Can this game be considered a long time rental?

#1 Posted by fanirama (928 posts) -

I'm of course talking about the much talked about online only gaming. Lets say due to circumstances, Blizzard gets bought by some other company and dissolved and they take over the servers and decide to shut it down. Would it mean then that Diablo 3 will stop working?

 

So in effect, this game isn't really yours per se and is more of a leased copy only alive till the servers are up.

 

What would be some reasons that I should support this model of single player games being online only?

#2 Posted by johnlewis656 (11 posts) -
Yeah sure it is cause you dont know for how long youre gonna be playing before servers down lol
#3 Posted by rainydayman (38 posts) -

Yeah, that's part of the reason why I returned my copy to the store. After buying something, I hate to find out that I don't actually own it (especially since the servers hardly allowed me to play). As for the other reason, the game just seemed like a no-brainer for 10 year olds. It consists of 4 steps repeated over and over:

1. Enter new area with enemies.

2. Mash button.

3. Loot.

4. Repeat from step 1.

Absolutely no thinking or planning required. Honestly, I find more challenge and variation in programming my washing machine. This is one big, massively overpriced disappointment in comparison to the first 2 Diablo games - I think you should stay away from it, it's not even worth a rental.

#4 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

I'm of course talking about the much talked about online only gaming. Lets say due to circumstances, Blizzard gets bought by some other company and dissolved and they take over the servers and decide to shut it down. Would it mean then that Diablo 3 will stop working?

 

So in effect, this game isn't really yours per se and is more of a leased copy only alive till the servers are up.

 

What would be some reasons that I should support this model of single player games being online only?

fanirama

No game is yours. You only pay for the license to play the game. The only thing you own is the CD (if you didn't buy it online). The software is wholly owned by the developer and publisher as well as any content you create using their software (like really creative mods). The DRM built into this game is crappy but you can thank piracy for that. There are those who will try to argue that piracy doesn't cost games large amounts of sales, those people are wrong.

World of Goo by 2D boy released for $20 by a company who specifically went out of their way to exclude DRM from their title. It has a 90% piracy rate. Serious Sam developer starts selling his side scrolling game for $7.99 specifically excluding DRM and the game was cracked and distributed before full launch. Then there's the Indie bundle that released where you could literally pay $0.01 (a discretionary donation required) and get access to a small library of Indie games and they were still cracked and distributed. You might not want to support the model, but its the way of the future. Even Steam implements DRM for all the titles they sell, its just the least invasive kind of DRM that protects their sterling reputation.

You can take a stand with online-only DRM, but this kind of micromanagement is here to stay.  If you don't have a stable internet connection I guess you're SOL, but Diablo 3 is already unstoppable they set records in pre-orders your $60 isn't going to be sending blizzard any messages.  If you want to play the game, suck it up and deal with the DRM.  If you want to stand on principle, do that.  But seriously, the game's already been too successful for a few people angry about online-only form of DRM to be making a difference now.

#5 Posted by rainydayman (38 posts) -

[QUOTE="fanirama"]

I'm of course talking about the much talked about online only gaming. Lets say due to circumstances, Blizzard gets bought by some other company and dissolved and they take over the servers and decide to shut it down. Would it mean then that Diablo 3 will stop working?

So in effect, this game isn't really yours per se and is more of a leased copy only alive till the servers are up.

What would be some reasons that I should support this model of single player games being online only?

Megotaku77

No game is yours. You only pay for the license to play the game. The only thing you own is the CD (if you didn't buy it online). The software is wholly owned by the developer and publisher as well as any content you create using their software (like really creative mods). The DRM built into this game is crappy but you can thank piracy for that. There are those who will try to argue that piracy doesn't cost games large amounts of sales, those people are wrong.

World of Goo by 2D boy released for $20 by a company who specifically went out of their way to exclude DRM from their title. It has a 90% piracy rate. Serious Sam developer starts selling his side scrolling game for $7.99 specifically excluding DRM and the game was cracked and distributed before full launch. Then there's the Indie bundle that released where you could literally pay $0.01 (a discretionary donation required) and get access to a small library of Indie games and they were still cracked and distributed. You might not want to support the model, but its the way of the future. Even Steam implements DRM for all the titles they sell, its just the least invasive kind of DRM that protects their sterling reputation.

You can take a stand with online-only DRM, but this kind of micromanagement is here to stay. If you don't have a stable internet connection I guess you're SOL, but Diablo 3 is already unstoppable they set records in pre-orders your $60 isn't going to be sending blizzard any messages. If you want to play the game, suck it up and deal with the DRM. If you want to stand on principle, do that. But seriously, the game's already been too successful for a few people angry about online-only form of DRM to be making a difference now.

I beg to differ. Developers make games for people to buy. If people don't buy them, they make no profit, and have to try making a different kind of game. On a sidenote: when trying to determine if a game is successful or not, it's not a good idea to rely on preorders only. After all, my copy was preordered, and I returned it to the store and got my money back. I suppose many others did the same. Many people just preordered thinking of the fond memories they had with the previous 2 installments, and I think preorders are probably the only area where D3 did good. I don't think many people are buying the game now after taking a look at its Metacritic rating.

#6 Posted by rainydayman (38 posts) -

Also, I forgot to reflect on your comment on ownership. Actually, when you buy something, you should own a copy, just like in case of a book. You can read the book, but it's still protected by law, so you can't steal the ideas written there. On the other hand, you'd probably be upset if I sold you a book for full price, but don't give you a real copy of said book. You just get a note from me, stating that you are authorized to come over to my place and read it, provided that I'm home at the time. It's similar to what Blizzard did here, cheating their customers into thinking they actually bought the game for their money. No wonder people are upset, and I seriously doubt (and hope) that you're also mistaken in thinking the system is here to stay.

