Always-online Mythbuster

[allinwonder]

Myth 1. "You know it's a always online game. You have no right to blame Blizzard"

There are at least two things wrong with this statement. First, people are blaming because they CANNOT connect to the server, or are constantly kicked out of servers along with their character data. When people heard about always online, they complained. Blizzard assured them that the user experience will not be affected by always online requirement. They lied. Second, not all Diablo fans follow gaming news. Older gamers with families and jobs usually don't have time reading pre-release PR stuff. They used to be Diablo fans. They find out D3 is released, and they bought it. They expect the new game works in the same way as its predecessor (i.e. not an MMO).

Myth 2. "It has to be always online because of the real money auction house."

Wrong. In Diablo 2, you have Battle.net accounts and characters, and you have offline singleplayer/lan/private online game characters. You cannot mix them together, and Battle.net characters are not stored locally, so you cannot hack it. Blizzard basically takes the latter part away. And apologists like to say "When there is no in-game real money auction house, people trade items with real money outside of the game anyway.". They basically contradict themselves: if offline mode affects battle.net gameplay, then why there is "real money item trade outside of the game"?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A controversial title. Attack post. Poisoning the well. Assault on illusory antagonist. This thread has it all!

I'm sorry Diablo 3 is not the product for you. You seem well informed as to why it's not the product for you, so I recommend not buying it. If you already bought it, well, caveat emptor, and all that.

 

[allinwonder]

A controversial title. Attack post.

OK I soften it up.

Poisoning the well.

???

Assault on illusory antagonist.

Those are what some people really said. What's so "illusory" about that?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A controversial title. Attack post.

OK I soften it up.

Fair enough, although you're still just elucidating a phantom position and then attacking it.

Poisoning the well.

???

Poisoning the well is loading the argument so that anyone who disagrees with you is pre-emptively attacked. The term "Blizzard apologists" would be an example of poisoning the well.

Assault on illusory antagonist.

Those are what some people really said. What's so "illusory" about that?

I'm sure some people, at some time, did say something like that. You need to address those people at that time though, and quote them directly. Otherwise you're just paraphrasing their position, and creating an illusory antagonist that you can project your arguments onto. You're not arguing with individuals. You're just tilting at windmills. At best you're baiting a thread hoping someone with that perspective will come in so you can yell at them.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

Out of curiosity, what would you call someone who stands up to defend an unprovoked attack on consumer rights? Industry apologist is the standard term at this point.

The OP is right, for the most part. I would say that the response to #1 is in part a strawman, but only because I'm one of the ones who used #1, and I used it to say that I'm annoyed at people who bought it knowing it was always online, because it means we'll have more of this crap in the future. Voting with you wallet works both ways, after all, and whether or not Blizzard lied about how it would affect the singleplayer experience is immaterial. Although I will say that there's already a history of always online singleplayer, and the problems I'm hearing about are nothing new. Has everyone forgotten Assassin's Creed II already?

 

[zombieshark6666]

It's an unnecessary restriction that gives me nothing. There's no reason to accept it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

and this is why I like you Guppy

Heh...you HATED me during the ME3 fiasco.

snip

Out of curiosity, what would you call someone who stands up to defend an unprovoked attack on consumer rights? Industry apologist is the standard term at this point.

The OP is right, for the most part. I would say that the response to #1 is in part a strawman, but only because I'm one of the ones who used #1, and I used it to say that I'm annoyed at people who bought it knowing it was always online, because it means we'll have more of this crap in the future. Voting with you wallet works both ways, after all, and whether or not Blizzard lied about how it would affect the singleplayer experience is immaterial. Although I will say that there's already a history of always online singleplayer, and the problems I'm hearing about are nothing new. Has everyone forgotten Assassin's Creed II already?

Regardless, if one starts out their thread blanket attacking an unseen group of people as "apologists", they are assuming an unnecessarily argumentative and poisonous position. We need to tone down the hyperbole, too. This isn't an 'attack on consumer rights'. It would be an attack if they changed their TOS after you'd already bought the game under the pretense it was offline. All they're doing is offering you a product that you're not interested in. Under no parameters should that be considered "an attack".

Yes, it does appear companies are forcing increasingly aggressive DRM on us in the form of online checks. Yes, I understand why people are upset about it. No, I'm not personally upset about it, because I have a stable internet connection and have had for many years. I'm perpetually online anyway, use Steam and have played MMOs since their inception, so this is ultimately shrug-inducing news for me, but I can appreciate why people are irked.

But Blizzard didn't jerk the rug out from under anyone's feet, here. We've known for QUITE some time that the game was going to be online. The box says internet connection required. If that's onerous, I get it, I do. I UNDERSTAND. But you can just...not buy it. And people can defend their right to do what they do without being 'industry apologists'. The ultimate test for any product is the market. If Diablo 3 tanks, then Blizzard will have learned a valuable and expensive lesson. However, I'm willing to bet a great majority of people really don't give a fig about always online, and will buy it anyway. That's APATHY, perhaps. But that's life. You're probably apathetic as hell about a great many things I care about. What's to be done about it?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Question for clarification.

What consumer right is being attacked?

I hear it said alot, but what right is it precisely that they are attacking?

I am pretty sure "being offline" is not a consumer right.

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

Well, you're buying a service. It's no different than buying WoW. You don't really "own" WoW the way you owned, say, Bard's Tale, back in the day. It's still not an attack on your rights in any capacity. We can talk about the shift in paradigm from games as a product to games as a service and the potential pitfalls that come along with that, but I don't really see how it's anti-consumer. When I go to a nightclub and pay a cover fee, I don't expect that I've bought the nightclub.

I can see why some people feel that they'd prefer games were something they OWNED and not something they RENTED or paid a service fee to access. That's understandable. But no one is obligated to provide you with a product that you want to buy. If there's sufficient demand out there for DRM free games, companies will rush to fill it. CD Projekt is already on the case, and they've put out a couple of excellent games and run the commendable GOG.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Question for clarification.

What consumer right is being attacked?

I hear it said alot, but what right is it precisely that they are attacking?

I am pretty sure "being offline" is not a consumer right.

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

The right to own what you pay for....

so renting breaks your consumer rights?

It does if you walk into a store, the clerk sells you the item, and when you open it a piece of paper falls out that says you were actually renting it. You can't add something to a contract of sale after it's been completed, especially not unilaterally the way EULAs do.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Question for clarification.

What consumer right is being attacked?

I hear it said alot, but what right is it precisely that they are attacking?

I am pretty sure "being offline" is not a consumer right.

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

The right to own what you pay for....

so renting breaks your consumer rights?

It does if you walk into a store, the clerk sells you the item, and when you open it a piece of paper falls out that says you were actually renting it. You can't add something to a contract of sale after it's been completed, especially not unilaterally the way EULAs do.

But I said renting because that is a service you pay for, but dont get to own.

You very words were "The right to own what you pay for" so that is what I said.

Unless there isn't a "The right to own what you pay for" in consumer rights, then renting goes against your consumer rights. As a matter a fact Services in general goes against your consumer rights if this is an actual right.

Now you're just splitting hairs. Alright, I'll go there: "the right to own what you pay for when said payment is termed a purchase, and the right to not have additional terms tacked on after the contract of sale has been completed." That legalistic enough for you?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Question for clarification.

What consumer right is being attacked?

I hear it said alot, but what right is it precisely that they are attacking?

I am pretty sure "being offline" is not a consumer right.

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

The right to own what you pay for....

so renting breaks your consumer rights?

It does if you walk into a store, the clerk sells you the item, and when you open it a piece of paper falls out that says you were actually renting it. You can't add something to a contract of sale after it's been completed, especially not unilaterally the way EULAs do.

But I said renting because that is a service you pay for, but dont get to own.

You very words were "The right to own what you pay for" so that is what I said.

Unless there isn't a "The right to own what you pay for" in consumer rights, then renting goes against your consumer rights. As a matter a fact Services in general goes against your consumer rights if this is an actual right.

Now you're just splitting hairs. Alright, I'll go there: "the right to own what you pay for when said payment is termed a purchase, and the right to not have additional terms tacked on after the contract of sale has been completed." That legalistic enough for you?

So what additional terms were added post purchase?

As far as I know it said right there on the box what the requirements were.

Was the entire text of the EULA there? or was there just a piece of fine print that said "online connection required?" Because if that entire EULA wasn't there, I can guarantee you there were additional terms that the buyer would not have been aware of prior to purchase.

 

[Bostur]

I'm sure some people, at some time, did say something like that. You need to address those people at that time though, and quote them directly. Otherwise you're just paraphrasing their position, and creating an illusory antagonist that you can project your arguments onto. You're not arguing with individuals. You're just tilting at windmills. At best you're baiting a thread hoping someone with that perspective will come in so you can yell at them.

If hundreds of people use the same argument at the same moment, it's impractical to adress them all individually. That can make it necessary to use a generalized counter-argument.

Blizzard used several flawed arguments in defense of their online system in D3, and other people have now started copying those arguments. The two counter arguments by allinwonder is a good way to adress this. It's hard to argue directly with a company like Blizzard, because in general they won't comment.

Well, you're buying a service. It's no different than buying WoW. You don't really "own" WoW the way you owned, say, Bard's Tale, back in the day. It's still not an attack on your rights in any capacity. We can talk about the shift in paradigm from games as a product to games as a service and the potential pitfalls that come along with that, but I don't really see how it's anti-consumer. When I go to a nightclub and pay a cover fee, I don't expect that I've bought the nightclub.

If I go to a store and buy a box, I usually own the contents of that box. In the case of contract terms it's usually expected that both parties get to read the contract before making an agreement.

I can see why some people feel that they'd prefer games were something they OWNED and not something they RENTED or paid a service fee to access. That's understandable. But no one is obligated to provide you with a product that you want to buy. If there's sufficient demand out there for DRM free games, companies will rush to fill it. CD Projekt is already on the case, and they've put out a couple of excellent games and run the commendable GOG.

True but if the market moves in a direction that many consumers dislike, I think it makes sense to communicate that feeling. Otherwise how would companies notice that there is sufficent demand for other types of product.

 

[DoPo]

I'm sure some people, at some time, did say something like that. You need to address those people at that time though, and quote them directly. Otherwise you're just paraphrasing their position, and creating an illusory antagonist that you can project your arguments onto. You're not arguing with individuals. You're just tilting at windmills. At best you're baiting a thread hoping someone with that perspective will come in so you can yell at them.

If hundreds of people use the same argument at the same moment, it's impractical to adress them all individually. That can make it necessary to use a generalized counter-argument.

However, we're getting where we were about a month or so ago - making a new thread just because "our opinion is special". Generalising the "overall" arguments can always be viewed as a flawed tactic, it's not too far from a strawman, after all.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

Question for clarification.

What consumer right is being attacked?

I hear it said alot, but what right is it precisely that they are attacking?

I am pretty sure "being offline" is not a consumer right.

This really isn't an issue of consumer rights, at least, not any more than Steam and other forms of DRM have been for years now. The issue is that people are unable to use the game that they paid money for in the way they want to, expect to, and have been able to in the past.

Blizzard has removed what is to many essential functionality that has been in not only past Diablo games, but most games that have been released in the past, period, namely, the ability to play without an internet connection. This means that many people are unable to enjoy the game the way that they want to or expect to, ie playing when the internet is down, in a place without an internet connection, or when Blizzard's servers are undergoing maintenance. And remember, just because this isn't an issue for you, doesn't mean that it isn't a serious issue for others.

There's also the problem that could affect everyone trying to play the game right now (or at least right when it launched) that people are unable to log into servers due to high amounts of traffic. This wouldn't be as much as an issue without the DRM, as people wanting to play single player wouldn't have to worry about server issues, and people wanting to play multiplayer wouldn't be slowed down by people playing single player.

Now, there are two reasons why people are making a big fuss over this, instead of just not buying the game and playing something else.

First, people don't perceive video games as being easily replaceable in the same way that non-entertainment products are. If a video game doesn't offer me what I expect it to, I can't just buy from another company in the same way that I can for say, a dishwasher, because I can't always expect to get the same experience from another game. Thus, people that are unable to play due to the online requirement are complaining because they want to play Diablo, and they don't necessarily see an alternative to it (whether or not this is actually the case is an entirely different matter).

Second, people (like myself) are worried that the success of Diablo III (and let's be honest, it will be successful) will lead other publishers to putting an always-online requirement in their games. This would lead the people that don't buy always online games (like myself) with less options for games in the future, and that would make me an angry and bitter person.

tldr: Diablo III's DRM is an issue to many people, and they have legitimate reasons to complain about it.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

-snip-

I made it about consumer rights because of how casually the guy I quoted threw it out there without any real understanding of what his rights were.

I was just responding to your question about which consumer rights are being attacked, I'm not implying that you're the one that brought them up. I do believe that there are consumer rights issues in regards to Diablo III's DRM, but these are not the primary reason that the DRM is a bad thing, and are not at all specific to Diablo III.

I still dont see how the DRM is a legitimate complaint. They didn't pull the rug under you like Guppy already pointed out. If it was a case of false advertisement and you expected to be able to play offline, then yeah. But that isn't the case. Their product their choice. It isn't our right to make them change it. It is however our right not to buy it.

This is true. However, it is within our rights as consumers to complain if there is an aspect of a product we don't like, and it is also within our rights to encourage people not to buy something, and make sure that others are aware of any issues with a product.

Plus, the launch day issues weren't known about in advance, so it is only reasonable to complain about them when the game comes out and we actually know about them.

Although I do agree that gamers need to show more restraint in buying games with major issues in them. No game is a must play, and there is no excuse for not knowing about the biggest problems of a game before you buy it.

 

[pure.Wasted]

I'm sure some people, at some time, did say something like that. You need to address those people at that time though, and quote them directly. Otherwise you're just paraphrasing their position, and creating an illusory antagonist that you can project your arguments onto. You're not arguing with individuals. You're just tilting at windmills. At best you're baiting a thread hoping someone with that perspective will come in so you can yell at them.

If hundreds of people use the same argument at the same moment, it's impractical to adress them all individually. That can make it necessary to use a generalized counter-argument.

Blizzard used several flawed arguments in defense of their online system in D3, and other people have now started copying those arguments. The two counter arguments by allinwonder is a good way to adress this. It's hard to argue directly with a company like Blizzard, because in general they won't comment.

Flawed arguments such as... what? This? "Blizzard assured them that the user experience will not be affected by always online requirement."

I'd personally love for someone to supply a quote of Blizzard saying that there would never be any lag. Or there would never be any server instability. I mean, it's going to be pretty tough considering that just last week they said there would be instability... and considering they have common sense and would never say such a thing. But by all means, feel free to track one down.

What other flawed arguments has Blizzard used in defense of D3 that this OP addresses?

"It has to be always online because of the real money auction house."

That? Again, a quote saying something like "the only reason Diablo 3 is always online is to make the RMAH work" would be great. See, me, I don't think they've ever actually said that, so I don't think that the OP does that great a job of addressing their argument.

If I go to a store and buy a box, I usually own the contents of that box. In the case of contract terms it's usually expected that both parties get to read the contract before making an agreement.

Yes, you own the contents of the box you bought or pre-ordered. Those contents aren't "Diablo 3," they're "a disc that allows you to create an account on Diablo 3 provided the servers are up and running."

When I pay $15 every month to play WoW and Blizzard brings the servers down for maintenance, am I supposed to review bomb the game for not allowing me to play when I want to play? Cause they've been doing that on a weekly basis, every Tuesday night, never mind all the unscheduled maintenances that have gone on.

It is much, much easier to be sympathetic to the plight of consumers who don't think the world revolves around them and whatever they're doing.

True but if the market moves in a direction that many consumers dislike, I think it makes sense to communicate that feeling. Otherwise how would companies notice that there is sufficent demand for other types of product.

Don't be an arse. Is that too much to ask for? A lot of people who might have valid points to contribute are going, and will continue to go, overlooked, just because they're not capable of talking (or in this case typing) without tripping over their twisted panties.

Now, I'm not calling you an arse, but do you see how useless the discussion becomes when we talk about faceless people who apparently exist and apparently say things that aren't entirely dissimilar to what I'm presenting here?

It helps to actually quote things actual people have actually said. Now, you said that it's important to communicate a feeling. Absolutely! And is anybody in this thread telling you to shut up, pack your bags, and get out of here? No, there's nothing wrong with some healthy discussion.

Problems arise when that discussion stops being healthy. The OP uses all sorts of unnecessarily hostile language like "they lied," when in fact no evidence of any such thing has been presented.

The people who work at Blizzard, by the way, are actually very real people. It always fascinates me that even on decent-ish forums, such as this one, attacking people is perfectly fine as long as they're not here to defend themselves. I don't see what the point of using hostile language like that is unless you actually want to get into an analysis of Blizzard's marketing strategy, and precisely what things they've said were knowingly said to manipulate consumers. Nothing wrong with that conversation, either, but we're not having it yet. No quotes, no evidence, just a lot of rage over something that's absolutely happening (internetification of everything) whether we like it or not, addressed at Diablo 3 as if Blizzard is the only company that's a part of this movement, and Diablo 3 is the first time they've ever taken part in it.

 

[Bostur]

If hundreds of people use the same argument at the same moment, it's impractical to adress them all individually. That can make it necessary to use a generalized counter-argument.

Blizzard used several flawed arguments in defense of their online system in D3, and other people have now started copying those arguments. The two counter arguments by allinwonder is a good way to adress this. It's hard to argue directly with a company like Blizzard, because in general they won't comment.

Flawed arguments such as... what? This? "Blizzard assured them that the user experience will not be affected by always online requirement."

I'd personally love for someone to supply a quote of Blizzard saying that there would never be any lag. Or there would never be any server instability. I mean, it's going to be pretty tough considering that just last week they said there would be instability... and considering they have common sense and would never say such a thing. But by all means, feel free to track one down.

What other flawed arguments has Blizzard used in defense of D3 that this OP addresses?

"It has to be always online because of the real money auction house."

That? Again, a quote saying something like "the only reason Diablo 3 is always online is to make the RMAH work" would be great. See, me, I don't think they've ever actually said that, so I don't think that the OP does that great a job of addressing their argument.

Blizzard generally marketed D3 as an online multiplayer game and ignored that some people also see the Diablo franchise as a normal single player game. They actually did say that it wasn't technically possible to create an offline mode for it. The real reason probably was that they didn't want to becuase that would cut into their RMAH profits.
If you take a look at discussions here or on Battle net, a common argument is that offline functionality is technically impossible because D3 is solely a multiplayer game. That argument is flawed because the limit is not technical.
In the hypothetical case that Blizzard were to create an offline mode, one of the challenges would be to ensure that the integrity of items on the RMAH would be preserved. So RMAH is not the only reason they used to defend the online functionality, but it is one of them.

If I go to a store and buy a box, I usually own the contents of that box. In the case of contract terms it's usually expected that both parties get to read the contract before making an agreement.

Yes, you own the contents of the box you bought or pre-ordered. Those contents aren't "Diablo 3," they're "a disc that allows you to create an account on Diablo 3 provided the servers are up and running."

When I pay $15 every month to play WoW and Blizzard brings the servers down for maintenance, am I supposed to review bomb the game for not allowing me to play when I want to play? Cause they've been doing that on a weekly basis, every Tuesday night, never mind all the unscheduled maintenances that have gone on.

In the case of D3 it isn't clear what the consumer pays for. And it would be almost impossible to communicate the details on the outside of the box. When buying a box marketed as a game, I think it's natural to assume that you buy a game. If it is a limited rental agreement this should be made clear, and as a minimum it should be stated how long the agreement lasts.
"Creating a D3 account", isn't worth $60 so it's reasonable for consumers to expect they also get some gameplay for their money.

True but if the market moves in a direction that many consumers dislike, I think it makes sense to communicate that feeling. Otherwise how would companies notice that there is sufficent demand for other types of product.

Don't be an arse. Is that too much to ask for? A lot of people who might have valid points to contribute are going, and will continue to go, overlooked, just because they're not capable of talking (or in this case typing) without tripping over their twisted panties.

Now, I'm not calling you an arse, but do you see how useless the discussion becomes when we talk about faceless people who apparently exist and apparently say things that aren't entirely dissimilar to what I'm presenting here?

It helps to actually quote things actual people have actually said. Now, you said that it's important to communicate a feeling. Absolutely! And is anybody in this thread telling you to shut up, pack your bags, and get out of here? No, there's nothing wrong with some healthy discussion.

Problems arise when that discussion stops being healthy. The OP uses all sorts of unnecessarily hostile language like "they lied," when in fact no evidence of any such thing has been presented.

The people who work at Blizzard, by the way, are actually very real people. It always fascinates me that even on decent-ish forums, such as this one, attacking people is perfectly fine as long as they're not here to defend themselves. I don't see what the point of using hostile language like that is unless you actually want to get into an analysis of Blizzard's marketing strategy, and precisely what things they've said were knowingly said to manipulate consumers. Nothing wrong with that conversation, either, but we're not having it yet. No quotes, no evidence, just a lot of rage over something that's absolutely happening (internetification of everything) whether we like it or not, addressed at Diablo 3 as if Blizzard is the only company that's a part of this movement, and Diablo 3 is the first time they've ever taken part in it.

I don't think the OP is an arse. I think his arguments are quite reasonable. Also I didn't see any reason to pick apart his argumentation the way BloatedGuppy did.

I'm sure the individuals working at Blizzard are all decent folks. This is not about those individuals though, this is about Blizzard as a company and their product. I didn't notice any personal attacks in the original post.

Blizzard is not the only company that is 'internetifying' games. But people criticize specific cases and this specific case is about D3. People also complain when EA, Valve, UBISoft, Microsoft and others create online DRM schemes that give consumers less value for their money.

I agree that it helps to quote people specifically. But to be honest I'm to lazy to go digging up twitter posts several months old. Also I'm not in the habit of saving caches of Blizzard forums which makes it hard to preserve information that is regularly purged. Marketing information is often fickle, maybe because the people who make it don't like to be quoted for what they say.

I'll give you some quotes from a Blizzard representative giving an interview though.
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2011/08/04/blizzard-vp-surprised-over-fan-reaction-to-diablo-3-online-requirements/

"You can play by yourself but your character is going to be saved on our servers. You have to authenticate through our servers to be able to play the game. I think it's not just 'Diablo 3' but with our games as a whole we're tying everything into Battle.net these days...We can provide a much a much more stable, connected, safer experience than we could if we let people play off-line."

Here he says that the gameplay experience would be much more stable than in an offline game. Thats not what people experienced at launch, and not what people would expect if comparing it to an MMO. Its close to be an outright lie because any system dependant on a network connection is bound to be more unstable than an offline equivalent.

"Internally I don't think [DRM] ever actually came up when we talked about how we want connections to operate. Things that came up were always around the feature-set, the sanctity of the actual game systems like your characters. You're guaranteeing that there are no hacks, no dupes. All of these things were points of discussion, but the whole copy protection, piracy thing, that's not really entering into why we want to do it. I'm a huge purveyor of online sites and from my standpoint, I don't look at DRM solutions and go, 'Wow, those are awesome.' I look at those and say, 'Wow, those kind of suck.' But if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."

Preventing dupes directly ties into preserving the online economy and thus the integrity of the RMAH. So the argument "Because of RMAH" was one of the reasons.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Blizzard assured them that the user experience will not be affected by always online requirement. They lied.

I think that might be a bit heavy handed. They failed to deliver sure, but they didn't lie. If the VP was smart he wouldn't have talked in absolutes. Quite careless of him.

I'm sure some people, at some time, did say something like that. You need to address those people at that time though, and quote them directly.

That's kind of moving the goalpost don't you think? No one could start discussions if that were the case.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't think the OP is an arse. I think his arguments are quite reasonable. Also I didn't see any reason to pick apart his argumentation the way BloatedGuppy did.

I didn't "pick apart his arguments". I was actually quite clear that I was sympathetic to his gripes. I had an issue with HOW he stated them. If I titled a thread "Entitled Whining Fanboys Need Common Sense" and then went on to make some reasonable points in amidst my shit flinging, it would not reverse the fact I was flinging shit.

That's kind of moving the goalpost don't you think? No one could start discussions if that were the case.

Hardly. There are a billion times a billion discussions that can be had and started that don't require sensational headlines (the OP changed his, you'll note), loaded aggressive language, and accusatory tones. If he wanted to talk about always online DRM there were numerous existing threads for him to do so. If he wanted to address a particular "Blizzard apologist" there were numerous opportunities for that, too. It's not like I reported his post, or attempted to censor him. I pointed out that he was being needlessly argumentative and picking a fight. It was Pure who called him an arse.