If the industry really always makes it such that your game is not actually ready on the day it's released, then the intelligent, pro-consumer move is to not buy the product until you're sure that it is ready.
I think this idea has become not only pro-consumer but pro-gaming in general. Games are being presented in states that are radically different than advertisements or hype suggested they would be. It's not just big-name studios, either - if you've been a part of the Minecraft modding community to any great degree you know that the Mojang 'post-release' phase has actually encompassed some of the most radical codebase changes in the game's history. If gamers are willing to hold off a month - or sometimes even longer - to ensure a game is presented in a way that's both complete and professional, we'll all be happier and the games we're playing will be better.
There's two behaviors I want to point out here that are probably clinically insane.
1) People taking time off work, or losing sleep, for the sake of a video game that will be there if they followed their schedule accordingly in the first place.
2) Reacting as if they were robbed due to day one being a mess. These people are very much playing the game and have been, and will be tomorrow. So that reaction looks awfully silly.
I get being upset when things go wrong, but my god people have no perspective in life.
it's not a super huge deal, but I think there is something to be said for taking a day off (as long as you're not horribly inconveniencing someone or sabotaging yourself). more than just getting to play the game in the first place, I think it's clear that people see a value in being first to the party, discovering everything with their friends at the same time, etc
a drastically uneven launch day not only makes a sorry first impression, it can put a damper on that first in the pool feeling
(obligatory people on both sides are being too hyperbolic but maybe we can just assume that we're all sensible people here until someone proves us wrong)
Are you going to do anything to hold Blizzard accoutantable where it matters i.e. in the wallet? If yes, good for you, if not, you are why this stuff happens. Because I guarantee this conversation will have happened at Blizzard HQ:
"Do we have enough servers?" "Well, probably not. But they're going to buy it anyway." "You are right".
There are two things I don't get about the whining, the first just being that Blizz was crystal clear about the game being all-online ages ago. So saying you're not getting what you paid for is basically a lie. The second thing is the idea that some kind of ball was dropped with the launch. You could make an argument that with the money and experience under their belt Blizz should be able to launch a game with zero hitches, but that argument turns a blind eye or two to reality. Literally millions of people cramming themselves into the same servers at the same second every second? I cannot sympathize with someone who expects flawless service in those conditions. Frankly, it was it was the smoothest launch night I've ever been a part of.
Edit: To be more specific, I was playing the game about 40 minutes after midnight, continued for about an hour, and encountered one down period. It was back up a few minutes later and I continued to play for many many more nonstop hours. It was completely satisfactory.
madpoet, I can't tell if that is supposed to be a parody or not. God I hope it is.
Did you pay $100 specifically to play the game yesterday, or just to play the game period? Because if it's the latter, I'm having a hard time seeing what you "lost". If you assume you were going to play 100 hours of the game, did losing out on playing yesterday mean you will only play for 100 - X hours of downtime? More likely you are still going to play 100 hours, but it gets shifted X hours into the future. Instead of putting the game down on say June 1st, you end up playing until June 2nd instead.
As far as I can tell, the only thing you lost was your plans for yesterday...which doesn't seem like a big deal unless you have a terminal disease and only weeks to live.
White knight or shill? Can never tell. But Blizzard has you on your knees either way. Sorry your life is so meaningless that someone wasting your time is irrelevant. And sorry you expect so little out of everyone that you can never be disappointed. I expected better out of Blizzard.
I didn't lose anything except some respect for Blizzard. I've got the game, I've played it a bit. It's okay. The loot font bugs me. But I'm still not going to pretend that their launch was anything but a botch. Communication was fail. Servers were down unannounced for huge chunks of time. And server downs rolled back progress. Day of fail for Blizzard.
Not really. They succeeded in getting your money! So they'll do it again. Unless you actually take meaningful action which would affect their bottom line, which, honestly, good for you if you do that, but unless you do, you are the reason Blizzard did this, because quite literally, you are paying them to do it.
madpoet, I can't tell if that is supposed to be a parody or not. God I hope it is.
Did you pay $100 specifically to play the game yesterday, or just to play the game period? Because if it's the latter, I'm having a hard time seeing what you "lost". If you assume you were going to play 100 hours of the game, did losing out on playing yesterday mean you will only play for 100 - X hours of downtime? More likely you are still going to play 100 hours, but it gets shifted X hours into the future. Instead of putting the game down on say June 1st, you end up playing until June 2nd instead.
As far as I can tell, the only thing you lost was your plans for yesterday...which doesn't seem like a big deal unless you have a terminal disease and only weeks to live.
White knight or shill? Can never tell. But Blizzard has you on your knees either way. Sorry your life is so meaningless that someone wasting your time is irrelevant. And sorry you expect so little out of everyone that you can never be disappointed. I expected better out of Blizzard.
I didn't lose anything except some respect for Blizzard. I've got the game, I've played it a bit. It's okay. The loot font bugs me. But I'm still not going to pretend that their launch was anything but a botch. Communication was fail. Servers were down unannounced for huge chunks of time. And server downs rolled back progress. Day of fail for Blizzard.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are an impassioned fan and not a troll. So ignoring the insinuations, the best I can say is that you seem to have a serious lack of perspective.
