What is with people?

[Woodsey]

I can see this going round in circles. If they want to create a game that can be played in multiplayer or solo, then the solo gameplay should not be always-online.

Why cant it be always-online? When the game becomes insanely popular strictly because of its online gameplay what is wrong with its sequel being always online? The people are are


You are basically complaining that a multiplayer game requires you to be online in order to play it. You can deny it all you want but diablo 2 was a multiplayer game. Since single player was not a big deal they got rid of it to try and create something to appease the people who had been playing diablo 2 for the past ten years.

They didn't get rid of it, they made it online-only. Otherwise, single-player is as it was in Diablo 2. That's how it's been reported, that's how they've labelled it in interviews.

It has to be online-only to protect against people who would edit their saves to give themselves powerful equipment, equipment they would then go on to sell on the Marketplace for real money. The two are inextricably linked together. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is left as an exercise for opinion, but there it is.

Here's a tip: make a purely offline single-player mode and display a warning box that you'll not be able to port the character into multiplayer, along with the always-online. I'm sure the richest publisher in the industry, having spent 10 years on the game, could pull their dick out enough to implement that.

It's about piracy.

 

[DoPo]

Gamers aren't a hivemind you know.

My name is "Gamers", for we are many. My friends call me "Shitload". And I constantly change my mind just to annoy everybody else.

Submit! Join us to end this madness you're subjected to!

John Dies at the End reference, possibly? If so, you're my new best friend EVER.

=D

Yes, yes it is. I couldn't pass up the opportunity.

 

[templar1138a]

Human nature. Plain and simple.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Jah.. because Counterstrike is also evil because it had/has to be played online.
Srsly, why are people sayin' Diablo is a singleplayer game? It's one of the best example of multiplayer out there.

D1 brought us the B.Net. It was always a multiplayer game with a singleplayer option - not the other way around.

Also the lack of a LAN-mode isn't something Blizzard-exclusive, the whole industry behaves retarded on that matter.

I can't take the "but you've to be always online" claims serious at all.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

This would be so much easier with some Venn Diagrams, but oh well, I'm lazy.

1. You assume that all gamers have an opinion on Diablo III. Some "gamers" just don't care.
2. You assume that all gamers have the same opinion at the same time. One group can praise it, while the other can condemn it, and they can both be members of the "gamers" group, while not necessarily being members of the same opinion groups.
3. You assume that one cannot approve of the game in general and still be upset by the DRM. I'm not fond of raisins, but I still enjoy trail mix if it contains them.

And, in answering your "discussion value" question that you hoped would bear substance for your complaint:

4. You assume that changing one's mind is a bad thing. It is very important to gain new information on a subject and revise your stance on it based on the new information. That's actually a simplified description of the Scientific Method. Maybe, after thinking it over, or getting new information, the people who disagreed with the DRM decided that it wasn't as bad as they had originally asserted; or they decided that the other merits of the game outweigh the inconvenience of the DRM.

You may also want to qualify how often you believe prostitutes have sex. At the right price point and cost of living, a prostitute might only need to have sex once per week, or twice per month. This might not be an excessive frequency for changing one's mind, depending on the subject matter.

Me, I don't care about Diablo III. I also don't care how often anyone changes their minds. I might be concerned about someone who is "easily persuaded" who simply changes their mind as soon as someone says they should. As long as someone actually bases their change of mind on new knowledge or experience, I don't care how often they do it.

 

[SEXTON HALE]

Im usually quite flipant when it comes to deciding on weather or not I like something but when I do reach a decision I commit to it.I do find people who change their minds as you put it 'as often as a prostitue has sex' to be on average a lot more annoying then people who dont so they usually end up pissing me off pretty quickly and then it's all goes down hill from there.

 

[Tharwen]

Seriously, why are gamers such ridiculous hypocrites?

It is well and truly beyond me. The amount of people who are singing praises about Diablo 3 as if it's the second coming of Christ already is just stupid, considering when the retarded DRM was announced, everyone was baying for blood.

Please, make up your fucking mind.

Now, for the discussion value.

What's your take on the moronic nature of people who change their mind about things more often than a prostitute has sex?

How highly sought is this prostitute? Are her prices reasonable? Does she give out business cards to acquire return customers?

I'm afraid I can't contribute to your discussion value until I know all the details of what we're discussing here.

 

[Saviordd1]

I never really cared about Diablo 3, thus I am not one of these hivemind gamers, thus blow it out your ass.

