Oh Hell: No Offline For Diablo III PC Despite Consoles


Hey, did you hear that Diablo III is on consoles now? Of course you didn’t. You only read RPS and consider all other information redundant and moot. That’s why we’re friends. But console things do occasionally happen once in a blue moon, and even though nobody cares at all ever, this particular news bit might be pertinent to your continued happiness and merrymaking – or lack thereof. See, the console version of Blizzard’s hack ‘n’ slash stumble does away with one of our necronomicopy’s biggest downsides: an online requirement. So surely, finally, we can have the option to go offline now too, right? Right? Please? Oh gosh, stop making that face. Just… just humor us maybe? Ugh, fine.

Blizzard discussed the Auction House’s many ups and downs in an interview with Eurogamer, and lead content designer Kevin Martens admitted that the team even considered pulling the plug entirely.

“We discussed it at length. All options were on the table and all of them got their share of mind share. But the Auction House went in for reasons, and the problems it solved… if we just turned it off those problems would come back, and we’d either need good solves or ideally even better solves, and those weren’t readily apparent.”

Game director Josh Mosqueira echoed his sentiment, further claiming that online is the optimal way to experience Diablo III. So obviously, offline shouldn’t even be an option for… reasons? Here’s what he said. Good luck making heads or tails of it:

“I got to see it from all angles, especially having worked on console. Diablo plays best when you’re playing with other people. Because not a lot of people connect their consoles to the internet, that’s where the whole idea of having to get four people on the same couch playing together. That’s how we get that social aspect. But on PC, we really want players to feel they’re part of the bigger Blizzard and Diablo community. It’s a choice of platform and opportunity for our players to benefit from. There’s a more secure item trading environment, but also a more social environment.”

“[Always online] is not going anywhere.”

He also pointed out that the console version’s announcement immediately prompted demands for an online-only option to prevent cheating, so Blizzard really can’t win no matter what it does.

EXCEPT THEY ABSOLUTELY CAN. Option is the key word here. If Diablo III is in a state where it can be either always online or completely offline, the solution is as simple as offering both as entirely separate modes. There. Done. Keep all servers and relevant data the same as they are now to slam the stories-tall oaken doors shut on cheaters, and let would-be devil demolishers prance and skip and eviscerate as they please offline. The community won’t necessarily die just because you’ve offered it the freedom to pick its poison.

I mean, I’m not super tech-savvy, so am I missing something about the nuts and bolts of this? Would an offline mode somehow give cheaters and hackers better insight into Blizzard’s online security? Chime in, ye angels of knowledge. Let us party up and smite the demons of ignorance hand-in-hand. Because let’s face it: Blizzard certainly doesn’t want us doing it apart.


  1. analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

    Torrents mean no PC offline mode, simplicity itself!

    • Sakkura says:

      For some reason I read that as “Simcity itself”…

      • subedii says:

        It’s funny, I was just watching the PC Gamer PAX panel. As diplomatic as they normally are, none of the devs there seemed to have an issue with giving SimCity a mild kicking for what it did.

        Well maybe not kicking, but they certainly didn’t have issues calling it out on it.

      • salena012 says:

        my co-worker’s mother makes $67/hr on the laptop. She has been out of a job for five months but last month her paycheck was $15348 just working on the laptop for a few hours. description>>>>>>>>>>link to goo.gl

    • dE says:

      Funny thing that. It’s like in the world of simple arguments, console piracy doesn’t exist and ROMs has no further meaning other than Read Only Memories.

      • demicanadian says:

        People don’t even understand the term “console piracy” other than consoles being stolen by somalian pirates

      • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

        If you can afford an online console and a chipped one I guess your argument holds water.

        • scardb says:

          Or you know, just sacrifice online for that option.

        • aepervius says:

          How many % of people having a console use the online option ? I bloody know nobody using their console online (granted I know nobody udner the age of 20). On my side, my console is linked online… And I use the online stuff only one time : to buy FF7.

          • FakeAssName says:

            Depends on the system:

            My PS3 is always connected because it has WiFi, so it auto logs in whenever I turn it on. can’t say that I have ever played online multiplayer with it, but we stream a lot of stuff from amazon and I have a PS+ membership and download a shitload of games from that. Media center + JRPGs is mostly what we use it for.

            …. no, wait, scratch that; I play a lot of Journey, and that game auto joins you with other players, so I have played multiplayer games with it.

            My Xbox 360 however is wonderful for an online experience; I set my PC monitor on top of it to boost the monitor up to comfortable eye level and haven’t turned it on in months.

            I quite thoroughly enjoy all of the online activities I partake of -ON- my Xbox 360.

            *edit* I’m 33.

          • drewski says:

            It’s honestly never occurred to me, in an age of wi-fi, that people would avoid online consoles when available.

            Everyone I know with a console has them online whenever the machine is on. Now, that doesn’t mean I liked the idea of it being compulsory – but I don’t really know why you’d deliberately choose to limit functionality if the option is there.

          • Baines says:

            The Wii had an “always online” option. In a design oversight, it allegedly led to the death of some systems. (In the “online standby” mode, the machine drew limited power, but it would gradually build up heat. What it wouldn’t do is turn on the fan. If you actually used your Wii, it didn’t matter, because you’d turn it on every few days which would trigger the fan. But if you kept your Wii in a poorly ventilated area and then let it sit for a month or two, it could apparently build up enough heat to damage the system. And one thing a lot of people’s Wiis did was sit around for months without being turned on.)

            I set my Wii to use my wireless. I downloaded a few games. I played a little Monster Hunter Tri online. That was it. I had repeatedly considered disabling its Wi-Fi set-up entirely, but there was no reason to go through the effort. (Particularly since my Wii spent about 10 months of each year collecting dust.)

            The 360, and probably the PS3, are different stories largely because publishers expect you to have them online. You have to have them online to download the patches to fix the broken games that they ship. (Thanks, PC idea that carried over to consoles. It is sadly funny, but I remember a couple of decades ago when PC utility software was being sold in incomplete and known buggy states, and I was worried what it would mean for the future that people kept buying said software, and people would say stuff like “Don’t worry. Companies aren’t going to take advantage of it.” But enough of that divergence…)

            But ultimately, I’m not a big fan of online gaming in general. I hardly play PC games online, either. Most of the PC games I play could be played for the same experience to me offline (if it weren’t for the DRM and/or fluff like online scoreboards that I don’t care about anyway.)

    • Shadow says:

      By now, and this is inevitably highly academic, I’d wager my bottom penny the whole always-online charade has cost Blizzard more sales than piracy ever could.

      • Shuck says:

        D3 is the third best selling PC game of all time (with only Sims 1 and 2 and their many expansions ahead of it). It broke numerous sales records. D2 had a decade of continuously (and very unusually) strong sales, and perhaps the combined sales of D1, D2 and expansions exceeds D3 sales, if you credit citation-less internet estimates. I’m afraid you’ve lost that penny. D3 was such a wild success, other publishers will be looking to replicate it.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          Doesn’t mean that they didn’t piss away a tonne of sales. Not one industry expert will …. oh wait, this is the industry where people are still trying to take on WOW with a subscription based clone – you’re probably right.

        • aepervius says:

          And how many of those will repeat the buying IF D4 comes up with online only ? I know metacritic is not liked , but look at the positive review : 5 in like 4 months. There are negative review every few days or so. Sure it could be troll… But my penny is on people not liking the game in its state. And many mention the online requirement, and the mediocrity of the gameplay.

          Also maybe D3 was the best selling whatever, but thee are definitively people like me which did not buy it due to online requirement.

          We will see if there is a D4 ever. If it is the same as D3 architecturally, I am betting that penny it will sell far less than D3.

        • Shadow says:

          Doesn’t change my point, Shuck. I believe it would’ve been an even bigger success if it weren’t for the always-online fumble. But as I said, mine is a highly academic belief. It’s hard enough to estimate the impact of actual piracy, let alone the implications of hypothetical piracy.

          Who knows, maybe it would’ve turned out the same. Perhaps sales lost to always-online would’ve been similarly lost to piracy if the former requirement didn’t exist and the online mode was optional. The only thing close to certain is that the latter case would’ve at least implied the end-users got a better product.

