I just think it would have been a better game if they had simply separated the single player from the multiplayer. That way you have a choice in the matter. Gamers like choices and hate it when you take those choices away. D3 isn't a MMO no matter how hard Blizzard tries to convince people it is. The only reason they made it into this forced co-op game is they were greedy and figured that was the only way they could stop piracy.
Problem is the people who were gonna pirate the game weren't ever planning on paying for it in the first place. So they weren't going to lose a dime to those people. Notch said something to that effect about Minecraft piracy I don't remember the exact quote but Notch could care less if you pirate Minecraft, hell he gives away the beta snapshot versions for free.
And if they hadn't forced multiplayer to be always on all these hackers wouldn't be exploiting that very same system to steal items and gold from people so they can then sell them for cash in their idiotic real money auction house. Which will be a disaster if they ever open it because the hackers will flood the market.
And then even though people paid $60 bucks for the game they expect you to shell out another $10 for a physical authenticator in order to hopefully keep your account secure. Even though they don't allow strong passwords on Battle.net.
Which is a moot point because these hackers aren't even hacking passwords in the first place there stealing session id's or forcing themselves onto buddy lists somehow that's why people can still log into their accounts after they have been jacked for everything their worth. But Blizzard is suspiciously in denial when someone brings that up.

All in all their choice to force online access to play their game has resulted in one of the most embarrassing disasters in the history of gaming. Which is sad because it really is a good game. It's just run by greedy idiots.

>> ^lampishthing:

I think Thumper was saying that Diablo 3 is clearly a multiplayer focused game and that Mr. Yathzee Esq. should not expect it to be excellent in single player. Being a games reviewer surely he should have given more attention to the multiplayer as this was the intent of the game etc. I really don't think that Diablo 3 can be blamed for shoving stuff down your throat. That's more your desire to play Diablo 3 shoving it down your throat.>> ^Auger8:
Maybe because some people actually like single player games.
And maybe he's the guy who doesn't need 15 people to go "hey nice backswing on that axe you got there" 50 million times like some attention seeking whore.
Or there like me and don't want their entire party to sudden scream like banshees if I decide to get up and take a leak or grab a snack or simply decide I don't want to play through the entire campaign in a single night.
That's not to say I don't enjoy Multiplayer I simply enjoy not having it shoved down my throat like D3.
>> ^Thumper:
How in the hell can you play Diablo 3 without playing multiplayer. He's the person you never go see a movie with because they ruin it with their trite non-conformity misery. Oh wait that's how, if no one wants to play with you. What a fucking tool.

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Stingray:
Quoted from http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Brothers_(episode)
The strength of Data's lockout code would potentially require trying 36⁵² combinations to break it, or 846,700,936,056,091,894,301,310,586,236,842,935,416,138,248,772,949,513,519,821,268,414,868,295,354,679,296 (8.467x1080) combinations – equivalent to cracking a 269-bit key in symmetric cryptography, something that is currently impossible to do.

Maybe not, I just read this the other day: "Cheap GPUs are rendering strong passwords useless."


Yeah, Data is way advanced than those. I'd like to see brute force!

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Stingray:
Quoted from http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Brothers_(episode)
The strength of Data's lockout code would potentially require trying 36⁵² combinations to break it, or 846,700,936,056,091,894,301,310,586,236,842,935,416,138,248,772,949,513,519,821,268,414,868,295,354,679,296 (8.467x1080) combinations – equivalent to cracking a 269-bit key in symmetric cryptography, something that is currently impossible to do.

Maybe not, I just read this the other day: "Cheap GPUs are rendering strong passwords useless."


But he could supplement his security with a SecureID dongle from RSA - oh.

>> ^Stingray:

Quoted from http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Brothers_(episode)
The strength of Data's lockout code would potentially require trying 36⁵² combinations to break it, or 846,700,936,056,091,894,301,310,586,236,842,935,416,138,248,772,949,513,519,821,268,414,868,295,354,679,296 (8.467x1080) combinations – equivalent to cracking a 269-bit key in symmetric cryptography, something that is currently impossible to do.


Maybe not, I just read this the other day: "Cheap GPUs are rendering strong passwords useless."