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.
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.
Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:19: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.
Right... because if there's one thing customers hate, it's a company that pays attention in order to serve them better in future.
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.
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.
there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.
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?
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:08:Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 04:58:So, my play is handicapped if I don't spend money buying items from other players? Great balancing! *ugh*
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are we sure he's not one of our typical trolling assclowns with a different identity? It's been done before.
Peeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 04:58:So, my play is handicapped if I don't spend money buying items from other players? Great balancing! *ugh*
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.
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.
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.
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?
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 11:47:estalker??? rwtard??
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.
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?
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.
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.