Originally posted by crazynanny

If you disagree with me you aren't a real fan, your some casual player nobody gives a damn about!  nubsauce I pwnzor j00!!!!!!!eleven!!!!!!!

That's the TL: DR version for people who want to read through the spin.

Originally posted by Skarecrow7

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by Skarecrow7

 

You are defending multi player. For someone who wants to just play as a single player game (and believe it or not, there is people that like doing that) what does ANY of that have to do with their game?  The RMAH, the PvP, the stopping the hackers.. that is all multiplayer. I remember getting Diablo one and enjoying the single player, getting D2 when it first came out and doing the single player, I wont be getting the 3rd because, like you said, it is for multi player mode.

 So buy the game, log in, and play it.  You never have to play with another person, never have to do pvp, never have to use the RMAH, never have to see another person, you don't even have to see other people chatting. 

Unfotunetly, if you have friends with a battlenet account, you can't avoid seeing when they're playing D3 or WoW.

I hate to break it to you, but this isn't Diablo 1 nor is it diablo 2.  I think it's time you let go of those games, because this is 2012, and you have an internet connection, and the only thing stopping you from playing D3 as a single player game is you. 

And possibly blizzard if the servers are fubar this evening, but they've been fine all day today so far.  For someone with an internet connection, posting on an online forum dedicate to online gaming, it seems very odd that you won't play D3 because it's an online game.  Very odd.

Ever try to get on line in a hospital waiting room? Can barely get on. I have moved and had problems getting connected. Servers get laggy. Storms take out internets. It is a hassle. I am well aware that this isnt Diablo like it was.. it is what the new blizzard has put out.  I dont want to have to play a game I bought on their time and their servers, so I wont.  As someone else has said, if EA would pull this on people there would be pitch forks and torches outside their HQ.  The only thing odd is someone who doesnt know what a single player game means. .. doesnt matter what forums I go to. 

What's interesting is EA got raked going ALMOST this far, by some of the same people in these forums.  If, when you tried to launch ME3, your internet or their servers were hokey, you were prevented from even playing singleplayer. 

But once it passed that check, you were okay.  People were pretty angry about it, slamming intrusive DRM for single player mode.  Yet Blizzard took it one step further.  EA is probably scratching their heads wondering why they didn't think of this for ME3.

Originally posted by Vannor

Originally posted by iceman00

Originally posted by Vannor

Dunno why everyone thinks this online only arguement is shared by the majority, it really isn't. Maybe a few thousand very vocal forum people are moaning about it but there's millions of people playing the game right now. You should check out the auction house, I've never seen owt like it... it's absolutely rammed beyond belief. If you thought it was a crazy auction house in WoW you ain't seen nothing yet. I know the AH is no accurate way of judging how popular a game is but I suggest you somehow take a look at it before flaming me, seriously never seen anything like it... we know each account can only post 10 items at a time so a hell of lot of accounts exist. It's more packed than ebay. So, yeh, the online only thing is only putting off about 0.1% of the player base.

If online only play is making you miss this crazy ride then I suggest you have a good think about how much you are prepared to miss for your principles.

Somehow I think I'll survive, since yes, I do not like rewarding naked moneygrabs.

I'm talking about the gold auction house. Not the RMT, that isn't in the game yet. If that's what you meant by a moneygrab.

And the nature of the intrusive DRM is because they want to funnell people into using the RMAH, even for singleplayer.  And if it were just a tenth of a percent of the playerbase, Blizzard wouldn't have released a public statement.  I understand you are doing the first thing of spin, which is downplay the problem.  But once you've formally acknowledged the problem is pretty widespread, and the horrid bugs/dc's and server lag has royally pissed off a ton of people, you really can't downplay it anymore.

Originally posted by Aori

Originally posted by iceman00

Originally posted by Aori

Originally posted by iceman00

Originally posted by Aori

**Snipped**

*snipped my original*

Well let me thank you for actually reading my post, seriously I mean it. Yes this is why I personally defend online only, I didn't say it was right or wrong in general. To me it is right as it protects my interests in the game.

 

I've never thought of Diablo 2 as a singleplayer game, never played it as such and the majority never played it as such. Diablo 3 is no different, the larger majority want this game as a multiplayer experience. IF Blizzard can stop dick and harry from cheating only to allow tom to rear his ugly head ever so often, i'm all for it.

Now I won't deny that there are several motives to having online only.. but there was no secrets to what the game had to offer and the limitations it imposed.  Either way, moneygrabs are usually easy and the RMAH is not an easy feat, they had a lot of I's to dot and T's to cross.

 

I try to give people a fair read.  I just look at it from a "big picture" standpoint when it comes to the quality of future games in general.  DRM has become more and more intrusive, and the rationale more and more flimsly.  I really don't like it.

There is still no compelling reason for needing a server queue for a single player game.  Even primarily online games (like BF2 and such) didn't have such an intrusive system.  Yet they also weren't running RMAH's.  A moneygrab need not be easy.  Hell, most moneygrabs end up being anything but easy, and ultimately backfire.  That doesn't make them any less of a moneygrab, and it still is something that a company deserves to be called out on.

Moneygrab is a quick way to make cash with a dismal amount of effort.. if it takes alot of work to accomplish it by definition is not a moneygrab.

I guess we are operating on different definitions of the term.  SWG did the NGE in an attempt to "dumb down the game" to appeal to a wider audience, and profit.  That wasn't "easy", and it backfired, incredibly I might add.  I see it as a deliberate decision to sacrifice quality in order to maximize profits.  More often than not it indeed does imply being "easy", but it need not be exclusively so.

Of course, the delicious irony of this is Blizzard is getting absolutely pounded with bad PR (so much so they issued a formal statement), and the RMAH is being put on hold being introduced..... with not even a hint of when it will be now.  So a system that they introduced as a way of sacrificing quality to increase profit gave them huge blowback, still lesser quality, and they still don't have the RMAH.

I understand the RMAH is simply a response to a market demand.  That doesn't mean I have to like it, and I don't think it is healthy long-term.  Short term demands can bring long-term pain.  (Look at our current woes.)  Yet they could still use an RMAH without such an excessive feature like always-online for even a single player game.  They didn't because they want you to use the RMAH.  If they came out and said it, such honesty would be refreshing.  The DRM piracy stuff has nothing to do with it.  NOTHING.  No other cloud service does this for single player games, even though they all use DRM.  And their record of stopping cheaters is better than Blizzard's has been.

Originally posted by Vannor

Dunno why everyone thinks this online only arguement is shared by the majority, it really isn't. Maybe a few thousand very vocal forum people are moaning about it but there's millions of people playing the game right now. You should check out the auction house, I've never seen owt like it... it's absolutely rammed beyond belief. If you thought it was a crazy auction house in WoW you ain't seen nothing yet. I know the AH is no accurate way of judging how popular a game is but I suggest you somehow take a look at it before flaming me, seriously never seen anything like it... we know each account can only post 10 items at a time so a hell of lot of accounts exist. It's more packed than ebay. So, yeh, the online only thing is only putting off about 0.1% of the player base.

If online only play is making you miss this crazy ride then I suggest you have a good think about how much you are prepared to miss for your principles.

Somehow I think I'll survive, since yes, I do not like rewarding naked moneygrabs.

Originally posted by Aori

Originally posted by iceman00

Originally posted by Aori

**Snipped**

*snipped my original*

Well let me thank you for actually reading my post, seriously I mean it. Yes this is why I personally defend online only, I didn't say it was right or wrong in general. To me it is right as it protects my interests in the game.

 

I've never thought of Diablo 2 as a singleplayer game, never played it as such and the majority never played it as such. Diablo 3 is no different, the larger majority want this game as a multiplayer experience. IF Blizzard can stop dick and harry from cheating only to allow tom to rear his ugly head ever so often, i'm all for it.

Now I won't deny that there are several motives to having online only.. but there was no secrets to what the game had to offer and the limitations it imposed.  Either way, moneygrabs are usually easy and the RMAH is not an easy feat, they had a lot of I's to dot and T's to cross.

 

I try to give people a fair read.  I just look at it from a "big picture" standpoint when it comes to the quality of future games in general.  DRM has become more and more intrusive, and the rationale more and more flimsly.  I really don't like it.

There is still no compelling reason for needing a server queue for a single player game.  Even primarily online games (like BF2 and such) didn't have such an intrusive system.  Yet they also weren't running RMAH's.  A moneygrab need not be easy.  Hell, most moneygrabs end up being anything but easy, and ultimately backfire.  That doesn't make them any less of a moneygrab, and it still is something that a company deserves to be called out on.

Originally posted by miagisan

 

If / when i buy it...i havent yet cause the only online part irks me...i will never use the RMAH. But dont think for a minute this is about DRM or preventing game copying, this is purely to turn you all into gold farmers and make continuous income off you all.

When WoW came out, I was fascinated by one thing.  Not the game itself (not my thing) but how brilliantly they manipulated the players, how they perfected the art of the grind.

They know how to milk people, and this is just another perfect example.  And as he says, it has nothing to do with piracy.

Originally posted by Rusque

I wonder how many people arguing against online only for D3 use Steam?  I'm honestly a bit confused as to why blizzard specifically is catching flak for this feature when it's pretty common.

Steam has 40 million active users. It requires an internet connection. Why does D3 stand out? I cannot understand the difference.

Actually it's a big difference.  STEAM does use DRM, yes.  It performs a check when you launch the game.  Afterwards, that's it.

No server queues.  No disconnects for a single player game.  When I launch Skyrim, my internet can take a hit and I can still play.  My achievments might not update, but I can still play.

So no, it isn't "common."  It is pretty freaking unprecedented.

Originally posted by wrightstuf

Originally posted by Connmacart

Originally posted by wrightstuf

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Tsuru

The whole point to online only is to prevent people from getting access to the code that allows creation of hacks and mods. It has nothing to do with taking characters online from single player. Everything your doing in the game is server side, you can't access it.

And in my opinion that is the right step in making sure there are no hacks/mods.

 Oh no not mods!  Anything but that!  Mods have clearly never brought anything valuable to the game industry.

And as for hacks...don't you think this seems like a bit erm...excessive solution?  It would be like Microsoft saying that you can only run Windows off the cloud because if they allowed people to install it on their desktop, then well they might just hack it!  Oh noes!

It's like cutting off your arm to save a finger.

The reason they have always online is DRM.  That's it.  Every other explanation is a bunch of crap.

Its people with your exact mentality thats the very reason. If people would just leave the game code alone and play the way it was intended.

you cant be so naive to think it would stop at modding?? dude, what do you think DRM means and why its there?

Mods are one thing, cheating is another. I'm sure at some point if blizzard thought modding would lend itself to the game, they would allow it. One only has to go to Curse Gaming site to see the many pages of mods for WoW. All with blizzard's blessing.

DRM exists because companies are stuck in the 80s blame piracy for declining sales and refuse to change and look into real solution. It's people with your mentality that companies get away with this kind of crap. Crap that has been proven tie and time again to not work ever. It only delays the inevitable. DRM is in the same league as virii and malware in my book. Yet the customer has to pay the price for this crap over and over.

Blizzard has a real solution. If you have a better way of dealing with the lowlife criminals then lets hear it!

I dont think you realize just how bad piracy affects the industry. I can remember when i use to layover in Hong Kong on my job years ago. I'd take a cab to the Gold Shopping Center, a huge computer shopping complex selling just computer related goods. In it, you would see stall after stall, row after row of pirated software for sale. All neatly displayed under flourescent lights! Games being the biggest seller. And guess which game i saw the most....you guessed it, Diablo I

Funny, companies like CD Projekt don't use DRM, and they don't seem to be too worried about their financial sales.  And, their fans are even more devout than the likes of Blizzards.

Originally posted by wrightstuf

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by wrightstuf

This whole arguement wether D3 should have a separate offline single player separate from online single player baffles me.

Did it ever occur to you that Blizzard just does not want any cheating in their game whatsoever. sure, you could say..."hey, who cares if i hack, dupe, cheat. I'm being kept separate from the online community and no one else will see me. " Blizzard doesnt see it that way. They do not want that element in their game at all, simple as that. They have always strived for integrity in their games and I applaud them for doing what they can in D3.

So, next time you get your "error 37,"  blame the fucking criminals, not blizzard.

 

Criminals?  Really...criminals?

So do you think that "GameGenie" should be considered contraband?  And anyone that enters console commands in Skyrim should be arrested?

The fact that you think players using cheat codes who play single player only are somehow "criminals" is just...I don't really know what to say.

Also...there still IS a way to get powerful items without actually playing the game to get them in D3 (cheating).  Except now, it costs real money, and that's really the whole point of this.

 

I most certainly do. cheaters in computer games are no different than anywhere in society. the public needs to be protected from that bad element. they are "criminals" in the pure sense of the word. Not only should blizzard do whatever they can to protect their game and their players from it, they should not stop at bans. those criminals will just go find some other game to offend. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. these people are ruining it for everyone.

If other games look the other way, then fine. thats their thing. Its not blizzard's and its not mine.

So someone using the console in Skyrim is a public menace?  Someone who makes a mod without first receiving the blessing of a company is in the same "pure sense" as someone who pushes smack?

This has to be a parody.

Originally posted by Aori

Alright i'm going to start off by saying, my only intention of playing Diablo 3 is multiplayer. I find singleplayer games a waste of money for what I personally get out of them.

Now the big argument right now is that Diablo 3 is a singleplayer game with an online requirement. Personally I missed the memo, Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game with a singleplaying option.

People think that the "DRM" is to prevent piracy. It may help, however I do know that it will eventually be emulated. The online only thing is to prevent corruption of a persistant online game.

We have some big things in Diablo 3. First one being the RMAH and while some people don't like this system it is there. Now if Blizzard can prevent this from being flooded with illegal items then I want them to do what they can. If online only is one of the best measures to prevent most of the problems that plagued Diablo 2 then i'm all for it.

The next one which isn't there yet is PvP. Now I personally don't want to play against people who hack, dupe and cheat. Again if online only helps prevent this then I want it to work.

Now when cheats do appear and i'm sure some may rear their heads eventually, I hope blizzard will handle it. More or less I know it isn't a sure fire way to stop cheating, piracy and the like. However if it can keep an epidemic far more contained, i'm happy its there.

I'll stop defending it if Diablo 3 starts showing the corruption that plagues Diablo 2.

From the way you approach the game, that's eminently reasonable.  You are playing Diablo like an MMO.

Yet it's not an MMO in the eyes of most people who have criticisms.  The "single player" is not stated as optional by Blizzard.  Battlefield 2 had "optional" singleplayer.  It was so bare-bones, you were basically buying for the multiplayer, and everyone understood that clearly from the get-go.

You don't really answer questions like "why should someone playing a single player game have to wait in server queues, or get disconnected, from a single player game?"  Yet you admit up front, you don't consider these.  Well, many do.  So why did Blizzard decide to alienate a sizeable portion of those playing, when the fix was incredibly easy?  Because, as others pointed out, that would lessen their ability to make even more revenue off the RMAH.  Sacrificing quality and customer satisfaction for a chance to maximize profits is the very definition of a blatant moneygrab.  You might be okay with that.  Yet given what we've seen in the gaming world as of late, many are not.  If EA and Capcom and Ubisoft weren't out doing this in such a blatant fashion, it probably wouldn't be that huge of a deal.  But Blizzard really picked the wrong time to do so naked a moneygrab.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

The gems for gold  system is garbage. The regionbased lock-out so that Europeans wouldn't import copies from overseas was garbage too (don't know if has been fixed by now).  If Arenanet introduced a straight RMAH like Blizzard is doing in Diablo 3,  there would be people who would think it is okay, because it is just convenience, you can earn the same items by playing. Both those arguments apply in Diablo III as well: just time convenience and you can earn the items through playing. 

If Diablo 3 would have been a B2P MMO i would have agreed with you. But it ain´t, it isn't even a CORPG.

D3 is a regular single/multiplayer dungeonhack. Any kind of AH have nothing to do in games like that.

 

Why do AHs have nothing to do in games such as that? Again the arguments are the same: it is completely optional time convenience for those who choose to use it. You can still earn all the items offered in the AH by just playing. Unless you really care a lot about what other people have and do, it shouldn't bother you, right?

Yet those who would choose not to use the AH are punished.  If they want to play single player, they must be online, and wait in a server queue...... for a %&*%&% singleplayer.

Originally posted by NeoZcar2

For some reason the OPs rant on TB seems to be more about venting his frustration over the general negative view of Diablo 3 community wide then it does about TB's credibility as a game reviewer. 

That's what I took from it to.  "DAMN IT, STOP CRITICIZING MY GAME!!!!!"  For the record, I'm not playing D3.  Don't have time.

In regards to the OP here's what I do know.  Getting dc'ed in a single player game is all kindsa wrong.  Having server queues for a single player game is all kindsa wrong.  Having server lag in a single player game is all kindsa wrong.  I'm not a fan of DRM to begin with.  Yet I can stomach Steam's DRM of making a quick check when I start up Skyrim.  There are no queues, and if my internet connection becomes spotty, it won't kick me from the game.

And yes, TB really is right.  The only reason this kind of intrusive DRM for even single player mode is present is because of the RMAH.  They could have segregated your SP toon from your MP toon, at really little cost.  Yet that would remove the opportunities to cash in on things.

Now you may see that and view it an acceptable tradeoff.  Many do not.  That's what a disagreement is called.  It isn't something that can be completely dismissed with the wave of a hand.

Originally posted by Leethe

Originally posted by eycel

What I dont understand is where the hell was all the outrage in all the beta and CB.  If the game was this  bad I wouldnt care about any NDA, I would tell them to stick it and tell eveyone what the hell was actually going on.

Honestly? They (we?) were all dazzled by being frontloaded with story and the fact that it was SW. But mostly, mostly folks honestly thought it would get better. People just gave Bioware the benefit of the doubt. If you looked closely there were those who saw the issues from the beginning but by then the hype train was in full gear. 

Quite an honest mea cupla.  Honestly, that's a rare thing in MMOs, the forums, and the internet in general.  normally it is spin about how they really recognized it was a POS all along.

Originally posted by DanaDark

So a BUSINESSMAN told the truth about a BUSINESS affair... and everyone is up in arms?

Was everyone expecting him to say "Oh yes, we have decided to drop ALL games and just focus on TOR."? Or are people just kind of hurt that perhaps of ALL the games EA is involved in, TOR is not the BE-ALL END-ALL?

Simply because a BUSINESSMAN said he isn't taking out every loan possible, hiring 1,000,000,000 programmers, and dropping everything business related to develope TOR further doesn't mean it is going the way of the Dodo bird.

Biggest initial cost for an MMO is the developement of the main game itself. Once that is completeld, investment can drop rather significantly to simply maintain and update content. Even adding expansions is significantly cheaper. I highly doubt EA will drop 200m on each expansion.

I was excited about TOR. I followed up on it for years before release. All this hype that each of you has mentioned so far has totally and completely been player hype, not perpetuated or created by Bioware/EA. It was the players saying it'd be over two hundred biillion million zillion subs and be the bestest MMO since life developed on Earth. It is the players that have consistantly compared it to WOW (mainly due to the sheer hope someone can take that beast down).

The ONLY problem TOR has in my mind as far as gaming goes, is they made it too quick to go through (Almost every MMO does this now... its what YOU all want). They spent YEARS developing the content you burned through in EVERY possible combination in 5 days. Be real, if they released a FREE expansion once a week, you'd burn through it fast enough to complain about how stale the game is by sunday.

Besides, we must all remember that every game not yet released is better than every game released in every way and will totally destroy every game ever! /sarcasm

Except that isn't what he said.  He said right now, TOR is getting a lot more hype and attention than he feels is warranted.  This isn't the language of their conference call at launch, and their first conference call where they announced 1.7.  This is the trying to carefully walk back expectations, and set people up for even worse news.

Also, the fact EA launched with so many servers, I'd say indicates at least a good 5 million.  I'm guestimating, but seriously, you think they made this many servers for the current population?

This is what we've come to.  It isn't TOR that is the failure, it is us.  We ruined a great game 6 months out.  Truthfully, we wouldn't deserve a good game being given to us by Bioware, would we?

Player hype wasn't behind the largest marketing campaign in the history of MMO gaming.

Originally posted by Sorrow

Originally posted by Phry

Originally posted by JoeyMMO

Originally posted by greyed-out

But how can 1.7 err 1.3 million paying subs not be a significant revenue generator to not make it a priority?

 Those 1.3M include a lot of cancelled subs that were reactivated and given a free month. Just read it, SWTOR is not a top five revenue generator, why is that so hard to understand? He didn't say it wasn't significant, it's top 10, just not top 5.

It's probably not the smartest thing to say publically, but it's no doubt true. Just a bit of realism and you know that TOR isn't as much of a success as they had hoped. It would be foolish to make TOR top priority.

The fact that the game is not reaching revenue targets is a good indication, it might not have been a smart thing for them to say from a PR point of view, but it might be a precursor to more and perhaps worse news, and their just 'priming the guns' so to speak, i think by now everyone has worked out that the 1.3m active subs did not represent actual paying subs, and included a lot, although as yet unknown percentage of 'reactivated' accounts that were given 'extra time' for free on a promotional basis.  What happens next for SW;TOR .. needs to be decisive, and above all, positive, or the game may well decline below the top 10 revenue generating games, let alone the top 5.

Considering in November Conference Call to investors they were touting SWTOR as the next WoW and the cash cow that was going to make them all rich and bleed every penny gamers have, well now they are having to back pedal very carefully for those same investors

And if you think MMO gamers are unforgiving, wait til you see a bunch of pissed off investors demanding a return on their investment.  EAware isn't just taking a beating from this game.  It's going to be awfully tough to get more funding for anything similar in the future from this company.

Originally posted by RajCaj

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by gervaise1

As to the game having paid back its investment - not possible at this moment in time. According to EA themselves they would not have made the investment if they did not expect 1M+ subscribers for the long haul (put at around 2 years depending on sub level, advertising etc.)

 

...

Doesn't matter what it is though. EA have said: 500k to break even (i.e. on a day-to-day basis); 1M profitable but nothing to write home about and: wouldn't have made the investment if they expected less than 1M long term.

---

 

Quote?

As far as I know they considered 500k subscribers "substantially profitable" and 300k subscribers figure was considered to break even.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32784/EA_Old_Republic_MMO_To_Show_Profit_With_500000_Subscribers.php

I believe you got the numbers messed up - 500k nothing to write home, 300k subs to break even.

"at 500,000 subscribers, we'd break even. At a million, we'd be making a profit but nothing worth writing home about.

http://news.mmosite.com/content/a/2012-02-02/swtor_snatches_1_7_million_users.shtml#.T7O-yOvOyQw

 

And really, it's everywhere. Just use Google.

You guys are missing the larger point...

You don't invest several hundred million dollars in a project that has that capital tied up for 2+ years to earn the kind of profit margin 500k, or even 1 million, subscribers gives you.

 

You drop that kind of cash on an investment opportunity that yields something closer to what Blizzard is doing with WOW.  Not saying they need to have 10+ mill subscribers.....but if I had to guess, the investors in the project were probably hoping for a revenue stream closer to what 3-5 million subscribers would provide.

Again, think about all the other things you could have invested 200 million dollars in, and earned larger profit margin in half the time, with half the risk.

 

Another team of developers & a reputable publishing house could have made a game that yielded 300-500k subs WITHOUT having to pay Lucas Arts for Star Wars IP, WITHOUT having to pay for the sophisticated networking technology, and WITHOUT having to pay top dollar artists & soundtrack for a 2+ year project.

Just think how much of that 200 mill could've been used towards making a better Act III in mass effect 3......  heeeeyy--oooo!

Originally posted by odinsrath

Originally posted by madjonNZ

It will be years before another starwars MMO is made , If at all.....so so dissapointed....  :-(

 

There are so many other developers that would have given this IP the love and depth it deserves as a piece of art instead of a cash cow.

+10000 to that

I think a lot of us were under the mistaken  impression that "Bioware" was the "bioware" team working on the ME games.  In truth, they were a bunch of random people given the "Bioware" name.  And then even "Bioware" that we know as "Bioware" isn't the same "Bioware" from the era of BG to either ME1/DA:O (Take your pick with however generous you are).

I was excited about this game, but that excitement was mainly before DA2 was released.  DA2 was a sign of where the once great company was heading.

Yeah, this is about as bad as Nancy "there is too much reading involved, kill, loot, repeat" McIntyre.