It did that a long time ago.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Diablo 3: Gamer Decisions In Actuality
- Thread starter Slachtbeest
- Start date
It did that a long time ago.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,107
Naw, because for every EA, UBI, and Blizz out there trying to sell me half a game, with the rest as DLC, while forcing an online only environment for SP play, there are a half dozen other devs that make and sell games at terms I like. I also prefer to change the direction of things I think are going the wrong way. Why not take my gaming dollars else where, and complain loudly so the dev/pub knows why I took my money else where? It is the only power I have in this situation, I'll be damned if I don't try to use it.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
Speaking of which, Defense Grid and Magicka are pretty fun games.
Quick question, what games have you bought recently?
Wizardhawk
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 257
I dont know... saying someone is an idiot can sometimes display youR own idiocy. I surely would never tell you that you'RE an idiot
For people living in low price share accomodation while studying, do they really have an option? Are they going to quit study because they need an internet connection to game? Maybe they should just quit gaming and take up other hobbies simply because they can't afford internet? That just sounds like a stupid argument to me. What about people living on aboriginal communities helping out the population, getting paid fuck all and with dodgy internet connections, they're just supposed to give up gaming as a hobby because they decided to help the community in a way that meant they had bad internet? That again is a stupid argument.
Everyone's just supposed to move house and/or pay more for internet on what should be a cheap hobby?
Of course now I'm talking about gaming in general and the trend toward online-only... as I said earlier in this thread when it comes to D3 I dont really care anymore, I can live without it, I just dont like unnecessary precedents being set.
How many people do you know who dedicate their lives to helping out unfortunate/poor/whatever people and then spending all their free time on a message board bitching about how it's unfair that they can't play D3 anytime they want? How many people who are dedicated to studying and can't afford the internet are going to cry and spam message boards because they can't play D3? They should all be crying because they can't play WoW too, amirite? Let's petition blizzard to make wow available to people without internet!
D
Deleted member 174368
Guest
Haha what the hell
How are the people in the peace corps gonna play their Diablo 3???
How are the people in the peace corps gonna play their Diablo 3???
Valshistixol
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,809
I actually don't know many people getting it including people like me who still think Diablo 2 is one of the best games ever released. The more we hear about it and the more videos we watch the less interested we become. Watched some gameplay videos the other day and I can't even say I'm interested anymore much less hyped up like I am for BF3.
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
I have to say, this post literally made me laugh out. Buddy I think you forgot to mention all the people who will be mountain climbing in the Himalayas who also won't be able to play Diablo 3. Can you imagine the injustice of it all?
I have to say, this post literally made me laugh out. Buddy I think you forgot to mention all the people who will be mountain climbing in the Himalayas who also won't be able to play Diablo 3. Can you imagine the injustice of it all?
Maybe I should have put sarcasm next to that bit because you guys totally missed the point of it
Point: Not everyone can just go out and get good internet without changing their lifestyle, I used 2 examples (of which several came to mind), a common one and a slightly silly one (but still possible, people do live in the middle of outback Australia and they do have computers and some of them do play games
). Everyone picked up on the silly comment and completely ignored the rest of my post, lol. Selective reading much? Maybe I should have put sarcasm next to that bit because you guys totally missed the point of it
Point: Not everyone can just go out and get good internet without changing their lifestyle, I used 2 examples (of which several came to mind), a common one and a slightly silly one (but still possible, people do live in the middle of outback Australia and they do have computers and some of them do play games
Wait. Are you saying our boys up on the International Space Station can't play Diablo 3?
Nah they have awesome internet. You know that dude with a ping of 1ms who is pwning you? That's one of the guys on the space station
Wizardhawk
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 257
My point still stands, how is this any more of a tragedy than the people in the middle of the outback or anywhere else without internet not being able to play any other game that requires internet, of which there are plenty?
Like I said, it's not like they tried to sneak in the fact that you can't play without internet. Thus, if you don't have internet, lump D3 into the same group as WoW or any other game that requires internet... Sure, you might have had your hopes up for D3 but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Like I said, it's not like they tried to sneak in the fact that you can't play without internet. Thus, if you don't have internet, lump D3 into the same group as WoW or any other game that requires internet... Sure, you might have had your hopes up for D3 but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Everyone who is complaining just needs to face the music.
If you don't have a constant internet connection you aren't important to Blizzard/EA.
There are plenty of other developers out there who are creating games that don't require a constant internet connection to play. Go find them and enjoy their games.
Those of you who still have bad internet or spotty service will just have to suffer until the future catches up with your part of the country/world. Stop complaining about blizzard and start complaining to your local service provider.
The future of gaming is online. Period.
If you don't have a constant internet connection you aren't important to Blizzard/EA.
There are plenty of other developers out there who are creating games that don't require a constant internet connection to play. Go find them and enjoy their games.
Those of you who still have bad internet or spotty service will just have to suffer until the future catches up with your part of the country/world. Stop complaining about blizzard and start complaining to your local service provider.
The future of gaming is online. Period.
Like I've said several times in this thread the loss of D3 isn't much, I honestly couldn't care less if I dont play it. The only game I'd actually be sad if it has shit like this would be Skyrim because its one game I really want to play this year
Its not D3 I care about (which is why I've been far less vocal than other anti-online only people in this thread) its the precedent that I'm against and I'm against the precedent regardless of whether its Ubisoft, Blizzard or now id software. I dont want to see the list of offline games shrinking to only a few shitty games.Like the example I used a few pages back, online only is a problem for some gamers, whether you want to accept that or not its an inconvenience at best and a downright pain in the arse at worst. A good dev/publisher makes the problems of their gamers their own problem too instead of just leaving them high and dry. CDProjekt was an example I used of doing the right thing by Aussies who were forced to buy a censored game at inflated prices... that probably represents less than 1% of their customer base and only the enthusiasts would probably even know about it so maybe 0.5% of their customer base. But CDProjekt still made it their problem and arranged the files such that a simple copy/paste would remove censorship, and GoG changed their terms and conditions to allow people (ie. Aussies) choose their own location (ie. not Australia to avoid high prices).
Then you have Blizzard, who are somehow surprised that people dont want to be forced online. Or as Ars said it in an article...
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/ars-guide-how-to-ruin-your-pc-port-in-five-easy-steps.ars
I'm certainly not losing sleep over D3 though and I doubt anyone else is either.
Nah they have awesome internet. You know that dude with a ping of 1ms who is pwning you? That's one of the guys on the space station
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110701/astronauts-dont-play-online-games-110701/
Dial-up speeds! oh yeah!
Yoshiyuki Blade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 2,881
Like I've said several times in this thread the loss of D3 isn't much, I honestly couldn't care less if I dont play it. The only game I'd actually be sad if it has shit like this would be Skyrim because its one game I really want to play this year
Like the example I used a few pages back, online only is a problem for some gamers, whether you want to accept that or not its an inconvenience at best and a downright pain in the arse at worst. A good dev/publisher makes the problems of their gamers their own problem too instead of just leaving them high and dry. CDProjekt was an example I used of doing the right thing by Aussies who were forced to buy a censored game at inflated prices... that probably represents less than 1% of their customer base and only the enthusiasts would probably even know about it so maybe 0.5% of their customer base. But CDProjekt still made it their problem and arranged the files such that a simple copy/paste would remove censorship, and GoG changed their terms and conditions to allow people (ie. Aussies) choose their own location (ie. not Australia to avoid high prices).
The thing is though, it's more than just a way to protect their product from piracy; it's integral in keeping the game experience and game economy stable for everyone playing. As much as I feel for the people genuinely being left behind, I'm not ashamed to be biased toward my own interests and will easily trade offline features for a secure item system that worked well in WoW. This is especially important when it comes to the RLM AH.
In the end, my opinion on games have always been like any other form of entertainment; I put money into a game and subjectively evaluate how much enjoyment I got out of it and therefore determine if the money spent was worth it. This will probably be the first game I play that can potentially pay for itself, legally, and that's kind of an exciting prospect.
I lived in a rural town where the only "high speed" internet was a wireless crap that ran through the town.. speeds were terrible when you weren't constantly being disconnected. Despite all that I still loved my time in wow. I will buy diablo 3 when it releases. I don't care about the online always thing.
TheCommander
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,999
There is no such a thing as a hack-free game or online game without cheaters. There were and are hacks/exploits in WOW and I'm sure people will come up with them for Diablo 3. How effective their always online DRM will be I don't know but I won't be surprised to see cheaters and people ruining the economy with bots in Diablo 3.
Last edited:
boss99
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,652
I'll say it with no shame whatsoever: I'm going to Blizzcon, I'm buying a minimum of 2 copies of Diablo 3 (maybe 3 if my son likes it), and will probably buy Starcraft 2 by the end of the year. If you choose not to, I cast no judgement. I'll be speaking with my dollars and I like Diablo.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Like what?
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,086
What's wrong with living in a rural area? Now I know that some people that live in metropolitan areas can't comprehend this, but try this one day. Get your driver's license and rent a car from Hertz. Plan a trip from say New York to Pennsylvania or something similar in distance. Report back how many square miles of "city" you ran into compared to the "rural" areas you encountered.
Now tell us again most of America is a city block.
The Devil coming down for a banjo contest.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/metropolitan_planning/cps2k.cfm
With respect to poeple living their lives, yes, most of America is a city block.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,086
How much area in square miles is considered city compared to rural. That's why I said drive or even take a bus ride from NY to VA that stops at lots of places. Use your eyes and see what America looks like; not what someone tells you on a website. If you think you're driving along a city block from NY to VA then I feel sorry for you.
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
Perhaps that's true.
Tell me something... when DICE announced that Battlefield 3 would be a DX10 only game, did you take up the cause for people who were still on Windows XP and wouldn't be able to play the game? How seriously would you entertain complaints from that group? Or would you, like I imagine most people here on [H] would, tell them to shut up and upgrade to Win 7 or skip the game? DICE made a conscious decision that the people still running Windows XP are not their customers. (And the percentage of those people are quite high... I'm looking at the Steam hardware survey page and if I'm reading it right, about 45% of gamers do not meet the requirements to play BF3). I'm thinking that's higher than the people who are not always connected but who knows. So how come Blizzard is suddenly not allowed to make the same decision of who their customers are and who aren't? Most gamers probably are always connected, and hell Blizzard has a game where 10 million people currently play while being online with no issues. They have the numbers to know that it works. If someone falls in the statistical minority of not being able to play online, this game simply isn't for them. They should ignore it just like they would ignore any other game that requires them to be online.
Tell me how it makes sense from a financial standpoint (aside from anti-piracy, since they explicitly stated that was not a goal of the decision) that it makes sense for them to EXCLUDE customers for no real benefit to the remaining customers?
In the case of BF3, the decision allows the programmers to focus on developing better artwork/programming that benefits people who are able to play.
In D3 the only real "benefit" is that a player can transition from single-player to multi-player with the same toon. If you look closely, this has the effect of requiring LESS play time for the player because they don't have to do the same thing twice. For me that means I am likely to get bored twice as fast.
I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't do it, I just don't believe for a second their argument for doing it. I believe their decision on this boiled down to something more like:
1) helps combat piracy - obvious
2) allows blizz to sell virtual services/items for RL cash - see some of their pricing fow WoW services, you can change your race for a mere $30 or buy a useless in-game pet for a few more dollars
3) opens up the opportunity for subscription-based content - want to see the latest dungeon? not unless you subscribe to the monthly $10 "premium content" fee
4) requiring you to be online will likely lead you to browse the auction house (if only out of curiosity)...where you can buy whatever for game currency...or if you don't have game currency, RL money. blizz will put a store in the game for you to spend your money, so you won't even have to go to the battlenet shop to torch your account
Sure this is going to cost them some customers, but there will be no shortage of cash to be made from it.
In the case of BF3, the decision allows the programmers to focus on developing better artwork/programming that benefits people who are able to play.
In D3 the only real "benefit" is that a player can transition from single-player to multi-player with the same toon. If you look closely, this has the effect of requiring LESS play time for the player because they don't have to do the same thing twice. For me that means I am likely to get bored twice as fast.
I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't do it, I just don't believe for a second their argument for doing it. I believe their decision on this boiled down to something more like:
1) helps combat piracy - obvious
2) allows blizz to sell virtual services/items for RL cash - see some of their pricing fow WoW services, you can change your race for a mere $30 or buy a useless in-game pet for a few more dollars
3) opens up the opportunity for subscription-based content - want to see the latest dungeon? not unless you subscribe to the monthly $10 "premium content" fee
4) requiring you to be online will likely lead you to browse the auction house (if only out of curiosity)...where you can buy whatever for game currency...or if you don't have game currency, RL money. blizz will put a store in the game for you to spend your money, so you won't even have to go to the battlenet shop to torch your account
Sure this is going to cost them some customers, but there will be no shortage of cash to be made from it.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,086
That is true. Then they shouldn't worry about rural people not buying their products. Yet they whine about piracy and PC having low adoption rates and the need for more DRM to generate sales; when in fact they are making products that many Americans have no access to. I just wished these companies would stop crying about trying to make back production costs when they aren't even trying to reach the rural demographic. They choose the DRM and we choose whether we support it or not.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
I agree with this exactly.
Im pretty sure there will be people who play Diablo 3, beat it a few times, then end up playing something else.
Buying items IRL isn't new; D2 had it, just not through Blizzard. Why not let them handle it if someone wants to buy something with real money? I personally don't, but who gives a shit what others do with their money? I could care less that you're not buying D3 (I don't know for certain you aren't, but for the sake of your post, I'll assume not), spend your money any which way you please.
That is how most games work ...
You beat them, then move on. Some examples for you of a few recent games: I played Batman AA through 2 times, not once have I picked it back up. I moved on. I played L4D2 through 1 time then played some mulitplayer. Guess what? I moved on. I'm currently still playing the SC2 campaign along with ladder games, after I'm done with the campaign I'll probably not play the single player again. I'll move on to Ladder exclusively. I play BFBC2 and beat the Single player a long time ago, not once have I touched the SP since; MP exclusively, and currently Rank 41. By the time BF3 comes out I'm sure I'll move on from BFBC2. I beat D2 nearly a decade ago, but it held my interest for a few years. Eventually I moved on. After playing WoW for about a year I maxed 2 toons that I played through the different expansions. Eventually I moved on and canceled my WoW sub. Do you see how this works?
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QvNkC30cQ&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QvNkC30cQ&feature=relmfu
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,387
bots and cheaters are not the same thing. If there are hacks in WoW that allow me to one shot a boss at level 1 or give me access to every item let me know. With the system Blizz is taking it is effectively cutting out a huge segment of the farming community. Will bots still probably be in the game? Maybe, but I'd imagine they will be farming epic's rather than money in which case more competition in the AH and the market in general. When I played WoW bots were few and far between, it was usually major guilds playing the AH and selling trash drops no one needed in the AH then selling the gold for money through the black market. Blizzard (with maybe the expection of the Battle Ground botting shit) has done a fairly good job of keeping WoW clean,
They have certainly done better than anyone else in regards to giving players a solid experience in my opinion. PunkBuster anyone?
EDIT: And there WILL be thrid party work arounds getting Diablo 3 to work in another fashion I guarantee it. Much like WoW has third party servers, I bet Diablo 3 will aswell or have a package you can download to host the entire database locally. I ran my own WoW server locally for awhile for fun.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, personally I don't care, it's inevitable that it will show up in games and already has. What bothers me is:
1) I believe they are being dishonest to their customers in the statements they've made, and it's the kind of dishonesty that's insulting to our intelligence as a gaming community. If they came out and said "this will help us prevent piracy, and allow us to offer additional content to our customers for small fees" I would have had more respect for them and not have this issue.
2) The bigger issue I have is that this is not an option, they are forcing it on the customer when the customer did not ask for it. Imagine, you buy a stand-alone game for the Wii or PS3 but can't play it unless you're connected to the web. What did you buy? I've spent a lot of my life overseas with the military and was able to pass a lot of the down time by playing games. If I can't play it without being online, and I can't be online, then they've discarded a customer. Keep in mind that they could make it playable without an internet connection, they are just chosing not to. This is why I would call that "discarding" customers rather than "losing" customers, because it's by their choice that they lose the sale, not the consumer.
They are still going to make a ton of money on it because most people want to play the game and don't care what type of crap they have to go through to play it. If I were the betting type I'd wager that most of the people who are against it are older gamers who enjoy freedom while the people who are for it or don't care are younger and are used to being tied to some network.
ChuckLogan
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 168
They've explained why the "Always On" policy. This isn't the first time we've seen this. SC player complained about it upon pre-launch, but when it hit the market, there wasn't much turmoil about it. Tournament and LAN parties usually had access in one form or another. I honestly cannot remember, in the last 10 years, a LAN party they didn't have internet access.
Do I consider it "discarding a customer"? Sure, but what, in actuality, is the percentage of player that don't have a constant internet connection? 5% ( feel like I'm being generous with this number too)? To them, from a business standpoint, you'll either make the accommodations to play this sequel or they've lost you in this particular product. This is still a mulit-million dollar project that will make this company revenue. They'll have bigger fish to fry such as, combating piracy, private servers, etc. than worry about a decimal point of boycotting customers.
If aspects of the IN-GAME flat out suck, I'll be the first to throw down my opinion, but there is why to much pre-launch complaining about game requirements. So far Blizzard hasn't let me down as a customer except the last few months of the degraded D2 that were filled with spam bots, but this was a long time ago (But I'll also say they supported and patched this game for many years, far more than any other game developer does/did, +1 credit there). Hopefully they can control these annoyances in D3.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
They never solved the rampant WoW account hacking or the spamming on WoW either.
Sources that say they are built upon the same game engine? Compare apples to apples next time.