# Diablo III: No PvP at Launch



## btarunr (Mar 12, 2012)

Blizzard announced that its highly anticipated title, Diablo III, will not ship with Player vs. Player (PvP) gameplay, because its development and refinement is holding Blizzard back from meeting the April 17, 2012 launch date. "The PvP game and systems aren't yet living up to our standards," said Jay Wilson, Game Director. The PvP component will instead be added to the game as a patch, months after the game's launch. The patch will include PvP arenas, achievements, and a matchmaking system. The arenas, according to Wilson, will be "as brutal, bloody, fast-paced, and awesome as we know they can be." 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 12, 2012)

Good. Better to wait then have something half ass.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 12, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Good. Better to wait then have something half ass.




"cough"Rage"cough cough"


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 12, 2012)

Haha... basically "its not finished yet... lets see how this sells before we spend any time doing this"


----------



## uber_cookie (Mar 12, 2012)

Smells like PvP DLC


----------



## AsRock (Mar 12, 2012)

No PVP No Problem ..


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 12, 2012)

Wow, so basiclly they have dragged their feet soooo long they are in need of money for the project, now they will be releasing half of a game and charging you for the other half, fuck you blizzard!


----------



## Batou1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

This is just sad all this time and no pvp. Blizzard should just let Activison take over all there franchises since apparently they cant make anything besides pandas anymore


----------



## Bambooz (Mar 12, 2012)

Reminds me of this..


----------



## joyman (Mar 12, 2012)

It looks like Blizzard are going downhill. The higher you climb the higher you fall from. Not many of the team that made some of the greatest games are in Blizzard anymore and this is more and more evident.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 12, 2012)

I just want coop so my wife and I can play together liek the previous Diablo titles. PvP is NOT required.

And I'm more than willing to wait. I'd rather wait for Blizzard, and Rush Valve and HL3/EP.3.


----------



## EnergyFX (Mar 12, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I just want coop so my wife and I can play together liek the previous Diablo titles. PvP is NOT required.
> 
> And I'm more than willing to wait.



ditto


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 12, 2012)

uber_cookie said:


> Smells like PvP DLC



Highly unlikely but that would suck so badly if they made PvP element of the game a DLC. that would be so wrong....It would be like CoD with no dedicated servers. wait.........


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 12, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Highly unlikely but that would suck so badly if they made PvP element of the game a DLC. that would be so wrong....It would be like CoD with no dedicated servers. wait.........



You forget activision own blizzard . . .. paying for PVP as DLC seems as likely as 15 dollars for 2 new maps in CoD.


----------



## mrw1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

uber_cookie said:


> Smells like PvP DLC





[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Wow, so basiclly they have dragged their feet soooo long they are in need of money for the project, now they will be releasing half of a game and charging you for the other half, fuck you blizzard!



Where exactly does it say it will be a DLC? There's a 99.9999% chance it will be a patch, especially knowing Blizzard.


----------



## timmyisme22 (Mar 12, 2012)

All that I hear is easy prey for pirating.  Lack of proper multiplayer is rampant ground for not buying it in many circles.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 12, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> Where exactly does it say it will be a DLC? There's a 99.9999% chance it will be a patch, especially knowing Blizzard.



Blizzard and activision charge you for everything and anything, I agree it will be a patch . ..  one they will charge you for, also I doubt they will be smart enough to price the game properly at launch considering at least half of it is missing. FUCK BLIZZARD!


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 12, 2012)

Batou1986 said:


> This is just sad all this time and no pvp. Blizzard should just let Activison take over all there franchises since apparently they cant make anything besides pandas anymore



Then we get a shit fest known as Call of Duty. Yeah, I dont think so. 

And Blizzard doesnt do DLC. Everything they do comes in the form of a patch. Ive never had to pay for a patch thats not an expansion from them and even then, im really only paying $40 for a cd key. Because everyone downloads the expansions they just arent accessible to you until you enter in a cd key.

Just love how people read their own thing with things like this. "oh there isnt going to be pvp straight away? so youre going to release it months later? Sounds like DLC that im going to have to pay for even though you said PATCH."

People get their panties in a knot too fast when they read something that they dont like.


----------



## Ahhzz (Mar 12, 2012)

timmyisme22 said:


> All that I hear is easy prey for pirating.  Lack of proper multiplayer is rampant ground for not buying it in many circles.




True dat. I got $10 says less than 1 month to first underground server.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 12, 2012)

Ahhzz said:


> True dat. I got $10 says less than 1 month to first underground server.



I will be one of them, I'm not buy half a game, same reason I didn't buy SC2.



CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Then we get a shit fest known as Call of Duty. Yeah, I dont think so.
> 
> And Blizzard doesnt do DLC. Everything they do comes in the form of a patch. Ive never had to pay for a patch thats not an expansion from them and even then, im really only paying $40 for a cd key. Because everyone downloads the expansions they just arent accessible to you until you enter in a cd key.
> 
> ...



It's not about don't like, I will not accept paying $60 for HALF OF A GAME! It's beyond unacceptable FUCK BLIZZARD!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 12, 2012)

OneCool said:


> "cough"Rage"cough cough"



RAGE is a prime example of what NOT to do for game content. Great game that ended like "Oh S#!t its Friday 4:59pm! Hit save and lets call it a game! Beers on me."


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 12, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> RAGE is a prime example of what NOT to do for game content. Great game that ended like "Oh S#!t its Friday 4:59pm! Hit save and lets call it a game! Beers on me."



I disagree, devs are doing bull crap like this more and more because they know people will bend over and accept it. If people raged more and accepted less half baked games we might get some decent content on the PC again.


----------



## mrw1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Blizzard and activision charge you for everything and anything, I agree it will be a patch . ..  one they will charge you for, also I doubt they will be smart enough to price the game properly at launch considering at least half of it is missing. FUCK BLIZZARD!





CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Then we get a shit fest known as Call of Duty. Yeah, I dont think so.
> 
> And Blizzard doesnt do DLC. Everything they do comes in the form of a patch. Ive never had to pay for a patch thats not an expansion from them and even then, im really only paying $40 for a cd key. Because everyone downloads the expansions they just arent accessible to you until you enter in a cd key.
> 
> ...





[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I will be one of them, I'm not buy half a game, same reason I didn't buy SC2.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about don't like, I will not accept paying $60 for HALF OF A GAME! It's beyond unacceptable FUCK BLIZZARD!



@CrAsHnBuRnXp 
I completely agree with you. I love how people put on their tin foil hats and get all pissed off about something that was never even said. I hate nothing more than when people assume stuff like that.

@[H]@RD5TUFF
Honestly, I take all of the stuff you are saying with a grain of salt. Anyone with that much hate towards something should be disregarded. You are acting like they took your first born and burned down your house. Clearly you know nothing of Blizzard.


----------



## mrw1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I disagree, devs are doing bull crap like this more and more because they know people will bend over and accept it. If people raged more and accepted less half baked games we might get some decent content on the PC again.



Bethesda seems to be doing just fine. I'm sure there will be DLC, but Skyrim is pretty damned awesome without it. They also allow modding. Maybe you should rethink PC gaming because you seem to have very little knowledge of it. What one or two companies do does not shape the entire culture of PC gaming.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 12, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> @CrAsHnBuRnXp
> *I completely agree with you. I love how people put on their tin foil hats and get all pissed off about something that was never even said. I hate nothing more than when people assume stuff like that.
> *
> 
> ...



Your free to disagree all you wish, but not to invalidate. I know much of blizzard, as I have played EVERY title they have made, I am not acting in any manner other than an extremely angry customer, who god forbid expects value and a complete game for his money. . .

I harbor no hatred, just anger, you seem all to eager to accuse others of ignorance, when you yourself spew nothing but. That said you are free to your opinions, but perhaps you should judge yourself more and others less.

I am angry at blizzard for the unmitigated gawl to peddle half finished games at the price of full games. The price should reflect the content level! People will continue to pirate their games, and I hope it ends them.


----------



## digibucc (Mar 12, 2012)

regardless of DLC or Patch, the fact is they should have it ready at once. I never liked pvp and won't likely play this one, but the fact that the game is coming out half done to meet a deadline is very UNblizzard, and makes me even less hopeful for this sequel.



mrw1986 said:


> Clearly you know nothing of Blizzard.



clearly you know nothing of Activision.


----------



## mrw1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Your free to disagree all you wish, but not to invalidate. I know much of blizzard, as I have played EVERY title they have made, I am not acting in any manner other than an extremely angry customer, who god forbid expects value and a complete game for his money. . .
> 
> I harbor no hatred, just anger, you seem all to eager to accuse others of ignorance, when you yourself spew nothing but. That said you are free to your opinions, but perhaps you should judge yourself more and others less.
> 
> I am angry at blizzard for the unmitigated gawl to peddle half finished games at the price of full games. The price should reflect the content level! People will continue to pirate their games, and I hope it ends them.



Your entire post is full of ridicule and hypocrisy. I as well have played EVERY Blizzard game to date and have never once felt cheated. Tell me, when was the last time they released a DLC? That's right, never. Patches? Sure. Expansions? Sure. Both of which have been part of PC gaming for a LONG time. So please, take the time to re-evaluate yourself.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 12, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> Bethesda seems to be doing just fine. I'm sure there will be DLC, but Skyrim is pretty damned awesome without it. They also allow modding. Maybe you should rethink PC gaming because you seem to have very little knowledge of it. What one or two companies do does not shape the entire culture of PC gaming.



Please use the multiquote button...... double posting is so last year!


----------



## mrw1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

digibucc said:


> clearly you know nothing of Activision.





Tatty_One said:


> Please use the multiquote button...... double posting is so last year!



digi, I know more than enough about Activision/Kotick and their shittiness.

Sorry Tatty, that post didn't come to mind until a few minutes later


----------



## AsRock (Mar 12, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I just want coop so my wife and I can play together liek the previous Diablo titles. PvP is NOT required.
> 
> And I'm more than willing to wait. I'd rather wait for Blizzard, and Rush Valve and HL3/EP.3.



