this :3tony2077 said:
cause by the time i got home and installed Tuesday, i was actually able to play.
Blizzard Apologizes for Diablo III Launch Troubles
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
cause by the time i got home and installed Tuesday, i was actually able to play.
That's just it though! By releasing D3 WITHOUT PvP, players have to come up with their own PvP, which itself is PvP. The battlefield is the internet and the weapons of choice are whatever items people can get their hands on. Like a friend who is a mod, or maybe a small group of people who can DDoS servers. It's brilliant! Blizzard has created a meta-pvp system without actually creating any pvp.CriticKitten said:
captcha: slippery slope
What Blizzard seems to be on, yes?
It certainly didn't create it, piracy was around well before online DRM. That being said, online DRM encourages piracy. It pisses people off to have to jump through hoops to play games they legally purchased, and in general DRM only hurts people who actually bought the game. It's all about convenience; is it worth it to go through all the crap to play the legally purchased game, or is it more convenient to just pirate it and miss out on the multiplayer/patches. If you can take a game out of the box, put it in, and play it, people are a lot more likely to trust the company and give them their money then if the company makes the playing experience painful.ManThatYouFear said:
I personally spend part of my summer out in the boonies with no internet connection, and not being able to play some of my single player games because they want me to be online for them pisses me off. I'm sure as hell not going to give someone money for a game I'm not going to get to play.
That was sort of the joke. The game was not rushed. Neither of them were really. DNF took 12 years, was redone a bunch, in different engines, given to other companies, scrapped, remade again, and then finally got picked up, cleaned up and thrown out the door. It wasn't rushed, it was just -bad-.LordLundar said:
Diablo 3 spent 7 years in development, and 4 years in production, which was then redone 3 times, and overhauled a bunch because of fan input.
Really blizzard made the same mistake with Diablo 3 that they did with WoW, They didn't think -so- many people would play it. It took them like 6 years to realize WoW was really really popular. And they did the same with Diablo 3 here. They'll fix it faster this time at least. SO a little patience and everything will work at least. Weather people still like the game will be different.
I love Grey...
but in other news, I wrote a post earlier about how Blizz 'defeated' piracy with this, but how annoyed i was about -how- they did it.
Although, I heard they restricted SP to online because it would keep hackers from making dupes/hacks/bots etc. They basically don't want to reveal their secret-infrastructure for everyone to see, so they put everything server side.
Ugh...WTF mind is blown. Online DRM?? Defeating piracy?? But... *shrug*
edit: food for thought, my old post
QFT...Ympulse said:
Just about EVERY GAME Blizzard has released has had problems...the SAME problems. You think they would have learned by now how to release a game with online servers attached to it by now.
Ive been reading a lot of bitching about this, all i can say is ive now finished normal mode with my barbarian on the US servers, and half way though a co-op hardcore on the european servers with some mates. A few hours i couldnt log in just after release, and a 15 minute down time yesteray, a few disconnects(2 in the one 1 hour period) but aside from that no issues.
But DNF was ultimately rushed. When Gearbox had to remake the assets, they had to essentially work from concept designs.oplinger said:
The game had an overall time of 14 years, but most of that time really didn't count because Gearbox had to essentially start over because 3DRealms couldn't get it out. In actuality, the development time was really only a few months as opposed to the 14 years it was in limbo.
I find it mildly amusing that you're accusing Grey of shitty journalistic practices while basically admitting that you didn't do any research on the subject. All you need to do is google 'Error 37' - which, incidentally, was a trending topic on Twitter on launch night - to get an idea of the scope of people who have been affected.PingoBlack said:Again Escapist turns to sensationalist side.
Yesterday I saw zero reports that there were any problems. That apology was posted after they sorted out most of issues, especially log in ones.
So they seem to have managed to make it "actually work" in 2 days, Johnny. Not to mention you should be experienced enough to know D3 runs server side, so it is not quite single player with DRM. But then again, we knew this before purchase, didn't we? Especially professionals in the field of gaming should know the difference. Press then could explain it to lay people, right?
Guess you are going for hipster rage, one day too late.Or is this caused by Blizzard not giving you early access before masses for your review post?
Of course there are no 'hard statistics' on the launch, but you can't really overlook the huge glut of anecdotal evidence without looking like you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalala'. Not to mention that filling out your post with condescending ad hominem makes you look even more in denial.
I seriously wonder how anyone can still take anything in an escapist-forum serious when D3 is always called a singleplayer game.
I can not remember that i played D1 or D2 in singleplayer more than.. 5min to test a mod or something. If you're playing this multiplayer game as a singleplayer game - then yes, you'll be disappointed.
And now go and play Counterstrike on your empty server.. because being online is evil.
OT:
One of the smoothest starts i've witnessed, considering the huge playerbase D3 has.
People just like to hop on the "Boohoo D3"-Train because there's nothing else to moan about.
I can not remember that i played D1 or D2 in singleplayer more than.. 5min to test a mod or something. If you're playing this multiplayer game as a singleplayer game - then yes, you'll be disappointed.
And now go and play Counterstrike on your empty server.. because being online is evil.
OT:
One of the smoothest starts i've witnessed, considering the huge playerbase D3 has.
People just like to hop on the "Boohoo D3"-Train because there's nothing else to moan about.
I thought consumers tolerated Blizzard taking decades to make games because they have that "Blizzard-polish" their fanboys love to bang on about? There is no polish to be found in Diablo III. It's not just the first-day server problems, there were a lot of issues at hand.
Wanting a game to work after exchanging your hard-earned money is not players having a false sense of entitlement, that is the bare minimum expectation. Entitlement is wanting to change the ending to a video game just because you didn't like it. I can understand people's frustration, even though I play the game just fine right now. It makes me want to know how a launch like this actually works, from the server-side. I don't pretend to be one of those gamers with technical know-how, despite knowing nothing.
The game is working okay for me at the moment, just a few bugs and major lag-spikes, but still, I miss the days when you could buy a game, take it home, and play it. That's more of a reference to console games, though.
Wanting a game to work after exchanging your hard-earned money is not players having a false sense of entitlement, that is the bare minimum expectation. Entitlement is wanting to change the ending to a video game just because you didn't like it. I can understand people's frustration, even though I play the game just fine right now. It makes me want to know how a launch like this actually works, from the server-side. I don't pretend to be one of those gamers with technical know-how, despite knowing nothing.
The game is working okay for me at the moment, just a few bugs and major lag-spikes, but still, I miss the days when you could buy a game, take it home, and play it. That's more of a reference to console games, though.
en·ti·tle [en-tahyt-l]
verb (used with object), en·ti·tled, en·ti·tling.
1.to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim: His executive position entitled him to certain courtesies rarely accorded others.
2.to call by a particular title or name: What was the book entitled?
3.to designate (a person) by an honorary title.
-------------------------------------------------------------
By purchasing a game, you are entitled to play it, free of defects, with the features advertised. Purchasers of Diablo 3 are legally entitled to be able to play the game free of the trouble they are having, and by not providing a service that they have paid for Blizzard is effectively breaking the law.
"But, the servers..."
-No, they had MILLIONS of preorders, they should have stress tested the servers for easily 1.5 times the amount of preorders they had.
"But, pirates..."
-Not an excuse for locking someone out of a single player game. Breaking a law to prevent someone from breaking a law is still illegal.
"But, day 1..."
-Not an excuse, most of the problems we're seeing were present in the beta MONTHS before the release, there was plenty of time to fix them.
This is to all the defenders of Blizzard, you are not right, Blizzard is fucking you. If I were you, the first thing I'd do when it comes out is saunter on over to sk****wcr**k.com (can't say the whole thing, you know the site) and crack the game so you can play single player. This is not illegal if you have purchased the game, as you are modifying the game to improve its function, which is protected under copyright laws.
Also, next time, listen to people, vote with your wallet, if you don't support bad business practices, stop paying for them.
verb (used with object), en·ti·tled, en·ti·tling.
1.to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim: His executive position entitled him to certain courtesies rarely accorded others.
2.to call by a particular title or name: What was the book entitled?
3.to designate (a person) by an honorary title.
-------------------------------------------------------------
By purchasing a game, you are entitled to play it, free of defects, with the features advertised. Purchasers of Diablo 3 are legally entitled to be able to play the game free of the trouble they are having, and by not providing a service that they have paid for Blizzard is effectively breaking the law.
"But, the servers..."
-No, they had MILLIONS of preorders, they should have stress tested the servers for easily 1.5 times the amount of preorders they had.
"But, pirates..."
-Not an excuse for locking someone out of a single player game. Breaking a law to prevent someone from breaking a law is still illegal.
"But, day 1..."
-Not an excuse, most of the problems we're seeing were present in the beta MONTHS before the release, there was plenty of time to fix them.
This is to all the defenders of Blizzard, you are not right, Blizzard is fucking you. If I were you, the first thing I'd do when it comes out is saunter on over to sk****wcr**k.com (can't say the whole thing, you know the site) and crack the game so you can play single player. This is not illegal if you have purchased the game, as you are modifying the game to improve its function, which is protected under copyright laws.
Also, next time, listen to people, vote with your wallet, if you don't support bad business practices, stop paying for them.
Of course the reverse is also true.doctorwhofan said:
Just about EVERY GAME Blizzadr has released has had problems...the SAME problems. You'd think that people buying the game would have learned that this sort of thing tends to happen with Blizzard and not lose a collective shit fit just because it doesn't work on the first day.
But then we couldn't heap hate on mean ol' Blizz. Then we'd have to take responsibility for our own stupidity at not realising that the exact same thing which has happened before with Blizzard's games might happen again.
Prove it.Xangi said:
Go ahead. Prove that by merely purchasing a game you're entitled to play it free of defects 'cos if that's the case you'd better start getting your lawyer team against Bethsoft, Obsidian and every game developer that has ever released a game with a single bug in it, which I'm pretty sure is all of them.
You made the claim, now back it up.
If I sold you a car, and the car had problems with it, but I told you the car was perfect, I would be charged with fraud. If I sold you an apple, and I told you the apple was fresh, when it was rotten, I would be charged with, well, several things actually. If I wold you a house, and the house was old and the internal structure was poor, but I told you it was new and perfect, I could be charged with fraud.Amnestic said:
Why is a videogame any different? If I sell you a game, and I say you can play it as much as you want, then I take that away, I am breaking the law. It is as simple as that, and any lawyer worth their degree could make a case of it.
I also find it funny you are attacking a person who is defending your rights. Just because we aren't sucking up to Blizzard, doesn't mean your personal opinion is any less valid, it simply means we have an unbiased view of a current event. Diablo 3's launch was a fiasco, and the DRM does nothing but prevent paying customers from playing the game. The game launched with a gamebreaking bug in one of the first quests (that was in the beta), and none of the problems that were brought up were addressed adequately.
Not that this makes a bit of difference to you, because you are too emotional abut the subject to think rationally at the moment. In 3 months, you will have quit Diablo 3, calmed down, and assuming your memory is average, you will remember this, because you will remember that I was right.
Okay, now show me where Blizzard told you this game would be without bugs. Show me where any developer told you their game would be entirely bug free.Xangi said:
If that's the case, why haven't we seen a lawsuit over this or any other buggy game? If "any lawyer worth their degree" could make a case, it should be an easy win, right?Xangi said:
So where are they? Are they afraid of the free money?
*shrug* If you didn't expect that, it's your own fault. Buyer beware and all that. As noted, Blizzard have a history of this sort of thing. I'm sorry that your memory isn't good enough to remember all the way back to 2010 when Cataclysm came out.Xangi said:
And don't say the DRM does "nothing but", since it quite clearly does other things too. Maybe you don't care about those other things, but it still does them, and those of us who remember SoJ trading from D2 probably care about it too.
Not even bought D3 yet.Xangi said:
Pretty sure the only reason I'd 'quit' on it is because in three months we'll probably see Pandaria get released. But of course, D3 will still be on my shelves and I can go back to it anytime I want so I can't really 'quit' it anymore than I could 'quit' Warcraft 3.
You completely misread.Shamanic Rhythm said:
First of all, editorial policy is not personal. I do not say Mr. Grey, but Escapist, as in the magazine.
Second of all, I did as much research as I personally could. On the other hand you point out anecdotal evidence, while listing Error 37. The only error that was announced by Blizzard to be expected as part of log in throttling.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117151-Diablo-III-Launch-May-Get-Messy
What you proved is that people on tweeter do not read their emails.
Now, about last part ... I did not discuss you as poster, so do me a favor and do the same.