Mr. Tact wrote on May 20, 2012, 13:24:
Ha! "If Diablo 3 were a girl":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I43GUnZN_s4&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Alarmingly accurate!

If he did, my goof. I mean I've slept since reading most of the posts in this topic.

Mr. Tact wrote on May 20, 2012, 13:24:
Ha! "If Diablo 3 were a girl":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I43GUnZN_s4&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Didn't Blue post that already?

Ha! "If Diablo 3 were a girl":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I43GUnZN_s4&feature=endscreen&NR=1

nin wrote on May 18, 2012, 09:35:

pointing to the rather large Steam catalog I have.

Prez has so much steam that when he farts, the steam cloud goes down.

er, what?

(Sorry, Prez!)

LOL!

Okay I know that joke was lame, but I still laughed out loud!

This comment was edited on May 18, 2012, 18:32.

pointing to the rather large Steam catalog I have.

Prez has so much steam that when he farts, the steam cloud goes down.

er, what?

(Sorry, Prez!)

But what is going to be done?

What is to be done... is that publishers like Ubisoft and EA have a puddle of drool at their feet as they see D3 being a HUGE success despite an always online, persistent connection (that everyone whined about before) for a historically SP/LAN game.

Welcome to the new age of renting your game (non-ownership), and now no one, especially those that bought D3 and supported this model, can whine about any longer as there exists a hugely successful reference point in the industry.

Ironically, a publisher almost every gamer has loved, is leading the way with this... wolf in sheep's clothing...

I completely understand the draw of the Diablo series... and so doesn't Blizzard...

If this were a new IP (Title), I'm not sure they would have pulled this off as smoothly as they did.

This comment was edited on May 18, 2012, 08:58.

ASeven wrote on May 17, 2012, 16:07:

xXBatmanXx wrote on May 17, 2012, 14:53:
Didn't really matter did it? People don't sto buynig things they want. No one should buy Madden games, MW games, or SIM games, but millions and millions do every 6 months.

I can't imagine there will be a D4 or anything like it - so I am happy with the outcome. Even D2 requires online play through Battle.net.

*shrugs*

Sorry dude, I respect you as one of the best members around here but the slippery slope that D3 sets is terrible for this industry and for gamers, and I'm not talking about the online play for multiplayer, I'm talking about having to be online always and rely on a third party servers to play a freaking single player game. That is a terrible slippery slope, publishers will go on with this idea and in the end gamers will have nobody to blame but themselves, they've said yes in a large majority when the choice was given to choose to affirm an always-online scheme for single player games or refuse it by refusing to buy a game that by the look of the first reviews coming out isn't even as good as D2 was.

The next time a publisher puts out an always-online scheme for a SP game, like Ubisoft did, none of you will have any right of any kind to complain about it because you voluntarily chose that to happen, you voted with your money and that's the only thing publishers will listen to.

And so the industry slowly but surely walks into a future where I don't see many people still gaming in those bleak conditions where you rent a game but pay a full price for it and are dependent on third party servers, all for a SP game.

But what is going to be done? I give a LOT of money to indie developers and enjoy a lot of other games, but man, I didn't want ot miss this, and I am glad I didn't. I don't have the answer, and I don't LIKE what they are doing - but again, I didn't want to miss this title.

Still looking forward to Grim Dawn and TL2.

But...

the game is a hell of a lot of fun though :-)

Most titles on Steam do not require a persistent internet connection so that doesn't really go anywhere.

I keep making that very clear and obvious distinction but he keeps trying to draw a parallel to paint me as a hypocrite, pointing to the rather large Steam catalog I have. The vast majority I have cracked executables for in the event of disaster. And can be played in offline mode.

If by some miracle someone is able to render D3 playable offline, I may buy it one day and play the cracked version, but even if possible that day is a ways off for sure.

xXBatmanXx wrote on May 17, 2012, 14:53:
Didn't really matter did it? People don't sto buynig things they want. No one should buy Madden games, MW games, or SIM games, but millions and millions do every 6 months.

I can't imagine there will be a D4 or anything like it - so I am happy with the outcome. Even D2 requires online play through Battle.net.

*shrugs*

Sorry dude, I respect you as one of the best members around here but the slippery slope that D3 sets is terrible for this industry and for gamers, and I'm not talking about the online play for multiplayer, I'm talking about having to be online always and rely on a third party servers to play a freaking single player game. That is a terrible slippery slope, publishers will go on with this idea and in the end gamers will have nobody to blame but themselves, they've said yes in a large majority when the choice was given to choose to affirm an always-online scheme for single player games or refuse it by refusing to buy a game that by the look of the first reviews coming out isn't even as good as D2 was.

