What I am afraid, as previously stated, is that supporting this kind of content has the opposite effect to what we fans would like.
If we pay for the Necro DLC, that means we like that sort of product-business model.
But, what about the share of the playerbase that wants a different type of product? Let's call it a real expansion, with an adequate price and new content ? Should we support the dev team when we don't like the approach Blizz is taking? That's a hard call
That's a legit concern.
I think, and this is certainly just opinion, that the gaming industry as a whole is just evolving past that traditional model, and Blizz is trying to keep up. With that in mind, I'm just not sure that the portion of the player base who would prefer the old expansion model are large enough to justify Blizz keeping it in leiu of models that appear to be "the future".
It's certainly a tough call for those players to decide between gambling that the character pack will lead to additional "free" content patches (that change/introduce systems and such), and if so, whether it will be worth the wait.
I've only accepted it because I've been looking at the landscape (this type of thing interests me as a former developer and current infrastructure engineer). Most PC games are going to either free to play or a lower up front cost with some sort of optional cost that facilitates continued development. The crucible DLC for Grim Dawn is a good example, as they added a new game mode for like 5 bucks, but it's completely optional. I'm sure that someone who's good with statistical data and has that data at Blizz has crunched the numbers and determined that moving forward, Diablo (not just D3) won't be able to compete with the base game + expansions model. I basically just understand that this is the model that the market is demanding, so I can't really blame Blzzard for that (though I blame them for some of the things I dislike about the game in general).
I guess I'm holding out hope that if the character pack sells well enough, we'll see a renewed interest in D3 from the money bags at Blzz, and that it will lead to better free content patches that accompany the DLCs, like how 2.0 changed a lot of things even for those who did not purchase ROS. It's certainly possible that I'm being overly optimistic though, and I can understand you skepticism.
If they can prove they have a solid model for future money (DLC), Blizz will invest money in it. Since the AH closed, they haven't had that, so Blizz hasn't been as willing to front the money so to speak, to continue development. When it comes to fronting money, blizz is going to look at ROI. They will, however, reinvest money made by an IP into that IP if it will help them keep market share in the ARPG space.
Some of that hypothetical money is cost recoup for the work invested in producing the content. The time for art, animation, etc. Some of that will go into money swimming pools of some execs beach house, and some will get reinvested into games. I'm sure that they allocate some amount of money to the project that made the money, but I can't say how much. Blizzard as a company has just realized that the old model of Title, Expansion, Expansion, is mostly gone. Without true content delivered between those major releases, players get bored and move on. The gaming market is just super saturated. This (and the micro transaction set up in China) is blizzard seeing what model works best for an ARPG.
Finally, while tuning skills and coefficients isn't content (and my logic never followed there at all), creating art, animations, etc for an additional class or a new zone/tileset is. The playerbase has been asking for a Necro for forever, so it makes the most sense to add it as a class first, if the idea is to prove to execs that Diablo can make them money. Just because it's a class from D2 doesn't change the the design process (it may even make it harder, since they have to compare to existing expectations) , they still have to do all of the work building character models, animating skills. That is content.
Again, if you don't want to buy the character pack, that's fine. I'll buy it because I actually suspect it'll be rather cheap (like sub $20) and it'll entertain me. I think that including consoles with D3 and removing the AH ended up being too much for the team. They lost their revenue stream (which increases their chances of getting stuff from management) and added a road block that makes patching more difficult (they have to submit things to PSN like 3 weeks before a patch launch, and have a second, slightly different environment to consider with every change)
That's why I think they will try to extend D3s life with character packs etc until they are close to releasing whatever the announced project is.
As much as I agree with certain parts of your comments, and I can relate to that and emphasize with the devs, this have a different conclusion.
Due to D3 being multi-plattform, and Blizz-made, we normal PC users of the game won't be receiving content at all, or if even, in a really slow pace.
Is that what you are implying? I had thought that Blizz had tenfold, or a hundred fold or more the money that the Small companies have. Therefore, they can and should invest in their games with as much dedicated staff as necessary, am I wrong? Shouldn't that offset the "big company" bureaucracy?
Things doesn't make sense, when we consider that the d3 team is pretty small right now. That seems to be a consensus, tbh. And when a good dev shows interest or simply excels (see John Yang), he is "transferred" or promoted to the important part. Namely Wow.
No way mate. And we, as a playerbase, should accept that and deal with it?
You can do what you want, of course. I will vote with my wallet, since that is their only language nowadays.
That's precisely the misconception I was talking about. Blizz is a much bigger company, with a lot of games that are not as niche as the ARPG has become. So the pressure from above the dev team was to make an ARPG-like game, but make it more approachable, and thus less complex.
And while Blizz as company makes a lot of money, the ROI from a game like Diablo, even if they decide to monetize it via DLC or microtransactions or whatever, isn't as good as the ROI from something like Overwatch, so it isn't going to get the same investment. ALL of GGG's money and development goes into Path of Exile. It's the only thing they do. So every bit of profit is reinvested, the company was founded specifically to make the RPG that those devs wanted, and there isn't any red tape when they want to make a change. It's a completely different model.
