Blizzard Address Diablo III Issues With “Emergency” Fix

Many players waited more than a decade, only to be met with this. Yep.

Update: After many hours of patching and subsequent server outages, Blizzard’s claiming everything’s good to go. If, however, you kick open a rotten stump only to discover an outpouring of bugs instead of loot, you can take your complaints here.

Original article: Hey everyone, I just played Diablo III without a single hiccup! Ow, argh, oof, ugh, whyyyy. Oh, I get it: you’re all beating me because my experience is atypical, and instead of feeling happy for me and perhaps throwing some form of party, you’re booting my ribs from my body (henceforth known as “Error 37-ing”) out of rage at what you’ve encountered. Oh you guys. Fortunately, Blizzard claims a round of “emergency maintenance” should have things functioning far, far better than new.

The developer gave a status update on Diablo III’s official forums:

“We are in the process of performing an emergency maintenance for all Diablo III servers to resolve several issues that are currently impacting the game. This maintenance may cause some interruption in communication, ability to log in, use of in-game features, and disconnections.”

Other bugs that will hopefully be squashed under Blizzard’s slow-stirring boot include a full-on game-breaker that occurs when you trade equipped items with a Templar follower. This causes Diablo III to desync with Blizzard’s servers, summoning the wrath of Error 3006, which keeps players from playing the game even after attempting to log back in.

While 37 and 3006 are the two big ones, smaller errors abound as well. John, for instance, encountered lag and a couple instances of randomly getting kicked from the game entirely, which resulted in lost progress. Servers, of course, are flooded, but that’s less an excuse for this debacle and more an object lesson in why this “No separate single-player character option” decision was a truly silly and limiting idea to begin with.

This is pretty much inexcusable. Servers are down right now in the US while Blizzard applies its big fix, only adding to the time people can’t play the single-player mode in the game they own. I know: it’s a refrain that’s been sung (in some cases screamed) time and time again, but – given that this happened – the right people clearly haven’t gotten the message yet.


  1. Jim Rossignol says:

    It’s the “OK” button on the error message that amuses me. It should say “WTF!?”

    • tlarn says:

      “You’ve been booted from the game because of reasons.” “Okay…”

      • Greggh says:

        “You’ve been booted from YOUR SINGLEPLAYER game because of reasons.”


        • HexagonalBolts says:

          Even worse than booting is that my SINGLEPLAYER game is LAGGING. Crippling lag that has resulted in my death several times (and in the game). I can understand if it needs to maintain a very minor connection for the onslaught of pointless achievements, fine. But why would the connection be so extreme as to make my game lag!? What on earth do my computer and blizzard’s servers need to confirm with each other that it would make my game lag (on the lowest possible graphics settings with a 2GB AMD6950 and an OCed Q6600)? My connection is 1.5mbps, sure, not great, but this should really not be an issue, it can play Starcraft 2 just fine.

          • twig_reads says:

            Sadly it does more then just track achievemnts. I believe monsters calculated and sent to you through the webtubes. It really isn’t a local singleplayer game at all.

          • DrSlek says:

            Some genius at Blizzard had the fantastic idea to make the vast majority of the singleplayer game, including the monster positions and spawning, handled server side.

            Great work blizzard. I am sure regretting not buying this game.

          • hmncia says:

            11:30 a.m. PDT- We are in the process of performing an emergency maintenance for Diablo III servers in the Americas to resolve several issues that are currently impacting the game. This maintenance may cause some interruption in communication, ability to log in, use of in-game features, and disconnections. We anticipate all servers will be available for play at approximately 1:30 p.m. PDT. We will provide further updates as necessary. Thank you for your patience.


      • Bonedwarf says:

        I admit to feeling incredibly smug that when they announced that single player had to be online I thought “NO SALE!” and I’m very glad I kept my money.

        Well that, and the fact I realised last night after reading about all these issues that I’d have been screwed as my Battle Net Authenticator was on an iPod that died last year and I can’t access it, and I can’t be arsed to jump through whatever hoops I have to go through to remove it.

        • Nevard says:

          I didn’t think “No Sale”, I thought “Give it two days so they can sort their servers out and I can play singleplayer in peace”

          Anyone who imagines these issues will continue for more than about a week is kidding themselves :V

          • QSpec says:

            Anyone who imagines that other issues won’t pop up is deluded.

            I knew I should have waited for PoE or Torchlight. Anyone see the Lineage ARPG? It looks amazing.

            The only reason we are putting up with this is because it is Blizzard. I am just sad to see Blizzard go this route.

          • eks says:

            @ QSpec

            If your only reason for not playing Diablo 3 is because of the always on-line component (understandable) then stating PoE as an example of an alternative is ridiculous because that’s entirely online too. It has taken the same MMO approach as Blizzard.

            There are reasons to support PoE over Diablo IMO (Being independent, ‘ethical’ micro-transactions, even being one of the few Kiwi game devs) but the online component isn’t one of them.

          • kikito says:

            Well, I thought “No sale, and I will tell everyone not to buy it”. So, there you go.

          • QSpec says:


            I didn’t actually know that. If it is free, I think I could forgive it. If they charge, I will hate it.

            And for the record. I own D3. I was in the beta for quite a long time. I actually enjoyed it. I will probably enjoy it again.

            My main gripe is I think “always on” is anti-consumer and reflects a change that is not for the better. I hope this stands as a warning for most companies.

            Blizzard is one of the very few companies that could get away with a launch this terrible due to a feature that was largely unwanted by the community.

          • KDR_11k says:

            I hope that Lineage ARPG isn’t as terminally boring as the MMORPGs. I remember trying L2 when it was in open beta, used my GBA to bridge the significant downtime in that game and at some point stopped bothering with the game on the PC altogether and just played more Metroid Zero Mission instead.

          • Nesetalis says:

            You honestly believe they will solve these issues within 2 days?
            It took them over 8 months to solve the majorly stupid problems with 2 on Starcraft 2.
            I’m expecting stupid to continue for another 4 or 5 months at least.

          • pruchel says:

            The issues with always-on has already hurt their entire paying customer base. It doesn’t matter if they fix them and we never again run into a single server outage or lagspike.
            The point is it was/is completely and utterly unnecessary and could have been avoided completely. Yet they did it, knowing full-well no server park in the world could cope with the logins on release day.

            It’s like they set themselves up for a massive bad publicity campaign, willingly and knowingly. I’m done with blizzard. It’s the last straw for me. Boycotting them from now until their WoW revenue-stream dies and they go bankrupt. I’ll laugh while all their servers die slow deaths while people scream and rage at not being able to play their own fucking games.

          • Nevard says:

            Since the past last night (at 3 AM, a pretty reasonable time to do a patch!) I’ve had literally no problems at all, and nor has anyone else I’ve asked.

        • Vinraith says:

          I sincerely hope this serves as an object lesson for the “online-all-the-time is fine because I have a good internet connection” crowd. Your connection isn’t the issue, Blizzard’s is.

          • Joshua Northey says:

            It is fine. The game will be ready son, in the mean time take a freaking Valium. There would be no game at all without proper DRM so rather than whining that you cannot play it the instant you want why not just play something else and get back to it when you can.

            Video-gamers can be such twits.

          • Vinraith says:

            I wasn’t foolish enough to “buy” it in the first place, so there’s certainly no anger here, just a bit of smugness. Considering the baffling hostility of your reply, you might want to take that Valium yourself.

          • Brun says:

            One man’s smugness is another’s condescension. I bought this game fully expecting the servers to bomb on day one. Why didn’t anyone else?

          • X_kot says:

            Such hostility on display by those chiding people for having a negative reaction to being unable to play a game due to online access problems. Here is one thing that I have not seen those supportive of this online requirement for DIII address:

            What purpose did preordering and predownloading the game serve anyone?

            If even single-player access is stymied by inadequate server capacity, the whole value behind “early access” is lost, and now the game must contend with a backlash. Sure, usage and capacity will find an equilibrium, but the early adopters will suffer in the meantime.

            That is what strikes me as being a defining flaw in how Blizzard has handled this product: the increased marginalization of its consumer base in pursuit of a) continuous revenue stream and b) an attempt to lockdown access to the code, in service to a). First SP-only people, now preorders.

            These are measures that the company is entitled to take, but they deserve the criticism they get (though, more likely, ignore it).

          • FunkyBadger3 says:

            The game wouldn’t have been made, but for DRM. Really?

            Somebody tell CODBLOPS.

          • wengart says:

            I can assure that Blizzard would have Diablo 3 with or without DRM, and had it shipped without DRM a shit ton of people would have still bought it.

          • zypnnjafss says:

            The Bluetooth Stereo Headphone Headset great ah! I use headphones to play the game is the best! Because it is more stick! More convenient! link to

        • Ajh says:

          I didn’t buy it either. I did the annual pass because I still play WoW. I couldn’t justify spending my own money on diablo 3 when I feared this always on crap would make my gaming time on it difficult.

          This isn’t even counting the numerous errors people have had just getting the game downloaded and installed.

          I always played Diablo 1 and 2 single player or with a few friends, so it’s weird to be required to use their online connection.

      • Jimbo says:



    • FunkyBadger3 says:

      I’m just imagining the amount of grief Ubisoft would be getting for similar carve-ups…

      • Nevard says:

        I can see quite a lot of grief

        • FunkyBadger3 says:

          The reportage in the build up (over the last 18 months?) has been fluffy-bunnikins compared to the vitriol poured on other deserving suspects.

          • Nevard says:

            Are you sure you’ve been reading the same comments sections as I have?
            Blizzard is both the second-most loved (after Valve) and most vilified (after EA) company around :P

          • FunkyBadger3 says:

            Meant the reportage rather than the comments…

          • Nevard says:

            Didn’t they write a whole article about how this was a terrible feature

          • Ateius says:

            Several articles, including one specifically focusing on how it made their experience in the beta highly frustrating.

      • tetracycloide says:

        Dear science am I ever sick of hearing that an online requirement in a multiplayer only game is somehow the same thing as always online DRM for a single player only game. If you can’t tell the difference between this and ass creed there’s no helping you.

        • FunkyBadger3 says:

          Diablo – in all its many flavours – is not a multiplayer game. Its a single-player game with a multi-player mode (check the stats).

          So, just like AssCreed then.

          • tetracycloide says:

            Diablo currently has three flavors and in two of the three there was single player but in the third there is no single player. There are multiplayer characters in games by themselves in much the same way that a guild wars character might run a mission solo or with only mercs but that’s obviously (painfully obvious actually) not the same thing.

          • FunkyBadger3 says:

            To paraphrase: “D3 is a multiplayer game game because its always online. Its always onlione because its a multiplayer game”.

        • Dyst says:

          but the AssCreed games with the Shit DRM had multiplayer.

          • tetracycloide says:

            “… had Multiplayer and single player.”


          • somini says:

            Not even that. Multiplayer was introduced in Brotherhood, which had an offline mode. Bought because of that. Ubi learned their lesson. Blizzard ignored that backlash and not they are rightfully being attacked.

        • Vorphalack says:

          There is a button in Diablo £ that explicitly says ”single player”. Now please tell me again how that is multi-player.

          • tetracycloide says:

            Let’s assume there is such a button in Diablo 3 (I only see “Start Game”). There could be a button in the C&C Red Alert mission campaign that says multiplayer but that wouldn’t change the fact that there’s no co-operative play for the missions and more than calling a multiplayer character in an instance by themselves ‘single player’ makes it a single player character.

          • Vorphalack says:

            Wait a sec, your argument for Diablo £ not having single player, despite an actual in game single player mode, is that multi-player does not exist in Red Alerts campaign?

            Should we just take your brain outside and shoot it or would you like to book it in to be put down peacefully?

          • Wisq says:

            Too late. It’s dead, Jim.

        • Leandro says:

          Diablo 3 is multiplayer only? Yes, tell me more about how clueless everybody else is…

          (insert Willy Wonka picture meme here)

          • tetracycloide says:

            Follows the hive mind and alludes to image memes in lieu of posting them. Yes, you sound like someone worth listening to! Excellent point fellow commenter, a valuable addition if ever there was one!

          • wodin says:

            Erm…Diablo 3 is single player or multilayer, it’s not multi only. So always on isn’t necessary for a single player game.

            Or have I been misled and you can’t play it SP but only multiplayer?

        • Jimbo says:

          Science just rolled its eyes at you.

        • pipman3000 says:

          diablo 3 doesn’t have single-player. it just has a mode where one person can play alone without anyone else being able to join in.

          see they’re as different as night and day

        • Hidden_7 says:

          Without question begging reference to the online requirement, in what ways is Diablo 3 different from Diablo 1 and 2 such that it is a multiplayer only game wherein the first two are single-player games with an online option?

          • FunkyBadger3 says:

            Because its always online, you big silly.

          • Hidden_7 says:

            Oh my goodness, of course! I can’t believe I missed that!

            In that case, why is anyone upset about always on DRM? It doesn’t even exist! There are just single-player games, which you can play without an internet connection (Assassin’s Creed 2 [PS3, 360], Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Diablo 2, TF2, etc), and multiplayer games which require an internet connection (Assassin’s Creed 2 [PC], Diablo 3, Anno 2070, etc)

      • Xerian says:

        Well, the only reason people are putting up with this is because its blizzard. I for one wont stand it, then again I saw them for the money-whores they’ve turned into long ago. The whole turning-one-game-into-3-with-full-price-tags, amongst others. Etc.

      • nanowired says:

        I wish it could be pointed out to blizzard(and to the lesser extent, people who still cling hopelessly to Blizzard’s hollowed out shell) that they would of never been the “great” game making company today if all of their previous games had their singleplayer games as server side(Pretending of course, that this level of technology/bandwidth existed for rock n roll racing.)

      • Lobotomist says:

        Problem is that Diablo 3 is genuinely good game. So we can scream and kick as much we want , but we will get it and play it anyways :(

    • Antsy says:

      If it was properly localised it would say “Quite!”

      • subedii says:

        “Keep Calm and Carry On.”

        • Runty McTall says:

          “… oh no, you can’t!”

          Kudos Blizzard, you conquered the stiff upper lip.

          Meh, guess I should be glad Amazon stuffed up my pre-order (“high demand… who could see this coming? … sorry! … will get something to you at, uh, some point blah blah blah”) and saved me from just staring at a login screen.

      • Ninja Foodstuff says:

        Well at least we are thanked for our patience (in the server updates window) that Blizzard is alright!

        • Blaaaaaaag says:

          I particularly enjoy it when a game, or any service really, ironically thanks me for my patience. They’ve obviously never met me…

        • Sheng-ji says:

          I always find those “Thanks for your patience” notices quite offensively passive aggressive. They are clearly not personalised in any way shape or form, they are simply a rather sly little way of telling you that you must be patient, no matter what nonsense is thrown at you.

      • Ragabhava says:

        “Mind The Gap!” would be fitting as well.

    • Cross says:

      I guess the “OK” there is a reference to this. link to

      • psaldorn says:


        Might I also take this opportunity to curse RPS for their idiotic logging in system. If I click “Login to reply” I don’t expect to be unceremoniously dumped back on the fuckatootledooing frontpage. Woulda referrer redirect kill you? Or an ajax login?

        Also: people pleading for calm and sanity- Blizzard spent a fucktonne of money advertising DIII, and lo and behold, they fuck up the launch. With unneeded DRM of all things. Way to punish your paying customers. Thanks to their fuck up the DayZ servers are rammed, I was hoping for some peace ffs.

        Sadly, because it’s old Bliz’, they’ll never reduce the fucking price either. Good times. Still got to complete DII with the missus, perhaps they’ll have their shit ship-shape by then.

        • Phasma Felis says:

          “Might I also take this opportunity to curse RPS for their idiotic logging in system. If I click “Login to reply” I don’t expect to be unceremoniously dumped back on the fuckatootledooing frontpage. Woulda referrer redirect kill you? Or an ajax login?”

          Jesus Christ yes please this.

          • Ateius says:

            I am in support of this. No more frontpage-dumping, please!

          • MythArcana says:

            It certainly does add to the redundant idiocy factor, doesn’t it?

  2. Hentzau says:

    I’m sure the emergency maintenance will be the equivalent of sprinkling magic pixie dust over the servers and everything will be fine and dandy afterwards, but it’s only for the US. Everyone else is SOL.

  3. MFToast says:

    Here’s hoping this online-only BS becomes such a problem they remove it. I’d buy it if that happened!

    • Greggh says:

      If that comes to fruition I’ll buy you a beer for celebration! I’ll even post it to you internationally.

      • MFToast says:

        I’ll just buy an import and we’ll call it even :P

        • Leandro says:

          Where are 4chan and Anonymous when we desperately need a DoS attack?

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Probably working on intercepting the stream so they can upload an offline only patch onto pirate bay

          • Shooop says:

            Camping out in major state parks and pretending they’re protesting social inequality by “occupying”.

          • FunkyBadger3 says:

            To take down the authentication servers?

          • Phantoon says:

            Actually, a guy that goes by Netter said before the Diablo 3 launch he’d be running a nonstop attack on the Blizzard servers when it finally launched.

    • darkath says:

      For blizzard’s defence (well..) i found the game utterly boring when trying to solo after playing coop, so i decided to avoid playing alone. Solving the issue in some way i guess.

  4. Swanny says:

    Uh oh. Need to sacrifice more virgins to get the servers going again. Ah well, WoW will make sure there is no shortage.

    • Sheng-ji says:


      Which reminds me of a joke, when the suicide bomber goes to heaven and is told he will spend the rest of eternity with 72 virgins, only to be presented with 72 teenaged boys playing WOW.

  5. Nesetalis says:

    No body actually /wanted/ to play the game anyway….. right?

  6. Hug_dealer says:

    Glad I decided against buying this game. I knew the always online DRM would be causing issues.

    Sucks for the folks who bought it, and i hope they fix it. But I warned you all.

    My plans tonight are to spend $50 on A game of thrones the game and enjoying a decent RPG instead.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      What I find staggering is Blizzard should have MORE than enough experience running servers with lots of people with WOW and yet UTTERLY screwed the pooch on this. It’s absolutely pathetic.

      • DK says:

        Yes, the utter incompetence of making Diablo 3 an MMO and not implementing something as basic as a login queue is staggering. They’re handling this like they’ve never done an MMO before, much less a multiplayer game of any kind.

        Blizzard fucked up their fourth(!) MMO launch, and this latest one is the least competent yet.

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      you can buy it on gamersgate for $35 or so.

      • Hug_dealer says:

        Sweet, thank you very much.

        • TheTayl0r says:

          Oooo wait – have you seen the reviews for GoT? Very bad (4/10) is one of the reviews I read today

    • Malawi Frontier Guard says:

      So you trust Cyanide to make a good game all by themselves?

    • Bhazor says:

      Just gonna leave this ‘ere.
      link to

    • FriendlyFire says:

      I would suggest holding off for Torchlight 2 or grabbing Endless Space or Warlock instead. Fine games, and fairly cheap to begin with.

  7. duncanthrax says:

    This is ridiculous. European servers flat, US servers either flat or under maintenance. If they don’t add capacity quick, this will continue for days at peak time (CET afternoon until midnight EST).

    • Ninja Foodstuff says:

      I have a sneaking suspicion that they won’t and just pull a SWTOR on everyone.

      “Look at all the money we saved by not buying extra servers!”

      Right now the forum thread on the issue is up to 700 pages. It’s going up faster than a almost-funded kickstarter.

    • mod the world says:

      Seems like the DRM boycott has left the servers empty!

  8. Lagwolf says:

    MFToast… well put.

  9. Biscuitry says:

    I don’t get it. Isn’t this exactly the sort of thing open betas are supposed to catch? Wasn’t the entire point of that weekend to stress-test the servers so exactly this wouldn’t happen?

    • Diziet Sma says:

      Probably, but exactly this did happen during the stress test. I guess some were optimistic that blizzard would go:

      – WOW, just imagine what this is going to be like when all our paying customers log in?
      – Let’s add more capacity then so our customers are happy!

    • Calculon says:

      There was likely a cost benefit analysis performed on adding significant quantities of servers to ensure that there are no issues versus having *some* issues and being able to reduce that cost to an acceptable customer loss ratio.

