Shitnun's D3 Launch complaint thread even tho he no haz

Is there a cliffnotes version of this thread?

CptnShotgun wrote:

the servers programming is fine

Oh, is that why they rolled out a server patch to help stabilize the authentication servers?

Silly me.

ANNNND you're STILL making a big deal out of nothing.

I swear to god if you've been trolling me this whole time you get the troll of the year award.

Skreshavik wrote:

Is there a cliffnotes version of this thread?

Yah, Gorilla posted the cliff notes:

GorillazInm1st wrote:

tl;dr: Over- dramatic response to the over-dramatic response to the "botched" D3 launch.

Thanks. +1 gorilla.

Skreshavik wrote:

Thanks. +1 gorilla.

I gave him 2...

but that was when I thought that his post ended the thread.

Evidently not.

I actually (and this should carry some weight, because, come on, it's Ronin and me) think Ronin's making the most valid points here. Shitnun just seems to be angry because of something that's happened to him with a game not being available flawlessly day 1. Maybe he's referring to BF3 or WoW or whatever, since he said he didn't even have D3. But... that's just what happens. With every major game. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, Red Dead Redemption, GTA 4, etc. It just never works fine, day 1. Clearly at this point they must be aware of the problem with servers on Day 1. If it was possible to prevent it, they would have. Maybe there's a real fucking good reason? Maybe the costs are staggeringly high to prep the servers for Day 1 - and let's face it, it's wasted money because you don't need that kind of servery fortitude after Day 1.

Also regarding SP being online... idk if this was mentioned, but there is no SP. You are simply playing a private online multiplayer game that can be instantly made public for others to join. Everything is MP. You can play in private games until you're level 60 and never see another person, but you're only ever 2 clicks away from making the game public.

Actually Fido... it's even worse then that...

because Shitnun does not have, nor has any interest in, Diablo 3...

He's making a big deal out of some perceived slight against his fellow gamers

RoninHo'in wrote:

CptnShotgun wrote:

the servers programming is fine

Oh, is that why they rolled out a server patch to help stabilize the authentication servers?

Silly me.

ANNNND you're STILL making a big deal out of nothing.

I swear to god if you've been trolling me this whole time you get the troll of the year award.

Different issue, we're talking about the crash of the servers at launch, which was a hardware issue (proven by the fact that when they got put back up, they worked).

Keep failing to get the point and defending shitty business practices with cop out arguments and ad hominems.


"There is an abusive relationship between game developers and gamers.

It rests on this assumption that we owe them something, as if they have done us some sort of favour, as if they are a friend and we should care when their games get pirated, not a business that provides us with a product for a fee

Of course this turns on its head when these companies do something that upsets gamers, words like "HURR THEIR A BUSINESS! THEIR A BUSINESS! THEY OWE YOU NOTHING".

So they owe us nothing, and we owe them not only our money but our support as well. This of course makes no sense and its extremely self deprecating, but it seems to drive history in a continuous circle. Gamers buy a game, it fucks them over, their complaints are silenced by louder voices telling them to "shut up" and "Well IM having a good time so your complaints are irrelevant", gamers tell themselves that it will be better next time, and dont learn a damn thing

As soon as we are free from this case of Stockholm syndrome that we have, DRM will evaporate, and gaming will get better."

I can understand why he's annoyed, but there's nothing we or they can do about it. It's not like Blizzard enjoys having a million people looking forward to playing but not able to (when it's Blizz's fault). That kind of publicity is a powerful incentive to ensure the servers all work correctly. So for them to fail on that (and every other game dev) implies it's out of control. Because the motivation to make it work is DEFINITELY there. It's not a case of "well, everyone fucked it up so we can too."

Yours is a cop-out argument, Shotgun. You're quoting Cracked. Or if that's not the Cracked article, then you're quoting someone who invented a weak counter-argument and then tore it apart to make their own point seem better, with the HURR part.

Fido wrote:

I actually (and this should carry some weight, because, come on, it's Ronin and me) think Ronin's making the most valid points here. Shitnun just seems to be angry because of something that's happened to him with a game not being available flawlessly day 1. Maybe he's referring to BF3 or WoW or whatever, since he said he didn't even have D3. But... that's just what happens. With every major game. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, Red Dead Redemption, GTA 4, etc. It just never works fine, day 1. Clearly at this point they must be aware of the problem with servers on Day 1. If it was possible to prevent it, they would have. Maybe there's a real fucking good reason? Maybe the costs are staggeringly high to prep the servers for Day 1 - and let's face it, it's wasted money because you don't need that kind of servery fortitude after Day 1.

I already linked an image that proved servers were not expensive, and stated they could hire virtual servers and slowly phase them out. Spending extra money to give the consumer what they paid for is not "wasted money", it's delivering what was promised.

They had the tools to deliver what they promised.
We paid for the product, we owe them nothing.
They did not use the tools to deliver what was promised and instead opted to fix it later on because "lol, golden bathtubs > consumers".
We're called self-entitled.

May I also point out that every single game you mentioned besides from Diablo 3 had an offline mode so the consumer could at least pay in some respect? And also proves that even after all this time and the same shit happening, games developers aren't learning.

I'd like to know...

who got fucked over.

Really. Honestly. WHO GOT FUCKED OVER?

