Blizzard Responds to Diablo 3 "Online" Complaints

[ojas]

i disliked hawx 2 because of the same reason. if your nets down, you cant play. same issue with steam games.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]doorspawn[/nom]A small majority have poor internet access - enough to cause issues with permanent connections. Yes, that's right, a majority. A small majority, even, of those that can afford D3 have poor internet.And I see you assume I am one. No, I have fine broadband (when not taking the train to work).Reality != your version of it.You are selfish, petty and clueless.[/citation]
A small, majority? If they're small, then they're the MINORITY. Majority already describes the fact that they're MORE than the others.


And stop acting like you give a shit about people in 3rd world countries without internet. You're just using it as an excuse.


What about the PC requirement issue? Huh? You never address that one do you? Are you also going to make the developers cater to those in 3rd world countries who have computers from 1995? I mean, they're entitled just as much as you are to play the game....right?


Hell, I demand Diablo 3 on Windows 95. Surely many people across the world are still running it.

 

[EVILNOD]

hmm... i think i will skip d3 until they on sale like 4.99 ( if ever ).

i travel from time to time.. and when i wait in airport i would play some games.. last thing i want is pay internet access in airport for gaming. some hotel i stay also charge 10$ extra for connection. Don't say most hotel come with free connection, nothing in this world is free; they just package connection with room services.

there tons of game around guys.. its not a big deal skip (or wait) a game or two.

as for people who defend blizzard, i know u fan of company.. but are you guys so blind u dont see what happen?? u need to understand, people change and so does company. blizzard just aren't what they used to be. just move on..

normally i would be ok if the SP game able to go offline mode. but pay real $$$ for auction item is too much for me. i play game to relax, doesn't mean i like to "pay" game after buy it in full price.

 

[doorspawn]

1) You're not very good with English if you don't understand what a small majority must be. It's a majority, but, for a majority it's small - ie smaller than most majorities. For example, 51% is a small majority. Seriously...



2) As for not giving a shit, I donate money. Yes, I pay organisations without getting any reward whatsoever, yes, out of my own pocket. Unbelievable, eh.

Some of which, like the red cross, support 3rd world countries. In fact, I support no local charities because nobody in my country is anywhere near as needy. I also support the EFF. And I don't just give money, I have stood in stalls supporting these charities, and participated in their local meetings.

I know this must be incomprehensible to someone that doesn't care, though.



3) Was I supposed to address the PC requirement one? Ok, here goes.

Active prevention of a use of your product that would, without said prevention, be fully possible is a totally different thing from your product not having said use.

This is especially true when it disproportionately targets the less fortunate.

If I make a car that won't start without, say, a smart-phone's bluetooth command I prevent those without smartphones buying it. But it's clear nothing about the car needs a smart-phone to run it.

This would probably fail due to market forces (it might even run afoul of anti-competition laws). But either way, it would be wrong and prejudicial.

But the main problem here is that progress is supposed to go forward. Cars should get safer, quieter, more efficient, more adaptable. Computers should get more powerful. Software should get more useful, flexible.

If the opposite was true, and cars were getting noisier, dirtier, etc, then something is going wrong with the market and something (ie regulation) would need to be done to fix it (as often happens).
The same for games - if you're actually losing functionality (such as the ability to play solo off-line), progress is going backwards (forgive the common word misuse). This is what I'm fighting against here.

Unfortunately, software is such a complex thing that bodies like the US congress routinely fail to understand it, which is why consumer protections that would happen in other industries are rarely enacted (or poorly enacted) for software.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

ma·jor·i·ty/məˈjôrətē/Noun
1. The greater number: "in the majority of cases"; "a majority decision".


mi·nor·i·ty/məˈnôrətē/Noun
1. The smaller number or part, esp. a number that is less than half the whole number.



We're talking about numbers - not the race or ethnicity of a person. Either you want, and don't care about the internet requirement (MAJORITY), or you're some 1995 burnout who hates the entire thought of internet being required (MINORITY).


There is no fucking small majority. You're either the majority, or you're the minority. Stop trying to sub-classify words that have clear meaning.

 

[Guest]

K-zon:

So, lets see, as long as your are connect "we" can tell rather anything of different to say other then your connection is a issue for maybe getting online or having issues with playing online, seperate accounts for use of anything of course. Given being constantly connected for varies aspects of gameplay makes this easier for our company to do given systems we choice to have going not normal for some interest. Characters namely, but maybe not only.

