It's cheap bastards like you that keep a game from making a steady monetary gain that prompts the developers to produce expansions. You are ultimately reducing the possible content the diablo team could produce.
According to your logic then, Lord of Destruction could never have been released. Or Brood War for that matter. Or Beyond the Dark Portal, and the Frozen Throne. All expansions that were developed and released without any prior P2P content.
It's cheap bastards like you that keep a game from making a steady monetary gain that prompts the developers to produce expansions. You are ultimately reducing the possible content the diablo team could produce.
You can't be serious. You're actually arguing in favor of blizzard trying to drag even more money out of us. I knew you were on the wrong side on the color issue, but I didn't know just how deep the fanboy in you ran.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
lmaooo you guys are so upset over something that will benefit your videogame...i dnt think they will implement a p2p thing but if they do it will only b 5 bucks def not 15..and if its 15 bucks who cares it makes expansions content uprgardes( new items, monsters maps,etc) and adjustments for us (skills less powerful more powerful weaker monsters, les mobs, more mobs, more/less diversity in mobs so really this isnt a bad thing if it does happen
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
According to your logic then, Lord of Destruction could never have been released. Or Brood War for that matter. Or Beyond the Dark Portal, and the Frozen Throne. All expansions that were developed and released without any prior P2P content.
Amazing what a little research can do! :thumbsup:
He is saying that because people are too cheap to pay for p2p, companies are encouraged to make these expansions to sell more content. Not the other way around like you implied where you think he meant that the lack of funds from p2p prevents these expansions from being made.
lmaooo you guys are so upset over something that will benefit your videogame...i dnt think they will implement a p2p thing but if they do it will only b 5 bucks def not 15..and if its 15 bucks who cares it makes expansions content uprgardes( new items, monsters maps,etc) and adjustments for us (skills less powerful more powerful weaker monsters, les mobs, more mobs, more/less diversity in mobs so really this isnt a bad thing if it does happen
lmaooo...
Most game developers already do all of that for their online capable games. You know what they charge?
ZERO $.
No one should pay for gameplay balancing that should have been completed in beta. And developers these days are notorious for releasing games before they're done and adding in deleted content later as "added material." As an example, in the game Oblivion, there were many files in the Construction Set that were placeholders for official "DLC" released later on a microtransaction basis.
Whether it was due to the game being rushed or because it was intentional is irrelevant. What should have happened was the missing content be added back in as a content patch such as companies like Arena.Net and Valve do all the time.
Also, charging fees is a slippery slope, and once started the fees continue to get higher until subscribers start to flee, which is then the market maximum. For me, given D3's dearth of features compared to a game like WoW, that maximum is $0.
He is saying that because people are too cheap to pay for p2p, companies are encouraged to make these expansions to sell more content. Not the other way around like you implied where you think he meant that the lack of funds from p2p prevents these expansions from being made.
Are you familiar with Guild Wars? They purposefully chose an expansion based system as their business model, for a variety of reasons but also mainly to not compete with WoW. And according to their model of releasing regular priced expansions at regular intervals, they pull in roughly the same amount of money as a P2P subscription system with streamed content.
WoW not only charges P2P, but ALSO charges for expansions. So how does that fit into the either/or theory you guys expound? His assertion is wrong based on fact, UNLESS WoTLK is released as a FREE downloadable expansion, in which case he will be proven right. Ask me how likely I think that will be, no seriously go ahead...
And again, because of Blizzard's immense commercial success, their business models are not as hampered by limited cash flow as some others.
im back i guess. Yes shall we compare GW (which ive played) to WoW (which ive played), one is p2p and has 10 millionish ppl and GW has last time i check about 200 thousand so hmm. are you fucking kidding me that GW pulls i the same amount of Cash as WoW?
im back i guess. Yes shall we compare GW (which ive played) to WoW (which ive played), one is p2p and has 10 millionish ppl and GW has last time i check about 200 thousand so hmm. are you fucking kidding me that GW pulls i the same amount of Cash as WoW?
Well, I guess he meant, if guildwars had p2p system. With that playerbase 200k it would be around same cash flow.. i think?
Or if Wow had only 200k players, or if GW had 10million.
About the SCII split, did they actually say the would be sold as separate discs?
Red Alert 2 has two campaigns, Allied Faction and Union Faction, and has a disc for each side, but was sold as a single game.
Why couldn't SCII follow the same suit? 3 discs, one for each campaign but they are packaged together when you buy the game.
I do not recall them saying they would be selling them as separate discs with 3 separate campaigns on them.
I have nothing against splitting up campaign/single player story mode onto more than one disc, I do have an issue with buying them as separate games almost, that seems over the top.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
About the SCII split, did they actually say the would be sold as separate discs?
Red Alert 2 has two campaigns, Allied Faction and Union Faction, and has a disc for each side, but was sold as a single game.
Why couldn't SCII follow the same suit? 3 discs, one for each campaign but they are packaged together when you buy the game.
I do not recall them saying they would be selling them as separate discs with 3 separate campaigns on them.
I have nothing against splitting up campaign/single player story mode onto more than one disc, I do have an issue with buying them as separate games almost, that seems over the top.
Yep, three campaigns, three games. Each will be sold separately and apart. I'm assuming 2-3 months in between each game.
All content arguments aside, let's consider an often overlooked feature that comes with p2p. In wow, there are a good amount of GM that are able to handle many in game issues. If your account got hacked and you lost all your items in WoW, you can ask GM's to retrieve your account, and even recover all lost items. If someone scams you (for example you gave something to someone to make an item, and they just take off without making it), you can petition a GM to get your items back. If someone is harassing you or behaving badly, you can report him and have him punished. If any of that stuff happened to you in D2, good luck getting any sympathy from anyone, much less your items back. Wouldn't it be nice in D3 to have a staff of GM's that can assist with these frustrating problems and improve the overall gaming community in general with proper moderation?
All these things require a large staff of GM's that cost a large sum of money to keep on staff. This is why you only see this kind of support in p2p based games. For as much money as Blizzard has, nothing in this world comes free. As nice as it would be for Blizzard to give us these features at the company's expense, they've got a business to run and shareholders to report to. Isn't having a d3 community with less scammers and jerks (in addition to continuous content) worth a little money a month. Again, no one knows how much the p2p will be so it is very likely that it will be less than the standard $15 based on what we'll be getting.
Quote from name="Elfen Lied" »
About the SCII split, did they actually say the would be sold as separate discs?
Red Alert 2 has two campaigns, Allied Faction and Union Faction, and has a disc for each side, but was sold as a single game.
Why couldn't SCII follow the same suit? 3 discs, one for each campaign but they are packaged together when you buy the game.
I do not recall them saying they would be selling them as separate discs with 3 separate campaigns on them.
I have nothing against splitting up campaign/single player story mode onto more than one disc, I do have an issue with buying them as separate games almost, that seems over the top.
Please look at my comparison between the 3 episode thing they're doing for sc2 and what they did with sc/bw found in post #35 in this thread. Also, another big reason they split it was because to finish all 3 campaigns and put it in 1 release, they would have to delay the game for a few years. I think it's a good idea to release what they have now so people can start enjoying the multiplayer. I'd guess the expansions would come about 1 year apart, and add to the multiplayer experience in addition to giving us a big chunk of the campaign. The key things to remember is that each part of sc2 they release will have a campaign that lasts as long as the campaign of all 3 races found in sc put together, just that it will focus on 1 race at a time. Another thing is that the 2 episodes following the first will most likely NOT be the same price as the first, if you think of them as expansions ( which they are).
Or you could, you know, refuse to take part in this monetization of features that have been firmly free for a long time. It's people like you who let corporations walk all over everyone else. Oh no, I guess we just have to accept it. That's just life guys! Blizzard can own my wallet, release worse and worse games (beta tests), and begin monetizing features that gamers have taken for granted since the dawn of gaming.
You don't even know what kinds of features they'll be monetizing. It's people like you that stop games from moving forward. As I said before, gaming is not a damn charity, its a business and things change. Imagine how much more it's going to cost Blizzard to make the three versions of starcraft, featuring 28-32 hours of gameplay per campaign. They chose to do that, as opposed to just releasing the whole game in 2009, with watered down campaigns.
Are you familiar with Guild Wars? They purposefully chose an expansion based system as their business model, for a variety of reasons but also mainly to not compete with WoW. And according to their model of releasing regular priced expansions at regular intervals, they pull in roughly the same amount of money as a P2P subscription system with streamed content.
Now imagine if they started a P2P system, along with charging for expansions. Think about how many people will stop paying GW.. and think about how many people will still be playing WoW. Only reason wow is able to maintain itself, and furthermore keep adding phenomenal amounts of content to the game is because they have both.
According to your logic then, Lord of Destruction could never have been released. Or Brood War for that matter. Or Beyond the Dark Portal, and the Frozen Throne. All expansions that were developed and released without any prior P2P content.
Yeah but look at the content those expansions added. Now look at the content WotLK is adding, and that TBC added. I'd actually love to see Diablo 3 go P2P, even though it's not. The benefits would definitly show, and 15$ a month is not alot of money... I bet that's not even 1% of the money you make in a month. Its only 50 cents a day.
Those features should be absolutely free, I can't even believe those features are considered as luxuries.
+1 to this ...i really hope blizzard won`t make anything pay 2 play..if they do i will not pay for the game and download a pirate version and only play on solo..
What makes you think you have the right to steal a game when everything in the game isn't exactly how you like it? Its cheap bastards like you too that stop games from moving forward.
I'm assuming 2-3 months in between each game.
No, Chris Sigaty has been quoting saying there could be around year between each game.
About the SCII split, did they actually say the would be sold as separate discs?
Red Alert 2 has two campaigns, Allied Faction and Union Faction, and has a disc for each side, but was sold as a single game.
Why couldn't SCII follow the same suit? 3 discs, one for each campaign but they are packaged together when you buy the game.
I do not recall them saying they would be selling them as separate discs with 3 separate campaigns on them.
I have nothing against splitting up campaign/single player story mode onto more than one disc, I do have an issue with buying them as separate games almost, that seems over the top.
What they're doing is that they're working on the Terran campaign first. When that campaign is done, sometime in 2009, they will release Starcraft 2 which will feature that terran campaign, and all that multiplayer has to offer with all races. Then they'll start working on the zerg camapign, which they say could take about a year to make, and then they'll release that. Same with the protoss campaign after the zerg one.
They're also promising that we get 28-32 hours of gameplay, PER campaign. And the second two parts wont be charged as full games, and even if they are.. id say it's well worth the price.
Or you could, you know, refuse to take part in this monetization of features that have been firmly free for a long time. It's people like you who let corporations walk all over everyone else. Oh no, I guess we just have to accept it. That's just life guys! Blizzard can own my wallet, release worse and worse games (beta tests), and begin monetizing features that gamers have taken for granted since the dawn of gaming.
You don't even know what kinds of features they'll be monetizing. It's people like you that stop games from moving forward. As I said before, gaming is not a damn charity, its a business and things change. Imagine how much more it's going to cost Blizzard to make the three versions of starcraft, featuring 28-32 hours of gameplay per campaign. They chose to do that, as opposed to just releasing the whole game in 2009, with watered down campaigns. And you said worse and worse games, since when have Blizzard games been bad?
Are you familiar with Guild Wars? They purposefully chose an expansion based system as their business model, for a variety of reasons but also mainly to not compete with WoW. And according to their model of releasing regular priced expansions at regular intervals, they pull in roughly the same amount of money as a P2P subscription system with streamed content.
Now imagine if they started a P2P system, along with charging for expansions. Think about how many people will stop paying GW.. and think about how many people will still be playing WoW. Only reason wow is able to maintain itself, and furthermore keep adding phenomenal amounts of content to the game is because they have both.
According to your logic then, Lord of Destruction could never have been released. Or Brood War for that matter. Or Beyond the Dark Portal, and the Frozen Throne. All expansions that were developed and released without any prior P2P content.
Yeah but look at the content those expansions added. Now look at the content WotLK is adding, and that TBC added. I'd actually love to see Diablo 3 go P2P, even though it's not. The benefits would definitly show, and 15$ a month is not alot of money... I bet that's not even 1% of the money you make in a month. Its only 50 cents a day.
Those features should be absolutely free, I can't even believe those features are considered as luxuries.
+1 to this ...i really hope blizzard won`t make anything pay 2 play..if they do i will not pay for the game and download a pirate version and only play on solo..
What makes you think you have the right to steal a game when everything in the game isn't exactly how you like it? Its cheap bastards like you too that stop games from moving forward.
I'm assuming 2-3 months in between each game.
No, Chris Sigaty has been quoting saying there could be around year between each game.
About the SCII split, did they actually say the would be sold as separate discs?
Red Alert 2 has two campaigns, Allied Faction and Union Faction, and has a disc for each side, but was sold as a single game.
Why couldn't SCII follow the same suit? 3 discs, one for each campaign but they are packaged together when you buy the game.
I do not recall them saying they would be selling them as separate discs with 3 separate campaigns on them.
I have nothing against splitting up campaign/single player story mode onto more than one disc, I do have an issue with buying them as separate games almost, that seems over the top.
What they're doing is that they're working on the Terran campaign first. When that campaign is done, sometime in 2009, they will release Starcraft 2 which will feature that terran campaign, and all that multiplayer has to offer with all races. Then they'll start working on the zerg camapign, which they say could take about a year to make, and then they'll release that. Same with the protoss campaign after the zerg one.
They're also promising that we get 28-32 hours of gameplay, PER campaign. And the second two parts wont be charged as full games, and even if they are.. id say it's well worth the price.
Additional features are not bad. If they plan for a pay-to-get-certain-things, I hope they make it so that you can buy it via something like a WoW game card. This is one reason why I hated HellGate, you had to pay online, which makes things a lot more difficult for those who lived outside of North America.
Perhaps they'll allow additional areas, similar to Hellgate. Maybe a more in-depth customization of character. I like to see weapon/armor customization, meaning altering the weapon's/armor's look only.
As for SC2, Blizzard is following the footsteps of my other favourite game producer, Valve. Like Half Life 2 episodes, they didn't want the hardcore fans (like me) to wait too long, so they released an episode every 1-2 years. They maybe short in length, but I rather continue Half Life for about 4-7 hours every 1-2 years than wait 5-6 years for the complete game.
My opinions are subjective though, some people here aren't willing to pay that much, which is certainly understandable.
If Diablo 3 is P2P, I won't play online ever (maybe just trial from pirated disc or single player).
I've played many MMORPGs, free ones with cash shop..since I don't P2P.
In most cases, the cash shop items are useless (decoration or other..)
In some games however, like Archlord, u can make a lot of money if u convert real $ to ingame cash allowing players that do pay for some features get the best items. (full unique sets, etc.)
Therefore if they make useless accesories have a small fee, I couldn't care less since I won't buy them,
but if the $ we pay can give an unfair advantage to others. Then Fuck Blizzard, and their whole marketing system.
Final word: Diablo was so far an entirely free game and should stay that way. Blizzard already makes a ton of money and Diablo isn't an MMO. let's say its 50-60$ each game plus an expansion (who knows maybe 2 or more). The amount of sales they'll get plus the $ made on expansions is one hell of a cheque.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Diablo Series is one of the only games with such a crazy fanbase and no game can top that!
im back i guess. Yes shall we compare GW (which ive played) to WoW (which ive played), one is p2p and has 10 millionish ppl and GW has last time i check about 200 thousand so hmm. are you fucking kidding me that GW pulls i the same amount of Cash as WoW?
Reading comprehension is your friend.
I never stated that GW makes the same amount as WoW. I said one uses a different business model than the other, and both are successful, especially given that GW is the IPO of a startup company, while WoW is built upon a huge fanbase from games that were released as far back as 1994...
You're far from knowing what constitutes a valid argument, why not let the adults handle it?
Quote from "Jugzor" »
Yeah but look at the content those expansions added.
Massive campaigns, several new units built upon the same storyline and engine.
Now look at the content WotLK is adding, and that TBC added.
Small world additions, 1 new race/class, built upon the same storyline and engine. And the intent is to eventually streamline those additions into the existing world, UNLIKE the RTS and Diablo expansions.
I'd actually love to see Diablo 3 go P2P, even though it's not. The benefits would definitly show, and 15$ a month is not alot of money... I bet that's not even 1% of the money you make in a month. Its only 50 cents a day.
D3 doing any sort of P2P feature whether monthly or micro is a deal breaker for me, not because its worthy or not, but because the scope of the game is SO small compared to the likes of games like WoW.
$15 a month is a HUGE amount of money relative to the benefit you get, a 4 person max game built ontop of a GUI chat server. And regardless of whether its a lot of money or not, trying to squeeze blood from the stone of the playerbase is an especially foolish move given the state of the world economy.
Its basically the same thing as giant financial institutions, through horrible corporate mismanagement getting bailed out. Blizzard makes money hand over fist, and to claim that they have to monetize features to survive is basically them saying we're a bunch of idiots and sheep.
According to your logic then, Lord of Destruction could never have been released. Or Brood War for that matter. Or Beyond the Dark Portal, and the Frozen Throne. All expansions that were developed and released without any prior P2P content.
Amazing what a little research can do! :thumbsup:
Do any of those have as many expansions as WoW? If not, you are reducing the amount of content that can be produced. Who would pay to play guild wars?
Massive campaigns, several new units built upon the same storyline and engine.
I'm not denying that the expansions to those games added a few nice satisfying campaigns, several new units and what not. I'm just placing them in comparison to WoW expansions.
Small world additions, 1 new race/class, built upon the same storyline and engine. And the intent is to eventually streamline those additions into the existing world, UNLIKE the RTS and Diablo expansions.
Small? Outland and Northrend are pretty big, they add ALOT of gameplay. And the storyline in WoW is basically continuous through the expansions in a sense. Do you follow the wow lore and story?
And Sure you may argue that wow is an mmo, but look at Starcraft 2 -- see nows thats something. 28-32 hours of gameplay per campaign, thats alot of content.
D3 doing any sort of P2P feature whether monthly or micro is a deal breaker for me, not because its worthy or not, but because the scope of the game is SO small compared to the likes of games like WoW.
$15 a month is a HUGE amount of money relative to the benefit you get, a 4 person max game built ontop of a GUI chat server. And regardless of whether its a lot of money or not, trying to squeeze blood from the stone of the playerbase is an especially foolish move given the state of the world economy.
Its basically the same thing as giant financial institutions, through horrible corporate mismanagement getting bailed out. Blizzard makes money hand over fist, and to claim that they have to monetize features to survive is basically them saying we're a bunch of idiots and sheep.
Now I highly doubt Diabo 3 would be pay to play... but if it were.. I'm sure Blizzard would definitly deliver. We'd see alot more content, we'd have more support, more perks, a more secure battle.net, and the list goes on. Maybe it wouldnt be exactly 15 dollars a month, since its the scope of the game is not that of an mmo like wow, but we'd be seeing were our money is going.
And well maybe some of the extra additions that the Diablo 3 team is adding to battle.net specifically for diablo 3 are just outside of Blizzard's Diablo 3 budget. I'm sure the features they monetize wont be game breaking, or unreasonably expensive. Jay wilson said "we kindof have to" for a reason.
Also, this might be irrelevent to your point, I just wanted to point out that in a recent interveiw with Rob Pardo, he said that they're currently looking at 8 players for game size. 4 Players was for the demo.
According to your logic then, Lord of Destruction could never have been released. Or Brood War for that matter. Or Beyond the Dark Portal, and the Frozen Throne. All expansions that were developed and released without any prior P2P content.
Amazing what a little research can do! :thumbsup:
You can't be serious. You're actually arguing in favor of blizzard trying to drag even more money out of us. I knew you were on the wrong side on the color issue, but I didn't know just how deep the fanboy in you ran.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
He is saying that because people are too cheap to pay for p2p, companies are encouraged to make these expansions to sell more content. Not the other way around like you implied where you think he meant that the lack of funds from p2p prevents these expansions from being made.
lmaooo...
Most game developers already do all of that for their online capable games. You know what they charge?
ZERO $.
No one should pay for gameplay balancing that should have been completed in beta. And developers these days are notorious for releasing games before they're done and adding in deleted content later as "added material." As an example, in the game Oblivion, there were many files in the Construction Set that were placeholders for official "DLC" released later on a microtransaction basis.
Whether it was due to the game being rushed or because it was intentional is irrelevant. What should have happened was the missing content be added back in as a content patch such as companies like Arena.Net and Valve do all the time.
Also, charging fees is a slippery slope, and once started the fees continue to get higher until subscribers start to flee, which is then the market maximum. For me, given D3's dearth of features compared to a game like WoW, that maximum is $0.
Are you familiar with Guild Wars? They purposefully chose an expansion based system as their business model, for a variety of reasons but also mainly to not compete with WoW. And according to their model of releasing regular priced expansions at regular intervals, they pull in roughly the same amount of money as a P2P subscription system with streamed content.
WoW not only charges P2P, but ALSO charges for expansions. So how does that fit into the either/or theory you guys expound? His assertion is wrong based on fact, UNLESS WoTLK is released as a FREE downloadable expansion, in which case he will be proven right. Ask me how likely I think that will be, no seriously go ahead...
And again, because of Blizzard's immense commercial success, their business models are not as hampered by limited cash flow as some others.
Or if Wow had only 200k players, or if GW had 10million.
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
Red Alert 2 has two campaigns, Allied Faction and Union Faction, and has a disc for each side, but was sold as a single game.
Why couldn't SCII follow the same suit? 3 discs, one for each campaign but they are packaged together when you buy the game.
I do not recall them saying they would be selling them as separate discs with 3 separate campaigns on them.
I have nothing against splitting up campaign/single player story mode onto more than one disc, I do have an issue with buying them as separate games almost, that seems over the top.
Yep, three campaigns, three games. Each will be sold separately and apart. I'm assuming 2-3 months in between each game.
All these things require a large staff of GM's that cost a large sum of money to keep on staff. This is why you only see this kind of support in p2p based games. For as much money as Blizzard has, nothing in this world comes free. As nice as it would be for Blizzard to give us these features at the company's expense, they've got a business to run and shareholders to report to. Isn't having a d3 community with less scammers and jerks (in addition to continuous content) worth a little money a month. Again, no one knows how much the p2p will be so it is very likely that it will be less than the standard $15 based on what we'll be getting.
Please look at my comparison between the 3 episode thing they're doing for sc2 and what they did with sc/bw found in post #35 in this thread. Also, another big reason they split it was because to finish all 3 campaigns and put it in 1 release, they would have to delay the game for a few years. I think it's a good idea to release what they have now so people can start enjoying the multiplayer. I'd guess the expansions would come about 1 year apart, and add to the multiplayer experience in addition to giving us a big chunk of the campaign. The key things to remember is that each part of sc2 they release will have a campaign that lasts as long as the campaign of all 3 races found in sc put together, just that it will focus on 1 race at a time. Another thing is that the 2 episodes following the first will most likely NOT be the same price as the first, if you think of them as expansions ( which they are).
Now imagine if they started a P2P system, along with charging for expansions. Think about how many people will stop paying GW.. and think about how many people will still be playing WoW. Only reason wow is able to maintain itself, and furthermore keep adding phenomenal amounts of content to the game is because they have both.
Yeah but look at the content those expansions added. Now look at the content WotLK is adding, and that TBC added. I'd actually love to see Diablo 3 go P2P, even though it's not. The benefits would definitly show, and 15$ a month is not alot of money... I bet that's not even 1% of the money you make in a month. Its only 50 cents a day.
What makes you think you have the right to steal a game when everything in the game isn't exactly how you like it? Its cheap bastards like you too that stop games from moving forward.
No, Chris Sigaty has been quoting saying there could be around year between each game.
What they're doing is that they're working on the Terran campaign first. When that campaign is done, sometime in 2009, they will release Starcraft 2 which will feature that terran campaign, and all that multiplayer has to offer with all races. Then they'll start working on the zerg camapign, which they say could take about a year to make, and then they'll release that. Same with the protoss campaign after the zerg one.
They're also promising that we get 28-32 hours of gameplay, PER campaign. And the second two parts wont be charged as full games, and even if they are.. id say it's well worth the price.
Now imagine if they started a P2P system, along with charging for expansions. Think about how many people will stop paying GW.. and think about how many people will still be playing WoW. Only reason wow is able to maintain itself, and furthermore keep adding phenomenal amounts of content to the game is because they have both.
Yeah but look at the content those expansions added. Now look at the content WotLK is adding, and that TBC added. I'd actually love to see Diablo 3 go P2P, even though it's not. The benefits would definitly show, and 15$ a month is not alot of money... I bet that's not even 1% of the money you make in a month. Its only 50 cents a day.
What makes you think you have the right to steal a game when everything in the game isn't exactly how you like it? Its cheap bastards like you too that stop games from moving forward.
No, Chris Sigaty has been quoting saying there could be around year between each game.
What they're doing is that they're working on the Terran campaign first. When that campaign is done, sometime in 2009, they will release Starcraft 2 which will feature that terran campaign, and all that multiplayer has to offer with all races. Then they'll start working on the zerg camapign, which they say could take about a year to make, and then they'll release that. Same with the protoss campaign after the zerg one.
They're also promising that we get 28-32 hours of gameplay, PER campaign. And the second two parts wont be charged as full games, and even if they are.. id say it's well worth the price.
Perhaps they'll allow additional areas, similar to Hellgate. Maybe a more in-depth customization of character. I like to see weapon/armor customization, meaning altering the weapon's/armor's look only.
As for SC2, Blizzard is following the footsteps of my other favourite game producer, Valve. Like Half Life 2 episodes, they didn't want the hardcore fans (like me) to wait too long, so they released an episode every 1-2 years. They maybe short in length, but I rather continue Half Life for about 4-7 hours every 1-2 years than wait 5-6 years for the complete game.
My opinions are subjective though, some people here aren't willing to pay that much, which is certainly understandable.
Blizzard
Valve
:thumbsup:
I've played many MMORPGs, free ones with cash shop..since I don't P2P.
In most cases, the cash shop items are useless (decoration or other..)
In some games however, like Archlord, u can make a lot of money if u convert real $ to ingame cash allowing players that do pay for some features get the best items. (full unique sets, etc.)
Therefore if they make useless accesories have a small fee, I couldn't care less since I won't buy them,
but if the $ we pay can give an unfair advantage to others. Then Fuck Blizzard, and their whole marketing system.
Final word: Diablo was so far an entirely free game and should stay that way. Blizzard already makes a ton of money and Diablo isn't an MMO. let's say its 50-60$ each game plus an expansion (who knows maybe 2 or more). The amount of sales they'll get plus the $ made on expansions is one hell of a cheque.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
I never stated that GW makes the same amount as WoW. I said one uses a different business model than the other, and both are successful, especially given that GW is the IPO of a startup company, while WoW is built upon a huge fanbase from games that were released as far back as 1994...
You're far from knowing what constitutes a valid argument, why not let the adults handle it?
Massive campaigns, several new units built upon the same storyline and engine.
Small world additions, 1 new race/class, built upon the same storyline and engine. And the intent is to eventually streamline those additions into the existing world, UNLIKE the RTS and Diablo expansions.
D3 doing any sort of P2P feature whether monthly or micro is a deal breaker for me, not because its worthy or not, but because the scope of the game is SO small compared to the likes of games like WoW.
$15 a month is a HUGE amount of money relative to the benefit you get, a 4 person max game built ontop of a GUI chat server. And regardless of whether its a lot of money or not, trying to squeeze blood from the stone of the playerbase is an especially foolish move given the state of the world economy.
Its basically the same thing as giant financial institutions, through horrible corporate mismanagement getting bailed out. Blizzard makes money hand over fist, and to claim that they have to monetize features to survive is basically them saying we're a bunch of idiots and sheep.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Small? Outland and Northrend are pretty big, they add ALOT of gameplay. And the storyline in WoW is basically continuous through the expansions in a sense. Do you follow the wow lore and story?
And Sure you may argue that wow is an mmo, but look at Starcraft 2 -- see nows thats something. 28-32 hours of gameplay per campaign, thats alot of content.
Now I highly doubt Diabo 3 would be pay to play... but if it were.. I'm sure Blizzard would definitly deliver. We'd see alot more content, we'd have more support, more perks, a more secure battle.net, and the list goes on. Maybe it wouldnt be exactly 15 dollars a month, since its the scope of the game is not that of an mmo like wow, but we'd be seeing were our money is going.
And well maybe some of the extra additions that the Diablo 3 team is adding to battle.net specifically for diablo 3 are just outside of Blizzard's Diablo 3 budget. I'm sure the features they monetize wont be game breaking, or unreasonably expensive. Jay wilson said "we kindof have to" for a reason.
Also, this might be irrelevent to your point, I just wanted to point out that in a recent interveiw with Rob Pardo, he said that they're currently looking at 8 players for game size. 4 Players was for the demo.