I don't agree with the premise that having a "forgiving attitude" (aka not writing vehement, anger filled posts on forums) is somehow encouraging a "ship now patch later" attitude especially in this case. What about Blizzard's history would lead you to believe they will drop a game one minute before they are ready? Whether you are a fan of their work or not, you have to agree they have a history of doing things on their own schedule. I would say they thought they were ready, and obviously they were wrong. Does that not make a difference? Sorry, you tried to make a great game and execute on it flawlessly, but failed so now I hate you?
Even if I did agree with that premise, what exactly are you proposing that people do to discourage "ship now patch later"? Rant on an internet forum? That...seems like the definition of impotent rage and futility.
I don't know what knowledge, if any, you have of software development, but it is no simple task to build a system that can withstand the kinds of volume they were likely experiencing on Wednesday. It is also basically impossible to load test that kind of volume beforehand. Some issues flat out won't show up before you reach a certain threshold. You could test for years prior and still not be prepared for the problem because you were only testing X simultaneous connections and X + 1 is what triggered the failure.
In 15 days the servers will be working fine, and everyone will have forgotten this bullshit. Especially the entitlement-kings who're foaming at the mouth and making threats and shaking fists. And everyone who gives a tiny fuck about D3 will be playing this game like mad, without a single thought for "server issues".
11 years from now, those crazies will all be playing d3 still.
As a software developer myself, I tend to give other developers some slack when things go wrong. However, there are a couple aspects of this issue that make me a bit angry.
1. This is not the first launch Blizzard has attempted. They have run into this problem on every launch for years now. They need to find a way to solve the problem.
2. The decision to require constant connectivity for a single-player game was made for business decisions and does nothing to add to my enjoyment of the product. Every problem that I am running into is entirely caused by some suit deciding that they could squeeze a little more money out of the game. I don't mind someone monetizing their product, but the act of monetizing should not reduce the actual utility of the product.
It is not like I don't admire Blizzard for finally being able to bring the excitement of waiting in queues and server downtimes to a single-player game, but they should have engineered it in such a way that the mechanism is not in the way. I would be out on my ass if something I wrote failed so spectacularly at launch.
0
OnmitsuI'm just a birdieCa-caw, ca-caw!Registered Userregular
Actually, all this "internet ranting" and "impotent rage" hubbub has made a difference. I held off on a day one purchase, as I'm busy with gradschool and this is what I regularly do unless I'm particularly foamy for some collectors edition. Watching this metacritic panning and review bombing, I've decided not to purchase Diablo 3.
That's right, I changed my mind. I voted with my money against Diablo 3. I've been steadily getting more disappointed with Blizzard, and watching this launch fiasco has stilled my debit card. Blizz is THE name in the business. They of all people should know what to expect. If they can't handle this, why should they have my continued faith? I'll probably pick up the game sometime months in the future after a price drop, but that's not how companies like Blizz make their profits.
So yes, all this rage does make a difference, it can scare people clean off of the game, even if they *do* give a goose about it. Blizzard will be paying for this financially. This "impotent" rage hurts Blizzard's reputation, and reputation is a big deal.
On the topic of finance, I've got it on an industry tip that Blizzard is in a financial muddle right now, and cancelled Blizzcon due to financial issues. They actually cost Activision a lot of their profits and brought their profit margins *down*. So I'm going to keep kicking them in their wallet until I feel vindicated and they act right.
I find it a perfectly okay concept to have both petty and serious worries. It's a life-balance thing for me, you need both to feel sane. If it's all petty things you worry about you become shallow and egotistical. If all you ever fret over is things grave and important, frankly, you become dull and devoid of a sense of humor.
Humans are not robots. It's perfectly natural, and I daresay necessary to straddle the frivolous/serious divide.
Actually, all this "internet ranting" and "impotent rage" hubbub has made a difference. I held off on a day one purchase, as I'm busy with gradschool and this is what I regularly do unless I'm particularly foamy for some collectors edition. Watching this metacritic panning and review bombing, I've decided not to purchase Diablo 3.
That's right, I changed my mind. I voted with my money against Diablo 3.
Then you've done more to punish Blizzard than a million angry posters.
Actually, all this "internet ranting" and "impotent rage" hubbub has made a difference. I held off on a day one purchase, as I'm busy with gradschool and this is what I regularly do unless I'm particularly foamy for some collectors edition. Watching this metacritic panning and review bombing, I've decided not to purchase Diablo 3.
That's right, I changed my mind. I voted with my money against Diablo 3.
Then you've done more to punish Blizzard than a million angry posters.
In the end, it's still the equivalent as a write in ballot for Nader
0
OnmitsuI'm just a birdieCa-caw, ca-caw!Registered Userregular
In the end, it's still the equivalent as a write in ballot for Nader
I'm not the only person not buying. If you think Blizzard is financially impenetrable and that this doesn't matter, then do you think they laid off 600 employees and cancelled blizzcon this year for gooses and giggles?
I still find it incredibly bizarre that someone needs to be punished for.... not being good enough. Did I miss the leaked memo where they intentionally made the game break on launch day just to twist the panties of their fan base? Did everyone at Blizzard grow a nefarious looking mustache that they could twirl while laughing evilly?
Seriously, what is the lesson here? If you aren't going to succeed 100%, then fuck off, you shouldn't have even tried in the first place?
I still find it incredibly bizarre that someone needs to be punished for.... not being good enough. Did I miss the leaked memo where they intentionally made the game break on launch day just to twist the panties of their fan base? Did everyone at Blizzard grow a nefarious looking mustache that they could twirl while laughing evilly?
Seriously, what is the lesson here? If you aren't going to succeed 100%, then fuck off, you shouldn't have even tried in the first place?
edit: changed the emphasis
I mean, people are mostly mad because the reason they couldn't play the game is that Blizzard insisted that it be connected to their servers 100% of the time even if you're playing single player. That's a fat load of DRM bullshit, and maybe if it had worked fine nobody would be complaining, but obviously it didn't work fine and people are mad not just that Blizzard messed up but that they messed up something that didn't have to be there in the first place and that serves no purpose for legitimate customers other than to annoy the hell out of them and keep them from playing their game.
I still find it incredibly bizarre that someone needs to be punished for.... not being good enough. Did I miss the leaked memo where they intentionally made the game break on launch day just to twist the panties of their fan base? Did everyone at Blizzard grow a nefarious looking mustache that they could twirl while laughing evilly?
Seriously, what is the lesson here? If you aren't going to succeed 100%, then fuck off, you shouldn't have even tried in the first place?
edit: changed the emphasis
Lesson: If you are going to force people to have to connect to your server to play a single player game, make sure that it is working.
0
OnmitsuI'm just a birdieCa-caw, ca-caw!Registered Userregular
I still find it incredibly bizarre that someone needs to be punished for.... not being good enough. Did I miss the leaked memo where they intentionally made the game break on launch day just to twist the panties of their fan base? Did everyone at Blizzard grow a nefarious looking mustache that they could twirl while laughing evilly?
Seriously, what is the lesson here? If you aren't going to succeed 100%, then fuck off, you shouldn't have even tried in the first place?
It has nothing to do with just "not being good enough" or "succeeding 100%". It has everything to do with making decisions to favor your profit margins that have deliberately harmed the experience of a vast swath of your customer base. The fact that all of their launch problems can be tied to eschewing the player in favor of profits is the real problem.
EDIT: I find the imagine of everyone at blizzard with Snidely Whiplash mustaches whimsical and delightful.
There are two things I don't get about the whining, the first just being that Blizz was crystal clear about the game being all-online ages ago. So saying you're not getting what you paid for is basically a lie. The second thing is the idea that some kind of ball was dropped with the launch. You could make an argument that with the money and experience under their belt Blizz should be able to launch a game with zero hitches, but that argument turns a blind eye or two to reality. Literally millions of people cramming themselves into the same servers at the same second every second? I cannot sympathize with someone who expects flawless service in those conditions. Frankly, it was it was the smoothest launch night I've ever been a part of.
Edit: To be more specific, I was playing the game about 40 minutes after midnight, continued for about an hour, and encountered one down period. It was back up a few minutes later and I continued to play for many many more nonstop hours. It was completely satisfactory.
just...for your I, in case you care; a lot of the problems at the start were only for people who hadn't been able to log in. If you GOT in, you were pretty golden for a while until they started taking the servers down for maintenance. for everyone else, it was quite possible to run into hours and hour of down time
but speaking as someone who was there day one at quite a few MMO releases, it honestly wasn't that smooth! Rift, Aion, etc had some pretty long queues at the start but they always settled down a few hours after release.
1) People keep saying they should have made sure it was working, anticipated the load, etc like this is the exact opposite of what they actually did. Clearly, the entire network team was out on break, getting hammered, when they were supposed to be setting up the "make sure nothing goes wrong ever" machine in the server room. I doubt that is how it went down. Despite what that fortune teller claimed when I was in Vegas, some things cannot be predicted beforehand.
"As many of you are aware, technical issues occurring within hours after the game's launch led to players experiencing error messages and difficulty logging in. These issues cropped up again last night for the Americas and Europe servers. Despite very aggressive projections, our preparations for the launch of the game did not go far enough."
They've been around the block a few times, and still they weren't able to anticipate the demand.
2) People keep saying that this would be avoidable if they did away with the "always connected" methodology for [what can be] a single player game. While that is true, that is simply not the game they made, and it's not the game you purchased. "Always online" is not some tacked on SecuROM DRM solution. It has a lot of implications for how you build the game in the first place.
1) I'm not sure people are saying "Blizzard should have anticipated demands incorrectly." People are saying "Blizzard should have anticipated demands correctly." You're pointing out that they did these things incorrectly, and although maybe that's defensible, I think it also makes sense to say "look, Blizzard, I'm glad you tried I guess, but trying doesn't get you points if you try wrong."
2) Yes, people bought a game other than the one they wanted Blizzard to make. This doesn't mean Blizzard was right to make the game they made rather than one that didn't require always on DRM for single player.
0
OnmitsuI'm just a birdieCa-caw, ca-caw!Registered Userregular
We need to think for a second about the extent to which this supposedly carefree fucking dialectic enables these precise abuses. No, actually; it is not okay that the definitive Game Developer can’t make their shit work.
(CW)TB out.
Ripped right from the newspost. What you should be saying is "They've been around the block a few times and they still failed to deal with the demand. That's a utter failure on their part. It wasn't a small one either.
Also, at your point two, it's the reason I'm not buying the game. You can't just handwave the horseshit that caused by saying "It's not the game they built and that's just the way it is". Then they made a poor decision and it's hurting their player base. They chose to make it that way, it's their fault, and because of the problems their decision has caused, I feel they deserve to be hit in their wallet. They could have avoided this, but they chose to put profits first.
1) People keep saying they should have made sure it was working, anticipated the load, etc like this is the exact opposite of what they actually did. Clearly, the entire network team was out on break, getting hammered, when they were supposed to be setting up the "make sure nothing goes wrong ever" machine in the server room. I doubt that is how it went down. Despite what that fortune teller claimed when I was in Vegas, some things cannot be predicted beforehand.
"As many of you are aware, technical issues occurring within hours after the game's launch led to players experiencing error messages and difficulty logging in. These issues cropped up again last night for the Americas and Europe servers. Despite very aggressive projections, our preparations for the launch of the game did not go far enough."
They've been around the block a few times, and still they weren't able to anticipate the demand.
2) People keep saying that this would be avoidable if they did away with the "always connected" methodology for [what can be] a single player game. While that is true, that is simply not the game they made, and it's not the game you purchased. "Always online" is not some tacked on SecuROM DRM solution. It has a lot of implications for how you build the game in the first place.
Right, it makes it worse for the consumer. It means that you can't play if your internet is out (due to some issues I lost mine for a couple days earlier this year for instance) it means that you can't mod/modding becomes incredibly hard, it leads to things like people getting banned from the singleplayer portion because of stuff they posted on forums. It means stuff like this happens. Keep in mind if it wasn't for always on connection the load would have been a lot smaller which not only means the people on single player would have been able to play their game but odds are people could have played multiplayer too! It makes the experience worse the consumer for absolutely no benefit. We see this in SC2 where people playing in person tournaments can't connect to LAN. It is bad design based around the idea that you treat paying customers like thieves and it needs to go away.
1) I'm not sure people are saying "Blizzard should have anticipated demands incorrectly." People are saying "Blizzard should have anticipated demands correctly." You're pointing out that they did these things incorrectly, and although maybe that's defensible, I think it also makes sense to say "look, Blizzard, I'm glad you tried I guess, but trying doesn't get you points if you try wrong."
2) Yes, people bought a game other than the one they wanted Blizzard to make. This doesn't mean Blizzard was right to make the game they made rather than one that didn't require always on DRM for single player.
People are saying "they should have anticipated correctly" (not sure where the incorrectly came from?), but I get the feeling they have no clue what that means in real terms. It's easy to say oh you should have known that there would 17 bajillion people trying to play. What happens when I spend the money to accommodate 17 bajillion and only 1 bajillion show up? Guess I get to eat the cost. What happens when 34 bajillion show up? Wow, my estimates were waaay off (brb buying a yacht). You are literally suggesting that they should know the future, and then penalizing them for not being able to do so....which is weird to me.
Also, I'm not sure where right and wrong enters into the equation. It may not make the most business sense to develop a product different from what your customers want, but I don't think you can assign the term "wrong" to that. Was Honda wrong to design my Accord without a jet engine on the back? Because that's what I want.
Also, I'm not sure where right and wrong enters into the equation. It may not make the most business sense to develop a product different from what your customers want, but I don't think you can assign the term "wrong" to that. Was Honda wrong to design my Accord without a jet engine on the back? Because that's what I want.
This isn't about wanting a car with a jet engine. It's about wanting one that starts when you turn the key in the ignition.
Onmitsu on
Man, even Dora the Explorer thinks you're slow.
0
OnmitsuI'm just a birdieCa-caw, ca-caw!Registered Userregular
Also, I'm not sure where right and wrong enters into the equation. It may not make the most business sense to develop a product different from what your customers want, but I don't think you can assign the term "wrong" to that. Was Honda wrong to design my Accord without a jet engine on the back? Because that's what I want.
No, you want Honda to design a car that starts when you turn the key in the ignition.
Don't tell me what I want. I want a fucking jet engine. They didn't design it. They are morally wrong.
Aaaand back to your actual point. It's more like it wouldn't start because they forgot to fill the gas tank. So someone had to run out to the station and bring some back. I still got a working car in the end. I suppose I could be super pissed about having to wait for the dude to get back because I needed to get home and watch that episode of Community that I had on DVR, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
1) Yes, Blizzard should have better anticipated the scale of their own launch.
2) No, players probably should not have been so naive as to expect the biggest game launch ever to be completely hiccup-free. Three hours of downtime on launch day followed by complete uptime is not too bad, all things considered.
3) If you're that upset about the game requiring an internet connection to play, you probably shouldn't have bought it. Certainly the larger issue (is it reasonable to have this level of DRM on a game with a substantial single-player base?) is worthy of debate, but almost everyone who bought D3 knew what they were getting into in this regard. It was announced well in advance.
4) The amount of entitlement that some players have about this issue is unreal. Get over yourselves.
ed: for what it's worth, I agree with Sticks more than anyone else in this thread, but I think Omnitsu is doing it right in that if you dislike the way Blizzard handled D3's development and launch, you should be voting with your dollars.
Aaaand back to your actual point. It's more like it wouldn't start because they forgot to fill the gas tank. So someone had to run out to the station and bring some back. I still got a working car in the end. I suppose I could be super pissed about having to wait for the dude to get back because I needed to get home and watch that episode of Community that I had on DVR, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
If that is the analogy you want, it's more like ONLY the people at Honda can fill the engine. And god forbid you can't reach them to get your tank filled. I suppose I could be completely dependent on them, or I could go spend my money on a car that works whenever I want it to. Hence, I will not buy Diablo 3.
Also, I'm going to post the rest of the newspost.
Is it as bad as the Foreclosure Crisis? I don’t know, probably not; but nobody is talking about that. There isn’t a list of things that we have to worry about in order. We can decide on a case by case basis whether or not something is bullshit, and then we can feel some way about it, and we don’t need to wait for a transmission from central command to know if we’ve paid in enough psychic penance to enjoy something.
I've got the game, I've played it a bit. It's okay. The loot font bugs me.
Makes me think that Sticks is right when he says that it seems like you have a serious lack of perspective. If you are really informing us that the kind of font that they used for items is your biggest gripe with the game, and that this means that the game can only be "okay" at best, then well . . . that is pretty fucked up. That seems like an extremely minor quibble and its the first time I've even heard that complaint.
Awesome gameplay, great cinematics, fun classes, and a really cool new skill tree! However, I couldn't play the game for like an hour or so on launch day even though its almost unarguably the biggest game launch of the entire year and millions of people all rushed to play the game at once and everyone had to because single player is linked to online and I just don't know why it wasn't working flawlessly at all times with absolutely no lag just like I wanted! Also that font, what were they thinking?! Its almost worse than Comic Sans!
Aaaand back to your actual point. It's more like it wouldn't start because they forgot to fill the gas tank. So someone had to run out to the station and bring some back. I still got a working car in the end. I suppose I could be super pissed about having to wait for the dude to get back because I needed to get home and watch that episode of Community that I had on DVR, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
If that is the analogy you want, it's more like ONLY the people at Honda can fill the engine. And god forbid you can't reach them to get your tank filled. I suppose I could be completely dependent on them, or I could go spend my money on a car that works whenever I want it to. Hence, I will not buy Diablo 3.
Also, I'm going to post the rest of the newspost.
Is it as bad as the Foreclosure Crisis? I don’t know, probably not; but nobody is talking about that. There isn’t a list of things that we have to worry about in order. We can decide on a case by case basis whether or not something is bullshit, and then we can feel some way about it, and we don’t need to wait for a transmission from central command to know if we’ve paid in enough psychic penance to enjoy something.
(CW)TB out.
No I meant more the "OMG I can't play for three hours because of server issues" is akin to purchasing a car and having to wait a bit to drive it because they forgot to fill it up. It is still a terrible analogy which I regret drawing, so let's not continue it.
As for Tycho's news post, as far as I can tell the Game Developer "made their shit work"... within the same day no less. So, in this case, I guess you could call still bullshit and feel irate about it. I mean, me discussing it in the new comic thread isn't likely to dissuade you from doing so. But, in this particular case, for me, it is the exact opposite of something to get bent out of shape over.
Aaaand back to your actual point. It's more like it wouldn't start because they forgot to fill the gas tank. So someone had to run out to the station and bring some back. I still got a working car in the end. I suppose I could be super pissed about having to wait for the dude to get back because I needed to get home and watch that episode of Community that I had on DVR, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
If that is the analogy you want, it's more like ONLY the people at Honda can fill the engine. And god forbid you can't reach them to get your tank filled. I suppose I could be completely dependent on them, or I could go spend my money on a car that works whenever I want it to. Hence, I will not buy Diablo 3.
Also, I'm going to post the rest of the newspost.
Is it as bad as the Foreclosure Crisis? I don’t know, probably not; but nobody is talking about that. There isn’t a list of things that we have to worry about in order. We can decide on a case by case basis whether or not something is bullshit, and then we can feel some way about it, and we don’t need to wait for a transmission from central command to know if we’ve paid in enough psychic penance to enjoy something.
(CW)TB out.
No I meant more the "OMG I can't play for three hours because of server issues" is akin to purchasing a car and having to wait a bit to drive it because they forgot to fill it up. It is still a terrible analogy which I regret drawing, so let's not continue it.
As for Tycho's news post, as far as I can tell the Game Developer "made their shit work"... within the same day no less. So, in this case, I guess you could call still bullshit and feel irate about it. I mean, me discussing it in the new comic thread isn't likely to dissuade you from doing so. But, in this particular case, for me, it is the exact opposite of something to get bent out of shape over.
When you say stuff like this it comes off as condescending. Omnitsu hasn't been posting swear filled rants against Blitzard, they are just mildly peeved that Blizzard screwed up the launch of their game.
I've been replying to a lot of different people in this thread. It's hard to keep everyone straight, but I'm trying my best to keep a moderate tone.
When that sort of rhetoric slips in, its very much aimed at the (in my opinion obviously) overreaction of (people like) madpoet. The feelings carry over even when I'm replying to other arguments. So in that sense, I'm making the mistake of lumping everyone together even though that isn't actually my intention. Apologies.
I've been replying to a lot of different people in this thread. It's hard to keep everyone straight, but I'm trying my best to keep a moderate tone.
When that sort of rhetoric slips in, its very much aimed at the (in my opinion obviously) overreaction of (people like) madpoet. The feelings carry over even when I'm replying to other arguments. So in that sense, I'm making the mistake of lumping everyone together even though that isn't actually my intention. Apologies.
I understand. My perspective is that Blizzard screwed this up, it is understandbale that they screwed it up and a lot of people are overreacting about it but at the end of the day that doesn't change that Blizzard screwed up the launch. I will be honest as well that I really do hope this makes it less likely that other people will want to include mandatory connection for single player games in the future.
I doubt it. One of the major reasons for the connectivity requirement is undoubtedly to support the Auction House. If that does well and generates continued revenue streams for them, then the blip that was launch day won't even register. Anyone who implements such a system in the future will probably be looking at the same solution.
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I think my perspective on this is that I really can't understand how someone can defend draconian DRM that breaks the game when it doesn't work right. Have people already forgotten the days when you could only buy MP3s with DRM on them, and when the DRM broke you literally lost your entire song library and had zero recourse? Product-breaking DRM is a definitive and troubling step backward. Saying "don't buy the product, then" is all well and good, but the problem is that this is the only way to get the product at all. Pressure should be exercted in the public sphere to discourage companies from adopting customer-punishing strategies. And yeah, that includes ranting on message boards, so that people like me will realize that it's a bad idea to buy this game, even when/if it sells for cheap.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Product-breaking DRM is a definitive and troubling step backward. Saying "don't buy the product, then" is all well and good, but the problem is that this is the only way to get the product at all. Pressure should be exerted in the public sphere to discourage companies from adopting customer-punishing strategies. And yeah, that includes ranting on message boards, so that people like me will realize that it's a bad idea to buy this game, even when/if it sells for cheap.
I think one of the disconnects in this argument (and I'm quoting Cambiata here because it's convenient to do so) is between people who look at Diablo 3 as a single-player game with DRM, and those who look at Diablo III as an online game with a "private" mode. The latter is how it was built, certainly, but maybe not how it was marketed?
I know I was aware that it was going to be online-only, and so while I was irritated by the downtime, I was as irritated as I was during the first week of vanilla WoW -- angry that I wasn't able to play in my limited free time, but somewhat understanding that their servers were essentially getting DOS'ed.
But I also have been fairly active in the Diablo 3 thread here, and keeping up to date on even the minor announcements from Blizzard about it right along, so I honestly don't know if the way the game was built really had been advertised well. Because it is fundamentally different than Diablo 1 or 2. And if I hadn't been following along and went into it blind, I would have definitely been expecting a single player game with online multiplayer.
Posts
I think this idea has become not only pro-consumer but pro-gaming in general. Games are being presented in states that are radically different than advertisements or hype suggested they would be. It's not just big-name studios, either - if you've been a part of the Minecraft modding community to any great degree you know that the Mojang 'post-release' phase has actually encompassed some of the most radical codebase changes in the game's history. If gamers are willing to hold off a month - or sometimes even longer - to ensure a game is presented in a way that's both complete and professional, we'll all be happier and the games we're playing will be better.
it's not a super huge deal, but I think there is something to be said for taking a day off (as long as you're not horribly inconveniencing someone or sabotaging yourself). more than just getting to play the game in the first place, I think it's clear that people see a value in being first to the party, discovering everything with their friends at the same time, etc
a drastically uneven launch day not only makes a sorry first impression, it can put a damper on that first in the pool feeling
(obligatory people on both sides are being too hyperbolic but maybe we can just assume that we're all sensible people here until someone proves us wrong)
On the black screen
But...
Are you going to do anything to hold Blizzard accoutantable where it matters i.e. in the wallet? If yes, good for you, if not, you are why this stuff happens. Because I guarantee this conversation will have happened at Blizzard HQ:
"Do we have enough servers?" "Well, probably not. But they're going to buy it anyway." "You are right".
And they did. We did.
We are Blizzard.
Edit: To be more specific, I was playing the game about 40 minutes after midnight, continued for about an hour, and encountered one down period. It was back up a few minutes later and I continued to play for many many more nonstop hours. It was completely satisfactory.
White knight or shill? Can never tell. But Blizzard has you on your knees either way. Sorry your life is so meaningless that someone wasting your time is irrelevant. And sorry you expect so little out of everyone that you can never be disappointed. I expected better out of Blizzard.
I didn't lose anything except some respect for Blizzard. I've got the game, I've played it a bit. It's okay. The loot font bugs me. But I'm still not going to pretend that their launch was anything but a botch. Communication was fail. Servers were down unannounced for huge chunks of time. And server downs rolled back progress. Day of fail for Blizzard.
Not really. They succeeded in getting your money! So they'll do it again. Unless you actually take meaningful action which would affect their bottom line, which, honestly, good for you if you do that, but unless you do, you are the reason Blizzard did this, because quite literally, you are paying them to do it.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are an impassioned fan and not a troll. So ignoring the insinuations, the best I can say is that you seem to have a serious lack of perspective.