      I would guess they made an estimate as to how many people they could safely piss off to improve their profit margin. I dont think they have miscalculated personally…this will be forgotten within a couple of weeks and the *drool D3 pwns* discussions will continue instead.

      • Nevard says:

        Of course people will forget it once it stops being a problem, why wouldn’t they?

      • Slaadfax says:

        Calculon speaks the precise, sad truth, and its existence pretty much proves the direction Blizzard has gone towards as a company.

        I truly wish there could be some repercussion towards Blizzard so that they understand sacrificing customer satisfaction in favor of profit isn’t always the best idea, but sadly, it probably won’t happen. At least they haven’t seemed to sacrifice quality.


        • Joshua Northey says:

          Slaad- Hat companies are you dealing with who don’t try to make money? Surely they don’t last long? Every company I know is just a mercenary as this, that isn’t a problem, that is the way modern society works. There are things that should maybe be fixed about that, but nothing that would impact whether completely trivial things like “OMGG minor server outage on day 1 for popular video game”.

          You all sound like a bunch of raving lunatics with no perspective. No understanding of the real world.

          • Slaadfax says:

            There are many, many companies in the world that avoid, as much as humanly possible, to avoid sacrificing customer service/satisfaction to gain greater profit. This is not a new or unusual notion, and often times these companies do very well simply because their standpoint leads to better products, lower prices, consumer confidence, and about a million other things.

            Blizzard used to be like this, but the Real Money Auction House, and every facet and excuse for it, is purely motivated by profit. It is not a feature to make the game more enjoyable for people (though I’m sure some will like it just fine).

            It’s idiotic to suggest one cannot find a good balance between customer satisfaction and shareholder satisfaction. Often times, one hand washes the other.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @Slaadfax – In all fairness, I was VERY outspoken about the RMAH but it is not pushed at you in game at all (so far). In fact you have to quit the game and delve into the menu’s to find it. I am very happy with it’s implementation, it’s there if you want it but it’s not forced down your throat.

            The thing I am most unhappy with is the MMO style chat box which while discreet is always there and all your characters speech is written in it.

          • Harvey says:

            @joshua northley: I’m interested in your debate style. Do you find that excessive hyperbole is effective as an argument “winner”, or is that just how you think normally.

        • Belsameth says:

          All companies would do the same if they want to stay in business.

          Would you buy a Gforce 690GTX for the intro movie if your 560Ti does an excelent job for the rest of the game?

      • b0rsuk says:

        Metacritic user score: 3.5/10 (1472 ratings)
        Breakdown: 344 positive, 28 mixed, 691 negative reviews.

        They are not going to improve the average anytime soon.

        • Grygus says:

          Nobody sane cares about Metacritic user scores.

          • greenbananas says:

            Mindjack is a bad game that you can play after you’ve bought it, hence 44 in Metacritic.
            Diablo 3 is a game, however good, that you bought and can’t play. Hence 30-something.

            Excusing this on the basis that Metacritic is insane is like watching the figure skater attempt a(n admittedly impressive) quintuple pirouette only to fall on his face and then excusing his bad score cards on the russian judge being russian.

    • Brun says:

      In any kind of application like this you always have a smaller capacity than your maximum concurrent load. ALWAYS. A great example is interstates or highways – they’re never designed to run smoothly at max capacity because you would spend a ton of money on capacity that would be wasted except at very specific times of day.

      Another example might be something like Gmail – do you really think they have 7 GB+ of storage earmarked for each individual user? Hell no they don’t – that would be prohibitively expensive. Instead the system relies on the fact that most (99%) of users will never use anything close to that 7 GB of storage.

      This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that isn’t naive.

      • Nikos says:

        Yes, but in the modern day of the cloud you can lease processing power for busy times like launch and then stop leasing it after a while. So they could have planned for it, really.

        • Brun says:

          This is an interesting approach. I imagine that, should cloud services continue to develop and become more affordable we can expect (maybe hope is the better word) to see this adopted in the future. There are a couple of issues surrounding this particular case, and the cloud case in general, however, that may have put Blizzard off from using it this time around.

          For Diablo 3 in particular, the game began development how many years ago? At least 3, likely more than that if you include planning. At that stage the whole cloud thing was just barely getting started. So it probably didn’t look like a very viable option at the time that Diablo 3 was being planned and designed.

          For cloud solutions in general, there are several issues that often turn off major companies from “renting out” cloud solutions (either temporary or permanent) from other companies (like Amazon for example). The biggest is that when you take that step, you have to hand what amounts to proprietary data over to the other company. That’s a significant risk because you’re trusting that company (even with an agreement) to not only refrain from divulging or using it themselves, but also to protect it from hackers and anyone else that could compromise that data.

          • Nikos says:

            As to #1: they already had WoW. They probably know how to design games running on a cloud (or equivalent).

            As to #2: WoW was (is?) running on AT&T’s data centres, so trust issues can obviously be managed.

    • DigitalSignalX says:

      During the beta, things were really slow and there were frequent disconnects. Been playing for the past 5 hours or so in the US and no issues at all. Perhaps atypical, but from some perspectives at least, the beta did indeed smooth things some.

  10. Torticoli says:

    The worst part is, from what I’ve seen, the game itself is pretty damn good. The amount of BS surrounding this game is just sad.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      I want to buy it. I Do. But a series of bad design choices such as RMAH and Always on, along with region locking and no modding support means I’m saving my money. Perhaps ill buy it as a budget purchase, but they will never happen, they still want an arm and leg for D2.

      • Bonedwarf says:

        Given they’re owned by Activision now I imagine Satan will be driving to work in a snowplough before they drop the price.

        • AmateurScience says:

          Exactly, the box’ll drop in price but as far as digital goes we’ve got no hope: this is a company that is still selling Diablo II plus expansion for $20.

          Which is just astounding.

        • Azradesh says:

          For the last time, THEY ARE NOT OWNED BY ACTIVISION!

          link to

          • Hug_dealer says:

            word it how you like. the end result is the same.

          • Nesetalis says:

            people can keep trying to say that… but the fact remains, ever since activision and blizzard merged… blizzard has gone downhill, becoming more and more of a disgusting company, caring less about the games and customers than profit margins.

          • Kryopsis says:

            Good luck trying to convince people of that. When I tried it myself, I was called ‘naive’ and ‘living in denial’. Being informed is a voluntary choice that can’t be forced on people, I guess.

          • Joshua Northey says:

            Blizzard was always concerned with profit. You really think they weren’t? What are you 5 years old?

          • LintMan says:

            @Joshua Northey – Give it up on the straw man. Nobody’s saying Blizzard’s not allowed to make any money. Everybody here understands that companies want/need to make money.

            The point is that some companies need money to allow them to continue to make awesome games, while other companies make games to earn them a bundle of money. Most people would probably say that Blizzard and, say, Bioware both belonged in the former category when they were independent. Both seem to have shifted towards the latter category since the Activision/EA deals.

            Do you see the difference there in priorities? Do you understand why that has an impact on games and why gamers might care about that difference? If you don’t, I’ll spell it out: what does a company prioritize: will they sacrifice some small amount of profit to make a better game, or are they more prepared to sacrifice game quality/features to make additional profit on a game they will already make bundles of money on? If you prefer the latter, you’re not a gamer, you’re a stockholder.

            When people say Blizzard’s decisions are all about money now, THIS is what they mean. D3 was already guaranteed to make a huge profit. Did they really need to wring every last cent from their customers by forcing them all online to expose them to the cash auction house?

          • Nesetalis says:

            exactly. Mind you, i’ve been a blizzard fan boy since lost vikings and rock & roll Racing. I played warcraft 1 and 2 to death, starcraft for almost 5 years, warcraft 3 for quite a while… I played WoW… all the way up to wrath (didn’t care for BC much, but pre-BC and wrath were great.)

            I even purchased starcraft 2… and then after beating single player, never played it again. (I am primarily a custom map user and creator, made tons in starcraft, and warcraft 3… a few got fairly popular in SC even…) I couldn’t find the custom games I wanted to play, I couldn’t share my custom games with anyone, because no one could find them to play them.
            I gave up on 2… and now diablo 3 is just confirming my suspicions that blizzard is no longer the company I loved for two decades.

          • Phantoon says:

            Sorry, what? Vivendi owned Blizzard, Vivendi merged with Activision, and Blizzard had a good name so they kept it in the merger, thus becoming Activision-Blizzard.

            You really think they don’t answer to Kotick?

          • Azradesh says:

            Vivendi didn’t merge with Activision you fool, they OWN Activision and they OWN Blizzard. All they’ve done is merge their too games companies.

          • LintMan says:

            Azradesh: “Vivendi didn’t merge with Activision you fool, they OWN Activision and they OWN Blizzard. All they’ve done is merge their too games companies.”

            From wikipedia: link to
            “In December 2007, Activision announced that the company and its assets would merge with fellow games developer and publisher, Vivendi Games. René Penisson, formerly a member of the Management Board of Vivendi and Chairman of Vivendi Games, would serve as Chairman of Activision Blizzard. Bobby Kotick, once head of Activision, was announced to become President and CEO of Activision Blizzard.”

            Vivendi does NOT “own” Activision. It merged with Activision and the result left Activision’s head Bobby Kotick in charge of the ENTIRE operaration as President and CEO. Kotick is calling the shots.

          • Azradesh says:

            Sigh. Vivendi Games was just the games division of Vivendi.

            “Activision Blizzard, Inc., formerly Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI) is the American holding company for Activision and Blizzard Entertainment. The company is majority owned by French conglomerate Vivendi SA and was created through the merger of Activision and Vivendi Games, announced on December 2, 2007,[3] in a deal worth USD$18.8 billion.[4] The deal closed July 9, 2008. The company believed that the merging of the two companies would create “the world’s largest and most subtle pure-play video game publisher”.[5] It believes that it is the only publisher that has “leading market positions across all categories” of the video game industry.[5]”

            Get your facts straight.

          • LintMan says:

            “Sigh. Vivendi Games was just the games division of Vivendi.”

            OK, you’re right, I misread that. My apologies.

