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?

  • th3raid0r@tucson.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 years ago

    Honestly? I used to not care. I usually have internet connectivity and have at least one backup method of getting online.

    But now my father is psuedo-homeless and there’s so many games he’s missed out on because his Van/RV didn’t get enough cell signal to work.

    After that I understood the problem in a far deeper way.

    Games were accessible to me as a kid, not because I could afford them, but because I could just pop in my neighbors CD (and enter their CD key if needed) and be off to the races! If I were to grow up poor now, it would be miserable.

    Always-online “single player” games, huge downloads, and if you happen to avoid all that you STILL need to check in online occassionally to use your own Steam Library.

    I mean, if 15 year old me existed today, I’d still be pirating things but it would be through a network of friends with Blu-ray burners and good internet connections.

    These days, I try to buy on GOG only, and only their non-DRM titles. Then I can throw them onto a samsung t5 and sneaker net it to my dad without worrying if Steam/Origin/Blizzard/Epic will get in the way.

    • SmugBedBug@lemmy.iswhereits.at
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      GOG really is the way to go. I try to support them whenever I can.

      With 2 kids now, gaming time is very hard to come by. At least I know that when I do have time to game again, I’ll be able to play these games because they have no server to connect to.

  • mek@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 years ago

    It sucks, plain and simple. Single-player games should never require internet access, and if the game has a multiplayer component, it should be a separate mode that leaves the single-player mode working even when there is no internet connectivity.

    It’s just basic fucking common sense… except that it conflicts with financial interests and greed.

    • aTempUser@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It makes sense in that having a local single player and a multiplayer mode requires writing much of the game twice. Having a remote single player mode only requires making the game once, with a special instance spun up for each single player game.

      I live a life where I often don’t have a persistent connection. That means for me, I can’t play new games. While I have been a fan and player of Diablo since the first one I’ll have to sit this one out.

    • anonforker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      also the asshole dev “THiS is tO preVenT uSer dOinG ILLEGaL acTIon suCh As TEmPerING gamE AND Cheat EngInE”

    • blindsight@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      D4 is worse, imho. It forces you to play multiplayer at all times, completely destroying any immersion in the lore.

      Sucks, too, because they nailed Diablo’s atmosphere (from games 1 & 2, not the WoW-ified D3 aesthetic.)

        • blindsight@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Absolutely… with mods!

          Granted, I haven’t had time to sink into it recently, so I’m a bit out of the loop, but Path of Diablo is very popular, and I know there’s another big one I don’t have time to hunt down rn.

          D2R is also an option.

          That said, I have the nostalgia and patience for D2’s idiosyncrasies from having played it for years; I’m not sure how well it holds up for someone completely new, coming from the more streamlined/polished UX from modern games.

          • bouds19@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Sweet, thanks for the mod recommendations! Do you know how Diablo 2: Resurrected differs from the original version and if it’s worth the $30 extra?

            • 0xc0ba17@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              If you’ve never played the original, take the Resurrected. They’re the same game, but Resurrected is beautiful. Be warned though that mechanically, it’s an old game, and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who hasn’t played it back then.

            • blindsight@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              That I don’t know. I’ve never played it. I just bought it myself in a bundle sale with the D3 stuff I didn’t have. I have to on D3 within a month of launch, so I thought I’d give it a try sometime since they say it’s a lot better since the expansion.

        • noob_dragon@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Diablo 2 has aged fantastically. It is still pretty much the king of the genre despite being 23 years old. D2R did a lot to bring the visuals up to date. Unlike other ARPGs, you can actually beat the game pretty fast if you know what you are doing. It’s a very efficient and clean game design. The game is a blast to play casually.

        • beetelier@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Not directly answering your question about D2, but if you’re looking for a more modern D2 style experience Grim Dawn is worth looking into. May scratch that itch.

    • End0fLine@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Games that completely disable single-player with no internet connection bother me. I like to be able to play my games whenever I want. What happens to these games down the road when the servers go down?

  • Azabs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    If the game is single player, there’s no reason for it to force you to be connected to the internet. It’s annoying and it shouldn’t be the norm

  • KanariePieter@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    I would never buy such games in the first place. If a singleplayer game doesn’t have an offline mode I’m not interested.

    • probableigh@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Imagine if they’d ever properly released Fallout 76 as SP or local co-op. Pivoting franchises into multiplayer/always-online that don’t benefit from it is such a petty, obvious cash grab

    • Longpork_afficianado@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      This. If I’m gonna gave to get a pirate version in order for it to work, I’m donating to the crackers that fixed it, not the publishers that deliberately broke it.

  • minimar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    If it’s a strictly multiplayer game, fine.

    If not, that’s just DRM, and it should die in a fire.

  • EnigmaNL@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    In my opinion all games that can be played solo should have an offline mode. Personally I have an excellent internet connection but I hate having to depend on servers to be able to play the game that I bought.

    The thing about always online is that the servers often crap out, especially during launch or during major patches. That just annoys the hell out of me.

    • Gert@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      These were my thoughts as well. Ever since I’ve had a good internet connection, online only games haven’t really bothered me, but that’s a privilege many don’t have.

      When I had crap internet it, I’d have to download a patch overnight and it was awful getting a surprise patch, meaning I couldn’t play til the next day.

      I don’t see any reason for single player games not to have an offline mode. Especially for people who don’t have good access to internet.

  • RiseAndShine@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Complete dealbreaker for me. You’ll never actually own games with such models, as you are completely dependand on the publisher. Once they pull the plug, you can’t play the game you paid for. Server probleem? Sorry, you can’t play right now. Traveling? Sorry, can’t play.

    It is also generally bad for modding and the overall user experience. These kind of games often have DRM that don’t allow for modding

  • TemperateFox@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    As a new dad, that problem was solved by being too tired to game with the little free time anyway lol. Also emulators like yuzu work wonders here as you can just pause the emulator even if the game doesn’t support it.

    • sorenant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don’t even have a child yet the work related fatigue is enough to make me avoid intense/stressful games that I’d play when younger. I can’t imagine choosing to play a game rather than sleeping if I had to also take care of a newborn.

  • flak@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    My internet connection drops constantly because Cox is horrible at providing what I pay for so if a game has an always online DRM component it becomes unplayable frequently. I don’t like it for that reason, but I also don’t like it from a “the server will go offline at some point and then this is going to be unplayable forever after that” point of view.

  • IcySyndicate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    If it’s single player games, there should be ZERO reasons to have it requiring online connectivity 24/7. No buy for me. There will be times where your internet goes offline for ISP related issues or Xbox Live or PSN experiencing server issues. How am I going to play those games?

  • Garrathian@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    It depends on the game. Like if it’s an online only game, then of course that makes sense. But a single player game, or even a game with a single player mode requiring always online is and will always be dumb.

    Diablo 4 not being designed for offline solo play as well (like D2 and I think even D3 was) is annoying though.

  • thomasbeagle@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    There seem to be two Diablo IV games.

    One is a single player or co-op offline RPG where you’re running around killing monsters and collecting loot so that you personally can save the world. Seeing other players running around just breaks the illusion.

    The other is some online multi-player thing where you can run around and team up with other people in the quest to min-max your build, where you pay stupid amounts of money to make your character look the same as all the other people who paid for the same skin.

    I like the first game, have no interest in the second, and I resent where the mechanics designed for the second game interfere with the first.