Title: Blizzard: Continuing down the path to the darkside
Trollocide - August 4, 2011 05:21 AM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Jonathan Leo Toyad @ GameSpot)|
|Players able to buy weapons, armor, and rune stones with real-world money; game also requires constant online connection.|
Blizzard has been slowly revealing tidbits about Diablo III, with the most recent being a lore book to be released together with the title. The company now has introduced a new feature that focuses on the action role-playing game's new auction house system.
Players will be able to either use in-game gold or real money to purchase, trade, and bid for items with the respective currency; there will be separate auction houses for in-game currency bidding and real-world money transactions. Players can open up the interface within the game, in which they can sell items from a shared stash (essentially a storage shared among all a player's character classes on his or her Battle.net account) or from a single character's inventory. A seller will be charged a fixed transaction fee for each item listed in the auction house. The auction house will also feature a "smart search" functionality to automatically sort out items based on upgrades to tailor a player's in-game character.
Blizzard has said it will not plan to post items for sale in the auction house, as it is meant to be a player-driven system. While a concrete decision has yet to be made, the auction house will only be available to players once they reach level 10, according to producer Jay Wilson. Players using Hardcore mode will not be able to access the real-world currency-based auction house; instead they will use the "Hardcore-only" gold-based auction house.
The real money auction house will be split into different regions, each representing a specific currency. For example, if a player wishes to trade on a Singapore server, they will trade in Singapore dollars in that specific auction house. At this point in time, the auction house is expected to be available in North America, Europe, Asia, and Southeast Asia.
In other Diablo III news, the game will also require a constant Internet connection, even in single-player mode. Wilson said it was a decision the company made to offer persistent characters, the ability to play multiplayer with in-game characters that can be stored online forever, and enhanced security.
When asked about the justification of the decision, Wilson stated that 99.9 percent of gamers have an Internet connection. He added that if a player's connection drops, a player could die but the in-game penalty wouldn't be harsh (specifically a 10 percent decrease in durability for equipped weapons and items) unless the player is on Hardcore mode, in which case he or she loses the character permanently. He also said that piracy was a factor in this decision, but it wasn't "a deciding factor."
Blizzard also announced a banner system for the game, by which players will get to show off their achievements for Diablo III through an actual banner with symbols representing which parts of the game a player has completed.
Much like StarCraft II's server choices, players in Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia will have access to both local and US servers. Further region-specific details about the auction house and Battle.net will be announced later. For more information on a recent build of the game, check out GameSpot's in-depth hands-on preview.
Yep, so now in addition to stripping LAN play from their games, Blizzard is now taking away offline play altogether, even in single player mode. AND they're going to make additional money by allowing players to pay for items with real-world currency on the auction house, as if they weren't being greedy enough already by their other douchebag move. And let's not kid ourselves folks, there is absolutely NO reason other than to combat piracy that Blizzard could not have simply done the same thing they did with Diablo II; offering open battle.net for single player characters while having a separate more secure battle.net for players who want to save their characters online.
My excitement for this game just dropped by several orders of magnitude. In fact, this could be a deal-breaker for me, because to be perfectly honest I don't really feel like I need another Diablo game anyway; Diablo II wrapped up the main story arc, and besides I think Diablo, while still a strong series, is Blizzard's weakest of their three main franchises.
While it may be true that 99.9% of gamers have an Internet connection, that's not the fucking point or a valid argument to implement this cheap excuse for DRM. This is not a god damn MMO; it does not need a permanent Internet connection, and there are plenty of instances where the battle.net servers can be down for maintenance, I'm in a place where I currently don't have access to an Internet connection, OR my ISP just feels like acting up and basically saying FUCK YOU to me when I want to play. Hell, the battle.net servers could even be up but still run really shitty and laggy some nights, and I don't always feel like putting up with that shit. That happened ALL THE TIME with Diablo II online.
Assassin's Creed II PC tried to pull similar bullshit like this with disastrous results. I read one player review where because he kept having connection issues, the game would fail to save when he suddenly gets booted out for losing connection to the servers and then he would have to redo large portions of the game.
What pisses me off even more than when companies sell out like this though, is people who defend them for doing it. Their excuses are always shitty and half-assed. The people who make excuses for this are the same people who defend garbage like the full-body scanners at the airport. I mean yeah, it's true that I don't really have anything to hide so I should be OK, right? Except that it's still taking a naked picture of me and some asshole gets a free picture of my penis. And yeah, sure it's a fuzzy x-ray image of my penis, but it's still a picture of my god damn penis, and it's none of their business to see me like that when I just want to board a fucking plane.
TL;DR, fuck Blizzard for becoming the money-grubbing sellouts that they now are, and also fuck anyone who is apologetic for this shallow DRM nonsense.
Superfiver - August 4, 2011 06:31 AM (GMT)
Activision has been one of the most evilist unglist fucking geedest companies I have ever seen. Wasn't always like that. It was when Activision became one with Blizzard.
The deal closed July 9, 2008. The company believed that the merging of the two companies would create "the world’s largest and most profitable pure-play video game publisher"
HAAA! No reason towards making good games once so ever, just making money like a fucking SLUT! Fucking soulless abomination. I will always have anger with Activision Blizzard. Always
Lintire - August 4, 2011 06:35 AM (GMT)
I'm in Australia. He's kind of full of shit, considering something like 50% of gamers here have a decidedly stable internet connection.
Anyway, not purchasing this game. I am going to pirate it, or at least wait for the inevitable LAN and DRM-ripped mods to the game. Otherwise it's pretty much a wasted purchase for me.
Yip - August 4, 2011 11:32 AM (GMT)
Maybe if LulzSec had formed a bit later they could've proven a point with the battle.net servers and actually have done something useful.
But, you know, the world doesn't run on magical wish juice.
BlueMaxima - August 5, 2011 02:56 AM (GMT)
Torchlight 2 is probably going to be better.
Confederacy - August 5, 2011 03:03 AM (GMT)
I'm as mad about this as anyone else, but I'm still buying it. Why? Well, 1) I do happen have a very good internet connection and 2) will never be using the auction house seeing as I never trade with anyone.
|Torchlight 2 is probably going to be better.|
Personally, I'm looking forward to Grim Dawn more. But then I remembered, "Hey, I could buy Diablo 3, Torchlight 2, and Grim Dawn." So that's what I'm going to do.
Confederacy - August 5, 2011 05:23 PM (GMT)
Double post because I'm awesome.
Blizzard responds to Diablo 3 "always online" complaint
|When it was revealed that Diablo III would require a permanent connection to Battle.net, some people became furious. Blizzard has argued that there are valid gameplay reasons for the requirement, but to many PC gamers, it's yet more crappy DRM. Blizzard is surprised by the reaction.|
"Internally I don't think [DRM] ever actually came up when we talked about how we want connections to operate," VP Robert Bridenbecker told MTV. "Things that came up were always around the feature-set, the sanctity of the actual game systems like your characters. You're guaranteeing that there are no hacks, no dupes ... the whole copy protection, piracy thing, that's not really entering into why we want to do it.
"... If there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."
Bridenbecker reminded fans of Diablo II, where they needed a separate online character, and reaffirmed how Diablo III would eliminate that problem. He also promised that the game wouldn't turn out to be like Facebook, where the online connectivity demanded all sorts of social nonsense.
In the case of this game, I'd say Blizzard makes good and fair points. It's better than Ubisoft's "f*ck 'em" approach.
They still should add an offline option.
Lintire - August 5, 2011 10:21 PM (GMT)
Constant connectivity is just something I can't manage. Hell, just going from an average here, I'm usually left without internet for half the month, anyway.
Trollocide - August 6, 2011 03:03 AM (GMT)
So let's go over Blizzard's excuses:
|"Internally I don't think [DRM] ever actually came up when we talked about how we want connections to operate."|
So how were we supposed to interpret this statement then? "[Wilson] also said that piracy was a factor in this decision. . ." Oops. So now after receiving complaints they conveniently went from "It was kinda a factor, but not a 'deciding' factor *nudgewink*," to "What-what? We didn't discuss piracy at all!
But more importantly, I don't really give a shit whether Blizzard
considers it a form of DRM or not. From my
perspective, and under most definitions from a gamer's perspective, it is. Telling us "Well we
don't think of it as DRM," is not going to change the fact that it is.
It's like Bill O'Reilly the other day stating that he doesn't think the Norway bomber was an extremist Christian. Well good thing it's NOT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE THAT SMUGFAG, because in REALITY he only wrote about a hundred times in his manifesto that he considers himself to be a modern day Knights Templar for Christianity
, so you can shove your opinion right back up the ass you pulled it from, because it certainly didn't come from your brain.
|"Things that came up were always around the feature-set, the sanctity of the actual game systems like your characters. You're guaranteeing that there are no hacks, no dupes ... the whole copy protection, piracy thing, that's not really entering into why we want to do it."|
Again, under the Diablo II system there would be no issues like this either; only if you chose to go on open battle.net which you didn't have to.
|"... If there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."|
I'll be the judge of what's considered an "enhancement", and I don't find it an "enhancement" that I am given less options on how I want to play the game.
|Bridenbecker reminded fans of Diablo II, where they needed a separate online character, and reaffirmed how Diablo III would eliminate that problem.|
Wait, since when was this ever considered a "problem"? Fucking morons. You know how you avoid this "problem" with Diablo II? JUST CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE A SINGLE PLAYER CHARACTER THEN, DUMBASS. It amazes me how they try to frame having more options as being a bad thing.
Hey guys guess what, you know how games used to have that annoying problem where you had to change the screen resolution to fit your monitor? Well I'm going to eliminate that problem for my game by forcing 1080p resolution. Now you don't have to waste your time navigating menus to adjust the resolution; it's just already set to the best setting for you! What's that? Don't have an HD monitor or TV? Oh, well, tough shit for you then, because obviously 99.9% of gamers have them at all times, so you should anyway.
|He also promised that the game wouldn't turn out to be like Facebook, where the online connectivity demanded all sorts of social nonsense.|
Oh well THANK YOU for reassuring us this at least, because I was soooo fucking concerned about people using their Bnet accounts as substitutes for Twitter.
Stop making excuses, and give me back my single player for my NON-MMO GAME you greedy sacks of shit.
|In the case of this game, I'd say Blizzard makes good and fair points.|
They did? Where?
Confederacy - August 6, 2011 04:04 AM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Trollocide @ Aug 5 2011, 10:03 PM)|
| Hey guys guess what, you know how games used to have that annoying problem where you had to change the screen resolution to fit your monitor? Well I'm going to eliminate that problem for my game by forcing 1080p resolution. Now you don't have to waste your time navigating menus to adjust the resolution; it's just already set to the best setting for you! What's that? Don't have an HD monitor or TV? Oh, well, tough shit for you then, because obviously 99.9% of gamers have them at all times, so you should anyway. |
Shit yeah, fucking finally! You don't know how awful it is to change the resolution when I could spend that precious two minutes already playing the game.
Superfiver - August 6, 2011 06:18 AM (GMT)
"Stop making excuses, and give me back my single player for my NON-MMO GAME you greedy sacks of shit."
Nice :D Agreed with your points, I hate to have my internet provider to have it's lines down one day while I am playing my game that requires me to play online for single player. Oh shit. lol