So maybe we will not to have to password all our games now unlike in D2 always some lame ass PvP person to spoil a good game..

In fact more i think about it more i like it lol.

And WTF are people on about 1/2 done because no PvP on release.


----------



## mrw1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

AsRock said:


> And WTF are people on about 1/2 done because no PvP on release.



I wish I knew AsRock, I wish I knew...


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 12, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> Your entire post is full of ridicule and hypocrisy. I as well have played EVERY Blizzard game to date and have never once felt cheated. Tell me, when was the last time they released a DLC? That's right, never. Patches? Sure. Expansions? Sure. Both of which have been part of PC gaming for a LONG time. So please, take the time to re-evaluate yourself.



Then you didn't pay much attention to SC2, as it's missing 2/3 of the single player story. A "patch" is technically DLC. FAIL much ?


----------



## Flibolito (Mar 12, 2012)

Just the opposite, I purchased Diablo 2, Warcraft 3 and Starcraft plus all expansions and never once felt I didn't get my moneys worth. In fact they still update and fully support games that are 15 years old, I love them for that. 

PVP is not the main focus of D3 but will be a welcome addition, WOW did not release with battlegrounds but you did world pvp instead. I played on sargeras and Southshore vs. Tauren Mill was the best pvp area ever .

I think they are making these decisions to get the game out relatively "soon". The co-op will be so much fun I'll wait for the polished PvP system.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 12, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I will be one of them, I'm not buy half a game, same reason I didn't buy SC2.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about don't like, I will not accept paying $60 for HALF OF A GAME! It's beyond unacceptable FUCK BLIZZARD!



Wow calm the fuck down. Its only half a game for a month or so. Besides, who the hell is going to be pvping at level 1? Get over yourself. Also, they counted give two shits for a fuck about you not buying their game.


----------



## mrw1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Wow calm the fuck down. Its only half a game for a month or so. Besides, who the hell is going to be pvping at level 1? Get over yourself. Besides, they coudlnt give two shits for a fuck about you not buying their game.



Well put  I just think someone's a little butthurt.



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> A "patch" is technically DLC. FAIL much ?



I love how you change your tune. You don't pay for patches. Ever. DLC? Sure, sometimes it's free. Typically, you have to pay.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 12, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Your free to disagree all you wish, but not to invalidate. I know much of blizzard, as I have played EVERY title they have made, I am not acting in any manner other than an extremely angry customer, who god forbid expects value and a complete game for his money. . .
> 
> I harbor no hatred, just anger, you seem all to eager to accuse others of ignorance, when you yourself spew nothing but. That said you are free to your opinions, but perhaps you should judge yourself more and others less.
> 
> I am angry at blizzard for the unmitigated gawl to peddle half finished games at the price of full games. The price should reflect the content level! People will continue to pirate their games, and I hope it ends them.



Youll end up getting the full game for free in the very near future. What is so hard to comprehend about that? So youll end up paying for the full game anyway.



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> A "patch" is technically DLC. FAIL much ?



Lol. Ok now youre trolling or you really are that ignorant. You dont pay for patches. If you have ever paid for a patch, then you need to find a way to get a refund. So you sir, FAIL hard.


----------



## mrw1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Youll end up getting the full game for free in the very near future. What is so hard to comprehend about that? So youll end up paying for the full game anyway.



Don't waste your time arguing with him, you'll have a better chance yelling at the wall closest to you.


----------



## repman244 (Mar 12, 2012)

Wow it's a real blizzard in here


----------



## Inceptor (Mar 12, 2012)

Diablo is, fundamentally, not a PvP game.  That has always just been an addition (and sometimes hack) to it, not the main point.  Battlenet is basically an add-on to a Diablo game.  The pure game is not about killing other players.  Maybe some of you aren't old enough to know what the Diablo games are about, and the tradition of gaming prior to everything being about multiplayer 'murder'.


----------



## mrw1986 (Mar 12, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> Diablo is, fundamentally, not a PvP game.  That has always just been an addition (and sometimes hack) to it, not the main point.  Battlenet is basically an add-on to a Diablo game.  The pure game is not about killing other players.  Maybe some of you aren't old enough to know what the Diablo games are about, and the tradition of gaming prior to everything being about multiplayer 'murder'.



This. Story and treasure hunting were the best part of the Diablo series.


----------



## Rhyseh (Mar 12, 2012)

Geeze what's all this pointless rage about? So Diablo III is going to be released sooner missing a very small part of the game, so what? It's not like they have axed the feature altogether...

DIII isn't a CoD game and there won't be a DLC for a major feature such as PVP. The patch will be released in due course and we will get to play D3 at the announced release day without a buggy, half-baked PVP system. I really don't see what the problem is....



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> A "patch" is technically DLC. FAIL much ?



This statement is full of so much fail I don't even know where to begin....


----------



## OneCool (Mar 12, 2012)

Blizzard already said dont get your hopes up to much about D3 so..maybe this was one of things they were talking about.


----------



## digibucc (Mar 12, 2012)

i understand now....

the people who expect a game to be released complete, with a full feature set are the assholes - and the apologists who simply say "it's no big deal, at least we GET a diablo 3" are the good guys.

whatever reasoning you put behind it, you are still defending them because they have done something that requires defense. they have decided to release incomplete software in order to meet a release date. does that sound like the blizzard we all love? no. it sounds like activision.

if this were the first bad news in regards to d3, it would be nothing - but it's the latest in a line of  announcements that have left me underwhelmed for the game. i never ever imagined i would be saying that but it's the truth. I put more hours individually into d1 and d2 than any other game or game series. they made me a gamer, but i will be (pleasantly) surprised if d3 brings back that feeling. Activision has taken over


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 12, 2012)

digibucc said:


> i understand now....
> 
> the people who expect a game to be released complete, with a full feature set are the assholes - and the apologists who simply say "it's no big deal, at least we GET a diablo 3" are the good guys.
> 
> whatever reasoning you put behind it, you are still defending them because they have done something that requires defense. they have decided to release incomplete software in order to meet a release date. does that sound like the blizzard we all love? no. it sounds like activision.



Exactly, but prepare to called a hypocrite for having the audasity to use logic and point that out. I have just given up attempting to explain my position, as the saying goes never argue with an idiot they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!


----------



## Inceptor (Mar 12, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> ...never argue with an idiot they will drag you down to their level and beat you with "experience"!



Fixed.  I couldn't have said it better, thank you


----------



## Maelstrom (Mar 12, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I am angry at blizzard for the unmitigated gawl to peddle half finished games at the price of full games. The price should reflect the content level! People will continue to pirate their games, and I hope it ends them.



Who says it won't? Sure, they aren't releasing the pvp aspect at launch, but the single player may well be worth more than $60 in terms of content level. We won't know until reviews start coming out.


----------



## digibucc (Mar 12, 2012)

yeah i don't care so much about the price part , as the rest will be free when it's ready - what i don't like is that it's an action that screams "we want money now" which sounds like activision, not blizzard.


----------



## Shurakai (Mar 12, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> as the saying goes never argue with an idiot they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!



Indeed, you appear to be quite the expert. Blizzard have always been known for their patches, free ones at that, hell I remember D2 before the synergy system was added, changed things dramatically; dark times before that was released.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 12, 2012)

Wait a sec. Let me ask something here..isn't this D3 supposed to be online-only, much like WoW?

Is that how the PvP stuff works? I don't fully understand.

And if that's the case, then delay of PvP servers, well, makes sense to me. Heck, if htere's monthly fees on this, I'm nto gonna buy anyway, so really, that is the critical peice of info I need, and the rest is just idle chatter until that info comes.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 12, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Wait a sec. Let me ask something here..isn't this D3 supposed to be online-only, much like WoW?
> 
> Is that how the PvP stuff works? I don't fully understand.
> 
> And if that's the case, then delay of PvP servers, well, makes sense to me. Heck, if htere's monthly fees on this, I'm nto gonna buy anyway, so really, that is the critical peice of info I need, and the rest is just idle chatter until that info comes.



It is going to be online only just like WoW to help prevent the hackerfest that is known as Diablo 2. 

What i dont understand is how people are flying off the handle about a game that is mainly single-player. As for the monthly fees, Im unsure.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 12, 2012)

yeah, i'm only concerned with the monthly fee side of things. I cannot buy titles that require recurring payment, just personal choice.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 12, 2012)

Rhyseh said:


> Geeze what's all this pointless rage about? So Diablo III is going to be released sooner missing a very small part of the game, so what? It's not like they have axed the feature altogether...
> 
> DIII isn't a CoD game and there won't be a DLC for a major feature such as PVP. The patch will be released in due course and we will get to play D3 at the announced release day without a buggy, half-baked PVP system. I really don't see what the problem is....
> 
> ...



Well makers of COD games prefer to call their DLC's full games which only last a little over the length of a good DLC.



cadaveca said:


> yeah, i'm only concerned with the monthly fee side of things. I cannot buy titles that require recurring payment, just personal choice.



I remeber emailing blizz a good 10 year ago if they were going to start charging for b.net and said they never had a plan to do so..  Sure they been taken over by another company which could mean it could start being monthly fee's.  But can they just start charging you monthly fee's for as game you brought without it ?..

But if they did start i be another not playing multiplayer too as i am against paying $10+ a month for a game.  Anyways not happened and there is no proof that it will ever start happening..  Just make sure you read the user agreement when installing see if it says any thing about screwing ya later.


----------



## Syborfical (Mar 12, 2012)

Sadly this is how PC games go now days.

Starcraft2  was hardly a finished project. Compared to star-craft you have 3 campaigns and multilayer. Star-craft 2 has 1 campaign an multiplier the rest will come out as expansions.

I can see PVP being a DLC of some sort this way it won't directly compete against WOW.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 13, 2012)

If they really did make PvP element into a DLC they would segregate the entire community. Similar to what CoD ELITE has done.

