there is no moral to any of this. so why you keep making it sound like it doesn't make any sense. your opinion is 1 in 10 million, and your wanting something thats never going to happen. thats like posting about wanting america to suddenly turn into communism. NOTHING points to it EVER happening anytime in the next 50 years yet you keep trolling on like its going to make a difference. your clearly never going to get anything with where you stand is my point. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, yours is just one of the many bogus ones. lol
Alright, fine, I'll admit it. I was arguing just to argue. But check out Phrayed's response on the bottom of page 2.. THAT is how you change someone's mind.
But I'll say it again, even though it's a related but different argument: Blizzard needs to kick WoW if they want to innovate.
if wow could be killed. id kill it myself. no argument there. but ill be damned if the bastard doesn't have l33t tank gear and epic heals.
- not a single person is left from the original diablo team, and IMO it shows - the game seems seriously humorless, predictable and lacking in atmosphere
- they released nothing but wow and wow xpacs for about seven years, following a seven year stretch where they created 3 whole IPs and 3 brilliant takes on 3 different genres
- they've followed that with what looks like another 7 years of releasing nothing but shinier versions of games they made in the glory years a dozen years ago
- they showed a really cynical side in terms of going from a hard-core 'integrity of game-space' stance with purchased gear a few years ago, and doing a complete 180 to trying to profit on the process with the RMAH
- the gouging on things like mounts and server switches is fairly gross
- the random, cheap tchotchkes often seem like crap krusty the klown would license
- not a single person is left from the original diablo team, and IMO it shows - the game seems seriously humorless, predictable and lacking in atmosphere
- they released nothing but wow and wow xpacs for about seven years, following a seven year stretch where they created 3 whole IPs and 3 brilliant takes on 3 different genres
- they've followed that with what looks like another 7 years of releasing nothing but shinier versions of games they made in the glory years a dozen years ago
- they showed a really cynical side in terms of going from a hard-core 'integrity of game-space' stance with purchased gear a few years ago, and doing a complete 180 to trying to profit on the process with the RMAH
- the gouging on things like mounts and server switches is fairly gross
- the random, cheap tchotchkes often seem like crap krusty the klown would license
- not a single person is left from the original diablo team, and IMO it shows - the game seems seriously humorless, predictable and lacking in atmosphere
From what I have heard a lot of the team is from Blizzard North. You have seen the beta... how full of humor, unpredictable and what amazing atmosphere lead up to Blood Raven in Diablo 2?
Making big assumptions like this based off of 20% of Act 1 seems a little over the top.
Also, I laughed hysterically when some dying corpse crawled towards me... and when he died, a couple of gold pieces flopped out of his corpse. I found that to be awesome and more amusing than anything in the first 1/3 of A1 in Diablo 2.
- they released nothing but wow and wow xpacs for about seven years, following a seven year stretch where they created 3 whole IPs and 3 brilliant takes on 3 different genres
Right. They basically took their company and solely focused on World of Warcraft. In turn they made billions of dollars. Now they have promised that their new goal is to release a new game or expansion every year.
They are also developing a new IP. How is this different from other game studios that make 1 or 2 successful games and pump out sequels because it's something people are familiar with and really enjoy?
- they've followed that with what looks like another 7 years of releasing nothing but shinier versions of games they made in the glory years a dozen years ago
So Blizzard should be pretty much the only gaming studio that doesn't make sequels to incredibly popular games? They'll release more IPs within the next few years now that WoW, SC2 and D3 have provided more than enough income to make them comfortable.
- they showed a really cynical side in terms of going from a hard-core 'integrity of game-space' stance with purchased gear a few years ago, and doing a complete 180 to trying to profit on the process with the RMAH
They had a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. Websites outside of the game were doing this, it wasn't secure, people were getting ripped off. They decided to just put it into the game instead.
Why is that a bad thing? Unless you are the super genius who is going to figure out how to just stop third party sites from selling items/ripping people off.
- the gouging on things like mounts and server switches is fairly gross
I'm sure they make a lot of money off of that. What is with you people on this forum and being against a company making money?
They also donate a lot of those things (like the mount nonsense/in game little monsters) to charity.
I'm not really a Blizzard fan boy or anything. I love the Diablo series. I've never played Starcraft and I played WoW for like six months.
Seriously, you guys just seem like you get angry about this stuff just to get angry about it. They are a company making video games, their goal is to make money and to entertain their users so they can make even more money. It was like that when they were making the original Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo... it's like that now. Only WoW became so big they made a lot more money off of it than they did from the other titles.
Looking at this deal in an objective view, there is NO lost on Blizzards end.
Have to break it down and view it from different sides of the blizzard gaming community, and look at the money and time frames that have been established.
This deal REALLY does benifet the WOW gamer. Breaking it down:
-Retired WOW will (resub oor not) based of getting the WOW Beta Key (If they have no intention of playing D3) This strings them along monitary & content wise to WOW:MoP
-Retired WOW will (resub oor not) based of getting the WOW Beta Key (If they have intention of playing D3) This strings them along monitary & content wise till D3 Release. Gives them WOW:MoP beta access, and may get them to buy it too).
-Current WOW will go on the pass and get the WOW Beta Key (If they have no intention of playing D3) This strings them along monitary & content wise to WOW:MoP
-Current WOW will go on the pass and (If they have intention of playing D3) This strings them along monitary & content wise till D3 Release. Gives them WOW:MoP beta access, and may get them to buy it too).
Looking at the time frame, we could say that Blizz is no more than a year away from releasing WOW:MoP. Would make some sense with it being an annual pass buy and that they really can't (shouldn't) take that long to get it out, otherwise they risk lossing more subs.
This deal, looking at it in a Zero-sum sense doesn't really go well for the Diablo player only, or Diablo player that never played WoW, but looking at the deal.
At the monthly rate $15, that's $180 for one year.
If D3 comes out late March (end Q1) that's 5 months = $75
Game (standard) cost = $60
This leaves a $45 Short fall (180-75 (5 month sub till release) - 60 (diablo 3 game cost)) for the player because they wont be playing WoW, wasting that sub money.
Even more so the Diablo player that never bought WoW, that's hundreds you would have to pay between the games and sub.
BUT...The main thing is, these people never played WoW, so it can't be seen as a lost, Blizzard can only gain if either on of the types of players above sub up.
This deal only serves to string along the WoW Sub base monitary and content wise till D3 comes out or WoW:MoP comes out.
Only to potentially GROW the Diablo player base by giving WoW players a different game to play while OR cancelling their WoW sub.
If they do cancel their wow sub, they lose D3 and the key. SO they have to keep the WoW sub going until the year is up if they only want to play D3.
If they try and don't like D3, they'll still pay to keep the key and play something "NEW" while the sub is going.
In the end, Blizzard looked at the cost of development and maintance of D3 and felt satisfied that the annual pass along with the RMAH would be good to keep D3 going alone.
The deal is nearly perfect in keeping money coming in, in one way or another, for any Diablo or WoW player type and is quiet a marketing job.
The deal, again, ONLY serves to INCREASE the D3 player base, which increases the potential RMAH income, which keeps the game a float.
This deal, IS a real win for any current WoW player or any retired WoW player who will play both games for at least a year.
While this deal is not as friendly to the D3 player base, it does serve to make it bigger, and bring in more money to aid development and keep it going for years to come.
TinFoilHat: I almost gaurentee you, that TiTan will have all the income features of wow (pet store, mounts, all the services) along with the RMAH from D3. And in another brillant marketing job, will make WoW F2P, with A LOT more micro transactions involved for the people that stay behind and don't move on to Titan which will be a smaller onthly fee, but mainy micro transactions involved.
P.S. Sorry for any spelling, at work, no spell check, rapid fired this thing out.
From what I have heard a lot of the team is from Blizzard North. You have seen the beta... how full of humor, unpredictable and what amazing atmosphere lead up to Blood Raven in Diablo 2?
/
Making big assumptions like this based off of 20% of Act 1 seems a little over the top.
/
They also donate a lot of those things (like the mount nonsense/in game little monsters) to charity.
Sorry, too lazy to really format it - the team has exactly two people on it with credits on D2, and they were both junior. It has zero on it with credits from the original diablo. There are a few guys that were hired on after lord of destruction, but it's hard to say whether or not that represents the spirit of the old team, or something more like the spirit that got them shut down. This is all easily found if you cross-reference the team list on inc-gamers and mobygames.
/
And, yes, I think the opening of D2 looks to be something with may more repeatability, while the content in this beta seems forced and lacking in atmosphere, as much as they may try to do dark via gross-out easter-eggy stuff. The opening half-hour of the game is something you're going to experience with EVERY TOON YOU ROLL EVERY TIME, so it is important, especially if this game railroads you through opening quests, which, judging by the way portals are used, it does, heavily (as opposed to D2 where you can run straight to andariel in act 1).
/
They donate 99.9% to share buybacks for Kotick's options.
As for other points, yes, they are great at making money. Seeing as how Titan probably won't hit until 2018, that's about fifteen years where they're more interested in sucking in cash than putting out anything even slightly resembling a new game. Which I find sad, and disappointing, especially relative to the many classics they released '95-'01.
What is more appealing about Diablo 2 up until Blood Raven as opposed to Diablo 3 up until King Leoric?
