SimonG: You know, I like them your posts in the drunk thread better ....

speaking of which...

orcishgamer: Well, great minds and all that... though this great mind is too harried to read all the posts before shooting off his mouth;)

orcishgamer: I'm genuinely curious, if you have 6 minutes plus the time to answer, what you think of this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5743-You-Should-Be-Mad-at-Diablo-IIIs-Always-Online-DRM

In a nutshell I think that touches on all the major points of criticism that I've had, and I think they're all very valid.

I'm not defending irrational criticism other than to say that often it's engendered by genuine frustration and a lack of ability to identify and verbalize (or whatever the internet equivalent may be) the true nature and reasons for said frustration.

Yes, there is irrational criticism, but there's also irrational defense. It's fair to label the folks irrationally defending Blizzard's actual mess-ups and obvious double speak (in the cases where they are presenting said double speak as their "message"). There's a lot of legitimate criticism and it's being frequently ignored by those inclined to enjoy D3 (and Blizzard's other products) put up with whatever inconveniences may arise (or not arise much in their cases) in order to do so.

FraterPerdurabo: It's 3am so I'll watch it tomorrow. However, judging from his earlier work, I can anticipate what's going to come: many valid points raised, however the overarching point gets lost in his bashing agenda.
Jim is like the Michael Moore of video games journalism.

OldFatGuy: What you and the others complaining about the bitching about Diablo 3 DRM refuse to accept, even though it is FACT, is that your actions and decision impact other people's lives.

I know no one likes to hear that, everyone wants to just have everything be about me me me me me me me, but that's just not the way the real world works often.

Whenever a company pushes a new envelope in DRM (such as Diablo 3 in this case), the reaction to it affects ALL gamers. If enough people don't give a shit about DRM and support that company's decision to push a new envelope, then that will be the new standard and some day another new envelope will be pushed. And thus this affects ALL gamers.

If enough people refuse to support such a policy, then that will result in a completely different outcome, one in which this type of DRM is much less likely to occur again in the future, and that TOO, affects ALL gamers.

You can bitch and moan about how unfair it is that your actions affect others but you might as well bitch and moan about water being wet while you're at it. Cause that's just the way it is.

And right now, there are litterally millions of people in the US, and I have no idea how many internationally, that do not, can not, and will not have internet access, and/or internet access that is so slow/disruptive as to make participating in this game impossible.

So, for those millions of people, our decisions affect them in the future. Will they live in a future where this kind of DRM is now the standard, and their computer gaming days are basically over, or will they live in a future where this kind of DRM is not to be spoken of ever again, and they can gleefully drive to their loal Best Buy, purchase Diablo 3, and enjoy it themselves.

I'll probably get flamed for this, because people just don't seem to like being reminded that our acts and decisions affects others. Funny that.

OldFatGuy: What you and the others complaining about the bitching about Diablo 3 DRM refuse to accept, even though it is FACT, is that your actions and decision impact other people's lives.

I know no one likes to hear that, everyone wants to just have everything be about me me me me me me me, but that's just not the way the real world works often.

Whenever a company pushes a new envelope in DRM (such as Diablo 3 in this case), the reaction to it affects ALL gamers. If enough people don't give a shit about DRM and support that company's decision to push a new envelope, then that will be the new standard and some day another new envelope will be pushed. And thus this affects ALL gamers.

If enough people refuse to support such a policy, then that will result in a completely different outcome, one in which this type of DRM is much less likely to occur again in the future, and that TOO, affects ALL gamers.

You can bitch and moan about how unfair it is that your actions affect others but you might as well bitch and moan about water being wet while you're at it. Cause that's just the way it is.

And right now, there are litterally millions of people in the US, and I have no idea how many internationally, that do not, can not, and will not have internet access, and/or internet access that is so slow/disruptive as to make participating in this game impossible.

So, for those millions of people, our decisions affect them in the future. Will they live in a future where this kind of DRM is now the standard, and their computer gaming days are basically over, or will they live in a future where this kind of DRM is not to be spoken of ever again, and they can gleefully drive to their loal Best Buy, purchase Diablo 3, and enjoy it themselves.

I'll probably get flamed for this, because people just don't seem to like being reminded that our acts and decisions affects others. Funny that.

Crassmaster: Maybe it leads to a major shift that changes everything, and maybe it doesn't. The honest truth is that nobody knows, and it's all slippery slope conjecture.
-------------------------------------------------
Anyway, it COULD. And I still bought the game. Because I don't care. If this concerned something actually important to the human race, say water distribution or something along those lines, I would feel differently. But it doesn't. Nobody needs games.
---------------------------------------------
I don't pretend to be noble or anything of the kind...I wanted something fun, so I bought it. It really is that simple. Think of me what you will. Some will grandstand and stomp their feet about how they're somehow 'better' because they didn't, and good for them. They aren't, but whatever.

GameRager: So we should only fight for what we believe in if we are 100% (or near to it) certain it'll impact anything? I dunno if this is what you believe or were trying top say, but that's part of the vibe I got from what you said.
-------------------------------
I personally don't care if you bought the game.....Old Fat Man was(imo) complaining more that we should be allowed to try to take steps to prevent things we dislike from becoming the norm(If we don't like them or want them to.), regardless if others think we're not accomplishing much and/or are wrong in our views, because he feels(as do I) that fighting for what you believe CAN change things and not doing anything is worse than doing something.
---------------------------------
I don't care if you bought and like the game, and won't be flaming or stomping of the feet. I hope you enjoy it. :)

Crassmaster: Yikes, I wasn't very clear at all. Stupid tiredness. WORK, coffee! WORK!
------------------------------------
First off, no issues with OFG's post at all. I actually thought he stated the case very well.

I have just never put much, if any, credence in to slippery slope arguments. It's too easy to say that 'A will lead to B!', and even when it seems to make logical sense that that will be the case, it often isn't. Could we see gaming shift in the direction of being more likely to go to an always online platform? Sure we could. Of course, it's quite likely that most games that use such a model would absolutely bomb commercially since they aren't all highly coveted AAA games. And we're just as likely to not see much of a change whatsoever.

So I don't put a lot of stock in those arguments. And since I don't put stock in them, I don't tend to let them sway my buying decisions.
------------------------------------------------
And hey, if this as an important issue to you or anyone else out there personally, OF COURSE you should speak up about it. Just remember (and most do) that not everyone agrees with you, and those that don't aren't wrong. It's the grandstanding nonsense from some people (very few overall) that I find laughably ridiculous, and those that do so are absolutely no better than the fanboy types. Both groups are doing nothing but damaging discourse.
---------------------------
Anyway, I gotta head to a BBQ.

Crassmaster: Maybe it leads to a major shift that changes everything, and maybe it doesn't. The honest truth is that nobody knows, and it's all slippery slope conjecture.

Anyway, it COULD. And I still bought the game. Because I don't care. If this concerned something actually important to the human race, say water distribution or something along those lines, I would feel differently. But it doesn't. Nobody needs games.

I don't pretend to be noble or anything of the kind...I wanted something fun, so I bought it. It really is that simple. Think of me what you will. Some will grandstand and stomp their feet about how they're somehow 'better' because they didn't, and good for them. They aren't, but whatever.

OldFatGuy: And that's your right not to care, and personally I won't do anything except hope that you enjoy the game now that you've made that decision.

However, for the folks who this does affect, an a negative way, they didn't need you to come and say you don't care. Just by purchasing the game and talking about it in public already tells them that you don't care how it may potentially affect them.
----------------------------

So, while I agree that it's your and others right not to care, what those folks do NOT have a right to is signal to others that you don't care about an issue that is very dear to them AND THEN want to go WTF? when they come back and don't care about the fact that one of you simply wanted to have a thread discussing the game without including DRM.

THAT'S my point. The OP, whether he likes it or not, or even knows it or not, sent the message loud and clear to those for whom this issue is important that s/he just doesn't care one iota about that. So, the OP shouldn't be surprised when they come back and say well, it's really not important to me that you wanted to have a thread about Diablo 3 without discussing DRM. I don't care, I'm gonna discuss DRM anyway.

GameRager: IMHO a valid point is a valid point, regardless of who raises it and how they do so(Well barring a few extreme exceptions.). Yes, some could do it in a better manner, but I think it's better to look at the message regardless of the messenger...especially if it's one we might agree with if we only got past the method of delivery to give it a chance. Plus when one person raises it in a manner we don't like, it possibly opens the way for others to discuss it in other manners(And possibly even one we like, or one which better serves the purpose of spreading said message to more people.).

FraterPerdurabo: If you're trying to convince someone, you should put forth a balanced, objective and convincing argument. No-one's interested in hateful drivel. Will watch it soon and will comment.