#7 Posted by Teutonic_Terror (12 posts) -

If I do recall both Diablo games were click click kill loot repeat.

#8 Posted by WarBabay2 (92 posts) -
Yeah sure it is cause you dont know for how long youre gonna be playing before servers down loljohnlewis656
Or your account get's taken over by "lucklezz" and his friends.^^
#9 Posted by fanirama (928 posts) -
Good replies megotoku77 and rainydayman. They were articulate and contained good points.
#10 Posted by kargion (430 posts) -

Its just like steam.  With games that use steam for everything if steam ever went down you no longer have access to the game.  It states that in the TOS.  Kidda wierd but how the world is moving.  

#11 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

I beg to differ. Developers make games for people to buy. If people don't buy them, they make no profit, and have to try making a different kind of game. On a sidenote: when trying to determine if a game is successful or not, it's not a good idea to rely on preorders only. After all, my copy was preordered, and I returned it to the store and got my money back. I suppose many others did the same. Many people just preordered thinking of the fond memories they had with the previous 2 installments, and I think preorders are probably the only area where D3 did good. I don't think many people are buying the game now after taking a look at its Metacritic rating.

rainydayman

Lol its hilarious, you're the second person EVER to tell me that Metacritic player reviews should be paid attention to.  They shouldn't be, they aren't indicative of the quality of a game, or how well the game will sell.  Metacritic players run on two speed.  0/10 worst game in history (lol) and 10/10 best game in history.  Like 5% of players review in between and most of them are still on the two extremes.  Here's what effect Metacritic player reviews have on sales: 0.  Me and my friends check the player reviews on our favorite games because they have the dumbest player community on earth.  Seriously, the most backwards, ignorant, self entitled, and completely detached from reality group of people on the planet, its literally a side-show for serious gamers to go to and laugh at.  

Unless you're talking about the 88/100 the game's got from the critics in which case:http://www.vg247.com/2012/05/21/how-diablo-3-gave-metacritic-a-giant-middle-finger/

Many others likely did the same.  It doesn't matter.  Their sales are too high, you can vote with your dollar but in this case you're going to lose the vote.  You can argue this point, and you'll be wrong.  I enjoy the game a lot, so I'm going to keep playing it.

Also, I forgot to reflect on your comment on ownership. Actually, when you buy something, you should own a copy, just like in case of a book. You can read the book, but it's still protected by law, so you can't steal the ideas written there. On the other hand, you'd probably be upset if I sold you a book for full price, but don't give you a real copy of said book. You just get a note from me, stating that you are authorized to come over to my place and read it, provided that I'm home at the time. It's similar to what Blizzard did here, cheating their customers into thinking they actually bought the game for their money. No wonder people are upset, and I seriously doubt (and hope) that you're also mistaken in thinking the system is here to stay.rainydayman

Should, but don't.  Read the EULA's for every video game ever.  You only own the license by contract and your license can expire at any time or be terminated if you ever break the terms of the EULA.  There's some debate as to whether these EULA's can stand up in court (they haven't in many countries esp. Germany).  Even making mods violates the EULA, most companies don't care, in fact many support them as it gives them good ideas for future patches, expansions or games.  Mod makers are currently the best way to get recognized in the game industry.  Having a degree in graphics design won't get you anywhere, but if you developed the #1 mod in Skyrim you might have a job offer soon.  It doesn't change the fact that if you read the terms of the EULA in a game like Dark Souls or Mass Effect 3 its a violation of the EULA to make mods.  There are cases where modding your coalesced.bin file in ME3 warranted complete suspension of your entire Origin account and ALL of the games therein.  

You won't get a dispute from me that you should own your copy of the game.  You should.  You don't.  That's a fact.  

#12 Posted by Xxthesorrow90xX (604 posts) -

Yeah, that's part of the reason why I returned my copy to the store. After buying something, I hate to find out that I don't actually own it (especially since the servers hardly allowed me to play). As for the other reason, the game just seemed like a no-brainer for 10 year olds. It consists of 4 steps repeated over and over:

1. Enter new area with enemies.

2. Mash button.

3. Loot.

4. Repeat from step 1.

Absolutely no thinking or planning required. Honestly, I find more challenge and variation in programming my washing machine. This is one big, massively overpriced disappointment in comparison to the first 2 Diablo games - I think you should stay away from it, it's not even worth a rental.

rainydayman

 

Diablo 2:

Enter area with enemies

Mash button

Loot

Repeat step one

Get to end game

Have someone run the final boss for you over and over 50x

 

Hmmm...? 

#13 Posted by N0tYrBeezin (6902 posts) -

I'm of course talking about the much talked about online only gaming. Lets say due to circumstances, Blizzard gets bought by some other company and dissolved and they take over the servers and decide to shut it down. Would it mean then that Diablo 3 will stop working?

 

So in effect, this game isn't really yours per se and is more of a leased copy only alive till the servers are up.

 

What would be some reasons that I should support this model of single player games being online only?

fanirama
Considering that Diablo 2 which was released in 2000 and the servers for that are still running in 2012! Don't buy if you don't want to buy, don't use that as an excuse though.
#14 Posted by fanirama (928 posts) -
[QUOTE="fanirama"]

I'm of course talking about the much talked about online only gaming. Lets say due to circumstances, Blizzard gets bought by some other company and dissolved and they take over the servers and decide to shut it down. Would it mean then that Diablo 3 will stop working?

