[rhulad]

[Obdigore]

@Luci -> So, I played the Witch Doctor in the beta, and was confused as to how you thought it was super easy. I have now completed the first act and... were you playing as a Monk? Because if they did up the difficulty that Act was still pretty cake as a monk. It was me and a Demon Hunter and we flew through everything. EVERYTHING.

Also, those who have D3, we should schedule a time this weekend to get a party or two together to go mow down some blue groups.

I'm free... pretty much all weekend. Post if you are interested and your 'free' times including Timezone. I'm thinking enough are playing that we should be able to get a US-timed group and an Europe-timed group.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 16 May 2012 - 04:19 AM

[Gothos]

Imma be playing all weekend but probably with WoW guildies. Gotta push, they're an act ahead of me by now.

In any case, loving the hell out of the game right now. Nearing the end of Act II, and I must say that with elite/rare groups, and in some instances even for the "normal" monsters, I have to play smart to get my way with them. But I've found a wonderful combination: Bola Shot with +radius, Impale with DoT (Chemical Burn), Caltrops with +slow (80% snare) and Vault (with shooting when vaulting) really shine when used together. I do have multishot and fan of knives now, but I think imma swap fan of knives back for evasive fire. I can dance around groups and make them go boom, and it is glorious.
(And still, standing in shit for more than 1 second can kill you. Getting hit by ranged attacks will kill you. Letting that big guy smash you into the ground will kill you)

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Gothos, on 16 May 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

Imma be playing all weekend but probably with WoW guildies. Gotta push, they're an act ahead of me by now.

In any case, loving the hell out of the game right now. Nearing the end of Act II, and I must say that with elite/rare groups, and in some instances even for the "normal" monsters, I have to play smart to get my way with them.

That sounds good

And yeah Obdi, I played through as Monk. I was assured the monk wasn't overpowered. Played a tiny bit as the sorceress and I had to play a little smarter, but not much.

Just incase any of you have not heard about it, make sure you don't give a shield to your templar to equip if you are a Demon Hunter. There is apparently a bug that will crash you back to login screen and stop you from being able to login agian.

[Obdigore]

Lucifer, on 16 May 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Gothos, on 16 May 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

Imma be playing all weekend but probably with WoW guildies. Gotta push, they're an act ahead of me by now.

In any case, loving the hell out of the game right now. Nearing the end of Act II, and I must say that with elite/rare groups, and in some instances even for the "normal" monsters, I have to play smart to get my way with them.

That sounds good

And yeah Obdi, I played through as Monk. I was assured the monk wasn't overpowered. Played a tiny bit as the sorceress and I had to play a little smarter, but not much.

Just incase any of you have not heard about it, make sure you don't give a shield to your templar to equip if you are a Demon Hunter. There is apparently a bug that will crash you back to login screen and stop you from being able to login agian.

I dunno who assured you the monk isn't OP. I find the game quite easy as a monk compared to the 'easy' beta playing as the witch doctor.

[Gothos]

a heal that is also aoe damage? please.

[Obdigore]

Gothos, on 16 May 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

a heal that is also aoe damage? please.

Aye, it heals me to full, heals any friendlies close to me, and can be glyphed to do the an equal amount of damage to everything around me. Meanwhile I slow/stun, have a jump in/jump out as needed, and a knockback that adds a flaming dot to them while they are slowed so they can't catch me.

Of course I'm hitting so hard everything dies almost instantly, but I mean, I'm SURE monks aren't op

Not to mention my headgear adds health for each energy I use AND I have two vampiric weapons, one adds 2% of damage done and 2 health per hit to my health, the other one does 1.5% of damage done AND adds 6 to my health every time something dies.

There has been only one Boss so far (Finished Act 1) that didn't have adds for me to regenerate all my health/energy on, and that was the Butcher, and he was cake once I figured out what it looked like before the floor fire came up.