            But, that still doesn’t change the relevant point people have been making, which is that Activision’s Bobby Kotick is the one calling the shots now at Activision-Blizzard. He might answer to some executives at the conglomerate level, but they wouldn’t be directly involved in decisions like “Find a way to turn Diablo 3 from a one-shot sale into a monetary income stream”.

  11. irongamer says:

    11:30 a.m. PDT- We are in the process of performing an emergency maintenance for Diablo III servers in the Americas to resolve several issues that are currently impacting the game. This maintenance may cause some interruption in communication, ability to log in, use of in-game features, and disconnections. We anticipate all servers will be available for play at approximately 1:30 p.m. PDT. We will provide further updates as necessary. Thank you for your patience.

    link to

    For some reason this is funny to watch unfold.

  12. HisMastersVoice says:

    “the right people clearly haven’t gotten the message yet.”

    They did. They simply didn’t give a toss. Let’s face it, the whole “designed to be an online experience” act is pure PR bullsh*t meant to cover for the fact that they want everyone and their mother to use the RMAH.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      It is Activision. They do like their money, and RMAH is designed to do exactly that. Get rich off micro transactions.

  13. Freud says:

    The problem is that their server capacity is most likely built to comfortably handle normal load in one weeks time, not the frenzy we are now seeing. We’ve seen it before with launches of expansions for WoW.

    They should of course have capacity to handle this load if they insist on everything going via their servers, but I suspect the goodwill cost is lower than the real cost of having a giant server park that will have loads of unused capacity in a week or two.

    • Brise Bonbons says:

      I thought most of these online services used flexible virtual server farms anyway. I mean I know it’s possible, but I’m sure it is more expensive.

      But then again, most of their money will probably be made from people who continue to play, not box sales, so it seems like they can afford to cut into their initial profits in order to ensure happy customers who want to spend spend spend in the RMAH.

      Also as I say elsewhere, why not stagger launch with pre-orders getting in first?

      • Starky says:

        They do for the instancing for the game, but not for the login/auth server – that is a single server (or virtual server made up of numerous physical servers at least).

        It will be a stupidly fast access database designed to handle X amount of requests per second (in the thousands) – which in 1 weeks time will be more than enough to handle login.

        Right now though not only have you got people trying to log in – but thousands of idiots hammering the login button every 10 seconds.

        It is nothing short of a DDOS attack. No server architecture would be able to handle it – not without massive distribution and regionalization (such as say with google).

        Chances are it isn’t a matter of *more servers* but a limitation of fibre optic network switching speeds. I’d wager the physical limitations of fibre optics, and laser diodes are the biggest challenge.

        • LintMan says:

          Well, I find it hard to blame the players for spamming their login attempts – they just want to play the game they paid for. Blizzard should have implemented some sort of login queuing system if their auth server wasn’t up to the expected load. That would cut down/eliminate the login spamming.

          Or, Blizzard could have kept the offline mode intact, and the problem would have been nonexistent.

      • Starky says:

        I’d wager that these server issues are actually caused by about 10% of the player population – the players who literally spam login, every 10 seconds over and over… Wonder if Blizzard put a 1 min cooldown on login attempts it would lower the stress significantly.

        • kud13 says:

          you say that like it’s a bad thing. The paid for the game, they are entitled to play it when they want.

          Of course, if we had a single-player mode, there would be less issues (not to say there wouldn’t be people still furious about not being the first to play online).

          • Savagetech says:

            It *is* a bad thing. If every one of the millions of players is trying to log in six times a minute as opposed to one, they’re digging their own graves by loading the authentication server down with requests it can’t fulfill. It can’t fulfill those requests because it’s loaded down handling the ones it can and responding to the ones it can’t. Less people spamming = more people actually playing.

            They did pay for the right to play the game, but my tax money pays for the right to use public roads; that doesn’t mean I drive like an idiot and ruin the driving experience of others who are paying to use the road as well. We’re equally entitled to the road and if we all don’t act like assholes then everyone has a better driving experience. Same idea here, and it can be applied to almost any social situation where people pay for access to a common venue. However, the road actually has rules to minimize detrimental behavior whereas Blizzard has not implemented anything to decrease undesirable traffic from excessive log ins. That is unless they’ve done it stealthily with the old “fake button trick”–if they just made it appear to try every 10 seconds while only sending a real authentication request every minute, people would be somewhat appeased because they appear to have control over it.

          • Milky1985 says:

            “It *is* a bad thing. If every one of the millions of players is trying to log in six times a minute as opposed to one, they’re digging their own graves by loading the authentication server down with requests it can’t fulfill. It can’t fulfill those requests because it’s loaded down handling the ones it can and responding to the ones it can’t. Less people spamming = more people actually playing.”

            Any system that can’t handle 1 connection every 10 second is an awful system with serious issues, ocmputer handle millions of calculations a second, 1 connection every 10 seconds should be nothing. Anyway its all moot because they could have allivated the whole issue with a queue, you know the SAME SYSTEM they already have for other games.

            The only reason i can see that they did not do this is the press it woudl bring up (why do i have to queue to play my sngle player game), so instead they went for not able to play at all

            “They did pay for the right to play the game, but my tax money pays for the right to use public roads; that doesn’t mean I drive like an idiot and ruin the driving experience of others who are paying to use the road as well.”

            Alll abord the bad analogy express, next stop “junction of completely different point”, change here for “missing the point” and “fanboyism like defence”

          • aphocus says:

            Milky: “Any system that can’t handle 1 connection every 10 second”

            Wow I think you miss a big huge flaw in your assessment, 6 x a minute is PER PERSON, if you have 10,000 people trying to authenticate, that’s not 1 every 10s, but 1000 requests per second, or 1 every millisecond, My music player which uses SQLite (just as fast as MySQL) has a database of 5,000 songs and the file for it is 5MB yet it STILL takes an order of 10-30ms to query it, easy to keep up with key presses, now imagine multiplying it in to a authentication system with 10,000,000 players in the database and then all the disk space and RAM to store it without the data being corrupted, keeping all this in-sync across an entire global network of authentication servers.

    • Vorphalack says:

      …..or they could have just given us offline only single player and none of this would even be an issue : |

    • Didero says:

      Couldn’t they just have rented extra servers for launch week then?
      A bit of temporary extra cost, but a lot more goodwill and people mainly focusing on the game instead of on the DRM.

    • Shooop says:

      Of they could have made an actual single-player mode instead of one where you’re just in an online game by yourself.

      Get out of here you useless apologist.

  14. ExplosiveCoot says:

    But don’t you guys know the online requirement is there to enhance the single player experience?

    • Bonedwarf says:

      And it has worked. Can you not feel the sense of community being built around everyone as they can’t play the game?

      • FunkyBadger3 says:

        I suppose you could class a lynch-mob as a community.

        • MiniMatt says:

          Can I interest you in this fine pitchfork? I’d put it on the auction house but, well, umm, yeah.

  15. whorrak says:

    I was wavering in my decision to boycott D3 for this always-on DRM but, after reading this article, my devotion is stored. There is no way I’m relying on a server on the other side of the country to allow me to play my single-player game.

    • Greggh says:

      Some of us have to rely on a server ACROSS THE OCEAN… Imagine that!

      The beta was so laggy that I was glad I didn’t buy this game in pre-order.
      Damn shame D3 is so broken, it seemed promising.

  16. MythArcana says:

    Right now I can open my door and hear the din of 40 million emo cosplayers screaming their bloody lungs out in panic and desperation as their hopes and dreams, along with the $60 investment, is hopelessly flushed down the toilet.

    Welp, back to Stone Soup for me! Perhaps I’ll have lobster tonight to supplement the free entertainment with the $60 in my pocket.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      Dwarf fortress just released FLYING CARTS for FREE.

      That’s gotta be better than an error 37 code. Right?

      • LionsPhil says:


        • Strange_guy says:

          Just in case anyone doesn’t realise how great this is let me quote toady “I set a hauler to ride a minecart to its next stop. That happened to take the dwarf down eight ramps and then up a launch ramp into an open cavern. High up in the cavern there was a wide ledge and on the ledge there was a goblin, chilling out right where I had created it. I activated the dwarf’s squad, and he had just enough hang-time at the top of the flight arc to get a punch in. The goblin struck back but the dwarf jumped on to the ledge, where they continued to fight as the cart fell down into the darkness.”

          • Belsameth says:

            You’re forgetting the ability to load a cart with items and then effectively grapeshot your dining room


          • Nesetalis says:

            :O oh shit! I should really play some more DF, been about a year since I last played… launching minecarts sounds amazing!

          • LionsPhil says:

            Is the fluids performance any less dire yet, though? (Or the interface any less godawful, or the difficulty curve any less static, or any other number of reasons that DF fortresses usually fall to “bored now”?)

          • Nesetalis says:

            you asking for a miracle? :p
            Toady doesn’t “do” interface design. >.>
            Fluid mechanics are inherently complex and CPU intensive. Though personally i’d like to see him learn to fob that off on the GPU if the computer has a compatable GPU. Fluid mechanics is alot of vector math and GPUs are good at that.

  17. Yachmenev says:

    Why so many complaints about this? We knew this would happen, and yet all you people went out and bought i day 1. Deal with it. :)

    • Hug_dealer says:

      Because they ignored it and wanted to pretend that the always on DRM wasnt going to be a problem.

      Cause if singleplayer was offline, then they could play that atleast…………………………but nope. Suckers got sucked.

    • Uthred says:

      This is a ridiculous statement. “We knew it was going to happen”, why have we become so accepting of failure? It shouldnt be acceptable that game launches come with so many avoidable problems. This kind of apathy is why game companies can get away with this kind of thing. We wouldnt accept it with any other consumer product why should we accept it with games?

      • Yachmenev says:

        Of course it shouldn´t be acceptable. It isn´t. But it was bound to happen. It was so obvious.

      • Wisq says:

        Whether it’s acceptable or not has nothing to do with whether it was predictable or not.

      • Brun says:

        This was hardly an avoidable problem. Unless, you know, they wanted to spend millions of dollars on additional server capacity that would be wasted after the initial 2 week hype wears off.

        • Vorphalack says:

          Could have been avoided entirely if the game had offline single player.