 

So in effect, this game isn't really yours per se and is more of a leased copy only alive till the servers are up.

 

What would be some reasons that I should support this model of single player games being online only?

N0tYrBeezin
Considering that Diablo 2 which was released in 2000 and the servers for that are still running in 2012! Don't buy if you don't want to buy, don't use that as an excuse though.

The point is you can play Diablo 2 in single player even if the servers go down. Can you do that with Diablo 3? If the servers get shut off in say 2016, can you play Diablo 3 then ?
#15 Posted by sumdood (482 posts) -

Technically, yes you could.  People are currently playing the game, not on a Blizzard server, as we speak.

#16 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -
[QUOTE="fanirama"] The point is you can play Diablo 2 in single player even if the servers go down. Can you do that with Diablo 3? If the servers get shut off in say 2016, can you play Diablo 3 then ?

You won't be able to play on the official servers if they go down in 2016, but there are 2 points for this: 1 is that this game given its striking similarity to D2 will likely remain one of the most popular PC games for years to come. Xfire was still ranking Diablo 2 in the top 10 regularly up until D3's release for player activity. It remains to be seen if this game keeps the draw D2 had, but I think it has the potential. The 2nd point is that even if the worst should befall the title, private servers will pick up the slack. See Ragnarok Online. If you google "Ragnarok Online Private Servers" you'll get hits of literally thousands of private servers each with their own rules and settings. As the poster above me pointed out, people are currently running their own D3 servers right now.
#17 Posted by rainydayman (38 posts) -

If I do recall both Diablo games were click click kill loot repeat.

Teutonic_Terror

I'm afraid you may have missed my point, just like another commenter below. I didn't say I have a problem with the click&loot system, but I do have a problem if that's all you have to do in a game, without any thinking. In D1 and D2 you'd have to think about which skills to develop and plan ahead. You also had to choose your strategy wisely against different bosses and strong mobs. Especially in D1, the random dungeons not only resulted in great replayability, but also in certain areas where you were just overwhelmed by mobs, so you'd have to play on edge at all times. I'm not saying they were really hard games (meaning "old school" hard), but they certainly posed a decent level of challenge.

In contrast, all you have to do in D3 is click and watch the enemy die. Where's the fun in that? I've seen free Disney games aimed at kindergarten kids that offered more challenge than this. I think the target audience for D3 is not core gamers who grew up on the previous 2 games, but young kids expecting an easy win. It's like playing chess with yourself: you always win. :)

To give due credit: I did hear that the Hell level is somewhat better in that aspect. But I was bored to hell before I got to Hell, so I never finished the game.

#18 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

I'm afraid you may have missed my point, just like another commenter below. I didn't say I have a problem with the click&loot system, but I do have a problem if that's all you have to do in a game, without any thinking. In D1 and D2 you'd have to think about which skills to develop and plan ahead. You also had to choose your strategy wisely against different bosses and strong mobs. Especially in D1, the random dungeons not only resulted in great replayability, but also in certain areas where you were just overwhelmed by mobs, so you'd have to play on edge at all times. I'm not saying they were really hard games (meaning "old school" hard), but they certainly posed a decent level of challenge.

In contrast, all you have to do in D3 is click and watch the enemy die. Where's the fun in that? I've seen free Disney games aimed at kindergarten kids that offered more challenge than this. I think the target audience for D3 is not core gamers who grew up on the previous 2 games, but young kids expecting an easy win. It's like playing chess with yourself: you always win. :)

To give due credit: I did hear that the Hell level is somewhat better in that aspect. But I was bored to hell before I got to Hell, so I never finished the game.

rainydayman

Simple questions:

1. Are you comparing Hell-mode Diablo 2 to Normal/Nightmare mode Diablo 3?  Have you played Inferno mode?  If you have can you please head over to the official forums and school all us noobs on how to just point-click and kill Inferno mode mob packs?  

2. Are you seriously trying to argue that there was strategy involved in developing your character?  Because for me and every person I've ever met who's played D2, including most of the "vets" on this forum used the same build for everything and diverging even one stat point from these cookie cutters resulted in broken and useless characters.  For years there was no respec option, so one mistake means you need to delete your character and start over.  Is this seriously the kind of gameplay you want to return to?  "Okay I need 35 STR for the HOTO... 20 DEX for my boots... then I need to pump VIT.  All right!  Time to start my character at level 1!"  Tell me with a straight face this was "strategy".  

3.  I'm going to point this out because it seems that every time this "D2 was better!" argument is brought up everyone forgets this:  Baal Runs.  Any argument you could have made about difficulty or complexity or challenge or preparation has just been immediately invalidated.  D2 wasn't hard, or challenging.  It was social. Get someone to run you to Baal then do Baal runs.  That's it.  You might not have done it, but EVERYONE else did.  Three kinds of games: trade rooms, story runs and baal runs, with baal runs controlling over 80% of all D2 games.

#19 Posted by rainydayman (38 posts) -

Lol its hilarious, you're the second person EVER to tell me that Metacritic player reviews should be paid attention to. They shouldn't be, they aren't indicative of the quality of a game, or how well the game will sell. Metacritic players run on two speed. 0/10 worst game in history (lol) and 10/10 best game in history. Like 5% of players review in between and most of them are still on the two extremes. Here's what effect Metacritic player reviews have on sales: 0. Me and my friends check the player reviews on our favorite games because they have the dumbest player community on earth. Seriously, the most backwards, ignorant, self entitled, and completely detached from reality group of people on the planet, its literally a side-show for serious gamers to go to and laugh at.

