I don't like DRM either, but this a) isn't all that draconian, and b) is about more than just DRM.
To me, draconian is shit SecuROM used to pull. Installing a rootkit, preventing you from running cd tools or vmware at the same time as their software, making it ridiculously hard to uninstall their crapware, things of that nature. Storing data server side and requiring me to stay connected doesn't really seem like the same category. Especially since there are other, legitimate, reasons to require that connectivity (e.g. the Auction House).
Is there other stuff it is doing? Does it limit installs or something?
Here is the thing. If you bought D3, then literally you are entitled to play it. That is how buying something works.
I was more referring to the goosery I've seen on the Battle.net forums, I meant my comment to be taken in conjunction with #3 on my list. If you're aware that a game requires persistent authentication to play, and then servers go down on Day 1 for emergency patches/addition of servers to handle load, a reaction of "HOW DO I SUE BLIZZARD" seems disproportionate.
The EULA (while far from crystal clear), has language that seems applicable:
Duration of the "On-line" Component.
The Game is capable of both offline and online player modes, both of which require that you obtain authorized access to the Service. You understand and agree that the Service is provided by Blizzard at its discretion and may be terminated or otherwise discontinued by Blizzard pursuant to the Terms of Use.
I agree that the game would be much better with an offline single-player component, but I get why they did things the way they did (to deter piracy and to protect the integrity of the Real Money Auction House).
I fall somewhere in the middle of the two groups making this debate. On one hand, I think that Blizzard created a lot of problems for themselves by structuring the game and the single player to only work online. That said, I fully expect that they will iron out the kinks pretty quickly. In probably just a few days (weeks?) out we will be looking at a game that works in such a way that you might not even be able to notice that you were online if someone didn't tell you. I mean, hell, they supported Diablo II and Starcraft with patches and updates for several years, which is certainly not something most developers would do. But then again, the game would already be working the way it should be if you were playing single player and it wasn't online! I am also fully aware that this is a huge focus for me though because I played Diablo II almost exclusively offline (just didn't like dealing with lag and my playstyle is more of a stroll through hell then a quick rush) and I have absolutely no interest in paying for digital goods with real money. I also like to earn my items myself, so again, its pretty much just my backwards self-made character way of playing that makes me indifferent to the reasons for this being always online.
On the other hand, the game is what it is and other than the online thing everything I've seen about it looks fan-fucking-tastic and not being able to own the game right now would be completely eating away at my soul, if I actually had one. I can also understand why Blizzard set the game up the way they did, even if I don't agree. That Auction House is going to make them a ton of money, period. Its probably causing them more harm then good now, but that should turn out to be pretty short lived. If not, then I could see a scenario in which some of the people who are really super mad right now are actually making an understandable argument. Hopefully even at that point the argument wouldn't just devolve to shouting at Blizzard with tons of obscenities, but I think we're past that point already overall, two whole days out from release. I don't know, I guess that I can be pretty patient about things that I don't have any control over like that, even if they are an annoyance. Millions playing for hours at a time and a ton of things to balance out and all that.
Now if I had rented a game and encountered problems like this, then I might actually get somewhat irritated. But as it is, when I come to play this game it will be through purchasing it, and I expect to have this as the only PC game I play for years (just like with the two other Diablo games). So with that in mind, why would I be upset just because I couldn't play for an hour or two on one day? Or a few days even? That is absolutely nothing in the overall time in which I will be playing, a time which is only restricted by my life expectancy, the internet imploding, or some other unforeseeable act of God (Diablo?). Its a non issue, a minor inconvenience. We just need to give the game more time. If things are still all over the place with lag and servers shutting down consistently going into next month, then I think we can revisit this and those that are complaining now can complain to their hearts content and be in a position where onlookers won't be completely perplexed. It seems like things are making a pretty significant turn-around to stability already. And this is nothing compared to the Skyrim scenario, in which the game is still broken in several ways and probably will remain so indefinitely. I absolutely do not see that as something which Blizzard would allow.
Aaaannnnd before the primary point of the thread gets lost, I thought the comic was pretty funny.
To everyone who is actually surprised about the D3 launch server fuckfest: why didn't you take my word for it when I pointed out that this was going to happen?
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Well I would suspect that at least some of the angst right now is about this:
Blizzard: The game's going to be online only!
Consumers: WTF! I can't play single player offline? What if my internet goes down? What if your server goes down? This is a spectacularly bad idea!
Blizzard: Oh, you! It'll be fine!
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Well I would suspect that at least some of the angst right now is about this:
Blizzard: The game's going to be online only!
Consumers: WTF! I can't play single player offline? What if my internet goes down? What if your server goes down? This is a spectacularly bad idea!
Blizzard: Oh, you! It'll be fine!
Remember when Blizzard was surprised people didn't like the idea? I'm really starting to wonder if they have any actual connection with their playerbase anymore. Actiblizzard is starting to remind me more and more of Squeenix.
Man, even Dora the Explorer thinks you're slow.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
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.
I realized what the specific problem is that I have with this set of statements:
"This outcome could not be predicted"
Yes it could, because every fan predicted this outcome when Blizzard first announced that the single player would require an online connection. Back when Blizzard was puzzled that there was negative reaction to this idea.
So either every fan of the game is high on spice, or this was an easily predictable outcome from choosing this particular anti-consumer option.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
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.
