Diablo 3 - More Coverage

[DArtagnan]

Believe it or not, but I have nothing against you personally. I would have ended the debate long ago had you not continued trying to slam people for their Diablo 3 criticism and replied to my posts with arguments that I believe to be fallacious, which is why I tried to clear that up. Nothing more. I agree it has devolved into a childish dialogue with lots of name calling and personal attacks, however, and I accept part of the blame.

Anyway.

Be well.

Now that I've had a little break - I'm all better

For whatever reason, I end up in a LOT of multi-quote debates, and it takes its toll. If only I wanted to be in them, that would be one thing - but I actually hate them. It's just what happens when you speak your mind a lot, and your general position isn't the most popular one. I wish I could just ignore it when I had the urge to speak my mind - but it's tough.

Well, I don't seem to recall much in the way of personal attacks or name calling. I just tire of debates that move FAR away from the original point. I mean, I wouldn't mind debating the drug issue, which I have significant personal experience with - but what the hell for?

My original point was simple - but for some reason you had to make up extreme scenarios to try and test if the statement would hold up no matter what. You could have just listened and appreciated where I'm coming from.

That kind of approach makes it into some kind of semantic competition which I have zero interest in. It can be fun face-to-face - but in written form, it's just too much of a waste and takes too much time for no reason.

You seem to think I was "slamming" people because I said they were being almost religious, and that's fine. I can't exactly prove otherwise. If stating my honest opinion is "slamming" that's that.

To sum up:

Blizzard are selling a product, and people are free to support it or not. They're being clear about what they're demanding. That's fair to me, and I don't see them forcing anything on anyone. I most certainly can't see how it relates to pushing drugs.

I fully understand people not wanting to support it and even speaking against it. What I can't understand is when people take it as an assault on their person, and an objectively wrong act by Blizzard. That's why I said it was almost religious - though it wasn't specifically directed at DoctorNarrative. It's a general reaction to the general reaction.

As for you not having anything personal against me, that's nice. Even though I wouldn't be able to take it seriously if you did. After all, we don't know each other that well. I have nothing personal against you either. Doesn't mean I think you really know what you're talking about with drugs and semantically correct usage of words - but who cares. I got the clear impression that you were taking my way of communicating personally, and it seemed it was more about me as a person, than what I was trying to say.

If not, that's always something.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

I just want to know where you get this "if people are upset about it on the internet it means they are taking it personally" thing from.

 

[DArtagnan]

I just want to know where you get this "if people are upset about it on the internet it means they are taking it personally" thing from.

Let me make it simple for you.

Go visit RPGCodex and spend a day or two there. Then come back and state none of them are taking anything in the industry to heart.

I'm not saying people here are "Codexian" - but some of the reactions in this and other threads to the Diablo 3 announcements certainly reminded me of it.

I have no desire to scavenge this and the 2-3 other threads in an effort to "prove" you and others were taking it personally.

If it turns out it was all a big misunderstanding and that you most certainly weren't taking it personally on any level - than that's nice. Then there's nothing more to talk about.

 

[Daddy32]

What I can't understand is when people take it as an assault on their person, and an objectively wrong act by Blizzard.

But of course it is objectively wrong act by Blizzard. They are implementing mechanisms supporting their business, while hurting many of their customers, while providing value to only some of them. Not only that, they're setting an example - see recent comments by id Soft. They are indirectly lowering average value of all incoming products in the same category.

It is a customer-rape and it is objectively wrong.

 

[DArtagnan]

I guess someone just provided the proof.

See, DN?

 

[Daddy32]

I guess someone just provided the proof.

See, DN?

Which doesn't make me any less right, now does it?

It's vaguely the same act as if one of the biggest car producers in the world would start producing cars which would immediately stop if they lost GPS signal. People would get crushed in the tunnels, in bad weather etc., while some of you would comment: "Yay! It's great to see local traffic info and advertisement wherever I go. Who doesn't have non stop GPS signal anyway?"

 

[DArtagnan]

I'm still in shock about you providing such a clear-cut example of what I'm talking about.

Usually, I have to go through at least 4 pages of multi-quote debates to get people to admit what they actually mean. Well, in those extremely rare cases of people being honest about something that might get them into the oh-so-dangerous territory of potentially being wrong on the Internet.

It's refreshing and I thank you for it

As for you being right or wrong, I think I'll leave that to someone else. I'm kinda fed up with the whole thing.

