If you read the full statement, it's clearly true. He's saying that everyone is playing D3 online (because that's the only way it exists); 'single player' means offline in this context. Not the best wording, but his meaning is obvious.

You can play D3 *solo*, but you're still online and interacting intensely with the server the whole time. No offline option exists, because the game (apparently) requires the server for, yes, things like monster generation, loot generation, even (I heard) monster AI. There's probably a source out there, but I don't know it.

Glancing around at some google hits for server emulators, it sounds like two things are true: 1) the server is doing a ton (as you say, perhaps everything but image and sound); 2) none of the emulators are close to full-featured or stable so far.

Single player means you have no means of playing with other players. Avoiding public games or setting up your game so your friends need to be invited to join your game hardly equates to single player. The terminology for that is solo play.



Undoubtedly the AI is ran server side. The game is too fluid with players joining and leaving for it to be any other way (read swapping AI controller) and if you run it client side for everyone then you run the risk of fragmentation between players of what monsters are doing let alone any sort of cache hacking that might work. If just a single player ran the AI then it would be a complex system to offload the AI to a new player each time the "host" left. No, the simpler answer is that monster AI is ran server side and it just sends commands to the client to run X AI action.



Unsurprising.

Which has nothing to do with the false statement that no one is playing the game singleplayer. You can interpret that to mean something else, but as stated, it's completely, and obviously false.

Or not false at all unless you completely screw up the definitions of single player modes and games.

A single player game is a game that contains no multiplayer or cooperative elements. It is strictly a single player.

A single player mode is a mode within the game that cannot interact with other players.

Solo play is a method by which someone plays a multiplayer mode while electing not to interact with other players.

Diablo III has a solo play option since you can bar friends from joining you game, never take part in a public game, and completely avoid the AH. However the ability to willfully avoid that which is permissive does not a single player mode make.

You wanna split that hair a little finer, SS? I think it's still measurable by electron microscope.

Let me guess, you often utter the phrase "It's just semantics".

Whatever phrase he chose, it was clear what he meant: offline play doesn't exist, solo play does, because there is major server-side processing. To get around this, you'll need a significant local server-thing, which is difficult and currently doesn't exist.

Wow, that's ... a little crazy. Impressive, but crazy. I guess I'm not playing then.

I've already stopped.

Patch 1.0.3 is today, I think.

I've been waiting on that to come out before getting back into my monk too much. Having Hell Act2 drop iLvl 61/62/63 is going to reduce some of the pain farming gear to successfully run Inferno. Also, it will be nice to upgrade all the gems I've been sitting on to tier 8.

Yeah, I started saving gems a little while back; the cost change to them is just huge. It's appropriate, though, because gems are much more effective for the lower levels. What I'd like is lower crafting costs (in gold). As it stands, the level of investment coupled with the total gamble of crafting makes it just not worth it (even to try and sell, which can be a pain).

Flawed: 3 Chipped + 500g -> 2 Chipped + 10g
Normal: 3 Flawed + 750g -> 2 Flawed + 25g
Flawless: 3 Normal + 1250g -> 2 Normal + 40g
Perfect: 3 Flawless + 2000g + 1 page -> 2 Flawless + 55g + 1 page
Radiant: 3 Perfect + 3500g + 2 pages -> 2 Perfect + 70g + 2 pages
Square: 3 Radiant + 7500g + 1 tome -> 2 Radiant + 85g + 1 tome
Flawless Square: 3 Square + 20000g + 2 tomes -> 2 Square + 100g + 2 tomes

I have over 30 square of each type right now and that's not including the Tier 6 and lower gems. So dumping another 15 or so Flawless square gems is going to make it much nicer for my leveling characters.

Yeah. I agree, crafting needs to be balanced a bit. I think a bit of the problem comes from material games beyond gold cost. You average return on materials is somewhere around 30:1, I think. So you need to craft 30 bad items to get enough material back to craft another item.

The main thing is the new gold prices, which are just hugely lower. Really, though, gems drop so fast that you *could* just throw away the bad ones entirely… it just feels wasteful. And like I said, the power curve of gems levels off so fast that they barely matter at higher levels. It seems like they'll just have to add other gems/socketing things back into the game. I know they removed a lot of stuff for the release. :/

See, I'm fine with the material costs. It's the gold cost that matters. It's not like selling those items instead of grinding them into powder is making you very much gold.

It's both that's the problem. My 30:1 ratio was just assuming that I grinded for dust. That figure probably jumps to around 60:1 or higher to craft an item if you sell magic items to supplement the gold cost.

I need to get about 800k together so I can craft the Hell version of the Staff of Herding. I'm not sure whether that or Act IV of hell will be better for items for Inferno.

No, I'm saying I'm fine with the dust-grinding (30:1 or otherwise). I'm saying the alternative (selling) isn't worth doing, so you might as well be collecting materials. All I care about it is the huge gold cost of crafting, which leads you to just AH things instead of bothering to craft. If they were very cheap (but still limited by materials, and not *unreasonably* cheap), you'd have a reason to gamble instead of just AH-ing.

I do hope that 1.0.3 is a huge change, as it was even act 1 inferno was about as much fun as playing the 7th Saga... actually I take that back, the 7th Saga was more fun.

Ultimately, that meant that cashing in your blues and crappy rares was better than salvaging them. Even more so now that they're raising repair costs. It feels like the blacksmith is a bit better for hardcore, but only a bit.

That's true. I did start selling them after I got 'enough' dust.

And unfortunately, without some changes to blacksmithing, it's always going to be better to sell magic items and rares instead of dusting them to craft. You get to select what you buy via the AH, even if the gold cost is significantly larger.

So I checked the release notes, and these were the highlights for me:
• Monks get 2h axes, maces, and swords
• The gold and material crafting costs for all items level 1-59 have been reduced by 50% to 75%
• Herald of Pestilence tentacle attack damage has been reduced
• Soul Ripper and Soul Lasher damage has been reduced and both monsters will now run away less often
• Wasps in Act II, Mage Constructs in Act II, and Winged Mollocks in Acts III and IV will now run away less
• Succubus monsters will now run away less and for a shorter distance

So that's good: monsters less annoying, some crafting is cheaper, and some minor love for monks.

Everything in there is love for monks.

Also, reducing the training cost for Blacksmith to 1 Tome of Secrets per upgrade rather than 5.

Remember, monks are melee rather than ranged so not having to deal with running away type enemies as often is a huge gain.

Believe me, my monk knows that. I hate chasing the bastards *so* much.

More stupidity. Blizzard is now stopping advancement past the skeleton king in act 1, and any level gain past 13 for people who bought the game.

Because Pirates.

Anonymous really needs to hack the hell out of these greedy dumbfucks.

That's a very selective description of what's going. Not that I care either way, cuz I have no Blizzard stock and my account is already established.

Actually, it is, I apologize. I left a detail out completely unintentionally. They're stopping all new accounts at the skeleton king and/or level 13, for three days from the time of game purchase.

So. Buy the game. 5 seconds later, they take the money out of your account. 72 hours later, (or 259,200 seconds to keep in the same unit) they allow you to play the game.

Please. Put a positive spin on how this is a benefit to the consumer, yahoo.

It's a benefit to me because now I don't want to buy the game at all. So there's some money that could go to other things.

Speaking of which, the kickstarter for those tron cards you linked goes off today.

Just looked at my account. It's angry at me. And crying. And begging me to get therapy.

I promised that I'd never do such things to it again, then pimp slapped it and told it to make me a sandwich and get me a beer.

How much did you end up dropping on it?

It would help if you, you know, presented the facts rather than spinning FUD. What you're describing is not an intended let alone permanent feature. It is a bug introduced by the 1.0.3 patch which causes digital downloads to have the level cap and progression limitation and Blizzard is working to fix it so they do not.

