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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenMP - I love that game but damn my squadmates are bozos.09/21/2014 - 10:05pm
MaskedPixelanteSWAT teams should be banned until they; 1. Learn not to walk into enemy fire, 2. Learn to throw the flashbang INTO the doorway, not the frame and 3. Stop complaining that I'm in their way.09/21/2014 - 9:53pm
Craig R.I'm getting of the opinion that SWAT teams nationwide should be banned. This probably isn't even the most absurd situation in which they've been used.09/21/2014 - 9:26pm
Andrew EisenAnd, predictably, it encouraged more parody accounts, having the exact opposite effect than what was intended.09/21/2014 - 7:07pm
E. Zachary KnightThis is called a police state people. When public officials can send SWAT raids after anyone for any offense, we are no longer free.09/21/2014 - 6:41pm
E. Zachary KnightJudge rules SWAT raid tageting parody Twitter account was justified. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/illinois-judge-swat-raid-parody-twitter-peoria-mayor09/21/2014 - 6:41pm
MechaTama31quik: But even if it did break, at worst it is only as bad as the powder. Even that is assuming that it is dangerous through skin contact, which is not a given if its delivery vehicle is a syringe.09/21/2014 - 4:30pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/09/20/isis-uses-gta-5-in-new-teen-recruitment-video/09/21/2014 - 4:25pm
quiknkoldSyringes can break. And in a transcontinental delivery, the glass could've broken when crushed. I work in a mail center. Shit like this is super serious09/21/2014 - 3:25pm
E. Zachary KnightIt doesn't matter what is inside the needle. As long as it requires him to take the step of purposefully injecting himself, the threat of the substance is as close to zero as you can get.09/21/2014 - 1:27pm
quiknkoldEzach: I'm not talking about the needle. I'm talking about what's inside. Geeze. Depending on what it is, the sender could be guilty of bioterrorism.09/21/2014 - 12:51pm
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, No. That syringe is not worse than white powder or a bomb. The syringe requires the recipient to actually inject themselves. Not true for other mail threats.09/21/2014 - 12:49pm
Andrew EisenThe closest to a threat I ever received was a handwritten note slipped under my door that read "I KNOW it was you." Still no idea what that was about. I think the author must have got the wrong apartment.09/21/2014 - 12:28pm
InfophileThat's what they call it? I always called it hydroxic acid...09/21/2014 - 11:57am
MaskedPixelanteProbably dihydrogen monoxide, the most dangerous substance in the universe.09/21/2014 - 10:14am
james_fudgewell I hope he called the police so they can let us all know.09/21/2014 - 9:07am
quiknkoldIt's pretty gnarly. Depending on what it is, it could be worse than white powder or a fake bomb.09/21/2014 - 9:06am
james_fudgeI just looked it up on UPS.com09/21/2014 - 8:56am
james_fudgeand expensive for an American to ship to London.09/21/2014 - 8:55am
E. Zachary KnightThat is pretty scary. Would have been worse if it were a fake bomb or white powder.09/21/2014 - 8:49am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician