Thoughts on Diablo III?

[Adam7Eight]

no one has 'monopolistic' power here...

Yet...

 

[MobBoss]

Yet...

Yet? I cant even envision a future where the video games industry is monopolized by a single company in comparison to its current state. Can you?

 

[Sadan01]

Hmm. All we need is a few large publishers buying out respected development teams, cordoning off sections of the market with "franchised" games and we have a somewhat of a monopolistic view of the games industry.

Of course, that would never happen

Hint: EA, Activision-Blizzard, Take-Two and UbiSoft are the biggest, most powerful publishers/developers on the planet. How many did we have 5 years ago? 10? 20?

With the prohibitive cost of developing a "AAA" title, only the big publishers can afford a "risk". But they don't take risks as they play it safe with franchised games that they know will continue selling.

The games industry may be making a lot more money today than they have ever done, however ingenuity and original ideas have gone down the drain.

I could see a future where either EA or ActiBlizz buy UbiSoft. Take-Two has good years and bad years so their days could be numbered in the future too. Either way, I do see a "monopolistic" future for the games industry but not where one company has total control. I see a monopoly on "venture-capital" to make new ideas into new concepts into new games. That is where the industry (and indirectly: us) is/are suffering.

 

[aelf]

No where near true in all cases. Thats why I tend to use the games actual quality as a final arbiter, not whether the corporate head wants to act the ass.

So you're saying that the attitude of producers have no bearing on the quality of their work? That's surprising.

Define 'contempt' however. Is the expectation of having an online connection for a game showing 'contempt'? I dont think so. I dont think that is an entirely unreasonable expectation either.

I was talking about their attitude based on what they say and how they say it, not trying to claim that that some design decision constitutes showing contempt for their customers.

And come on, we are talking the video games industry - no one has 'monopolistic' power here, and competition to create quality games that sell is quite intense.

Monopolistic power does not mean monopoly. It just refers to control of the market, whether that is absolute or not.

True, and there will always be haters as well.

As long as you understand that not being interested in something does not mean hating on it.

 

[MobBoss]

So you're saying that the attitude of producers have no bearing on the quality of their work? That's surprising.

I'd say it has less impact than you imply. Remember we are talking about producers here, not developers.

I was talking about their attitude based on what they say and how they say it, not trying to claim that that some design decision constitutes showing contempt for their customers.

Then those are just 'words' and nothing more.

Monopolistic power does not mean monopoly. It just refers to control of the market, whether that is absolute or not.

Semantics.

As long as you understand that not being interested in something does not mean hating on it.

No, but alleging things like contempt, poor design quality, and screwing over the consumer is.

 

[MrPopov]

I will be buying Torchlight 2 instead.

There see no monopoly to worry about.

 

[aelf]

I'd say it has less impact than you imply. Remember we are talking about producers here, not developers.

You don't know about that, not with the sweeping degree of certainty you're asserting here anyway.

Then those are just 'words' and nothing more.

Words are not indicative of attitude? Attitude is not indicative of intent? Intent has no bearing on result?

In any other context, you wouldn't probably wouldn't be saying this, especially when it comes to your subordinates. But I guess when it comes to something you desperately want to defend...

Semantics.

More like economics. Market share or degree of control of the market is not a question of either complete monopoly or perfect competition. And if you think that companies that are not virtual monopolies can't have a significant impact on the market, then you're really ignorant about a large part of how the world works.

No, but alleging things like contempt, poor design quality, and screwing over the consumer is.

Those are reasons to be uninterested in something (and, on my part, I've specifically only talked about the attitude of the company staff anyway). Just because someone makes known his reasons for not liking something, he's officially a hater? I can see how much of a fanboy you are

 

[Thrawn]

Even if there does eventually be one giant corporation that produces pretty much all AAA title, there'll always be small indie developers. So I don't think there'll ever really be a true monopoly or similar in the gaming industry.

 

[aelf]

Even if there does eventually be one giant corporation that produces pretty much all AAA title, there'll always be small indie developers. So I don't think there'll ever really be a true monopoly or similar in the gaming industry.

Irrelevant to the point. Such a situation as you describe is clearly detrimental to consumer choice. Just because choice isn't completely eliminated doesn't mean there is no problem. I'm surprised such an elementary point is kind of lost on people in this thread.

 

[LightSpectra]

aelf, the people arguing against you refuse to concede even the most glaringly obvious points. I don't really see the point of even trying anymore.

 

[Thrawn]

Irrelevant to the point. Such a situation as you describe is clearly detrimental to consumer choice. Just because choice isn't completely eliminated doesn't mean there is no problem. I'm surprised such an elementary point is kind of lost on people in this thread.

I never said there wasn't a problem with a single company producing all AAA titles.

 

[aelf]

aelf, the people arguing against you refuse to concede even the most glaringly obvious points. I don't really see the point of even trying anymore.

Well, it was about something else entirely. But you're right.

I never said there wasn't a problem with a single company producing all AAA titles.

As far as I know, no one's really talking about actual monopolies forming anyway.

 

[Benefactor]

I was never going to buy D3 anyway, but I am going to pretend I was so I can say I'm not buying it because of the stupid online only/no-mods/real money auction house policy .

 

[MobBoss]

Those are reasons to be uninterested in something (and, on my part, I've specifically only talked about the attitude of the company staff anyway). Just because someone makes known his reasons for not liking something, he's officially a hater? I can see how much of a fanboy you are

You say 'fanboy' like its a slur, but why whouldnt I be a fanboy of a company that has routinely put out some of the finest games in the industry over and over again for 20 plus years?

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, i've been very pleased with Blizzard games and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as expectations. Until they put something out that removes that trust I have given them, I see no reason to withdraw it prematurely.

aelf, the people arguing against you refuse to concede even the most glaringly obvious points. I don't really see the point of even trying anymore.

I've already pointed out how the vast majority of complaints dont really impact your average user of this game at all, or it does so merely at their own choice. In other words, the complaints are simply negligable.

Lets review the chief complaints:

1. You have to be online at all times to play. Lots of angst about this, but you had to be online to play with your friends in D2 as well, just like you have to for any other multi-player game offered today. The vast majority of people are online 24/7 anyways via DSL or cable hookups to their homes, so the only real impact here would be those traveling with a laptop, and even then there are myraid ways to get online even in fairly remote areas. Impact upon the average user: minimal.

2. The real money auction house. In looking into this just a bit more I found out there are going to actually be two auction houses, one for real money, and one for in game gold (or whatever you pick up for loot that is). Participation in each is not mandatory, and the real money auction house will be unavailable for hardcore characters. Again, unless you desire to be on the cutting edge of PvP competition, I dont see this having much impact on you (the average user). Details are still forthcoming, and this may change quite a bit in functionality/applicability by release. Impact upon the average user: minimal.

3. Corporate attitude. To be honest, I havent seen a lot of this. About the only comments that could be construed as 'condescending' were the interview comments in regards to players availability of connectivity (via WIFI hotspots, et al). Could they have been parsed better? Sure. Is it an indicator of a negative attitude? Hard to say. If negative, will it impact the actual game? Most likely not. They guys are still in it to make a profit, and simply pissing people off for no reason isnt going to do that. Bottom line, I would say that perception that there is some kind of condescending attitude at play here simple error, and a finding of fault only if one is determined to see it. Not to mention the fact, again, that requiring the player to be online is still of minimal impact, and complaining over it making a mountain out of a molehill in real terms. Impact upon the average user: minimal to non-existant.

4. Changes in game mechanics. This one has some validity. For example, the decision to remove potions from the game to a system akin to the Fable games, where you pick up health/mana 'globes' off the ground after you have killed a mob. Its going to greatly change how the game itself is played; and remains to be seen if it actually 'works' or not. I was never a big fan of spamming potions in order to kill a boss or get through a tough spot, so on one hand I can see where this would make such fights far more technical than before. As to whether thats a good thing or not will remain to be seen. Impact upon the average user: significant.

 

[SuperJay]

Lets review the chief complaints:

1. You have to be online at all times to play. Lots of angst about this, but you had to be online to play with your friends in D2 as well, just like you have to for any other multi-player game offered today.

I love how you slip that "with your friends" part in there, moving the goalpost (again) and pretending you've actually addressed the complaint.

Who here is complaining about using the internet to play multiplayer games with their friends? Oh right, nobody is. How else would we play multiplayer with our friends in other locations if not for that sweet, sweet Internet juice?

You know full well the real complaint is requiring online connectivity for every game mode, including single-player, but you continue to try and shove that under the rug so you can post these idiotic "rebuttals." (Which don't actually rebut any of the points people make; instead, you construct some fictional claim that someone else made and then respond to that rather than their actual complaints, since you can't.) No wonder you hate the phrase "strawman" so much!

While I'm not at all surprised that you're changing the "problem" so that you can casually dismiss it, please stop interjecting such asinine nonsense into this thread. Nobody around here is fooled by your mischaracterizations. Either stay on-topic and respond to the points in good faith or stop wasting time cluttering up the discussion with irrelevant garbage like this.

 

[Rub'Rum]

wrong thread

No, it was the perfect thread.

 

[MobBoss]

I love how you slip that "with your friends" part in there, moving the goalpost (again) and pretending you've actually addressed the complaint.

Who here is complaining about using the internet to play multiplayer games with their friends? Oh right, nobody is. How else would we play multiplayer with our friends in other locations if not for that sweet, sweet Internet juice?

You know full well the real complaint is requiring online connectivity for every game mode, including single-player, but you continue to try and shove that under the rug so you can post these idiotic "rebuttals." (Which don't actually rebut any of the points people make; instead, you construct some fictional claim that someone else made and then respond to that rather than their actual complaints, since you can't.) No wonder you hate the phrase "strawman" so much!

While I'm not at all surprised that you're changing the "problem" so that you can casually dismiss it, please stop interjecting such asinine nonsense into this thread. Nobody around here is fooled by your mischaracterizations. Either stay on-topic and respond to the points in good faith or stop wasting time cluttering up the discussion with irrelevant garbage like this.

I'm not changing the problem, and frankly, you need to tone down your personally directed rhetoric here - there is simply no need for it.

I really dont see any difference in playing this game solo (with an online connection) or with a group of friends (with an online connection) or with a bunch of strangers ( with an online connection). In fact, I would say that your average user is connected to the net even while they play other games in single player mode, even though its not required (unless they are still on dial-up).

Seriously, the impact from having a online connection for any game mode is negligable, and as I pointed out earlier, DSL and cable type users (which are indeed the vast majority) are already connected 24/7 with no downside to that.

If having a required online connection also helps combat piracy, hacks, or other issues i'm all for it as well. Anything that aids in combatting hacking, i'm all for.

However, superjay, you still fail to list WHY having an online connection in single player mode is so detrimental to you. While you fling many a personal comment, i'm not the subject and you dont make your case. At all. All you do is point fingers at me.

Now then, if you want to discuss how terrible being online for a single player mode is to you in a civil manner, go right ahead. But dont clutter the thread up with personal attacks. Thats not the purpose here. I mean really...what happened since this quote from earlier in the thread?

I'm with Mobby on this one - you may not like all of Blizzard's games, but I don't think anyone can argue that any of their games in the last 15 years or so were actually bad games. I don't see Diablo 3 somehow breaking that trend.

Earlier, you also downplayed a lot of these issues to take a more 'lets wait and see upon release' attitude which, frankly, I agree with heavily.

 

[Benefactor]

However, superjay, you still fail to list WHY having an online connection in single player mode is so detrimental to you. While you fling many a personal comment, I'm not the subject and you don't make your case. At all. All you do is point fingers at me.

Now then, if you want to discuss how terrible being online for a single player mode is to you in a civil manner, go right ahead. But don't clutter the thread up with personal attacks. That's not the purpose here.

Speaking for myself, my Internet is not 100% reliable. While it is rare, it does occasionally cut out. Not being able to use the Internet would be annoying, not being able to play my single player games as well is stupid.
I also sometimes switch the Internet off when I'm playing games, if I feel especially environmentally conscious, to stop the Router getting hot and prevent wasting electric.

For me, it wouldn't really affect my playing the game. But it is annoying and most importantly, pointless. Within a few weeks of Diablo 3 coming out it will be available to torrent, without the always-on Internet requirement. An (admittedly only marginally) better product for free.

 

[Luckymoose]

Blizzard only made two good games, IMO, Diablo and Diablo 2. Everything else was rather meh, especially Warcraft.

 

[aelf]

Eh, apparently someone doesn't understand metaphor.

And, speaking of debate, here are points of argument that you have been trying to dance around by coming up with some completely made up dichotomy between music and games:

It's obviously not so simple. Otherwise, you'd be forced to admit that all manner of crappy popular music, for example, are of high quality just because they're popular.

I don't see any conceivable reason why popular != good applies to [music] but not [games].

I take it you're also a Justin Bieber fan? You know, since popularity is the only thing that counts and criticism is trivial at that point.

Well, if your point is that something can be terrible and still become wildly popular because people generally cannot identify egregious flaws in games like World of Warcraft, then I agree completely.

I'll give you a hint: Bieber isn't popular solely for his musical skills, just like certain video games aren't popular solely because of their quality.

There is no reason to claim that a large majority of people thinking something is good means that something must be good (more on this below). Again, you're only assuming that, and your argument that the market in music works differently only allows you to escape the charge that you think Justin Bieber, for example, is good. It doesn't explain the mystifying assumption that your argument is predicated on.

I never got why something being popular necessarily means it's good. Yeah, sometimes and maybe often things are popular because they are good. But in those cases, popularity is only symptomatic of something being good. Popularity isn't the sole criterion of goodness; the criteria for goodness need not even include popularity. The popular = good argument sucks because it's just circular logic. Something is popular because it's good (may be true), but something is good because it's popular (eh?).

Even more damningly, here are some points that you have addressed by doing the equivalent of simply insisting that the moon is made of green cheese:

So you're saying that the attitude of producers have no bearing on the quality of their work? That's surprising.

I'd say it has less impact than you imply.

Then those are just 'words' and nothing more.

Words are not indicative of attitude? Attitude is not indicative of intent? Intent has no bearing on result?

But, wait:

Remember we are talking about producers here, not developers.

Oh, my apologies - I take that back. Actually, you attempted to create another dichotomy between producers and developers, claiming again that something that applies to one does not apply to the other for some weird reason.

Talk about opinion.