Or we can look at the reasoning why Blizzard is putting a 72 hour limitation on the digital download version that makes it behave (in some manner) like the starter edition. To make sure credit card information is valid rather than fraudulent. This was a huge problem in WoW where people would buy digital download keys for WoW using fraudulent CC numbers. Those players would use these accounts to perform some activity, perhaps help launder ill acquired gold before the CC transaction came back void and the account had a block on it for lack of payment. One of the things done was to sell the account, or the online keys to other players in return for gold. Leaving the buyer with a bad account and them with the gold. By putting the same interaction limitations on the digital download version as the starter edition, it makes it impossible for gold sellers and other undesirables to flip these accounts to aid in their nefarious purposes. 72 hours is the period of time that CC info takes to be validated. If it hasn't been validated in 72 hours, it's probably a fraudulent account. The reality is the 72 hours will significantly shorter when done with a good and valid credit card and once the purchase has been validated you get access to the game.

Or to put it another way. You haven't actually bought the game until the credit card transaction clears.

Considering GenCon in a few months... Too much.

So on one hand, I'm spinning 'FUD', on another it's a bug that blizzard is fixing, and yet another, there's a good reason for it and we should be thankful, and yet ANOTHER, it's because you haven't actually bought the game until the 'transaction clears', which to me implies you've never actually handled credit card transactions from the business end, nor have you had any experience with other online retailers, like Steam, Origin, or that wierd one from the guys who made GalCiv and Sins of a Solar Empire.

Jesus dude, what do you need me for? You're collapsing your own argument before I say a word.

Yes FUD. Because you're failed to mention that it was a bug that only affected digital download versions and did not afflict retail versions.

It appears you are the one lacking knowledge of credit cards and are basing your experience off of what appears to the end user rather than what is happening behind the scenes.

When a credit card is processed the business places a hold for funds on the credit card holder's limit. This hold reduces the card bearer's credit limit by the value of the hold, however no credit has been issued in the holder's name. That hold stays on your credit card until the business submits their transactions and the money has been transferred to the merchant. Once the company submits their batch of transactions (for many companies this is done at the end of the day though someone of Blizzard's size and scope probably runs multiple batches throughout the day) it can take up to 3 days for the funds to be sent to the merchant's account assuming the processor or bank doesn't have any issue. For example, I've had my CC frozen a couple of times by the bank because I made transactions with international companies. Only then is the transaction considered complete and only then have you officially purchased the products. Guess who's left hanging on the line of the transaction can't clear? The merchant. The merchant has to go about recovering what is still their property. Now, for digital distributors like Blizzard or Steam or Origin or Stardock it's fairly easy. Since it is digital content and access is account driven they simply remove the content in question from your account since payment was not received. For merchants with physical goods its a bit hard and usually requires legal action to get payment or the property back if the buyer doesn't want to play nice.

It's a bit childish to suggest that a merchant who has not been paid for a product to have actually sold it nor would any court likely permit you to keep something that was never paid for.

In the words of Marco Ramius; 'Your assumptions [are] all wrong.'

I've run the front end of a retail store for 8 years, the back end for 5. I'm currently running the back end of 4 internet stores. Companies pay a credit processing service to validate the funds on a card. After funds are validated and the charge goes through, the service acts as an insurance, in case the cardholder pulls something screwy, it's the processing service that foots the bill, not the retailer. Credit cards aren't like bouncing checks man.

Defending this particular argument still doesn't get you off the hook for the shotgun approach of 4 different excuses for Blizzard.

Whether your method is correct or mine it really doesn't matter one way or another to how Blizzard can act to it. The end results are all the same. Regardless of if the merchant or the processor is on the hook the matter is simply resolved by revoking the "purchased" good. Blizzard hasn't been paid and since they haven't been paid, they're not under any compulsion to continue providing the full product. Likewise, since it was the processor who is holding the bag for the funds, until you have paid them it is technically not your property it is theirs. And if you failed to pay them for it, they would repossess it had it been a physical good. Instead they would get to repossess some other quantity of material from your that's worth $50-60 if you failed to pay up. The fraudsters got by on the fact that they could get the digital good and use it until the fraud was detected and Blizzard banned the account.

Now, I shall reiterate.

