Thats why the popularity of this game dropped so dramatically, and with WOD coming out soon, were heading back into the "dark age" of diablo 3 again.
I think it's more likely that Diablo 3's popularity is waning because there's not much to do. By the time you're in Torment 3, you've seen every single bit of content this game has to offer. At that point, it's farming for gear so that you can farm for more gear.
That, in my opinion, is why Diablo 3 isn't very popular. I have some evidence, too: Patches. When a new patch is released, the population rises and then starts dropping again. People come back for new content and leave when they've exhausted it. Your average player cannot just keep farming forever.
Until Blizzard starts adding in actual content (instead of rehashing existing content, like they did with greater rifts), this game is going to get less and less popular.
Diablo is a game where you farm for gear. That's the end game. People want an MMO, and hell, maybe it will end up more like an MMO. Sure more items and whatnot will be added, and another gamemode or some tweaks would be neat. But if you think this game is "incomplete", you have silly expectations for what Diablo is.
Perhaps you're right. I'll never understand how people can have fun running the exact same content over and over and over again without ever wanting or expecting any changes.
The reason I liked loot in WoW was because it enabled me to move on to further tiers of content, with new bosses and new loot. Diablo 3 has never and, apparently, will never have that.
Of course, WoW and MMOs aren't alone in that regard. FPS games introduce new maps, new weapons and other new content. RTS games introduce new maps and allow for heavily customized game types (well, Starcraft does, anyway). Hell, even action and adventure games release new content (and, yeah, I realize that a lot of it is paid DLC, which becomes free DLC with later releases of the game). Platformers release additional levels, with new challenges. Pretty much every genre, aside from sports, can be expanded on with additional content.
I guess I'm just confused as to why Diablo 3 players are so willing to settle for less. I think it's pretty pathetic that so many of us are happy to run the same goddamned rifts and grifts over and over again. I think it's pathetic that Blizzard (who happens to be in my top 2-5 game developers) is content to let the game become so stale. I mean, D3 players are constantly complaining about how empty the game is becoming and they never consider that it might be because it gets so insanely boring running the same content over and over again.
I've never seen a game community so enthusiastic as this one about defending their game's lack of content. It's almost as if you guys aren't willing to listen to any suggestions about improving the game -- if it doesn't come from Bilzzard, you guys don't want to hear it. If you're willing to settle for less, then, by all means, keep running rifts... just don't complain when the game starts dying and Blizzard stops supporting it.
edit: And before anyone starts with the "What makes you think people want more end-game???" BS, allow me to point out that we've had not one, but two end-game suggestions on the front-page of this site in the past month or so. It's clearly an issue of contention in the community and saying things like, "People want an MMO" is just another way of dismissing the concern. It's a legitimate concern, so stop comparing the concern to an MMO. MMOs are, by no means, the only genre that offers evolving end-game content. There's absolutely no reason that Blizzard couldn't add in a boss-rush mode, or new bosses, or remove certain affixes from items and then sprinkle ramalandi's gift style items around that would add those affixes back to gear, giving us more content and more stuff to farm... and those are just the ideas that I've suggested. There are tons of end-game ideas that could be added that would increase the replay value of this game enough that people wouldn't be quitting 1 week or 1 month after every major patch.
Either way, I've quit this game 3 or 4 times now and, surprise surprise, it's because there's nothing to do except farm. Myself and a decent chunk of the community do not enjoy farming for the sake of farming. This game needs more than just farming if it's going to survive.
I play on console version so it may be different than PC but I have been seeing an increase in the amount of players online at any given time. I can always find a game with other players on any difficulty. Also, people keep playing this game because of its replayability due to the fact that no experience within the game is ever the same since all the maps/mobs are randomly generated. I've played since D2 and D3 is still a game I keep coming back to because of its varied content and experiences.
The one thing I don't understand is that many complainers don't seem to understand economics. They want more content but they don't want to pay for it. WoW has constant content updates because users effectively pay the employees salary via the monthly subscription. And don't go on about how WoW subscriptions pay for Diablo. If WoW ceased to exist tomorrow how would Blizzard pay employees salary and thus give users more content? Yes, a downloadable content model is an option but there needs to be revenue. Yes, an expansion pack generates revenue but that takes time. Ok, I'm off my soapbox, bash away.
I play on console version so it may be different than PC but I have been seeing an increase in the amount of players online at any given time. I can always find a game with other players on any difficulty. Also, people keep playing this game because of its replayability due to the fact that no experience within the game is ever the same since all the maps/mobs are randomly generated. I've played since D2 and D3 is still a game I keep coming back to because of its varied content and experiences.
The thing about the console versions is that they are practically brand new. It makes perfect sense that a recent/new release would see steadily increasing player numbers. Doubly so for the XBONE and PS4 versions, since they just received a major patch (2.1).
The one thing I don't understand is that many complainers don't seem to understand economics. They want more content but they don't want to pay for it. WoW has constant content updates because users effectively pay the employees salary via the monthly subscription. And don't go on about how WoW subscriptions pay for Diablo. If WoW ceased to exist tomorrow how would Blizzard pay employees salary and thus give users more content? Yes, a downloadable content model is an option but there needs to be revenue. Yes, an expansion pack generates revenue but that takes time. Ok, I'm off my soapbox, bash away.
Well, consider this: Patch 2.1 was a free patch -- we didn't have to pay for it. It introduced leaderboards and Grifts. Now, I understand that Grifts are, essentially, a minor update of regular rifts, (which is why I don't consider it to be much of a content update), but leaderboards are a pretty large undertaking. There was also the greed realm, which included a brand new boss fight.
Like I said: We didn't pay for patch 2.1, but it still included new content. With that in mind, what's to stop Blizzard from putting in a Boss-rush mode?
Think about it: Boss-rush is more competitive than Grifts could ever be, since you're fighting established bosses with established mechanics -- no randomness. It makes perfect sense for this mode to be implemented. I can't imagine it would take much more in the way of development resources than Grifts did, or even the Realm of Trials.
But, no, it's a suggestion for new content that doesn't involve repeatedly farming loot for the sole purpose of farming more loot, so your average Diablo 3 forum poster is never going to support the idea. That, apparently, isn't the kind of game that Diablo 3 is, right D3 community?
So, we're going to continue having forum posters complaining about how "the popularity of this game dropped so dramatically" and how "were heading back into the "dark age" of diablo 3 again." In fact, the most insightful part of DeboSc2's comment was his last line, "Oh well not like im gonna stop playing LOL". It sounds to me like DeboSc2 is a Diablo fan. Well, naturally Diablo fans aren't going to quit playing, because Diablo fans are fans of endless grinding and farming. The problem, though, is that the majority of people buying this game aren't Diablo fans -- they're gamers. I'm willing to bet that more people have bought and quit this game due to the grinding nature than are still playing it.
Perhaps you're right. I'll never understand how people can have fun running the exact same content over and over and over again without ever wanting or expecting any changes.
I think you nailed it with this statement. When was the last expansion to Diablo 2? When did Diablo 2 die?
Most gamers nowadays are used to the "episodic content" and DLC defining the evolution of a game. I think that Diablo is NOT like this is one of its defining features. I love that I don't have to pay an extra 15 bucks for character slots, etc. To me that sullies the experience, whether I partake or not.
The Diablo playerbase in particular is a limited, demanding group of players that have very specific desires as a group. Yes there are subsets of that group, some that want WOWablo, some that want Solo 24x7, etc. But in general, it's pretty safe to say they want an experience quite similar to Diablo 2, but with better graphics, updated mechanics, and shittons of loot. One of the defining aspects of the Diablo series is exactly what you say is bad. Repetitive content. Diablo 2 was every bit as repetitive as D3, significantly moreso, in fact. Did people spend hundreds or thousands of hours playing it? Indeed, and they look back fondly on it. That suggests there is something to the familiar and comfortable that people really seem to enjoy for extended periods.
I've personally spent over 500 hours on this game - and 99.8% of that on one character. Probably the most I've spent on any single game outside of 2 or 3 MMOs. And I play 95% solo. I feel it could use more gamemodes.. but I still play it like it is.. because it's still fun to me to search for that damn Furnace, or perfect item, or blast through content with a twinked character.
In short, Diablo is not supposed to be a game that survives by being in the media spotlight, coming up with new character skins and maps every month. It's a quality game that you buy, maybe you play it 20 hours and "finish" it. Maybe you play it 2000 and never finish it, still playing it 6 years after the last expansion. It's designed to work for both, and to try to shoehorn it into what the modern gaming industry puts out as "ever-evolving" games would be a disservice to this amazing feat of gaming Blizzard has put together.
In that case, are there any games with similar gameplay but have an actual end-game that isn't specifically about farming loot?
It sucks, because I'm apparently one of the few people that likes Diablo's storyline, which I don't really expect to see in other point-and-click ARPGs. I like the story, I like the gameplay, I just don't like the focus on endlessly acquiring gear. What game should I be playing?
In that case, are there any games with similar gameplay but have an actual end-game that isn't specifically about farming loot?
It sucks, because I'm apparently one of the few people that likes Diablo's storyline, which I don't really expect to see in other point-and-click ARPGs. I like the story, I like the gameplay, I just don't like the focus on endlessly acquiring gear. What game should I be playing?
