Diablo III

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by Flying Dagger

Just as smartphones all over the world are often locked to carriers and restrict the applications you can run on it until it is signed by the manufacturer, digital medium feel the need for DRM to protect against piracy. Your cell phone carrier has the capability to track your location, your picture will be taken by security camera in shopping malls, you do not own the piece of land you "purchased" for you house. Real life is not a fairy tale - learn to accept, not to hate.

So we should just roll over and accept that we cannot play a single-player game we purchased in case of a net-outing just because a developer decided to go for the draconian DRM?

Yeah, no. There is such a thing as consumer friendliness in the industry, and these DRM methods spit on that. Paying customers are being punished for acts of piracy they never planned to commit. This is not good business, no matter how you slice it. Accepting it only gives the industry motivations to start stomping on your feet even harder. Consumers have the right to push back and say "Enough, if you want me to buy your game, make sure that I can actually play it when I want to."

[Flying Dagger]

Originally Posted by Keroko

So we should just roll over and accept that we cannot play a single-player game we purchased in case of a net-outing just because a developer decided to go for the draconian DRM?

Yeah, no. There is such a thing as consumer friendliness in the industry, and these DRM methods spit on that. Paying customers are being punished for acts of piracy they never planned to commit. This is not good business, no matter how you slice it. Accepting it only gives the industry motivations to start stomping on your feet even harder. Consumers have the right to push back and say "Enough, if you want me to buy your game, make sure that I can actually play it when I want to."

http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/8...s-do-not-work/
Unfortunately, the industry also realized they will gain much much more utilizing such DRM schemes than the insignificant amount of customers they have "lost".

A industry figurehead such as Blizzard has the confidence (or arrogance) that in 5 years people will remember D3 as a great game which millions of people spent hours on, not as a game you can only play while connected to the internet.

To add salt to the wound, they are likely going to be right. If one can completely "ignore" the whole online factor (including bnet2.0, RMAH), you may find d3 to be an excellent game with many innovations.

Quality of a game > Consumer friendliness. Gamer developers are not trying to sell a service, but a product.

[Keroko]

I agree that on the grand scale boycotts do not work as many gamers are weak-kneed when push comes to shove. But that does not mean I need to be one of those weak-kneed gamers. Diablo III will sell well because it's Diablo. Because it's blizzard. Like Modern Warfare 2 its sales will be despite of the DRM, not because of it.

Buying Diablo III would mean I lend my financial support to these stances, which is something I do not want to do. Will me not buying the game matter in the long run for blizzard? Probably not, no. But at least I will be able to hold my head high and say I did not support them. And who knows? It takes a lot of raindrops to fill a bucket, but only one to spill the deal. If I don't buy, it's going to be one more drop for the bucket.

Also: http://kotaku.com/5835328/why-portal...cy-competition

Not all developers think that draconian DRM's are the only way to go. And their numbers are beginning to grow. Pirates crack faster than developers can create their DRM's, and developers are starting to wake up and realize that a positive customer relationship sells more games than draconian DRM's.

[Flying Dagger]

I have read that article. Steam itself is a DRM system.

Originally Posted by Gabe Newell

"The best way to fight piracy is to create a service that people need," he said. "I think (publishers with strict DRM) will sell less of their products and create more problems.

"Customers want to know everything is going to be there for them no matter what: Their saved games and configurations will be there. They don't want any uncertainty."

Among these services are two main points:
1) better localization. I am not too familiar with the Russian scene to comment. Though this goes into the line of producing games of higher quality to attract sales, which I believe is a given. Their success in Russia may be attributed to the effectiveness of online-distribution service in low population density regions.
2) Steamcloud: simply another value-added service which requires internet connection.
Neither point are strong tools to combat piracy (other than using steam as a medium for multiplayer). Let's be honest: will having your saves online stop you from pirating a game? At the end of the day we somehow end up having to be connected to the internet to enjoy the most out of a game (which is often the multiplayer experience - esp in the FPS/RTS genre).

What I see from the article: "We are successful in selling games online!".

There is an ugly side to a distribution platform such as Steam: that is the rise of micro-transactions via DLC and various mods.



