You know stocks aren't representative of just a single game right? It wasn't sales it was stocks. It was just showing the effect post release de-hyping has.
Also you know the majority of people who played D2 probably never farmed Hell either right? WoW has more of an endgame than Diablo (calm down I'm not saying it's better, that's all preference, I prefer Diablo). WoW's endgame is the same as a Diablo games. PvP/Farm items. Except in WoW you do it through raiding more so than solo play. It's still a gear treadmill.
Realizing that would require people to admit that Jay Wilson isn't ... Diablo ... and that he wasn't guilty of abducting all the newborns in the world and drowning them in an ammonia bath.
Among the people who keep pushing bullshit like Amazon sales on a month-and-a-half-old game there is no one who is going to admit that at the end of the day Jay Wilson is a human being just like you and me. They want to build him up to this ultimate bad guy, the man who killed their dreams and stole their childhoods. But they're not content to be miserable by themselves, they have to drag everyone down into their cespool of bile, venom, and broken promises. In fact they're so vhement about the fact that Jay Wilson not only killed their grandmothers, destroyed the Diablo franchise (and subsequently went back in time and caused cancer), and gave the original Blizzard North team poison hemlock in their soda that they'll go to such lengths to assume that a global megacorporation's stock fluctuations are based solely on a single release.
I think what hurts more is to see the 2.5 rating... =/
I will admit that is hurtful, but only because those are all so skewed when a group of people are upset. A lot of games will have that happen when even a small issue with the game arises that upsets people. Now it's okay for people to be upset, that's fine. What's scary is that some companies take user reviews like they're directly representative of a games success.
For example Fallout: New Vegas, a pretty big success overall, but had many bugs at first which caused a pretty big backlash. It was sitting at 84 for PC and 82 for consoles. Because of missing that 85 score Obsidian Entertainment didn't receive their bonus from Bethesda and ended up having to lay off 30 employees. Nevermind it sold over 1.4million in the first week and many more down the line, they didn't meet the metacritic criteria.
The only time I'd ever give a game a 0 is if it just outright wouldn't work. Not because I was mad at design changes from a previous title or because I felt the game was too easy, or whatever else it might be. There is absolutely no reason Diablo 3 deserves a 0, I would even say anything below a 2 but that's really just all based in people's opinions and well you know what they say about opinions.
Blizzard seems to know better though and they tend to look more towards the community in depth as a whole in what people like over a review number.
Quoting WoW expansion sales do NOT apply here because WoW is all about racing to level cap and then realizing that there's nothing to do at end game except raid which is a far smaller playerbase than those that are just levelling. Diablo is basically the same from start to finish unlike WoW so you wouldn't even start playing Diablo unless you were into farming.
You know stocks aren't representative of just a single game right? It wasn't sales it was stocks. It was just showing the effect post release de-hyping has.
Also you know the majority of people who played D2 probably never farmed Hell either right? WoW has more of an endgame than Diablo (calm down I'm not saying it's better, that's all preference, I prefer Diablo). WoW's endgame is the same as a Diablo games. PvP/Farm items. Except in WoW you do it through raiding more so than solo play. It's still a gear treadmill.
That's the fundamental difference though. The entire game of Diablo can be played the same way (solo) while WoW cannot. So for a lot of players WoW lasts until level cap with the same gameplay style but for Diablo it lasts forever. In other words, if you like Diablo at level 1-10 you'll likely enjoy it at level 60 since it's the same (but with more skills). WoW at 60 is nothing like 1-59 so lots of people get turned off.
If you notice what has been happening the last few weeks is that Diablo 3 has gone under more gigantic gameplay design directions than any other live game I've ever seen (and even today they yet announced another). The type of stuff they've been doing so often and so heavy-handed has always been something during a game's beta cycle. It's not hard to see why people are upset at paying $60 to access a beta.
Look at most companies on the market, everything is down because the Euro is going to crash... Also markets are not efficient and are poor indicators of actual performance. I'd explain accounting theory to you but its very long... start here and get back to me when you know what your talking about.
Oh to also counter your "fact" I guess Enron was a successful company because it's stocks were such a valid point of measurement. Thanks for coming.
This. I wish people would stop confusing stock prices with succesfull companies. For one, unless the company is planning on selling stock any time soon, it has next to no direct affect on the company (accept for perception, which is only affected because people think stock prices mean something in terms of company qualty nowadays), for two, the stock market is so driven by the short term trading of the "investment" firms that there is very little actual investing (aka, buying stock for long term performance gains or because you believe in/want to support the company), and for three - the economy is so interconnected across the globe that america stock prices can plummet because the Greeks are in bad shape.
I think what hurts more is to see the 2.5 rating... =/
I will admit that is hurtful, but only because those are all so skewed when a group of people are upset. A lot of games will have that happen when even a small issue with the game arises that upsets people. Now it's okay for people to be upset, that's fine. What's scary is that some companies take user reviews like they're directly representative of a games success.
For example Fallout: New Vegas, a pretty big success overall, but had many bugs at first which caused a pretty big backlash. It was sitting at 84 for PC and 82 for consoles. Because of missing that 85 score Obsidian Entertainment didn't receive their bonus from Bethesda and ended up having to lay off 30 employees. Nevermind it sold over 1.4million in the first week and many more down the line, they didn't meet the metacritic criteria.
The only time I'd ever give a game a 0 is if it just outright wouldn't work. Not because I was mad at design changes from a previous title or because I felt the game was too easy, or whatever else it might be. There is absolutely no reason Diablo 3 deserves a 0, I would even say anything below a 2 but that's really just all based in people's opinions and well you know what they say about opinions.
Blizzard seems to know better though and they tend to look more towards the community in depth as a whole in what people like over a review number.
I'm hoping this drives companies to reexamine using review averages like this or metacritic to judge performance. There is no denying that D3 sold like hot cakes, and I think only a complete moron would say that this game is, at very worse, less than average (at least assuming they like the ARPG genre).
I mean, sure, glance at the averages, but to base the bonus on it entirely is just dumb.
Quoting WoW expansion sales do NOT apply here because WoW is all about racing to level cap and then realizing that there's nothing to do at end game except raid which is a far smaller playerbase than those that are just levelling. Diablo is basically the same from start to finish unlike WoW so you wouldn't even start playing Diablo unless you were into farming.
You know stocks aren't representative of just a single game right? It wasn't sales it was stocks. It was just showing the effect post release de-hyping has.
Also you know the majority of people who played D2 probably never farmed Hell either right? WoW has more of an endgame than Diablo (calm down I'm not saying it's better, that's all preference, I prefer Diablo). WoW's endgame is the same as a Diablo games. PvP/Farm items. Except in WoW you do it through raiding more so than solo play. It's still a gear treadmill.
That's the fundamental difference though. The entire game of Diablo can be played the same way (solo) while WoW cannot. So for a lot of players WoW lasts until level cap with the same gameplay style but for Diablo it lasts forever. In other words, if you like Diablo at level 1-10 you'll likely enjoy it at level 60 since it's the same (but with more skills). WoW at 60 is nothing like 1-59 so lots of people get turned off.
If you notice what has been happening the last few weeks is that Diablo 3 has gone under more gigantic gameplay design directions than any other live game I've ever seen (and even today they yet announced another). The type of stuff they've been doing so often and so heavy-handed has always been something during a game's beta cycle. It's not hard to see why people are upset at paying $60 to access a beta.
Diablo 3's true colors...are? That a game that gets played like a part time job gets boring after 5 weeks? That it's very devisive because it's not D2.5?
Oh, and, at least in my opinion, these "gigantic gameplay design directions changes" are no more than what I expected from Blizzard. And besides, they haven't really been changing the direction, more like getting back on track to where they always wanted to be in the first place. I will grant that it had more end game balance issues then most games, but that's because Blizzard assumed they couldn't properly balance a game for the hardcore fans based on their own evaluations. And they were right!
Quoting WoW expansion sales do NOT apply here because WoW is all about racing to level cap and then realizing that there's nothing to do at end game except raid which is a far smaller playerbase than those that are just levelling. Diablo is basically the same from start to finish unlike WoW so you wouldn't even start playing Diablo unless you were into farming.
You know stocks aren't representative of just a single game right? It wasn't sales it was stocks. It was just showing the effect post release de-hyping has.
Also you know the majority of people who played D2 probably never farmed Hell either right? WoW has more of an endgame than Diablo (calm down I'm not saying it's better, that's all preference, I prefer Diablo). WoW's endgame is the same as a Diablo games. PvP/Farm items. Except in WoW you do it through raiding more so than solo play. It's still a gear treadmill.
That's the fundamental difference though. The entire game of Diablo can be played the same way (solo) while WoW cannot. So for a lot of players WoW lasts until level cap with the same gameplay style but for Diablo it lasts forever. In other words, if you like Diablo at level 1-10 you'll likely enjoy it at level 60 since it's the same (but with more skills). WoW at 60 is nothing like 1-59 so lots of people get turned off.
If you notice what has been happening the last few weeks is that Diablo 3 has gone under more gigantic gameplay design directions than any other live game I've ever seen (and even today they yet announced another). The type of stuff they've been doing so often and so heavy-handed has always been something during a game's beta cycle. It's not hard to see why people are upset at paying $60 to access a beta.
Diablo 3's true colors...are? That a game that gets played like a part time job gets boring after 5 weeks? That it's very devisive because it's not D2.5?
