I don't recall DDoS attacks breaking single player games in the past. In the past you could DoS yourself by disconnecting from the internet and your single player game kept working. #gasp
This isn’t a case of Sim City 4.
Diablo IV players want the microtransaction economy. They hated the cheating in Diablo I & II. They want to know that items they purchase from other players are legitimate. They want to be able to participate in PvP without worrying about other players cheating to get the best items.
The theory of the system was sound. The practical reason why Diablo II was a mess was because the game was buggy and trusted the client too much, making "Closed BNet" turn out to be not so closed after all. There is no technical reason why Diablo IV couldn't have been designed with the same two-tier system, they _chose_ not to do so.
>Diablo IV players want the microtransaction economy. They hated the cheating in Diablo I & II.
Some* Diablo IV players want the microtransaction economy.
If you have some study to prove that it was a majority of players or even a significant number of them, that simply sounds unlikely to me. My anecdotal experience is that I know of noone that appreciates the addition of microtransactions to games, even games that by their nature must be online.
I’m sure lots of people would be happy (and prefer) for the game to be free, but that doesn’t make charging a retail price illegitimate, despite the cost contributing nothing to the gameplay. I fail to see how this reasoning does not extend to microtransactions, which are merely smaller prices charged for content through an in-game (rather than retail) store.
I could've made a rant about how microtransactions are bad for the industry, consumers and the developers in different ways, but since you mostly just misrepresented what I said, I don't feel like it.
That alone is not an argument. If you release a new game that's exactly just as fun as your previous game, you'll still hit "fastest selling game" and "most copies sold" records in your studio's history - this is a consequence of the economic and population growth in general, and in particular growth of the player population.
I've had many, many fun, multiplayer interactions in D4 that have absolutely enhanced my experience playing it.
I have many negative things to say about Diablo 4; but, it being multiplayer - even it being massively-ish multiplayer - especially after playing it for a couple weeks, is not one of them.
I love how it's not in the way and feels natural.
No. WoW has always been an MMORPG. Playing "solo" still means you're in the world with other players. That has not been the case with Diablo before.
> It's a new and integral part of the experience.
New (i.e. different than the rest of the franchise) and integral is an inherently bad combination. New and optional would be fine. If they want to make a completely new game with no expectations, then they shouldn't be reusing a name that necessarily carries expectations. What they've done is close to a bait and switch, and that's why people are pissed off.
* Every Final Fantasy for a long time had a different battle system.
- single-job characters, a jobs system, materia, guardian forces,
the weird tree thing from 10, the clothing system from 10-2,
the multi-crystal system from 13. Constant change!
* Every Diablo game thus far has had an entirely different skill tree style.
Heck, Diablo 2 and Diablo 2 v1.10 had meaningful changes to the skill tree.
Diablo 3 is a world different from D2 wrt the skill tree. The skill tree
in these games is a *major* part of the game experience and it has been
completely rewritten. I haven't played D1 in foreever, but I'm pretty sure
it handled all of this very, very differently, too!
But it is the case now. You could say the same thing about any change or new feature in D4 but you draw the line at your own subjective opinion of what a true Diablo game is.
As someone who did NOT want to play MP the first time through the game, it's not an issue. (I got the impression that brand new areas start with other players disabled until you pass some quest threshold ?)
Now if you disconnect in Diablo 4, dungeons reset and everything related to your character in the world resets.
Probably, because they dynamically assign you to some world instance. And do not want to add load to servers if someone is not logging back.
It should be possible.
As it just provides input for the world, this should not be a technical challenge, or is it?
Many MMOs have persistent mobs and dungeons even if a player disconnects. PoE will keep your instances open for at least 15 min of inactivity, for example, so you can leave and come back if you need to. Keeping an extra instance open for a few more minutes isn't a big deal.
Even in D4, the world doesn't reset if you disconnect (like if and you a bunch of strangers are doing a world boss or world event). Maybe solo dungeons would, not sure. But in general it's not a big deal for a game like D4. If it resets you just go back in. Not like they take more than 10-20 min anyway. If you die you just respawn (unless you're in hardcore).
It's probably not a resource constraint, just a missing quality of life feature in D4 like so many other little details they neglects. For a game that took a decade to release, it sure feels incomplete and rushed.
It is a big deal because D4 is bringing PoE like maps with Nightmare dungeons. If you disconnect, it disappears. Dungeons can have rolls and high level ones are somewhat expensive.
It's just not a viable option in 2023, with modern expectations from players.
Escape from Tarkov was put in the spotlight a few months ago because some Youtuber investigated rampant cheating, and it literally killed the game pretty much instantly.
In a day and age where internet is considered as a basic commodity, there's no reason to open the door to cheaters for rarely needed convenience.
The wasted potential for when D3,4 (and even D2R) servers shut down, and even shortly after release because of no modding is just sad.