Otherwise with what has normally to a point taken to part of use is almost no more. On the better part of interest at least for all in the parts of use of any one say release/product/software. Still of it though is the said constant connection.

Of this otherwise that of cheats may not find the better part of connection, given when offline cheating might be something that cant be told of difference for what they are. Rather inclined on own interest of use or that of additional interest for use of interest.

Of this though, rather to say of the cheating at times that it is placed against what is in the release say if any, since this seem to come out right before and after the release of a release for some reason. To say this is cheating is probably yes, but of it is that the cheating in question at times?

How much this has to do with offline anymore then online is anyones guess to say. But of it though anyways need of DRM is still found to be needed. I don't understand this basically. At times it makes sense, but at times it doesn't.

Idk though. For some means seem to be that of only reasoning of others, reasoning is a last say call for anything of course for whatever reason though. But of them at times at least, or not. But to say that is the most of the issue is probably subjective and perspective, yes?

Given of course like said, online is taking a greater part of many things within the "digital" world, gaming having more greater part at times more then none, yes?

But of it though, to say that all of it is online, is probably the one thing not found most of it, yes? Giving online experiences seem to vary more then not.

Otherwise to say for the better, i am one who can not for just of the interest. For only that alone had placed the part of online interest, yes? So of it to say at times, it just for online, without the interest, for offline is in lack for it, despite the use for online interests. Probably not, but normally would say so for it. But thats probably if i was in having offline interests. Which now im not, and even then varied.

But to have it sound like at least that there is something to do which to say buy for of online interests, you can only have one sign-in name for many things. Yes? As if the us of it didnt incline any additional parts of use before?? But I don't know, im fairly "backwards" to say more then none. Like signing-up to a forum without online play cause the "game" wasn't wanting to work. And you gotta register probably before hand, to have any incling use of say sign-in for online?

Otherwise your username and password to connect online with the client to say or software couldnt be used online to sign-into the websites.

Seems like almost 4 for 3 really, but yet still only on one for now.

 

[renz496]

this kind of thing is like punishment to customer who get the game legally.
i believe the crack scene will have work around to so you can play the campaign without the need of internet connection. it will takes time to do it right but it will be done.

 

[doorspawn]

Good to see we agree on what a majority is.
Why we don't agree on what a small majority is (hint, the exact term "small majority" is used a lot in politics when things are just above 50%) is beyond me.

Google "Small Majority": http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/14/cnn-poll-small-majority-favor-u-s-involvement-in-libya/



Now, what I claimed was that the number of Internet users that have poor Internet access (defined by me above as having issues with permanent connections) was a small majority, ie above 50% by a small amount. I stand by that.

Issues can be things such as ISPs that frequently go offline for short periods, poor maintenance that can have people out for weeks, to such extreme things as scheduled blackouts (so you run on laptop battery) which affect hundreds of millions of people (this is increasing).


And then there's the issues that people with quality broadband can have:
1) pPaying while not at home (ie on trains).
2) Dodgy routers or wireless that need resetting often (damn common)
3) Switching providers or switching flat/house.
4) Bandwidth hogging flatmates.
5) BNet downtime for server maintenance. Your will not be able to play solo during these times.
6) BNet could get hit by a hacking group, like Sony did.
7) Countries (like China) could block the game.


Also, if something is being done by the server, it has latency. If blizzard wants to host multi-player games on their servers, are you sure they don't host solo games on their servers too? To (attempt to) prevent hacking to allow off-line solo and hence piracy they need to have the server do something related to the game being played.

Multi-player latency between players sitting next to each-other is far higher in SC2 than in WC3, especially when BNet latency is high. This will almost certainly be true for D3, too.

 

[Guest]

K-zon:

[citation][nom]renz496[/nom]this kind of thing is like punishment to customer who get the game legally.i believe the crack scene will have work around to so you can play the campaign without the need of internet connection. it will takes time to do it right but it will be done.[/citation]

Its like at times if you was going to deal with issues that would be of legal this would be one of them, yes? Probably not, but still of it, what else to say? Otherwise knowing more of what to do seems like the question of it all.

 

[renz496]

lol. i never said i was going to buy or pirate the game. just saying DRM like permanent connection to play will hurt legal buyer. just look assassin creed 2. they create emulator to cheat the game as if the game already connected to ubisoft server.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

I don't care where it's used - politics make it even more of a joke - regardless it is an incorrect statement in this case. The majority is still the majority. You're trying to steal the thunder by saying "Oh, it's the majority, but it's a SMALL majority" - as if you're dismissing it, or holding it to a lower level than it deserves.

