Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Diablo II Beta Sign-Up Monday 59

Posted by CowboyNeal from the and-on-to-round-two dept.
GeekLife.com writes: "Blizzard announced their public beta test. This time there are 100,000 lucky winners. The sign-up is over at ZDNet's Gamespot. " Following up on the first round of beta testing in which only a lucky few got selected, this test round is for stress testing the Battle.Net servers in preparation for release. I (and almost everyone I know) couldn't get in on the last one, so I'm hoping my luck is better this time around.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Diablo II Beta Sign-Up Monday More

Diablo II Beta Sign-Up Monday

Comments Filter:

  • I'd love to help them beta test their game, and I'd love to buy it once they finally release it. I've wanted to play this game since I saw the preview on the StarCraft CD.

    The problem is that Blizzard won't let me participate in the beta, and once they release the final, they won't let me run the game, even if I buy it.

    You see, they're releasing the game for Win32 Only - and they know I don't have Win32.

    There's no good technical reason why the game shouldn't be able to run on my computer. It's got a K6-2/350 processor and 128 megs of RAM, it's video hardware can run at a sufficient resolution and color depth, I've even got a sound system.

    My computer even runs other games fine. It runs Civilization: Call to Power, Quake II, and I've even heard of people with nearly identical systems running previous Blizzard games such as WarCraft: Orcs and Humans.

    Blizzard.... Why won't you take my Money?

  • I may have been perusing someone's archive of software whose legality is in question and I may have noticed Diablo II, and this possibly real person may have told me that it is very easy to get your hands on this software.

    What this person ( who may or may not have existed ) didn't tell me if a stolen/warez copy would work to play network games. I'd bet you need a key of some kind, but I'm sure they're out there too.

  • I believe the good reason is that win32, though crappy, is the standard. It has 90% of the market and almost everyone who wants to play games on their PC at least dual boots to windows. Even die hard linux users.

    Its much more cost effective to develop for windows and then pay someone else to port it. Writing for multiple platforms is harder and takes time, time which is really costly in the fast moving PC game market.

  • I find it very hypocritical when people complain that Windows games are not ported to Linux, when they fail to complain when Linux games are not ported to Windows.

    The fact is that Windows has DirectX, which blows away anything that is available on Linux... not by a bit, but by a whole freaking lot. Its not surprising that people find it tough to write games for Linux.

    Basically, you guys are saying that capitalism should not be allowed to work. People develop where the money is, and thats NOT on Linux... whether you like it or not.
  • One thing I am really astonished about is that no game company so far came to the idea to actually produce the game on a bootable CDROM with Linux as OS behind the game?

    I mean that would make it way easier for most people who don't have a clue about computers to get their games run. No installation, just pop and play :)

    I remember back in '94 while selling computers when people got rid of their Amigas to buy PCs to play and they where astonished that they couldn't simply put in the floppy and start playing :)

    Okay, windows got easier in that regards (with Autostart etc.) but I wonder why the game industry is not jumping on this (yet)?
  • Why did this get moderated up? I am not disrespecting this guy or anything but what he said wasn't interesting.......
  • Much of this game has been debated and argued throughout the making of it. Among other features debated were "friendly fire", "conversion" and an arena specifically for PKing. That Blizzard even had a response to the question of portability means that a port was one of those topics of debate.
    One of the reasons I've been looking forward to this game is because of Blizzard's notoriously high standards. From the screenshots and gameplay screens available at http://www.blizzard.com, this looks to be a better version by far. If Blizzard sent it to loki to port to Linux, I can understand where they might worry about that standard of quality being lowered.
    Blizzard is not in the business of making games for each and every platform. Their bottom line is profit, just like any other business. If enough of the linux community makes noise and writes to Blizzard convincing them there is profit in it, I would expect them to follow the money. Otherwise, they'll just write it for the 85% of people (like it or not) who use Windows on a daily basis.
    If you want more information about the game, http://www.diabloii.net does a SUPERB job outlining characters, items, and has a fairly good review of the closed beta. I think it even has more information than Blizzard's page.
  • No, he's just a hypocrite... he doesn't give a shit if they support anything except Linux.

