Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter

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?


8. Re: Op Ed May 18, 2012, 11:47 Creston
Bhruic wrote on May 18, 2012, 11:40:
Well, we accepted it for Diablo. But when the next game requires us to be always online, then we should get really angry, and tell them we won't accept it!

Unless it's something shiny we really want to play. Then it's okay.

That's actually a good thing, although I know it doesn't seem like it. Look, for a game that people really, really want, they could wrap it in a shit-sandwich, and people would still buy it. That's a given. What matters is whether the lesser games can play off of the features that the big guys create. In this case, the backlash over the server problems aren't going to hurt Diablo 3 - very much anyway, but they may make other companies that were watching this launch think twice about trying it for their games.

And in my books, that's a success.

I think you're ignoring that asshats like Tim Willits are already salivating over the idea that they can just make their games always online. And he said that at a point when id was probably at its utter lowest point, right after the fucking debacle that was Rage.

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."

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!"

It's the exact same thing they did with the initial DRM. Everyone fucking HATED the Securom bullshit with limited activations and having to talk to a server etc etc. And now when a game has that, it's considered "mild DRM."

Why? Because the large majority simply accepted it.

Hey, again, it's fine. If people want to play Diablo 3 and eat the shit sandwich, it's no shirt off my back. 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.

Avatar 15604
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 Retired
  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 Retired
  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 Retired
  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