DiabloFans

Actually if you look at the official thread again, it has calmed down after a bioware representative gave an explanation. Securom was used to check if the release date had passed, thus unlocking the game, and being automatically deleted afterwards. This is also a completely different product from the so feared securom-DRM.

As we Dutch say... Just a storm in a glass of water

I don't think a monthly fee would be right for Diablo 3. However that doesn't mean Blizzard has to go without additional income besides the game purchase price. I'm thinking micro transactions (a special dye, a non combat pet, character name change, etc). This should bring in more than enough money to give proper maintenance, without affecting those that do not wish to spend a penny beyond the game box.

Hmmm, who's to say Diablo 3 won't offer the same kind of thing that SC 2 does? They don't offer the tools to do so, but I could imagine having a Diablo 3 battlenet section where you can play mod games. o.o

Also I'm not one of those people that believe that mods are only used for hacks or bots but I have other reasons as to why I wouldn't like to see mods in Diablo 3!

Don't take this the wrong way mate =P but if you just state "I have my reasons but can't be arsed to name them" you're kinda killing the discussion. ;o Name em ya lazy bastard!

On another note I'm no fan of modding either. I have played world of warcraft since its open beta, untill about a year ago. Since the beginning of that game, several mods were invented that I believe had a negative impact on the game, for instance; damage meters, gearscore and quest helper. Damage meters and gearscore forced everyone to conform to the standards. There were ultimate builds, and if you didn't use those, you sucked. Period.

I do however fully support the effords of the Diablo 2 mod makers. These enrich a game and give rise to a new generation of game developers, while not interfeering with the gameplay of the masses, since it was only usable in a private setting.

I shall not acknowledge any list of recommended animes that does not feature death note :sleep:

Well perhaps I should tell a little bit more about Milgrams experiment. I'm a psychologist and have had more than my fair share of education on the subject.

First of is the background of the experiment. Milgram came up with this not long after world war 2. At the time, people were still trying to grasp what would compel the nazi's to commit all those awfull crimes. The argument that kept coming up was "Befehl ist befehl" or in English, "An order's an order". In this light Milgram conducted his experiment.

So he came up with the experiment. He hired people, supposedly to help him conduct an experiment on another person, concerning conditioned learning. He would then be instructed to give increasingly high voltage shocks to this person, for every wrong answer. The voltage dial actually indicated that a shock above a certain level could proof fatal. After a few shocks, the supposed subject would start wimpering about the pain. After a few more, he would claim to feel chest pains.
It should be noted that no real shocks were administered, and the supposed subject was an actor. Also both the behaviour of the actor and test conductor (man in white coat telling you to continue) was completely standardized. If the real subject says he wants to quit, they give response 1, if they say it again, response 2, again, response 3, and after a 4th objection they were allowed to stop.

In the end over 80% of all subjects administered the leathel shock. Also, of the 20% that did not go this far, none went to help the supposed subject, before recieving permission to do so by the test leader.

What most people do not know is that Milgram did not in any way anticipate the result of this study. He, and many of his colleagues, predicted that any person with normal empathic capacity would stop soon after the proposed test subject (that isn't real) would say he wanted to stop.

There are some very firm ethical issues against this experiment. At the time, there were no pesky ethics commitees, but these days we're not allowed to make people think they killed someone... Bugger. This experiment has been revisited a few years ago though, with 'lesser voltages' and it yielded the same result. More interestingly perhaps, is a documentary recently made about this experiment. They told people they were on a gameshow, and they had to shock their fellow players, etc. It is quite a shocking film to see.

Quote from maka

It's the principle of the thing. You not wanting other people to have the things they want just so you can feel special is the wrong way of looking at things, in my opinion.

But enough off topic.

It's right on topic though... =)
Things aren't as black and white as you seem to think. I would never ever say I don't want others to have the same things as me... I'd just like them having to put in the same efford as I did ^^

Tehe, and I'm a psychologist =P but I don't see that having any bearing on this discussion. ~_~

Do you guys consider yourself insanely rich? No? o.O Then go tell that to a starving orphan in Africa.
Is it unnatural to not consider yourself insanely rich then? No it's not... it's simply a limitation in human thinking. We always, at all times compare ourselves to the people around us.

