Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Julian Love, Lead Technical Artist for Diablo 3

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the zombie-bears-are-sweet dept.

Games 102

At Blizzcon this past weekend, we got a chance to speak with Julian Love, lead technical artist for Diablo 3. We discussed skill runes — items that modify the form and function of your character's spells and abilities — as well as the newly announced PvP Battle Arenas, the Demon Hunter class (and why it took so long to create), the future beta test and the importance of getting the game in front of players to collect feedback. Read on for our discussion about Diablo 3.

Slashdot: Could you explain your role on the Diablo 3 team?

Julian Love: A lot of people don’t know what a lead technical artist does, or even a technical artist. So, the easiest way to understand it is: all the things that your player does in the game, all the skills that they have, have visuals attached to them, usually done with special effects. That’s really the focus of what my team does that you can see in-game. We are very tightly coupled with the design team to help them visualize and even come up with a lot of the player skills – what they are and what they do.

Slashdot: One thing I noticed while playing the demo was that the skill runes modify the art on the abilities quite a bit. That seems like a lot of work.

Julian Love: You bet. It is a lot of work, and it wasn’t our original intention to do that, because we were thinking, “That’s a lot of skills.. .and that’s a lot of runes..how is that even going to be possible?” So, initially we thought, “Well, we’ll just do some things that aren’t so visual.” But, what we found was that they felt kind of broken. We noticed that the players would pick up the game and the places where we had done those kinds of graphical changes, they would play those skills over every other one that didn’t do it. It was clear that if we’re going to have this system, we’re going to have to commit to making graphical changes on everything, so you don’t have this case where people are shying away from a skill simply because it felt unsatisfying.

Slashdot: How much extra work is that for you in the art department?

Julian Love: I can tell you it’s at least five times as much extra work. Sometimes it’s more, sometimes it’s less. What we’re really shooting for is enough graphical change that the skill doesn’t feel broken and that it contributes strongly to the feel of customizing your character. That’s the other key that we hit on. This is a way for us to bring another level of customization to characters that I don’t think people necessarily think about. The tendency is to think about things like “How come I can’t change his skin color,” or “how come I can’t give him tattoos?” And in our game, your character is this big (holds fingers a few inches apart). It’s not very large on screen. So, those kinds of things don’t have a lot of utility or value. Your character is covered in armor, what good is a tattoo?

But your skills are big and powerful and cover a lot of the screen, so being able to customize those is something that will really have a lot of impact for player customization. So, for that we looked up and just said we’re going to have to commit. We’re going to have to find ways to do it. Sometimes it’ll be a little easier, and sometimes, in the case of things like Hydra, where we’re literally making different hydras, or in the case of, say, Plague of Toads, where we’re making totally different kinds of toads, those are going to be a little harder. But, it’s going to be worth it as long as it’s fun.

Slashdot: Yeah. I was playing a Witch Doctor, and I used the spell that summons a zombie for you, and I got a rune that turned it into a swarm of bears. We got a real kick out of that.

Julian Love: Yeah! Zombie Bears! It’s kind of funny, that’s one of the skills that came up – the way we work is that we sit down and throw a lot of crazy ideas out, and sometimes it’s a little scary, throwing an idea that you think “I’m not sure how the group will react. This is kind of wacky.” And I remember sitting in the group and they were saying, “What are we going to do? We need something else.” And I said, “I’m not even sure why this works, but I’m just going to say it: Zombie Bears!” And everybody went, “Yes!” And that was it. Look at the way to it feels to play that skill in the game – it just sounds fun, right?

Slashdot: Definitely. Now that you can modify these skills so heavily, it seems like you can go through the game as, say, a Wizard, and play it one way, and then play it through again as a Wizard and have a completely different experience.

Julian Love: Absolutely. The character customization is one part of it, but another really important part is replayability. The fact that you can go back and re-explore your class, explore other classes. As limited as Diablo 2 was compared to Diablo 3, you still have people playing it ten years later. You have a hundred thousand people online sometimes, playing Diablo 2. So, replayability is a big, important factor, and skill runes definitely contribute to that by providing so many more build possibilities for people to keep exploring.

Slashdot: Regarding the new PvP system, are there going to more game types than just small teams facing off?

Julian Love: We don’t have any plans right now that we’re announcing for different types of games. It’s an idea we’re a fan of. We think that there are some things we might be able to do with it, but right now we’re primarily focused on bringing Battle Arenas to the game.

Slashdot: How has that affected the way you’re implementing PvP in the rest of the game.

Julian Love: The only place we’re actually implementing PvP is in the Battle Arena structure. That’s a key point. By bringing PvP out of the PvE game and giving it its own space, we’re providing a more structured and fun PvP experience. We can do things there that were much harder to deliver, like team play. It was really hard to do meaningful team play in Diablo 2. Not that some players didn’t find a way to impart that structure. It’s just a lot easier when it’s already there. Especially when you start to bring in Battle.net and being able to do much fairer matches. Really, if you think about the Diablo 2 experience, it’s much more about ganking people who are unsuspecting. People didn’t fight each other unless they thought they could win. It really wasn’t what I would call fun for everyone.

But by bringing it out and giving it its own space, you have a better chance of injecting that fun into the PvP experience. Now, at the same time, we’re really improving what most people consider the PvE experience, especially for those people who weren’t interested in being ganked unfairly. Nobody liked to take a waypoint into a zone and show up dead, and have no idea what happened, only to find out that somebody killed them before they loaded. When you do enough of that, you start chasing people out of those games, and eventually out of Diablo 2 itself. That’s not something we want to provide.

Slashdot: When a new player logs into Diablo 3 and sees the PvP options, what is your goal for what they’re encouraged to try.

Julian Love: Our goal is first to communicate that it’s going to be a fun experience. We’ve done it as short, cycled rounds, and one of the reasons we’ve done that is so when you do die –because if you engage in PvP, you’re going to get killed, right? – but nobody likes to stand around dead for too long, watching all their buddies have fun. So, shortening the rounds gives you a chance to come back and get some revenge before the rounds are up. A part of the reasoning behind that is to make sure people are having fun; to get over the intimidation factor with PvP. “Oh, I don’t want to do it, I don’t want to die!” Well, you die in PvE, right? We want to communicate that this is easy, engaging, and can really be a lot of fun.

Slashdot: Is that where you’re going with skill-matching over Battle.net, to make sure beginners play against beginners?

Julian Love: We’ll have a system very similar to how StarCraft works in terms of trying to match people up fairly. Part of the reason is to avoid people saying, “I’m going to go get my level 80.” “Well, I’m going to go get my level 90.” That kind of thing happened in Diablo 2 where people would just one-up each other to the point where it was a fair fight, at which point everybody left because nobody wants to do that. It’s a lot more fun when everybody is playing together and they are much more on the same level.

Slashdot: It was mentioned at the panel that there would be things like achievements and vanity rewards for PvP. Is that something that will carry over to the PvE game as well?

Julian Love: There will be achievements and vanity rewards for sure in the PvE game. I don’t think we have any plans for how much or what those things are. It’s still a work in progress.

Slashdot: Is there going to be a beta test?

Julian Love: There will be a closed beta. We don’t have an announcement about when that will be. I don’t think we have any specific announcements yet about what you’re going to be able to do in the closed beta.

Slashdot: Is that something you’re more hesitant to put in front of players? Would you rather keep things under wraps?

Julian Love: No, no. Well, there are some things we have to keep under wraps. Story. Diablo 3 is going to be a lot about story. It’s going to have a much deeper story, a much more compelling story, a story you’re much more engaged in. Obviously, there are whole parts of the story we don’t want to reveal. So we’re going to want to be careful about exposing the story to everybody and spoiling the experience. But at the same time, putting the game in front of people and getting feedback is a core part how we go about making games. That’s why there’s a playable build here at Blizzcon. So that we can get it in front of people and find out what works. In fact I was just down on the show floor earlier today, watching people play the game, and I noticed a number of things that made me say, “You know what, we’re got to go back to the office and tweak that!” There’s a few things that aren’t quite right. And the things I’ve noticed today? You know, I’ve been watching this game played at the office for the last year, and the things I saw today aren’t things I’ve seen before. So, there's huge value in having people outside of the office play the game.

Slashdot: Can you give us an example of one of those situations?

Julian Love: I saw a case where somebody hadn’t quite figured out how to get their skills on the left and right mouse button. It was just one person, but I think there’s something to that – people running around without using their skills. I think we’re going to take a look at that. We never really stop iterating on the UI for the game, and I think there’s something more we can do to get it just perfect. So that we don’t have what I would maybe call “fail cases.” We want to make sure that everybody would get it.

Slashdot: So far we’ve seen some very constrained dungeons – a tomb, a fiery dungeon – are we going to see more of the wide-open spaces that were common in Diablo 3?

Julian Love: Absolutely. Last Blizzcon we primarily showed an outdoor, open-space area – the desert – and this year there was a desire to give players something a little bit different. At the same time, we wanted to deliver something that was in line with the development process for the game, and not something that was pulled out and built separately for the show. Even last year’s [build], that’s still content we’re using for the game, but there was more putting it together for the show. This year, we really just wanted to take some section of the game, exactly as it is, put it in front of everybody, and see how it works.

Slashdot: Characters. From a fan perspective, it seems like a very long time between the announcements of, say, the Wizard, the Monk, and the Demon Hunter. Can you explain the timeline of what goes into developing these classes?

Julian Love: We don’t have a fixed timeline. But here’s what happens: We always start out with some really basic goals for a class. How they’re supposed to feel, broad parameters, how they feel thematically, and how they should feel gameplay-wise. For instance, with the Demon Hunter, we wanted a ranged class. But we wrestled with it, early on, about what the thematics would be. And by that I mean the beginning of the Diablo 3 project. That’s how far back the Demon Hunter goes. But we decided at some point to just put it on ice, and that’s a thing we do often. Sometimes you can just work your piece of clay to the point where you don’t know what it’s supposed to be anymore. So the best thing you can do is not to cut it, but to put it on ice for a while. Let it sit, let it percolate. It gives us the space to come back later.

Then, suddenly, it might make a lot more sense. You get this moment of clarity for the class. This has happened to just about every class in some way, shape, or form. Early on with the Barbarian, we had the same kind of thing happen, where we were really trying to push the physicality to the point where we were ignoring ways we could make him more crazy. There was this moment, after getting some space from it, where we were said it was alright to start giving him some of this god-power, through the Ancients. We did the same thing with the Demon Hunter. “You know what would really make this ranged class work is if we underscore the thematic elements going on in the storyline with the incoming demon invasion.” It let us create this bounty hunter-type class with a really dark, gothic vibe, which really suits our world well. It gave us a new feel, a character we didn’t have at that point. It filled the need for a ranged class, giving them the pistol crossbows to shake things up. We thought, “You know what, that just all works.” So what was a struggle before suddenly becomes crystal clear. And that takes time!

cancel ×

102 comments

who else would you get feedback from? (1)

MichaelKristopeit 98 (1926410) | more than 2 years ago | (#34014916)

was anyone not sold on the importance of individuals who CAN provide feedback if you wish to receive it?

Re:who else would you get feedback from? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015894)

No that's marketing's job.

Micheal YOU ARE NOTHING Kristopeit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34016104)

o hai, samefag. say hi to your 200 sockpuppets for me.

bugger off, stupid git.

Re:Micheal YOU ARE NOTHING Kristopeit (0, Troll)

Michael Kristopeit 7 (1913322) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016140)

am i michael or am i nothing? you're retarded.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

if any user can be called a puppet, THEN ALL USERS ARE PUPPETS.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

She gets around (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015024)

In the cinematic introduction, the demon hunter looks like Kasumi from the Mass Effect 2 Stolen Memories DLC.

In the Diablo tradition.... (4, Funny)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015122)

I don't have to click NEARLY enough times for this to be really about Diablo.

That's all fine and well.. (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015130)

...but Blizzard knows what we are waiting for: a release date. Get on that, Bliz!

Open beta, then a release date (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015230)

...but Blizzard knows what we are waiting for: a release date. Get on that, Bliz!

You can't have a release date until you've had an open beta. Open betas add an unknown amount of time to a project. Or in other words, its not "done" until the open beta shakes out the balance problems that only tens of thousands of external testers can expose.

Speaking of Open Betas... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34015346)

Let's see an open beta where a fixed-size player pool gets rotated every 2 weeks or so - this will likely both increase the amount of play time each tester will put in given the constraints, and allow for the technical team to not have the servers crumble under the weight of a full-on stress test. You could then cycle tester pools according to location in the world, or according to any other demographic statistic you choose, all while allowing more people (and thus more points of view) to test the game!

Ok, so I'm dreaming in technicolor, but... but... please?

Re:Speaking of Open Betas... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015586)

... allow for the technical team to not have the servers crumble under the weight of a full-on stress test ...

But an important part of beta testing is to stress out the servers and make sure they can handle it.

Re:Speaking of Open Betas... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015998)

If the servers are too stressed they should load some hot tea and yoga programs alongside Diablo 3.

Re:Speaking of Open Betas... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016208)

If the servers are too stressed they should load some hot tea and yoga programs alongside Diablo 3.

Oh no, we've already had enough trouble with Hot Coffee.

Re:Open beta, then a release date (2, Insightful)

TheLuggage2008 (1199251) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015348)

You can't have a release date until you've had an open beta.

Increasingly companies use the release as their open beta, they just don't mention that in the documentation. Sadly my company is among them.

Not too long now... (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015538)

I remember when the closed beta of WoW came out and I got in on that. It was fantastic.

The time between that and the open wasn't that long... though I was still in my 20's when I started. I'VE WASTED HOW MANY YEARS OF MY LIFE NOW????

Re:That's all fine and well.. (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015364)

It's Blizzard. You know that isn't forthcoming until about a month before release!

Re:That's all fine and well.. (1)

NoStrings (622372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34020198)

And even then, the release date will get pushed back at least three times!

just an estimate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34015418)

Diablo, Jan '97 -> Diablo 2, June '00 -> Torchlight, Oct '09 -> Torchlight 2, '11 -> Torchlight MMO, '13 -> Diablo 3, '15+

Sorry to say it, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34015138)

After playing through D2 again last week, D3 looks pretty weak. I'm sure the eyecandy-ravers will think it's God's gift, however.

Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34015176)

I know I can only truly speak for myself, but I've spoken with lots of other people who at least agree with me to my face regarding Blizzard and their recent bullshit tactics. Whether they vote with their wallets once the game is released, I dunno. What I do know is that I don't give Blizzard money any more. Removing LAN play killed their games for me. I haven't bought Starcraft II, and I won't be buying Diablo III either. I would've had both these titles preordered if they had stuck to their old philosophy of supporting the gamers who buy their products. Now instead we have forced online connectivity shoved down our throats, a single game split into 3 different versions for the sake of exploiting the customer, bullshit bans over cheating in SINGLE PLAYER MODE which WOULDN'T EVEN BE POSSIBLE IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE ON THIS LIST...gah, fuck 'em. I'm getting so pissed just talking about it that it isn't worth it any more.

If someone wanted to post an interview THAT MATTERS on a site for STUFF THAT MATTERS, why not get in someone's face and ask the hard questions about why the company seems hell-bent on alienating the people who put them on the map in the first place?

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34015504)

Yeah, it is annoying that LAN functionality was removed. But so what? It's Blizzards game, not yours. They have the right to do with it what they want. The campaign being released in 3 parts? I like the idea, it saves me from having to wait another 20 years for the game to release.

The length? considering just the Terran campaign matches the length of the original Starcraft, and has infinitely more atmosphere and depth... (just ignoring Jim Raynors speech, yeah)

The online side is fine too, save for the slightly dodgy UI. And you tell me what other games now can still be played over dial-up without intense latency (barring the patches).

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017572)

The length? considering just the Terran campaign matches the length of the original Starcraft, and has infinitely more atmosphere and depth... (just ignoring Jim Raynors speech, yeah)

no, SC2 WoL has the worst story of all blizzard games, period. It doesn't even hold the candle to its predecessor. Story is an incoherent garbage with total disregard to the lore established in SC1 and full of filler (maybe 10 out of 26 missions push the action forward). Only technical side is superior which is what you'd expect after 10+ years. Everything else is a step back.

Raynor became an emo whose girfriend is infested and completely forgot how she backstabbed him and his friends repeatedly. He vowed to kill her after the death of Fenix near the end of BW and in SC2 he sighs to the picture of hers right off the bat? WTF. Fenix, one of the biggest badasses in SC1, is not mentioned even once - he got retconned out because his existence, death and Raynor's promise was a huge problem for the happy ending love story sc2 was to become.
Established villains from SC1 are simply cartoonish and boring, if you happened to like their badassness in SC1 your heart has to ache now. Mengsk and Kerrigan are not smart and manipulative anymore, a bunch of outcasts does everything it wants and they can't do shit about it. Seriously? And what about a 180 degree turn in case of the Overmind? He was cool, because he wanted to assimilate and evolve, nothing more, nothing less. A brutal unstoppable force of nature elegant in its simplicity. Now it appears that he was a slave of mysterious higher power in reality and had a brilliant plan to set his 'people' free. What kind of bullcrap is that? And Tassadar's ghost 'ok, i am only half dead'? doesn't it diminish the magnitude of Tassadar's sacrifice?
SC2 story is a carbon copy of Warcraft. Loremaster Metzen has run out of ideas so he mixed in everything from his fantasy genre playbook. Prophecy as an engine of the story? Ancient artifact you happen to complete pretty much by accident as the ultimate problem solver? Talk about lazy.
SC was about 3 races battling in old fashioned way for domination, no supernatural stuff (except psionic powers) and that was cool. Now we got heroic fantasy in a scifi setting.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (2, Insightful)

Pranadevil2k (687232) | more than 3 years ago | (#34020150)

From a different perspective, it looks like you're arguing AGAINST the plot becoming more fleshed out and focused. SC2 answers questions you might have asked in SC1, like why the zerg suddenly became more aggressive - Mengsk's psi emitters played a small role in that but now we know it was mostly the dark entities.

Tassadar's ghost is also fairly reasonable. A powerful psionic being makes direct contact with another; strange results happen. Throw in the whole plot of Tassadar learning to harness the dark templar energies from Zeratul and you really should have expected something more than just 'he died killing the overmind.'

If you thought the story was incoherent, that probably is due to the design of choosing your own missions. Each of the 6 story arcs in the game is a complete story that is completely justifiable in the game's context. You don't just accidentally put the artifact together. You were guided there by Tychus who was being manipulated by Mengsk. Mengsk is a total badass - he manipulated Raynor the whole time to get him to attack Char for a final showdown with Kerrigan. It isn't Blizzard's fault if you didn't understand that.

And now there's a new overarching narrative with a clear and present danger of the Hybrid forces, which I honestly believe is a step up from the original starcraft where each race was antagonizing eachother.. there can now be a brand new dynamic.

And back on the topic of Tassadar's death: they barely touched on it in Wings, it's true. But it's a Protoss plot that you uncovered in a Protoss mission. Wings is otherwise pretty much completely a terran campaign. I think we're going to see a LOT more of Tassadar. My own personal opinion is that he was somehow (perhaps unknowingly) instrumental in the creation of the hybrids.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015510)

"I just do eyes."

If only you could see... (1)

deesine (722173) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017158)

what I've seen with your eyes.

Re:If only you could see... (1)

HazMathew (207212) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017360)

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

Re:If only you could see... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#34018736)

Coo! Coo! I'm a dove; watch me fly away in dramatic fashion!

You know they will buy ... ;-) (5, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015540)

I know I can only truly speak for myself, but I've spoken with lots of other people who at least agree with me to my face regarding Blizzard and their recent bullshit tactics. Whether they vote with their wallets once the game is released, I dunno ...

Yes you do. You know they will buy. The truth is that there are many testimonials like yours right before every every one of Blizzard's "recent" best sellers. This is becoming a slashdot tradition. Long threads extolling the righteousness of a ban or boycott before external beta testing. Followed by long threads explaining that trying the beta is OK since no money goes to Blizzard and that the game looks pretty awesome. Which in turn is followed by long threads explaining how this is the greatest game ever after it is finally released, and that the authorization and anti-cheat stuff isn't that bad and if it does curtail cheating its probably a net positive. This slashdot tradition then ends with a brief article announcing some new industry sales record has been broken by the game. ;-)

Re:You know they will buy ... ;-) (4, Insightful)

nlawalker (804108) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017312)

This is becoming an internet tradition

Publishers of blockbuster multiplayer games have completely stopped listening to their fans when it comes to stuff like removing dedicated servers or LAN play, because they no that no one is going to want to be the one that didn't get the awesome new game on launch day and lose out on playing during the hot couple of months after the game has released, putting themselves behind their friends in skill/experience levels.

"Boycott" has been redefined to mean "idle complaint" - sure, there are some people that will refuse to buy, but most "boycotters" end up reading all the reviews over and over again, trying to stifle their excitement and convince themselves it's not all that great. Then, they decide it's a good time to rediscover their old game library, twiddling through the first few minutes of some old games they have just to be frustrated and disappointed that the magic is gone. They hear from a friend or two who wonders why they aren't playing Multiplayer Awesomeness 3. They listen to the stories about how you can pilot jetskis with machine guns and fly planes into each other and stare longingly at screenshots, pretending that the game is unfolding in front of them. They run a few benchmarks, confirming that yes, their PC is more than capable of running the game and damn I bet it would look so awesome on my machine. By the next morning, they're wondering why LAN play or dedicated servers are really that big of a deal anyways when the game is so awesome, and by lunchtime the game's almost done installing.

Re:You know they will buy ... ;-) (1)

Five Bucks! (769277) | more than 3 years ago | (#34026062)

I faithfully played Warcraft and Diablo 1. I thought they were the best games ever. Diablo 2 was fantastic and I loved it.

I considered myself a fanboy of Blizzard Entertainment.

I have never *ever* seen WoW. I've never played it and after several years, I have no intention of playing it.

Re:You know they will buy ... ;-) (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#34018228)

To be honest, the anti-cheating stuff completely turned me off from not just Blizzard's games, but PC gaming in general.

There are a few publishers who don't require anything more than a key and maybe the CD in the drive to play (which I can then spoof with Daemon Tools so I don't have to keep popping the CD in and out). But it's too hard trying to figure out who's not trying to root my machine at every opportunity, and which games they publish (yes, looking up Stardock is a large pain in the ass, because gaming is supposed to be fun, and doing research even before buying the game just for this purpose is anything but fun), so I just don't bother anymore.

Console and handheld games, are all I now play when I have the time.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (2, Insightful)

Yosho (135835) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015676)

I know I can only truly speak for myself [ ... ] Removing LAN play killed their games for me.

Well, there's your answer. You're only speaking for yourself. Pretty much everybody else doesn't care about the lack of LAN play. 99% of situations where you'd be playing with people over a LAN, you're going to have internet access.

Yes, there are some situations where you won't have internet access. And there are a few other people besides you who won't buy the games because of it. But the vast majority of fans don't care.

why not get in someone's face and ask the hard questions about why the company seems hell-bent on alienating the people who put them on the map in the first place?

They've been asked and answered many times before. Asking again isn't going to change anything. Get over it. They're only alienating a tiny minority of you.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016112)

It also helps that Diablo 2 was a widely loved game and there hasn't been a worthy competitor in the same genre in the 10 years since its come out. No, Torchlight was not as good.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

chispito (1870390) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016322)

It also helps that Diablo 2 was a widely loved game and there hasn't been a worthy competitor in the same genre in the 10 years since its come out. No, Torchlight was not as good.

Diablo II had too much running around outside. It turns out randomly generated fields aren't very exciting. For this reason alone, I like Torchlight better (and Diablo I, for that matter).

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#34018152)

To scratch my Diablo 3 itch, I've been playing a ton of Titan Quest. Its actually pretty damn good. Not as good as Diablo 2, but it runs nice, and looks good on modern systems, there also is a fair amount of depth to it. Sacred 2 was a decent time killer, but its MMO style quest system (seven thousand fetch quests not related one bit to the main story) got a bit tedious. Torchlight doesn't really compete, it is more a spiritual successor to Diablo 1 than anything. Torchlight 2 might be a different story, though.

I do recommended Titan Quest, though. With the fan patch, it is a pretty damn fun and addictive game.

Granted, none of them really compete with Diablo 2. Its damn hard to be that damn awesome and addictive, so I really stopped using it as a point of comparison.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (3, Interesting)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017676)

No LAN means problems for tournaments. It's only few months and there were many tournament disasters already, lag and dropped connections. Hell, Blizzcon, their own fucking event was riddled with technical problems. If they can't provide a smooth experience who can? Ok, this affects only competitive scene so what about this: always connected is a problem when the WoW maintenance tuesday happens and the whole battle.net goes down and you can't do shit with your starcraft 2. This one affects everybody, no exceptions.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (3, Interesting)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 2 years ago | (#34019178)

No LAN means problems for tournaments. It's only few months and there were many tournament disasters already,

Yep, exactly - just in Australia recently, we had a tournament which failed because BattleNet blocked the single public IP through which all the connections were going, assuming it was an attack. Eventually got some action, but only the pros could play because of limited connections. There needs to be some allowance for these things, a local p2p style play even if it requires the login & occasional ping to BNet.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34015736)

Clearly you still care enough to troll their threads with the same trite shit people have been whining about for a year. Here's a thought: If you don't want Blizzard stories to appear on slashdot, don't click them, and don't post to them.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015792)

If someone wanted to post an interview THAT MATTERS on a site for STUFF THAT MATTERS, why not get in someone's face and ask the hard questions about why the company seems hell-bent on alienating the people who put them on the map in the first place?

Because then they might not advertise on Slashdot.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

oakwine (1709682) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016082)

100% agree except it's really Activision these days with their unspeakable CEO who holds gamers in contempt. No more for me either.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

gatzby3jr (809590) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016212)

I'm in a similar boat.

It's a small boat.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016264)

I dislike the loss of the LAN play option, but I will absolutely be buying Diablo III. It's a game built by one of the best game houses out there, with fantastic art and story. And killin' baddies. Similarly, I want to play Fallout: New Vegas, despite having been mildly pissed about parts of Oblivion, and having never finished Fallout3 -- I hunger for the game world, and trust that the game devs will create a world which is Awesome.

Not perfect, but Awesome.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016336)

I can understand being pissed about the lack of LAN play in Starcraft, but the only times I ever played Diablo II off of battle.net was when I was playing it with Wine and battle.net didn't work (and LAN play barely worked).

So... I still care about Blizzard and Diablo III because I don't care about what has your panties in a bunch. Sorry.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34016786)

To be fair ..

- we're all connected all the time anyway, so its not a big problem; is it right and ethical? I'm not sure, but its not a technical problem. I also don't mind firing up a game and finding out a buddy is on another game, so maybe I can link up; mind you, I have no friends, so thats highly unusual, but even an old fart like me has had this.

- sure, they 'broke it up'; they included the full multiplayer, and single player is _the same length as the original SC_, so its not really broken up; considering they're going to host the MP component for free for 10 years, I can see them needing some income, so if they're going to post expansion packs every couple years.. why not? Mix things up a bit in a couple years, with more campaign, and some timed MP changes. (You know, other games do expansion packs and DLC too, right?) Your complaint has to be that SP is too short, but as demonstrated, its as long as previous worshipepd game. (Also note, go complain about CoD type FPS games with a _6 hour_ single player .. beat it in one night!)

IF you want to bitch, theres a lot of more meaningful stuff to bitch about (custom maps, but they onyl show the most popular maps, and hence you get limited selection, etc etc etc.)

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017794)

always connected = no play when battle.net is down and this is a frequent event thanks to WoW maintenance (wtf?), plus endless problems for competitive scene and its tournaments.

story is watered down incoherent garbage, there are only about 10 meaningful story pushing missions (which coincidentally is about the length of single SC1 campaign), so 16 is pure filler. Only technical side is superior to SC1. If you happen to be a fan of SC lore, SC2 is a disaster and it pisses all over the predecessor with warm urine.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#34018250)

Diablo 3's Battle.net, and WoW realms are not the same animal. One being down has pretty much nothing to do with the other. I can still play SC2 when WoW is down, and visa versa (actually I can still play Diablo 2 and SC1 while anything else is down too), so I don't see why Diablo 3 would be any different.

I suppose I am in a minority; I never really cared about Starcraft's story. I was more into the gameplay, and the game play in SC2 is pretty much exactly the same. Actually most of Blizzard's stories are rather trite, and have always been so. Warcraft's lore is the only story that they've managed to actually keep interesting, and that probably mostly accidental, and the result of the huge amount of complexity they had to introduce to make a believable MMO world. You go to Blizzard because they are the only ones who have managed to merge style, play, and polish to such a great degree, not because they rival Tolstoy for story telling.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34016840)

Blizzard was great. Now that Activision's taken them over, it's become a commercialized wasteland that's just... awful.

I didn't care about b.net 2.0 as long as I got my StarCraft 2. I was tempted to pre-order Diablo III when I picked up SC2, too. However, after realizing what crap b.net 2.0 was, and how long they took to resolve my issue (the first name you put into SC2 is permanent, and used everywhere as your handle, including online gaming and forums), it seriously turned me off. Now they're offering paid name changes (I believe), so if you screw up or click past the dialogs to get playing, you either ante up or are stuck with it. Which is fine for WoW where part of whole process is choosing things carefully, but not so much when you're trying to get to the campaign missions to learn.

Seems Activision can't keep their hands off trying to get a form of "paid content" into the game. And the emphasis on creating maps is interesting, since Activision doesn't let you distribute maps any other way other than their servers (you can save your map locally, but if you want to play them online you have to publish on their servers which have a 25MB limit and such). Oh, I bet you can soon buy upgraded space for larger maps, just as soon as Activision figures out what else people complain about and charge money for.

It's not just b.net 2.0 (which fails miserably compared to other systems like Steam), just the whole "sucker" feeling I get from "make a mistake? Pay up!".

And it is this fear I have with Bungie going the same way, and Diablo III. And considering they had all of WoW to fix things that crop up with b.net, yet didn't (the whole beta testing thing revealed the same issues that retail SC2 people complained about so they never bothered to fix anything), we'll see the same things over and over again. Maybe I'll just wait a year and maybe b.net Diablo III would be working well.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016904)

Because most of the people who buy their games don't care about any of that.

Sorry, but there it is.

Because its about games, and games mean squat (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017100)

and taking a pissy attitude towards them over how they choose to enforce the intellectual rights and protect their properties does not affect those of us who buy the games to play them. We don't have false bravdo by thumping our chests on message boards. Some of us spend our efforts where it actually matters, like helping out at MUST ministries, doing the quarterly (it seems like more) Habitat for Humanity, and donating time and other monies to charities. Hell I even spend time helping a friend get elected to our county board.

Your own tone suggest you left rational behind. Blizzard makes games, that is all I see them for. Just like I see Hollywood actors for nothing more than the roles they play. I certainly am not affected by their attempts to curb cheating, if not curb the mentality that one should be allowed to cheat whenever possible as if they are somehow entitled to do so.

Look, this type of stuff is crap. Go expend your time and angst doing something which helps people who need the help. Mod me down to hell, I really don't care, there are far too many losers who "take up causes on message boards" because it lets them feel as if they belong, or are oppressed somehow, but in the end they don't have to do something or expend any real effort. I really don't know why sites like /. attract the sort or mod them as if its honorable or such, man against evil corporation? In the end no one will remember, help serve food, see smiles on people's faces when you help them, now there is something to direct your energy too.