You are spinning FUD because you failed to point out that this is only affecting digital download copies and not retail copies. You're also spinning FUD by neglecting to point out that it is a bug that that is causing the level and progress restrictions on digital download copies. Since it is a bug and Blizzard has admitted that it is a bug and Blizzard has stated that they are working on fixing it there is no reason to believe that this is malicious or that it is something that will continue for any appreciable length of time.

The change that they've made requiring the payment to clear whatever checkpoint they've set before fully enabling interactive features has very good reasons for doing so which, not the least of which, significantly raise the cost and overhead of undesirable activity, as well as making it so that such undesirable activity is less encountered by players thus increasing their quality of life. I, for one, am quite glad I've stopped receiving spam in the form of friend invites since 1.0.3 went live.

almost normal, you'll notice I specifically said I didn't care. It's not my job to spin in any direction. I just noted that your summary was selective. Your clarification was more so: the verification process is *up to* 72 hours, not 'equal to'. Again, I don't care either way.

That's interesting, I hadn't even heard it was a bug. Makes more sense, then.

The bug is that it's hitting customers who paid at retail.

I'm really not sure of the point of telling me you don't care, then posting about your care for the game. I might as well post to tell you I'm not going to respond.

You were confused before, and you're having trouble keeping things straight now. That's okay, I'll help you. I don't care about account verification, bug or not, and I don't care about praising or supporting Blizzard, nor about their financial success. I do care about the patches, because I'm playing the game. The only reason I mentioned it was to (fruitlessly) try and help you not make the silly argument that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'Blizzard fanboy'. You should know just from experience that people disagree with you because you're you, so you post things to disagree with.

Jesus, just reading this thread has convinced me to not buy any new release games ever again. It sounds like a godamned nightmare.

The future is pretty bleak on all consumer fronts: cell phones, laptops, game consoles, cars, music and video, everything. Big companies have no incentive to do anything good for the consumer, and the voters have become convinced that the government shouldn't protect consumers either.

There's a good reason that Kickstarter-Based Games are pulling in the money they have been.

And not just because people wanted more stuff from Tim Schafer, or Wasteland 2 at long last, either!Let's um, try to keep this from getting political, please.

Better do:

Sorry, I thought it pertained directly to another game. It's not like those are politics, but instead simple facts.

It's close enough.

Anyhow, the system is not a good one for Single Player. I'll stick with games that let me play my Single Player Mode offline, thank-you-very-much. Especially if there's going to be server issues.

And no guarantee that the server will always be there. I mean, what happens if I pull out the disk, say, ten years from now and want to play again?

"Server Not Found?"

Yes, that's exactly what will happen. There will be new games, of course, but there *is* a tiny fraction of people who do rarely play old games. I usually give up after trying to get Master of Magic to run properly, and it's 100% offline with no DRM. So it's a real concern, but also a small concern.

It's true the server death has indeed been happening faster with cruddier games. Because of that, for example, Mercenaries 2 just crashes your PS3 if you try to load it up without disconnecting the internet access first, a very impressive failure for them because it *does* theoretically work offline. And there are other examples. This is obviously bad. *shrug* But… there's basically nothing we can say about this state of affairs without venturing too close to politics.

Well, we *can* say (repeat, really) that this real-but-small concern is too small for anyone to care about. They make tons of money off the vast majority of people who *do* have stable broadband and who *won't* be playing this game after a couple years. There's no point worrying about the 'cranky' minority.

I would say this is in large part to consumers knowingly buying products that have restrictive technology on them...taking the attitude that "I don't care, I just want to play/use/have X". Then when others voice concern about said restrictive technology, the response is just a shrug and a "that's how it is, deal with it".

What choice is there? That's how people are. Besides, as I said, it's not (relevantly) restrictive for the majority of them, so not much business would be lost anyway.

Damned sheeple.There's choices, but they get into politics, so I won't comment on them.

I don't mean to sound like a neckbeard (?) and start ranting about "sheeple"...maybe it's just the logical progression that as tech gets more and more advanced, people are able to have less and less of an understanding of it (or less time to understand and care about it), so nuanced stuff like DRM doesn't seem worth most people's time...