B.net Downtime For Diablo 3?

A fan asked a question most of us have wondered about, since learning that part of Diablo III’s DRM would be an online-only play requirement. How often will Battle.net be down?

This is just crazy, I will not be able to play a single player game because the servers will be down for maintenance? When I did play WoW I would plan my off days around Tuesday (I think that was down day) but understood because it was an MMO, but for a single player variation this is just stupid.
Kaivax: At this point, we don’t know how much Diablo III will be taken offline during the weekly Battle.net maintenance period. The game itself will probably not need much actual maintenance, and like StarCraft II, could possibly only go offline for a short time each week.

Of course, when we patch the game (which will also be a rare thing), we will do so during a Battle.net maintenance window. With Diablo III we’re aiming for minimal downtime, and have a goal of taking the game down even less than StarCraft II. A few weeks after launch, we hope to get away from the weekly maintenance window all together, and go to perhaps a once-a-month planned, brief outage.

Do you guys have confidence in this prediction? As a long time computer user, I take all predictions of infallible software/hardware with enough grains of salt to rim a giant margarita glass. That said, unless you want to get into “game servers down, RMAH servers up!” paranoia predictions, it seems to be in Blizzard’s interest to keep the D3 servers online as much as possible. Thus I’m going to hope and at least semi-expect them to be quite reliable.

While I’m here, I’ll make two predictions about D3’s Battle.net. 1) The first week or two after launch will be pretty sketchy, when it comes to game availability. 2) We’ll see numerous Blue explanations for this that will cite the far higher % of single player games than the developers expected/predicted. Blizzard has seemed perpetually surprised by this phenomena during the beta test, but it’s something I’ve long worried about.

No more PK-switch and no more ninja-drops are co-op friendly features, but the “you might as well play solo” side of the scale has a lot of weight on it too. The general lack of shared skills, the removal of big experience bonuses for playing in MP games, the decrease in game difficulty, the quest continuation system, the lame chat channel implementation, and the inability to create named public games… all make it easier to play solo, or at least remove a lot of the reasons or methods to party up.

I hope I’m wrong, but unless/until Inferno difficulty requires co-op for survival, it seems like most people will be playing solo while wishing for more of the community and socializing feel they had in the pre-bot heydey of Diablo II.


You're not logged in. Register or login to post a comment.
  1. Servers will be very unstable at first, and whenever they introduce a major patch, which will be frustrating but we’ll get over it. 

  2. I don’t doubt that server downtime will be comparable to what it is for Starcraft 2. They’ve even reduced WoW’s downtime over the years – which used to be 8 hours or so – down to 15 minutes.

    “the decrease in game difficulty”
    The decrease from what, exactly? Is this yet another judgement based on what little we’ve seen in the beta so far? In any case, it’s not like Diablo 2 was an especially challenging game to begin with. WoW has moments that are more challenging.

    • He meant the extra HP that monsters get in MP, as opposed to SP.  It can be difficult to solo an area in hell if you dont have the right gears in a 8 player game.

      • In D2 that was largely due to specific resistances and immunities, and not really just monster health; in an 8-player game there was a better chance that someone would actually be able to damage and kill each enemy, whereas if you played solo you might come across something you couldn’t even touch.

        So, yeah, I see what you mean about multiplayer games in D2 being a bit more necessary to progress, but I’m not sure I would call that a matter of “difficulty”. Packs of elites that you just couldn’t kill aren’t “challenging”, they’re literally impossible – which, in my view, is a matter of flawed game design rather than one of “difficulty”. 

        • Flawed game design? Seriouslky? GTF outta here you troll. If you simply want to finish the game for the story you have normal. Nightmare and Hell were specifically designed for multiplayer in mind, so no its not flawed game design its perfecting the original, which was completely doeable solo and very challenge free at all difficulties before 1.10.

          • Can you point me to source where you got this “Nightmare and Hell were specifically designed for multiplayer in mind”? Or it is your just stupid idea how deny fan to solo players?

          • lot of Diablo players enjoy solo play (for more than “simply finishing the story”), as the numerous debates regarding Blizzard’s online-only policy for Diablo 3 have shown. If D2’s immunities were intended to push people online, I don’t think they were a very effective means of doing so.

            I quite genuinely feel that the Diablo 2 system for immunities was a matter of flawed design, and not purely intended as an incentive for multiplayer. I think monster resistances were fair, as they promoted a little build diversity to make things more efficient at certain points for different characters, but immunities could completely shut down a great number of builds with absolutely no way to get by. This forced people toward certain builds over others, since some were completely non-viable at higher levels of play. For example, a Cold Sorceress could at least always do some amount of damage with Cold Mastery, so you very rarely saw Fire/Lightning hybrids, only Fire/Cold or Lightning/Cold. This in turn led to a lot of frustration when players figured out that their character simply couldn’t get past the Ancients (or whatever), and due to the inability to respec they’d have to create an entirely new character to hope to get further. Personally I don’t consider that an effective way to “challenge” players; “Oh I picked the right skills so I win” isn’t all that fun to me, personally. That isn’t to say that I think all builds should be equally viable, or that skill selection shouldn’t be an important part of the game. Rather, I do think it’s a flaw if the only significant challenge is the path you decide to take with your skill points at the very beginning of the game. Skill selection should be a matter of thinking about how you can get the most out of combining your skills with your gameplay style, not just a matter of “Skills A, B, C, D, and E all lose, so pick skill F to win.”

  3. Sad to see they won’t patch alot. I’d love it to have added content, new zones, items… somewhat like WoW, but we don’t pay monthly, so I guess that once we buy, they don’t have an incentive to give a f*** anymore.

    • With all due respect to all the WoWlites out there, that would be absolutely terrible for Diablo 3

    • I doubt they will change a lot of items around. I wanna see the first lawsuit of some joker who bought an OP item from the AH only to see it nerfed to a cooking spoon by Bliz 🙂

    • You pay per month with WoW, so they can afford to pay people to develop additional content like that.

      Diablo 2 was given a lot of support, even until recent years. Thinking that they won’t “give a f*** anymore” just because they hope to not have to fix bugs all that often is ludicrous.

    • The part about patching worries me as well.

    • if the RMAH is good for anything, it will be that it will make them give a ****.  letting the game go sale will equal a loss in revenue.  If the RMAH succeeds in making them decent money, there will be a push for new content/expansions for D3.  At least that is what I am hoping.

      • An mmo charges a fee for regular installments and other perks.  The RMAH is just free money for them and they have no obligation to patch as often as we would like.  I’m betting we get very little content between expansions. 

    • Oops! I referenced WoW. Now I’ll get stoned by all the blind haters.

      My solve media code was “nice job”. Fitting. 

  4. I played SC2 on launch day and the servers were fine. YMMV.

    • Yeah I was pleasantly surprised by its performance. Battle.net website even stayed up.

      The downtime in SC2 is minimal, and D3 isn’t an MMO so I’m not too worried about it. They seem to use a similar hotfix system as WoW, which they can put in hotfixes without having to patch while the server is still up. I think they just have to restart it, which only takes a few minutes. 

  5. hopefully servers arnt BL125p again..

  6. I don’t even want to play with other people in the beta so why would i want to join with others in the full game?
    I can move at my own pace and i also don’t have to fight for drops, so why would i want to play with other people?
    As far a server stability goes i don’t see it being much of a problem, blizzard has done this way to many times to drop the ball completely on opening night.

    • the new drop system makes individual drops for each player in the game so you don’t have to fight over drops with other players. You can only gain more items that potentially suit your class if you trade with the players in your game.

      • @mizantrop
        thats exactly my point we dont have to fight for drops in D3 like we did in the past. so really there is no reason to party with others when i can set my own pace.
        Others have stated that the more people in game the faster the killing = more drops and this is a valid point, but is it enough to sway me to join with other people and utilize a broken chat system.
        I wont beat a dead horse i just feel like the community aspect of this game has been molded into something that actually hinders our ability to make friends and just hang out and talk with others about the game as freely as we did in D2.

        • A game that prioritizes gameplay over impersonal socializing? What a shitty game!

        • The “community aspect of this game” hasn’t been a priority during the beta. Chat channels have only recently been added. The fact that you haven’t felt like playing with other people in the beta says very, very little about the game’s multiplayer at large.

          Also, as Mizanthrop pointed out, the fact that you don’t have to fight for item drops in SP isn’t a reason to play SP; you don’t have to fight for item drops in Diablo 3 at all. Moving at your own pace is a valid enough concern, however, but that’s always been the way of Diablo multiplayer.

    • See, I am the exact opposite.  I like seeing different players in the same game.  I also like seeing different spells, skills and minions flying all over the screen at the same time. 

      It is all up to the person, which is why I am surprised that Blizz does not include a SP version in the retail.  It can be like SC2 with no Lan support.  Just to give players that option. 

      • Because this stops people downloading it illegally. That is the ONLY reason no matter what they say.


        •    Like it did for SC2… oh wait.    
           And even though i pre-ordered D3, i’ll be torrenting it too just to shove it in their face (i wonder if that’s still legal here if i have the original game, or if they changed the law since we joined the EU – to bring it in line with Europe… bah)

        • If you can’t see how server-side data might help them keep duping under control, I really don’t know what to say to you.

          Sure, I think that piracy is a big part of why the game is online-only, but I don’t think it’s the only part either. What’s ridiculous about Blizzard’s statements isn’t that there are other reasons for keeping the game online-only, it’s that they seem to refuse to acknowledge that the decision had anything to do with piracy. That’s mostly a matter of fluffy PR-talk, but that doesn’t mean that the other reasons don’t hold some truth to them. 

          • That’s naive. D2 also had an authorative server, but the transactions weren’t atomic and you could cause duplication of items with buffer overflows killing the server. They never used a “regular” database for D2 like they did with WoW, for instance. It was all data-chunk-based, per player. I think it was the Schaefers who mentioned that on Gamasutra, but don’t quote me on that.

            Hopefully that’s gone, but you never know.

  7. +1 Flux, I totally agree with everything you say!

  8. Tough to say about server stability.  SC2 and cata launches were great but these last few patches on the beta all made the servers act weird for a couple of days afterwards.  I think we’ll get a better idea of what it’ll be like when we see the next few patches get deployed and how they effect the beta servers.

  9. I haven’t had a problem playing SC2 and I would think that game processes a lot more data (per game) than Diablo 3. There are plenty of things to worry about but bnet stability and uptime isn’t one of them, imo.

       Diablo 3 does monster behaviour server side, while i don’t think SC2 has anything like that, so i doubt there’s more data going through for SC… and most certainly not when you;re playing alone…

  10. This is a great post Flux.  I wind up playing SP over MP for all of the reasons you’ve outlined.

    I also really find the inability to name a public game a large factor.  I like to explore each area of the map and break everything and pick up all the gold.  I’m an old school, OCD gamer that way.  The vast majority of the public games now are speed runs.  I have no problem with speed runs, but after doing hundreds of them it’s no longer my choice of play style and I don’t have anything to offer them.

    If I had the ability to name a public game something along the lines of “exploration” versus “speed run”, that would help alleviate this issue.

    • That is how I met most of the people in D2 that were on my flist.  Games titled A1 Walk and such let me find games where people liked to play the way I do.

      • I’ve talked about this with some friends lately, and no one can make sense of it. Why Blizzard seems to be intentionally making changes to lessen the time people will spend on B.net ni socializing activities.

        It started in SC2, when they wanted to remove public chat entirely, did all they could to not show actual player rankings, kept insisting their matchmaking game system was superior, etc.And everyone hates the SC2 online social features.

        And now D3 they’ve given us this tiny, unfun chat box, they’ve talked about all Arena being random anonymous team assignments, they have a game joining system that’s all automated and uncustomizable, etc.

        It’s clearly intentional; Bliz isn’t repeatedly hobbling the social B.net options by accident… but why? Do they not want to subsidize our chat over b.net? They only want us playing games while online? I can’t think of any likely reasons; not even conspiracy theory ones. It just seems a profoundly poor series of design decisions, and it’s inexplicable.


           Spending too much time in a game you only paid once for might take away from their other revenue streams, and we wouldn’t want that…
           And playing D3 just to have fun instead of to get better items takes away from the impulse to use the AH… 
           Frankly at this point, i hope they’re just being incompetent when it comes to the socialising parts… much less depressing.

