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

Rock, Paper, Shotgun - Why The Problem With Diablo Isn’t Diablo.
We have to demand a standard of quality and dedication from these things. If we try to paint complaints about Diablo III’s loudly reverberating server-side-down bellyflop as entirely immature, wrong, and entitled, we’re basically saying, “Look, everyone else! We’re totally OK with this.” I mean, Diablo III’s almost assuredly sold millions of units by this point. If widespread rage then proves relatively short-lived, I have to imagine that looks like pretty much all upside to, say, Tim Willits or even devs/pubs whose intentions aren’t quite so benevolent or design-focused. Piggy banks are happy, and customers are happy. What more do you need?

View
21. Re: Op Ed May 18, 2012, 15:00 Bhruic
 
What Diablo 3 proves is that if it's shiny enough, gamers will happily eat that shit sandwich in order to get it. So all publishers need to do is put something (proverbially) shiny in there, and then hide it with a bunch of bullshit marketing talk about how these are "features" designed to "make the game richer."

Again, despite prevailing opinions here, publishers aren't completely stupid. They know when they've got a smash-hit on their hands (something like Diablo 3), and when they've got something that's just going to be successful. If your game doesn't already have people salivating over buying it, throwing extra impediments in like requiring "always online" can drive away sales.

Case in point: The upcoming Sim City. I can guarantee you that there will be plenty of people going "But... it's Sim City! But the NEXT game, I'll be vocally opposed to it again!"

Well, sure, there are always people who vocally complain about things but that's the extent of their protest. That's true of all areas of life.

When Diablo 3 was announced with the always on requirement, I said I wouldn't buy it. And I haven't. But I've gotta say, it's damn tempting. Especially when you come on forums like this and read about lots of people having fun playing it (admittedly the connection problems help stop me, but those will almost certainly be temporary). I'm basically missing out on what sounds like an enjoyable game over a single game feature. At some point I'm going to ask myself if it's still worth it, and who knows what I'll decide at that point? At what point does it become a futile protest that's only punishing myself?

But don't complain three years down the road when a large number of games has this kind of bullshit attached to it. Because you (not you personally, just the people who put up with it) are the ones who enabled the industry to go that way by buying all the shiny things wrapped in shit.

That logic always struck me as suspect. It's like voting, people say "if you didn't vote, you don't have a right to complain". If millions of people vote, does my one vote really matter? In the same vein, does my not buying Diablo 3 really have any impact? If I were to buy it, would that be the tipping point that makes them decide the always on requirement is fine? Yeah, yeah, I know that it's a case of what mass people do rather than individuals, and that the mass is made up of individuals, so if everyone didn't buy the game, it'd have an impact. But that's making the assumption there are enough people who have a problem with it to make that impact. And that Blizzard would understand that's why people aren't buying it.

At the end of the day, people are spending their $60 and getting a game that they enjoy playing out of it.
 
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
    Date Subject Author
  1. May 18, 10:36 Re: Op Ed InBlack
  2. May 18, 10:40 Re: Op Ed Creston
  3. May 18, 10:54  Re: Op Ed ASeven
  5. May 18, 11:37  Re: Op Ed briktal
  7. May 18, 11:41   Re: Op Ed Creston
  17. May 18, 14:38    Re: Op Ed briktal
  19. May 18, 14:44     Re: Op Ed Creston
  6. May 18, 11:40  Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  8. May 18, 11:47   Re: Op Ed Creston
  9. May 18, 12:41    Re: Op Ed xXBatmanXx
  10. May 18, 12:44    Re: Op Ed space captain
  12. May 18, 13:26     Re: Op Ed Creston
  13. May 18, 13:59      Re: Op Ed PHJF
>> 21. May 18, 15:00    Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  22. May 18, 15:19     Re: Op Ed {PH}88fingers
  23. May 18, 15:23     Re: Op Ed Creston
  24. May 18, 15:46    Re: Op Ed StingingVelvet
  26. May 18, 16:58     Re: Op Ed Creston
  27. May 18, 17:07      Re: Op Ed xXBatmanXx
  30. May 18, 17:47       Re: Op Ed Creston
  32. May 18, 18:51        Re: Op Ed Pigeon
  33. May 18, 19:03         Re: Op Ed Flatline
  36. May 18, 20:20          Re: Op Ed panbient
  37. May 18, 21:16           Re: Op Ed Flatline
  39. May 19, 02:03            Re: Op Ed xXBatmanXx
  40. May 19, 02:12             Re: Op Ed eunichron
  31. May 18, 17:52       Re: Op Ed Slashman
  34. May 18, 19:06        Re: Op Ed Flatline
  35. May 18, 19:35         Re: Op Ed LArac
  38. May 18, 21:19          Re: Op Ed Flatline
  4. May 18, 11:36 Re: Op Ed Cutter
  11. May 18, 13:22  Re: Op Ed Pigeon
  14. May 18, 14:03 Re: Op Ed space captain
  15. May 18, 14:07  Re: Op Ed ASeven
  16. May 18, 14:31  Re: Op Ed Slashman
  18. May 18, 14:42  Re: Op Ed Draugr
  20. May 18, 14:45   Re: Op Ed Creston
  25. May 18, 16:18   Re: Op Ed space captain
  28. May 18, 17:20    Re: Op Ed Draugr
  29. May 18, 17:34 Re: Op Ed Dades
  41. May 19, 04:36  Re: Op Ed StingingVelvet
  42. May 19, 04:48   Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  44. May 19, 08:47    Re: Op Ed StingingVelvet
  43. May 19, 05:36   Re: Op Ed Jerykk


footer

Blue's News logo