Diablo III, NOOOOOOOOO!!!

[@Li3n]

So, I won't be buying Diablo 3, or any upcoming Ubisoft titles.

Well Heroes 6 is supposed to work offline in SP... if it's true buying it while ignoring the other games might send a message...

Oh, and did you hear, if you also don't pirate it it just means that the system works: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/28/ubisoft-our-drm-is-a-success

 

[Frank]

That's hilarious, considering those games also didn't sell as well. Ubisoft, could it be that no one wants to play your shitty games, paid for or not?

 

[Hailey Knight]

While Pardo recognizes that people sometimes want or need to play offline (such as internet outages, or playing on a laptop during an airplane flight), he notes that the increased security, plus benefits like the above, outweigh those other concerns. "I want to play Diablo 3 on my laptop in a plane, but, well, there are other games to play for times like that."

You heard it first from the devs: just play other games.

As for paying for shitty internet service, where I live, it's Comcast or dial-up.

But for all we know, this isn't the horror of Assassin's Creed 2 DRM where you lose your progress if the internet goes out.

And if it's single-player, I'm sure it can still be pirated. For me, I have zero interest in Diablo, so I don't give a shit. Blizzard's kind of lost me at this point; not for doing anything wrong, but just not producing anything that interests me anymore.

 

[Dei]

If the being online to play thing bothered me I would have never bought SC2. The Auction House thing pisses me off though, and I hope to God it never makes it to WoW. As it stands, I'm going to be playing Torchlight 2 and probably holding off on Diablo III until I see how many of my friends will still buy it..

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

If the being online to play thing bothered me I would have never bought SC2. The Auction House thing pisses me off though, and I hope to God it never makes it to WoW. As it stands, I'm going to be playing Torchlight 2 and probably holding off on Diablo III until I see how many of my friends will still buy it..

I think the logic there is people are going to spend real money on in-game assets anyway, so Blizzard might as well be the shady corporation that profits off that.

 

[Mathias]

Blizzard has been pretty good about keeping a "line" that they have yet to fully cross when it comes to pay services, though they have been getting to the edge over the years. It is my hope that they continue posting the games from free and having all extra money transactions are filler items or vanity items, because those things I can ignore. It is when they start selling gear themselves, by just spoofing their own items, that I will never buy another Blizzard game again.

Is this line somewhere around the area where they decided to whore out to purchasable mounts, name changes, or pve to pvp realm changes? You know stuff they said they'd never do in a million years before they found out they could make an easy buck doing it. I surprised that they haven't just flat out came out and started selling gold for real money.

I can't really blame Blizzard too much though. If I had as stupid a fanbase as they do (almost as rapid as Apple Fanbois and Star Wars freaks), I'd be raping them for cash too.

Diablo 3 still sounds good to me. I don't mind online 24/7 one bit.

 

[Shegokigo]

Purchaseable mounts, name changes and pve to pvp realm changes do not unbalance gameplay. Selling gold for real money unbalances gameplay by unbalancing the ingame economy.

That's the line.

 

[Mathias]

Purchaseable mounts, name changes and pve to pvp realm changes do not unbalance gameplay. Selling gold for real money unbalances gameplay by unbalancing the ingame economy.

That's the line.

I'm guessing WoW is going to switch to free to play with micro-transactions within the next two years. If the DIII system works well (i.e Blizz getting more money in their pockets), don't be shocked to see it applied to the WoW AH.

It's working well for TF2. Hell I finally caved and bought my spy the damn Fez so I could silently declock my deadringer.

 

[Shegokigo]

Only thing I've bought on TF2 so far are keys. I just can't help it! I've limited myself on how much I spend per month but damn is it tempting. I can DEFINITELY see buying a set piece if you're not playing enough to amass the ridiculous amount of items needed to trade with the Trade Nazis though.

I wouldn't be shocked if WoW stays Subscription based but adds alot more micro transactions, they have the numbers needed to stay that way.

 

[Tress]

As always, vote with your wallet. If you find these changes to be unacceptable then just don't buy the game. Everything else is just a waste of time.

 

[ScytheRexx]

Is this line somewhere around the area where they decided to whore out to purchasable mounts, name changes, or pve to pvp realm changes? You know stuff they said they'd never do in a million years before they found out they could make an easy buck doing it. I surprised that they haven't just flat out came out and started selling gold for real money.

As a person that has played Blizzard games since they came out with Rock and Roll Racing on the SNES, I can honestly question the validity of your claim, that they said they would"never in a million years" offer extra services at a cost.

