Diablo III: No Mods, Online-Only, Cash Trades

By Alec Meer on August 1st, 2011 at 10:07 am.

Anger incarnate. We understand.

The morning brings a trio of horror-news about Diablo III. I’m outright bewildered about what Blizzard have done, and shuddering about the likely reaction in comments. I won’t muck around here, and instead shall just wade straight into the things that are probably going to end up being PC gaming’s biggest controversy of 2011.

1) The game requires a constant internet connection. It cannot be played offline.
2) Mods are “expressly prohibited.”
3) Items in the auction house are bought and sold for real-life money.

Uh-oh.

When my future children ask me “where were you when the war began, Daddy?” I’ll think of this day. And I’ll say “well, sweetling, I was drinking a cup of instant coffee, sat in my dressing gown in front of my PC, same as every morning. But on this particular morning, I don’t mind telling you, I sprayed that coffee all over my monitor and had to fight the urge to leave the internet for a least a month. For I knew what was coming, child. I knew. Every day since, I thank every god I can think of that we’re somehow still alive, that the Earth somehow still turns.”

All of news this via PC Gamer (who’ve been to see Blizzard recently), here, here and here.

In order, here’s Blizzard’s justifications:

1) “One of the things that we felt was really important was that if you did play offline, if we allowed for that experience, you’d start a character, you’d get him all the way to level 20 or level 30 or level 40 or what have you, and then at that point you might decide to want to venture onto Battle.net. But you’d have to start a character from scratch, because there’d be no way for us to guarantee no cheats were involved, if we let you play on the client and then take that character online.” Also, piracy.

2) “For a variety of gameplay and security reasons, we will not be supporting bots or mods in Diablo III, and they’ll be expressly prohibited by our terms of use for the game.”

3) “We think it’s really going to add a lot of depth to the game. If I have more money than time I can purchase items, or if I’m leet in the game I can get benefits out of it. The players really want it. This is something that we know people are going to do either way. We can provide them a really safe, awesome, fun experience, or they’ll find ways of doing it elsewhere.” Blizzard will take a small cut, but they’re not expecting to make too much of a profit out of it themselves. They also say there’ll be level caps on items, so you can’t immediately shortcut to a high-level sword with a level-1 character, not matter how rich you are, plus there will also be an additional auction house that uses in-game gold. So this element of the game can, at least, be dodged entirely.

As for the online requirement and the mod-blocking? That’s just desperately sad. The DRM was at least in StarCraft II, so it’s not too much of a shock, but given Blizzard’s rich history of allowing user modification, and just how much it’s given to so many of their previous games, it’s hard to not feel let down by the decision to outright ban Diablo 3 modding. Let’s hope they have a change of heart on that point particularly.

__________________

« | »

, .

552 Comments »

  1. Wyrm says:

    So glad to be defecting to GW2 and cutting ties to Blizzard. They’re crawling further up Satan’s butthole all the time..

    • aeromorte says:

      Im with you at that GW2 ftw =]

    • Okami says:

      Because GW2 has an offline single player mode and allows for the installation of mods?

    • Alexander Norris says:

      @Okami: oh, when did they make Diablo III an MMORPG? I must have missed that announcement.

    • Okami says:

      @Alexander: As I’ve outlined below, I’ve never seen the appeal of single player Diablo. But more to the point here: I was just pointing out the flawed logic in using the news that a game has no mod support and forces you to allways be online as the sole reason for playing an MMO instead.

      If you want an action rpg that gives you a moddable single player experience, fine, these news are bad. But if that’s so then switching to Guild Wars 2 instead won’t help you in any way…

      There are of course many reasons to play Guild Wars instead of Diablo (it’s the better game in my opinion and they’re doing far more interesting and advanced stuff), but the news in this article don’t really give a valid reason apart from a generic “I’m angry about a publisher doing things that I perceive as bad, eventhough they might not have any true impact on how I play the game anyway” one.

    • Stupoider says:

      I don’t think the point of defecting to GW2 was in protest of these changes alone, but rather all of Blizzard’s recent business maneuvers.

    • Lord Byte says:

      Sigh, you guys cannot read can you? It’s not like “GIVE MONIES HERE FOR UBER EQUIPMENT LOLS!”, every single item has to be recovered by a player, you don’t have to whip out your Credit card every time, just sell some stuff of your own and hey presto, you can save it up to get some items you want…
      Just like the market used to be except you won’t have to grind for 3 characters full of Pgems. Being on an open market means that prices will drop! Fast!

    • Calneon says:

      @Okami, Actually, I think it’s more to do with the developers giving a shit about their customers.

    • Joshua says:

      Blizzard also hosts WoW, and you might want to cut ties to that if their single player games start to suck. Also, GW2 actually has valid reasons to force you online…

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Replied to the wrong thread!

    • Punchbowled says:

      Well, “the appeal of single player Diablo” was sort of that you didn’t have to play multi-player Diablo, by which I mean that you didn’t have to have anything to do with the kind of people who played multi-player Diablo, who were, by and large, in my experience, the diseased gums of society.

    • FakeAssName says:

      I am honestly laughing at all the people who cant see that all that is missing from Diablo 3 being a MMO is the word “online” at the end of it.

      so yes, playing GW2 is a viable alternative to D3 because they are both MMOs.

      this really shines new light on that interview where in some guys from Blizzard said that they expect D3 to pull some of their subscriptions from WoW, I thought it was pure disillusionment but it turns out that the real reason was because they knew full well that they were launching another MMO … and a F2P one at that.

    • Khazyr says:

      You can always play both GW2 and D3 without a subscription. So it’s not as much a choice as it would be between say WoW or Rift, where you have to pay monthly to have access to both.

    • eightbitrobot says:

      @Alexander: Guild Wars’ an MMO? news to me.

    • soldant says:

      Seems to be an absurd amount of GW2 defection here… yet some of the GW threads are filled with angst as well. Sounds a lot like the “Screw Microsoft, I’m going to use Linux!” arguments right before everyone upgrades to Windows 7.

    • Kryopsis says:

      @eightbitrobot: The earth is round. Must be news to you as well?

    • BitRez says:

      *Around the world were heard the cheers of anxious Chinese gold farmers*

    • Clash says:

      Why must people bring up GW2 in EVERY discussion? I half expect to looking at an article about religion in the near future to find the top comment being along the lines of “Yeah, but GW2…”

    • Milky1985 says:

      “Being on an open market means that prices will drop! Fast!”

      Yes,but how will this work in group situations, i can see ninja looting being quite common if you can flog any good items that drop for real cash. Then yes prices will drop fast but the ninjas won’t care, its still easy money.

    • Barman1942 says:

      @Okami

      H’es pointing out he’s going strictly to GW2 because Arenanet was founded by, and is run by, the guys who made Diablo 1 and 2.

    • zergrush says:

      Some simple restrictions to amounts of income / items for sale could make the market much less profitable to dedicated farmers while still giving the opportunity for “normal” players to sell stuff they find.

      I’d find it pretty nice if GW2 implemented a similar system with a small percentage of the money in exchange for a more regulated market.

      Milky1985 says:08/01/2011 at 14:32

      “Yes,but how will this work in group situations, i can see ninja looting being quite common if you can flog any good items that drop for real cash. Then yes prices will drop fast but the ninjas won’t care, its still easy money.”

      Loot drops individually in D3. Ninja’ing is impossible.

