Diablo 3 Rage!

  • #21
    Quote from m4st0d0n
    How do you know what does the majority want? You don't know. Your argument is invalid.


    Are you still playing Diablo 1? Nope. I guess no one is. Why? Because everyone wants updates every now and then. A new game, a new expansion, a new content patch, some minor fixes. You can't deny that *everyone* wants at least *some* kind of update. However, every updates demands manpower, and manpower needs money. That's what ruksak said. His argument is not valid, but absolutely correct.

    Quote from m4st0d0n
    But even with the theoretical(!) hack free online mode, what's wrong with an extra offline/custom mode?


    http://us.battle.net...opic/6080663481

    One other common topic we’ve seen in the forums is the always-connected experience, and the perception that the online requirement is nothing but an ineffective form of copy protection that has already been cracked. While we’ve never said that this requirement guarantees that there will be no cheating or game cracks, it does help us battle those problems (we have not found any fully functional cracks). More important to us is that the online requirement is critical for the long-term integrity of the game experience. I fully understand the desire to play Diablo III offline; however, Diablo III was designed from the beginning to be an online game that can be enjoyed with friends, and the always-online requirement is the best way for us to support that design. The effectiveness of the online elements -- including the friends list and cross-game communication; co-op matchmaking; persistent characters that you can use by yourself, with others, and in PvP; and some of our customer support, service, and security components -- is tied directly to the online nature of the game. These and other online-enabled features are essential to our design for Diablo III. That said, there are still improvements we believe we can make to expand the online experience and make co-op play even more rewarding, and this will remain one of our priorities moving forward. Overall, while there are some downsides to the online-only approach, I still believe this was the best long-term decision for the game.


    As a gamer, I don't like the online only mode.
    As a programmer, I would have done the same.
    As someone who remembers the rage about Steam when it arrived, and sees that now everyone is using Steam for almost everything, this is one of the changes the software industry made and in a couple of years no one will even think about that. It's not the 90s anymore where I take out my Monkey Island copy protection wheel made out of paper and copied from a friend to steal from a game publisher that absolutely deserves my money.
  • #22
    Quote from ruksak

    Quote from maka

    Quote from ruksak

    Did you people not understand why Diablo 2 fell apart? It turned into a hack-a-thon dupe-orgy with dizzying speed. It had no long-term support.


    Only if you played on bnet. If you played SP, LAN or TCP/IP the game was as fun as ever.


    I suppose but my point is that the majority of people want a high quality, hack free, dupe free online client to play and trade with other people. The majority of people want there to be a significant cause for Blizz to continue to pour money into full-support of Diablo 3 for many many years to come.

    The only model that allows this to be, without a monthly sub, is the RMAH model. Period.


    I'd rather have the exact amount and quality of support they gave us in D2 than this p.o.s. they have now.
    Hell, I remember when they told us "don't worry, guys, this online-only thing is not some douchy DRM, it's just so you can play free of bots, hacks and dupes". Less an a year after launch, the game is full of bots, hacks and dupes. So what's the point of it still being online-only (he asked, feigning naivety)?
  • #23
    Quote from m4st0d0n

    Quote from ruksak

    I suppose but my point is that the majority of people want a high quality, hack free, dupe free online client to play and trade with other people. The majority of people want there to be a significant cause for Blizz to continue to pour money into full-support of Diablo 3 for many many years to come.

    The only model that allows this to be, without a monthly sub, is the RMAH model. Period.


    How do you know what does the majority want?


    Care to take a poll? I'm basing my opinion off of the resounding feedback I've read over the months.

    But even with the theoretical(!) hack free online mode, what's wrong with an extra offline/custom mode?
    Because the two things you just mentioned are not mutually exclusive. You cannot have an offline mode without fucking everyone whom wants the online mode to remain integral and (as free as possible) free of dupes/hacks.

    If given the choice, I assert most people would prefer online mode to keep it's integrity as opposed to having an offline mode and letting it all go to hell.
  • #24
    Quote from maka

    I'd rather have the exact amount and quality of support they gave us in D2 than this p.o.s. they have now.
    Hell, I remember when they told us "don't worry, guys, this online-only thing is not some douchy DRM, it's just so you can play free of bots, hacks and dupes". Less an a year after launch, the game is full of bots, hacks and dupes. So what's the point of it still being online-only (he asked, feigning naivety)?


    Bots cannot be stopped, in any game, ever. This issue has nothing to do with online mode.

    Secondly, you're either confused or you're being purposefully dishonest if you wish to claim that D3 is "full of hacks and dupes". That is a line of shit that I will not bother to address with anymore effort than it takes to grin and roll my eyes.

    Diablo 3 is not suffering from hacks and dupes. These issues are very much minimalized to the point where most people have never seen any evidence of such first hand.
  • #25
    Quote from maka

    Less an a year after launch, the game is full of bots, hacks and dupes.


    Hm. "Full of hacks" => I have to say, I personally don't know about any hack. But I'm all ears.

    "Full of bots" => I agree that there are more bots than I thought, which is sad. However, it's extremely difficult if not close to impossible to catch these people. Why was discussed at length in the bot thread a while ago. But yeah, you're right about this point (though I don't care, I'm more or less on single player).

    "Full of dupes" => Well, I don't think it's such an overwhelming amount of dupes, and then please keep in mind that all dupes are actually made by Blizzard as part of customer service (restoring accounts). Whether or not this restoration policy is being exploited by players is a different topic, of course. They should just stop restoring accounts or make restored items BoA in my opinion (again, other thread last week).

    For me as a mostly non-trading player the protection works. One of the reasons I didn't trade in D2 was that you never knew if the item was a dupe and your account getting banned. That's something they prevented now...
  • #26
    Quote from Bagstone

    Are you still playing Diablo 1? Nope. I guess no one is. Why? Because everyone wants updates every now and then. A new game, a new expansion, a new content patch, some minor fixes. You can't deny that *everyone* wants at least *some* kind of update. However, every updates demands manpower, and manpower needs money. That's what ruksak said. His argument is not valid, but absolutely correct.


    Unless he is a Blizzard, or Activision Blizzard businessman, he doesn't know the business model of Diablo 3. Manpower needs money, but does Diablo 3 really need the profits from RMAH on top of game sales to be patched regularly until the expansion comes? I don't think so. Blizzard's very long Diablo 2 support is the perfect example. RMAH is more like an extra convenience feature, and not a device for running the game.

    Quote from Bagstone
    As a gamer, I don't like the online only mode.
    As a programmer, I would have done the same.
    As someone who remembers the rage about Steam when it arrived, and sees that now everyone is using Steam for almost everything, this is one of the changes the software industry made and in a couple of years no one will even think about that. It's not the 90s anymore where I take out my Monkey Island copy protection wheel made out of paper and copied from a friend to steal from a game publisher that absolutely deserves my money.

    You can play Steam games offline after activation. Your point is?

    Quote from ruksak
    Care to take a poll? I'm basing my opinion off of the resounding feedback I've read over the months.

    Oh, you've read feedback. Well I've read feedback too. I've read many feedback, reviews and criticism. Contrary to your experience, I've read that most people are disappointed in Diablo 3's online requirement, and they don't care about fairness in their single player experience. But whatever, our perception of public opinion is false. We can't access statistically significant amount of people. We can't know what the general majority thinks. A poll won't help you here, unless you can poll a lot of Diablo 3 players from all around the world.

    Quote from ruksak
    Because the two things you just mentioned are not mutually exclusive. You cannot have an offline mode without fucking everyone whom wants the online mode to remain integral and (as free as possible) free of dupes/hacks.

