When it was announced, they said it would be like SC2. Now Rob said what StingingVelvet posted bellow. Heh, maybe they'd tell us something different at BlizzCon.

That exploit with SC2 was really funny though. With a guest pass you were able to play the whole campaign, without even buying the game.

According to a Blizzard employee comment on this page of their forums they are already rolling this back due to backlash. I quote: So if I can install the game and activate it, then "go offline" and never need a net connection again, I will buy the game. Let's hope they confirm that.

Edit: Actually that's an old comment from almost a year ago. Disregard. It was linked to on another forum by someone acting like it was a response to today's news.

And that's how it has been since they announced the game, no doubt.

Actually I just discovered that post is old, from October. Might still be interesting to point out, but by far not confirmation of anything right now.

"10/24/2010 10:25:58 PM PDT" Hahha, yea. :D

"Currently there exist tons of unofficial stores which are filled by bot players and are advertised by bot spammers. It's good that they make it possible to easier sell items etc I think rather than being overwhelmed by unofficial or illegal shops everywhere."

This sums up the AH pretty nicely.

I did that, completed the whole campaign with a guest account. Later on, I bought the game when the price dropped in local stores.

For me . . and everyone I knew. . . SP and LAN were the only way we played Diablo and StarCraft. EXTREMELY slow connection speeds along with no desire to climb ladders were the main reasons. SP during the week . . LAN parties on weekends. We often had Diablo and StarCraft games going at the same time since most of us brought servers with us. Loud music, drinks and good food made for a great time with good friends.

So removing SP and LAN removes the option to play the game the way we enjoyed it the most. There is definitely a group that enjoys the bnet experience. I myself never knew anyone that played on bnet and gave up the SP / LAN play afterwards. Simply no comparison to the party atmosphere we were used to. It's a non-issue now so . . . =)

Edit: LONG LIVE IPX/SPX !! . . . oh, wait . . . sorry

To be entirely honest although diablo 1 was throughly enjoyable (I was like 12 when I played it) but its sequel bored me immensely. It actually looked worse than the original and the only class I enjoyed was the necromancer and also the druid to an extent....The gameplay was tedious and mind numbingly repetitive. The only thing that impelled me to play on were the cinematics and team interaction....

I understand the need for the existence of a drm system but with diablo 3 it has gone a little too far. Moroever the inclusion of an in-house auction system shall create an unfair atmosphere where players who spend well shall play well rather than those who spend more time playing the game.....Just not interested in this anymore.

the problem with te auction house is, if there are sellers and there will be, you can effectively buy yourself to the top

Apart from having to be online to play, another serious concern is where my game data is saved.

It's on their servers. Meaning I can't back up all my game data. What if something happens at their end or if they get hacked (as everyone does these days), loosing user data.

And while I admit it's unlikely to happen any time soon, I'd like to know what happens if the servers are switched for any reason. If they go bust or get bought over by another company that might not have any interest in supporting the game.
In fact I'd like some gaurantees from all devs/publishers who are going down this route. I'm not renting your game, I'm buying it so what assurances do I get I'll always be able to play this? Until I get a satisfactory answer I wont buy it.

I also don't understand why they can't have seperate online(or normal play if you like) and offline charachters with no overlap. You either play 100% offline, removing the need for a connection or/and have a regurlar charachter than can play on both. Im spending most of time in hospital at the moment over a long period and game on my laptop. Fortunatly this ward allows me to use 3G to get online, however most don't. So even if I do decide to get the game it's probably not going to worth it as I wont have the oppertunity to play.

Seems to me this is just going to limit their sales, even if only by a small amount. Why would you want to do that.

I was most likely going to pass for DRM reasons anyway, but I was hopeful as I really enjoyed D2 and have to buy 2 copies of multiplayer games for LAN play. So while it won't be a blip on their radar, its 2 copies I won't be buying. And since I'm pretty much expecting that I won't be able to play the latest and greatest games anymore because of the DRM policies, I'm not really disappointed when I find out I was right.

So my reaction is.. .meh, pass. I'll find something on GoG to play that works offline and has no DRM.

Sadly, if no one bought D3 on day 1, there would be an offline only mode patch available on day 2. They are gonna keep pushing until folks finally say too far.

This. There are people who don't like multiplayer, like my friend. And I had my best fun on LAN parties. KA's reaction seems to me like attempt to defend Blizzard at all costs (no offense).

D2's money came from multiplayer and Blizzard is willing to cut the offline option (which it has decided is insignificant enough a market) in order to protect the integrity of its multiplayer experience. Just label it as an MMO that you can solo online and forget about it.

Bummer. Another game to remove from my short insta-buy list.