1701

Well I don’t necessarily agree with that in theory either, but we don’t want to get theoretical in this mess. I’m just saying, there are real philosophical reasons to take the position that are nothing we ever want ever to ever talk about ever again ever.

1702

The point is that, if enough people make a fuss (and follow through on the boycott), Blizzard might realize it’s a bad idea and change something. An outside chance, I grant you, and it would need a significant number of people. But it’s certainly not going to happen if we just sit quietly and wait for them to develop psychic powers. Especially not if we go ahead and fork over our cash regardless.

1703

Ya know what? If the game is as good as it seems it will be–as addictive, compelling, polished and rewarding as the successor to D2 should be–very few people are going to give a rat’s ass ultimately about all the other stuff, or so I’m guessing. Not to diminish the reasonable criticisms voiced here, or to belittle the anger over decisions some folks really do find objectionable, but ultimately, if this game is good people will put up with just about anything to play it I’m guessing.

That’s the difference between this and the games that have come before it with similar DRM or other features, and also between this and most of the Korean-style MMOs with similar RMT stuff. Madness? THIS IS DIABLOOOOOOOO! Or something.

I plan to buy it because it should be worth at least sixty bucks of hacking and slashing and looting before I get bored.

1704

What I’m saying is, Blizzard has made a multiplayer game. You can play it by yourself, but they have built a product that, in their view, is only complete with other people. Even if you don’t choose to play co-op, they feel access to the market and chat and trading and blah-blah-blah are fundamental parts of the game as a whole. And they’ve said as much.

But I did not ask for those features, nor do I want them at such a cost, and I pretty much guarantee there’s a way to implement them without forcing an online connection, because there are plenty of games with such features that don’t.

Well we can certainly agree that you, and other gamers only interested in playing a single-player game, did not ask for Blizzard to make Diablo into a multiplayer game (albeit one in which they won’t stop you from never interacting with another soul). But game developers are not required to make the game you “ask for.” God, if that was the case, they’d have stopped making Call of Duty about four versions ago because I sure as hell don’t want another one.

(A good example, imho: Demon’s Souls. Despite being a singleplayer game, Demon’s Souls has online functionality in the form of ghost replays of other people’s deaths, short messages you can leave on the ground, and limited crossing into other games as an ally or foe. It’s cool stuff, and it adds significantly to the game. BUT, and this is the crucial part: if your PS3 is not connected to the internet? It keeps playing. You just don’t get the online bits.)

Yes. There are games that have single-player offline modes and also online multiplayer functionality. What I’m saying, the argument I’m trying to make here, is that Blizzard chose not to make one of those. That is as opposed to saying “they made one of those, and then required you to be online for DRM reasons.” That’s what the Ubisoft DRM is - offline games that require you to be online just to make sure you don’t pirate it. Blizzard is requiring you to be online because the game is architected like an MMO (all the character storage, item transactions, and other important interactions are handled on their server and the client is untrustworthy).

Nobody is suggesting in any way that they could not have made it with a separate offline-playable single player mode. They chose not to. They made it an online multiplayer-only game, because in their view, the full enjoyment of the game can only come from those features which require persistent access to the game and other players.

You disagree, and that’s totally fine. But it doesn’t mean that what they implemented is a base DRM ploy, like requiring you to be online to play Assassin’s Creed or Driver. They built a legitimate online game - which just happens to not be what you wanted them to make.

1705

I don’t think it’s going to happen anyway. After all of this, they aren’t going to say, oops sorry and not go through with it. And honestly, I think it will work for their goals. My goals and theirs don’t align, but overall, they’ll make more money.

The only concern looking at it from their end, is there’s going to be a fair number of people who aren’t going to realize you can’t cash out your Battle.net account balance and the whole fee structure seems a bit too complex. Depending on how large that number is, they may have to change their stance on that, but if it’s to bypass regulatory scrutiny… then they may just have to deal as is.

1706

That’s such a lawsuit waiting to happen in the EU as well.

Jason Cross - Fine, but is the box going to say “this is designed as a multiplayer game”?

1707

From the Activision-Blizzard investors’ conference call: Diablo III beta later this quarter, they’re pushing hard to release the game this year. No actual dates given, sadly… they did say the version played by the press earlier this week was “nearly beta complete”.

1708

1709

That was disappointing. Why put the big todo about the beta on the Blizzard website if they weren’t ready to say when it would start?

1710

I wonder why these “Starter Edition” are so prominent in these notes. Is that part of some strategy?

1711

It’s the time-honoured “the first taste is free, the next one’s gonna cost you” strategy.

1712

Because it sounds better than playable demo.

1713

That reminded me to update my system stats on my battle.net account, since they use that, in part, for the beta invites. I’m not all that keen about playing the game early, but I’d rather not have feedback overwhelmed by rabid beta testers that don’t play the way I do.

1714

So, aside all the AH discussion, am I the only one wishing D3 would have at least 2 more classes?

1715

As far as I’m concerned you are. I haven’t even played any of the ones they have so far, what would I do with two more?

1716

Variety is always nice. What that has to do with having played it already or not, well, I don’t see the correlation. Or perhaps I don’t find any of the classes that interesting, at least from what they have shown.

1717

Yeah that’s my problem… I’m not that interested in any of the classes. A crossbow assassin is a different flavor of archetype over the Bowazon, in particular.

1718

I was hoping for a paladin-type party buffer/healer. As is I’ll probably go barbarian > wizard > monk and stop there.

1719

This is really looming as a problem for me, as well. As much as I loved Diablo 2, I look at the Diablo 3 classes and just don’t feel compelled to play any of them.

1720

I was hoping for at least specializations but since they completely removed the skill trees and damage scales only based on level + gear, every single barbarian will have the same skills and the only difference will be what skill set they are using (since you can only have 3 actives and 2 passives) and their gear/weapon.