|
While it's incredibly annoying to not be able to play a "single player" game during server issues... I actually prefer the "always on" of Diablo 3. Everything is tracked and saved neatly on one little account - I get to have awesome stat tracking, achievements, and saved progress no matter where I play in the world. It also means that the barrier to entry is a lot higher, so I would hope that the quality of people playing is better (less bot spammers). I find the "internet connection" argument part of this to be stupid, who the hell is a "PC gamer" and doesn't have a decent internet connection these days(to echo Sigma-X)? It's absurd... whatever, I prefer it this way, call me crazy.
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Dinurth posted:I find the "internet connection" argument part of this to be stupid, who the hell is a "PC gamer" and doesn't have a decent internet connection these days(to echo Sigma-X)? It's absurd... whatever, I prefer it this way, call me crazy. Not crazy, just absurdly myopic to think that everyone is in the same situation as you are.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
No, it's pretty terrible this is happening and always-on DRM (and it's not even that) is a terrible idea for far more reasons than it's a good one. See, this isn't just DRM. Nothing is hosted client side except what basically amounts to a WoW client. All enemy routines, all event triggers, everything is handled by the Blizzard servers. This means a lot of things.
There are a lot of problems with what Blizzard is doing here that do, in fact, dramatically impact gameplay. They're also doing so in a way that shouldn't be affecting a single-player user at all. In fact, if there was a separate "offline only" mode, there likely wouldn't have been such a terrible launch because of the reduced server load.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Not crazy, just absurdly myopic to think that everyone is in the same situation as you are. I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone who has PC good enough to play Diablo 3 would either not have an internet connection at all, or would have one crappy enough to not play. No one bitches about all the phone games that require a constant connection to play even when it is essentially a "single player experience". Would it have been easy for them to include offline? Yes. Does everyone in the world bitching about it change anything? No. Like with most complaints about games, people just want to bitch and call it the worst decision ever despite the fact that they have paid for and are playing the game anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
Juc66 posted:It's why I wonder if anybody has hard numbers. I've looked up this for one such argument before, and while I can't find the source I used previously, there's this stuff like this: http://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/publications/2009.html (Yes, a few years old, and limited to the States, but its the quickest reference I could look up). I imagine, if you remove the parts of the population who don't play video games, the number would be much higher than 70%.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Not crazy, just absurdly myopic to think that everyone is in the same situation as you are. Well for myself I find always online DRM super annoying. I've got a very good connection with my ISP but they've got a thing for doing maintenance in the middle of when I'm active. Actually online games in general like to go for maintenance when I'm active. (I'm very much a night owl) If it were any game other than Diablo 3, I'd just not buy it. BUT that's just me.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
yerrow peril posted:I've looked up this for one such argument before, and while I can't find the source I used previously, there's this stuff like this: http://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/publications/2009.html (Yes, a few years old, and limited to the States, but its the quickest reference I could look up). Now find a breakdown of how many people have what level and what kind of broadband. Then find service reports for the areas they're in. The connection just existing isn't the point. Everyone may have sandwiches, but that doesn't mean they won't give some of them the runs.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Dinurth posted:I find the "internet connection" argument part of this to be stupid, who the hell is a "PC gamer" and doesn't have a decent internet connection these days(to echo Sigma-X)? It's absurd... whatever, I prefer it this way, call me crazy. They'll get said money, of course, but there's an open question of how much damage they'll inflict on what is undeniably a very valuable brand in the process.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Juc66 posted:It's why I wonder if anybody has hard numbers. I imagine it would be extremely difficult to track how many people play single player games offline. I guess Steam could track offline mode usage?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
NINbuntu 64 posted:No, it's pretty terrible this is happening and always-on DRM (and it's not even that) is a terrible idea for far more reasons than it's a good one. See, this isn't just DRM. Nothing is hosted client side except what basically amounts to a WoW client. All enemy routines, all event triggers, everything is handled by the Blizzard servers. This means a lot of things. This is another thing I find incredibly interesting, other than the launch day shenanigans are you one of "these people"? I don't get why people are defending situations that don't effect them. Is it just the inherent hatred towards DRM for some reason? I'm not saying there isn't downsides to an always online game, 'cause obviously there are, but why are you (and a lot of people) defending situations that don't effect them? If everyone really hated it that much they should not buy the game and show Blizzard that the people don't stand for this. But as usual D3 is going to blow sales out of the water despite all the hate they get for this, and all the apparent sales they lose out on because it requires online.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Dinurth posted:I find the "internet connection" argument part of this to be stupid, who the hell is a "PC gamer" and doesn't have a decent internet connection these days(to echo Sigma-X)? It's absurd... whatever, I prefer it this way, call me crazy. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, that's who. Think Asia, where MILLIONS of people don't own PC or they have one but no internet connection, or they have internet but it's really lovely. I currently live/work in Vietnam and I don't plan on buying D3 even though I was a rabid fan of D2, simply because I cannot be sure I will even be able to play. I find it preposterous or even pedant of saying "Meh, we have fast internet here so who cares about others elsewhere."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