I really don't see it. I think Diablo 3 is infinitely more entertaining in that short time span and Diablo 2 is my favorite video game ever. The start of Diablo 2 was easily the worst part of playing the game.
What is more appealing about Diablo 2 up until Blood Raven as opposed to Diablo 3 up until King Leoric?
I really don't see it. I think Diablo 3 is infinitely more entertaining in that short time span and Diablo 2 is my favorite video game ever. The start of Diablo 2 was easily the worst part of playing the game.
agreed, that guy is just another QQer over something that no one else agrees with. D3 beta footage is awesome, it seems just as dark as D2 but with 100x better graphics and gameplay... i really don't get why anyone would complain about a sequel that rules this much.
What is more appealing about Diablo 2 up until Blood Raven as opposed to Diablo 3 up until King Leoric?
The game doesn't blow its load being darker-than-dark at the get go - when I first killed those stupid porcupines in that green field, I remember being underwhelmed, but in retrospect, it set the game up extremely well, you had a feeling of real exploration, and felt sympathy with the rogues, with just enough plot to string you along but not overwhelm you. The day/night cycle, weather and music also created atmosphere, and a nice continuity from the original diablo.
Anyhow, rescuing Cain is probably a fairer comparison - you can blow through the beta and rescue Cain if you're highly skilled in about the same time.
What is more appealing about Diablo 2 up until Blood Raven as opposed to Diablo 3 up until King Leoric?
I really don't see it. I think Diablo 3 is infinitely more entertaining in that short time span and Diablo 2 is my favorite video game ever. The start of Diablo 2 was easily the worst part of playing the game.
agreed, that guy is just another QQer over something that no one else agrees with. D3 beta footage is awesome, it seems just as dark as D2 but with 100x better graphics and gameplay... i really don't get why anyone would complain about a sequel that rules this much.
I can see people having different opinions. I just don't understand his.
In the part of Diablo 3 you get to play (which they have said is basically the equivalent to playing up to Blood Raven in Diablo 2) there is:
1. Way more quests.
2. A more intriguing boss fight (Leoric vs. Raven isn't even close. I guess you can disagree, but I'd like to see any logical explanation that says Blood Raven is more fun.)
3. A crafting mechanic you can play with.
4. The unveiling of three mechanics (break items for gold and crafting materials. Stone of recall)
5. You get to play with A TON more skills up to that point.
6. The auction house.
7. A ton more variety in the enemies you combat than in Diablo 2.
8. You get a follower. In Diablo 2 you didn't get one until after you killed Blood Raven.
In Diablo 2 you had:
1. Basically the choice of 2-4 skills per character by the time you got to Blood Raven.
2. No real big mechanics outside of gambling.
3. Basically running around in a patch of grass that had rock walls around it and an area with a basic cave.
You can say you thought playing up to Blood Raven was a blast and that it's more entertaining than what the beta offers... but if you do:
1. I'll think you're lying, honestly.
2. Believe we have totally different opinions of what is fun in gaming. Whacking the zombie in Den of Evil and Blood Raven with your staff/weapon while running out of mana at a super fast rate wasn't what made Diablo 2 fun, it was when you got your skills.
1. In Diablo 1 you had skill books that could drop, which were one of the major points of character development.
2. The revealing of arguably the best quest in the game and possibly the entire series. (The Butcher)
3. I'd agree the characters in Diablo 1's town were more interesting than in 2 or 3 thus far. Farnhum (spelling?) was amazing, as were the others.
2. Believe we have totally different opinions of what is fun in gaming. Whacking the zombie in Den of Evil and Blood Raven with your staff/weapon while running out of mana at a super fast rate wasn't what made Diablo 2 fun, it when you got your skills.
That last part is definitely true - I think the action and loot component is more core than the skills, which were really more a d2 thing.
I'm probably failing in making my core point, in that it's a better lead-in for a game, the kind of game people still play a decade later, and holding back on stuff like the ghost execution of whatsername (which i don't think is in the demo, but will be in that area) and leah's motormouth is a good thing.
The beta itself is irrelevant, I'm just judging the opening content as exactly that.
That last part is definitely true - I think the action and loot component is more core than the skills, which were really more a d2 thing.
The action and loot component?
What action up to Blood Raven? What loot? Were you jumping up and down when you found a rare club or the ever important cracked sash?
I assure you those things are in Diablo 3 as well.
I'm probably failing in making my core point, in that it's a better lead-in for a game, the kind of game people still play a decade later, and holding back on stuff like the ghost execution of whatsername (which i don't think is in the demo, but will be in that area) and leah's motormouth is a good thing.
The beta itself is irrelevant, I'm just judging the opening content as exactly that.
Well I think you were failing until this. This point is totally subjective and opinion based. Like I said, I can respect your opinion if you thought D2 Encampment > Blood Raven was more fun than New Tristram > Leoric... but like I said, I just think you'd be lying about that. I see no real argument as to why it'd be more fun. I have the beta, I've played it, it's way, way more fun.
The base of the plot, the music, the atmosphere, etc. Yeah, I think you can argue that. So far I guess I'd rank the games like this in terms of some early stuff.
Cinematics: (I haven't seen the full opening one from D3, but from what I have seen)
1. Diablo 3
2. Diablo 2
3. Diablo
Music:
1. Diablo
2. Diablo 2
3. Diablo 3
Gameplay in the first 1/3 of the start of the game:
1. Diablo 3
2. Diablo
3. Diablo 2
Mechanics and 'fun factor' in the opening part of the game:
1. Diablo (For the Butcher and the drunk alone)
2. Diablo 3
3. Diablo 2
"Atmosphere" in terms of making you feel it is a dark, gothic universe at the beginning:
1. Diablo
2. Diablo 3
3. Diablo 2
Now, I can assure you I probably won't end up liking Diablo 3 more than Diablo 2. Diablo 2 for me was about as good as it gets... but there are some things about Diablo 3 that I think are unquestionably better. Just like some things about the original were unquestionably better, just like some things from 2 were unquestionably better.
agreed, that guy is just another QQer over something that no one else agrees with. D3 beta footage is awesome, it seems just as dark as D2 but with 100x better graphics and gameplay... i really don't get why anyone would complain about a sequel that rules this much.
What is your deal with flaming anyone who doesn't happen to share your opinion?
I don't agree with him, but dude, he's allowed to not be stoked about beta footage....
If everyone had identical opinions these forums wouldn't exist. Stop pretending like your half-assed opinions are any better than anyone else's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
What is your deal with flaming anyone who doesn't happen to share your opinion?
I don't agree with him, but dude, he's allowed to not be stoked about beta footage....
If everyone had identical opinions these forums wouldn't exist. Stop pretending like your half-assed opinions are any better than anyone else's.
whats with your constant arguing for no reason? when someones opinion is the opposite of 99% of everyone else's for no good reason and there apparently blind and can't see the game, ya i consider them pretty much retarded. and so should everyone else. them saying "it doesn't look as good or dark bla bla" are smoking crack. just because diablo 2 graphics were so horrid and they had black filling most of the screen because thats the kind of shit graphics existed back then, not because it was "intended" as insanely dark and colorless. intended as pretty dark yes but the severe lack of coloring that now D3 actually has was only because of the graphics capability back then.
Of course that's what they say. I don't really care either way. It'd be cool if I were still hooked onto the life draining wow and intending to pay each month for another year and receive extra benefits, but luckily for me I haven't played wow for a long time now and don't plan on ever picking it back up again.
We've known it for some time, blizzard doesn't want to kill their big cash crop by releasing new games, which is why they've tied wow/sc2/d3 and their expansions into battle.net and are now finding crafty solutions to keep people paying for wow while they make the transition into their new game. Competition with other companies is one thing, that's unavoidable, but they can do something about managing their own economy and so they are, short and simple.
Funny, people can read what I've posted here many times from the lips of the execs themselves - that D3 is just a loss leader, and losing wow subs to it is a business nightmare - and still deny it.
I think you are right but got it wrong. WoW is in decline - regardless of Diablo III - if you can migrate the player base to your platform instead of loosing it to someone/something else it is great business execution. Connecting the two products through the annual WoW pass is marketing at its finest (even though I find WoW to be a piece of gaming history that has noting left to give me anymore).
The overall decline of Blizzard is what concerns me more though. They are loosing their edge. And that is sad. Hopefully they can get their act together again but who knows.
I agree. The move is a great decision for the business, but has dreary implications for the future of gaming, especially on PC.
I'm a software engineer for a company (Cisco) that depends 100% on staying ahead of the world in terms of innovation. While we would never purposefully "kill" any outdated flagship platform that customers still love, we are constantly working to innovate new IP and develop new features, platforms, architectures and solutions. Why? Because that's what's best for our customers, that's what's best for the internet, that's what's best for the world. Customers will naturally move to your new product as long as it has high quality, and exceeds the needs met by their current product.
Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, we know that if you take too long to innovate, people will start beating you at your own game.
What irks me about trying to keep people inside of and obsessed with an old game, built on old engines, is that it encourages the allocation of engineering resources towards maintaining old solutions as opposed to innovating and inventing new ones.
By obsessing over money instead of gaming, gaming as an enterprise suffers.
Am I using a rather benign topic (WoW annual pass) as a springboard for this discussion? Yes. I applaud Bliz for their business savvy. I just want to applaud them for their innovation, and inspiring a new generation of meaningful gaming.