Edit 1:
Another "successful" DRM-free game recently would be Witcher 2 (well, they removed all DRM after first patch and it comes DRM-free if you purchased it from the publisher).
"DRM free" is not a significant factor in people's decision to make a purchase. Rather, TW2 is successful because it is a good game. Will TW2 still be successful if it requires online connection? Most likely. CDProjekt might even make more $ from it.

Forgoing DRM may be extremely risky for top-tier developers who have to answer to the expectations of investors. Blockbuster games require many millions of dollars (from 50-100mil) of investment.

There are MANY DRM-free games out there from "third class" developers. They are often not as successful not because of DRM: its just because their games are just not as attractive.

[yezhanquan]

If a DRM is not intrusive to my game experience and does not crash my system, I don't really care.

For D3, I will not speculate further on what it will have. As Blizzard goes, if you wait long enough, the patches will render the games unrecognisable. Compare the release version of Frozen Throne and Starcraft and their subsequent patches.

[Flying Dagger]

Mind if I ask how the games were unrecognizable? Is it fair for DK to be almost invulnerable as tanks, or certain specs to outdps the others by as much as 30%? Is it fair for void rays to be almost unkillable early game given their extended range and extraordinary high damage output which also melts light units away?

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Flying Dagger

Mind if I ask how the games were unrecognizable? Is it fair for DK to be almost invulnerable as tanks, or certain specs to outdps the others by as much as 30%? Is it fair for void rays to be almost unkillable early game given their extended range and extraordinary high damage output which also melts light units away?

That is why they changed void rays, and I'm sure they changed DKs and those specs you mentioned. I accept any and all changes. And I do not use "unrecognisable" as a negative, just to indicate difference.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Flying Dagger

Being able to save on the spot anywhere only makes the game a lot easier than it should be... misclicked and died? Reload. Any random factor didn't turn your way? Reload. Might as well as just play on the lowest difficulty and play single players games with cheat engine. Most "save points" are within 20minutes of each other these days - don't play if you are that busy. A better question: why play games at all when you cannot accept the challenge?

Because it's supposed to be fun, not frustrating. I believe I said that already. Controlling when you can save isn't real challenge anyway, it's a lazy way to artificially lengthen the completion time of a given title. It was understandable back in the 8- and 16-bit era, where writable memory was extremely limited and the technology just couldn't handle it. But now there's absolutely no excuse for it.

[Duo Maxwell]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Because it's supposed to be fun, not frustrating. I believe I said that already. Controlling when you can save isn't real challenge anyway, it's a lazy way to artificially lengthen the completion time of a given title. It was understandable back in the 8- and 16-bit era, where writable memory was extremely limited and the technology just couldn't handle it. But now there's absolutely no excuse for it.

I actually think it's because of the "random generated dungeon" nature.

[Mahou]

Originally Posted by Flying Dagger

Being able to save on the spot anywhere only makes the game a lot easier than it should be... misclicked and died? Reload. Any random factor didn't turn your way? Reload. Might as well as just play on the lowest difficulty and play single players games with cheat engine. Most "save points" are within 20minutes of each other these days - don't play if you are that busy. A better question: why play games at all when you cannot accept the challenge?

There is the evil thing called "different tastes for different people." And yes, this applies to games as well. Some play for challenge, some to have fun in a relaxed way. I count to the latter group. I can accept to die the first few times against a boss, but more than that I fail to see as challenge and more as pure frustration. Give me - for JRPGs eg - a likeable cast, a nice story and a nice OST and the game could be one where game over has a 10 % chance of occuring. There are a few games, where you can save anytime you want, this is *not* bad. I only care about difficulty settings, if some secret endings for example are linked to it (à la Valkyrie Profiles or Kingdom Hearts: Bbs)

Given, I loved Diablo 2 and didn't have a problem with the save feature. In Singleplayer my dropluck was beyond crap and I just played a hero that wasn't very equipment-dependant (<3 my Sorceress) + I never left town without my trustworthy Book of Town Portals. Diablo 1 had its charm; I just enjoyed the skill tree in D2 more.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

If they're going to try and force us to use their product in specific ways, absolutely. Look, I don't like games that won't let me save whenever I want and load whenever I want.

I actually lost interest in Torchlight because of this trend set by Diablo II, and completely stopped playing the game. I made a mistake, I ended up accidentally removing all the enchantments from my best weapon. Were this Dragon Age or Mass Effect, I could have simply reloaded my game saved before making the blunder.

I have very few gaming pet peeves, but restricted savegame management is absolutely one of them. Other pet peeves include random encounters (think older JRPGs), no developer console (some games are buggy, a dev console allows you to set or remove quest flags and bypass potential blocks or crashes), prohibiting user-created modifications and content, a predominately multiplayer focus...

So yeah. Diablo III is pretty much everything I hate, which is sad, because I always thought Diablo was Blizzard's best IP. Warcraft always seemed generic and boring, while Starcraft is essentially WH40k, the G-rated version. Note my dislike for D3's design choices have nothing to do with Blizzard. If a game exactly like D3 were put out by Bioware or Valve, I'd still hate it.

Ah well. I was looking forward to this one at first, especially when most of the combat seems to have gone back to the oldschool D1-style of "you vs. a massive army of monsters." But Blizzard has clearly taken this game in a direction I really don't like.

I stopped playing Torchlight because the upgrade failed, and my gun exploded....
For God's shake, it's a bloody offline game, not MMORPG.... the bloody idiot game creator....


After that, Diablo 3 is not so appeal anymore. I think Diablo 2 was the closest to an online game back in their time,and that's why they inputted a lots of random 'real time' game mechanics like "not allow to save" or "corpse running", or "gambling". But now we already have a bunch of MMORPG, we won't need a 'fake' one anymore


On the same topic, Dragon Age 2 game mechanic was good, but the storyline and game features were poor (the only job to play there is one hand sword warrior), so Mass Effect 3 does not look so promising anymore (really like Mas Effect 2 through). Same can say about Elder Scroll V after Oblivion, but i heard Fallout 3 was pretty good so may check it out after all
The only game which i am actually waiting is Guild War 2

[Flying Dagger]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Because it's supposed to be fun, not frustrating. I believe I said that already. Controlling when you can save isn't real challenge anyway, it's a lazy way to artificially lengthen the completion time of a given title. It was understandable back in the 8- and 16-bit era, where writable memory was extremely limited and the technology just couldn't handle it. But now there's absolutely no excuse for it.

There are many ways to lengthen the completion time of a title. Spawning an excessive amount of mobs, increasing the overall survivability to lengthen fight duration. Reusing dungeons/excessive use of a random dungeon template. Slowing down the game speed. Inserting an excessive amount of text.

Save restriction comes in various forms: anywhere save, waypoints, save disabled during combat/certain areas. Restricted saves makes "losing" a punishment instead of just reloading the last favorable state during a fight. Don't like losing? Play better/choose easy mode.

Might as well as play in god mode.

D2 is already very forgiving via town portals: until you hit hell/is underlevel in nightmare, death is just the player being terrible/cheap/not patient/stupid. They should be punished for it so they learn to take a more careful approach.

Limited save is not a developer being "cheap"/"restrictive", its a style, a flavor.

Hardcore mode in D2 is ever so popular.

Originally Posted by Mahou

There is the evil thing called "different tastes for different people."

Often time the "easy" mode for single player game these days are quite... easy. I have a friend who has a 6 year old child, and he is more than capable of beating the easy AI in sc2, easy mode in DA2 (he loves the gore), and can even play WoW as good as any other casuals (he has trouble keeping up dots but is surprisingly good with cooldowns).

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I stopped playing Torchlight because the upgrade failed, and my gun exploded....
For God's shake, it's a bloody offline game, not MMORPG.... the bloody idiot game creator....


After that, Diablo 3 is not so appeal anymore. On the same topic, Dragon Age 2 game mechanic was good, but the storyline and game features were poor (the only job to play there is one hand sword warrior), so Mass Effect 3 does not look so promising anymore (really like Mas Effect 2 through). Same can say about Elder Scroll V after Oblivion, but i heard Fallout 3 was pretty good so may check it out after all

The only game which i am actually waiting is Guild War 2

Neither ME3 or ESV is out yet so no comments on those. DA2 was a disaster: poorly designed classes (melee 2h stagger combos? FF making rogues useless? tanks that cannot generate threat?), reused dungeons, buggy skills (shield block or something removes melee weapon's aoe swings), uncreative encounters except the the "act boss", poor level progression (the game gets easier and easier), poor itemization...



To those who have some interest in game develop, read this. I also purchased the book which is quite a good read for gamers.

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by Flying Dagger

I have read that article. Steam itself is a DRM system.

But it is not a draconian one. It does not require me to be connected to the internet at all times, it does not dictate to me how and when I am allowed to play my games, which means it and I can get along just fine.

I am not against all DRM, I am against the DRM that put out ridiculous demands. And constant internet connection for a single-player game is a ridiculous demand.

[Daniel E.]

Remember the topic of this thread folks. If you want to discuss anything else related to the game industry, you are gonna have to do it elsewhere.

Some posts will be edited/deleted.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Keroko

But it is not a draconian one. It does not require me to be connected to the internet at all times, it does not dictate to me how and when I am allowed to play my games, which means it and I can get along just fine.

I am not against all DRM, I am against the DRM that put out ridiculous demands. And constant internet connection for a single-player game is a ridiculous demand.

Like I said, it's sad. I was looking forward to the game, but the more I learned about it... well, hopefully this isn't indicative of the PC gaming industry taking a wrong turn again.

Blizzard, I am disappoint.

[Waven]

Anyway, a game is a game is game is a game. Forced online connection, RMAH or no direct save function won't prevent people from playing and enjoying D3 if the actual game is good. People might not like one or more of these limitations/features but it's not like they're a reason to boycott a game entirely.

As long as the game is fun (since that's what games are about, right?) the majority of gamers will to some degree overlook what "the Man" is throwing at them, and tbh I can't blame them.


Back to D3's actual gameplay, with all the topics happening at the sideline no one here has commented on the classes' ressource systems they presented a few days ago, or did I just miss it in this thread? Anyway, the ressources are mostly working similar to the ones in WoW, which I think is good, since that makes playing several chars a real different experience. They couldve been more creative with the ressources for my taste, they're sometimes too reminiscent of the WoW ones ( see: barbarian) but overall I'm just glad that except for the witchdoc, they got rid of the boring mana system/ common ressource system among al classes. Also a nice twist to see the D3-wizard with a WoW-rogue-energy like ressource.

[Keroko]

Actually, forced online can prevent people from playing and enjoying the game. And that's my main beef with it.

The other concerns are far lesser, and can indeed be overlooked if the game is good. Though when they pile up they might become a bigger problem than the sum of their parts.

[Duo Maxwell]

Disconnection/Unstable connection period (yep, my country's cable got cut off due to typhoon, and it's been like that for 1 month) will become frustrating experience with forced online connection requirement. The other things don't affect me, and I understand the reason behind it, so I don't have any grief toward them.

I already have limited amount of time to play, and what do you think I should feel when those times being restrict by the game company themselves? It's like they are catering to those who have all the time and in fine condition to play their games, instead of accessibility to everyone.

[Flying Dagger]

Maybe blizzard should just brand D3 as a multiplayer RPG, with the option to solo content, to make people happier.

[Yuno]

I agree with Duo Maxwell and Keroko, I often times go without a net connection due to circumstances. Paying for the internet can often be annoying for a student as well, not to mention how unreliable dorm connections are. I remember while living at dorms if I tried to play any game online, I suffered multiple disconnects. Diablo II and a few other such games got me through that.

I didn't really get into MMOs and online play until I got my own place outside of dorms. I preferred Diablo series as mostly offline with an option to play with friends over battle net. Yet it seems to be the direction blizzard is going. I just want to play an immersive game without having to deal with online communities. Especially after a decision to go on a sabbatical from MMOs entirely. I still wish to play the Diablo story as it's been apart of my life since a small child. So I am disappointed by the required net connection.