No, I did not die in Act 1. I used 1 health potion, and that was on the Butcher, because it took me three times to 'catch' the pre-fire look of the grates. I don't think the butcher himself ever hit me.

Edit: Honestly, figuring out how to ID things was harder than any of the battles, because I wasn't reading the tooltips and was looking for ID scrolls. also
SPOILERS FOR ACT 1!

Spoiler

I figured the Fallen guy was Tyreal, but I never expected Cain to die.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 16 May 2012 - 09:23 AM

[QuickTidal]

I WOULD have played this game if it weren't for THIS.

So because of that, I will never give Blizzard a penny.

[Lusipher]

I'll be available Saturday from about 1-2am til 6am and 1-2am til 8-9am, US eastern time. My tag is Lusipher1153. I'm also availabe weekdays from about 1am-3am and again from 2:30pm-4pm

This post has been edited by Lusipher: 16 May 2012 - 02:03 PM

[rhulad]

Only got to play for about an hour last night, so I haven't seen any new content yet since I was in the Beta. Probably wont get to until next week

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 16 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I WOULD have played this game if it weren't for THIS.

So because of that, I will never give Blizzard a penny.

That is a bad article and the guy who wrote it should feel bad. That was not journalism. That was an angry blogger who is pissy because he had to wait to play his game.

It's not like Blizzard pulled the wool over peoples eyes. The guy who wrote this should know damn well to expect a bottleneck on the opening day. And I would hardly call the start off a "clusterfuck of epic proportions". Rather "A massive success of epic proportions". Blizzard set up enough servers that it should have been able to handle a bazillion users and they still got swamped. Meaning they had more customers than planned. Meaning they are swimming in cash.

Are the glitches and bugs bad? Yes indeed. Is it as bad Skyrim? Not even close. Cry me a river.

That's not to say I am happy with this always online bullshit but this article does not have a shred of objectivity.

[QuickTidal]

Aptorius, on 16 May 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I WOULD have played this game if it weren't for THIS.

So because of that, I will never give Blizzard a penny.

That is a bad article and the guy who wrote it should feel bad. That was not journalism. That was an angry blogger who is pissy because he had to wait to play his game.

It's not like Blizzard pulled the wool over peoples eyes. The guy who wrote this should know damn well to expect a bottleneck on the opening day. And I would hardly call the start off a "clusterfuck of epic proportions". Rather "A massive success of epic proportions". Blizzard set up enough servers that it should have been able to handle a bazillion users and they still got swamped. Meaning they had more customers than planned. Meaning they are swimming in cash.

Are the glitches and bugs bad? Yes indeed. Is it as bad Skyrim? Not even close. Cry me a river.

That's not to say I am happy with this always online bullshit but this article does not have a shred of objectivity.

I never claimed it was journalism, and the guy makes GOOD solid points though....that you are such a hardcore gamer you wish to ignore these points because of the enjoyment of playing makes them no less omnipresent. The article doesn't set out to be objective though Apt, it's right there in the damned title. It basically says, "I am going to bitch about things, be warned"

My issue is the online thing. If you force me to be online to play your game...then your game can go fuck itself in the ear and so can your game company. You DO NOT make a single player mode be online only...you simply don't. How many people caused server crashes, or errors for others who ONLY wanted to play single player offline? I bet you thousands and thousands. Not everyone wants to play online, and not everyone's connection is great. It's s study in idiocy is what it is. Hey, let's screw our paying fans to try to curb piracy! Yay! What? No.

It's not the future of gaming and it needs to stop. Buying into it for the sake of playing the game is not really helping the situation...so as a personal choice, I'm choosing not to. You do what you like Apt, but the guy who wrote that article makes valid points that are being sung around the internet today (go have a google search if you like). He's not the only one with these complaints and there are a LOT of folk who are annoyed.

But let's ignore all that and take the case in point. If you are Blizzard, and you are releasing a major fuckoff sequel to a game from 12 years ago that has a monstrous fanbase...and you then make it ONLINE ONLY forcing everyone onto your servers (even single player folk)...and you then proceed to misread that demand causing multiple server crashes on day one...then you are not doing enough, you did not hire enough servers...someone didn't do their bloody research...and if you have created an online game...that's simply NOT good enough. It's a corporate business mentality of "release it with shabby servers", because it's better to spend less on servers and then fix it once it all goes tits up than to spend the cash and overkill the amount of servers needed to handle fan demand cleanly right?

He's TOTALLY bang on about DRM.

This is not the way to stop pirating, it's a way to piss off fans.

[Beezulbubba]

[Gothos]

QuickTidal, on 16 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

This is not the way to stop pirating, it's a way to piss off fans.

The online-only is less about stopping piracy and way more about the Real Money Auction House and cheating in offline mode.

[Tapper]

QuickTidal, on 16 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Aptorius, on 16 May 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I WOULD have played this game if it weren't for THIS.

So because of that, I will never give Blizzard a penny.

That is a bad article and the guy who wrote it should feel bad. That was not journalism. That was an angry blogger who is pissy because he had to wait to play his game.

It's not like Blizzard pulled the wool over peoples eyes. The guy who wrote this should know damn well to expect a bottleneck on the opening day. And I would hardly call the start off a "clusterfuck of epic proportions". Rather "A massive success of epic proportions". Blizzard set up enough servers that it should have been able to handle a bazillion users and they still got swamped. Meaning they had more customers than planned. Meaning they are swimming in cash.

Are the glitches and bugs bad? Yes indeed. Is it as bad Skyrim? Not even close. Cry me a river.

That's not to say I am happy with this always online bullshit but this article does not have a shred of objectivity.

I never claimed it was journalism, and the guy makes GOOD solid points though....that you are such a hardcore gamer you wish to ignore these points because of the enjoyment of playing makes them no less omnipresent. The article doesn't set out to be objective though Apt, it's right there in the damned title. It basically says, "I am going to bitch about things, be warned"

My issue is the online thing. If you force me to be online to play your game...then your game can go fuck itself in the ear and so can your game company. You DO NOT make a single player mode be online only...you simply don't. How many people caused server crashes, or errors for others who ONLY wanted to play single player offline? I bet you thousands and thousands. Not everyone wants to play online, and not everyone's connection is great. It's s study in idiocy is what it is. Hey, let's screw our paying fans to try to curb piracy! Yay! What? No.

It's not the future of gaming and it needs to stop. Buying into it for the sake of playing the game is not really helping the situation...so as a personal choice, I'm choosing not to. You do what you like Apt, but the guy who wrote that article makes valid points that are being sung around the internet today (go have a google search if you like). He's not the only one with these complaints and there are a LOT of folk who are annoyed.

But let's ignore all that and take the case in point. If you are Blizzard, and you are releasing a major fuckoff sequel to a game from 12 years ago that has a monstrous fanbase...and you then make it ONLINE ONLY forcing everyone onto your servers (even single player folk)...and you then proceed to misread that demand causing multiple server crashes on day one...then you are not doing enough, you did not hire enough servers...someone didn't do their bloody research...and if you have created an online game...that's simply NOT good enough. It's a corporate business mentality of "release it with shabby servers", because it's better to spend less on servers and then fix it once it all goes tits up than to spend the cash and overkill the amount of servers needed to handle fan demand cleanly right?

He's TOTALLY bang on about DRM.

This is not the way to stop pirating, it's a way to piss off fans.

Sorry QT, but....

Many major games crash on day 1 due to server overload. Steam overloads regularly when a particularly big release comes out that doesn't pre-load, I've seen it in many MMORPGs (online games, aye).
Secondly, yes, online DRM is a bit dickish as indeed, some people have data-caps and others pay per MB instead of just having unlimited access. Do I feel sorry for them? Definately! I want alt146, Gothos and Silencer and others to be able to play this game.
But it just is not a publisher's fault that a country's web-infrastructure isn't up to date or that a nation's providers choose a businessmodel that doesn't suit Blizzard's DRM. In fact, if anything, it is just Blizzard shooting itself in the foot income-wise rather than "hating gamers". I am sure they did their research and arrived at the conclusion that for blizzard, with arena-net as its own match-making & hosting service and control tool already in place, this was the best option commercially while also providing a base standard on which the game is playable. In the end, the company makes the product to sell. Diablo 3 is such a big thing that it would likely be pirated by entire universities playing it in co-op for the next four years if they didn't put DRM on it. And Blizzard isn't Stardock, which is principally anti-DRM.

Finally, for people with broadband, how bad is this really? They'll just have to stop torrenting movies/series/anime/games/porn while playing Diablo to make sure the game gets enough bandwith. Big fucking deal.

3. "Valid Point" that isn't a valid point.

Quote

We have deadlines and a lot of things to do – and things like these make it so much more difficult for us. That’s not all; imagine coming home from work tired and thinking about leisurely spending a few hours on a game, only to find out that you are at the mercy of these companies

1. more difficult for us in relation to deadlines: if he was a serious game reviewer, he'd probably have gotten a preview copy/ test opportunity on a bèta server with a gold copy. Blizzard isn't responsible for Kartik Mudgal having his review finished on day 1 so that he can get as many page hits as possible.
2. leisurely spending a few hours on a game: you can also make dinner, do the laundry, go out with friends.... or play a-NOTHER game. A game not working is not the end of the world as long as it is up the next day nor the result of a CTD bug that doesn't save your progress. This is just about inconvenience. Fuck, I hate the fact that EVE is updated between 11 and 12 in the morning each weekend because those are my 'lazy time' hours and I can't play EVE then. But it is inconvenience and not a structural failure.
3. Being at the mercy of these companies: you already are. If the gold version contains a bug, you rely on their patch. If your video drivers have compatability issues, you rely on them again. This is moaning. We're just over halfway of the article and he already is dragging up non-arguments.

as for your own comment:

Quote

You DO NOT make a single player mode be online only...you simply don't.

Hellgate London, FIVE YEARS AGO. Guild Wars is online but solo content is instanced (No other players running in your part of the game environment), and online. StarCraft. Your average browser game. Anno 2070 requires at the very least a web connection while in the world screen.
In other applications: e-mail programs, chatboxes, news websites, twitter, the stockmarket... all require (near) continuous web access to be used. How ridiculous is it then to DEMAND that (single player) games are exempted from this standard? When I read Newsweek or the Guardian or the forum and F5, it is not necessarily to interact with others: it is to see content that wasn't there. My use is strictly individual but the portal is mass-media and offers access to as many people as possible and there is a continuous data stream between your application and the source - essentially the same as in this game.

As for blogger/journalism: this is an editorial. AKA: a representative of the website/ company commenting on the news as most knowledgeable/ expert spokesperson of that organisation. A one-sided rant is not suitable for such a type of reaction: yes, an editorial is an opinion-piece, but it is intended to publish the news-outlet's official opinion and expand on why this position is being taken. Hence, good arguments are required/preferred because you want to uphold the standard of your outlet. I won't trust a site where the writer's stomach fluids drip from the screen in a one-sided editorial rant: it means that he has tunnel vision and allows his emotions to get the better of him. Not only is it unprofessional as apparently his emotions are more important than a well-considered reply and his gut is apparently the company's PoV, it also means that he is easily manipulated. If Blizz had sent three hookers dressed as witch doctor, demon hunter and amazon to his place for an oil massage, titty fuck and handjob while he was waiting for the server to come online, he'd have been very happy piercing cavities with his joystick and give a glowing recommendation of down time, because he enjoys it so much. Fine in a blog, fine in a column, fine in an opinion piece sent to the news outlet by independants, iffy in an article, iffy in an editorial, downright unprofessional in an official PoV.
In the way he writes this, and in the nature of his complaints, it is from several sentences very obvious that only his personal experience influences this piece more than all the available pro-con lists that also explain a company's reasons for DRM and the type of DRM.

[Sparrohawk]

Yeah, I was probably wrong about the Monk being balanced at that level. As it is, thus far in the game I've been killed once (Wizard), and came close to death many times thus far. Multiple champion-level packs are a wee bit painful. The game, thus far, isn't *easy*. It's not bang-my-head-against-the-wall hard, but not easy either. Difficulty is subjective, though, of course.

In terms of the online-only thing, I agree that it sucks. I agree that they could not have been unaware of the massive strain their servers would be under on release day, and while they may not have been able to predict the precise nature of the errors that occurred (achievement deletion etc), they could not have been unaware that they would occur. And no, it's not okay; we paid for a full game, and they did not deliver on release when they should have. While many games are buggy on release, not many are unplayable by an entire geographical region due to said bug (bugs here being analogous to the server issues).

However, I'd suggest a few reasons. Disclaimer: I'm NOT saying these are good reasons. Just reasons.

I doubt their servers were shoddy or in any way badly set-up. I agree that it was a possibility, but it seems odd for them to be that foolish about it. What I would believe is that they decided that investing in the server architecture to handle release-day login load might not have been cost-efficient. Release day issues of an online game are called thus because they are unique to release days. My guess is that at some point they decided that a lot of the massive amount of architecture they'd have to buy to handle the inevitable trainload would not be well used post-release date, and thus they decided that the release day issues were the lesser of two evils; the greater being spending a crapload on more servers. Now, I don't agree with this idea, by the way. I think investing in such things to make Day 1 go seamlessly is a fantastic idea. Obviously, I could be wrong and they really were idiots or there was some other reason that I couldn't think of

My work ethic is glaring at me so I will probably post other things a bit later on.

[Defiance]

Beat the game on Normal a few hours ago. A quick rundown of my thoughts:

-Love the visuals. They're not mind blowing, but everything looks really pretty, kind of like a watercolor painting at some parts.
-Gameplay is freaking amazing. Getting skills and runes at every level up is awesome, as I'm always anticipating my next level. There are tons of ways you could combine your skills/different set-ups you can use (all out damage, defensive, incapacitating, etc.). It's definitely very customizable.
-Story started off really great (the cinematic at the beginning of Act II was epic). I enjoyed it throughout, but it was really predictable. There honestly wasn't a single thing I didn't see coming. In the end, I felt like they could have done a little more with the story. There was a lot of potential to seriously expand on certain things.
-Boss fights are fun. On Normal they were really easy (the only boss I didn't kill on my first try was end of Act II), but I'm really interested in seeing where it goes on the harder difficulties.

I'm looking forward to working my way through Nightmare. I died a few times in normal, and I'm sure I'll die a bit more here, although I'm not expecting the difficulty to really ramp up until Hell.

Overall, a great game.

[Mentalist]

Tapper, on 16 May 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Aptorius, on 16 May 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I WOULD have played this game if it weren't for THIS.

So because of that, I will never give Blizzard a penny.

That is a bad article and the guy who wrote it should feel bad. That was not journalism. That was an angry blogger who is pissy because he had to wait to play his game.

It's not like Blizzard pulled the wool over peoples eyes. The guy who wrote this should know damn well to expect a bottleneck on the opening day. And I would hardly call the start off a "clusterfuck of epic proportions". Rather "A massive success of epic proportions". Blizzard set up enough servers that it should have been able to handle a bazillion users and they still got swamped. Meaning they had more customers than planned. Meaning they are swimming in cash.

Are the glitches and bugs bad? Yes indeed. Is it as bad Skyrim? Not even close. Cry me a river.

That's not to say I am happy with this always online bullshit but this article does not have a shred of objectivity.

I never claimed it was journalism, and the guy makes GOOD solid points though....that you are such a hardcore gamer you wish to ignore these points because of the enjoyment of playing makes them no less omnipresent. The article doesn't set out to be objective though Apt, it's right there in the damned title. It basically says, "I am going to bitch about things, be warned"

My issue is the online thing. If you force me to be online to play your game...then your game can go fuck itself in the ear and so can your game company. You DO NOT make a single player mode be online only...you simply don't. How many people caused server crashes, or errors for others who ONLY wanted to play single player offline? I bet you thousands and thousands. Not everyone wants to play online, and not everyone's connection is great. It's s study in idiocy is what it is. Hey, let's screw our paying fans to try to curb piracy! Yay! What? No.

It's not the future of gaming and it needs to stop. Buying into it for the sake of playing the game is not really helping the situation...so as a personal choice, I'm choosing not to. You do what you like Apt, but the guy who wrote that article makes valid points that are being sung around the internet today (go have a google search if you like). He's not the only one with these complaints and there are a LOT of folk who are annoyed.

But let's ignore all that and take the case in point. If you are Blizzard, and you are releasing a major fuckoff sequel to a game from 12 years ago that has a monstrous fanbase...and you then make it ONLINE ONLY forcing everyone onto your servers (even single player folk)...and you then proceed to misread that demand causing multiple server crashes on day one...then you are not doing enough, you did not hire enough servers...someone didn't do their bloody research...and if you have created an online game...that's simply NOT good enough. It's a corporate business mentality of "release it with shabby servers", because it's better to spend less on servers and then fix it once it all goes tits up than to spend the cash and overkill the amount of servers needed to handle fan demand cleanly right?

He's TOTALLY bang on about DRM.

This is not the way to stop pirating, it's a way to piss off fans.

Sorry QT, but....

Many major games crash on day 1 due to server overload. Steam overloads regularly when a particularly big release comes out that doesn't pre-load, I've seen it in many MMORPGs (online games, aye).
Secondly, yes, online DRM is a bit dickish as indeed, some people have data-caps and others pay per MB instead of just having unlimited access. Do I feel sorry for them? Definately! I want alt146, Gothos and Silencer and others to be able to play this game.
But it just is not a publisher's fault that a country's web-infrastructure isn't up to date or that a nation's providers choose a businessmodel that doesn't suit Blizzard's DRM. In fact, if anything, it is just Blizzard shooting itself in the foot income-wise rather than "hating gamers". I am sure they did their research and arrived at the conclusion that for blizzard, with arena-net as its own match-making & hosting service and control tool already in place, this was the best option commercially while also providing a base standard on which the game is playable. In the end, the company makes the product to sell. Diablo 3 is such a big thing that it would likely be pirated by entire universities playing it in co-op for the next four years if they didn't put DRM on it. And Blizzard isn't Stardock, which is principally anti-DRM.

Finally, for people with broadband, how bad is this really? They'll just have to stop torrenting movies/series/anime/games/porn while playing Diablo to make sure the game gets enough bandwith. Big fucking deal.

3. "Valid Point" that isn't a valid point.

Quote

We have deadlines and a lot of things to do – and things like these make it so much more difficult for us. That’s not all; imagine coming home from work tired and thinking about leisurely spending a few hours on a game, only to find out that you are at the mercy of these companies

1. more difficult for us in relation to deadlines: if he was a serious game reviewer, he'd probably have gotten a preview copy/ test opportunity on a bèta server with a gold copy. Blizzard isn't responsible for Kartik Mudgal having his review finished on day 1 so that he can get as many page hits as possible.
2. leisurely spending a few hours on a game: you can also make dinner, do the laundry, go out with friends.... or play a-NOTHER game. A game not working is not the end of the world as long as it is up the next day nor the result of a CTD bug that doesn't save your progress. This is just about inconvenience. Fuck, I hate the fact that EVE is updated between 11 and 12 in the morning each weekend because those are my 'lazy time' hours and I can't play EVE then. But it is inconvenience and not a structural failure.
3. Being at the mercy of these companies: you already are. If the gold version contains a bug, you rely on their patch. If your video drivers have compatability issues, you rely on them again. This is moaning. We're just over halfway of the article and he already is dragging up non-arguments.

as for your own comment:

Quote

You DO NOT make a single player mode be online only...you simply don't.

Hellgate London, FIVE YEARS AGO. Guild Wars is online but solo content is instanced (No other players running in your part of the game environment), and online. StarCraft. Your average browser game. Anno 2070 requires at the very least a web connection while in the world screen.
In other applications: e-mail programs, chatboxes, news websites, twitter, the stockmarket... all require (near) continuous web access to be used. How ridiculous is it then to DEMAND that (single player) games are exempted from this standard? When I read Newsweek or the Guardian or the forum and F5, it is not necessarily to interact with others: it is to see content that wasn't there. My use is strictly individual but the portal is mass-media and offers access to as many people as possible and there is a continuous data stream between your application and the source - essentially the same as in this game.

As for blogger/journalism: this is an editorial. AKA: a representative of the website/ company commenting on the news as most knowledgeable/ expert spokesperson of that organisation. A one-sided rant is not suitable for such a type of reaction: yes, an editorial is an opinion-piece, but it is intended to publish the news-outlet's official opinion and expand on why this position is being taken. Hence, good arguments are required/preferred because you want to uphold the standard of your outlet. I won't trust a site where the writer's stomach fluids drip from the screen in a one-sided editorial rant: it means that he has tunnel vision and allows his emotions to get the better of him. Not only is it unprofessional as apparently his emotions are more important than a well-considered reply and his gut is apparently the company's PoV, it also means that he is easily manipulated. If Blizz had sent three hookers dressed as witch doctor, demon hunter and amazon to his place for an oil massage, titty fuck and handjob while he was waiting for the server to come online, he'd have been very happy piercing cavities with his joystick and give a glowing recommendation of down time, because he enjoys it so much. Fine in a blog, fine in a column, fine in an opinion piece sent to the news outlet by independants, iffy in an article, iffy in an editorial, downright unprofessional in an official PoV.
In the way he writes this, and in the nature of his complaints, it is from several sentences very obvious that only his personal experience influences this piece more than all the available pro-con lists that also explain a company's reasons for DRM and the type of DRM.

I don't want to take this on a tangent, but....
Blizz may have their reasons, and that's totally cool, even though I do feel this alienates me, since my house runs on wireless, and I am not gonna launch D# just to lose 3 hours of progress due to a router hiccup.
And, yes, I believe that it's all about the RMAH, and they wann amake even moar money off the microtransactions. And I can accept that.

what I can't accept are the reasons that are being used to justify the always on by Blizz

1) Nowadadays, everyone has great connections
2) "We didn't want to put in offline play, because then people would want to take their offline char online, realise they can't and get upset"--this one really galls me to no end,, because they are essentially insulting the intelligence of their players.
3) "Always online allows us to provide a better experience"--non-withstanding the launch day fiasco (which, funnily enough, mirrored the open beta, which was supposed to be a "stress test" to ensure this didn't happen), I strongly disagree with the notion that "removing all control from the player and giving it back to the publisher creates a better experience for the player"

[Illuyankas]

Did someone mention in the thread about the 'give the templar a shield directly from you equipping it (not just the inventory, you have to be wielding it at the time) to him and get kicked, then get kicked every time you try to log back on that character' glitch yet? Cause I saw it on headnovel from LH and I'm too tired to click the last page.

[Sparrohawk]

Yeah, it's been mentioned. It's shaky; some people have reproduced it, some not.