          • That’s why I said I can’t even come up with conspiracy type theories. Wouldn’t they want us to spent MORE time chatting on B.net? Getting more interested in the game, hearing about other people’s builds and gear, since that would make us want to emulate it? And hit the RMAH to enable that?

            A great deal of the end game item game is spurred by competition. Someone keeps beating you in dueling, or has a better PvM build, you want to match them. And better gear, RMAH style, is one way to do that. Blizzard’s sabotage of their own B.net social system seems counter intuitive and counter productive on every level.

          • @Flux
             Well maybe their data shows that the people that are influenced by other people telling them about their builds etc are in teh minority and the majority gets put off by how much better those guys are or something…
             Or that the guys you;re talking about will get the info anyway from forums/fansites while the ones that don’t will spend more in the AH because they don’t know what to buy so they buy more stuff instead of just the best…
            PS: Hah, my tin foil hat is better then yours…
             PSS: Also, ding-dong as the captcha… is your captcha generator Skynet or something?

          • “Spending too much time in a game you only paid once for might take away from their other revenue streams, and we wouldn’t want that…”

            The audience crossover between WoW and SC2 isn’t all that significant. Sure, some players play both, but not to the extent that they feel they’d need to intentionally cripple SC2’s social system just to maintain WoW subs. Since most of the Diablo 3 systems are just following in the steps of SC2, I highly doubt Diablo 3 is being designed with stunted social systems just for the sake of maintaining WoW subs either.

        • I guess Blizz management finally bit the bullet and started doing what all the other BIG NAME Managers have been doing for years.


          I can see how some of their design decisions in recent years could have been influenced by that 🙄

        • I have done some thinking about that lately, and the only conclusion i could produce was that they dont want you to meet other people online on purpose.

          They want you too feel lonely and invite your real life friends to play with you, hence forcing them to also buy the game.

          /conspiracy off

        • What was wrong with SC2’s matchmaking and ranking system? It was superior to what they had in the original Starcraft, and it didn’t do anything to hide your rankings – click a player’s profile and view their league and ranking. I agree that I don’t like the small chatboxes they had in Starcraft 2, but honestly they weren’t that much of a big deal 90% of the time.

          In any case, I think it’s tinfoil-hat worthy to be suggesting that Blizzard is intentionally “hobbling the social B.net options.” I think most of the changes they’ve made are for two reasons: 1) to get people into the game and playing it as quickly and easily as possible, not for the sake of preserving bandwidth, but because they feel that quick and easy access to actually playing the game is more fun for the vast majority of people, and 2) they expect most people are using ventrilo, teamspeak, or skype to communicate rather than any sort of typing-chat, and their own attempt at built-in voice chat (i.e. their attempt in WoW) was awful and took more effort to implement than it was worth when people were just going to stick with other clients anyway.

          I think there are certainly problems with their approach, but I don’t think those problems amount to some sort of insidious plot to intentionally cripple their social features.

  11. Multiplayer is how i remember Diablo 2 fondly! the lack of decent public chat …. the anonymous public game without names are big steps in the wrong direction if you ask me

    <– used to chat more in gbr-1 channel than i used to spend grinding mephisto, pindleskin, baal, cow running or anything else that invloved in-game activity

    decent chat channels are such an important aspect of this game… online gaming after all is a SOCIAL thing    

    Im guessing this has been changed because of bots … so why do us the public have to pay the consequences for the botters? why are u punishing us? 

    • Blizzard doesn’t want people to stay chatting for too long, that’s almost for sure… But even though in-game chat won’t have color coding and all those IRC-like power commands, there will be that “gbr-1”, I assure you 🙂

      The public has to pay for botters because it is that very public to complain about them… Power gamers, who are able to abstract themselves from woes of the world, are, unfortunately, a minority 🙂

      I am going to play it the way I play Starcraft – play solo at first, then play random teams into harder difficulties, meet people, add those I like to friends, and then, if the community really turns out to consist of noobs and jerks, play with whoever from friends is available. No big deal. Plus 1-2 RL friends, when available.

