- Status
I want lan play. I do not want to be forced to connect to a specific service or company just to play single player or multiplayer over lan. I've grown up as a gamer and even my gamer name came from my first wizard character in Diablo 1. My son and I were excited about playing against one another over the lan with both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, until... well, we can't now, can we...
I have no desire to buy 2 copies of these games now and am looking at other "alternatives" or games to play over lan. I don't condone certain activities that go on with PC games community, but now I understand why...
Also, just because everyone has internet doesn't mean that we should be forced to use it to play.
I have no desire to buy 2 copies of these games now and am looking at other "alternatives" or games to play over lan. I don't condone certain activities that go on with PC games community, but now I understand why...
Also, just because everyone has internet doesn't mean that we should be forced to use it to play.
Way to publicly announce that you are killing off your own title blizzard. I was a big fan the Diablo series but I will not buy Diablo 3 because it requires an internet connection so I wouldn't be able to play it regularly.
dragonsqrrl
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2009
- 1,280
- 0
- 19,290
[citation][nom]mchuf[/nom]Boy, I see the Blizzard fanboys are in full force here. Thumbs down on all anti-Blizzard posts while giving the thumbs up to all pro-Blizzard posts. What's the problem, you don't want people reading the opposing viewpoints?[/citation]
I've read through them, and the "anti-Blizzard posts" you refer to seem to consist largely of ignorance and or baseless fear mongering. The only somewhat legitimate complaint I've heard so far are from those in rural areas that have absolutely no alternative to dial-up, which is unfortunate.
But these people should also understand that offline titles will increasingly become the exception as opposed to the rule in the coming years. It's just really sad that the US is practically the only developed nation in the world where this is still such a big problem for people. I would suggest putting more effort into doing something about the stagnant ISP industry, or the aging telecommunications infrastructure in the US. Complaining and hating on a game developer for creating an online only title, when this is the logical direction technology as a whole is advancing in, seems just a bit backwards and counterproductive to me.
I've read through them, and the "anti-Blizzard posts" you refer to seem to consist largely of ignorance and or baseless fear mongering. The only somewhat legitimate complaint I've heard so far are from those in rural areas that have absolutely no alternative to dial-up, which is unfortunate.
But these people should also understand that offline titles will increasingly become the exception as opposed to the rule in the coming years. It's just really sad that the US is practically the only developed nation in the world where this is still such a big problem for people. I would suggest putting more effort into doing something about the stagnant ISP industry, or the aging telecommunications infrastructure in the US. Complaining and hating on a game developer for creating an online only title, when this is the logical direction technology as a whole is advancing in, seems just a bit backwards and counterproductive to me.
wildkitten
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 816
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]therabiddeer[/nom]I am sorry, but I have actually been playing WoW since a couple of days after release, and what you are saying is ACTUALLY retarded. The fact that you got the same drops the next week has nothing to do with a GM, it is random chance. I didnt get my T6 shoulders on my druid for 4 months... do you think a GM just hated me and thus prevented them from dropping? The fact that you didnt put in a ticket further shows that you are just clueless and paranoid about nothing. In regards to Kara and BT drop rates, care to reference some specific changes in droprates?In regards to your supply and demand argument... that actually doesnt matter to blizzard. The rate that they charge is a FIXED amount, not a percentage of what you sell for (they do not get a cut, they charge a fee). So they would benefit more from letting kickass items drop more frequently as they could get more AH listings. Thanks once again for showing your ignorance.[/citation]
So the GM popping into the instance and telling us that was niot the GM, just a figment of our imagination? And you call others retarded?
And yes, Blizzard often tinkered with drop rates back in Kara and BC. They even talked about it on the old forums.
So the GM popping into the instance and telling us that was niot the GM, just a figment of our imagination? And you call others retarded?
And yes, Blizzard often tinkered with drop rates back in Kara and BC. They even talked about it on the old forums.
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]I've read through them, and the "anti-Blizzard posts" you refer to seem to consist largely of ignorance and or baseless fear mongering. The only somewhat legitimate complaint I've heard so far are from those in rural areas that have absolutely no alternative to dial-up, which is unfortunate. But these people should also understand that offline titles will increasingly become the exception as opposed to the rule in the coming years. It's just really sad that the US is practically the only developed nation in the world where this is still such a big problem for people. I would suggest putting more effort into doing something about the stagnant ISP industry, or the aging telecommunications infrastructure in the US. Complaining and hating on a game developer for creating an online only title, when this is the logical direction technology as a whole is advancing in, seems just a bit backwards and counterproductive to me.[/citation]
So basically, saying bad things about Blizzard is ignorate and fear-mongering. And is not a legitimate viewpoint, even when done in a logical manner? So how many posts have you "thumbs downed"?
So basically, saying bad things about Blizzard is ignorate and fear-mongering. And is not a legitimate viewpoint, even when done in a logical manner? So how many posts have you "thumbs downed"?
wildkitten
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 816
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]therabiddeer[/nom]1) They havent said it, its kind of assumed because of the way drops are done in any given game that has drops of any kind at all. A game doesnt favor a particular person, the game assigns a variable to an item that is known as a drop rate (among other variables, like item level) which determines how frequently an item CAN drop (not how frequently it WILL drop). They also said they will nerf stats in terms of BALANCE, not in terms of QUANTITY. If an item is overpowered, it will have stats reduced, not because everybody happens to get one.2) Blizzards site IS secure. The initial domain is not secure, but everything involving your account and login is done securely. Also, I am pretty sure that patches have been released quite smoothly since like... TBC. If you want to try patching a thousand servers with a complex patch, go ahead... but I think they are doing damned good. The last part of this paragraph just further emphasizes that you are not using logic in any form, but bitter hate towards blizzard for all of these posts.3) SC2 battle.net lag is not lag on bnet's end. In 98% of cases it is on the users end. Yes, there is the rare 2% where it occurs for battle.net, but it is exceedingly rare. Nobody that I play SC2 with talks about lag, and we mostly play at a decently high level. The ONLY time lag comes into play is when you are playing on the korean servers from america (or the other way around) and thats mostly unavoidable.[/citation]
1.) Actually they did say that if too much of an item appears on the auction house they will then nerf that item. That was said weeks ago when they announced the real money AH. And with the server controlling the drops.
2.) No, Blizzards main web site is not secure. Go to battle.net. The main page is NOT an https page. Yet if you are a Blizzard subscriber there sits your real name. That shows that this unsecured page is pulling information from a person's account and displaying it on the main page. if there is a path to pull up a persons name, that same path can be used to pull up any other information. Ever since they went to the new web site last year people have been asking Blizzard to explain what steps they are taking for people's information to be secure, especially after the Sony hack. They have refused to ever answer that question.
3.) And the SC2 lag my friends talk about is yes, what other players cause. However, as they describe about how those other players throttle their connection, it does indeed cause lag for the other players.
1.) Actually they did say that if too much of an item appears on the auction house they will then nerf that item. That was said weeks ago when they announced the real money AH. And with the server controlling the drops.
2.) No, Blizzards main web site is not secure. Go to battle.net. The main page is NOT an https page. Yet if you are a Blizzard subscriber there sits your real name. That shows that this unsecured page is pulling information from a person's account and displaying it on the main page. if there is a path to pull up a persons name, that same path can be used to pull up any other information. Ever since they went to the new web site last year people have been asking Blizzard to explain what steps they are taking for people's information to be secure, especially after the Sony hack. They have refused to ever answer that question.
3.) And the SC2 lag my friends talk about is yes, what other players cause. However, as they describe about how those other players throttle their connection, it does indeed cause lag for the other players.
wildkitten
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 816
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]I've read through them, and the "anti-Blizzard posts" you refer to seem to consist largely of ignorance and or baseless fear mongering. The only somewhat legitimate complaint I've heard so far are from those in rural areas that have absolutely no alternative to dial-up, which is unfortunate. But these people should also understand that offline titles will increasingly become the exception as opposed to the rule in the coming years. It's just really sad that the US is practically the only developed nation in the world where this is still such a big problem for people. I would suggest putting more effort into doing something about the stagnant ISP industry, or the aging telecommunications infrastructure in the US. Complaining and hating on a game developer for creating an online only title, when this is the logical direction technology as a whole is advancing in, seems just a bit backwards and counterproductive to me.[/citation]
So pointing out what just happened to Sony and by making Diablo 3 online only even for single player means that the game is susceptible to be down for weeks if (and likely when) Blizzard is attacked is not legitimate? Please explain that.
Sorry, but cloud computing is getting ridiculous and I'm sorry, but you can gloss over things all you want, but there is a definite difference in Blizz post merger with Vivenid making Bobby Kotick the CEO then what they were before it. I don't blame the true Blizzard people, there's not much they can do unless they wish to end up like how Infinity Ward was treated, but the fact remains, decisions being made by them all seem to revolve around revenue. The amount of double talk shows that.
So pointing out what just happened to Sony and by making Diablo 3 online only even for single player means that the game is susceptible to be down for weeks if (and likely when) Blizzard is attacked is not legitimate? Please explain that.
Sorry, but cloud computing is getting ridiculous and I'm sorry, but you can gloss over things all you want, but there is a definite difference in Blizz post merger with Vivenid making Bobby Kotick the CEO then what they were before it. I don't blame the true Blizzard people, there's not much they can do unless they wish to end up like how Infinity Ward was treated, but the fact remains, decisions being made by them all seem to revolve around revenue. The amount of double talk shows that.
dragonsqrrl
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2009
- 1,280
- 0
- 19,290
[citation][nom]mchuf[/nom]So basically, saying bad things about Blizzard is ignorate and fear-mongering. And is not a legitimate viewpoint, even when done in a logical manner? So how many posts have you "thumbs downed"?[/citation]
No, posting negative hypotheticals based on pseudo logic, with only misunderstandings, misinformation, exaggerations and no facts to back up your claims is fear mongering. The ignorance is in the misinformation, in that practically every so called "legitimate" argument that's been made has been debunked. Just not sure why this site in particular is such a hotbed for anti-Blizzard sentiment, it certainly isn't the case elsewhere.
No, posting negative hypotheticals based on pseudo logic, with only misunderstandings, misinformation, exaggerations and no facts to back up your claims is fear mongering. The ignorance is in the misinformation, in that practically every so called "legitimate" argument that's been made has been debunked. Just not sure why this site in particular is such a hotbed for anti-Blizzard sentiment, it certainly isn't the case elsewhere.
I can understand why many players are going to be upset about not being given a dedicated single player offline mode. I can also understand why Blizzard is making this controversial decision. This is going to sound harsh, and I apologize, but it is a reality. Those people who cannot connect reliably to play the game need to fix that problem on their end. It is not Blizzard's responsibility to keep catering to you (even if you are a potential customer, you are clearly in the minority).
IMO, this is equivalent to gamers potentially crying because some future game (Half-Life 3, for example) has system requirements too high for your computer to run and you do not have enough money to upgrade your computer hardware. So in your mind, they need to make sure they code in graphic tweaks to allow you to reduce the quality of the game to allow you to play, or you will whine and cry and threaten to not buy their game. Big deal. Your crappy internet situation should not be allowed to jeopardize the gaming experience of the majority. (insert any cliched quote about the needs of the majority outweighing the needs of the few)
In fact, I bet a lot of those complaining about this situation on the basis of their crappy internet connection have never considered putting as much thought and effort into complaining to their ISP, local city board, etc., about improving the internet in their area. And don't state that you have. We both know better.
This all comes down to one simple truth: a business will prioritize its bottom-line. To hell with you, me, morality, ethics, etc. A business exists, and only continues to exist in a capitalism, as long as it maintains its bottom-line. I am sure Blizzard has done its homework and heavily weighed this decision. Diablo 3 is going to be an enormous success, even without a minority of gamers refusing to buy it due to (insert pointless complaint here).
BTW, WTF are you guys doing on TomsHardware with such crappy hardware? Learn to read some articles!
