It doesn't sound like he enjoyed all of those 300 hours, even though he made $200. It sounds like it was work for him and games shouldn't be work, they should be fun entertainment. I played through Normal or whatever and have no desire to go any further with the game. Fortunately, I only paid $10 for my copy since I had gift certificates. I got my $10 out of it, I'm done.So you got 300 hours of entertainment from a game that cost $60 ... how high is the bar on entertainment becoming... assuming you went to bargain shows at the movies ($5) you would spend $750 for 300 hours ... you would need 20 DVD season sets for equivalent time ($800+ assuming $40 per set) ... I have only put 100 hours or so in D3 before I moved on to other things but I thought I got my monies worth at least (and I might try again one of these days ... just too many things competing for my limited free time
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Diablo III Already Under $10?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
Ah ... but if you kept going for 290 hours, whose fault is that
... I don't argue that D3 didn't have its flaws (ironically so did D2 until after the expansion and several patches) ... call me irresponsible but if I can't decide if something is fun after 100 hours that is just shame on me ... it is notable that this sale has Assassin's Creed and Batman Arkham City on sale for $9.99 also ... pretty sure those games aren't considered trips into the Heart of Darkness 
DraginDime
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,464
I got diablo III with the annual pass for WoW. I put about 30 hours into it and that's been it. I quit playing before the RMAH was put in place. To me the game just felt old and the non adjustable camera killed me. It would have been nice to be able to zoom in and look more closely at your characters at least. I honestly kind of expected a game similar to the playstyle of WoW, but in the diablo universe with updated graphics.
I played D2 and it was one of my favorite games back in the early 2000's. To me D3 was just a major let down. At $10 it's worth at least 1 run through.
I played D2 and it was one of my favorite games back in the early 2000's. To me D3 was just a major let down. At $10 it's worth at least 1 run through.
I played D2 for months and months back in 2001/2002. In fact I didnt finish the expansion until a few months ago when I dug out my saved games and loaded it up again.
I was going to get D3 but the reaction was poor so did not bother.
However, I bought Torchlight II for £10 this weekend and I have to say its superb.
Plays like D2, sounds like D2 but just looks hows a 2012 game ought to. Also impressed it works so well on my work PC with just a passive 6450 in it!
I was going to get D3 but the reaction was poor so did not bother.
However, I bought Torchlight II for £10 this weekend and I have to say its superb.
Plays like D2, sounds like D2 but just looks hows a 2012 game ought to. Also impressed it works so well on my work PC with just a passive 6450 in it!
I'm not here to defend the game but FORCED to spend Real-money?? Please.
I've been playing since launch day and didn't spend a single $ on the game.
My monk faceroll Act 3 Inferno in MF gear now (Inferno is nerfed to the ground compared to when I first started). You just need to invest time and farm in this game and get lucky on loots... like it always been in Diablo games....
If you want to get strong fast and faceroll everything... yes you will need to invest Real-Money but what is the point then? Once you kill everything and don't need any upgrade... why keep playing? The Item Hunt is the key to keep playing.. my gambling nature keeps me going!
PureBooYah
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,363
If you're not having fun then why are you playing it? I don't know about you but I don't play games that I don't find fun.
I put about 200+ hours into D3, spent no money on RMAH, and beat Inferno. I also had fun doing it (90% of the time I was grouped with a buddy). Wasn't the best game I ever played but I still had fun. Also made about $20.
Yes, people love to bitch and troll. But in D3's case, it's completely warranted. This is coming from a guy that played WoW with 300+ days played (most of it in vanilla). THAT was fun. How can you seriously go through the same crap over and over, 1000x more redundantly than WoW but without the mmorpg aspect and think it was fun?
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,878
I'm still not interested at this price.
Diablo III was a huge letdown, and probably only worth the $9.98 IMHO, and that is a stretch.
It's a completely item dependent shadow of RPG, and yet 95% of the items suck. All classes are looking for the exact same armor with resist all and vitality (and primary stat intelligence, dex, strength), and almost all the skills (80% of which are useless) depended on weapon DPS (damage per second). You can't enhance any skill power with extra points, and you can't even modify skill points or attributes like dexterity, vitality, strength, or intelligence on level up. It's automagically done.