I realized what the specific problem is that I have with this set of statements:
"This outcome could not be predicted"
Yes it could, because every fan predicted this outcome when Blizzard first announced that the single player would require an online connection. Back when Blizzard was puzzled that there was negative reaction to this idea.
So either every fan of the game is high on spice, or this was an easily predictable outcome from choosing this particular anti-consumer option.
Except, no where have I seen anyone give an actual estimation other than "a lot. like, no really, a whole whole lot."
We don't have to plan out logistics around those estimates.
We don't have to put up any money to back up those estimates.
I'm willing to bet actual money (which is easy to say because there is no way to verify this) that had people assigned actual numbers to their estimates they would be all over the fucking map.
edit: there is also the possibility that they had the number of potential people right and the estimate that was wrong was "how much traffic can our current infrastructure handle?"
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!
Nobody ever convinces anyone of anything on the net, so constructing cogent arguments is a waste of time. Also, Hitler.
I'm not impressed by the game yet. I'm not very far in, so I anticipate it getting better, but for now I'm not really digging my wizard, the graphics are chugging for me on a system that should be handling them, and the much-touted events so far have just been "ground shakes, now there's zombies". It's not BAD, but it's not Blizzard quality. The font thing is just a piece of that - it just feels out of place and plain. Using Exocet everywhere isn't necessary, it isn't the easiest to read, but that thin little font doesn't feel right.
So, decent gameplay, haven't been blown away by a cinematic yet, skill tree is an improvement but D2's was horrid so that's easy, and I got about 20 minutes of play in on launch day before the server crashed, rolled back my character (who had just picked up a sweet flaming sword), and stayed down 3 hours because blizzard is dead broke from all the pirates stealing their game and was forced to use an always on (except when it isn't) DRM. Also, that font? It's no Exocet.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
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.
I realized what the specific problem is that I have with this set of statements:
"This outcome could not be predicted"
Yes it could, because every fan predicted this outcome when Blizzard first announced that the single player would require an online connection. Back when Blizzard was puzzled that there was negative reaction to this idea.
So either every fan of the game is high on spice, or this was an easily predictable outcome from choosing this particular anti-consumer option.
Except, no where have I seen anyone give an actual estimation other than "a lot. like, no really, a whole whole lot."
We don't have to plan out logistics around those estimates.
We don't have to put up any money to back up those estimates.
I'm willing to bet actual money (which is easy to say because there is no way to verify this) that had people assigned actual numbers to their estimates they would be all over the fucking map.
"IF you require server access to play the single player game, THEN the single player game will sometimes be unaccessable." This doesn't require layers deep analytics, it's an inevitable progression.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
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.
I realized what the specific problem is that I have with this set of statements:
"This outcome could not be predicted"
Yes it could, because every fan predicted this outcome when Blizzard first announced that the single player would require an online connection. Back when Blizzard was puzzled that there was negative reaction to this idea.
So either every fan of the game is high on spice, or this was an easily predictable outcome from choosing this particular anti-consumer option.
Except, no where have I seen anyone give an actual estimation other than "a lot. like, no really, a whole whole lot."
We don't have to plan out logistics around those estimates.
We don't have to put up any money to back up those estimates.
I'm willing to bet actual money (which is easy to say because there is no way to verify this) that had people assigned actual numbers to their estimates they would be all over the fucking map.
"IF you require server access to play the single player game, THEN the single player game will sometimes be unaccessable." This doesn't require layers deep analytics, it's an inevitable progression.
If that is the "outcome that could not be predicted" you were talking about, then "duh." 100% uptime is not realistic.
I thought you were referring to their projections for the number of people that would try to play/they could handle at launch.
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.
I realized what the specific problem is that I have with this set of statements:
"This outcome could not be predicted"
Yes it could, because every fan predicted this outcome when Blizzard first announced that the single player would require an online connection. Back when Blizzard was puzzled that there was negative reaction to this idea.
So either every fan of the game is high on spice, or this was an easily predictable outcome from choosing this particular anti-consumer option.
Except, no where have I seen anyone give an actual estimation other than "a lot. like, no really, a whole whole lot."
We don't have to plan out logistics around those estimates.
We don't have to put up any money to back up those estimates.
I'm willing to bet actual money (which is easy to say because there is no way to verify this) that had people assigned actual numbers to their estimates they would be all over the fucking map.
"IF you require server access to play the single player game, THEN the single player game will sometimes be unaccessable." This doesn't require layers deep analytics, it's an inevitable progression.
If that is the "outcome that could not be predicted" you were talking about, then "duh." 100% uptime is not realistic.
I thought you were referring to their projections for the number of people that would try to play/they could handle at launch.
Yeah but that would be my point. The things that happened on launch were inevitable to happen some time or other. It's also a lot more likely to occur on launch day. Blizzard knew this when they hatched this profit-driven decision; they did it anyway. That would be a reason for someone to be angry at Blizzard, I should think.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
the other thing people don't always realize is that a lot of the time, the connectivity issue isn't related to blizzard at all. Instead, some node at AT&T or wherever is going "waaaah where did all this load come from at midnight."
I could actually log in and play (on a guest pass no less) from the west coast at a time when lots of folks were saying they couldn't connect.
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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.
I realized what the specific problem is that I have with this set of statements:
"This outcome could not be predicted"
Yes it could, because every fan predicted this outcome when Blizzard first announced that the single player would require an online connection. Back when Blizzard was puzzled that there was negative reaction to this idea.
So either every fan of the game is high on spice, or this was an easily predictable outcome from choosing this particular anti-consumer option.
Except, no where have I seen anyone give an actual estimation other than "a lot. like, no really, a whole whole lot."
We don't have to plan out logistics around those estimates.
We don't have to put up any money to back up those estimates.
I'm willing to bet actual money (which is easy to say because there is no way to verify this) that had people assigned actual numbers to their estimates they would be all over the fucking map.
"IF you require server access to play the single player game, THEN the single player game will sometimes be unaccessable." This doesn't require layers deep analytics, it's an inevitable progression.
If that is the "outcome that could not be predicted" you were talking about, then "duh." 100% uptime is not realistic.
I thought you were referring to their projections for the number of people that would try to play/they could handle at launch.
Yeah but that would be my point. The things that happened on launch were inevitable to happen some time or other. It's also a lot more likely to occur on launch day. Blizzard knew this when they hatched this profit-driven decision; they did it anyway. That would be a reason for someone to be angry at Blizzard, I should think.
"Some time or other" is pretty broad though. It is one thing to know that the game will have to come down for regularly schedule maintenance during non-peak hours. It is quite another to "know" it will go down during peak load at launch. Obviously, the latter is a risk that they tried to mitigate. They made some "aggressive projections" for what that load would look like and put the infrastructure in place to handle it....only to find out that they were short of the mark.
Where I'm having trouble is that this is clearly a result of greed. Why isn't is just a result of inaccurate estimates? The answer being that you (along with many others) detest the online requirement. So clearly, that is where the blame should lie, and clearly, the only reason to have an online requirement is to make a money grab. Therefore, it is a result of greed.
D2 online was a hacked fuckfest. If the client-server design of D3 (i.e., "online only") keeps the online game relatively clean, then you can't really say the DRM is all bad or anti-customer.
Guys seriously, the idea that Blizz could have avoided server load issues with more forethought is wrong on its face. Even with Blizzards resources, you cannot test for those loads. If you weren't expecting these kinds of issues on day one, you are the wrong person.
And it's not like Blizz decided to make the game all-online ignorant of the fact that many people want to play offline. The base decision was (naturally) one to make things easier for players: Desegregating online and offline characters, so you don't have to decide when you make a character if you're ever going to want to play it with someone else. What followed from that good design choice was the need for constant authentication, because haxxors gonna hax, sploiters etc. and that doesn't jive with their real money auction house which is also something many players are going to take huge advantage of.
These are excellent design decision they have made, at the cost of constant authentication. And even with that horrible necessity, the game runs perfectly for 90% of day one.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited May 2012
I love how quickly people can, in the very same post, go from, "You can't predict that there will be downtime!" to "If you weren't expecting downtime, you were an idiot!" Giving me whiplash over here. Either forcing everyone to be online also predictabley forces them to sometimes not have access to their game, or it does not. It can't be both.
Now if you want to argue why the game was better for being online, that it's worth inevitably not always being able to play your single player game because of the tremendous perks, then that's something to argue I guess. But isn't the real money auction house just another way for Blizzard to fill their coffers, and therefore making the game all online for that reason is still greed based?
Cambiata on
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
the other thing people don't always realize is that a lot of the time, the connectivity issue isn't related to blizzard at all. Instead, some node at AT&T or wherever is going "waaaah where did all this load come from at midnight."
I could actually log in and play (on a guest pass no less) from the west coast at a time when lots of folks were saying they couldn't connect.
Nobody ever convinces anyone of anything on the net, so constructing cogent arguments is a waste of time. Also, Hitler.
But Hitler constructed a number of cogent arguments, he was just a big meanie!
On a serious note, I've actually seen a number of people on the forums become convinced by other peoples arguments, most recently here. More often then not that doesn't happen, but it does occur. I've also seen discussions/arguments end with the two parties simply agreeing to disagree and then moving on as well (or sometimes working things out through private messages).
In any case, your post migraine posts (heh) here and elsewhere are ones that are a far better read. I like the elaboration and the last bit of you post too. And as someone who made a particularly regrettable migraine-induced post before, I know how that goes!
I love how quickly people can, in the very same post, go from, "You can't predict that there will be downtime!" to "If you weren't expecting downtime, you were an idiot!" Giving me whiplash over here. Either forcing everyone to be online also predictabley forces them to sometimes not have access to their game, or it does not. It can't be both.
Now if you want to argue why the game was better for being online, that it's worth inevitably not always being able to play your single player game because of the tremendous perks, then that's something to argue I guess. But isn't the real money auction house just another way for Blizzard to fill their coffers, and therefore making the game all online for that reason is still greed based?
No, it's "You can predict the downtime on day one because there is no force on earth that can stop it (with a playerbase like Blizzard's)."
And for chissakes people, Blizzard makes videogames and nothing else for a living. In their case, the motives of greed and fun for the players align perfectly.
Blizzard will make fuck-you money from the auction house. They will make that much money because players will want to use it.
And it's not like Blizz decided to make the game all-online ignorant of the fact that many people want to play offline. The base decision was (naturally) one to make things easier for players: Desegregating online and offline characters, so you don't have to decide when you make a character if you're ever going to want to play it with someone else. What followed from that good design choice was the need for constant authentication, because haxxors gonna hax, sploiters etc. and that doesn't jive with their real money auction house which is also something many players are going to take huge advantage of.