    • RandomGameR says:

      My first knee-jerk reaction was “this is bad, I hate this” but then I read the reasoning and thought back to Diablo 2 and I was all “Oh wait, this all actually makes perfect sense.”

      In Diablo 2 you could make offline characters and then you could make online characters but you could never mix the two. This was a decided improvement over Diablo where cheating was much much easier and people did this.

      In Diablo 2 you could take your character into a private game and invite nobody, effectively playing that online character single-player with the exact same experience you’d have offline.

      In Diablo 2, modding was crap. There were some mods, but since they were created as hacks, and were never a supported feature of the game, they weren’t particularly noteworthy for pretty much anybody outside of some people who really like to cheat.

      In Diablo 2 people sold characters, weapons, and armor for real money online. I ignored those people and the game wasn’t ruined by it.

      So in the end I’m left with “These three features effectively make the game the same as Diablo 2′s experience was for most people.”

    • rawrty says:

      I really don’t see the problem with any of this. As someone else pointed out if I wanted to play single player Diablo 2 I would still play on Battle.net and just make a private game. The bots and duping were the worst aspect of Diablo 2, so it sounds like they are taking extreme measures to prevent this from happening. So they aren’t officially supporting mods, kind of a bummer but if the game is good I don’t really care. I’m not sure where the mentality comes from that all games must be moddable in the first place.

      Using real money to trade is something I can ignore if I want too, or even sell some of the gear I was farming and use the proceeds to buy new stuff. If you really don’t want to spend any money beyond buying the game, just don’t transfer money into your account and only spend what you make selling items of your own.

      Doing it this way, it is no different than an economy with in-game currency. Any game with a decent in-game economy has illegal gold sellers and/or auction sites for premade characters and items that allow people to spend real world cash to get ahead without grinding. No difference here except now it is legit and safe.

      Seeing someone who spent $100 on d2items.com to outfit his hammerdin didn’t ruin the game for me, the constant spamming of bots for item sellers and servers dropping out from duping was the annoying part.

    • RF says:

      And the Blizzard fanboys crawl out of the woodwork…

    • Hoaxfish says:

      I am honestly laughing at all the people who cant see that all that is missing from Diablo 3 being a MMO is the word “online” at the end of it.

      You’ve already got an O in there, thus Diablonline.

    • Starky says:

      RF, that is retarded – those guys you’re calling Blizzard fanboys only said this doesn’t bother them and explained why – if not nerd raging over this issue makes you a fanboy then you can add me to that list because I don’t give a sod about any of these things either.

    • FakeAssName says:

      Hoaxfish you just inspired me!

      Diablonlin3

    • Mr.Nice says:

      To those blinded by Blizzard-worship:

      The problem with always-online is that if for some reason you had no access to the internet (be creative, I’m sure can picture some scenarios yourself), you CAN’T PLAY THE GAME.

      There’s an acceptable reason why this is the case for MMO’s, but none for single player games. Diablo doesn’t require other players to be enjoyed.

    • tyren says:

      @Rawrty

      “Doing it this way, it is no different than an economy with in-game currency. Any game with a decent in-game economy has illegal gold sellers and/or auction sites for premade characters and items that allow people to spend real world cash to get ahead without grinding. No difference here except now it is legit and safe.”

      Just to point this out (because the information seems to be absent from the article) this auction house actually WILL allow you to list items to sell for gold too, not just real money.

    • Punchbowled says:

      “Being on an open market means that prices will drop! Fast!”

      LOL.

    • Nesetalis says:

      @RandomGameR
      “In Diablo 2, modding was crap. There were some mods, but since they were created as hacks, and were never a supported feature of the game, they weren’t particularly noteworthy for pretty much anybody outside of some people who really like to cheat.”

      I guess you never played Diablo II’s Median XL, Eastern Sun, Ancestral Recall… or any of the other great mods that breathed new life in to the game? No they were just for cheaters.

      I havnt played the base diablo II in years because its too easy, i play mods because they make it harder.

    • Suncaster says:

      I for one can’t get this game. Living on a sailboat and cruising around,, games come in usefull during times bad weather is keeping me locked up in a hole somewhere. *I get internet connections maybe once a week when I’m close to land using a long range antenna, but in no way can keep an internet connection all the time. Guess Blizzard has just made me look for a cracked copy that will be able to be played offline, as opposed to buying it. Blizzard is really getting greedy and it’s going to be their downfall in the future..

  2. Wichtel says:

    I heard Torchlight 2 will have CO-OP!

    • _Jackalope_ says:

      Yeah, read this and all that ran through my head was “I’m going to play Torchlight II”

    • Gnoupi says:

      It sure will, that’s the main selling point they presented for it :P

      But yeah, I’m waiting for Torchlight 2 as well. Torchlight had a great feel (and having a great feel in your clicks when you will mostly be clicking for hours is quite important), I’m also impatient for the sequel, especially with coop (and outside spaces).

      D3, not so much, and this kind of decisions is not really improving my impressions regarding it.

    • gallardo1 says:

      ah, I knew that something would have crashed my hopes. always online is killer.

    • sinister agent says:

      It strikes me as very foolish indeed to do this, considering how much potential Torchilight has to directly challenge their sales figures for this one. They may come to regret it.

    • Valvarexart says:

      Of course, all the die-hard fans and the mainstream public will buy D3. This is because
      1) They probably don’t know about these “features”
      2) They are fanboys and buy anything that Blizzard makes regardless of how shitty it is
      3) D3 is insanely hyped
      4) They have never even heard of Torchlight, much less the sequel

      However, I don’t doubt that much of the “hardcore” or “informed” gamer public is going to skip D3 due to this.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      I’m not so certain. I think Torchlights greatest success was winning over the die-hard Diablo fan

    • PoulWrist says:

      Or maybe because we live in non-3rdworld countries with constant capfree internet and can manage not to spend all our money on items other players are selling us, and don’t really care about mods in a game that was never traditionally a game with a healthy and strong modscene, outside the odd whatever mods that were more or less just new maps.

      Torchlight 2, if it’s not significantly better than 1, won’t have my interest. Diablo 3, however, will be bought, by me, because I can’t be arsed to care about things that have no impact on my game experience. If you care so much about it, just don’t play it. That’s all there is to it. Horror news, more like wthaver news.

    • Tretiak says:

      Diablo III no co-op?

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Hands up if you’d like to be a fly on the wall the first time Poulwrists broadband connection drops and he is booted from his single player game until his neighbours stop streaming iplayer and/or redtube

    • Voxel_Music_Man says:

      “Or maybe because we live in non-3rdworld countries with constant capfree internet”

      I’m not included in that ‘we,’ then. I have to share a connection with a cap of 2 gigs between 2 people!
      And the speed is terrible. (New Zealand – I think we *just* make it into the 1st world category)

      I couldn’t play this game if I wanted! Steam games are also a non-option … TT

    • karry says:

      “I heard Torchlight 2 will have CO-OP!”

      But Torchlight 2 is unlikely to be better than even Diablo 1, so who cares.

    • MadTinkerer says:

      Don’t forget Chantelise! It may have a simpler loot & leveling system, but the action is cranked up faster than Zelda & Diablo 2 put together.

    • Clash says:

      Fairly heart broken to hear this news about Diablo. That game is the ultimate nostalgia trigger for me. Guess it’s just time to move on though.. Blizzard have been showing their hand as a soulless corporation for the past several years but I still held out hope. Torchlight was made by some of the original creators of Diablo anyway so as far as I’m concerned Torchlight 2 is Diablo 4: Steampunk Edition. We’ll just forget Diablo 3 ever existed.

    • Kaira- says:

      @karry

      But.. Torchlight was on par with Diablo 1, which in turn (IMHO) is way better than Diablo 2.

    • psyk says:

      @Sheng-ji

      “broadband connection drops and he is booted from his single player game until his neighbours stop streaming iplayer and/or redtube”

      Sounds like you need to lock down that wireless or complain to your isp.

    • Archonsod says:

      “But.. Torchlight was on par with Diablo 1, which in turn (IMHO) is way better than Diablo 2.”

      Can’t have been. I actually liked Torchlight.

    • PoulWrist says:

      @Sheng-ji , since I’ve been playing MMOs the last 10 years, I know that the number of times something interrupts your internet connection is next to nothing, compared to the uptime. What my neighbours do does nothing for me. I don’t use wireless and I wouldn’t even consider it. I would also stop using the neighbour’s if I were you.
      And it would be a sad day when I can’t think of something to do other than play a videogame.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      @ poulwrist & Psyk

      1. I use my own connection, my neighbours do not live in range of my wireless. Doesn’t mean we don’t share bandwidth.

      2. Sure I can think of plenty of things to do too instead of playing video games too, but when I really want to sit down and play, I don’t want my internet connection to stop me playing a single player game. Seriously, the days of inferring gamers are sad for wanting to play a game are long over, don’t do it, especially not on a forum like this. I’ve defended my hobby against bigger phalluses than you. Successfully.

      3. I have recently successfully sued my ISP for overselling broadband on my exchange. It happens, and when it happens to you, you too will go through months if not years of terrible connection before they pay out for better capacity in your area. My ISP is tied to my TV and at one point there was so little capacity on the exchange, the TV, which has massive priority of traffic, stopped working, as did TV’s for 10 miles diameter from the exchange. They push and push until it breaks before they upgrade, that’s standard industry practice and if they didn’t, they wouldn’t stay competitive in the market place. Thanks capitalism.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      I not really interested in Mods, or Trading. I tried D2 Battlenet for about 5 mins… But still, if I wasn’t already considering Torchlight 2 more interesting than D3 for other reasons, I certainly am now.

  3. SpaceDrake says:

    No mods? No mods. For Diablo Three. They’ve completely lost the track. Totally and utterly. They are beyond out of their minds and some people are in desperate need of firing.

    • Khemm says:

      I don’t recall Diablo 1 or 2 having mod tools or any mod support whatsoever, so what’s different this time?… Some fans were despererate enough to mod the 2nd with nice results, but none who replays Diablo 2 instantly loads some mods that affect the core gameplay.
      Starcraft 2 is very mod-friendly, we were given a great editor. Diablo 3 wasn’t meant to be modded. That’s how it is.

      As for permanent internet connection thingy, oh well – sign of the times, eh? Can’t say I’m happy about it, but then, considering how SC2 encouraged you to be online all the time, this comes as no surprise.
      Blizzard disappointed me with SC2 anyway with its terrible single player campaign with awful writing and story, so Diablo 3 had better be good or I won’t buy it at all.

    • mwoody says:

      Diablo 2 was patched specifically to clean up the data files to facilitate mods. It had many, the largest of which was Median XL.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      pffft, Magic the Gathering expressly fobade mods, look what happened – you can construct you own decks if you never use them online, Christ, even notch forbade mods at several points during minecrafts development. Most games which don’t use their moddability as a selling point do not particularly support them, but it doesn’t stop us.

      Thing is, I trust blizzard that the reasons they give are genuine, they, as a company are so wrapped up in the computer games as a sport mindset that they are trying to enforce “tournament legality” on every character created. They will fail, cheaters will find ways to cheat and those of us not interested in online competitive play will get our mods. I wish that they didn’t require always online though, that annoyed me so much in starcraft where you would complete a mission but the game disconnected while you were playing and your achievements wouldn’t register.

    • mwoody says:

      Modding is one thing; adding a single player mode to a game without one is another. I’m not saying it will definitely be impossible, but it would be more a crack than a mod, and that’s an important difference.

      As for the e-sportz thing, they’ve specifically stated – including in the interviews following this press release – that they do NOT want the game to be a tournament-class PvP game. They specifically avoided balancing to PvP and left out features like a win/loss ratio to stop it from becoming one.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      I know that they’ve said that, but I don’t think they can get away from the tournament mentality. They are forbidding mods because of bots and cheat modes. That’s clearly them threatening to ruin the single player experience in favour of competitive, “by their rules” multiplayer.

      If multiplayer was not supposed to be competitive, why would they care about cheaters, why would they care about bots? Even during the worst days of cheating in diablo 1 and 2, a good co-op game was still to be had by hooking up randomly on the servers because the cheaters only cared about pvp, and this game will be the same.

      And yes I agree with you that there is a huge difference between a crack and a mod, but most games which support mods start off life as a game thats been “Cracked with integrity”. There are very few games which launch with fully fledged mod support.

      Choose any game which has been out for at least two years, search for “Game name Mods” and look at what’s available. Most games will have fan written utilities to open up encrypted files – this is just cracking with a GUI.

    • ix says:

      A crack to me is something that circumvents security so you can play your pirated copy. Calling a mod that enables single player a crack is IMHO a misapplication of the term. Unfortunately, EULAs that keep you from modifying the game you bought for your own purposes are apparently legal in the US at least, so I guess the law’s on your side there.

      I really feel that once you bought and paid for a game, whatever you choose to do with it should be your business and your business alone.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      I don’t thing even the most protected, highly mod resistant fan hating games company could do anything to you if you ripped apart your game for your own reasons. You get on dodgy grounds when you start distributing ways to rip it apart. But to the industry’s credit, I can’t think of any game which has tried to kill its modding community outside of MMO’s, where it is understandable!

    • PoulWrist says:

      It does have singleplayer, you just need to be connected to the internet to play it. Just like SC2 was. And just like all those MMOs you play. That are really just singleplayer games with some multiplayer along for the ride.
      Stop whining and being all self righteous. Care less. You’ll be happier that way. And if all games in the future suck according to you, then it’s nice that there’s no end to old games and mods you can play them with.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Poulwrist, it’s nice that you are so apathetic about the future of the games industry, why don’t you buy a console, then your gaming experience will be even smoother. Those of us who enjoy PC gaming enjoy being able to mod our games and maybe we want to play them on a laptop on a train where there’s no internet connection.
      We get upset when people take away functionality from our entertainment. And we want to secure the future of our games. Why should we only play old games because they are the only games which satisfy our needs. If we wanted to lose all of those things then we’d dust off our console (Or buy them) and play with out all the problems that comes with PC gaming. We want modern games with moddability and all the benefits of a mouse, keyboard a PC’s power and hardware flexibility….
      I’ll just stop there, clearly you don’t quite get it.

    • MrMud says:

      D1 and D2 was ruined by cheats, HC in particular is unplayable in multiplayer due to cheating that will instakill your character while in town..

    • Xocrates says:

      @PoulWrist: You did NOT need to be online to play Sc2 single player. Even aside of the fact that there was an offline mode, the game came with three offline guest accounts.

      To top it off, it was entirely possible to play the entire campaign offline using a guest pass (I did so while waiting for my collector’s edition to arrive).

      Based on this, removing offline play from Diablo III completely feels downright bizarre.

    • Fumarole says:

      Care less. You’ll be happier that way.

      I didn’t know RPS has politicians as readers.

    • Doogie2K says:

      Yes. An online game in a franchise with a long history of player cheating, duping, and whatnot. I can’t imagine why they don’t want to deal with the hassle of mods.

    • Baines says:

      I don’t think the lack of mods is about competition or fairness. It is about the “real money” auction house, combined with an online-only game.

  4. Tony M says:

    Remember the good old days when the PC was a more open platform than consoles?

    • Dreamhacker says:

      I remember that time as being right now. Why? Because if you don’t like the way of the AAA games industry, you can just stop buying them and spend the rest of your gaming life playing free, open and/or indie games. Or, heck, you can even develop your own games using nothing but free tools!

      The rumors of the PC’s death as an open gaming platform (or, indeed, it’s death as anything) are greatly exagerrated.

    • PiP999 says:

      @ Tony M:

      Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    • MadTinkerer says:

      What Dreamhacker said.

      The way I see it: enormous developers like Blizz have the clout and inertia to force enough of their player to play how Blizz wants and not lose too much money. But they’re going to drive more and more people to alternatives.

    • Reapy says:

      Wow I just noticed 8 pages of comments. This kind of response on RPS just shows why blizzard can do this, they are blizzard, and THAT many people know about them and want to play their games.

      Anyway, I agree, I feel like PC gaming hit this peak when battle.net came out and you had all the quake /unreal external browser tools… then suddenly everything costs money and begins to get more and more locked down, features disappear for multiplayer…. or if they are there, they now cost extra money.

      Overall I think the most harmful thing here is the online only portion. I reeaaaaaly think they need to have offline and online chars like diablo 2. Just put a stupid checkbox when you make the character…offline char /online char. The online guy will have to be validated the whole way, the offline guy can play the game as they want. If you lose connection/validation with your online guy, do what you would normally do I guess but let the player take out his offline characters. I don’t think this is a hard thing to do, seriously.

    • gwathdring says:

      Well put Dreamcatcher and Reapy.

      The big developers can afford to test these waters because a lot of people are willing to vote a grudging “yes” with their purchases. A lot of people who are upset here won’t buy it, but some will. And enough people won’t be upset or will want the game too badly not to buy it. Which doesn’t speak badly of those players, in my mind, but it means Blizzard is going to keep restricting their games like this and other companies are going to do so as well.

      I don’t see why there can’t be an off-line character. The explanation was quite simply bullshit. I’m sure they are aware that players would want to cheat to bring their characters up and test out the higher level abilities and weapons or introduce other more interesting mods and play-aids if given the opportunity. If they honestly believe players would be harmed by creating an offline-play option even with a clear disclaimer about validated/non-validated characters … I would think them utterly incompetent. They don’t seem utterly incompetent, though, and my guess is that this is all about piracy prevention. I just don’t understand why, if that’s the case, they don’t just say so.

  5. Jams O'Donnell says:

    Hmm. HMM!

    Not sure what to make of all this. None of these especially bother me, but I can tell that it is Pure Evil.

    • Jams O'Donnell says:

      Actually, the no mods thing is just distinctly weird, given the excellent mod support in StarCraft 2.

    • cqdemal says:

      I’m in the same boat, and I don’t know what to do now. I’m somewhat annoyed by the constant internet connection requirement, but I really don’t mind the other two things even though they are clearly negative points.

    • theleif says:

      Well, i think it’s money transaction = no modding.
      Pity.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Why mind any of it. Constant internet is quite common. Unless for some reason you turn off your broadband modem to save money on electricity all the time or whatever other bizarro reason…

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Poulwrist. Never give away who your broadband provider is, because everyone who is currently hacked off with their provider’s horrible service will flock to it. You provider will happily sell them packages while not securing more bandwidth for them and then you too will know just how third world broadband is in a for profit environment

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      As has been pointed out a number of times:
      1) Temporary loss of internet service is not uncommon. Especially for those living in rural areas.

      2) What about people who want to play on their laptops whilst away from home? (on a plane/train, in a hotel) where broadband may not be available/cheap.

    • Sardukar says:

      Yeah. Rural area here.Island. Wireless internet. Lots of connection drops. Depending on season, online play in FPS or MMO is simply not doable.
      We aren’t that small a minority, either – quite a few of my friends in the U.S. experience similar drops throughout the day thanks to poor wireless connection or shoddy networking.

      This seems to be a large-scale version of certain posters’ self-centredness: “I never lose internet, so I’m sure no one else does either.”

      The arrogance of success.

  6. reginald says:

    wow. the “activision” part of blizzard-activision is really making its presence known. this is not the same company I loved back in the 90s.

    • RaytraceRat says:

      my thoughts really…

    • Juan Carlo says:

      Nah. I doubt Activision could force Blizzard to do this if Blizzard really didn’t want to. Blizzard is arguably the most powerful developer in the PC market today. They aren’t going to be bullied into doing anything they don’t want. This can’t be pawned off as the evils of activision.

    • Zogtee says:

      I feel… Sad, I guess. Sad and disappointed. SC2 handled mods, single- and multiplayer really well, and I naturally expected D3 to build on that. With this, D3 dropped way down the list and Torchlight 2 moved way up.

      Also, this is a glove across the face to pirate teams everywhere, who will work really hard to crack it and enable off-line singleplayer. I wonder how long it will take?

    • povu says:

      Not long. And then they’ll find a way to mod Bobby Kotick’s face on the imp.

    • tenseiga says:

      I am not suprised but im still saddened. I loved blizzard and the awesomeness they used to have its such a shame the activision part is coming through now. Thing is blizzard sold off to corporates long ago its just that it got out of hand now. shame

    • meatshit says:

      This isn’t Activision; this is Wall Street. To paraphrase an earlier post of mine: Once a company goes public, Wall Street sinks its dual fangs of unrelenting greed and shortsightedness into it and sucks it dry of anything resembling moral character.

    • Starky says:

      (Copy paste from the last blizzard thread…)

      This really should be posted as a disclaimer in any Blizzard related topic…

      Anyway – Activision do not own, run or are involved in any way with Blizzard.

      Vivendi own Blizzard.
      Vivendi own Activision.
      Activision do not own Blizzard.

      Vivendi decided to merge the stock portfolio’s of the 2 companies (Activation Blizzard exists only on the stock market) – in real life they are independent and wholly separate subsidiaries of the same perent company (Vivendi).

      Now granted Vivendi *might* be pulling those strings, as in many ways they are worse (greedier and uncaring about games or quality) than Activision could ever be – but you can be sure Activision has nothing to do with anything Blizzard do.

    • Xizor says:

      It is not the same world as it was in the 90s.

      I have been waiting for this game for a long time, and I don’t care in the slightest about these announcements. If you all would stop and think for a bit instead of being naive whiners.

      1) The game requires a constant internet connection. It cannot be played offline.
      Piracy first and foremost. But the game is made for MP, play with your friends and have fun. What is the big problem? Their argument about you having to start a new character if you wanted to get online is pretty solid too.

      2) Mods are “expressly prohibited.”
      The “good” mods were not big in D2 until the very end. The “bad” mods were, however, ruining the game experience for a lot of people. If they find a way down the line to allow these good mods then I’m sure they’ll be fine with it. But for almost everyone this is a good thing.