What they have said, however, is they won't sell items that offer a game-breaking advantage at the high end. They have yet to do just that. Name changes, server transfers, and mounts, etc... are all fluff, you don't need them to play and they don't bestow a gameplay advantage. They are services that I am more then happy to pay for when I desire it. Free would be better for me, yes, but not better for Blizzard when Joe Ninja decides to change his name/server/look/race every week because "hey why not its free!".

Just to reiterate, Blizzard does not keep all its promises, and it would be silly to say they have. However, the one promise they have kept so far is that they have not sold the items or services they said they would not sell, those being ones that bestowed large in game advantages (buying end game gear directly from them, gold, etc...).

Hell, even this new AH in Diablo 2, the majority of the money goes to the person that SOLD it, meaning the player. Blizzard could have just walked in and said "screw you guys it's our store" and yet they are letting the players control it, the player gaining the MAJORITY of the points that they can (supposedly) cash in for money (or credits that can be used towards other, in-game items, it's still so up in the air.) That is pretty big lose of products when they could have just done something like the Champions Online C-Store or something.

I hate to be the guy always defending Blizzard, I get pissed at them too, and have been for most of Cataclysm. I just like when the complaints versus them are valid ones, and not imaginary ones.

 

[@Li3n]

Interesting piece: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36292/Opinion_Diablo_3_And_Keeping_Players_At_Bay.php

And seriously, telling people to just play something else is like the worst sign ever...

 

[Mathias]

Interesting piece: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36292/Opinion_Diablo_3_And_Keeping_Players_At_Bay.php

And seriously, telling people to just play something else is like the worst sign ever...

Holy shit. I can't for the life of me understand the "I can't play on a plane" argument. I think telling people to play something else is a valid option. You're all bitching about a very minor, niche example. For the majority of gamers, they play at home with an online connection. Cut off the mobility in a game, and people get their panties in a bunch. Need to play games on a plane (you ADD riddled addict, you)? Invest in a Gameboy. And in my humble opinion, if you're traveling with a laptop without underlying business purposes requiring said laptop to explicitly play games while going on vacation, then you need to re-evaluate your life.

If playing on the road really means that much to people: Smartphone + tether = internet on your laptop. Problem solved.
Added at: 07:22

As a person that has played Blizzard games since they came out with Rock and Roll Racing on the SNES, I can honestly question the validity of your claim, that they said they would"never in a million years" offer extra services at a cost.

What they have said, however, is they won't sell items that offer a game-breaking advantage at the high end. They have yet to do just that. Name changes, server transfers, and mounts, etc... are all fluff, you don't need them to play and they don't bestow a gameplay advantage. They are services that I am more then happy to pay for when I desire it. Free would be better for me, yes, but not better for Blizzard when Joe Ninja decides to change his name/server/look/race every week because "hey why not its free!".

Just to reiterate, Blizzard does not keep all its promises, and it would be silly to say they have. However, the one promise they have kept so far is that they have not sold the items or services they said they would not sell, those being ones that bestowed large in game advantages (buying end game gear directly from them, gold, etc...).

Hell, even this new AH in Diablo 2, the majority of the money goes to the person that SOLD it, meaning the player. Blizzard could have just walked in and said "screw you guys it's our store" and yet they are letting the players control it, the player gaining the MAJORITY of the points that they can (supposedly) cash in for money (or credits that can be used towards other, in-game items, it's still so up in the air.) That is pretty big lose of products when they could have just done something like the Champions Online C-Store or something.

I hate to be the guy always defending Blizzard, I get pissed at them too, and have been for most of Cataclysm. I just like when the complaints versus them are valid ones, and not imaginary ones.

Before server transfers were even available they explicitly stated they had no plans to ever allow such a thing. Then they stated that they would never do pve to pvp transfers and both faction pvp servers- then they did it. http://wow.joystiq.com/2009/07/05/breakfast-topic-paid-services/ That is game breaking to some extent, abide not as big a deal as in game cash transactions would be.

All I'm stating is that I would not be surprised if Blizzard whored out to micro-transactions in WoW.

 

[Krisken]

No. The plane thing is stupid. Worrying about bandwidth restrictions and being dropped isn't. Blizzard can eat a dick for taking such a callous attitude toward their fans.

 

[Shegokigo]

Jay would eat a dick before Blizzard would.....

 

[Chibibar]

The only thing I can see Blizz might be doing is doing something that "Spiral Knight" does (which isn't too bad)

For those who don't play
Spiral Knights has two currency
Crowns - earn via in-game and use to purchase stuff
Energy - This can be bought via real money.

You get 100 free energy that you can use to quest (takes 10 per level dungeon, when you go down another level, it takes 10 more) which is not too bad if you don't die.
You can spend your reserves (the purchase energy) to keep going
You can resurrect yourself via energy (cost 5 and then double each time you resurrect until you leave the dungeon)
You spend energy to CRAFT items (i.e. weapons, armor, helm, guns, swords, and shield)

Now what makes this system interesting.
The energy market (Puzzle pirate does this also) that players can set buying/selling price for 100 units of energy. So player control the market.
Energy is constantly being use since there is a sink for it and so does crown.

I can totally see WoW can go into this method via Crystals (cost real money) and gold. IF WoW go F2P.
Crystals - use in crafting and instance run or possible raid run (you can repeat if you have the crystals)
Crystal market to trade

so essentially Blizz can sell gold "indirectly" since the players will be the one offering gold for crystals, but players will be the one buying the crystals from the store. (a rough idea)
maybe eventually (or use it also) that Crystal can be use to change name, move characters and purchase special mounts (kinda like AP points in Global Agenda)

 

[PatrThom]

I don't know about y'all, but I still dive back into Daggerfall occasionally. I dusted off my copy of Darkstone when Kati was looking for something new to try after finishing the original Diablo. Kati regularly revisits HoMMII and HoMMIII, as well as her bi-annual fascinations with Betrayal in Antara and Lands of Lore 2. I still have a standing promise from Kati to do a joint run (her first) through Riven some day (It'll be like a romantic movie night of puzzle solving). I will still happily kill a few days with Age of Empires (I, II, or III) or MoOII*, or even the original StarCraft or Diablo/Diablo II.

My single biggest concern is the server sunset. By requiring always-online-authentication, Blizzard is saying that, at some point in the future, they are going to retroactively kill every copy of DiabloIII ever sold. When Blizzard (ie, Universal) decides the game has become unpopular OR they decide that it has gone on long enough and is siphoning players from their other, newer games, they will shut off the authentication server and every copy of D3 out there will die. D3 will get a big [CLOSED] sign across it. Then it won't just be people on planes who don't get to play, it'll be everyone, all at once.

I don't mind going into an MMO with the idea that I'm merely renting the experience. After all, I know it going in. That's the nature of MMOs (with some rare exceptions). But when I buy a "standalone" game, I expect it to run as long as I have the hardware for it**. I don't want someone out there telling me, "Ok, you've played that game long enough, you can't possibly still be having fun with it, so we're taking it away. There are plenty of our other new games out there if you want more fun."

--Patrick
*It might have come out in 1996, but it was still for sale on Atari's site until the end of 2010, fer cryin' out loud.
**And I have the hardware to run pretty much anything released before 2006.

 

[Jay]

Jay would eat a dick before Blizzard would.....

 

[Chibibar]

I don't know about y'all, but I still dive back into Daggerfall occasionally. I dusted off my copy of Darkstone when Kati was looking for something new to try after finishing the original Diablo. Kati regularly revisits HoMMII and HoMMIII, as well as her bi-annual fascinations with Betrayal in Antara and Lands of Lore 2. I still have a standing promise from Kati to do a joint run (her first) through Riven some day (It'll be like a romantic movie night of puzzle solving). I will still happily kill a few days with Age of Empires (I, II, or III) or MoOII*, or even the original StarCraft or Diablo/Diablo II.

My single biggest concern is the server sunset. By requiring always-online-authentication, Blizzard is saying that, at some point in the future, they are going to retroactively kill every copy of DiabloIII ever sold. When Blizzard (ie, Universal) decides the game has become unpopular OR they decide that it has gone on long enough and is siphoning players from their other, newer games, they will shut off the authentication server and every copy of D3 out there will die. D3 will get a big [CLOSED] sign across it. Then it won't just be people on planes who don't get to play, it'll be everyone, all at once.

I don't mind going into an MMO with the idea that I'm merely renting the experience. After all, I know it going in. That's the nature of MMOs (with some rare exceptions). But when I buy a "standalone" game, I expect it to run as long as I have the hardware for it**. I don't want someone out there telling me, "Ok, you've played that game long enough, you can't possibly still be having fun with it, so we're taking it away. There are plenty of our other new games out there if you want more fun."

--Patrick
*It might have come out in 1996, but it was still for sale on Atari's site until the end of 2010, fer cryin' out loud.
**And I have the hardware to run pretty much anything released before 2006.

Yup. Essentially, it is like MMO. Once it is shutdown, it is down.
Knowing the community out there, I'm sure someone will figure out on HOW to make their own Diablo III server (they did everything from EQ to SWG)

 

[SpecialKO]

When Blizzard (ie, Universal)

Complete side-note, Vivendi hasn't been "Universal" since 2006 .

 

[ScytheRexx]

Before server transfers were even available they explicitly stated they had no plans to ever allow such a thing. Then they stated that they would never do pve to pvp transfers and both faction pvp servers- then they did it. http://wow.joystiq.com/2009/07/05/breakfast-topic-paid-services/ That is game breaking to some extent, abide not as big a deal as in game cash transactions would be.

I understand what you are saying, although those are instances of them adding services they never planned to add. There is a difference between not planning such services in the first place, and assuming they implied they would never charge for those services if they ever did change opinion. I seemed to think you were implying they were charging for services they said they would never charge for, but now I see you are just mentioning that they added services they at once point said they wouldn't do. Seems in the end we were discussing different points.

I don't know about y'all, but I still dive back into Daggerfall occasionally. I dusted off my copy of Darkstone when Kati was looking for something new to try after finishing the original Diablo. Kati regularly revisits HoMMII and HoMMIII, as well as her bi-annual fascinations withBetrayal in Antara and Lands of Lore 2. I still have a standing promise from Kati to do a joint run (her first) through Riven some day (It'll be like a romantic movie night of puzzle solving). I will still happily kill a few days with Age of Empires (I, II, or III) or MoOII*, or even the original StarCraft or Diablo/Diablo II.

My single biggest concern is the server sunset. By requiring always-online-authentication, Blizzard is saying that, at some point in the future, they are going to retroactively kill every copy of DiabloIII ever sold. When Blizzard (ie, Universal) decides the game has become unpopular OR they decide that it has gone on long enough and is siphoning players from their other, newer games, they will shut off the authentication server and every copy of D3 out there will die. D3 will get a big [CLOSED] sign across it. Then it won't just be people on planes who don't get to play, it'll be everyone, all at once..

This is a valid concern, however, we have to wait and see how they handle it at that point, when the servers are actually shut down. Diablo 1 is still playable on Battle.net, even though the game is 15 years old. Same for StarCraft, or even the WarCraft 2 Battle.net Edition.

Even then, the authentication and locking off of the content is mostly client based. If, for whatever reason, Blizzard does decide to shut down Battle.net, they could patch in to remove the authentication and allow people to make "offline" characters. An example of them changing a game with the times was a various StarCraft and Diablo patchs that removed the need for cd-rom authentication when the games reached a point that authenticating them became obsolete.

As greedy as Blizzard have become these days, I don't think they would literally screw you out of a game down the line. Maybe WoW, just because it's so heavy on the Blizzard server side and would never work as a pure single player game, but Diablo 3 is a different beast, and I would be both stunned and appalled for them to just say "Sorry, games over, bye" on such a game should Battle.net get discontinued.

 

[Jay]

When can we pre-order this game? I'm bursting out of my pants in anticipation.

 

[Adam]

I won't be buying D3, but I'll be playing it just fine offline. Making the pirated version of a game more enticing than the paid version is not good business sense.

 

[Shegokigo]

More enticing how exactly? Because of the online required?

 

[SpecialKO]

I won't be buying D3, but I'll be playing it just fine offline. Making the pirated version of a game more enticing than the paid version is not good business sense.

You're assuming they want you as a customer, as opposed to the online multiplayer crowd that is willing to use RMT.

 

[Adam]

More enticing how exactly? Because of the online required?

Online Required means "Offline Disabled" and I travel enough to want to play my games when I want, wherever I want (As seen by the plethora of games on my laptop). The fact that I can pay $0 and get an "Offline Enabled" game doesn't really encourage me to pay $60 for "Offline Disabled". Typically you'd want people to pay for more features, not less. Even things like NWN2 I bought on Steam, I have to set to Offline so I can play on the road.
Added at: 20:50

You're assuming they want you as a customer, as opposed to the online multiplayer crowd that is willing to use RMT.

Fair enough. I don't even mind the RMT stuff - pay for what you want. I don't even care if it gives another person an advantage because that will just kill the game for Blizzard over time anyways. All these changes suggest to me that WoW's crashing and Blizzard is looking for another online cash cow in D3.