The next time a publisher puts out an always-online scheme for a SP game, like Ubisoft did, none of you will have any right of any kind to complain about it because you voluntarily chose that to happen, you voted with your money and that's the only thing publishers will listen to.

And so the industry slowly but surely walks into a future where I don't see many people still gaming in those bleak conditions where you rent a game but pay a full price for it and are dependent on third party servers, all for a SP game.

Eh? Been a LONG time since I played D2 (years), did LAN play get patched out?

No, the blind Blizz fanbois CONSTANTLY forget that SP OFFLINE and LAN COOP (which ARE still there for D2) had ZERO effect on closed B.Net Diablo, even though THATS their lame excuse for turning Diablo into a rent-a-game concept.

When Blizz decides to turn the lights off on D3 (probably many years down the road), you don't play it anymore because you don't actually own the game.

Verno wrote on May 17, 2012, 15:13:

Mr. Tact wrote on May 17, 2012, 15:09:

xXBatmanXx wrote on May 17, 2012, 14:53:
Even D2 requires online play through Battle.net.

Eh? Been a LONG time since I played D2 (years), did LAN play get patched out?

Nah it's still there. You can play open battle.net, closed battle.net, direct TCP/IP and so on.

IIRC, there was a Battle.net server where their characters are saved on there to avoid cheats and exploits. Blizzard should had done that and still offered OFFLINE single player, LAN, direct to other player setups, etc. But nooooooo Blizzard wants everyone to play on its server!

Mr. Tact wrote on May 17, 2012, 15:09:

xXBatmanXx wrote on May 17, 2012, 14:53:
Even D2 requires online play through Battle.net.

Eh? Been a LONG time since I played D2 (years), did LAN play get patched out?

Nah it's still there. You can play open battle.net, closed battle.net, direct TCP/IP and so on.

xXBatmanXx wrote on May 17, 2012, 14:53:
Even D2 requires online play through Battle.net.

Eh? Been a LONG time since I played D2 (years), did LAN play get patched out?

ASeven wrote on May 17, 2012, 14:44:
The problem with D3 was not the game itself, not for me. Sure I don't particularly enjoy the changes made to it and prefer T2 but the dangerous precedent set by the running success of this game may shape the gaming industry in such a way many of us will simply stop gaming altogether and find other sources of entertainment.

When you have strong opinion pieces like this, or this, or hell even Cracked managed to hit the nail on the head, you realize many gamers may have just jeopardized the future of gaming in exchange for a few days of playing a game.

I hope it was worth it.

Didn't really matter did it? People don't sto buynig things they want. No one should buy Madden games, MW games, or SIM games, but millions and millions do every 6 months.

I can't imagine there will be a D4 or anything like it - so I am happy with the outcome. Even D2 requires online play through Battle.net.

*shrugs*

The problem with D3 was not the game itself, not for me. Sure I don't particularly enjoy the changes made to it and prefer T2 but the dangerous precedent set by the running success of this game may shape the gaming industry in such a way many of us will simply stop gaming altogether and find other sources of entertainment.

When you have strong opinion pieces like this, or this, or hell even Cracked managed to hit the nail on the head, you realize many gamers may have just jeopardized the future of gaming in exchange for a few days of playing a game.

I hope it was worth it.

15 hours in.
Level 20
Just starting Act 2.

Played through or helped a number of friends with Act 1. Having a blast.

Verno wrote on May 17, 2012, 13:52:

Krovven wrote on May 17, 2012, 13:15:
Yea I'm the hypocrite for not wishing for bad game experiences for other gamers? Right. Only hypocrites here are those with Steam accounts with hundreds to over thousands of games, some of which do not work in offline mode.

Most titles on Steam do not require a persistent internet connection so that doesn't really go anywhere.

The launch was bad for many reasons, I doubt DDoS had much to do with it. It's not very defensible either (I've tried but the arguments are weak) and really justifies all of peoples concerns about that model. Now a lot of people are taking this opportunity to say "I told you so" and well...they did. Not much more to it.

Heck, I would venture it was a DDoS but not a malicious one, just millions of people trying to log in at the same time provoking in effect a DDoS.