      3) Items in the auction house are bought and sold for real-life money.
      While I agree it is unfortunate that it has come to this. I don’t see how they have any choice. If they don’t do it like this than third party people will do it. I think this is the better solution.

      Also I’d like to take a moment to think about what they could’ve done instead: Microtransactions (you died? Buy instant ress right where you died! $2!! etc).

    • gwathdring says:

      I can sort of see your point with 2. Mod quality is always something developers who are going to put time and money into mod integration have to think about. But they could just take the clause out of the TOS with respect to offline play, and let hackers figure it out themselves for online single player. Then they aren’t officially endorsing mods, have the option to endorse and assist in improving good mods, the higher learning curve on modding content means more room to sell DLC and they aren’t outright banning mods. Providing there were going to be offline characters (and why not “offline”, player run multipalyer servers with direct peer-to-peer or LAN connections? Blizzard wouldn’t need to moderate these “offline” severs), I see no reason for them to ban mods, whether or not it is worthwhile to support them.

      As for the offline play … their point is simply not a good one. It’s a player choice. It can’t be all that difficult to create offline, unvalidated play. You restrict certain features like the auction house for unvalidated characters, but allow them to muck around in the game they purchased. Claiming that players would be too bothered by having to have two separate characters, when clearly there are a fair number of players who wouldn’t mind, is not a good point. It’s a pathetic excuse for something else. If they had said “piracy prevention” or said that they wanted to put their efforts into the premium features and not spend money on the offline features when those players are going to have content restrictions anyway … players would still be upset and still disagree with the decision, but it would be more of a sensible decision. By stressing that players would have to do extra, optional, work to use an optional, non-standard game mode … they just look out of touch with their player base.

    • Zogtee says:

      Thanks for clearing that up, Starky.

      I guess you’re right. Blizzard have stated more than once that they are their own company and still make their own decisions, so this falls on them and not Activision. I admit that I was wrong when I assumed that Kotick had his fingers in this.

      BTW, the race to become the Dark Lords of Gaming just got even more crowded. EA, Activision, and now Blizzard. /sadface

    • Nesetalis says:

      you forgot ubisoft.

  7. Mr Pink says:

    You can play offline in Starcraft 2 though, at least for 30 days since the last connection to Battle.net.

    • sexyresults says:

      No offline cause people can exploit it and get items or whatever. There is no offline mode.

    • mwoody says:

      Which is complete bullshit and they know it. All they had to do was what Diablo 2 already did: make single-player, offline mode completely separate, never the two shall meet. This decision was 100% DRM-related, and it’s monstrously disingenuous for them to claim an offline mode would somehow poison an unconnected market.

    • rivalin says:

      It’s not disingenuous, it’s a lie. Large games companies seem to make a habit of it to justify unpopular decisions and it seems that people simply accept such behaviour, calling it “pr”, or “spin”, but it’s not, it’s just straight out lying; the decision is purely about protecting their bottom line, which they are happy to do at the expense of paying customers, they’re just too spineless to admit it.

    • Khemm says:

      @mwoo
      OF COURSE it’s been implemented for purely anti-piracy reasons.
      Cracked SC2 copies were possible due to the presence of the offline mode. With said mode gone in D3, do you think it’ll be possible for pirates to crack the game? I honestly have some doubts.

    • briktal says:

      Well the reason they gave for getting rid of single player was exactly that it was completely separate in Diablo 2. They wanted to prevent people from (understandably) starting with single player then realizing that they can’t carry over this character to multiplayer. And honestly I don’t think I ever played SP after that first character.

      I mean, I can understand their reasoning for these changes. No SP for the above reasons. No SP pretty much kills mods. The auction thing seems to be an attempt to get a piece of the item selling market and provide some scam protection for players.

    • Snargelfargen says:

      Levelling a new multi-player character would be very easy however, if the player could just buy items and experience at an auction house. Saying that people wouldn’t be able to transfer single player characters doesn’t even make sense from a money-making perspective.

    • Sardukar says:

      You have doubts about cracked copies of Diablo 3? Because of some silly online mode?

      No.

      For example: you can play cracked WoW.

  8. mwoody says:

    I’ve been raging about the things mentioned above already in other forums, but the truth is, it gets worse. Even the gameplay information released is bad. They’ve made it so by the time you’ve finished normal, you have every trait and skill in the game. You can hot swap, for free, between any of them, picking six skills and three passive traits at any time. Your character has no permanent theme, and there is never any reason to play a class a second time (unless, I suppose, you sold your old one on their immensely stupid auction house). And without skill or talent points, that means that you will not advance at all beyond automatic stat leveling and gear after normal.

    EDIT: A link to my source: http://www.diablofans.com/topic/26249-diablo-3-press-event-visit/

    • kyrieee says:

      Great.

      Fuck…

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      So, how’s this game supposed to be fun again? There were two things that made D2 such a success: character customization and loot.

      That in mind, we can also only have up to 3 passive skills at one time.

      Ugh.

    • Mattressi says:

      Wow, I did not realise that. I’d already decided a long time ago to boycott D3 (when they announced that there’d be no LAN – LAN is the only reason I ever played D2, because I didn’t need to make sure all my friends had copies when we met up to play, though they’d later buy one anyway). However, this news of no mods and no SP (which they promised before) has made my decision less of a moral objection and more of a true distaste for Blizzard. Now it turns out that they’ve also made the game casual (auto stats and non-persistent maxed builds!?), so my decision isn’t even a decision to boycott – I actually really do not want this game at all. At least Torchlight 2 should be good and will hopefully be what D3 should have been.

    • jstar says:

      Learn to read. You can customsie every skill in a wide variety of different ways building a totally different character every time.

  9. Alexridiculous says:

    Profound… sadness.

    • Alexridiculous says:

      Sudden realization: Watch them implement this into WoW. Then other MMOs like SWTOR will follow, soon will become the norm.

      I don’t like where this is headed.

    • gwathdring says:

      …. which part the always online part? That all MMOs I can think of on the top of my head have? Or the no mods part that all MMOs I can think of other than WOW have? Or the third part, which would be a change for a lot of MMOs?

      This isn’t an MMO. It’s a single or multiplayer hack n’ slash action/RPG. There’s a difference.

  10. RF says:

    If you buy this game, you’re contributing to the murder of PC gaming.

    The funny part is that I WAS going to buy it despite the fact I hate Activision and have had an embargo on them for a long time. Thanks for making my decision easy, guys!

  11. parm says:

    *grabs popcorn and a drink*
    *settles down to watch*

  12. Lobotomist says:

    I guess RPS users (not being much of MMO players) have no experience with Gold Farming/Selling companies.

    The real shock of today Blizzard/Activision announcement is that they are practically legalizing, what was until today considered virtual crime. And trying to get their share of profit from it.

    Its easy to predict majority of Gold Selling companies focusing on this title alone.
    Thousands of sweatshop slaves playing diablo 3 for hours end in unhumane conditions.
    And this will happen. Nothing is as sure as that.

    Activision cutting coupon on this….
    Atrocious. To say a least.Probably illegal in some countries too.

    I can not , in my best consciousness see myself buying this game anymore.

