23 replies to this topic

[badger2d]

UmarOMC1, on 11 July 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

Oh, so what you're saying is that you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks and have a nice day.

Thank you for the kind wish, I am indeed having a very good day. But you appear to be having a bad one, which I'm sorry to hear of. I hope things improve for you soon!

[Atticus]

I think part of the problem with D3 is that the gaming landscape has changed drastically since D2, and Blizzard itself created some of that change with the success of WoW. So then along comes D3 and whole new market of players who've never seen or played D1 and D2, but have played hundreds (thousands?) of hours of WoW, and Blizz suddenly has a perception problem on its hands. And while Activision/Blizz never explicitly marketed D3 as an MMO, I agree with previous comment that it never discouraged that perception, either, and the always-online functionality of the game definitely did not help. Fairly or unfairly, a lot of new D3 players see it as "WoW Lite."

Considering how long D3 was in development, and considering that Blizz HAD to have known from their WoW experience that rabid power players would burn through D3 in a day (if not hours), it's surprising that they didn't have an end-game plan in place, or at least have PvP right from the start to keep power players occupied a few more days. On the other hand, D3 is NOT an MMO, so you can't really fault Blizz for lack of end-game content.

To me, at least, the always-online MMORPG-iness of D3 is at odds with its lack of sustainability (ie, end-game content). Which makes me think that D3 had a pretty tortured development process, with the game changing focus and direction over and over again as management struggled to define D3 in a post-WoW gaming market. And this is what we got.

Or maybe I'm just full of $#%$ and should go $%#@ myself?

[Matt Diamond]

Interesting thoughts, Atticus.

I don't disagree that people are expecting some MMORPG-ishness from D3, and that some of that expectation came from Blizzard. I quibble about the degree-- Blizzard saying you can play online with your friends does not make it an MMORPG, it just makes it an online game. You can only play with 4 people at a time; the rest is a glorified game lobby.

Of course, the items and characters ARE persistent. That's the main thing that makes it like an MMORPG. And Blizzard did present that as a major feature of the game, no question.

But the key difference to me is that there is no monthly fee. That's what I find most interesting about this interview. Blizzard themselves are aiming to extend the life of the game, talking as if it were an MMORPG. But a subscription is the usual way to pay for that, and it's self-correcting: when subscribers leave, you lose revenue but also some of your costs.

It's possible that I'm underestimating what Blizzard will make from the auction house.

Another possibility is that Blizzard's larger goal is just to keep people on Battle.net. I know people who switch between D3 and WoW; indeed, the D3 lobby lets you chat with your friends who are in WoW. And people who bought a WoW annual pass got a copy of D3 for free. Strategically, Blizzard MAY view D3 as a way to slow the inevitable decline in WoW subscriptions. If so, sustaining D3 is no different than sustaining WoW, in Blizzard's grand scheme.

I'm just speculating wildly here.

[Thain Esh Kelch]

I think one of the major problems is that while there are randomized areas, the major parts are still more or less the same each game, and that removes a lot of the variability, in my view. And thus it ends up as one of those games you play once every 5-10 years.