If you're trying to argue how close the majority is to not being the majority, then use a percentage, and people can clearly see how close, or how secure the majority holds.


Small (majority) most of. That is literally what you're saying. "Small most of".


That being said, I DO understand why they use that term. An example I can think of right off the top of my head would be something like: Asians are the majority of the worlds population, but are the small majority when you add up every other minority. They clearly win when matching up on a 1v1 basis, but lose when you add up everyone else. By the way, I'm just assuming Asians are the largest - I didn't literally fact check anything here, so don't quote me on any of it. It's just an example....


Regarding Diablo 3, it's not like that. Either you A.) Care or B.) Don't care. Most people don't care, therefore greedy ass corporation called "Blizzard" is going to suit the majority.


As with everyone, there's ALWAYS a group of people who are pissed off and dissatisfied - you'll never outrun it. I'm sure there are a TON of people out there who are pissed off by it's system requirements (hardware and OS) - but they're also the grain of sand, on the entire beach packed full of sand.


Since there will always be pissed off people, you have to be a big enough group to make a difference. Sadly, I doubt you will be. They will just look at you as the same damn people who are never satisfied - and they're perfectly O.K. with that. They understand and EXPECT it.


Besides, allowing you to play offline, and potentially cheat, fucks them out of money they're planning on earning from the real cash auction house. So now, they have to weigh it in - piss you off and lose your $50, or give you what you want, and lose millions from people cheating and spawning rare items that not only crash the market, but floods and destroys the pricing of the real cash system. If they're working off say a 10% fee rate, then they ultimately want the items priced as HIGH as possible.


You cheating and then posting items for real cash will cut into Blizzards pockets - and let me refresh people who don't understand this yet; you WON'T fuck with corporate profits. Those people will stomp you and do whatever they can to make sure you don't meddle with their business. It's like taking the food dish from an angry wolf - you don't mess with it.


So of course this is about greedy as Blizzard and their money - but it also gives me, and others, a byproduct of having less cheating. So when I ultimately find something rare, I could potentially sell it for real cash, for a high amount - thanks to the market not being crashed and flooded by cheaters who spam.



Oh, and blame China. You know the people who screw with Blizzard the most are Chinese gold farmers, among other things. You want your single player? Get the game banned in China and you'll probably get your wish.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]WhysoBluepandabear[/nom]You can play WHERE and WHEN you want - you just need internet. That's YOUR problem if you can't obtain it. Just like it's YOUR problem if your GPU isn't powerful enough to run the game. The first 2 games also were from a completely different era of the internet. First, they both were released when the internet was just gaining large traction, and second, most people have AOL dial-up. We just so happen to live in the age of high-speed internet being $30 or less per month, and it being available to MOST people. Want to know how it'll affect me? Cheaters. Yeah, some people like the idea of using a cloud as a way to stop a lot of cheating - AND PLEASE, I KNOW YOU WERE READY TO BUST OUT THIS LINE "LAWL, THE CLOUD WON'T STOP CHEATERS - THEY'LL JUST BREAK AND HACK THROUGH IT". On the contrary, It'll stop A LOT of cheating. Not ALL of it. The AH would go to shit if people could just spawn a bunch of rare items. A lot of you remind me of how old people are - unable to keep up with the times, and willingly reject progression. You expect everything to stay the way it was; even when out numbered by those whom want change. The future of gaming is going to be online. We've already begun this with our phones, and likewise, we'll do it with more and more things in our lives. If you can't keep up, tough luck - because honestly, asking for a semi-stable, decent speed internet connection in 2011, isn't asking very much.[/citation]
Once again, you contradict yourself. If I don't have internet (and for the record I do) then I can NOT play when and where I like. If I wanted to play for a few minutes on my laptop before class, I can't. If I wanted to sit in the park and play, I can't.

And you think this will stop cheaters? Sorry, but I hate to break it to you but the fact is the cheating has merely been legitamized with the real life money auction house. Besides, how can someone else cheating affect YOUR single player experience? That is what we are talking about here. With this way, with your character information being store on Blizzards servers, I have a feeling that drops will work the same way they do on WoW, controlled by the server. So instead of being able to play a single player experience and the game creating the dungeon solely for you, you will have the server controlling what drops and when. This means you will be competing with gold farmers and bots who will likely eat up the drop rate thus affecting your game play. Only problem is it won't be cheating because Blizzard has made it legitimate. So you will have a better chance of getting an item you want by paying 20 dollars or more to a botter because they skewed the drop rates.