  • You're slightly off on point 2. During an interview with Scott Draeker(can't remember where though), he said that the porting was done without cost to the company, but a percentage of the sales did go the the owner of the software. There will be some people who buy the Linux version instead of the Windows version, but overall I don't think sales will be affected too much.
    treke
  • At least in the closed beta, Blizzard selected applicants in part based on the geographical distribution they wanted. If 100k Koreans and 100k North Americans apply, Blizzard isn't going to give half to Koreans and half to Americans...the point is to test their servers in a reasonable manner.

    Plenty of people will get in on the open beta. Not that it's going to be all that great, since it contains an abridged version of Act I with only the Barbarian, the least interesting character to play (yes, I'm one of those lucky closed beta testers). A day's amusement, if that.
  • Hear, hear! When I saw this headline, I thought: "Bah! They've got a Linux port of Diablo and are testing it! I want it! Or otherwise, why it is on /.? /. isn't Gamer's Daily, is it?". Then I read it and... Duh. I'm out. We're out. All Linux users are out. OK, it's hard to port Diablo to Linux, it's not worth to port Diablo to Linux. I'm not worth having Diablo for Linux because I was a bad boy. Whatever. Why I want to hear about new Diablo then? If I wanted, I'd subscribe to some Gamer's News, which reports all such things instantly and gives much more info, reviews, etc.

    I do not want to disable the "Games" topic. But if most of the games topics will be "for whit^H^H^H^HWindows only" that'd be the only choice to save my nerves.
  • I'd do the same if this topic had a sign "Windows only". Then I'd turn it off as I did for Amiga stuff, etc. But presently I can't - I want to hear about Linux and all-platform games, but not about Windows-only games, or at least I want Windows-only games to bear bold "Windows only" sign (and Linux-only games to bear Linux-only sign, that's OK).
  • I realize that this isn't LinuxDot, that Diablo II is relevant new for a large portion of readers, etc., etc. These are all perfectly relevant reasons to post the story. Problem is that the original post didn't say "don't post it." It said (to paraphrase): "give me a means to filter it out, because it is irrelevant to me." This is a perfectly reasonable request. Game stories like this one are usually a waste of time if you are a Linux user- the only reason to read it is to bitch that there is no port. And that doesn't do anyone any good. So let us have a way to filter them out. That's not too big a deal, is it?
  • A few have listed doubts as to what a "valid email" address means in the eligibility requirements...
    One of the persistent rumors is that anonymous emails will not be accepted.
    Check this out from Blizzard...
    What "valid e-mail" means is that if we can type it in the "To:" field of the e-mail and not have it bounce back to us as a "unknown recipient" or a "this user does not exist" error message. A valid e-mail would look something like: username@domain.net It doesn't matter if it is POP based or web-based, as long as you can send and recieve from that e-mailbox, you should be fine. Basically, since we are mailing out the access codes via e-mail, if you don't have an e-mail address that works you won't be able to get your access code leading to you not being able to play."

    Unfortunately, another persistent rumor is that with 100,000 betas being released, that you have a better chance than the original (with only 1000 released) to get in onthe action. Your odds for the first beta were 1/139 of winning.
    The estimated odds for this beta will be somewhere around 1/1000. Sorry guys. We probably won't be in on this one either.
  • Preech on brothere. Although I only use Linux I am installing windows because Diablo is the only game i was willing to play (besides tribes) so Im going to be giving its brother a shot.
  • Why should i beta test for them (and support them) when they can't support me and my linux computer? Those of you who fold into this are suckers to the system.

    Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net [mailto]) -GAIM: MicroBerto
  • For the simple US/Canada only beta, there were over 139,000 requests for betas.

    Now multiply this by the entire world.
    Ok so maybe 1/1000 was a bit much, but anybody who's played any of blizzard's games online knows how wacko those Koreans are for online games (starcraft sold over 1 million copies in Korea alone).

    But the odds probably won't be any better.
  • An OS isn't a religion. It is a tool. Blizzard says you have to user a poorer tool to use their game. So that's what I'll do.

    People should stop worshiping hammers.
  • For the odds of getting into the beta to be 1/1000 there would need to be 100 million applicants. I *seriously* doubt there will be that many sign ups. If your numbers are correct for the previous signup then there were 139,000 people who applied. Assuming twice as many sign up this time there would be 278,000 - which gives everyone about a 1/3 chance of being accepted.

    Play with the numbers as much as you like, but no matter how you slice it the chances of there being 100 million applicants is nil.
  • >I'm like a alot of people that read slasdhot. We
    >don't run Windows, or care about Windows-only
    >games.

    This isn't Linuxdot. I don't run Linux, and I don't care about Linux games, but I don't mind that others want to hear about them. I just don't read those articles when they show up.

    Perhaps you should do the same.

    --Sam L-L
  • How many posts have you seen on slashdot from people complaining about having to reboot into windows in order to play games? Chances are people would not want to have to reboot into the games themselves. Expecially if each individual game required another reboot.

    The next problem with this is saved games. If you're booting off of a cd-rom, how do you plan on saving your games? You can't make assumptions about the file system type or sizes on the user's machine, so you can't really just use the hard drive since it's not already mounted. Unless of course you want these people with "no clue about computers" manually mount the file system from within linux.

    I would definitly buy Linux versions of these games, but making the game boot linux directly into the game would not be the best idea.
  • This isn't a flame saying that "blah Windows sucks"...I'll step off my Blizzard bashing soapbox, but this opionion of "WIndows sucks, but it's ok when Diabalo 2 comes out, and I don't care if it only runs on Windows" is so hypocritical, it's not funny. That very idea is why you don't see more games in linux.

    That's rediculous. You said yourself that saying "blah windows sucks" would be a flame, and then you say it. Who is the hypocrite here again?

    These gaming companys are out for profit, just like every other business out there. If there was a GOOD profit to be made selling Linux ports than you can bet your ass that every single game would have a linux port. John Carmack is trying to do a good thing from our perspective, but the two copies of Quake 3 for Linux that my local EB got are still sitting there on the shelf. Don't give yourself the illusion that it's because everyone dual boots that games aren't ported to linux; because thats just what it is, an illusion.

    Despite all that, you may have a good point with the windows gaming icon. However, backing up your arguments with fallacies is not going to get you very far, especialy not here on slashdot...

  • a new slashdot icon for windows games? (Score:5)

    by HomerJ ( 11142 ) on Saturday April 29, 2000 @04:57AM (#1102664)
    I'm like a alot of people that read slasdhot. We don't run Windows, or care about Windows-only games. This isn't a flame saying that "blah Windows sucks", but myself, and alot of other readers don't run it. We also don't care about games that are Windows-only, and will never see linux versions.

    I think it's time for a new icon for Windows-only games. Maybe Gates holding a sidewinder or something. I would LIKE to filter out Windows-only game articles, but it just falls under "games", and I'd miss stuff I'd want to read.

    It's also another opinion of mine, that Slashdot shouldn't be giving free good publicity to a company like Blizzard, that has pretty much given free-software and the whole linux community the finger. Does that mean not reporting on certain things Blizzard does, or only the bad? No, but you also don't have to treat Diablo 2 like it's the second comming of Jesus either.

    I'll step off my Blizzard bashing soapbox, but this opionion of "WIndows sucks, but it's ok when Diabalo 2 comes out, and I don't care if it only runs on Windows" is so hypocritical, it's not funny. That very idea is why you don't see more games in linux. Why go though the trouble of making a linux version if the vast majority of linux users are willing to keep Windows around and buy Windows versions of games?

  • It is interesting how Slashdot started reporting games that run only on Windows and is ignoring other games. For example, Theocracy [theocracy.com] for Linux is available for sale from the www.tuxgames.com [tuxgames.com] but I've never seen a post about it on Slashdot.
  • Most gaming companys aren't open source, it doesn't mean that there giving that community the finger; it's an issue of hackers, companies such as blizzard are all ready flooded w/ hacks for there games, which takes them months to fix.
    As for a sudden acceptance of windows just for Diablo II or equivalent games come is a necessary evil to have access to the game.