There, I'm done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
If Blizzard was obsessed about money and didn't care about their games at all:
Why is the production of their games still so incredibly long? If they didn't care about quality and just wanted to make a quick buck, wouldn't they just pump out huge titles like Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, their expansions and then quickly move onto Diablo 4, Starcraft 3, etc?
Much like Fallout 3 did with New Vegas... where they just chucked out an inferior game that was basically the same thing with minor improvements to cash in?
You can be money hungry and still care about making a good product, making your fan base happy, etc. I have seen nothing from Blizzard to suggest they do not care about the quality of their games. As far as the 'old engine' thing goes... Blizzard has never really been a company (at least from what I've seen) that have ground breaking engines or graphics or anything like that. They rely on game play to hang with (or totally demolish) their competition and thus far it has worked.
I think the question of "When are they going to do something new?" is answered by Titan. If that game is successful, it will indicate Blizzard as a company will move forward and continue to develop new things. If it is a total bomb, I bet they curl up and just continue to make sequels to their three big franchises... which wouldn't be the worst thing ever, but it would also be disappointing because Blizzard as a whole has a ton of potential.
If Blizzard was obsessed about money and didn't care about their games at all:
Why is the production of their games still so incredibly long? If they didn't care about quality and just wanted to make a quick buck, wouldn't they just pump out huge titles like Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, their expansions and then quickly move onto Diablo 4, Starcraft 3, etc?
I'm not saying they don't care about their games at all. Of course they still obsess over quality.
But just because their development phase takes a long time doesn't immutably prove they are taking a long time for quality's sake.. There is X amount of engineering work that needs to be done. If you want to get X done faster, you get more engineers working on it. Development speed (feature velocity) is directly proportional to engineering resources. If Blizzard would have committed more engineers earlier, Diablo 3 would have been released already. But they are still allocating so many resources to WoW that it is slowing down their innovation engine.
I'm not saying that's inherently bad, per se. I feel like gaming as a whole needs brilliant developers such as Blizzard to take gaming into the next generation, and they will take a lot longer if they're commiting a majority of their R&D to previous generation titles and IP.
I'm also not knocking WoW in itself. I played for years and loved it, it's (IMHO) the best computer game ever made. 10million users can't lie. What I'm knocking is the idea that WoW will live on forever. Let's take what WoW did, make it even better so it will meet the needs of a changing customer base, and move your customer base to your new IP. And let's try to do it in a timely fashion.. 10 years per game just doesn't play.
You're right though, Titan is it. If they knock it outta the park, all is well. But people who try to argue that time-to-market has no value, I would strongly urge you to re-consider. In software engineering, time-to-market has a massive impact on brand loyalty.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
if wow could be killed. id kill it myself. no argument there. but ill be damned if the bastard doesn't have l33t tank gear and epic heals.
well, let's see:
- not a single person is left from the original diablo team, and IMO it shows - the game seems seriously humorless, predictable and lacking in atmosphere
- they released nothing but wow and wow xpacs for about seven years, following a seven year stretch where they created 3 whole IPs and 3 brilliant takes on 3 different genres
- they've followed that with what looks like another 7 years of releasing nothing but shinier versions of games they made in the glory years a dozen years ago
- they showed a really cynical side in terms of going from a hard-core 'integrity of game-space' stance with purchased gear a few years ago, and doing a complete 180 to trying to profit on the process with the RMAH
- the gouging on things like mounts and server switches is fairly gross
- the random, cheap tchotchkes often seem like crap krusty the klown would license
That's just off the top of my head.
you mad bro?
Naw, more sad. Some of the best times in my life were playing those classics from the golden era.
From what I have heard a lot of the team is from Blizzard North. You have seen the beta... how full of humor, unpredictable and what amazing atmosphere lead up to Blood Raven in Diablo 2?
Making big assumptions like this based off of 20% of Act 1 seems a little over the top.
Also, I laughed hysterically when some dying corpse crawled towards me... and when he died, a couple of gold pieces flopped out of his corpse. I found that to be awesome and more amusing than anything in the first 1/3 of A1 in Diablo 2.
Right. They basically took their company and solely focused on World of Warcraft. In turn they made billions of dollars. Now they have promised that their new goal is to release a new game or expansion every year.
They are also developing a new IP. How is this different from other game studios that make 1 or 2 successful games and pump out sequels because it's something people are familiar with and really enjoy?
So Blizzard should be pretty much the only gaming studio that doesn't make sequels to incredibly popular games? They'll release more IPs within the next few years now that WoW, SC2 and D3 have provided more than enough income to make them comfortable.
They had a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. Websites outside of the game were doing this, it wasn't secure, people were getting ripped off. They decided to just put it into the game instead.
