This thread has taken a turn for the worse.
It did that a long time ago.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This thread has taken a turn for the worse.
Don't like the direction of gaming or PC gaming for that matter? Pick a new form of entertainment.
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.
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.
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.
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?
lol I know right? I'll be pre-ordering this game along with everybody else I know as soon as it is available.
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?
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!
Haha what the hell
How are the people in the peace corps gonna play their Diablo 3???
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?
Wait. Are you saying our boys up on the International Space Station can't play Diablo 3?
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.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/ars-guide-how-to-ruin-your-pc-port-in-five-easy-steps.arsDiablo 3 will also require a persistent Internet connection, and Blizzard's Rob Pardo agrees that it's kind of a pain in the butt. "I want to play Diablo 3 on my laptop in a plane, but, well, there are other games to play for times like that," he told 1up.
Just so we're clear, when you're bored on a plane, and you have your laptop, and you want to play the game you bought in order to fight boredom, Blizzard's official recommendation is that you play someone else's game. That's pride, right there.
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
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).
Your point is valid in the sense that those 0.01 percent are going to be screwed but because they lose out the other 99.99 % are going to have hack free dedicated support with a booming economy. I would much rather have hack free game play than to cater to people who live in the extreme as you mentioned. If they got exactly what they are asking for you would have rampant cheating online and hundreds of websites selling fake purples, etc. So yea, Blizzard is trying control in that aspect which the vast majority are perfectly fine with. The vast majority just want a solid game and Blizzard always delivers, if people wish to bitch about it they should probably just go cry in a corner because Blizzard is not going to cater to them.
i think if you live in rural area and have shitty internet
you have something much bigger than gaming to be focusing on
i think if you live in rural area and have shitty internet
you have something much bigger than gaming to be focusing on
Like what?
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.
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.
i think if you live in rural area and have shitty internet
you have something much bigger than gaming to be focusing on
Point: Not everyone can just go out and get good internet without changing their lifestyle
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.
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.
I agree with this exactly.
I'm pretty sure there will be people who play Diablo 3, beat it a few times, then end up playing something else.
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.
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.
<snip>
They never solved the rampant WoW account hacking or the spamming on WoW either.