I prefer the PvP aspect of any MMO. PvE might be fun while youre still new to the game. You go out and you do a little exploring & Dungeon crawling when youre experienced enough. Ive done all that. but spending 2hrs lurking around in a dungeon killing bosses and other Ai run enemys just bores me to death or at least to the point where i wont participate in any PvE related guild trips.

PvP however presents more of a challenge for me and I liken it to a game of chess depending on how the game is, whether it be squad/team based, how many squads there are, what winning objectives are, and if you can trust your squad/team to follow commands directions drawn on a mini map. Its all about outplaying other players... Just because you might have the same set of skills as the warrior standing in front of you in a 1v1 doesnt mean that he will win the fight - Its all about how you use your skills maybe he just spams everything as they recharge, all you would have to do is interrupt key skills like self healing or skill that might put you at a disadvantage - ie knock downs.

you gotta play it carefully. but after a while you will develop a 6th sense and detect higher tier players just by the way they or their team/squad moves.

after that you become a hunter, and when you arent steam rolling noobs you are facing off against higher tier players which gives me a bigger sense of achievement then completing the hardest dungeon a game has to offer. after all, no one PvP battle is ever the same as the next and its because human players possess the ability to be pretty erratic and random Unlike Ai which is set to never run beyond its parameters.

So If games are gonna start selling Multiplayer as a DLC, then I just wont buy the game. Im not down with the idea of being charged twice for things or at least not for something that should come as standard with the game.


----------



## Maelstrom (Mar 13, 2012)

I'd only be OK with it if the combined price of the S.P part and M.P part was $50/$60


----------



## Frizz (Mar 13, 2012)

I just don't see it as being a DLC that needs to be paid for as Blizzard has always stuck with expansion packs. I don't care as much for PvP at launch anyway as I'll be busy trying to enjoy co-op with friends and fam. I am actually quite glad that they are releasing the game earlier because of this instead of delaying it until it is up to their standards.

I JUST WANT TO PLAY IT ALREADY!


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Mar 13, 2012)

if i want pvp il play WoW, i signed the Annual Pass in Nov so that by the time my commitment is up, MOP will be right around the corner and i can cancel my sub if i wish.  I want D3 for the co-op games and nothing more.


----------



## fochkoph (Mar 13, 2012)

AlienIsGOD said:


> if i want pvp il play WoW, i signed the Annual Pass in Nov so that by the time my commitment is up, MOP will be right around the corner and i can cancel my sub if i wish.  I want D3 for the co-op games and nothing more.



A f*ing men. I'm so glad I'm part of the crowd that doesn't give a damn about PVP. If I wanted real player on player action I'll fire up Battlefield 3. Wouldn't bother me if PVP wasn't even included, I foresee it boiling down to flavor of the month compositions that succeed in competitive play, a la WoW, and that is not my idea of fun. I want Diablo purely for tearing through dungeons with my friends.


----------



## Easo (Mar 13, 2012)

There will be no DLC, it will be a patch...


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 13, 2012)

Syborfical said:


> Sadly this is how PC games go now days.
> 
> Starcraft2  was hardly a finished project. Compared to star-craft you have 3 campaigns and multilayer. Star-craft 2 has 1 campaign an multiplier the rest will come out as expansions.
> 
> I can see PVP being a DLC of some sort this way it won't directly compete against WOW.


How many times do we have to say the PvP implementation will *NOT* be DLC? God its fucking annoying as hell how in the original article it states this:


> *The PvP component will instead be added to the game as a patch..."*


But because one dumbass (or troll) said DLC, everyone thinks it's a DLC now and you have to pay for it *WHICH IS NOT THE CASE!* Also, there is no way in hell Diablo 3's PvP can directly compete against WoW. There is just no way in hell.



AlienIsGOD said:


> if i want pvp il play WoW, i signed the Annual Pass in Nov so that by the time my commitment is up, MOP will be right around the corner and i can cancel my sub if i wish.  I want D3 for the co-op games and nothing more.


That is basically what Diablo is all about. But one person went on such a bender about the PvP this has gotten completely out of hand.



Easo said:


> There will be no DLC, it will be a patch...



*This x1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000*

PS. Yes, that is a LOT of bold.


----------



## DannibusX (Mar 13, 2012)

You guys aren't looking at the big picture.

This is the first time Blizzard releases an incomplete game.  Until this point, it's always been "It's done when it's done."

You can argue that Starcraft 2 is incomplete, but that's not necessarily true.  Wings of Liberty is a very complete game.  Instead of including all 3 races campaigns in the initial game and expanding on all 3 races with expansions, they work on each race individually.  I'm not bitching, SC2 is awesome.

Blizzard as we knew it before Vivendi merged with Activision is gone.


----------



## v12dock (Mar 13, 2012)

Why do people think the blizzard activision merger will cause blizzard to subdue to the ways of activision? 
Last time I checked blizzard has made billions running things their own way.
 Blizzard will not release DLC, they know better than to charge for patches...