Unless you're talking about the 88/100 the game's got from the critics in which case:http://www.vg247.com/2012/05/21/how-diablo-3-gave-metacritic-a-giant-middle-finger/

Many others likely did the same. It doesn't matter. Their sales are too high, you can vote with your dollar but in this case you're going to lose the vote. You can argue this point, and you'll be wrong. I enjoy the game a lot, so I'm going to keep playing it.

Megotaku77

Well, I usually check Metacritic ratings before buying a game, so there you have it: its effects on sales are not 0. :) Also, I don't like calling people "dumb", "ignorant" or "self-entitled", even if these terms are unfortunately true for some of them. However, Metacritic is not a "community": it reflects the average. Thousands and thousands of people review there, all from very different communities. It's true that in general, people tend to think in extremes (maybe because they are young or don't really know how to write a review), but the average number that arises is much more reliable than reviews by professional critics, who seem to be somewhat biased towards well-known publishers.

Also, like many others, I voted with my dollar, and so did you. Unlike you, I don't claim to see the future, so I'm definitely not going to say something like "you will lose the vote". All I can say is that, even though preorders were indeed high, I'm not sure if D3 will sell so well after a month, and if it doesn't, the DRM system might be dropped by developers. I never said you shouldn't play the game if you're enjoying it, only that it's obviously not for me.

Should, but don't. Read the EULA's for every video game ever. You only own the license by contract and your license can expire at any time or be terminated if you ever break the terms of the EULA. There's some debate as to whether these EULA's can stand up in court (they haven't in many countries esp. Germany). Even making mods violates the EULA, most companies don't care, in fact many support them as it gives them good ideas for future patches, expansions or games. Mod makers are currently the best way to get recognized in the game industry. Having a degree in graphics design won't get you anywhere, but if you developed the #1 mod in Skyrim you might have a job offer soon. It doesn't change the fact that if you read the terms of the EULA in a game like Dark Souls or Mass Effect 3 its a violation of the EULA to make mods. There are cases where modding your coalesced.bin file in ME3 warranted complete suspension of your entire Origin account and ALL of the games therein.

You won't get a dispute from me that you should own your copy of the game. You should. You don't. That's a fact.

Megotaku77

You're mixing things up here a bit. Owning a copy on DVD and owning the software are not the same things, and I was only talking about the former.

#20 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

Well, I usually check Metacritic ratings before buying a game, so there you have it: its effects on sales are not 0. :)rainydayman

Oh ho-ho!  He got me there.  You all see that?  He got me so good!  Your glibbness ignores the overarching point.  Metacritic player reviews are responses to a game's success, not its quality.  The more successful, popular, and mainstream a title is, the worse its reviews usually.

Also, I don't like calling people "dumb", "ignorant" or "self-entitled", even if these terms are unfortunately true for some of them. However, Metacritic is not a "community": it reflects the average. Thousands and thousands of people review there, all from very different communities. It's true that in general, people tend to think in extremes (maybe because they are young or don't really know how to write a review), but the average number that arises is much more reliable than reviews by professional critics, who seem to be somewhat biased towards well-known publishers.rainydayman

More reliable eh?  Modern Warefare 3 probably the most successful game in history currently has a user score of 2.2.  Stalin vs. Martians one of the worst games ever to be crapped out by a publisher, lambasted as potentially the worst game ever made has a 3.8.  Mass Effect 3 only has a 4.0.  Tell me again Metacritic player reviews are "more reliable".  No really, please do I need another good laugh.  Your point is indefensible, there are hundreds of examples I could pull from to show you just how asinine Metacritic average player reviews are.  I don't know if you're just ignorant of how bad Metacritic's player community is or what (and yes when you have a group of people that frequent and participate that's an online community).  

Also, like many others, I voted with my dollar, and so did you. Unlike you, I don't claim to see the future, so I'm definitely not going to say something like "you will lose the vote". All I can say is that, even though preorders were indeed high, I'm not sure if D3 will sell so well after a month, and if it doesn't, the DRM system might be dropped by developers. I never said you shouldn't play the game if you're enjoying it, only that it's obviously not for me.rainydayman

You already lost the vote.  Blizzard has already turned a massive profit on the game and the financial message has already been sent.  We'll put up with SP-online DRM.  You don't need to be Nostradamus to see the writing on the wall.  I even provided you with an article specifically talking about sales vs. early critic reviews which you've clearly ignored.  You can argue with me when you educate yourself.  

You're mixing things up here a bit. Owning a copy on DVD and owning the software are not the same things, and I was only talking about the former.

rainydayman

I can't believe I actually have to say this... but the copy on the DVD is software.  That's what CD's and DVDs contain, software programs you can download and use.  So when you saying owning a copy "on" the DVD you're saying you own the software.  You don't own the software.  You own a license to use the software.  So no, I'm not mixing things up.  You need to get your facts straight.  

#21 Posted by rainydayman (38 posts) -

More reliable eh? Modern Warefare 3 probably the most successful game in history currently has a user score of 2.2. Stalin vs. Martians one of the worst games ever to be crapped out by a publisher, lambasted as potentially the worst game ever made has a 3.8. Mass Effect 3 only has a 4.0. Tell me again Metacritic player reviews are "more reliable". No really, please do I need another good laugh. Your point is indefensible, there are hundreds of examples I could pull from to show you just how asinine Metacritic average player reviews are. I don't know if you're just ignorant of how bad Metacritic's player community is or what (and yes when you have a group of people that frequent and participate that's an online community).