 

[doorspawn]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/small
Small: 3: not large as compared with others of the same kind: a small elephant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority
Majority: The greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority):

Combined: A number larger than half the total, but not large as compared with (most) other numbers larger than half the total.

In other words, above 50%, but not by much.

Asians can only be a small majority if they're just over 50%. Which they are.
Google: "Population of Asia": Best guess for Asia Population is 3,879,000,000.
Google: "Population of Earth": 6,775,235,700.
If they were 49%, they would NOT be a small majority.

It's perfect English. It has a totally obvious non-ambiguous meaning (for those of us well versed in English and the obvious, ie not you). It's used frequently. It's as valid as "green car" (ie, perfectly).



Do you care if the game doesn't cater for (insert any small minority you belong to, such as people with your name if nothing better suits)? Most of us could be said to "not care" in as much as it doesn't affect us. However, most of us would think it at least stupid without a valid reason, if not prejudicial / immoral.

Do you not believe in consumer rights, minority rights? or do you just think we have no way to win them back once lost?



The people pissed off with hardware requirements can't be quickly satisfied by the game company saying: Ok, we'll switch on low-resource mode, sorry for disabling it. It just doesn't exist, and it would take a lot of work to implement.

The same cannot be said for off-line mode unless the server has a large load.
I don't think it's possible that a game like D3 could have a large server load, as the core-logic (ie, moving creatures etc, not graphics or sound) is so simple.
A game like SC2 will have a far higher core-logic load (way more units, long distance pathing), yet it can happily run offline.

So it is understandable that the game doesn't function on a low-spec system, simply because it can't (not without massive effort, and even then there's a minimum). It doesn't function on an offline system although it most certainly can simply because they won't let it.



I think we may have been seeing things slightly differently with regards to off-line characters, though.
You say that offline cheats would flood the market with fake loot. I was assuming that offline characters would always be offline, and vice-versa. That's how Blizzard was interpreting it, too, if you hear them say people will get pissed off if they can't bring their offline-to-level-X char online.

I fully understand and even support the desire to prevent offline-played characters from ever joining BNet, for this reason.



I'm no fan of RPGs (I care because I like SC1 & WC3) and I see no solution to the gold-farming issue. Yet I see actively participating in it (for-$ auction-house) as ridiculous. It's a bit like a professional sports body actively and publicly buying competitors performance-enhancing drugs or publicly fixing games.

But I can't see why naming China makes the point any less valid. Why should a person in a country that decides to block a game's online server be prevented from playing it solo?



As for the cynicism about Blizzards profit motive, hooray we finally agree on something. I just wish you would fight back, or at least stop telling others not to.

 

[Guest]

Blizzard is in full damage control mode.
Don't let up until we get the game we DEMAND.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]Once again, you contradict yourself. If I don't have internet (and for the record I do) then I can NOT play when and where I like. If I wanted to play for a few minutes on my laptop before class, I can't. If I wanted to sit in the park and play, I can't.And you think this will stop cheaters? Sorry, but I hate to break it to you but the fact is the cheating has merely been legitamized with the real life money auction house. Besides, how can someone else cheating affect YOUR single player experience? That is what we are talking about here. With this way, with your character information being store on Blizzards servers, I have a feeling that drops will work the same way they do on WoW, controlled by the server. So instead of being able to play a single player experience and the game creating the dungeon solely for you, you will have the server controlling what drops and when. This means you will be competing with gold farmers and bots who will likely eat up the drop rate thus affecting your game play. Only problem is it won't be cheating because Blizzard has made it legitimate. So you will have a better chance of getting an item you want by paying 20 dollars or more to a botter because they skewed the drop rates.[/citation]
And if you have a Pentium 2 or Windows 95 you can't play either. That's all on you to situate the require platform. You people still aren't ******* arguing with me on that point. Are you avoiding it?


You people overuse the word "Contradict", and all it's forms WAY too much. I didn't contradict ***. Learn some reading comprehension skills, and stop getting stuck on these retarded ass points you try drawing.


Supposedly big, capitalized letters slip your attention span (forgot your Adderall?). I never said stop it completely, and I already acknowledged the lame ass point you just typed. Yeah, I already called you on it before you brought it up - so why the hell are you arguing it? I never said ironclad, 100% guarantee of no cheating - merely stop a good deal of it, and at least be able to control it.