And please don't tell me an evolutionary geneticist claims the males of any species don't compete with eachother over females, it makes me a sad panda.

All in all I'd appreciate it if we'd keep the swearing down. It is after all a discussion, and all I'm doing is showing and argumenting my view.

To drag it back to the gems, if you argue your personal wealth is in no way related to other's wealth, why does it matter you may not get the final ranked gem? ;o

Also I'd prefer blizzard to make a game that plays into what people like, instead of what people should like ^^

It's not a way of thinking... it's part of evolution theory o.o
People just have a natural tendency to compete with eachother. Having possessions is just another front to compete on. If you can distinguish yourself from the crowd in a positive way, you have more chances to reproduce. Now ofcourse this doesn't really work out in video games xD, but it's most definitely the case in real life.

So in real life it's our instinct to compete on these fronts... What's so wrong with doing that ingame too? o.o You may say you don't like this "way of thinking" but really... it's only natural, and nothing "evil" about it.

It's sad that you can only validate your existence if you're 'better' than someone else at some thing or another.

Who said anything about validating existence? o.o If you rely on a video game for that you're doing something wrong.

It is however quite a simple fact that people view their own possessions relative to the possessions of others. Awesome to have a swimming pool in your backyard, less awesome if your neighbour has it too. It's what you call positional goods. You wanting my stuff makes me like my stuff. ;3

I'm actually quite thrilled about the number of gems required for a lvl 14 gem. They have already stated your stash is going to be huge, so that won't be a problem. Even if it was, you could create a bank character.

What excites me about this is that it is a long term goal at which you can recognize a long time player. Nothing annoys me more than having spent years on a game, only to be on the same level as someone who started a month ago. It's something of a "wooow" factor when you see someone with a (or eventually even full) level 14 gems.

That said I just don't understand the way some people feel they should be able to obtain everything the game could possibly offer. What's the fun if everyone gets everything?

I believe any craft becomes art once it reaches a certain level.

The real irony here is that this is currently the most informative and entertaining topic on any diablo fansite o.o

Governments have monopoly on violence.

Lies =P There was violence long before any form of government was formed. Governments just organise said violence =P
As to keeping governments on a tight leash, that I agree with, but that doesn't mean governments can't have a lot of responsibilities, it just means everything must be made transparent. Ironically nobody says governments should have less power when they're calling the police, firebrigade, ambulances, or even send their kids to school. =) There is a reason we put up with its downsides, which is why I've always thought the libertarian view is a bit naive.

On another note though, Don

Everything tends to accumulate. This is only a half-serious analogy, but everything in the universe clumps up unevenly. Sub-atomic particles clump up to create atoms. Atoms clump up to create molecules. Molecules clump up to create bigger structures of matter. Those bigger structures clump up until you have asteroids, planets, suns, galaxies, and the entire universe.

All this analogy was there to say that growth in general is exponential. And anyone familiar with how exponents work will know how the most minute differences create huge gaps.

I am a fan of analogies, but this one doesn't quite make sense. Growth is by no means always exponential :3 (I see a whole different discussion coming xD)
Back on topic!

My major gripe with Capitalism is that it encourages a bull market, market speculation (remember home derivative trading?), and a profit based economy, whereas I believe that an economy should be based on efficiency and sustainability.

This sounds really nice and logical, but it wouldn't actually make a difference. Poverty will always exist, no matter what you do. Why? Because the more resources we get, the bigger we allow our world population to get. Say we solve world hunger today by doubling the amount of food available in the world. More food makes for a healthier population, and healthy populations reproduce faster than deprived populations. This will inevitably keep up untill the population is deprived once again, stabilizing the growth rate. Difference is, there would be more people, but relative to the entire world population, there would be the same amount of hunger.

Quote from SFJake

I know little about this, it just confuses me more than anything, but I just wanted to say: Where I live, middle class pays the most, something like 45% of our pay. Knowing that, I frankly would not give a **** if the rich would pay 70%. A good system is one that puts everybody on a fair level. No one should ever be considered "higher" than another, and none should ever seek to be higher than others. This is an ever-flawed way of thinking to me.

You can just not mind my post, I'm not really here to take part in this debate, I can't hold my own when it comes to economic discussions.

Yet any comment deserves a reply

You described communism =P And it's been proven to not work. =) No offense