These are excellent design decision they have made, at the cost of constant authentication. And even with that horrible necessity, the game runs perfectly for 90% of day one.
This is what I've wanted to articulate, but haven't been able to back up. That there might be good design decisions behind the connectivity requirement. Did you get this from an article, or is it conjecture on your part?
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.
D2 online was a hacked fuckfest. If the client-server design of D3 (i.e., "online only") keeps the online game relatively clean, then you can't really say the DRM is all bad or anti-customer.
And that didn't impact my fun one iota. I had my own game with just me and my friends, which we played when we wanted, internet up or down. I never owned a single RoJ, through a level 90+ character and a host of alts. I give no damns about the worldwide economy in a single player/small party game. The auction house devalues the loot experience, since the goal switches from "find the perfect weapon" to "earn gold for the perfect weapon". I no longer have only my game to draw loot from, but every drop in every game ever. I don't deny D2 had an economy, but when duping broke it... who really cares? It wasn't an MMO, and trading wasn't built in, so it impacted me zero.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
I realized what the specific problem is that I have with this set of statements:
"This outcome could not be predicted"
Yes it could, because every fan predicted this outcome when Blizzard first announced that the single player would require an online connection. Back when Blizzard was puzzled that there was negative reaction to this idea.
So either every fan of the game is high on spice, or this was an easily predictable outcome from choosing this particular anti-consumer option.
No, see, demand grows. This is a thing.
"Well, this many people bought our latest product, and this many bought the one before it, and this many bought the one before that. If we follow this projection, Diablo 3 sales should fall around this area."
Blizzard made a projection, and miscalculated because demand was higher than they expected.
So I'm saying it's your fault the servers fucked up day one. Because people are insanely ravenous in their consumerism.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
So, don't buy the game then? Done and done.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Believe it or not, there's a realm that exists where there's many options other than "buy the game day one" and "never buy the game ever." You could buy the game today. You could've bought it a week from now. Whenever.
The bottom line is, you're avoiding the point. Blizzard, and any other company setting up server infrastructure, don't just build a system to support millions of people at once. There's a lot of calculation - all business related working in tandem with the tech know how - to figure out a sort of green zone. Blizzard built their infrastructure based on their math, and they were wrong. But they were wrong for a good reason - a lot of people bought the product. People are enthusiastic to play Diablo 3 despite all the bitching about, "UGH, I HAVE TO BE ONLINE?" It's all a bunch of hot air for nothing. At the end of the day, people are buying the product. Now, Blizzard is probably savvy enough to have a backup plan in case this happened, but they didn't use it before midnight because they didn't want to spend the money and have it not be needed. I don't blame them for that. Again, video games are a business, and while I disagree with some practices of that business, some of them are entirely reasonable. This was one of those reasonable situations. And guess what? Everything I was saying the night of launch has been correct. People are playing the game now. Yes, it took a day or two. But guess what? Things are getting worked out, have been worked out, and Blizzard has that much more money and incentive to develop more content for the game.
But no, let's make sweeping decisions against a company over a couple days' worth of error in the way of providing entertainment. This wasn't two days of an oil spill in the gulf. It wasn't two days of salmonella infested tomatoes not being pulled off the shelves when they should've been. It was something that people should've said, "Y'know, this sucks, but I can rest easy for a day or so because this company is on top of things for the most part." This attitude of companies having to be 100% perfect is absurd. I've mentioned before that video game players have these weird "all or nothing" or zero sum attitudes toward things. A company will be great - oh, they made a shitty game ending, NOW THE COMPANY SUXXORS. A company adds a new race to a currently existing game, OMG JUMPING THE SHARK, NEVER BUYING THEIR STUFF AGAIN, RAGE QUIT.
They had a couple of bad days, and you're promoting condemning them for the rest of time. I'd hate to see how you treat friends who slight you once every few years in some fashion or another. Can't imagine they're getting any fair shot at explaining themselves or room to apologize.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
D2 online was a hacked fuckfest. If the client-server design of D3 (i.e., "online only") keeps the online game relatively clean, then you can't really say the DRM is all bad or anti-customer.
Don't forget that being online, even in a singleplayer context, can still leave doors open for other sorts of interactivity and functions. Achievement tracking sort of things, or access to the auction house even if you're just playing by yourself. It's the one form of DRM that actually provides features. I hated the sound of it at first, because I'm a guy with a shitty internet situation, and I still resent it for practical reasons, but I see the good in it. Anyone living on either coast of the USA, or in a major metro area, I invite you to come to where I currently live. See how good you have it. SEE IT.
it seems profoundly silly to me to on the one hand say blizzard should've predicted this load and attendant issues, and on the other hand go on the "I expect the game to work on day one rabble rabble rabble" trip
well, maybe you should've predicted that there would be server load problems
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
They had a couple of bad days, and you're promoting condemning them for the rest of time. I'd hate to see how you treat friends who slight you once every few years in some fashion or another. Can't imagine they're getting any fair shot at explaining themselves or room to apologize.
I feel like you're missing the point, but I'm not really sure how else I can say it.
Games have bugs and this is a given. There are plenty of game I played despite the bugs and will continue to do so.
Games made to break deliberately for paying customers is something else again. I disapprove of that on the grounds that the company shouldn't be punishing me for having bought the product.
Now you seem to think I'm referring only to the fact that the servers were down on day one or whatever, but I'm not just referring to that.