          • Brun says:

            Completely irrelevant. Nice troll, though.

          • Vorphalack says:

            So you believe that having an offline mode that requires no log in WONT lighten the load on the log in server?

            So far i’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were dropped on your head as a baby. Totally not your fault, gravity is a bitch.

          • wodin says:

            good comeback..made me chuckle.

        • Grargh says:

          This always sounds as if Blizzard was buying the servers and dumping them in their studio’s basement. They’re not. Servers are rented, and as the main problem lies with the login service and not even the main game, it should be cheaper to just rent them for a month and have your customer base motivated to preorder your next blockbuster game.

        • Palindrome says:

          It is avoidable though. Staggered activations (pre ordered CE -> pre order -> everyone else) or simply removing the online activation and/or online only single player would have seriously reduced these issues, if not removed them entirely.

          As it is thought this utter cluster reflects very poorly on Blizzard.

  18. Uthred says:

    Picked up a copy for my brother and myself on the way home from work, both of us have spent the last hour trying to get logged in. I thought the loot was supposed to be randomised but all I’m getting from the login minigame is Error 37.

    It’s probably just my crazy entitlement talking but I’d like to be able to play a game I bought (yes, yes I know I’m not extending enough sympathy to Blizzard for taking my money and failing to provide me with a service, I mean theyre a big company they got their own stuff going on)

    • lasikbear says:

      But at least you know all the error 37s other people are getting aren’t dupes

      • Uthred says:

        Thats the only thing thats keeping me going to be honest. I mean I dont mind wasting an hour or two as long as I know that my single player experience isnt being irrevocably ruined (in a manner I dont understand but Blizzard said it so we know its true) by some guy on the other side of the continent using a dastardly cheat to enhance his own single player experience. I suppose not being able to play a game we bought is the cheap price of living in this glorious future

        • BooleanBob says:

          Let me know if either of you find a new keyboard in your drops, ‘cus mine just got ruined by errant tea.

  19. mr.ioes says:

    I’ve been playing with 200 to 250ms today. Singleplayer. Sluggish combat and visual glitches are the result.

    Not cool.

    • Brise Bonbons says:

      I had a lot of that in the stress test. And I’m in Chicago. To be fair I think much of it was on my end, but the idea that my wife watching Netflix is going to impact my single player game is a little silly.

      Of course, it still felt better than Guildwars 1 ever did. I love that game, but lord, the netcode and servers are rough.

  20. Lowbrow says:

    I managed to get an error 3006 just at the moment where I had killed Leoric,made room in my inventory, and was hover the mouse over some sort of rare yellow bracer to pick it up. It couldn’t possibly been timed to better annoy me. If this drops me back to the first time I traded items with the templar, their DRM just took 30minutes to an hour from me. I HATE repeating content in games and this is totally unacceptable in single-player.

    I gain nothing from this system, as I play single=player, and it’s causing problems even with a solid connection so playing while traveling is impossible.

    UPDATE: When I managed to log back in I was in the same place but all the ground items were gone. At least with an MMO I could fight the boss again and get new items (it also deleted an achievement for making the boss kill his own guys but I can’t muster much concern over that), so they’ve managed to make disconnections a worse problem in single player than MMOs.

    • AmateurScience says:

      The major irritant for me is the fact that the maps seem to re-fog after a DC. This is the kind of thing that makes my inner OCD person weep with rage and tear at his beard in distress.

      • Lowbrow says:

        I’m dreading where I’ll be when I try to log in again, knowing I’ll probably OCD the map again. My rage-quit has not yet faded.

      • Azradesh says:

        Yes, it does the same thing as logging out, this is due the the random elements in the maps. Everytime you restart the game all the maps and monsters are random.

    • Joof says:

      I’m going to guess that the Templar Demon Hunter crash would have happened even offline.

      • Lowbrow says:

        Since it’s an error “causing Diablo III to desync with Blizzard’s servers” I highly doubt it. I’m also conditioned to be more forgiving of CtD errors. I’ve been less annoyed losing hours of progress in Mount and Blade (though non-linear games have an advantage there, I doubt I would have replayed 8 hours of a linear game until so much time had passed that I didn’t remember what I had done in the game).

    • MythArcana says:

      Or…for $20, you can play LAN/TCP/IP or single player with no connection on a notebook, along with complete editors for modding…but you’ll have to jump the Blizzard ship to get these kind of benefits.

  21. acidskrull says:

    On the plus side i will never forget my password.

  22. Cameron says:

    Diablo 3 launch managed to cut off access to all of Blizzard’s games for at least some people. You could argue that if Blizzard hadn’t insisted on the always online “DRM” in DIII then this problem would have been quite less severe

    link to
    link to
    link to

  23. Nameless1 says:

    I feel really good with the ludicrous 50€ price for this game still in my pocket. Never again, Blizzard :)

  24. Maxheadroom says:

    “Requirement of a connection is not about DRM, but about improving the player’s experience.”

    If by that they mean making me go play Torchlight instead then mission accomplished

    • TechnicalBen says:

      Have they succeeded if the game is made so poor no one plays, downloads or buys it? Oh wait, everyone pre-ordered. :(

  25. RegisteredUser says:

    I sincerely hope it gets much, much worse and does not let up, ever.

  26. SproutWinkler says:

    You know, I pre-ordered this on Amazon in 2010, got it today (under £22!) and after working all day have sat down to install and play. I’m now sat here with Error 37 etc just wondering if these are the same people who can cope with hundreds of thousands of WOW players at 1 time but can’t let you log on and play a single player game… :-(

    • Nevard says:

      I’d imagine more simultaneous people are trying to log in at the same time now than are on WoW concurrently on a similar week.
      Trust me, the first 2-3 days of a WoW launch are exactly the same.

  27. Kaira- says:

    Luckily even us who haven’t bought Diablo III can enjoy the true Diablo III experience straight from our browsers. Truly magical times we live in.

    • Premium User Badge

      Hodge says:

      Now I feel like a pirate.

    • squareking says:

      I was going through and reading the snide comments and thinking, “Oh, come on guys, this sucks for everyone who wants to play.” Then I got here and laughed merrily.

    • 7hink says:

      If you press F11 it’s just like the real thing. For only €60 you get the 75 error as well.

    • Harvey says:

      You made me spit my bourbon! Thanks for that.

  28. Brise Bonbons says:

    I’m actually going to defend Blizzard on this one and pull out the tired old, “hey, it’s launch, shit happens”. I do think they should have used a staggered roll-out where pre-purchase users and those with annual WoW subs could get in early; that seems like it would have been prudent. But otherwise this seems like just another undiscovered engineer screw up to me. No one is dying because of this. They certainly didn’t do it on purpose, and I’m sure they would have preferred to avoid it if they could have. If it wasn’t always-online play it might have been online validation hiccups like Valve games always seem to have.

    Now, that said, I didn’t buy the game so I’m unusually neutral about it. I played the latest open beta weekends for both D3 and Path of Exile, and just found the latter a much more compelling game for my tastes. I thought I’d mention that just to cement my hipster cred, also I have the flu and am feeling loopy. But I dunno. If the always-online thing is such a problem, go buy Torchlight 2 and don’t reward Blizzard for their choices. Total Biscuit says it better than I can, but in short, either muster some will and use the tools you have as a consumer to support business models you like, or stop bitching about it.

    Sorry for being so unkind here, but like I say, my brain isn’t at 100% right now. I hope you’ll forgive me.

    • Uthred says:

      This isnt a technical error, no engineer fucked up on this. Its a capacity error. Blizzard simply decided that the cost of extra login servers wasnt warranted. So no, “Its launch” isnt a sufficient justification and the fact that people accept it without thinking is why it keeps on happening. As for no one dying over this, no fucking shit, there are things more important in the world than games, what a revelation. But wait, this is a games site, its almost as if the core topic is gaming. But that cant be right can it?

      • Brun says:

        You’re the one not thinking. NO ONE designs high-demand systems around maximum demand. You always design around average demand. Doing the former is prohibitively expensive.

        • DK says:

          You know what reduces demand? Not forcing people to log into those servers that are oh so expensive to maintain.
          Oh no, the system we designed specifically to be expensive for us is costing us too much money. Whaa, Whaa, Whaa Blizzard.

        • rocketman71 says:

          YOU DO on launch days, if you want to maintain your reputation. After that, you balance until you reach a happy number.

          Also, when you’re Blizzard and you are swimming on money, you don’t have an excuse for not having enough servers at launch. ESPECIALLY when you did an stress test the week before, and you know how many preorders you’ve got.

          It seems that Blizzard’s greed is getting in the way of their competence.

          • MythArcana says:

            This, folks.

            If you wish to maintain vanity, don’t show up to the party with poo on your cheek.

        • Uthred says:

          As others have pointed out, servers dont have to be bought outright and kept forever, they can simply be rented. Blizzard rents extra servers for launch, once things quite down they stop, its not rocket science. Blizzard dont think the expense was worth it, but dont pretend that they didnt have a good idea what would happen (the beta weekend alone should have showed them) and that they couldnt have prevented out. Corporations dont lead your love and defence, especially ones that should know better

        • SkittleDiddler says:

          Blizzard can afford to spend eight digits in festooning Korean jet airliners with Starcraft 2 advertisements, yet they can’t shell out the cost to rent virtual servers for a couple weeks? Bullshit. Stop making excuses for them.

        • Grygus says:

          I know, right? Nobody ever designs for maximum capacity ever, that’s why Wall Street’s entire network crashes whenever there is heavy trading. That’s why the Internet goes down on the weekends. That’s why satellites fall from the sky when a TV show is too popular. That’s why you can’t get to Google, ever.

          Or maybe you are parroting something you heard from someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. A well-designed system ABSOLUTELY DOES have a way to handle maximum capacity, and doesn’t die until it reaches physical or financial limitations. Blizzard’s system is not well-designed from this perspective, and they are not adhering to some sort of industry standard in this poor design; they’re simply taking advantage of their customers’ tolerance for failure.

    • Vorphalack says:

      It’s not really a defensible issue when the solution would have been to implement offline only single player.

  29. ninjapirate says:

    Suddenly it doesn’t feel that bad that I have to wait until Friday for my D3 order to arrive…

  30. Althilor says:

    I suppose it makes a good tagline for marketing though.

