Loss in IP/brand value by angry fans is obviously hard to quantify. Interesting how the game sold so well despite the rage. i would have excepted for them to take a loss of sales due to the general feedback, though raging fans have become somewhat of a phenomenon that we can observe accross different brands . In conclusion i think sales of the XPAC1/add-on will be a good indicator/KPI for how well fans really perceived the game.
A customer rating does not give a sample of how the majority is feeling. A customer rating shows how angry some people can be about a game. People who are more okay with the game or pleased with the game are more likely to not care enough about negative reviews or leave feedback. People who are huge fanboys and just trying to prove a point will leave a 10/10, people who are extremely angry because they feel entitled to a sequel more similar to Diablo 2, or just raging for whatever reason will leave a 0/10.
Rating systems are crap, especially user generated ones because people don't rate fairly they rate on emotion in order to praise a game or disgrace a game, both unwarranted.
I'm going to repost what I said in the other metacritic at the time it was posted because I'll just basically end up repeating myself.
The majority of people who go review something are people who are either greatly pleased or greatly displeased (more likely) in the first place. It's not an accurate system by a long shot. Look at the total scoring:
Any way you slice that it's absurd. Rating a game a 10 is equally as ridiculous. It's purely an opinion driven system and a LOT of it base on hate or fanboyism. User rating systems always end up like this. Does that mean opinions aren't valid? No. But they should in no way be viewed in a statistical way like this.
If they wanted an actual solid rating, they'd have to somehow choose about 4000 random people, and then contact them all via phone, email, any possible way. Expecting people to go onto a site and rate something in a fair constructive way isn't likely to happen at either end of the spectrum. I haven't even went and rated it.
Critic, website, magazine reviews are always a little skewed towards the up usually as well, but you'd probably get a more accurate rating if you took a few points off of that scoring. Those people, admittedly some may be a little biased, are qualified in rating games. That's all they do. They get paid to do it. They've played countless games to compare it to, they are more capable of looking at it objectively because it's not a emotional debacle for them like it is a lot of us fans. The whole rating system is skewed anyways though. Remember when a 5/10 used to be "pretty good"? Now anything below 7.5 is considered garbage basically.
Meta critic also draws from a lot of sources that don't even use a scale of 1-100 system or even a scale of 1-10. Giant Bomb for example gave Diablo 3 a 5/5 stars. How do you even equate that sort of system into a scale of 1-100? Obviously 5/5 = 100 but what about a 4.5 stars? It's not as simple as doing the math either. When you're rating a game on a scale from 1-5 and 1-10 there is a LOT less wiggle room on your choices.
Rating systems are absolute trash.
The game has lost a lot of it's initial hype and with that a lot have stopped playing. A lot of old D2 fans have ended up disappointed. There are still quite a few people playing though and anyone who got over 60 hours of playtime and enjoyment I would say they at least got what they paid for. D2 was a great game but personally I'm playing D3 about the same amount. I play in bursts then take a break for a day or so. Some people were going to end up disappointed, that was inevitable.
The game doesn't require longevity or to captivate your attention for months and months. It's not subscription based, it doesn't need to keep you feeling like you HAVE to renew to enjoy it more. It's astonishing so many people still play D2 so much. I guarantee D3 will have that same sort of fanbase though, it may not be the same people that played D2 but it will have die hard fans who love it and play it an insane amount.
D2 has more flexibility in that area at the moment because it's well known, it runs on any system really easy nowadays, it offers LAN, it offers offline play, and it offers PvP. D3 is fresh out of the womb, is still receiving lots of patches and changes and we don't even have PvP yet, I think it's a little early to be crying foul.
That's just my opinion though, take it or leave it.
- Repetitive gameplay ..... you are pretty hypocrite.
---> D3 : kill endless waves of monster to level up and get new skills and loots.
---> PoE : Kill endless waves of monster to level up and get new talent points.
You don't get new skills in D3. Or have you not reached 60 yet?
Now you say you are dissappointed in Diablo 3. I can tell you why..... along with many D2 notalgics fanboi, you expected a diablo 2.5.
Oh hai old broken game mechanics doesnt work for this time.... non-evolving games is the real downfall.
Just accept it this isnt diablo 2.5 this is DIABLO 3.
Yeah, this crazy notion that sequels should follow on the footsteps of their predecessors, keeping the things that work and fixing the ones that don't. Crazy people.....
All is all, they arent even close to dieing...... just the usual nostalgic players ranting over D3... yet most of em are playing D3 intensively id bet on it.
Let's bet. I could use the money.
Yes, i even have multiples 60s and yes you get new skills as you reach new levels..... i dont know how you not understand this.
Yeah your so called random maps. see how itll get old fast if you are an hardcore player.... since they can make thousands of maps for just 1 place. Take D2 it was random but at the end it was all the same.
Now tell me, just because i say that PoE graphics are pretty dull i have low intelligence? just because i state my opinion and pretty much what it is doesnt mean im stupid. All you are trying to do is put PoE on a golden stand.
Again, its your opinion if you dont like the story line and no im not 13 yo nearl double the age.
All i see once more is you bashing a player to get PoE on that golden stand.
I didnt even bash PoE, i just put it in line with diablo 3 because both games are pretty much the same thing with different maps/characters.