    • Juan Carlo says:

      Well, this is actually while I LIKE the idea of a real money auction house as it will effectively end the WOW style, Chinese Gold-farming practices for this game. So I actually commend Blizzard for that. As long as they don’t get greedy and all of the items for sale in the game are also available for free through playing the game, I think real money auctions are great idea.

      However, the always online requirement and the banning of mods are inexcusable. That’s what people should be mad about, not the Real Money auctions.

    • Lobotomist says:

      How exactly will giving Chinese gold farming companies opportunity to trade their goods legaly , stop their gold selling ?

      Until now , player willing to buy virtual gold had to go trough shady websites, and risky transactions.

      Now it will all be legal , safe and ingame , even.

      Thanks to Bli$$ard gold farming will go mainstream.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      “As long as they don’t get greedy and all of the items for sale in the game are also available for free through playing the game”
      It’s an auction house, not a shop – all items up for sale will have been put there by other players* (i.e will have been found in-game). So yes, everything will also be available for free through playing the game.

    • Erd says:

      Wait, do players earn money by contributing items to the auction house and selling them?

    • HermitUK says:

      @Erd Blizzard will take a small fixed sum of money from every auction, the rest goes to the person selling it. Thus far they’ve said you can either put it direct on your battle.net account (And then spend it on other D3 items, or a WoW sub, or stuff off the Blizz store), or have it sent out to a third party (not announced yet, but I suspect it’ll be paypal or something similar).

      And yeah, this doesn’t stop the gold farmers, it just means they become item farmers instead.

    • briktal says:

      1) It’s not going to kill you
      2) People do it anyway, might as well make it safe and take your cut
      3) It’s not like they’re going to force everyone to smoke pot

  13. Gunde says:

    That’s just a bullshit excuse from Blizzard, Diablo 2 had the same problem but that was solved elegantly with the open/closed Bnets. Now Diablo 3 is just a bog-standard MMORPG without even the MMO-part.

    Dammit, if I want to play a *singleplayer* RPG I don’t want to be forced online! This is a horrible idea that is going to backfire on Blizzard, hard.

  14. sexyresults says:

    What the fuck?

  15. timmyvos says:

    Remember when we boycotted Ubisoft over this? I don’t see that happening with Blizzard.

  16. Kieron Gillen says:

    I would like to formally thank Blizzard for doing something that’ll lead to many comments – hence page impressions, hence coins – for RPS.

    KG

  17. Mazzwar says:

    You don’t need to remove offline play entirely in order to prevent cheating on multiplay. Just seperate the characters, make it so you can’t import offline ones into the online world.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      Read the article, man!

      KG

    • Deano2099 says:

      Well their justification can be got around by defaulting to online mode, and if there’s no internet connection popping up a warning saying “Any progress made cannot be taken online”.

    • mwoody says:

      Oh I see his explanation. I just don’t buy it. Maybe he believes it – maybe – but only because someone higher up told him how it was going to be, and he built a justification for it to feel less dirty.

      This is a 100% DRM decision.

    • Mechorpheus says:

      It begs mentioning that the segregation of characters between online and offline was EXACTLY how it worked in Diablo 2, and I don’t recall anyone complaining. I knew lots of people that used ‘Single Player’ characters, with character editors, to try out specs etc for later use online. This was particularly important if you insisted on playing Hardcore, where every death was permanent.

    • Kdansky says:

      Now you are being silly. They give a perfectly good reason for it (cheating prevention), and they slam another brutal limitation onto the game (no mods, again, for stopping cheaters), and yet you still whine about DRM? They do not want to separate offline mode, and as they are including an AH, this makes more sense still. What is a Windforce worth if people can just cheat one out of thin air? Nothing. Stopping them from doing so adds rarity, and therefore value to the items, and gives the AH meaning.

      I for one am looking forward about selling items from my Mephisto runs. Yes, I have a job, but I don’t get paid to play games.

      This is not about DRM at all. This is about game design.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      All they really needed to do was rearrange the buttons. Have Battle.net the default option, with a little “play offline” button in a corner.

      I get a strange feeling they’re doing a Darkspore, though, and D3 won’t be easy to pirate.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      They give a perfectly good reason for it (cheating prevention)

      OK, please do explain how D2′s single player mode had any effect on realm play. It’s a non sequitur.

    • Calabi says:

      I for one, like cheating in my games. Playing by their rules is so boring.

    • Starky says:

      @mazz

      Actually with a game like D2/3 you kind of do.

      If the item generation code (and other bits of code) are client side – then items will be duped, maps will be hacked, speed and teleport hacks will be common and so on and so forth as if it is client side it can be manipulated.

      Not that running that code server side makes it impossible to do so (hacks exist for WoW for example), but it makes it a fuck-ton easier for blizzard to detect them and shut it down.

      @TillEulenspiegel

      The fact that all the code for single player required it to be client side allowed hackers to produce cunning way of duping items in online ladder play too.
      They had to get a real one first, but once they had…

      Keeping all that code protected and server side only makes it a hell of a lot more difficult/secure.

  18. Uglycat says:

    Guess it’s Grim Dawn and Path of Exile then.

    • Jams O'Donnell says:

      Hell yeah it’s Grim Dawn!

      At least, it will be if it’s good. *crosses fingers*

    • Mattressi says:

      WOW, Path of Exile looks amazing! Thanks for mentioning it – it seems like that will fill the Diablo void nicely. It even has the graphics I expected D3 to have. Also, Grim Dawn looks awesome too, though I already knew about it.

  19. Starayo says:

    Well, there goes my enthusiasm for Diablo 3. Since they’re almost guaranteed to price gouge Australia again like they did with Starcraft 2, I don’t care anymore.

    • Kvltism says:

      Seconded. As things currently stand, I’m done with Blizzard.

    • Juan Carlo says:

      Who seriously cares about Blizzard’s single player games anymore? After the overpriced disappointment that was Starcraft 2 I’ve lost all interest. And we really don’t need Diablo 3 since there are scores of much cheaper RPGs using the same Diablo formula only better.

      The makers of Torchlight really need to seize on the furor over this and incorporate it into their advertising for Torchlight 2, marketing it as a more “player friendly” alternative. I think it would go over well.

    • Belua says:

      @Juan Carlo:

      Yeah, I can see that coming.
      “Buy Torchlight 2! It’s like Diablo 3, but without the feeling of getting a damn umbrella shoved up your butt.”

    • djtim says:

      @juan

      What what was with StarCraft 2 exactly? I’ve only played the SP (no interest in MP games at all) and I thought it was fantastic. The story telling ability of the game was amazing, considering it is just an RTS. The maps and missions were well written and contained some amazing variety – no two missions were quite the same.

    • Erd says:

      Starcraft 2 single player felt like 20 missions of wheel spinning and 3 missions of plot.

    • Nalano says:

      @Juan Carlo

      The majority of players in any game with a SP section play only the SP.

    • squareking says:

      @Juan: I’m clinging to the Diablo franchise for the plot and lore. I know there are oodles of hacky slashy RPGs out there, but few have the sense of eeevil Diabs does. This news makes me sad.

  20. AndrewC says:

    Get yourself some real coffee, Alec. It doesn’t have to be fancy, just not instant. Go on do it. Please!

    • skyturnedred says:

      I find the instant coffee thingie to be the most troubling part of this news post.

    • Tusque D'Ivoire says:

      Me too, good thing i went to the second page of comments before writing this myself. Otherwise I’d be as bad as instant coffee drinking people.

      Worst part about blizzards plans for D3: Alec Meer drinks instant coffee, and in the game!

    • The Sentinel says:

      I find this coffee snobbery to be the most troubling thing in the comments. It’s just a drink: stop obsessing over it and opening stores that sell it every 25 meters, you addicts.

    • ix says:

      But coffee is the only socially acceptable addiction we have left. :-(

    • Nalano says:

      There’s a bar every 25 feet in my city, for miles in all directions.

      I don’t hear very many people complaining about that.

  21. D3xter says:

    Yeah, it’s a “work-in-progress” of ripping people off in any way they possibly can xD

    I already realized this while playing the StarCraft 2 beta, did a more extensive “post” about it here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252 and decided to “opt-out” from any Activision/Blizzard products in the future.

    Luckily we’ll always have Torchlight 2, with no cash shop, mods available, offline play and possibly even LAN. Aren’t a lot of the ex Blizzard North guys there too anyway?

  22. Leelad says:

    Not a chance.

    There are times I don’t have an internet connection and will have the want to play.

    The sad thing is, is that the pirates will have a better time of it. Once the game is cracked ( and it will be) the pirates get a nice ride in to single player.

    Then again i’m tempted to call wanky PR stunt. put something like this out then “cave in to fans”

    Fuck Blizzard turned into nobs as soon as the activision thing became official.

  23. Headache says:

    Neither of the first two points really surprise me. StarCraft 2 requires a constant internet connection so it was inevitable that Diablo 3 would as well. SC has a long and successful history of mods and total conversions that Blizzard could not ignore or close down but I can’t really remember Diablo having that sort of scene, plus I guess it’s similar to WoW in that the actions required to play the game are quite basic and could therefore have been programmed into a bot that could effectively play the game for you.

    The real money auction house is a bit of an odd one. I certainly won’t be using it to buy anything but I could certainly see myself using it to sell stuff I found if I thought it could make me a bit of money. Capitalism ho!

  24. pyjamarama says:

    I think this is great news… for Torchlight 2

  25. Cruyelo says:

    No mods?
    How many players here played mods with the previous Diablo games?
    Starcraft had lots of custom maps and SC2 is still getting impressive mods. Diablo? Never.
    Not a big surprise.

    An important bit about traded items : There WILL be a mode where it will be impossible to buy items for money. You don’t have to play with players buying items with cash from other players if you don’t want to.

    As for always online? Yeah, that sucks. I personally very rarely bothered to play offline but there’s no reason not to include it and that sucks.

    This isn’t gonna stop people from overacting tho. Even tho the lack of mod is exactly how it was with previous games and you can avoid cash for items.

  26. Vexing Vision says:

    The question is what happens if I have my daily disconnect in the middle of a boss-fight.

    The Item Auction House is clever. I like the idea, although I’ll never use it.

    I wish that Torchlight would be more interesting. I like Diablo’s lore.

  27. d32 says:

    Well, cash trades sounds cool. You could theoretically earn money paid for game back. But the rest… hope crackers will crack the shit out of it. I’m completely single-player player so don’t they dare to bother me with online crap.

  28. sexyresults says:

    “The players really want it.”

    aka

    “We want to upgrade our gold plated swimming pools to have diamond fixtures.”

    • Gnoupi says:

      I remember hearing that argument for the “no self hosted dedicated servers for MW2″. It was “We’re just prioritizing the player experience above the modders and the tuners… we thought maybe it would be cool if the fans could play the game.”
      Oh the unspeakable things you do to satisfy the player :)

      Hm. What could be the common link between the two games, I wonder.

    • Nalano says:

      And here I always thought modders were players, and that what they were doing was satisfying the player base.

      Silly me.

  29. Gnoupi says:

    About real money auctions: “We think it’s really going to add a lot of depth to the game.”

    Wow. How is that even related?
    I understand the idea behind it, seeing as for some games you have parallel networks of auctions of virtual items for real money, it’s normal for them to want to harness that money potential. But at least they could find better reasons than “adding a lot of depth”.

  30. HermitUK says:

    Prohibiting modding is a real shame – look at what the mod scene for Torchlight has done, creating new classes, new abilities, even new areas. That said, D2 wasn’t exactly mod-friendly either, but I’ve never really understood why – Blizzard are fine with people making new maps and games in their Warcraft/Starcraft editors, but the Diablo universe must never be altered? Seemed an odd decision to me when D2 was released and still seems weird now.

    The always-on DRM isn’t surprising, but it’s a shame nonetheless. Anyone wanting to play offline probably has little intention of playing on batle.net anyways – It’s clearly an anti piracy measure and I wish they’d at least have the balls to admit it.

    As for the cash shop, it sounds awful on paper. In reality, it probably won’t be quite so bad. In fact I expect there’s a small sub group of very hardcore Diablo players secretly pleased they’ll no longer need to go through EBay to buy their items :p. At least it is entirely optional and there’s a normal In-Game currency Auction House as well, but this still sounds like it’s going to turn the economy into something of a nightmare. Don’t think it really discourages Gold Farmers either – now they just farm rare drops instead and sell them out direct for real cash, legally.

    • HermitUK says:

      Plus, with the ability to put money direct into a battle.net account, I expect to see players hunting rare items to sell and pay for their WoW subscriptions as well. Couple that with the ability to basically convert real money to ingame cash (Buy item with money -> Sell on other AH for ingame gold), and it’s sounding a lot like EVE Online’s economy, only without the massive, player centric, persistent world to support it.

    • Gnoupi says:

      Yes, it’s a tendency that publishers want to control all the money surrounding their games, all the parallel markets. It’s a smart decision from their side, though of course annoying for people who liked mods, or made a living from it.

      You had a similar move with The Sims series. Since the first one, you had websites selling objects for it, people making a living almost from selling objects they made, for it. And in the sims 3, no more modding, and the only way to add new objects is through EA’s dedicated store.

  31. JohnArr says:

    As soon as someone suggested the auction house, mods were doomed. There’s literally no way that they can co-exist, and activision will always go for the money.

  32. Gothnak says:

    Well, points 1 & 2 are completely reliant on point 3 and point 3 exists because they want to make 0.01p per transaction i expect.

    Personally, i have a constant internet connection, although if while playing D3, Virgin goes tits up, i’ll be doubly annoyed. I doubt i’ll have used some mods anyway, and now i won’t be using the auction house. well, unless i have something to sell.

  33. Casimir Effect says:

    Wonder if we’ll see this announced on console sometime then, allowing PC and console gamers to play together. Then the no-mod retardedness ensures everyone stays equal.

    Looks like Torchlight 2 is going to get a lot more customers now.

  34. elmuerte says:

    Ok, so much for Diablo 3 at regular price. Maybe by the time it drops to 20 euros I might consider picking it up.
    Why do companies hate getting my money?

  35. ChemicalRascal says:

    And, lo, the internet spewed forth the Hate. But Blizzard did not care, and continued their wholesale baby-slaughtering as people attempted to drown them in cash.

  36. talon03 says:

    So basically, modders will need to pirate or somehow hack the game in order to work with it. That right there, that’s putting the customers and not the shareholders first.

    Oh wait.

  37. Lobotomist says:

    Dont you see Activision is practically legalizing Gold Farming. And even worse making themselves profit from it.

    There will be thousands of slaves working 24 hours to get all the items. You will have nothing to sell that they can not offer – cheaper and in better quantity.

    I think there should be a law against this.

    • Erd says:

      I’ve never understood why people pay real money for in game fictional money. Half the fun of Diablo was the random loot tables where a good piece of loot could shape the direction you were taking your character. I guess it’s all about the min-max rather than the fun.

  38. Jordanis says:

    Just like we all knew, they lied when they said the ‘Activision’ part wouldn’t influence the ‘Blizzard’ part.

    The Blizzard that we knew is dead. It has been assimilated by the unrelenting creep of corporatist bullshit.

  39. DSR says:

    One word(Yes, I know its not a word):

    LOL

    *slow clap*

    Both Torchlight 2 and GW 2 are craving for my money. And I am happy to oblige. I reject the Diabolic callings of Blizzard once again.

    The King is dead.

  40. CMaster says:

    Wow,
    The thing is though, they know they can get away with it, after all, they’re Blizzard.

    Except I’m not sure that they can. SCII? Yeah, it was a guaranteed huge seller. Anything to do with WoW, too. But Diablo 3? I’m not quite so sure. It will inevitably do well, I don’t doubt. But I’m not sure that it won’t do less well than they hoped.

  41. Mike says:

    The online justification is hilarious. A team of talented software engineers, hired so they can solve unusual problems, can’t work out a way to tell whether or not a save game has been tampered with offline? Good one, Blizzard.

    Presumably you can’t farm items in the auction house and withdraw the money?

    • pistolhamster says:

      Anything can be tampered with, Mike. There is no foolproof protection against tampering. The always-on-thingy makes it a lot harder, however. Which is exactly why they are doing it.

  42. Okami says:

    None of these things bother me in the slightest.

    Allways online? I never played Diablo2 outside of closed battle.net. I honestly don’t see the appeal of playing the game single player or with a horde of cheaters. While “allways online” as copy protection in a decidedly single player game is just stupid, Diablo is not a single player game in my opinion. At least it wouldn’t make sense for me to play it single player. Though other people’s opinions might differ on this point.

    No modding? Not every game has to be moddable. Just as I never saw the appeal of playing Diablo on my own I never once thought “This game would be much better if some fan made changes to it”. Closed battle.net or bust!

    Cash auction house? People have been selling items for Diablo2 on ebay ten years ago. I really don’t care if the people who sell or buy items do it out of the game client or their web browser. And I most certainly don’t care if ebay or Activision profit from the selling of said items.

    • mwoody says:

      Now that people can buy items online, the only way you CAN play the game will be with a “horde of cheaters.”

    • Okami says:

      You can only buy items found by other players. Something you’ve been able to do for the last ten years in Diablo 2 as well. As long as nobody is selling a “Godly Plate of the Whale” in the auction house, I don’t see how anyone is cheating…

    • StingingVelvet says:

      People who like mutliplayer always seem to assume multiplayer is the common sense way to play, or the way everyone is playing. In fact this is far from true. I never played Diablo 2 online and I don’t want to play Diablo 3 online.

      I remember an article not long ago that talked about the online focused RTS game Demigod and how only 20-something percent of purchasers played it online. That was pretty eye opening. I am far from alone.

    • ix says:

      Always online does bother me since my internet goes down about once every other month. Sod’s law states that this will happen just as I’m about to login to diablo 3. Worse even, playing the game over wifi becomes a no-go. You turn the microwave on, suddenly there goes all your progress of the last 10 minutes.

      Not to mention what happens on their end. I bought SC2 at release and battle.net was more down than up. Router fails in the data center? Players get booted. Peering problem at ISP level? Players get booted. Some hacktivist group decide to go after your servers? Players get booted.

      For a developer/publisher that has so much experience with online play, they really are taking some stupid decisions these days. This is almost as ridiculous as high level SC2 games having to be decided by arbitration because one of the players got disconnected from battle.net.

    • Okami says:

      @StingingVelvet: I know exactly what you mean, since I usually never play multiplayer and I hate it if a game’s single player mode has to suffer because the developers needed to add multiplayer. But Diablo is one of the very few games I play online and it doesn’t make any sense to me to play it offline. Playing click’n'slays on my own is the most pointless and tedious thing I can imagine.

      That having said, I can totally understand anyone who likes to play these games single player beeing pissed off by the changes. As would I be, if I gave a damn thing about it. But I don’t. So I’m not.

    • studenteternal says:

      @Okami: and as I am not effected I don’t care? Even though other people have a perfectly legitimate complaint and it in no way improves my experience, they can just go fuck themselves? I realize this is just a game and not exactly life or death, but still this is not the sort of thing we, even those of us who are not personally effected by the online requirement, should support in the marketplace.

    • Okami says:

      @studenteternal: Burn the communist!

      On a more serious note: I appreciate your call for gamer solidarity, though I’m not sure that a lot of people think they way you do. As for me, the last time I actually played Diablo 2 was eight or nine years ago and I’m not particularly excited for the third installment. I will play it, but that’s more because I’m a developer and want to see what they’re doing, why they’re doing it and how they’re doing it and less because of any love for the series.

    • Calabi says:

      I hated playing Diablo 2 on battlenet, it was like watching mad people rush around a store that has a massive sale on.

      I played it for a bit for fun, but couldnt understand it.

    • Snargelfargen says:

      Yeah, I always preferred single-player for Diablo 2. Multiplayer Diablo has always felt hectic and rushed to me. So, ummm bummer. Have they even said if there is a way to play alone?

      I like my multi-player (Definitely looking forward to GW2 and possibly KotOR as well), but the Diablo series has always appealed to me when I want to relax after a long day. Screaming 14 year olds shouldn’t have to be a part of that.

  43. Gothnak says:

    You do realise that Chinese Gold farmers can only sell items to other people in the ‘Asian’ region. And that there is an ‘in game money’ auction house too.

  44. Advanced Assault Hippo says:

    News about always-online connection not good. Connectivity in my current region patchy at best.

  45. Rii says:

    I didn’t know what to make of all this initially, but thanks to RPS now I do. Huzzah!

  46. Moni says:

    Point 1 can be solved, like most things, by making it optional.

    If you want to have a character that you want to play online, then you have to always be online. If you have no intention of playing online then you can create an offline only character.

    • thebigJ_A says:

      Thank you, captain obvious. You just said the solution to the game requiring us to always be online is for the game to not require us to always be online. Really.

      The entire point is they are saying you can’t play offline.

    • Wilson says:

      @Moni – But didn’t you read the comment? You could get a character all the way to 20, or 30, and want to go online, but you WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO! Don’t you know that people are too dumb to be able to handle the decision between making an offline and an online account? This way is better for everyone. /sarcasm

  47. Khemm says:

    One more thing… There are rumors Diablo 3 will be coming to consoles (BOOOO, Blizz!!!), Blizzard is even hiring people to do the job… So, they’ll go for the always-online model there, too? I can’t imagine the console crowd accepting this.

  48. Mr_Day says:

    I realise everyone is very angry, but:

    If they don’t call their store page for weapons “The Maul” I will be upset.

  49. Icarus says:

    Welp, guess I won’t be buying this then. I was going to get Torchlight 2 anyway.

  50. sinister agent says:

    1) The game requires a constant internet connection. It cannot be played offline.

    [re: micro-transactions stuff] We can provide them a really safe, awesome, fun experience, or they’ll find ways of doing it elsewhere.

    Um. I don’t think that’s all that people will be doing elsewhere.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>