          • Baines says:

            People want to believe, even when they are warned in advance.

            Look at SimCity. I know people who went ahead and bought the game *after* the complaints started, and defended the game for the first few days of playing it. It was only after a week or so that they saw how limited and flawed it was, but by that time EA had made its money. Look at the recent Mac release, where people who had heard the horror stories since the Windows release still bought it.

            Similar with D3. People who were concerned still bought the game, figuring or hoping that worries were unfounded and complaints were exaggerated. And they were probably even fine with it the first few days, with it taking a bit of time for the shine to wear off.

            What will happen with the next games? A bit of positive previews and the right hype will be all it takes to get people to line up and buy again, even if they will be complaining a week afterwards. (The same thing happens every year with Call of Duty, where people who complain and worry for months *before* release will still buy the title, only to complain about it for months after release as well. And they’ll buy the next one as well. (Or buy every other one, if they are a diehard fan of only one of the developer studios.))

          • HadToLogin says:

            @Baines: Are you sure people who whine about CoD actually buy it? From what I read, most of them didn’t bought any CoD for few years and just “haters gonna hate”.
            I’ve even seen few haters play new CoD and then say/write “didn’t knew I can has so much fun with it”…

            Of course, there are people who doesn’t really hate CoD, but they hate CoD-policy/trend that makes gaming world sadder place, where people are happy to pay $60 for few maps…

        • Urthman says:

          D3 is also one of the very few big PC games not available through Steam, for which there are no sales figures. D3 sold more boxed copies than Skyrim or Bioshock: Infinite. But did it sell more total copies? Nobody knows except Bethesda and Irrational.

          • HadToLogin says:

            Pretty sure it sold better than other gamers. If it wouldn’t, Bethesda and others would scream about it and try to get into Guinness Records ;) .

            But it mostly PC-sold so good because it was exclusive. It’s Rockstar in reverse – Blizzard first took money from console gamers forcing them to buy it on PC and then release it on consoles to get even more money.

        • Bhaz0r says:

          One other thing to consider. This is Blizzard we’re talking about.

          A company notorious for inflating budgets and dragging development on for a decade. I wouldn’t be surprised if D3 ended up costing as much as WoW. That means they probably didn’t even break even until they hit the 5 million unit mark.

          Also, do those figures include the people who got it free with their annual WoW subscription?

        • Milky1985 says:

          You have to remember its not normally the game that everyone complains about that sells badly, its normally the next game in its series. THAT is when the consumer backlash hits.

          Lots of sales of the first game will be based on “it can’t be that bad, its just loud internet people” .

          Look at Final Fantasy 13, the game was hated by a lot of people (not myself actually enjoyed it for various reasons but that’s another discussion). 13-2 comes out , is a much better game, solved a lot of the faults that 13 had but sold infinitely less than 13 did mainly because of the stigma of 13.

          The games market doesn’t tend to work on the current game being bad, its all about the next one.

    • AmirBan says:

      Same Torrents mean yes offline to consoles.

  2. squirrel says:

    All the tributes have proved that Activision has done everything great – in business sense. So why bother to make the game playable offline, relinquish the control?

    Let’s argue when Blizzards server final shut down.

    BTW who really feel as part of a great community just because your game won’t work whenever there’s an online traffic jam?

  3. mouton says:

    All those deliberations are nice and dandy, but do people really want to still play it, over and over again?

    • Tacroy says:

      Well I guess their goal was to make a hell simulator, since that ridiculous “you have to grind through the game three times before you can start really playing the game” thing sounds pretty hellish to me.

  4. Big Murray says:

    No clearer indication that it’s because of PC piracy, and not for the reasons they’re claiming.

    It’s the lying which gets me.

    • subedii says:


      What annoys me is I remember back when the game was being developed and someone asked the question of being able to go Solo Hardcore. And the response was of course we’ll tailor it so you’ll be able to Solo Hardcore, that’s something the community loved to do in D2 and they’d expect to be able to do it in D3.

      This alongside the statements that if you’re playing D3 on your own you’re doing it wrong.