Megotaku77

Hmmm... Are you trying to provoke me here? Anyway, I won't take it too personally, and just answer. In fact, Modern Warfare 3 really isn't worth the money and time in my opinion. It's overpriced and basically the exact same game as earlier CoD titles, so my opinion after playing the demo and reading the reviews was that there's no point in buying it if you own one of the previous installments. I don't know anything about Stalin vs. Martians. ME3 was a good game, but maybe a tad bit too similar to ME2 (not many improvements gameplay-wise), and maybe many people expected a different ending, hence the bad reviews. And no, you're not going to find review scores on any site that exactly fit your own view on each and every game you've played, that's impossible. Someone as smart as you should understand that. Metacritic reflects the average opinion of gamers towards a certain game, nothing more. You might enjoy a game a lot more or a lot less than the others, but for most games it's a good indicator in case you're not sure whether to buy a title or not.

You already lost the vote. Blizzard has already turned a massive profit on the game and the financial message has already been sent. We'll put up with SP-online DRM. You don't need to be Nostradamus to see the writing on the wall. I even provided you with an article specifically talking about sales vs. early critic reviews which you've clearly ignored.

Megotaku77

In fact, I read that article. It's only an early opinion. Several million sales sounds very good, but a war isn't won in a week: long-term profit may not be that good, and they will need constant profit to keep the servers running. Also, it didn't state how many of those early sales were returned.

I can't believe I actually have to say this... but the copy on the DVD is software. That's what CD's and DVDs contain, software programs you can download and use. So when you saying owning a copy "on" the DVD you're saying you own the software. You don't own the software. You own a license to use the software. So no, I'm not mixing things up. You need to get your facts straight.

Megotaku77

If a tree grows in front of your house, do you own it? You don't have the right to cut it down, lest you'll be fined by the self-government. If it's not on your own land, the tree is legally not your property either. However, you can have a rest under its shade whenever you like, so most people would think of it as their own tree.

You can argue with me when you educate yourself.

Megotaku77

Hmmm... Do you really think we should discuss education in this thread? In that case, well yes, I am educated. On the other hand, I don't feel like arguing about a game like Diablo 3 with you anymore. I already wasted more time from my life on this game than I should have. But as I said earlier: have fun playing it. From my experience, Blizzard seems to have developed this game especially for extremely smart and educated customers like yourself. Ta-ta!

#22 Posted by rainydayman (38 posts) -

Simple questions:

1. Are you comparing Hell-mode Diablo 2 to Normal/Nightmare mode Diablo 3? Have you played Inferno mode? If you have can you please head over to the official forums and school all us noobs on how to just point-click and kill Inferno mode mob packs?

2. Are you seriously trying to argue that there was strategy involved in developing your character? Because for me and every person I've ever met who's played D2, including most of the "vets" on this forum used the same build for everything and diverging even one stat point from these cookie cutters resulted in broken and useless characters. For years there was no respec option, so one mistake means you need to delete your character and start over. Is this seriously the kind of gameplay you want to return to? "Okay I need 35 STR for the HOTO... 20 DEX for my boots... then I need to pump VIT. All right! Time to start my character at level 1!" Tell me with a straight face this was "strategy".

3. I'm going to point this out because it seems that every time this "D2 was better!" argument is brought up everyone forgets this: Baal Runs. Any argument you could have made about difficulty or complexity or challenge or preparation has just been immediately invalidated. D2 wasn't hard, or challenging. It was social. Get someone to run you to Baal then do Baal runs. That's it. You might not have done it, but EVERYONE else did. Three kinds of games: trade rooms, story runs and baal runs, with baal runs controlling over 80% of all D2 games.

Megotaku77

Simple answers:

1. I'm comparing Normal mode Diabo 2 to Normal mode Diablo 3. I'm sorry if I disappoint you, not being able to help with Inferno mode mobs, but as I explained earlier, I couldn't suffer through the borefest of Normal mode to unlock the higher difficulties, and returned my copy of Diablo 3. If Normal mode was meant as a tutorial, it's a hell of a long and boring one. In my view, a game should either playable in Normal mode, or offer the option to play at higher difficulty right from the start.

2. That could be true for Hell mode. At lower difficulties, multiple ways of character specialization could work, if you played them well enough.

3. Maybe Diablo 2 was a social game for you. For me, it was a single player game, and a good one at that.

#23 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

Hmmm... Are you trying to provoke me here? Anyway, I won't take it too personally, and just answer. In fact, Modern Warfare 3 really isn't worth the money and time in my opinion. It's overpriced and basically the exact same game as earlier CoD titles, so my opinion after playing the demo and reading the reviews was that there's no point in buying it if you own one of the previous installments. I don't know anything about Stalin vs. Martians. ME3 was a good game, but maybe a tad bit too similar to ME2 (not many improvements gameplay-wise), and maybe many people expected a different ending, hence the bad reviews. And no, you're not going to find review scores on any site that exactly fit your own view on each and every game you've played, that's impossible. Someone as smart as you should understand that. Metacritic reflects the average opinion of gamers towards a certain game, nothing more. You might enjoy a game a lot more or a lot less than the others, but for most games it's a good indicator in case you're not sure whether to buy a title or not.rainydayman

I don't like FPS games but MW3 provides an excellent model of gamer economics. MW3 sold 6.5 million copies on DAY ONE of release. Metacritic player reviews has a sum total of 4858 reviews meaning if MW3 didn't sell a single copy after its first day the Metacritic reviews represents 0.07% of the MW3 community if MW3 didn't sell a single copy after day 1. Not only that, respondents were self-selected meaning there's an inherent bias to the responses. This is basic statistics. The sample size is pathetically small and respondents are biased. Saying this represents the "average" gamer's opinion and not a vocal and dissatisfied minority is at best gross ignorance of how statistics works and at worst intentional dishonesty.

The point is that MW3 and ME3 are two games that shouldn't be uttered in the same SENTENCE as Stalin vs. Martians, and yet according to Metacritic player averages this piece of gutter trash is more than 2 times better than MW3 and just as good as ME3.

In fact, I read that article. It's only an early opinion. Several million sales sounds very good, but a war isn't won in a week: long-term profit may not be that good, and they will need constant profit to keep the servers running. Also, it didn't state how many of those early sales were returned.rainydayman

Its just an opinion you say? All right then. Name one game that absolutely killed it on sales, shattering records on pre-orders and day one releases to go on to later be a financial failure in the entire history of gaming. I'm asking for one single example in the entire long history of gaming of a game succeeding on launch to turn around on returns to flop financially. I'll wait. Until then, the article I linked isn't opinion, its financial analysis based on market trends over the last 10 years that is right on target with its message.

If a tree grows in front of your house, do you own it? You don't have the right to cut it down, lest you'll be fined by the self-government. If it's not on your own land, the tree is legally not your property either. However, you can have a rest under its shade whenever you like, so most people would think of it as their own tree.rainydayman

What people think about something is irrelevant to what something is. Game companies know DRM isn't popular, that's why they only test out new methods of DRM on games that will succeed despite massive player backlash. The only difference to gaming 10 years ago to gaming today is that game companies didn't have the ability to enfore their EULA's even if they had the legal right to. DRM is how they gain the ability to enforce them. They know its unpopular but its how they fight piracy.

Hmmm... Do you really think we should discuss education in this thread? In that case, well yes, I am educated. On the other hand, I don't feel like arguing about a game like Diablo 3 with you anymore. I already wasted more time from my life on this game than I should have. But as I said earlier: have fun playing it. From my experience, Blizzard seems to have developed this game especially for extremely smart and educated customers like yourself. Ta-ta!rainydayman

You misinterpreted what I said. I meant you need to educate yourself about this topic and the gaming industry before you argue with me. Saying "millions will return their copies in games and make D3 a financial failure!" would get you laughed out of the room among software analysts. Its never happened and never will happen.

#24 Posted by rainydayman (38 posts) -

I meant you need to educate yourself about this topic and the gaming industry before you argue with me. Saying "millions will return their copies in games and make D3 a financial failure!" would get you laughed out of the room among software analysts. Its never happened and never will happen.

Megotaku77

Wow, that previous post was quite impressive in both length and content. You know what: if a Nobel price is ever founded in "gaming know-how", I'll remember to nominate you. Until then, I think it's not fair that you should waste so many shining pieces of your wisdom on poor, laughable me. After all, others deserve to be enlightened as well! :) Bye-bye! :)

#25 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

Simple answers:

1. I'm comparing Normal mode Diabo 2 to Normal mode Diablo 3. I'm sorry if I disappoint you, not being able to help with Inferno mode mobs, but as I explained earlier, I couldn't suffer through the borefest of Normal mode to unlock the higher difficulties, and returned my copy of Diablo 3. If Normal mode was meant as a tutorial, it's a hell of a long and boring one. In my view, a game should either playable in Normal mode, or offer the option to play at higher difficulty right from the start.

2. That could be true for Hell mode. At lower difficulties, multiple ways of character specialization could work, if you played them well enough.

3. Maybe Diablo 2 was a social game for you. For me, it was a single player game, and a good one at that.

rainydayman

That's fine for you then, but your criticisms are invalid for the vast majority of D2 players who played online on the higher difficulties and I can provide sources to back up those claims. From a gaming perspecting you made it through the first level and then started making reviews. Why didn't you complete the game before making reviews? Dungeon crawlers don't end with the first round against the final boss.

close
#26 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

Wow, that previous post was quite impressive in both length and content. You know what: if a Nobel price is ever founded in "gaming know-how", I'll remember to nominate you. Until then, I think it's not fair that you should waste so many shining pieces of your wisdom on poor, laughable me. After all, others deserve to be enlightened as well! :) Bye-bye! :)rainydayman

http://tinyurl.com/7ezm2h6

#27 Posted by trueepower44 (67 posts) -

No problems with Online only, DRM protection at its highest is very important for this game. 9.2/10, could have had a few more areas to explore between acts 3-4. A town in act 4, should have been included. The game begs for a couple of expansions. Bugs to be expected across the board. Best RPG action game on the market.

#28 Posted by LUCKENBILL56 (14 posts) -

Hold on there. regarding when you buy a game you don't own it. That's nonsense. Piracy occurs for more than a few reasons. Anyone can sell a cd, but I have NEVER had a game of mine hacked. WHY??? I don't adhere to the online stupidity. Games get hacked because you are online and CHOOSE to play in MMO mode. Some criminal out there will find a way to your harddrive. You illiminate possiblity by not participating in such foolishness. If more customers stop playing online stuff stops. Hacking your games in this case. However, that won't happen. Thus, when a person enters the arena of online gaming you are taking an immediate risk. Once Blizzard announced D3 was going to require online only play. Trust me the Hacking people started working. I mean the announcement is like flies to honey and besides Blizzard is in this for the money. Any negative publicity or complaining will be looked upon as a small problem compared to what they are making on this game. Anyone who gives any information to Blizzard or access to one's harddrive via DRM to play D3. Sorry I have no sympathy for you. In the words of the wise. It's all about money and Blizzard does not give one rats behind about any customer problems as they walk to the bank. Go to Blizzards sight. One in five customers are having an issue. If Blizzard servers are not up like they should be and allow you to play at your whim. Then Blizzard is a problem. Do the math. I will not purchase D3, but I imagine the game is very good, but there comes to time someone has to say no to online gaming. Games are supposed to be fun and not a hassle. I've never had a game hacked and have no attention of helping someone do so. So do me favor stop the commerical for Blizzard.

#29 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

Hold on there. regarding when you buy a game you don't own it. That's nonsense. Piracy occurs for more than a few reasons. Anyone can sell a cd, but I have NEVER had a game of mine hacked. WHY??? I don't adhere to the online stupidity. Games get hacked because you are online and CHOOSE to play in MMO mode. Some criminal out there will find a way to your harddrive. You illiminate possiblity by not participating in such foolishness. If more customers stop playing online stuff stops. Hacking your games in this case. However, that won't happen. Thus, when a person enters the arena of online gaming you are taking an immediate risk. Once Blizzard announced D3 was going to require online only play. Trust me the Hacking people started working. I mean the announcement is like flies to honey and besides Blizzard is in this for the money. Any negative publicity or complaining will be looked upon as a small problem compared to what they are making on this game. Anyone who gives any information to Blizzard or access to one's harddrive via DRM to play D3. Sorry I have no sympathy for you. In the words of the wise. It's all about money and Blizzard does not give one rats behind about any customer problems as they walk to the bank. Go to Blizzards sight. One in five customers are having an issue. If Blizzard servers are not up like they should be and allow you to play at your whim. Then Blizzard is a problem. Do the math. I will not purchase D3, but I imagine the game is very good, but there comes to time someone has to say no to online gaming. Games are supposed to be fun and not a hassle. I've never had a game hacked and have no attention of helping someone do so. So do me favor stop the commerical for Blizzard.

LUCKENBILL56

Read the EULA for any game you've purchased.  Its not nonesense, its the law.  I didn't say its right, correct, or a just practice.  I said its the law.  If you say its not the law and you fully own any game you purchase you are factually incorrect.  Piracy is when they steal the game, crack it and distribute it for free, not when they steal someone's account.  

Online gaming is the way of the future, especially for PCs.  That's why Steam is so popular which is a giant DRM service, but their sales make them indispensible to the PC gaming community.  One in five customers is having an issue?  Are you on crack?  This is willful misinformation at best.  Your long-winded diatribe didn't even address one point brought up in this discussion on this page except to misinform gamers that they own their games.

#30 Posted by JOHNNYNIGHT2000 (38 posts) -

(in response to mega)

With steam and this blizzard online format they can get your money early and don't have to deliver on time, they can give you a product that won't work and make it your problem to get the fix. The future of pc gaming is about how many people have the will power to hold off on buying games they love and want with this blubber online and drm attached to it. Yes, if this game Diablo 3 or say Skyrim flopped in sales at release because of the drm they would change it.

You really do sound like a shill for the game industry. You seem to be militantly desirous of being violated by a corporation. You do not need a license to use software. I'm not asking to buy the source code for the game and rights to build my own version. Idiot. You know if I get to have them sign an EULA and activate any transaction they do with my money handed over for renting their product, then we're talking equality.

#32 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

(in response to mega)

With steam and this blizzard online format they can get your money early and don't have to deliver on time, they can give you a product that won't work and make it your problem to get the fix. The future of pc gaming is about how many people have the will power to hold off on buying games they love and want with this blubber online and drm attached to it. Yes, if this game Diablo 3 or say Skyrim flopped in sales at release because of the drm they would change it.

You really do sound like a shill for the game industry. You seem to be militantly desirous of being violated by a corporation. You do not need a license to use software. I'm not asking to buy the source code for the game and rights to build my own version. Idiot. You know if I get to have them sign an EULA and activate any transaction they do with my money handed over for renting their product, then we're talking equality.

JOHNNYNIGHT2000

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I never stated anywhere that I agree with the current practice of game ownership, in fact I said numerous times that I disagree with it. Then you call me names for simply informing you of the facts. You must be American. Do you scream at the news every time they let you know something bad? Must watch Fox News, that way you only hear what you want to hear. The facts are the facts and the people telling you these facts that you are very clearly woefully ignorant to by your response aren't idiots, you're the idiot because you don't know what I'm telling you already.

*EDIT*

Since there seems to be a large number of people who are totally unfamiliar with how game ownership actually works here's an article from Rock, Paper, Shotgun:http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/01/thought-do-we-own-our-steam-games/

JOHNNYNIGHT2000: When you say you don't need a license to use software you are mistaken. If you don't have a license to use the software, you are stealing the software. You get your license to your software when you go down to the store and buy your copy of Diablo 3, or Windows 7, or your free Avast! Antivirus you downloaded. You have an implicit contractual agreement when purchasing or using any form of software and an express contractual agreement when downloading software online (you hit the "accept" button idiot).