Going to the gold auction house is crap, as all useful items are inflated by gold farmers (who sell gold on the side for moeny, I might add). I was actually lucky that I had two rings and an amulet that were useful for me that I didn't have to buy from the auction house.
The story was horrible. The Diablos have never had great stories, but this was seriously bad.
In addition, I can't remember how many times I was lag-killed because of a lag spike, as the always on DRM probably cost me a few hundreds of thousands of gold too due to repair costs. This with my low ping and high bandwidth connection.
What an over-hyped piece of crap. I put most of my time in multiplay with my friends and we all quit about two months ago.
Good riddance.
We've moved on to TorchLight II and enjoying it far more. It's far more polished and varied. Skill points matter, and the item hunt is far more fun.
My memories of Diablo II are pretty good, as I was in my 20s when I was playing it. It was a far better game over all. They should have just re-released it with updated graphics and a few fixes, and people would have preferred it to this fuster-cluck.
Add to it that the devs were talking about a high-degree of build diversity, and most people feel duped. Jay Wilson my @$$
It's a completely item dependent shadow of RPG, and yet 95% of the items suck. All classes are looking for the exact same armor with resist all and vitality (and primary stat intelligence, dex, strength), and almost all the skills (80% of which are useless) depended on weapon DPS (damage per second). You can't enhance any skill power with extra points, and you can't even modify skill points or attributes like dexterity, vitality, strength, or intelligence on level up. It's automagically done.
Going to the gold auction house is crap, as all useful items are inflated by gold farmers (who sell gold on the side for moeny, I might add). I was actually lucky that I had two rings and an amulet that were useful for me that I didn't have to buy from the auction house.
The story was horrible. The Diablos have never had great stories, but this was seriously bad.
In addition, I can't remember how many times I was lag-killed because of a lag spike, as the always on DRM probably cost me a few hundreds of thousands of gold too due to repair costs. This with my low ping and high bandwidth connection.
What an over-hyped piece of crap. I put most of my time in multiplay with my friends and we all quit about two months ago.
Good riddance.
We've moved on to TorchLight II and enjoying it far more. It's far more polished and varied. Skill points matter, and the item hunt is far more fun.
My memories of Diablo II are pretty good, as I was in my 20s when I was playing it. It was a far better game over all. They should have just re-released it with updated graphics and a few fixes, and people would have preferred it to this fuster-cluck.
Add to it that the devs were talking about a high-degree of build diversity, and most people feel duped. Jay Wilson my @$$
And people like you like to suck the teat of game companies with a blind eye. Compare Diablo 3 with Diablo II, you'll see how shitty 3 actually is.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,878
I actually haven't played Diablo III so it puts me in a poor place to compare them (I did play Diablo II back in the day, and while I liked it at first, over time it turned in to Progress Quest...
I feel if Diablo II were released today, with modern graphics it would be even shittier than Diablo III.
Diablo II was good in its day because of the time in which it was launched. The expectation of gamer's has changed since then. Games have gotten richer, deeper, full of more story lines, and more immersive since.
That - to me - is the failing of Diablo III. It takes Diablo II, improves graphics, tweaks it a little bit, but it is still the same general concept, and that concept worked well in 2000 (even if it wasn't my thing), but in 2012, no matter how well made, the same concept likely isn't going to work.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Zarathustra[H];1039214493 said:
No, not really at all. You mean games have become more cinematic.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Ah ... but if you kept going for 290 hours, whose fault is that
Similar response so I'll tackle two for one
Why are you playing that long? Perhaps to see if there is fun somewhere to be had? The stick and carrot model is quite an effective tool even in video games.
Note I'm not defending, or supporting, the statements on whether or not the game is fun or not, just that the assumption that hours put in translates to money well spent is a silly idea. I've played Master of Orion 3 for a number of hours too, but again that was me trying to find the fun, trying to find something that made the game redeemable. 300 hours is a bit much, but eh, then again there's the WoW phenomena too
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,878
No, not at all.
