Amazon Declares Diablo III Its Most Preordered PC Game Ever

[OldNewNewOld]

I would love to play the game, but I already promised my self that I won't buy it and I have to keep my word.

The game looks great, Diablo 2 was great, but I won't support an always online DRM for single player games. As someone who plays on a laptop and the router is in another room, I get disconneted form the net from time to time. It's usually just for a few seconds, rarely a minute, but that's enough to fuck me up. No, thanks.

Also, I'm not really for the real money auction house, but I don't mind it. I never was really into PvP, so it won't affect me and if I was lucky (which I usually am NOT), I could even earn.

Captcha: murphy's law
Yup, if it can go wrong, it will go wrong.

 

[VladG]

Honestly I never had a problem with the DRM. It is the pay-to-win-house because of the obvious and because it will now set a precedent for other publishers to try and pull this shit in there games.
Also the removal of stats, limit of 7 skills, being unable to pick which skill to unlock when you level up, and having infinite skill respecs piss me off even more than the pay-to-win-house because it promotes the dumbing down of RPGs and honestly takes away what made the Diablo series great.

snip

?????? I fail to see a point here. You were never locked to a pittance of skills in Diablo 2. If you used that few it was your choice not the game forcing that choice down your throat.

The gear stat choice didn't really exist in Diablo 2 since not that many items added stat (str, dex, vit) modifiers, not as many as is expected to see in Diablo 3 anyway.

And the way the skills are designed (mostly by scaling only with weapon damage, no skill levels, no synergies) makes all skills equally viable at max level play (though of course not all skill combinations will be as good). But since all skills are useful, you can expect MANY more possible combinations than what Diablo 2 had to offer.

And just because it was technically possible (and I admit, I didn't phrase my argument properly here) to clear hell with, let's say never using any skills, or just using weird ones, didn't make it a viable play style. I don't want to spend 10 minutes hacking away at a single zombie because I really like how firebolt AND blizzard look like.

The thing about Diablo 2's builds was that the difference between an "optimal" build, like Blizzard/port sorc, or fireball/port sorc and some random assortment of skills on every tree was insane, as an sub-optimal build would be extremely weak compared to the optimal one.

And you can't contradict that any decent build in Diablo 2 locked you to using 2-3 spells only because of the faulty synergy system (not that it was much better before 1.10)

What I expect to see in Diablo 3 is a wider variety of different, but equally viable builds, like a very offensive based char that clears stuff faster, but dies more often being able to clear an act about as fast as a more defensive char that takes longer to kill stuff, but doesn't die as much.

It should also allow for more diversity within a group. Among my friends for example many want to play Barbarian, meaning I will most likely play with several Barbarians in a party, an while in Diablo 2 they would have all pretty much been identical, now I expect everyone to have their own favourite skills and builds that will have different strengths and weaknesses, but will hopefully complement each other.

The systems are indeed somewhat simplified, but by no means dumbed down. Diablo 3 encourages diversity, while Diablo 2 punished it by having very precise cookie-cutter builds, and anything outside those being extremely weak.

Also I don't see how being able to freely respec between games is a bad thing. If I didn't like my build in Diablo 2 I had to start a whole new character to be able to change anything.

Remember, in D3 sticking to the same spec actually offers a bonus, so you are discouraged from changing specs on the go, but you do have the possibility of doing so if you need to.

 

[VladG]

Well, 3 reasons.
1st: Starcraft is a multiplayer game.
2nd: Startcraft has online activation DRM, not always on DRM, big difference.
3rd: I never said I really thought it would happen, I was just hoping.

1) Starcraft 2 is a multiplayer game in the exact same way that diablo 3 is.
2) It is basically the same thing, you could not play the game if you didnt have internet.

You can play SC2 if you don't have an internet connection, but on a "guest" account that doesn't track achievements, has a different mission progression, etc, but you can play it.

Diablo 3 can ONLY be played with an active internet connection. Personally I feel a guest mode would have been welcome, but I very likely would never use it. Even if my internet was down.

 

[Zefar]

I was hoping that people would take a stand against their always on DRM bullshit, but I should have known better. Hopefully it'll be good, personally I won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

I think the majority of the people now prefer the online part of Diablo series. Playing with others is often more fun so when always online is in it doesn't matter for them. It certainly doesn't matter for me.

 

[VladG]

I was hoping that people would take a stand against their always on DRM bullshit, but I should have known better. Hopefully it'll be good, personally I won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

I think the majority of the people now prefer the online part of Diablo series. Playing with others is often more fun so when always online is in it doesn't matter for them. It certainly doesn't matter for me.

Yep, that's kinda the whole thing, really. The negative aspect of always-on internet connection is balanced by all the services it does bring. I actually like being able to chat with my buddy who's doing a raid and find out when he's going to drop in my game, since I no longer raid without having to log in my own WoW account. I enjoy being able to just jump in a friend's game.

And since Blizzard has shown for years that it is capable of offering very stable playing conditions I'm not afraid of being locked out of my game Ubisoft-style.

Also I don't fear that in 2-3 years there will be no more servers. Diablo 1 is still going strong after soo many years. It's extremely likely that by the time there will be no more servers, I will have 0 desire to ever play the game again.

 

[GeorgW]

I was hoping that people would take a stand against their always on DRM bullshit, but I should have known better. Hopefully it'll be good, personally I won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

I think the majority of the people now prefer the online part of Diablo series. Playing with others is often more fun so when always online is in it doesn't matter for them. It certainly doesn't matter for me.

Maybe not to you, but the problem for me isn't that I prefer single player, which I do, it's that multiplayer is forced upon me. If I had the option to play offline or online, that'd be fine, the problem is that I don't have the choice.

 

[GeorgW]

Well, 3 reasons.
1st: Starcraft is a multiplayer game.
2nd: Startcraft has online activation DRM, not always on DRM, big difference.
3rd: I never said I really thought it would happen, I was just hoping.

1) Starcraft 2 is a multiplayer game in the exact same way that diablo 3 is.
2) It is basically the same thing, you could not play the game if you didnt have internet.

First off, what this guy said:

Well, 3 reasons.
1st: Starcraft is a multiplayer game.
2nd: Startcraft has online activation DRM, not always on DRM, big difference.
3rd: I never said I really thought it would happen, I was just hoping.

1) Starcraft 2 is a multiplayer game in the exact same way that diablo 3 is.
2) It is basically the same thing, you could not play the game if you didnt have internet.

You can play SC2 if you don't have an internet connection, but on a "guest" account that doesn't track achievements, has a different mission progression, etc, but you can play it.

Diablo 3 can ONLY be played with an active internet connection. Personally I feel a guest mode would have been welcome, but I very likely would never use it. Even if my internet was down.

And to add to that:
1: SC is a game based around PvP, sure you can have a computer opponent, but it's just not the same. Diablo is about PvE (it won't even have PvP at lauch, but that's an entirely different issue), sure you can play with other people but it's always against a common, computer controlled, enemy. So no, they're entirely different games with entirely different multiplayer components, one more important than the other. You can play it in any way you want, and for some people SC2 is a single player game and Diablo is all about multiplayer, but for the vast majority SC is a multiplayer game with a singleplayer campain, and Diablo is a singleplayer game with optional co-op.
2: There's a massive difference between an internet connection and a stable internet connection. If I lose my service for just a few seconds the game will just boot me out, if I'm just about to make the finishing blow on a big boss and I lose my connection I've just wasted all time I spent getting there.

 

[VladG]

After playing the beta I just lost all interest. It wasn't even the bugs and lag that got to me, because I am aware that those are always issues that are going to come up in a beta. It is the game itself. I did not feel fear.

Playing Diablo I and II, I would travel into the deepest dungeons and caves, slowly making my way through the almost pitch black darkness, when suddenly out of nowhere I would be swamped by a horde of skeletons and imps trying to tear the flesh from my bones. I would fight for survival, barely making my way through and crawling to safety with the help of my last town portal scroll. In D3, I could waltz into a basement or a cave and immediately see where all the enemies were and the art style did nothing to help. They have WoW'd the graphics and I no longer find the monsters scary.

In the previous games, the enemy animations and art gave me chills. I remember the little shamans that move lightning fast, jumping all over the place. The vultures swamping me throughout the desert with their weird heads. Something about the stuttering, staccato movements and attacks were what enthralled me. D3 doesn't have that feel. It's like WoW, just from a top-down isometric-style and without dwarves. That doesn't really appeal to me.

Perhaps it's just me, but the DRM and RMAH are just two things that don't draw me to the game, the real problem is that it no longer feels like Diablo to me.

I don't know what was scary about Diablo 1 and 2, and I played D1 when I was about 7. As for being able to waltz in a room with impunity in D3, remember, the beta contained the first quarter of the first act of the first difficulty. Even the devs said it's basically just one big easy tutorial.

 

[ThaBenMan]

I was on the fence about getting it - my sister and her husband are gonna be playing it, along with a bunch of our MMO friends, and I'd hate to miss out. But on the other hand, the game doesn't look super-appealing to me, not enough to drop $50 without any thought.

But, problem solved - My sister and hubby bought me a copy in return for helping them out with stuff recently! Yay!

 

[VladG]

You can play SC2 if you don't have an internet connection, but on a "guest" account that doesn't track achievements, has a different mission progression, etc, but you can play it.

Diablo 3 can ONLY be played with an active internet connection. Personally I feel a guest mode would have been welcome, but I very likely would never use it. Even if my internet was down.

As far as I know that offline feature hasnt worked properly since people were exploiting it to play sc2 without buying it. I havnt played in probably eight months but you also needed internet to even get past the launcher. If it couldnt check and see if the game was up to date it wouldnt let you get past that part.

Don't know, I've only ever used it once to see what it's like. But as long as your game is up to date you can play it offline. I'm certain it forces a check once in a while, but not every time if you don't have a connection.

 

[Denamic]

Honestly I never had a problem with the DRM. It is the pay-to-win-house because of the obvious and because it will now set a precedent for other publishers to try and pull this shit in there games.
Also the removal of stats, limit of 7 skills, being unable to pick which skill to unlock when you level up, and having infinite skill respecs piss me off even more than the pay-to-win-house because it promotes the dumbing down of RPGs and honestly takes away what made the Diablo series great.

It's not pay to win.
There's an in-game gold AH too, which most people will be using.
Everything that's sold in there drops in the game.
If anything, D2 was pay to win, because there was no AH and people sold SoJs on e-bay.
An AH just levels the playing field.

And while you don't pick skills as you level up, you pick which skills you'll be using.
Just because you get spells one after the other, it doesn't make the spells you already had any less viable.
Every skill has its own unique use that compliments other skills in different ways.
Every single skill even changes, sometimes drastically, according to which rune you use.
Like a ray of frost turning from a channeled beam into a caster-centered AoE blizzard.
Unlike D2, there's a tremendous sense of flexibility, without making a single build the one 'good' build.
Even within the level 13 cap in the beta, you already had amazing flexibility.
By that level in D2 you had A skill. Maybe two skills. Any more, and you were retarded.

Also, stats aren't removed.
Just changed.
+1 strength = +1% melee damage.
+1 int = +1% spell damage, and so on.

 

[babinro]

....and Blizzard is rewarded for their always online DRM and real money auction house. How many companies will follow suit?

Hopefully a lot, the RMAH may be the best thing that has ever happened to gamers!
Whether I make $0.00 or $20.00 a year for casually playing a video game, it's all win.

On topic, I'm extremely surprised to see this. I knew Diablo 3 was big, but I just assumed that over %50 of it's player base already got the game for free through WoW. Didn't expect Amazon to do so well off of pre-orders.

Why is the RMAH the best thing that ever happened to gamers? Do you intend to turn playing games from a hobby into a business?

Not at all. The market stability and number of sellers will vastly outweigh the buyers. I think people are fooling themselves if they expect any sort of stable income from farming.

I see this as a way of potentially getting a return on our initial purchase. Almost like returning your game to EB Games and getting back the ridiculous $7.00 back for used games. We didn't have the same luxury in the digital market or for PC games until now.

I can play the game for fun as a normally would have. If I ever happen upon something worth $10.00+ than I have the option to sell it. When I'm done with a character I could put the character up for auction on the RMAH and hopefully get $20.00 rather than just have it sit unused on my storage space.

 

[irishda]

D3 does not have that many optimal builds. It will be like the previous Diablos where only 2 or 3 were the best builds. However unlike the previous to make your characters great you can not beef them out with stats but instead with equipment. (I bet intentionally to force people to use the auction house)

Oh, come on now. Someone hasn't checked out the skill calculator. In fact, based on the calculator, I'd say there are 3-4 main builds per character based on primary skills, but there's a huge number of permutations based on these builds because of secondary abilities and the rune stones that enhance skills.

Take the barbarian for instance. You can either go the brute route with Bash (massive damage to one enemy), the enemy sweeper with Cleave (damage multiple enemies), or the beserker route with Frenzy (deal damage quickly). Now there's the options of complementing the primary with your five other skills. If you go Frenzy, do you increase your DPS on bosses with Rend or go with some nice burst damage with Hammer of the Ancients to one shot mobs? Do you go with Feel No Pain to make him into a tank, or give yourself escape options with Leap or Sprint? But there's plenty of other options beyond just those with the runes. Sticking with Frenzy, which rune should I pick? Do I add a stun or a heal-on-kill to increase my survivability? Or maybe I should increase my damage by a small amount to increase DPS further, or increase my movement speed to make a hit-and-run style character. And then there's the passives. Do you mix it up a little and give your DPS character an increased defense with your skills, or do you keep the glass cannon route and give him a stat boost when under 20% health? Do you give him a lifesteal to complement the high damage?

Honestly, there's no doubt some of these skills probably won't work well with others during the course of gameplay, and if some of them won't work at all, you know what? Blizzard has shown time and time again that they're not afraid of changing things in their games, even radically, to make things more balanced. But this new system is without question more complex than D2, even if it doesn't seem like it because of the reduction in choices of skills. But the addition of tweaking these skills to suit your play style tells me there might be two characters with the same talents, but most likely not with the EXACT same talents.

That is not a penalty. It helps people new to RPGs learn. And honestly Diablo 2 did it right. Give everyone 1 free respec to use whenever they want after completing the first mission so if someone screws up they can fix it. Any more respecs than 1 free per game is bad however which is another way Diablo 3 is dumbing down the RPG genre.

God, I hate that phrase "dumbing down". You only ever hear it from the RPG crowd, as if RPGers were the smartest gamers in all the land and all those damned FPSers were living under power lines and chewing drywall. There's nothing more intelligent about keeping people from experimenting with character builds. It's just asinine, and more than a little cruel to people who were curious about how another style would play out, but didn't have 50+ hours to invest in releveling a new character.

 

[Axyun]

I don't understand why people take so much issue with allowing for "free respecs". Making long-term decisions that affect your ability to enjoy the game without the necessary information or foresight to intelligently make them is a horrible game mechanic. Even Guild Wars 2 is moving into free respecs and that's one game I don't consider dumb or dumbed down by any stretch of the imagination.

Just because you can respec whenever you want without penalty does not mean you will have the stats/eq to properly support that build. The fact that gear is now the only provider of attribute customization means that for every significantly different skill sets you pick, you will need to have gear to support it. So, while you CAN respec whenver you want, it doesn't necessarily mean you will perform optimally with your new build.

I also love the pay-to-win argument. Just don't use the auction house. No one can make the items sold, they have to be found by someone before being sold. What does it matter if the person who found it wears it vs. selling it off to someone else. D2 was loaded with real-money trading in unofficial websites. All Blizzard is doing it is formalizing it for people who were going to buy equipment with real money anways. It's just that they now don't risk being scammed.

If you don't want to play with a pool of players that use the RMAH, roll a hardcore character. Hardcore characters cannot use the RMAH.

 

[BENZOOKA]

The game should be in my mailbox on monday. Pre-ordered it tax-free (41 ?) at the very first day it was possible; knowing that I would do it anyways.

Honestly, I can't wait.

 

[VladG]

3) They decided to add a new game mode above "Hell" difficulty which, by their own statements, would be almost unplayable unless you play the game with other people, utterly destroying the core single player nature of the game.

Eehm..what? Where exactly did you read about such a statement? Blizzard clearly stated that inferno is perfectly doable in solo play.

https://twitter.com/#!/Bashiok/statuses/194922245523648513


See, this is what I hate about people ragging on Diablo 3. They so desperately want to "fight the power", oppose the big bad corporation that they don't even bother getting their facts right, they just jump in on ANY hate boat they can find.

Blizzard also stated that Diablo 3 would feature offline single player. And that the game would be released with expanded PvP features.

Whoops.

Guess their word is pretty much completely meaningless to someone who has already been burned by their previous lies, eh? You're basically saying "I know that Blizzard was lying about those other things, but we should totally trust them at their word when they say that Inferno Mode will be playable solo!". It's a ridiculous stance to take.

Let's look at what "Inferno" mode is pitched as. They stated that the mode was added with the intention of giving people a challenge to run with friends. That sounds an awful lot like a campaign difficulty designed for multiplayer rather than for solo play.

Furthermore, monsters in "Inferno" mode start out at the player's maximum level, and go up from there. Given that the game is designed to be difficult when facing at-level monsters due to the variety of foes, this would seem to make the end portions of "Inferno" extremely difficult, if not impossible, to beat alone.

This is what I hate about people who rag on people who rag on Diablo 3. They try to defend the absolutely indefensible and especially heinous policy decisions on this game, either because in their mind Blizzard can do no wrong and can't make mistakes, or they are just blinded by their own obsession over the game to the point where they can't acknowledge any of its flaws.

(c wut i did thar)

You might want to check the date tags on your information. It was announced years ago that there will be no offline play, I don't even know when they said there will be offline play. Is it news to you that things change in development? It's not even like they said there's going to be offline play, and 2 days before launch they went "nope, no more offline play, fooled 'ya". You can just as well take the early gameplay teaser vids as lies as well, since there are some visible differences in animations and UI. Shame on them!

As for the PvP, it's been delayed because so many people wanted the game to come out sooner, people who realize Diablo is NOT centered around PvP, it's just a side-feature.

As for the difficulty setting, you might like to learn that it scales with the number of players. The only possible decrease in challenge comes from having a wider array of skills to use between 4 people.

And if Blizzard said it would be impossible to solo on Inferno I wouldn't have believed them, since their games are never as hard as they claim. But they are saying it is 100% doable, so it's not??