I don't agree with the premise that having a "forgiving attitude" (aka not writing vehement, anger filled posts on forums) is somehow encouraging a "ship now patch later" attitude especially in this case. What about Blizzard's history would lead you to believe they will drop a game one minute before they are ready? Whether you are a fan of their work or not, you have to agree they have a history of doing things on their own schedule. I would say they thought they were ready, and obviously they were wrong. Does that not make a difference? Sorry, you tried to make a great game and execute on it flawlessly, but failed so now I hate you?
Even if I did agree with that premise, what exactly are you proposing that people do to discourage "ship now patch later"? Rant on an internet forum? That...seems like the definition of impotent rage and futility.
I don't know what knowledge, if any, you have of software development, but it is no simple task to build a system that can withstand the kinds of volume they were likely experiencing on Wednesday. It is also basically impossible to load test that kind of volume beforehand. Some issues flat out won't show up before you reach a certain threshold. You could test for years prior and still not be prepared for the problem because you were only testing X simultaneous connections and X + 1 is what triggered the failure.
11 years from now, those crazies will all be playing d3 still.
1. This is not the first launch Blizzard has attempted. They have run into this problem on every launch for years now. They need to find a way to solve the problem.
2. The decision to require constant connectivity for a single-player game was made for business decisions and does nothing to add to my enjoyment of the product. Every problem that I am running into is entirely caused by some suit deciding that they could squeeze a little more money out of the game. I don't mind someone monetizing their product, but the act of monetizing should not reduce the actual utility of the product.
It is not like I don't admire Blizzard for finally being able to bring the excitement of waiting in queues and server downtimes to a single-player game, but they should have engineered it in such a way that the mechanism is not in the way. I would be out on my ass if something I wrote failed so spectacularly at launch.
That's right, I changed my mind. I voted with my money against Diablo 3. I've been steadily getting more disappointed with Blizzard, and watching this launch fiasco has stilled my debit card. Blizz is THE name in the business. They of all people should know what to expect. If they can't handle this, why should they have my continued faith? I'll probably pick up the game sometime months in the future after a price drop, but that's not how companies like Blizz make their profits.
So yes, all this rage does make a difference, it can scare people clean off of the game, even if they *do* give a goose about it. Blizzard will be paying for this financially. This "impotent" rage hurts Blizzard's reputation, and reputation is a big deal.
On the topic of finance, I've got it on an industry tip that Blizzard is in a financial muddle right now, and cancelled Blizzcon due to financial issues. They actually cost Activision a lot of their profits and brought their profit margins *down*. So I'm going to keep kicking them in their wallet until I feel vindicated and they act right.
Humans are not robots. It's perfectly natural, and I daresay necessary to straddle the frivolous/serious divide.
In the end, it's still the equivalent as a write in ballot for Nader
I'm not the only person not buying. If you think Blizzard is financially impenetrable and that this doesn't matter, then do you think they laid off 600 employees and cancelled blizzcon this year for gooses and giggles?
Seriously, what is the lesson here? If you aren't going to succeed 100%, then fuck off, you shouldn't have even tried in the first place?
edit: changed the emphasis
It has nothing to do with just "not being good enough" or "succeeding 100%". It has everything to do with making decisions to favor your profit margins that have deliberately harmed the experience of a vast swath of your customer base. The fact that all of their launch problems can be tied to eschewing the player in favor of profits is the real problem.
EDIT: I find the imagine of everyone at blizzard with Snidely Whiplash mustaches whimsical and delightful.
just...for your I, in case you care; a lot of the problems at the start were only for people who hadn't been able to log in. If you GOT in, you were pretty golden for a while until they started taking the servers down for maintenance. for everyone else, it was quite possible to run into hours and hour of down time
but speaking as someone who was there day one at quite a few MMO releases, it honestly wasn't that smooth! Rift, Aion, etc had some pretty long queues at the start but they always settled down a few hours after release.
On the black screen
So two problems:
1) People keep saying they should have made sure it was working, anticipated the load, etc like this is the exact opposite of what they actually did. Clearly, the entire network team was out on break, getting hammered, when they were supposed to be setting up the "make sure nothing goes wrong ever" machine in the server room. I doubt that is how it went down. Despite what that fortune teller claimed when I was in Vegas, some things cannot be predicted beforehand.
Here, have a quote from them:
"As many of you are aware, technical issues occurring within hours after the game's launch led to players experiencing error messages and difficulty logging in. These issues cropped up again last night for the Americas and Europe servers. Despite very aggressive projections, our preparations for the launch of the game did not go far enough."
They've been around the block a few times, and still they weren't able to anticipate the demand.
2) People keep saying that this would be avoidable if they did away with the "always connected" methodology for [what can be] a single player game. While that is true, that is simply not the game they made, and it's not the game you purchased. "Always online" is not some tacked on SecuROM DRM solution. It has a lot of implications for how you build the game in the first place.
2) Yes, people bought a game other than the one they wanted Blizzard to make. This doesn't mean Blizzard was right to make the game they made rather than one that didn't require always on DRM for single player.
Concerning point one
Ripped right from the newspost. What you should be saying is "They've been around the block a few times and they still failed to deal with the demand. That's a utter failure on their part. It wasn't a small one either.
Also, at your point two, it's the reason I'm not buying the game. You can't just handwave the horseshit that caused by saying "It's not the game they built and that's just the way it is". Then they made a poor decision and it's hurting their player base. They chose to make it that way, it's their fault, and because of the problems their decision has caused, I feel they deserve to be hit in their wallet. They could have avoided this, but they chose to put profits first.
People are saying "they should have anticipated correctly" (not sure where the incorrectly came from?), but I get the feeling they have no clue what that means in real terms. It's easy to say oh you should have known that there would 17 bajillion people trying to play. What happens when I spend the money to accommodate 17 bajillion and only 1 bajillion show up? Guess I get to eat the cost. What happens when 34 bajillion show up? Wow, my estimates were waaay off (brb buying a yacht). You are literally suggesting that they should know the future, and then penalizing them for not being able to do so....which is weird to me.
Also, I'm not sure where right and wrong enters into the equation. It may not make the most business sense to develop a product different from what your customers want, but I don't think you can assign the term "wrong" to that. Was Honda wrong to design my Accord without a jet engine on the back? Because that's what I want.
This isn't about wanting a car with a jet engine. It's about wanting one that starts when you turn the key in the ignition.
Don't tell me what I want. I want a fucking jet engine. They didn't design it. They are morally wrong.
Aaaand back to your actual point. It's more like it wouldn't start because they forgot to fill the gas tank. So someone had to run out to the station and bring some back. I still got a working car in the end. I suppose I could be super pissed about having to wait for the dude to get back because I needed to get home and watch that episode of Community that I had on DVR, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
2) No, players probably should not have been so naive as to expect the biggest game launch ever to be completely hiccup-free. Three hours of downtime on launch day followed by complete uptime is not too bad, all things considered.
3) If you're that upset about the game requiring an internet connection to play, you probably shouldn't have bought it. Certainly the larger issue (is it reasonable to have this level of DRM on a game with a substantial single-player base?) is worthy of debate, but almost everyone who bought D3 knew what they were getting into in this regard. It was announced well in advance.
4) The amount of entitlement that some players have about this issue is unreal. Get over yourselves.
ed: for what it's worth, I agree with Sticks more than anyone else in this thread, but I think Omnitsu is doing it right in that if you dislike the way Blizzard handled D3's development and launch, you should be voting with your dollars.
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
If that is the analogy you want, it's more like ONLY the people at Honda can fill the engine. And god forbid you can't reach them to get your tank filled. I suppose I could be completely dependent on them, or I could go spend my money on a car that works whenever I want it to. Hence, I will not buy Diablo 3.
Also, I'm going to post the rest of the newspost.
Its really hard to take any argument seriously with bullshit like this, even if said argument were actually well constructed otherwise.
Also this
Makes me think that Sticks is right when he says that it seems like you have a serious lack of perspective. If you are really informing us that the kind of font that they used for items is your biggest gripe with the game, and that this means that the game can only be "okay" at best, then well . . . that is pretty fucked up. That seems like an extremely minor quibble and its the first time I've even heard that complaint.
Awesome gameplay, great cinematics, fun classes, and a really cool new skill tree! However, I couldn't play the game for like an hour or so on launch day even though its almost unarguably the biggest game launch of the entire year and millions of people all rushed to play the game at once and everyone had to because single player is linked to online and I just don't know why it wasn't working flawlessly at all times with absolutely no lag just like I wanted! Also that font, what were they thinking?! Its almost worse than Comic Sans!
No I meant more the "OMG I can't play for three hours because of server issues" is akin to purchasing a car and having to wait a bit to drive it because they forgot to fill it up. It is still a terrible analogy which I regret drawing, so let's not continue it.
As for Tycho's news post, as far as I can tell the Game Developer "made their shit work"... within the same day no less. So, in this case, I guess you could call still bullshit and feel irate about it. I mean, me discussing it in the new comic thread isn't likely to dissuade you from doing so. But, in this particular case, for me, it is the exact opposite of something to get bent out of shape over.
When that sort of rhetoric slips in, its very much aimed at the (in my opinion obviously) overreaction of (people like) madpoet. The feelings carry over even when I'm replying to other arguments. So in that sense, I'm making the mistake of lumping everyone together even though that isn't actually my intention. Apologies.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
I think one of the disconnects in this argument (and I'm quoting Cambiata here because it's convenient to do so) is between people who look at Diablo 3 as a single-player game with DRM, and those who look at Diablo III as an online game with a "private" mode. The latter is how it was built, certainly, but maybe not how it was marketed?
I know I was aware that it was going to be online-only, and so while I was irritated by the downtime, I was as irritated as I was during the first week of vanilla WoW -- angry that I wasn't able to play in my limited free time, but somewhat understanding that their servers were essentially getting DOS'ed.
But I also have been fairly active in the Diablo 3 thread here, and keeping up to date on even the minor announcements from Blizzard about it right along, so I honestly don't know if the way the game was built really had been advertised well. Because it is fundamentally different than Diablo 1 or 2. And if I hadn't been following along and went into it blind, I would have definitely been expecting a single player game with online multiplayer.