Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:15:
I'm officially out of the discussion, but I read what you wrote, just so you know. (Mind definitely not changed in the least).
Verno wrote on Jan 12, 2012, 09:28:
He can dance around it all day but the reality is that it's a large reduction in usability that's not really offset by anything presented with the thinnest possible justification I can imagine. The claim that it's ultimately in service of the customer is pretty amusing. I think a lot of people might respond with "thanks but uh don't do me anymore favors". I'm sure Diablo 3 will be a good game to some people but I'll just spend my money somewhere else. Back when we used to count the years between blockbuster titles in this market I might have said this was a must have title but I have a backlog full of games that fit that description so *shrug*. If they want to be dismissive, give them the same in return.
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.
How does forcing connectivity help me if I can't play online, in a place with bad (or no) Internet connection?
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.
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.
Sepharo wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 19:22:Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:
I know your reasons, and those of others here, but I don't know why they are your reasons. I don't know why it's so desperately important that the (technologically mandated) 'tradition' of pure unconnected single-player be continued. I don't see how the game would be improved as a result.
You don't understand that a game that can be played both offline and online is an improvement over a game that forces you to always be online?
Of course this is an improvement though, nobody plays games without an internet connection, and nobody would ever want to play a Diablo game by themselves.
Bhruic wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:31:
Now, Blizzard can just say "fuck you" to those people, which they've done, and that's fine, it's their business, and they are welcome to ignore whomever they wish. But apologists like you coming in here and acting as if we don't even have the right to be upset about it, on the other hand, is not kosher. You're like the idiot coming in to a thread to say that a game works fine for him, so anyone complaining about bugs is wrong.
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.
Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:
I know your reasons, and those of others here, but I don't know why they are your reasons. I don't know why it's so desperately important that the (technologically mandated) 'tradition' of pure unconnected single-player be continued. I don't see how the game would be improved as a result.
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:15:
I'm officially out of the discussion, but I read what you wrote, just so you know. (Mind definitely not changed in the least).
Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:fanboi.
I don't know why it's so desperately important that the (technologically mandated) 'tradition' of pure unconnected single-player be continued.
Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:It's not about the game. It's about the customer who purchased it.
I don't see how the game would be improved as a result.
Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:because you're closed minded.
I can't understand why
Peeeling wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 18:00:That's not what players are expecting. They are expecting a game they can play single player or on LAN, with the OPTION of doing multi-player if they choose to do so.
an internet-connected D3
If, on the other hand, you take connectivity as a given
Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:23:
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.
deqer wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 14:30: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.