"We've never seen Diablo as a single player game"

Yeah, except for those two lengthy single player campaigns in Diablo and Diablo II and their respective expansion packs.


"We think it's the best way for players to play"

Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the many gamers who think it isn't the best way to play. Coincidentally, it just happens to be the best way to nickel and dime players monetize many aspects of the game and maximize revenue streams.


"And we realize there are sacrifices that we* have to take on..."

*And by "we", we mean "you".

It's like...how many visitors come to this site totally unaware of the actual beauty and depth that is hidden right beneath them? You're sell-outs...but in my eyes I'm a beneficiary of your selling out, so thank you much >> ^lucky760:

>> ^gwiz665:
Isn't there sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on there too then? If there's no indication that you can go "deeper", then most people won't go deeper.
Having it this simplified, makes it not inviting to the few who want something more out odf the community, which is what Videosift does so well (disregarding the odd siftquisition here and there).
I'm all for making it simpler and directly targeted at bouncing users, but don't go overboard. It seems to me to overload a little on facebook stuff too,

>> ^lucky760:
It's strictly for revenue reasons. As luck would have it, non-members who click in almost exclusively bounce away without visiting a second VideoSift page, so we're using that opportunity in attempt to monetize that one visit as much as possible.
Our pretty single video page is too distracting for a one-time visitor and includes a lot of ancillary information a bouncing user doesn't need or care about, so we're just giving them the things we really care about them seeing: share widgets (facebook, twitter, etc.) and ads.


Conventional wisdom might lead you to believe that, but in practice, we've tried doing lots of different things over the years on the non-member single-video page to entice a click-through to a second page and nothing changes the fact that most all people who land on VideoSift via a Google search just want to watch the video they were searching for and then leave immediately, no matter what else is on the page.
Our best bet is to gain more visitors via people posting Facebook comments (below the video) or sharing the post via their favorite social medium.

>> ^gwiz665:

Isn't there sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on there too then? If there's no indication that you can go "deeper", then most people won't go deeper.
Having it this simplified, makes it not inviting to the few who want something more out odf the community, which is what Videosift does so well (disregarding the odd siftquisition here and there).
I'm all for making it simpler and directly targeted at bouncing users, but don't go overboard. It seems to me to overload a little on facebook stuff too,

>> ^lucky760:
It's strictly for revenue reasons. As luck would have it, non-members who click in almost exclusively bounce away without visiting a second VideoSift page, so we're using that opportunity in attempt to monetize that one visit as much as possible.
Our pretty single video page is too distracting for a one-time visitor and includes a lot of ancillary information a bouncing user doesn't need or care about, so we're just giving them the things we really care about them seeing: share widgets (facebook, twitter, etc.) and ads.



Conventional wisdom might lead you to believe that, but in practice, we've tried doing lots of different things over the years on the non-member single-video page to entice a click-through to a second page and nothing changes the fact that most all people who land on VideoSift via a Google search just want to watch the video they were searching for and then leave immediately, no matter what else is on the page.

Our best bet is to gain more visitors via people posting Facebook comments (below the video) or sharing the post via their favorite social medium.

Isn't there sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on there too then? If there's no indication that you can go "deeper", then most people won't go deeper.

Having it this simplified, makes it not inviting to the few who want something more out odf the community, which is what Videosift does so well (disregarding the odd siftquisition here and there).

I'm all for making it simpler and directly targeted at bouncing users, but don't go overboard. It seems to me to overload a little on facebook stuff too,



>> ^lucky760:

It's strictly for revenue reasons. As luck would have it, non-members who click in almost exclusively bounce away without visiting a second VideoSift page, so we're using that opportunity in attempt to monetize that one visit as much as possible.
Our pretty single video page is too distracting for a one-time visitor and includes a lot of ancillary information a bouncing user doesn't need or care about, so we're just giving them the things we really care about them seeing: share widgets (facebook, twitter, etc.) and ads.

It's strictly for revenue reasons. As luck would have it, non-members who click in almost exclusively bounce away without visiting a second VideoSift page, so we're using that opportunity in attempt to monetize that one visit as much as possible.

Our pretty single video page is too distracting for a one-time visitor and includes a lot of ancillary information a bouncing user doesn't need or care about, so we're just giving them the things we really care about them seeing: share widgets (facebook, twitter, etc.) and ads.