Servers will go down, this is inevitable. Whether they go down for maintence or server load or just because Blizzard has bad servers is irrelevant. They are going to go down because that is something that always happens. Tying your single player to online servers, for the purposes of making money - guaranteeing that the customer game essentially "breaks" on your schedule, denying the customer access to the game, so that you can eke out a few more millions - is not my idea of customer friendly business practices.
I will not buy the game because I don't want to encourage Blizzard, or any other company, of continuing to restrict access to games in this way, out of their own greed.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
it seems profoundly silly to me to on the one hand say blizzard should've predicted this load and attendant issues, and on the other hand go on the "I expect the game to work on day one rabble rabble rabble" trip
well, maybe you should've predicted that there would be server load problems
But then people fire back with, "WELL IF I COULD PREDICT IT, BLIZZARD SHOULD HAVE" or "THERE SHOULDN'T BE LOAD PROBLEMS." In either case, people think networking is magic that involves "add more RAM." I'm not an expert on it, but I was in school for it for a time and I learned enough that it's not exactly like building a brand new PC in your home. It's kinda far from it.
And people also fire back with the "WELL I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE ONLINE TO PLAY SINGLEPLAYER" thing. Which is a fair point, but they're using one example (which is probably a rare moment in the big picture) to back it up. I'm sure that most of the time, Diablo 3 will be accessible. But who gives a shit about thinking things through when we can be angry right now?
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Tying your single player to online servers, for the purposes of making money - guaranteeing that the customer game essentially "breaks" on your schedule, denying the customer access to the game, so that you can eke out a few more millions - is not my idea of customer friendly business practices.
How does Blizzard make money by having a product offline, but then rely on the product being online to make money? Or is this all "OH THEY'RE OUT TO GET US" type stuff related to the real money auction house? Y'know, as someone who has spent a lot of money on optional features for freemium games, I have to tell you a secret. Are you ready for it?
All the money I've spent has been at my discretion, and I've never bought anything in order to make progress in the game.
But I digress. Please, tell me about the money making plan Blizzard has with Diablo 3 being tethered to the internet. Avoid any hippy talk please, that's along the lines of, "YOU DONT SEE IT, MAN!?" or bullshit-highbrow "Well I'm not going to explain it to you when it's right there for you to see yourself." I'm talking about making an actual cohesive argument with evidence.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I guess I thought "auction house with real money" meant that people were using real money to buy in game stuff. I apologize if I was wrong.
I think what people are maybe not getting is that I am the sort of person who plays games years and years after their "fresh by" dates. Only a few months ago I played my first Prince of Persia game. It was really good. How much would it suck if that single player game was tied to Ubi Soft servers that had long ago closed down because it's no longer profitable to run them? When I'm objecting to this model, I'm not just objecting to day one problems, I'm objecting to all the problems that will continue to exist as long as single player games being tethered to internet connections remain a thing.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
And it's not like Blizz decided to make the game all-online ignorant of the fact that many people want to play offline. The base decision was (naturally) one to make things easier for players: Desegregating online and offline characters, so you don't have to decide when you make a character if you're ever going to want to play it with someone else. What followed from that good design choice was the need for constant authentication, because haxxors gonna hax, sploiters etc. and that doesn't jive with their real money auction house which is also something many players are going to take huge advantage of.
These are excellent design decision they have made, at the cost of constant authentication. And even with that horrible necessity, the game runs perfectly for 90% of day one.
This is what I've wanted to articulate, but haven't been able to back up. That there might be good design decisions behind the connectivity requirement. Did you get this from an article, or is it conjecture on your part?
It's conjecture. By itself, Blizzard has no incentive to make the game always-online. It costs them much more in many dimensions (including customer loyalty). Because they're not idiots, constant authentication must be there to support other very important planned features. The desegregation is probably one of those features because it makes the game more convenient and fun across the board.
Today Blizzard Entertainment sent out a letter thanking Diablo 3 owners for picking up the game this week. They also took the opportunity to apologize for the server problems that they've experienced.
"We sincerely regret that your crusade to bring down the Lord of Terror was thwarted not by mobs of demons, but by mortal infrastructure," said Blizzard. "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."
What makes server outages especially aggravating with D3 is that the game requires a persistent connection. Even if you're playing single-player, you need to be hooked up to Blizzard's servers. This always-on system may cut down on hacking and piracy but the flipside is that when the server is down, you can't play period.
The company added that they've made optimizations throughout the past two days to help their servers handle the load. Early this morning, they took down the North American servers briefly for maintenance as well. Each region should expect maintenance time as Blizzard tries to implement improvements.
Moving forward, Blizzard wants to make sure that they can maintain server stability. To accomplish that, they're going to put off the release of the real-money auction house for the game. The real-money auction house, which allows players to buy and sell items for real world currency, was originally slated for a May 22nd launch. Blizzard hasn't provided a new target date for this feature yet.
One of the early issues players have experienced with the game was with the Achievements systems. In some cases, Achievements weren't earned when they should have been or they disappeared from players' lists. Blizzard says that they're working on an update targeting this problem.
The first bolding was done because I thought it was actually kind of funny for PR speak.
And it's not like Blizz decided to make the game all-online ignorant of the fact that many people want to play offline. The base decision was (naturally) one to make things easier for players: Desegregating online and offline characters, so you don't have to decide when you make a character if you're ever going to want to play it with someone else. What followed from that good design choice was the need for constant authentication, because haxxors gonna hax, sploiters etc. and that doesn't jive with their real money auction house which is also something many players are going to take huge advantage of.
