Recommended Posts

What's wrong with having to be online to play it?
To be honest, you have answered your own question. I'm commonly in a situation where no Internet connection is available. In this case, no matter where you are: you need an internet connection and you need to assume that Blizzard is going to keep their end of the deal working.

Yesterday some guy started playing Diablo 1 and 2 in our computer labs and he had glued a trollface in the backside of his laptop screen.

"OMG Diablo wants me to be online all the time?! No way, I say! My time is important to me - I want to pretend like I still have dial-up!"

I swear, people bitch about the dumbest things. Granted, I too was skeptical about the so-called "DRM" about Diablo, but then I grew

up. What's wrong with having to be online to play it? This isn't the 90s anymore.

The last 3 days of connection problems for the game are the answer to that question.

You ask "what's wrong with always having to be online to play the game" yet totally ignore all the hassles people have had to go through just to log into the game.

  • Like 1

"OMG Diablo wants me to be online all the time?! No way, I say! My time is important to me - I want to pretend like I still have dial-up!"

I swear, people bitch about the dumbest things. Granted, I too was skeptical about the so-called "DRM" about Diablo, but then I grew

up. What's wrong with having to be online to play it? This isn't the 90s anymore.

It's not about having to be online all the time. Honestly, I'm sure many could put up with that if it meant they didn't have to worry about server lag, server shutdowns, QUEUES, server maintenance, resets, and all of the issues common to those who play MMOs. If the "DRM" as we're calling it now just needed to keep an active check on you, that wouldn't be so bad. But from the looks of it, everything is hosted server side making this more problematic than it truly needs to be.

I feel this really confused me too, admittedly. I expected the "online requirement" to be not that bad, as having an active check to ensure you're not cheating even in single player didn't bother me, if it meant we could easily go from single player to co-op. But needing servers to run single player games? That's just plain stupid and I see little benefit out of it for the consumer, than it is a benefit for them ensuring no one's pirating by giving legitimate customers more hell than they need (no pun intended) and making sure they make bank with their stupid auction house system, that I've personally never seen too many people excited for anyway.

Where's the win in all this? What part of these things benefit the consumer? Going from single player to co-op is pretty nice, but was all this mess really necessary for it? Did we as players truly come out ahead?

I think I'll just be buying a Torchlight 2 4-pack, split the cost at $15/each among friends, and just enjoy the game, as we should. AH isn't a necessity, D3 doesn't have PvP implemented yet anyhow, and TB appears to have great things to say about the game by comparison, not to mention the modding capabilities to drive new content.

"OMG Diablo wants me to be online all the time?! No way, I say! My time is important to me - I want to pretend like I still have dial-up!"

I swear, people bitch about the dumbest things. Granted, I too was skeptical about the so-called "DRM" about Diablo, but then I grew

up. What's wrong with having to be online to play it? This isn't the 90s anymore.

hey, when you live in an old neighborhood where the internet randomly craps out every now and then ....

If for whatever reason my HDD dies and I find out everything is gone then I would have lost all of the effort I have put into games and most probably would give up and not play them... However with characters stored on the cloud you just login and you're good to go.

But the problem is Blizzard don't give us that option which yeah I agree is kind of stupid queuing for a single player game!

This I agree with. Also give me the option if I go to a friends with the game to login and have access to my characters. I still would like to have a offline mode so that I can have a character to play while I am traveling or somewhere with no Internet access.

I only wanted this game to waste my time until GW2 is released. Since this game is not-playable by a large majority in any form (that pleases me...) I will delay purchase (or permanently suspend it) and find a new game to fill the void. I would play Torchlight 2 but sadly it's not out (which I find very weird considering they're the underdog of this genre... shame).

I can't believe how many people try to defend Blizzard, like it's specifically hard-wired into their genetic make-up to take it right up the A-hole. I understand, you were hyped, and your defense mechanism is to defend your choice to the grave. I just recommend you see passed your own bull**** and realize this is not how it should have been.

I only wanted D3 for PvP anyways, and it's not even implemented yet. Maybe complete a game before you release it? Meh, I'm sure your countless DLC's will more than make up for it.

Yours truly,

A man $60 richer than thou.

P.S. I was always skeptical of the 'always-on' DRM anyways. My suspicions seem warranted.

What's wrong with having to be online to play it? This isn't the 90s anymore.

Yea, I was chilling on one of my "at sea days" on my cruise kicking back playing Diablo 2. Could I have done that with Diablo 3? NO BECAUSE THERE'S NO INTERNET. Some of us DON'T want to be tied down to an internet connection 24/7 because we GET OUT OF THE HOUSE every now and then and get away from where we live, and NO I'm not going to pay $1 a minute for internet because blizzard is full of dip****s.

"OMG Diablo wants me to be online all the time?! No way, I say! My time is important to me - I want to pretend like I still have dial-up!"

I swear, people bitch about the dumbest things. Granted, I too was skeptical about the so-called "DRM" about Diablo, but then I grew

up. What's wrong with having to be online to play it? This isn't the 90s anymore.

Well, Id see that they DRM that they are using, is not really an issue if you are accomodated with some proper stable internet.

Due to my current location and accomodation I can only resort to using a "up to 32 Mbit" Mobile Broadband, which barely hits 10 Mbit.

Its unstable, I get lag.

When I play singleplayer, everything runs smoothly, 100 FPS+, But I get lag..in a singleplayer game, due to my internet being ****, what the heck is going on here?

Had I been playing multiplayer, it had would been acceptable, with my internet, heck id even be surprised if I didn't get lag.

But lag with the cause being the internet, during SP gaming..no..CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD Lag in SP, Yes OK, internet?..Wat.

"OMG Diablo wants me to be online all the time?! No way, I say! My time is important to me - I want to pretend like I still have dial-up!"

I swear, people bitch about the dumbest things. Granted, I too was skeptical about the so-called "DRM" about Diablo, but then I grew

up. What's wrong with having to be online to play it? This isn't the 90s anymore.

Well, when thousands (and I'm purposely diminishing the number here, as it could actually be millions) of people play at the same time, the servers tend to cry and commit suicide.

And in technical terms, that would translate into high latency that doesn't even let you CLOSE THE GAME.

It's far away from being perfect....

I really was waiting for Diablo 3 but am very disapointed from what I hear.

Firstly, you hike up the price and you ofer only 7 hour of game play... hmmm ... I am predicting a lot of $15-$20 DLC packages coming soon... They are getting griddy and offering a sub-par gaming experience with a three+ year old tech.

Second, DRM and Internet Connection recuirement for Single Player mode.... They are making the whole experience so much more complicated that people will rather turn to pirating the game than paying to play it as it is...

Third, 7 hours... really... 10 years later and 7 hours of game play is all you can provide for $60?

Oh well... Maybe I'll get it when it hits the bargain bin...

7 hours what the hell are you talking about? My main level 60 is over 60 hours of gameplay in and I'm still struggling very much on Act 1 Inferno, and it's gonna take many times longer than that before I can even clear inferno much less finnaly get all the best gear which could take months or years. Diablo has basically unlimited gameplay thats one of the beautiful things about it keeps you entertained for years to come.

Go for it. IT'S ****ING AMAZING!!!!!!! :D (Y)

(just got into the beta, if ya couldn't tell haha)

So jealous! I didn't even try to get in, not going to have time before Tuesday to play it. Am enjoying the youtube stuff on it though.

As an aside, I havent had any issues with D3 and connection. I did have issues with SC2 release day so I kind of expected a day or two of waiting. But I agree with some other folks, having the game lag in SP due to latency is a bit of crap. Hopefully Blizzard can fix it with a patch or something. And dammit I am so looking forward to PvP!

  • 3 weeks later...

Been almost a month since release and I have to say that while I'm pleased with the game in general, Blizzard has continued to fumble with server loads. Most days I can now play fine, maybe a little lag here and there, but there has been several outages not related to updates that are just disgraceful. I was in A3 NM fighting Azmodan with 2 others, the lag went through the roof and we were dropped from the game and have not been able to reconnect for 10 minutes. Funny thing is, Blizzard is still listing their NA servers as online but we are now getting error 37 when trying to reconnect. So it appears that they have booted people that have been playing for over an hour in order to let new players in, then prevent those people from reconnecting. Really freaking nice Blizzard!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!