Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[umiman]

That's literally nothing to be proud of. Rather, it's really sad.

Assuming you played Diablo 3 for 50 hours, you made a grand total of $5.60 per hour. That's pretty pathetic. Even accounting for exaggeration. The beggars outside my workplace earn more than that.

Like Sordid said, I really recommend you don't brag that figure to people.

[Sordid]

There's no way he found something worth $280 in a mere 50 hours.

[pilgrimboy]

It's a game that I have thoroughly enjoyed and made money playing. Hourly rate sucks. That's probably true. But it's a game, not a job. I have a full-time job and help out with my father's business on the side. It's just fun to make money playing a game that I enjoy.

[Neonivek]

It's a game that I have thoroughly enjoyed and made money playing. Hourly rate sucks. That's probably true. But it's a game, not a job. I have a full-time job and help out with my father's business on the side. It's just fun to make money playing a game that I enjoy.

And lucky for you there are enough people without inpulse control nor the will to genuinly attempt to play the game for any sort of achievement who are willing to throw money at you.

[Sordid]

And lucky for you there are enough people without inpulse control nor the will to genuinly attempt to play the game for any sort of achievement who are willing to throw money at you.

Eh, I wouldn't be so harsh on them. The whole game is built around the auction house, trying to play it without buying items from it (whether for gold or real money) is an exercise in futility and frustration.

[Neonivek]

And lucky for you there are enough people without inpulse control nor the will to genuinly attempt to play the game for any sort of achievement who are willing to throw money at you.

Eh, I wouldn't be so harsh on them. The whole game is built around the auction house, trying to play it without buying items from it (whether for gold or real money) is an exercise in futility and frustration.

Shhh you arn't allowed to mention flaws in the game because they are off topic.

[Darkmere]

Shhh you arn't allowed to mention flaws in the game because they are off topic.

Oh, on the contrary, judging by how adamantly discussion by people who actually play the game gets hurriedly shuffled under the rug, the thread's actual topic seems pretty clear to me.

[Sergius]

Shhh you arn't allowed to mention flaws in the game because they are off topic.

Oh, on the contrary, judging by how adamantly discussion by people who actually play the game gets hurriedly shuffled under the rug, the thread's actual topic seems pretty clear to me.

Yeah maaaan... it's all one big anti-Diablo conspiracy... brought by the Internets, maaan...

[Neonivek]

I know, I mean... absolutely everyone who complains about Diablo is secretly someone who doesn't play diablo.

On a more serious note it is more that "people who actually play the game" as you put it... are more then willing to challenge any complaint someone puts against Diablo... which they will then be swamped by retorts. We have had very long fruitful discussions on the merits and negatives of Diablo 3.

[Sergius]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

[alexandertnt]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

To be fair on D3, with software in general you never own the software. You only purchase a licence to use their software. (Im all for allowing resell of these licences/less restrictions etc etc, but at the moment D3 doesn't really differ from other pieces of software in regards to ownership. The only issue for me is that the client/server thing is an unnecessary obscuration to single player).

I don't see an issue with people complaining about a game they dont own, considering that usually there are reasons they don't own it. Mentioning these reasons seem reasonable to me.

Also whats up with the people who play the game for ~200 hours, and then decide that they never liked the game? This both confuses and baffles me. Were they expecting the game to change on the 178th hour or something? (This can apply to other games too).

[Neonivek]

Also whats up with the people who play the game for ~200 hours, and then decide that they never liked the game? This both confuses and baffles me. Were they expecting the game to change on the 178th hour or something?

It makes perfect sense. Diablo 3 is very heavy with the addiction based gameplay and offers BARELY enough to keep you interested.

It just becomes a time sink of bland that you can't get away from because it is just based off of keeping you playing whether you like the game or not.

[Sergius]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

To be fair on D3, with software in general you never own the software. You only purchase a licence to use their software.

That's just legal mumbo-jumbo. You own the game as much as you own a record or a painting or a book. The only reason it's a "license" is because some bought judge decided that, not because of some physical aspect of the goods.

It's like that Eminem royalties case. The record label decided purchase via iTunes is a license, because it was in their own interests to restrict "buyers" as much as possible. So the guy sued the label for more money, because "licensing" songs pays better than "shitty % of the sales". And they were all "nuh-huh! it's a SALE, not a LICENSE!" Flip-flopping at its best.

So the next time someone says "you don't own a game" think hard why is that, and who decided it was that way, and how much money was involved. Besides, arguing it from a legal standpoint is kinda like saying that "legally", a game doesn't suck. We're not discussing whether what they're doing is legal or not. It's simply a very hostile action against customers.

I don't see an issue with people complaining about a game they don't own, considering that usually there are reasons they don't own it. Mentioning these reasons seem reasonable to me.

My point exactly.

Also whats up with the people who play the game for ~200 hours, and then decide that they never liked the game? This both confuses and baffles me. Were they expecting the game to change on the 178th hour or something? (This can apply to other games too).

There are many possible reasons for that. Denial, genuinely wanting to like the game and trying again, seeing more and more of its flaws the more they played it?

[SalmonGod]

Not to mention that a lot of the complaints about Diablo 3 is that you can't really buy it, but in fact that you buy some sort of login client to play on their servers.

So that people complain about it without playing it (because they like, I don't know, owning a game instead of a solo multiplayer game client) is perfectly valid in this case.

To be fair on D3, with software in general you never own the software. You only purchase a licence to use their software.

That's just legal mumbo-jumbo. You own the game as much as you own a record or a painting or a book. The only reason it's a "license" is because some bought judge decided that, not because of some physical aspect of the goods.

It's like that Eminem royalties case. The record label decided purchase via iTunes is a license, because it was in their own interests to restrict "buyers" as much as possible. So the guy sued the label for more money, because "licensing" songs pays better than "shitty % of the sales". And they were all "nuh-huh! it's a SALE, not a LICENSE!" Flip-flopping at its best.

So the next time someone says "you don't own a game" think hard why is that, and who decided it was that way, and how much money was involved. Besides, arguing it from a legal standpoint is kinda like saying that "legally", a game doesn't suck. We're not discussing whether what they're doing is legal or not. It's simply a very hostile action against customers.

+1

Imagine you buy a book, but the author of the book retains the right to destroy your copy of that book any time they choose, on the grounds that they own the information inside it.  It's exactly the same.

[alexandertnt]

I agree that it is basically legal mumbo jumbo, I am just pointing out what EULA's generally say. Software is licenced, not sold. I also believe that this is basically a pile of crap, but thats just to compare the legal-mumbo-jumbo aspect of D3's login thing, and a normal software licence. And yes, companies will jump to interpeting it as a sold product when it suit's them best. I also have observed this, where companies just change its current state to that which gives them the best legal leverage (You cannot resell becase we licenced it to YOU. That is stealing, and you are a thief (despite not actually depriving them of anything). The most noteable example being that anti piracy add on DVD's, where it compares downloading a movie to stealing a car). But the EULA says it's licenced (then again, the EULA is usually unenforcable crap).

Imagine you buy a book, but the author of the book retains the right to destroy your copy of that book any time they choose, on the grounds that they own the information inside it.  It's exactly the same.

This does not quite work. When you purchase a book, you indeed are restricted in what you can do with the story (The copyright-able aspect of the book) (no plagiarism, no derivative work etc). The book as a physical item is your property. They cannot request you to destroy it because it is not theirs (And you can't destroy a story, it is simply a concept). It *might* be possible for them to request that you never read the book again, but I don't think that would (and it shouldn't) go down to well with courts/people.