    “Endless travails and hardships….and that’s just logging in!”

  31. Kestrel says:

    Obligatory Torchlight II plug here.

  32. Xzi says:

    Worst launch I’ve experienced, bar none. This isn’t WoW, so there was no reason for the online-only requirement. Even if it were the same, WoW had a much smoother launch. They should have literally had enough server capacity to accommodate every single person who pre-ordered, and then some. If those servers are later unneeded for D3, switch ’em over to another game/project.

    No matter what anyone says, Blizzard is not the same since the Activision merger.

    • Moraven says:

      After 2 days WoW was unplayable for 2-3 weeks. Until a queue system was in place and more servers launched.

      • Xzi says:

        I don’t recall anything like that. I was playing for the entire launch week with no issues. Troll Rogue named Xzi, as a matter of fact.

        • Hug_dealer says:

          i recall it quite well.

          Along with the fact that you would often get stuck in a looting animation and had to log out and back in to fix it.

          • Xzi says:

            I got some lag now and again, that was about it. Guess maybe I was just lucky. Or it had something to do with the fact that I had to switch servers a couple times in the first thirty minutes, and ended up on the lowest population one for the time.

  33. Premium User Badge

    Hodge says:

    The Torchlight guys may have been on to something when they decided to delay their launch.

  34. Moraven says:

    This is not a single player game, despite the last two having the option. It is an online game that can be played alone. WoW, Tera, TOR, Guild Wars. Tho it is more like Guild Wars with no persistent world and everyone playing in their own instance of the game other than town/chat channels.

    From all the hype from TOR and the story line quests, a lot of comments about the game said how it felt like a single player game in a MMO. Ask yourself, wouldn’t you mind playing that offline? You doing it all solo, being off or online makes no difference to your experience, other than running into people stealing you quest mobs or maybe saving you. You have a companion anyway to help.

    • Swanny says:

      This is not a single player game, despite the last two having the option. It is an online game that can be played alone.

      This is a really good point- well done.

    • zeekthegeek says:

      I wouldn’t play SWTOR offline or on and I won’t play Diablo 3 either. Funny that.

    • Consumatopia says:

      I look at it like this: If you can pay money for a box that ostensibly contains the game (it’s colorfully labelled “Diablo III”) and if you can (and most people probably will) complete the game without the possibility of interacting with another player, then it is a single player game. So far as I know, that doesn’t apply completely to any of the games you listed–you may be able to instance dungeons, but not an entire game (I doubt any of those games even have endings.)

      In fact, Diablo III can never be un-instanced–you never go to any sort of village to interact with thousands of other D3 players on a server. (The Auction House is a set of menus and listings, not a place you can walk around and socialize.)

      To put it another way, when those people were saying that those MMOGs felt like single-player games, that was criticism–they felt the games were supposed to be offering something they didn’t expect to find in single-player games. It would make no sense to criticize Diablo III by saying that it feels like a single-player game.

      So I suppose a game gets to choose which kind of criticism it wants to face–that it’s online component isn’t sufficiently dynamic, or that it can’t be played offline. TOR is vulnerable to the first, D3 to the second. They are essentially two sides of the same coin–if you are going to put me through the inconvenience of being online-only, it should be for a very good reason.

      I suspect that these diverging standards are because players imagined that in MMOGs the content was downloaded from the server every time they enter a new part of the game (e.g. as in Second Life). They came to think of MMOGs as places they visit, while single-player games are things they possess locally. So when I can’t play an MMO, I say “I can’t get to the place”, when I can’t play a single player game, I say “this stupid thing doesn’t work because it’s trying to call home”. Ultimately, if the experience is substantively single player (as playing D3 alone is), the second way of thinking about it is still correct–if Diablo 3 is not working, it is because it’s an intentionally crippled product.

  35. Waldkoenig says:

    GW2-Stresstest went better then D3-Launch btw…

    • Moraven says:

      But it has no single player offline mode and always-on DRM.

    • Malk_Content says:

      To be fair the last BWE for GW2 was god awful (in term of being able to connect.) I had a friend come over around 4 in the afternoon to try it. We didn’t get in till past ten, and that was with trying after every other best of five on SfXTekken.

      • Vorphalack says:

        The one day beta on the 14th may was almost flawless, they upgraded the server capacity considerably to cope with the huge number of pre-purchases. The weekend beta before that was hard to log into, but you can let them off there as it was the first beta and a large number of people pre-purchased in the week before the event went up.

        Compare that to Diablo £, where they not only have a full stress test a few weeks before launch, but they also have several years to count the number of pre-orders. Inexcusable.

    • nanowired says:

      The Diablo 3 stress test went better than the launch.

  36. Sidion says:

    Wait, so I buy this game two days ago, because I’m lured in by the idea that I can, “Play as soon as servers launch, and preload the game!”

    Okay deal. I pay the $59.99 (Which I am already against because I think that’s too much for a digital release, but whatever.

    Come 11:30 pm, I’m waiting. I’ve stopped playing Day Z, and am ready to grind through some dungeons. Error 37. Error 37… By the time I stop putting in my password to check what the damn problem is, it’s 1:44 am. WTH

    By 1:50 I can make a character, of course as soon as I try to log in I am swiftly kicked from the server. Whatever, it sucks I was tricked, but I have tomorrow off! I’ll just wait and play then right?

    I wake up, try to log on… Nadda.

    Seriously if this is how Blizzard launches games why are they in business?

    • Moraven says:

      I only got to character creation. =/ This morning I had 15 Demon Hunters made with the same name.

    • MythArcana says:

      “Wait, so I buy this game two days ago, because I’m lured in by the idea that I can, “Play as soon as servers launch, and preload the game!””

      Well, obviously you missed every other game launch that Blizzard has had on because this happens each and every time. It took them many months to stabilize the servers when D2 came out and really wasn’t much different from what we are seeing today.

      • FunkyBadger3 says:

        Guess how many times B.Net outages stopped me playing D2. Go on, guess…

        • Grygus says:

          Twice, because you were reading outraged forum posts, instead?

    • nanowired says:

      Because people don’t seem to notice that all the people who made Rock n Roll Racing, Blackthorne, the Lost Vikings, Warcraft 1 2 3, Starcraft 1, and Diablo 1 and 2 no longer work for the company and instead it’s being operated by some bean counters who don’t give a f— what a Horadric Rombus is.

  37. sonofsanta says:

    This post in the 3006 forums says it all:

    And it wouldn’t be as annoying if I could at least log on and play a different character. But this has completely frozen my account. I would understand if only the demon hunter was stuck in limbo.

    Fucking atrocious.

    All this is all the more annoying for the fact that, ok, characters can’t move between off- and on-line, there’s a better experience online with mates, fine with that… but I had all that in D2 and still had the option of just playing the fucking game if I wanted to. All this stuff about needing to be online is bullshit.

  38. Zarunil says:

    This is sure to bring the devil out in people.

  39. Bane2087 says:

    Blizzard suckered me again. Bored waiting for GW2 figured this will pass the time. If I could ever log in that is, even the brief time I managed to get in I couldn’t join my friend, which was the whole reason I bought the game. One of the most successful companies in PC gaming could not afford server capacity or bandwidth so people can log in to play on launch day? I think not. Pathetic.

    Whatever happened to Blizzard? They are just crap now. Ah well at least it guaranteed me not succumbing to getting MoP, they won’t get my money again.

    • MythArcana says:

      What happened to Blizzard? Well, it probably all started when they fired the entire Diablo 2 development team after the expansion and started pumping out emo-cosplay cartoon crap I imagine.

  40. QSpec says:

    Dear Torchlight… Now is the time to release… right… now.

    • nanowired says:

      Yea, the “FINISH HIM” animation is on the screen. All they have to do is enter the code…

  41. Brun says:

    So many people in this thread don’t know how high-demand service systems work. It’s really disappointing, RPS.

    • Vorphalack says:

      You know the best way to manage load on servers? Offline mode.

      • Brun says:

        We know you’re upset about no offline mode Vorph. But we also don’t care. So go ahead. Enjoy telling everyone you told them so. You’re SO much smarter than me. Really you are. Seriously.

        In the meantime, I’ll be looking forward to playing the game.

        • pipman3000 says:

          you could be playing it right now if blizzard wasn’t ran by morons :p

          • Brun says:

            Actually, I couldn’t (not at home). But I’m not in a particular rush to play the game anyway, so I wouldn’t be terribly miffed if I couldn’t.

          • pipman3000 says:

            figures the only person who doesn’t mind isn’t planning to play the game anyway :p

          • FunkyBadger3 says:


          • briktal says:

            I’ve never understood the appeal of that. It’s like the people who start up a character on a new server in an MMO when their server is down for an hour.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          Yes, I can’t see anyone in these comments that cares about the lack of offline mode. No one at all.

        • Vorphalack says:

          You don’t need to tell me how much smarter I am. I already know. Comes from being that much smarter ¬ ¬

        • wodin says:

          I care..well said Vor…

    • QSpec says:

      Hey look… there goes the point.

    • Jimbo says:

      No part of that makes it ok to sell a service which you can’t adequately provide. Not really sure what your point is here.

      • Brun says:

        It happened in WoW, and it happens in other MMOs all the time, for the exact same reason. Would you accuse them of selling services they could not provide?

        • ExplosiveCoot says:


        • Jimbo says:

          Yes I would. If you can only meet the demand of 1 million copies worth of activity initially then only make 1 million copies available initially. Selling something you can’t actually provide isn’t an acceptable solution – that should go without saying.

          It’s more egregious in this case because the process which has become the bottleneck isn’t really a necessary process for a lot of people. This was an entirely avoidable problem.

        • Uthred says:

          “It happens all the time so its ok” has never been a viable defence of anything

    • MythArcana says:

      So, in essence, what you are saying here is that fiasco is perfectly acceptable for YOU and that it doesn’t inconvenience YOU in the least since YOU are at work anyway and don’t particularly care to play anyway. Perhaps YOU can throw away $60 and forget about it, but these other 40 million people would like to play…if it’s alright with YOU.

    • nanowired says:

      yea, they’re the people who still think this wasn’t avoidable.