Re:Because its about games, and games mean squat (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34017674)

We don't have false bravdo by thumping our chests on message boards.

Except that you spent your entire post doing just that.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

HazMathew (207212) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017376)

Dude, you need to get a grip.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017542)

You figured it out...since it is not worth it please don't post about Blizzard any more. I am not trolling, I will give you logic to back this up.
 
Your post has nothing to do with the article. You are completely offtopic.
 
We live in a time when LAN play is not necessary. I understand that every Slashdotter doesn't have an Internet connection and has to play LAN (yet posts 1000 times a day somehow magically) but for the rest of the sane world, we have an Internet connection and it has not been an issue. I had a SC2 "LAN" party at my house and had no issues supporting 8 players.
 
You got your information on Blizzard banning hackers from the hacking site that created the hack! Can you say biased? Blizzard gives you hacks that you can use already, it just disables your achievements. People would not be banned if they used the custom hacks in offline mode and that is what the hack site recommended. In other words, the users were WARNED and KNEW they could get in trouble for doing it. The only reason to use the hacks online was to cheat in multiplayer or cheat to get achievements. People who actually play the game feel there is MORE VALUE from the game when there are less cheaters. So you are horribly under-educated about what is going on and your opinion is based off irrational Slashdot group think.
 
If people actually posted anything that mattered on here other than just circle jerking, this site would have a lot more value. But it doesn't anymore. It is just everyone making the same predictable points on every topic. I know exactly what you are going to say when it comes to Blizzard, Sony, Microsoft, Apple, SCO, Second Life, Ubisoft, EA....you offer absolutely nothing of value. Nothing. You just mod each other up for things you agree with rather than anything that is on topic or truly insightful. You and your type make me sick and have destroyed any use this site once had.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34020004)

Grandparent poster here (or great grandparent, I can't be bothered to scroll up enough to figure it out). The only reason I'm replying to this is that you're a good example of the rest of the retards who don't understand that LAN PLAY IS FOR LAN PLAY. It's not because I don't have an internet connection at home. It's not because my friends don't have an internet connection at home. It's because when we all rent a meeting place and get all the gamers together in our corner of the state for our quarterly LAN party, we want LAN CAPABLE GAMES to play at the FUCKING LAN PARTY. After you manage to book and rent a venue, getting an internet connection good enough to support 60+ people is EXPENSIVE. However, we own our own switches. How hard is this to comprehend?

Seriously?

If people actually posted anything that mattered on here other than just immediately proclaiming that everyone has an internet connection by now, this site would have a lot more value. But it doesn't anymore. It is just everyone making the same predictable points on every topic. I know exactly what you are going to say when it comes to reading the article or any of the comments....you offer absolutely nothing of value. Nothing. You just make ridiculous, unrelated statements rather than anything that is on topic or truly insightful. You and your type make me sick and have destroyed any use this site once had.

As for the cheating, it just goes right back to "messing around" in general with the game. Regardless of whether you're cheating online or not, they've just proven that they're going to go after you for messing with something you legally purchased. Remember the enlarged stash size hacks in Diablo II? Remember how nice and useful that was? Kiss stuff like that goodbye with their new policy. You're playing your single player game, not bothering anybody, enjoying that you just figured out how to be able to carry some more items around and *BAM*. Your game is a coaster. The day is coming...thank you for paying them and letting them know that it's all good with you.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#34018076)

Because most blizzard fans are idiots, it's true. The connoisseurs of gaming are a minority.

Now blizzard is just running on blind fandom and demographic change, remember a lot of gamers are gamers young/new, many didn't grow up on classic games and ever since games went more mainstream the masses taste in games tends to be awful.

This is why we see first person shooter as a dominant gaming genre, and why older franchises ditched their roots - like how Fallout 3 went first person.

   

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34018560)

It's amazing how quickly people turn into their parents.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34019092)

I agree with you about a lot of Blizzard's behavior, but:

If someone wanted to post an interview THAT MATTERS on a site for STUFF THAT MATTERS, why not get in someone's face and ask the hard questions about why the company seems hell-bent on alienating the people who put them on the map in the first place?

They were interviewing an artist, dude. If you're talking to the White House's interior decorator, do you demand that he justify the President's policies?

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (1)

Pranadevil2k (687232) | more than 3 years ago | (#34019920)

I really don't understand all this annoyance with having no lan play. People pitched a huge fit over it in SC2 and frankly I think it's just a stupid complaint that people bring up because they want to bitch about something and there's nothing else bad to say. The game is missing one feature that might matter to 10% of its total playerbase... it's still a great game, whether it's missing that feature and whether that 10% buys it or not. And to be honest every LAN party I've ever been at had one legal copy of any given video game and a ton of illegal ones to get people playing. There's no reason Blizzard should be obligated to encourage that kind of environment for their games.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34021608)

Blizzard games have always been of good quality or reached that quality with one or two initial patches. I expect Diablo 3 to be awesome even without LAN capabilities and I expect a lot of people will think the same. The lack of LAN play is a bit of a downside, but for me that's not really a problem anymore. There's not many minutes per year that I don't have internet.
As for the anti-cheating: If I have to choose between a game entirely without cheats, or a game like Modern Warfare 2 which got flooded by cheaters because no one bothered to implement PunkBuster instead of VAC, I think I prefer the former.
Blizzard has always made me a happy customer, and until the time that it changes dramatically I will continue to buy their games and support their work.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34024530)

Just in case you need a friendly reminder: you are ijuring your health through anger stress over A FUCKING VIDEO GAME. Time to go outside and remember that there's a real world out there, friend.

Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34015294)

Seriously, if someone wanted to post an interview THAT MATTERS on this site about STUFF THAT MATTERS, why not get in someone's face at Blizzcon and ask the hard questions about why Blizzard is alienating the core base of fans that put them on the map? Why not try to pin someone down about the lack of LAN play in Starcraft II or Diablo III? How about the BS they're pulling in splitting Starcraft II into 3 different games? How about the forced Battle.net usage, and the fact that they're using that information to ban people from cheating in SINGLE PLAYER games?

You can say these issues have been addressed all you want, but the fact is, no one at Blizzard has REALLY addressed any of these questions.

Blizzard doesn't get any of my money any more. Borderlands is a better Diablo III than anything we'll get from Blizzard.

Re:Why Do People Still Care About Blizzard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34021372)

You already posted that [slashdot.org] . At least wait until the next Blizzard-related thread before doing that, please.

Strange, some acoustic guitar riff ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015300)

Strange, some acoustic guitar riff keeps repeating in my mind ... it seems very familiar.

Re:Strange, some acoustic guitar riff ... (1)

RKThoadan (89437) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015712)

Have you recently shoved a demonic crystal into your head? It's a known side effect.

Re:Strange, some acoustic guitar riff ... (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015762)

Re:Strange, some acoustic guitar riff ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34016516)

Stay a while and listen...

Re:Strange, some acoustic guitar riff ... (1)

ashidosan (1790808) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016738)

This track brings back some serious memories. I guess this is my first acid flashback. I sat with a friend on LAN play for a 12-hour stint of Diablo once while on acid. We'd be down in the dungeons, and coming back this guitar riff through a hastily-cast town portal felt like coming home. Which, I suppose, was the point. The gameplay of simply clicking everything is probably the only reason we were able to play it. Offtopic: Where the hell is the 'hide behind cowardly anonymity' button?

cool name (0, Offtopic)

jwinster (1620555) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015342)

Anyone else think Julian Love is a really cool name? If only he were had a Ph.D. in the study of calendars.

Ooh, typo! (0, Offtopic)

Shadmere (1158007) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015352)

Slashdot: So far we’ve seen some very constrained dungeons – a tomb, a fiery dungeon – are we going to see more of the wide-open spaces that were common in Diablo 3?

Do I get a prize? :O

Re:Ooh, typo! (1)

NickLarsen (1771130) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015462)

Thats not a typo... did you look it up before posting?

Re:Ooh, typo! (1)

Shadmere (1158007) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015922)

Hrm.

