Poll: Diablo 3: Will you buy it?

[Gasaraki]

Nope, no interest in it. The whole genre is just really boring and repetitive to me. At least in stuff like devil may cry or whatever there's combos and more freedom of movement, diablo and it's kin are, to me, just clickclickclickhotkeyclickclick.

 

[Galaxy Roll]

I still need to try to get into Diablo 2, so no.

 

[Quextamon]

I'm going to buy it. I loved the second one, and all the other Blizzard games I've played so far have been good (At least, to me), so I think this one should be too. Even if some of the things they have decided to put in the game (especially no off-line mode) may seem a step in the wrong direction, I feel the game will still be good enough to play.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I'm going to wait 6 months for the updates/patches/tweaks to be made before making a final decision.

I'm one of the people that will end up playing privately to play single player so I want to be sure it holds up well on it's own.

 

[Giantpanda602]

None of Blizzard's recent decisions are going to impact my choice. If I want to buy it, I will buy it. I'm not sure if I will at the moment. I trust Blizzard, as I have for years.

 

[Kurea]

no
blizzards needs a game to tank or at least do bad enough to make them stop and think.
and Diablo is my concession, i need love starcraft and need my wow-fix every once in a while (i usually pick up an expansion and go through the first tier of raids).

I can't agree with you more. Blizzard doesn't need *more* money. I'm gonna do what I always do and just wait for the reviews. If it turns out that the items available in the auction house have a noticeable affect on gameplay and not just on aesthetics, then Blizzard will have a broken game on their hands. I don't care how good or bad Diablo 3 ends up being, Blizzard already has a wildly popular MMORPG, they don't need to make another one.

 

[PissOffRoth]

I'm pissed at the decisions big time. I don't think it's a step in the right direction. But Blizzard are an exceptional games company, not a single on of their product has been bad. With the Warcraft franchise still being the most popular MMORPG scene in the world. Starcraft taking everything by storm... again. And Diablo coming from behind to probably end up as a seriously solid, and good quality game.

Diablo is the underdog below Warcraft and Starcraft. But I expect Diablo to be brilliant, even a bit better than Starcraft maybe? I expect nothing less than brilliance from Blizzard, they've always delivered that before.

Diablo isn't far below those two. Blizzard just has magic fingers when it comes to shaping a genre. Diablo clones are rampant, WoW defines and owns the MMORPG scene and Starcraft was still popular up until the SC2 release. What's better, Blizzard has learned from its customers. Starcraft players used the game's mechanics to do things they never imagined, so in SC2 they included those strategies and play styles to better their new game. I can think of only a few other studios that actually do the same.

 

[Stall]

Fuck yeah I'm buying it. D2 was one of the defining games of my adolescence... it was my first "gaming addiction". I'm looking forward to D3 no matter what... even if it does come down to playing in a passworded server by myself. I can't say I am happy about the AH and such, but it's definitely not going to get in the way of my appreciation and love of the series, nor will it diminish how much I am looking forward to D3.

Oh yeah. I'm willing to bet RIGHT NOW that at least half, perhaps more, of those 54 (at the time of the writing of this post) people who say they are not going to buy D3 will own it within the first week. People can talk big before launch, but once all their friends starting having fun with the game, and they see all the cool videos and forum posts about how much fun it is, they'll cave. The gaming community is full of hot-headed people who have violent knee-jerk reactions to anything that doesn't move a game in a direction they want it to. I've seen some people call the gaming community "entitled" (I'm not one of them), and this fiasco definitely proves their point.

It's happened before, and it's happened again. That's what has happened with every attempted "game boycott": pattern recognition, friends.

 

[PissOffRoth]

Woah woah woah.

How is selling items for real cash a bad idea when PLAYERS are the ones who sell it?
If you are good, then you could farm items and make real cash from it.
If you are bad, then 'pay to win' by lining a smart players pocket.

I think this has to be one of the best ideas ever for gaming.

It's bad if the end result is that nothing halfway decent ever ends up on the gold auction house. Then everybody is just playing with the mindset that they're out to screw everybody else with shameless cash-ins, and character advancement becomes only for the people with a lot of disposable income.

I doubt that blizzard will have made AH purchases vital for levelling. Also, if it is the same as the previous Diablos, then you can grind to your hearts content with re-spawns etc in dungeons.
Also, it is not Blizzards fault if all that happens is people sell things for cash - it is the gamer who buys the items fault. This has been the case for many years that too many gamers have put up with bad purchases (copious DLC, poor games, micro-transactions etc) and now these devs are just capitalising on gamers who have too much spare cash/no other expenditure.

There's a minimum deposit to prevent the AH from being flooded with trash. Your argument is invalid. Plus you can MAKE MONEY FOR PLAYING A VIDEO GAME. This is a dream come true if you decide to take it seriously. It's a stock market, but you get to kill hellspawns between meetings. Seriously, nerd heaven.

 

[Levethian]

The whining about these issues is incredible.

The majority of Diablo 2 players played on Battle.net, so there was a default 'always-on' internet requirement for most.
You can play by yourself online if you're desperate to play alone.
Auction Houses will exist, whether they are conveniently controlled by Blizzard or not.
It is not 'pay to win' because it is not a game you 'win' - it is an eternal grindfest.
I'm trying Diablo 2 mods (Median XL Omega, Eastern Sun 3.0), and while interesting, they are unbalanced.

Blizzard have earned our trust, I would think -_-
These guys know how to make games.

Now 'Heroes of Might and Magic 6' - there's a truly single-player game with absolutely no right to always-on DRM.

 

[Ascarus]

yes i will buy it. don't care about the no modding, full time internet requirement or the real money auction house - although i am baffled as to why anyone would spend real money on imaginary items in a world of make believe.

so long as the game is fun, all that crap is incidental in my opinion.

 

[Gaiseric]

No, even if I had a computer that could run it I wouldn't get it. I don't like that I'd always have to be hooked up to the internet just to play single player, I honestly don't like the art style, the Auction House doesn't interest me, and I miss my Paladin from Diablo 2(maybe I should just get 2 again and play that).

 

[Stall]

The whining about these issues is incredible.

The majority of Diablo 2 players played on Battle.net, so there was a default 'always-on' internet requirement for most.
You can play by yourself online if you're desperate to play alone.
Auction Houses will exist, whether they are conveniently controlled by Blizzard or not.
It is not 'pay to win' because it is not a game you 'win' - it is an eternal grindfest.
I'm trying Diablo 2 mods (Median XL Omega, Eastern Sun 3.0), and while interesting, they are unbalanced.

Holy mother of god.... another human being that ACTUALLY GETS IT! I don't believe it! Another member of the minority who is willing to think straight through the controversy and emotions! Props good sir, props. I've said almost the exact same things in every D3 thread, yet everyone is too busy whining to actually GET those points. It's refreshing to see someone with a similar train of thought as myself.

I have problems with the AH and such, but you put it perfectly more or less: people are making a huge deal over this when they probably shouldn't.

 

[ChaosBorne]

While i definately support the evolution of the series, the big changes and so called "features" they're adding have completely turned me off from it. I will not be buying this game out of principle, i really (and i mean REALLY) wanted to see the continuation of the series but they have managed to turn that excitement and happiness i first felt when they announced Diablo 3 into loathing and disappointment.

Especially the always-on DRM which they deny is DRM is a slap in the face for fans of the franchise which essentially was a single player game. The no modding i could live with, the real life auction house? meh, it doesn't interrest me in the slightest, i actually find it to be a massively cheap and transparent money grab scam.

I used to respect Blizzard but this latest development is quickly eroding my faith in the company. I was more than dissapointed when Starcraft 2 didn't have Lan, the campaign was an enjoyable experience but in hindsight i'd rather have spent my money on something else. Diablo 3 is an even greater affront to fans of Blizzard's franchises, i will not stand for this, as long as they continue this trend they will have lost me as a customer.

a disappointed fan.

 

[darkfire613]

Yes, I am. I've been excited for it for years, and I don't care about the constant connection. I don't travel that much any more, and use an iPad instead of a laptop now for when I do, and my ISP has been fairly good.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Nope. I don't want to deal with assholes online, and I don't want to have to rely on my shitty internet just to play a single player game.

I hear there are alternatives to Diablo 3. Will be looking into those first.

 

[poppabaggins]

Blizzard will have to work really hard to convince me that this game is worth my money. And, frankly, every new bit of information I learn about the game turns me off of it more and more (which is the same thing that's happening to me with Skyrim, only Bethesda isn't being an asshole as Blizzard is; they're simply making bad gameplay decisions, not PR ones).

But it goes like this: Torchlight 2 is coming out, so I don't see why I should deal with the hassle.

 

[onikaze26]

I live out in the middle of no ware, and my internet connection blows, its passable most of the time, but the odd time the weather will throw a fit and it'll start cutting out every 5 seconds, Ive tried everything I can think of to fix it, including replacing just about everything associated with it, I think that my house is possessed.
Anyways, point I'm trying to get to is I don't want to get booted out of my single-player game, that I have no interest in ever going multiplayer for, just because its cloudy out.
I know I'm a shrinking minority here, but I also know I cant be the only one, and I cant see any good reason for doing it.
anyways Blizzard has been pissing me off with its policies ever since it announced no LAN support for starcraft 2, so I'm not just boycotting diablo 3, I'm never going to buy any product with a Blizzard label ever again, kind of sad really, it looked like a good game, but this is really the only way gamers can get heard, cause if it still sells, they'll keep doing it.

TLR. Nope not buying it, or any other blizzard games

 

[Aisaku]

You'll see, trust me. It's going to be a new dark age for gaming, I think. Read up on what's going on over at EVE Online.

I don't begrudge the concept, and I accept that people will pay stupid amounts of cash for virtual objects, but I lament that one day not far from now it might be possible that I simply can't pick up and buy a game for a set price and get the whole game in one package, that any proper experience with a game will require a steady stream of income to purchase it, piece by piece, with no proper end in sight. Blizzard is going to get us used to the idea of micro-transactions as a way of life. Even though we wouldn't pay to see a movie that stops every fifteen minutes until we feed a machine another dollar....we're going to end up doing exactly that for games.

....but that day arrived years ago.
What do you think DLC is?
Look at the Sims 3 - 50% of content missing from day one as you have to buy it. ME2 - you want all the characters and storyline? Well don't expect to get that in one of our games!

With this method, at least you can make some money back and abuse people who have to pay to win rather then just losing out.

Pffft... as much as I hate to accept it I agree with you. It's not just enough to ship a AAA title sold at a premium, nope. You have to sell at least the cost of the original game bits and pieces of extra content.

There is no good way about this I suppose. To use Mass Effect 2 as an example, there's a wealth of extra content, content that one could argue should be part of the game proper. Still, if that wasn't doable I'm really grateful that I got to have some sort of closure for the game's dangling plotlines BEFORE the sequel.

And to get on topic I say:

Always online? I mean who isn't always online when playing a game, console or otherwise?

Money AH: It could get real ugly or it could make Diablo stand out from the rest. We'll see.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Always online? I mean who isn't always online when playing a game, console or otherwise?

Well, I got stuck at chess meets a lot to help my father out, even though he had nothing for me to do rather than help unpack and repack. And the wi-fi there blew chunks. Having NWN2 was the only thing that kept it going.

Let me ask you: Is there a good reason that they don't allow an offline mode? They should be giving us a good reason, not vice-versa. It's this aditude that game corps have that we owe them constant loyalty and that we must frequently prove we do.

I'm not boycotting it, because I wasn't going to buy it. I can barely run Neverwinter Nights 2 on my PC, so I doubt I could handle that.