 

[dyre]

It's hypocritical to slam a company's business practices and then give them your money anyway, whether you signed and laminated an official declaration of boycott or not.

Uh, no it's not. Really, it's only hypocritical to slam the company's business practices, then repeat those same business practices yourself.

If I refused to buy a product from any company I considered to have bad practices of some kind, I wouldn't be able to buy things at all. Your food, your medicine, your gasoline, etc, is all sold to you by shitty companies with shitty business practices.

And so the truth did finally dawn upon him, and it was magnificent...

Everyone's a hypocrite. Suck it up.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at...if everyone's a hypocrite, why bother singling out gamers for, if we used your definition of hypocrisy, is an extraordinarily small amount of hypocrisy compared to people who buy from BP, or put their money in Bank of America. It's like yelling at a guy for punching a baby in a roomful of people who are shooting babies...

In fact, if everyone is a hypocrite, then you are a hypocrite. Since you seem to dislike hypocrisy, why are you engaging in the act by pointing out the perceived hypocrisy of others?

My point is that those things are hypocritical, you seem to think they're not. The difference between someone buying food from somewhere they disagree with the business practices of and this is that the food argument is leaning towards an inescapable fact of life, with everyone needing food. There are degrees of hypocrisy. So yes, everyone is a hypocrite, no, I don't paint everyone with the same brush because of it.

What we're talking about here is a 'luxury item' which people in no way need, have derided the company's business practices on, and then proceeded to buy the game anyway.

If you slam their business practices and then give them your money, you're endorsing their business practices. That's hypocritical. (And please don't make me show you a dictionary definition, I don't want every argument I have on here to have to end with that.)

'In fact, if everyone is a hypocrite, then you are a hypocrite.'

Do I applaud now, or is there an encore?

I see you've altered your argument to be more specific, but no less nonsensical. Shall we stop watching movies because we don't like the MPAA? Or the publisher? Or any number of companies involved in the making of that film? All companies have some bad business practices of some kind. Just because a company has some stupid DRM policy doesn't mean I want to put them out of business.

I'm not interested in your dictionary definition, but hypocrisy is about morals, not bad business practices. If I say "I don't like the fact that public buses are slow and I think they overcharge, but I take the bus anyway," I'm not being a hypocrite, because I'm not making a moral claim. I'm just dealing with annoyances that come with a product that in the end does more good than bad. I don't like always-online DRM because it's pain in the ass, but I'm going to buy D3 eventually anyway. Because I get to play a good game that is worth dealing with the DRM.

You really need to put things into perspective. DRM sucks, sure, but it's not a moral evil, and certainly nothing compared to companies you probably purchase from that use child labor, keep faulty medicine on shelves, indirectly sponsor civil wars, etc...

Also, being a sarcastic dick is only cool if you're making a good argument, which you aren't.

 

[Kerboom]

Dear people who are saying "Can you PROVE anyone ever did this?"

Here, have a picture.

It'll never cease to amazing me how people will say one thing like "Let's all boycott this because ______" and will proceed to get it anyway.

It's not Diablo 3, but there are people who said the same, and who still are going to buy it.

 

[Woodsey]

It's hypocritical to slam a company's business practices and then give them your money anyway, whether you signed and laminated an official declaration of boycott or not.

Uh, no it's not. Really, it's only hypocritical to slam the company's business practices, then repeat those same business practices yourself.

If I refused to buy a product from any company I considered to have bad practices of some kind, I wouldn't be able to buy things at all. Your food, your medicine, your gasoline, etc, is all sold to you by shitty companies with shitty business practices.

And so the truth did finally dawn upon him, and it was magnificent...

Everyone's a hypocrite. Suck it up.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at...if everyone's a hypocrite, why bother singling out gamers for, if we used your definition of hypocrisy, is an extraordinarily small amount of hypocrisy compared to people who buy from BP, or put their money in Bank of America. It's like yelling at a guy for punching a baby in a roomful of people who are shooting babies...

In fact, if everyone is a hypocrite, then you are a hypocrite. Since you seem to dislike hypocrisy, why are you engaging in the act by pointing out the perceived hypocrisy of others?

My point is that those things are hypocritical, you seem to think they're not. The difference between someone buying food from somewhere they disagree with the business practices of and this is that the food argument is leaning towards an inescapable fact of life, with everyone needing food. There are degrees of hypocrisy. So yes, everyone is a hypocrite, no, I don't paint everyone with the same brush because of it.

