Latest "online only" excuse, from Frank Pearce - Page 3

[:1]This basically amounts to them saying, "Too late now," which, while not being the original reason for their decision, is certainly true.|||Yea, I'm sure it was a malicious and VILE lie just to screw with us! They're sitting back right now smoking expensive cigars they lit with 100 dollar bills and drinking extravagantly priced scotch.

....and playing D3.||| Blizzard Quote: (Source)




Eurogamer: We won't be able to play Diablo 3 on a commute. Does that matter?

Frank Pearce: Shut up.|||Quote:








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




There can be more than one reason to choose not to do something.

This reason may be insignificant and silly when you consider the multitude of more valid reasons he could've given, but you can't just call it a lie with no way to prove it.|||And if reasons given are mutually exclusive?

1) Online only - because of enhanced data security / monitoring, thus combating bots and dupes to maintain the cores trading element of the game.

2) Online only because SP will take some time to implement, never mind it will invalid our goal in 1), and of course not that we had 10 years but just never intended to make it SP.

And, I don't fully recall at the moment, have they also stated or insinuated that they are "encouraging" trade and party as a core element, and used this to support an online only position? Anyway just stick to 1) vs 2) for simplicity sake.

Really, at the least they can stay consistent.|||Blizzard needs to have a "little black book of D3" with all the answers to the most common questions. That way you pull out a book when asked and can never give the wrong answer!

Edit: Of course Jay will get the 'limited edition' book =/|||How hard can it be to just stick with "data security" and "responsive patching" for a more balanced and wholesome gaming experience?

They happen to be good solid reasons which many players support too! Rather then undermining themselves over and over.|||Quote:








How hard can it be to just stick with "data security" and "responsive patching" for a more balanced and wholesome gaming experience?

They happen to be good solid reasons which many players support too! Rather then undermining themselves over and over.






I agree. This wasn't a bad decision by Blizzard, just bad PR. If you do a cost benefit analysis, I am convinced that SP is just not worth it. The lost player base of newbie players stopping after they realize their SP characters are unplayable on MP because they don't any know any better is too costly to the game. That will equal lost revenues from the AH, not to mention dissatisfied customers. The ones who genuinely need a single player must be too small a factor to justify these costs at this time.

As for the other 98% of us, most would probably like the option of SP to be on the table but won't be at all heartbroken that it isn't if it means they get to put more resources towards parts of the game that are more important to us.|||Quote:








How hard can it be to just stick with "data security" and "responsive patching" for a more balanced and wholesome gaming experience?

They happen to be good solid reasons which many players support too! Rather then undermining themselves over and over.




This exactly. I would understand answers and BS like this a little better if they didn't have such a good and viable reason sitting right in front of them already. Can't imagine how somebody with that kind of lack of basic common business sense has a position that important in such a successful company.|||Quote:








And if reasons given are mutually exclusive?

1) Online only - because of enhanced data security / monitoring, thus combating bots and dupes to maintain the cores trading element of the game.

2) Online only because SP will take some time to implement, never mind it will invalid our goal in 1), and of course not that we had 10 years but just never intended to make it SP.

And, I don't fully recall at the moment, have they also stated or insinuated that they are "encouraging" trade and party as a core element, and used this to support an online only position? Anyway just stick to 1) vs 2) for simplicity sake.

Really, at the least they can stay consistent.




How exactly are those 2 reasons mutually exclusive? They want better security AND they don't have time right now. Both of those things can be true at the same time.

This Blizzard representative was on the spot and chose the easiest answer to explain; he may not have been prepared to deal with follow-up questions about server security and patching. Quit trying to turn this into something more melodramatic than it is.