      If I was to presume truthfulness in those statements then there’s some MAJOR cognitive dissonance going on there.

      Fortunately I just presume they’re lying. So I guess that’s better?

    • Jenks says:

      Many pirate apologists around here would disagree. The comment sections on RPS articles regarding D3 and Sim City always online crap were full of those idiots.

      • Sheng-ji says:

        link to rockpapershotgun.com

        This thread Jenks, the one where you acted like a colossal idiot? The one where you quoted a developers figures of piracy about their own game – and described it as “the hardest evidence ever” and when I pointed out that your source was inherently biased, I somehow became the figurehead for all pirates, I was apologising for them and was spearheading the campaign to legitimise piracy in all it’s forms in your head.

        Yeah, whatever. Go drink your 8 glasses of water because lucozade said you need to (as they launched their hydration range).

  5. Alexander says:

    Do people still play this?

    • GuybrushThreepwood says:

      Console gamers starting to play it, PC gamers going back to it in preparation for the upcoming expansion.

      • fart says:

        There are also gamers (not exclusively PC) like myself and friends who bought D3 on launch last year then got a copy for PS3 last week and found that the ‘consolized’ couch co-op version of the game is the only version we’ll consider playing now. It’s just more fun.

        Essentially, D3 was a good PC game, but it’s a great console game.

        • subedii says:

          Which is all the more annoying. Leave aside the online-only and the auction house for a second (and those are big elephants to ignore), even things like direct control and gamepad support were being asked for by the community for freaking years.

        • Baines says:

          Only weakness so far on the console version is that while the game was made for couch co-op, the menus weren’t. Quick equip (without going into the menus) and the generally simple skill system helps, but only one person can mess with their inventory or skills at a time. Champions of Norrath on the PS2 at least let two couch co-op’ers mess with their inventory at the same time.

        • Timthos says:

          I thought the local co-op looked really cool until I realized only one person can be in the menu at one time and that going into the menu pauses the game. That seems like it could get pretty annoying.

          • Baines says:

            There is a quick-equip function that works for item pick ups at least early on. Pressing “up” on the d-pad will cycle through items sitting in your inventory, which you can choose to equip or drop. But you only get comparison arrows, with no details. (That’s why it is good early on, and less good later.)

            For general play, my friends and I just play through an area for a while collecting stuff, only bothering with the inventory/skills menus at certain intervals (such as when you level up and want to check any new skills/runes.) Of course going back to town is also a decent time to run through equipment. It is a bit clunky, and could have been handled a bit better, but it is better than nothing.

  6. captain nemo says:

    Too busy to talk -> playing Torchlight

    • povu says:

      And Path of Exile. Which has a legitimate reason for being always online and doesn’t have a real money auction house.

      • secuda says:

        Wich is funny because its always online as well… oh well atleast you dont have to pay for it now.

      • Veracity says:

        Of course it has RMAHs – they just aren’t run by Grinding Gear Games.

        Why is it “legitimate” for PoE to be always online and not D3? I see this a lot and don’t really follow it. Is it just because it’s f2p?

        • malkav11 says:

          That’s part of it. It’s pretty ballsy to expect me to pay for a game that can be arbitrarily and completely shut off at any moment (hey look, EA’s shutting Battleforge down – so maybe Blizzard won’t, but don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen), and Path of Exile doesn’t. I’d cheerfully pay for an offline version, mind you – that’s more important in the long run – but at least it means your only investment is time.

  7. Wulf_ says:

    This is an awfully long article and interview for “cba”.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      The news: there is no news.

      Or rather, something that we made up didn’t happen.

  8. strangeloup says:

    I like that the explanation is an almost verbatim “because of reasons”.

    Never bothered with the PC version due to the always-online bollocks (that, and this sort of game tends to be a quick trip to RSI Town for me), but the console version looks rather tempting.

    • Horg says:

      Ah, but they have ”solves” for those ”reasons”, and if the ”reasons” get worse, they will make ”better solves”. Honestly, all this technical industry jargon is starting to give me a migraine. These guys clearly know what they are doing, perhaps we should all just keep quiet and continue blindly buying their stuff. It must be good because they said it is.

  9. dagudman says:

    Path of Exile. ’nuff said.

    • P.M. Gleason says:

      Or the adventures of Van Helsing. Or pretty much anything, up to and including a shotgun in the mouth, would be more entertaining than this pile of garbage.

  10. Alexander says:

    When was Grim Dawn supposed to launch?

    • golem09 says:

      When it’s done. Which is exactly why it went to kickstarter, to NOT have someone in their back demanding release NAOW!

      • Baines says:

        Kickstarter has a promised estimated release date for reward delivery. The final version of Grim Dawn’s estimated date was last month.

        Further, starting a Kickstarter apparently (according to the FAQ) requires you agree that you will either deliver all your promised reward or refund the money of backers whose rewards you cannot or will not fulfill. Missing a Kickstarter estimated release date isn’t the end of the world, but it could make people more anxious and arguably gives them more right to pester with “When will X be released?”

        • Apocalypse says:

          That is exactly the reason why the word estimated is used.

      • jrodman says:

        By the way, backers can already play the game, just not in its finished form.

  11. Deano2099 says:

    The reasoning for not having separate online and offline modes is given in the article: they want people to always have the option of going online, as they see it as integral to the game. So if they wanted an offline mode, you’d need to be able to switch back and forth with online, and they can’t do that securely.

    They think the offline experience is inferior, and don’t want players to lock their characters out of it.

    I don’t agree with that line of thinking, but I get the logic.

    • malkav11 says:

      That is certainly an argument that they have made. It is a specious, bullshit argument which completely fails to justify them making the decision for their customers, and is in no way supported by the actual game that they made (which is in no way integrally online and in fact is actively hindered by being based on their servers). And of course, it’s even more clearly bullshit in light of the console version, which is in almost every particular the same game, yet does not have an online requirement. What’s the one major difference? The RMAH.

    • P.M. Gleason says:

      Blizzard’s actual reasoning is always along the lines of gamers are retards. They said they “talked about” and “thought about” having offline-only characters and online-only characters, separate, but it was “too confusing” for people.

      If there’s something you don’t like (or if there’s something you manage to like) about the game, google it, find an interview, and you’ll find a Blizzard employee saying it was “too confusing” for gamers. Because apparently everyone at Blizzard is a moron.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      Yeah, like Malkav said.. reasons. Other reasons. Money, control and distrust concerning the paying customers.

  12. Sam says:

    I think we can all agree to envision going forward as a team to mindshare good solves.

    • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

      I’m just not feeling your paradigm. Will it be proactive by end of play? Without buy-in you’re just running it up the flagpole before your ducks are in a row. If you can’t take ownership of the opportunities, stay out of the kitchen until everyone is funky about the whole thing.

  13. Nechronox says:

    As soon as they said, ‘Because not a lot of people connect their consoles to the internet..‘, you knew they were, at best, woefully ignorant of the amount of consoles online and, at worst, spewing nonsense to justify their DRM on PC.

    • subedii says:

      No kidding. I wasn’t aware that both MS and Sony are making some SERIOUSLY bad judgement calls for the future of their next gen consoles.

      • strangeloup says:

        Well, MS at least have certainly made some terrible judgement calls with the Xbone, but seem to have reversed on them so hard they made a warning beep.

        That being said, I seem to remember there being a pretty big disparity between the number of X360’s sold and the number ever connected online, to the tune of maybe only a quarter to a third of those sold were on the internet; I’m not sure if Sony ever released figures for the PS3, but I wouldn’t be wholly surprised if they were similar.

    • malkav11 says:

      You might be surprised. Sure, you and I and I would imagine a reasonably high percentage of “core” gamers take their consoles online, but they’re not making up that a substantial percentage of 360s and PS3s either have never been online or are connected only intermittently.

      Where they fail is not realizing that PCs aren’t automatically connected to the internet either.

    • Viroso says:

      Worse is, most people play it solo, according to Blizzard.

      • malkav11 says:

        Of course. Because it’s a singleplayer game that you can play with other people if you feel like it. And go figure, like almost every other game ever, people by and large spend most of their playtime with that singleplayer.

    • PacketOfCrisps says:

      How would you know how many people connect their consoles to the internet? Calling them ignorant when you have no evidence to back up your claim is a little strong.

    • Lemming says:

      In a world of sub-optimal speeds and data capping, it’s ludicrous to expect people to be always-online. That goes for PC and consoles.

  14. newguy2012 says:

    blablabla – they like their DRM. fine. but the auction house?? come on! that and the crappy loot is what killed the game for me. and the lame difficulty settings, and the limited builds and the…

  15. Trespasser in the Stereo Field says:


    No hits. Did you mean solutions?

    Good solves or ideally even better solves

    No hits. Did you mean better solutions are more valuable that good solutions?

    Corporate Tool

    Please narrow your search. Did you mean Kevin Martens?

  16. Auru says:

    This is a bizarre article to see on RPS, since this information has been available for ages now.. what purpose does this serve?

    • RedWurm says:

      Well, RPS is my main game news source and I hadn’t seen any of blizzard’s statements on this subject before, and I own D3. I suppose reporting news to people counts as a purpose?

  17. bleeters says:


    *Goes back to playing Torchlight*

  18. Sidewinder says:

    What kind of intelligent actions do you expect from a company that thinks ‘solve’ is a noun?

  19. Viroso says:

    “But the Auction House went in for reasons, and the problems it solved”

    The problem = Blizzard not getting a cut of that sweet item trading cash

  20. Potocobe says:

    Seriously, I can’t believe all of you can talk about the online/offline this and that and not mention that DIII doesn’t even have real time shadows. The light source for your character’s shadow always comes from the right. After playing Torchlight 2 I couldn’t help but notice. DIII was fun to play but I will never consider it a great game. Because shadows. Take that Blizzard!
    And where is my motherfucking PVP multiplayer!!??? When did that stop being a design goal? The arena always sounded like the most fun anyone was having with the beta. And you decide console players need to also feel the pain of no pvp multiplayer before anyone can have it. What is wrong with you Blizzard?

    • bleeters says:

      Promising things they don’t deliver is a staple of Blizzard’s business strategy.

  21. Richeh says:

    I think even apart from practical reasons, we’re never getting an offline version because it was such a bone of contention. There was such a shitstorm over it, people who trade on their reputation were forced to nail their dicks to the sticking post and insist that it was so important that it should be online that to back down and make it offline now would mean a hit to their credibility. And those people run the company, and it’d screw always online in the future.

    So they’re just always going to say no. Which sucks.

    • subedii says:

      Their credibility took a hit when the did it in the first place.

      Their credibility took a hit again when they released on consoles with the features that the PC audience was asking for, and still refused to give it to them.

      At this stage, acquiescing would mean at least they’re capable of listening.

    • Sharlie Shaplin says:

      I was really looking forward to D3 then they went and announced the auction house always online, and a little part of me died inside. Even if they did make it offline, at this point it wouldn’t mean anything to me anymore, because I have moved on, I simply don’t care.

  22. SkittleDiddler says:

    What was that Blizzard? Sorry, I was too busy playing better ARPGs made by better developers who actually understand their customer base.

  23. Cruzer says:

    Remember when Blizzard weren’t total dicks?

    • orochi_kyo says:

      You mean Brood war times? Yes, UT makers werent dicks too, now they just make xbox games.

    • Grygus says:

      I have a theory that World of Warcraft taught Blizzard a certain contempt for their own customer base. This theory is a few years old; I haven’t noticed them doing anything to counter it.

      • ffordesoon says:

        To be fair to them, if I had to manage the WOW community in any capacity, I would be praying for nuclear holcaust before the first year of doing so was up. Every time I’ve seen any comments section on the official WOW site, it’s given me a headache.

  24. nasenbluten says:

    I refused getting it for PC after playing the beta and actually rented it for 360.

    It renders at 720p (enough and moves smoothly), the controls work surprisingly well as the abilities you can use are quite limited, the offline mode is perfect, supports 4 player local coop AND system link (LAN for consoles).

    I hope someone will hack the console files and mod them on the PC version… HA!

  25. orochi_kyo says:

    But who is the guilty here? Not guilty gear.
    Blizzard announced this game with always DRM online and still sold 12 million of copies. They already know they can release a bad game with DRM and still sell it by millions, SO.
    But We are just in time to show those pricks on blizzard that we are not happy with this situation. How? NOT BUYING THE EXPANSION, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE PROMISING!!
    Sorry for the caps.

    • orochi_kyo says:

      And I cant blame Blizzard for the auction house since there are nut people who still are using it, giving blizzard money with every transaction. In which dimension a company says no to money?

  26. Yosharian says:

    Recently I was at one of the biggest LAN events in the UK, it’s called Insomnia and it’s held in the Telford International Centre.

    For the entire weekend the internet capability of the event was utterly crap, I was unable to even play MINECRAFT on our clan’s server due to lag. The organisers claimed it was because Virgin Media fucked them on their bandwidth, giving them only 75% of what it should have been, but I think realistically the infrastructure is unable to cope with such huge demands.

    • Yosharian says:

      It came to the point where I was considering which titles me and the lads could conceivably play over LAN (actual Local Area Network rather than over inet), and there was really nothing apart from Torchlight 2 which unfortunately most of the lads didn’t want to play. It was quite frustrating. I spent most of the weekend playing Fallout New Vegas while waiting for the internet to fix itself (it never did).

      • Yosharian says:

        ‘Everything is online now’ is a fairly accurate assessment of the situation, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have access to LAN play.

        • Yosharian says:

          Not that any of us wanted to play D3 anyway

          Wow I finally managed to post my whole fucking message, something is seriously up with WordPress, it kept rejecting my message.

          • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

            In other news, WordPress was acquired by Blizzard in what analysts suspect was the first use of Blizzard’s brand-new “Blitzgeld” orbital money cannon.

            “Half a ton of cash and high-value cheques suddenly landed on our building, and we all instantly knew what it meant,” said one WordPress employee as he casually bought Liechtenstein. “I didn’t even know they made $1337 notes.”

          • Yosharian says:

            I don’t know what to do with this.

  27. Beelzebud says:

    Anyone else notice that they’ve announced a paid expansion for the game, before they even delivered the content they promised would be there at launch? The lame PVP system they slapped in, is a band-aid, and not what they said would be in the game.

    Between not delivering the base game, and having a steady income stream with the RMAH, they’ve got some brass balls (or tone-deaf ears) to ask people to pay for an expansion. They won’t get another dime from me.

  28. ffordesoon says:

    Adding an offline mode is all well and good, but what’s odd to me is that I see very little in the design of D3 that would be affected in any way by allowing players to go online and offline seamlessly. What’s the big problem with that?

    If the stated purpose of the Auction House is to stop people from trading weapons outside of Blizzard’s control, why not just force us online for the Auction House portion of the game? Anyone who’d want to trade fake weapons would have to get online to do it anyway, and the Auction House is more convenient, seeing as how it’s already in the game. Have our stats and usage data uploaded to the server each time we log on for multiplayer and/or trade, and allow players to report other players for cheating/hacking/whatever when they group up with a cheater through matchmaking or whatever.

    Pirates? They can only play the single-player, and a pirated version will trigger a little infinitely annoying tooltip that stays on the screen and constantly goes, “This copy of D3 is not genuine! Click here to purchase a genuine copy!” Or something like that.

    I mean, I’m not an expert by any means, but surely they could have solved all the problems they were looking to fix without making legitimate players feel like criminals?

    EDIT: Oh, and why would anyone care about duping? Blizzard seems to believe it’s a big problem, but that’s bullshit. What the hell is the problem with it? That it fucks up the economy that wouldn’t have been there if the Auction House didn’t exist? So someone gets 999999 gold for nothing. Let ’em! Are they spending it on the Auction House? Ban ’em! Are they flooding the economy with pretend gold? Don’t have an Auction House, then!

  29. InternetBatman says:

    This is one of the few reasons that I wish retail was still the dominant point of sale for videogames. I would like some sales numbers to play around with, but that just doesn’t happen on the internet.

  30. rocketman71 says:

    In Jay Wilson’s words: fuck those losers.

    Back to Torchlight 2.

  31. Thants says:

    “We discussed it at length. All options were on the table and all of them got their share of mind share. But the Auction House went in for reasons, and the problems it solved… if we just turned it off those problems would come back, and we’d either need good solves or ideally even better solves, and those weren’t readily apparent.”

    The problem it solved was that Blizzard wasn’t making as much money as they possibly could, to be clear.

    I feel like this and other DLC is some kind of horrible conflict of interest. Designing a game to be fun to play and designing a game to make money off selling items to the player are in direct conflict with each other.

    • Bhaz0r says:

      The whole thing including the DRM is built around an exploitative fruit machine mechanic and It’s genuinely frightening how many players just accept it. Look at how many fans say that they keep playing to “grind” for loot rather than because the game is fun to play. Be

      • Dys Does Dakka says:

        I tried to explain to people I thought could me made to care that always-online in DIII are just an effect of the real cause, the RMAH, which is itself an effect of a very conscious drive to real-monetise in-game economies.

        -It’s the dream of the perfect perpetual money machine: Write some code that randomly squirts out desirable digital “items”, then convince players to trade them for actual cash, then quietly take a percentage of every trade.
        Minimal effort goes in, maximum profit comes out. Actual content is a secondary concern, at best considered lure for the trap.

        The two worst offenders aside from every Chinese MMO ever are obviously Blizzard and then oh-so-benevolent Valve, with their TF2 hat circus and -much more insidious- trading card system.

  32. Ditocoaf says:

    The problem with most of your complaints: You suckers already bought the damn game! It sold incredibly well! It actually set a PC-gaming record for most copies sold before 24 hours had passed from release!

    Now that everyone’s already given them money, it doesn’t matter that you’re saying “y’know I’d still like this better if it had an offline option” or “I stopped playing this and switched over to Path of Exile and Torchlight 2”. It’s not like TV ratings, they aren’t counting how many people played this week. You voted with your dollars, and they were deemed a success. Now they just have to work on the next money-making product, not hover over their past release to cater to your after-the-fact whims. If the auction house wasn’t sitting there to churn out even more money, they wouldn’t have to care about this game’s continued existence at all.

    If D3 was selling poorly in the first week or so, they might have looked around to figure out what panicked last-minute change they could plug to get the money flowing from us. They might have decided that an offline mode would work for that. But now, that ship has sailed long, long ago.

    And yeah, this has all earned them some bad press, which might carry over to their next release. But they have enough of a marketing budget to get another hype train rolling when they need to. Again, they have money, which speaks very loudly. Some of the dollars you paid for your download of D3 will go towards giant flashy ads and excited “previews” for their next game. Cynical words in comments sections and more pointed news sites like RPS aren’t going to outweigh thirty articles of pure unfiltered promotion on IGN, in the long run. They can afford to go all-out with advertising, since their last game sold so well.

    (Note: If you haven’t bought the game in question, thank you! No need to reply to protest that what I’m saying is irrelevant. Unfortunately, the numbers indicate that you’re an exception to the rule. I invite you to join me in frustration at our comrades, who couldn’t repress their hype for a game and bought it right away.)

    • malkav11 says:

      Personally, I only bought it after it had already been out for months and months and been such a depressingly smashing success that it was clear that the only thing I was accomplishing by not buying it was depriving myself of a game I wanted to play. But I agree that at this point Blizzard has no real incentive to go back on their decision.

    • jrodman says:

      My personal actions cost them about 6 sales.
      I tried.

    • dmastri says:

      I was going to type up a rant about how money and power and success have destroyed what was once a respected pc dev but it is not quite worth the effort. Rather, fuck you blizzard.

  33. JoshuaMadoc says:


    When am I going to go back to Torchlight 2 modding?

  34. merc-ai says:

    Auction House killed this game.

  35. falcon2001 says:

    I just wish they’d bring the console UI to PCs so I can play this on my living room PC. :(

  36. smeaa mario says:

    I don’t understand all the hostility. I am in mad love with D3. You know why? Because it is the title – heck, I can’t even call it a “game”- which made me determined not to give a single buck more to Blizzard ever ever ever ever (I think I can prolong this to eternity) again.