Blizzard Begins Closed Beta Testing for Diablo 3

[FloKid]

[citation][nom]Travis Beane[/nom]Blizzard, you have taken my money, my time, and my life since ~1998.Gimme beta please.[/citation]

Same here bro, I don't think they have logs from that long ago to confirm our life's efforts : )

 

[dasper]

[citation][nom]envymert[/nom]YOU MAD BRO?[/citation]
lol, sometimes I feel like the only one that actually likes what they are doing. I want to be able to play the same toon on battle.net as I do in single play and not worry that someone else doing the same will hack or dupe their items. I want to see how this AH plays out and hopefully make the in game economy more stable because its loosely based on another monetary system. I like that all the data for our characters are server side so it is that much harder for someone to reverse engineer how do get and dupe items because they cannot cannot see the server side code or tinker around with local files. And when it comes to an Internet connection, I have it at home, work, my phone and on light rail and mass transportation. I cannot go anywhere without my body getting bombarded with wifi radio signals.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]envymert[/nom]I agree 100%, the people that bid are the ones who used trainers/hacks/dupes. I played a few characters to level 99 legit and actually like the constantly online thing to prevent hacks. I also love the people saying this will not stop hackers....Yes it will. If someone uses a dup, the Bnet servers run checks constantly with the information your computer sends them. If hacking/duping you will be caught and your Bnet account will have the Ban hammer dropped on it.[/citation]

I never used a trainer or a hack in Diablo or Diablo 2 and I do not like the online only requirement, so don't go using sweeping, false, generalizations.

I never understood the point of using a trainer or a hack, but guess what, someone else using it NEVER affected me, or you. To me, it would ruin the story and the immersion of the game and would prevent me from seeing the lore.

The only possible way it could have affected you was if you used the one online option is D2 to allow you to play your single player character online, but since you had the option to use the second, closed online system, if you did use that online optionm YOU made the choice, no one forced you too.

I don't understand this need to control what people do in their own single player environment. If Blizzard created a seperate offline mode and didn't allow items for that on the RMAH, something that would be incredibly easy to do, then there would be no fear of duped items showing up. Do you feel some need to control how people live other aspects of their lives to? Maybe you believe you should have a say so in how someone spends their own money?

All Blizzard would have to is sort of a reverse of what they did in D2. In D2, they had 2 online modes, one where you could bring your single player character online and a second, closed online mode where it was an online mode character only to avoid the cheating. In D3 all they need to do is create an offline single player mode where no items are allowed on the RMAH, thus making sure trainers, dupes, hacks, etc affect no one online, and then have the planned single player online mode. A simple server side tag of each item can ensure that no offline single player mode item can make it to the AH and would be just as effective as the current plan.

We also know by the previous announcement last week on how they intend to reduce lag that the client also has control over the game, so nothing stops there from being an offline single player mode.

All they have done with their current plans is to ensure that some people will not buy the game. Anyone who has been fans of Blizzard for any amount of time knows that a pre merger Blizzard was all about EXPANDING choices for gamers. The decisions surrounding D3 have all about decreasing the choices.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation]Also- Blizzard isn't supporting buying items. Buying items with cash outside the game was going to happen either way, just like it did in d2. They are just making it easy to do it this way so people don't get ripped off and have a bad experience with the game. PEOPLE BUY ITEMS EITHER WAY[/citation]
Sorry, but the fact that they are taking a cut of the sale does indeed prove they are suppoting buying items. How can you even say they aren't supporting it.

Yes, selling of items was done in D2. But since it was not sanctioned by Blizzard, there was no profit incentive to allow botters and farmers to keep playing. But if botters and farmers make Blizzard a tidy little profit, do you really think Bobby Kotick will let Morhaime and Blizzard put an end to them?

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]envymert[/nom]They are not taking servers offline like WoW, you do not connect to a server but a gateway. You will always have access. and its your game and what you do it is your own business ...sounds like someone is bad at video games. Just play it on EASY.In conclusion, YOU MAD BRO?[/citation]
And what happens if Blizzard's system is attacked like Sony's Playstation Network? Will you just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, it doesn't matter that I can't play this game I paid money for"? If you say yes, I seriously would not believe you.

And if there was no offline mode for D1 that game would be uterly worthless now because there is no online support for it. Yet somehow that game is still on sale online and at stores. Yes, it's been out for over 10 years, but a lot of fans still play it. In 10+ years when they decide to not support D3 anymore online because they want the resources for other titles, will you be fine with that? Because I don't know any true franchise fan that would be.

 

[samanosuke47]

Yay Diablo 3!

I KISSed that. lol

 

[thrasher32]

Wah wah wah everybody always has something to bitch about.

I personally can't wait for Diablo 3.

 

[Jprobes]

[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]And what happens if Blizzard's system is attacked like Sony's Playstation Network? Will you just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, it doesn't matter that I can't play this game I paid money for"? If you say yes, I seriously would not believe you.And if there was no offline mode for D1 that game would be uterly worthless now because there is no online support for it. Yet somehow that game is still on sale online and at stores. Yes, it's been out for over 10 years, but a lot of fans still play it. In 10+ years when they decide to not support D3 anymore online because they want the resources for other titles, will you be fine with that? Because I don't know any true franchise fan that would be.[/citation]

Hopefully by then the worlds economy will have collapsed and the ensuing anarchy will destroy any and all electrical distribution in the country, so I doubt any apocalyptic hypothetical situations you can think of will not be valid.

WELCOME TO THE THUNDERDOME!

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]Jprobes[/nom]Hopefully by then the worlds economy will have collapsed and the ensuing anarchy will destroy any and all electrical distribution in the country, so I doubt any apocalyptic hypothetical situations you can think of will not be valid.WELCOME TO THE THUNDERDOME![/citation]
Hypothetical? Sorry, it's not hypothetical that Sony's Playstation Network was hacked and was down for nearly 2 months making all games that needed an online requirement through it unplayable. That was in deed a fact. It is very reasonable to think that if it can happen to Sony it can happen to Blizzard.

It is also not hypothetical about the original Diablo no longer being supported for online play. It no longer can be. The only way to play it is the offline single player mode. However, because it does indeed have an offline single player mode it is still on sale at stores and on online stores.

So I ask you, what did I present that was was so incredulous for you to believe?

 

[Jprobes]

Ugh... is this really happening?

I have to think about this for a minute.

What I don't quite understand, with all due respect, is why you keep bringing Sony up when quite honestly they are irrelevant.

I understand that they got hacked and their service was down. The reasons for why it was down so long solely lies at the feet of Sony. When you do not prepare for such attacks and you leave everyone's personal information un-encrypted for people to steal, the penalty you pay as a company is significant.

If anything, what happened to Sony is a lesson learned for a lot of company's without having to pay the costs. We can sit here and debate the reasons why Sony was hacked, that is a different story.

I see your reasoning in using another companies mistakes as an action against another company, I just think its false to assume as much, which you do.

America dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan, Fact. Those have been the only 2 Atomic weapons used against mankind.

Just because one company got hacked, doesn't necessarily mean that another company is vulnerable, or not vulnerable. That is life, the unexpected becoming reality faster than reality can be justified.

In the end, nothing lasts for ever, regardless of how much money you originally spent on it. It will eventually die, and so will you.

I think it is unrealistic to expect a company to support a game 10-15 years after its release, whether or not it is online or offline.

Diablo 1 was released in 1996 and Diablo 2 in 2000, the latter is still supported online.

The justification for your argument is moot using Blizzard as an example. They still support the latest releases to their games that are still on the store shelves, 11 years after being released. You can still utilize the online functionality of these games.

