I'm not gonna buy Diablo 3....
- Thread starter Shirastro
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So are you going to pay for the surgery yourself, or will Blizzard be covering the costs for you?usmarine4160 said:
OT: No interest in the game anyway (I'm sure its illegal in some parts of the world to be a PC gamer and not have played a Blizzard title once, but there you go), but I really wish more people would take a stand against this sort of thing.
And no, "it doesn't affect me so I don't give a shit," does not sound like a reasonable response.
I am still yet to have someone explain to me why their singleplayer game can't be made so that characters can't be transferred over to the multiplayer game.
Single player mode? It stays offline. End of. A one time activation upon install is about as much as should be tolerated.
Well, it's your decision to make, and I applaud you for taking a stand on something you feel strongly about. I, on the other hand, live in an area with REALLY good internet stability (one disconnect a year, or there about) and I don't play games on laptops on planes (I prefer to read when I travel). So the on-line issue isn't an issue for me, and in fact, never was.
But I understand that there are those for whom this issue is really important - people who live in rural areas, for example, who have spotty internet connection (or maybe even NO internet connection). These people might want to make a stand against the on-line requirements. And to them I wish all the best. But since the issue doesn't affect me, and since I'm attending med-school next year which means that I will have NO more social life, ever, after 2011, I'm going to buy it as soon as possible and play the hell out of it, since I won't get another chance. Med school at the University of Queensland is, according to all that I've heard, absolute hell, in terms of stress and time consumed. This is the last holiday I've ever got, as far as I'm concerned. I will spend it playing Diablo III. Providing it comes out in 2011. If not, then I'm screwed.
But I understand that there are those for whom this issue is really important - people who live in rural areas, for example, who have spotty internet connection (or maybe even NO internet connection). These people might want to make a stand against the on-line requirements. And to them I wish all the best. But since the issue doesn't affect me, and since I'm attending med-school next year which means that I will have NO more social life, ever, after 2011, I'm going to buy it as soon as possible and play the hell out of it, since I won't get another chance. Med school at the University of Queensland is, according to all that I've heard, absolute hell, in terms of stress and time consumed. This is the last holiday I've ever got, as far as I'm concerned. I will spend it playing Diablo III. Providing it comes out in 2011. If not, then I'm screwed.
I am not going to buy Diablo 3 but because it looks like a bland samey video game lacking in any real RPG development. It also looks like it came out in 2002. The always on thing didn't really bother me.
I'm going to buy it, making sure the developers get their money, then pirate a copy that doesn't require all the time online.
That's not wrong, I bought it, I'm just getting a better copy.
That's not wrong, I bought it, I'm just getting a better copy.
I can see why people complain about the online requirement, but then i think about it, and 95% of the people who own a computer and would buy the game have a internet connection 99% of the time. Then i see the arguements as poinltess complaints about something that if not told about would not even effect them in any way.
That's the good counter argument for the case.Flames66 said:
Speaking only for myself here, but I'm still quite indifferent. I won't play it on the run, and if I should need entertainment without internet connection, I'll just play something that doesn't require it.
And for the criminal suspicion? Eh.. I'm not a criminal, and I know I'm not a criminal. That sort of neutralize the prospect of regarding me as a criminal. For me anyway.
Yay for you.....?
That's wonderful of you to have that stance (EDIT: I'm not being insulting, it's nice that someone will actually vote with their wallet). I, on the other hand, will be playing the hell out of it, and loving every minute of it.
That's wonderful of you to have that stance (EDIT: I'm not being insulting, it's nice that someone will actually vote with their wallet). I, on the other hand, will be playing the hell out of it, and loving every minute of it.
good for you, i personally don't care much. and if i were to need play D3 where there is no internet i sure there will be cracks available they always do. Never gonna play D3 online so i don't need online functionality.
This the world;Captain Ponyholder said:
http://www.misconceptionjunction.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/third_world_map.jpg
Tell me now that everyone in those yellow and red areas have stable internet connections and that allowing practices like this to go on unchallenged won't increase the amount of games that use such ridiculous measures. Look at it like this;
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
What happens if they take up a business practice that penalises you, and no one does anything because it doesn't effect them,
I'm not flaming, nor defending the relevance of this thread, but saying something like that just annoys me a bit.
Speaking for those of us who haven't had an internet outage in over a year, I have no issues whatsoever with always-on DRM. You should be less angry with DRM and more angry with your shitty internet in my opinion.
Me neither OP (not that it has anything to do with the always on feature, though it's not that I'm in favour of that either). But it's not as big a deal as you might think. Diablo is not the be all end all of gaming franchises, it's a cult game, it's not to everyone's taste, far from it.
i'd say 'why', but i really don't care.Shirastro said:Cause of the always on-line requirements.
I always liked Diablo series, but was never a huge fan. I played the first one, and played the second one quiet a bit, so i was looking forward to Diablo 3.
I have a good computer, stable and fast internet connection, and had all the intention of buying the game (instead of getting a hacked copy, which i can oh so easily do), but i wont.
Whos with me?
P.S. this isnt about the latest Jimquisition episode. I decided not to buy Diablo 3 a long time ago, Jim just reminded me
i'm not getting it because i'm lazy. i'd get it if i felt like it, but my comp sucks and mmo's aren't my thing. all in all i think it looks pretty sweet honestly.
I'm not getting it either. I have the luxury of a shelf full of good games waiting for me, so I can allow tentative questions about the directions Blizzard is going to be enough reason not to rush to buy. (Not that that's necessarily going to stop my reflexive drooling over Saint's Row 3 or Skyrim.)
So are connection requirements or the real-money auction house really going to "ruin" Diablo III? Truth be told... I don't know. Neither do you (which kind of begs the question of both the outraged and those delightful folks who want to dismiss them as "whiners"). Blizzard has always held to a very high standard, and while I don't want to assume that the less attractive qualities of Activision are seeping into their corporate culture, some of their recent behavior (splitting one title into multiple installments, sudden movement on long-dormant franchises, network requirements, increasingly user-unfriendly treatment of users who don't toe the line) makes one wonder. And I'm not entirely convinced Blizzard is completely aware of what the effects of these additions will be, either.
But for me, the bottom line is that neither of these controversial additions ever seems necessary. Saying that there "was always a grey market for Diablo items anyway" doesn't undo the fact that Blizzard has decided to quietly add a revenue stream to the base cost of your game, whose effect on multiplayer games and design considerations for future expansions remains an open question. While I'm sure it makes it easier to crack down on "cheating", always-on network requirements create their own problems, even for companies with as much experience in online networks as Blizzard. A network hiccup or service outage is always a poor reason to lose time spent on a single-player game, and "cheating" becomes more of an issue because of that same auction house.
So while these features may or may not prove a significant liability to what may well be a great game, I don't have any strong incentive to be one of the guinea pigs who finds out whether they've merely made a bold step in discovery of unnecessary crap that users will put up with, or a genuine colossal mistake.
So are connection requirements or the real-money auction house really going to "ruin" Diablo III? Truth be told... I don't know. Neither do you (which kind of begs the question of both the outraged and those delightful folks who want to dismiss them as "whiners"). Blizzard has always held to a very high standard, and while I don't want to assume that the less attractive qualities of Activision are seeping into their corporate culture, some of their recent behavior (splitting one title into multiple installments, sudden movement on long-dormant franchises, network requirements, increasingly user-unfriendly treatment of users who don't toe the line) makes one wonder. And I'm not entirely convinced Blizzard is completely aware of what the effects of these additions will be, either.
But for me, the bottom line is that neither of these controversial additions ever seems necessary. Saying that there "was always a grey market for Diablo items anyway" doesn't undo the fact that Blizzard has decided to quietly add a revenue stream to the base cost of your game, whose effect on multiplayer games and design considerations for future expansions remains an open question. While I'm sure it makes it easier to crack down on "cheating", always-on network requirements create their own problems, even for companies with as much experience in online networks as Blizzard. A network hiccup or service outage is always a poor reason to lose time spent on a single-player game, and "cheating" becomes more of an issue because of that same auction house.
So while these features may or may not prove a significant liability to what may well be a great game, I don't have any strong incentive to be one of the guinea pigs who finds out whether they've merely made a bold step in discovery of unnecessary crap that users will put up with, or a genuine colossal mistake.