  12. Having started beta few days ago, I agree with the fact that there are very few party based skills that encourage mp. I tried mp a bit but it was just 2 players playing single player game together:|

  13. I bought sc2 very close to release, never had a problem.

  14. If they design Inferno right, it should be faster/more efficient to have 4 player co-op games for farming. I guess the “tricky” thing is picking crap up off the ground, how quick/easy that is so it doesn’t slow down the group. Obviously, this is a lot easier if you know your group, which is why good social tools are important. And, if you want a PUG, but want a specific place to PUG, they need to bring back public game names. “Act II tombs,” “Act III ramparts,” “Act I Cathedral,” etc would be handy if your usual crew wasn’t online.
    Point is, if they design the tools right, and especially the game mechanics right, you’ll want to co-op b/c it will be faster/more efficient to farm in a good group versus solo. That’s not to say you can’t solo, but you won’t want to, b/c it will be slow and inefficient. That’s the theory, at least.

    • I believe naming games for locations is redundant, as anyone interested would search by quest… And, at least this is the idea, farming specific places won’t be necessary or popular…

      • If you just like a certain area more than another, you’ll want to farm that area more than others. Personal preference, more than mechanical advantage. Some people like open desert better than dank catacombs.

    • You won’t be mincing through inferno fast enough to slow down the party. It’ll be like molten core on WoW at lvl60.

  15. I played Starcraft 2 after the midnight release and never experienced a blip.  In fact I can’t even recall a single moment where I wasn’t able to play Starcraft 2 because of Bnet server issues.  I’m not saying they don’t happen, but I’m saying they are rare enough it’s not gonna be widespread and I feel like this problem is overblown.  We’re doing a lot of wolf crying without having seen what’s actually going to happen.  If it does happen for extended periods I’ve time I’m curious what Blizzard will do to compensate.  With WoW giving extra free days was easy.  D3…tougher.  Maybe a tiny bit of Blizzard bucks?  Who knows.  Either way, I’m not at all worried about game downtime.

    WoW at launch was a whole other story.  It was a good year before we stopped having days where you just couldn’t play the game and constant refunds of playing time.  D3/SC2 are different kinds of games and Blizzard has put in a lot of work on the infrastructure and has learned a lot from WoW.

    Also I think your concerns about multiplayer are crazy.  The reason to play co-op is, wait for it. …to have fun with your friends.  In fact with all the changes they’ve made that’s the only reason to do it so nobody is going to feel obligated/pushed into co-op and it’s perfect.  *EVERYONE* I’ve talked to is excited to play this game with friends because it’s just more fun to go dungeoning with a buddy.  However unlike the previous game you aren’t punished if you do prefer to play solo.  Whereas most games offer huge incentives to play co-op, I think the nature of gaming now has shifted so that most people when given the option to play with a friend, just do so anyway without any incentive.

    Now the matchmaking system is much more console centric in how it’s used which for many of the PC hardcore seems like a step backwards, that I agree.  However if you have your friends Bnet info, it’s easy enough to link up.  …meeting new friends might not be as easy though.

    Anyway, I understand all these concerns I just think they’re all vastly blown out of proportion.

    • Agree 100%. I think this OP has become a troll on his own forums.

      Blizzard hater in disguise … :)))

      Listen whiners : D3 is not going to get local play … EVER.

      The times of playing hacked games is OVER.

      For good as should be.

      • The appropriateness of your screen name is not lost on me.

      • The definition of a MP game is not buying an item from someone on the AH.  As massively popular as the AH will be, it does nothing to encourage MP gaming or discourage SP gaming.

        Everyone here knows D3 won’t get offline play, if they did they would bide their time and not complain.

        • On line play is all about communications.

          With the battlenet coms and the continent wide AH and only ONE server play it is easy to put one on one together.

          D3 will be all about REAL friends playing and Real Money play (and I am not even talking about the RMAH, but the VALUE your gear will have in the game).

          That’s the NEW twist and that one will lay the foundation of how we look at gear in the future ACROSS solo play.     

         Also, not being hacked for years totally helped it sell units and games better then the 360… 
         Captcha: face the music… wow, appropriate much… i swear, the captcha is sentient or something.

  16. Its not like it would be down for more then a few hours a week at most and im guessing they would do it in the morning or late at night anyways so i dont mind. I guess if its a constant issue it would bother me but even when i played wow the maintenance hardly ever cause a issue.
    Full servers were always more of a issue then maintenance.

    • Morning / late at night is usually when places like NZ / Aussie are in the middle of gaming.
      So unless our servers get it at different times its gonna suck if they take it down often. 

    • There would be no excuse for weekly maintenance in D3.
      The time that they do it is going to be relative to where you are anyway. 

  17. 95% of my time in d3 has been single player and I only see that changing for higher difficulties when it’ll become necessary to team up.  It feels like a SP game to me and I’m happy about that but will be okay having to team up in later difficulties.

    I hope Blizzard keep the community apprised of when the downtime will be so at least we won’t schedule in play time that coincides with it and I don’t mean like a white goods delivery service, I’d like the from and to hour a good deal ahead of time.

    • There is absolutely no chance whatever that I/you will not be able to solo Inferno.  When they insist upon the idea and threaten that “You will die,” they’re not talking to us, as so often in their development decisions.

      • The “you will die” video was made for people who attended a Diablo 3 panel at Blizzcon. I’m willing to bet that the crowd of people attending a Diablo 3 panel at Blizzcon is made up of some fairly hardcore Diablo fans, and I’m also willing to bet that Blizzard knows that. 

        • I understand what you mean, but still don’t agree.
          The vast majority of the audience for that video–and for its sentiments of difficulty, I argue–is the general masses.  Analogy: they didn’t play the Super Bowl this year as a special treat for the citizens of Indianapolis.  The live audience is not 0.1% of the total audience and Blizzard knows that.

          • And I respectfully disagree.   The number of gamers that finish games is very low.  Steam achievement stats have proved this to us.   And Blizzard is well aware of this.  The “general” gaming population will “hopefully” finish normal.  I’m sure there will be a decent percentage of players who don’t.  Let alone nightmare and hell.   I’m pretty certain that video was definitely made for the diablo hardcore fans.  Because we are the ones most likely to go into the advanced difficulty levels. 
            FWIW.  I LOVED Diablo and Diablo 2.  They are my favorite games of all time.  Yet, I somehow only beat hell mode last year when I put in a specific effort to do so.  

    • I do want to play with others, but If there won’t be a reason to (and I do worry about this possibility), then I will only do so with friends. I have nothing against public games, but playing with a random party has its own problems, all of which must be counterbalanced by some kind of incentive to play in them. Thankfully Blizzard can easily make parties more attractive, if the need arises.

    • So you can solo through all the content (all of it) yet you will arbitrarily group up at higher difficulties?
      Also, I don’t really believe that nightmare and above will necessarily be easy to play through while in a party.  Easier maybe, but not easy.

    • Yea, i imagine i will only group up if im board or if i want to play with friends. Otherwise im not going to bother dealing with people if i don’t have to.

  18. The reason I’m playing Diablo 3 is for the party play, so I really doubt there will be a general lack of it.

  19. Party play is good, but random party play is bad. I really wish they would let us name the games! Hell they already have the game naming feature coded in the game. Give us a feature for once instead of taking them away!

  20. No good  public game list + no good chat channels =  SINGLE PLAYER 

    Without proper GAME NAMES there’s no way it will work out. Even a dumb little kid understands these basic facts.
    Whoever created Bnet2 UTTERLY FAILED in SC2 and D3. Im playing the Beta and just like SC2 its just a huge step backwards from the old games. 

  21. I may be completely alone on this, and that’s perfectly fine. I just feel compelled to say that at some point in the future, I predict this online only thing to fail.

    I don’t wanna sound like a doom-sayer, but I can’t shake the feeling that at some point there will be a massive problem and they will be forced to allow offline play at the risk of losing a vast majority of players.

    I can accept the online only function, but I will never fully trust it.

    • The ON LINE play that will live for ever is the party play with REAL (life) FRIENDS.

      So I guess your post is fail. 

      I don’t trust guys who want local play to play cracked software ….

  22. Friend and Guild groupings will be consistent, but yes, I also think there will be a large majority going solo, at least for the first few weeks.