What we're talking about here is a 'luxury item' which people in no way need, have derided the company's business practices on, and then proceeded to buy the game anyway.

If you slam their business practices and then give them your money, you're endorsing their business practices. That's hypocritical. (And please don't make me show you a dictionary definition, I don't want every argument I have on here to have to end with that.)

'In fact, if everyone is a hypocrite, then you are a hypocrite.'

Do I applaud now, or is there an encore?

I see you've altered your argument to be more specific, but no less nonsensical. Shall we stop watching movies because we don't like the MPAA? Or the publisher? Or any number of companies involved in the making of that film? All companies have some bad business practices of some kind. Just because a company has some stupid DRM policy doesn't mean I want to put them out of business.

I'm not interested in your dictionary definition, but hypocrisy is about morals, not bad business practices. If I say "I don't like the fact that public buses are slow and I think they overcharge, but I take the bus anyway," I'm not being a hypocrite, because I'm not making a moral claim. I'm just dealing with annoyances that come with a product that in the end does more good than bad. I don't like always-online DRM because it's pain in the ass, but I'm going to buy D3 eventually anyway. Because I get to play a good game that is worth dealing with the DRM.

You really need to put things into perspective. DRM sucks, sure, but it's not a moral evil, and certainly nothing compared to companies you probably purchase from that use child labor, keep faulty medicine on shelves, indirectly sponsor civil wars, etc...

Also, being a sarcastic dick is only cool if you're making a good argument, which you aren't.

'I see you've altered your argument to be more specific, but no less nonsensical. Shall we stop watching movies because we don't like the MPAA? Or the publisher? Or any number of companies involved in the making of that film? All companies have some bad business practices of some kind. Just because a company has some stupid DRM policy doesn't mean I want to put them out of business.'

Sorry, were we talking about you? I'm talking about people who objected in the first place. If you don't give a shit about those things then no, you're not being hypocritical. If you do then you are - you're asserting specific standards which companies should live up to and then endorsing ones that don't anyway. And of course businesses should be punished for bad business practices - that's how we get good fucking businesses.

'I'm not interested in your dictionary definition'

Clearly. This would be done by now if you had the capacity to look them up.

And again, you seem incapable of differentiating between a luxury and a necessity. We are talking about a piece of entertainment, not something where it's much more difficult for someone to avoid rewarding shit behaviour.

'You really need to put things into perspective. DRM sucks, sure, but it's not a moral evil, and certainly nothing compared to companies you probably purchase from that use child labor, keep faulty medicine on shelves, indirectly sponsor civil wars, etc...'

We're talking about whether or not it's hypocrisy, not how important the hypocrisy is in the grand scheme of things. Hypocrisy is not a concept that is solely bound to the moralistic evils of the world. Hypocrisy can be telling someone they spend too much on penny-sweets and then spending a metric fuck-tonne of money on penny-sweets yourself.

'Also, being a sarcastic dick is only cool if you're making a good argument, which you aren't.'

I'm surprised you could even pick up on it given your obvious aversion to reading things. So go away, find a dictionary (I hear they put them on the internet for free nowadays), accept that you are wrong.

It is hypocritical to slam a company's business practices, especially a company that's only selling entertainment products, and then go ahead and give them your money anyway. It's an endorsement, it says you're fine with it. That's a contradiction of your previous McSlamming, and an act of hypocrisy. You're setting out principles and standards and then endorsing the opposite. Hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.

 

[nu1mlock]

Dear people who are saying "Can you PROVE anyone ever did this?"

Here, have a picture.
It'll never cease to amazing me how people will say one thing like "Let's all boycott this because ______" and will proceed to get it anyway.

It's not Diablo 3, but there are people who said the same, and who still are going to buy it.

That's most probably because they were/are users who wanted dedicated servers and didn't really care about the first word in the groups name, "Boycott". People join shit without thinking and without having an opinion too. Just look at Facebook.

Doesn't mean they're hypocrites, could just mean they want dedicated servers.

I agree with you in that it was a stupid way of saying they wanted dedicated servers, and it also looks funny.

 

[dyre]

It's hypocritical to slam a company's business practices and then give them your money anyway, whether you signed and laminated an official declaration of boycott or not.

Uh, no it's not. Really, it's only hypocritical to slam the company's business practices, then repeat those same business practices yourself.

