Honestly it's 2011 people, and internet access is a bit of a necessity these days while gaming is still a luxury. If you don't have internet access then I'm surprised that you can do research for school or even get a job these days (where online application is pretty much commonplace)...getting a $60 game is the least of your problems.
Having internet access is easy to get but having internet that you could actually play a game on is something completely different. Especially when that single player game is going to force you to download every patch that comes out. Which could mean you wont be able to play that game when you want to. There are also these wonderful things called libraries that have computers with internet access.[/quote]
Yes because everybody goes to the library, there's one in every corner of every street, even in suburban neighborhoods... There isn't? oh..
A reliable wi-fi isn't that hard to come by nor is it that expensive. Heck they bundle it up with your cable. Hell most of the people complaining don't even have to worry about that because they live with their parents....actually i bet you that's exactly why they complain because they have no control of what their own Wi-fi/internet provider is and their parents don't want to spend the money for a better one.
Honestly what PC gamer still have a crappy internet service these days. If my wi-fi craps out which it rarely does, then there's your neighbors wi-fi, or a school, or a starbucks/cafe, or any-f***ing-where (free wifi is literally everywhere). And who would want to be playing D3 on a plane?
If you don't have good internet access then the problem isn't Blizzard excluding you from their target demographic (or whatever similar nonsense), the problem is that you yourself is excluded from the entire world, and you live under a rock...that has no internet access....
People who have bad internet connections -
People who experience bad weather
People who travel alot
People too poor to afford constant internet
People who live in remote areas
People getting internet from BT (screw you so much BT)
Also, I should have the right to play the game *I* bought and own without having to (illegally) hack into my neighbours internet connection or slog down to Starbucks (and please suggest how I carry my desktop down there, I can't work out the logistics)
Edit: Whoopsies, forgot the big one, stupid me:
Some people just have shitty internet! I for one can't play Team Fortress 2 at my home because the internet tends to blip every few minutes.
If people have the money to buy diablo 3 AND a Desktop/Laptop powerful enough to run diablo 3, I don't understand why they can't afford a proper internet provider. I don't think there are a lot of destitute people, or even people whose primary concern is to fish for food or crop the fields, that are gamers. If you travel then there are always mobile broadband USB "internet sticks", or like I said free wi-fi is everywhere (even in a hicktown like Ohio, where I live).
Anyway, I'm sure you'll still be able to play the single player even with a shotty internet service (much like SC2). If you were planning to play multiplayer then (duh) you absolutely need a better internet service, which pretty much goes for every multiplayer game out there not just blizzard games. You're internet can't be that bad...I mean you're here discussing this right now...on the internet...
Honestly it's 2011 people, and internet access is a bit of a necessity these days while gaming is still a luxury. If you don't have internet access then I'm surprised that you can do research for school or even get a job these days (where online application is pretty much commonplace)...getting a $60 game is the least of your problems.
I don't think you really understand how internet connections work :/ Being able to post online and having a stable connection don't go automatically hand in hand. People don't only buy computers for gaming, and almost any desktop or laptop that you would also use for work could run it, the system requirements are exceptionally low. So buying a computer "powerful enough" isn't a thing, because basically any computer bought in the last 6 years could already run it.
Wifi is never reliable, at least I have yet to see a reliable wifi. Even private, dedicated wireless drops. The thing is, if this DRM is anything like some Activision games, then people with a shitty internet won't be able to play because the second the internet drops the game closes. Having internet is almost a necessity these days, but not everyone is as lucky as you to have a stable one.
I don't mean to call you spoiled or anything but it sounds like you're taking a lot of this for granted when tons of people have almost no control of their connection's stability. I mean, you don't seriously think saying "it's 2011 people" is a valid response to people whose connection drops during bad weather, whose house is over twenty years old with bad wiring, who for no discernible reason get spotty internet no matter how much they pay, etc.
Literally while typing this my internet dropped for a second and I had to reload the page, which doesn't really hurt using a browser but would drop the game. In order to fix this problem I would have to buy a new house somewhere else and move.
Honestly it's 2011 people, and internet access is a bit of a necessity these days while gaming is still a luxury. If you don't have internet access then I'm surprised that you can do research for school or even get a job these days (where online application is pretty much commonplace)...getting a $60 game is the least of your problems.
Having internet access is easy to get but having internet that you could actually play a game on is something completely different. Especially when that single player game is going to force you to download every patch that comes out. Which could mean you wont be able to play that game when you want to. There are also these wonderful things called libraries that have computers with internet access.