The implied contracts from on-site purchases are difficult to monitor and control and more difficult to enforce in a court of law. On-site purchases also compete with the secondary market (used games). With both the loss of revenue from the Used Games market as well as the lack of control over their intellectual property, games developers are pushing online sales and online forms of DRM hard because when you click "Accept" on the EULA the ambiguous and difficult to inforce IMPLICIT contract regarding the LICENSE you purchased to use their software turns into an EXPRESS contract which gives them all the legal power. Being aware of this, JOHNNY, doesn't make me an industry shill. It makes me an informed consumer. Me telling you as ungrateful, hateful and ignorant as you are, is a public service.

#33 Posted by the_hitman_guy (709 posts) -

[QUOTE="rainydayman"]Simple answers:

1. I'm comparing Normal mode Diabo 2 to Normal mode Diablo 3. I'm sorry if I disappoint you, not being able to help with Inferno mode mobs, but as I explained earlier, I couldn't suffer through the borefest of Normal mode to unlock the higher difficulties, and returned my copy of Diablo 3. If Normal mode was meant as a tutorial, it's a hell of a long and boring one. In my view, a game should either playable in Normal mode, or offer the option to play at higher difficulty right from the start.

2. That could be true for Hell mode. At lower difficulties, multiple ways of character specialization could work, if you played them well enough.

3. Maybe Diablo 2 was a social game for you. For me, it was a single player game, and a good one at that.

Megotaku77

That's fine for you then, but your criticisms are invalid for the vast majority of D2 players who played online on the higher difficulties and I can provide sources to back up those claims.

close

The people who play Diablo 2 as you say - predetermined builds and Baal runs and so on - are the most visible players of D2. First of all they are more likely to spend all their time online, and second they spend much more time on the game, period. A single grinding basement dweller is as visible as a hundred casual players combined. Many other people picked a character, finished Normal mode, and put the game aside - what can possibly provide the sources for them?
#34 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

The people who play Diablo 2 as you say - predetermined builds and Baal runs and so on - are the most visible players of D2. First of all they are more likely to spend all their time online, and second they spend much more time on the game, period. A single grinding basement dweller is as visible as a hundred casual players combined. Many other people picked a character, finished Normal mode, and put the game aside - what can possibly provide the sources for them?the_hitman_guy

The best source is Xfire player activity which specifically tracks online games (or games played through an online intermediary like Steam). Then there's the quarterly Activision investor's calls and a snippet here and there from gaming journalists.

Then there's the fact that D3 was released with a chief focus on online play. If, as you say, "many" other people (as in a statistically significant portion of their gaming population) played one difficulty, one player mode and put down their game, then Blizzard would have no incentive to add 1 new difficulty, an auction house to cater to the minority of online players, and multiple random events and maps for sequential playthroughs. This would be unnecessary and irrelevant coding catering to a minority of their playerbase. D3 features catered to the demands of the online community because the online community you refer to as "basement dwellers" were their primary source of income for Diablo 2.

#35 Posted by the_hitman_guy (709 posts) -
Oh, OK.

Blizzard would have no incentive to add 1 new difficulty, an auction house to cater to the minority of online players, and multiple random events and maps for sequential playthroughs.

Megotaku77
The auction house might bring in significant revenue even if very very few people buy much off it. Maybe most people will only sell loot for pennies, while a handful spends thousands upon thousands of dollars, thus justifying the cost of creating the auction house. The other features you mention are common in even single-player story-heavy shooters. The most casual of players do not have or do not use Xfire. Given that Blizzard can now monitor every user 24-7, I wonder what fraction of its customers is going to max out every character class. Maybe Blizzard can even figure out how many people share each copy of D3 - who knows, perhaps everyone has a unique fingerprint-like mouse click rate. I'd like to see if such analysis is publicly available for WoW, although WoW is complicated by monthly fees, free trials, a smaller launch, and an inability to totally solo it.
#36 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -
[QUOTE="the_hitman_guy"]Oh, OK.

Blizzard would have no incentive to add 1 new difficulty, an auction house to cater to the minority of online players, and multiple random events and maps for sequential playthroughs.

Megotaku77
The auction house might bring in significant revenue even if very very few people buy much off it. Maybe most people will only sell loot for pennies, while a handful spends thousands upon thousands of dollars, thus justifying the cost of creating the auction house. The other features you mention are common in even single-player story-heavy shooters. The most casual of players do not have or do not use Xfire. Given that Blizzard can now monitor every user 24-7, I wonder what fraction of its customers is going to max out every character class. Maybe Blizzard can even figure out how many people share each copy of D3 - who knows, perhaps everyone has a unique fingerprint-like mouse click rate. I'd like to see if such analysis is publicly available for WoW, although WoW is complicated by monthly fees, free trials, a smaller launch, and an inability to totally solo it.

You're confusing the current auction house with the RMT auction house which isn't live yet. In fact, the RMT auction house is currently being delayed due to an epidemic of players without authenticators being hacked and Blizzard doesn't want to get dragged into a situation like Sony was during their hack fiasco. The current iteration of auction house is giant and a huge pain for blizzard to maintain (there are literally millions of transactions per HOUR), so much so that the commodities auction house (crafting mats, gems, etc.) has been completely shut down until they can figure out a way to deal with the incredible volume of orders. The current gold auction house is bulky, difficult to deal with and expensive to maintain as they have to constantly run hotfixes and maintenance on them as they start to collapse under the traffic they see in a day. That's how popular the online stuff is. 20,000,000 players use Xfire so it gives -incredible- sample sizes of gamers of all types, super casual to super hardcore. Its why its a tool used throughout the industry.
#37 Posted by LUCKENBILL56 (14 posts) -

xx