These are excellent design decision they have made, at the cost of constant authentication. And even with that horrible necessity, the game runs perfectly for 90% of day one.
This is what I've wanted to articulate, but haven't been able to back up. That there might be good design decisions behind the connectivity requirement. Did you get this from an article, or is it conjecture on your part?
It's conjecture. By itself, Blizzard has no incentive to make the game always-online. It costs them much more in many dimensions (including customer loyalty). Because they're not idiots, constant authentication must be there to support other very important planned features. The desegregation is probably one of those features because it makes the game more convenient and fun across the board.
To stretch that metaphor too far, genocide is not desegregation.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Posts
To me, draconian is shit SecuROM used to pull. Installing a rootkit, preventing you from running cd tools or vmware at the same time as their software, making it ridiculously hard to uninstall their crapware, things of that nature. Storing data server side and requiring me to stay connected doesn't really seem like the same category. Especially since there are other, legitimate, reasons to require that connectivity (e.g. the Auction House).
Is there other stuff it is doing? Does it limit installs or something?
I was more referring to the goosery I've seen on the Battle.net forums, I meant my comment to be taken in conjunction with #3 on my list. If you're aware that a game requires persistent authentication to play, and then servers go down on Day 1 for emergency patches/addition of servers to handle load, a reaction of "HOW DO I SUE BLIZZARD" seems disproportionate.
The EULA (while far from crystal clear), has language that seems applicable:
Duration of the "On-line" Component.
The Game is capable of both offline and online player modes, both of which require that you obtain authorized access to the Service. You understand and agree that the Service is provided by Blizzard at its discretion and may be terminated or otherwise discontinued by Blizzard pursuant to the Terms of Use.
I agree that the game would be much better with an offline single-player component, but I get why they did things the way they did (to deter piracy and to protect the integrity of the Real Money Auction House).
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
On the other hand, the game is what it is and other than the online thing everything I've seen about it looks fan-fucking-tastic and not being able to own the game right now would be completely eating away at my soul, if I actually had one. I can also understand why Blizzard set the game up the way they did, even if I don't agree. That Auction House is going to make them a ton of money, period. Its probably causing them more harm then good now, but that should turn out to be pretty short lived. If not, then I could see a scenario in which some of the people who are really super mad right now are actually making an understandable argument. Hopefully even at that point the argument wouldn't just devolve to shouting at Blizzard with tons of obscenities, but I think we're past that point already overall, two whole days out from release. I don't know, I guess that I can be pretty patient about things that I don't have any control over like that, even if they are an annoyance. Millions playing for hours at a time and a ton of things to balance out and all that.
Now if I had rented a game and encountered problems like this, then I might actually get somewhat irritated. But as it is, when I come to play this game it will be through purchasing it, and I expect to have this as the only PC game I play for years (just like with the two other Diablo games). So with that in mind, why would I be upset just because I couldn't play for an hour or two on one day? Or a few days even? That is absolutely nothing in the overall time in which I will be playing, a time which is only restricted by my life expectancy, the internet imploding, or some other unforeseeable act of God (Diablo?). Its a non issue, a minor inconvenience. We just need to give the game more time. If things are still all over the place with lag and servers shutting down consistently going into next month, then I think we can revisit this and those that are complaining now can complain to their hearts content and be in a position where onlookers won't be completely perplexed. It seems like things are making a pretty significant turn-around to stability already. And this is nothing compared to the Skyrim scenario, in which the game is still broken in several ways and probably will remain so indefinitely. I absolutely do not see that as something which Blizzard would allow.
Aaaannnnd before the primary point of the thread gets lost, I thought the comic was pretty funny.
Blizzard: The game's going to be online only!
Consumers: WTF! I can't play single player offline? What if my internet goes down? What if your server goes down? This is a spectacularly bad idea!
Blizzard: Oh, you! It'll be fine!
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
it doesn't seem like most people did, though
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Remember when Blizzard was surprised people didn't like the idea? I'm really starting to wonder if they have any actual connection with their playerbase anymore. Actiblizzard is starting to remind me more and more of Squeenix.
I realized what the specific problem is that I have with this set of statements:
"This outcome could not be predicted"
Yes it could, because every fan predicted this outcome when Blizzard first announced that the single player would require an online connection. Back when Blizzard was puzzled that there was negative reaction to this idea.
So either every fan of the game is high on spice, or this was an easily predictable outcome from choosing this particular anti-consumer option.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Except, no where have I seen anyone give an actual estimation other than "a lot. like, no really, a whole whole lot."
We don't have to plan out logistics around those estimates.
We don't have to put up any money to back up those estimates.
I'm willing to bet actual money (which is easy to say because there is no way to verify this) that had people assigned actual numbers to their estimates they would be all over the fucking map.
edit: there is also the possibility that they had the number of potential people right and the estimate that was wrong was "how much traffic can our current infrastructure handle?"
Nobody ever convinces anyone of anything on the net, so constructing cogent arguments is a waste of time. Also, Hitler.
I'm not impressed by the game yet. I'm not very far in, so I anticipate it getting better, but for now I'm not really digging my wizard, the graphics are chugging for me on a system that should be handling them, and the much-touted events so far have just been "ground shakes, now there's zombies". It's not BAD, but it's not Blizzard quality. The font thing is just a piece of that - it just feels out of place and plain. Using Exocet everywhere isn't necessary, it isn't the easiest to read, but that thin little font doesn't feel right.
So, decent gameplay, haven't been blown away by a cinematic yet, skill tree is an improvement but D2's was horrid so that's easy, and I got about 20 minutes of play in on launch day before the server crashed, rolled back my character (who had just picked up a sweet flaming sword), and stayed down 3 hours because blizzard is dead broke from all the pirates stealing their game and was forced to use an always on (except when it isn't) DRM. Also, that font? It's no Exocet.
"IF you require server access to play the single player game, THEN the single player game will sometimes be unaccessable." This doesn't require layers deep analytics, it's an inevitable progression.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
If that is the "outcome that could not be predicted" you were talking about, then "duh." 100% uptime is not realistic.
I thought you were referring to their projections for the number of people that would try to play/they could handle at launch.
Yeah but that would be my point. The things that happened on launch were inevitable to happen some time or other. It's also a lot more likely to occur on launch day. Blizzard knew this when they hatched this profit-driven decision; they did it anyway. That would be a reason for someone to be angry at Blizzard, I should think.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
I could actually log in and play (on a guest pass no less) from the west coast at a time when lots of folks were saying they couldn't connect.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
"Some time or other" is pretty broad though. It is one thing to know that the game will have to come down for regularly schedule maintenance during non-peak hours. It is quite another to "know" it will go down during peak load at launch. Obviously, the latter is a risk that they tried to mitigate. They made some "aggressive projections" for what that load would look like and put the infrastructure in place to handle it....only to find out that they were short of the mark.
Where I'm having trouble is that this is clearly a result of greed. Why isn't is just a result of inaccurate estimates? The answer being that you (along with many others) detest the online requirement. So clearly, that is where the blame should lie, and clearly, the only reason to have an online requirement is to make a money grab. Therefore, it is a result of greed.
And it's not like Blizz decided to make the game all-online ignorant of the fact that many people want to play offline. The base decision was (naturally) one to make things easier for players: Desegregating online and offline characters, so you don't have to decide when you make a character if you're ever going to want to play it with someone else. What followed from that good design choice was the need for constant authentication, because haxxors gonna hax, sploiters etc. and that doesn't jive with their real money auction house which is also something many players are going to take huge advantage of.
These are excellent design decision they have made, at the cost of constant authentication. And even with that horrible necessity, the game runs perfectly for 90% of day one.
Now if you want to argue why the game was better for being online, that it's worth inevitably not always being able to play your single player game because of the tremendous perks, then that's something to argue I guess. But isn't the real money auction house just another way for Blizzard to fill their coffers, and therefore making the game all online for that reason is still greed based?
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
This is an excellent point.
But Hitler constructed a number of cogent arguments, he was just a big meanie!
On a serious note, I've actually seen a number of people on the forums become convinced by other peoples arguments, most recently here. More often then not that doesn't happen, but it does occur. I've also seen discussions/arguments end with the two parties simply agreeing to disagree and then moving on as well (or sometimes working things out through private messages).
In any case, your post migraine posts (heh) here and elsewhere are ones that are a far better read. I like the elaboration and the last bit of you post too. And as someone who made a particularly regrettable migraine-induced post before, I know how that goes!
And for chissakes people, Blizzard makes videogames and nothing else for a living. In their case, the motives of greed and fun for the players align perfectly.
Blizzard will make fuck-you money from the auction house. They will make that much money because players will want to use it.
This is what I've wanted to articulate, but haven't been able to back up. That there might be good design decisions behind the connectivity requirement. Did you get this from an article, or is it conjecture on your part?
I believe you mean: which is something huge that Blizzard is going to use to take advantage of many players.
That is one point where I cannot agree on an excellent design decision being made, unless you are looking at it from their perspective.
You can predict something because it's inevitable? Yep, pretty much sounds like what I've been saying. So we agree, then.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
tsk tsk
And that didn't impact my fun one iota. I had my own game with just me and my friends, which we played when we wanted, internet up or down. I never owned a single RoJ, through a level 90+ character and a host of alts. I give no damns about the worldwide economy in a single player/small party game. The auction house devalues the loot experience, since the goal switches from "find the perfect weapon" to "earn gold for the perfect weapon". I no longer have only my game to draw loot from, but every drop in every game ever. I don't deny D2 had an economy, but when duping broke it... who really cares? It wasn't an MMO, and trading wasn't built in, so it impacted me zero.
No, see, demand grows. This is a thing.
"Well, this many people bought our latest product, and this many bought the one before it, and this many bought the one before that. If we follow this projection, Diablo 3 sales should fall around this area."
Blizzard made a projection, and miscalculated because demand was higher than they expected.
So I'm saying it's your fault the servers fucked up day one. Because people are insanely ravenous in their consumerism.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Believe it or not, there's a realm that exists where there's many options other than "buy the game day one" and "never buy the game ever." You could buy the game today. You could've bought it a week from now. Whenever.