If I refused to buy a product from any company I considered to have bad practices of some kind, I wouldn't be able to buy things at all. Your food, your medicine, your gasoline, etc, is all sold to you by shitty companies with shitty business practices.

And so the truth did finally dawn upon him, and it was magnificent...

Everyone's a hypocrite. Suck it up.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at...if everyone's a hypocrite, why bother singling out gamers for, if we used your definition of hypocrisy, is an extraordinarily small amount of hypocrisy compared to people who buy from BP, or put their money in Bank of America. It's like yelling at a guy for punching a baby in a roomful of people who are shooting babies...

In fact, if everyone is a hypocrite, then you are a hypocrite. Since you seem to dislike hypocrisy, why are you engaging in the act by pointing out the perceived hypocrisy of others?

My point is that those things are hypocritical, you seem to think they're not. The difference between someone buying food from somewhere they disagree with the business practices of and this is that the food argument is leaning towards an inescapable fact of life, with everyone needing food. There are degrees of hypocrisy. So yes, everyone is a hypocrite, no, I don't paint everyone with the same brush because of it.

What we're talking about here is a 'luxury item' which people in no way need, have derided the company's business practices on, and then proceeded to buy the game anyway.

If you slam their business practices and then give them your money, you're endorsing their business practices. That's hypocritical. (And please don't make me show you a dictionary definition, I don't want every argument I have on here to have to end with that.)

'In fact, if everyone is a hypocrite, then you are a hypocrite.'

Do I applaud now, or is there an encore?

I see you've altered your argument to be more specific, but no less nonsensical. Shall we stop watching movies because we don't like the MPAA? Or the publisher? Or any number of companies involved in the making of that film? All companies have some bad business practices of some kind. Just because a company has some stupid DRM policy doesn't mean I want to put them out of business.

I'm not interested in your dictionary definition, but hypocrisy is about morals, not bad business practices. If I say "I don't like the fact that public buses are slow and I think they overcharge, but I take the bus anyway," I'm not being a hypocrite, because I'm not making a moral claim. I'm just dealing with annoyances that come with a product that in the end does more good than bad. I don't like always-online DRM because it's pain in the ass, but I'm going to buy D3 eventually anyway. Because I get to play a good game that is worth dealing with the DRM.

You really need to put things into perspective. DRM sucks, sure, but it's not a moral evil, and certainly nothing compared to companies you probably purchase from that use child labor, keep faulty medicine on shelves, indirectly sponsor civil wars, etc...

Also, being a sarcastic dick is only cool if you're making a good argument, which you aren't.

'I see you've altered your argument to be more specific, but no less nonsensical. Shall we stop watching movies because we don't like the MPAA? Or the publisher? Or any number of companies involved in the making of that film? All companies have some bad business practices of some kind. Just because a company has some stupid DRM policy doesn't mean I want to put them out of business.'

Sorry, were we talking about you? I'm talking about people who objected in the first place. If you don't give a shit about those things then no, you're not being hypocritical. If you do then you are - you're asserting specific standards which companies should live up to and then endorsing ones that don't anyway. And of course businesses should be punished for bad business practices - that's how we get good fucking businesses.

'I'm not interested in your dictionary definition'

Clearly. This would be done by now if you had the capacity to look them up.

And again, you seem incapable of differentiating between a luxury and a necessity. We are talking about a piece of entertainment, not something where it's much more difficult for someone to avoid rewarding shit behaviour.

'You really need to put things into perspective. DRM sucks, sure, but it's not a moral evil, and certainly nothing compared to companies you probably purchase from that use child labor, keep faulty medicine on shelves, indirectly sponsor civil wars, etc...'

We're talking about whether or not it's hypocrisy, not how important the hypocrisy is in the grand scheme of things. Hypocrisy is not a concept that is solely bound to the moralistic evils of the world. Hypocrisy can be telling someone they spend too much on penny-sweets and then spending a metric fuck-tonne of money on penny-sweets yourself.

'Also, being a sarcastic dick is only cool if you're making a good argument, which you aren't.'

I'm surprised you could even pick up on it given your obvious aversion to reading things. So go away, find a dictionary (I hear they put them on the internet for free nowadays), accept that you are wrong.

It is hypocritical to slam a company's business practices, especially a company that's only selling entertainment products, and then go ahead and give them your money anyway. It's an endorsement, it says you're fine with it. That's a contradiction of your previous McSlamming, and an act of hypocrisy. You're setting out principles and standards and then endorsing the opposite. Hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.Hypocrisy.

