Blizzard Surprised by Reaction to Online-Only Diablo 3
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Well. Let me tell you guys a story. I grew up with divorced parents. My mother had full custody, and my father was usually in a different state and almost never called or so much as sent a card on my birthday. The only fond memories I have of my dad take place during games of Diablo II. Diablo II was my first real online game and it was an integral part in my development as a gamer.
So, needless to say, I was excited for Diablo III. Was. Past tense. I'm going to be honest and say that there's still a chance that I would be willing to buy this game, because I'd still like to play it. But realistically, I've gone from having this game at the top of my "must buy" list to having it somewhere in the middle of my "might buy" list. And considering that I have no job and, as such, very little disposable income, being relegated to a game that I might want almost guarantees that I'm not going to get it. Because I'd rather spend the few dollars I have on something I really want.
Really, I am astounded. I just didn't think this was possible. And while I want to say, like others have, that I hope this game fails just to show this company how wrong they are, I just don't feel that way. Because, as dumb as it sounds, Diablo means a lot to me and I'd like to see more of it. If it doesn't sell well, that's not going to send the message that the developers are out of touch. What it will say (in their minds) is that the series isn't worth an investment. And really, that fact in and of itself just kind of accentuates how far Blizzard's head seems to be from its feet.
Again, I know how dumb it sounds, but . . . it kind of breaks my heart to see this kind of thing happen. It makes me sad for the game, sad for the developer and sad for the industry. I think that the day when always-online single player becomes the norm might honestly be the day that I stop gaming. At least then I'll have a chance to catch up on some reading, I guess.
So, needless to say, I was excited for Diablo III. Was. Past tense. I'm going to be honest and say that there's still a chance that I would be willing to buy this game, because I'd still like to play it. But realistically, I've gone from having this game at the top of my "must buy" list to having it somewhere in the middle of my "might buy" list. And considering that I have no job and, as such, very little disposable income, being relegated to a game that I might want almost guarantees that I'm not going to get it. Because I'd rather spend the few dollars I have on something I really want.
Really, I am astounded. I just didn't think this was possible. And while I want to say, like others have, that I hope this game fails just to show this company how wrong they are, I just don't feel that way. Because, as dumb as it sounds, Diablo means a lot to me and I'd like to see more of it. If it doesn't sell well, that's not going to send the message that the developers are out of touch. What it will say (in their minds) is that the series isn't worth an investment. And really, that fact in and of itself just kind of accentuates how far Blizzard's head seems to be from its feet.
Again, I know how dumb it sounds, but . . . it kind of breaks my heart to see this kind of thing happen. It makes me sad for the game, sad for the developer and sad for the industry. I think that the day when always-online single player becomes the norm might honestly be the day that I stop gaming. At least then I'll have a chance to catch up on some reading, I guess.
This.... is so incredibly stupid.
Haven't they done ANY studies seeing how many people actually have a stable online connection to begin with?
Then what about the developers, did they ever think that maybe at one tiny moment they would want to play on their laptops somewhere where there is no connection?
Call me a tin foil hat wearing crazy person, but this is just another obvious attempt to "combat piracy" (no matter how much blizzard will deny it), which will never happen to the degree they want it to, and will A.L.W.A.Y.S. affect the paying customer and N.E.V.E.R. even touch the pirate to begin with, because they will hack it. They will never buy your product, and thinking that if you enforce enough draconian DRM on them, they will simply just cave and buy it.
My opinion is that this entire piracy campaign stems from the fact that game companies aren't making RIDICULOUS money like they were like 4 years ago, due to the bad economy and the rise in casual shovel-ware, they feel the need to keep profits in unrealistic expectations, when in reality they still make LOTS OF MONEY and should just be grateful they even have a business to begin with.
"oh no, were only making $10 billion this year instead of $30 billion?! OUTRAGEOUS!!"
And the sad fact is that they wouldn't even be happy w/ the $30 billion if they even got it...
it's truly pathetic.
Haven't they done ANY studies seeing how many people actually have a stable online connection to begin with?
Then what about the developers, did they ever think that maybe at one tiny moment they would want to play on their laptops somewhere where there is no connection?
Call me a tin foil hat wearing crazy person, but this is just another obvious attempt to "combat piracy" (no matter how much blizzard will deny it), which will never happen to the degree they want it to, and will A.L.W.A.Y.S. affect the paying customer and N.E.V.E.R. even touch the pirate to begin with, because they will hack it. They will never buy your product, and thinking that if you enforce enough draconian DRM on them, they will simply just cave and buy it.
My opinion is that this entire piracy campaign stems from the fact that game companies aren't making RIDICULOUS money like they were like 4 years ago, due to the bad economy and the rise in casual shovel-ware, they feel the need to keep profits in unrealistic expectations, when in reality they still make LOTS OF MONEY and should just be grateful they even have a business to begin with.
"oh no, were only making $10 billion this year instead of $30 billion?! OUTRAGEOUS!!"
And the sad fact is that they wouldn't even be happy w/ the $30 billion if they even got it...
it's truly pathetic.
at times I have to move to an area without internet connection! wtf am i going to to then!? READ? i think not!
Right, this has always happened though. Publishers heads are so far inside their own ass that its never their fault. Take a look at Dragon Age 1 and 2, for example. Dragon Age 1 sold more and more copies each week after release, while Dragon Age 2 sold less and less copies each week after release. Why? Because word of mouth is probably the most powerful form of advertising for this industry. Why is THAT?! Because they've pulled so much bullshit and hype on us in the past that we have to rely on real opinions from real people, because just about every "review" is basically advertising disguised as a review, and has been for a while now.commasplice said:
And back to the Dragon Age thing, what will they do now with the Dragon Age series now that DA2 was horribly rushed and incredibly shallow and boring and people saw right through their bullshit and just gave them the finger right back? They will say "oh well I guess that market is no longer there, and isn't worth investing in" when, in reality, the market is there, frothing at the mouth waiting to shell out piles of cash for the next QUALITY game to come out, but they're just too dense to see it.
Great. Until they start paying for people's internet connection, they shouldn't make a single player game that requires online all the time. It just doesn't make any sense.
the fact that you need an internet connection to play the single player mode seems weird but what seems even more odd to me is the fact that so many people are getting upset over it. to me its just sort of an, "okay thats kinda weird, but whatever." the big draw of diablo (at least for me and my friends) has always been playing online, so why are people throwing a bitchfit and refusing to buy the game, just because online is now a requirement and not an option? even when i had dial up, that didnt keep me from doing all my diablo 2 playing, over battlenet
Um.... Me and everyone I know? And everyone living in an area with bad internet connection. And everyone moving around with laptops. And everyone with limited internet (only 4 gigs per month, for example)....Andy Chalk said:
EDIT: I hope I'm not breaking any rules for saying this, but..... I'm thinking about buying the game and then finding an offline crack. My internet connection is one of the most turbulent variables in my life. That and my living location.....
I loved Diablo...
I loved Diablo II...
They were the first hack'n'slashers I ever played, and I still rate them amongst the best games I've ever played of that genre.
I NEVER once played them online. Ever. At all.
I played them when my internet was down, and I needed something quality to enjoy.
NOT ANYMORE IT SEEMS!
I loved Diablo II...
They were the first hack'n'slashers I ever played, and I still rate them amongst the best games I've ever played of that genre.
I NEVER once played them online. Ever. At all.
I played them when my internet was down, and I needed something quality to enjoy.
NOT ANYMORE IT SEEMS!
I agree whole heartedly with you.alinos said:
Particularly, I take issue with the idea of buying your way ahead in what is fundamentally a single player game. All you do if you buy items (with real money no less!) is cheat yourself out of game play. The fun thing about games who have loot like Diablo and Borderlands is killing and killing and killing and getting different/awesome/weird items. If you have the 'best' items immediately then you are just going to run from a to b and lose gameplay. Finding randomly generated items gives you new and interesting approaches to gameplay. Hell, I never played D2 or borderlands online, but I kept coming back and playing through and finding new cool stuff to do. There's something really great about finding a weapon that's awesome but impractical, giving it a try and liking it so much that you build a whole character around it. What's this ? A revolver with 3 rounds but EPIC damage ? Lets see if we can make it work. I think all single player diablo fans understand that the items you find influence how you make a character. Online is all about minmaxing and blah and its boring. Single player is all about trying stuff out and having fun. Sure its maybe not the best build, but this halberd with that armor and this helmet and a couple of levels of that whirlwind attack and your on to a winner.
Also, monitoring what people are doing in the game absolutely does NOT make for better games. Popular practically never means 'good' it just means 'meh'. Over 50% of people played as humans ? Sure I can believe that. Because a lot of casual people only played through once and just clicked through everything between them and the killing. Dropping the other races was just a horrible idea, and just because over 50% of the people would never notice, its the other 40% percent who really put time and effort into the game, playing as all the races and classes, finding all the items, appreciating the whole story and generally were the kind of fans that a studio should be trying to appeal to. Hell there is no excuse EVER to use market research to take content out of a game. Sure, I understand that when you know what large groups of players are doing it can guide in what extra content to put IN. People like playing as humans ? Ok lets put in a few sub-types of humans! Lets have norse guys and arab guys and japanese guys, so all the people who like playing as humans have even more cool stuff to play with. But the other way round ? People mostly played as humans doesn't translate to 'people only give tow fucks about humans'. Everyone starts by playing a human anyway until they learn the system *facepalm*. What happens if 64% of people think this game is too long and can't be bothered to read the text, does that mean that you should just remove the plot ?
A whole lot of people who play games are ... well... jerks. And stupid. And terrible people. If you did that kind of research into how people played Halo, you would discover that multiplayer mode is the only important part, and that screaming sexual swear words and tea-bagging should both have their own buttons. If the people doing the research had any knowledge of the people they were studying they would be a LOT more careful about reading the data. If you just followed the percentages for any popular game, there would be no single player at all (because 95% of the playtime is online). But at the same time, its no accident that the only really successful online only games other than MMOs are team fortress and counter strike, which come with two of the best single player games of all time HL and HL2 built in.
Lots of people play online for a long time, and thats fine. But no game that is JUST an online shooting gallery has been even worth talking about. Online play is added value for sure, but when developers only focus on that part of the game, they make bad games. They make games that are joyless and uninteresting. Making good multiplayer is important and should be done, but never at the cost of making single player terrible, because that's where everyone starts. Similarly, when you are talking about 'how good is this game' the multiplayer is never taken into account, because the multiplayer is always exactly the same. Its just killing and we've seen that plenty now. If you want your game to be great you MUST make good single player and thats the end of it.
Yes.tony2077 said:
Blizzard is known for caring so much as not making a single forum post for various 50,000+ signs petitions.
Which I think is kinda appropriate, various experts and educated stuff doing the job they are paid for, instead of letting the 12 yr old do it.
