Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Its amazing to see some people jumping to the defense of a company that cares nothing about them and is implementing a customer-screwing system. Did people do that same thing in defense of Ultimate MvC3?
I don't play MMO's I don't care for'em I originally got into Diablo 1 & 2 When I didn't have access to online play so I loved the single player. Man hours in Blizzard terms don't really count when it takes a decade for the next game to come out some extra won't kill them to make sure people are able to play when lady luck isn't on their side.Tumedus said:
Yeah you must be trolling. Zynga doesn't have the most positive shine on the gaming world either. Making everything Social basically gets rid of the personal user experience. I don't want every weapon I pick up and battle recorded. I careless about "Fan" bonuses with are basically if you kissed their ass enough you get free shit. Mods are still more logical then spending money on something I make not like. I really don't want to be begging or "whoring" myself to get friend points. Privacy is a major thing Facebook is a prime example of why this shouldn't happen. Then why in the hell are you charging you "dearest" friends to buy gear when you should be able to give them what they want and or need.Traun said:
Captcha: Cited Offender
lol u trollanNesco Nomen said:
Seriously, just because some people think Kotick should fuck himself doesn't mean that the dissenters don't deserve respect. Put simply, the consumers pay this company's bills. THAT is why they should respect us.
heres what i see in the heads of blizz PR department:
always online for single player> be shocked at backlash> make offline single-player> fans will think we actually listen to them.
hey I'm not bashing them, hell its fucking genius, but its not rocket surgery.
granted PC gamers(or console gamers for that matter) don't seem to be a capable lot compared to gamers who just game.
always online for single player> be shocked at backlash> make offline single-player> fans will think we actually listen to them.
hey I'm not bashing them, hell its fucking genius, but its not rocket surgery.
granted PC gamers(or console gamers for that matter) don't seem to be a capable lot compared to gamers who just game.
I did buy SC2, but for FUCK'S SAKES I AM SO NOT HAPPY ABOUT LACK OF LAN!!! If Blizzard wasn't the only company serious about competitive RTSs that are fun to play AND to watch (and they ARE the only company that fits that description, most for the "fun to watch" clause), I think this decision would hurt them. As it stands, it's a way to make product worse that doesn't make a difference due to them being a monopoly.tony2077 said:
But in hack and slash RPGs they are far from a monopoly. They actually have competition. And so I am not going to buy Diablo III.
Most people still will of course, because you are right - people are so attached to the brand that they are really paying for the brand, and not for the quality (and the fact that Blizzard has tons of liquid capital and can financially support long-term development helps with quality as well). But still, at least for me, and from what I understand, a lot of my friends, this type of DRM => instant no sell.
When Civ IV no-DRM collection was released, I instantly bought it. Because I want to support that type of business decisions, but also because it was a good game. Few companies have rich enough investors to both support long development necessary for this high quality AND at the same time allow a publication without DRM. Maybe eventually the investors will learn that DRM can be bad. But probably not.
buying stuff like this doesn't help and i bet some of the people here will buy it anyway and i'm talking about the ones that say they won't since there anonymous on here so they can say what ever the hell they want and still buy itVolkov said:I did buy SC2, but for FUCK'S SAKES I AM SO NOT HAPPY ABOUT LACK OF LAN!!! If Blizzard wasn't the only company serious about competitive RTSs that are fun to play AND to watch (and they ARE the only company that fits that description, most for the "fun to watch" clause), I think this decision would hurt them. As it stands, it's a way to make product worse that doesn't make a difference due to them being a monopoly.tony2077 said:
But in hack and slash RPGs they are far from a monopoly. They actually have competition. And so I am not going to buy Diablo III.
Most people still will of course, because you are right - people are so attached to the brand that they are really paying for the brand, and not for the quality (and the fact that Blizzard has tons of liquid capital and can financially support long-term development helps with quality as well). But still, at least for me, and from what I understand, a lot of my friends, this type of DRM => instant no sell.
When Civ IV no-DRM collection was released, I instantly bought it. Because I want to support that type of business decisions, but also because it was a good game. Few companies have rich enough investors to both support long development necessary for this high quality AND at the same time allow a publication without DRM. Maybe eventually the investors will learn that DRM can be bad. But probably not.
That was pretty shitty English, but yes, you are also right - pledges like this on the Internet (or in person in front of a Blizzard employee's face) make absolutely zero difference. A measurable drop in the actual vs predicted sales - that would make some difference, I think. But you are right, there won't be one, for reasons outlined in my post above.tony2077 said:buying stuff like this doesn't help and i bet some of the people here will buy it anyway and i'm talking about the ones that say they won't since there anonymous on here so they can say what ever the hell they want and still buy itVolkov said:I did buy SC2, but for FUCK'S SAKES I AM SO NOT HAPPY ABOUT LACK OF LAN!!! If Blizzard wasn't the only company serious about competitive RTSs that are fun to play AND to watch (and they ARE the only company that fits that description, most for the "fun to watch" clause), I think this decision would hurt them. As it stands, it's a way to make product worse that doesn't make a difference due to them being a monopoly.tony2077 said:
But in hack and slash RPGs they are far from a monopoly. They actually have competition. And so I am not going to buy Diablo III.
Most people still will of course, because you are right - people are so attached to the brand that they are really paying for the brand, and not for the quality (and the fact that Blizzard has tons of liquid capital and can financially support long-term development helps with quality as well). But still, at least for me, and from what I understand, a lot of my friends, this type of DRM => instant no sell.
When Civ IV no-DRM collection was released, I instantly bought it. Because I want to support that type of business decisions, but also because it was a good game. Few companies have rich enough investors to both support long development necessary for this high quality AND at the same time allow a publication without DRM. Maybe eventually the investors will learn that DRM can be bad. But probably not.
I guess Blizzard are the only people in the world who didn't predict this reaction. They thought that because people are willing to remain online for an exclusively multiplayer game, they'll be happy to do the same for something single-player? I guess it's all for the sake of the real money auction house, which, completely obviously, not many players actually want. There are the loud complainers, the vast majority who don't care, and... who? The people who actually wanted the AH and would be unhappy for it to be absent? I'd guess they're probably the smallest group by far.
well i don't care enough to fix my EnglishVolkov said:That was pretty shitty English, but yes, you are also right - pledges like this on the Internet (or in person in front of a Blizzard employee's face) make absolutely zero difference. A measurable drop in the actual vs predicted sales - that would make some difference, I think. But you are right, there won't be one, for reasons outlined in my post above.tony2077 said:buying stuff like this doesn't help and i bet some of the people here will buy it anyway and i'm talking about the ones that say they won't since there anonymous on here so they can say what ever the hell they want and still buy itVolkov said:I did buy SC2, but for FUCK'S SAKES I AM SO NOT HAPPY ABOUT LACK OF LAN!!! If Blizzard wasn't the only company serious about competitive RTSs that are fun to play AND to watch (and they ARE the only company that fits that description, most for the "fun to watch" clause), I think this decision would hurt them. As it stands, it's a way to make product worse that doesn't make a difference due to them being a monopoly.tony2077 said:
But in hack and slash RPGs they are far from a monopoly. They actually have competition. And so I am not going to buy Diablo III.
Most people still will of course, because you are right - people are so attached to the brand that they are really paying for the brand, and not for the quality (and the fact that Blizzard has tons of liquid capital and can financially support long-term development helps with quality as well). But still, at least for me, and from what I understand, a lot of my friends, this type of DRM => instant no sell.
When Civ IV no-DRM collection was released, I instantly bought it. Because I want to support that type of business decisions, but also because it was a good game. Few companies have rich enough investors to both support long development necessary for this high quality AND at the same time allow a publication without DRM. Maybe eventually the investors will learn that DRM can be bad. But probably not.
You know, my internet sucks. I'm one of those people where, with four roommates, we can spread our bandwidth too thin and lose connection frequently.
And I travel a lot with my laptop to locations (like my grandmother's house) where wireless isn't available.
So, screw this "always-on" stuff. "Way of the future". Fine, let this have online components. But have the decency to give those that don't want to deal with this BS the option of playing the game the way WE want to play it; offline and single-player.
Idiots. Seriously. Screw big-companies thinking they speak for "the future" and telling me what's best for me.
And I travel a lot with my laptop to locations (like my grandmother's house) where wireless isn't available.
So, screw this "always-on" stuff. "Way of the future". Fine, let this have online components. But have the decency to give those that don't want to deal with this BS the option of playing the game the way WE want to play it; offline and single-player.
Idiots. Seriously. Screw big-companies thinking they speak for "the future" and telling me what's best for me.
OK, I HAVE to say something About this, because it'll just hurt me if i don't scream!
When I heard this, for the first time in years, I wasn't angry, or anything of the sort. I was STUNNED TO NEAR-TEARS.
Blizzard. I gave you all the credit a young fan could. since my birth I've been playing your games, and talking a big game about you, despite the recent years involving WoW. SC and Diablo II are how I kept contact with my father, and I treasure those games like memories of days gone by. But WHY does it seem like, once again, (this time with SCII) that ill have to boycott my own childhood memories in the hope something changes?
this. is. simple. REMOVE single player, and you lose buyers. and I'm past the point now of wanting to explain to people that the internet is NOT up to code as much as they would have you believe. I know for a fact that besides simply dodgy signals, a good portion of america alone still doesn't have sturdy broadband. Not that it'll matter to the populace, though. It's Diablo III, right? they'll buy it, and play it, And not care. and to the people who say "well, its like an MMO now"? there is NO REASON, why Diablo III should be always online when Diablo 1 and II already knew how to separate out multi-player from single player. Why is it Blizzard (and now that I think of it, MOST older companies these days) forgetting things they ALREADY DID years prior?
This... just hurts a part of me. I'm gonna go play Katamari now. thank goodness for the raw bliss that music creates.
When I heard this, for the first time in years, I wasn't angry, or anything of the sort. I was STUNNED TO NEAR-TEARS.
Blizzard. I gave you all the credit a young fan could. since my birth I've been playing your games, and talking a big game about you, despite the recent years involving WoW. SC and Diablo II are how I kept contact with my father, and I treasure those games like memories of days gone by. But WHY does it seem like, once again, (this time with SCII) that ill have to boycott my own childhood memories in the hope something changes?
this. is. simple. REMOVE single player, and you lose buyers. and I'm past the point now of wanting to explain to people that the internet is NOT up to code as much as they would have you believe. I know for a fact that besides simply dodgy signals, a good portion of america alone still doesn't have sturdy broadband. Not that it'll matter to the populace, though. It's Diablo III, right? they'll buy it, and play it, And not care. and to the people who say "well, its like an MMO now"? there is NO REASON, why Diablo III should be always online when Diablo 1 and II already knew how to separate out multi-player from single player. Why is it Blizzard (and now that I think of it, MOST older companies these days) forgetting things they ALREADY DID years prior?
This... just hurts a part of me. I'm gonna go play Katamari now. thank goodness for the raw bliss that music creates.
Yeah, I know. But trying to rally people to my cause would be equally as futile so whatever.tony2077 said:
Edit: Besides, it's just not that big a deal to me.
Unless everyone in the world has free internet access, he's a complete fucking moron into think that.
Starcraft 2 still has an offline mode. I know this I have used it. I wasn't going to purchase Diablo III anyways but this does lay down the groundwork for future releases from them. I do not support games that I cannot play when my internet is down/their servers are down. MMOs you expect stuff like that to happen. Diablo III is not an MMO.tony2077 said:
"We've been doing online gameplay for 15 years now... and with World of WarCraft and our roots in Battle.net and now with Diablo 3, it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry."
He says that as if he's some god, or Lord who decides the fate of gaming, rather than US who decide the fate of gaming with out wallets. I will no longer be purchasing D3.
"just the nature of how things are going"? That sounds like we should just bend over and accept things when we don't like them, instead of not purchasing their product.
He says that as if he's some god, or Lord who decides the fate of gaming, rather than US who decide the fate of gaming with out wallets. I will no longer be purchasing D3.
"just the nature of how things are going"? That sounds like we should just bend over and accept things when we don't like them, instead of not purchasing their product.