Diablo III

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/buckman/public_html/neo/modules/advanced_forum/advanced_forum.module on line 492.
81 replies [Last post]
David Barbour
Offline
Joined: 04/05/2012

So is everybody looking forward to the game or not?. I'm looking forward to it I've had some great experiences playing the previous games and their expansions. Not sure what character class to use yet I used a Necromancer in II and I may use the Monk class in III.

Not too long to go now until the game is released.

n/a
WodiaWen (not verified)
discount moncler jackets

I'm sure the best for you moncler men LyaejeVv [URL=http://www.dreamblog.net/monclershoes - moncler hat[/URL - and get big save hdGbFleF http://www.dreamblog.net/monclershoes

clok1966
Offline
Joined: 01/21/2009
deny
David Barbour wrote:

The real world auction house has been released. Any thoughts?

Something Im against bigtime. They made the game, they got paid. These are not real items, yet as we all know, people dont want to play anymore they want to WIN, and cash is not a problem. The big name MMORPG have had a "underground" cash market for close to 15 years now. Here is the stickler.. up till about 5 years ago it was totally -EVIL- in the eyes of the game devs, the game companies and "most" legit players. But someplave about 5 years (or so) Sony (everquest) decided to try cash to buy items which was up to that point against the TOS. Now some will say the first F2P ( runescape and even some earlier muds) where first but they "charged" by running ads. I "think" and please correct me if I'm wrong.. Everquest was the first big one to allow CASH for items. Even with its success in a dying game. the other big MMORPG shuned it and made it a dirty thing. Blizzards stance has never been tolerant of it so the change of view in D3 is strange.

personally letting anybody BUY an item that makes them better is a NO-NO but Bliz is skirting this issues , they are not selling, they are just being the fence. we dont sell, we just tell you where to get it and take a cut. You know.. middle men who take a big cut for doing nothing. CLAIM they hook you up.. I find this even more repulsive then selling it outright. They ahve taken the muddy ground, not high or low. They see there is HUGE money to be made and instead of letting the skum that normally does this stuff, have just made it easier and 'get thier cut"

Worse yet they are taking a HUGE cut. if farmers got a cut this big for for what they harvest we would all be farmers.. Not even banks get this kind of moeny for loans.. about the only people you can compare it to are pawn shops.. places that are the last resort for the down and out.. place that take major advantage of foolish people and people on thier last legs.

always on DRM.. hehe childs play.. backpeddling on the virtual goods thing, (compared to, say WOW) making a 180, and then basicly getting a exstorsion like cut.. Do i clap for the business savy.. or do i see another EA in the making? Money before gamers?

David Barbour
Offline
Joined: 04/05/2012
The real world auction house

The real world auction house has been released. Any thoughts?

n/a
clok1966
Offline
Joined: 01/21/2009
I am very much against always

I am very much against always on DRM, not for any reason other then the NET. While its 99% up, its simply not always. Snowstorm knocksit out, im styck in, thats when i want to play, and if magnifies the issue.. thats when i cant. BUT!!!! as a retired Pirate i know (as we all do) the part it plays. If you decide its big or small its a part. Diablo III is Not Diablo II, or Diablo, its been 10 years, games ahve hcanged, the internet is changed, DRM has changed. We as players have to evolve in some way too. This alwasy on DRM may not be the right way but I have to ask, HONESTLY..

Alwasy On DRM- why is it a problem?

For me- net down, no play, is a PROBLEM, big one.. So far only encountered on lunch day (it was not net, but Blizzard). I cant play on a none net connected PC.. again, annoying, game breaker for some, nobody I know, but if I played games at my folks, i would be out of luck they have no net. All this wont stop me from playing, its sending game data back and forth to stop cheating.. and yes to stop piracy.

Some of you have taken your stand and as said, its cool but I hate to say it.. its like the guy with eh horse not wanting oneof those new fangeld four wheeled things.. Blizzard has succesfully proven it works, games are more and more online everyday. I do think Blizzard can get away with it.. but now its done, the rest will follow, and unless they trip up bigtime, this is it.. its not going away.. you can ride your old horse, it will get you where you want to go.. but AND AGAIN i agree, i dont like it.. I'm getting in the car.. figureing out how to drive it.. and living with it. I once felt EXACTLY the same about STEAM, i felt it was the end of gaming for me, and I didnt play halflife2 for almost a year. when i caved and found i didnt notice it at all, my info was not running free on the net.. my computer didnt slow to crawl i pretty mucyh forgot about it. I was vocal as can be at first. Even today I'm not real in love with STEAM running full time on my PC.. even less with "more" (orgin/etc) who all want to join it.. but I'm dealing with it.

But I salute you guys who are taking a Stand.. Mine is Orgin.. and even if Im trying to sway you.. there really is no differance.. so im telling you "do as I say, not as I do" :) fight that fight if you feel its worth it. My guess is I will hold out for a year or so on Orgin.. (or if i get real lucky it will go away.. one can dream).

Shawn Delahunty
Shawn Delahunty's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2011
One last blurp on the topic.
Rowdy Rob wrote:

The irony is that most "Orwellian" futures predicted by the right seem to depend on governments assuming full control, while the apparent reality is that private corporations seem to be the ones that are doing a lot of the "Orwellian" stuff. As an American, you expect your goverment to safeguard, and not to overstep, boundaries set by the U.S. Constitution. But private corporations get around that by forcing you into legal contracts, such as the EULAs in practically all software. Or by monopolies (cable TV), HOA's, and so forth.

If you're on the Internet, you're on "the grid" in some form or other. And your emails are being perused, your posts analyzed, your purchases are databased, and so forth. If you want digital product, your privacy and rights are at the whims of the corporation.

Precisely. Hence my crack about 'Weyland Yutani' (aka. "The Company" from Alien(s)) somewhere up above in the discussion.

Rowdy Rob wrote:

Shane Monroe made the case that he won't play Diablo III because of it's always-on DRM, even in single-player mode. But I recall that he is a devotee of one of these online multi-player FPS games (Call of Duty?). He won't be able to enjoy that game in the future when the servers are turned off. I'm not sure what the practical difference is from a data-transfer standpoint. I also seem to recall that you (Shawn) gave WoW a try, which is another always-online game.

I'm not sure about Shane's distinction on that either--I won't buy a game that doesn't allow private servers to be run. You are correct, I did TRY WoW on the "free trial", after my article picking on it, and wrote a follow up. While the exploration was moderately interesting for a brief time, and while I loved playing with the interface to see how it all worked, the game (as expected) was utterly "Meh." And, while I was playing, I was keenly aware of the privacy issue--which probably helped degrade/break any immersion. However, since there was little "personal info" available to them, I let it go for the most part--I did not chat much with other players, and certainly revealed nothing about myself. (Frankly, I reveal much more here than I ever did in the game... which is paradoxical and typically human.)

n/a
Matt Barton
Matt Barton's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/16/2006
Internet

I think the great irony of all this is that Blizzard (and companies like them) are perverting the very nature of the internet...

Instead of using it to provide a free, open, and sustainable product that can withstand a nuclear attack,

they are using it to maintain a gated, non-free, and non-sustainable luxury "community" that couldn't withstand a lukewarm sales quarter.

n/a
Rowdy Rob
Rowdy Rob's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/04/2006
Some arguments...
Shawn Delahunty wrote:

However, at a fundamental level, I have 2 major objections which stop me from jumping on what I see as "the bandwagon":

  1. I consider personal freedoms more important than the instant gratification. I think the "right to be unplugged", is just as important as (and arguably a component of) free speech/free choice/free action. And I can foresee Orwellian futures where that gets taken away.

The irony is that most "Orwellian" futures predicted by the right seem to depend on governments assuming full control, while the apparent reality is that private corporations seem to be the ones that are doing a lot of the "Orwellian" stuff. As an American, you expect your goverment to safeguard, and not to overstep, boundaries set by the U.S. Constitution. But private corporations get around that by forcing you into legal contracts, such as the EULAs in practically all software. Or by monopolies (cable TV), HOA's, and so forth.

If you're on the Internet, you're on "the grid" in some form or other. And your emails are being perused, your posts analyzed, your purchases are databased, and so forth. If you want digital product, your privacy and rights are at the whims of the corporation.

Shane Monroe made the case that he won't play Diablo III because of it's always-on DRM, even in single-player mode. But I recall that he is a devotee of one of these online multi-player FPS games (Call of Duty?). He won't be able to enjoy that game in the future when the servers are turned off. I'm not sure what the practical difference is from a data-transfer standpoint. I also seem to recall that you (Shawn) gave WoW a try, which is another always-online game. If the objection is that you can't enjoy a solo game like Diablo 3 offline, then I'm with you. If the resentment is based on the extra inconvenience given to a paying customer, I'm with you. But if it's out of a concern for privacy, well.... I'm still with you, but the battle is already lost. I'm definitely not saying that's a good thing.

Bill's argument that you're not affecting anyone but yourself is kind of true. But I think resistance to, rather than hailing, our Orwellian overlords is a good thing in the long term. I'd like to think so, anyway.

Shawn Delahunty wrote:

At the very most basic level, we are physical beings. Get far enough from the physical and tangible, and I believe (no matter what generational differences exist) the satisfaction and joy ebbs. No e-book reader will ever be as 'satisfying' to me as holding a real book. Admiring shelves of carefully collected and maintained books/games/computers/spoons/coffee-mugs/whatevers, has much more meaning than saying, "Look! I have to scroll through 14 screens of games on Steam!"

I'm different from you (to a certain degree) in this regard. Like most of you, I have a fair selection of books in my house. But they're just sitting there, taking up space. If I want to reference one of them, I need to find it on the bookshelf, pull it out, flip through the pages, peruse the index, and so forth to find the information I want. With a digital book, I push a few buttons, and wham, I have what I needed. Getting rid of physical books means less clutter and more convenience. I could replace my bookshelf with a personal cold fusion reactor (in the future)! Yes, there are exceptions; I have some books with sentimental value, but certainly not ALL of them! Click click... digital! It's cool, it's convenient, it's Star Trek!

As for games, it's the gaming experience itself that matters most to me. I'm not likely to keep replaying old games I've completed over and over, so when I'm "done" with a game, I'd just as soon get rid of it. With "digital" games, I don't really have to. But, I can't give away a "digital" game like I could a boxed game. That's the rub.

I know this goes against the philosophies of many AA'ers, and if it weren't for collectors, much of our history would be lost. Collectors are great, but I am not really one of them. I can't think of any games I purchased with really cool boxes or trinkets that were worth saving (to me), it was ancillary to the game itself. At least at the time I didn't, but seeing what these games might be worth nowadays, I regret I didn't keep (or take care of) the games or trinkets I did buy. But even that's mostly because I can't give these "valuables" away to someone who really wants it. The memories of enjoying the game(s) are the principle value to me.

Shawn Delahunty
Shawn Delahunty's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2011
I'm hearing you, really.
Bill Loguidice wrote:

It all depends upon what your vision of the future is. My vision is connectivity everywhere at all times. I think that's where we're headed. It will be the odd-ball exception, not the rule, for something to not be connected in some way. We're super close to the technology to make it where everything with some type of inherent electrical power will be talking to something, even if its over Bluetooth. As a hoarder of physical goods, I have mixed feelings about everything being all digital and not really owning something locally, just in the "cloud." At the same time, it saves vast amounts of physical space and in theory makes it very easily accessible on other and future devices. Sure, having that physical media is nice, but it doesn't mean you'll always have something to play it on. If it's digitally accessible bits tied to some type of verification account, in theory it's playable indefinitely.

I think your point about 'vision of the future' is spot-on Bill. In the back and forth we've had on the D3/DRM issue, please understand that I'm not being deliberately obtuse. As a techno-luster of the highest order, I love availability and connectivity and so on. It's convenient as HECK, and the near-instant availability of knowledge and research and experimentation, on any topic imaginable, has been an immeasurable boon to me personally and professionally.

However, at a fundamental level, I have 2 major objections which stop me from jumping on what I see as "the bandwagon":

  1. I consider personal freedoms more important than the instant gratification. I think the "right to be unplugged", is just as important as (and arguably a component of) free speech/free choice/free action. And I can foresee Orwellian futures where that gets taken away. That's why I'm extremely hesitant and resistant to these efforts. I prefer the chaos of the hegemony; conflict and alternatives please, as much as we can handle.
  2. At the very most basic level, we are physical beings. Get far enough from the physical and tangible, and I believe (no matter what generational differences exist) the satisfaction and joy ebbs. No e-book reader will ever be as 'satisfying' to me as holding a real book. Admiring shelves of carefully collected and maintained books/games/computers/spoons/coffee-mugs/whatevers, has much more meaning than saying, "Look! I have to scroll through 14 screens of games on Steam!"

Other folks have commented that I'm becoming a dinosaur because of my views on this topic, and will ultimately be relegated to the museum. I'm actually OK with that--I find museums fascinating, not because they're dusty and dry and "forgotten", but because of the wealth of information they present, and how that springboards into new ways of thinking and investigating and exploring.

n/a
Bill Loguidice
Bill Loguidice's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
I embrace technological evolution....
Shawn Delahunty wrote:

And, like Don Quixote, I'm sticking to my guns on the DRM/connection issue. It goes deeper really, to what I regard as the utter B.S. concept of 'licensing' the software/service versus 'buying' a product. This distinction, which I have always maintained, gets incredibly hard to argue about without a physical media option--the license/service status is confirmed and ensured with a live-connection-only arrangement. This is precisely why I NEVER got a Steam account--no, I'm not joking. Valve has provided a fantastic level of service, and been very decent and responsive to everyone I've talked to who has an account. I'm glad for them, but I still refuse to compromise.

Maybe I am starting a new trend here, a new category of post-neo-modern-quasi-pre-culture.... or something. Call me, "Digital Amish." (Maybe I should get that on a t-shirt...)

It all depends upon what your vision of the future is. My vision is connectivity everywhere at all times. I think that's where we're headed. It will be the odd-ball exception, not the rule, for something to not be connected in some way. We're super close to the technology to make it where everything with some type of inherent electrical power will be talking to something, even if its over Bluetooth. As a hoarder of physical goods, I have mixed feelings about everything being all digital and not really owning something locally, just in the "cloud." At the same time, it saves vast amounts of physical space and in theory makes it very easily accessible on other and future devices. Sure, having that physical media is nice, but it doesn't mean you'll always have something to play it on. If it's digitally accessible bits tied to some type of verification account, in theory it's playable indefinitely.

n/a
Bill Loguidice
Bill Loguidice's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
How can you say it's not too late?
Matt Barton wrote:

I admire folks like Shane and Shawn here who refuse to buy the game on principle. I agree, if enough people did that, Blizzard would have no choice but to change. That might sound impossible, but it's happened in other industries if enough furor arises over a practice. I seriously doubt a lot of companies would have moved to more sustainable/eco-friendly practices if they hadn't faced real trouble from angry consumers. Try buying a real mink coat nowadays. Complaining does help, especially if you do it in public where people will see it. I'm pretty sure Blizzard (or at least their stockholders) do get concerned and keep an eye on this stuff; obviously, a boycott or organized resistance would have negative consequences for them.

I'm not arguing that, though. What I'm arguing with is that it's already too late with Diablo III. If the game struggled to break a million copies sold in its first month, that would have been something Blizzard would have taken note of, but it didn't. Instead, it sold well over 6 MILLION copies in just over a week! It's long past the point where Blizzard cares about any outliers, who can take solace in a stance that has only meaning to them. So no, complaining about it IN THIS SITUATION makes zero difference. Blizzard already won.

Again, 99% of other companies wouldn't be able to pull the nonsense that Blizzard pulled off here. For those companies if they try anything close to this nonsense, they'd fail big-time. The most broken thing about what Blizzard did with Diablo III, though, is that even to play single player, you need a persistent connection. That's wrong on any level. I could see a simple authentication, then leave the person alone for the remainder of the session, but it doesn't work like that. That should have caused a mass outrage, and it did, but we all still couldn't buy it fast enough so we weren't left out.

n/a

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.