IMO, this is equivalent to gamers potentially crying because some future game (Half-Life 3, for example) has system requirements too high for your computer to run and you do not have enough money to upgrade your computer hardware. So in your mind, they need to make sure they code in graphic tweaks to allow you to reduce the quality of the game to allow you to play, or you will whine and cry and threaten to not buy their game. Big deal. Your crappy internet situation should not be allowed to jeopardize the gaming experience of the majority. (insert any cliched quote about the needs of the majority outweighing the needs of the few)
In fact, I bet a lot of those complaining about this situation on the basis of their crappy internet connection have never considered putting as much thought and effort into complaining to their ISP, local city board, etc., about improving the internet in their area. And don't state that you have. We both know better.
This all comes down to one simple truth: a business will prioritize its bottom-line. To hell with you, me, morality, ethics, etc. A business exists, and only continues to exist in a capitalism, as long as it maintains its bottom-line. I am sure Blizzard has done its homework and heavily weighed this decision. Diablo 3 is going to be an enormous success, even without a minority of gamers refusing to buy it due to (insert pointless complaint here).
BTW, WTF are you guys doing on TomsHardware with such crappy hardware? Learn to read some articles!
maestintaolius
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 719
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]The only people this is going to hurt are the people who pirate the game. The dial-up excuse is weak since such few people are suck on it. If you have an unreliable connection then call your provider and have them fix it. Bunch of whiners in here.[/citation]
That's not an option everywhere. My aunt and uncle's house across the river from St. Paul (literally 5 miles from downtown St. Paul can't get high speed internet other than verizon wireless. Comcast/Mediacom/Qwest have zero interest in expanding to their area because its a low density area (fairly upscale housing built on the river valley) so they're stuck with 5GB/month.
I'm living in a outer ring suburb and my only hsi provider for my area is Mediacom, and their service is absolutely terrible (I just spent a week without service because that was the soonest they could get a tech out to fix their dang box). Since their only competitors are wireless broadband, low-end dsl and satellite which are all terrible options, they have absolutely no motivation to improve the line quality/reliability in the area; which is why my county is looking at dropping 7.5 mil on laying fiber.
Also, I too am disappointed in this "if you're not playing multiplayer you're doing it wrong" attitude. If I wanted to play multiplayer with a bunch of random irritating internet kiddies, I'd go play an MMO/FPS. I'm sick of this trend gaming seems to be taking towards everything being online and multiplayer at the expense/removal of good single player gameplay. I loved D1 and D2, but with D3 and SC2, Blizzard can go pound sand.
That's not an option everywhere. My aunt and uncle's house across the river from St. Paul (literally 5 miles from downtown St. Paul can't get high speed internet other than verizon wireless. Comcast/Mediacom/Qwest have zero interest in expanding to their area because its a low density area (fairly upscale housing built on the river valley) so they're stuck with 5GB/month.
I'm living in a outer ring suburb and my only hsi provider for my area is Mediacom, and their service is absolutely terrible (I just spent a week without service because that was the soonest they could get a tech out to fix their dang box). Since their only competitors are wireless broadband, low-end dsl and satellite which are all terrible options, they have absolutely no motivation to improve the line quality/reliability in the area; which is why my county is looking at dropping 7.5 mil on laying fiber.
Also, I too am disappointed in this "if you're not playing multiplayer you're doing it wrong" attitude. If I wanted to play multiplayer with a bunch of random irritating internet kiddies, I'd go play an MMO/FPS. I'm sick of this trend gaming seems to be taking towards everything being online and multiplayer at the expense/removal of good single player gameplay. I loved D1 and D2, but with D3 and SC2, Blizzard can go pound sand.
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]No, posting negative hypotheticals based on pseudo logic, with only misunderstandings, misinformation, exaggerations and no facts to back up your claims is fear mongering. The ignorance is in the misinformation, in that practically every so called "legitimate" argument that's been made has been debunked. Just not sure why this site in particular is such a hotbed for anti-Blizzard sentiment, it certainly isn't the case elsewhere.[/citation]
It is nice to see some common sense on this forum after so many months of anti-blizzard bandwagon by moral-high-grounders and other nerds who think they are upholding our gamer rights by taking their "tough stance".
The reality is, in a few months this game will be out and selling faster than almost any other game in history, and all these rager-nerds will end up giving Blizzard their money anyway.
Whingers will be whingers, America turning into Britain?
It is nice to see some common sense on this forum after so many months of anti-blizzard bandwagon by moral-high-grounders and other nerds who think they are upholding our gamer rights by taking their "tough stance".
The reality is, in a few months this game will be out and selling faster than almost any other game in history, and all these rager-nerds will end up giving Blizzard their money anyway.
Whingers will be whingers, America turning into Britain?
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
Sure, it prevents hacking (and probably piracy too) but Blizzard also prevented half the world from playing this.
Remember, less than half of the world has a constant, personal internet connection.
Remember, less than half of the world has a constant, personal internet connection.
Steelwing
Distinguished
- Nov 17, 2010
- 42
- 0
- 18,530
It's amazing to see the shills out in force today. Anyone posting the following seems to be modded down into oblivion:
1 - Soldiers overseas (or others who travel) who obviously won't have good internet connections.
2 - Anyone with dialup or spotty broadband connections, which is more common than people think.
3 - Anyone from another country who has internet access problems, has to pay large amounts for access (perhaps at a net cafe) or doesn't wish to deal with the lag to and from Blizzard's servers.
4 - Anyone who wishes to play the game offline by themselves for any reason.
5 - Anyone who doesn't completely agree with the online requirement.
By hitting thumbs-down on everything, it shows that certain people are either paid shills or fanboys that simply don't want to hear that there are people in the world that disagree with them. Instead of modding people down, have a reasonable discussion with those people. I don't see how their being against the always-online scheme is going to affect you in any way, since you've already decided that it's the most wonderful thing in the world.
Yes, I expect that you'll likely just skim over what I've read and mod me down anyway. At least I've reached a few people before you've done so. For anyone still reading who's interested in reasonable discussion, unhide the comments in this article which have been modded down and judge them for yourself.
1 - Soldiers overseas (or others who travel) who obviously won't have good internet connections.
2 - Anyone with dialup or spotty broadband connections, which is more common than people think.
3 - Anyone from another country who has internet access problems, has to pay large amounts for access (perhaps at a net cafe) or doesn't wish to deal with the lag to and from Blizzard's servers.
4 - Anyone who wishes to play the game offline by themselves for any reason.
5 - Anyone who doesn't completely agree with the online requirement.
By hitting thumbs-down on everything, it shows that certain people are either paid shills or fanboys that simply don't want to hear that there are people in the world that disagree with them. Instead of modding people down, have a reasonable discussion with those people. I don't see how their being against the always-online scheme is going to affect you in any way, since you've already decided that it's the most wonderful thing in the world.
Yes, I expect that you'll likely just skim over what I've read and mod me down anyway. At least I've reached a few people before you've done so. For anyone still reading who's interested in reasonable discussion, unhide the comments in this article which have been modded down and judge them for yourself.
[citation][nom]Steelwing[/nom]It's amazing to see the shills out in force today. Anyone posting the following seems to be modded down into oblivion:1 - Soldiers overseas (or others who travel) who obviously won't have good internet connections.2 - Anyone with dialup or spotty broadband connections, which is more common than people think.3 - Anyone from another country who has internet access problems, has to pay large amounts for access (perhaps at a net cafe) or doesn't wish to deal with the lag to and from Blizzard's servers.4 - Anyone who wishes to play the game offline by themselves for any reason.5 - Anyone who doesn't completely agree with the online requirement.By hitting thumbs-down on everything, it shows that certain people are either paid shills or fanboys that simply don't want to hear that there are people in the world that disagree with them. Instead of modding people down, have a reasonable discussion with those people. I don't see how their being against the always-online scheme is going to affect you in any way, since you've already decided that it's the most wonderful thing in the world.Yes, I expect that you'll likely just skim over what I've read and mod me down anyway. At least I've reached a few people before you've done so. For anyone still reading who's interested in reasonable discussion, unhide the comments in this article which have been modded down and judge them for yourself.[/citation]
Ironic you are crying about being downvoted. The pro-blizzard people were being down voted into oblivion only a few weeks ago when this first came up.
1.) Your points are valid
2.) Blizzard doesn't care about minorities who would most likely pirate anyway (eastern europe, africa, china etc.)
3.) This is the way it is, deal with it.
Ironic you are crying about being downvoted. The pro-blizzard people were being down voted into oblivion only a few weeks ago when this first came up.
1.) Your points are valid
2.) Blizzard doesn't care about minorities who would most likely pirate anyway (eastern europe, africa, china etc.)
3.) This is the way it is, deal with it.
A cheater will always be even tho there are a million protections to prevent that, a cheater always wanna be the best and don't care the way to do it. So the only people they are hurting is legitimate players by doing another fuckin online game. I don't own any online only games and I'll never buy one, ever! It's only a mean for them to make money. He tells it:
anyways they (blizzard) started to sink a few years ago, and they will bankrupt one day since any games they create has millions of unpatched bugs even years after the game is out on the market. Companies with that kind of thinking is bad for everyone. They only care about cash flowing and not about quality of their games.
So in the end only legitimate players will be hurt. Cheaters don't care they can always kick out the server and input their own items on it just before it comes back online...
anyways they (blizzard) started to sink a few years ago, and they will bankrupt one day since any games they create has millions of unpatched bugs even years after the game is out on the market. Companies with that kind of thinking is bad for everyone. They only care about cash flowing and not about quality of their games.
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]I've read through them, and the "anti-Blizzard posts" you refer to seem to consist largely of ignorance and or baseless fear mongering... ...It's just really sad that the US is practically the only developed nation in the world where this is still such a big problem for people... [/citation]
Ignorance and baseless fear mongering??? What ARE you smoking??? Most of the world cannot play always on games, and you reckon that's not a problem??? Buy an atlas and take a look. The world is a very big place.
Ignorance and baseless fear mongering??? What ARE you smoking??? Most of the world cannot play always on games, and you reckon that's not a problem??? Buy an atlas and take a look. The world is a very big place.
[citation][nom]jdt77[/nom]Ignorance and baseless fear mongering??? What ARE you smoking??? Most of the world cannot play always on games, and you reckon that's not a problem??? Buy an atlas and take a look. The world is a very big place.[/citation]
So by your reasoning any product that a company makes should be accessible to everyone in the world?
How dare Ford make those big SUVs that you can't drive on tight indian roads... HOW DARE THEY!!!
So by your reasoning any product that a company makes should be accessible to everyone in the world?
How dare Ford make those big SUVs that you can't drive on tight indian roads... HOW DARE THEY!!!
My Diablo 2 case is glaring at the article. For all the fine gentlemen who say "This will stop people from pirating it herpa derpa derp." I give it 5 months after release, for someone to: get the server code, decompile it, and then crack and recompile it for offline single player; free to download and more fun to play. They aren't stopping anything, the reason for constant online play IS about the real money trade, and torchlight 2 will be a much better purchase. Have fun eating Blizzards spoon fed sh!t fanboys.
Steelwing
Distinguished
- Nov 17, 2010
- 42
- 0
- 18,530
A smart company tries to maximize its customer base, not alienate even a small portion of it. If 5% (and the number is likely much bigger) of the people that want to buy and play this game can't due to internet connectivity issues, that's 5% of customers and profits that they never see.
Unlike the piracy "every download=lost sale" fallacy, these are customers that may have been looking forward to purchase the game, but they realize that they don't have a great net connection and decide to either purchase something from a competitor (Torchlight II, perhaps?) or just save their money.
Those people remember a bad experience with the company and may decide not to purchase any of their other games, even if the same online requirements are not in those other games.
I personally was looking forward to buying Diablo III. Yes, my internet connection is stable, not including times when travelling. My reasons for not buying are:
1 - Not knowing how long that the servers will be available. This includes outages\hacks as well as wondering if I'll be able to enjoy the game 10-20 years down the road. I still play some classic games from the 80's and 90's. Blizzard might still be there and keep the servers running, or they may shut them down years when there are only a few people playing. It's possible that Blizzard may not exist as a company then. Just because something is popular and doing well today does not mean that this will always be the case. This is my primary concern.
2 - Not knowing how many characters slots I get. Since saves take place in the cloud, there is going to be limited space per account. Will they charge people for extra slots? Hopefully it'll be more slots than Diablo II offered, because there are going to be tons of builds to play. At least with Diablo II in offline mode, you can work around the character limit by shuffling files around.
Unlike the piracy "every download=lost sale" fallacy, these are customers that may have been looking forward to purchase the game, but they realize that they don't have a great net connection and decide to either purchase something from a competitor (Torchlight II, perhaps?) or just save their money.
Those people remember a bad experience with the company and may decide not to purchase any of their other games, even if the same online requirements are not in those other games.
I personally was looking forward to buying Diablo III. Yes, my internet connection is stable, not including times when travelling. My reasons for not buying are:
1 - Not knowing how long that the servers will be available. This includes outages\hacks as well as wondering if I'll be able to enjoy the game 10-20 years down the road. I still play some classic games from the 80's and 90's. Blizzard might still be there and keep the servers running, or they may shut them down years when there are only a few people playing. It's possible that Blizzard may not exist as a company then. Just because something is popular and doing well today does not mean that this will always be the case. This is my primary concern.
2 - Not knowing how many characters slots I get. Since saves take place in the cloud, there is going to be limited space per account. Will they charge people for extra slots? Hopefully it'll be more slots than Diablo II offered, because there are going to be tons of builds to play. At least with Diablo II in offline mode, you can work around the character limit by shuffling files around.
[citation][nom]Steelwing[/nom]1 - Not knowing how long that the servers will be available. This includes outages\hacks as well as wondering if I'll be able to enjoy the game 10-20 years down the road. I still play some classic games from the 80's and 90's. Blizzard might still be there and keep the servers running, or they may shut them down years when there are only a few people playing. It's possible that Blizzard may not exist as a company then. Just because something is popular and doing well today does not mean that this will always be the case. This is my primary concern.
2 - Not knowing how many characters slots I get. Since saves take place in the cloud, there is going to be limited space per account. Will they charge people for extra slots? Hopefully it'll be more slots than Diablo II offered, because there are going to be tons of builds to play. At least with Diablo II in offline mode, you can work around the character limit by shuffling files around.[/citation]
I totally disagree with your viewpoints:
1.) Even if I only got 1 year of gaming out of diablo 3 (d3 servers went down in 12 months time and the game could never be played again). I would still buy the game on release and get 1 years enjoyment out of it. Expecting to play a game for 30 years, or in 30 years time, is kind of a pathetic reason not to buy a game. You can't buy ANYTHING that lasts 30 years, not even a car, a knife, a couch or a floor mat!
2.) Not enough character slots? Really? This only shows how ignorant you are. I wont even be bothered to correct how stupid you look to any Diablo 3 fan.
2 - Not knowing how many characters slots I get. Since saves take place in the cloud, there is going to be limited space per account. Will they charge people for extra slots? Hopefully it'll be more slots than Diablo II offered, because there are going to be tons of builds to play. At least with Diablo II in offline mode, you can work around the character limit by shuffling files around.[/citation]
I totally disagree with your viewpoints:
1.) Even if I only got 1 year of gaming out of diablo 3 (d3 servers went down in 12 months time and the game could never be played again). I would still buy the game on release and get 1 years enjoyment out of it. Expecting to play a game for 30 years, or in 30 years time, is kind of a pathetic reason not to buy a game. You can't buy ANYTHING that lasts 30 years, not even a car, a knife, a couch or a floor mat!
2.) Not enough character slots? Really? This only shows how ignorant you are. I wont even be bothered to correct how stupid you look to any Diablo 3 fan.
[citation][nom]crus_russ[/nom]So by your reasoning any product that a company makes should be accessible to everyone in the world? How dare Ford make those big SUVs that you can't drive on tight indian roads... HOW DARE THEY!!![/citation]
You know what, you're absolutely correct. I am not the target demographic here. Blizzard doesn't want my money, and I am fine with that. I'll still get to play D3, once it's cracked. At that stage Blizzard shouldn't whine about how it's getting pirated though.
You know what, you're absolutely correct. I am not the target demographic here. Blizzard doesn't want my money, and I am fine with that. I'll still get to play D3, once it's cracked. At that stage Blizzard shouldn't whine about how it's getting pirated though.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Inconsistent Valorant FPS (100–300) with RTX 3050 – Need Simple Help!- Started by anass12
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram