Diablo 3 - More Coverage

[Daddy32]

If it decreases the value - then those people can simply not buy it or wait for a sale. I don't see the problem at all.

It certainly does decrease the value - at least value perceived by some. Plus, empirically, there is not going to be sale.

 

[coyote]

It's pretty important to read what I'm saying PRECISELY - if you want to know where I'm coming from.

You seem to have missed the very vital point: "as long as people are not forced to meet it."

With drugs, we're moving in a very different territory - where people obviously succumb to temptation based on very physiological factors and it's been proven time and time again that drugs will effectively kill you, if you keep taking them. People take them out of ignorance of the actual consequences, and get hooked.

No, in most cases those who start taking drugs are not ignorant of the consequences. Many years of prevention programs have done that. They are also rarely forced to take the first dose.

An online-only (printed on the box, I bet) and fully legal requirement is pretty different from that, I should say. I fully expect Blizzard to do what they can to make the requirement plain. Very unlike drugs, which generally don't come in nice boxes with thorough warning labels.

But even so, I don't really believe in the concept of "objectively wrong" - because it suggests omnipotence. I'd rather use something more tangible, such as "harmful" for instance.

In your fantasy example, I don't immediately see anything harmful - so we're back to something like silly or stupid.

So you are saying that you refuse to use the word "wrong" because it suggests omnipotence? Wow. Seriously? I assume that many people around you must appear omnipotent to you.

My logic is quite universal, if you ask me.

Right. Self confidence is important.

If it decreases the value - then those people can simply not buy it or wait for a sale. I don't see the problem at all.

So basically you would defend Blizzard even if they decided to abandon the current concept for Diablo 3 and develop a Facebook game instead, because obviously, it's where the gaming industry is going? I though people post here because they care about the value of the games they follow. Guess not all of them do.

If you feel competent enough to evaluate the value of time spent in a game versus outside the game, then I guess you have a reason to feel happy.

Despite my usage of the words "right" and "wrong" on occasion, I do not actually feel omnipotent and did not really presume to evaluate how every single person on the planet spends his or her time. You did notice the "wink" emoticon at the end of the sentence?

 

[DArtagnan]

No, in most cases those who start taking drugs are not ignorant of the consequences. Many years of prevention programs have done that. They are also rarely forced to take the first dose.

I'm afraid I don't agree at all. People are incredibly adept at ignoring these things, and being aware of potential danger is a very different thing from fully understanding how these things work - both short-term and long-term. People gamble with their lives when they take drugs, and many don't want to face the seriousness of the danger of this habit.

In any case - to me - I don't consider doing drugs a fully conscious and sufficiently informed choice. That's why it doesn't meet my criteria. You're welcome to believe that people killing themselves using drugs are following a deliberate plan from the get-go, and I'll spare you my opinion of your insight into the human psyche.

So you are saying that you refuse to use the word "wrong" because it suggests omnipotence? Wow. Seriously? I assume that many people around you must appear omnipotent to you.

Refuse? No. Using the word wrong is generally wrong in terms of what you actually mean by it. See?

I like to use it on occasion. I tend to use it as "incorrect" a bit.

No, people are far from omnipotent - they're just not all as particular as I am about using the right words. See, I can use right as well.

Right. Self confidence is important.

It's what I have, anyway. Some people like to hide it, and some people like to appear as if they have it. But I believe in being upfront and honest about pretty much everything.

So basically you would defend Blizzard even if they decided to abandon the current concept for Diablo 3 and develop a Facebook game instead, because obviously, it's where the gaming industry is going? I though people post here because they care about the value of the games they follow. Guess not all of them do.

I don't see myself as their defender. I'm simply explaining how I feel about it - without motivation to defend or attack. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they made a Facebook game. I wouldn't like that, but I'd never expect them to care about my personal feelings.

To help you a bit with the logical aspect of this, I can actually care about something - without telling the people behind it to do it differently. That's because I care even more about creative control and the freedom of choice.

Despite my usage of the words "right" and "wrong" on occasion, I do not actually feel omnipotent and did not really presume to evaluate how every single person on the planet spends his or her time. You did notice the "wink" emoticon at the end of the sentence?

I don't feel capable of knowing what you may or may not mean with a single wink.

 

[DArtagnan]

It certainly does decrease the value - at least value perceived by some. Plus, empirically, there is not going to be sale.

It doesn't decrease the value to me, hence the "if".

What do you mean there's not going to be a sale? Are you seriously suggesting that Blizzard never sold any game cheaper than what it cost upon release?

Even if they don't intend to ever reduce price - people can still just not buy it.

 

[Motoki]

What do you mean there's not going to be a sale? Are you seriously suggesting that Blizzard never sold any game cheaper than what it cost upon release?

I won't say it won't ever go down in price, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting either. Starcraft 2 has been out for over a year and still really hasn't gone down. Also, the only place to get the digital download (which at least in the US is how the majority of PC gamers get their games these days) is from Battle.net. There's no competition so you won't see any sales the likes we are used to from Steam, Gamersgate, Direct2Drive, Impulse, Amazon Direct Download, Greenmangaming etc etc.

The retail box version of Starcraft II, excluding 2nd hand copies on Ebay (and really if it's tied to your registered online info those will be useless), still goes for $50-$60 US even at 'cheap' stores like Walmart.

So yeah, I am not expecting much in the way of sales at all. Maybe 3 or 5 years down the road when everyone has moved on.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

But legality isn't really relevant since DoctorNarrative already mentioned that he cracks all his games to get rid of the DRM, which of course is illegal.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter WHY a game isn't playable after x amount of years. Even if Blizzard should go bankrupt and Battle.Net shuts down at some point, there will either be a patch/crack that will allow you to play your Blizzard games regardless or, which is more likely, there will be 5-6 other reasons why a game is no longer "playable" anyway. (outdated hardware, driver, software, dead genre, surpassed graphics/gameplay/whatnot, etc., etc.)

As said above there is a difference between not being able to play a game anymore because hardware has moved on and not being able to play anymore because the game was under tight corporate control. Also you can play Commodore games right out of the box if you still have a working Commodore, emulation is just available to replace the time-limited hardware.

As for cracking I crack games if I have to. I never said I did it routinely (though there was a time I was obsessed with making backups for everything and cracked a lot of stuff). The only recent games I have cracked were Deus Ex, to use the new DX10 executable, and CoD: Black Ops, because a patch broke the game for me and Steam does not allow you to roll back versions. That's it. What I said was if I ever cannot play a game due to DRM I will crack it and have no moral issue with that. I do not agree it's outright illegal either because several court cases have put that in doubt by ruling it's only copyright infringement if you distribute or ruling in favor of backups.

In any case I see Diablo 3 as a different animal, different even from Ubisoft's DRM. I see Diablo 3 as taking a game with a traditional singleplayer component but making it fully online as a means to control the customer. It is not just DRM, it is an effort to make a game, any game, an online service instead of a product. Steam has been moving people that direction for a long time but it never forced it, it has offline modes and such. Diablo 3 is saying "online all the time no matter what, saves on our servers, you own nothing, you control nothing, deal with it."

Even if the game is cracked that is not an attitude I want to support. I do not want to give them money and say "hey that sounds fine, I accept it." It's much worse than DRM, it's a mindset. It's asking for every game to be fully online all the time in the future, like Dart suggested. If they use streaming effectively it might even eradicate piracy, which in turn would eradicate playing these games outside of corporate control, which in turn would eradicate longevity.

If an offline cracked version appears I will want to play it, but I will not want to support them. Given that I doubt I can morally justify playing it for free I am not sure what I will do. I suggested before I might buy something else off their webstore to give them money, then play Diablo 3 instead. Replace my Diablo 2 discs with digital versions maybe.

You can of course do as you like but I'd rather enjoy the game now and perhaps lose access to it later (at which point I've been done and finished with it for years anyway) than boycott the game now on "questionable" principles and thus NEVER get to play it.

"Better to have loved and lost..." eh? That makes sense on the surface, but at the end of the day I would be supporting this happening more in the future, and thus more "losses." Everything is driven by what consumers are willing to pay for. $15 map packs? $15 a month fees? $20 pet DLC? It's all about what consumers say is okay. I do not want to say this is okay.

 

[JDR13]

The only recent games I have cracked were Deus Ex, to use the new DX10 executable, and CoD: Black Ops

What's this about a DX10 executable for Deus Ex? Just curious.. is that for a new graphics mod?

 

[DoctorNarrative]

What's this about a DX10 executable for Deus Ex? Just curious.. is that for a new graphics mod?

It's a new exe that runs the game in a DX10 framework and adds a new config menu. It's pretty slick actually. Let's you unscale the HUD so that it's nice and small on a large resolution, allows you to set some other options like mouse accel and sound bitrate. Also adds AA and AF without having to force it through your control panel.

If you copy and past the Steam files or the disc files into a new folder and then plop the DX10 executable into it you can run the game DRM free without even installing it. Pretty cool.

 

[JDR13]

Are we talking about the original Deus Ex?

*Edit* Nevermind.. Googled it.

Now I wish I had time to replay Deus Ex before DX:HR is released.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

Now I wish I had time to replay Deus Ex before DX:HR is released.

That's what I am trying to do. Just got to Hong Kong.

 

[coyote]

I'm afraid I don't agree at all. People are incredibly adept at ignoring these things, and being aware of potential danger is a very different thing from fully understanding how these things work - both short-term and long-term. People gamble with their lives when they take drugs, and many don't want to face the seriousness of the danger of this habit.

In any case - to me - I don't consider doing drugs a fully conscious and sufficiently informed choice. That's why it doesn't meet my criteria. You're welcome to believe that people killing themselves using drugs are following a deliberate plan from the get-go, and I'll spare you my opinion of your insight into the human psyche.

You asked me to read your words precisely, earlier. Kindly do me the same favour: when I state that people are not ignorant of the consequences of taking drugs, I really mean "ignorant" instead of "not fully aware of the short- and long-term consequences or not having a deliberate plan for the rest of their lives in that respect". See the difference? I think I will spare you what I think of your rhetorics, also.

That said, when people buy Diablo 3, they might not be fully aware of (1) the drain on the purse real money auctioning can have for those lacking self control (2) limited access to Diablo 3 during rainy days on a vacation they are not even planning yet (3) consequences of the online only requirement on the development of other games. A sticker on the box simply is not that exhaustive.

Refuse? No. Using the word wrong is generally wrong in terms of what you actually mean by it. See?

Maybe you should buy a dictionary. There is nothing wrong with the general use of the word wrong as people use it. That wrong is not terribly specific is another matter altogether, but not wrong. See?

[…]I don't see myself as their defender. I'm simply explaining how I feel about it - without motivation to defend or attack. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they made a Facebook game. I wouldn't like that, but I'd never expect them to care about my personal feelings.

To help you a bit with the logical aspect of this, I can actually care about something - without telling the people behind it to do it differently. That's because I care even more about creative control and the freedom of choice.

Yet you accuse those writing down honest criticism in this message board of waging a religious war. While I do not have a problem with logic, I do have a problem with your application of it. Or is it just that you do not care much for freedom of speech?

Also, I doubt that those commenting here feel they have the power to tell Blizzard anything. They are just providing feedback, which is helpful even for game developers. Plus, you certainly were very vocative in the case of Elemental. This in itself was fine, but it is hypocritical to then complain about people providing criticism for another game.

I don't feel capable of knowing what you may or may not mean with a single wink.

Fair enough.

 

[fatBastard()]

As for cracking I crack games if I have to. I never said I did it routinely (though there was a time I was obsessed with making backups for everything and cracked a lot of stuff). The only recent games I have cracked were Deus Ex, to use the new DX10 executable, and CoD: Black Ops, because a patch broke the game for me and Steam does not allow you to roll back versions. That's it. What I said was if I ever cannot play a game due to DRM I will crack it and have no moral issue with that. I do not agree it's outright illegal either because several court cases have put that in doubt by ruling it's only copyright infringement if you distribute or ruling in favor of backups.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you meant by cracking DRM then. My bad.

