Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

August 8, 2011 -

While everyone else is ranting and raving about Diablo III and having to be "always connected" to Battle.net to play it - even in single player - our very own Andrew Eisen takes a different approach with the following heartfelt letter.

If Blizzard listens, this could be the best Christmas ever! Check out his heartwarming plea to Blizzard to your left or visit YouTube.


Comments

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

My first knee-jerk reaction to the online play mandate for D3 was that it was directed at "stopping" infringement. I realize now that it wasn't the main reason they did this. It was because of the cash auction house they added that they require online play. Any player not online is 100% certainly not going to be generating profit for them because they can't take part in the auction house.

Why does this matter? It matters because Blizzard charges you when you put up the auction, they take a cut when the auction is won, and then they take a cut when you go to cash out your sales. So for those of you who can't count, that's 3 times they take a piece of the action. Three times! It's all a plan to milk millions of people and make money for doing absolutely nothing. Anyone who's not online isn't contributing to this free revenue for Blizzard, that's why we won't get offline play. Anything they say to the contrary is pure bullshit.

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

"Anyone who's not online isn't contributing to this free revenue for Blizzard, that's why we won't get offline play."

True, but anyone who's not online may as well not buy the game period as they can't play any part of it.  That's a sizeable chunk of change Blizzard is throwing away right there.  Blizzard may not get the "nominal fee" from the offliners but at least they get the revenue from them purchasing the game in the first place.  Not to mention the good will generated from catering to all their fans, online or not.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

"True, but anyone who's not online may as well not buy the game period as they can't play any part of it."

That's my point. People who want to play offline won't buy it, they will just download a cracked version. And it will be cracked, just like the Ubisoft DRM.

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

Right, which is why it would behoove Blizzard to cater to its offline fans as well.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

That's good. I remember seeing part of this in the comments of the last post. And it is something I wish they would comply with.

They put all this crap in a game to stop piracy and tell us that they [The pirates] aren't cracking their DRM. It's like the part in Harry Potter where the Ministry of Magic denies that You-know-who is dead and is not coming back, when you know good and well that he is. In that vein, the game industry denies that the DRM is being cracked when pirates are cracking the DRM left and right and sometimes either right before or after the game is released, despite the face that the DRM is supposed to stop the pirates. But it's not stopping the pirates, just the loyal paying customers.

I bought GTA IV and the DLC packs for PC despite the DRM in it and the fact you need to be connected to install it. If GTA V ends up being where you need a constant connection to play it, is where I draw the line.

It begs to question: Is this about stopping piracy or keeping total control on the customers who buys your product, and not to mention keeping total control of the product long after it leaves their hands. Kinda like selling a VCR to someone and making they buyer use the VCR in ways you see fit, over letting the buyer using HIS VCR how he wants.

Sorry for the rant. The video really was good and I hope something good comes out of it.

 - W

Consumer responsibility is just as important as Corporate responsibility. So, be responsible consumers.

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

I'll add, Andrew, you're a very good presenter and I'd like to think good things will come of it, for yourself and the people/media form you're representing.

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

BRAVO!

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

I hope your sister put in her own PS for you as well.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

Hehe, you make good use of humor, and glad I see soemone else who enjoys the M.A.S.K. toys.

Re: Going Over Santa's Head.. to Blizzard

I'm just glad I'm not the only one who's in their 30s and still loves their M.A.S.K. toys.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MechaCrashI just hope they realize that part of the problem with the Wii U was its relative lack of power. You can still make good games with what the Wii U has, but third parties won't want to deal with it when they can target the more popular PS4/XB1.07/02/2015 - 10:59am
Andrew EisenReplace "NX" with "QOL" and I'd buy it as potentially true.07/02/2015 - 10:51am
Andrew EisenNintendo to start manufacturing NX in October to target a July 2016 launch with 20 million consoles shipped the first year. Sure... http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20150702PD204.html07/02/2015 - 10:47am
james_fudgeLet's avoid name calling in the shoutbox07/02/2015 - 8:55am
E. Zachary KnightThe Daily WTF has a nice run down of some of the impact to software that the US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage has. http://thedailywtf.com/articles/i-m-not-married-to-the-idea07/02/2015 - 7:45am
MechaCrashGee, how did people ever get the idea Gaters are morons who argue in bad faith? It's such a mystery.07/02/2015 - 7:03am
E. Zachary KnightGoth, again, no one is saying that we shouldn't be writig uncomfortable subject matter. What people are saying is that chances are you are going to write it poorly so it would be better to not have done it at all.07/02/2015 - 7:00am
Goth_Skunkdiscussed or portrayed in an expressive medium. Such an opinion only serves to stifle discussion. And as I said before, the only thing not worth talking about is what shouldn't be talked about.07/02/2015 - 6:50am
Goth_Skunk@Info: The same reason why I would entertain the notion that the Wired article writer could be right: Curiosity. Except in this case, I'm not curious at all. I'm not interested in hearing anyone's opinion on why uncomfortable subject matter shouldn't be07/02/2015 - 6:49am
IvresseI think the problem with the Batmobile is that they made it a core aspect of the game that you have to do continuously. If it was basically a couple of side games that were needed for secret stuff or a couple of times in the main game, it would be fine.07/02/2015 - 5:38am
Infophile@Goth: If you're not willing to entertain the idea you might be wrong, fine. That's your right. But why should anyone else entertain the idea that you might be right? If they go by the same logic, they already know you're wrong, so why listen to you?07/02/2015 - 3:53am
MattsworknameEh, I love the new batmobile personally, it's a blast to mess aroudn with. Plus, the game is set in a situation that mroe or less leaves batman with no choice but to go full force. And even then, it still shows him doing all he can to limit casualties.07/01/2015 - 11:38pm
Andrew EisenAgreed. Luckily, we don't seem to be in danger of that of late. No one's suggesting, for example, that tanks shouldn't be in video games, only that the tank in Arkham Knight is poorly implemented and out of place from a characterization standpoint.07/01/2015 - 11:27pm
MattsworknameConfederate flag, Relgious organizations, etc etc. Andrew isnt[ wrong, just remember not to let that mentality lead to censorship.07/01/2015 - 11:20pm
Mattsworknamefind offensive or disturbing, and that mindset leads to censorship. It's all well and good to say "This would be better IF", just so long as we remember not to let it slide into "This is offensive, REMOVE IT". IE , the current issues surroundign the07/01/2015 - 11:19pm
MattsworknameAndrew and goth both have points, and to that point, I'll say. Saying somethign is improved by changing something isn't a problem, on that I agree with , but at the same time, on of the issues we have in our society is that we want to simply remove things07/01/2015 - 11:18pm
Andrew EisenSee? Suggestions for improvements that involve taking things away do not mean the work is garbage or performing poorly, critically or commercially.07/01/2015 - 9:29pm
Andrew EisenSkyward Sword is spiff-a-rific but it would be an improved experience if the game didn't explain what each item and rupee was every single time you picked them up!07/01/2015 - 9:27pm
Andrew EisenHere's another: De Blob is a ton of fun but it would be improved without motion controls. Incidentally, THQ heard our cries, removed motion controls for the sequel and it was a better game for it!07/01/2015 - 9:24pm
Andrew EisenI'll give you an example: Arkham Knight is a ton of fun but the tank sucks and the game would be even better without it.07/01/2015 - 9:23pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician