DiabloFans

Quote from "MastaMike911" »

Wasn't Duriel the Lord of Pain? And she most certainly looks a bit like Duriel... So obviously she's related to him in some way, and by her title, I'm guessing she's his mistress. And I'm willing to bet they have a child...

That's what I thought too. Same species as Duriel.

We'll probably see some healing auras and curses such as lifetap put back in place.

Quote from "waddlez" »

negative, not even fps are good on consoles

PC is greater in every way

sure gaybox and ps3 had better hardware when they came out, but 8 core processors coming in q4 and the 100 series on the horizon, your MAC's that sit under your TVs will be holding people back (once again)

d3 on console == more anger by fans than the art direction has brought

but its bnet so no p2p, but I think d3 and sc2 will both be very soon so people are d3'd and sc2'd out by the time their next mmo comes out so they can hit 20mil subs this time

Some fans may be angry, but I bet you more Blizzard fans (who own consoles but not current PCs) would outnumber them. College students without nice computers but Xbox are a big market.

Also, go play games like GoW, Assassin's Creed, GTA4, CoD4... While most of them may be on the computer, they were initially designed for consoles and console controllers and play better. The Xbox is not even close to a piece of worthless hardware. The PS3 had the cheapest Blu Ray reader on the market for how many years? And the Wii, while I am not personally fond of it, has reached out to millions of older people and people who don't normally game and drawn them into the hobby.

The consoles are far from worthless, they better the industry. Furthermore, with the exception of perhaps WoW, console games sell way more than PC games do. If D3 is portable, then by all means, Blizzard should do it.

Honestly, it would not even effect the final outcome of the PC version if they did it, so angry fans would essentially just be angry fanbois.

PS: Told you D3 wasn't an MMO.

I really wish the mods would step up and limit the graphics discussion into one thread., and enforce it with suspensions. This is getting out of hand.

I know you are there for the gaming conference, but do AS much as you can in Paris with the time you have. My suggestion would be to take a bus tour first off if you get a chance.

It's a fun city (not as good as Barcelona, imo, but still) full of culture and art. Be adventurous and eat as much of the food as you can too.

While WWI is important, in 20 years, what you might remember most is enjoying Paris!

Quote from "waddlez" »

Like green energy, or democrats, its cool to be a certain type of thing in a certain time, and it is certainly cool to be a mmo right now

Oh my gosh! It's a REPUBLICAN troll! how cuuuuuuuuute.

Quote from "Spaz." »

Lol you can't honestly belive that anything you said there is true, or at all "likely"?

1) No more people won't buy it for "the singleplayer mode", Multiplayer is where the big games are at. and diablo III will be biggest or atleast top3 biggest existing I bet.

Sorry. Diablo 3 will never pass 10 million people logged on at once. I believe as of 2004, the max Battlenet had as a WHOLE was 12 million players. The Diablo franchise and battlenet will be popular, but believing that it is going to beat the juggernaut MMO of online gaming is silly.

Edit: For clarification, the key word here is AT ONCE. Certainly millions will log on, but the majority will probably play very casually before moving on. It will be a big multiplayer game for a while, but expecting it to topple top name MMOs is a bit optimistic. Certainly Diablo 3 could sell that many copies, but how many of those will transition to online accounts? Even half is generous number.

2) NO - people will pick one of them, as both will require alot of playtime no-one will have time enough to be good at both games at the same time

Diablo 3 will most likely not require a subscription and can be played casually. While I am sure that a player will be able to invest hundreds of hours playing the content over and over, if the game follows in the tradition of its predeccesors, it will be able to be completely beaten in 10-20 hours. You have to remember that not everyone is a hardcore gamer. Most who log on WoW are casual gamers.

Aside from that, many WoW players are not even Diablo 3 fans. Blizzard has done a great thing with WoW by bringing literally MILLIONS of new people who have never gamed before into the market with that game.

3) How can u be so sure its gonna have a beginning/middle/end, I'm kinda leaning toward it gonna be a MMO...

We'll see, but following the precedent the franchise has set, this is unlikely. As many other Diablo fans have pointed out, another fantasy (m rated, no less) MMO would not capitalize on profit for Blizzard, so it is unlikely.

4) NO - Diablo won't compete with wow, or okay ofcourse it will to some limit, but that is valid for Super Mario BROS aswell, all games are "competing" with eachother...
bethink this:

I am glad we agree.

a) Diablo III won't be hear for atleast 3 years IF it's announced @ june 29 in france/WWI Diablo has partially another fanbase

I believe, that with the release of all the recent Warcraft titles that the Warcraft fanbase, is in all probability, bigger than the Diablo fanbase.

c) World of warcraft is old. Super old. It is starting to losecompetition, not that much today but it have already started... Look at what games are being released: Age of Conan - 1 million subscribers the first days - will growth enormously within time since its major problem today is the requirements of the PC you need to play the game (huge requirements). Soon pc's will be better/cheaper = more players. and the game is new = increasing population ofcourse.

I actually own AoC, so don't spoonfeed me that load of garbage. The game will run fine on most desktops made within that past two years (that don't have a PoS factory graphics card.) And it did not have 1 million subscribers. It SHIPPED 1 million copies. They would be lucky to sell half of that. Furthermore, within the first 3 weeks it has lost 30% of its fanbase.

Warhammer online - Do I need to say more???

Yea. Have you seen the vidoes/screenshots? The game looks as outdated as WoW. People coming back from playing open beta specials are saying the graphics look "about as good as WoW." Due to this, as long as WoW can keep coming up with bright ideas (and blizzard is more than capable of that) then the age of WoW will not factor into the competition with WAR.

And so on... This means Blizzard will lose customers to other MMO's, what do they do to win them back? fight, as in releasing new games/sequels... (see: diablo 3/diablo MMO).

This has been my point, or did you never catch on to that? Blizzard only has to fear competition from other MMOs. Age of Conan and WAR look like failures, which is sad because I followed both for quite some time. Bioware looks like the next up to bat.

If Diablo 3 is not an MMO, then the majority of players will buy it without cancelling their WoW subscriptions (except the fanbois) because simply put - Diablo 3 can be played casually, WoW costs money and usually can not.

Quote from "Naeblish" »

A lot of WoW players are also Diablo fans, part of why they love WoW so much is because it lends a lot of Diablo's gameplay. If Diablo 3 will be announced, it will be HUGE and almost every Blizzard fan will be thrilled. How can you not see that for huge amounts of people who are bored with WoW, Diablo 3 will be THE game to make the transition?
A diablo 3 MMO would not be competition for WoW cause they would retain their paying userbase, a subscriber free Diablo 3 however would, because they would lose subscribers. Business wise it just wouldn't be the smartest thing to do for Blizzard. The only good counter argument i have seen so far is the fact that if diablo's development is so far ahead, they could have never figured this out since WoW wasn't that big yet back then.

Diablo 2 and WoW have similar RPG elements, sure, but I think you are overthinking it.

Diablo 3 is still going to be a point and click hack and slash. It's still going to have a beginning, middle and end. More people will buy it for the single player than the multiplayer, I am wililng to bet. Diablo 3 won't see many content patches if its not suscribed either.

Essentially, what I am saying, is the majority of Blizzard fans aren't going to pick one or the other. They are going to probably play both. I am sure Blizzard is NOT worried about it

And technically, if Diablo 3 was an mmo it WOULD compete with WoW because it would take subscriptions from that game. It might not make a difference in profit for Blizzard, but on the game level they would be competing.

What Blizzard is looking for is a MMO that sets a different route from WoW, that way they can capture a new portion of the market and keep loyal fans playing both games.

Waddelz:

I fail to see how any non MMO is going to "steal subscriptions" from WoW.

Plenty of amazing non subscription games have come out over the years. TF2, Mass Effect, GTA4, Unreal 3, ect ect.

Blizzard's subscriptions have no where to go but up. The only other game that provides real competition is another MMO. This is because people do not want to pay 2 subscription fees a month, and those that don't mind usually don't have the time to invest in two seperate MMOs.

However, non subscription games can be played very casually and can be bought at a one time price of 50-60$. They generally don't "steal" players from an MMO.

That being said, Blizzard would not release another MMO of the same genre right now because their goal is to capture a new portion of the market. As we all know, the sci fi market is quite untapped right now.

Also: Age of Conan is not any real threat. They have lost 30% of their subscription base within the first month.


Either Bioware or Blizzard will kill WoW.


TL;DR version

You're completely and utterly wrong and in no way shape or form will a non subscription game make an MMO subscriber stop paying.

Quote from "anakyn" »

Case in point, mainly for those who think Wikipedia is the be-all, end-all for reliable information:

There was a day a couple of months ago (March 4th, to be exact, now that I've found the thread), on the entry for Richard Gere... some smartass had gone in and edited the info for Spouse(s); changing the 1991-1995 Cindy Crawford to 1991-1995 Gerbil.

Any clown can go in and fuck around with the info. It is NOT "the most amazing thing ever", for that fact alone.

That may be true, but Wikipedia is constantly updated, and vandalism is pretty easily caught.


Everyone who doesn't trust Wikipedia needs to read this study: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html

Another 2005 study also showed Britannica and Wikipedia to be relative accurate to one another.