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?

  • KanariePieter@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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

  • th3raid0r@tucson.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year 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
      4
      ·
      1 year 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
    13
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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
      ·
      1 year ago

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

  • Azabs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year 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

  • minimar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year 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
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • IcySyndicate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year 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?

  • TemperateFox@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • ninetynine@lemmy.film
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I only play Destiny 2 (always online) and Civilization 5 and 6 (only online for multiplayer). If a game is a live game like Destiny or Fortnite then I can understand it but not having an offline mode in a game like Diablo seems really dumb.

  • RiseAndShine@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year 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

  • croobat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    For games that don’t need connectivity is a no-go to me. It’s just some more programmed obsolescence garbage so when the company decides you have to buy the next game they can just forbid you playing the one you have. Sorry sir but if I can still play Tetris on my Gameboy why would I let you take that away from me.

    • Longpork_afficianado@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • noob_dragon@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Always a bit of a turn off for me. Ross (guy that did Gordon’s mind and game dungeon) has a pretty good series of videos about why online only games are bad because they can be killed. He really hates the idea of killing games, and I agree with him.

    Not only can the game get killed, however, but it can be changed fundamentally in a bad way. Balance can be tweaked for the worse etc. And unlike single player games you can’t revert back to a previous version.

    I also hate that LAN play has been pretty much stripped from the PC game landscape. LAN parties during college were the shit.

    • Running_Out_Of_Ideas@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Overwatch 1 is a prime example in recent memory. I preordered the damn thing and got the fancy skin. I will probably never be able to play the sunsetted maps again. Never be able to recreate the broken fun of the first month after launch, when people would randomly form identical hero meme comps in quick play. Never be able to go back to before the battle pass, when you didn’t functionally have to pay to unlock new heroes.

      It’s a damn shame. Capitalism corrupts everything I love.

  • jecht360@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I flat out refuse to buy games that require a constant internet connection. It’s annoying for multiplayer games but the need for always online with a single player game is ridiculous.