And if all you're going to do is not process what you read, and bring up the same dumb arguments over and over again, rather just re-phrased, I'm going to just ignore you. It effects people who care about dumb achievements and the AH. Blizzard also wants to provide a social experience - they're trying to create an environment; you know, one based on socializing. They're not trying to cater to you emo wrist cutters who can't even obtain internet, or lie about being some important business travelers - who also ALWAYS have internet. If you're worth anything, you'll have a wireless data connection.


Why don't you make a deal with Blizzard? How's this sound?: Single player ONLY - absolutely no online...EVER - no changing your mind later. Would you want that? What about losing everything you worked for offline not counting when you connect online? Would you rather start at square one?


You know what, it doesn't even matter what you want. You're the 1% that means nothing. The fact is, Blizzard doesn't want to offer two modes, that will inevitably piss off people when they discover their offline work didn't count whatsoever towards online. Trust me, they rather lose you, than lose many more that come to the nice surprise.


And they of course want their money and profits. You paying $50 once, and never giving them more money, one way or another, is not exactly their ideal of how they plan on milking you.

 

[renz496]

^ i don't think blizzard will care about what we DEMAND. remember SC2 no-LAN fiasco? i'm sure blizzard think that for those who really want to play the will buy the game anyway and abides by their rule

 

[whysobluepandabear]

Oh my God. You seriously went there didn't you?


Why do I try to cover my bases, if no one reads it, but rather sees something they like, jump on that, and probably ignore the rest.


I already told you I understand why they use the term, but it DOES NOT APPLY HERE.


IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE

IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE

IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE

IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE

IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE


Did that sink in? I already CLEARLY said that this is not a situation where you can be a majority, but overall not be the biggest number. This situation is black and white.


This is a YAY or NAY issue. If YAY beats NAY, then you HAVE NO OTHER MINORITIES TO ADD UP. You just got your ass beat, and you deal with it.


Now if I did a:
ZOMG committing suicide and cutting wrist now -- 20%
Not-particularly -- 20%
Yay -- 40%
Nay -- 20%

THAT would be a small majority. Too bad it looks like this:

Yay -- 90%
Nay -- 10%

Even if it was:

Yay -- 51%
Nay -- 49%

You STILL lost, and it isn't a small majority.


Most people just don't care. They have internet and the situation is covered without a care in the world.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]doorspawn[/nom]The people pissed off with hardware requirements can't be quickly satisfied by the game company saying: Ok, we'll switch on low-resource mode, sorry for disabling it. It just doesn't exist, and it would take a lot of work to implement.The same cannot be said for off-line mode unless the server has a large load.I don't think it's possible that a game like D3 could have a large server load, as the core-logic (ie, moving creatures etc, not graphics or sound) is so simple.A game like SC2 will have a far higher core-logic load (way more units, long distance pathing), yet it can happily run offline.So it is understandable that the game doesn't function on a low-spec system, simply because it can't (not without massive effort, and even then there's a minimum). It doesn't function on an offline system although it most certainly can simply because they won't let it.[/citation]


It could function on my Pentium 2 with Windows 95 - but they won't let it. Yeah, I want 1994 graphics. That way it'll run on my beast machine.


I'm serious - bring back 1994 graphics and it'll run perfectly.


But wait, the graphics aren't 1994 anymore, and I'm being held responsible for bringing the proper hardware to the table if I CHOOSE to play this game. This is what they give me, and if I can't match the hardware required, then tough luck for me.


Same for you. If you can't bring an internet connection, then it's a no go. It doesn't really matter why, and if it'd hurt anyone or not - It's the fact that this is what they want, and this is where the bar is moving.


They could just as easily give me my 1994 graphics, and hell, it'd even save them an immense amount of time in total development - but they didn't. They instead told me to keep up with the times, or GTFO.




And just think....with 1994 graphics, EVERYONE in the world could play. Even grandma with her ancient computer. Doesn't that sound fair and reasonable?


No, you'd tell grandma to screw off and upgrade her hardware. She doesn't get a vote in this, and instead should keep up with everyone else.

 

[Steelwing]

People need to stop replying to WhysoBluepandabear. He's either a shill or a troll, and not a very good one. Your well-reasoned arguments aren't going to work on him, so it's best to just stop replying.

Me? D3 was one of the games I was most looking forward to. However, I dislike this online-only stuff. Sometimes I travel for hours at a time as a passenger in a vehicle without internet access. Sometimes I want to play on my laptop during a power outage.

I also don't trust Blizzard to keep the servers up from now until I die. Perhaps, years or decades from now I will want to play this game. I don't want to have to rely on their servers for a gameplay experience. It doesn't matter if they are reliable today. I don't want another problem like with Sony.

With this online-required aspect, I feel like I'm renting the game instead of owning it. Blizzard can kick people off the game at any time (either doing server maintenance, shutting down the game in the future, going out of business, or banning people for whatever reason.) Those people will not be able to play their game in single-player mode, and that is not right.

Single-player mode doesn't hurt anyone. If you cheat in single player, who cares? You aren't going to get online with that character. In D2 I used to use a game editor to give myself new weapons or skills just to see how they worked instead of spending dozens of hours to find out how a single skill worked. Sure, you can ruin the game by using editors to do that, but it was MY CHOICE. I chose to use them for testing and then play the game the proper way.

I get the impression that Blizzard is really hoping that this online game economy is going to make them tons of money, and if you play single player offline, you won't be part of that economy and won't make them as much money.

This decision was made for a reason. The "stable, connected, safer experience" is a BS marketing excuse. The real reasons have to do with money from the online market, tracking who is playing the game and when\where, and a very minor degree for piracy. (You just know thee pirates are going to crack this for offline play though)

Needless to say, I don't support this decision, and I refuse to buy any games with an online requirement for single player mode.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

Uh-huh. You're not biased or anything. I know exactly why they're doing it, but I also see the benefits for myself - coupled with the fact that I don't live in the sticks, am not poor and don't pretend like I'm some important business person who travels, which by the way, you probably have some addiction issues if you can't go without playing a game during the time you travel, plus the fact that you're incapable of doing, or I don't know, TOURIST things.

Maybe we just come from different backgrounds, but I don't lug around a laptop like it's some GameBoy, and play it during time I travel. Haven't you ever heard of a hotel pool? Women? Deck of cards and friends? No wonder you people want to play single player - you're emo loners. Just don't pull a Norway huh?

Anyways, get a wireless card you rednecks. You know they've been out for many years now?


I hope your power outages only last 2 hours or so, because you know...batteries only last so long.


Oh, and genius, you're ALWAYS renting. Games, movies, songs and etc - THEY'RE ALL RENTED LICENSES. Columbia could kick your door down and repo your CD/DVD anytime they want. You didn't read the fine print did you?

 

[dixie1234]

haha, if you don't like, don't play it. what you going to do? torrent it? cheat in it for single player? for one week of fun? Blizzard does not care about that 1%. When you play a game like diablo, you don't want cheaters.

 

[Thor]

Soon we will need fingerprint to play a game and a electronic chip in our ass.

And the People will say: Oh yeah! We know they are 10 billions of Terrorist...

At the beginning we are a simple number.
Now we are a Database and this database will grow to infinite.

And rich, who control everybody, will be a lot happy, and the People can sleep cause Terrorist will stop to exist because all biometric of all humans will be in database.

Wonderful !

So need to be connect to play a crap game is just pee

 

[Thor]

Talk all time to Terrorist, Pirate, Hacker, etc. is very good to rich who want spy everybody on this planet.

And it's just a beginning.

People complain about Blizzard?
What joke. They forget crap Steam, and all other companies who spy everybody.
Sure all time against Terrorist, Hacker, etc.

Not to spy people of course.
Of course.

I will not buy Diablo 3 and all games on Steam or games I need to connect all time to play single player.

So probably in few time I need stop to play games since all crap companies will do like Blizzard, Steam....

 

[azxcvbnm321]

Blizzard has every right to make money from this game and the pay to pay to play model is genius. It's ridiculous that games are still around $30-$50 new, the same price they were 20 years ago, yet the work and development has increased exponentially. This society has really become a bunch of whiners and entitled babies.

Consumer protection? Give me a break you socialists. You know what the ultimate consumer protection is? NOT BUYING THE GAME. Yes you have a choice which is why it is OK for them to charge whatever they want, even $1000000 per second. You have a choice to NOT PAY. You don't have to do business with a "greedy" corporation, but I think the real greed comes from YOU.

Truth is that bad companies who don't provide value for the $$$$ go bankrupt. Programmers and tech people aren't cheap, how many of you expect good support and the servers not to crash? That takes $$$$ and damned right if they're not going to try and recoup some of those costs through marketplaces and so forth.

If you think this is so unfair, please please make your own game and release it only to watch pirates steal all your hard work and leave you with nothing but millions in unpaid bills and an unhappy workforce that's about to be laid off.

 

[tigbas29]

F U C K you blizzard... I'm playing torchlight II because of this Zzzzz...