Diablo III

[Keroko]

True, but on the flipside that game's lore needs to be able to stand up on its own. After all, if the story in the game isn't interesting enough, why would you go and buy the books?

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by -Sho-

Well in a recent news they said that there'll be no bots & mods so...

No mods? That really seals the deal. No user-created content is a step back, not forward. Blizzard truly is dedicated to becoming a subscription service provider, not a game developer.

They can go fuck themselves. I'm not giving them one thin dime.

[Hooves]

Feel free to join the "We hate Blizzard" train with Archon_Wing, synaesthetic

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Hooves

Feel free to join the "We hate Blizzard" train with Archon_Wing, synaesthetic

I have a feeling the anger would have been far greater, had dedicated offline Single Players like me not already been put off months ago.

Most forums elsewhere are filled with "don't care, I only play online anyway" posts. But that is not surprising if most people who would have complained, have long since gave up caring.

Blizzard have trimmed the fanbase so only those they wanted, remained. That seems to be what they aimed for deliberately.

Though I would love to see what happens with the in-game economy now that it is officially going to be played for real cash. No one is going to use gold for anything. Basic economics; when there is one currency that is more desirable than the other, the lesser currency gets ignored by sellers. It doesn't matter how much gold sink DiabloIII has; in-game gold is now worthless by inflation compared to real money. Blizzard had fought against real money sales for so long precisely because it damages the game, but now they don't care any more.

[synaesthetic]

They never cared about the damage RMT did to game balance and the in-game economies in World of Warcraft. They only were upset they didn't get a cut of the profits. And now with the D3 AH system, they will in fact get a cut of the profits.

[Xion Valkyrie]

Seems like A-net is the only good company left...

[Bonta Kun]

Originally Posted by Xion Valkyrie

Seems like A-net is the only good company left...

Well they did make my all time favorite game, Guild Wars and are making my most wanted game of all time, Guild Wars 2(I sooooooo can't wait for it!)

I was hyped for D3 and guess I'm still interested in it to a degree but may end up spending money for some console titles instead.
Really only bothered by the needed connection for SP thing, it's not something I'm fond of at all.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Hooves

Feel free to join the "We hate Blizzard" train with Archon_Wing, synaesthetic

Listen, you lowlifes that will never amount to anything can never join my train!

j/k

The funny part is that I don't even care about single player. It's rather that it's disheartening that features in older games are being removed and that single player being obsolete is asinine. What if I want to play on my laptop where there's no internet, or the internet goes out?

And mods have always been an integral part of the non-bnet experience; it's frustrating that we have to play their game on their server.

I wouldn't even mind if the servers were good, but as you've seen me rage in the sc2 thread, Battle.net 2.0 is trash.

I reject the lack of basic features for some BS about enhancing the player experience. Get some better PR Blizzard, ffs.

[Vexx]

I think this web comic pretty much sums up my current complete lack of further interest in Diablo 3 (courtesy GU Comics and Woody):
http://www.gucomics.com/comic/?cdate=20110802

[Xacual]

Is it really a big deal that other players can if they want to waste money get good items though? I mean it doesn't effect me since I'm not going to play with any of them as I already have two different sets of friends to party with. It just strikes me a lot of the same idea with the people in WoW who bitch and complain when other people can get good gear without raiding now. I mean I'd make more out of it if blizz was straight up just selling items like a cash shop but with this players still have to find the rare drop themselves.

I do agree though that no offline is pretty dumb since I don't think it would really lose blizz anything since the offline characters wouldn't be able to get online with the new battle.net.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Xacual

Is it really a big deal that other players can if they want to waste money get good items though? I mean it doesn't effect me since I'm not going to play with any of them as I already have two different sets of friends to party with. It just strikes me a lot of the same idea with the people in WoW who bitch and complain when other people can get good gear without raiding now. I mean I'd make more out of it if blizz was straight up just selling items like a cash shop but with this players still have to find the rare drop themselves.

I do agree though that no offline is pretty dumb since I don't think it would really lose blizz anything since the offline characters wouldn't be able to get online with the new battle.net.

The major issue is that the trading with gold would be affected.

If you never trade, ever, then it doesn't affect you. But most people who play multiplayer would trade. Those who don't multiplay, like me, have jumped ship months ago.

Here is the problem; in-game gold suffers BAD inflation. No matter how much gold sink they put in, inflation occurs constantly in most Online games. This means that real cash has higher buying power AND maintains value over time compared to gold.

This means for all intent and purposes, if you want to buy anything truly valuable in a game, you are going to have to look in the real-money auction house. Sellers are not going to list valuable artefacts for gold if they can get the superior cash.

And here, is the core of the problem...
If you want to trade gold for items, you would either be entirely unable to because it isn't listed in the gold auction house, or suffer the massive exchange rate loss by sell the gold for a minuscule amount of money, and then use that money for buying the item.

Hence, if you play DIII, want to be able to trade items, but don't want to pay real cash... You are doomed. You would NOT be able to trade gold for anything of worth. You would be forced to either pay real money or give up trading entirely.

And for a multiplayer gamer, to lose trading is a big deal.

[Ithekro]

I suppose that will depend entirely on if there is a large enough base of people that want to avoid the money market and stay in-game gold only. Because I'm sure there will be a faction of people that will think that buying some items for money is stupid and stick with the gold AH (depending on just what sorts of items end up on the AH that is. If it is all just gear, gems, and runes, and no potions, scrolls, or anything like that...than I'm not sure how much point their will be. It is not like there is any crafting or anything. Just gear and stuff to stick in sockets if I recall correctly. Maybe Charms if those remain in game.)

Also depends on how many people are going to play single player instead of multiplayer despite having to be online only.

[felix]

Didn't they say charms are out? Since they just take inventory space and nothing else.

[Vexx]

They lost me with the "online only" ... Frankly, there's too much else out there I'm finding interesting that can actually be played without needing a constant feed from the mothership.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I suppose that will depend entirely on if there is a large enough base of people that want to avoid the money market and stay in-game gold only. Because I'm sure there will be a faction of people that will think that buying some items for money is stupid and stick with the gold AH (depending on just what sorts of items end up on the AH that is. If it is all just gear, gems, and runes, and no potions, scrolls, or anything like that...than I'm not sure how much point their will be. It is not like there is any crafting or anything. Just gear and stuff to stick in sockets if I recall correctly. Maybe Charms if those remain in game.)

Also depends on how many people are going to play single player instead of multiplayer despite having to be online only.

Well, Blizzard told us outright that they want every single-player gamer to be converted to multiplayer. This is a fact that is public. So if anything if there are still too many Single-player gamers for Blizzard's liking they can always punish them further (than they already are).

And of course, don't forget the flood of legitimised item-farmers that would seriously drown out any number of normal players. The economy would be overwhelmed; you can't expect two currencies to co-exist when one is so much stronger than the other.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Vexx

They lost me with the "online only" ... Frankly, there's too much else out there I'm finding interesting that can actually be played without needing a constant feed from the mothership.

This is how my thought process went:

YAY DIABLO 3!

... online only, have to be connected to b.net, real-money trading auction house, no modifications...



YAY TORCHLIGHT 2!

[Duo Maxwell]

Is it me, or people actually complain about the auction house more than the internet connection requirement to play singleplay? By "more", I mean all I see are about AH.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Is it me, or people actually complain about the auction house more than the internet connection requirement to play singleplay? By "more", I mean all I see are about AH.

As I said, offline singleplayer had been gradually "discouraged" over the development time of DIII. Single-player only gamers have been dropping out steadily as each piece of news popped up. So it is no surprise that there are less complaints about the online-only requirement only because there is very little Single-player gamers left to complain.

That's why I focus on the auction house, because I have already gave up on DIII months ago ever since they nerfed Single Player AI companions. It is a bigger piece of news anyway; the cash auction house actually alter the game entirely, rather than just restricting your game playing location like the online requirement.

Diablo is a loot-gathering game. That's all it is, getting loot, kill monsters faster, then get new loot faster. Multiplayer originally offered a different way to get loot you want, by trading with other gamers. So you don't have to rely on the Random Number God as much.

But now, DIII threw it all out. You want loot? Pay for it at the auction house. There, game done. And anyone who doesn't want to pay cash would find that they are locked out of the market entirely, because they hold "inferior currency" in the form of the easily obtained, and quickly inflating, game gold.
They would be forced to sell gathered loot for cash, and then use that cash to buy good gear. Or they can't trade at all.

[Duo Maxwell]

I don't see the AH as a problem, honestly. If I play, I will still be playing the same old way I did. It's not like I'm forced to use the AH, and I don't even care about the income I could make from selling item. I know my friends would do the same.

The biggest problem has always been that I have to stay connected to their Battle.net to play the game. I don't trust my ISP, or their server. There are times I want to play on my own when I have trouble regarding connection.

I'm just holding hope that all the complaining will actually be listen for once, but at this rate I think it's better to wait for "private server" or something along the line.

[synaesthetic]

Yeah I'm guessing a lot of people tossed off about the game will just warez a cracked offline version. I won't even bother, since there's a perfectly good Torchlight 2 to play soon.