Blizzard borrows concepts from all of their games and uses them in other. I expect to see some of the things they learned from WoW applied here.
I don't really get your logic though. If you love the previous games, then the best possible outcome is they give it better graphics, improve some of the mechanics, and give you a new story. The worst outcome is if they do a crazy overhaul of the whole system and make it totally not like diablo.
Re:Blizzard is evil, boycott if you have integrity
on
Diablo III Beta Begins
·
· Score: 2
Oh shut up. Blizzard makes fantastic games. If you boycott them, you pretty much have to boycott every single company on the planet because they are all going to do something you don't approve of.
They backed off on the names thing (demanded...you are such a drama queen), WoW glider was a bot that people were using and then getting banned for using (it was a tool specifically made to break the rules and exploit one program, this isn't a general use thing like a p2p service), and the open source battle.net clone was used to circumvent Blizzard's cd check and allow pirates to play multiplayer together. These are all reasonable actions any corporation that cares about their produce would take.
On top of that, no one supports their games like Blizzard. They have a free online service and provided patches and support for games that are 10+ years old. That is really rare. So you have to look at the good they do too.
I value my freedom. So don't tell me how to spend my money. What a stupid thing to say any way. Blizzard is one of many game companies. Buying their games is not going to cause every company to be like them...whether you approve of them or not.
Horrible idea. It would appeal to me as a little kid...since I want all the games on my console since I wasn't going to buy all three. But now, why not be exclusive if it makes sense financially? It is just business.
I don't really know what you are talking about. All three consoles are great and have their own decent titles...why I have all three. People use selling statistics like it matters. 360 has some great games, the best controller, and I am glad I purchased it.
If you think all the companies don't do the buy/bribe/threaten, than you are being serious naive. All the companies are giant that do all kinds of evil things. As long as they are all competing and keep putting out quality, I could care less.
Not really. Microsoft is a private company that can do whatever it wants. If you publish with their competitor first, they have every right to deny you the ability to publish on their platform. I am not sure why Sony would care...it means they can get an exclusive on that game. Well, I know why Sony cares...because it is weaker than MS (at least in the U.S.) so a lot of publishers will make sure to follow MS's rules so the can publish on other platforms as well. It isn't anti-competitive, since you can still publish on Sony if you want. It isn't really being a bully either (no more than any business move). MS wants games to be released on their console first or at the same time as PS3. This ensures that it is the case.
You want a hacker to run security? That's just stupid. You want a manager who knows how to hire people who have the right skill set to protect a network. And the whole concept of hiring hackers is a bit naive. Hacking in to Sony is fun. Protecting Sony from hackers on a day to day business is hard work. Of course, a hacker doesn't need to hack once they have internal access...so not too brilliant there either. There are security professionals out there who are equipped with the knowledge of how to hack in to and protect systems. Hiring hackers is one of those things that sounds good to the masses...like lower taxes...but there is more to it than just that.
I think you missed the point of your own example. Can you assign moral value to specific instances of something being used? Yes, in Napsters case, they viewed it as immoral. Did that stop all p2p services? No. You can't make a moral judgement since it can be used in many different ways. Same with microtransactions.
If people spend too much money that way...it's their problem. These are the type who are going to blow all their money anyways.
Not true. Well, part of what you say is true, but your conclusion isn't right. Yes, each transaction you lose a cut...so the more transactions means more that gets cut out. But if a company makes more money using microtransactions, it is still better for them. Maybe people don't want to pony up $60 to play the game. If it is free, they may just spend $5. 5 is less than 60, but that 5 would have been 0 otherwise. Also, there are people who will dump hundreds of dollars in to the game. As long as they make more money using that model, microtransactions are not bad. They are neutral, just depends on how they are implemented whether they are good or bad.
Depends on what you consider fair. To the people who have more money than time, it is unfair that just because someone is unemployed is allowed to get so far ahead since they lack a life. Just depends on perspective.
Actually, in most cases, microtransaction games are items that add cosmetic appeal but don't give any real benefit. But let's pretend we are part of the "immoral" game you are talking about and microtransactions gives advantages to someone. That's not immoral at all. The other people get to play the game for free (usually) and the people who want to be serious about it, pay more. You feel that is unfair? Don't play the game or pony up the cash. There is nothing immoral about it. That's just how they generate money to keep the game running and generate a profit.
Yes, there is a free market in games. If you want to get all technical on what exactly is a free market, that can be left for some annoying side debate that no one but pedantic douches would care about. There are a lot of different games out there with various models of paying for them. Choose the company that does it the way you like. Zygna makes terrible games...a lot of what they make is through advertising/promos with companies, not microtransactions. But who cares how much money they make...even if it was through microtransactions...if people are willing to pay it, they can price it however they want. That has nothing to do with the free market.
Gaming has evolved. It is not a boxed product model any more. They still offer that for the brick and mortar stores, but now you can just pull them down off of the web. Technically, you aren't buying the game but just a license. You may not like this model, but that doesn't make it immoral. You have this problem a lot on Slashdot seem to have. You think that because something can happen, it makes it bad. It doesn't matter if it isn't going to happen, or hasn't happened...the fact that they could is enough to freak you out. I play games and enjoy them a ton. There are a lot of great new games coming out every month. Your idea that they are butchered and not fully functional just isn't based in reality. DLC can add some more play time...but I never had a play experience where I thought a game was incomplete without the DLC. Just don't buy games if they are so bad...but you are missing out just because the groupthink on this site are more worried about what could happen rather than what is.
Your statement is ridiculous. You have to decide what is good and what is evil. Otherwise, you are just leaking everything...which is just going to be mounds and mounds of data that no one cares about. I think you can make some pretty obvious judgement calls on what should and shouldn't be leaked. Obviously, sources are one of those things you don't leak.
Ugh, use your brain for a second. If the whistle blowers/informants names are just going to be released when the documents are, then people are not going to give Wikileaks any leaks. People have to trust the place they are going to so that they won't be screwed over. Assange doesn't want the government/corporations to not have secrets. He doesn't want the people who are trying to something good to be destroyed in the process.
People base the opinion on the fact you can get superior product at a cheaper price. This was more true in the PC days where Apple was not even closely competitive in a dollar to performance comparison. Now there is just a rabid following that buys anything that is Apple. I own Apple devices and still think they are fairly trendy and over-priced. Then again, that's why I buy pretty much anything that is Android based now.
That's why I wouldn't go to a sports bar for dinner where I want to have a conversation. He is complaining about something the place is specifically created for. Obnoxious people yelling at a sports bar is less obnoxious to me than this dude who expects a sports bar to be a family dining experience.
You act as if sports bars put all their TVs on one sport. Having one set of TVs on Starcraft 2 is not going to matter. Besides, businesses will do what makes them money. If they find more people come in for the SC2 events and they make more money...say goodbye to baseball or whoever else is the least represented crowd.
In Korea, SC:BW is still alive and well. But SC2 is gaining a lot of ground. There are large SC2 tournaments all over the world now. People streaming their ladder matches get thousands of viewers. Major tournaments for SC2 are surpassing 100k viewers. The sequel has caught on really well.
You are hilarious. Try going to England and watching traditional football. Americans are tame compared to most of the world when it comes to sports. But I doubt you get out much.
I don't know what world you live in. People go to bars and they drink and eat. If they are going to nurse a drink, might as well stay at home since they are a bunch of introverts. People who watch Starcraft are like anyone else, they are going to go out with their friends and drink. I've actually gone to MLGs...so I know you are clueless on what this demographic is like.
As you grow up, you learn all corporations are going to do something you find repulsive at some point. So might as well just buy whatever as long as it is a good product.
Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard borrows concepts from all of their games and uses them in other. I expect to see some of the things they learned from WoW applied here.
I don't really get your logic though. If you love the previous games, then the best possible outcome is they give it better graphics, improve some of the mechanics, and give you a new story. The worst outcome is if they do a crazy overhaul of the whole system and make it totally not like diablo.
Oh shut up. Blizzard makes fantastic games. If you boycott them, you pretty much have to boycott every single company on the planet because they are all going to do something you don't approve of.
They backed off on the names thing (demanded...you are such a drama queen), WoW glider was a bot that people were using and then getting banned for using (it was a tool specifically made to break the rules and exploit one program, this isn't a general use thing like a p2p service), and the open source battle.net clone was used to circumvent Blizzard's cd check and allow pirates to play multiplayer together. These are all reasonable actions any corporation that cares about their produce would take.
On top of that, no one supports their games like Blizzard. They have a free online service and provided patches and support for games that are 10+ years old. That is really rare. So you have to look at the good they do too.
I value my freedom. So don't tell me how to spend my money. What a stupid thing to say any way. Blizzard is one of many game companies. Buying their games is not going to cause every company to be like them...whether you approve of them or not.
...just no. Console gaming is fine. PC gaming is fine. They aren't going anywhere.
Horrible idea. It would appeal to me as a little kid...since I want all the games on my console since I wasn't going to buy all three. But now, why not be exclusive if it makes sense financially? It is just business.
I don't really know what you are talking about. All three consoles are great and have their own decent titles...why I have all three. People use selling statistics like it matters. 360 has some great games, the best controller, and I am glad I purchased it.
If you think all the companies don't do the buy/bribe/threaten, than you are being serious naive. All the companies are giant that do all kinds of evil things. As long as they are all competing and keep putting out quality, I could care less.
Not really. Microsoft is a private company that can do whatever it wants. If you publish with their competitor first, they have every right to deny you the ability to publish on their platform. I am not sure why Sony would care...it means they can get an exclusive on that game. Well, I know why Sony cares...because it is weaker than MS (at least in the U.S.) so a lot of publishers will make sure to follow MS's rules so the can publish on other platforms as well. It isn't anti-competitive, since you can still publish on Sony if you want. It isn't really being a bully either (no more than any business move). MS wants games to be released on their console first or at the same time as PS3. This ensures that it is the case.
You want a hacker to run security? That's just stupid. You want a manager who knows how to hire people who have the right skill set to protect a network. And the whole concept of hiring hackers is a bit naive. Hacking in to Sony is fun. Protecting Sony from hackers on a day to day business is hard work. Of course, a hacker doesn't need to hack once they have internal access...so not too brilliant there either. There are security professionals out there who are equipped with the knowledge of how to hack in to and protect systems. Hiring hackers is one of those things that sounds good to the masses...like lower taxes...but there is more to it than just that.
I think you missed the point of your own example. Can you assign moral value to specific instances of something being used? Yes, in Napsters case, they viewed it as immoral. Did that stop all p2p services? No. You can't make a moral judgement since it can be used in many different ways. Same with microtransactions.
If people spend too much money that way...it's their problem. These are the type who are going to blow all their money anyways.
Not true. Well, part of what you say is true, but your conclusion isn't right. Yes, each transaction you lose a cut...so the more transactions means more that gets cut out. But if a company makes more money using microtransactions, it is still better for them. Maybe people don't want to pony up $60 to play the game. If it is free, they may just spend $5. 5 is less than 60, but that 5 would have been 0 otherwise. Also, there are people who will dump hundreds of dollars in to the game. As long as they make more money using that model, microtransactions are not bad. They are neutral, just depends on how they are implemented whether they are good or bad.
Depends on what you consider fair. To the people who have more money than time, it is unfair that just because someone is unemployed is allowed to get so far ahead since they lack a life. Just depends on perspective.
You'd think this was obvious...but it is clear plenty on Slashdot consider it immoral...thus justifying the article.
Actually, in most cases, microtransaction games are items that add cosmetic appeal but don't give any real benefit. But let's pretend we are part of the "immoral" game you are talking about and microtransactions gives advantages to someone. That's not immoral at all. The other people get to play the game for free (usually) and the people who want to be serious about it, pay more. You feel that is unfair? Don't play the game or pony up the cash. There is nothing immoral about it. That's just how they generate money to keep the game running and generate a profit.
Yes, there is a free market in games. If you want to get all technical on what exactly is a free market, that can be left for some annoying side debate that no one but pedantic douches would care about. There are a lot of different games out there with various models of paying for them. Choose the company that does it the way you like. Zygna makes terrible games...a lot of what they make is through advertising/promos with companies, not microtransactions. But who cares how much money they make...even if it was through microtransactions...if people are willing to pay it, they can price it however they want. That has nothing to do with the free market.
Gaming has evolved. It is not a boxed product model any more. They still offer that for the brick and mortar stores, but now you can just pull them down off of the web. Technically, you aren't buying the game but just a license. You may not like this model, but that doesn't make it immoral. You have this problem a lot on Slashdot seem to have. You think that because something can happen, it makes it bad. It doesn't matter if it isn't going to happen, or hasn't happened...the fact that they could is enough to freak you out. I play games and enjoy them a ton. There are a lot of great new games coming out every month. Your idea that they are butchered and not fully functional just isn't based in reality. DLC can add some more play time...but I never had a play experience where I thought a game was incomplete without the DLC. Just don't buy games if they are so bad...but you are missing out just because the groupthink on this site are more worried about what could happen rather than what is.
It is a fairly strong password...and one that can be remembered. I don't really see what you are talking about.
Your statement is ridiculous. You have to decide what is good and what is evil. Otherwise, you are just leaking everything...which is just going to be mounds and mounds of data that no one cares about. I think you can make some pretty obvious judgement calls on what should and shouldn't be leaked. Obviously, sources are one of those things you don't leak.
Ugh, use your brain for a second. If the whistle blowers/informants names are just going to be released when the documents are, then people are not going to give Wikileaks any leaks. People have to trust the place they are going to so that they won't be screwed over. Assange doesn't want the government/corporations to not have secrets. He doesn't want the people who are trying to something good to be destroyed in the process.
People base the opinion on the fact you can get superior product at a cheaper price. This was more true in the PC days where Apple was not even closely competitive in a dollar to performance comparison. Now there is just a rabid following that buys anything that is Apple. I own Apple devices and still think they are fairly trendy and over-priced. Then again, that's why I buy pretty much anything that is Android based now.
I think you fall under his moron category. Three felonies a day? Give me a break. You have gone off the deep end.
That's why I wouldn't go to a sports bar for dinner where I want to have a conversation. He is complaining about something the place is specifically created for. Obnoxious people yelling at a sports bar is less obnoxious to me than this dude who expects a sports bar to be a family dining experience.
You act as if sports bars put all their TVs on one sport. Having one set of TVs on Starcraft 2 is not going to matter. Besides, businesses will do what makes them money. If they find more people come in for the SC2 events and they make more money...say goodbye to baseball or whoever else is the least represented crowd.
In Korea, SC:BW is still alive and well. But SC2 is gaining a lot of ground. There are large SC2 tournaments all over the world now. People streaming their ladder matches get thousands of viewers. Major tournaments for SC2 are surpassing 100k viewers. The sequel has caught on really well.
You are hilarious. Try going to England and watching traditional football. Americans are tame compared to most of the world when it comes to sports. But I doubt you get out much.
I don't know what world you live in. People go to bars and they drink and eat. If they are going to nurse a drink, might as well stay at home since they are a bunch of introverts. People who watch Starcraft are like anyone else, they are going to go out with their friends and drink. I've actually gone to MLGs...so I know you are clueless on what this demographic is like.
As you grow up, you learn all corporations are going to do something you find repulsive at some point. So might as well just buy whatever as long as it is a good product.