The only way you could even attempt to follow that definition of hypocrisy and avoid being a hypocrite is to be spectacularly ignorant and simply be unaware of any bad practice found in any company. That, or have no standards at all.

Here's a definition I got from a wonderful, free dictionary on the internet.
hypocrisy: noun; a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

The center of the argument is that you seem to think buying a product that is related to a business that has at least one bad practice of some kind is to not possess the relevant principle yourself. Which is nonsense. That's like telling a little girl "you spent too much on penny sweets, now I can't have anything to do with you, or else I'm basically the equivalent of someone who spent too much on penny sweets."

And by the way, telling someone they spent too much on penny-sweets? That's a moral claim, or a principled one, or w/e. Telling them they spent "too much" is an accusation of wastefulness or gluttony.

Also, I'll respond to your red herring argument about necessities and luxuries. Video games are a luxury and food is a necessity, correct? If we can agree on that, here's the problem with your argument about it being okay to purchase food from bad companies because it's a necessity. Yes, food is a necessity, but no particular brand or type of food is a necessity. If buying products from bad companies is hypocrisy, it doesn't make sense to say "I bought this Purdue chicken even though I'm against animal cruelty; food is a necessity, after all!" So in relation to our argument about necessity, the difference between luxury and necessity is completely irrelevant.

 

[Woodsey]

snip

Let's make this incredibly simple for you (again).

Are you asserting a particular standard when you criticise Blizzard for implementing always-online DRM? Yes.

Are you then ignoring that standard you have imposed when you buy Diablo 3 which implements it? Yes.

Does this mean you are claiming to have certain principles when, in actuality, you're supporting others? Yes.

That's hypocrisy.

Can you accept that the answer to those three questions is a 'yes'? Because that is the definition of hypocrisy. Don't like it, find a different word. But that's the one we're talking about, and that's the answer. That's it.

Yes, it's also hypocritical of Company A to implement the practices of Company B which it had criticised only days earlier. No, that's not the only form of hypocrisy. If you insist on bringing it back to other parts of life, those are standards which are virtually impossible to meet. It's not hypocritical for a communist to shop at normal stores because it'd be near-impossible not to in a capitalist society. When it's something you can be perfectly in control of and can quite clearly opt out of (buying a game for yourself), then you're pretending to have standards which clearly you have no interest in adhering to.

So no, I wouldn't label someone a hypocrite for buying stuff they needed to live on when they had no real other choice, because it'd be particularly anal to do so, and hypocrisy in only the most technical and awkward sense. Fine, I can agree to that. But that's not what we're talking about.

 

[Arakasi]

I've been waiting for Diablo III for years.
Then I heard about it's DRM.

Then I didn't buy it.

I love not being the hypocrite for once.

 

[DoPo]

Dear people who are saying "Can you PROVE anyone ever did this?"

Here, have a picture.
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/11/6e49368e85bd37eee55b92c4a1e63640.jpg

It'll never cease to amazing me how people will say one thing like "Let's all boycott this because ______" and will proceed to get it anyway.

It's not Diablo 3, but there are people who said the same, and who still are going to buy it.

Dear Op, can you not post irrelevant pictures and answer do you or do you not have proof that the Diablo fans have meaninglessly changed their opinion. And I do mean "meaninglessly" because it's entirely possible they had a reason.

Furthermore, can you stop it with the blanket statements because everything you say is based on irrelevant data (c wat i did thar).

 

[Bat Vader]

I pre-ordered the Diablo III Collector's Edition and I was really looking forward to it. When I heard that the single player was going to be always online I cancelled it. People should not have to be connected to the internet to play the single player in a game.

 

[HardkorSB]

Seriously, why are gamers such ridiculous hypocrites?

It is well and truly beyond me. The amount of people who are singing praises about Diablo 3 as if it's the second coming of Christ already is just stupid, considering when the retarded DRM was announced, everyone was baying for blood.

Please, make up your fucking mind.

Now, for the discussion value.

What's your take on the moronic nature of people who change their mind about things more often than a prostitute has sex?

There's a saying in my country:
Only a cow doesn't change its' mind.

There was a study once (probably more than one but I've read just about one of them) that showed that a person changes his/her mind in regards to almost every aspect of life every 7-8 years. It is normal, desirable even, to change your mind every now and then.

 

[Daveman]

We only have one forever fluctuating opinion for we are legion.