Well, there only a few types of "end-games" out there for games. For about half of games, the end game is the credits. You get 8-50 hours of playtime, then you've completed the game. This is enough to justify a $30-$50 game in most cases.
For games without end, there are a few different types.
There are games with the solo play nonexistent or limited, which focus solely on competition - League of Legends, Counterstrike, etc. These games have no real end-game, because the game doesn't change much in structure from first play-through to expert play-through. There are some hybrids here, but the solo play is usually pushed to the side rather quickly (Starcraft).
MMOs generally focus on team-play and combining efforts in order to provide essentially just a slowed-down version of what an ARPG does. You're still grinding for loot forever, it just comes less often and has more "depth" in what is required to get to that loot. These generally have trimmed down storylines, which are often simply ignored anyway.
Sandbox games, like GTA are another option, they generally have good storylines, but the "end-game" isn't really anything more than what the name describes.. a place to play around in endlessly, likely without any real feeling of progress.
To answer your question specifically, there generally are NOT story-focused games that don't end. It simply wouldn't make sense. It sounds to me like you should be playing a good action game like Shadows of Mordor. Great gameplay, good story, tons of fun and interesting mechanics, and you cap out your stats/items at around 40 hours played. After that you play until you're bored, then move on.
If you think there should be a game you can play hundreds of hours, and still not be doing the same thing for hundreds of hours.. well those don't exist. The closest thing would be the competitive PVP games, because the content/nature of the game is mostly decided by player actions.
In that case, are there any games with similar gameplay but have an actual end-game that isn't specifically about farming loot?
It sucks, because I'm apparently one of the few people that likes Diablo's storyline, which I don't really expect to see in other point-and-click ARPGs. I like the story, I like the gameplay, I just don't like the focus on endlessly acquiring gear. What game should I be playing?
Well, there only a few types of "end-games" out there for games. For about half of games, the end game is the credits. You get 8-50 hours of playtime, then you've completed the game. This is enough to justify a $30-$50 game in most cases.
For games without end, there are a few different types.
There are games with the solo play nonexistent or limited, which focus solely on competition - League of Legends, Counterstrike, etc. These games have no real end-game, because the game doesn't change much in structure from first play-through to expert play-through. There are some hybrids here, but the solo play is usually pushed to the side rather quickly (Starcraft).
MMOs generally focus on team-play and combining efforts in order to provide essentially just a slowed-down version of what an ARPG does. You're still grinding for loot forever, it just comes less often and has more "depth" in what is required to get to that loot. These generally have trimmed down storylines, which are often simply ignored anyway.
Sandbox games, like GTA are another option, they generally have good storylines, but the "end-game" isn't really anything more than what the name describes.. a place to play around in endlessly, likely without any real feeling of progress.
To answer your question specifically, there generally are NOT story-focused games that don't end. It simply wouldn't make sense. It sounds to me like you should be playing a good action game like Shadows of Mordor. Great gameplay, good story, tons of fun and interesting mechanics, and you cap out your stats/items at around 40 hours played. After that you play until you're bored, then move on.
If you think there should be a game you can play hundreds of hours, and still not be doing the same thing for hundreds of hours.. well those don't exist. The closest thing would be the competitive PVP games, because the content/nature of the game is mostly decided by player actions.
One of the better long posts i've read on this website, you pretty much explained it all. GG
In that case, are there any games with similar gameplay but have an actual end-game that isn't specifically about farming loot?
It sucks, because I'm apparently one of the few people that likes Diablo's storyline, which I don't really expect to see in other point-and-click ARPGs. I like the story, I like the gameplay, I just don't like the focus on endlessly acquiring gear. What game should I be playing?
Skyrim is an interesting suggestion. It doesn't really mesh with the fact that he said he likes the gameplay and story of Diablo, because the combat in Skyrim is just ... Let's say unrefined or imprecise. The story is also not in the forefront.
But it does offer the idea that you can play for 200 hours doing relatively different things for most of it. It certainly has longevity for a certain type of gamer.
Yeah Skyrim is kind of a weird in a way. The story didnt interest me and the combat system was just terrible - clunky and had zero depth. What kept me playing was actually all the mods available. It made skyrim, up to a point, anything you wanted to be within the mechanics of the skyrim world.
Well, consider this: Patch 2.1 was a free patch -- we didn't have to pay for it. It introduced leaderboards and Grifts. Now, I understand that Grifts are, essentially, a minor update of regular rifts, (which is why I don't consider it to be much of a content update), but leaderboards are a pretty large undertaking. There was also the greed realm, which included a brand new boss fight.