RoninHo'in wrote:

I'd like to know...

who got fucked over.

Really. Honestly. WHO GOT FUCKED OVER?

Those that had to wait 12 hours to play a game that should and could have been accessible at launch.

Inb4 "IT'S ONLY 12 HOURS", that's not the point, it's the principle.

Your "principle" is fucking retarded.

Just sayin'

RoninHo'in wrote:

Your "principle" is fucking retarded.

Just sayin'

For those 12 hours, was the product working?
No.

Was it implied by "release date" that the product would work, on account of it being released?
Yes.

Could the failure have been prevented?
Yes.

Was it?
No.


We owe these companies nothing. We've given them our money and if they fail to deliver a working product then it's no fault but their own. The magnitude of the failure is irrelevant, it's the presence of it in the first place. If it happened in any other industry you wouldn't defend them, why is it different for video games?

Keep diggin

CptnShotgun wrote:

Fido wrote:

I actually (and this should carry some weight, because, come on, it's Ronin and me) think Ronin's making the most valid points here. Shitnun just seems to be angry because of something that's happened to him with a game not being available flawlessly day 1. Maybe he's referring to BF3 or WoW or whatever, since he said he didn't even have D3. But... that's just what happens. With every major game. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, Red Dead Redemption, GTA 4, etc. It just never works fine, day 1. Clearly at this point they must be aware of the problem with servers on Day 1. If it was possible to prevent it, they would have. Maybe there's a real fucking good reason? Maybe the costs are staggeringly high to prep the servers for Day 1 - and let's face it, it's wasted money because you don't need that kind of servery fortitude after Day 1.

I already linked an image that proved servers were not expensive, and stated they could hire virtual servers and slowly phase them out. Spending extra money to give the consumer what they paid for is not "wasted money", it's delivering what was promised.

They had the tools to deliver what they promised.
We paid for the product, we owe them nothing.
They did not use the tools to deliver what was promised and instead opted to fix it later on because "lol, golden bathtubs > consumers".
We're called self-entitled.

May I also point out that every single game you mentioned besides from Diablo 3 had an offline mode so the consumer could at least pay in some respect? And also proves that even after all this time and the same shit happening, games developers aren't learning.

One sec, you got a pic off some forum somewhere, right? Okay, one sec.

Then by the official veracitic power of forums, I give you my own Blizzard-blessed analysis of the cost breakdown.




The other games I mentioned also didn't have quite such a problem with hacks as Diablo 2, so that's irrelevant. There was no alternative for D3, IMO. I played Diablo 2 more than anyone here and whichever of you I played with know that to be true. I used hacks. Because everyone used hacks. There was no playing the game without hacks.

By the way, the game actually was quite playable on day 1. The US servers were down but the European ones and Asian ones worked great. To date there hasn't been a moment in which I have not been able to play when I wanted, because at least ONE of the 3 continent's servers are always up.

To add on more to the hacks argument and understanding online-only... your account is locked to your game and vice versa. If you hack, you lose an actual Blizz account. It used to be you just lost a little tiny insignificant (except for whatever gear you had on the accounts) account on Bnet. By doing it this way, the value of the game, to you, is much higher, because if you get banned for hacking... you can't play anymore without a new CD key.

Don't even understand your conviction on this one Cpt...

You read a couple nerd rage blogs and rally behind them.... why?

I laughed at the image, but the difference is the image I linked is factual, backed up by the NCsoft earnings release:

http://global.ncsoft.com/global/ir/earnings.aspx

By introducing the DRM, they are achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted. Always online has never stopped pirates (see: WoW private servers) and just hinders the honest consumer.

Sure, one of the three servers may have been up, but that's not the point. You shouldn't have to hop to another server when the one designated to your locale isn't working because that server should work in the first place. You act as is expecting the product to work is self-entitlement yet it's not in any other industry. Why do you treat video games differently? Why do you defend them so vehemently when you even admitted they fucked up?

Why are video games different?

Because they are non consequential and entertainment... that's why.

Food, transportation, manufacturing... all crucial and critical industries.

Gaming? Could disappear off the face of the planet to little effect other the millions of nerd raging.

Okay, so now we've established that you COULD play D3 on day 1, but now suddenly the problem is "that's not the point, you shouldn't have to hop on another server when the one designated to your locale isn't working because that server should work in the first place."

And we've now officially ground your argument down to whiny nitpicking. "Boo hoo I could've played if I wanted to but that involved clicking something other than "play now" before I could click "play now"."

Also I don't care if the image you linked to was factual(wasn't even Blizz, anyway, but a weaker competitor), speaking from a corporate point of view, they don't wanna piss their clients off but they all do it anyway. CLEARLY there's something going on beyond their control. Or something that just doesn't make sense from a cost-profit perspective.

RoninHo'in wrote:

Why are video games different?

Because they are non consequential and entertainment... that's why.

Food, transportation, manufacturing... all crucial and critical industries.

Gaming? Could disappear off the face of the planet to little effect other the millions of nerd raging.

So you're basically using the "first world problems" argument? You really don't get it do you? As insignificant you may feel video games are, it's an industry and expecting the businesses within that industry to deliver what they promised , what you paid for, is not, and never will be, self-entitlement.