What I'm saying is that it's not that it isn't Blizzard's fault for micromanaging their dev teams the way they do (and more so with Activision in the mix), I'm saying it isn't Wyatt or the rest of the teams fault. What they are trying to do, is find a way to remonetize the game, so that they can have the resources they need to actually work at a pace closer to what people expect.
AND YOU ARE GETTING CONTENT. I don't know why you would hyperbole to "no content at all". They are adding a class (for some undisclosed price) and they are adding a game mode that renders paragon moot. It may not be exactly what you want, but it is, by definition, content.
Is it coming slower than it could, yes.
Does it suck that as a result of all of those things, D3 is on a slow train compared to other games, absolutely.
It's mostly about reminding everyone that the devs themselves (and CMs) are caught in a no-win situation, not Blizz.
And, as talked to exhaustion, D3 core flaws with the infinite paragon and the level 120 ++ gems create an unending playing field, and a new player will never ever be able to compete with a paragon 3000 with all gems 100+. That is a Loss-Loss situation. No new blood in greater rift competition--->prOs leave (see Quin). But the new blood cannot compete due to paragon and gems.
That is why seasons exist. No one who buys the game today should reasonably expect to compete with players who have been playing 1000s of hours since launch in non-season, it's just not realistic. At least not to truly compete. That would be true without so many endless systems, since min-maxing items in other ARPGs is usually a long process that would yield dedicated players a numbers advantage (albeit smaller than with paragon and etc).
That's not to say that some of the design decisions and systems aren't flawed, just that they aren't the reason a new player can't compete in non-season. Without playing a TON and working really hard.
the Dev team is not in a no win situation. My personal opinion is that they are misguided. That's the only way I can understand Nev (love her, she really has a passion) answering "Rekt" to people asking for new content in the game, after giving NO NEW content at all.
They want WIN? Seriously, not that hard. A small as fuck act 6. Insert the Necro with stitches in there. Put in some class, skills and sets balance (like it was given for free in 2.4) , and you have yourself 3.0. All is shiny as fuck for another couple of years.
They absolutely are in a no-win situation, because they don't make the final decisions. The develop within constraints given to them by people who care about money, and many of the fan base don't understand the fundamental difference between working for Blizzard and working for Crate or GGG.
With small studios with a single title, there is a lot less bureaucracy involved in decisions. The team makes a decision, and they go with it. They only answer to stake holders who funded the game, which agreed to a specific business model and plan when they signed up. Blizzard and Activision dictate whether something jivs with them or not. They push for approachable as a core design philosophy because that sells more games.
D3 is also multi-platform (both with OS on PC and because of consoles) as well as mutlinational, so every single interface change requires updating for all of that and making sure things are worded for all supported languages. All of this combined means that things move much much slower for these guys and it's out of their control.
It's similar with communication. They have to clear it with a bunch of people to just tell the playerbase anything.
The Necro pack is an experiment in trying to monetize the game, which will be needed to get more resources to develop more content. If players want to show support for the game, buying it is going to be the best bet.
None of this is to say they shouldn't do better, it's just that in order for things to get better, players have to understand the reality of the game. If the devs start trying to communicate more (dev blogs, AMAs on reddit, whatever) and the playerbase reacts negatively to it because it's not exactly what they wanted or they aren't giving specific answers (because they have to be careful of what they disclose), they are just going to not do that anymore because it's not beneficial to them.
If we want to help give them a win scenario, we as a playerbase have to meet them halfway. We can be critical of them, but it has to be with some level of tact.
That's a legit concern.
I think, and this is certainly just opinion, that the gaming industry as a whole is just evolving past that traditional model, and Blizz is trying to keep up. With that in mind, I'm just not sure that the portion of the player base who would prefer the old expansion model are large enough to justify Blizz keeping it in leiu of models that appear to be "the future".
It's certainly a tough call for those players to decide between gambling that the character pack will lead to additional "free" content patches (that change/introduce systems and such), and if so, whether it will be worth the wait.
I've only accepted it because I've been looking at the landscape (this type of thing interests me as a former developer and current infrastructure engineer). Most PC games are going to either free to play or a lower up front cost with some sort of optional cost that facilitates continued development. The crucible DLC for Grim Dawn is a good example, as they added a new game mode for like 5 bucks, but it's completely optional. I'm sure that someone who's good with statistical data and has that data at Blizz has crunched the numbers and determined that moving forward, Diablo (not just D3) won't be able to compete with the base game + expansions model. I basically just understand that this is the model that the market is demanding, so I can't really blame Blzzard for that (though I blame them for some of the things I dislike about the game in general).
I guess I'm holding out hope that if the character pack sells well enough, we'll see a renewed interest in D3 from the money bags at Blzz, and that it will lead to better free content patches that accompany the DLCs, like how 2.0 changed a lot of things even for those who did not purchase ROS. It's certainly possible that I'm being overly optimistic though, and I can understand you skepticism.