Funny how these remakes/sequels/prequels/reboots/reimagainings do kind of give you a SENSE of having watched a classic but without any of the emotion or gravitas that made it remembered in the first place. A 23 year old girl told me she liked Singer's Star Trek 'because it wasn't like sci-fi'. I passed a bunch of middle aged women a while back and caught the words "..doctor manhattan.."

Modern marketing is reshaping, monetizing and pushing EVERYTHING that was interesting, exciting and cult, into a sort of vanilla paste to be squeezed into the minds of people who have less and less ideas about life but who vaguely know that these titles are remembered for decades for some reason.. it seems some extended cartoony dance-fight for the boys and some saccharine melodramatic romance for the girls is all you need to get in there.

The world is run by inheritees.
They can't be expected to know how great things were done by their forebears.
They do however own the show and are forced by their own need for self respect to believe they are entitled to make creative decisions WAY beyond them.

What are they going to do? Imitate and resell the past till its worth nothing. Anyone want to take this bet: spiderman reboot reboot reboot by 2020, Lawrence of Arabia with Robert pattinson by 2015, and on and on until we all kill ourselves.
As long as they do Krull with Samuel Jackson I'll go quietly.

@mentality

I absolutely LOVE list comments! Anda here we gooooo....!

"I'll bite."

You'll have to stop barking first.

"1. Online-only: Yup."

Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3. The rest of this list is just icing. There is simply no reason whatsoever to require a persistent online connection for single player, at least from the player's perspective.

"2. Overly-monetized: So was Diablo 2. Now those who want to spend money don't have to go to sketchy websites."

Huh? Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. Some items were only available in the online game, but the player still had the choice whether to participate or not, and I didn't. In D3, spending real money is an integral part of the game. Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending.

The inclusion of the AH turns everybody into an open wallet that can be manipulated. How? Say Blizzard's stats show a player sells the majority of his uniques in the AH. Up his unique drops. Make more money when he sells in the AH. How about giving players more drops of valuable items they already possess? More duplicates, more selling in AH, more profit for Blizzard. Need more storage space in your stash? Unfortunately, Blizzard just made it smaller in the beta. Luckily, you'll be able to buy more space in the AH. Want a pet to pick up all your gold for you? Oops! Removed, but no doubt you'll soon be able to buy one in the AH.

The whole monetizing thing is offensive to me as a PC gamer and former Blizzard fan. You wanna be a chump? Go for it. Buy yourself some Ancient Armor of Win and have a blast.

"3. Dumbed down: nope. With the skill rune system and the crafting, as well as the new skill bar, there's going to be more depth in D3."

Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Everything is being nerfed to encourage participation in the AH. Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.

"4. Linear: nope. Still randomized dungeons and quests."

SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.

"5. Cartoony: Nope. The beta is anything but cartoony. I'd say D2 was way more cartoony with its rainbow pantheon of monsters."

Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking. Again though, doesn't matter. Very low on my list of issues, if it's there at all. I mainly just needed an adjective.

"Your loss."

Please edit your videos before you hit "submit new comment". The original gets immediately sent to me in it's entirety via email notification. Your original comment of...

"Your loss and good riddance."

...sounds pretty fanboy-ey and I can see why you wouldn't want people to see it. It explains alot. However... on the chance it was just a random typo and not an example of your linear thinking, I'll just say this...

It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.

>> ^Fletch:

"Diablo III -- You Will Die. We Promise."
Impossible, because I ain't buying this online-only SP, overly-monetized (auction house), dumbed-down, linear, cartoony piece of rental-ware shit.


I'll bite.

1. Online-only: Yup.

2. Overly-monetized: So was Diablo 2. Now those who want to spend money don't have to go to sketchy websites.

3. Dumbed down: nope. With the skill rune system and the crafting, as well as the new skill bar, there's going to be more depth in D3.

4. Linear: nope. Still randomized dungeons and quests.

5. Cartoony: Nope. The beta is anything but cartoony. I'd say D2 was way more cartoony with its rainbow pantheon of monsters.

Your loss.

"Diablo III -- You Will Die. We Promise."

Impossible, because I ain't buying this online-only SP, overly-monetized (auction house), dumbed-down, linear, cartoony piece of rental-ware shit.

Here's my problem with Christianity as a whole this video is a prime example of it and that's the monetization of religion. You can't seriously tell me that a dozen plastic eggs and a small strip of paper cost $10 bucks more like $1. This is blatantly scamming people out of $360,000 in the name of Jesus. It makes me sick.

That doesn't even cover the simply racist attitude the video has in assuming that inner city kids(more directly black kids) have never heard of Jesus which is just stupidly insane and false. Quit trying to make money off Jesus and I'll start respecting your message.

Upvote for hypocrisy!
>> ^marinara:

like the video says, these deluded christians are trying to help 40,000 kids by giving out plastic eggs filled with handicrafts and bible verses.
I guess you object to what the missionaries are trying to teach here.
Somehow I think that teaching kids some bible verses isn't going to rot their brains too much. What's the worst that could happen? They read the bible and believe it?

It's only stealing if it's not freely available. Trying to stop people sharing stuff over the internet is a bit like starbucks trying to charge you for the air you breath when you walk into the mall they happen to be located in. You can't control the supply and distribution of your product? Tough. It's your business model that is flawed. Figure out a new way to monetize it.

>> ^gorillaman:

I spend time and effort taking a dump. I don't expect you to pay me for it.
If you can monetize your creativity, great. Do it without calling in government thugs to extract the tribute you imagine you're owed from anyone who presumes to interact with your imaginary property.
The guy who gets coffee for the director is paid for his work. You're suggesting I owe him, what, his future job security? Come on. Tell him to go home, get a webcam and produce his own content for literally a millionth of the cost of the primitive, bloated, dying industry he leaves behind.
How much are we getting paid to make these posts? Love of the craft, man.


First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.

As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.

As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).

The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.

As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Wow, I really don't even know where to start with how ridiculous that is. Intellectual property is not "logically and morally absurd". It is the result of peoples time and effort, and thus, has value. This is not about rewarding a studio who invests hundreds of millions in a game or movie, it's about paying a programmer, artist or hell, even the guy who gets coffee for the director.
As for the "gambling" argument, I have no problem with people with make bad products failing. That's fine. But you seem to believe that someone could put years of work into a great product and then still receive no compensation for it. Fine, but then why should you expect them to continue to put that effort into their work? Yeah, love of the craft, whatever, but people still need to eat, pay bills, etc.
You know what? pay the fucking writer.


I spend time and effort taking a dump. I don't expect you to pay me for it.

If you can monetize your creativity, great. Do it without calling in government thugs to extract the tribute you imagine you're owed from anyone who presumes to interact with your imaginary property.

The guy who gets coffee for the director is paid for his work. You're suggesting I owe him, what, his future job security? Come on. Tell him to go home, get a webcam and produce his own content for literally a millionth of the cost of the primitive, bloated, dying industry he leaves behind.

How much are we getting paid to make these posts? Love of the craft, man.

Sorry we don't have the rights to stream content outside the U.S. because corporate accountants require every spec of material be monetized to the Nth degree, and your country doesn't allow us to rape your wallet as thoroughly, darn it all.

Seems to me this is just another facet in an agenda to push needed public facilities into the private sector where they can be monetized more effectively.

Privatized prisons, there's incentive to imprison more people. Including bribes to judges to send more people that way.

So a privatized school.... they have kids as a captive audience unless they get out via home schooling (which I guess will be attacked next if it's seen to be growing when privatization takes over). It will be in their best interest to pack the most kids they can into facilities. And I'll venture to guess that testing to insure kids are being taught will be influenced through lobbying or bribes to be catered specifically to the material taught in schools. There may even be incentive to punish kids with detention and saturday sessions to increase revenue by showing discipline problems that need more funding to correct......whether they exist or not.


In my opinion, right now schools spend too much money, time, and long term investments on sport related costs. The maintenance costs on upkeeping, repairing, and maintaining a stadium that's only used a few times a month or a field which is only used by a handful of students is just dumb. They claim that football and other ticket entry events pay for a lot of it, but I have never seen numbers to support that in the majority of cases. Plus you add in equipment, coaching, and busing costs to take students to other schools or play offs.......there's just no way you are recouping those costs. Meanwhile you have kids using 10-15 year old textbooks that are falling apart, in classrooms with leaky windows and roofs.

So I don't think privatizing schools is the answer, but I think there are programs which could easily be cut.......but it would not be popular at all with the local communities who've had those programs for decades. Which is why they don't do it and continue to piss away money on sports facilities and programs which eat up a lot of funding and benefit a minority of students. Where as art/music programs, which also benefit a small number of students but could be grown to include more, where the school needs to provide a room and instructor and the kids bear the cost of instruments/materials and other odds and ends get cut.