DirtyHarry50, on 05 December 2017 - 11:05 PM, said:
You really believe that Diablo III is a loss leader that simply bleeds money and makes none?
It certainly isn't selling tens of thousands of copies and making millions of dollars. The number of concurrent people playing it is quite low.
You think nobody buys the game anymore? The expansion didn't sell? Another one will never happen?
Actually, they HAVE confirmed (at Blizzcon) that they aren't working on anything major for Diablo and are focusing on other franchises.
Maybe you could explain the recent $15. Necromancer that I'm sure has sold like hotcakes across multiple platforms and which I bought myself.
~25% of active players bought it. Was it a money-maker? Sure, because the actual effort of it was near nill. But it isn't an ongoing revenue stream by any means. Doesn't even total up to what Hearthstone makes in a month.
Also, Activision is calling the plays ultimately now and they are not in the habit of giving away anything. In short, Diablo III makes money and no doubt more money making is planned or Diablo III would not exist because no matter what Blizzard might want, Activision is calling the plays now.
Which is not what ANY of the top level people at Blizzard say... including the ones who have retired or moved on (such as Chris Metzen) and are not obligated to "tow the party line".
When I see Destiny using Battle.net and being wedged in with Blizzard's titles
"wedged in with Blizzard titles" - you mean the part where it ISNT next to the Blizzard games in the launcher and is in a separate section by itself labelled "Activision"?
I am inclined to think Battle.net is an asset at Activision's disposal even without reading a bunch of stuff I don't care about related to all of that. If Battle.net is at Activision's disposal, it follows that everything Blizzard is as well so far as top management is concerned.
So, your position is that you dont care to educate yourself about the situation, but you're sure you know the real story. Got it. FWIW, Metzen has talked about the issue since leaving Blizzard - it was *Bungie's* idea to use Battle.net, because Activision didn't want the game on Steam (they wanted to cut out Valve) and originally wanted Bungie to build their own launcher (Keep in mind, Bungie is NOT owned by Activision, they are merely the publisher) - Bungie has been independently owned since they left Microsoft). Blizzard also could have said no. They said yes because the more people that install the Battle.net client the better - the more likely they are to then buy Blizzard's games. That was actually what convinced Mike Morhaime to say yes.
Diablo III is just another example of a popular game many people like that is sustained by that and nothing else.
I was going to insert something snarky here about how much popularity is worth in USD, but i just dont have the heart. No one here is claiming that the company is a saint or anything, but i am saying that sometimes "it makes us gazillions of dollars" isn't the only reason to keep supporting something, especially when the costs of doing so simply aren't that high.
Need more money? Give them a new class they want, some virtual toys to go with them and watch the profits come rolling in 15 bucks at a time over a huge number of players.
Because there's a pattern of that, right? Oh.. no, there isn't. And the company has outright stated that there's not any serious new content coming to D3 and no work being done on the franchise at the moment.
Diablo 2 was supported for 10+ years with new seasons and even new rune words and the like, and it certainly wasn't making them any serious cash at the end (and IIRC is still playable even? I know there was an update a while back). D3 is still around because having the people that like it as loyal customers is worth the cost of operating it (which is quite low at this point).