If they can prove they have a solid model for future money (DLC), Blizz will invest money in it. Since the AH closed, they haven't had that, so Blizz hasn't been as willing to front the money so to speak, to continue development. When it comes to fronting money, blizz is going to look at ROI. They will, however, reinvest money made by an IP into that IP if it will help them keep market share in the ARPG space.
Some of that hypothetical money is cost recoup for the work invested in producing the content. The time for art, animation, etc. Some of that will go into money swimming pools of some execs beach house, and some will get reinvested into games. I'm sure that they allocate some amount of money to the project that made the money, but I can't say how much. Blizzard as a company has just realized that the old model of Title, Expansion, Expansion, is mostly gone. Without true content delivered between those major releases, players get bored and move on. The gaming market is just super saturated. This (and the micro transaction set up in China) is blizzard seeing what model works best for an ARPG.
Finally, while tuning skills and coefficients isn't content (and my logic never followed there at all), creating art, animations, etc for an additional class or a new zone/tileset is. The playerbase has been asking for a Necro for forever, so it makes the most sense to add it as a class first, if the idea is to prove to execs that Diablo can make them money. Just because it's a class from D2 doesn't change the the design process (it may even make it harder, since they have to compare to existing expectations) , they still have to do all of the work building character models, animating skills. That is content.
Again, if you don't want to buy the character pack, that's fine. I'll buy it because I actually suspect it'll be rather cheap (like sub $20) and it'll entertain me. I think that including consoles with D3 and removing the AH ended up being too much for the team. They lost their revenue stream (which increases their chances of getting stuff from management) and added a road block that makes patching more difficult (they have to submit things to PSN like 3 weeks before a patch launch, and have a second, slightly different environment to consider with every change)
That's why I think they will try to extend D3s life with character packs etc until they are close to releasing whatever the announced project is.
That's precisely the misconception I was talking about. Blizz is a much bigger company, with a lot of games that are not as niche as the ARPG has become. So the pressure from above the dev team was to make an ARPG-like game, but make it more approachable, and thus less complex.
And while Blizz as company makes a lot of money, the ROI from a game like Diablo, even if they decide to monetize it via DLC or microtransactions or whatever, isn't as good as the ROI from something like Overwatch, so it isn't going to get the same investment. ALL of GGG's money and development goes into Path of Exile. It's the only thing they do. So every bit of profit is reinvested, the company was founded specifically to make the RPG that those devs wanted, and there isn't any red tape when they want to make a change. It's a completely different model.
What I'm saying is that it's not that it isn't Blizzard's fault for micromanaging their dev teams the way they do (and more so with Activision in the mix), I'm saying it isn't Wyatt or the rest of the teams fault. What they are trying to do, is find a way to remonetize the game, so that they can have the resources they need to actually work at a pace closer to what people expect.
AND YOU ARE GETTING CONTENT. I don't know why you would hyperbole to "no content at all". They are adding a class (for some undisclosed price) and they are adding a game mode that renders paragon moot. It may not be exactly what you want, but it is, by definition, content.
Is it coming slower than it could, yes.
Does it suck that as a result of all of those things, D3 is on a slow train compared to other games, absolutely.
It's mostly about reminding everyone that the devs themselves (and CMs) are caught in a no-win situation, not Blizz.
That is why seasons exist. No one who buys the game today should reasonably expect to compete with players who have been playing 1000s of hours since launch in non-season, it's just not realistic. At least not to truly compete. That would be true without so many endless systems, since min-maxing items in other ARPGs is usually a long process that would yield dedicated players a numbers advantage (albeit smaller than with paragon and etc).
That's not to say that some of the design decisions and systems aren't flawed, just that they aren't the reason a new player can't compete in non-season. Without playing a TON and working really hard.
They absolutely are in a no-win situation, because they don't make the final decisions. The develop within constraints given to them by people who care about money, and many of the fan base don't understand the fundamental difference between working for Blizzard and working for Crate or GGG.
With small studios with a single title, there is a lot less bureaucracy involved in decisions. The team makes a decision, and they go with it. They only answer to stake holders who funded the game, which agreed to a specific business model and plan when they signed up. Blizzard and Activision dictate whether something jivs with them or not. They push for approachable as a core design philosophy because that sells more games.
D3 is also multi-platform (both with OS on PC and because of consoles) as well as mutlinational, so every single interface change requires updating for all of that and making sure things are worded for all supported languages. All of this combined means that things move much much slower for these guys and it's out of their control.
It's similar with communication. They have to clear it with a bunch of people to just tell the playerbase anything.
The Necro pack is an experiment in trying to monetize the game, which will be needed to get more resources to develop more content. If players want to show support for the game, buying it is going to be the best bet.
None of this is to say they shouldn't do better, it's just that in order for things to get better, players have to understand the reality of the game. If the devs start trying to communicate more (dev blogs, AMAs on reddit, whatever) and the playerbase reacts negatively to it because it's not exactly what they wanted or they aren't giving specific answers (because they have to be careful of what they disclose), they are just going to not do that anymore because it's not beneficial to them.
If we want to help give them a win scenario, we as a playerbase have to meet them halfway. We can be critical of them, but it has to be with some level of tact.