Dinurth posted:I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone who has PC good enough to play Diablo 3 would either not have an internet connection at all, or would have one crappy enough to not play. No one's playing the game right now in the Americas, the servers have crashed. And the fact that you find it "incredibly hard to believe" that anyone who has a laptop made in the last 2 years (basically all of which can play D3 assuming they aren't running stock poo poo video cards) might have a poor internet connection and therefore cannot play one of the biggest releases of 2012 just shows that you probably shouldn't make a business out of believing things. You're bad at it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
Senso posted:MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, that's who. Think Asia, where MILLIONS of people don't own PC or they have one but no internet connection, or they have internet but it's really lovely. Yeah, 2/3rds of the Chinese don't have Internet access. That's a huge market they could be tapping into.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Senso posted:MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, that's who. Think Asia, where MILLIONS of people don't own PC or they have one but no internet connection, or they have internet but it's really lovely. I agree they are alienating a lot of fans, but South Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan have some of the fastest (average) internet connections in the world. The US isn't even in the top 10. I realize not everyone has access to decent internet, but gently caress they were recently talking about making internet access a RIGHT in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
Honestly I think most people's complaints about it are on principle more than anything else. It is a pain when the servers go down but that probably won't happen as much in the future since release day is naturally going to be when they're experiencing the most strain. I can understand why they did it from both a business and a gameplay perspective - Diablo 2 was notorious for hacks, to the point that a very rare unique ring was being used as currency by the players because it had been duped so often. That can have a pretty damaging effect on the in-game economy (which hurts gameplay, since it basically means legitimate players can't actually participate in the economy since they can't afford anything), which Blizzard is naturally going to want to protect more carefully now that there's the in-game real money auction house (which is their business interest). As DRM schemes go, it's also not that intrusive. If you want to play TF2 it's the same idea - sure you play on privately hosted servers, but you still have to log in through the master Steam server, which is also used to track your inventory independent of whatever server you happen to be on. Granted that's a pure multiplayer game so it's not a perfect comparison, but the point is that it's a very transparent process that you only really notice if you make a point of noticing it. It would be nice if there was a separate offline-only set of characters you could use, but they probably figured that would just be an invitation to pirates, not to mention the fact that they would have to put in a bunch of extra work to implement it, along with separate testing, plus it would be heavily feature limited since things related to the online experience like the auction house or achievements would have to be removed. If they were really sneaky they could probably implement this in a later patch - it soothes all the complaints of "No offline mode!" while all the people who would have pirated it would probably already have bought it. Now I do like DRM-free games - I love GOG.com and their hardline stance on "No DRM ever", but having to simply log in to a server that's in general pretty reliable isn't that bad at all. If we were only going by today's track record yeah, it looks bad, but battle.net in general has a pretty strong history of reliability predating Diablo 3 and I don't see any reason why that would change. As for the lack of reviews - I'm guessing the design of the game made it very difficult to provide reviewers with advance copies of the game as is traditional. They would have had to make some sort of special client that connected to a "review server" that would be activated earlier than the main servers, and it was probably more work than they really wanted to put in. As was mentioned earlier, reviewers are probably going to go out of their way to get reviews up as quickly as possible anyway, and it's not like Blizzard themselves really NEED glowing reviews to sell the game. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 05:26 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Dinurth posted:This is another thing I find incredibly interesting, other than the launch day shenanigans are you one of "these people"? I don't get why people are defending situations that don't effect them. Well I don't like murder, but I've never been murdered. ...that's an extreme exaggeration, but my point is you don't have to be directly affected to care about something. Now regarding those numbers ... I'm on a mac so the xls stuff is a bit of a pita to read, I think it says 87 percent of americans have some sort of online connectivity. and according to the ESA 72% of americans play video games, so I assume it's spread evenly between people who do and do not have online connectivity. So assuming a perfect world where everybody with online connectivity is capable of playing diablo 3. That's 62% of americans that can potentially play the game, a 10% loss of potential customers in an ideal situation. That's pretty substantial in my opinion, I've seen major engine decisions based on catering to as little as 4% of potential customers. edit ---I get the feeling I'm reading those numbers wrong. I think I should DL something that can actually properly read an XLS--- Juc66 fucked around with this message at 05:28 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:No one's playing the game right now in the Americas, the servers have crashed. What does this even mean? I have a laptop made roughly 2 years ago with Wifi and pretty much everywhere I go I am connected - I've played TF2(and other games) at airports, coffee shops, and other random places just fine.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Dinurth posted:I don't get why people are defending situations that don't effect them. quote:Game Jobs Megathread #3: you slowly start to like its horrible taste! This is a thread directly tied to the business of game development, a business that is tied directly to knowing consumers and how they'll react to things. Right now there is a huge stink in the PC gaming community over DRM because it gets ridiculously restrictive, and this is a perfect example of it where the millions of people who bought the game are near completely unable to play it. To top that off, the specific way they're handling the DRM here is screwing them out of two important things in a business: Potential customers and good will. A game comes out. Millions of people buy it. They get home, maybe they have time off work specifically to play this game. They get the game installed and try and play. Maybe co-op, maybe single player, whatever, doesn't matter. They find out they can't play. They find out nobody can play at all. This makes people mad and it does massive damage to good will. And you can try and downplay that all you want, but you'd be really1 foolish2 to do so.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
^^^ Yep, we may not be as big as Bioware or Blizzard, but we would never treat our customers like poo poo. (You can also add Portal 2's poorly thought out store to the list of games whose bad decisions led to negative metacritic user reviews. And Bastion too I guess, but that's an anomaly.)Juc66 posted:and according to the ESA 72% of americans play video games, so I assume it's spread evenly between people who do and do not have online connectivity. Wait, why would you assume that 50% of game playing Americans don't have Internet connectivity? emoticon fucked around with this message at 05:31 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
Juc66 posted:That's pretty substantial in my opinion, I've seen major engine decisions based on catering to as little as 4% of potential customers. Yes, but that company was not Blizzard. Blizzard can afford to lose a potential %4 customer base and not give a gently caress. Remember how much people hated Steam when it first came out? "You mean I have to DOWNLOAD the game and be online before I can play it? gently caress THAT" There is a lot of assumption going on around this entire thing. At the end of the day Diablo 3 is going to sell a fuckton amount of copies and Blizzard is going to make a fuckton of money. Edit: again everyone is talking about this from a reasonable not Blizzard perspective. I have personally sent new PS3's and router to players to help diagnose issues because I give a gently caress about our fans(and the goodwill is nice). But this is Blizzard, WoW launch was like this, SC2 launch was... actually somewhat decent. But the point stands, Blizzard is such a powerhouse they don't have to care. Dinurth fucked around with this message at 05:32 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
I don't see why anyone needs to be making the argument that this won't degrade the experience for people. It already has -- since launch the servers have had a huge amount of instability and downtime. That is a provable degradation that is directly caused by DRM. As time goes on that will even out and not be nearly as bad as it is right now, but the fact remains that they chose to include DRM in their game that decreased the quality of play for their players, and many people have rightly pointed out that it is already negatively impacting their experience. That is just a fact. It doesn't make Diablo 3 a bad game or Blizzard a bad company because it is not a binary thing, but it is definitely worth talking about and complaining about because it's a thing that doesn't need to be there and kind of sucks for some customers.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
octoroon posted:I don't see why anyone needs to be making the argument that this won't degrade the experience for people. It already has -- since launch the servers have had a huge amount of instability and downtime. That is a provable degradation that is directly caused by DRM. It currently is right now too. The Americas servers have been down for about an hour with no ETA. Actually the entire battle.net seems to be down. Irish Taxi Driver fucked around with this message at 05:33 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
emoticon posted:^^^ Yep, we may not be as big as Bioware or Blizzard, but we would never treat our customers like poo poo. What I meant is the percentage of people who play games aren't overrepresented in the percentage of folks with or without internet connectivity. 86 percent in each group....that number feels so wrong. I'm stopping until I get a proper XLS viewer.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Dinurth if your perspective is that Blizzard can do whatever they want and gently caress everybody because HUGE MONEYS then you're worthless. You're not adding anything to any discussion, you're just throwing up your arms Seinfeld style and saying "but WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?" Great, thanks, you think Blizzard can do whatever they want and nobody will care, duly noted. Great work, really a lot to discuss there.
Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 05:37 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
I wonder how much differently people would perceive this situation is Blizzard had at some point announced Diablo 3 would be an MMO. I don't mean the game would have been any different than it actually is, but there's a perception that some kinds of games are online only and that's okay. (Don't recall a huge clamor for offline play in WoW, for example.) It's not even hard to make the argument that D3 is an MMO, with all the content being instanced. Hell, there's even trade chat and an auction house.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Paniolo posted:I wonder how much differently people would perceive this situation is Blizzard had at some point announced Diablo 3 would be an MMO. I don't mean the game would have been any different than it actually is, but there's a perception that some kinds of games are online only and that's okay. (Don't recall a huge clamor for offline play in WoW, for example.) No, it's very easy to make the claim that Diablo 3 isn't an MMO. The inclusion and focus on a single player/co-op campaign, for one. Some kinds of games are online-only, yes. But not the ones with a big, glowing single-player button.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
emoticon posted:Wait, why would you assume that 50% of game playing Americans don't have Internet connectivity? Yeah, that's a pretty silly assumption. I would think that someone who makes a point of being a "gamer" would probably prioritize getting an internet connection more than someone who has absolutely no interest in games, or who only plays games at parties or at friends but doesn't really care enough to pursue them on their own. It would be like saying "Well 72% of Americans play video games, we'll assume that it's spread evenly between people who do and do not have a gaming console". Dinurth posted:Yes, but that company was not Blizzard. Blizzard can afford to lose a potential %4 customer base and not give a gently caress. Remember how much people hated Steam when it first came out? "You mean I have to DOWNLOAD the game and be online before I can play it? gently caress THAT" I think this is what it boils down to. Even in this very thread people have said "if it was any other game I wouldn't buy it, but Diablo 3!". As much as they might bitch, they're still going to buy it. The DRM is annoying, but it's not so intrusive that it's actually going to change minds about the game in significant enough numbers to hurt sales. WoW is losing players, that's true, but I think that's more of a symptom of the game being nearly 8 years old than because people have suddenly gotten really mad at Blizzard for their decisions related to the game - it's just an old MMO and there are probably more people who have already played it and gotten bored of it than there are people who would try it but haven't gotten the chance yet. One of the kind of sad facts of the gaming industry is that games do not have the shelf life of books or movies. Novelty is so vital to staying afloat; people still read books written hundreds of years ago, or watch movies made in the 40's and 50's. How many people still play games that were made in the Atari generation, or even the mid-90's? NINbuntu 64 posted:No, it's very easy to make the claim that Diablo 3 isn't an MMO. The inclusion and focus on a single player/co-op campaign, for one. Some kinds of games are online-only, yes. But not the ones with a big, glowing single-player button. Diablo 3 doesn't actually have a big, glowing, single-player button. It just has "New Game" (Or "Resume Game" if you've already started). It's not an MMO, yes, but it is a hop-in hop-out co-op game. A lot of those already exist, the only real difference is that D3 is a bit more playable solo than most of them tend to be. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 05:42 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Diablo 3 doesn't actually have a big, glowing, single-player button. It just has "New Game" (Or "Resume Game" if you've already started). It's not an MMO, yes, but it is a hop-in hop-out co-op game. A lot of those already exist, the only real difference is that D3 is a bit more playable solo than most of them tend to be. It was hyperbole, to be sure, but it's a hard, if not impossible case to make that this is an MMO or even multiplayer only experience. Really, the only people I see making the case for either of those are people who know that the entire thing is handled server side or know it's online only to begin with. The inclusion of the online-only system is a black mark on the game, if not through ideal than through the fact that it directly impacts gameplay as it does. Not to mention that most hop-in hop-out games still work when your internet drops out. Saints Row 2 comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Paniolo posted:I wonder how much differently people would perceive this situation is Blizzard had at some point announced Diablo 3 would be an MMO. I don't mean the game would have been any different than it actually is, but there's a perception that some kinds of games are online only and that's okay. (Don't recall a huge clamor for offline play in WoW, for example.) Diablo 3 is an MMO with an optional mode that makes it so you can't interact with other players. Whether or not that's a good idea, whether or not that's how it was marketed, that's what it is. The segment of the population that gets excluded is the segment of the population that can't/doesn't/doesn't want to play MMOs. Philosophical issues of DRM aside, they're undeniably giving up one segment of the market for another. But then I'm not interested in clicktastic dungeon crawlers so since I'm not impacted by it I don't count 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I think this is what it boils down to. Even in this very thread people have said "if it was any other game I wouldn't buy it, but Diablo 3!". As much as they might bitch, they're still going to buy it. WoW is losing players, that's true, but I think that's more of a symptom of the game being nearly 8 years old than because people have suddenly gotten really mad at Blizzard for their decisions related to the game - it's just an old MMO and there are probably more people who have already played it and gotten bored of it than there are people who would try it but haven't gotten the chance yet. Didn't they just claim WoW had started to climb again? Anyway, the only thing I even originally wanted to comment on was how I find it absurd that PC gamers don't have an internet connection. I'm not sure why everyone is so defensive about this. How many users does Steam have? It's like saying "you know what some people don't have cell phones!" This is absolutely true, some people have lovely connections or no connections at all, and I'm sorry they don't get to play D3. A collection of people at Blizzard came to a decision to make D3 an online only game, and if we assume they are telling the truth it was not motivated by any corporate influence - to the end that they believe it will provide the best overall gameplay experience. Edit: sorry I'm done on a massive derail in in the games job megathread. Dinurth fucked around with this message at 05:48 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Dinurth posted:Didn't they just claim WoW had started to climb again? Anyway, the only thing I even originally wanted to comment on was how I find it absurd that PC gamers don't have an internet connection. I'm not sure why everyone is so defensive about this. How many users does Steam have? It's like saying "you know what some people don't have cell phones!" They claimed it had stopped the death spiral it had been in for the last year and a half, not that it had started to climb again. And the problem isn't the lack of an internet connection, but the quality of said connection and its impact on the single-player portion of the game, on top of the DRM-scheme making it so that you can't play, regardless of connection. Your comparisons are completely worthless because you're ignoring the core issues here.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
Dinurth posted:This is absolutely true, some people have lovely connections or no connections at all, and I'm sorry they don't get to play D3. A collection of people at Blizzard came to a decision to make D3 an online only game, and if we assume they are telling the truth it was not motivated by any corporate influence - to the end that they believe it will provide the best overall gameplay experience. That's really what it boils down to -- Blizzard claims they included always-on DRM as a feature to make the game better for everyone with zero non-dev influence, period. A large portion of their customers who paid cash money for a game they can currently play poorly or not at all are questioning the logic of that. Maybe you're right and this will all blow away in a week-- that is what Blizzard thinks. But maybe not, and maybe they will be motivated to change their tactics if it raises enough of a stink.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
Chainclaw posted:I think traditional reviews don't matter as much nowadays, a lot of big launches recently have been courting popular live streamers instead. I read a paper awhile ago called "Content is Not King" by Andrew Odlyzko. Here's the relevant part: quote:The predominance of point-to-point communications [consumer] spending is not new. That has been the historical pattern for ages. For example, in the early 19th century, almost all the revenues of the U.S. postal system came from letters. Yet about as many newspapers as letters were being delivered. NINbuntu 64 posted:Maybe the reviewers couldn't log into the game like everyone else. cgeq posted:Wouldn't any review copies have to connect to their servers as well?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Welp, as a game reviewer, I can actually talk on this subject a little bit. Now, as far as review copies go, we didn't get one because we didn't ask, so the boss is making a hole in his budget to get a copy for me to review. Which leads to problem number 1: It's not very easy to buy a gift copy of a Blizzard game nowadays, especially on short notice. Starcraft 2, for example, required all sorts of shenanigans for my mate to buy me a digital download copy, simply because of the regionalised release. He wanted to play it with me, and eventually had to make an alt account to allow this to happen. It was either that, or trust game-key sales sites, which are hit and miss. The boss is now in the same situation: Either buy me an amazon copy, which may or may not reach us in time for a review, or go through the same shenanigans. Good will already lost a bit. Problem number 2: UK Internet. As it is, I can't play Battlefield 3 with my american friends because I live in the wilds of Pembrokeshire, where you will get half of the promised 4Mb connection, off-peak, if you're lucky. This also leads to lag problems if I try to connect to US servers, and vice-versa. Always on connection is definitely going to lead to problems. Good will lost some more. Problem number 3: Even if the boss gets the game, shenanigans or no, I'm likely at high risk of being unable to play the game due to problem 2. More good will will likely be lost as I lose progress and lose loot I was fond of. As it is, it already isn't looking good for Blizzard, and RPS coverage of it so far has been decidedly jaundiced as a result. The forum posts are divided, but mostly slamming Blizzard for what many see as an unnecessary move. Will it affect sales? Probably not an amazing amount, it's apparently been demonstrated that we reviewers don't affect sales figures by an appreciable amount. Will this reduce future good-will with the company? Almost certainly. In fact, it already has, although whether this is by a significant amount? Time will tell.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
NINbuntu 64 posted:They claimed it had stopped the death spiral it had been in for the last year and a half, not that it had started to climb again. And the problem isn't the lack of an internet connection, but the quality of said connection and its impact on the single-player portion of the game, on top of the DRM-scheme making it so that you can't play, regardless of connection. Your comparisons are completely worthless because you're ignoring the core issues here. But I was never even debating these "core issues". My only comment was that I find it a little ridiculous that any "PC gamer" doesn't have a somewhat decent connection, at least decent enough to connect to and play D3. If you connection isn't good enough to play, then you bring the game back or you are smart enough to know it isn't good enough and you don't play it in the first place. Not that is't possible, but it would be amazing to see how many people played D2 online vs single player by themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Dinurth posted:But I was never even debating these "core issues". My only comment was that I find it a little ridiculous that any "PC gamer" doesn't have a somewhat decent connection, at least decent enough to connect to and play D3. You can't return PC games, only exchange them for another copy if the product is broken. And there is no reason to know if your connection is good enough for a single player experience because the default thought process is single player = not internet. There is no reason for the person to sit there and go "well obviously all the enemies and scripted events are handled server-side when I want to play on my own" because that's not how any game worked and there was no way for them to know this.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
NINbuntu 64 posted:You can't return PC games, only exchange them for another copy if the product is broken. Unless you are an informed consumer - I haven't actually seen the retail box for D3 but I assume it says "internet connection required" on it. Where are you unable to return PC games? I know of plenty of places that offer full refunds for a unhappy customer regardless of the reason.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
JamieTheD posted:Welp, as a game reviewer, I can actually talk on this subject a little bit. Now, as far as review copies go, we didn't get one because we didn't ask, so the boss is making a hole in his budget to get a copy for me to review. I wonder how many publications will have the balls to reflect this loss of good-will in their Diablo 3 reviews. Not many, I assume.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah, that's a pretty silly assumption. I would think that someone who makes a point of being a "gamer" would probably prioritize getting an internet connection more than someone who has absolutely no interest in games, or who only plays games at parties or at friends but doesn't really care enough to pursue them on their own. I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption. I've actually lived in places in Canada with absolute garbage for internet, so bad that you might as well not pay for it, or the latency was beyond useless for gaming. There were the same percentage of folks who played games as not, just used consoles or PCs and played single player games or played multiplayer via LAN. Living in the stix doesn't mean your entertainment is solely based around shooting gophers or chasing coyotes from the calves. Actually some of the biggest game nerds I know lived out in the middle of nowhere, and without internet at home, or now a days without internet that's of any use for much beyond checking websites and email. Anyway, got an XLS viewer, it's more around 76.7% if you include the old folks So that brings them from 72% of americans from potentially playing their game to around 55% And that's still assuming everybody with an internet connection is a potential customer, the numbers look worse and worse if you reduce that. Say if you assume that you need broadband to play. That's a MASSIVE reduction on the number of people who can potentially play the game. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1157.pdf Only 2.82% of americans have broadband in their home. So that reduces the number of potential customers from 72% of americans down to around 2% of total americans as potential customers. So you're turning your potential customer base from 72% down to 2%. That's a pretty massive reduction of potential users.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Dinurth posted:Unless you are an informed consumer - I haven't actually seen the retail box for D3 but I assume it says "internet connection required" on it. Where are you unable to return PC games? I know of plenty of places that offer full refunds for a unhappy customer regardless of the reason. An informed consumer has no way of knowing how well the game will perform in their circumstances unless they had access to the beta or reviews, which simply don't exist. And every single game that has a multiplayer component says "internet connection required." Hell, I think one of the Assassin's Creed games that also had always-online DRM said the same thing. And yet, you miss the point again. quote:And the problem isn't the lack of an internet connection, but the quality of said connection and its impact on the single-player portion of the game Even if they have an internet connection, they have no way of knowing things like "I will be completely unable to play this game at all for days after release because of a problem on their end" or "when I play, there will be a perceptible amount of latency because everything single-player is being done somewhere else." Your entire argument to this point has been a series of anecdotes and "well it works for me" while casually just dismissing the fact that this is all fundamentally broken, which is, as was stated before, ridiculously myopic. And the vast majority of places simply don't exchange software or let you return it because it was a thing where people would buy and return things after making ripped copies. It's all rooted in piracy and money loss.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 06:06
|
|