Diablo 3 news. It's an MMO.

[White Haven]

If they're losing potential sales over it and it seems at least superficially to be a relatively simple fix, the better question is 'why not?'

[D.Turtle]

Because it might involve a lot more than just a "simple" fix?

[Sharp-kun]

If they're losing potential sales over it and it seems at least superficially to be a relatively simple fix, the better question is 'why not?'

It's likely not.

I've they've built the game around the idea that some stuff is done serverside, they would then have to change all that.

[weemadando]

Also, as the whole MW2 thing pointed out, internet nerds who say that they're going to boycott a product...

[Minischoles]

Blizzard outright don't give a flying fuck over any potential sales they lose, because it's essentially nothing to them. You're talking about a company that has in the past few years released year after year the best selling games period, who has damn near 11 million players constantly giving them money each month. You really think the few hundred/few thousand (tops) sales they lose will impact them at all?

I am actually looking forward to this, didn't get a beta pass (which sucks, only beta i've missed out on now since WoW started) but the videos i'm watching make it seem pretty good, the skill system looks...interesting, and at least they're trying new things out. Should be fun to play.

[Stark]

If they're losing potential sales over it and it seems at least superficially to be a relatively simple fix, the better question is 'why not?'

Jesus CHRIST babyface, stop crying so much; you're scaring the animals.

Okay, it's storytime for the fat kids now. Sit down, nerdbeards, it's time to learn!

Blizzard is not making D3 so you little shutins can chop goblins. Putting aside business concerns, why would they? D2 still sells just fine and they have infinite money from other goblin-chopping properties. They're doing it to create a constant revenue stream through a player marketplace that they'll skim, which requires every item and every player to be 100% validated and secure to produce profit.

Now put your hand down chubby cox, we heard you the first time. 'Wah wah wah, why won't they make offline only, a bloo bloo'? It's obvious; they want a revenue stream. If you're not going to play along and participate in the validated marketplace, Blizzard doesn't want you around, they don't want your $60. They've straight up said 'go play another game'. They aren't selling a game in which zombies are chopped - they're selling a business structure that will profit them. Why would they sell it to people who won't participate?

Oh right... because Molyneux is a sad panda. The real question is why nerdlings are so offended; sure, if you've got ISP problems (or whatever) you can't play it. But so what? Are you just offended the world doesn't bend to your will? Are you just throwing a stompy because a developer has the gall to tell you to sit down and shut up?

I'll probably never buy anything from the store, and I'll probably never play it at all if they don't port to console. But I just don't care about the requirement to be online, and I can understand why they did it. Time to grow up, kids!

[Gaidin]

If they're losing potential sales over it and it seems at least superficially to be a relatively simple fix, the better question is 'why not?'

Maybe I'm just thinking along some weird lines here, but it seems to me that if you're not a part of the market they're targeting(see: people with stable internet connections, just for an improvised description), then you're not a lost sale.

[Molyneux]

If they're losing potential sales over it and it seems at least superficially to be a relatively simple fix, the better question is 'why not?'

Maybe I'm just thinking along some weird lines here, but it seems to me that if you're not a part of the market they're targeting(see: people with stable internet connections, just for an improvised description), then you're not a lost sale.

The problem is, "people with stable internet connections" is not the market. The market is "people who would be interested in playing Diablo 3" - and by limiting that market to the subset of people who fall into both groups, they are losing sales.

It's not like game companies never change their DRM schemes in response to player backlash; look at Assassin's Creed 2, and From Dust.

[Sharp-kun]

The problem is, "people with stable internet connections" is not the market. The market is "people who would be interested in playing Diablo 3" - and by limiting that market to the subset of people who fall into both groups, they are losing sales.

It's not like game companies never change their DRM schemes in response to player backlash; look at Assassin's Creed 2, and From Dust.

Most DRM works with just a check to the server, the game runs on your PC. That's easy to work round (hence piracy) or change as you just turn off that check. The game is entirely on your PC. With Diablo 3 it looks like part of the game runs at their end (likely character data).

If Blizzard have built the whole game round a portion of the game running on the server (which it seems) then its likely not an easy change.

They've come up with a model that necessitates an internet connection to prevent cheating/scamming (data on their servers is much, much, less likely to get tampered with) given the link between single player and multi-player. The suggested way round this (offline only chars) is to effectively build another version of the game that doesn't use the client - server model for the small group of people with terrible connections. I don't see them doing this.

[Vendetta]

The problem is, "people with stable internet connections" is not the market. The market is "people who would be interested in playing Diablo 3" - and by limiting that market to the subset of people who fall into both groups, they are losing sales.

For Blizzard, Diablo 3 is a primarily multiplayer focused game, to which the single player is incidental at best. That means that yes, people with stable internet connections who are interested in playing Diablo 3 is the market.

It's fairly clear that that's how they're approaching it, with their focus on server side savegames, the real money auction house (which is their long term monetisation strategy), etc. To Blizzard, Diablo 3 is as much a mulitplayer game as World of Warcraft is, the singleplayer hermit really isn't their market because he's not participating in their long term monetisation, they only get one sale off him.