----------



## Zubasa (Mar 13, 2012)

AlienIsGOD said:


> if i want pvp il play WoW, i signed the Annual Pass in Nov so that by the time my commitment is up, MOP will be right around the corner and i can cancel my sub if i wish.  I want D3 for the co-op games and nothing more.


Actually if you want PVP you shouldn't play any blizzard games except the RTS' 
PVP balance is something Blizzard fails at in WoW. 
PVP in WoW is just a tagged on extra feature that is released after launch anyways, and the devs already stated that Diablo is never designed with PVP as a focus.
So I am happy that they don't delay the game further for a mostly useless feature.


----------



## SlayerJC (Mar 13, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> You guys aren't looking at the big picture.
> 
> This is the first time Blizzard releases an incomplete game.  Until this point, it's always been "It's done when it's done."
> 
> ...



But if they delay the game again the fans will go crazy (again). I don't care about pvp, i just want to play co-op with my friends like i did with Diablo II and Titan Quest. For pvp i can play wow/Dota/Lol...


----------



## Mussels (Mar 13, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Then you didn't pay much attention to SC2, as it's missing 2/3 of the single player story. A "patch" is technically DLC. FAIL much ?



it is? so you wanted it delayd another 2-3 years so they can make it a 40-50 hour SP campaign?


hardly, they've done something  called 'make sequels'


----------



## uber_cookie (Mar 13, 2012)

uber_cookie said:


> Smells like PvP DLC



Sorry for this post, obliviously some of you didn't get that this was a joke, as it clearly states PvP will be patch...


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 13, 2012)

Diablo III won't have LAN support either...


----------



## joyman (Mar 13, 2012)

So long Blizzard and thanks for all the fish!


----------



## Ahhzz (Mar 13, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> Bethesda seems to be doing just fine. I'm sure there will be DLC, but Skyrim is pretty damned awesome without it. They also allow modding. Maybe you should rethink PC gaming because you seem to have very little knowledge of it. What one or two companies do does not shape the entire culture of PC gaming.



As much as I'd love to completely agree with you, The Starcraft 2 debacle is more than enough to convince me that Blizz is not in control of their product as much as they used to be. I, too, am a LONG time Blizz fan, from the original Warcraft days, with my White and Blue Blizzard notepad still mostly unused , to my Starcraft T-shirt, and 5 years of active WoW subscription, AFTER 5 months of closed beta. They've shown that while they used to be a stellar Gaming company, SC2 gave us a preview of their new plans for eking more money out of each customer, and D3 just puts icing on icing on icing. While I don't expect that the PVP content will be DLC, it also wouldn't surprise me to see it, and other core mechanics/gameplay/etc as DLC from them.... :shadedshu  I look upon the boxes of Blizz on my shelf, D1 and D2, SC... how much I wanted to enjoy the next evolution of them.... and I refuse to support Blizz with their new outlook on me as a Brood mare. (pun found  ).


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 13, 2012)

In the rhythm Blizzard develop games, it will pass another 20 years for a new Warcraft game...In 10 will have the last Starcraft 2 episode...


----------



## digibucc (Mar 13, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> You guys aren't looking at the big picture.
> 
> This is the first time Blizzard releases an incomplete game.  Until this point, it's always been "It's done when it's done."



thank you! as i've said, i don't care about pvp. i never liked it - but it's a very unblizzard thing to do, and that makes me uneasy about where the company is. it's not the same blizzard that made d1 and d2.



v12dock said:


> Why do people think the blizzard activision merger will cause blizzard to subdue to the ways of activision?



to subdue? or simply to follow? um, because they already have? money ruins everything. what do you think happened with wow and starcraft? they stopped putting effort in for a quality game and instead decided to milk consumers, and they are doing the same with diablo. this is activision's doing.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 13, 2012)

whats wrong with starcraft II? all i see is whining you didnt get a massive gigantic game (three campaigns), instead of how its being done, split into three games.

its just massive crybabying, and seems to have no valid argument. the game has massive SP, epic MP, and is constantly patched and updated with new (free) maps put out all the time.

its quality game and one of the most polished i've ever played.


----------



## digibucc (Mar 13, 2012)

it's got zero depth compared to previous installations. I was bored out of my mind with SC2.

it has nothing to do with splitting the game into campaigns or anything, it's simply not as fun as it should be. more time was put into making it easy for newcomers, making it easy for the artists - and then a crap ton of advertisement to sell it. the depth of the strategy simply isn't there. imo it is not on par with previous Blizzard releases, and is a sign of things to come.

i honestly don't see myself as being a crybaby, but thanks for that clarification.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 13, 2012)

I've enjoyed SC2 and I personally think it was worth it, but let me ask you something. When was the last time Blizzard sold functionality and didn't include it as an update. The closest thing Blizzard has to paid DLC is their expansion sets. They've always maintained and added a reasonable amount of content free of charge (if you exclude WoW's monthly cost.) I have never been upset with any PC blizzard game. Now, I can go on to say things about WoW, but after owning it since Vanilla was released, you just get bored with it and after calculating how much money I've paid into it, I still think I've got my monies worth but I think its time to jump ship on the WoW bandwagon because I've simply become bored with it.

