|
|
 |
| [Jan 08, 2012, 2:17 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Joystiq has an image of a store display in a Rochester, Minnesota Best Buy that seems to show a February 1 launch date for Diablo III, Blizzard's upcoming action/RPG sequel. They have some follow ups that don't completely confirm or deny this, and word that the end-cap was legit, but has since been removed. Meanwhile, the Best Buy Website now shows a February 1 release date for the game.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 272. |
Re: Diablo III in February? |
Jan 12, 2012, 05:20 |
Peeling |
|
|
lurkerator wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 20:02:
I usually lurk, but this is just too much.
Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:23:
The only strawmen in this discussion are the pitiful ones you are building to avoid addressing the obvious point: there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.
...to a game designed and balanced to be played in connection with others? Hmm.
It's clearly not an MMO-game, and they've stated several times that the game can be played solo.
Yes. It's not the optimal way to play it, but you can choose to do that. You can play a FPS without using the shotgun, too, but that doesn't entitle you to a build of the game where the shotgun has been removed.
How does forcing connectivity help me if I can't play online, in a place with bad (or no) Internet connection?
It doesn't. If that's the case for you, I sympathise, as I would with anyone who didn't meet the hardware requirements for a game they want to play.
Before you explode, I understand that this particular requirement is tangential to your personal preferences. The same could be said for someone who wants to play Crysis and doesn't care how low he would have to set the graphics settings.
This all especially if I don't want to play with other people, but I still want to play the game solo, and without using any fancy auction houses or whatever. I want to beat the game alone, and where I do that should not matter.
Like I said, your personal preferences are tangential to one of the hardware requirements for the game as it was designed to be played. It happens.
Also, no "offline" LAN play? That's wrong as well. If someone wants to play in a LAN with friends and the above mentioned problems arise, they can't play. For no good reason.
We're clearly at an impasse  You're picturing a world populated largely by cross people in log cabins and at failed LAN events, a scenario for which there's no imaginable justification. And if that's what happens, you'll be right and I'll be wrong. It didn't happen with SC2, but we'll see, I suppose.
Thanks for the discussion, all; sorry if I banged on a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
