Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

The Armchair Empire - An Open Letter to Mike Morhaime.
Ubisoft may have set the precedent, but there is a rather different set of factors involved with Diablo III. The most obvious is that the community was not strictly locked into the PC as the platform for titles like Assassin's Creed II, and public comments in the past from Yves Guillemot and other executives at Ubisoft have expressed a strong desire to divest of themselves of any presence in the PC market. Blizzard does not have that degree of flexibility. The days of The Lost Vikings and Blackthorne are long gone. The PC is the only platform you have invested in, whether that's Windows or Mac, and there is no other place to go. For better or worse, you've tied yourself to a single platform, and forcing this scheme onto the community without the benefit of alternate platforms will not result in millions of fans falling in line like good little sheep to be fleeced. You may get some, but nowhere near what you were expecting. The rest will either forsake the game, and Blizzard by extension, or they will turn pirate.

View
47 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

47. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 19:58 MajorD
 

Bhruic wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 19:28:
Oh, I'm sure he does, and I'm sure there isn't any possibility of directional smoke there to help promote the game. In my mind, of course he is going to say that. Is what he is saying 100% true, and it has nothing to do with the company trying to selfishly justify what they are doing? I don't know, but as a consumer I'm certainly going to question that, and not just take his word at face value, ESPECIALLY if you look at the direction the industry is going with all these greed ridden publishers.

People just so easily accept things these days without questioning anything. People need to realize that these greedy whore publishers need US, we don’t need them.

Um, dude? The guy I quoted works for a completely different company. Which is making a game that some would say is in direct competition with Diablo.

So, yeah, the chances that he just said that to "promote the game"? Not so high.

My bad, I apologize. However, I still stick by my comments of:

People just so easily accept things these days without questioning anything. People need to realize that these greedy whore publishers need US, we don’t need them.

 
Avatar 55780
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 19:28 Bhruic
 
Oh, I'm sure he does, and I'm sure there isn't any possibility of directional smoke there to help promote the game. In my mind, of course he is going to say that. Is what he is saying 100% true, and it has nothing to do with the company trying to selfishly justify what they are doing? I don't know, but as a consumer I'm certainly going to question that, and not just take his word at face value, ESPECIALLY if you look at the direction the industry is going with all these greed ridden publishers.

People just so easily accept things these days without questioning anything. People need to realize that these greedy whore publishers need US, we don’t need them.

Um, dude? The guy I quoted works for a completely different company. Which is making a game that some would say is in direct competition with Diablo.

So, yeah, the chances that he just said that to "promote the game"? Not so high.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 18:51 Cutter
 
You realize if you buy into this new vision you become, by default, Kotick's personal ass-slave for life.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 18:41 Creston
 
Beamer wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 16:59:
They want consumers to buy more stuff within the game while playing the game and that means running the game in conjunction with a creditcard transaction server.

But you don't need to force them online for that. Enough of them will be online anyway that there's no need to force it. Plus plenty of other games do DLC without forcing you online.

This is about control, that's true, but in a DRM way, not a sell-you way. There's zero need to force people online to sell them DLC. Zero. Like I said in another post, just build the storefront into the main menu and have it connect if the player is online. Which, 9 times out of 10 (if not far more) he will be.

This is Actiblizzard we're talking about. Having a player see the auction house 10 times out of 10 is FAR better than having him see it 9 times out of 10.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 18:26 MajorD
 

Bhruic wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 14:21:
Again, I completely disagree with this. How does this require persistent online? It doesn't in any way, shape or form. There isn't a single argument that can be made that persistent online even helps this. Sorry, but it makes the argument dumb.

Really? So when Max Schaefer from Runic games said that that was probably the reason for it... let me quote him:
"In this case, a fully secure economy MAY require it."
I'm pretty sure he's in a better position to say than you. So yeah, maybe you want to rethink your "dumb argument" comment.


Oh, I'm sure he does, and I'm sure there isn't any possibility of directional smoke there to help promote the game. In my mind, of course he is going to say that. Is what he is saying 100% true, and it has nothing to do with the company trying to selfishly justify what they are doing? I don't know, but as a consumer I'm certainly going to question that, and not just take his word at face value, ESPECIALLY if you look at the direction the industry is going with all these greed ridden publishers.

People just so easily accept things these days without questioning anything. People need to realize that these greedy whore publishers need US, we don’t need them.

 
Avatar 55780
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 16:59 Beamer
 
They want consumers to buy more stuff within the game while playing the game and that means running the game in conjunction with a creditcard transaction server.

But you don't need to force them online for that. Enough of them will be online anyway that there's no need to force it. Plus plenty of other games do DLC without forcing you online.

This is about control, that's true, but in a DRM way, not a sell-you way. There's zero need to force people online to sell them DLC. Zero. Like I said in another post, just build the storefront into the main menu and have it connect if the player is online. Which, 9 times out of 10 (if not far more) he will be.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 16:38 Warskull
 
Beamer wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 14:01:
avianflu wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 12:53:
The whole point of persistent on line is NOT to stop piracy: it is to allow for real-time micro-tranctions in the auction house and blizzard store.

Want that sword of Damocles for $1.50? Click -- it is now yours.

Again, I completely disagree with this. How does this require persistent online? It doesn't in any way, shape or form. There isn't a single argument that can be made that persistent online even helps this. Sorry, but it makes the argument dumb.

However, DRM can require persistent online.

In D2 you had offline single player and b.net multi. Single player was completely disconnected and you could still hack it. It didn't matter back then, because there was no microtransaction auction house. However, with D3 a player hacking their single player to get all the cool stuff they want is potentially a lost microtransaction customer.

Always On DRM is required to ensure players don't mod/hack their single player experience and end up bypassing the need for the online auction house.

It isn't a piracy issue here, they know the game will sell a ton of copies regardless. All Blizzard's moves lately have been towards a more tightly controlled user experience. With the ultimate goal of selling them more things.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 15:46 Bhruic
 
Sorry, not buying it. If they were to make a completely offline SP mode that never touched the online modes, then I could see. There is no reason I can see not to do this except to thwart piracy.

Ugh, now you are putting me in the position of defending them!

There are two approaches they could take for offline mode:
1) Same file formats. Problem - hacking these file formats would give a great deal of information about the file formats used in the online version. Would likely make cheats and duping more common.
2) Different file formats. Problem - now you're effectively supporting two different code bases for the same game, increasing the amount of work and testing to be done.

In both cases, I can see them deciding there isn't enough justification to move forward with it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 15:31 Prez
 
Sorry, not buying it. If they were to make a completely offline SP mode that never touched the online modes, then I could see. There is no reason I can see not to do this except to thwart piracy.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 15:24 avianflu
 
this article makes some arguments why DRM is not the primary focus of Blizzard's on-line requirements:

[url=http://www.avault.com/blogs/pitruzzello/diablo-iii-alwaysonline-feature/]
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 15:14 Creston
 
avianflu wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 14:49:
Hey Beamer -- the D3 game consumer has to be online for the micro-transactions to occur _seamlessly_ in the game. Same thing with the real-money auction house.

I think you are saying Blizzard could hypothetically allow folks to make purchases offline and outside of the game that would later be reflected in the game but that is obviously not what Blizzard _wants_ to do. They want consumers to buy more stuff within the game while playing the game and that means running the game in conjunction with a creditcard transaction server.


I doubt you could do it offline and maintain the integrity of your game. Someone would undoubtedly hack it, and then the auction house becomes worthless.

And the auction house is by far the most important part of this whole thing for Blizzard, because after all, they're only making 150 million bucks a month off WoW. They need some extra income in there.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 15:12 Creston
 
Prez wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 14:20:
I should have just posted 'QFT', 'QFMFT', 'THIS', '+1', '+10000' or whatever the cool kids say now.

I think they say "Word!" now, and then they cross their arms in front of their chest like they're hugging themselves.



creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 14:49 avianflu
 
Hey Beamer -- the D3 game consumer has to be online for the micro-transactions to occur _seamlessly_ in the game. Same thing with the real-money auction house.

I think you are saying Blizzard could hypothetically allow folks to make purchases offline and outside of the game that would later be reflected in the game but that is obviously not what Blizzard _wants_ to do. They want consumers to buy more stuff within the game while playing the game and that means running the game in conjunction with a creditcard transaction server.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 14:38 ASeven
 
PHJF wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 13:51:
Delusioned isn't a word.

Ah drat, I was under the delusion it was.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 14:21 Bhruic
 
Again, I completely disagree with this. How does this require persistent online? It doesn't in any way, shape or form. There isn't a single argument that can be made that persistent online even helps this. Sorry, but it makes the argument dumb.

Really? So when Max Schaefer from Runic games said that that was probably the reason for it... let me quote him:
"In this case, a fully secure economy MAY require it."
I'm pretty sure he's in a better position to say than you. So yeah, maybe you want to rethink your "dumb argument" comment.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 14:20 Prez
 
While my son and I count for two lost sales, and there will be others like us who are steadfastly against this new (for Blizzard) and insulting DRM scheme, I still think that Diablo 3 will easily meet and probably even beat expectations. Most people aren't like those of us who think back to a time when something like this would have been suicide for any publisher and/or developer and refuse to accept it now.

EDIT: Conversely, I could have just let the words of the supremely more intelligent Mr. Creston that he hath spake when he said:
They're going to sell millions upon millions upon millions of copies. The idea that the average PC gamer is this stalwart Champion of Principles is very cute, and utterly, utterly wrong. Most people will buy it because they don't care one way or another about having to be online (which is fine, to each his own), a large amount of people will buy it because they don't even realize they HAVE to be online, and the rest will buy it "BUT... BUT ITS BLIZZURD!"

I should have just posted 'QFT', 'QFMFT', 'THIS', '+1', '+10000' or whatever the cool kids say now.

This comment was edited on Aug 12, 2011, 14:26.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 14:16 Cutter
 
Dear Blizzard,

No sale.

Sincerely
Me

P.S. Go pound sand.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 14:01 Beamer
 
avianflu wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 12:53:
The whole point of persistent on line is NOT to stop piracy: it is to allow for real-time micro-tranctions in the auction house and blizzard store.

Want that sword of Damocles for $1.50? Click -- it is now yours.

Again, I completely disagree with this. How does this require persistent online? It doesn't in any way, shape or form. There isn't a single argument that can be made that persistent online even helps this. Sorry, but it makes the argument dumb.

However, DRM can require persistent online.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 13:54 Creston
 
Avecrien wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 12:04:
It doesn't matter to me what is more convenient for the corporation. I, as a consumer, have a responsibility to push for my needs and wants to be met instead of gobbling up whatevers slapped on my plate. The industry only goes this direction because we allow it. Fatalism and inaction do us no favors.

Competition for my entertainment dollar is at an all time high. It has never been easier for me to protest these decisions with my wallet and happily play the alternatives-or to join with like minded gamers to make sure they know about the alternatives. Or I could sulk about how nothing I do could possibly make a difference and buy what I'm told I'm supposed to.



Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Op Ed Aug 12, 2011, 13:51 PHJF
 
Delusioned isn't a word.  
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo