I call Bullshit, his argument doesn't hold any (virtual) water, what it sounds like is they don't want to miss out on any potential profits ala RMAH. I know there are going to be alot of people that are going to buy this game as soon as it's published, i just won't be one of them.

RMAH = Real money auction house.

For the D3 equivalent of D2 Battle.Net, sure. That doesn't explain forcing people who don't want any part of the B.Net experience to participate just because they want to experience the story.

Single player and LAN play could have been preserved while keeping the integrity of the RMT-house.

Well i have now cancelled my pre order and i was so looking forward to this oh well Blizzard loss ill just buy torchlight 2 instead.

All i can say is RIP old Blizzard and go to hell new Blizzard who only care for £££ over their loyal customers.

I agree, SP and LAN could have been included in D3. I didn't post this link as something that I agreed with. I simply found his comment to be interesting as he was once with Blizzard North. I believe he was using the opportunity to steer folks towards Torchlight 2.

That pretty much sums it up for me, too.

I never had a problem with dying in Diablo. If I died I would reload and be more cautious in the next try. But not being able to leave the game anytime I wanted without losing my progress if I didn't find a new way point first really bugged me.

And then those respawning enemies did. I'm not playing the game for the sake of it, there is a story in the game that motivates me to play it. I want my character to save the people of that village, make the world a better, safer place for those people, but whenever I have returned, all the monsters were back, too? So all I did was effectively for naught? My name is not Sisyphus.

With D3 it's pretty simple actually: I will only buy a copy of a game if I have sole and complete control over that copy, because the publisher has sole and complete control over the money I paid, too. It doesn't matter if I have to register the game, be permanently online or ask mommy, if after the purchase I'm still depending on somebody else when I want to play the game, I didn't really buy a copy of it. I more like rented it.

So this from Blizzard's VP: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36402/Blizzard_VP_Surprised_Over_Response_To_Diablo_III_Online_Requirement.php

Now where did all that hacking and duping happen in D2? Oh yeah, online in Batttle.net.

I get that their security has improved, that's good, but the VP using the word "guarantee" is a bit laughable.

EDIT: Still SC2 still sold like hotcakes, I'm sure this will too, which makes me sad.

Meh. The game will have singleplayer mode within days of release.

If you want singleplayer so badly buy a legit copy and patch it when the patch comes. Because if you don't think hackers will patch this game you're not thinking too clearly.

My issue with this move isn't the DRM. It's how they keep BS'ing around the bush.

Just flat out say "Look, we're providing a protected real life item marketplace for consumers. We're also implementing these new safety protocols to protect the marketplace and to protect you, the consumer, from being swindled by thieves who will inevitably pop up despite our best efforts. The new security measures will also ensure a safe online environment free from hackers or cheaters".

Instead it's the BS politco speak or flat out lies. They do have a somewhat valid DRM reasoning. They're just not using it very well.

The No LAN thing really made me think about not getting this, but the Ubi-DRM fan service is just ridiculous, and something I won't tolerate. Another who will not be purchasing this. Way to go Blizzard.

I bought SC2 but I wasn't aware of the offline fiasco and very rarely do I find updated offlined cracks for it (unlike every other game out there).

I played one map and that's it.

So unlike SC2 no sell for D3 for me. (unless I can be assured there will be frequently updated offline cracks)

Well here is my two cents on this

The game will still have "thieves," but on a different level. I personally think that people will find legal ways to cheat each other for loot. Does anyone know if D3 is using the same system as D2 where anyone can pick up items off the ground?

I would also like to add that just because the game forces the player to be online. It does not completely eliminate the risk of hackers or cheaters. For example, EvE still has players that use modified clients that allows them to disconnect whoever they want.

Just as an aside, in answer to why some may have a huge problem with ubisoft but not with blizzard.

As background I never bought games like half-life 2 when they first came out because of the online DRM requirement, and only started buying steam games very recently, because I noticed my attitudes to this have changed over the last few years.

I don't like online DRM requirements, in principle (the most important type of not liking), but I've made a couple of exceptions for games I really wanted and found it vastly different in implementation.

Strategy is my second favourite next to RPG, so really the only two exceptions I made (until I caved and started using steam) were SCII and Settlers 7.

SCII was a great game, I played through the campaign 3 times, one after the other (same as with The Witcher 2). I don't do multiplayer, at all. To be honest, I never really noticed the DRM. Signing in was a nuisance, but when you play for 8 hours a day (at least) it becomes less noticeable - you only sign in once.

Settlers 7 was a nightmare. The game wasn't that great, but what was worse, I couldn't play it for about 2 weeks after I bought it because of ubisoft's ridiculous servers. Even after those problems were fixed it went offline a few times, forcing me to stop playing.

There was a big difference there, huge. As you can imagine, I'm not a fan of ubisoft these days, but I've seen that Blizzard (and reluctantly, also valve) can handle this in a decent way. I'm not a fanboy of anyone (except CDPR and GOG :P) but there's a big difference to me in these companies - not only in their DRM, but far more importantly, in the quality of the game they're producing. I'd play another valve or blizzard game, with DRM, any day before I'd shell out for one of the myriad consolised crap that's being hawked these days. Why? Because the games are better. What let's me down is when developers sacrifice the quality of their product. I used to be a fanboy of bioware too, though I'm sure we all know why that's no longer the case :P. That, to me, is a worse betrayal - crushing.

The online DRM used to piss me off a lot, but to be honest, I'm always online anyway - if I don't have an internet connection, I'm fucked, and I'd be freaking out for so many other reasons, least of all my games (and GOG has solved that problem for me nicely).

Now, that aside, I'm not decided about D3, for many other reasons, but I just wanted to say why some may see a difference between some of these companies, because although it may seem they are doing the same thing, in practice they're not.

But yeah, auction house doesn't bode well - if items can be traded like that, you can believe you'll have to grind like fuck to get them. When these decisions influence gameplay, that's when I'm pissed.

Buying the game is a signal that always online DRM is okay. Don't send that signal.

And if they put enough on their servers it might be a long while before a crack is out.

Good for you. I'm not, since nowadays I do most of my (PC) gaming on laptops. When I e.g. travel abroad with work, I'd sometimes like to play something on the laptop even when I don't have free internet connection in the hotel.

Also when I take my laptop to e.g. summer cottage, or if I visit my mother, the only option for internets there is slow GPRS. No 3G coverage, and I am not sure if even 3G would be fast enough anyway for e.g. Diablo 3 (single-player or not).

Also my experience is that whenever some place offers "free WiFi", it is quite useless, ie. very slow or doesn't practically work at all, possibly due to too many users. For example, I remember when I tried to get a connection in McDonalds in Bangkok (in the Amarin tower in BKK) that was supposed to offer free WiFi, I could not get anything done with either my laptop or my mobile phone. I don't think I could get even the first web page to load in either device, even though I was connected to their WiFi.

Even in those cases where I pay for hotel WiFi, more often than not it is very slow, breaks up constantly etc. Last time when I was on a work trip to northern Finland (Oulu), I was in a Radisson hotel there. I bought WiFi internet connection for one day, but in the end it seemed so unreliable that I took my phone and was connected to internet via it (3G).

Blizzard and Ubisoft: the whole gaming world is not online all the time.

Seems like blizzard activision don't want my money then.