Diablo III in February?

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.
View : : :
280 Replies. 14 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ] Older
260.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 17:22
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 17:22
Jan 11, 2012, 17:22
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 16:43:
Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:28:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:15:
Shared what? So any single player game that has a walk through on a forum thread or faq for example is not truly a single player game? Is that actually what you just tried to say? Are you fucking kidding me?

No, I'm not 'fucking kidding you'. Believe it or not, companies often design their single-player experiences in the knowledge that a minority of players will 'discover' a majority of the content, and disseminate it via the internet. That's why even games like Prof.Layton have to tread carefully to prevent pushing people towards spoiler sites.

I was also careful to say "I'm not by any stretch trying to call it 'multiplayer'", but that must have got missed.

As I said, Skyrim is right, right down at the single player end of the spectrum. D3 is, by design, not.

You realize this line of logic makes no sense right? At least I hope you would. Then again since you're talking like it would have been soooo difficult to not force always on DRM I'm guessing you prolly don't.

I've never said it would be difficult. I'm saying it would be a counter-productive expenditure of effort, because it would tacitly encourage people to play D3 sub-optimally, as well as making the interface clunkier.

If doing something makes things worse, does it suddenly become ok if it's not very hard?
259.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 16:43
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 16:43
Jan 11, 2012, 16:43
 
Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:28:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:15:
Shared what? So any single player game that has a walk through on a forum thread or faq for example is not truly a single player game? Is that actually what you just tried to say? Are you fucking kidding me?

No, I'm not 'fucking kidding you'. Believe it or not, companies often design their single-player experiences in the knowledge that a minority of players will 'discover' a majority of the content, and disseminate it via the internet. That's why even games like Prof.Layton have to tread carefully to prevent pushing people towards spoiler sites.

I was also careful to say "I'm not by any stretch trying to call it 'multiplayer'", but that must have got missed.

As I said, Skyrim is right, right down at the single player end of the spectrum. D3 is, by design, not.

You realize this line of logic makes no sense right? At least I hope you would. Then again since you're talking like it would have been soooo difficult to not force always on DRM I'm guessing you prolly don't.

What I really want to know is what Blizzard's excuse will be once the dupes start rolling. I'll grab a box of popcorn for that one, it's sure to be epic on a truly grand stage of fail.
258.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 15:10
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 15:10
Jan 11, 2012, 15:10
 
Wish I knew someone who worked at Blizzard in game development. I'd love to hear the grunt level view of this issue...(not the company line).
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
257.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 14:30
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 14:30
Jan 11, 2012, 14:30
 
Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:19:
Right... because if there's one thing customers hate, it's a company that pays attention in order to serve them better in future.
Nah, not to better the customer. To better the company. The customers are just cows to Blizzard. Blizzard milks them. They are just name and numbers.

In addition to tracking, Blizzard also wants control.

If Blizzard says you can't play the game right now, then you can't play. Wha?

Yup. It practically says in their EULA that "Blizzard can do whatever it want, whenever it want, for any reason or no reason." --- Took a few iterations of their EULA, but that is the stage it's at right now. Pretty sad, huh?

Yup. Bye bye Blizzard. And bye bye Battle.net account.
256.
 
removed
Jan 11, 2012, 14:01
removed Jan 11, 2012, 14:01
Jan 11, 2012, 14:01
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jan 11, 2012, 16:01.
255.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:54
Prez
 
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:54
Jan 11, 2012, 12:54
 Prez
 
Bhruic wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:48:
there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.

I don't agree with him, but he's claiming that it would be too much work for Blizzard to not require an online connection. It's not worth the effort for Blizzard to cater to people who want to play single player in situations where they don't have an internet connection.

Which I agree, is Blizzard's position - they've already said to "buy another game" if that's a concern. So re-hashing the point is probably not worth it, you're not going to get a better response.

You are indeed right. I've already started to get that awkward feeling that my invovlement in this thread is no longer commensurate with the importance of the topic (it is just a game after all), and thus it's time to bow out.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
254.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:50
Prez
 
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:50
Jan 11, 2012, 12:50
 Prez
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:16:

Like I've said, the issues some of you have do not come from "suits."
And Prez, you accuse me of being numbers-oriented. As I've said in other topics, if you put me in a room full of numbers guys they'd accuse me of being consumer-oriented. I put out the sides of the argument someone isn't paying attention to. You very rarely pay attention to any argument. You are quick to discredit anything that doesn't benefit you more than anyone else. You are never willing to make compromises, but as a consumer you're often asked to. That's part of being a consumer.

I pay attention to every argument, until it devolves into the nonsensical, or until such time as it becomes obvious that the "argument' is nothing more than a blatant
misdirection campaign. There are shades of both here. Still, if we relent the terrorists win, or something like that.

As far as the rest of your post that lectures me on my 'obligations' as a a consumer, I'll say this isn't the first time I've heard this from you, and it washes about as much now as it ever did, which is to say it doesn't. The compromises you speak of me being required to make are the subject of MY choosing, and are not dictated to me by some corporate entity that values me only as far as my money spends. I'm not anti-corporation at all, but I am no under illusion that the corporate/ consumer relationship goes any farther than that. To whit, I was the final arbiter in the decision to embrace Steam and its obvious compromises, not Valve. I don't go around brow-beating everyone else into accepting them as well because that's not my place. The obligations of the consumer ends there. Despite what you always try to assert in these discussions, I have no obligation whatsoever to concern myself with anything other than what benefits me in the consumer/corporate relation. In truth it's a painfully simple concept. Company makes a product I want / I give company money for said product. I owe Valve and Blizzard not one other thing.

This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2012, 13:06.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
253.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:48
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:48
Jan 11, 2012, 12:48
 
there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.

I don't agree with him, but he's claiming that it would be too much work for Blizzard to not require an online connection. It's not worth the effort for Blizzard to cater to people who want to play single player in situations where they don't have an internet connection.

Which I agree, is Blizzard's position - they've already said to "buy another game" if that's a concern. So re-hashing the point is probably not worth it, you're not going to get a better response.
252.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:28
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:28
Jan 11, 2012, 12:28
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:15:
Shared what? So any single player game that has a walk through on a forum thread or faq for example is not truly a single player game? Is that actually what you just tried to say? Are you fucking kidding me?

No, I'm not 'fucking kidding you'. Believe it or not, companies often design their single-player experiences in the knowledge that a minority of players will 'discover' a majority of the content, and disseminate it via the internet. That's why even games like Prof.Layton have to tread carefully to prevent pushing people towards spoiler sites.

I was also careful to say "I'm not by any stretch trying to call it 'multiplayer'", but that must have got missed.

As I said, Skyrim is right, right down at the single player end of the spectrum. D3 is, by design, not.
251.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:23
Prez
 
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:23
Jan 11, 2012, 12:23
 Prez
 
Sorry, Peeeling; in some ways it's easier to deal with Gtard69. I know he's a drooling, blithering idiot. But you? How could someone who writes so well and displays such obvious intelligence be so dense?

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. And when you take a break from throwing out your impenetrable walls of text and do give supposed reasons attempting to defend such an action, said reasons are so pitifully, laughably lame that it's nigh impossible for me to accept that even YOU actually believe them.

That some people are of the opinion that the always-online requirement is a non-issue is easy for me to accept; as I said, everyone can decide for themselves what's a deal-breaker and what isn't. My issue is with people pretending they see no reason why some of us feel that this IS a deal-breaker. Such willfulness ignorance is bothersome to me.

This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2012, 12:28.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
250.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:19
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:19
Jan 11, 2012, 12:19
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:08:
Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 04:58:
1. D3 is balanced around being connected. Specifically, loot drops are balanced around being able to trade on the AH. It is part of the design of the game in a way that was not true of D1 and 2. You can play through it entirely solo if you want, in the same way many games allow you to deliberately handicap yourself, but explicit support for that option would give a misleading impression.
So, my play is handicapped if I don't spend money buying items from other players? Great balancing! *ugh*

You don't have to spend money. There's a fake-money AH, where you can sell the items you don't need to finance the ones you do, thus shortening the time needed to obtain something you want. The drop rates are balanced around this.

2. Pure offline support is extra work - extra work that creates a clunkier user experience. Offline progress that can't go online. Online characters that have to be duplicated and made permanently offline if played offline once. Locally saved progress. Confirmation boxes saying "Yes, I'm sure I want to sit here, connected to the internet, leveling a character that can't trade or play with anyone else because I find the enforced option of being able to trade or play with others unaccountably offensive." It all adds up.
So much work that they already did it years ago. Even if it was a lot of work, which it isn't, Blizzard has the money.

Like I said, it's extra work that's counter-productive in the context of the game's design. What's the point?

4. It's useful, as someone already pointed out, for Blizzard to be able to track their players' activities in order to refine future products. In general, I'm not a fan of being tracked. In this case, I don't have a problem with it because better games from Blizzard are something I'm already interested in.
Ah, finally some truth. Not anything any customer wants, but a truth.

Right... because if there's one thing customers hate, it's a company that pays attention in order to serve them better in future.
249.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:16
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:16
Jan 11, 2012, 12:16
 
I enjoy that some here regularly accuse "corporate claptrap" as coming from marketing, but here's a game designer and programmer who's worked on games all of us own.

Like I've said, the issues some of you have do not come from "suits."
And Prez, you accuse me of being numbers-oriented. As I've said in other topics, if you put me in a room full of numbers guys they'd accuse me of being consumer-oriented. I put out the sides of the argument someone isn't paying attention to. You very rarely pay attention to any argument. You are quick to discredit anything that doesn't benefit you more than anyone else. You are never willing to make compromises, but as a consumer you're often asked to. That's part of being a consumer.

Peeling is making some good points. You're intelligent and you may not agree with the decisions, but at least understand the process rather than just attack.
248.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:15
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:15
Jan 11, 2012, 12:15
 
Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:00:
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 08:27:
I said that pure single player experiences are no longer the core of big budget gaming.

I actually almost choked on my bagel (onion...mmmm!) when I read this. Do I really need to point out that Deus Ex and Skyrim had no MP and were critical and commercial successes by any metric?

No. Do I need to point out that most modern commercial successes include and even emphasise multiplayer?

If you want to make MP-only games, that's your business. But let's not distort the facts to make you and your company's decision seem more valid. And if you are making said decisions based on such laughably erroneous assumptions, that's not a good thing.

You know, I wouldn't have to type half as much if you didn't keep flinging up strawmen and forcing me to repeat myself.

Single/multiplayer is not a black/white issue, and individual games can span a range of shades.

Skyrim is almost purely single player, and can certainly be played that way. I say 'almost' because there's a lot of shared information about playing on the internet. I'm not by any stretch trying to call it 'multiplayer', I'm just pointing out that individual Skyrim players do not exist in a complete vaccuum.

WoW spans far more of the spectrum. It has content geared for raiding but also supports a lot of solo play (although you would be missing out if you deliberately avoided even the auction house).

D3 also occupies a broad band of the single/multiplayer spectrum. Yes, you can still play it entirely solo, but that's not (by design) the game's 'sweet spot'. The sweet spot is around the 'using the AH / playing with friends' region.

Shared what? So any single player game that has a walk through on a forum thread or faq for example is not truly a single player game? Is that actually what you just tried to say? Are you fucking kidding me? Skyrim is a single player game, it has no multiplayer out of the box, it is intended to be a sp game. A MP mod made by amatures with the mod tools does not turn it into a different classification of game.
247.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:08
nin
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:08
Jan 11, 2012, 12:08
nin
 
Are we sure he's not one of our typical trolling assclowns with a different identity? It's been done before.

That's entirely possible. At one point Blue claimed that the board logged IPs for posts also, but (sadly) he's yet to use it, that I recall.

246.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:08
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:08
Jan 11, 2012, 12:08
 
Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 04:58:
1. D3 is balanced around being connected. Specifically, loot drops are balanced around being able to trade on the AH. It is part of the design of the game in a way that was not true of D1 and 2. You can play through it entirely solo if you want, in the same way many games allow you to deliberately handicap yourself, but explicit support for that option would give a misleading impression.
So, my play is handicapped if I don't spend money buying items from other players? Great balancing! *ugh*
2. Pure offline support is extra work - extra work that creates a clunkier user experience. Offline progress that can't go online. Online characters that have to be duplicated and made permanently offline if played offline once. Locally saved progress. Confirmation boxes saying "Yes, I'm sure I want to sit here, connected to the internet, leveling a character that can't trade or play with anyone else because I find the enforced option of being able to trade or play with others unaccountably offensive." It all adds up.
So much work that they already did it years ago. Even if it was a lot of work, which it isn't, Blizzard has the money.
3. It makes business sense to Blizzard for them to make (and keep) it as easy as possible for you to play with friends, because it helps drive sales.
Want to make play with my friends easy, make it playable on a LAN, that will get you some sales and let me play it with my friends.
4. It's useful, as someone already pointed out, for Blizzard to be able to track their players' activities in order to refine future products. In general, I'm not a fan of being tracked. In this case, I don't have a problem with it because better games from Blizzard are something I'm already interested in.
Ah, finally some truth. Not anything any customer wants, but a truth. If they want D3 to be a MMO, fine. Make it an MMO. But this weak, half-ass, semi-MMO stuff is for the birds.

“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
245.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:07
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:07
Jan 11, 2012, 12:07
 
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 11:53:
Pure offline support is extra work - extra work that creates a clunkier user experience. Offline progress that can't go online. Online characters that have to be duplicated and made permanently offline if played offline once. Locally saved progress. Confirmation boxes saying "Yes, I'm sure I want to sit here, connected to the internet, leveling a character that can'ttrade or play with anyone else because I findthe enforced option ofbeingable totrade or play with others unaccountablyoffensive."It all adds up.


I'm almost insulted at how stupid developers must think gamers must be to believe a load of crap like that quoted above. So we are actually supposed to believe that the Blizzard of 15 years ago, with fewer resources, fewer developers, less available technology, and WAY less money could pull off something that modern day Blizzard can't? It absolutely boggles the mind.

They did it because they had to - in the same way that, 15 years ago, with fewer resources, fewer developers, less available technology and less money they 'could pull off' a software renderer.

Supporting a pure offline mode is extra work that is counter-productive in that it tacitly encourages people away from the sweet spot of the game's design, namely making use of the AH and playing with friends.

A: Hello, Blizzard? Yes: I'm cross because you're not including a software renderer in D3.
B: Don't you have a graphics card?
A: I prefer the look of the software renderer.
B: Oh, that's OK: it's still possible to configure the game so it looks just like the software renderer.
A: But it still requires a graphics card!
B: And you don't have one?
A: Of course I have one! I just don't want to use it! How hard is this to understand? How can you justify the removal of such an important legacy feature?
244.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:06
Prez
 
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:06
Jan 11, 2012, 12:06
 Prez
 
nin wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 11:56:
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 11:47:
Why can't I ever get competent trolls to be my estalkers? I guess I ought to be flattered; obviously I have struck a chord in this little cretin's psyche, so I know I'm doing something right. But honestly this latest retard is so painfully, woefully bad at it that I actually pity him.

Would you prefer Ass Captain or Zephalafalalalalalalalaladonkeyfucker?


Are we sure he's not one of our typical trolling assclowns with a different identity? It's been done before.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
243.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:03
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:03
Jan 11, 2012, 12:03
 
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 11:47:
Why can't I ever get competent trolls to be my estalkers? I guess I ought to be flattered; obviously I have struck a chord in this little cretin's psyche, so I know I'm doing something right. But honestly this latest retard is so painfully, woefully bad at it that I actually pity him.
estalker??? rwtard??

Talk about the kettle being black LOL

This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2012, 12:09.
242.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 12:00
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:00
Jan 11, 2012, 12:00
 
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 08:27:
I said that pure single player experiences are no longer the core of big budget gaming.

I actually almost choked on my bagel (onion...mmmm!) when I read this. Do I really need to point out that Deus Ex and Skyrim had no MP and were critical and commercial successes by any metric?

No. Do I need to point out that most modern commercial successes include and even emphasise multiplayer?

If you want to make MP-only games, that's your business. But let's not distort the facts to make you and your company's decision seem more valid. And if you are making said decisions based on such laughably erroneous assumptions, that's not a good thing.

You know, I wouldn't have to type half as much if you didn't keep flinging up strawmen and forcing me to repeat myself.

Single/multiplayer is not a black/white issue, and individual games can span a range of shades.

Skyrim is almost purely single player, and can certainly be played that way. I say 'almost' because there's a lot of shared information about playing on the internet. I'm not by any stretch trying to call it 'multiplayer', I'm just pointing out that individual Skyrim players do not exist in a complete vaccuum.

WoW spans far more of the spectrum. It has content geared for raiding but also supports a lot of solo play (although you would be missing out if you deliberately avoided even the auction house).

D3 also occupies a broad band of the single/multiplayer spectrum. Yes, you can still play it entirely solo, but that's not (by design) the game's 'sweet spot'. The sweet spot is around the 'using the AH / playing with friends' region.
241.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 11, 2012, 11:56
nin
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 11:56
Jan 11, 2012, 11:56
nin
 
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 11:47:
Why can't I ever get competent trolls to be my estalkers? I guess I ought to be flattered; obviously I have struck a chord in this little cretin's psyche, so I know I'm doing something right. But honestly this latest retard is so painfully, woefully bad at it that I actually pity him.

Would you prefer Ass Captain or Zephalafalalalalalalalaladonkeyfucker?

280 Replies. 14 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ] Older