[waldojim]

Well, go figure. Blizzard managed to screw up a beautiful game during the launch. Why bother making sure you have enough servers to deal with your game when you can force everyone online, and screw them over on launch day. If I am playing single player games, I do NOT need to be on the internet. WHAT IS WRONG WITH BLIZZARD!?

Top it off, it doesn't do any good to comment on their forums - as they are deleting comments as fast as posters can bitch. I guess they don't want everyone knowing just how badly prepared they were for this.

Netflix would give you a discount for broken streaming services - take bets Blizzard does nothing more than "We are sorry for the short delay", and downplay the entire thing?

Anyone here actually get to play the darned game, or were you all stuck staring at error 37 as well?

So much for wearing out my mouse tonight - all I have worn out are the password keys on my keyboard.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 15 May 2012 - 07:17 AM

[waldojim]

Heh - finally got logged in. Attempted to create a character was met with "Request timed out Error 300008". Gotta love single player games depending on the internet.

[waldojim]

Now the website is offline as well. Guess they got tired of the complaints and took the site down. I think it is funny, on their Twitter feed, they act like the 300008 and 3006 error codes are the fault of the end users network connection:

Quote

BlizzardCS ‏ @BlizzardCS

Error 3004, 3006, 3007, or 300008: We've found that one of these suggestions can help: http://bit.ly/Kj0A1X

That link takes you off to a page on troubleshooting your internet connection.

EDIT: WOW...

Quote

Diablo ‏ @Diablo

Working to resolve login & char creation issues due to traffic. We've added servers & brought our websites offline: http://ow.ly/aUKkp

Are you freaking kidding me? Did you not know how many copies you sold? Just forgot to turn up the servers? Or maybe they wanted to create some artificial appearance of demand (meaning more demand that really exists).

In any event, that statement proves that Blizzard failed out of the gate...

I almost wish I could get my money back, and wait for a cracked copy on TPB... Almost.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 15 May 2012 - 12:06 AM

[coastie65]

That is why I keep saying that they have gone way too far with this DRM stuff. If I buy a single player game, I DO NOT want a third party involved in anyway and I DO NOT want to have to go online to play the thing. Same with Mass Effect 3, you are playing on EA's servers. Fine if you are playing in MMO, but not if you are playing in single player.

[waldojim]

Here we are - 12:30PM CST - and getting yet another error code: 317002 Unable to find all the appropriate game configurations to join a game.

Seriously Blizzard - we still don't have working servers?

EDIT: Also have a 316712: Cannot perform this action while joining a party.

I am NOT joining a party! I just want to play - all by my little lonesome!

This post has been edited by waldojim: 15 May 2012 - 09:35 AM

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 15 May 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

That is why I keep saying that they have gone way too far with this DRM stuff. If I buy a single player game, I DO NOT want a third party involved in anyway and I DO NOT want to have to go online to play the thing. Same with Mass Effect 3, you are playing on EA's servers. Fine if you are playing in MMO, but not if you are playing in single player.

Sure makes you wonder what they are thinking. I suspect, it is crap this this Blizzard fiasco that drive pirating. And to be frank, the moment a server emulator is available, I will be using it. Not to steal the game, obviously, as I already paid for it. But rather to use the game when I want to - including vacations to Ohio where I have limited or no internet.

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 15 May 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

coastie65, on 15 May 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

That is why I keep saying that they have gone way too far with this DRM stuff. If I buy a single player game, I DO NOT want a third party involved in anyway and I DO NOT want to have to go online to play the thing. Same with Mass Effect 3, you are playing on EA's servers. Fine if you are playing in MMO, but not if you are playing in single player.

Sure makes you wonder what they are thinking. I suspect, it is crap this this Blizzard fiasco that drive pirating. And to be frank, the moment a server emulator is available, I will be using it. Not to steal the game, obviously, as I already paid for it. But rather to use the game when I want to - including vacations to Ohio where I have limited or no internet.

It is supposed to counter pirating, but in effect is doing just the opposite. It would seem that greed breeds stupidity. CD Projekt Red ( the ones who gave us The Witcher and The Witcher 2 ) released their games through Atari. It didn't take them long before they released a patch that eliminated the DRM. They also release a lot of DLCs at no cost. They are based in Poland and have a decent following as their games are good, but will push your equipment to the limits. You really do need a good rig to play that stuff to its max. potential. They are also very much adult oriented too. They ( CDPR ) have estimated that about 1,000,000 copies of The Witcher 2 were pirated. They just keep on doing things the way they want to do them, knowing that there will be pirating. In short, that company is for the players.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 15 May 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

coastie65, on 15 May 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

That is why I keep saying that they have gone way too far with this DRM stuff. If I buy a single player game, I DO NOT want a third party involved in anyway and I DO NOT want to have to go online to play the thing. Same with Mass Effect 3, you are playing on EA's servers. Fine if you are playing in MMO, but not if you are playing in single player.

Sure makes you wonder what they are thinking. I suspect, it is crap this this Blizzard fiasco that drive pirating. And to be frank, the moment a server emulator is available, I will be using it. Not to steal the game, obviously, as I already paid for it. But rather to use the game when I want to - including vacations to Ohio where I have limited or no internet.

Precisely my thoughts. Fyi, there's a torrent of diablo 3 on TPB, but their site is down (and the google cache isn't working properly with it). Maybe everyone else has the same thoughts as you...

To be honest, if I like a game and it has DRM, I don't even consider, for a moment, actually buying it.

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 15 May 2012 - 04:25 PM

[coastie65]

LiveBrianD, on 15 May 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

waldojim, on 15 May 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

coastie65, on 15 May 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

That is why I keep saying that they have gone way too far with this DRM stuff. If I buy a single player game, I DO NOT want a third party involved in anyway and I DO NOT want to have to go online to play the thing. Same with Mass Effect 3, you are playing on EA's servers. Fine if you are playing in MMO, but not if you are playing in single player.

Sure makes you wonder what they are thinking. I suspect, it is crap this this Blizzard fiasco that drive pirating. And to be frank, the moment a server emulator is available, I will be using it. Not to steal the game, obviously, as I already paid for it. But rather to use the game when I want to - including vacations to Ohio where I have limited or no internet.

Precisely my thoughts. Fyi, there's a torrent of diablo 3 on TPB, but their site is down (and the google cache isn't working properly with it). Maybe everyone else has the same thoughts as you...

To be honest, if I like a game and it has DRM, I don't even consider, for a moment, actually buying it.

I do too, but do get tired of Steam or Origins getting in the way. Looks like that is the way of things though these days.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 15 May 2012 - 05:21 PM

[LiveBrianD]

They just don't seem to get it - make it a PITA to use the legitimate, paid for product, and people WILL pirate. That's all DRM does - piss off the legit customer a ton, and meanwhile the DRM gets cracked by someone else 5 minutes after it was released, and then everyone on the internet can get it for free, WITHOUT the copy protection crap.

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 15 May 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I do too, but do get tired of Steam or Origins getting in the way. Looks like that is the way of things though these days.

Steam does a very good job staying out of my way. This is partly why I don't mind having it.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 15 May 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

coastie65, on 15 May 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I do too, but do get tired of Steam or Origins getting in the way. Looks like that is the way of things though these days.

Steam does a very good job staying out of my way. This is partly why I don't mind having it.

Steam doesn't seem bad at all in my experience.

[coastie65]

LiveBrianD, on 15 May 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

waldojim, on 15 May 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

coastie65, on 15 May 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I do too, but do get tired of Steam or Origins getting in the way. Looks like that is the way of things though these days.

Steam does a very good job staying out of my way. This is partly why I don't mind having it.

Steam doesn't seem bad at all in my experience.