I'm not certain how it works in the US but in the EU the InfoSoc directive clearly states that any circumvention for ANY reason is illegal (no matter how innocent the reason). This of course is utter lunacy, but in the eyes of the law it is illegal to crack DRM.

In any case I see Diablo 3 as a different animal, different even from Ubisoft's DRM. I see Diablo 3 as taking a game with a traditional singleplayer component but making it fully online as a means to control the customer. It is not just DRM, it is an effort to make a game, any game, an online service instead of a product. Steam has been moving people that direction for a long time but it never forced it, it has offline modes and such. Diablo 3 is saying "online all the time no matter what, saves on our servers, you own nothing, you control nothing, deal with it."

But isn't this what the whole "Cloud" craze is about? Storing information in the cloud instead of locally. I admit that I'm not a huge fan of the Cloud approach to all things involving personal information since I don't think the security measurements are ready yet, but something as trivial as savegames is not something I can get riled up over ... but I guess we each have our pet peeves.

"Better to have loved and lost…" eh? That makes sense on the surface, but at the end of the day I would be supporting this happening more in the future, and thus more "losses." Everything is driven by what consumers are willing to pay for. $15 map packs? $15 a month fees? $20 pet DLC? It's all about what consumers say is okay. I do not want to say this is okay.

As you should. My internal scales are still showing that my interest in playing D3 still far outweighs the disadvantages of the new "requirements" from Blizzard, but if your scales are tipped in the opposite direction you should indeed refrain from buying the game.

 

[DArtagnan]

You asked me to read your words precisely, earlier. Kindly do me the same favour: when I state that people are not ignorant of the consequences of taking drugs, I really mean "ignorant" instead of "not fully aware of the short- and long-term consequences or not having a deliberate plan for the rest of their lives in that respect". See the difference? I think I will spare you what I think of your rhetorics, also.

So, you agree that people don't really understand what it means to do drugs - when they start?

Now I'm confused. Either they understand what they're getting into - fully informed - or they don't. I'm saying they don't (ok, maybe less than 1% of them do) - because otherwise they wouldn't do drugs.

That's because I don't think people really want to ruin their lives when they choose to do drugs. There are many ways to begin, and generally I think they're ignorant of the consequences.

Ignorant is synonymous with uninformed and unaware.

It's not that they're unaware that drugs are "bad" - but HOW they're bad, and exactly HOW they work. Many people think they can try it and then just stop - because some people apparently can.

That said, when people buy Diablo 3, they might not be fully aware of (1) the drain on the purse real money auctioning can have for those lacking self control (2) limited access to Diablo 3 during rainy days on a vacation they are not even planning yet (3) consequences of the online only requirement on the development of other games. A sticker on the box simply is not that exhaustive.

I'm not talking about the RMT auction house here. I've already made it plain that I'm sceptical about it.

As for the rest, that may be true. But it doesn't fit my criteria of "not being informed sufficiently". I think people have a very fair chance of making an informed decision, and the "harmful" potential of a bad decision when buying an online-only game without knowing it - is not significant in my mind. The gist is that I most certainly don't think Blizzard are trying to make people into online-only addicts, knowing they will ruin their lives when not being strictly offline. Maybe you do, but I don't.

Profiting from selling drugs and requiring an online-only connection are, to me, two very different things. One is obviously very harmful, and the other is not harmful in a way I can appreciate.

It's not rocket science, is it?

Maybe you should buy a dictionary. There is nothing wrong with the general use of the word wrong as people use it. That wrong is not terribly specific is another matter altogether, but not wrong. See?

I think you're the one in need of a dictionary. The word is incredibly specific, actually, at least as far as the incorrect application is concerned. When we're not dealing with factually wrong things - the word means "unethical" or "unfair" - things like that. Unless we're talking about legality - which is straightforward. Ethics and justice as concepts are objective and will require some pretty definitive backup to be applicable. That's what I meant with it suggesting omnipotence.

It's my experience that people don't have anything even remotely approaching sufficient backup for making objective claims, so they're - in fact - using it wrong.

If you think people are using it correctly - then it doesn't bother me.

Yet you accuse those writing down honest criticism in this message board of waging a religious war. While I do not have a problem with logic, I do have a problem with your application of it. Or is it just that you do not care much for freedom of speech?

No, I don't accuse people of waging a religious war. I said the way some people put their opinion makes it seem almost religious. Not exactly the same thing, is it.

How does that apply to me not caring for freedom of speech? If I cared according to your standard, then I couldn't express my opinion about how they seem?

You're not making any sense whatsoever.

Most of all, you seem a bit miffed at something I said - and you completely fail to argue your case. You keep straying from the original conversation. I have to wonder why.

Are we still talking about Blizzard and how they may or may not have done something wrong with making the game online-only?

Because it seems to me we're somewhere else right now, and it seems you're trying desperately to "win the Internet" or something.

Let's get back to the original debate, or stop bogging down the thread with this. If you have a problem with me as a person, then PM me about it. Don't waste my time trying to "get me" or whatever.

Also, I doubt that those commenting here feel they have the power to tell Blizzard anything. They are just providing feedback, which is helpful even for game developers.

They don't have the power to write this directly to Blizzard, or at least post it on the Diablo 3 boards where Blizzard are most likely to see it? I don't agree with that at all.

They're free to provide feedback, and I'm free to do the same thing about their "feedback".

 

[DArtagnan]

Gah, this is just too pointless….

Need to take a break from these endless debates swallowing my time. I wonder if it was ever worth it to have an opinion and then detailing why. It's not like anyone ever believes it or accepts it, no matter how well I defend it or demonstrate that I actually had a significant thought-process preceding it.

I think I'll leave the Watch in peace for a bit.

I have a feeling you'll appreciate it

 

[DoctorNarrative]

Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you meant by cracking DRM then. My bad.

I'm not certain how it works in the US but in the EU the InfoSoc directive clearly states that any circumvention for ANY reason is illegal (no matter how innocent the reason). This of course is utter lunacy, but in the eyes of the law it is illegal to crack DRM.

In the US the DMCA does forbid cracking. It actually forbids exploring the directory of the game, which is ludicrous. The courts say something else though. That is pretty typical of the US legal system, the bought and paid for corporate lackeys in congress pass a law that is terrible and then the courts clean it up. In the case of the DMCA several court rulings have said that creatings backups is still okay, cracking for personal use is okay, etc. etc. Others have supported the DMCA though, like with the recent Playstation hacking debacle.

It's all kind of up in the air and dependent on future revisions and cases, really. If some company wants to come after me for cracking games I bought though I would welcome it. An army of lawyers would take my case for free and hopefully some consumer protecting law would come out of it.

But isn't this what the whole "Cloud" craze is about? Storing information in the cloud instead of locally. I admit that I'm not a huge fan of the Cloud approach to all things involving personal information since I don't think the security measurements are ready yet, but something as trivial as savegames is not something I can get riled up over … but I guess we each have our pet peeves.

I'm fine with the cloud as backup storage, but not as your only means of access. That takes all power away from the consumer and gives it to the company.

As you should. My internal scales are still showing that my interest in playing D3 still far outweighs the disadvantages of the new "requirements" from Blizzard, but if your scales are tipped in the opposite direction you should indeed refrain from buying the game.

If I could be promised this was a one time deal I wouldn't have much issue with it. I expect Blizzard will be around for a long time to come and I could just play something else when my internet is down. The issue really is that supporting this means supporting the idea of this for all games. First any game with any kind of multiplayer would go online only, then singleplayer games, then eventually everything is streamed at least partially (if Diablo 3 itself already isn't) and then bam, every game is under total corporate control.

Then a company goes out of business. Then a license agreement expires and new terms cannot be worked out. Then a game is gone forever.

 

[booboo]

@DoctorNarrative - quite so - I agree completely ;-) that was easy! And saves my typing finger for some coding!

 

[coyote]

Gah, this is just too pointless….

Need to take a break from these endless debates swallowing my time. I wonder if it was ever worth it to have an opinion and then detailing why. It's not like anyone ever believes it or accepts it, no matter how well I defend it or demonstrate that I actually had a significant thought-process preceding it.

I think I'll leave the Watch in peace for a bit.

I have a feeling you'll appreciate it

Believe it or not, but I have nothing against you personally. I would have ended the debate long ago had you not continued trying to slam people for their Diablo 3 criticism and replied to my posts with arguments that I believe to be fallacious, which is why I tried to clear that up. Nothing more. I agree it has devolved into a childish dialogue with lots of name calling and personal attacks, however, and I accept part of the blame.

Anyway.

Be well.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

They're talking up the Battle.net crap, but rest assured it's just code-speak enabling them to tip-toe around mentioning the real reason for the persistent internet connection, the same reason as always: DRM and anti-piracy.

Anti piracy for Diablo 3 is a by product.

They wanted to secure their auction house feature and makes it valuable for players.

All time online connection, removal of modding capacity, pretailored characters builds are decisions stemming from the idea of monnetizing loot.

Publishers (developpers) focus on selling the maximum number of copies and the auction house is a possibility to extend the number of sold copies.

This ingame feature allows them to expand their customers basis as some players will pay other players'games. It means that some players will buy (aggregately) two, three or four copies of the game while other players will recoup or pay back their purchase of the game.

More customers in the end. Buying Diablo 3 might be sold as an investment. If you are able, you might be able to get your money back or more.

For publishers, if this model works well, it will mean more sold copies in the end.

Anti piracy concerns are secondary. What matters here is the volumes of sales and this system shall allow bigger volumes as players who are able to will spend the equivalent value of several copies through auctioning, allowing others to recoup on their investment.

This kind of system can be sold as educational: give your kid $60 to buy the game and that games in the future will have to be bought thanks to that money. Money value, investment and all...

Dont know if marketing sectors are going to go that path, but it is possible.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

No, you can't. And that's a biggest issue.

You can play the single player without any issues as long as:
- You are constantly connected, with no hiccups.
- Blizzard's servers are constantly connected, with no downtime, not being DDOS-ed at the moment.
- Blizzard hasn't decided it is time to shut down their servers for monetary (or any other) reasons.
- They don't ban you from connecting (let's say for cheating in damn single player game (precedent: Starcraft 2) or behaving badly on their forums (Dragon Age, different company, but not THAT different, I have to say))

So they ask you to pay the full price for the (dumbed-down kiddy graphics) game, asking you to be OK with all this, giving you (single-player preferring player) exactly zero value in return.

No. Fucking. Way.

I'll buy Diablo 3 for <= $15 or not at all.

Adding to that, no ISP problems.

From the single gamer*'s perspective, the only addition of this kind of scheme, all time connection, is that it does not show.

Failures to provide that service can happen:
-from the game server's side
-from the ISP's side
-from the player's side

Ultimately, removing this demand removes the gameserver and the ISP as possible sources of failures.
Removal does a better job.

*: by gamer, I mean here somebody who is interested in the gameplay first when playing games. Players who are interested in monnetizing their loot will find the all time connection service highly valuable as it garantees the value of their loot.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Well, they owe me - value for every game I pay for. In this case, they are lowering value of the product I receive for regular amount of money, to minimize the losses from piracy (and from reselling the games, I expect). No value in return. And no, social multiplayer crap is of no value to many of us - even if it was, it wouldn't require CONSTANT connection and server-side character saving.

Have you paid for this game?

So if someone wants to enter the controversy over this game, one has to buy the game.

Controversy makes cash and people have to pay if they want to tell.
Money is money, no matter it comes from people who do not like or people who like.

The more controversial, the better it is. And sales numbers are sales numbers too. Quite easy to repack a sales numbers provoked by controversy as the sign of a high quality gameplay game.