patches in D2 have meaning only for the people who play online....

Notice the EULA you have to agree to to get EA games. Already, things feel a little different on those pages. Nothing huge, but it feels a little... corporate-EA-icky.

I am passionately against EA. I won't buy their games anymore b/c I bought NHL09 and they shut the server down less than a year after I bought it. And they gave no way to host your own mini-server like most games do. Wasted $40, right into their pockets.

Once they did that, they're no longer getting any support from me. And after what many people say that work with them for a short while (most notably, I can think of Naughty Dog and their Rings of Power fiasco years and years ago), I think that their problems go deeper and deeper into a dark shade of greed that I don't want to touch.

Really? I must have missed the line in the patch notes that states "All changes in this patch are disabled when not logged into battle.net". I really should read those patch notes more carefully.

The point is frequent updates do not depend on me tying my store purchases to a service account and DRM client.

Nobody said they did. If your true complaint is you don't like the account and client, then I'd typically advise just sticking to that.

My point was that they pretend to help you out with auto-updates when actually they are exerting complete control over your purchases. The point is they hide their selfish motivations behind their carefully constructed pro-consumer image.

Now you're going to start insulting people and calling them psycho? Really?

I seem to remember the last patch for Diablo 2 changing a wide range of things, even going so far as to add a respec option. Just because you don't want to play it single player any more doesn't mean other people don't appreciate the updates.

And respec is done for single player gamers you think? REALLY? I just can't imagine how people would want to play Diablo 2 single. It doesn't matter if you have some powerful item if you can't show it to others or sell it. This is why i called these people psycho, but i haven't got any offence in mind. I just can't understand that.

Read the EULA for games from Ubisoft that are on the site, they have a clause that says you agree that they're allowed to install DRM with that program. They don't install it, but there is a clause that says they're allowed to.

Only if the terms don't compromise or conflict with GoG's DRM-Free stance and their other foundations & morals.

GoG/CDProjekt are also smart enough to know that while they're gonna rake in lots of cash w/this new deal, they also know that it's 'bonus' money, and it will still not match the amount of money they've gotten (and will continue to get as more folk learn of GoG) from their main moneymakers (The Witcher series, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, etc.) simply b/c EA doesn't have enough epic titles in the same vein as GoG's main moneymakers. This coupled w/the fact that GoG was well aware of EA's business ops being as un-GoGlike as possible, from before they started the business.

Now, do I believe EA games being on GoG & on GoG's terms is the end of story? Absolutely not. I've seen enough in all financial sectors, sports sectors and entertainment sectors to well anticipate that an entity like EA wants to own & subject everything to their own will & devices, including GoG (as per your Faust note), and are seeking that in their long-term benefit ahead of this initial deal we're celebrating on the GoG community's behalf.

Do I believe GoG will bite, either now or in the future? No. And that for a number of reasons:

-It'd be a blatant affront to the foundations of GoG, and thus shake & turn off the core fanbase. GoG/CDP knows better than to do such a thing; and moreover they seem the type to guard against the baits thereof, right from the jump.
-This deal comes at a time when GoG is at their strongest, and is done according to GoG's will. When experiencing things like this, only a fool would choose the opposite path in future dealings, especially when the other camp doesn't hold your main core values; GoG/CDP are no fools.
-GoG isn't seeking pre-eminence or austere importance like Faust was. Nor are they seeking to do good by virtue of doing bad (juss look at how their sense of humor comes through in their promos; this indicates to me that they know how to deal w/those who try to change their values, no matter the method the opposition chooses).
-While EA seeks financial & territorial domination, GoG seeks elite gaming experiences for their fans (and thus earn their living by persuing this goal). To go w/this, GoG has been fully aware of EA's method's right from the jump, found it so distasteful that they founded their businesses' principles opposite of EA's.
- I'm sure GoG/CDP take much pride & satisfaction in knowing they alone are in control of their destiny, and value this freedom immensely, especially in light of how Bioware's games aren't the same since being taken over by EA; Nobody, especially not GoG/CDP, wants to experience a similar fate as Bioware's current state of affairs since they were taken over.
-I'm sure also that GoG/CDP also take much pride & satisfaction in being the main thorn in the pro-DRM camp's flesh.

I'm confident GoG/CDP knows how to deal -as in overcome- with Dr. Faust, and/or his personal demons/devils, and any other 'temptation' that they know would sully or spoil them.

Oh, for the love of...

EA have had a digital distribution store for years. This is a rebranding of it. And it's a way for them to distribute their new games, which doesn't compete with GOG at all.

I swear to god, I don't think you actually understand how companies operate or what kind of deal EA and GOG have. You seem to think "EA DOES BAD THINGS THEREFORE RANDOM BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN" without actually bothering to consider how and why these things actually occurred in the past.

I'm not dismissing your claims because I like EA. I'm dismissing your claims because they're based out of completely irrational fears rather than having any actual basis in business reality. They're a company with bad business practices, not a bogeyman with a GOG-shaped voodoo doll.

And again, why didn't you have any of this fear back when Activision signed on ages ago? THEY'RE BIGGER AND WORSE THAN EA! AND NOTHING HAPPENED! BECAUSE GOG IS JUST DISTRIBUTING THEIR GAMES AND THAT'S THE END OF THEIR AGREEMENT!

I tried it online a few times only. The amount of griefers exceeded my tolerance level by a great margin. From all the time I put into Diablo 2, less then 1% was online.
Besides, a lot of the patches changed the balance of characters - of course this affected singleplay as much as online.

Well, call me psycho then. I don't have the need to show of what I "achieved" by pure drop luck divided through the amount of time I played. I don't "gain" anything with showing off my items to someone else. It doesn't prove my skill nor does it enhance my fun in a game.

Of course there's a lot of people finding nothing bigger then waving their e-peen around. If they want to embarrass themselves doing so - their choice. I'd rather remain a psycho then.

I can't see how having one class overpowered over others may affect single player. It does not matter as long as there's only one character on the screen. So, you played for hundreds of hours and I may tell you - you haven't seen even HALF of the content of Diablo 2 playing single. It's not about e-peen, it's about game content. Not only exclusive for multiplayer, like Uber-Tristram etc. but many items appear only in the multiplayer. And many items have bigger chance of appearing in the multiplayer when playing with 8 people. It's just it.

Playing offline just strips you out of lots of fun. And, if you not know it, you don't have to play with other people on Bnet. Just create the game with a password, and you will not miss any content...

Pretend it is 2005:

I swear to god, I don't think you actually understand how companies operate or what kind of deal EA and Bioware have. You seem to think "EA DOES BAD THINGS THEREFORE RANDOM BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN" without actually bothering to consider how and why these things actually occurred in the past.

I'm not dismissing your claims because I like EA. I'm dismissing your claims because they're based out of completely irrational fears rather than having any actual basis in business reality. They're a company with bad business practices, not a bogeyman with a Bioware-shaped voodoo doll.

See my point?