 

[Jay]

Can't disagree with that logic.

 

[SpecialKO]

All these changes suggest to me that WoW's crashing and Blizzard is looking for another online cash cow in D3.

I doubt WoW is crashing yet, but I completely agree that Blizz is looking for another cash cow.

The actual Blizz people (as in Ent, not Act-Blizz) are far from stupid, there's no way that they think they can keep realistically riding the WoW-cow for much longer than maybe one more expansion at most before audience starts leaving for something that is based on more than MMO-circa 2004.
Added at: 16:04
Which reminds me, has anyone heard more news about Titan? I'm assuming we'll hear more at Blizzcon, but anything new?

 

[Chibibar]

I doubt WoW is crashing yet, but I completely agree that Blizz is looking for another cash cow.

The actual Blizz people (as in Ent, not Act-Blizz) are far from stupid, there's no way that they think they can keep realistically riding the WoW-cow for much longer than maybe one more expansion at most before audience starts leaving for something that is based on more than MMO-circa 2004.
Added at: 16:04
Which reminds me, has anyone heard more news about Titan? I'm assuming we'll hear more at Blizzcon, but anything new?

Blizz is planning ahead. Blizzard is a business. Business are created to make money (they just happen to make a games which lots of people like which is a bonus) More and More MMO are trying to be the next "WoW killer" so Blizz is looking ahead (my opinion)

There are two different group of "pirates" IMO.
One - they will never pay for anything. These are the people you will never get money from.
Two - people who are willing to pay if the price is right. We have people on this board that are willing to shell out 10-20 for a game, but maybe NOT 60$ for the SAME game (usually wait for a sale)

 

[Hailey Knight]

Two - people who are willing to pay if the price is right. We have people on this board that are willing to shell out 10-20 for a game, but maybe NOT 60$ for the SAME game (usually wait for a sale)

I don't see people as pirates for paying for something, and I'm guessing you meant people who are not willing to pay 60, so they torrent it, and not that the people who wait for sales are pirates.

 

[Chibibar]

I don't see people as pirates for paying for something, and I'm guessing you meant people who are not willing to pay 60, so they torrent it, and not that the people who wait for sales are pirates.

that is correct. They will torrent it, play it and maybe buy it when it is on sale.

 

[Zappit]

This...is really, really disappointing. I hated the limits for single player on Starcraft 2 and the one account per disc thing for Battlenet - it's the reason I really don't bother with it much now - but this really seems to go even farther. Bleck. Sorry, Blizzard, Zap's done.

 

[Tress]

If you want to play Diablo III but don't like some of Blizzard's decisions, there are alternatives.

 

[Shegokigo]

that is correct. They will torrent it, play it and maybe buy it when it is on sale.

That is 100% the kind of person that I am. I will always hop on a game that I "got a hold of" and played the hell out of the moment the price is within my "range" ($5-30). Especially Collector's Editions.

 

[Jay]

That is 100% the kind of person that I am. I will always hop on a game that I "got a hold of" and played the hell out of the moment the price is within my "range" ($5-30). Especially Collector's Editions.

Completely agree.

There's a thread that I created earlier this year where I agree heavily to this and have done so myself in the past. Many of you don't agree to this, doesn't bother me.I didn't pay a cent for Dragon Age 2, did any of you? Mmmmmm?

As long as game companies take portions of content out the game and then ask me to pay more money (not DLCs like Shadow Broker who are legitimately great additional content and worth the extra few bucks but things such as Dragon Age's Sebastian is not). Some games I'll pay full price for due to previous experience with the game company (Valve, Blizzard) or their type of content (Bioshock, Elder Scrolls, heck Dead Island can suck a dick but I'm pre-ordering it because I WANT GAMES LIKE THAT) but I get I'm VERY apprehensive about everything else, trying not to get screwed by over-hyped, incomplete games with greedy uncaring publishers dump literal shit on us and try to take us for saps.

What do I do? I create my own demo and eventually buy their games if they deserve it.

For example $10 for Oblivion, Mass Effect 2 or Fallout 3 with all the DLCs is a heck of a deal and worthy of a purchase. Paying 50$ for New Vegas with a game engine less stable than Courtney Love is another matter altogether.

Will I buy Diablo 3? Even with all the hoopla? Of course.

Blizzard hasn't disappointed me yet.

Let me know the day where they remove a default playable character from the game and ask for $10 to unlock it and I'll start talking with my serious face.