 

[Daddy32]

Yes, let's stop right here as this could probably slip into philosophical debate about forces driving individuals and groups to their better tomorrows.

But I have to say, I'm personally bit puzzled by your "greed is OK" stance and your poking sticks at people disgusted by it - but that's for different, long, discussion.

 

[DArtagnan]

Don't stop on my account, it was just getting fun

 

[Daddy32]

Don't stop on my account, it was just getting fun

This would require actual honest feedback from your side.

 

[DArtagnan]

If you're lucky, someone else will take my place.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

I guess someone just provided the proof.

See, DN?

I just see people mad about a stupid requirement. I don't see anyone being kept awake at night or being in a bad mood all day about it. I get on the forums, I write that I think this is stupid, then I do other things. Even if I passionately believe it's stupid that doesn't mean I am taking it personally or that it follows me around all day.

I just don't get why you think a strong opinion automatically means religious zeal or personal offense.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

But of course it is objectively wrong act by Blizzard. They are implementing mechanisms supporting their business, while hurting many of their customers, while providing value to only some of them. Not only that, they're setting an example - see recent comments by id Soft. They are indirectly lowering average value of all incoming products in the same category.

It is a customer-rape and it is objectively wrong.

Indeed.

The main reason it is objectively wrong is that none of the added features prohibit an offline mode just like Diablo 2 had. They are purposely removing online mode to force everyone to play online and therefore be subject to their control and post-release revenue schemes. It is, without question, limiting the customer for the sole purpose of corporate control. That is objectively wrong.

That said Dart is right, it's their game and they can do what they want. I don't think anyone ever said otherwise, no one rational anyway. That doesn't mean people have to support it, or that people shouldn't air their complaints and feelings. I don't really get why "it's their game they can do what they want" is supposed to be some kind of mouth-shutting comeback. No one is saying it's illegal or that they need to be forced to stop, we're saying we think it's wrong and we won't support it.

 

[DArtagnan]

I just see people mad about a stupid requirement. I don't see anyone being kept awake at night or being in a bad mood all day about it. I get on the forums, I write that I think this is stupid, then I do other things. Even if I passionately believe it's stupid that doesn't mean I am taking it personally or that it follows me around all day.

I just don't get why you think a strong opinion automatically means religious zeal or personal offense.

Why do you have this fantasy about what I mean. I'm not suggesting people are being kept awake at night or being in a bad mood all day about it?

I said "almost religious". Have you ever had such a reaction to people who, say, seem to love Apple products no matter what? It doesn't mean they sleep with their phones or they shape their life around them.

It just means they seem to have an irrational position - just like I think it's irrational to call Blizzard objectively wrong or consumer-rapists.

I have no idea what kind of emotional state people are in when they say that, and maybe they're not at all invested in it. I just go by what people are saying. That's all we have around here.

 

[DArtagnan]

Wait… Am I getting this right.

You're BOTH saying it's OBJECTIVELY wrong?

You do know what that means, right?

You're both claiming you know, for a fact, why Blizzard are doing it - and you also both think that a business trying to maintain full control of their product (that NO ONE is forced to buy) is OBJECTIVELY wrong?

So, developers are now obligated to provide customers with choice BEFORE they've invested in the product? They shouldn't do EXACTLY what they feel is right and appropriate for their OWN game - hoping people are capable of making their own choice about supporting it?

You've got to be kidding me

 

[DoctorNarrative]

Why do you have this fantasy about what I mean. I'm not suggesting people are being kept awake at night or being in a bad mood all day about it?

I said "almost religious". Have you ever had such a reaction to people who, say, seem to love Apple products no matter what? It doesn't mean they sleep with their phones or they shape their life around them.

It just means they seem to have an irrational position - just like I think it's irrational to call Blizzard objectively wrong or consumer-rapists.

I have no idea what kind of emotional state people are in when they say that, and maybe they're not at all invested in it. I just go by what people are saying. That's all we have around here.

Then why are you using it as your main source of debate on this topic? You seem intensely focused on how silly it is to be mad and consider it wrong, yet those are just opinions people have. It doesn't equate to "sleeping with their phones" or whatever other silly thing you want to say. It's typical forum debate about a divided issue.

Why not just admit it was a stupid thing you said to try and belittle your opposition and we can move on?

 

[DArtagnan]

Then why are you using it as your main source of debate on this topic? You seem intensely focused on how silly it is to be mad and consider it wrong, yet those are just opinions people have. It doesn't equate to "sleeping with their phones" or whatever other silly thing you want to say. It's typical forum debate about a divided issue.

Why not just admit it was a stupid thing you said to try and belittle your opposition and we can move on?

Ehm, I'm not exactly the one making it the main focus of anything. I made that SINGLE statement - and I've been explaining myself over and over ever since.

I don't think it was stupid - and your last posts have actually made it VERY PLAIN that I was absolutely right to say what I said.

It's clear as day that you're feeling entitled to something you have absolutely no right to feel entitled to. At least, that's what I'm seeing.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

You're both claiming you know, for a fact, why Blizzard are doing it - and you also both think that a business trying to maintain full control of their product (that NO ONE is forced to buy) is OBJECTIVELY wrong?

What does not being forced to buy it have to do with considering it wrong? I have full control of my mouth, no one is forced to listen to me, but if I say racist language it's still wrong. It's not illegal, it's my mouth, you can walk away and choose not to listen, but it's still wrong of me to do so.

It's wrong to try and take singleplayer games to a place where they are online at all times and always under corporate control. If Diablo 3 gets away with it then it will slowly become a standard, which I cannot support. Pretty simple really... edited my long ass post because it's really a simple one sentence thing.

 

[DArtagnan]

What does not being forced to buy it have to do with considering it wrong? I have full control of my mouth, no one is forced to listen to me, but if I say racist language it's still wrong. It's not illegal, it's my mouth, you can walk away and choose not to listen, but it's still wrong of me to do so.

No, saying something racist isn't objectively wrong. You may think it's wrong - and I'd tend to agree - but that's not OBJECTIVELY wrong. That's why you have debates about that sort of thing, because A LOT of people think it's appropriate.

It's wrong to try and take games to a place where they are online at all times and always under corporate control. I believe that is objectively wrong, especially since there is no real reason to do so other than that control itself. Diablo 3 is not an MMO or a multiplayer-only game, as much as you might like to act like it is. It has a singleplayer component and could easily have an offline mode stripped of online features. The fact it does not is all about control and profit, and I consider fucking over consumers for control and profit to be a bad thing. Thus: objectively wrong.

You have no argument at all, except you THINK it's wrong. What, exactly, is objectively wrong about wanting to maintain control? You have no idea what Diablo 3 is meant to be. Maybe they INTEND to make it work as an MMO in enough ways to "justify" the online requirement.

You JUST said in another thread:

Games, since they first started being made, have been about making money. Even your favorite indie darling wants to make money. I don't get why "in it for the money" is thrown around so casually as an offense or whatever.

How does that work now? Blizzard obviously want to make more profit. They're a business. It's their product and their design. You seem to KNOW what they should have done, based on what? Diablo 2 - another game from another time, with another design.

If you have any reason what-so-ever they cannot do an offline mode that is not DRM or corporate control based then please illuminate our dark and dreary souls. For the moment though I call it like I see it. Call it "entitled" if you want… I am simply saying taking games to this place is wrong. I consider it wrong, beyond question, and will not support it. The comments from id make it clear games will head this way across the board if people do.

Of course they can do an offline mode, if they designed the game to support it. They could also require a subscription fee if they wanted to. They could provide a LAN mode and no online mode if they wanted to. They could have made the game 3 times bigger for half the price.

They could have done a million things with their game. They've obviously chosen to design the game around the online environment. I have no idea why that would be objectively wrong. I haven't seen the game, and I have no idea how it will work exactly.

The only way it would be wrong would be if I'd ALREADY bought it. They've made a product - and they're being FULLY upfront about what it will be, well in advance of release.

I can buy it if I want. I have no right to tell Blizzard they're objectively wrong. I could say I THINK they're wrong about this requirement - but it's obviously their choice and THEIR product.

 

[DArtagnan]

To help you with this concept:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectively

Specifically:

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

So, as both Blizzard and a lot of its customers can't see how this is "objectively wrong" - and actually think it's quite right - it IS NOT objectively wrong.

Theoretically, it COULD be objectively wrong - as we have no way of knowing with absolute certainty - though it would be an absurd consideration in my opinion. But without any kind of proof - you're going to appear REALLY silly trying to claim what you're claiming.

Based on our previous discussions, DN, I'm quite surprised you would even try to make this case.