Yes because everybody goes to the library, there's one in every corner of every street, even in suburban neighborhoods... There isn't? oh..
A reliable wi-fi isn't that hard to come by nor is it that expensive. Heck they bundle it up with your cable. Hell most of the people complaining don't even have to worry about that because they live with their parents....actually i bet you that's exactly why they complain because they have no control of what their own Wi-fi/internet provider is and their parents don't want to spend the money for a better one.[/quote]
Oooh, baseless claims and cheap shots, how mature and reasonable your argument now seems.
Anyway, maybe in your hicktown things are better, but here in Scotland a 1mb/s connection warrants blood sacrfice as we praise the moon god (and curse the English, but we do that no matter what happens).
well it does affect you. No matter how fast or reliable your internet connection is, there will still be a delay between your input and the servers reaction. And sometime you WILL find yourself without internet and locked out of games that have no reason to stop working.
Indeed there is lag, as is there with any other online game. Yet we all get on with it just fine. And if I ever do find myself without the internet at my house, I'll switch to Oblivion, Skyrim or whatever other single player games are available for me to play until internet is restored. Or, I may go outside, read a book, play some Warhammer should a friend be nearby, spend some time imagining I actually have a girlfriend. You get the jist.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was giving you reasons to care about this. The publisher is making a game worse for paying customers to combat piracy/increase profits and thinks he can get away while claiming to be on your side in this conflict. Don't you care that the people you buy from think you stupid enough to be tricked that easily?
I'm not being tricked if I'm fully aware of it and generally not caring either way.
Well, to play a game you have to activate it once. Usually this happens when you buy it through the steam store. If you deactivate the automatic game updating steam offers, you're never going to have to connect to the internet again to play the game. (Unless it has additional DRM like GfWL).
This will affect 0% of all clear thinking adults. The kids (and yes, they can be adults too, but the fact they are raging means they lose adult status)
Could you please point out to me where/how 'trolling fanboy' is mentioned in there, let alone implied? Because I certainly didn't mean it in such a way.
Yeah, those were those things we lost when companies decided we don't buy games anymore, we buy "licenses" that can be revoked any time they wish.
Anyone else not getting the "quoted by" notifications in the messages windows? There seems to be a 30h delay for me.
For as long as I can remember, I've been accepting license agreements before installing games. Even if these licenses don't exist, there are 101 ways a developer/publisher could maintain control over everyone's copy of the game. Pieces of code that can be activated to render the copy useless or unplayable. Take down all online servers or whatever. To be honest, with what could happen in mind, a license agreement seems okay to be honest.
And yes, I think there's a problem with Escapist's servers, I've been having the problem for a week or two now. Not to mention it's incredibly slow to load.
Yeah, I'll buy it anyway... when it's in the bargain bin for a buck. And it is doomed to such a fate soon enough.
I don't keep up on all the evils that game companies do (such as both Activision and EA's tendencies to overfuck dev teams useless) but as a naysayer of heavy-handed DRM since Windows Fucking Vista, I've been speaking (evidently to plenty of deaf ears) about how they will raise the bar whenever the market becomes accustomed to a given level of DRM.
Gabriel (Mike Krahulik) seems to retain a conservative knot up his rectum about these issues; for those problems that don't personally inconvenience him, he has no sympathy for anyone else, presuming solutions are available to anyone else (e.g. simply moving to another town where internet access is better). He doesn't mind that some people get excluded due to a policy. He only cares when he gets excluded by a policy.
Tycho (Jerry Holkins) has a very different opinion, or so he claimed [http://www.penny-arcade.com/2011/8/8/] in his commentary to the above comic.
I like the fact that I can answer a response to a Penny-Arcade comic with another Penny-Arcade comic. That's quite useful.
At least Krahulik notes that he's arguing with a straw man in this case. Many of us just don't purchase or play games with sucky DRM, and yes that means I don't get to play a Prince of Persia title or a sub sim I would have if they didn't feature the persistent online connection requirement.
Now that the DMCA has been reinterpreted so that we can defuse DRM for personal use, I may acquire such games at some point when they're cheaper than a coffee and there's an ironclad means to disable the persistent internet connection requirement or the need for secondary ad clients (to which I also object). But thanks to Steam, I'm not short of games to keep me occupied in the meantime.
A friend of mine with a better feel for the industry's pulse has opined that this is all the dark influence of Activision on Blizzard, since Activision has far more interest in the opinions of its shareholders than its customer base (the reverse is historically true with with Blizzard). You might note that the lack of LAN play (and a high pricetag) has inhibited SC2 from replacing the original StarCraft as the national sport of Korea. So, too, I expect Diablo III will suffer.