  42. rocketman71 says:

    It seems not only Blizzard doesn’t give a fuck about what gamers want. They also don’t know how to do a proper stress test.

  43. dahools says:

    Just to add another twist to it, I bought it last night, (paid full price in the end) :( .

    Logged in first time this morning, No problem! played for about 6 hours before realising I should start putting some hours into my other character ( real life! ;) )
    During play it never disconnected once, I swapped plenty of gear forward and back with the templar character no problems and had a ping of <40 mS
    general chat was quiet but in use.

    I think all the boxed copies have turned up now with people finishing work/school + dinner and the log in is being spammed like mad. tried going back on few mins ago only to get server busy (37) or server down (75).

    I dont think its broken or a bad release, people have just got to realise it peak time on launch day give em some slack.

    • Ultra-Humanite says:

      “Give them slack?” What you are proposing is akin to an airline overbooking a flight and not having enough seats to cover the tickets they sold. Give them slack for intentionally screwing up in order to maximize launch day sales. That’s rich.

      • dahools says:

        How does intentionally screwing up maximise launch day sales? I don’t understand that one.
        Plus it was back on again last night by half 9ish, as I put another hour into it before I went to sleep.

        I’m talking about the EU server aswell not either of the other two. I didn’t even try them.

  44. trjp says:

    I love these threads – the majority of the whinge coming from people who’ve not bought the game and are DESPERATE for validation for the stupid, childish protesting against the inevitable…

    Sat in their thrones on the beach of single player as the tide of multiplayer/only comes in – I hope they all drown.

    That or they stop trying to find validation by crowing about something that shouldn’t affect them – but somehow it does – funny that, isn’t it.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      hmmmm. This comes to mind after reading that.

    • DiamondDog says:

      You hope they all drown? For being interested in single player? When developers all across the world still spend billions developing single player experiences?

      I don’t…


    • NorfTehBarbarian says:

      You might hope they drown. Personally, I hope you get cancer. Idiot.

      • Brun says:

        It’s an analogy, genius. Take it easy.

        • nanowired says:

        • Beva says:

          Oh, ok, thanks. If that is an analogy here is another one, to both of you: “Fuck right off”. Maybe this is a metaphore? Bah, who cares, right?

    • pipman3000 says:

      the five stages of diablo 3

      1. denial

      “I love these threads – the majority of the whinge coming from people who’ve not bought the game and are DESPERATE for validation for the stupid, childish protesting against the inevitable…”

      2. angry denial

      “Sat in their thrones on the beach of single player as the tide of multiplayer/only comes in – I hope they all drown.”

      3. stupidity and even more denial

      “That or they stop trying to find validation by crowing about something that shouldn’t affect them – but somehow it does – funny that, isn’t it.”

      (this post will be updated as you proceed through the stages)

    • pantognost says:

      Please explain to me, since you are rational and all, what is that multiplayer wave? Is it some kind of buzzword that is supposed to persuade us that this debacle has any kind of rationality in it?

      what is the benefit of keeping the game logic of a game, server side, EVEN FOR SINGLE PLAYER?!?

      They could have followed the path of the D2 and be done with it.

      And don’t mention piracy because free servers will be up faster than the patch.

      Only explanation I can come up with is that they had their pipeline setup from WoW so they kept it the same for reasons of streamlined production process.

      Which is just lazy for a company that big and successful

      • pipman3000 says:

        the multiplayer wave is an actual wave that will come crashing down on every continent on earth drowning anyone who ever played a single-player game and dragging their cursed souls to a watery hell to be driven mad and tortured for all eternity while the virtuous fans of multi-player will float to the top from the briny depths with Atlantis and repopulate the world on seaborne cities

        • Salix says:

          And lo, the cries of “Lol, noob” shall ring out across the heavens as the players of multi glory in their paradise…or something to that effect

      • trjp says:

        Diablo II is an old, old game – and yet it continued to be updated until quite recently (and may still continue to be updated for all we know) – but do you think that was based on it’s single-player game?

        No – it wasn’t…

        D2’s popularity came from it’s multiplayer – a multiplayer which predates many other online games and has had some pretty torrid experiences with cheats/dupers and other issues.

        Anyone looking to make D3 has to consider that the core of the game is the multiplayer – that’s what kept D2 alive and that’s what D3 should aim to build on. The one thing they cannot afford to repeat is the debacle of duping and cheating which wracked D2 for years (arguably still does in some ways) and so they’ve adopted a semi-MMO “always online” system to ensure they have control over that.

        I’ve only played the free weekend of D3 but I saw nothing which suggested it was a brilliant single player game – the ARPG genre is really tied-into the whole idea of co-op play (or PvP even) now and any game which focusses on the single player is missing the point.

        That wave (although not King Canute himself, of course) is allegorical – it’s this idea that there’s a future in blockbuster-budget single player games – and there isn’t – simples…

        Those railing against that – will soon find themselves with wet feet.

        • DiamondDog says:

          Yeah but they still could’ve put an offline mode in it.

          • trjp says:

            If you’re creating a game with a complex client/server relationship to ensure that multiplayer/co-op is seamless (*coughs* give it a week or 2) and cheat-proof, removing that to make an ‘offline’ game has a number of issues

            1 – it takes time and costs money and slows down development (and we can’t slow Blizzard down any more or they’ll appear to be static)

            2 – it gives a lot of info to the hackers and cheaters as to how the game’s internal systems work (this is also the reason demos often contain DRM – because removing it would show a hacker how to remove the DRM from the full version too)

            I’m no happier about the idea of ‘online’ single player games than anyone else – my internet connection has developed the collywobbles of late (usually around 1am – it’s telling me to sleep I think!!) BUT as a developer I understand what’s going on and I respect the decision they’ve taken.

            End of the day, there are many ARPGs to play – this one requires an online connection and if you don’t like that, don’t play it – play Depths of Peril or Dins Curse instead – they’re amazing (WAY better than D2, Sacred etc.)

          • DiamondDog says:


            I guess I’ll go back to my desperate, stupid, childish whining.

        • pantognost says:

          Do you think that stating your opinion makes an argument for it? I did not say that a single player only game is what is needed. I said that single player offline option should be there. Say I like sliced bread. Imagine having to buy ham and cheese sandwiches so i can eat the bread alone. Think about it. Their idea is that stupid. As i said, they wanted to keep the wow toolset for the developmemt of D3 for easier development. Look at the login street. It’s the same with wow, just with a different backdrop.

          • trjp says:

            See my comment above – there are some solid reasons for not offering offline in a game which is entirely built around the online experience.

            Remember that Blizzard’s wealth and position comes from WoW – an online game – it’s what they do, it’s how they think and they (foolishly perhaps) don’t realise that not everyone has a rock solid connection, everywhere they go so to them it doesn’t matter.

          • pantognost says:

            For the DRM, well I think we all know that there are hundrends of illegal WoW servers. I cannot understand why, if D3 is successful, it will not share the same fate.

            And I am happy to see that you agree that the reason for the always online requirement is the streamlining of the development process.

            And as a developer, you might sympathize with them, but they are in such a leading market position which can hardly make me feel pity for the billions they make annually.

        • Elicas says:

          You remember that part where Bashiok gave the explanation of how having Offline and Online characters separate was frustrating and confusing, and how only some 30-40% of the people who purchased D2 ever played online?

          Obviously, the games success is based off it’s multiplayer. You know, the one the majority never even logged in to.

          Obviously, you’re a fucking idiot.

        • Archonsod says:

          Funny, I’ve yet to find an ARPG I actually enjoyed in multi-player. Enjoyed an awful lot in single player though.Sacred was the only one I actually bothered with online, possibly because people who played Sacred were assumed to be smart enough to note that offline and online characters were mutually exclusive (they actually lowered the bar a bit on that one in the sequel by giving you a big pop-up notifying you offline characters couldn’t be taken online and vice versa. I’m sure Blizzard might catch up to the wonders of game design in 2008 in a few more years) so you weren’t stuck with a community that had to wipe the drool off it’s keyboard during play.

          • trjp says:

            If you look at Blizzards history, they don’t make landmark, innovative games and never have.

            They take a formula and they polish the fuck out of it – and in this case, the formula is the online co-op (and perhaps PvP) ARPG.

            D1 and D2 were never particularly brilliant single-player games anyway (see also some Warcrafts and SC1 tbh) but they were landmark multiplayer games which lasted WAY longer than other, similar (perhaps even better) titles did.

            Then there’s WoW – did almost nothing new but polished/tuned the MMO to a sheen so bright it hypnotised upto 12million people at one time (and far more over it’s 7+ year lifespan) – there are far cleverer MMOs (from Eve through AoC to allsorts of other games) but not one of them has managed more than maybe 10% of WoW’s popularity at any time – for maybe a 7th of it’s life at most.

            Too many people expected D3 to be an amazing, innovative single-player ARPG and I don’t think Blizzard intended that for a second – they intended co-op/multiplayer and even PvP – the things which kept D2 alive for 8-9 years longer than it’s contemporaries.

          • Vorphalack says:

            ”If you look at Blizzards history, they don’t make landmark, innovative games and never have.”

            Warcraft 3 and Diablo would like a word with you. If all you know of Blizzard is WoW game play and the names of all their back catalog, I can see how you might have posted that tripe.

          • Archonsod says:

            “Warcraft 3 and Diablo would like a word with you.”

            And Dune 2 and Rogue would like a word with them :P I think the last game Blizzard released which actually innovated was Rock N Roll Racing.

            How long Diablo 2 lasted for those playing multiplayer is irrelevant. Not only does Blizzard’s own figures show it was around 30% of players, but without any continual supply of money from those players it’s nothing but an expense for the company.

          • Vorphalack says:

            You are stretching those examples a bit too far. Diablo and Warcraft 3 didn’t invent their respective genres, but they did contain genuine innovation.

        • Lemming says:

          I think you are muddling success with longevity. What Blizzard are doing is capitalising on that longevity (hello auction house!) with the sequel.

        • Beva says:

          The duping and cheating had such a bad impact on Diablo 2 they actually had to close the game down within… oh right. But anyway, it WAS a huge problem (that almost killed D2 probably/maybe/kindof) and now everyone can enjoy D3 single-player just fine without… oh wait. Etc.

    • MythArcana says:

      Spoken like a true Blizzard fanboy and well stated like the average SteamTard.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        I’d like to know, seriously: how many times were you banned from the Steam forums to make you so pissy about them? Get the fuck over it man.

        • MythArcana says:

          Zero. Never installed that service, never will. vALVE is evil, pass it on.

          • pipman3000 says:

            could you tell me why you think valve is evil? i could use some free entertainment right about now

          • Lemming says:

            In other words you’ve got absolutely no personal experience to speak from. You are operating entirely on second hand information and slagging off a service you’ve never tried.

    • Eddy9000 says:

      Oh hi tjip. I really enjoyed D2 and torchlight and was looking forward to D3, however I have a BT broadband connection (a very common service), which drops out about once per evening. Not a problem for any other game I play, can live with flunking the odd round of tf2, however I don’t think I could put up with having to replay decent chunks of D3 when this happens. I only want to play offline but I’m prevented from this now because of the decision to require not only to be online at start up, but all the time, apparently to ‘improve my experience’.

      Please could you tell me how I’m being over entitled by being pissed off by this?

      And while you’re at it you might as well explain a bit more about about how big budget single player games are dying out, cos there seem to be a lot that are selling really well, and a lot of online multiplayer games that are going under. I mean if you’re going to make the claim that big budget single player games are going to cease to exist then I reckon you need to back your argument up a little.

      • trjp says:

        In fairness the problem is surely your connection and not Blizzard’s game!?

        You’re effectively demanding a company design it’s games to consider your flawed broadband service – which is like complaining to Ferrari when your car won’t ford a river or cross speed bumps – you bought the wrong car!! :)

        I’d be FAR more upset if I were playing an actual multiplayer title (TF2 or WoW or even D3 with friends) than I would if I were playing single-player – it’s not like you’ll wipe a raid or lose a league game or something like that!?!?!

        I get that it’s annoying but we’ve known this to be an ‘always on’ game for years – if that’s a problem, there are 100s of other games to play!!

        • Vorphalack says:

          Nope, it’s the game that’s wrong.

        • beekay says:

          “You’re effectively demanding a company design it’s games to consider your flawed broadband service”

          That’s true. And I would fully expect a company to take into account the limitations of their customers. It’s not like this is an unusual situation, most people’s internet drops out occasionally or stutters. This is like a company requiring its customers to have a 20mbps connection in order to play a game properly. It’s not reasonable.

          • nanowired says:

            This reminds me of when Civilizations 5 FRIED a good number of cards that 2k games claimed were supported. I don’t mean “didn’t run right”, I mean the cards got fried.

            There is a huge thread on their support forums for the game. The company line is “Well you should of set your case up better.”

        • Eddy9000 says:

          hi trjp, sorry if you aren’t from the UK, but I’ll fill you in. BT is one of the biggest broadband providers in the UK, so yes, I do think that Blizzard should probably take into account that a large percentage of its users will have a bog-standard broadband connection that drops out occasionally. I also live in London so any connection problems caused by the area will be shared with a large percentage of the population as well. I think companies should consider the needs and limitations of their customers personally.

          I don’t play tournaments or matches, I am a 32 year old with many other commitments (not that I didn’t have marathon sessions when I was younger, it isn’t a put-down), so I have an internet connection that is functional for home use and gameplay, not designed for stability like the more expensive one I forked out for when I was a younger man and played league CS. I imagine my situation is a lot more common then you’re giving credit for. You do rather seem to have the attitude that criticising a product for not meeting your needs as a consumer implies over-entitlement, but that it’s perfectly acceptable to tell people that they shouldn’t have an opinion, which I think is rather more over-entitled.

          And yes, there are 1000’s more games I could play. I would like to play this one, I am disapointed that I cannot because of what seems like a rather unnecessary restriction, so I am complaining about it. Why is this such a problem for you?

          • wodin says:

            Well said…trgp talks out of his backside, defending the indefensible.

            It’s bloody simple really. If there was an option for offline single player the none of this would really be an issue as people could still play the game they paid for. Also I never once read about D3 would be a multiplayer only game.

          • trjp says:

            I am from the UK and I know intimately that BT Broadband is the product people who know fuck-all about technology will have installed.

            The problem with your assertion that relying on an online connection is a bad idea – is that it immediately makes online gaming impossible (and it’s pretty popular so I’m guessing loads of people don’t care about this).

            Broadband will never be a perfect service – it will always have issues (whether they’ve down to a shitty provider or your own dodgy hardware) – if you choose to wait for perfect connectivity, you’ll wait forever and so you have to leap-in sooner or later.

            There are good reasons for having the online part here – the game will survive, long-term, on the online play aspect – Blizzard have chosen to do this and it’s a take it or leave it situation – and it’s easily left.

            Problem with those that leave it is that they’re in here moaning about it – endlessly – why? Just play something else FFS, we’re DROWNING in ARPGs with several more coming soon.

            It’s not like this is the only game out this year…

    • Shooop says:

      All I can read out of this is some poor sucker who’s angry for being suckered out of his money on a game that he can’t play and so is attempting the “sour grapes” projection.

      Sucks to be him!

      Oh wait… Ha!

    • Jimbo says:

      “stupid, childish protesting”

      Stupid, childish and ultimately proven correct, in this case.

      • trjp says:

        So you’re ‘correct’ and still in a thread talking about a game you’ve not bought because you were ‘correct’ and…

        Do you not have ANYTHING better to do?? Did you earmark this time for D3 and then just leave it empty in protest???

        Are you wearing a V Mask as you read this????

        • Jimbo says:

          What more noble cause is there than educating the foolish? They ignored all of the warnings but now they have seen it for themselves. Hopefully a lesson will be learned from this experience and your ‘inevitable tide’ will become a little less inevitable. And hopefully my throne won’t get wet.

    • pertusaria says:

      I’m not looking for validation. I’m looking forward to when people who’ve bought the game stop talking mainly about the DRM so that I can enjoy seeing the game through their eyes. This isn’t a game that interests me enough to buy it, even apart from the always-online-ness, but I’d quite like to know what its cool points are and hopefully get some nice AAR-type things of different classes.

      • trjp says:

        You didn’t try it when it was free??

        You can apparently do this again – possibly now (with or without a pass, depending) or definately in 30 days time – so there you go!!

  45. Kryopsis says:

    I like how this thread is a vehicle for people who did buy Diablo III to parade their schadenfreude.

  46. shagen454 says:

    The music is so appropriate while waiting for the Server Authentication to fail.

  47. shagen454 says:

    OH yeah, and HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA to all of the people who took off work.

  48. eightbitrobot says:

    Totally did not see this one coming, who would have known, a DRM… being a DRM!

  49. Reefpirate says:

    Holy crap, I’ve never seen such a violent shit storm in here!

    • Flint says:

      This is nothing compared to the New Vegas uprising of the yonderyears.

      • somini says:

        At least it had some more solid bases. Being a fan of New Vegas. I still have a little resentment. Sorry Quinns. :(
        Now, this shitstorm is D3 players/PR managers coming here answering to accusations of no offline mode with gems like “this is inevitable, the throughput of fibre optics is the bottleneck”

    • Greggh says:

      My thoughts exactly

  50. Joshua Northey says:

    I think the funniest thing about this thread is all the people complaining that Diablo is not some other product. A single player product. You want that product make it yourself. That isn’t what Blizzard is offering. And until you can repeat their kind of success I will take their business sense about what is good for their games over yours.

    If you get home tonight and cannot log in go read a book or play something else, or hang out with your wife. Mellow out a bit, have some perspective.

    This is not the end of the world, and is mostly a sign of how right Blizzards choices have been (because their games are hugely popular) not how they are evil blasphemers who only care about money and not games.

    • pipman3000 says:

      how dare people expect to use a product they spent money on.

      • pipman3000 says:

        lowborn filth such as they should just shut up, suck it up, and know blizzard has their best interests in mind even if it doesn’t look like it.

        • Reefpirate says:

          I think the gentleman’s point is that it’s not Blizzard’s job to look out for everyone’s best interest. They’re trying to make it work for their customers, but to assume that the greater good of gamers is Blizzard’s interest is to misunderstand business. Just buy Torchlight 2 instead, or wait patiently for Blizzard’s game to work properly.

          Is this the first computer game you’ve ever bought, if you bought it at all?

    • RegisteredUser says:

      How dare people expect that after the first Diablo came out and was playable without an internet connection and then the second Diablo came out and was playable without an internet connection that when the third Diablo comes out one might be able to play it without an internet connection!

      Seriously people, wtf!

    • Apples says:

      Ah yes, if people want to play a game on their own, they ought to make their OWN AAA game! What a reasonable suggestion! Of course, pirates are right now engaged in making the product the way they want it, so I guess you’re sort of right…

      p.s. hang out with my wife? shit when’d i get this lesbian marriage, nobody told me about it

      • Reefpirate says:

        I think the point he was making is that Blizzard and their investors put their money on the line to make this game the way it is… And they haven’t really been deceptive about it. If you feel there is enough demand and are able to throw together another game some other way then you should by all means… Torchlight and those guys are doing just that.

        As for your lesbian wife, I can’t help you there…

      • X_kot says:

        Clearly everyone should just be hetero males.


      • pertusaria says:

        Congratulations to you both – have fun getting to know each other now. ;-)

    • Deltadisco says:

      Two words: Stockholm Syndrome

    • Rich says:

      This is hardly high art and Blizzard aren’t some sort of artistic genius that shouldn’t be questioned.
      If you spend money on a game it should bloody well work.

    • Shooop says:

      You know what’s even funnier than that?

      That people expect to be able to use a product they bought! Inconceivable I know!

    • Jimbo says:

      “That isn’t what Blizzard is offering.”

      The complaints are because they aren’t delivering what they DID offer. Those are valid complaints. Still, it’s not unreasonable to point out that if they HAD delivered what they didn’t offer (offline single-player), they probably wouldn’t have this clusterfuck on their hands.

      On the other hand, if it’s apparently now ok to take money from people without being able to provide what you said you would, then why do anything else? Wanna buy a bridge?