Back when Diablo II was released, there were some story driven games for some time, but they were mostly Adventure type games, like Sierra Games or LucasArts games. (to be fair, System Shock had been out for some time, but it never really caught on like later story based games did)
Half Life had kind of started the transition from mindless shooter games, to more of a story being involved on the FPS front when it was released two years earlier, but that had not yet been fully cemented by Deus Ex, released the year after and Half Life II a few years after that.
Many games were still just mindless shooters and mass clickers like Diablo II, and that worked back then, as people hadn't gotten used to games with richer story lines yet.
Today, in a world post Deus Ex, Half Life II, Bioshock, Mass effect (well, at least until that horrible ending in 3) Fallout, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. it takes a lot more to make a good games. We are less likely to be happy with these mindless fast paced clickers and shooters today than we were in 2000.
I think that's evident in many remakes of games, where they just don't do the originals justice, not because they aren't as good as the originals (in many cases they are better), but because we and our expectations have changed.
Mr. Perfect
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
- Messages
- 226
Zarathustra[H];1039214493 said:
There is certain amount of truth to the idea that Diablo 2 was good for when it came out. Still, Diablo 3 has some seriously shoddy work in the story. It plays out like a soap opera! There was one scene where the hero, two bad-ass NPCs and the act's obviously-soon-to-be-boss where standing around in a tiny house talking. TALKING! The monster had been heckling us and trying to kill us for the whole act, yet everyone was standing around having a conversation that would fit right in on Days Of Our Lives. There was cheesy lines, overly dramatic soap opera voice overs and in the end everyone let the boss get away. Double you tea eff?
In Diablo 2, the bosses didn't arrange a meeting to explain their dastardly plan, they just ran up and hit you in the face with a unique fireball spell that negated your armor! I honestly think Blizzard's writers have spent to much time writing the story in WoW, because it was the same sort of crap I've winced at in countless instance boss battles.Similar response so I'll tackle two for one
Why are you playing that long? Perhaps to see if there is fun somewhere to be had? The stick and carrot model is quite an effective tool even in video games.
Note I'm not defending, or supporting, the statements on whether or not the game is fun or not, just that the assumption that hours put in translates to money well spent is a silly idea. I've played Master of Orion 3 for a number of hours too, but again that was me trying to find the fun, trying to find something that made the game redeemable. 300 hours is a bit much, but eh, then again there's the WoW phenomena too
This all goes back to the skinner box concept. They design the game to keep you playing even if you aren't having fun. Cracked did a post on it and another post is here.
SamuraiInBlack
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 5,771
So you got 300 hours of entertainment from a game that cost $60 ... how high is the bar on entertainment becoming
300 hours of grinding != 300 hours of having fun.
Ask anyone who's played a grindfest MMO.
Diablo 2 by comparison was way more fun for me. There hasn't been a single moment I can recall where it felt like a grindfest for gear, even when I really was trying to find decent gear for whatever character I was playing.
It also didn't have a single player tied to an online authenticator, so I could actually do what the hell I want and enjoy it at my own pace, without ruining anyone else's idea of fun, not to mention, I could fire it up and play it any damned time I want, and not when the almighty Blizzard says I can because their servers aren't down for maintenance when I feel like playing.
Outamyhead
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,263
Maybe this is why demo's are hard to come by these days, a good portion of the games are s#!te, and the few jems still being made still supply a demo, because good advertising doesn't mean it's going to be awesome.
Compare a Bentley to a BMW and you'll see just how shitty a BMW is. Comparing D2 to D3 is apples and oranges. No game compares to D2. Compare TL2 to D2 and you'll see just how shitty TL2 is.
Diablo 2 is the king. Everyone knows this. But Diablo 3 didn't attempt to make a Diablo 2 clone like TL2 did. So I don't compare it to D2.
