I’m not sure what kind of ISP the boys and girls at id Software use but it must not ever go out on them because creative director Tim Willits likes Blizzard’s idea of forcing gamers to stay online in order to play Diablo 3. It’s almost like having a bank always look into your window whenever you decide to go home because that's what you agreed to when you bought the house.
In an interview with Eurogamer, Willits stated that…
"Diablo 3 will make everyone else accept the fact you have to be connected," ... "If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome."All I have to say is…”WTF?” Seriously….what the f***?
When did gaming become an imperialistic society of corporate control over users and user activity? I always thought after paying $60 for a game you could play it when, where and however you liked? I guess times are changing and if Blizzard’s Diablo 3 is the next step in evolving how gamers are allowed to play then it’s not looking good for the end-user.
Willits went on to spout more totalitarianism jargon, saying…
"In the end, it's better for everybody," ... "Imagine picking up a game and it's automatically updated. Or there's something new you didn't know about, and you didn't have to click away. It's all automatically there. But it does take juggernauts like [Diablo 3] to make change.A “few people”? I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around and there only a few people who would prefer playing single-player, offline games, online.
Just recently ComCast went out in my neck of the woods and that meant everyones' service in the area was down. Now, that also meant that any high-end PC game I wanted to play had to have an offline option, and as I was going through my library I realized that all the games I had that could be played offline required an online profile. Thankfully there were a few ways to circumvent the problem but it meant starting over from scratch with brand new, offline profiles. That’s at least tolerable, if not annoying, but imagine not being able to play the game at all because you have to be online…all the time?
And what about copper thieves? What about people who game on laptops on-the-go? What about when there is no wi-fi where you are? What about a shoddy wi-fi card? What happens when the ISP goes down? What happens when the game's servers go down? Yeah, this single-player online gaming revolution sounds just peachy.
I also don’t like the idea that everything you do in the game or to the game (i.e., mods) may have to be monitored or prevented from being used if you even want to play the game. The idea of “always connected” is just wrong on more levels than just one, not to mention that it seems like privacy rights just get tossed clean out the window. And do I even need to bring up the bandwidth usage? I'm sure ISPs will love tacking on extra surcharges for people who exceed their bandwidth limits.
I have enough problems with Steam’s intrusive services as it is, the idea of future big-budget games always requiring people to play online even when you want to play offline or alone, just sounds bad for gamers in the long run.
You can read the entire interview over at Eurogamer. id Software's latest game, Rage, is set for release this September. You can learn more at the Official Website