Blizzard-Activision Rep said:
"[...] Essentially we would have to put our server architecture onto the client so that it can run its own personal server."
As we all know, this is a foolproof strategy--after all, World of Warcraft, Blizzard-Activision's MMORPG, is multiplayer only, and there are no private servers in existence that allow a player to run their own private server utilizing the same client. None at all.
Blizzard-Activision Publicity Dude said:
"He also said that he didn't really think the "always online" condition was all that unreasonable, as internet connections were hardly rare [...]"
After all, the PC Gamer is a creature that never leaves their gaming chair--even less plausible leaves the actual house, with the intention of playing a game elsewhere, such as on some kind of 'portable computer platform device that sits on top of their lap', in places where wi-fi internet might not be available...such as Alaska...
Blizzard-Activision Target Duck said:
"[...] and that opting out of the online experience meant that you weren't really playing the game as intended."
Because quite obviously, a video game should never,
ever be played in any other way than the developers intended. Doing so is a violation of corporate gaming law. One should
never attempt to satisfy their personal desire to play a game the way they want to, because it could potentially severely decrease the possibility of enjoying the video game; for e.g., playing Co-Op in Modern Warfare 2 and shooting your partner until they fall to the ground injured, and begin scooting about on their ass completing the mission, while the two of you laugh and type "LMFAO". This is
not the way the game was intended to be played, and thus could result in customer dissatisfaction.
Blizzard-Activision Headless Chicken said:
"Some people don't like fantasy games, so should we have not made Diablo a fantasy game, because some people don't like that?
A sound argument--after all, in this kind of situation, one should
never attempt to appeal to minorities. Using the example provided by this sterling fellow, I shall maintain his values, but replace the variables:
ORIGINAL STATEMENT said:
In the PC Gaming Universe, 1% to 40% (estimated) of the population hate fantasy video games, and possess low market appeal, being unwilling to pay for the product (a fantasy game). The fantasy loving population is equal to the remaining 60% to 99%, and has greater market appeal, being willing to pay for the product.
Question: Should the 1% to 40% who
hate fantasy video games be listened to, and halt production of the fantasy video game in question?
Answer: NO. It is vitally important to always appeal to the party
most interested in your product, but more importantly,
most willing to pay. Thus, the 60% to 90% should be listened to more than the majority, because they represent the party with the most money, and most willingness to see the product.
RECONFIGURED ANALYSIS said:
In the United States of America, 1% of the population controls approximately 34.6% of all the wealth in the nation. The middle class is equal to approximately 80% of the population, and control approximately 15% of the nation's worth.
Question: Should the 1% of the population be allowed to influence higher institutions who attempt to sell products (in this case for example, Healthcare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid)
Answer: YES. As seen in the first example, one should
always appeal to the
most interested and the most financially capable party.
Blizzard-Activision Messiah said:
Some people don't like barbarians. Should we not have put a barbarian in the game because some people don't like it?"
Though similar to the analysis above, this one is from a different perspective: developing a game is about developing a product. This instance is about including content, which appeals to the customer's interest. This is a very rational question: after all, if only 10% of gamers wanted the Barbarian
removed from the game, they would have to be ignored on grounds that as a minority, they should not be listened to (see analysis above: "one should
never attempt to appeal to minorities in terms of wealth and influence").
"But wait!" you might say, "what about choice?"
This is a logical conclusion: one could make the Barbarian a character whose playability was dependent on the decision of the player, who would be able to decide whether or not they
wanted to play a Barbarian, but that might ruin the experience for those who didn't even want to see the Barbarian as a playable character in the Hero Selection menu when they first start playing the game. But not to worry! Since the majority of players either don't care or do in fact
want the Barbarian character, he's going to stay in the game anyway!
Think back to Star Wars: The Phantom Menace from a different perspective. The minority of people
wanted Jar Jar Binks to be brutally slain in the next movie, but were unsatisfied, while the majority demographic
wanted Jar Jar Binks to return, and were granted their wish.
(*Note, minority and majority figures based on perceived level of maturity and rationality, rational individuals being minorities and children under the age of 15 being the majority)
To conclude this topic reply, allow me to state my satisfaction with the quality of this Blizzard-Activision representative's reply. It was clever minded, intelligent, and completely unsurprising in the least, being as it's coming from someone employed by a company who long ago stopped caring about dedicated customers who enjoyed their games for the finer merits, and long since began appealing to customers who want social interactivity coupled with cartoony graphics and watching numbers increase.
_________
Too hot to do anything today, so I'm just wasting the day on the computer. That's the only reason why I had the inspiration to type up this COMPLETELY SERIOUS AND UN-SARCASTIC POST*.
*Cough.