    As for stability… If they don’t get these login and basic bugs worked out, it could be a unending nightmare for players. 

  23. I only played d1 and d2 on bnet servers, with d2 being on the closed servers. The first week was brutal, but it evened out over time. Knowing the popularity of d3, I’d wager the first couple days may be spotty but seeing their track record with SC2 I’m hoping for the best

  24. Playing in a good party was what made D2 so much fun. That and the ability to stack auras and use different builds for different tasks. Now there’s no need… get a high dmg weapon and change your skills to whatever is best when the game hits. If I didn’t have a couple friends buying it there would be no reason to play anything but single player. 

  25. At the OP: with a few million players playing on the central… AH’s, this is not a single player game.

    Diablo 3 could be GIGANTIC even compared to other on line games in trading and co op play.

    I can see it bypass WOW even after a certain time … because playing to get some real money AND LOOT worth real money is a first in the history of On Line RPG’s and … you don’t pay subs at all.

    Its RMAH could overthrow everything in On line play.  

    If it is the smashing success I think it is, expect WOW to go F2P with a RMAH within a year.

    WOW could reach 20 million players with a RMAH and free subs with ease. 

    So OF COURSE there will be down time on such a huge server structure that simply is a start of a new age in On line RP Game play with real money invloved.           

    • Except that all the high end items in wow are bop…they would be making a huge shift in philosophy there…i dont see that happening with wow…

  26. put Offline SP back in, downtime problems solved for everyone 🙂

  27. i want offline play, what if i cancel my internet? then i can’t play D3 that i paid for like $70

  28. ERROR 315300 Fan


  29.  B.net 2.0 sucks and so do almost all of the changes they’ve made to “co-op” play and systems related to it.  Period. 

  30. I’ve had very few issues with SC2 and WoW. I’m not worried about server downtime as they will treat this like any MMO (since they are calling it as such).
    Flux, you make a good argument about incentives for playing with others. In fact, I didn’t realize this at first, but I did not feel compelled to play with other people in the current beta. Part of the issue is that there’s no public games to join. The other problem is that the game is too easy on normal and a team is not needed to beat the skeleton king. The last issue is the lack of incentives. If anything, the end result is overall negative since people can no longer play at a pace they feel comfortable with. Either they have to catch up to the group or feel like they are being hindered.
    My question is how they will treat high levels rushing low levels through the quests. Will they prevent a lvl 60 from joining a lvl 1 game? That’s at least another incentive for players they could potentially remove.

    • They have said they don’t object to rushing friends. So I don’t think there will be many limitations on it, certainly not with people on your Friends List. As for joining lvl 1 games at a lvl 60…. I don’t think that will be possible? The matchmaking system slots you into a game with people similar to your level and quest; I don’t know that you’d even see such a low level game on a different diff level?

  31. Flux why not make a decent write up of the issues you mentioned and send a nice polite letter/e-mail to Blizzard?? After a while, because lets face it it will never happen, once a suitable ammount of time has passed and you did not recieve a suitable reply, post it as an open letter to Blizzard. Maybe as one of those petitions that everyone can sign, follow on twitter whatever. You bring up great issues and Im pretty sure if we are vocal enough about them then at least Blizzard will be forced to do something about it, or at least give us their reasoning for removing so many multiplayer functionalities.

  32. edit: was supposed to be a reply zzz

  33. Personally I see no reason to play with others. I’ve tried it. Sure, it’s fun enough, but who cares?
    Unless it’s irl friends/people from work, I’ll probably be solo. 

  34. If you have a problem with weekly server maintenance at 3am, you should probably take that as a sign that you should go to bed so you can mow down zombies with vigor the next day.  WoW and SC2’s server maintenance hasn’t been a problem for me.  I would expect D3’s to not be problematic as well.  WoW is even pretty solid within 48 hours of a new xPac launch.  
    Somebody mentioned that 3am US time is roughly the middle of the day in Australia – ask far as I know, server maintenance is offset by region.  I also do not forsee (but hey, what do I know) server maintenance on D3 needing to be as often or as extensive as maintenance on WoW.
    Server maintenance.  First world problem.

  35. This doesn’t bother me at all. This is really nothing new. Move along…

Comments are closed.