Diablo III Options

[almost normal]

Actually, it is, I apologize. I left a detail out completely unintentionally. They're stopping all new accounts at the skeleton king and/or level 13, for three days from the time of game purchase.

So. Buy the game. 5 seconds later, they take the money out of your account. 72 hours later, (or 259,200 seconds to keep in the same unit) they allow you to play the game.

Please. Put a positive spin on how this is a benefit to the consumer, yahoo.

[CanRay]

It's a benefit to me because now I don't want to buy the game at all. So there's some money that could go to other things.

[almost normal]

Speaking of which, the kickstarter for those tron cards you linked goes off today.

[CanRay]

Speaking of which, the kickstarter for those tron cards you linked goes off today.

Just looked at my account. It's angry at me. And crying. And begging me to get therapy.

I promised that I'd never do such things to it again, then pimp slapped it and told it to make me a sandwich and get me a beer.

[almost normal]

How much did you end up dropping on it?

[StealthSigma]

Actually, it is, I apologize. I left a detail out completely unintentionally. They're stopping all new accounts at the skeleton king and/or level 13, for three days from the time of game purchase.

So. Buy the game. 5 seconds later, they take the money out of your account. 72 hours later, (or 259,200 seconds to keep in the same unit) they allow you to play the game.

Please. Put a positive spin on how this is a benefit to the consumer, yahoo.

It would help if you, you know, presented the facts rather than spinning FUD. What you're describing is not an intended let alone permanent feature. It is a bug introduced by the 1.0.3 patch which causes digital downloads to have the level cap and progression limitation and Blizzard is working to fix it so they do not.

Or we can look at the reasoning why Blizzard is putting a 72 hour limitation on the digital download version that makes it behave (in some manner) like the starter edition. To make sure credit card information is valid rather than fraudulent. This was a huge problem in WoW where people would buy digital download keys for WoW using fraudulent CC numbers. Those players would use these accounts to perform some activity, perhaps help launder ill acquired gold before the CC transaction came back void and the account had a block on it for lack of payment. One of the things done was to sell the account, or the online keys to other players in return for gold. Leaving the buyer with a bad account and them with the gold. By putting the same interaction limitations on the digital download version as the starter edition, it makes it impossible for gold sellers and other undesirables to flip these accounts to aid in their nefarious purposes. 72 hours is the period of time that CC info takes to be validated. If it hasn't been validated in 72 hours, it's probably a fraudulent account. The reality is the 72 hours will significantly shorter when done with a good and valid credit card and once the purchase has been validated you get access to the game.

Or to put it another way. You haven't actually bought the game until the credit card transaction clears.

[CanRay]

How much did you end up dropping on it?

Considering GenCon in a few months... Too much.

[almost normal]

It would help if you, you know, presented the facts rather than spinning FUD. What you're describing is not an intended let alone permanent feature. It is a bug introduced by the 1.0.3 patch which causes digital downloads to have the level cap and progression limitation and Blizzard is working to fix it so they do not.

Or we can look at the reasoning why Blizzard is putting a 72 hour limitation on the digital download version that makes it behave (in some manner) like the starter edition. To make sure credit card information is valid rather than fraudulent. This was a huge problem in WoW where people would buy digital download keys for WoW using fraudulent CC numbers. Those players would use these accounts to perform some activity, perhaps help launder ill acquired gold before the CC transaction came back void and the account had a block on it for lack of payment. One of the things done was to sell the account, or the online keys to other players in return for gold. Leaving the buyer with a bad account and them with the gold. By putting the same interaction limitations on the digital download version as the starter edition, it makes it impossible for gold sellers and other undesirables to flip these accounts to aid in their nefarious purposes. 72 hours is the period of time that CC info takes to be validated. If it hasn't been validated in 72 hours, it's probably a fraudulent account. The reality is the 72 hours will significantly shorter when done with a good and valid credit card and once the purchase has been validated you get access to the game.

Or to put it another way. You haven't actually bought the game until the credit card transaction clears.

So on one hand, I'm spinning 'FUD', on another it's a bug that blizzard is fixing, and yet another, there's a good reason for it and we should be thankful, and yet ANOTHER, it's because you haven't actually bought the game until the 'transaction clears', which to me implies you've never actually handled credit card transactions from the business end, nor have you had any experience with other online retailers, like Steam, Origin, or that wierd one from the guys who made GalCiv and Sins of a Solar Empire.

Jesus dude, what do you need me for? You're collapsing your own argument before I say a word.

[StealthSigma]

So on one hand, I'm spinning 'FUD', on another it's a bug that blizzard is fixing, and yet another, there's a good reason for it and we should be thankful, and yet ANOTHER, it's because you haven't actually bought the game until the 'transaction clears', which to me implies you've never actually handled credit card transactions from the business end, nor have you had any experience with other online retailers, like Steam, Origin, or that wierd one from the guys who made GalCiv and Sins of a Solar Empire.

