Thoughts on Diablo III?

[Maniacal]

I'd download a car if I could. Screw the legality of it. There's be tens of millions of people downloading them as fast as possible just because they had an anti-piracy ad that said "you wouldn't download a car".

Still wouldn't pirate games though, even though thanks to the pirates who cracked open the DRM it is incredibly easy to do so for a anyone with a PC and an internet connection.

 

[MobBoss]

"very small minority" ?
Company grossly inflate the piracy problem to look justified in how they trampe user's rights (which tends to make people even more eager to pirate, BTW), but even if we don't buy their propaganda, saying only a "very small minority" pirate is completely out of touch with reality...

To put that comment in context, I meant a 'very small minority' in comparison to the population of average gamers.

 

[aelf]

Like I said, if all you have to offer is personal jabs, dont bother. If you want to talk about D3 however....

Personal jabs?

I made two points concerning Blizzard and D3:

1) The popularity of past Blizzard games does not necessarily prove that their games are good, let alone that their upcoming game will be good.

2) The attitude of the company staff is a warning sign that they can afford to take many of their customers for granted, in the sense that they can act like jerks but still have plenty of people pay sticker price for their games. And if they can take a large portion of their customers for granted, it would mean there is less incentive for them to invest in making high-quality reasonably-priced games.

You failed to respond to these points substantively with your flat-out denials that they might pertinent, particularly through attempting to draw arbitrary lines in the sand so that you can put Blizzard games safely on the side where these problems supposedly don't exist.

 

[Akka]

To put that comment in context, I meant a 'very small minority' in comparison to the population of average gamers.

I was talking about the same thing.

 

[MobBoss]

Personal jabs?

I made two points concerning Blizzard and D3:

1) The popularity of past Blizzard games does not necessarily prove that their games are good, let alone that their upcoming game will be good.

Of course it does prove their past games were 'good', and provides a high likelihood that the upcoming game will be good as well.

All that does is beg how one personally defines a game as 'good' as opposed to how the industry defines it as 'good'. I would gladly put far more weight on how the industry makes that definition (via popularity, sales figures, and various ratings/reviews) as opposed to singular personal opinion.

Not sure I understand the unwillingness to call something in particular 'good' because its popular. A game could be 'good' for varying reasons, and if its good for enough of those reasons, then its popular.

2) The attitude of the company staff is a warning sign that they can afford to take many of their customers for granted, in the sense that they can act like jerks but still have plenty of people pay sticker price for their games. And if they can take a large portion of their customers for granted, it would mean there is less incentive for them to invest in making high-quality reasonably-priced games.

Again, a rather subjective call, not to mention quite nebulous in its overall affect of the actual making of the game in question. Some people can indeed have a haughty attitude about their product in overweening pride for what they have done. But the bottom line still stands - is the product good and have quality for its value regardless of some perceived bad attitude or not?

I dont really care if some corporate talking head has a bad attitude as long as it doesnt reflect in the quality of the game. In fact, I think some argument can be made of various 'bad boy' programmers in gaming history that were still known for turning out popular and fun games.

The bottom line remains as a consumer, i am most concerned about the final product offered to me as opposed to making personality judgements on the game makers themselves.

You failed to respond to these points substantively with your flat-out denials that they might pertinent, particularly through attempting to draw arbitrary lines in the sand so that you can put Blizzard games safely on the side where these problems supposedly don't exist.

Nope. In fact, the above is simple a reiteration of counter points I made earlier in the thread.

And I never said Blizzard games were 'perfect' or 'without error'. Far from it. But I do certainly think the overall quality of their games is 'high' and such issue generally niggling as opposed to being complete deal breakers where my game buying dollars are concerned.

I mean, if you wanted, I could probably list more than a few little things that might irk me one way or another in a Blizzard game, but I am discussing the games overall quality as opposed to small issue like that.

I was talking about the same thing.

So, to clarify: my point is that the number of gamers that actually pirate or hack a game is fractionally small in comparison to the number of gamers total. Your opinion is opposite that?

 

[aelf]

Of course it does prove their past games were 'good', and provides a high likelihood that the upcoming game will be good as well.

Of course? Of course! Why would I expect you to be willing to entertain any other idea?

All that does is beg how one personally defines a game as 'good' as opposed to how the industry defines it as 'good'. I would gladly put far more weight on how the industry makes that definition (via popularity, sales figures, and various ratings/reviews) as opposed to singular personal opinion.

Not sure I understand the unwillingness to call something in particular 'good' because its popular. A game could be 'good' for varying reasons, and if its good for enough of those reasons, then its popular.

The exact definition of a good game is certainly subjective and up to the individual. However, using popularity as the sole criterion of good is ill-advised at best and at worst completely naive. It's probably the case that a game is popular because many people think it's good (enough). But as for whether it's good in your own terms is something that you can't rely on popularity to decide.

There's no other way to treat judgements of taste.

Again, a rather subjective call, not to mention quite nebulous in its overall affect of the actual making of the game in question. Some people can indeed have a haughty attitude about their product in overweening pride for what they have done. But the bottom line still stands - is the product good and have quality for its value regardless of some perceived bad attitude or not?

Subjective call? Not at all.

Whether or not the official attitude of the producers (and with that I'm referring all levels of the company staff involved in the production and marketing of the game) is indicative of a trend in the quality of the products that we can expect from them is an objective question. The answer doesn't depend on who is looking at it. Whether a particular product is still good enough despite the official attitude of the producers is ultimately a subjective question, yes. But not whether producer attitude, as an extension of their product design and marketing strategy, can be expected to tell us something about product quality in general.

I dont really care if some corporate talking head has a bad attitude as long as it doesnt reflect in the quality of the game. In fact, I think some argument can be made of various 'bad boy' programmers in gaming history that were still known for turning out popular and fun games.

The bottom line remains as a consumer, i am most concerned about the final product offered to me as opposed to making personality judgements on the game makers themselves.

The problem is "as long as it doesn't reflect in the quality of the game" relies on post hoc experience to establish. At this point it would be silly to deny the real possibility. And, as I said, as a general question, whether the official attitude of the producers is indicative of the trend in product quality that we can expect is not dependent on how one particular product turns out in the end.

 

[Akka]

So, to clarify: my point is that the number of gamers that actually pirate or hack a game is fractionally small in comparison to the number of gamers total. Your opinion is opposite that?

My opinion is that the number of people pirating games is in no way a "tiny minority", but a "sizeable minority".
And my opinion is that many DRM are unethical, thus making the ones using them pure hypocrites and liars.

 

[MobBoss]

My opinion is that the number of people pirating games is in no way a "tiny minority", but a "sizeable minority".
And my opinion is that many DRM are unethical, thus making the ones using them pure hypocrites and liars.

I would have a hard time believing more than 10 percent of gamers in total pirate software to any real degree. I have no idea however, where one would go to get real estimates. I'm sure most software companies would inflate the reality of it in order to pursue and justify their various DRM schemes. As to whether or not it actually saves them money? No idea.

I dont see trying to protect your own copyrighted material as unethical, nor hypocritical. But then again, I dont mind spending money on a game I want.

 

[Akka]

I dont see trying to protect your own copyrighted material as unethical, nor hypocritical. But then again, I dont mind spending money on a game I want.

Neither do I, on both account.
But I DO find it unethical to trample on consumer's rights (requiring a permanent Internet connection when there is no inherent need like in a MMO, is not admissible ; including malware like the famous Sony's rootkit is simply a felony, and if it was a random Joe instead of a big corporation he would have got years in jail).

I also DO find it hypocrital to see completely false arguments being made in order to justify these right-trampling. SC2 DRM was particularly egregious when it was announced in the SAME ARTICLE that bashed Steam's abusiveness - yeah, you read right, one of the Blizzard's guy said basically "DRM are a for losers, DRM that restrict the right of use like Steam are bad, the best DRM is to make a game so good that people will want to buy it, oh BTW SC2 will require even more stringent requirement than Steam". That was surreal.

I don't have any problem spending money on a (good) game. I DO have lots of problems rewarding unethical behaviours, though. As I said before in this thread, it's a point of principle.

 

[MobBoss]

How is requiring a constant connection while playing their game 'trampling on consumers rights'? A consumer doesnt have a right against a required online connection - but they do have a choice ...to not accept the terms. If you voluntarily choose to submit to said requirement then you dont really have a 'right' to be trampled on in the first place.

I pointed out earlier its not really any different that having minimum system requirements for a game. To complain about a required net connection is like trying to complain that new games require Vista or Win 7 to work - or a modern video card or CPU to run the game well or at all. Its simply part of the progression of technology.

 

[Akka]

How is requiring a constant connection while playing their game 'trampling on consumers rights'?

It restricts the use of the product far more than what is required, the whole foggy limits of copyright (and lobbying) being systematically used as an excuse to basically say "screw you, we'll put as many constraints as we want".

A consumer doesnt have a right against a required online connection - but they do have a choice ...to not accept the terms. If you voluntarily choose to submit to said requirement then you dont really have a 'right' to be trampled on in the first place.

My point is precisely that no, you should not accept these things, because it encourage the publishers to continue using and abusing them.

On a related note, the bigger problem is that through passivity, stupidity and sheep mentality, consumers become more and more used being milked and accepting conditions that should not be acceptable, leading to a whole shift in the industry toward "screw them more, they happily accept it". All which in turn adversely accept those not sheepish or shortsighted enough to bend over and take it deep - as the abusive restrictions become the new standard.

I pointed out earlier its not really any different that having minimum system requirements for a game.

This is a completely idiotic comparison. A minimum system requirement is actually needed to make the game run. I specifically talked (for those who bother to actually read ) about the difference between something actually required for the game (permanent Internet connection for a MMO, for example again) and something that is added just to corral/limit the user in a direction that the publisher wants (removing LAN support for SC2 and every kind of permanent connection DRM).

Its simply part of the progression of technology.

This is completely absurd and nonsensical. Permanent Internet connection is not a technological requirement for a single player game, it's a design choice. Since I can't even begin to understand how you can mix these two completely unrelated concept together.

 

[MobBoss]

It restricts the use of the product far more than what is required

'Far more'? I think the vast majority will find that requirement quite negligible. Being online is a given these days, no matter what your doing.

the whole foggy limits of copyright (and lobbying) being systematically used as an excuse to basically say "screw you, we'll put as many constraints as we want".

Again, its even less of a constraint than making the game require an updated video card, CPU or OS. As I pointed out there are always 'minimum requirements' for any game published, and as tech increases, so do the 'minimum requirements'.

My point is precisely that no, you should not accept these things, because it encourage the publishers to continue using and abusing them.

If it were something truly unacceptable, you would be spot on.

On a related note, the bigger problem is that through passivity, stupidity and sheep mentality, consumers become more and more used being milked and accepting conditions that should not be acceptable, leading to a whole shift in the industry toward "screw them more, they happily accept it". All which in turn adversely accept those not sheepish or shortsighted enough to bend over and take it deep - as the abusive restrictions become the new standard.

Even sheep will run from a wolf. This isnt a wolf. I asked you why this requirement is unfair, and you merely said it makes the game more restrictive, but since the vast majority of people who play this game will indeed have cable/DSL readily at hand, you dont really make the case that this restriction is in any way meaningful or unfair.

This is a completely idiotic comparison. A minimum system requirement is actually needed to make the game run. I specifically talked (for those who bother to actually read ) about the difference between something actually required for the game (permanent Internet connection for a MMO, for example again) and something that is added just to corral/limit the user in a direction that the publisher wants (removing LAN support for SC2 and every kind of permanent connection DRM).

This is completely absurd and nonsensical. Permanent Internet connection is not a technological requirement for a single player game, it's a design choice. Since I can't even begin to understand how you can mix these two completely unrelated concept together.

Its a design choice based upon the ease and access to the internet that the average user has today. Its not any different than making a design choice to use a more advanced graphic engine for the game based upon the fact that your average gamer will be able to run that engine at a particular graphics setting. Its all design choice.

Lets examine the removal of LAN support for SC2. Did that significantly impact the average user of that game? Nope. SC2 is a huge hit regardless. D3 will be a huge hit regardless of requiring an online connection. Your average user wont care about it in the least simply because its not that big a deal.

 

[Akka]

'Far more'? I think the vast majority will find that requirement quite negligible. Being online is a given these days, no matter what your doing.

The entire concept of "it's unacceptable because it's an artificial restriction added to a game that should not need it" seems to completely elude you.

As for the rest, you ignore the points (difference between "means inherently required by the game" and "restriction added on top of that", despite being explained several times and in bold, seems to really elude your grasp, or you perhaps are just actively not listening) or mix them up in a garbled mess. It's just a waste of time...

 

[MobBoss]

The entire concept of "it's unacceptable because it's an artificial restriction added to a game that should not need it" seems to completely elude you.

It doesnt elude me; it simply doesnt make the case of being unacceptable. Its not an artificial restriction at all, and if it helps prevent some of the issues that are of a concern in such a game, then the pros certainly outweigh the cons (which are nigh non-existant to be honest).

As for the rest, you ignore the points (difference between "means inherently required by the game" and "restriction added on top of that", despite being explained several times and in bold, seems to really elude your grasp, or you perhaps are just actively not listening) or mix them up in a garbled mess. It's just a waste of time...

Again, not ignoring them, but you really fail to convince (at least me) that having someone be online to play this game is some kind of huge inconvienence when its not. Its that simple.

Bottom line, your main objection seems to be not that its unfair, but that they just didnt need to do it for the game to work as it should (which isnt an argument of it being unfair, just unnecessary).

 

[Akka]

Its not an artificial restriction at all

Hu, sure, adding a required permanent Internet connection to a game that could work without it is not an artificial restriction...

Guess it sums up how you really can't (or just don't want to) even grasp basic concepts, and how I should really heed the advices given to me in MP and stop wasting my time.

 

[MobBoss]

Hu, sure, adding a required permanent Internet connection to a game that could work without it is not an artificial restriction...

Again, claiming it is unnecessary isnt making the case for it being unfair.

Guess it sums up how you really can't (or just don't want to) even grasp basic concepts, and how I should really heed the advices given to me in MP and stop wasting my time.

And now since you cant make your case, you turn back to this kind of talk.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I guess limited amounts of beta invites have gone out, people are talking about the game. I have to say that so far, what they are saying lines up with my expectations for it, which is that it will be a fine game sure enough but won't have nearly as much longevity for me as D2 did. That said though, this beta only contains bits of act 1 and the runes apparently aren't dropping yet, so maybe that will change things, we'll see. Really hoping I get a beta invite for this so that I can "try before I buy", otherwise I'm gonna have to wait for people I know and trust to give me the go-ahead to spend money on it.

Edit (spoiler is very very minor and not story related at all, gameplay stuff)

Spoiler :

I am happy to see that Magic Find is in the game though, always enjoyed making MF characters .

 

[Rub'Rum]

The beta right now is for "Friends and Family". Some of them are streaming it and you can find this online. I'm guessing it should start for the wider public within a couple of weeks. I think the odds of being randomly selected are rather low since they want to keep the beta limited apparently.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

The beta right now is for "Friends and Family". Some of them are streaming it and you can find this online. I'm guessing it should start for the wider public within a couple of weeks. I think the odds of being randomly selected are rather low since they want to keep the beta limited apparently.

That's not what I've read, a very small number of public invites went out yesterday from my understanding. Not that it matters since I'm not in it either way .

 

[Maniacal]

Yeah people have started getting beta keys.