Blizzard Cleans Up GAME's Mess

[Keslen]

Well our house is always online since we have internet TV so I don't get blips and I can't really comment on that part but condemning them for it doesn't make sense.

They made a choice within development. They looked at a component that was completely irrelevant to the core game play and said "We should make it so that when this component fails, the entire game comes to a screeching halt." and they made that choice knowing full well that this component could fail at any time outside of the player's control.

I'd definitely say that "condemning" is a harsh word for my context, but this is a choice I feel comfortable speaking against. It is also one that I do not feel comfortable supporting with my wallet.

Also, you do get blips. You may not get them very often and your TV is likely programmed to accommodate them so you don't notice them when they occur, but the system has not yet been invented that avoids them completely (at least not for a cost structure which is reasonable to pay).

 

[Eleima]

Granted it's a good PR move, and it makes them appear "cool". But let's not be naive here. They're a business, and they want as many people as possible playing their game. By offering to refund them, they're ensuring that these people will be playing the game, and that they won't be losing customers (especially potential customers for the auction house).

 

[Tony2077]

Well our house is always online since we have internet TV so I don't get blips and I can't really comment on that part but condemning them for it doesn't make sense.

They made a choice within development. They looked at a component that was completely irrelevant to the core game play and said "We should make it so that when this component fails, the entire game comes to a screeching halt." and they made that choice knowing full well that this component could fail at any time outside of the player's control.

I'd definitely say that "condemning" is a harsh word for my context, but this is a choice I feel comfortable speaking against. It is also one that I do not feel comfortable supporting with my wallet.

Also, you do get blips. You may not get them very often and your TV is likely programmed to accommodate them so you don't notice them when they occur, but the system has not yet been invented that avoids them completely (at least not for a cost structure which is reasonable to pay).

I'm on the internet right now and i still don't get blips unless i'm downloading something using my full connection. i can play old republic for hours on end without any problems

 

[Bat Vader]

Now if only they'd fix that issue where your single player game crashes if your internet connection dies.

you want them to fix your crappy connection?

He wants them to fix their totalitarian DRM. Blizzard does understand that LANs exist, right? I mean Starcraft II basically single-handedly killed the LAN party, not to mention the ramifications it had on the tournament scene. Diablo 3 is doing the same. Why does Ubisoft get grated for this but Blizzard gets away with it?

how is being online to play this game so evil

Not everyone has a great internet connection and people should not be punished because of it. The same exact thing happened when Assassins Creed 2 was released. People had to be connected to the internet to play the game. I believe AC2 was patched later on though so people could play it without having to always be connected to the internet.

If someone wants to play the campaign by themselves by making their session private why should they still have to be connected to the internet? Hopefully Blizzard patches in an offline mode in the future.

 

[eventhorizon525]

I've not played Diablo 3 at all, but as I understand it you're constantly connected to the auction house - an online feature. You're never playing all by yourself. Doesn't really matter what you 'intend', you're still technically playing with others by design.

Which is actually what most people complaining about D3 have an issue with; the whole RMAH. Given that the previous installments were very friendly toward the single player option offline, and were quite harsh in blocking any sort of virtual goods/real money exchange, this sudden reversal is unwelcome.

The RMAH from the beginning has been the thing I have the *least* problems with. D2 had RMT out the yin-yang on shady third party sites, and Blizzard couldn't really do much to stop it.

So, they did the sensible thing and cut out the third party black market directly. It was going to happen anyway, why not make it legitimate?

Guess I just find effectively pay-to-win options disappointing to say the least, since it basically cuts out the feeling of achievement you get from finding/unlocking everything on your own. And while yes people like me don't have to use the money shop, it will effect us none the less, and make the trading scene more frustrating. If you can tie real money value to an item (legitimately), people are going to more often compare items based on those prices, and there is going to be less wiggle room than the more barter or alternative currency method originally employed.

However I can't argue that this isn't the best choice to do from Blizzard's perspective, it does reenforce some (imo) unfortunate trends in gaming.

captcha: easy as cake; well yes, I do think people being able to buy the best items ruins the fun of the game.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

--

 

[deth2munkies]

Nice to see Aussies NOT get fucked over for once.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

The order of these instructions is curious. Buy the game again, play our awesome game *thumbs up*, THEN submit your receipt eventually whenever you feel like it, then we'll give you a credit. Ok, what exactly is a credit? Sounds like credit to be used in the auction house. And what if something derps? Well fuck you you bought the game twice, can't return it because it's a PC game.

 

[Amnestic]

anc[is] Ok, what exactly is a credit? Sounds like credit to be used in the auction house. And what if something derps? Well fuck you you bought the game twice, can't return it because it's a PC game.

4. Receive a credit from Blizzard, for the amount you paid in advance to GAME Australia for Diablo III. This credit will be applied to the payment method used for the digital purchase.

This last line implies that it's a straight up 'refund' to the cost you paid to preorder the game.

Blizzard's Customer Service are generally very good about these kind of things, no matter what personal opinion you have about their games. Were I an Aussie pre-order customer, I wouldn't be concerned.

 

[MercurySteam]

Good job Blizzard, you guys just earned yourselves a decent amount of credibility. Considering the shitstorm that followed some design choices they could definitely use this.

 

[John Funk]

I've not played Diablo 3 at all, but as I understand it you're constantly connected to the auction house - an online feature. You're never playing all by yourself. Doesn't really matter what you 'intend', you're still technically playing with others by design.

Which is actually what most people complaining about D3 have an issue with; the whole RMAH. Given that the previous installments were very friendly toward the single player option offline, and were quite harsh in blocking any sort of virtual goods/real money exchange, this sudden reversal is unwelcome.

The RMAH from the beginning has been the thing I have the *least* problems with. D2 had RMT out the yin-yang on shady third party sites, and Blizzard couldn't really do much to stop it.

So, they did the sensible thing and cut out the third party black market directly. It was going to happen anyway, why not make it legitimate?

Guess I just find effectively pay-to-win options disappointing to say the least, since it basically cuts out the feeling of achievement you get from finding/unlocking everything on your own. And while yes people like me don't have to use the money shop, it will effect us none the less, and make the trading scene more frustrating. If you can tie real money value to an item (legitimately), people are going to more often compare items based on those prices, and there is going to be less wiggle room than the more barter or alternative currency method originally employed.

However I can't argue that this isn't the best choice to do from Blizzard's perspective, it does reenforce some (imo) unfortunate trends in gaming.

captcha: easy as cake; well yes, I do think people being able to buy the best items ruins the fun of the game.

The "pay to win" was in Diablo 2, too. It just wasn't official. This is changing nothing except making it safer and funneling money into the community.

 

[Kuala BangoDango]

While this certainly SOUNDS like a generous offer on Blizzard's part, I don't believe it's that much of a loss, if any, to Blizzard's coffers.

Firstly the player must buy the game directly from Blizzard (thus Blizz gets the full amount). They're likely making more than enough off those sales, now that they don't have to split the money with the retailer, to more than cover any pre-order fees. For example, if the retailer sales the game for $60 with $20 going to the retailer and Blizzard only getting $40 and there was a $10 pre-order fee, this means than NOW Blizzard gets the full $60 and only has to refund $10 back to the player. As long as the fee was low enough to fall within the retailer's portion of the profits Blizzard will actually make MORE than if the GAME sales actually went through.

AND, much like mail-in rebates, the key here is making that "money back" conditional on requiring the customer to mail in their receipts and giving them a month and a half to do it. Most people are lazy. They'll forget to mail it in, or put it off till later, and then one day they'll think about the refund and look at the calendar and OOPS, it's already past the deadline. Too late. That's why mail-in rebate sales are so profitable for companies. The number of buyers go through the roof and most forget to get their refund so the company actually ends up paying out very little but has the increased profits of all the extra customers who've essentially paid full price.

Plus, as mentioned above, it's good PR. A win for Blizzard no matter how you look at it and only a win for those few customers who remember to actually jump through the necessary hoops in time.

 

[Tony2077]

While this certainly SOUNDS like a generous offer on Blizzard's part, I don't believe it's that much of a loss, if any, to Blizzard's coffers.

Firstly the player must buy the game directly from Blizzard (thus Blizz gets the full amount). They're likely making more than enough off those sales, now that they don't have to split the money with the retailer, to more than cover any pre-order fees. For example, if the retailer sales the game for $60 with $20 going to the retailer and Blizzard only getting $40 and there was a $10 pre-order fee, this means than NOW Blizzard gets the full $60 and only has to refund $10 back to the player. As long as the fee was low enough to fall within the retailer's portion of the profits Blizzard will actually make MORE than if the GAME sales actually went through.

AND, much like mail-in rebates, the key here is making that "money back" conditional on requiring the customer to mail in their receipts and giving them a month and a half to do it. Most people are lazy. They'll forget to mail it in, or put it off till later, and then one day they'll think about the refund and look at the calendar and OOPS, it's already past the deadline. Too late. That's why mail-in rebate sales are so profitable for companies. The number of buyers go through the roof and most forget to get their refund so the company actually ends up paying out very little but has the increased profits of all the extra customers who've essentially paid full price.

Plus, as mentioned above, it's good PR. A win for Blizzard no matter how you look at it and only a win for those few customers who remember to actually jump through the necessary hoops in time.

well you can only blame yourself if you don't mail it in on time since your the one who put it off. doing for the people screwed by this game stuff is a nice PR move which are few and far between

 

[Frostbite3789]

Now if only they'd fix that issue where your single player game crashes if your internet connection dies.

you want them to fix your crappy connection?

He wants them to fix their totalitarian DRM. Blizzard does understand that LANs exist, right? I mean Starcraft II basically single-handedly killed the LAN party, not to mention the ramifications it had on the tournament scene. Diablo 3 is doing the same. Why does Ubisoft get grated for this but Blizzard gets away with it?

how is being online to play this game so evil

Because here 35 minutes after the servers went live and 2 hours and 35 minutes after I should've really been playing the game, I still cannot play the game because those servers I need to connect to are busy. That's the goddamn problem.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I think I've found your problem. You're confusing a single-player game with an online game that can be played on your own.

Do you get mad when Guild Wars 1 boots you off the servers when your connection dies? No? Because it's an online game that you can play on your own if you want?

So what exactly qualifies a single player game? Is it one where I'm playing all by myself and not including any other people nor intending to ever do so? 'Cause that's what I'm working off of. If you're using something else, let me know so we can work towards some common ground on the terminology.

I've not played Diablo 3 at all, but as I understand it you're constantly connected to the auction house - an online feature. You're never playing all by yourself. Doesn't really matter what you 'intend', you're still technically playing with others by design.

Pretty simple fix there, then. If someone wants to play offline or on LAN, let them, then just disable the auction house during that session. They're very deliberately not having this feature in the game for DRM reasons, it has nothing to do with design decisions.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

They do know people have already worked out how to pirate the game and crack it, yeah? Nice DRM, Blizz. Forcing your customers to be online, even those who do not ever wish to play multiplayer, sure did stop them pirates.

I love when the excuse is given, that they don't want offline people cheating and then entering online, thus unbalancing the game, ruining multiplayer and, most importantly in their minds, making their little money grabbing auction house obsolete. Because making it so offline characters can't enter online play is so hard, right?

This is why I will never spend a single cent on a Blizzard game -- they are assholes.

 

[Andronicus]

Well, it's better than nothing, I guess. Course, if it was me, the ONLY reason I'd buy retail in Australia is:
a) Game is available in retail ONLY, or
b) I want the CE/LE version with the artbook or whatever, otherwise I would've bought digital anyway.

It's a shame that instead, if using this process, I'd just be getting the digital version without the extras.

I didn't preorder Diablo III (my internet is unreliable on a good day, inaccessible on a bad one), but I live in Australia, so I know what it's like to be fucked over when buying a game. Just a shame for those people who wanted the CE, but are ending up with just digital instead.

I know that Blizz is just doing this to help their product and get more money from a direct sale, but I still think it's good on their part to offer the refund, when GAME's demise is clearly not their problem at all.

I wonder if Rockstar will be doing something similar for those who preordered Max Payne?

 

[Tony2077]

Now if only they'd fix that issue where your single player game crashes if your internet connection dies.

you want them to fix your crappy connection?

He wants them to fix their totalitarian DRM. Blizzard does understand that LANs exist, right? I mean Starcraft II basically single-handedly killed the LAN party, not to mention the ramifications it had on the tournament scene. Diablo 3 is doing the same. Why does Ubisoft get grated for this but Blizzard gets away with it?

how is being online to play this game so evil

Because here 35 minutes after the servers went live and 2 hours and 35 minutes after I should've really been playing the game, I still cannot play the game because those servers I need to connect to are busy. That's the goddamn problem.

wow relax a bit will you damn