• 0

    posted a message on Please, Blizzard, let there be a monthly fee.
    Quote from "Murderotica" »
    I been lurcking around this forum for about a week and finally registered. I just wanted to add my thoughts in about this. Read before you flame please.

    Quote from "Murderotica" »
    1. Keep the kiddies out. I am tired of 14 year old punks ruining my gaming experience. With a monthly fee, that is payable by credit card not game card, it would get rid of a lot of immaturity and would result in a better game. The game is rated M for a reason. Go watch your bob the builder and leave the gaming to the adults, thanks.

    Very untrue... I've played many MMO's that required you to pay with a credit card. In most of them I've ran into annoying kids, either playing their parents account, or who have parents who don't give a crap about letting them use their credit card. Adding a monthly payment to keep immature children out of games doesn't work. People who preach it as a reason to have a monthly fee over look the fact that if parents are going to buy Wii's off e-bay for $500 for their kids for christmas... than parents will let their kids use 15 dollars off their credit card every month to play a game they know nothing about.


    Quote from "Murderotica" »
    2. If blizzard plans to regularly update this game like wow, then I don't mind one bit paying for the content. It would give extra money to blizz for new enhancements and whatnot. We were all complaining about how d2 hardly ever got updated. Well, why should they when they have no reason incentive to. Added levels, bosses, items, bug fixes, and world events is way worth the cost to me.

    Blizzard has the uncanny ability to complete a game and make it solid once launched. After this they will tweak the game until nothing else is truely needed. Now... as long as Diablo 3 sells, they will update it. They will patch it until no glitches (major atleast) remain, and as long as people play it they will be able to pull money from advertisements or from expansions. And Diablo 2 didn't hardly get updated. Firstly it didn't need updated in the beginning, then a year later they added a patch that added new runewords and new things of that sort. Then after that they added the Synergy patch and then another patch with even more runewords and other content, new monsters and new unique items. Sure they didn't do a lot of little updates, but their updates were large and very well thought out.

    Lastly... Diablo 2 and Diablo 1 were so popular because you could play online with your friends for absolutely free. That's why they sold so well after the first year. The online play was so expansive, and it was free! MMO's die because people realise they're spending money for nothing... that is completely true. I'd rather buy a case of bear and hang with some friends playing a lan of Diablo 2 than pay 15 dollars to play Diablo 3. Hell... with 4 of us that would be 60 dollars to play together... when it would only cost of 2 dollars a pop to buy a case of bear and play Diablo 2. Look at how that works...

    Hell... if they charge for Diablo 3 I'll buy it. Beat it... and then play Diablo 2 online. Nuff said.

    Quote from "Murderotica" »
    Also, something else i thought of. Let say they start out with a fee of 5-10 dollars a month. Thats cheap as hell. However, every time you are caught using a hack, cheat, or exploit they raise that price 5 dollars. It would be a incentive not to cheat because it would start effecting the wallet.

    No it won't... I'm sorry but there are people out there who get off on just beating the system by cheating. They're always there.. no matter what.

    Quote from "Murderotica" »
    Well thats my two cents, flame on.

    See I didn't flame you... I just brought up points... good ones.

    Monthly fee's are bullshit anyways. 95% of the money that they recieve goes into their coffers... not the developement of the game. If you truely believe that Blizzard spends $150,000,000 on developement for World of Warcraft every month... than you sir... are a fool.

    Wow has 10 million subscribers, that means they must have sold atleast 10 million copies of the game itself. Now they sometimes have sales for the game as low as 14.99 just for the base World of Warcraft without any expansions. But lets round the amount people bought it for to a nice even 30 dollars. That's 300,000,000 Dollars alone from World of Warcraft sales. I'm sure it's a crapload more money than that... but i'm going for a very very very low estimate. Now... WoW has 10 million subscribers.. like I said. That's 150,000,000 Dollars a month. Give or take a million, but still... that's a shit load of money.

    What I'm getting at?

    Blizzard has not spent 450,000,000 on developing WoW... however... all the blizzard and Vivendi CEOs are driving Ferrari's.... because 10 million people are retarded.

    This is why Captain Planet failed... this is why...
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Sanctuary World Map..
    Quote from "Kapang" »
    I would wager the renaming to Skovos Isles is due to the fact the Amazon is a place in the real world. They probably wanted to separate Diablo from real life a little more. Although other place names are sort of reminiscent of real global places.

    I doubt that has anything to do with it... at all. They just wanted Diablo 2 players to know that the Amazons came from there. Those Islands have each their own name and from that point forward were rarely called "the Amazon Islands".
    Posted in: Lore & Storyline
  • 0

    posted a message on Diablo 3: really short in length?
    Quote from "soender" »
    Stop comparing hack n' slash games with mmo's.



    If I hear one more person call D3 an MMO or compare it to an MMO I'll kill myself and blame WoW...

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Please Blizzard, Remove those MUST Skills, 1pt. Wonders and Useless Skills!!!
    I hate to say it but it looks like Blizzard is taking a more WoW approach to skills and skill allocation for Diablo 3.

    More Diablo Less Wow... IMO
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Prize for beating the game or reaching level 100?
    Definitely a Date with the D.C. himself. Nothing better than that!
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Stone of Jordan
    Quote from "Mr.Yoshida" »
    I'm going to post my 2 cents here and say... hmmm... maybe no?

    Agreed... they should in fact make it even harder to get and make it even better.

    not just make it some crappy trade-in item.

    And don't compare Diablo to Wow... or you might get beaten by the mob.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Guns in Diablo 3? Maybe?
    I don't think guns will make an appearance... but who knows. I hope not... they don't fit the "Sword and Sorcery" feel.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on I found this weird..
    Quote from "Tiger" »
    He eats his greens clearly. Always eat your greens.

    Lawls... greens imbued with Rubys using the heradric cube.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on I don't like the Witch-Doctor
    Quote from "sammyly02" »
    It was a disappointment that there are only 5 classes in D3. I think the witch-doctor is a bad replacement for the undead-caster. Most importantly, he is a waste of one of the five precious classes.

    [quote name='sammyly02']Primary reason:
    He looks so weird and ugly.

    The barb looked like a retarded wanna-be he-man meets Conan in Diablo 2, and he was pretty bad ass.

    Quote from "sammyly02" »
    His class name even sounds weird. it doesnt sound dark at all! I would much prefer the warlock, shaman, and best of all, the necromancer.

    The class name isn't weird. That's nit-picking.

    Quote from "sammyly02" »
    I am not a hardcore fan of the necromancer, but if you are going to replace such a meaningful class, please choose wisely.

    I agree on this only because they mean so much in the books, but I think not having them in Diablo 3 is probably best as far as the story goes.

    Quote from "sammyly02" »
    Why does the witch doctor have a fireball spell? THIS DOESNT MAKE SENSE. Fire should remain unique to the sorceress (unless you have elemental traps like the assassin in d2).
    But a plain fireball spell?

    Wasn't it actually more like a molotov cocktail??? Like a firebomb? Or wasn't it CALLED fire bomb?

    Quote from "sammyly02" »
    I like the undead wall. The mongrels, locust swarm, horrify and other spells are pretty uncool.

    lawls... Horrify=Terror which was a Necromancer spell.

    Quote from "sammyly02" »
    The barbarian totally overshadowed the WD in the gameplay trailer.

    Uh no... everyone was talking about the "new witch-doctor class with his wall of zombies spell" after the credits rolled. Not the "new revamped barbarian who can... you know... jump around still"

    Anyways.. not to rain on your hate parade. I don't really like the witch doctor as much as the Necromancer either, but I'm pretty sure we have a good chance of the necro being in an expansion if that happens, so lets not get our hopes up. It's not like they're completely removing them. They can't...
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard Comments On The Classes In Diablo 3
    Quote from "5speed" »
    Why does everyone want the necro assin an druid back? They had to be the slowest killing chars in the game. An would explain y they were always the last class to have a 99 and were the classes with the fewest 99's. If were going back to 5 classes do it old school. barb sorcs pally amazon an sure replace the necro with the witch doctor. Thats been the weakest char outa the 5 (except for hc cuz they never die) an besides that zombie wall will kick the crap out of any skill the necro had.

    A lot of people want the Necromancer back because of the impact they had on the lore of the world. The novels shed a lot of light on Necromancers as a group and truely explain them, in a way the game simply doesn't. Then there are of course Druid and Assassin fanboys out there that want those two classes back simply because they love them.

    I'm not sure you can actually back up the fact that "the necro is the weakest of the original five classes."

    All of them have their strengths and weakness, but the Necro stood out as a class that could not only dish out decent spell damage (after the synergy patch), but can also spec in the summon tree and make an army that can solo Hell Diablo and Hell Baal. To top that off they were given curses to completely cripple their enemies. So... lets not say the necro suck. Hell, they're probably the most well rounded class in Diablo 2 now after all is said and done. Plus they've got really the only mass debuffs. Pretty spiffy.

    As for Paladins making a return? Probably not in their original form. I do see them being renamed "Knight of Zakarum" or simply "Knight" and being a holy crusader with more focus on their protective and group aura magics and less on the "Zeal" line, which in my opinion didn't really show the true colors of the Knights of Zakarum. They can't completely axe the paladin concept without replacing it. It was a vital support/defensive melee class.

    I don't see Amazons coming back as Amazons. They were monster DPS dealers, but had little to no connection to the Diablo Lore and I can easily see them being replaced by a "Rogue" stylized who specializes in stealth and bow combat. Honestly this is the hardest one to figure. Who knows what they'll put here... or maybe they'll just keep the amazon and completely rebuild her. Who knows!

    And the Sorceress? I bet they completely remake the class, since the sorceress in Diablo 2 was a member of a rebellious female sorcerer coven who defied the ways of the Eastern Clans and their Male Sorcerers. I bet the class is completely re-built. With each different spell tree focusing on completely different things, as opposed to D2 Sorc which has each line dealing damage but applying different status effects. I'm betting the D3 Sorc has a pure damage line, a buffing line (like Enchant only lots of different ways and types) and a pure debuffing line. Replacing the necromancers "Debuff curses" such as Decrepify and Amplify Damage.

    The zombie wall? It's cool and I bet it will be a good ability, but I doubt it will be nearly as powerful as they elude it to be in the demo. I bet it will be like Bone Wall + Wall of Fire and will only do minor damage allowing you time to throw in spells. I don't think they're going to make it do a good amount of damage itself.

    Anyways... yeah it looks like the Necromancer won't be coming back, but it ties into the novels pretty well (go read them... they're actually pretty good and they explain a lot of the Diablo Lore) as does the addition of the witch doctor, which explains in a lot of ways an entire group of people in the diablo universe that have yet to be represented.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.