238U.
who is more interested in Borderlands 2 than Diablo III anyway.
If you don't have good internet access then the problem isn't Blizzard excluding you from their target demographic (or whatever similar nonsense), the problem is that you yourself is excluded from the entire world, and you live under a rock...that has no internet access....
And what about those of us who don't own our own home or don't still live with our parents? I flat share and the internet connection and router belong to the other guy, so I just have to go with what we have, 40gb monthly cap and all.
It has nothing to do with the Auction House or anything related.
It's about control over you (as their customer) and control over their IP.
They don't want people making tournaments and broadcasting their games on TV without paying them anything. They don't want people circumventing their Battle.Net platform to play their favorite mods, they don't want the same things that happened to a lot of the Tower Defense games and DoTA etc. to happen again, something getting big through their games and then a real moneymaker without them taking any cuts off of the profit and they don't want people making money with their items as long as they don't get their part, they don't want you sharing your account etc. ...
It's pretty simple, that's why they removed LAN, that's why they made Mods only downloadable/available if you upload them to their platform, that's why they made you have to Login and agree to their Terms/EULA before you can play their game (and they can ban/expunge you from any of that for whatever reason they deem fit, with SC2 and Diablo3 even the SinglePlayer) so they can get in Licensing money off those SC2 competition and licensing for TV broadcasts etc.
That's why they gave everyone one Username per Account and made it impossible to reset your standing or make a new one before buying a new game. That's why they locked the game down regionally so they can have more control over various pricing schemes and marketing.
That's why they removed the SinglePlayer and added the Cash Auction House. Greed/Profit and Control.
And you know what? They can fuck right off with all of that and stick their ideas right where they came from, cause there are Alternatives out there that do none of that.
Yeah, I'll buy it anyway... when it's in the bargain bin for a buck. And it is doomed to such a fate soon enough.
I don't keep up on all the evils that game companies do (such as both Activision and EA's tendencies to overfuck dev teams useless) but as a naysayer of heavy-handed DRM since Windows Fucking Vista, I've been speaking (evidently to plenty of deaf ears) about how they will raise the bar whenever the market becomes accustomed to a given level of DRM.
Gabriel (Mike Krahulik) seems to retain a conservative knot up his rectum about these issues; for those problems that don't personally inconvenience him, he has no sympathy for anyone else, presuming solutions are available to anyone else (e.g. simply moving to another town where internet access is better). He doesn't mind that some people get excluded due to a policy. He only cares when he gets excluded by a policy.
Tycho (Jerry Holkins) has a very different opinion, or so he claimed [http://www.penny-arcade.com/2011/8/8/] in his commentary to the above comic.
I'm actually a lot like Krahulik to be perfectly honest. Quite frankly, I don't really have the time to be concerned with other people's inability to enjoy a luxury (Because that's what gaming truly is, a luxury). Mind you, the gloves come off when I can't myself, but it's really an issue of time and effort. The cost benefit analysis is worth it for me if I get something out of it, but it's not if I don't.
This is the state of the modern American market. As long as there are enough happy people (me) the unhappy people become a negligible minority. It's the same with Diablo 3. There simply aren't enough people going to be effected by the always online for Blizzard to really care about their problems. Sure, it's probably a callous way to view things, but it's also realistic.
Uriel-238 said:
I like the fact that I can answer a response to a Penny-Arcade comic with another Penny-Arcade comic. That's quite useful.
At least Krahulik notes that he's arguing with a straw man in this case. Many of us just don't purchase or play games with sucky DRM, and yes that means I don't get to play a Prince of Persia title or a sub sim I would have if they didn't feature the persistent online connection requirement.
I feel like you killed the context by posting this without the comment to which I was replying to. The guy who I posted that comment to was saying that everyone should go to the the Pirate Bay and pirate Diablo 3. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's that the exact argument evidenced by that comic? It's perpetuating this circular BS where gamers pirate games because of DRM and companies in turn add more DRM to try and twart the pirating.
My issue is with the sense of entitlement. People feel that somehow they are not only entitled to own the game, but entitled to a single player mode and entitled to not have any DRM on their game. That's not the case. You're not entitled to any of it. Hell, Blizzard could say "You know what, you guys have whined so much that we're just scrapping Diablo 3 entirely to spite you" and no one would have grounds to complain.
Here's the rub: You know in advance the features of Diablo 3. No offline mode, Cash AH, no mods. If you don't like that, don't buy the game.
But here is the issue. Most people aren't going to not buy the game. A lot of people have this foolish thought in their mind that they're entitled to Diablo 3 exactly how they want it, so they're going to not only whine about it, but then go and Pirate it. And that to me is frustrating.
Here's the thing: the cash auction house should not be in the game. One, it legitimizes something Blizzard has been railing against in their other games and it all but endorses Chinese gold selling. Two, it's selling power. Yes, these are items that are attainable in-game with enough time and effort, but those items become a lot less special when you can just buy them with real money from an auction house.
It doesn't add anything to the experience at all-at least nothing I would want to pay for. And what have we sacrificed for it? Mods. That's huge. D1 and D2 are still being played because of mods. It's the lifeblood of PC gaming. The loss of portability and consumer rights are pretty big, too, but in practice it's only a minor inconvenience for a small percentage of the player base so I can understand it somewhat, but the lack of mods means I won't be picking it up. I can't speak for everyone, but as a matter of what I want as a consumer it doesn't provide me with a compelling reason to pay the ticket price, especially when I'd be supporting further detriments to consumer privileges and rights.
This is not the right way to do online, at all, I don't care if I can play solo.
I think people are upset because as paying customers we're getting less and less from our games, as in owning less and less while pirates get to sit back with a stack of burned games that they completely own, no DRM, no need to be online all the time. With Diablo 3 when you buy the game, all you're really doing is buying a ticket to play when the 'shop is open' but it's not always open for some people.
Call me mental but when I pay 60 bucks I want the game, not something with 500 ways to restrict a paying customer.
You could just separate offline and online play completely. The only reason anyone would want to play single player anyways is when they don't have an internet connection or anyone else to play with. So in essence, there's no fucking point in always being online because you could just separate the two. Plus, I'm sure people are gonna find away to hack gold. What if someone writes a program that is made to look like Diablo 3 (or even work with the game) and grabs your save file off the network and feeds it false information that gives it rare equipment? There's always a way around things, and there's also ways to spot cheaters and stop them, which Blizzard will be doing anyways. Point is, there's no such thing as a perfect system that can stop anything and everything bad from happening.
I have always found that the always online thing is just a pain in the dick, I do have the internet connection to play TF2 or City of Heroes, but I don't have one good enough to play assassins creed 2. (although i think I do now because they changed the DRM) It essentially says that because i don't live in a city I'm not worth their time. Of course i am of the mindset that there are other games and i can go play those, unless of course its something like From Dust. DAMN YOU UBISOFT.
I also kinda hate the real money auction house, on the sole basis of all the times they get to take a cut. They get a cut when you buy something, when you sell something when you claim the money for the stuff you've sold... I know they are in this to make money, but any one of these things should be adequate.
I gave up on Blizzard a long time ago, them just joining with Activision made a greed black hole. Now, even if I wanted to buy Diablo 3 I can't. I can't always be online (hooked up to the internet), a lot of people can't. Blizzard probably just alienated a good portion of potential customers by having it always online for whatever reason.
It's not DRM! It's there to ensure the game's market stays "honest". And since real money is being thrown around, real money that could come out of Blizz's own pockets, they REALLY want to keep it honest. People keep talking about the Always Online being DRM and how it's restrictive and whatnot, but for once I don't think it's about Piracy, it's about the CAH.
Erm, it IS DRM, and everything you've been saying has been to that effect; it's management over the digital property, whether that's a full game or items within the game. As to the reasons for its implementation, sure, CAH is the obvious thing to have necessitated that move, and if they allow otherwise complete offline characters without an always on connection then great - they would really need to be pushing that fact into mainstream knowledge to quash all the moaning.
Thing is, no matter how you look at it, ANY sort of always-online system for an ostensibly SINGLE PLAYER game is a betrayal and straight-up pisses me off - and unlike the penny arcade comic, I don't then buy it anyway, I look for alternatives. At the very least, there's always another game that actually understands the concept of 'single player' gaming.
Heres a fun fact... You will buy it, and every other person who is raging will buy it. The issue is small, it was a bigger issue for starcraft 2 because SC2 has professional tournaments and needs a LAN, D3 does not need a LAN, Latency isn't an issue. If it's an issue in terms of principle, then you should really htfu, and learn to be a good sheep like the rest of the masses.
Actually, I'm pissed, and I won't buy it. Not everyone has a stable internet connection, it's also not too uncommon for internet to go out for a while, happens once or twice a year for everyone.
Also, you could still play SC2 campaign while Offline. Just saying.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
