BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
But neither of you answered my other question, If It was called SimCity Online, or Diablo 3 Online. Would there be a backlash?
The previous versions of these games existed without an online connection being required and these new versions are the same game, just a little more modern. If the game is the same, then their shouldn't be any reason for a constant connection being required this time when it wasn't before. So yes, even if they named it "Online" people would be pissed. The problem isn't that people were tricked into buying a game they couldn't use, it's that an extremely restrictive mechanic was added that wasn't necessary. If they wanted to add multiplayer, that's fine, but they didn't have to screw single player. In recent news, EA's bullsh*t about the servers handling a significant portion of Simcity's processing has been rebuked by someone who worked on the game.
Also, this isn't the first time I've heard of someone playing for several minutes after losing their connection, which backs up what RPS is saying.
The difference isn't in the naming. At all. If you're going to have this debate, you can least afford us the common courtesy of phrasing our arguments so it even resembles something realistic. Defeating a straw man doesn't advance your position.
That said, I'll humor you. The difference is in the actual game. Diablo 3 does not take place in a persistent online world. Each and every online instance of interaction is something the player actively seeks out. You access the AH, you join a public game, you make your game public, you join the chat channel, you invite friends to play, etc.
This is NOT TRUE of MMOs. You're trying to use an argument about player choice and make it about game design. These are two separate things. Yes, a player can choose to be as antisocial as possible in an MMO. I can also choose to play a single player game with friends. But at the end of the day, that's not what they were designed for, and the fact that they're possible shouldn't be lauded.
Unlike Diablo 3, all MMOs are persistent online worlds. You are playing with other people, all around you, whether you ignore them or not. The extent to which that's possible depends on the MMO. Some will let you hide your chat panels/leave all channels, some won't, for instance. In almost all MMOs, you're competing for the same in-game resources (be they mobs, quest nodes, or crafting materials). In GW2, you don't compete for crafting mats, you do compete for questing nodes, and you can share mobs. But GW2, despite making it as possible as they could to let you "solo" the game, is also an extremely social game. It's real content comes from events, most of which (at least higher up) depend on other players to complete if you aren't over-geared for the zone.
To make an MMO a single player game, you need to never use the AH, never use the chat channels that come built in, pretend that every other player stealing your stuff is an NPC that you can't attack, and never access most of the game's real content. Good luck with that.
To make Diablo 3 a single player game, you create a private world. That's it. That's all you do.