The bottom line is, you're avoiding the point. Blizzard, and any other company setting up server infrastructure, don't just build a system to support millions of people at once. There's a lot of calculation - all business related working in tandem with the tech know how - to figure out a sort of green zone. Blizzard built their infrastructure based on their math, and they were wrong. But they were wrong for a good reason - a lot of people bought the product. People are enthusiastic to play Diablo 3 despite all the bitching about, "UGH, I HAVE TO BE ONLINE?" It's all a bunch of hot air for nothing. At the end of the day, people are buying the product. Now, Blizzard is probably savvy enough to have a backup plan in case this happened, but they didn't use it before midnight because they didn't want to spend the money and have it not be needed. I don't blame them for that. Again, video games are a business, and while I disagree with some practices of that business, some of them are entirely reasonable. This was one of those reasonable situations. And guess what? Everything I was saying the night of launch has been correct. People are playing the game now. Yes, it took a day or two. But guess what? Things are getting worked out, have been worked out, and Blizzard has that much more money and incentive to develop more content for the game.
But no, let's make sweeping decisions against a company over a couple days' worth of error in the way of providing entertainment. This wasn't two days of an oil spill in the gulf. It wasn't two days of salmonella infested tomatoes not being pulled off the shelves when they should've been. It was something that people should've said, "Y'know, this sucks, but I can rest easy for a day or so because this company is on top of things for the most part." This attitude of companies having to be 100% perfect is absurd. I've mentioned before that video game players have these weird "all or nothing" or zero sum attitudes toward things. A company will be great - oh, they made a shitty game ending, NOW THE COMPANY SUXXORS. A company adds a new race to a currently existing game, OMG JUMPING THE SHARK, NEVER BUYING THEIR STUFF AGAIN, RAGE QUIT.
They had a couple of bad days, and you're promoting condemning them for the rest of time. I'd hate to see how you treat friends who slight you once every few years in some fashion or another. Can't imagine they're getting any fair shot at explaining themselves or room to apologize.
Don't forget that being online, even in a singleplayer context, can still leave doors open for other sorts of interactivity and functions. Achievement tracking sort of things, or access to the auction house even if you're just playing by yourself. It's the one form of DRM that actually provides features. I hated the sound of it at first, because I'm a guy with a shitty internet situation, and I still resent it for practical reasons, but I see the good in it. Anyone living on either coast of the USA, or in a major metro area, I invite you to come to where I currently live. See how good you have it. SEE IT.
well, maybe you should've predicted that there would be server load problems
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I feel like you're missing the point, but I'm not really sure how else I can say it.
Games have bugs and this is a given. There are plenty of game I played despite the bugs and will continue to do so.
Games made to break deliberately for paying customers is something else again. I disapprove of that on the grounds that the company shouldn't be punishing me for having bought the product.
Now you seem to think I'm referring only to the fact that the servers were down on day one or whatever, but I'm not just referring to that.
Servers will go down, this is inevitable. Whether they go down for maintence or server load or just because Blizzard has bad servers is irrelevant. They are going to go down because that is something that always happens. Tying your single player to online servers, for the purposes of making money - guaranteeing that the customer game essentially "breaks" on your schedule, denying the customer access to the game, so that you can eke out a few more millions - is not my idea of customer friendly business practices.
I will not buy the game because I don't want to encourage Blizzard, or any other company, of continuing to restrict access to games in this way, out of their own greed.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
(NSFW disclaimer!)
But then people fire back with, "WELL IF I COULD PREDICT IT, BLIZZARD SHOULD HAVE" or "THERE SHOULDN'T BE LOAD PROBLEMS." In either case, people think networking is magic that involves "add more RAM." I'm not an expert on it, but I was in school for it for a time and I learned enough that it's not exactly like building a brand new PC in your home. It's kinda far from it.
And people also fire back with the "WELL I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE ONLINE TO PLAY SINGLEPLAYER" thing. Which is a fair point, but they're using one example (which is probably a rare moment in the big picture) to back it up. I'm sure that most of the time, Diablo 3 will be accessible. But who gives a shit about thinking things through when we can be angry right now?
You're saying that Blizzard did this on purpose. You are now the silliest of the geese.
How does Blizzard make money by having a product offline, but then rely on the product being online to make money? Or is this all "OH THEY'RE OUT TO GET US" type stuff related to the real money auction house? Y'know, as someone who has spent a lot of money on optional features for freemium games, I have to tell you a secret. Are you ready for it?
All the money I've spent has been at my discretion, and I've never bought anything in order to make progress in the game.
But I digress. Please, tell me about the money making plan Blizzard has with Diablo 3 being tethered to the internet. Avoid any hippy talk please, that's along the lines of, "YOU DONT SEE IT, MAN!?" or bullshit-highbrow "Well I'm not going to explain it to you when it's right there for you to see yourself." I'm talking about making an actual cohesive argument with evidence.
I think what people are maybe not getting is that I am the sort of person who plays games years and years after their "fresh by" dates. Only a few months ago I played my first Prince of Persia game. It was really good. How much would it suck if that single player game was tied to Ubi Soft servers that had long ago closed down because it's no longer profitable to run them? When I'm objecting to this model, I'm not just objecting to day one problems, I'm objecting to all the problems that will continue to exist as long as single player games being tethered to internet connections remain a thing.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
If X, then Y.
If you tether to servers, sometimes those servers will be down. By design.
Does that make more sense or do I need to explain it again?
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Blizzard Apologizes For Diablo 3 Server Problems, Delays Real Money Auction House
The first bolding was done because I thought it was actually kind of funny for PR speak.
To stretch that metaphor too far, genocide is not desegregation.
But you said they did this to piss in everyone's cheerios. I'm done trying to converse with you. Or talk at you mostly.