not support widescreen gaming at this time and you can tell yourself whatever you want but it doesn't make what your saying true.

Most companies are interested in supporting their bottom line via profits and therefore look to curry favor with the largest base of users possible. There are not enough Eyefinity users to make anyone give a shit about them.

And I believe reasons concerning PVP have been posted. Same reason Diablo 2 was, and still is, limited to 800x600.

So those people will buy the game too? I would, even if it was only 5-10k more people buying the game.

Because in all likelihood they'll buy it anyway. The number of people who won't by the game because of a lack of Eyefinity support is so small as to be meaningless to the company. Cost/benefit analysis.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Because in all likelihood they'll buy it anyway. The number of people who won't by the game because of a lack of Eyefinity support is so small as to be meaningless to the company. Cost/benefit analysis.

Such an appropriate screen name!

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Because in all likelihood they'll buy it anyway. The number of people who won't by the game because of a lack of Eyefinity support is so small as to be meaningless to the company. Cost/benefit analysis.

The cost isn't really a concern, you just add a resolution line or 3 in your code. In a game like SC2, I can easily see why they wouldn't support it. I think it would be cool to have in Diablo 3.

The attitude of "We don't have to do shit, because you'll buy our game anyway" shouldn't really be encouraged.

 

[Shotglass01]

Most companies are interested in supporting their bottom line via profits and therefore look to curry favor with the largest base of users possible. There are not enough Eyefinity users to make anyone give a shit about them.

Well Steam says that about 10% of their user base is multi-monitor. That seems like a large enough user base to me to give a shit about even if all 10% don't buy it.

But your argument is invalid. You might as well say they shouldn't support keyboard input because there are PS/2 and USB types. Then you have the split keyboards and !OMG! keyboards that require *gasp* drivers!

Not writing to support better features is shit lazy.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Well Steam says that about 10% of their user base is multi-monitor. That seems like a large enough user base to me to give a shit about even if all 10% don't buy it.

But your argument is invalid. You might as well say they shouldn't support keyboard input because there are PS/2 and USB types. Then you have the split keyboards and !OMG! keyboards that require *gasp* drivers!

Not writing to support better features is shit lazy.

10%? Last time I looked at the Steam hardware survey it wasn't anywhere near that. And I'll bet a significant # of those aren't Eyefinity/Surround, but just a second monitor.

And again, the keyboard argument doesn't hold much water. We're not talking about a 10%/20% split here, we're talking about a fraction of 1% of your user base.

 

[Actuary]

The attitude of "We don't have to do shit, because you'll buy our game anyway" shouldn't really be encouraged.

But it will be anyway, because boycotts typically don't work.

 

[Inu]

I like the D2 players who say "Tired of hacks on D2? Best non hack play ever, SINGLE PLAYER" And i say, "D2 is 10 years old, you can leave your parents basement now."

 

[Climber]

Most companies are interested in supporting their bottom line via profits and therefore look to curry favor with the largest base of users possible. There are not enough Eyefinity users to make anyone give a shit about them.

And I believe reasons concerning PVP have been posted. Same reason Diablo 2 was, and still is, limited to 800x600.


Because in all likelihood they'll buy it anyway. The number of people who won't by the game because of a lack of Eyefinity support is so small as to be meaningless to the company. Cost/benefit analysis.

It doesn't matter. They lose no profits adding various ratios in their code. So that argument is meaningless. You're arguing that a fixed resolution is ideal and levels the playing field. In a top down competitive game then yes there is a huge advantage to more screen real estate. However, Blizzard has already states that D3 will not be competitive and that they have differing rule sets for hardcore servers. Adding a fixed resolution to their pvp servers would not be any more difficult then adjusting the auction house rules for pvp or hardcore servers.

 

[Shalafi]

It doesn't matter. They lose no profits adding various ratios in their code. So that argument is meaningless. You're arguing that a fixed resolution is ideal and levels the playing field. In a top down competitive game then yes there is a huge advantage to more screen real estate. However, Blizzard has already states that D3 will not be competitive and that they have differing rule sets for hardcore servers. Adding a fixed resolution to their pvp servers would not be any more difficult then adjusting the auction house rules for pvp or hardcore servers.

He's an apologist for lazy coding and programming practices instead of making it possible to enjoy the game no matter what kind of setup you have.

So far we've seen straw man arguments, false dilemmas, and logical fallacies for being against Eyeinfinity.

It's amusing to say the least.

I have zero idea why people support things being dumbed down and to the point to where it does NOT take advantage of the hardware you own.

In short, why own a $2000-3000 rig if no games will take full advantage of it?

Why have a multi monitor setup if no games will take full advantage of it?

DEMAND IT, don't make excuses.

 

[TwistedAegis]

So in short, because you bought a Ferrari you're upset that the roads aren't built around the capabilities of your car? Because that's what I see you arguing. Oh, and don't forget that you don't want to pay one dime more than anyone else, either, because that wouldn't be fair.

 

[NotJay]

minority demanding won't change shit
people with $2000+ hardware is in minority