Eh. I feel my money would be better placed on Torchlight 2. I might pick it up sometime in the future, but it'd likely be when the battle chest is released in five to ten years.
I can't wait for Diablo 3
- Thread starter SonOfHax
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I won't be buying it.
Honestly, I'm entirely indifferent to Diablo III, despite the fact that Diablo II is still installed on my machine. Nothing I've seen has gotten me interested, nothing I read makes me care.
The uniqueness of Torchlight 2 and it's meaningful evolution from the first one is far more interesting to me than what is basically Diablo II with horrible writing, a terrible story, better graphics and a massive, all encompassing focus on micro-transactions.
Honestly, I'm entirely indifferent to Diablo III, despite the fact that Diablo II is still installed on my machine. Nothing I've seen has gotten me interested, nothing I read makes me care.
The uniqueness of Torchlight 2 and it's meaningful evolution from the first one is far more interesting to me than what is basically Diablo II with horrible writing, a terrible story, better graphics and a massive, all encompassing focus on micro-transactions.
I would have bought it if these hadn't happened.
1) Online DRM
2) D2's online community pissing me off (and hearing it's the same for all other Blizzard games)
3) Played Sacred 2, Titan's Quest, Torchlight.
No, I'm going to keep my money and mock anyone who didn't do so as well. When the focus of a game stops being about making a rich entertaining experience and more about manipulating human psychology to give the company more money than what they initially asked for, I stop giving that company my money. I'm not a sap with a bottomless wallet, and if I was, I'm going to give my money to someone who at least acts like they care about me or their product.
I do promise to buy it if an offline single player mode is added. Maybe not at full price, but that "feature" will take it off the "do not buy" list.
1) Online DRM
2) D2's online community pissing me off (and hearing it's the same for all other Blizzard games)
3) Played Sacred 2, Titan's Quest, Torchlight.
No, I'm going to keep my money and mock anyone who didn't do so as well. When the focus of a game stops being about making a rich entertaining experience and more about manipulating human psychology to give the company more money than what they initially asked for, I stop giving that company my money. I'm not a sap with a bottomless wallet, and if I was, I'm going to give my money to someone who at least acts like they care about me or their product.
I do promise to buy it if an offline single player mode is added. Maybe not at full price, but that "feature" will take it off the "do not buy" list.
I'm a member of the "Not Buying Diablo 3 and Actively Discouraging Everyone Else From Buying It" club.
If Diablo 3 is successful (which, much to my displeasure, it probably will be), it will show other publishers/developers that an always online system is perfectly acceptable, when it isn't.
There are still large areas where people don't have access to good, reliable, and affordable internet. It's not a matter of simply "getting better wiring in your house," it's that, in many lower population areas, broadband companies will not have service because it would cost them more money to get service to those areas than they could make off of them. So these people are left with either extremely slow dial-up, or expensive and unreliable satellite internet.
Even if I live in an area where I do get perfectly fine internet, there are still the possibility my internet going out for a period of time for whatever reason. Why should I not be allowed to play the game that paid money for just because the internet company won't get a repair person to my house for a few days?
And then there's the problem of not being able to play a game if the game's servers are down. A DDOS attack, server relocation, or a number of other things that are not on my end could prevent me from playing a game that I paid for.
And finally, you cannot pause in Diablo 3's singleplayer. Any developer that disregards this essential gaming feature deserves to be thrown down into a special layer of hell.
If Diablo 3 is successful (which, much to my displeasure, it probably will be), it will show other publishers/developers that an always online system is perfectly acceptable, when it isn't.
There are still large areas where people don't have access to good, reliable, and affordable internet. It's not a matter of simply "getting better wiring in your house," it's that, in many lower population areas, broadband companies will not have service because it would cost them more money to get service to those areas than they could make off of them. So these people are left with either extremely slow dial-up, or expensive and unreliable satellite internet.
Even if I live in an area where I do get perfectly fine internet, there are still the possibility my internet going out for a period of time for whatever reason. Why should I not be allowed to play the game that paid money for just because the internet company won't get a repair person to my house for a few days?
And then there's the problem of not being able to play a game if the game's servers are down. A DDOS attack, server relocation, or a number of other things that are not on my end could prevent me from playing a game that I paid for.
And finally, you cannot pause in Diablo 3's singleplayer. Any developer that disregards this essential gaming feature deserves to be thrown down into a special layer of hell.