    That's Blizzard's official reasoning for abolishing offline play. It translates to "our customers are too dumb to know the difference". Many games, I dare to say, most games with online component can get over the problem. Why couldn't Blizzard do it?
  • #27
    Quote from m4st0d0n

    Unless he is a Blizzard, or Activision Blizzard businessman, he doesn't know the business model of Diablo 3. Manpower needs money, but does Diablo 3 really need the profits from RMAH on top of game sales to be patched regularly until the expansion comes? I don't think so. Blizzard's very long Diablo 2 support is the perfect example. RMAH is more like an extra convenience feature, and not a device for running the game.


    Diablo 2 received so few updates between LoD and right now, it was about as much change in 12 years as Diablo 3 has received in just 9 months. Add it up, all the changes between LoD and current in Diablo 2, to all the changes we've seen in D3 in a fraction of the time.

    12 years, 1 expansion. That's not very good at all. I expect the RMAH income to support D3 to the point whereas we're treated to numerous ex-pacs and various patches such as 1.04 and 1.07, patches that bring sweeping change and a sense of direction for this title.

    RMAH is more like an extra convenience feature, and not a device for running the game.


    A "device for running the game"???

    No. It's not that either. It is a vehicle A vehicle meant to be used to kill the 3rd party illicit item trade. A vehicle for players to use to make money (incentive for long term play). A vehicle for player to get any item they want at any time they want. Also, a vehicle to provide a long-term support model to excuse large amounts of man-hours and resources needed for development and testing.

    I am just about to shit my shorts laughing at these people whom are trying to act like D2 wasn't all but abandoned by Blizz for very very long stretches of time. Remember the near 2 year ladder season from the end of 2006 into 2008?

    I honestly don't think many people have a good grasp on the operating costs involved here. Just the monthly power bill for Blizzard would make many people's jaws drop.
  • #28
    People is still that naive that think that the RMAH made us a favor...?? really?.. wow.
  • #29
    Path of Exile. Completely free game by indie dev studio with 18 people, still in open Beta status. Have 5 times more content and deeper than Diablo 3 will ever be. Aggressively against pay2win with only cosmetic micro transaction stuff that exists to support indie devs.

    Tell me more how Diablo 3 is a good Diablo game.
  • #30
    Quote from Indimix

    People is still that naive that think that the RMAH made us a favor...?? really?.. wow.


    Would you consider the RMAH to be in your favor, say, 6 years from now and we're still receiving full-support, patches and maybe even ex-pac's? Cuz I'm here to tell ya, without the stream of income via RMAH, 6 years from now this game will receive the same nominal attention that D2 received after as many years.

    Just to be clear, I don't like the idea of what the RMAH represents. I've never used it to buy or sell. I'm just being objective about the issue and I can clearly see that the RMAH is a viable and consistent method of covering a great deal of support costs, as well as turning a nice profit.
  • #31
    Quote from m4st0d0n

    Quote from ruksak

    I suppose but my point is that the majority of people want a high quality, hack free, dupe free online client to play and trade with other people. The majority of people want there to be a significant cause for Blizz to continue to pour money into full-support of Diablo 3 for many many years to come.

    The only model that allows this to be, without a monthly sub, is the RMAH model. Period.


    How do you know what does the majority want? You don't know. Your argument is invalid.
    But even with the theoretical(!) hack free online mode, what's wrong with an extra offline/custom mode?


    You don't know what the majority want to actually refute that.

    12 million units were purchased (some through the Annual Pass). That suggests that at least 12 million people don't care about "online only" enough for it to keep them from buying the game. That would suggest that his position is more in-line with what the community wants than what your ridiculous speculation is, though.

    If what you're implying is true, why weren't there far less sales? If the majority of players can't cope with online-only, then how come D3 didn't sell something abysmal like 750k units? Truly, if it were such an issue like some of you people would play it off to be it would have had a major impact on sales.

    The fact of the matter is that online-only is not a big deal. It's such a minor deal that PoE (the greatest game ever made, according to some) doesn't have offline mode either. So clearly it's not just Blizzard that thinks that online-only was a good idea. And, clearly, it's just a stupid point of contention that you, and others, won't get over.

    And, I don't know if you know, but the reason D2 was completely hacked to pieces within just a few months was because there was actually a copy of the server running on the person's machine. It was brutally simple for hackers to take it apart and know exactly what was running on the Blizzard servers, therefore, making it such that Blizzard could literally do nothing about hacks.

    If you think that is a model for anything but getting your gamed hacked to shit then you're nuts and you know prettymuch nothing about network security. Essentially, D2 gave every hacker a blueprint to the servers. D3 forces the hackers to be much more resourceful. That's why the main source of dupes at this point is an exploit to Blizzard account restoration policy, and not actually from genuine duping like D2.

    It's like you've conveniently forgotten history just to start a fight.
    p400 :: 85.1k EK :: 2.38m TK
    Planet Express <PlanEx>
    (V) (°,,°) (V)
  • #32
    And it was supported by KickStarter IIRC. Same goes for a game that has huge potential, Grim Dawn, also supported by KickStarter.

    But, this is good actually, this will force Blizzard to improve their game and maybe even take it back to the design table and start making something that people actually enjoy to play past level 60.
  • #33
    Quote from shaggy

    12 million units were purchased (some through the Annual Pass). That suggests that at least 12 million people don't care about "online only" enough for it to keep them from buying the game.


    Yep...true true...


    What that suggests is that 12 million people bought the damn game knowing full-well that it IS NOT off-line, nor ever will be. To me, that statistic, goes far to back my point that most people would pick a clean and integral online only, as opposed to having both offline and online and having both be hacked/duped to shit.

    I am not wrong. For me to be wrong, someone would have to explain 12 million people buying an online only game.
  • #34
    I wrote this big text, then deleted it all, because this is enough: I don't need constant patching to enjoy a game. In fact, I don't know how and when this notion crept up on us. If the game is well designed from the start, with the user's enjoyment as its foremost objective, occasional patches (mostly fixing stuff, instead of adding new stuff) and one or two well planned and fleshed out x-packs will be plenty. And those are paid expansions, anyway, so they should be able to stand on their own feet, financially, and not, like you say, supported by 'other means'.
    If box sales of the game + expansions aren't enough to sustain the occasional addition of content, then just stick to fixing things you screwed up (bugs) and let the users generate the content. I'd rather they do that than pull stunts like RMAH + online only, day-1 DLC, non-cosmetic microtransactions, etc. (not saying Blizzard does all of these, just naming a few of these slimy schemes).
    Offline/internet play + user-generated content beats online-only + developer-generated content any day.

    That's it. I'm done.
  • #35
    Quote from ruksak

    Quote from shaggy

    12 million units were purchased (some through the Annual Pass). That suggests that at least 12 million people don't care about "online only" enough for it to keep them from buying the game.


    Yep...true true...


    What that suggests is that 12 million people bought the damn game knowing full-well that it IS NOT off-line, nor ever will be. To me, that statistic, goes far to back my point that most people would pick a clean and integral online only, as opposed to having both offline and online and having both be hacked/duped to shit.

    I am not wrong. For me to be wrong, someone would have to explain 12 million people buying an online only game.


    Dude.. you are making up so much assumptions that my assumptions meter is out the charts!!... seriously, read again what you typed.
  • #36
    450 hours on Masseffect games, how is it even possible? ._.
    Make your peace...Quickly!
  • #37
    I'd just like to add that I'm not a fanboy persé, I like Diablo 3, but not so much that I'll go scream off the rooftops that it's the best game I've ever played. It's still a good game in my opinion and I still love playing it, but I won't try to convince other people to play it.

    Quote from m4st0d0n

    How do you know what does the majority want? You don't know. Your argument is invalid.
    But even with the theoretical(!) hack free online mode, what's wrong with an extra offline/custom mode?


    Diablo 2's legacy, I'm afraid. things were a bit chaotic with Soj, rune and ITH dupes.
  • #38
    Quote from maka

    I wrote this big text, then deleted it all, because this is enough: I don't need constant patching to enjoy a game. In fact, I don't know how and when this notion crept up on us. If the game is well designed from the start, with the user's enjoyment as its foremost objective, occasional patches (mostly fixing stuff, instead of adding new stuff) and one or two well planned and fleshed out x-packs will be plenty. And those are paid expansions, anyway, so they should be able to stand on their own feet, financially, and not, like you say, supported by 'other means'.
    If box sales of the game + expansions aren't enough to sustain the occasional addition of content, then just stick to fixing things you screwed up (bugs) and let the users generate the content. I'd rather they do that than pull stunts like RMAH + online only, day-1 DLC, non-cosmetic microtransactions, etc. (not saying Blizzard does all of these, just naming a few of these slimy schemes).
    Offline/internet play + user-generated content beats online-only + developer-generated content any day.

    That's it. I'm done.



    I still don't understand how this "they are greedy" argument works. If the user's enjoyment wasn't the top priority what was? If they made the RMAH to grab as much money as possible wouldn't it have been much better to keep everybody as appealed as possible? Or are guys like you so supersmart that they you can see through the scam and therefore have to voice this "careful they want your money!" - opinion over and over again.
    I mean creating additional charms, runes and jewels and gems and runestones could have granted them many more transactions. And if you add "Zod" runes and 20/17 charms and whatnot they could have made sooo much more money. So why didn't they do it? Could have kept everybody happy AND make more money. Why would they miss out on that?
  • #39
    Quote from shaggy


    12 million units were purchased (some through the Annual Pass). That suggests that at least 12 million people don't care about "online only" enough for it to keep them from buying the game. That would suggest that his position is more in-line with what the community wants than what your ridiculous speculation is, though.



    Ha, this reminds me of when BF 3 was just released with Origin and then Premium. So much rage, yet people still kept buying it. So much time between fixes, yet the game's still popular.

    Quote from Elendiro

    450 hours on Masseffect games, how is it even possible? ._.


    I...ehh... make new chars a lot >
  • #40
    Quote from Melt

    Quote from maka

    I wrote this big text, then deleted it all, because this is enough: I don't need constant patching to enjoy a game. In fact, I don't know how and when this notion crept up on us. If the game is well designed from the start, with the user's enjoyment as its foremost objective, occasional patches (mostly fixing stuff, instead of adding new stuff) and one or two well planned and fleshed out x-packs will be plenty. And those are paid expansions, anyway, so they should be able to stand on their own feet, financially, and not, like you say, supported by 'other means'.
    If box sales of the game + expansions aren't enough to sustain the occasional addition of content, then just stick to fixing things you screwed up (bugs) and let the users generate the content. I'd rather they do that than pull stunts like RMAH + online only, day-1 DLC, non-cosmetic microtransactions, etc. (not saying Blizzard does all of these, just naming a few of these slimy schemes).
    Offline/internet play + user-generated content beats online-only + developer-generated content any day.

    That's it. I'm done.



    I still don't understand how this "they are greedy" argument works. If the user's enjoyment wasn't the top priority what was? If they made the RMAH to grab as much money as possible wouldn't it have been much better to keep everybody as appealed as possible? Or are guys like you so supersmart that they you can see through the scam and therefore have to voice this "careful they want your money!" - opinion over and over again.
    I mean creating additional charms, runes and jewels and gems and runestones could have granted them many more transactions. And if you add "Zod" runes and 20/17 charms and whatnot they could have made sooo much more money. So why didn't they do it? Could have kept everybody happy AND make more money. Why would they miss out on that?


    It's just a business model, and like they said about how the AH impacted the game, they had"mixed feelings" about it.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes