LibriumArcana.Games

RockPaperShotgun

[quote]The morning brings a trio of horror-news about Diablo III. I’m outright bewildered about what Blizzard have done, and shuddering about the likely reaction in comments. I won’t muck around here, and instead shall just wade straight into the things that are probably going to end up being PC gaming’s biggest controversy of 2011.

1) The game requires a constant internet connection. It cannot be played offline.
2) Mods are “expressly prohibited.â€

I still will. The persistent internet connectivity is meaningless, as I'm as connected as I'm going to get through my phone, mods in that style game don't really appeal to me, and I have no plans to play it to the detail that I would care about cash transactions. I'll be playing solo and with personal friends, and nothing so far indicates my experience won't be awesome :P.

On principle I refuse to buy games that require a constant internet connection. Of course I don't buy any games at all because I'm broke, but that's beside the point. I do not like the idea of having the equivalent to a nanny looking over my shoulder to make sure I'm not doing any naughty stuff. I want to be able to modify games to suit my tastes, and to play them wherever and whenever I desire. If a company demands otherwise, then I won't buy their product. Unfortunately I fear that not enough people feel this way, so the day will come when most games have these measures. I suppose eventually I'll relent, or I will simply resign myself to being limited to a narrower and narrower pool of new releases. On the plus side, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of older games that are really quite good and worth playing. These do not have the same sorts of restrictions by virtue of their age, and I'll probably run out my thread of life before I play them all.

I was..actually kind of shocked by those announcements from Blizzard with regards to D3. Shocked, but not amazed.

We get to see Activision's control over Blizzard with this, in how they do certain things. Almost all of this smacks of "bottom-line" retoric that has been coming out of Activision for the past several years.


I was hoping for D3 to be a game similar in vein to D2, in that if I wanted, I could play the game while at work, on my laptop, without a internet connection or consuming the limited bandwidth of the work connection - that's gone out of the window now.

I'm not sure I'm giving Blizzard my money for D3 now....pretty sure about it really.

I have to admit to being surprised by this decision.

The real-money-auction house is no issue to me. It only formalizes what was already going on for Diablo 2 and for WoW. I never modded Diablo 2, and thus care little about it, but while I put up with the persistent net use bullshit for Starcraft, Diablo is a very different beast, and this restriction completely eliminates my capacity to play it in the way I wish. As they are therefore not making the game I wanted to play, I shall not be purchasing it.

I've been feeling more and more "meh" about Diablo 3 for a while now - and the recent news about it pretty much cements my utter lack of interest.

I played several mods for both Diablo 1 and 2 - but that I'm willing to let go of if the game itself is good enough.

Making the auctionhouse require real money actually makes sense, as I still have memories of the SoJ-based economy from my Diablo 2 Battle.net days.

The persistent net use requirement? Yeah, that one I don't get. While I am usually capable of going online if I wish, being required to is a bit annoying.

However, all of those things plus early gameplay sneak-peeks have left me feeling profoundly uninterested.

I can let go of the mods as nostalgia for earlier games, I can even grudgingly accept the persistent internet requirement - but not for a game that doesn't in any way inspire me.

I'm not thrilled right now, to be sure. I do enjoy mods for both D1 and D2 as both have had good mods that do expand the game well and add significantly to it. While mods aren't absolutely necessary to have a good game, it is a very nice thing to be able to do and has always been one of the huge advantages of PC over console gaming when it comes down to it. As far as the internet required thing.. I have mixed feelings. Mostly because I know that before the game is even released there will be copies of it floating around on the net cracked to not require it and let you play the whole thing for free minus the multiplayer aspects of it. No getting around this. However that will be a pain in the ass if you ever want to jump into a friends game or play it online when you have internet access. I mean, Diablo forbid that we want to play this while waiting for a plane flight or on a plane or something where we may not have access to the all-powerful interwebs. You'll end up having to be running two installs for it to work and you won't be able to transfer a save from one install to the other.

For now, until I see how all this goes down upon release I'm not putting my money down.

It makes sense. If they're going to have a real money auction house, they can't have people editing their game saves and cheating and that means running things like an MMO.

Cynical Cat wrote:It makes sense. If they're going to have a real money auction house, they can't have people editing their game saves and cheating and that means running things like an MMO.

I can see that argument of approach to a point, but Diablo 3 isn't an MMO, even if they are approaching it like one.

This I think is a mistake of design, since the added restrictions of approach of an MMO inherently discount several of the things people, including me, liked and appreciated about the series thus far.

Oh, I'm not saying I'm in favor of these design characteristics, but it's easy to see where Blizzard is coming from. They're trying to avoid the fiasco that was Battlenet and they want to get a bunch of microtransactions from players and that means they have to go with MMO style controls over the game data. I'm not a fan of that myself, but that road pretty much leads to one place.

Cynical Cat wrote:Oh, I'm not saying I'm in favor of these design characteristics, but it's easy to see where Blizzard is coming from. They're trying to avoid the fiasco that was Battlenet and they want to get a bunch of microtransactions from players and that means they have to go with MMO style controls over the game data. I'm not a fan of that myself, but that road pretty much leads to one place.

I hear you there. Yeah, this is a case "I get why you're doing it, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's fucking stupid" more than anything else for me.

I'm not saying they're evil for doing Diablo III this way, I'm just saying that the directions they've taken this game are not ones I wish to participate in.

I don't get the outrage to this. I guess it's not a huge issue for me because it'll make zero practical difference to have a constant net connection required to play.

I'll be getting D3 when it comes out and the only issue I give a shit about is whether my rig can play it or whether I need to do an upgrade.

EDIT: I guess what puzzles me is everyone going 'i will not buy a game that requires a persistent net connection on PRINCIPLE' and other hyperbolic statements. I just don't get it. My computer from the second it is switched on is connected to the internet and remains connected until I turn it off. You guys are making this out to be like it's an onerous burden.

Ok so maybe you can't play this on a laptop with no net connection while in an underground bunker during a nuclear war (to paraphrase Stark from SDN). I don't think that's a really significant share of the market.

So it turns out really aggressive DRM can make it harder for legitimate buyers of a game to play it?

I mean, unless that whole Ubisoft thing didn't happen.

Stofsk wrote:I guess what puzzles me is everyone going 'i will not buy a game that requires a persistent net connection on PRINCIPLE' and other hyperbolic statements. I just don't get it. My computer from the second it is switched on is connected to the internet and remains connected until I turn it off. You guys are making this out to be like it's an onerous burden.

Objecting on principle means objecting because, for reasons logical or emotional, you do not like the idea of something. You do it regardless of whether the thing you object to is actually a burden, regardless of whether your actions make any difference, regardless of whether what you're being given actually benefits you.

I refuse to shop at Walmart, because I object to their business practices. I really don't think Walmart gives a damn. I don't do "tactical" voting where you put in a ballot for a guy you want hung from a lamp post to keep the guy you want drawn and quartered out of office. Instead I vote for the guy I actually want elected, and I don't care if it's "throwing the vote away" to cast it for someone with nary a chance. I'm objecting on principle because I care, not because it matters.

So no I'm not making it out to be an onerous burden. I'm saying I don't like the idea of it, and that is more than enough for me to take my hypothetical business elsewhere.

Stofsk wrote:I don't get the outrage to this. I guess it's not a huge issue for me because it'll make zero practical difference to have a constant net connection required to play.

I'll be getting D3 when it comes out and the only issue I give a shit about is whether my rig can play it or whether I need to do an upgrade.

EDIT: I guess what puzzles me is everyone going 'i will not buy a game that requires a persistent net connection on PRINCIPLE' and other hyperbolic statements. I just don't get it. My computer from the second it is switched on is connected to the internet and remains connected until I turn it off. You guys are making this out to be like it's an onerous burden.

Ok so maybe you can't play this on a laptop with no net connection while in an underground bunker during a nuclear war (to paraphrase Stark from SDN). I don't think that's a really significant share of the market.

I'm not objecting on principle Chris, I'm objecting because I happen to fall in a category that means if I buy this game, I can't use it for a significant portion of my time (when I'm out for weeks/months at a time in the middle of the oil field with a bandwidth limited internet connection) TO PLAY SINGLE PLAYER

Admittedly, I play SP a lot more than I did MP in the original Diablo 2, I imagine it'd be similar for D3. Mostly because the Diablo 2 community online was a bunch of assholes, with a few nice people here and there.

So yeah, I'm objecting and not buying the game because it won't be feasible for me to do so.

That's fine dude, at least that's a solid reason.

Dark Silver wrote: Mostly because the Diablo 2 community online was a bunch of assholes, with a few nice people here and there.

Wow, I've played D2 for years and I'd encounter idiots once in awhile. You guys make it out as if it happened every single day.

I suppose you guys are the same people who stay in the room while they continue to rape your level 10 character instead of just creating a new room or bringing in your heavy to sod them off.

So yea, if I was to buy this game I wouldn't care since I'd play only multi-player. Playing in a group is a lot more fun.

Soontir948 wrote:I suppose you guys are the same people who stay in the room while they continue to rape your level 10 character instead of just creating a new room or bringing in your heavy to sod them off.

You know, this may come as a shock, but there are those of us who enjoy playing a game wherein one is not required to quit playing and go somewhere else every time someone "rapes" their character, nor believes in the philosophy that one is required to put up with being raped until such time as one has a "heavy" character to combat said rapists with if one wishes to be 'leet'

Some of us, you know, want to actually have fun.

D2's multiplayer, or at least its public multiplayer, was one of the worst pits of trolling, griefing, and general assholery I've ever seen, and I've played MMOs for seven years. Even before this announcement, I had no interest whatsoever in participating in that shit again.

General Havoc wrote:

Soontir948 wrote:I suppose you guys are the same people who stay in the room while they continue to rape your level 10 character instead of just creating a new room or bringing in your heavy to sod them off.

You know, this may come as a shock, but there are those of us who enjoy playing a game wherein one is not required to quit playing and go somewhere else every time someone "rapes" their character, nor believes in the philosophy that one is required to put up with being raped until such time as one has a "heavy" character to combat said rapists with if one wishes to be 'leet'

Some of us, you know, want to actually have fun.

D2's multiplayer, or at least its public multiplayer, was one of the worst pits of trolling, griefing, and general assholery I've ever seen, and I've played MMOs for seven years. Even before this announcement, I had no interest whatsoever in participating in that shit again.

Jesus christ, like I said, it's as if it happened every goddamn day to you guys.

So you're just a pussy. I get it.

Edit: The way you guys describe it, I'm then amazed how I've been able to get into the great parties and kick assery that I've had while I played.

Alert the media, someone had a different experience than you at some undefined period in the past eleven years that the game's been out. I know it's a waaaays down to the ground, but why don't you hop off your high horse and discuss things at eye level, Soontir?

White Haven wrote:Alert the media, someone had a different experience than you at some undefined period in the past eleven years that the game's been out. I know it's a waaaays down to the ground, but why don't you hop off your high horse and discuss things at eye level, Soontir?

Sure thing, when you stop whining like a chicken shit.

Soontir, your response strongly implies that you're either a dick who tried to PK people, or you're sympathy trolling for them.

I used to hunt PK'ers down and repeatedly humiliate them for fun, but that was mostly because the fact that the griefing on public Battle.net was possible made me want bloodthirsty revenge.

As for the "ass-kicking parties" you reference, most people liked formal dueling more. Two characters optimized for PvP make for a much more challenging and exciting battle than pubbie PK matches.

Granted, going in with a properly-built Assassin and clearing an entire PK room of Burizons was just good dirty fun - but proper duels were always much more exciting and challenging.

So basically, you're either a cowardly e-bully who likes trying to punk people for your own tiny ego because deep down you know you suck, or you're offering cover for those who do. Which is it?

Neither, you're making retarded assumptions.

It's hilarious that you think I'm a sympathizer. Really it is.

Soontir, seriously man, you're being a bit of an ass. There's no need for this level of confrontation over a video game.

It's a simple issue. You seem to find some form of pleasure in the type of game play that others have reported as not enjoyable to them. That's fine. You've said your piece on that. The rest of the name calling and other crap needs to stop.