Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blizzard Announces Final Diablo 3 Class, PvP Arena Battles

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the stay-a-while-and-listen dept.

Games 187

Blizzard kicked off Blizzcon 2010 today with the announcement of Diablo 3’s fifth and final class – the Demon Hunter. The class uses crossbows, bolas, traps, and other gadgets to rid the land of Diablo’s evil minions. Blizzard also unveiled a major new feature for Diablo 3 – PvP Arena Battles. Players can join solo or in groups to take on other players through the Battle.net matchmaking service. Read on for more about Diablo 3

Blizzard chose Demon Hunter because it filled an archetype for conventional ranged weaponry that wasn't filled by the other classes they’ve already developed. They favored the idea of a character like a bounty hunter – not necessarily somebody with a noble, honorable soul. This led them to bring in various gadgets and traps in addition to ranged weapons, as well as shadow magic. She’s more knowledgeable about demons than anyone else, and she’s got a decidedly unheroic attitude.

Their early concepts for the class involved a woodland ranger design, but they weren’t satisfied with a typical swift and deadly stalker. As they tried to twist the concept to fit the Diablo world, they found it turning into a character like the assassin from Diablo 2, which they didn’t really want. After the Monk was announced last year, they picked some key traits for the ranged class that they wanted to stick with: Dark, Mysterious, Medieval. They toyed with the idea of making the Demon Hunter an actual demon, but decided that didn’t fit with the Diablo story. They also had trouble making demonic art concepts fit the sleek and agile archetype. They settled on a dark-armored human with dual crossbows.

Lead World Designer Leonard Boyarsky said the Demon Hunter is “the most diverse class.” They are recruited from all walks of life, bound together by their hatred for demons and an obsessive, overriding desire to keep fighting and killing demons until they’re all gone. “She’s not afraid to get her hands dirty.” She doesn’t just want to kill them, “she wants them to know the terror of being stalked,” and Demon Hunters know better than any other classes the true stakes of the conflict in Sanctuary.

The first skill they demonstrated for the new class was Bola Shot. The Demon Hunter throws a bola, which wraps itself around the target's neck — and then explodes. Next came Vault, a shadowy leap forward that will take the character through enemies. Spike Trap is a gadget the Demon Hunter throws to the ground, which then explodes in fire and shrapnel when a monster walks over it. Along those same lines, the class can throw grenades, which will bounce and ricochet off walls, giving players some interesting new tactics that weren't possible in Diablo 2.

Diablo 3’s skill system has seen a lot of work over the past year. The skill tree concepts reminiscent of World of Warcraft was felt to be unwieldy. The UI is now list-based, using two separate windows, which makes picking new skills and deciding between upgrades easier. Skills have also been supplemented by a new system called Traits. Traits are passive aspects of your character that improve one aspect of it.

For example, Barbarians get a Trait called Inner Rage, which reduces the amount of fury (their resource for using skills) lost and increases the amount gained from attacks. Wizards have one called Prismatic Cloak, which makes all of her armor spells stronger. Blizzard added Traits to give the classes another level of customization, and to separate the fun choices (skills) from the math choices. You can pick a particular theme for your character and select traits that fit the theme. Each class has about 30 traits, and you’ll be able to spend multiple points to make a trait stronger. “I want to spend points in Whirlwind, I don’t want to spend points in ‘more armor.’” The design for Traits isn’t finished yet – Jay Wilson said we’ll likely see more changes to its UI, the rate of accumulating trait points, and how many you get total.

They showed off some new skills for various classes – Barbarians get a spear attack that grabs an enemy at range and pulls them close. Meteor is coming back for the Wizard. Witch Doctors get a skill called Spirit Walk, which phases him out so he can walk around without detection for a brief time.

Another new feature they announced is Talisman. It’s a dedicated inventory for Charms that grows as you level up. No longer will you sit with half a backpack worth of charms, wondering if some minor bonus is worth not being able to pick up an extra piece of loot while you’re slaying monsters. Charms themselves are also becoming more focused on particular attributes.

Skill Runes didn’t get much play last year, since Blizzard was in the process of overhauling the system. The idea is that you use runes to modify how your skills work, similar to the way gems modify what your armor does. It’s essentially another way to customize your character. This arose out of the tendency for Diablo 2 players to divide class builds into things like “Spearazons” or “Zealadins.” The skill runes, affecting only active skills, now provide 97 billion different permutations. Per class.

There are five types of runes. Crimson, Indigo, Obsidian, Golden, and Alabaster. Each rune type loosely follows a particular theme, and each color has seven ranks. To demonstrate the rank system, they showed the Wizard skill Magic Missile. With a first rank Indigo rune, it shoots two missiles instead of one. With the seventh rank rune, it shoots seven extra missiles. Another example showed how the Barbarian can use the various runes to modify a skill that throws his weapon. Different runes make him throw different weapons, with different effects – more damage, stuns, confuses, etc. The Wizard’s Hydra can swap to different elements, or can shoot fire walls instead of bolts. The Witch Doctor has an ability that summons frogs to attack monsters. A Crimson rune makes them flaming frogs. Another rune turns the spell into a rain of toads, and another will turn the little frogs into one giant toad which eats and digests monsters.

Finally, they went into some details about Battle Arenas. Since dueling and PvP was so popular in Diablo 2, they wanted to support it much more in Diablo 3. It’s focused on team-based play. Since there are so many permutations for individual builds (and some are supposed to be better than others), they’re less worried about 1v1 balance than team balance — a philosophy similar to that for World of Warcraft arenas. Some player skills are designed specifically for PvP. Since the PvE game has a lot of skill focusing on monster control, and they didn't want PvP to be about taking away your ability to do things, they're designing class abilities to counter crowd control.

The arena matches will be played out with multiple rounds – best 3 out of 5 or best 2 out of 3. They’re also working on custom games, and making 1v1 dueling easy to do. There will be a skill-based ranking system, with titles, vanity rewards, achievements, and so forth for people who want to show off their PvP abilities.

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Demon Hunter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990290)

Re:Demon Hunter? (3, Funny)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990332)

Meh... no match for Illidan...

Re:Demon Hunter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33993276)

do anyone play cabal online this game. cabal alz [cabalalzbox.net]

So, what about Real ID? (-1, Troll)

seebs (15766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990300)

Will Diablo 3 be sticking with the new model of requiring people to use real names to interact with other players significantly, or are they introducing some kind of way for people to pick a nickname?

Re:So, what about Real ID? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990346)

That's a great question except that it's complete bullshit.

Re:So, what about Real ID? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33991380)

Only on slashdot does an honest response to a troll get marked troll.

Re:So, what about Real ID? (2, Interesting)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990358)

I'll believe they'll be sticking to the existing model of allowing players to interact with others using a real name if they so desire, but having the option to use real names if they like. As for this "new model" you're describing, it doesn't exist in any existing Blizzard game, and seems highly unlikely it ever will.

Re:So, what about Real ID? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990386)

Gah... when will we ever get an edit button? Oh well, the point is made. Real names are optional and frankly not used by most players, who continue to interact significantly as they always have using their character names or nicknames.

Re:So, what about Real ID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990490)

Real ID, in Starcraft 2 at the very least (I'd love to hear a confirmation from a WoW player), does not require you to provide your name when you want to "interact with other players significantly". You can be a friend, or a Real ID friend. If a player surrenders their email, the other player can add them as a real id friend and will be provided with their real name, as well as other small benefits such as the ability to see the friends of their friends, and add those players to their own list.

It's not a required usage feature. No gameplay, to my knowledge, is limited by not providing another player with your name.

Re:So, what about Real ID? (2, Interesting)

Paspanique (1704404) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990560)

Yeah, but I saw a bug with that, when someone gives you access to it`s real id, you see the real id of his friends. Don't know if it was corrected, but i was able to know the name 2-3 person from my work who were playing this game when I made real id friend with a co-worker. It's surprising how some people really don't look like they would be sc2 materials ;)

Re:So, what about Real ID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990654)

Well, I'm not sure that seeing my real friends' real friends (I'm sorry) is a bug, but the fact that you may already have character friends that overlap with people on your real friends' friends list (truly sorry) and can now thereby see their real ID on that interface and not on your own friends list is awkward to be sure.

Ya dig?

Re:So, what about Real ID? (1)

cjnichol (1349831) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991188)

That's not a bug. That's a feature of the real-id system that helps you find other people you know. Due to customer feedback, they are (or already have, I'm not sure...) adding in an opt-out for it.

Re:So, what about Real ID? (1)

seebs (15766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990568)

Huh, I'd heard some complaints about it being used more heavily, maybe they were confused.

In WoW, it's not "required", but it's the only way to get access to decent friend functionality (say, being able to track a friend across multiple alts).

Re:So, what about Real ID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33991354)

To be fair, you were never able to use that "decent friend functionality" until real id came into effect.

Re:So, what about Real ID? (1)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990700)

Will Diablo 3 be sticking with the new model of requiring people to use real names to interact with other players significantly, or are they introducing some kind of way for people to pick a nickname?

Blizzard actually just barely released changes which makes Real ID optional [battle.net] . I got an email yesterday from Blizzard explaining the change and showing how to make changes to your profile so that Real ID is disabled, or to prevent friends of your Real ID friends from also seeing your full name.

I was happy to see the change, but two things still bother me about it. Why did it take them months after the retail release of the game to implement this? It should have been clear from day one that such a feature has as much potential for bad as good and should obviously be optional. Second, why is it so hard to make these changes? You have to go to the Battle.net webpage, log in to your profile, go to "communication settings" (less than obvious) and make the changes there. Why can't it just be a simple option in the game clients?

Re:So, what about Real ID? (1)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991350)

WTF was not optional about Real ID?

As long as you don't explicitly enable Real ID for any of your regular friends no one can see your Real ID.

A shame I won't be playing it. (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990312)

The game looks like it's going to be awesome, but considering the DRM and bad behavior by Blizzard, I'm not going to be playing. I hate going without, but when a company can ban accounts for what one does during single player gaming and isn't even required to give a refund, that's not something that I'm willing to be a part of.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (3, Interesting)

Quantus347 (1220456) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990436)

Personally, Im going to wait and see what kinds of DRM etc they try before I make any blanket boycott statements. And even then just because I dont buy it doesn't mean I wont playit.

Anyone else miss the double unit production of the early SC2?

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (5, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990584)

I think the assumption is that it will be like what they've got in SC2. Which definitely justifies boycotting. Requiring you to be connected or to play via the guest account and reactivate every 30 days is not something that I consider to be acceptable. Likewise I don't think that it's OK to take away somebody's game because they chose to cheat in a way which Blizzard doesn't approve of.

Just the fact that they can take away your game without providing a refund for things you do in single player games makes me really concerned about it.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990904)

Don't cheat if you don't want to get banned. This isn't complicated. There are built in cheat codes that do basically anything you might want, you just can't get the achievements while doing so. You're welcome to use them to see the story.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

billsayswow (1681722) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990952)

You say that as if the story was something actually worth seeing at all.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33991002)

It was for some people. I enjoyed it, though I agree it wasn't as good as the first game's, which was already derivative.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990984)

Don't cheat if you don't want to get banned. This isn't complicated. There are built in cheat codes that do basically anything you might want, you just can't get the achievements while doing so. You're welcome to use them to see the story.

That doesn't justify locking someone out of a single-player game that they paid for.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33991176)

And your suggested response would be what then?

Reset the achievement points so they can do it again? Ban them from only multiplayer? Ban them from achievements forever? Do nothing and let people earning the achievements feel they're worth less?

I'm seriously curious, as they all have negatives. I agree the response may be heavy handed, but I don't really have a problem with it due to the fact there are built in cheats.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33991782)

The existence of "legit" cheats doesn't change anything. Blizzard literally took away people's games for not playing them in the way they decided was right. This goes well beyond merely forbidding the players from playing on Blizzard's servers (which would be fine).

If someone's cheating at poker in your casino, you bar him from the casino. You don't go to his house and confiscate his cards.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33992054)

Notice you didn't give a suggested fix. Complaining it's unfair is much easier than coming up with a solution.

And all they did do is ban you from their servers, their servers just happen to be required to play the game legit.

So your desired fix seems to be to ban you permanently from multiplayer, and also ban you from achievements, but still let you play single player? I'd be fine with that, but it would be approximately the same thing for all practical purposes.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33992624)

Notice you didn't give a suggested fix. Complaining it's unfair is much easier than coming up with a solution.

Actually, my casino analogy should make it pretty plain what my suggested fix is (and it obviously did since you picked up on it easily enough). But even I hadn't made one, that wouldn't have made my points any less legitimate or correct.

And all they did do is ban you from their servers, their servers just happen to be required to play the game legit.

And there is no excuse for that. Nothing can justify setting it up so that a player needs the publisher's permission to play a game they legally own on their own computer. Not cheaters, not piracy, not anything. Only in the most pedantic sense is banning you from their servers "all" Blizzard did; the reality is that they stole the game from customers. Not like pirating a game is "stealing" it, but actual factual depriving-the-rightful-owner-of-use theft.

So your desired fix seems to be to ban you permanently from multiplayer, and also ban you from achievements, but still let you play single player?

Yes, but I would also note that to say they "let" you play SP implies that they should be able to decide whether or not you can, which they shouldn't.

I'd be fine with that, but it would be approximately the same thing for all practical purposes.

How?

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33992984)

Here's some information you might find shocking:

The achievements system is exploitable. You can never guarantee that someone who has an achievement obtained it the way you expected them to.

There, I said it. Hope I didn't smash too many e-penis dreams out there.

Even if Blizzard could guarantee 100% cheat detection, it still wouldn't stop you from having a friend complete the game for you on your account and undeservingly grant you an extra inch of e-peen.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (4, Insightful)

Quirkz (1206400) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991512)

I don't actually begrudge them blocking cheaters, but I hate the idea of having to exercise an internet connection or an online account to play a game single-player on my own computer. I don't ever play online, don't want to ever play online, and wish I could have a simple, self-sufficient game that worked without an internet connection.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

sirsnork (530512) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991650)

Honestly, there are enough other reasons to be pissy at Blizzard. No LAN play, having to be online to play, no parental controls for SC2 at launch, no way to play on another Bnet cluster even if you happen to be non-american but have been playing WoW since launch so thats where all your friends are. With all these though you're bitching about then banning people who are basically hacking the game to cheat, when, in single player mode there are built in cheats anyway. The only reason to use those cheats and not the built in ones is to get achievements, and I would bet you any other game company would do exactly the same thing if their achievement system was being exploited

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992192)

There is a very easy solution for people cheating to get achievements: disable their achievements publically outing them as cheaters. No need to ban them from the game outright.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

bckrispi (725257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992484)

"Banned outright" sounds so much more harsh than "banned for 14 days", which is what happened.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

dommer2029 (862153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992006)

These are totally valid issues, but I guess it just comes down to how much I want it. Give up privacy to play games on Facebook? No, thanks. Requiring me to be connected and preventing me from reselling Diablo III? Sign me up. As long as it's a one-time fee for a game I expect to get many hours of enjoyment from, I'm only interested in the practical considerations. I have a network connection. I'm not planning on ever selling my copy of the game. That said, I was one of the people who stayed away from Spore a few years ago because they planned to do this kind of thing. The difference? Spore was something that looked "neat" but I didn't really see myself getting into it. Diablo III, I really want.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990456)

Same here. Blizzard-DRM, phone home, and no cheats? Do not want!!1!

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990462)

I still occasionally play Diablo II. I bought it (and the expansion pack) for Windows, but I can use the same CD on a Mac or under WINE. There's no copy protection that needs bypassing, and the game still works when I am on a train (no Internet) with my laptop, under pretty much any OS. The DRM that they seem to want to put into Diablo III means I won't get it. A shame, as I'd probably enjoy it, but there are lots of other forms of entertainment competing for my time and money, so not a huge loss.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (3, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990710)

The "DRM" is a symptom of a bigger problem -- someone very high up at Activision is hell bent on the whole competitive PVP element being the thing that drives the market. PVP means you have to deal with other people. Some can handle that, and others can't. But once you make your game into this intense worldwide competition for individual and team achievements, then there is going to be a rift between players who just want to play a computer game casually, and those who have nothing but contempt for the "casuals."

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33991292)

The "DRM" is a symptom of a bigger problem

A much much bigger problem.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (4, Interesting)

tirefire (724526) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990808)

I think it's also worth noting that Diablo II has seen significant development past the release date. If I recall correctly, they've put out at least 12 major patches and a few minor ones, too. Changes range from bug fixes to added items (Being an item-based game, Diablo II really benefits from this) to (in the latest patch) changing quest rewards.

For all the people out there who haven't played Diablo II in a while, I suggest you patch to 1.13 and try it again. You can respec your stats and skills after completing the den of evil quest (once respec allowed per difficulty level). This is every bit as money as it sounds; it's way easier to power through normal difficulty and then respec to make your character more robust in nightmare and hell. Game on!

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992772)

<quote>(in the latest patch) changing quest rewards.</quote>

that actually got me - went back to do a replay through a month or so ago. i thought my computer had bugged out when i killed the Ancients and didn't get anything.. although i did find 2 area's where they fudged up the drop rates for set items in act 5.. quite nice and quick to farm too.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

xhrit (915936) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990816)

I wont be playing it due to the the fact that zero staff who worked on D1 or D2 are working on D3. With different programmers, artists, writers, and directors, it is going to be an in name only kind of thing...

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33993334)

Zero is a remarkably small (and, as it turns out, incorrect) number. I don't really have the ambition to find a list of everyone who is on D3, but Chris Metzen is involved, and he was involved with D2 as well. So in short... you're wrong.

And even if what you say were true, so what? Not being on the original staff does not mean that the team can't understand what made the original great and work to iterate on it. It happens all the time in the industry.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990648)

Honestly, I think the reason they ban accounts when you cheat in Single Player is because of achievements. If you cheat and get the ridiculously hard achievements with little to no work, it's just not fair, is it? I think it's worth a ban.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (2, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990946)

Who cares about achievements? Achievements are cosmetic at best, and nobody really cares about them. Why are you supporting what a company tells you you can do with your software? Oh, ACHIEVEMENTS, IS IT? Well guess what, it was Blizzard's own choice to require that you have an account with them and check in every 30 days. You've drank the fanboy kool aid.

The real reason is that Blizzard wants money from rebuyers.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991014)

I hate to break it to you, but more people care about achievements react negatively to Blizzard trying to stop people from cheating (as they would see it.)

That's not you, that's not me, and that's probably not even a majority of /., but Blizzard didn't to be a company that sleeps on haybales made of money by alienating a significant percentage of their actual customers.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (2, Insightful)

bckrispi (725257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992548)

Who cares about achievements? Achievements are cosmetic at best, and nobody really cares about them.

Riiight... Just about every major multiplayer game has introduced Achievements in the past two years. And all the game designers do this in light of the fact that "nobody really cares about them"? You don't find value in them? Fine. But it's pretty much a foregone conclusion in light of the facts that you don't speak for the other millions of gamers out there.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

billsayswow (1681722) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990990)

Because achievements have tangible worth and benefits, of course they should ban people who cheat to get them. I mean, really, if it was just for bragging rights and e-peen stroking, it'd be stupid to do so, but since cash prizes and merch are being awarded to the top achievers, it's a good thing to crack down on.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990668)

I played Diablo I. I liked it a lot -- it was a Roguelike game [wikipedia.org] . It was really one of the first games to do a good job of taking that genre to the video game level. I played Diablo2 and the expansion quite a lot also, and jumped over to World of Warcraft when that came out. With the last patch to WoW, Blizzard has cured my addiction to their games. They did this in the nick of time, too, because I would probably have bought D3, SC2 and Cata just out of habit. I kicked the habit, though, thanks to Blizzard's own efforts. My Bnet subscription expired yesterday and I'm not even experiencing withdrawal symptoms.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

bckrispi (725257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992554)

Let me guess. You played a Hunter? :)

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

theskipper (461997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990740)

I've purposely not bought any DRM'ed games since the EA three activation stunt so forgive my ignorance. Can someone expand on the Blizzard DRM issues?

The Diablo sequel was the one game I've been looking forward to. If it has anything like the activation limits or constant internet connection crap, etc., then I'm out too.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991662)

You too? Between the 3 activation bit and the whole "Oops, we just installed x32 DRM on your x64 system, you're boned!" crap I just gave up and now shop at Good Old Games [gog.com] where I actually OWN what I pay for, but being a fan of Diablo I was willing to put up with a little DRM if it wasn't too bad. So what is up with the DRM? Is it more like easily removable SecuROM? or is it that "always on 24x7" pile o' suck style DRM?

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33991778)

It has -exactly- that sort of DRM. An internet connection is required to activate, and at any time you want to play, even Single Player.

I've had SC II and Diablo III on my amazon wishlist since the preorders were very first available, but I've removed them both after learning what sorts of DRM are going into them.

When I buy a game, I realize that I'm merely purchasing a license to play it, but I REFUSE to buy a license that the manufacturer can turn off whenever they please, for any reason they please. I've seen too many companies just stop providing the activation service, rendering the game(s) totally useless. I'm NOT paying for a game like that, not at today's prices for games, and -especially- not when Blizzard is doing things like splitting Starcraft II into 3 or more different games that all have to be purchased separately at full price!

Sorry Blizzard. You were great when you were young, and I'd still be praising you to the masses and buying your games as gifts for my kids, nephews, etc., but you got greedy, and I won't throw my money away for a game that I have no control over.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33991184)

The game looks like it's going to be awesome, but considering the DRM and bad behavior by Blizzard, I'm not going to be playing. I hate going without, but when a company can ban accounts for what one does during single player gaming and isn't even required to give a refund, that's not something that I'm willing to be a part of.

I was really excited to play this game, I even bought a new computer so that I could run it when it comes out . However, the way things are going with DRM and the "bad" [subjective] behaviour of Bizzard with how they handled SC2 single player hacks means I will be boycotting this game. It seems that I am the minority though so I am sure it will be successful.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0, Troll)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991734)

The ban was 14 days for using 3rd party software that interfered with their product. They shouldn't have to waste manpower trying to figure out if they used the cheat in single player or multiplayer when they had their own cheat codes built in for single player anyway. Cheats have ruined a number of online experiences, I'm glad some companies actually take a stand against them.

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (2, Insightful)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992746)

They only response that would have been acceptable in that situation would have been disabling achievements for the account. That was the only online component of the single player game.

agreed (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992206)

all the drm = no sale htis time around, and i bought the boxset with lord of destruction

I will (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992754)

Yeah I know, the bogeyman is under the bed. Still the DRM that Blizzard has employed has never interfered with my games from them. I guess I am just too damn boring. I live with Steam DRM and see people bellyache about it as well. You can't win them all. The few games I do have without DRM seem to come from companies with games I find myself not playing long. So I take the bad with the good and go on with life. It is just a game and honestly taking a stand on DRM is about the least of my concerns. I have more important things to worry about. I play games to enjoy myself, so far no DRM system has impacted me. I grew up in the days where floppy discs had bad sectors for copy protection, manual checks, and code wheels. I just take it all in stride because in the end... it is just a game.

I

Re:A shame I won't be playing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33993328)

The game looks like it's going to be awesome, but considering the DRM and bad behavior by Blizzard, I'm not going to be playing. I hate going without, but when a company can ban accounts for what one does during single player gaming and isn't even required to give a refund, that's not something that I'm willing to be a part of.

I have absolutely no problem with client/server authentication for "drm". Bliz's games are always partly service, the game relies on battle.net for parts of its functionality, requiring authentication to play to me seems like a no brainer. I have a problem with true drm that actually does nasty stuff to your system, installing rootkits, spyware, cd protection, etc. But client/server authentication being required to play a game, thats just a business decision, and one thats required anyway for portions of the games gameplay. You wouldn't call WoW requiring a login to play "DRM" would you?

sure thats cool (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990376)

but what about releasing Diablo and/or Diablo 2 at a reasonable price rather than the full MSRP on Battle.net?

Re:sure thats cool (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990418)

You think 40 dollars for the battle chest is too much? That comes with Both the first and second Diablo, Diablo II's Expansion pack, and strategy guides.

Re:sure thats cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990496)

I already have access to a free strategy guide. It's called http://www.gamefaqs.com/

Re:sure thats cool (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991486)

So let me rephrase, you think 40 dollars is too much for Both Diablo 1 and 2 and the Expansion?

Re:sure thats cool (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992280)

At this point in time? Yes.

You can get Baldur's Gate+expansion, Icewind Dale+two expansions, Fallout, Fallout 2, and Betrayal at Krondor all together for less money than for Diablo, Diablo 2, and expansion. Or get Baldur's Gate+expansion and Icewind Dale+two expansions for same price and have (much) more content for games as highly received as Diablo 1/2.

Re:sure thats cool (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992420)

Correction, get BG and ID for the same price as Diablo 2 alone.

Re:sure thats cool (1)

bckrispi (725257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992568)

When people stop paying that price, they will lower it. That's how the market works.

YUO FAIL IT! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990406)

the ch4neel to sign

Basement dwellers unite! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990414)

What the hell is Diablo? I think there's a Mexican gang around here with that name.

Magic Missile, eh? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990416)

I wonder how many people will create Wizard characters named "Galstaff, Sorcerer of Light"?

PvP Arena = wary player (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33990572)

      PvP arena damaged World of Warcraft's class balance severely. I shall be concerned that this in Diablo will do the same thing.

Re:PvP Arena = wary player (4, Insightful)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992760)

We can look forward to PvE nerfs that hurt classes because of PvP whines. Gentlemen get your cheese knives ready!

And the Mouse Manufacturers Rejoice! (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 3 years ago | (#33990836)

Seriously, a mountain of mice will have their buttons sacrificed. Is logitech publicly traded? I'd buy that.

so this is due out when? (1, Troll)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991234)

You don't know? Then fuck off with the Diablo 3 'news' until you do.

Re:so this is due out when? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991516)

They announce the final class and some details regarding it and you don't think it isn't news - but you'd think the release date WOULD be news?

Are you a fan of the series or not?

Re:so this is due out when? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991592)

They can announce all the great things it's going to do, but if there's no release date, no hint of a release date, it's just another in a long line of vapor announcements. Do you remember when Diablo II came out? What year was that again?

I think this isn't news, but a news release by a company that has no idea when their product is going to ship, and wants to keep it in the public consciousness until they have some real news, like a release date or a beta or SOMETHING of substance.

And yes, I'm a big Diablo fan, which is why this is irritating. Here's a whole bunch of information about something you can't buy, and we won't even tell you what YEAR we expect it to ship.

Re:so this is due out when? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991924)

They announced a new Diablo and a new Starcraft at the same time, then followed it up saying that Starcraft would come first.

Given enough time, it has come out. If you seriously think Diablo 3 is going to become Vaporware then I think you're a fool. They may change the DRM scheme if the next 2 Starcrafts don't do well, but I don't see them Cancelling D3 for any reason - it's got even more steam behind it than SC2 had.

The thing is - you can't just set deadlines and assume things to be proper. Valve has gotten a bad rep for being Terrible with it's time estimates. There is the whole internet meme of Valve time. Because of that, large PC Game developers have avoided from announcing release dates until the game is in Beta.

It's not something you can say "Will be done by Christmas" - they obviously just finished fleshing out the last class, so now the whole motion of implementing it is under way, and then you've got scores of beta testing to go through.

And theres no way to appropriate how long a beta will take. Maybe everything will be balanced and working on the first shot - highly unlikely but you never know. Likewise, thousands of players can discover things the programmers never thought would happen and so they have to patch that up. The amount of work that goes into a successful beta is astounding - you can be in Beta for half a year. Meanwhile you're in beta you get a few small new ideas to add and test out. Some will stick, most won't.

It's a gruelling process. Considering they've got those other 2 Starcraft expansions to release before they can really commit more resources to Diablo, it's going to be a while. Would you rather them say December of Next year and then when December of Next year rolls around, it's actually another 2 years down the road? Wouldn't that piss you off more than an update on the dev status, to give you something to look forward too?

Re:so this is due out when? (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33993356)

Oh, please. It would be a "vapor announcement" if it wasn't going to come out. There's a small chance of that, granted, but let's be realistic: this game is not getting canceled. It will be released, which makes it not vaporware by definition.

"Our worst mistake was PvP" (2, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991258)

Blizzard's design staff recently, famously lamented: "Our worst mistake was PvP"

And yet...

Since there are so many permutations for individual builds (and some are supposed to be better than others), they’re less worried about 1v1 balance than team balance — a philosophy similar to that for World of Warcraft arenas.

...they're ripping their Arena system from WoW?

I would have like to have seen more information about _why_ they think this is a good idea...

Re:"Our worst mistake was PvP" (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991402)

WoW gets them millions upon millions each month... It's a freaking behemoth.. It worked there, so.. why not? (mind you, I'm not saying I like it, frankly I HATED the Arena's)

Re:"Our worst mistake was PvP" (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992826)

The biggest mistake in the arenas was that you got better gear for winning, immediately giving you further advantage. Equivalent gear was not always available via other methods or required 10 - 40 people to co-operate over the internet on a often timed exercise (raiding) and usually had lockout timers. If you were a decent player and got started early in the arena it was easy to stay ahead of even a dedicated raiding guild. and you were usually acquiring better gear for PvP. I enjoy casual PvP as I like to try different aspects of the game equally. Arenas force one to heavily focus on arenas in order to stay competitive.

Re:"Our worst mistake was PvP" (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991994)

PvP is pretty essential to MMOs. You can't just leave that out.

Re:"Our worst mistake was PvP" (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992176)

Because their aren't as many balancing difficulties with Diablo. WoW had it added without considering the incredible amount of options people could be wearing, and the characters in WoW where not designed and balanced to fight each other, but to balance a team formula.

Re:"Our worst mistake was PvP" (1)

MudflapSoftware (773087) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992208)

I would have like to have seen more information about _why_ they think this is a good idea...

1. develop cool single player game
2. add a pvp/arena/ranking system so when the user finishes the single player game, they keep coming back to zerg the n00bz.
3. profit!

Blizz, you fail to understand definition of "fun" (1)

triazotan (1895064) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991408)

Blizzard added Traits to give the classes another level of customization, and to separate the fun choices (skills) from the math choices.

Seriously... since when math and fun are two separate ideas?

Re:Blizz, you fail to understand definition of "fu (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992062)

perhaps nethack [nethack.org] would be a fun game for you. It's acknowledged by blizzard as inspiration for diablo, and it's a pretty fucking awesome game otherwise.

Re:Blizz, you fail to understand definition of "fu (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992326)

Since about the time Gygax and Arneson published first ed. D&D, in the dawn years before the net. Minimaxing set in pretty quick when you had to have ability scores that could only be rolled 1 in 1020 times to play certain classes to their max levels. A lot of players took the rules apart with a fine tooth comb, and it got to where 'math' meant "I'm going to start an hour long argument with the DM over whether his epic final villain exceeds the predicted frequency of non-skeletalform undead of that level, as predicted by a stochastic analysis of the charts on pages 42 and 87, and if I get overruled, I'm going to invoke the Navier-Stokes equations to prove I'm really right."

        Why do you think some of the most major computer game companies try hard to block mathematically analysing their games too much?
        Why did Blizzard deliberately build so many unique monsters and items in Diablo 1 and 2 that had properties such as being, say, an animal or a demon class being or a hammer class weapon, but not falling within the normal range of properties associated with that class? In Diablo 1, Diablo himself was particularly vulnerable to several attack forms that worked on undead. The flavor text and the rules booklet both made it clear that Diablo had taken physical form by possessing a mortal, and so was a kind of undead, but he was described more explicitly as a demon and many people never tried any of the anti- undead attack forms. The key to having a good chance of killing Diablo wasn't math, it was actually figuring out the implications of the various books and NPC sayings.
        Why did Id games build Cthon and Shub-Nuggarath in Quake 1 to be unkillable by any normal weapons, if not so the players couldn't just figure out some sort of optimal pattern for conserving various power ups and ammo to bring the boss monsters down to size?
        And these examples are mostly philosophically simple games, where everything can be shot/hacked, and you seldom/never have to relate to an NPC as anything but an enemy, or a source of E.P. and loot. If anything, the games with more nuance, sophistication, and depth try to do more to break the player of blindly relying too much on math.

Re:Blizz, you fail to understand definition of "fu (1)

Yosho (135835) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992388)

Seriously... since when math and fun are two separate ideas?

Ever since people who cared about winning more than anything else starting playing video games.

Seriously, though, a lesson learned from World of Warcraft is that if you have a class that has multiple different build options, no matter how much you try to balance them, as long as they have differences, one of them is going to be mathematically superior. The people who play the game will figure out which build that is, and then everybody will use only that build. Don't believe me? Go spend some time at Elitist Jerks [elitistjerks.com] .

People want to be able to use the "best" build and still make their character different from everybody else's character, and that's why the math choices are being separated from the fun choices.

Question on Class (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33991760)

Is the game going for generic or hardcore classes?

It's a good thing (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991836)

...they put the entire article in the summary, since they sure didn't provide a link to it. Not that I wanted to go find more pictures or videos or anything...

I am NOT impressed. (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992084)

I played the PSone version of Diablo 1, and it was good. I even tried out the PC version, which was much harder on my wrists, and slightly less fun to play. Every Diablo III article we see has folks drooling over every tiny little bit of info on the game that Blizzard leaks out. But as the Rogue from Diablo 1 says when she defeats Gharbad the Weak: I am NOT impressed. Why not?

Diablo III isn't doing anything that different from the various Snowblind engine games on the PS2...years ago.

http://www.gamespot.com/video/2815532 [gamespot.com]

Snowblind freely acknowledged Diablo's influence, but Blizzard never acknowledges Snowblind's influence in return. Like the rippling water that is familiar to any player of a Snowblind Engine game, to the new Health Orbs, which were in X-Men Legends II and Marvel Ultimate Alliance. I sometimes call Blizzard lazy, because if they were like Snowblind, we'd have already played Diablo IV by now and be waiting for Diablo V. Of course, as everyone knows, Blizzard got their start in console development, and then went PC only for some reason that they've never explained. And now it seems pride and arrogance is preventing them from acknowledging that Diablo III would probably work very well as a console game and going ahead with a port.

One thing I'd like to see (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992100)

I'd like to see them come up with one or more classes that isn't sex linked. In most other games you can play almost all classes as either male or female. Why is Blizzard so obsessed with gender-based classes?

Re:One thing I'd like to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33992472)

Diablo 3 will have both male and female genders for each class, or at least that's how it was in the beginning...

Re:One thing I'd like to see (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992662)

And yet, TFA referred to each class in gender-specific ways as though some were male, others female.

Re:One thing I'd like to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33992544)

Half as much art?

Re:One thing I'd like to see (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33992808)

Your wish is granted (pro tip: check website before whining - but right we don't RTFA or anything else here), now grant my wish and make text books stop referring to humans in general as 'she'.

Re:One thing I'd like to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33993178)

Classes in D3 aren't sex linked, you can play all of them as either. The "default" Wizard is female for instance, but there is a male version also.

DRM gonna kill it for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33992222)

If Diablo 3's DRM is the same as Starcraft 2's DRM, I dont think I'm going to buy this, I'm probably going to pirate it. Starcraft 2 is mostly a multiplayer game with a singleplayer warm up. Diablo 3 will be equal parts of both I think. I like diablo 1 and 2 singleplayer. Multiplayer is just less fun for me because of lamers, loot stealers, PK's, etc. I dont want to get locked out of singleplayer fun just because battlenet is down like I have been a few times now for starcraft 2.

We should call it whinedot. (1)

((hristopher _-*-_-* (956823) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992238)

Honestly, how much complaining do we have to go through. Post after post. It seems to happen so much these days. Must be gen Y overload.

Chicken not the egg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33993050)

How about they release the game first. THEN they can think about nifty additions.

Slashvertisement (1)

primerib (1827024) | more than 3 years ago | (#33993220)

This is the worst slashvertisement I've seen in ages. We have two huge privacy scandals from two of the tech world's biggest names (Google and the login/passwords, and Facebook with the targeted advertising fiasco), but the announcement of a new class in Diablo 3 gets a full, unabridged advertis- er I mean press release?

Cmon Slashdot, either come out and admit that this is an advertisement or take more than 5 minutes to make it appear like you're not Blizzard's mouthpiece spewing out verbatim press statements.

Re:Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33993348)

The article is neither an advertisement nor a press release.

And both the Google and Facebook incidents were reported by Slashdot. Further, doing so does not somehow mean they shouldn't also report on a major bit of news about Diablo.

"Slashvertisement" always, without exception, means "news about a product I personally don't care about and irrationally think no one else should either". There has never been an instance of it meaning anything else.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?