Why is that a bad thing? Unless you are the super genius who is going to figure out how to just stop third party sites from selling items/ripping people off.
I'm sure they make a lot of money off of that. What is with you people on this forum and being against a company making money?
They also donate a lot of those things (like the mount nonsense/in game little monsters) to charity.
I'm not really a Blizzard fan boy or anything. I love the Diablo series. I've never played Starcraft and I played WoW for like six months.
Seriously, you guys just seem like you get angry about this stuff just to get angry about it. They are a company making video games, their goal is to make money and to entertain their users so they can make even more money. It was like that when they were making the original Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo... it's like that now. Only WoW became so big they made a lot more money off of it than they did from the other titles.
Have to break it down and view it from different sides of the blizzard gaming community, and look at the money and time frames that have been established.
This deal REALLY does benifet the WOW gamer. Breaking it down:
-Retired WOW will (resub oor not) based of getting the WOW Beta Key (If they have no intention of playing D3) This strings them along monitary & content wise to WOW:MoP
-Retired WOW will (resub oor not) based of getting the WOW Beta Key (If they have intention of playing D3) This strings them along monitary & content wise till D3 Release. Gives them WOW:MoP beta access, and may get them to buy it too).
-Current WOW will go on the pass and get the WOW Beta Key (If they have no intention of playing D3) This strings them along monitary & content wise to WOW:MoP
-Current WOW will go on the pass and (If they have intention of playing D3) This strings them along monitary & content wise till D3 Release. Gives them WOW:MoP beta access, and may get them to buy it too).
Looking at the time frame, we could say that Blizz is no more than a year away from releasing WOW:MoP. Would make some sense with it being an annual pass buy and that they really can't (shouldn't) take that long to get it out, otherwise they risk lossing more subs.
This deal, looking at it in a Zero-sum sense doesn't really go well for the Diablo player only, or Diablo player that never played WoW, but looking at the deal.
At the monthly rate $15, that's $180 for one year.
If D3 comes out late March (end Q1) that's 5 months = $75
Game (standard) cost = $60
This leaves a $45 Short fall (180-75 (5 month sub till release) - 60 (diablo 3 game cost)) for the player because they wont be playing WoW, wasting that sub money.
Even more so the Diablo player that never bought WoW, that's hundreds you would have to pay between the games and sub.
BUT...The main thing is, these people never played WoW, so it can't be seen as a lost, Blizzard can only gain if either on of the types of players above sub up.
This deal only serves to string along the WoW Sub base monitary and content wise till D3 comes out or WoW:MoP comes out.
Only to potentially GROW the Diablo player base by giving WoW players a different game to play while OR cancelling their WoW sub.
If they do cancel their wow sub, they lose D3 and the key. SO they have to keep the WoW sub going until the year is up if they only want to play D3.
If they try and don't like D3, they'll still pay to keep the key and play something "NEW" while the sub is going.
In the end, Blizzard looked at the cost of development and maintance of D3 and felt satisfied that the annual pass along with the RMAH would be good to keep D3 going alone.
The deal is nearly perfect in keeping money coming in, in one way or another, for any Diablo or WoW player type and is quiet a marketing job.
The deal, again, ONLY serves to INCREASE the D3 player base, which increases the potential RMAH income, which keeps the game a float.
This deal, IS a real win for any current WoW player or any retired WoW player who will play both games for at least a year.
While this deal is not as friendly to the D3 player base, it does serve to make it bigger, and bring in more money to aid development and keep it going for years to come.
TinFoilHat: I almost gaurentee you, that TiTan will have all the income features of wow (pet store, mounts, all the services) along with the RMAH from D3. And in another brillant marketing job, will make WoW F2P, with A LOT more micro transactions involved for the people that stay behind and don't move on to Titan which will be a smaller onthly fee, but mainy micro transactions involved.
P.S. Sorry for any spelling, at work, no spell check, rapid fired this thing out.
Sorry, too lazy to really format it - the team has exactly two people on it with credits on D2, and they were both junior. It has zero on it with credits from the original diablo. There are a few guys that were hired on after lord of destruction, but it's hard to say whether or not that represents the spirit of the old team, or something more like the spirit that got them shut down. This is all easily found if you cross-reference the team list on inc-gamers and mobygames.
/
And, yes, I think the opening of D2 looks to be something with may more repeatability, while the content in this beta seems forced and lacking in atmosphere, as much as they may try to do dark via gross-out easter-eggy stuff. The opening half-hour of the game is something you're going to experience with EVERY TOON YOU ROLL EVERY TIME, so it is important, especially if this game railroads you through opening quests, which, judging by the way portals are used, it does, heavily (as opposed to D2 where you can run straight to andariel in act 1).
/
They donate 99.9% to share buybacks for Kotick's options.
As for other points, yes, they are great at making money. Seeing as how Titan probably won't hit until 2018, that's about fifteen years where they're more interested in sucking in cash than putting out anything even slightly resembling a new game. Which I find sad, and disappointing, especially relative to the many classics they released '95-'01.
I really don't see it. I think Diablo 3 is infinitely more entertaining in that short time span and Diablo 2 is my favorite video game ever. The start of Diablo 2 was easily the worst part of playing the game.
agreed, that guy is just another QQer over something that no one else agrees with. D3 beta footage is awesome, it seems just as dark as D2 but with 100x better graphics and gameplay... i really don't get why anyone would complain about a sequel that rules this much.
The game doesn't blow its load being darker-than-dark at the get go - when I first killed those stupid porcupines in that green field, I remember being underwhelmed, but in retrospect, it set the game up extremely well, you had a feeling of real exploration, and felt sympathy with the rogues, with just enough plot to string you along but not overwhelm you. The day/night cycle, weather and music also created atmosphere, and a nice continuity from the original diablo.
Anyhow, rescuing Cain is probably a fairer comparison - you can blow through the beta and rescue Cain if you're highly skilled in about the same time.
I can see people having different opinions. I just don't understand his.
In the part of Diablo 3 you get to play (which they have said is basically the equivalent to playing up to Blood Raven in Diablo 2) there is:
1. Way more quests.
2. A more intriguing boss fight (Leoric vs. Raven isn't even close. I guess you can disagree, but I'd like to see any logical explanation that says Blood Raven is more fun.)
3. A crafting mechanic you can play with.
4. The unveiling of three mechanics (break items for gold and crafting materials. Stone of recall)
5. You get to play with A TON more skills up to that point.
6. The auction house.
7. A ton more variety in the enemies you combat than in Diablo 2.
8. You get a follower. In Diablo 2 you didn't get one until after you killed Blood Raven.
In Diablo 2 you had:
1. Basically the choice of 2-4 skills per character by the time you got to Blood Raven.
2. No real big mechanics outside of gambling.
3. Basically running around in a patch of grass that had rock walls around it and an area with a basic cave.
You can say you thought playing up to Blood Raven was a blast and that it's more entertaining than what the beta offers... but if you do:
1. I'll think you're lying, honestly.
2. Believe we have totally different opinions of what is fun in gaming. Whacking the zombie in Den of Evil and Blood Raven with your staff/weapon while running out of mana at a super fast rate wasn't what made Diablo 2 fun, it was when you got your skills.
1. In Diablo 1 you had skill books that could drop, which were one of the major points of character development.
2. The revealing of arguably the best quest in the game and possibly the entire series. (The Butcher)
3. I'd agree the characters in Diablo 1's town were more interesting than in 2 or 3 thus far. Farnhum (spelling?) was amazing, as were the others.
That last part is definitely true - I think the action and loot component is more core than the skills, which were really more a d2 thing.
I'm probably failing in making my core point, in that it's a better lead-in for a game, the kind of game people still play a decade later, and holding back on stuff like the ghost execution of whatsername (which i don't think is in the demo, but will be in that area) and leah's motormouth is a good thing.
The beta itself is irrelevant, I'm just judging the opening content as exactly that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO-vG8oPhhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbiuZ_EwLho
The action and loot component?
What action up to Blood Raven? What loot? Were you jumping up and down when you found a rare club or the ever important cracked sash?
I assure you those things are in Diablo 3 as well.
Well I think you were failing until this. This point is totally subjective and opinion based. Like I said, I can respect your opinion if you thought D2 Encampment > Blood Raven was more fun than New Tristram > Leoric... but like I said, I just think you'd be lying about that. I see no real argument as to why it'd be more fun. I have the beta, I've played it, it's way, way more fun.
The base of the plot, the music, the atmosphere, etc. Yeah, I think you can argue that. So far I guess I'd rank the games like this in terms of some early stuff.
Cinematics: (I haven't seen the full opening one from D3, but from what I have seen)
1. Diablo 3
2. Diablo 2
3. Diablo
Music:
1. Diablo
2. Diablo 2
3. Diablo 3
Gameplay in the first 1/3 of the start of the game:
1. Diablo 3
2. Diablo
3. Diablo 2
Mechanics and 'fun factor' in the opening part of the game:
1. Diablo (For the Butcher and the drunk alone)
2. Diablo 3
3. Diablo 2
"Atmosphere" in terms of making you feel it is a dark, gothic universe at the beginning:
1. Diablo
2. Diablo 3
3. Diablo 2
Now, I can assure you I probably won't end up liking Diablo 3 more than Diablo 2. Diablo 2 for me was about as good as it gets... but there are some things about Diablo 3 that I think are unquestionably better. Just like some things about the original were unquestionably better, just like some things from 2 were unquestionably better.
What is your deal with flaming anyone who doesn't happen to share your opinion?
I don't agree with him, but dude, he's allowed to not be stoked about beta footage....
If everyone had identical opinions these forums wouldn't exist. Stop pretending like your half-assed opinions are any better than anyone else's.
-Thomas Jefferson
whats with your constant arguing for no reason? when someones opinion is the opposite of 99% of everyone else's for no good reason and there apparently blind and can't see the game, ya i consider them pretty much retarded. and so should everyone else. them saying "it doesn't look as good or dark bla bla" are smoking crack. just because diablo 2 graphics were so horrid and they had black filling most of the screen because thats the kind of shit graphics existed back then, not because it was "intended" as insanely dark and colorless. intended as pretty dark yes but the severe lack of coloring that now D3 actually has was only because of the graphics capability back then.
We've known it for some time, blizzard doesn't want to kill their big cash crop by releasing new games, which is why they've tied wow/sc2/d3 and their expansions into battle.net and are now finding crafty solutions to keep people paying for wow while they make the transition into their new game. Competition with other companies is one thing, that's unavoidable, but they can do something about managing their own economy and so they are, short and simple.
A child could figure this much out.
I agree. The move is a great decision for the business, but has dreary implications for the future of gaming, especially on PC.
I'm a software engineer for a company (Cisco) that depends 100% on staying ahead of the world in terms of innovation. While we would never purposefully "kill" any outdated flagship platform that customers still love, we are constantly working to innovate new IP and develop new features, platforms, architectures and solutions. Why? Because that's what's best for our customers, that's what's best for the internet, that's what's best for the world. Customers will naturally move to your new product as long as it has high quality, and exceeds the needs met by their current product.
Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, we know that if you take too long to innovate, people will start beating you at your own game.
What irks me about trying to keep people inside of and obsessed with an old game, built on old engines, is that it encourages the allocation of engineering resources towards maintaining old solutions as opposed to innovating and inventing new ones.
By obsessing over money instead of gaming, gaming as an enterprise suffers.
Am I using a rather benign topic (WoW annual pass) as a springboard for this discussion? Yes. I applaud Bliz for their business savvy. I just want to applaud them for their innovation, and inspiring a new generation of meaningful gaming.
There, I'm done.
-Thomas Jefferson
Why is the production of their games still so incredibly long? If they didn't care about quality and just wanted to make a quick buck, wouldn't they just pump out huge titles like Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, their expansions and then quickly move onto Diablo 4, Starcraft 3, etc?
Much like Fallout 3 did with New Vegas... where they just chucked out an inferior game that was basically the same thing with minor improvements to cash in?
You can be money hungry and still care about making a good product, making your fan base happy, etc. I have seen nothing from Blizzard to suggest they do not care about the quality of their games. As far as the 'old engine' thing goes... Blizzard has never really been a company (at least from what I've seen) that have ground breaking engines or graphics or anything like that. They rely on game play to hang with (or totally demolish) their competition and thus far it has worked.
I think the question of "When are they going to do something new?" is answered by Titan. If that game is successful, it will indicate Blizzard as a company will move forward and continue to develop new things. If it is a total bomb, I bet they curl up and just continue to make sequels to their three big franchises... which wouldn't be the worst thing ever, but it would also be disappointing because Blizzard as a whole has a ton of potential.
I'm not saying they don't care about their games at all. Of course they still obsess over quality.
But just because their development phase takes a long time doesn't immutably prove they are taking a long time for quality's sake.. There is X amount of engineering work that needs to be done. If you want to get X done faster, you get more engineers working on it. Development speed (feature velocity) is directly proportional to engineering resources. If Blizzard would have committed more engineers earlier, Diablo 3 would have been released already. But they are still allocating so many resources to WoW that it is slowing down their innovation engine.
I'm not saying that's inherently bad, per se. I feel like gaming as a whole needs brilliant developers such as Blizzard to take gaming into the next generation, and they will take a lot longer if they're commiting a majority of their R&D to previous generation titles and IP.
I'm also not knocking WoW in itself. I played for years and loved it, it's (IMHO) the best computer game ever made. 10million users can't lie. What I'm knocking is the idea that WoW will live on forever. Let's take what WoW did, make it even better so it will meet the needs of a changing customer base, and move your customer base to your new IP. And let's try to do it in a timely fashion.. 10 years per game just doesn't play.
You're right though, Titan is it. If they knock it outta the park, all is well. But people who try to argue that time-to-market has no value, I would strongly urge you to re-consider. In software engineering, time-to-market has a massive impact on brand loyalty.
-Thomas Jefferson