Actually, I have been okay with steam for the most part and have no problems, but I absolutely do not like Origins. It's just I'd just as soon as not have any third party intervention at all.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 16 May 2012 - 02:50 PM

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 16 May 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Actually, I have been okay with steam for the most part and have no problems, but I absolutely do not like Origins. It's just I'd just as soon as not have any third party intervention at all.

I have to say I sort of agree, and sort of don't. I happen to like steam. All of my games are available 24/7 from any machine I am using. Even a friends machine. I happen to like that model. I don't deal with updates, as steam does it for me. Shoot, now even my saved games are backed up for me. What is there not to like?

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 16 May 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

coastie65, on 16 May 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Actually, I have been okay with steam for the most part and have no problems, but I absolutely do not like Origins. It's just I'd just as soon as not have any third party intervention at all.

I have to say I sort of agree, and sort of don't. I happen to like steam. All of my games are available 24/7 from any machine I am using. Even a friends machine. I happen to like that model. I don't deal with updates, as steam does it for me. Shoot, now even my saved games are backed up for me. What is there not to like?

Yeah, they do keep things updated for you which is nice. As I said, I don't have any particular problem with steam per se as they haven't really been in the way. I was playing Dungeon Siege III and saving to steam then switched to saving on the computer. When I went to play on the SSD, I had lost a lot of progress as it went to the last save on Steam. Guess I'll need to go back to the other drive and find the save files and move them over.

[waldojim]

Ok, back to Diablo 3.

I do hope I am not the only member who picked this up. So far, the game has been a blast. There are few options to set graphically, and the game looks amazing. The laptop has this thing running 2048x1156 (on the Sammy) with all settings on high, and no AA. Runs smooth as silk. I could see this running well on the IGP, and will test that shortly. So far, character interaction has been pleasant, though not as unique as blizzard implies. Then again, I have to find a different map either. All the maps have been identical from one character to another.

Of all the crazy things, this game is sensitive to latency in a big way. A 500ms latency will guarantee death in many battles. Do watch your latency while playing, if you see yellow, or red - back off, and find out what is going on. Interestingly, latency is the key - and not bandwidth. In fact, when it decided that Cable wasn't going to cut it, I switched out to my LTE modem. With 1.5hrs of playing time, I hit 8MB data used TOTAL (up and down link). For those with LTE modems, yes the game is perfectly playable with ping times around 120ms.

I won't get into the story any, as I don't know who all as played, and I don't want to give anything away.

So - once you get past the server issues, it is a great game. Certainly worth playing. On that note - back to the click-fest!

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 17 May 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Ok, back to Diablo 3.

I do hope I am not the only member who picked this up. So far, the game has been a blast. There are few options to set graphically, and the game looks amazing. The laptop has this thing running 2048x1156 (on the Sammy) with all settings on high, and no AA. Runs smooth as silk. I could see this running well on the IGP, and will test that shortly. So far, character interaction has been pleasant, though not as unique as blizzard implies. Then again, I have to find a different map either. All the maps have been identical from one character to another.

Of all the crazy things, this game is sensitive to latency in a big way. A 500ms latency will guarantee death in many battles. Do watch your latency while playing, if you see yellow, or red - back off, and find out what is going on. Interestingly, latency is the key - and not bandwidth. In fact, when it decided that Cable wasn't going to cut it, I switched out to my LTE modem. With 1.5hrs of playing time, I hit 8MB data used TOTAL (up and down link). For those with LTE modems, yes the game is perfectly playable with ping times around 120ms.

I won't get into the story any, as I don't know who all as played, and I don't want to give anything away.

So - once you get past the server issues, it is a great game. Certainly worth playing. On that note - back to the click-fest!

Nope. Got the Diablo Battle Chest with the First and second Ones as well as the expansion. Played the first and never could play the second one ( something about missing dll files ) although I could have played the expansion and didn't .

[smax013]

waldojim, on 17 May 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Ok, back to Diablo 3.

I do hope I am not the only member who picked this up. So far, the game has been a blast. There are few options to set graphically, and the game looks amazing. The laptop has this thing running 2048x1156 (on the Sammy) with all settings on high, and no AA. Runs smooth as silk. I could see this running well on the IGP, and will test that shortly. So far, character interaction has been pleasant, though not as unique as blizzard implies. Then again, I have to find a different map either. All the maps have been identical from one character to another.

Of all the crazy things, this game is sensitive to latency in a big way. A 500ms latency will guarantee death in many battles. Do watch your latency while playing, if you see yellow, or red - back off, and find out what is going on. Interestingly, latency is the key - and not bandwidth. In fact, when it decided that Cable wasn't going to cut it, I switched out to my LTE modem. With 1.5hrs of playing time, I hit 8MB data used TOTAL (up and down link). For those with LTE modems, yes the game is perfectly playable with ping times around 120ms.

I won't get into the story any, as I don't know who all as played, and I don't want to give anything away.

So - once you get past the server issues, it is a great game. Certainly worth playing. On that note - back to the click-fest!

Finally got around to installing it yesterday...and then of course proceeded to play it WAAAAY to late!

I agree that requiring an Internet connection sucks if you only want to play single player mode, but I did encounter a positive aspect of it. I first installed it on my MBP (in the Mac OS) as I needed to make some updates to my Windows desktop. It did not play so well on it. The MBP is a "mid 2009" model with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo and a 9600M GT. Not sure if it was spec issue or something else slowing it down (it is set to use the 9600M GT rather than the 9400M IGP)...I will have to play around with a few things. Anyway, when I got the Windows desktop up an running, it was playing fine on that. And that is where the advantage of the "server based" BS did help...I could "log in" on the Windows desktop as was back right where I left off on the Mac. Granted, it was not that tough to move saved game files from one computer to another on Diablo II, but it does save on some hassle.

BTW, the "cooldown" period for the healing potions took me a little time to get used to...had a couple close calls. Was still used to be able to just pop off healing potion after healing potion in Diablo II.

As you said, back to fun...my Barbarian must return to his impression of the Hulk..."Barbarian smash!"

[waldojim]

Alright guys, because I think it is important to note in here - I have some performance and observasion numbers from Diablo III.

No, I don't have them on the Nvidia Quadro 1000M either.
First, the machine, and settings.

I am testing on Windows 7 Home Premium (fresh install) with the Lenovo W520. This includes the Intel 2620m i7 processor with 2 cores and HT. This machine has a recent upgrade to 8GB patriot 1333mhz ram running in dual channel. I tested today with the Intel HD3000 GPU. Intel Driver version 8.15.10.2538. My display is, of course, the 1080P display for this model and running at 60Hz (yes there are other options for this display). The Intel drivers are set on maximum performance (no battery savings here! ) and Balanced quality.

In game, I tested at 2 common resolutions, and found the best playable settings. I also determined what did and did NOT have any effect on frame rates. All frame rates were taken as the average displayed on FRAPS. I tested in Act 2, by playing in the desert. The Post FX limiter was left OFF during all testing. One last important note: Diablo III is only sensitive to frame-rate issues UNDER 20FPS. 22fps (average) worked out to be perfectly playable, though showing an occasional rough spot. At no point, was any of the below results unplayable unless specifically mentioned. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Ok, here goes:
At 1366x768 I found that with ALL settings on, except for AA, I could run with shadow settings on medium, all others on high, and maintain a 22fps average. At no point during my game (thus far) did I find it unplayable, or distract from the game play. Know that on high resolution displays though, this is anything but ideal. If possible run at your native resolution. Note for Mac Book Air, or similar ultra-book owners, this is what I found to be the best balance of playability and game quality. If you are on an HD 3000 with a 720P display, use these settings, and you will have a perfectly pleasant gaming experience!

At 1366x768 WITH AA turned on, I could keep all settings turned up, except for shadows. I had to disable shadows entirely. On this setting, I was seeing 34fps average.

At 1366x768 without AA and NO shadows, I was averaging 36fps. Note, than when I turned off ALL other settings, or lowered them to minimum, I saw a mere 2fps change. Not worth it considering the amount of quality you lose.

At 1920x1080P, I only found one playable setting: AA off, Textures high, Physics high, ground clutter high, shadow OFF. This netted me 22fps outdoors, and 24fps in caves. For those wanting to know, YES the HD 3000 CAN play Diablo 3 at 1080P, and still be perfectly viable.

Obviously - you DO want to have dual channel ram, as your memory is shared you need all the bandwidth you can get. Also, you should take note that I am using the i7 chip - which may work out to be considerably faster than the i3 or i5 SB cpu's. I do NOT have any idea what will happen in those situations. However, I can tell you that if you find that the CPU is the limiting factor, reducing the Physics effects setting will reduce your CPU load. As will the lower FX setting. Use them if you run into CPU limitations.

[smax013]

waldojim, on 18 May 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

Alright guys, because I think it is important to note in here - I have some performance and observasion numbers from Diablo III.

No, I don't have them on the Nvidia Quadro 1000M either.
First, the machine, and settings.

I am testing on Windows 7 Home Premium (fresh install) with the Lenovo W520. This includes the Intel 2620m i7 processor with 2 cores and HT. This machine has a recent upgrade to 8GB patriot 1333mhz ram running in dual channel. I tested today with the Intel HD3000 GPU. Intel Driver version 8.15.10.2538. My display is, of course, the 1080P display for this model and running at 60Hz (yes there are other options for this display). The Intel drivers are set on maximum performance (no battery savings here! ) and Balanced quality.

In game, I tested at 2 common resolutions, and found the best playable settings. I also determined what did and did NOT have any effect on frame rates. All frame rates were taken as the average displayed on FRAPS. I tested in Act 2, by playing in the desert. The Post FX limiter was left OFF during all testing. One last important note: Diablo III is only sensitive to frame-rate issues UNDER 20FPS. 22fps (average) worked out to be perfectly playable, though showing an occasional rough spot. At no point, was any of the below results unplayable unless specifically mentioned. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Ok, here goes:
At 1366x768 I found that with ALL settings on, except for AA, I could run with shadow settings on medium, all others on high, and maintain a 22fps average. At no point during my game (thus far) did I find it unplayable, or distract from the game play. Know that on high resolution displays though, this is anything but ideal. If possible run at your native resolution. Note for Mac Book Air, or similar ultra-book owners, this is what I found to be the best balance of playability and game quality. If you are on an HD 3000 with a 720P display, use these settings, and you will have a perfectly pleasant gaming experience!

At 1366x768 WITH AA turned on, I could keep all settings turned up, except for shadows. I had to disable shadows entirely. On this setting, I was seeing 34fps average.

At 1366x768 without AA and NO shadows, I was averaging 36fps. Note, than when I turned off ALL other settings, or lowered them to minimum, I saw a mere 2fps change. Not worth it considering the amount of quality you lose.

At 1920x1080P, I only found one playable setting: AA off, Textures high, Physics high, ground clutter high, shadow OFF. This netted me 22fps outdoors, and 24fps in caves. For those wanting to know, YES the HD 3000 CAN play Diablo 3 at 1080P, and still be perfectly viable.

Obviously - you DO want to have dual channel ram, as your memory is shared you need all the bandwidth you can get. Also, you should take note that I am using the i7 chip - which may work out to be considerably faster than the i3 or i5 SB cpu's. I do NOT have any idea what will happen in those situations. However, I can tell you that if you find that the CPU is the limiting factor, reducing the Physics effects setting will reduce your CPU load. As will the lower FX setting. Use them if you run into CPU limitations.

FWIW, I just installed it on my 11" MBA (1st version of the "new" body with 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo). I did not play it much (I did not have a mouse hooked up at the time...playing with the trackpad don't work so well ) but it seemed to work well. I will have try it some more with a mouse. I will also have to try it hooked to my projector...might be cool to play on the "big screen".