Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergius]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

[alexandertnt]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

To be fair on D3, with software in general you never own the software. You only purchase a licence to use their software. (Im all for allowing resell of these licences/less restrictions etc etc, but at the moment D3 doesn't really differ from other pieces of software in regards to ownership. The only issue for me is that the client/server thing is an unnecessary obscuration to single player).

I don't see an issue with people complaining about a game they dont own, considering that usually there are reasons they don't own it. Mentioning these reasons seem reasonable to me.

Also whats up with the people who play the game for ~200 hours, and then decide that they never liked the game? This both confuses and baffles me. Were they expecting the game to change on the 178th hour or something? (This can apply to other games too).

[Neonivek]

Also whats up with the people who play the game for ~200 hours, and then decide that they never liked the game? This both confuses and baffles me. Were they expecting the game to change on the 178th hour or something?

It makes perfect sense. Diablo 3 is very heavy with the addiction based gameplay and offers BARELY enough to keep you interested.

It just becomes a time sink of bland that you can't get away from because it is just based off of keeping you playing whether you like the game or not.

[Sergius]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

To be fair on D3, with software in general you never own the software. You only purchase a licence to use their software.

That's just legal mumbo-jumbo. You own the game as much as you own a record or a painting or a book. The only reason it's a "license" is because some bought judge decided that, not because of some physical aspect of the goods.

It's like that Eminem royalties case. The record label decided purchase via iTunes is a license, because it was in their own interests to restrict "buyers" as much as possible. So the guy sued the label for more money, because "licensing" songs pays better than "shitty % of the sales". And they were all "nuh-huh! it's a SALE, not a LICENSE!" Flip-flopping at its best.

So the next time someone says "you don't own a game" think hard why is that, and who decided it was that way, and how much money was involved. Besides, arguing it from a legal standpoint is kinda like saying that "legally", a game doesn't suck. We're not discussing whether what they're doing is legal or not. It's simply a very hostile action against customers.

I don't see an issue with people complaining about a game they don't own, considering that usually there are reasons they don't own it. Mentioning these reasons seem reasonable to me.

My point exactly.

Also whats up with the people who play the game for ~200 hours, and then decide that they never liked the game? This both confuses and baffles me. Were they expecting the game to change on the 178th hour or something? (This can apply to other games too).

There are many possible reasons for that. Denial, genuinely wanting to like the game and trying again, seeing more and more of its flaws the more they played it?

[SalmonGod]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

To be fair on D3, with software in general you never own the software. You only purchase a licence to use their software.

That's just legal mumbo-jumbo. You own the game as much as you own a record or a painting or a book. The only reason it's a "license" is because some bought judge decided that, not because of some physical aspect of the goods.

It's like that Eminem royalties case. The record label decided purchase via iTunes is a license, because it was in their own interests to restrict "buyers" as much as possible. So the guy sued the label for more money, because "licensing" songs pays better than "shitty % of the sales". And they were all "nuh-huh! it's a SALE, not a LICENSE!" Flip-flopping at its best.

So the next time someone says "you don't own a game" think hard why is that, and who decided it was that way, and how much money was involved. Besides, arguing it from a legal standpoint is kinda like saying that "legally", a game doesn't suck. We're not discussing whether what they're doing is legal or not. It's simply a very hostile action against customers.

+1

Imagine you buy a book, but the author of the book retains the right to destroy your copy of that book any time they choose, on the grounds that they own the information inside it.  It's exactly the same.

[alexandertnt]

I agree that it is basically legal mumbo jumbo, I am just pointing out what EULA's generally say. Software is licenced, not sold. I also believe that this is basically a pile of crap, but thats just to compare the legal-mumbo-jumbo aspect of D3's login thing, and a normal software licence. And yes, companies will jump to interpeting it as a sold product when it suit's them best. I also have observed this, where companies just change its current state to that which gives them the best legal leverage (You cannot resell becase we licenced it to YOU. That is stealing, and you are a thief (despite not actually depriving them of anything). The most noteable example being that anti piracy add on DVD's, where it compares downloading a movie to stealing a car). But the EULA says it's licenced (then again, the EULA is usually unenforcable crap).

Imagine you buy a book, but the author of the book retains the right to destroy your copy of that book any time they choose, on the grounds that they own the information inside it.  It's exactly the same.

This does not quite work. When you purchase a book, you indeed are restricted in what you can do with the story (The copyright-able aspect of the book) (no plagiarism, no derivative work etc). The book as a physical item is your property. They cannot request you to destroy it because it is not theirs (And you can't destroy a story, it is simply a concept). It *might* be possible for them to request that you never read the book again, but I don't think that would (and it shouldn't) go down to well with courts/people.

[SalmonGod]

Imagine you buy a book, but the author of the book retains the right to destroy your copy of that book any time they choose, on the grounds that they own the information inside it.  It's exactly the same.

This does not quite work. When you purchase a book, you indeed are restricted in what you can do with the story (The copyright-able aspect of the book) (no plagiarism, no derivative work etc). The book as a physical item is your property. They cannot request you to destroy it because it is not theirs (And you can't destroy a story, it is simply a concept). It *might* be possible for them to request that you never read the book again, but I don't think that would (and it shouldn't) go down to well with courts/people.

It's recorded information.  Software is also recorded information.  If permission to read a story was licensed to people with books as just the carrier media (exactly like a disc) then they couldn't destroy your book, but they could censor out the pages with a big black marker or something to make it unreadable.

And no, it wouldn't go down well, but that's the point.

[Meta]

[...]

Also whats up with the people who play the game for ~200 hours, and then decide that they never liked the game? This both confuses and baffles me. Were they expecting the game to change on the 178th hour or something? (This can apply to other games too).

There are many possible reasons for that. Denial, genuinely wanting to like the game and trying again, seeing more and more of its flaws the more they played it?

That's my situation. I played the game for something like 120 hrs, hoping I would find something awesome which would make me love this game as much as D2. It never happened.

This game is just... empty. It lacks a soul.

*goes back to TL2 and BL2*

[Sergius]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

To be fair on D3, with software in general you never own the software. You only purchase a licence to use their software.

That's just legal mumbo-jumbo. You own the game as much as you own a record or a painting or a book. The only reason it's a "license" is because some bought judge decided that, not because of some physical aspect of the goods.

It's like that Eminem royalties case. The record label decided purchase via iTunes is a license, because it was in their own interests to restrict "buyers" as much as possible. So the guy sued the label for more money, because "licensing" songs pays better than "shitty % of the sales". And they were all "nuh-huh! it's a SALE, not a LICENSE!" Flip-flopping at its best.

So the next time someone says "you don't own a game" think hard why is that, and who decided it was that way, and how much money was involved. Besides, arguing it from a legal standpoint is kinda like saying that "legally", a game doesn't suck. We're not discussing whether what they're doing is legal or not. It's simply a very hostile action against customers.

+1

Imagine you buy a book, but the author of the book retains the right to destroy your copy of that book any time they choose, on the grounds that they own the information inside it.  It's exactly the same.

It's already happened. Guess what was the name of the book? (however legitimate the reason was)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1984

I also believe that this is basically a pile of crap, but thats just to compare the legal-mumbo-jumbo aspect of D3's login thing, and a normal software licence.

The thing is, Diablo 3's legal status is the same as any other piece of software. That is not the issue. The issue is that, while others "license" games to you, they also give you all the bits that make up the game, so in essence, even if they claim you don't "own" it, you definitely "possess" it. Blizzard only gives you the bits that allow you to connect to their computers, and THOSE have the game Diablo 3 running in them (and it's not even a MMORPG that requires that for obvious reasons).

And many people have a problem with that (not some EULA in a piece of paper), so they're entitled to bitch about it all they want without buying it.

[sambojin]

I know, I know, I really shouldn't post this. I "bought" the game, boxed version and all.

Licensing is a funny old thing. If a class action was bought to bear, where 90% of the license holders truly wished something done, and the original concept was only held and licensed out, the license holders have right of use, and right of way.

It has happened in something before. I don't think it took 90% either.

So....... Back to the game?

1.05 thoughts? Go, kick-arse witchdoctors, potentially kickarse (now with a proper summon-tank helper) DH's, and bollocks to you double-tornado barbs. Suck it muscle boys.

[Robosaur]

I can neither beat Beelzebub Inferno, nor survive in Act III Inferno even slightly. What should I do?

[nenjin]

I can neither beat Beelzebub Inferno, nor survive in Act III Inferno even slightly. What should I do?

Grind Act 2 Inferno until can you succeed or give up trying and /wrists.

[Nadaka]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

To be fair on D3, with software in general you never own the software. You only purchase a licence to use their software.

That's just legal mumbo-jumbo. You own the game as much as you own a record or a painting or a book. The only reason it's a "license" is because some bought judge decided that, not because of some physical aspect of the goods.

It's like that Eminem royalties case. The record label decided purchase via iTunes is a license, because it was in their own interests to restrict "buyers" as much as possible. So the guy sued the label for more money, because "licensing" songs pays better than "shitty % of the sales". And they were all "nuh-huh! it's a SALE, not a LICENSE!" Flip-flopping at its best.

So the next time someone says "you don't own a game" think hard why is that, and who decided it was that way, and how much money was involved. Besides, arguing it from a legal standpoint is kinda like saying that "legally", a game doesn't suck. We're not discussing whether what they're doing is legal or not. It's simply a very hostile action against customers.

+1

Imagine you buy a book, but the author of the book retains the right to destroy your copy of that book any time they choose, on the grounds that they own the information inside it.  It's exactly the same.

Its actually more like this: imagine you buy a book. But the author has to cast a magic spell every day to keep the ink from disappearing. One day, he might run out of mana, or trade his witch doctor mask of +5% diablo 3 server uptime for something that produces more DPS (dollars per second), or he could respec to a whole other build, or he could die because he is a hardcore character.

[Darkmere]

See previous pages... and that's my point. Copyright derails and MMO rants and blah blah. I'm not sure where the whole internet hate conspiracy came from, but if troll logic is what works, don't give up the dream.

I just don't understand what's supposed to be gained by repeatedly coming here to make sure everyone knows how much you (the general you) hate the game, as if this is the first product that's ever failed to meet some particular expectations? It's not like Blizzard is going to come here and decide to remake everything because the 15000th "AH is bad, bobby kotick" post on the internet hit a cap on a pledge counter.

There was even a thread specifically made for ranting about the game, but it's more satisfying to come here instead, because... why?

[Neonivek]

The reason games are given as licenses, except not really except when it is convenient, is mostly because they don't want you to make copies.

A book doesn't have the same issues.