Oh, and, at least in my opinion, these "gigantic gameplay design directions changes" are no more than what I expected from Blizzard. And besides, they haven't really been changing the direction, more like getting back on track to where they always wanted to be in the first place. I will grant that it had more end game balance issues then most games, but that's because Blizzard assumed they couldn't properly balance a game for the hardcore fans based on their own evaluations. And they were right!
D3 is no less repetitive than Tetris and that doesn't seem to stop it. It's about how poor Jay's vision of WoW-esque balancing that we never had to deal with in D2. That's the true colors that are defining the success of public opinion. I never look at first two week sales of anything that has coattail-riding hype behind it. The dramatic decline of popularity in the last 3 weeks is a telling sign of why Blizzard has been talking about seriously rethinking the direction they are taking the game (just look at Bash's recent post about the DH set bonus).
D3 is no less repetitive than Tetris and that doesn't seem to stop it. It's about how poor Jay's vision of WoW-esque balancing that we never had to deal with in D2. That's the true colors that are defining the success of public opinion
No, you're right. In D2 when something was broke we had to wait 9 months to 1 year for it to be fixed. D2 was heavily-criticized for making infrequent, yet game-changing, patches. It's pretty clear that the D3 team did not like that paradigm and has tried to stay on top of any exploits, major imbalances, bugs, etc.
I have no desire to go back to the D2 style of patching and updates. It was antiquated before it was even implemented. I like that the D3 team is monitoring things with their internal data and listening to the public (even if I may not agree with the public at every turn) and making the necessary changes in a timely fashion as opposed to allowing us to play with broken stuff for 6+ months and THEN changing it. I much prefer that every patch doesn't outright change the game and I also realize that the initial patches are going to have more impact than the patches that occur after everything has stabilized.
EDIT
To use an example, I'm glad that Blizzard tried to stop botting and duping and such instead of allowing the economy to be based on SoJs instead of gold. I don't feel they acted quickly enough, but that's a whole different point really because they still acted far faster and with far more resolution than the D2 team did when faced with a similar problem. And, I'd still rather that they stomp on the "fun" some people had farming the Royal Crypts in order to keep the economy from going the same direction as the D2 economy than sit around and not do anything because people like you feel it's too much like WoW balancing.
I think the fact that some 10 million people bought it already is pretty astounding. Like.....how long would anyone consider sales to continue at millions per week after selling out so many copies to their target demographic?
I think the fact that some 10 million people bought it already is pretty astounding. Like.....how long would anyone consider sales to continue at millions per week after selling out so many copies to their target demographic?
Until starving children in Africa are purchasing Diablo 3, sales are a pretty big flop, clearly.
I think the fact that some 10 million people bought it already is pretty astounding. Like.....how long would anyone consider sales to continue at millions per week after selling out so many copies to their target demographic?
Until starving children in Africa are purchasing Diablo 3, sales are a pretty big flop, clearly.
Sales in Darfur are terrible. Clearly this game failed.
I bought both GW2 and D3, whats your point? Games with no monthly fees are great.
He has 733 posts, and every single one of them are anti-Blizzard, anti-D3. If people have been around these forums for at least 6 months, they should have recognized his name by now and took his OP with a grain of salt. He tries so hard to bash them in any way possible, no matter what the topic is about Blizzard. They can do no right, and he'll dig up things to try and support his biased opinions. Fact.
Realizing that would require people to admit that Jay Wilson isn't ... Diablo ... and that he wasn't guilty of abducting all the newborns in the world and drowning them in an ammonia bath.
Among the people who keep pushing bullshit like Amazon sales on a month-and-a-half-old game there is no one who is going to admit that at the end of the day Jay Wilson is a human being just like you and me. They want to build him up to this ultimate bad guy, the man who killed their dreams and stole their childhoods. But they're not content to be miserable by themselves, they have to drag everyone down into their cespool of bile, venom, and broken promises. In fact they're so vhement about the fact that Jay Wilson not only killed their grandmothers, destroyed the Diablo franchise (and subsequently went back in time and caused cancer), and gave the original Blizzard North team poison hemlock in their soda that they'll go to such lengths to assume that a global megacorporation's stock fluctuations are based solely on a single release.
Essentially a bunch of megalomaniacs.
I will admit that is hurtful, but only because those are all so skewed when a group of people are upset. A lot of games will have that happen when even a small issue with the game arises that upsets people. Now it's okay for people to be upset, that's fine. What's scary is that some companies take user reviews like they're directly representative of a games success.
For example Fallout: New Vegas, a pretty big success overall, but had many bugs at first which caused a pretty big backlash. It was sitting at 84 for PC and 82 for consoles. Because of missing that 85 score Obsidian Entertainment didn't receive their bonus from Bethesda and ended up having to lay off 30 employees. Nevermind it sold over 1.4million in the first week and many more down the line, they didn't meet the metacritic criteria.
For example just look at the amount of people who gave Diablo 3 a 0.
http://www.metacriti...s?dist=negative
The only time I'd ever give a game a 0 is if it just outright wouldn't work. Not because I was mad at design changes from a previous title or because I felt the game was too easy, or whatever else it might be. There is absolutely no reason Diablo 3 deserves a 0, I would even say anything below a 2 but that's really just all based in people's opinions and well you know what they say about opinions.
Blizzard seems to know better though and they tend to look more towards the community in depth as a whole in what people like over a review number.
That's the fundamental difference though. The entire game of Diablo can be played the same way (solo) while WoW cannot. So for a lot of players WoW lasts until level cap with the same gameplay style but for Diablo it lasts forever. In other words, if you like Diablo at level 1-10 you'll likely enjoy it at level 60 since it's the same (but with more skills). WoW at 60 is nothing like 1-59 so lots of people get turned off.
If you notice what has been happening the last few weeks is that Diablo 3 has gone under more gigantic gameplay design directions than any other live game I've ever seen (and even today they yet announced another). The type of stuff they've been doing so often and so heavy-handed has always been something during a game's beta cycle. It's not hard to see why people are upset at paying $60 to access a beta.
I'm hoping this drives companies to reexamine using review averages like this or metacritic to judge performance. There is no denying that D3 sold like hot cakes, and I think only a complete moron would say that this game is, at very worse, less than average (at least assuming they like the ARPG genre).
I mean, sure, glance at the averages, but to base the bonus on it entirely is just dumb.
Diablo 3's true colors...are? That a game that gets played like a part time job gets boring after 5 weeks? That it's very devisive because it's not D2.5?
Oh, and, at least in my opinion, these "gigantic gameplay design directions changes" are no more than what I expected from Blizzard. And besides, they haven't really been changing the direction, more like getting back on track to where they always wanted to be in the first place. I will grant that it had more end game balance issues then most games, but that's because Blizzard assumed they couldn't properly balance a game for the hardcore fans based on their own evaluations. And they were right!
D3 is no less repetitive than Tetris and that doesn't seem to stop it. It's about how poor Jay's vision of WoW-esque balancing that we never had to deal with in D2. That's the true colors that are defining the success of public opinion. I never look at first two week sales of anything that has coattail-riding hype behind it. The dramatic decline of popularity in the last 3 weeks is a telling sign of why Blizzard has been talking about seriously rethinking the direction they are taking the game (just look at Bash's recent post about the DH set bonus).
No, you're right. In D2 when something was broke we had to wait 9 months to 1 year for it to be fixed. D2 was heavily-criticized for making infrequent, yet game-changing, patches. It's pretty clear that the D3 team did not like that paradigm and has tried to stay on top of any exploits, major imbalances, bugs, etc.
I have no desire to go back to the D2 style of patching and updates. It was antiquated before it was even implemented. I like that the D3 team is monitoring things with their internal data and listening to the public (even if I may not agree with the public at every turn) and making the necessary changes in a timely fashion as opposed to allowing us to play with broken stuff for 6+ months and THEN changing it. I much prefer that every patch doesn't outright change the game and I also realize that the initial patches are going to have more impact than the patches that occur after everything has stabilized.
EDIT
To use an example, I'm glad that Blizzard tried to stop botting and duping and such instead of allowing the economy to be based on SoJs instead of gold. I don't feel they acted quickly enough, but that's a whole different point really because they still acted far faster and with far more resolution than the D2 team did when faced with a similar problem. And, I'd still rather that they stomp on the "fun" some people had farming the Royal Crypts in order to keep the economy from going the same direction as the D2 economy than sit around and not do anything because people like you feel it's too much like WoW balancing.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
Until starving children in Africa are purchasing Diablo 3, sales are a pretty big flop, clearly.
Sales in Darfur are terrible. Clearly this game failed.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
He has 733 posts, and every single one of them are anti-Blizzard, anti-D3. If people have been around these forums for at least 6 months, they should have recognized his name by now and took his OP with a grain of salt. He tries so hard to bash them in any way possible, no matter what the topic is about Blizzard. They can do no right, and he'll dig up things to try and support his biased opinions. Fact.
Battle.net Profile / Diablo Progress Profile
I see you're a post-beta joiner. Sorry if I didn't welcome you back then.
I'm curious if "secret world" will do well. It would be a miracle for EA not to screw things up somehow, but you never know.
Two mid-prices at the top 2, and plenty of copies @ $40.
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Video-Games-PC-Hardware/zgbs/videogames/229575
"secret world" is barely in the top 40 on its release weekend - does funcom actually make money in europe? How do they survive?