Latest "online only" excuse, from Frank Pearce - Page 2

[:1]Being lied to is unpleasant.|||I recall the post where Bashiok mentioned it existing in the game, but do we know that it was actually "in the game"? What I mean is, is it possible that they considered the feature to be final at the time, but just hadn't implemented it yet?|||I very much doubt that they've only been running and playing the game through bnet these past few years. I doubt they were doing it at Blizzcon. In fact, I doubt they're doing that right now.|||OMG, just stop lame excuses and add sp offline back in.|||Quote:








I very much doubt that they've only been running and playing the game through bnet these past few years. I doubt they were doing it at Blizzcon. In fact, I doubt they're doing that right now.




A demo or presentation client isn't the full game, and why wouldn't they be play-testing the game on their servers?|||Quote:








Being lied to is unpleasant.




Being lied to in such an obvious manner is insulting! At least put an some thought into it and make the lie harder to spot...

Here's a free PR lesson for them:

Convincing lies / Partial truths(CS*) > Truths > poorly disguised lies

* Carefully selected|||My only complaint about something like this, is that this clearly is not a MMO. Therefore there is no expectation that you are paying to access the game, and as a conduit for social interaction where our actions have actual impacts on the game world. Diablo III is a single-player ARPG, with the ability to play with a select few others (Besides, functionality, no different than TCP/IP network from Diablo I before BNET). The problem this creates is that in the future once Blizzard no longer exists, or the server infrastructure no longer does, you no longer can play Diablo III even though it is a single-player ARPG. I'm just sick and tired of 'renting'. That is the crux of the issue. If you are going to promote this type of game, at least have the decency to market and advertise that you aren't actually buying and owning the game, but merely renting.

Am I going to rent the game? Probably not, but I think its a tragedy for those who want to play a game they supposedly own, far down the road. It's like going to Borders and buying a book thinking you are going to own it, but you can only possess the book as long as Borders exists. That's not ownership -- that's renting.

I would really hate to see the gaming world devolve into a rentership medium.

*Pops open Baldur's Gate (Phew, just glad the internet was in its infancy back then)|||I'll admit this is a poor excuse, but why exactly is everyone so sure it's a lie? What proof do you have that a single player client was ever actually completed?|||Quote:








I'll admit this is a poor excuse, but why exactly is everyone so sure it's a lie? What proof do you have that a single player client was ever actually completed?




It's a lie in that time constrain (earlier release) was not the reason they can't release SP play, it's simply that they won't due to other strategic consideration wholly unrelated, they've even confirmed some of these reason previously so it's a glaring inconsistency (eg. lie).

Conveniently, here's a list of likely reason why they won't:

http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/s...d.php?t=809313|||Quote:








A helpful community member accidentally listened to the old call instead of today's call. He posted the old soundbite and one of the admins put it up on the front page. Eventually we realized that the quote was not current, and that news post was removed.




Might seem to be the case, when the news post was posted/removed actually? Just out of curiosity sake now, cause it really confused the hell out of me, when it turned out that the thing i was talking about was old news reposted as new... news...

Although i still stand by my statement that blizz caters more to d2 shoppers instead of sp playerbase... but i digress, carry on everyone.