• 0

    posted a message on Forced party
    Quote from "Doppelganger" »
    Handholding for babies.
    This isn't what Diablo is about, boo Jay, boo.
    Yeah, its sad to see hostility go =[. At least there will still be PvP and a focus on it though, instead of it feeling like it was just slapped on right away.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard Offended Me
    Quote from "SNowfreak" »
    wait a second! Your telling me blizzard announced a pay to play feature? Can someone show me where they said this? I know it may be something small, but still....I HATE P2P!!! Frikkin industry nowadays. Just give me the game i paid for then you can release an expansion pack or two down the road.

    Look around on the forum. It was confirmed.. no P2P.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Forced party
    Quote from "Majpain" »
    Its a trainwreck. I mean really 4 player Co-op with auto party god this is horrible.

    Rob Pardo said in a different interview that they're looking at 8 players right now... 4 was for the demo.And its auto party when you join... but you can leave if you wish, and they're going to come up with booting system.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard Offended Me
    Your argument is completely idiotic. The "Three versions of starcraft" are the three campaigns that should be included in the single game, for a single price. I am absolutely shocked at how badly people want to give blizzard more money for worse games.

    They could include all three campaigns in a single game, but then we'd have to wait until 2011 to get it. They haven't even started work on the Zerg or Protoss campaigns, and seeing as they said there would be about a year in between each game, if they were to make it one package and keep the same scope of the game... it would have been 2011. They just want to let us have the multiplayer sooner, and have the first campaign ready to go.

    And they did originally intend for SCII to have two expansions, well.. now they're going with this approach. So instead of expansions we get this.
    And btw, Blizzard games have been trash since Warcraft 3, the initial blow to the warcraft franchise. WoW was the nail in the coffin for warcraft. Diablo 3 is the hinge; if they continue to fuck it up this badly, they will not only ruin the diablo franchise. It'll be the last stroke severing the blizzard we knew and loved from the money grubbing, mediocre gaming company it is becoming.
    YOU may not have liked WoW, or maybe MMO's are not your type of game, but that doesn't make it trash. And Diablo 3 is fine, people are just over-reacting... sure there's somethings we disagree with (like I disagree with respecs and auto-stats), but we should wait and see how the game is before we start calling it bad. They're doing it for a reason.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard Offended Me
    Quote from "Doppelganger" »
    So like Half-Life 2?

    It better be worth it though and not simply "some more quests".

    Well basically.. they're bringing out "Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty" in 2009... and it will feature the Terran campaign and it will also feature multiplayer (which will feature all races.) They said they'll start work on the Zerg campaign as the terran campaign comes to a close, and release the Zerg campaign a year or so later when they finish. Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm will feature that Zerg campaign and, they said, will also feature some additions to multiplayers (such as maps an units) and will work as their other expansions have (Such as TFT.) Same goes for the protoss campaign... they'll start work on it as the zerg campaign comes to a close, and will release it in a year when its done, along with some multiplayer additions and extra features.

    And they said each campaign will feature about 30 missions, and 28-32 hours of gameplay.

    To me it sounds like it's worth it, but I guess thats just my opinion.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Forced party
    Yeah well not anymore since the video came up and clarified the situation a bit more.
    No, I understand that... but the post I was replying to was made after the video, and he said he saw it.

    didn't have a chance to read through all the previous posts so I may be reiterating something someone has already said.

    I wonder if one of the features they intend to "monetize" will be the ability to purchase arenas for pvp play. P2PvP???? Just a quick thought. Your thoughts on that subject?

    It wont be like that. In a recent interview with Rob Pardo, Rob said that they will only be monetizing features of Battle.Net that aren't in the game, like realm transfers and name changes.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard Offended Me
    Quote from "Doppelganger" »
    So wait, the game SC2 will be costing a grand total of 150 monies? Oh boy, can i hear some money groping?
    And if Blizzard even dares to look at Oblivionesque "we hold back content to then make you pay extra for it in very tiny pieces" for D3 then i think the time has come to erase the name Blizzard off of my list.

    They said they haven't talked about pricing at all yet... I would imagine that they would charge the first one as a full game, and the second and third as expansions. And its not like they have the content for the other two campaigns, they haven't even started on it yet. They're going to be one year apart, and each will feature 28-32 hours of gameplay.

    And If you search this forum you'll see that in an interview with Rob Pardo, Rob said that they will only be monetizing battle.net features that won't be in the game, such as realm transfers and name changes.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Collection of Blizzcon 2008 D3 Videos
    Quote from "popez" »
    Screenshots , not good quality , but rare i think -

    http://www.joystiq.com/photos/blizzcon-2008-diablo-iii-in-depth-hands-on/1093568/

    Sweet, thanks!
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on MUST READ - Rob Pardo talks Battle.Net monetizing
    Name changes, maybe server transfers? (IE from USeast to USwest)
    Posted in: General Discussion (non-Diablo)
  • 2

    posted a message on MUST READ - Rob Pardo talks Battle.Net monetizing
    So Julian Wilson told us that you guys are looking monetize Battle.Net in some way. Is that right?

    Rob Pardo: Wow, that's an evil way of putting it. Julian's turning into a business guy on me. Here's the way I would put it. We're definitely not looking at turning Diablo into a subscription based game. It's clearly not an MMO, so it's not appropriate to do a business model like that. The way we approach all of our games now, is we come up with what we think is a great game, and then we wrap the appropriate business model around it. If that's just a box price, then that's that.

    With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra.
    SOURCE: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing/

    Basically -- No P2P, and no microtransactions for actual things in the game
    Posted in: General Discussion (non-Diablo)
  • 0

    posted a message on Forced party
    Quote from "Kaleban" »
    Lol.

    I only had to watch the first minute of the interview to see that its all political doublespeak.

    How exactly did they "find" the interface to be unecessary? Have they even played their own game?
    I can already see the potential for abuse. PKer guy joins a game, auto-parties up, sees where the rest of the players are, finds them, hostiles and kills them.
    Well there won't be PKing. And he said it was an unnecessary barrier to partying people together. And I agree, there have been many instances where various players join a game and spam "pp" and usually after 5-10 seconds of not getting partied, they leave the game to fidn another.

    Are we seriously complaining about this? It's the same as Diablo 2, except you start partied, then you can leave the party, as opposed to starting unpartied.. then having to get invited.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard Offended Me
    Quote from "Kaleban" »
    Sigh. As am I. The expansions were the same scope as the original in size. Comparing them directly to a different game from a different genre that has hundreds of millions of dollars for development is foolish at best, intentionally misleading at worst.

    Compared to the size of Azeroth? Relative to the original's size, the expansions are small in scope. I'm not a lore geek, but I do know the storyline is contiguous. Not sure what you're trying to get at there, since my comparison stated as much.

    I'm not trying to mislead. And while the lands that WOTLK and TBC added aren't as big compared to the lands provided in original wow, they each provide tons of gameplay hours, almost equal to the gameplay you can get from the lands of original WoW, if you play it all, and depending on how much you do arena's and raid.

    I paid $49.99 for Morrowind/Oblivion/Diablo 2. All three games served up hundreds if not thousands of hours of playtime. SC2's split into 3 separate releases is nothing more than a money making vehicle.
    Well you have to consider battle.net as well. For those playing SC2 on battle.net, you'll get hundreds of hours of gameplay just from that alone, + the 90 hours or so gameplay from the campaigns (which, if blizzard hadn't made that move, it wouldn't be 90 hours.. or it would be 90 hours but would be released all in 2011.) And cant I now turn around and say that YOU'RE comparing an RTS to an RPG? RPGs which you can replay with different characters, that have much more depth, that has tons of player made DLC that can add more gameplay hours, and have complex character building systems and etc. Not to mention that Morrowind, Oblivion, and Diablo 2 are three totally separate and complete games, wheras the second and third parts to Starcraft 2 are not.

    Yes, into the pockets of developers and corporate who know they have a soft, pliable playerbase who will accept whatever bones are thrown to them. Whether its MMO streaming or standalone expansions, the business model for both includes profit. Everything you cited is included as part of the development cycle and costs, I really wish people would stop discussing things they have no knowledge of.

    Diablo 3's budget? Do you honestly think that the profits from WoW are solely funneled into WoW only? Get a clue, or take a business management course, then come back and post rationally. He said they have to because the corporate nature develops greed, and they see an opportunity to empty our pockets, they're not friggin' Oliver Twist!

    I'm fully aware that the profits from WoW go towards ALOT of things, which have all been outlined by other people many times before. However, I'm sure they have a certain budget they don't want to go over for Diablo 3, unless they can reimburse themselves. You act as if the profits from WoW are supposed to or intended to cover EVERYTHING that Blizzard does, and that they should be content with that.

    We'll see. In other interviews its been stated that the 4 player size was due to graphical intensity and server strain apparently. Would be nice to get some official input on that.

    http://pc.ign.com/articles/919/919059p1.html
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard Offended Me
    Massive campaigns, several new units built upon the same storyline and engine.
    I'm not denying that the expansions to those games added a few nice satisfying campaigns, several new units and what not. I'm just placing them in comparison to WoW expansions.

    Small world additions, 1 new race/class, built upon the same storyline and engine. And the intent is to eventually streamline those additions into the existing world, UNLIKE the RTS and Diablo expansions.

    Small? Outland and Northrend are pretty big, they add ALOT of gameplay. And the storyline in WoW is basically continuous through the expansions in a sense. Do you follow the wow lore and story?

    And Sure you may argue that wow is an mmo, but look at Starcraft 2 -- see nows thats something. 28-32 hours of gameplay per campaign, thats alot of content.

    D3 doing any sort of P2P feature whether monthly or micro is a deal breaker for me, not because its worthy or not, but because the scope of the game is SO small compared to the likes of games like WoW.

    $15 a month is a HUGE amount of money relative to the benefit you get, a 4 person max game built ontop of a GUI chat server. And regardless of whether its a lot of money or not, trying to squeeze blood from the stone of the playerbase is an especially foolish move given the state of the world economy.

    Its basically the same thing as giant financial institutions, through horrible corporate mismanagement getting bailed out. Blizzard makes money hand over fist, and to claim that they have to monetize features to survive is basically them saying we're a bunch of idiots and sheep.

    Now I highly doubt Diabo 3 would be pay to play... but if it were.. I'm sure Blizzard would definitly deliver. We'd see alot more content, we'd have more support, more perks, a more secure battle.net, and the list goes on. Maybe it wouldnt be exactly 15 dollars a month, since its the scope of the game is not that of an mmo like wow, but we'd be seeing were our money is going.

    And well maybe some of the extra additions that the Diablo 3 team is adding to battle.net specifically for diablo 3 are just outside of Blizzard's Diablo 3 budget. I'm sure the features they monetize wont be game breaking, or unreasonably expensive. Jay wilson said "we kindof have to" for a reason.

    Also, this might be irrelevent to your point, I just wanted to point out that in a recent interveiw with Rob Pardo, he said that they're currently looking at 8 players for game size. 4 Players was for the demo.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Fire Bats and Plague of Toads screenshots
    I have to be in the minority in loving the animation for the firebats....
    Same
    I think the zombie wall is awesome too though.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.