  • No, they already have it :)
  • I wasn't aware that Slashdot was a Linux-only site. Oh wait...IT ISN'T. Granted, many of us have an interest in Linux, but this is not "News about Linux, Linux-related stuff that matters.
    Many of of us appreciate OSS, but don't think that it is the ONLY way. Blizzard has a right to not make a Linux port, and you don't have to like it. But a whole lot of /. readers have spent more hours than they may care to admit playing Diablo, and are going to be praying to any available deities that they make the cut for this beta. This story is more interesting to most /. readers than over half the stories posted here. /. does not have an obligation to promote only those companies that support Linux. Deal with it.
  • Perhaps cause the windows performance is far far better then the linux performance. Thanks to the highly optimised drivers for DirectX and OpenGL on windows? Just maybe.

    People who play games on PC have an expectation of the higest performance, and they can't get that with a linux box. The graphics system is just not fast enough yet.

    Also, there is no API for linux that is anywhere as good as directX for sound and input.

  • 1) Blizzard has said and demostrated that they care a great deal about quality control on their games.. letting Loki port it, no matter how good loki may be, puts the linux port's quality under Loki's control, not Blizzard's.. which goes against what Blizzard is about.

    2) It might not cost them Directly to have loki port the game, but they'd certainly not get as much as if they sold their entire game to any other company (which is pretty much what they'd be doing) and while they may not want to go to the expense of porting to linux for another couple thousand sales, they don't want to intentionally Lose a few thousand from the people who run windows just for gaming and would then not buy it from Blizzard when they can get it for linux from Loki. (i'm sure you'll flame them about that too, but it, again, is just good business practice).

    3) While i'm sure it terribly offends your rebelious sensibilities.. Blizzard is a big company, they're not going to be terribly willing to listen to Loki, who most of blizzard's staff has probably never heard of.
    Dreamweaver
  • If you get selected, you get a secret accsess code to DOWNLOAD the 100meg file.

    Oh, I'm screwed.

    -------------------

    I don't think we're [here] for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch. -- Dr. James Watson, Nobel laureate Biophysicist, co-discoverer of DNA

  • it's a stress test so therefore they are tring to crash their servers. Even if you like the game don't bother, cause it will play badly. They want to try and max out their servers . They already crash a lot as it is. I know cause I'm a closed beta tester. If you really love diablo, just wait for the full version to come out. Peace, Steve Toth
  • Well, I want a new topic for palmV applications aimed at over thirty-somethings with carpal tunnel. And maybe one for articles about dvorak keyboards that come in black. And how about ones intended for all the whiny ./ers who feel a need to complain because some site doesn't cater to their specific and very personal tastes?

    Come on; does it really take that much effort to read the 8 line blurb about an article? I mean, how many people complain that the newspapers are running articles they don't think apply to them in particular? Time to remember that you're not the only person around...

    --

  • Don't worry, I lose karma faster than I make it...
  • First, I'd like to see these "numbers" that say the linux comunity could produce enough sales to pay for the port.

    As for giving them a good reason to port games to Linux, try promoting Linux in a positive light, instead of jumping on the windows bashing bandwagon.

    We all know that windows is a lacking opperating system, but it is still the most versatile (not flamebait) OS out there. (at least in terms of software support.)

    My solution is a dual boot, don't worry, that windows CD won't bite. :)
  • Oh, i was just being selfish. I only use linux. Doesn't make me a hypocrite, just makes me greedy. You go root for your own OS :)

    Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net [mailto]) -GAIM: MicroBerto

  • First, I'd like to see these "numbers" that say the linux comunity could produce enough sales to pay for the port.

    You don't need to see any "numbers". The simple fact that Lokisoft, a company that has the single buisness of porting Windows games to Linux, is still in buisness should be enough evidence to show that Linux ports of Windows games can pay for themselves.

    If game companies would go to the little bit of trouble nessisary to make their products portable, the cost to port would be trivial.

    My solution is a dual boot, don't worry, that windows CD won't bite.

    I don't have a Windows CD. I'm sure as hell not going to pay $200 or so for such a CD, nor will I waste a gig or so of hard disk space installing it.

  • Yes, they have released games for Mac OS in the past, although a bit later, as is usual in the industry. I do not know about Diablo II though, you can find out here [blizzard.com] though!

    Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net [mailto]) -GAIM: MicroBerto
  • Announced the very last week that I'm here at school with my spiffy-fast 'net connection. I'm pretty sure they did it just to taunt me.
  • Wow, sounds like Blizzard is pulling out the big guns for this one. 100K users for the beta? lol...

    A lot of software houses would be thrilled to see that many total users of their products...

    On the other hand, I guess it serves as a good promo for those people who normally wouldn't care too much about the games ancient (in the gaming world at least) engine. If this is another 640X480 16-bit three-quarter-view masterpiece, they're gonna have a teensy bit harder time selling to those people with shiny new GeForce2s or Voodoo5s.

    Now, I can see them trying to test the Diablo II code for stability with that many users, but I'd say it's been long enought that they should already have some statistics about whether or not Battle.net is stable. They've been supporting thousands of simultaneous connects with Starcraft, etc, for a long, long time. Anybody know why they'd do this?

  • Durn. (Score:1)

    by crimsun ( 4771 )
    Diablo II sounds like a great game; the previews, screenshots, and rumors abounding have really whetted my appetite, but unfortunately I no longer run Windows, so it is pointless to drool. Wait-- perhaps LokiGames will port it, or even better-- perhaps those announcements about Blizzard needing Linux programmers... ooh ooh, I can't wait! =]
  • to some screenshots for Act II [gamespot.com] and Act III [gamespot.com]. They look pretty good to me.
    --
  • i mean....we've been waiting for Diablo II for what, like 2 years?? GET IT OUT ALREADY! and I agree with the part about it being Gauntlet without the action....Gauntlet: there was a game...how about a Windows/Linux port now?
  • I won't be at school longer than a week until the end of the quarter. Damn the cruel fates that will cause me to miss this. Arghh.
  • Will they be collecting my personal information without my knowledge again?
  • The ICQ200a alpha installer REQUIRED -
    • An Internet connection capable of running 32-bit Windows Socket applications (such as Microsoft Internet Explorer)
    because it needed to check the servers to see how many alpha users had signed up. I certianly hope blizzard doesn't get used to this practice!

  • Windows only for the beta, no luck for us mac / linuxppc guys . . .

    But according to blizzards web sight, they doing parallel development and have the same estimate for release . . . we can but hope and drool.

  • But I never really had that much fun with diablo...it seemed like just an rpg without the story/puzzles...or gauntlet without the action.
  • Unfortunately my connection speed had been reduced to a measly 56k since I moved. The last time around I still had my DSL but mabye the game will be worth it. A couple hundred megs @ 56k, my modem will be working over time.
    But more likely I will have to borrow my friend's T1 connection for a while.


    flatrabbit,
    peripheral visionary
  • Ah, and Monday shall roll around, and the open beta will get opushed back a week...then 2 weeks...then a month...then years! Well, probably not, but at the rate they even got into closed beta...:P
  • if they support your linux system or not. I mean really, the cost of porting such a large game won't be worth it to them, the marketshare just isn't there to justify such a large expense.

    So plesae don't whine about how bad it is that they're releasing a windows beta and how everybody who does it is a sucker, the simple truth is you'll find that the majority of people signing up don't give a rats ass about Linux at all.
  • I didn't know it was a "we won't post anything about you unless you do what we want" site. Thanks for enlightening me.

    Blizzard hasn't given anybody the finger, they've said "we can't afford to port a game to a system that won't be able to generate the sales to pay for the port."

    Last I checked, that was good business sense. I know that business sense is all but lost in this day and age of profitless companies, but to anyone who actually went into business to make money using a method other then an IPO, this is pretty smart.

    All Blizzard said was "show us the sales", not "go fuck yourselves." If Linux gamers buy Linux versions of games in enough volume to make it feasable for blizzard to make a profit, you can bet they'll port it in a heartbeat.

    But you can't expect a company to deliberately loose money just so you can have a game. In short, you don't matter that much.

  • Cruel. (Score:3)

    by slothdog ( 3329 ) <slothdog&gmail,com> on Saturday April 29, 2000 @05:16AM (#1102693) Homepage
    Personally, I think it's cruel and inhumane for Blizzard to do something like this during my finals week.
  • This proves it. The fact that this article was posted just goes to show that slashdot is aiming at a dual-booting audience.

    Yes, slashdot is full of Windows kids. You think technology news only interests Linux/BSD users ? Think again.

    On the other hand, slashdot is also full of Linux users. Hell, there probably is even a sizable chunk of people who don't feel that the existence of articles by Jon Katz is an offense to the their intelligence. This just goes to show that whenever one tries to define the "average slashdot", the attempt fails. It's a very diverse community with people having different interests and different backgrounds.

    Any generalization by you or anyone else is doomed to fail.

  • Who really cares what OS anyone out there is running? If you hate windoze than don't use it. If you can't stand being without winblows games then go ahead and use it. I really don't care what anyone else reading /. does.

    I personally use both Wintendo and Linux. Windows is used to allow me to play games (on one system) and Linux on all my others.

    So everyone just stop complaining...that M$ OS that you love to bash so much isn't going anywhere and posting that everyone reading /. is using it isn't going to accomplish anything...so shut up!!!
    --
    ICQ#: 7012329 | AIM NICK: CW0LVES

  • Yes, Diablo II uses Battle.Net very differently. (Score:3)

    by Tridus ( 79566 ) on Saturday April 29, 2000 @03:50AM (#1102696) Homepage
    In Diablo/Starcraft/War2BNE, Battle.net basically acts like a big chat network. It lets you talk to people, get stats, and *find* games. The games themselves all play as Peer-To-Peer systems, battle.net itself isn't really involved at all once the game starts.

    Diablo II introduces something called a "closed" character. While a normal character resides on a players system like in Diablo and you can play it in any form of multiplayer game, closed characters are stored on the server and can *only* be played on Battle.net with other closed characters. During those games, they use a Client/Server setup, with Battle.net taking a more direct role in how the game is played. The idea being to try and prevent some of more flagrant hacks that plagued Diablo.

    Now if you play an Open Character (as I intend to, since I also want to play with the same character over LAN's and the like), it doesn't work this way. But because the battle.net population is paranoid, you will see a *lot* of closed characters being played, hence the test. They want to make sure the system won't die before they release the game.

    hth
  • Ya know, all this hype about Diablo 2 on Slashdot makes me really want to go visit the geek compound after it's release. I'd like to see for myself if every machine there will be running Win32 for a brief moment of time -- something as unlikely as, wait, that really does define itself, doesn't it?

    I believe there's going to be lots of Linux to linux/win32 dual boot converters just for this game :)

    (Quite honestly, based upon performance of previous games ported to linux, I'd rather play this one on Win32 than linux anyway -- I want this game to run like silk, I don't care if it's stuck to 640x480 resolution)

  • Blizzard hasn't given anybody the finger, they've said "we can't afford to port a game to a system that won't be able to generate the sales to pay for the port."

    The Linux game audience is large enough that it would pay for the cost of the port. That isn't the problem. The numbers actually show that the number of gamers interested in buying Diablo II may be greater on Linux than on the Mac - which Diablo II is being ported to.

    Actually, Loki would be more than happy to do the port any time Blizzard wanted at no cost to Blizzard.

    This leaves Blizzard with absolutely no good reason not to have a Linux version of Diablo II in the works.

    Basically, they've given us the finger.

    "It's worth delaying the game three months for the 5% of the market that uses the Mac, but letting Loki do a port for another 5% of the market would be a waste."

  • I don't quite follow, why must they support Linux? Why not BeOS, FreeBSD, Solaris, QNX, Irix, MacOSX, and a million others while at it? Must a game be available on _every_ known platform in existance in order for us to gain your approval for playing it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Close