this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
155 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

31253 readers
506 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm currently playing Diablo IV (and having a blast with it) but finding one small gripe which I only think is going to get worse and probably stop me playing it completely in the long run.

My girlfriend is currently pregnant. This means in 6 months time we'll have a newborn. With this in mind I'm expecting to only be able to grab a few minutes at a time to game and even when I think I'll have longer I may end up jumping off at short notice. This means I'll almost certainly come to rely on games which I can pause. Unfortunately this isn't possible with Diablo IV since it requires an always online connection even though I'm essentially playing it as a single player game.

What are other people's thoughts?

(page 3) 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] narc0tic_bird@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In case of Diablo IV in my opinion Blizzard has a good track record of keeping game servers online for years and years.

That being said, the game does have some weird server hopping mechanic that you can't turn off, meaning it seems to switch servers while you're playing, which isn't always as seamless as you'd hope it would be. Also, at least for me, it sometimes selects servers with >100ms latency, which is quite noticeable of course.

[–] Parellius@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Agreed. If I'm honest in this case my concern isn't necessarily that my access will be restricted at some point (or even the very rare dips when it switches servers on entering or leaving an area). It's more around the fact I'm playing the game effectively in single player and unfortunately that's likely to have shelf life due to personal circumstances.

[–] crisinho@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

I try to avoid games with always online as much as possible but sometimes you don't have choice. If you want to play Diablo IV there's not much else you could do. But at least Diablo has some form of multiplayer. If you have a solely single player experience with always online, it's just bullshit. The DRM is only punishing players that pay for the game. If you insist to implement this kind of DRM then please go ahead but then you also have to run the servers forever. If you don't then why should I buy your game?

[–] Willy@latte.isnot.coffee 2 points 2 years ago

I like it. I like to know that people likely haven’t hacked their chars. I’ve never had my crashing or rubber banding. It’s been seamless and while an offline version would be fine for me, that would never be the real game and you should never be allowed online.

[–] NuPNuA@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

I really don't find it much of an issue in 2023. In the seven years I've lived in my current flat, I think there's been maybe an hour where my internet has gone down.

I do see the issue with games that have no online elements but still require a server but D4 is a kind of psuedo-MMO with it's world elements like world events, bosses, etc so it makes sense there.

[–] Krafty@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago

@Parellius I prefer games that I can play offline if I need to, but I have been a Diablo fan for over 20 years. Of course I purchased Diablo 4.

[–] mjohanning@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago

Same experience as you with D4. Fun game but the always-on requirement is a tad annoying. Not deal-breaking for me, but I have had my fair share of rubber-banding on my SteamDeck, especially with Bluetooth headphones connected. D2R worked well offline, why not have an offline mode here?

[–] Nev3r_Pr0@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I didn't mind it until I lost my internet connection, but I think I prefer it over bad Denuvo implementation that makes the game a stuttery mess.

[–] BlackCoffee@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago

It made me stop buying games and consoles in the first place.

You have to be online, the game has to be downloaded on the system, there will be bugs and it has to be patched.

Just let me buy a game and play it. I may sound like an old fart but I really enjoyed the days that I could go to a store, buy a game and play it immediately on my console.

Especially the fact that bugs are literally shipped like features now and you just have to accept that your game of 80-90 dollars is ridden with bugs, yeah fuck off really.

[–] domi@lemmy.secnd.me 2 points 2 years ago

I don't buy always online games. Period.

[–] Bretzel@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Very bad idea and I don't understand why it is becoming the norm. Let's say you want to play again Diablo 4 in a few years (probably because you will be taking care of your kid) but all the player base has disappeared. If Blizzard cuts the servers to save some money, you will not be able to play the game on an official instance, even if it is only single player. Let's say the servers won't shut down down, another issue remains. Users who want to play in public areas or when travelling won't be able to launch the game (rip steam deck users).

[–] theAndrewJeff@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

I don’t love it, but I’ve found that it’s been less intrusive than I thought. Generally only feel it when the internet goes out. That said, I’ve got fairly good fiber internet, so I’m a bit privileged in this regard. We used to have absolutely horrendous rural internet and it sucked.

[–] maltasoron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

Concerning gaming with a newborn, you should also look for games that you can play with one hand, so you can hold the baby with the other. Europa Universalis 4 is a great game if you've got a kid who will only fall sleep while being held.

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

My firewall is configured to block all programs by default. If a game refuses to open or function without internet and I can't find any workarounds it gets angry looks from me and I let it through. I get anxious when playing anything multiplayer so doing so saves me from having to interact with people if I accidentally trigger a multiplayer event or something. Also generally makes games launch faster.

[–] Souvlaki@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

It has no place in single player games and turns me off from playing them. There's no real reason they exist other than removing the ability to use cheats (which should be allowed in single players games imo) to obtain items or boosts that are only available on their cash shop. It also ties in to the Game As a Service model which i've come to detest; usually because they have a constant stream of updates that tries to monopolize your free time, whereas i am the kind of player that can say "ok this is done".

Games that offer multiplayer in addition to single player, such as D4, should allow you to have a single player save that's offline, can be paused and anything goes.

[–] Poopfeast420@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

Doesn't matter to me one way or another, and it doesn't affect my purchasing decisions.

[–] Dezi@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I started playing D4 two days ago and constantly try to pause the game when I need to give something else attention. It should also be easy to do when you’re alone in a dungeon. There are games that are online but let you pause when you’re alone (though I can’t remember which game I am thinking of right now)

[–] Scary_le_Poo@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

So I have a very specific dog in this fight. I am currently working on an RTS game for the recoil engine. One of my big requirements is the ability for direct hosting without the need of a central server. My biggest argument for this is the fact that if the server ever goes down or I get hit by a truck or anything like that, people can still directly host games.

Also I don't think lan parties should require a trip to a third party server just in order to have games with each other. I feel sometimes like I'm the only person who remembers back in the old days when we had giant lan parties and in a lot of cases there wasn't even really much in the way of internet access to them.

In my personal opinion, I feel like games as a service have done end users a disservice. There are so many games that I would love to go back and play but I can't because the servers don't exist or the developers made it so difficult to host your own servers that you need to jump through a million modding hoops just to make it so that you can actually play a game online with others.

What is really bad though is single player games that require an online connection. Witafits?

[–] Nyxaion@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

I almost exclusively play single-player games. I'm not sure I own one that is always online, since I pretty much always have WiFi on and wouldn't notice the difference, but I don't see why any of my games would have to be always online.

[–] yokonzo@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is there an offline crack yet? I would have assumed piratws would have for sure gotten that done

[–] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

D3 still doesn't have an offline crack to my knowledge because the crack isn't going to be simple. In most games, a DRM crack is typically as simple as editing a single instruction to jump over whatever code is trying to call the DRM feature.

But D3 and D4 are different. Essentially, a lot of game logic just isn't available to the client and stored on the server, so any hack will need to replace that. Console versions of D3 actually do have that code available, but now it's a non-trivial matter of porting that code back to the PC...

This will probably never happen unless the source code gets leaked.

I just can't justify purchasing a game where one day someone is going to flip a switch and permanently remove my ability to play it. I'm still playing catch up with games from the 1980s.

[–] resurrect@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I would hope that in case of D3 they would patch offline mode to it and after that shut down the servers.

[–] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

If they do that then I'll consider getting the game. But I wouldn't hold by breath. If they're wanting to shut down the server then they're probably not going to want to keep hosting a server for the patch either.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›