SC2 has a lot of potential, and if you're not happy with half of the maps in it, why don't you make your own. The map editor is extremely power and honestly it allows you to change just about every aspect of the game.


----------



## digibucc (Mar 13, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> if you're not happy with half of the maps in it, why don't you make your own.



i knew that was only a matter of time. when they pay me a salary i will make content for their games.
As i already said, i was already underwhelmed after hearing style and gameplay changes, and this is just another example of blizzard doing something unlike them. that leaves less hope than i would like for the quality of this game.

what i don't get, is why everyone is so angry that a few people feel this way. you make it sound as though we're being unreasonable but YOU are the ones jumping down our throats for expressing an opinion. 
our opinion isn't as valid as yours? good to know, i thought for a moment that this was a conversation.


----------



## Maelstrom (Mar 13, 2012)

digibucc said:


> it's got zero depth compared to previous installations.



I'm curious, could you go into more detail as to why? I've played both SC1 and SC2, and I found SC2 far more enjoyable. I realize not everyone has the same tastes as I do, but like I said, I'm curious.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 13, 2012)

Mussels said:


> whats wrong with starcraft II? all i see is whining you didnt get a massive gigantic game (three campaigns), instead of how its being done, split into three games.
> 
> its just massive crybabying, and seems to have no valid argument. the game has massive SP, epic MP, and is constantly patched and updated with new (free) maps put out all the time.
> 
> its quality game and one of the most polished i've ever played.



Massive SP? hehe! I've finished it in less than 1 week, playing only a couple of hours/day, and I've got so bored compared to the first one. Crappy missions, no depth, game felt so cheap and...empty...


----------



## Mussels (Mar 14, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Massive SP? hehe! I've finished it in less than 1 week, playing only a couple of hours/day, and I've got so bored compared to the first one. Crappy missions, no depth, game felt so cheap and...empty...



so finishing it in less than a week isnt good enough, when most SP games these days are done in 5-6 hours...


now you're just trolling.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 14, 2012)

Not to mention there is only like 45 minutes worth of gameplay in the beta.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Mar 14, 2012)

Zubasa said:


> Actually if you want PVP you shouldn't play any blizzard games except the RTS'
> PVP balance is something Blizzard fails at in WoW.



actually i really enjoy WoW PvP on my arms warrior and feral druid.  I do NOT enjoy the old Warcraft games at all, so plz don't assume that i should


----------



## Ahhzz (Mar 14, 2012)

Mussels said:


> so finishing it in less than a week isnt good enough, when most SP games these days are done in 5-6 hours...
> 
> 
> now you're just trolling.




No, he's not, and No, it's not. Try 200+ hours in Skyrim BEFORE the release of the CS. THAT is good enough. And it's still going. Try 100+ in Freelancer, almost 10 years ago. THAT is good enough. Starcraft 2 is a disappointment in comparison to the first one, and I expected better from Blizz, especially as a sequel.

Diablo 3 would probably be a fun game to play. But with real money AH, and no LAN play, it's not getting my cash. It, too, is a disappointment, not because of the game play, which I expect will be excellent, but because of the business choices of Blizz. Whomever is to blame for those decisions, Activision, EA, US Congress, whatever, those decisions will cost them my money, and my fiance's. I can't speak for any others, but it's a disappointment.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 14, 2012)

Ahhzz said:


> No, he's not, and No, it's not. Try 200+ hours in Skyrim BEFORE the release of the CS. THAT is good enough. And it's still going. Try 100+ in Freelancer, almost 10 years ago. THAT is good enough. Starcraft 2 is a disappointment in comparison to the first one, and I expected better from Blizz, especially as a sequel.
> 
> Diablo 3 would probably be a fun game to play. But with real money AH, and no LAN play, it's not getting my cash. It, too, is a disappointment, not because of the game play, which I expect will be excellent, but because of the business choices of Blizz. Whomever is to blame for those decisions, Activision, EA, US Congress, whatever, those decisions will cost them my money, and my fiance's. I can't speak for any others, but it's a disappointment.



its a multiplayer game, not a single player. try counting those hours.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 14, 2012)

Ahhzz said:


> No, he's not, and No, it's not. Try 200  hours in Skyrim BEFORE the release of the CS. THAT is good enough. And it's still going. Try 100  in Freelancer, almost 10 years ago. THAT is good enough. Starcraft 2 is a disappointment in comparison to the first one, and I expected better from Blizz, especially as a sequel.



...and what of custom maps? It's a little easier to make a fully-fledge mod in SC2 than it is in Skyrim. You can't say that SC2 is crap because of Single Player because Blizzard invested a lot of time in multiplayer and the ability to create rich and powerful custom levels. Now regardless of the quality of custom levels, there is a lot you can do with SC2 as an engine which is what makes it a good game in my honest opinion.


----------



## Ahhzz (Mar 14, 2012)

Mussels said:


> its a multiplayer game, not a single player. try counting those hours.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer_(video_game)

_Freelancer features a multiplayer mode, allowing up to 128 players to play together in a game.[9] Multiplayer games are hosted on game servers; personal computers that meet the requirements for the game can act as a server. Gameplay is similar to the single-player mode, but is absent of story-driven quests. Because the server keeps individual records of the players' progress, they can resume their game when they next log on to it. A persistent virtual galaxy is thus maintained for them.[10]_

Fine. Multiplayer from a game 10 years old. 100+ hours in SP. THAT is the quality that many gamers came to expect from Blizzard. Even Warcraft 3 had dozens of singleplayer gaming hours.

What it comes down to, is that Blizzard disappointed many with their staggered release of a game to make more money, and the perceived sell-out to a mentality of not just "money before the customer", but "money at any cost". Blizzard is making money (they ARE a company, after all), and they mostly make good games. And, for most people, they won't care about the quality, because there's such a gluttony of games out there to occupy, who cares, really? But for some, the loss of faith in Blizzard is a sad realization.


----------



## digibucc (Mar 14, 2012)

Maelstrom said:


> I'm curious, could you go into more detail as to why?


instead of intricate tit for tat, it become who got the best map spot and spammed the construction queue. there's no strategy in that, and it was very boring for me.


----------



## Frick (Mar 14, 2012)

Ahhzz said:


> Fine. Multiplayer from a game 10 years old. 100+ hours in SP. THAT is the quality that many gamers came to expect from Blizzard. Even Warcraft 3 had dozens of singleplayer gaming hours.



You can't really compare Skyrim and Freelancer to Diablo. And I have probably spent about 100 hours or more in D2, so I don't see what you're getting at there. Also, SC2 will be three games (yes you pay full retail price for each one whatevs). AND it was pretty clear all the time that they would focus a lot more on multiplayer than anything else. In SC2 the campaign is more like a bonus than the basis.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 14, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> You guys aren't looking at the big picture.
> 
> This is the first time Blizzard releases an incomplete game.  Until this point, it's always been "It's done when it's done."
> 
> ...



Another sad memory that there never be a game like FEAR 1 and no hope of being a FEAR 4 which is like FEAR 1 lol.


----------



## Maelstrom (Mar 14, 2012)

Ahhzz said:


> Starcraft 2 is a disappointment in comparison to the first one



Single player campaign wise, I disagree. I found SC2's to be far more enjoyable, in that immediately after I beat it the first time I started a new game. I've gone back multiple times to try to beat SC1 and Broodwar's campaign again, and I get bored after the terran part in the first game.

Can't comment on multiplayer though.


----------



## Ahhzz (Mar 14, 2012)

AsRock said:


> Another sad memory that there never be a game like FEAR 1 and no hope of being a FEAR 4 which is like FEAR 1 lol.



*sigh* I agree here... FEAR 1 and 2 made my fiance scream, and made me jump a coulpe of times. 3 was pitiful.


----------



## Ahhzz (Mar 14, 2012)

Maelstrom said:


> Single player campaign wise, I disagree. I found SC2's to be far more enjoyable, in that immediately after I beat it the first time I started a new game. I've gone back multiple times to try to beat SC1 and Broodwar's campaign again, and I get bored after the terran part in the first game.
> 
> Can't comment on multiplayer though.



Fair enough, personal preference is the whole reason we have anything resembling an intelligent discussion on here  . Some people won't care about the $AH in D3, or the lack of LAN play. For my fiance, she was ok with no LAN play, as long as we could find each other online, and limit who else played with us. Once she heard about the $AH tho, she was done.


----------



## Wheat (Mar 14, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> @CrAsHnBuRnXp
> I completely agree with you. I love how people put on their tin foil hats and get all pissed off about something that was never even said. I hate nothing more than when people assume stuff like that.
> 
> @[H]@RD5TUFF
> Honestly, I take all of the stuff you are saying with a grain of salt. Anyone with that much hate towards something should be disregarded. You are acting like they took your first born and burned down your house. Clearly you know nothing of Blizzard.



Well you're missing out SC2 came with a more flexible map editor than Warcraft III. Buying SC2 gives you access to so many creative and community driven games types that you didn't just get one game you got a game builder and access to all that content as well. It's was money well spent from my perspective.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 14, 2012)

Wheat said:


> Well you're missing out SC2 came with a more flexible map editor than Warcraft III. Buying SC2 gives you access to so many creative and community driven games types that you didn't just get one game you got a game builder and access to all that content as well. It's was money well spent from my perspective.



single player missions, challenge missions, all the SP, coop and MP maps patched into the game for free...


i wonder if theres a way to show how many hours i've gotten out of it so far


----------



## Zubasa (Mar 15, 2012)

AlienIsGOD said:


> actually i really enjoy WoW PvP on my arms warrior and feral druid.  I do NOT enjoy the old Warcraft games at all, so plz don't assume that i should


You do not enjoy a good PVP game is your choice, but that does not make WoW PVP any good.
Raping noobs in my full glad gear was fun for a while, but it gets old fast 
On top of that class and spec balance is pretty bad for WoW, and for someone who like variety in PVP, WoW and MMOs in general is pretty much shit in that area.


----------

