A lot of people write about their experiences with beta tests on Bitmob. Problems that will hopefully be ironed out later are to be expected, and the writer should have used "beta" in the title, but that doesn't mean he can't give first impressions.

I've played World of Warcraft (as well as other MMORPGs) on and off for the past few years. I was there for the launch of both the Wrath of the Lich King and Cataclysm expansions. I had nothing but server and connection issues during the first week of those expansions.

While it may seem a bit silly to compare Diablo III to MMOs, the way Blizzard implements the DRM, Diablo III has essentially become an MMO. You have to log in (even for single player), your character is stored on Blizzard's servers, and you need to have a good internet connection.

Always on DRM has always been abhorent and intrusive, and Blizzard is taking it to a new low. While playing Diablo III, any concurrent downloads or streaming music/video could potentially disrupt the single player campaign because they would drop my internet speed (I'm not saying that I want to stream a movie while I'm playing, but someone else in my house might want to).

And while it was only a beta, lag and server issues are a fact of life for MMOs. Servers need maintenance and something always goes wrong requiring Blizzard to take them offline for hours at a time (this comes from my WoW experience), and there is no way to completely eliminate lag. If Blizzard is going to treat Diablo III like an MMO, then it is subject to all of the limitations of MMOs. Since I'm primarily interested in the single-player aspect, I will not pay $60 for a game that is at the mercy of Blizzard's server capacitites.

Your reply is more well-constructed and thoughtful than your article. I am not intending to offend you, I am just giving my opinion. The way you responded here is much easier to understand the problems you see in this and it is reasoned successfully. That's all I am saying man! Constructive criticism is an aid, not a hindrance.

And Chris, yes he can give first impressions but I just feel this lacks substance. If it is wrong of me to say so, then please, delete my comment and alert me to that fact. As I just posted, it is a constructive criticism. It's not meant to hurt or enrage, it is meant to encourage.

I'm sorry if I sounded defensive. That was not my intent, and I did not take what you said offensively. I was just trying to explain myself a bit better. And I agree, constructive criticism helps. Thanks for your input, and I've worked my comment into the article. No hard feelings. Cheers!

What a horrible way of thinking, Jackson Ryan.

Are we not allowed to say that a restaurant's food smells bad, looks bad, and is delivered badly if we haven't paid for it? If the restaurant were giving free samples of shitty food, do we not have a "right to be vocal about it"? I guess you think we should just be silent and that we have no right to speak our minds.

Who cares whether or not he paid for the game? If that part of it is bad, then it's bad.

Then this comment of yours is downright weasely and you know it: "However, by your own admission, this was a stress test and you understand its purpose." You imply that the mandatory connection will not be required in the full version. You know that he is complaining about Diablo III's fundamental netconnection/account architecture, yet you try to handwave it away by implying it's part of the stress test.

And then, you have the gall to suggest that he "analyse the good elements of the game and [his] experience more than [he] did." His article is solely about internet lag in single player (check the title). It's not a review.

Then you write that "It just comes off as whinging otherwise."

You, sir, disgust me.

Fox Mulder, the conversation between myself and the author was both civil and without malice. He clarified the point of his article and I did not disagree with it or question it further - his reply in the comments clarified the major point. I feel like the comment served its purpose better than the article and that he wished to emphasize the bad decision to go with an always-connected singleplayer. His article does not reflect that as successfully as I believed it could, nor did it pay any favours to the complete Diablo experience, and I was suggesting there were other ways to make that point clearer. It doesn't have to be a review to include analysis of the game. If it is a beta impression as a staff member pointed out, then it should be an impression of your experience in game. You're telling me the author only experienced lag issues or that this is solely about internet lag because the title says so? If that's the point of any journalistic pursuit, then why write articles? Why not write just titles, and tweet them?

Furthermore, you have taken my initial comment in the complete wrong way and then assumed far more than necessary about my character. You know what they say about assuming things.

The truth is, I don't even care about Diablo III. I am not here to defend Blizzard or anything like that. I am only here giving my opinion on an article. You're unnecessarily malicious response does not make you a bigger man springing to the defence of a smaller man - in this case both the author and I are equal. It makes you look like a fool when you come in here with a clear intent to abuse another person for their opinion. No one in this thread was here to make other people feel bad and then you arrived. 

It's not admirable to hide behind an obviously fake name and call people out when they are trying to constructively criticise an article. I said it comes off as whinging, because thats how I feel. It's gamer entitlement all over again.

I applaud you for throwing in the line at the end, it must have taken a lot of courage for a faceless man with a fake name to insult another.

I advise everyone to reread my comment and know that I firmly and unwaveringly stand behind it. Thank you.

This comment thread made a turn for the worse, and I feel partly responsible.

Jackson: It’s OK to give constructive criticism in comments. I was just saying that betas are acceptable to write about and so are their issues. People tend to harp on the bad things of a game too much, but your comment did sound like he shouldn’t have written the article in the first place. You have the power to delete or add to your own comments if you feel that you said something wrong.

Fox: It doesn’t matter if your name is real or not, but you won’t be able to compete for prizes or earn front-page promotions. We highly encourage people to use their real names on Bitmob because it makes people think twice about using personal attacks like you did. Also, if you stood by your previous comment then you would stand by it by not writing another comment to grandstand about how much you stand by it. If you think the conversation is going to go nowhere, then don't reply at all and don't add fuel to the fire.

Matthew: You’re cool in my book.

To both Jackson and Fox: Quit the personal attacks. We don't allow them on Bitmob. I don't care who started it.

Short and to the point compared to my response. Thanks Jason.

Congratulations to Matthew who took on board the criticism and worked with it. You have earned yourself a follow my friend.