To suggest that Battle.net will not be around in 10 to 15 years to authenticate purchases is hard to believe, as a essential component of a highly successful game developers business. It not being available anymore would equate to Blizzard no longer being around, which is just about as likely as Southern California having a atomic bomb dropped on it,

In the end, Diablo 3 is a game, developed by Blizzard. They can do what they want with it and suffer the consequences of their decisions when and if anything happens.

But to take a stance against a game because of hypothetical functionality conflicts 15 years after the game has been released is a stretch for any imagination.

People don't become fans of games and franchises because they can play them 15 years later. You want that longevity, go invest in a board game.

In closing, i have my suspicions about "true franchise fans" and what you and I equate as such. To me, a "true franchise fan" would embrace any title, as long as the quality was good, regardless to whether or not that title's full capabilities would be available 10-15 years after it initial release.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]Jprobes[/nom]Ugh... is this really happening?I have to think about this for a minute.What I don't quite understand, with all due respect, is why you keep bringing Sony up when quite honestly they are irrelevant.I understand that they got hacked and their service was down. The reasons for why it was down so long solely lies at the feet of Sony. When you do not prepare for such attacks and you leave everyone's personal information un-encrypted for people to steal, the penalty you pay as a company is significant. If anything, what happened to Sony is a lesson learned for a lot of company's without having to pay the costs. We can sit here and debate the reasons why Sony was hacked, that is a different story.I see your reasoning in using another companies mistakes as an action against another company, I just think its false to assume as much, which you do.America dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan, Fact. Those have been the only 2 Atomic weapons used against mankind.Just because one company got hacked, doesn't necessarily mean that another company is vulnerable, or not vulnerable. That is life, the unexpected becoming reality faster than reality can be justified.In the end, nothing lasts for ever, regardless of how much money you originally spent on it. It will eventually die, and so will you.I think it is unrealistic to expect a company to support a game 10-15 years after its release, whether or not it is online or offline.Diablo 1 was released in 1996 and Diablo 2 in 2000, the latter is still supported online.The justification for your argument is moot using Blizzard as an example. They still support the latest releases to their games that are still on the store shelves, 11 years after being released. You can still utilize the online functionality of these games.To suggest that Battle.net will not be around in 10 to 15 years to authenticate purchases is hard to believe, as a essential component of a highly successful game developers business. It not being available anymore would equate to Blizzard no longer being around, which is just about as likely as Southern California having a atomic bomb dropped on it,In the end, Diablo 3 is a game, developed by Blizzard. They can do what they want with it and suffer the consequences of their decisions when and if anything happens.But to take a stance against a game because of hypothetical functionality conflicts 15 years after the game has been released is a stretch for any imagination.People don't become fans of games and franchises because they can play them 15 years later. You want that longevity, go invest in a board game.In closing, i have my suspicions about "true franchise fans" and what you and I equate as such. To me, a "true franchise fan" would embrace any title, as long as the quality was good, regardless to whether or not that title's full capabilities would be available 10-15 years after it initial release.[/citation]
Irrelevant? Only "one" company that got hacked? I guess the Citibank hack didn't exist? Companies are hacked all the time. I brought Sony up because they are the most relevant to gamers.

And considering one of Activision Blizzard's biggest partners, Facebook, has a huge target on them by Anonymous, it is quite reasonable to think that Blizzard would be a target as well. And their security is often in question. WoW has been the target of hackers for years. WoW accounts are stolen regularly, the game is hacked and botted with Blizzard completely unsuccessful to end it. Each time they make a "fix" the fix is worked around in a day or two.

And I never suggested that battle.net would not be around. What I said was that since Diablo's online support has ended, which it has, then when Diablo 3's online support ends, then D3 becomes useless. Considering franchise fans still play Diablo even if it has to be single player mode, and the game is still for sale, and sales well, then the online requirement for even single player is shortsighted.

I stand by my statement that pre merger Blizzard was all about expanding choices for gamers, while the Bobby Kotick era has seen Blizzard decreasing choices.