Yes sequels should follow and fix whats broken. Lets take D2 again..... (before i keep going i loved D2 a lot, and the dated systems were fun at the time)
-skills, misclick once you have to create a new char, new player you will probably put skills a little everywhere then gotta make new char, new patch with bonus... new char. All in all it was broken... yes it was old technology i know but now it is broken.
-stats, pretty much the same as skills... its not really customization when you have 10 more STR than the other barb....
-pvp system, oh hai got killed.... oh hai cant leave town because that noob is corpse camping you.
Now dont get me wrong, these dated mechanics were to date and fun at the time but things has to move on.
imo you just bash ppl that state opinions on a game. All i said in your post is raging OR semi mad typing
Can we really accept Metacritic as an accurate gauge of player satisfaction when we're taking about the opinions of 3 thousand players out of a total of 12 million?
No one else finds that kind of silly?
That's about 0.00025% of total players. Microscopic. I mean, you could say, "This game bummed me out. I don't like it." But to point to that tiny number of players and say, "Welp, there ya go, no one likes it." Hmmm!
When on the flipside people can point to metacritic and say "See?!!! My game is the bestest evar!!!! It has a good metacritic?!!!!" Then yes, if you use it for one, you have to use it for the other. Can we rely on the reviews of game publications that are "paid" to give good reviews of games? Of course not. Thus we have to find a middle ground somewhere, and it probably lies right in the average of everyone's votes...or the metacritic score as you will.
3.8 does sound a bit low in my eyes, though. I would vote it as a 6 to a 6.5, a slightly above mediocre game. It does what it does, albeit other games do it far better.
You say why we can't rely on the "paid" peoples scores, but then you go on to point out exactly why they're more valid than the user scores in this case.
And where did I say anything of the sort? I simply said that we can't trust "professional" reviewers that are "paid to give good reviews", ie. They lose advertising if they give a negative review of a popular game. Thus, their scores will be over-inflated. We can't trust a 9/10 or 10/10 from them any more than we can trust a 0/10 from a fan. If anything, their review is less valid than the fan's as they only care about getting paid, rather than giving a truthful review of the game. At least the fan is being "honest" if a bit exaggerated...
Loss in IP/brand value by angry fans is obviously hard to quantify.
Interesting how the game sold so well despite the rage. i would have excepted for them to take a loss of sales due to the general feedback,
though raging fans have become somewhat of a phenomenon that we can observe accross different brands
In conclusion i think sales of the XPAC1/add-on will be a good indicator/KPI for how well fans really perceived the game.
The question is do any of those "sales" count the games that were "given" to the customers that got the game for free with a year's wow subscription...?
Either way though, there are a lot of fans that bought the game on the name alone, based on past pedigree. As well, how many were banned bot accounts that re-bought the game? Why are there not nearly as many people playing now as when the game launched? That would be a true indicator of the game's health, but they won't give those numbers...
I can only advice people who havent tried Path of Exile yet(www.pathofexile.com) to give it a go(its free to play:))
I shifted from D3 to give it a try, and i was blown away.
I can surely say thats the best game i have played for several years, its so advanced and full of options for the player.
Its created by som pro players who created their own game in the way they wanted it to be, and thats clear to see.
Anyway i actually liked D3 dispite its flaws, but PoE has really opened my eyes on how an arpg should be, and now D3 seems like a childs game, where the developers hold your hand all the way.
I see a lot of people confusing 'paid to review' with 'paid to give a positive review'. Sure there are some publications that are questionable but a lot are fairly upstanding. I think a lot of people are also misunderstanding 'paid to review'. Game companies do not pay anyone to review their games. The reviewer is paid by the website or the magazine they work for, just like a writer would be paid for a editorial or something similar. Now I'm not saying there aren't cases where there has been underhanded bribes and sneaky stuff going on like that but reviewers are not paid by the game companies.
For the most part you only see the 'big title games' in magazines and on sites because that's what the majority of people are wondering about at the time. It's not because they get paid to review big titles it's because that's what the readers want. They want to know if the new Call of Duty is any good, or if Torchlight 2 is worth buying or if the new Starcraft 2 expansion will be worth the price of a whole new game. As hard of a pill as it is to swallow us readers are as guilty if not more so for less well known games not being covered. Readers are flooded with ads on TV and the internet about the next new hit game, so they "demand" reviews and the reviewers "supply" them.
Just wanted to get that off my chest.
I wouldn't point to ANY review though as a valid source because as I've went over again and again review systems make no sense nowadays, and sites like metacritic are terrible because they sum up review systems that use a 1-10 scale and a 5 star scale and twist it into a 1-100 scale for their own benefit. If a game looks interesting just buy it, if you can't come up with the cash for the game and there is no demo, get a word of mouth opinion. Friends and even communities like this are a much better way to get a good idea of the game because you can personally talk to people who have hands on experience.
In my opinion since we won't be given any numbers (and rightfully so, I don't think near any company hands out numbers willy-nilly like that) we should keep an eye on expansion sales. If people weren't satisfied at all with their first experience expansion sales numbers will be substantially lower.
Not that any of this really matters, the game, no matter how many players, isn't going to die. Unless you base your whole play style on public games. The servers will be up for the foreseeable future, people will always have items in the auction house, and those who enjoy playing can and will continue.