Diablo 3 is an outstanding game it not being as good as D2 doesn't make it a bad game.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Zarathustra[H];1039214730 said:
I think you should just say you haven't played those games that were way way more in depth, had massively layered stories and immersiveness. We had stuff that hasn't been even approached since, like Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate 1-2, Fallout 1-2, Arcanum, Wizardry 7-8, Morrowind and so on.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
Zarathustra[H];1039214493 said:
No. Jay Wilson had DII to look at. Except instead of building up from DII, he just cut shit.
Where are:
Jewels
Charms
Runes
Horaderic Cube
Boss loot tables
Talent trees (you know, to actually BUILD a character)
Random maps
If that shit was in D3, who knows... it might have been a good game. But yea, too much shit cut and simplified. Advertised 'build diversity' was a load of bullshit. Everyone specs the same shit because 80% of the moves are absolute trash and poorly thought out. Everyone gears the same because there are only a few good stats, and then there's garbage stats thrown into the mix. Gold pickup range? who the fuck thought of that?
FOUR gem types. 4. only two of which any class at a given time will give a shit about.
ugh, i could rant forever. so, shutting up.
This thing that bothers me the most. Is the time they took to finish D3. I mean how many years did they work on it total? And it kept getting delayed, delayed, etc.
And everybody though, oh well, its OK, because if they are taking more time, then that means they are profecting it, making it even better.
What they did with this game they gave us, should have taken what.... 1 year development at best?
And everybody though, oh well, its OK, because if they are taking more time, then that means they are profecting it, making it even better.
What they did with this game they gave us, should have taken what.... 1 year development at best?
LeviathanZERO
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 6,496
Calling this game "alpha" is way overstated. I'd call it an early beta but still...I'm one of those disappointed people too.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
Calling this game "alpha" is way overstated. I'd call it an early beta but still...I'm one of those disappointed people too.
I thought beta meant feature complete? until pvp is in, Alpha is where it's at
How about NO, Scott!
D3 is NOT an outstanding game. It was flawed from it's inception and just went downhill from there. You can fanboy about it all you want. That's not going to change anyone's opinion about the game.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I can't argue with anyone on whether D3 is a good game (from their perspective or not) but I think some folks forget how many iterations D2 went through ... it launched with 640x480 resolution (which many whined about at the time) and it only increased to 800x600 in the expansion ... they didn't add popular features like Runewords until the expansion ... they tweaked balance multiple times sometimes invalidating builds completely ... and the online component was like the Wild Wild West ... although D3 hasn't been perfect it does have appeal for some ... as long as Blizzard continues to support the game (like they did for D2) I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt ... I mean, seriously, how many game companies continue to support their game 10 years after the original launch (or even 5 years for that matter)
Bingo. People(noobs? kids? who knows) seem to either forget or be completely unaware of the games that came out between '97-'02(obviously there were far fewer PC users back then), that had all of the depth, story telling, immersion, etc. of any modern game but the only thing they were "lacking" by comparison today is in graphics and sound(and even that's not always the case). Diablo 2 managed to stand out as a fun action "rpg" that people played for more than the first few weeks it was out. No, not everyone played it 4-6 hours a day like their WoW "career", but it was something that you could start up for a couple hours a week over the course of a couple of years, kill some time for a bit after work/school and move onto something else for the rest of your day.
Diablo 3 dumbed things down, tried to crank up how "epic" it could be(and as someone rightfully pointed out, made it to be more of a soap opera with a silly plot), lacking in features(wtf is with launching without PvP and still not having that months later?), and a game difficulty(inferno) that until it was nerfed seem to do nothing but support gold farmers/sellers(and their spam, we all love a constant stream of spam in the chat of our games) and drive people to the RMAH eventually(I didn't spend a dime on it).
Also, even saying planescape tormet, baldur's gate, wizardry etc. were somehow the start of games with an immersive story and universe would be silly. That goes as far back as Ultima with lore in the manual, sequels that were tied to eachother(except 9... **** that game). Might & Magic had huge worlds, complex character elements that allowed you to drastically change your playstyle, stories, spin offs, etc. For someone to be unaware of any of this in the 90's they either paid no attention to what was going on(people seem to be happier to watch a 2 minute CG cut scene that looks amazing, but not read about the history of the characters, world, etc.), weren't born yet(not their fault, that's just how it is), or just weren't into these sorts of games back then.
Heck, even the old point and click adventure games from companies like Sierra were all about story, character development, plots, and so on. and there were tons of them.
How about NO, Scott!
D3 is NOT an outstanding game. It was flawed from it's inception and just went downhill from there. You can fanboy about it all you want. That's not going to change anyone's opinion about the game.
The only part you are correct about is changing others opinions. Haters gona hate and ant nothing nobody says or does is going to stop that. This tread is proof of that taking an erroneous clam that the game's price has dropped to 10 bucks and making news out of it. Cheapest you can find this game on ebay is about 40 bucks MSRP is still 59.99.
I don't get why people hate this game. Yes, it has flaws, it isn't perfect, in fact it is far from it. It might not be as in-depth when compared to D2 w/exp or any other games out there. But you know what, they are patching the game and improving the game every patch that was released. This tells me that Blizzard is still committed to providing the best experience possible in this game. I'll be sure to play after every patch that gets released and that to me is well worth the $60 investment (or $10 investment).
copperiodide
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 9
Check this ARPG out guys:
http://www.pathofexile.com/
You can get access to the private beta for 10 bucks, or just wait for the open beta or release. The game will be free.
http://www.pathofexile.com/
You can get access to the private beta for 10 bucks, or just wait for the open beta or release. The game will be free.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
FFS, "THEY" are not the ones who dropped the price, Toys R Us did because they're liquidating the PC game part of the stores, meaning no more PC games ever. They could have sold them at slightly cheaper I'm sure and not take such a financial hit, assuming they had a lot of copies, but they more likely than not wanted them gone ASAP.
Sure they'll continue to patch it, but you can polish a turd all you want...
I hope they put the Diablo name to rest after this travesty. I would rather have spent the $60 on getting my dick slammed in the door by some prostitute.
I guess I got 20 or 30 hours of gameplay on the first play through. I muddled around a bit but gave up in Act 2 on the second playthrough. Overall 40-50 hours, for 60 bucks? That's not horrible, I mean a 2 hour movie costs $10.
But since I pre-ordered I did go through all the launch BS, and I don't know how something in development for SOOOOO long could be that buggy but it was. I'd count $20 off my enjoyment value for all the games I got kicked off of (in SINGLE player!) or couldn't play at all because Battle.net wouldn't log me in.
So $40 would have been a better price.
Torchlight 2 looks awesome for $20. But I'm not ready to jump back into that genre just yet. I am in the middle of Borderlands 2 and enjoying the hell out of it (even on SINGLE player). Oh and that's an always connected game that works EVERY TIME even on LAUNCH day. Suck that, Blizzard.
But since I pre-ordered I did go through all the launch BS, and I don't know how something in development for SOOOOO long could be that buggy but it was. I'd count $20 off my enjoyment value for all the games I got kicked off of (in SINGLE player!) or couldn't play at all because Battle.net wouldn't log me in.
So $40 would have been a better price.
Torchlight 2 looks awesome for $20. But I'm not ready to jump back into that genre just yet. I am in the middle of Borderlands 2 and enjoying the hell out of it (even on SINGLE player). Oh and that's an always connected game that works EVERY TIME even on LAUNCH day. Suck that, Blizzard.
No one was expecting it to be perfect at launch. It's still missing a major gameplay feature(pvp), was designed to discourage multiplayer on inferno for months(like I said previously, that's apparently been recently resolved), still has tons of gold spammers and sellers, still had drop rates nerfed to try and combat gold farmers, insanely high repair costs for better gear(made more irritating by the gold drop nerfs), a dwindling player base(last time I bothered loading it was the 1.03 patch, Inferno chapters had 20-30 people at a time playing at the most, that's hardly anyone), crappy system maintenance so you can't even just casually play SP when you want to, flavor of the month skill builds, etc.
if you want to keep playing, go ahead. We aren't going to stop you. Our negative opinions of the game shouldn't stop you. Just keep in mind that it doesn't somehow make you anymore "correct" than anyone else.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514