It really looks like the sentence is asking "will we see more wide-open spaces, such as the ones that were were common in Diablo 3?"

I will concede that technically, it doesn't have to be incorrect. It could be saying, "Are we going to see in, Diablo 3, more of the wide-open spaces that were common?"

It's at least a bit awkward. :p Obviously awkward enough so that it's difficult for me to read it in any way other than I originally did.

Re:Ooh, typo! (1)

Shadmere (1158007) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015992)

And of course I put a comma in an absolutely stupid place, there. My quote in the third paragraphy should have been, "Are we going to see, in Diablo 3, more of the wide-open spaces that were common?" I probably typoed like five things in this comment, too.

So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (5, Insightful)

znerk (1162519) | more than 2 years ago | (#34015764)

As in, how badly will Blizzard treat its customer base with this game? We've already watched them destroy the Starcraft franchise with their heavy-handed tactics... Will the Diablo franchise get a similar treatment?

I, for one, will be waiting to see if D3 has LAN play, and whether or not cheating in the single player game gets you banned from playing single-player, and whether the price will be anywhere near reasonable. To be honest, with all the crap they pulled with SC2, I'm not willing to put out more than about US$20 for any product with the Blizzard name on it at this point. I'm sure not going to spend $60 (multiple times, no less) to support these shenanigans.

To be honest, I didn't even read this "article", because merely seeing Blizzard's name in the title pissed me off.

I'd like to point out that my wife and I will still whip out D2, make new toons, and go off to kill Andariel... it's still a fun way to waste a couple hours, even more than a decade since its release.

I'd like to point out that I have several copies of Starcraft, that I keep expressly for the purpose of playing at LAN parties. Owning multiple copies makes it easy to (without even patching!) get my ass kicked by my buddies (I suck at multiplayer, and mostly play single-player (campaign) mode, where I can figure out how to outsmart the AI, and then min-max for greater glory).

I'd like to point out that I can still lay my hands on my original Diablo disks, and still dust them off occasionally to run around smashing goblins and demons in a 6-hour dungeon crawling spree on a random Saturday. I own the Hellfire expansion, as well.

In 10 years, will we still be able to play SC2 or D3, or will the product lines have been EOL'd, with the activation servers offline? When I buy a game, I expect to be able to play it indefinitely. Being shut down due to the activation server for an "obsolete" product being offline is not something I'm willing to drop $50-$60 on. Want to "rent" me a game? Charge something that feels more like a rental fee. $10 sounds about right. Want to charge me to "purchase" a game? Make sure it will work without internet access, without any interaction from the corporate overseers. Show me you have no qualms about removing my ability to use the product I actually paid for, and you push me one step closer to the pirates - after all, I *paid* for the product - it's mine. If I can't play the game I paid for, then I'm much more likely to steal the next one.

I can understand WoW being pay-to-play - the game is online, after all, and a lot of the fun involved is simply the idea of getting together with a couple dozen of your best friends, and smashing down a dungeon. On the other hand, I'd love to be able to play without having to be online... a lot of the content is single-player PvE stuff, and even after 4 years, I haven't seen anywhere near all the content. I'm not saying I want to solo the whole thing, but having the option would be a nice touch. Where will all our max-level toons be, when Blizzard gets tired of hosting 15 million players?

Re:So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (2, Insightful)

stevesy17 (1199543) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017116)

There are so many things wrong with this.

We've already watched them destroy the Starcraft franchise with their heavy-handed tactics... Will the Diablo franchise get a similar treatment?

Have we? Starcraft... destroyed? I'm sorry, I must have missed that memo, I guess I was too busy enjoying a full-length (i.e., not ten measly missions) terran campaign and fun bnet custom games in the wildly succesful and definitely not destroyed starcraft 2.

I, for one, will be waiting to see if D3 has LAN play, and whether or not cheating in the single player game gets you banned from playing single-player, and whether the price will be anywhere near reasonable. To be honest, with all the crap they pulled with SC2, I'm not willing to put out more than about US$20 for any product with the Blizzard name on it at this point. I'm sure not going to spend $60 (multiple times, no less) to support these shenanigans.

First off, what is the big deal about lan play?! Look, I can understand way back in the day when people were still playing on 28.8 modems and aol, but for chrissake, this is 2010! Who is forking over $60 for games that can't afford a damned internet connection with a router? Let's be real here people, it's not that serious! Secondly, way to invalidate your entire standpoint. More than $20? So much for hard and fast morals. And third, cheating in single player... the dude downloaded a TRAINER. Those things that made diablo 1 multiplayer UNPLAYABLE. Yeah, remember how every pretty much every blizzard rts has cheats built in? I'm sure a large percentage of people on /. knows what power overwhelming and black sheep wall mean. Not to mention the fact that the entire basis of that story was the guy saying, "oh, I only used it in singleplayer, honest!" Bullsh**.

I'd like to point out...

So in other words, you own every blizzard game, multiple times. Congratulations. Hey buddy, guess what? Those games? you know the ones that are ten years old? YOU CAN STILL PLAY THOSE ON BNET. Which is, oh my, run by Blizzard. Huh, what's that you say?

In 10 years, will we still be able to play SC2 or D3...?

YES!! Because of all the game makers out there, blizzard has a phenomenal record for supporting their old titles WELL past most other companies. Are you kidding me? They released patches for diablo 2 several YEARS ago.... PATCHES... moving on.

Where will all our max-level toons be, when Blizzard gets tired of hosting 15 million players?

In the exact place that the eula which you agree to after every patch says they will be. Hey, I'm not blizzard's biggest fan (can't you tell?), I do have some qualms with some of the things they have done, but first and foremost I'm a realist. All this b.s. people spout about blizzard's hitler this, and blizzard's big brother that.... it's silly. Of all the game developers out there, I stand by the fact that blizzard has delivered extremely fun, extremely polished experiences time and again, and I can say without hesitation that I have wiled away more hours playing blizzard titles than any other developer and with good reason. That's not hearsay, that's fact. END NERD RAGE

Re:So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34017196)

Where will all our max-level toons be, when Blizzard gets tired of hosting 15 million players?

As long as Blizzard has 15 million players, they won't get tired. Remember, that's 15 million paying accounts. The question is, what happens when everyone else moves on, and blizzard gets tired of hosting 500K players (or whatever their break-even point is)?

Re:So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (3, Insightful)

kwerle (39371) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017422)

...I'd like to point out that my wife and I will still whip out D2, make new toons, and go off to kill Andariel... it's still a fun way to waste a couple hours, even more than a decade since its release.

...

Yeah. Blizzard makes fun games!

In 10 years, will we still be able to play SC2 or D3, or will the product lines have been EOL'd, with the activation servers offline? ...

It doesn't sound like you've bought a blizzard game in the past couple of years - or used bnet. If you register your games online (like SC, D2), you can download them, free. Yeah, those decade old games.

when Blizzard gets tired of hosting 15 million players?

You're kidding, right? Blizzard will get tired of 15 million pairs of eyeballs watching and waiting for their next release? Any game company would kill for that kind of anticipation and marketing reach.

You're right, Blizzard could spontaneously decide to screw all bajillion of its customers (and face a class action suite the size of Texas). So far, their support for all their games (including the oldies) is vastly superior to ... any other game company I can think of. To the point where I can play D2 on my Intel Mac running OSX - a platform and OS undreamt of at the time of release. In fact, those games were originally purchased (by me) for Windows.

So you can vote with your $s. I continue to buy games from this company that has made killer games with great support.

Re:So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (0, Troll)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34020638)

It doesn't sound like you've bought a blizzard game in the past couple of years - or used bnet.

Hmm... this [google.com] battlenet? The one that people seem to hate? The one that used to be synonymous with "easy way to find games where everyone cheats" and "easy way to find games with 10-year-olds who have nothing better to do than type profanities"? The one that returned 448,000 entries in a 0.17 second google query for "battlenet issues"?

Yeah, I thought that was the one you were talking about. Why would I ever bother looking at that broken system again, after the experiences I had with it a decade ago? If it weren't for WoW requiring battle.net accounts, I'd have never even returned to the website, much less used the service. I very nearly quit WoW instead of bowing to their demand that I use what I consider to be a horrible service. I have since quit WoW because I'm tired of Blizzard's player-hating crap.

They build things into the EULA that you have to accept in order to play the game... things like "we reserve the right to stop you from using the product we sold you, despite the fact that we won't actually say the product actually does anything". Don't believe me? Read the warranty, where it says that the product is not actually warranted to do anything at all, or be fit for any particular purpose. The quick translation of that legalese is that they are selling you a product that may not actually do anything, and the EULA is demanding that you allow them the privilege of removing your ability to use it in the case that it actually does do something.

Screw you. You sold me a thing, then told me it may or may not do anything, and isn't fit for any particular purpose. I'm going to do whatever I damn well please with it, and just you try and stop me. I may not have the ability to do what I please on your servers, but if I'm not on your servers, who are you to judge my use of your product? After all, if it isn't suitable for any particular purpose, then how can you judge whether my use is invalid?

Re:So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (1)

Imawesome (1928564) | more than 2 years ago | (#34018632)

Welcome to the future, sorry about the lack of jetpacks. The issue is that you have the old school way of doing things vs. the new school way of doing things. So for example, in SC1, who gave a crap if you cheated at single player - it had no bearing whatsoever on anyone else's experience. Now we have externally visible achievements, portraits, etc. - potential bragging rights but when cheating is rampant, they become cheapened, therefore ruining everyone's experience. I just spent a bunch of time unlocking achievements on Hard in single player, and if some jerkoff 14 year old kid goes and does the same thing, well then the cool little portraits I just worked to unlock just became uncool. So basically, in SC2 (and get used to it in the future!), it is always multiplayer - whether you are playing with someone else - the game you purchased may be "yours" ,but the experience is "everyone else's". Cheaters ruined games like CS for me, so I'm glad a company took a stand and banned all cheating, it only makes it more likely they will keep the game free of online cheats. On a side note, who the hell needs to cheat on SC2? I am not an RTS veteran by any stretch of the imagination, and I flew through the game on hard. My fiance, who only plays games like Zelda and Mario lost one mission on normal. Finally, if you want to boycott Blizz, go ahead - you are the only one missing out here. There are maybe 3 developers out there that I will play through every single game they release because, no matter the genre, it will always be a really solid, polished, fun experience - obviously Blizz is one of them.

Re:So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (0, Troll)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34020794)

If I spend $60 on a game, I do not expect to be unable to play it, due to my internet being down, due to my 10-year-old boy downloading cheats, due to my machine having a virus, or for any other reason. I would expect, for $60 of my hard-earned cash, that it would "Just Work", and practically wouldn't even need installation - for that price, it should jump out of the box directly on to every computer in my house, as soon as I get it home.

If I spend $60 (which is the most I've ever seen a single game priced at, by the way) on a game, I expect it to get up in the morning and make me coffee, then spend 15 minutes begging me to get out of bed and get dressed so I'll go into the living room and play it.

I just spent a bunch of time unlocking achievements on Hard in single player, and if some jerkoff 14 year old kid goes and does the same thing, well then the cool little portraits I just worked to unlock just became uncool.

I didn't notice you saying anything about cheating in those statements... so how does it make it "uncool" if a teenager does the same thing you did?

On a side note, who the hell needs to cheat on SC2? I am not an RTS veteran by any stretch of the imagination, and I flew through the game on hard. My fiance, who only plays games like Zelda and Mario lost one mission on normal.

Get your story straight - either the achievements are difficult enough to achieve that they're worthwhile, or they're easy enough that they're not worth bothering with.

So basically, in SC2 (and get used to it in the future!), it is always multiplayer

... with no option to not connect to the internet when I play. Yeah, sounds like tons of fun. What do I do if I'm 30 miles from the nearest cell tower or phone line, nevermind internet connection? I've got my laptop, and a power inverter in the RV... why can't I play my game? Oh, right, because the corporation thinks we're all pirates.

Let me point something out to you, here:
The pirates are playing the cracked version, online, right this moment, with no issues whatsoever, while I can't play my legitimately purchased game because of the DRM - my game won't start without phoning home, and I don't have internet access at <insert location here>. What part of this sounds like I'm not getting the short end of the stick for actually forking over my hard-earned cash?

Let me say it again, in case you missed it the first time: DRM only inconveniences legitimate customers; the pirates crack it and away they go.

It's enough to make me want to download the cracked version, and leave my purchased copy in the shrinkwrap on the shelf, as a lawsuit deterrent.

It's certainly enough for me to understand why people are reluctant to pay for the game in the first place... The legitimate product may decide not to function, due to circumstances outside your control... If nothing else, the pirated version "Just Works".

Re:So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (2, Insightful)

southfarthing (1897322) | more than 2 years ago | (#34018710)

What wacky alternate universe is this, in which a company that supports its games for more than a decade post-launch (my old SC license validated just fine recently on the new bnet) is characterized as screwing their customers? Have you honestly been getting better value from any other publisher? And if $10 "sounds about right" for a decade of great gameplay, then the future is pretty much all about minesweeper and solitaire, 'cuz game development just won't pay the bills any more.

Whoosh. (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34020570)

It's not a joke, you just missed my point.
By a mile.

(my old SC license validated just fine recently on the new bnet)

Sure, sure... but if you have the physical disks, with the original case (for the cd-key), then you have an install method that doesn't require access to the internet. This is tons of fun when you're, for instance, in a hotel room where the wifi service works maybe 10% of the time, or out camping in the middle of nowhere and it starts raining.

If you have two disks, you and a friend can play together, with nothing more than a crossover cable between your 10-year-old laptops, or using wifi ad hoc on newer systems. No internet, no download, no activation, no bullshit.

Re:Whoosh. (1, Insightful)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34021292)

No offense, but if the best thing you can think to do is play Starcraft your example should be "sitting in a basement being bitter" not "camping in the middle of no where". Blizzard doesn't cater to the niche "getting away from it all to do the exact same thing they do at home" crowd.

That aside, I appreciate the desire to return to a kinder simpler time, but really, I think the scenarios you've created only emphasize the sibling poster's point that broadband internet is so common that the exclusion of LAN play might be a moral sin, but from a practical perspective I, and most other people, never even noticed because we're too busy playing with our roommates and friends through B.net with the same gameplay quality we needed LANs for 10 years ago.

And now when a friend gets home late the integration between friends in the same room, those across the country, and random opponents is absolutely seamless. You may not like it, but it is an improvement.

Re:Whoosh. (4, Insightful)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34021390)

... and if you happen to be at a LAN party where the internet is spotty?
Case in point: actual LAN party, at a KOA campground's reception hall, nearly 120 people... and the guy with the cablemodem didn't show up on time. No internet for several hours.

How about a hotel room with crappy wifi that only works 10% of the time, if at all?

Broadband internet is common in the urban setting, sure, but try smaller towns. There are places that don't have *phone service*, much less broadband, and I'm not talking about some third-world country... I'm talking about places in the US.

My "scenarios" are based on actual events, with actual people and actual places. I'm glad you have always-on internet no matter where you are, that's awesome - unfortunately, it's not the case for all of us.

Do you have kids? Can you not imagine a scenario where you hand your child a laptop and a Starcraft disk, plug them into the cigarette-lighter-adaptor power inverter, and enjoy a few miles of silence (thank god for headphones) on the way to grandma's house? With internet access required to install the game, this isn't an option.

The same goes for a long bus trip, or plane ride, or train ride (although trains are starting to provide free wifi).

My point is simply that the product is rendered unusable without piracy if internet access is not ubiquitously available.

Re:Whoosh. (1)

Z8 (1602647) | more than 3 years ago | (#34024636)

My point is simply that the product is rendered unusable without piracy if internet access is not ubiquitously available.

Nope, the product is rendered unusable only when internet access is not available. If internet access is not ubiquitous, that doesn't mean the product is unusable.

Is this hair-splitting? I don't think so. I agree it would be nice to play in a hotel room or whatever. But how often do these cases happen to their player base? Being generous, I'd say 10% of the time max? Then you should still be willing to pay 90% of the price. So if you'd be willing to pay $60 without internet activation, perhaps you'd only be willing to pay $54 now.

I agree DRM lowers the value of the product, but Slashdot's quantification of this decrease is way off. That's why you see everyone complaining and buying the game anyway—they care about DRM, but Blizzard's titles are still a good value even with the DRM.

Re:So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34019540)

Just like to point out, you aren't going to get ANY company, ANYWHERE to change the price, change the game play or change online functionality by telling them that if you can't play it ten years from now after paying for it, then you'll steal it.

Quick question; since we are so eager to point the finger for the blame of "piracy" (it shouldn't be a crime the way companies label it, but that's not justification to DO IT) at the major companies for "forcing our hands" into it; you claim to be willing to pay 10 dollars for a game to "rent" it, but IIRC, game rentals start from $1 a day, to $10 a week, (with the exception of business like Gamefly); would you be willing to pay that price every week/month/year until ownership of the game transfers to you? Probably not. I'd be willing to bet you'd argue they are gouging the price of the rental too. I can see from your discussion on SC and SC:BW, as well as Diablo 2, that you still enjoy the games you own, and probably purchase most if not all of the games you play, and that sir is incredibly honorable, but your post makes it seem as if you're justifying CI (Copyright Infringement, which I shall be referring to the act as from here-on-out due to the ridiculousness of the phrase piracy). Even if that's not the intent, this is the attitude that puts most PC gamers in poor favor. This is a portion of the reason the companies do this (although we can all agree the single biggest motivating factor is the shifting of the blame and the desire to get more money without using a proper business model) and it reflects poorly on us. That's not to say there aren't legitimate reasons to download copies of games (region locking... seriously WTF?? "I want LESS business outside my country!"... Fucking brilliant!).

I think it's terrible what the PC game manufacturing companies are doing to the PC gaming crowd. The removal of LAN play from certain games, the restriction of online play to company servers (no private hosting), the constant treatment of PC gamers as liars and thieves and not to mention the horrible ports of console games to the PC with a halfhearted attempt to make a few dollars on a market most companies call dead DESPITE the strong numbers online sales show PC gamers produce. These things in no way justify CI. What they do justify is the punishment of said company through legitimate methods, not the least of which is raising awareness of the misdeeds of said company, or fighting for your own rights to do what you wish with your own property. Granted I understand that CI laws are horribly slanted in favor of companies and fighting that fight is an uphill battle pushing a Deuce and a Half with it's parking break on, but if we can stop with this emo "They hate me so I can steal their stuff" crap, we might make a little more headway.

I do agree with you on nearly everything you talked about, I just think your argument would hold a lot more weight if you could withhold the desire to mention "piracy". It's a ridiculous and childish way to get even, and most of us grew out of it when we were in high school. I'm not angry at YOU individually, as you seem to have a level head on your shoulders and seem to be angry at a good company gone bad (as am I!), just at the single statement in your post. It's a poor defense in my opinion, and lowers the value of your argument on the whole... Well, this will probably never be read anyway, but it's always worth a shot.

Re:So how hard are we gonna get screwed? (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34020530)

Just so we all understand what's going on here: you're taking offence to my saying

Show me you have no qualms about removing my ability to use the product I actually paid for, and you push me one step closer to the pirates - after all, I *paid* for the product - it's mine. If I can't play the game I paid for, then I'm much more likely to steal the next one.

Seriously? So you think it's ok for them to steal from us, but not the other way around?

When we purchase a piece of software, we are purchasing a product, just as if we were to go the hardware store and purchase a hammer.

If my car's manufacturer came to my house and took my paid for car because I got a parking ticket, they'd better be sneaky and fast, or I'd shoot them dead in my driveway.

How is this any different from my software's manufacturer taking away my ability to use my paid for software, because they don't like how I'm using it? The warranty in the box says it's not fit for any particular use or purpose, who are they to judge my use of the product?

Alternatives? (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016054)

Can anyone tell me of any alternatives to Diablo/Blizzard games?

I mean I LOVE Diablo, but the original team split some 6 or 7 years ago and there have been plenty of knockoffs, but can anyone tell me about a recent game that has such a great play/replayability?

Re:Alternatives? (1)

kraln (1477093) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016274)

Torchlight?

Re:Alternatives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34016282)

Sacred 2.

Re:Alternatives? (1)

CrashNBrn (1143981) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016928)

The original Dungeon Siege was pretty fun, once you modify it slightly to crank up the difficulty: 8 party members in do-or-die :-)

DS-II ruined the series for a lot of people, Super Powers, no PvP, the same insane abundance of useless treasure and reaming the available spell-lists down to a point where you don't even have options of what you'd like to use.

I was really hoping for a good Sacred2 (improvement on Sacred1), but the Abilities, skill-lists and Equipment modifiers are so complex as to make it almost impossible to make an educated decision about your character.

Re:Alternatives? (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017320)

Right, dungeon siege. You nailed it. There is nothing.

Re:Alternatives? (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017476)

I mentioned this below and then noticed your request. It is not recent it is future (2011 beta) but Path of Exile [pathofexile.com] looks like an interesting alternative to D3

Re:Alternatives? (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#34018414)

Titan Quest...

Torchlight is damn good, but its a bit simple and short, so it gets a bit stale after awhile. Sacred 2 is okay, but it is infected with MMO style quests that have nothing to do with the story, so it too gets damn old fast. Titan Quest seems a good Diablo 2 stand in, has a decent story (not great but..) and a fair amount of depth (can have two classes, and all their synergies, tons of items and stats and modifiers).

Though if you really want to scratch the Diablo itch, just reinstall Diablo 2 and have some fun.

DRM (1)

suman28 (558822) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016176)

Does anyone know if I can play "single player" local to my computer, or is there going to be more of the same Starcraft type DRM where you have be connected to the internet(s) all the time? I was looking forward to Diablo 3 for many years now, and after hearing about the Starcraft DRM, I am very very very disappointed that I will not support this game.

Re:DRM (1)

admica (1538673) | more than 2 years ago | (#34016744)

If blizzard releases a game with another flaw, the community will pick up the slack yet again. There will be a patch created by the gamers because it's the right thing to do.

Re:DRM (1)

Pranadevil2k (687232) | more than 3 years ago | (#34020196)

You can play Starcraft 2 offline. You only need to connect to the Battle.net server once.

Re:DRM (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34022904)

You can play SC2 in offline mode you ignorant moron. Click "Play as Guest" instead of logging into Battle.net.

Re:DRM (1)

Onos (1103517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34024134)

You don't have to be connected to the internet ALL THE TIME to play single player SC2. After you connected once - the first time - for the game to authenticate itself (since your key is attached to your bnet ID) you can play in offline mode (I think it is called Guest - button on the login screen down right)

Thanks for not asking real questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34016828)

We all want to know why they cripple their software with DRM schemes that disable singler player modding.

Re:Thanks for not asking real questions (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017560)

Because he is an artist and doesn't care about stupid Slashdot politics?

Support Gems? (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#34017144)

It seems like the skill runes idea was lifted straight from their competitor Path of Exile. Correct me if this is something they announced months ago. It is a good idea though, expanding the sphere of possible builds is always worthwhile.

Can people please stop repeating the SP ban crap? (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34022896)

It was nonsense published by a website that sold hacks and cheats, and reported on other gaming news sites. When you play in singleplayer you are logged into Battlenet for achievements, therefore by using third-party cheats in singleplayer you are unlocking achievements on your multiplayer account. Starcraft 2 HAS AN OFFLINE MODE, you click "Play as Guest" from the login screen, instead of logging into Battlenet. Blizzard are simply banning Battlenet accounts, which are they perfectly entitled to do, NOT stopping people from playing singleplayer. Starcraft 2 also has cheat codes, which disable achievements, such as godmode, unlimited minerals, instant build etc.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...