Like I said: We didn't pay for patch 2.1, but it still included new content. With that in mind, what's to stop Blizzard from putting in a Boss-rush mode?
Think about it: Boss-rush is more competitive than Grifts could ever be, since you're fighting established bosses with established mechanics -- no randomness. It makes perfect sense for this mode to be implemented. I can't imagine it would take much more in the way of development resources than Grifts did, or even the Realm of Trials.
But, no, it's a suggestion for new content that doesn't involve repeatedly farming loot for the sole purpose of farming more loot, so your average Diablo 3 forum poster is never going to support the idea. That, apparently, isn't the kind of game that Diablo 3 is, right D3 community?
So, we're going to continue having forum posters complaining about how "the popularity of this game dropped so dramatically" and how "were heading back into the "dark age" of diablo 3 again." In fact, the most insightful part of DeboSc2's comment was his last line, "Oh well not like im gonna stop playing LOL". It sounds to me like DeboSc2 is a Diablo fan. Well, naturally Diablo fans aren't going to quit playing, because Diablo fans are fans of endless grinding and farming. The problem, though, is that the majority of people buying this game aren't Diablo fans -- they're gamers. I'm willing to bet that more people have bought and quit this game due to the grinding nature than are still playing it.
I think you nailed it with this statement. When was the last expansion to Diablo 2? When did Diablo 2 die?
Most gamers nowadays are used to the "episodic content" and DLC defining the evolution of a game. I think that Diablo is NOT like this is one of its defining features. I love that I don't have to pay an extra 15 bucks for character slots, etc. To me that sullies the experience, whether I partake or not.
The Diablo playerbase in particular is a limited, demanding group of players that have very specific desires as a group. Yes there are subsets of that group, some that want WOWablo, some that want Solo 24x7, etc. But in general, it's pretty safe to say they want an experience quite similar to Diablo 2, but with better graphics, updated mechanics, and shittons of loot. One of the defining aspects of the Diablo series is exactly what you say is bad. Repetitive content. Diablo 2 was every bit as repetitive as D3, significantly moreso, in fact. Did people spend hundreds or thousands of hours playing it? Indeed, and they look back fondly on it. That suggests there is something to the familiar and comfortable that people really seem to enjoy for extended periods.
I've personally spent over 500 hours on this game - and 99.8% of that on one character. Probably the most I've spent on any single game outside of 2 or 3 MMOs. And I play 95% solo. I feel it could use more gamemodes.. but I still play it like it is.. because it's still fun to me to search for that damn Furnace, or perfect item, or blast through content with a twinked character.
In short, Diablo is not supposed to be a game that survives by being in the media spotlight, coming up with new character skins and maps every month. It's a quality game that you buy, maybe you play it 20 hours and "finish" it. Maybe you play it 2000 and never finish it, still playing it 6 years after the last expansion. It's designed to work for both, and to try to shoehorn it into what the modern gaming industry puts out as "ever-evolving" games would be a disservice to this amazing feat of gaming Blizzard has put together.
It sucks, because I'm apparently one of the few people that likes Diablo's storyline, which I don't really expect to see in other point-and-click ARPGs. I like the story, I like the gameplay, I just don't like the focus on endlessly acquiring gear. What game should I be playing?
For games without end, there are a few different types.
There are games with the solo play nonexistent or limited, which focus solely on competition - League of Legends, Counterstrike, etc. These games have no real end-game, because the game doesn't change much in structure from first play-through to expert play-through. There are some hybrids here, but the solo play is usually pushed to the side rather quickly (Starcraft).
MMOs generally focus on team-play and combining efforts in order to provide essentially just a slowed-down version of what an ARPG does. You're still grinding for loot forever, it just comes less often and has more "depth" in what is required to get to that loot. These generally have trimmed down storylines, which are often simply ignored anyway.
Sandbox games, like GTA are another option, they generally have good storylines, but the "end-game" isn't really anything more than what the name describes.. a place to play around in endlessly, likely without any real feeling of progress.
To answer your question specifically, there generally are NOT story-focused games that don't end. It simply wouldn't make sense. It sounds to me like you should be playing a good action game like Shadows of Mordor. Great gameplay, good story, tons of fun and interesting mechanics, and you cap out your stats/items at around 40 hours played. After that you play until you're bored, then move on.
If you think there should be a game you can play hundreds of hours, and still not be doing the same thing for hundreds of hours.. well those don't exist. The closest thing would be the competitive PVP games, because the content/nature of the game is mostly decided by player actions.
But it does offer the idea that you can play for 200 hours doing relatively different things for most of it. It certainly has longevity for a certain type of gamer.