I'm not boycotting it, I'm just gonna ignore it altogether. I departed the beta with great wisdom: the old Blizzard is dead. Seems like they died right around the time WoW was released. I'm just not interested in playing Diablo 3 anymore, nor any other future game by Blizzard. I've checked them off my list of trusted developers who always deliver.

There will be a starter edition, but in a game like this, I'm not sure that it's going to be viable for play. It sort of worked for SC2 because there was a singleplayer campaign and multiplayer was solely PvP with predetermined start times. I can't imagine this working out well in a MMORPG though.

But, I've never played WoW, so I could definitely be wrong about that.

Because ... ?

A lot of conclusions but no reasoning :)

Sounds like I would like D3 a lot more than D2! Still, in the end, my minimal attachment to the Diablo franchise, some (in my opinion) questionable design choices made by Blizzard (i.e. always online and real money auction house), and the availability of an alternative (TL2) that will also provide everything *I* look for in a game of the genre (probably more so than D3), for a lesser price, makes the `choice' rather easy for me :D

EDIT: and I like mods (again, for me, just fun rates above verifiable achievement)!

Oh, sorry. I wasn't aware that I needed to have my opinions approved by you first. I'll submit my essay on why Diablo 3 and Blizzard no longer interest me first thing in the morning.

Well, apparently I am a dirty and smelly completely unprincipled left-wing troublemaker then!
This is the morning. Stand aside!

Certainly a reasonable argument. Considering the price and no particular attachment to Diablo Torchlight would seem an easier choice given your arguments. And if for some reason later you ever feel like Diablo you can get it cheaper :)
Did I mention you needed to anywhere? Asking why seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. It's certainly more interesting.

I like how asking for reasons is suddenly inferior to unsubstantiated, hipsteresque claims that Blizzard is "over" ;P.

And I like it when someone joins a discussion and then promptly refuse to discuss.

oh sure, liking a game from a company that has never failed with a single release is being an "apologist", but disliking without giving any reason whatsoever is OK?

do you actually listen to yourself when you speak?!?

I don't know if Blizzard is over for you, nor do I care, but they are for me. Perhaps there was a problem with reading comprehension, but I did state quite clearly that I checked them off my personal list of companies I like. I had hoped that this was very clear to everyone reading my post that these are personal opinions, but it seems not.

In any case, StarCraft 2 was totally uninteresting, WoW turned terrible at the advent of their second expansion, Wrath of the Lich King, and having tested Diablo 3 I was instantly bored with it. It felt like a hack and slash for the sake of hacking and slashing. It didn't feel like the game was even attempting to challenge me. But I digress, that's only one aspect of the whole problem. Which brings me to why I didn't feel like listing all the reasons why I don't much care for Diablo 3. Simply put, why waste my time parroting everything that has been discussed in great length before, including in this thread? Had I felt like I had some new take on the problems plaguing Diablo 3 for me and many others, I probably would've said something, but I don't. My views are more or less identical.

I like Blizzard and their games myself. I am looking forward to Diablo III. Since I opted in for the annual subscription commitment to WoW, I get Diablo III for free too! Sweet! That choice was a no-brainer for me because it cost me nothing extra and I knew I'd want to continue playing WoW in the coming year. I enjoy the game, playing casually with too many alts, etc.

The always on connection to Battlenet to play D3 doesn't phase me since I am always connected anyway. I can appreciate not liking this if for some reason someone doesn't have always on Internet but otherwise, I don't see what the big deal is there.

I think the point of always on is just to keep as much multiplayer code server-side as possible to prevent cheating and improve people's enjoyment of the game. It isn't being done to ruin people's fun and make them unhappy or to be unkind to them somehow. I does seem to me that it would be nice if single player didn't require that but I don't know the particulars of why they made that choice. I doubt it was made just to screw with customers and make them miserable on purpose though.

Woah, man - he has a point. If you're going to claim that the most successful gaming company, with legions of fans (of various dedication), is actually NOT supposed to be scorned, you need to come up with some pretty convincing arguments. I mean - if something is insanely popular, it has to be evil, right ? Common sense ;)...

Thanks for replying anyway.

Oh, BELIEVE me, if there's ANYTHING I got from your post, it was that things were... "personal", if you catch my drift.
Funnily enough - I completely respect your right to have an opinion. What I disagreed with was klaymen's response to Pheace - who merely asked for your reasons. If there's anything worth a damn in a discussion, it's people WILLING TO LISTEN to what others have to say and ASKING for explanations instead of ignoring or insulting others.


Either way - I'm out. Good luck on forming a verdict on Diablo 3, everyone.

Because this would basically mean giving people the server-side code and the ability to host servers locally. Security, as you've pointed out, is the reason.

I don't particularly like the genre, so it's an easy decision not to buy the £40 game. Might pick up Torchlight 2 on a Steam sale, but then again I don't particularly like the genre so I might not bother.