Your opinion on this is flawed in a way though, as your point of view is someone who has beaten the game several times already. You're also seemingly blowing it out of proportion as well though. It takes hardly any time to defeat the game on it's easiest mode, and it's even easier to get a friend to take you to the…

This is a pretty petty argument in my opinion. If you don't complete the campaign while leveling then just breeze through it on the easiest mode and move on. It kinda sucks to have to do it, but it's not the end of the world that you made it out to be.

Most games aren't focusing on providing services that only the 80%, for instance, can use. It only takes a few games pushing the industry to a more online focus, which has happened the past few years. It's also not a bad financial decision, because games that have done this (Diablo 3, SimCity, various MMO's, Destiny)…

I think you're confusing the numbers I listed. 80% of the US population live in urban areas, which typically have better overall technology services, especially internet. So in this case they're not ignoring the 80%, they're catering to them.

Just because you don't see the visible effects of the initial Diablo 3 launch doesn't mean they don't exist, which they certainly do. Several online games have released in the past few years with substantial initial sales but considerably more reliable launches, including the recent Destiny. So just because you don't…

That's true that not all cases of failure lead to progress, but cases of mass press covered failure certainly do. You can't say that Diablo 3's initial hic-ups during its opening week didn't change anything. It was too massively covered for it to not effect nothing at all.That's my entire point. That while some…

It can be argued that moving forward too quickly, such as these online only games that millions of people attempt to play at once, progresses the technology required for those millions of people to play at once without limitations. Just because there are tehcnological limitations on something doesn't mean it shouldn't…

Apologies for poor use of words, but to replace halted with limited isn't much better. So you're for limiting progress of technologies due to your personal circumstances?

I meant no offense at all, but again that's your situation and can you honestly say you would prefer halted development of technologies just because you don't have access to it? Especially when those technologies are pure entertainment and not a basic necessity?

You don't think that an increase in demand of better infrastructure in those more rural areas won't produce it? We're already at a point where wireless networks from phone companies can provide a decent enough connection for basic needs, so physical cabling may not be the answer to future mass expansion.

To take down servers of this magnitude it does take more than a few people capable of DDoS'ing. So it's not quite that easily accessible because they're likely using hundreds of drone servers to pull this off. Not to mention the additional effort of preventing it being traced back to yourself.

Yet companies creating online only games does help progress the need of better internet infrastructure and better network security. Simply saying that we shouldn't do something because there are obstacles doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Exactly. Like I said, I attribute most of the issues people have with difficulty to just not being familiar with this style of gameplay where it doesn't hold your hand through everything.

That's what surprises me so much when I read comments about this game. It seems a lot of people find it difficult because of the uninformed decisions they made. It's like people have been playing half-brain dead games for too long and don't realize that the game offers so many options because you need those options…

That may be so, but casual gamers are the target audience. Not just kids.

Kids aren't the target audience for Minecraft.

My point was more that most people don't play multiplayer games on consoles while all Blizzard games have multiplayer options and PC users tend to be much more sociable due to a lack of keyboard with consoles.

I think he's referring to the gameplay which looks pretty generic for any game that's had stealth mechanics in the past few years. It has a few interesting ideas, but most of it's the same old stealth aspects we've seen before.

My assumption would be that it would overwhelm players. That's based on my guess that the PC version users have a much larger friends list (considering it's a battle.net thing and not just D3).

The most recent patch makes the PC version superior in my opinion. Offline necessities will vary by user and really shouldn't be considered the defining factor of quality.