Jesus dude, what do you need me for? You're collapsing your own argument before I say a word.

Yes FUD. Because you're failed to mention that it was a bug that only affected digital download versions and did not afflict retail versions.

It appears you are the one lacking knowledge of credit cards and are basing your experience off of what appears to the end user rather than what is happening behind the scenes.

When a credit card is processed the business places a hold for funds on the credit card holder's limit. This hold reduces the card bearer's credit limit by the value of the hold, however no credit has been issued in the holder's name. That hold stays on your credit card until the business submits their transactions and the money has been transferred to the merchant. Once the company submits their batch of transactions (for many companies this is done at the end of the day though someone of Blizzard's size and scope probably runs multiple batches throughout the day) it can take up to 3 days for the funds to be sent to the merchant's account assuming the processor or bank doesn't have any issue. For example, I've had my CC frozen a couple of times by the bank because I made transactions with international companies. Only then is the transaction considered complete and only then have you officially purchased the products. Guess who's left hanging on the line of the transaction can't clear? The merchant. The merchant has to go about recovering what is still their property. Now, for digital distributors like Blizzard or Steam or Origin or Stardock it's fairly easy. Since it is digital content and access is account driven they simply remove the content in question from your account since payment was not received. For merchants with physical goods its a bit hard and usually requires legal action to get payment or the property back if the buyer doesn't want to play nice.

It's a bit childish to suggest that a merchant who has not been paid for a product to have actually sold it nor would any court likely permit you to keep something that was never paid for.

[almost normal]

In the words of Marco Ramius; 'Your assumptions [are] all wrong.'

I've run the front end of a retail store for 8 years, the back end for 5. I'm currently running the back end of 4 internet stores. Companies pay a credit processing service to validate the funds on a card. After funds are validated and the charge goes through, the service acts as an insurance, in case the cardholder pulls something screwy, it's the processing service that foots the bill, not the retailer. Credit cards aren't like bouncing checks man.

Defending this particular argument still doesn't get you off the hook for the shotgun approach of 4 different excuses for Blizzard.

[StealthSigma]

In the words of Marco Ramius; 'Your assumptions [are] all wrong.'

I've run the front end of a retail store for 8 years, the back end for 5. I'm currently running the back end of 4 internet stores. Companies pay a credit processing service to validate the funds on a card. After funds are validated and the charge goes through, the service acts as an insurance, in case the cardholder pulls something screwy, it's the processing service that foots the bill, not the retailer. Credit cards aren't like bouncing checks man.

Defending this particular argument still doesn't get you off the hook for the shotgun approach of 4 different excuses for Blizzard.

Whether your method is correct or mine it really doesn't matter one way or another to how Blizzard can act to it. The end results are all the same. Regardless of if the merchant or the processor is on the hook the matter is simply resolved by revoking the "purchased" good. Blizzard hasn't been paid and since they haven't been paid, they're not under any compulsion to continue providing the full product. Likewise, since it was the processor who is holding the bag for the funds, until you have paid them it is technically not your property it is theirs. And if you failed to pay them for it, they would repossess it had it been a physical good. Instead they would get to repossess some other quantity of material from your that's worth $50-60 if you failed to pay up. The fraudsters got by on the fact that they could get the digital good and use it until the fraud was detected and Blizzard banned the account.

Now, I shall reiterate.

You are spinning FUD because you failed to point out that this is only affecting digital download copies and not retail copies. You're also spinning FUD by neglecting to point out that it is a bug that that is causing the level and progress restrictions on digital download copies. Since it is a bug and Blizzard has admitted that it is a bug and Blizzard has stated that they are working on fixing it there is no reason to believe that this is malicious or that it is something that will continue for any appreciable length of time.

The change that they've made requiring the payment to clear whatever checkpoint they've set before fully enabling interactive features has very good reasons for doing so which, not the least of which, significantly raise the cost and overhead of undesirable activity, as well as making it so that such undesirable activity is less encountered by players thus increasing their quality of life. I, for one, am quite glad I've stopped receiving spam in the form of friend invites since 1.0.3 went live.

[Yerameyahu]

almost normal, you'll notice I specifically said I didn't care. It's not my job to spin in any direction. I just noted that your summary was selective. Your clarification was more so: the verification process is *up to* 72 hours, not 'equal to'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Again, I don't care either way.

That's interesting, I hadn't even heard it was a bug. Makes more sense, then.

[almost normal]

The bug is that it's hitting customers who paid at retail.

I'm really not sure of the point of telling me you don't care, then posting about your care for the game. I might as well post to tell you I'm not going to respond.

[Yerameyahu]

You were confused before, and you're having trouble keeping things straight now. That's okay, I'll help you. I don't care about account verification, bug or not, and I don't care about praising or supporting Blizzard, nor about their financial success. I do care about the patches, because I'm playing the game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The only reason I mentioned it was to (fruitlessly) try and help you not make the silly argument that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'Blizzard fanboy'. You should know just from experience that people disagree with you because you're you, so you post things to disagree with. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Wounded Ronin]

Jesus, just reading this thread has convinced me to not buy any new release games ever again. It sounds like a godamned nightmare.

[Yerameyahu]

The future is pretty bleak on all consumer fronts: cell phones, laptops, game consoles, cars, music and video, everything. Big companies have no incentive to do anything good for the consumer, and the voters have become convinced that the government shouldn't protect consumers either.

[CanRay]

Jesus, just reading this thread has convinced me to not buy any new release games ever again. It sounds like a godamned nightmare.

There's a good reason that Kickstarter-Based Games are pulling in the money they have been.

And not just because people wanted more stuff from Tim Schafer, or Wasteland 2 at long last, either!

The future is pretty bleak on all consumer fronts: cell phones, laptops, game consoles, cars, music and video, everything. Big companies have no incentive to do anything good for the consumer, and the voters have become convinced that the government shouldn't protect consumers either.

Let's um, try to keep this from getting political, please.

[Grinder]

The future is pretty bleak on all consumer fronts: cell phones, laptops, game consoles, cars, music and video, everything. Big companies have no incentive to do anything good for the consumer, and the voters have become convinced that the government shouldn't protect consumers either.

And not just because people wanted more stuff from Tim Schafer, or Wasteland 2 at long last, either!Let's um, try to keep this from getting political, please.

Better do:

4. Discussion of politics, religion, and sex are prohibited, except as they directly pertain to Shadowrun or another game. Discussions on these subjects will be watched closely, and any innapropriate posts may result in warnings or suspensions.

[Yerameyahu]

Sorry, I thought it pertained directly to another game. It's not like those are politics, but instead simple facts.

[CanRay]

Sorry, I thought it pertained directly to another game. It's not like those are politics, but instead simple facts.

It's close enough.

Anyhow, the system is not a good one for Single Player. I'll stick with games that let me play my Single Player Mode offline, thank-you-very-much. Especially if there's going to be server issues.

And no guarantee that the server will always be there. I mean, what happens if I pull out the disk, say, ten years from now and want to play again?

"Server Not Found?"

[Yerameyahu]

Yes, that's exactly what will happen. There will be new games, of course, but there *is* a tiny fraction of people who do rarely play old games. I usually give up after trying to get Master of Magic to run properly, and it's 100% offline with no DRM. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) So it's a real concern, but also a small concern.

It's true the server death has indeed been happening faster with cruddier games. Because of that, for example, Mercenaries 2 just crashes your PS3 if you try to load it up without disconnecting the internet access first, a very impressive failure for them because it *does* theoretically work offline. And there are other examples. This is obviously bad. *shrug* But… there's basically nothing we can say about this state of affairs without venturing too close to politics.

Well, we *can* say (repeat, really) that this real-but-small concern is too small for anyone to care about. They make tons of money off the vast majority of people who *do* have stable broadband and who *won't* be playing this game after a couple years. There's no point worrying about the 'cranky' minority. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[phlapjack77]

The future is pretty bleak on all consumer fronts: cell phones, laptops, game consoles, cars, music and video, everything. Big companies have no incentive to do anything good for the consumer, and the voters have become convinced that the government shouldn't protect consumers either.

I would say this is in large part to consumers knowingly buying products that have restrictive technology on them...taking the attitude that "I don't care, I just want to play/use/have X". Then when others voice concern about said restrictive technology, the response is just a shrug and a "that's how it is, deal with it".

[Yerameyahu]

What choice is there? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) That's how people are. Besides, as I said, it's not (relevantly) restrictive for the majority of them, so not much business would be lost anyway.

[CanRay]

I would say this is in large part to consumers knowingly buying products that have restrictive technology on them...taking the attitude that "I don't care, I just want to play/use/have X". Then when others voice concern about said restrictive technology, the response is just a shrug and a "that's how it is, deal with it".

Damned sheeple.

What choice is there? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) That's how people are. Besides, as I said, it's not (relevantly) restrictive for the majority of them, so not much business would be lost anyway.

There's choices, but they get into politics, so I won't comment on them.

[phlapjack77]

Damned sheeple.There's choices, but they get into politics, so I won't comment on them.

I don't mean to sound like a neckbeard (?) and start ranting about "sheeple"...maybe it's just the logical progression that as tech gets more and more advanced, people are able to have less and less of an understanding of it (or less time to understand and care about it), so nuanced stuff like DRM doesn't seem worth most people's time...