Blizzard's goal for D3

[quras]

I know someone posted a link to a rant about Blizzard lying and all that. I just want to see if we can come up a realistic answer to what Blizz's goal is for D3 currently and future.

Regardless of what your feelings are towards the game, be honest/realistic on the following:

What is Blizzards goal for Diablo 3? We will call that goal A, because at the moment we do not know or there is no consensus. Maybe after some discussion we will be closer.

To get the result of A, (Blizzard wants to achieve A..whatever that is) and to do this...they need to do B. What is B?

What is A and what is B?

There you will find the answer. The root.

A - Blizzards goal With D3 is and always will be to duplicate the longevity of D2 and the selling of items for years after the games initial sales, taping into a constant revenue cash stream.

B - to achieve that goal, the game will be designed around the RMAH. Even if that means subtially pushing players into the RMAH use and everything else about the game taking hits through limited and poor design for the overall goal to succeed.

Everything is meaningless when compared to the goal.

[PrimeHawke]

Whatever happens, I don't think they achieved whatever it is they were trying to achieve with D3.

[Orange Joe]

At launch the system was counted otherwise. Blizzard changed the counting of the public games after patch 1.03 that was around 6 weeks ago.

There is a blue on that one.

I quote :

Why did that number suddenly change so much after patch 1.0.3?
Prior to patch 1.0.3, the in-game matchmaking system would often create new Public Games instead of filling existing games to their maximum capacity of four players. That configuration was to help reduce server load within individual games (fewer players, less load); however, it caused situations where players were rarely being placed into full games, and our goal has always been to promote the four player cooperative experience in Diablo III.

In patch 1.0.3 we made some changes so that the matchmaking system would attempt to fill Public Games instead of creating new ones whenever possible. As a result, we’re seeing more filled Public Games than ever before (you may have noticed this yourself while playing), but it also means that the number displayed in the Public Games window generally isn’t as high as it was prior to patch 1.0.3. As explained above, this is due to the fact that the value only reflects Public Games which aren’t yet full.

---End quote.

Also you have to count the prime time numbers to have any reference. And prime time today in EU was several time above 1450 which was on par with previous weekdays. On sunday it rose to 1600. The number after the patch 1.03 was around 1800.

Of course those are NOT the private (friends) play, the solo play, the AH play ...

So Blizzard explains it. And you didn't know it (of course). How am I not surprised ?

It's not just public games. That's one thing that point's to that. Nobody has any direct proof but theirs definetly enough evidence that suggests and supports the fact that it's loosing players left right and center. As someone opined on the official forums "I see no evidence that the opposite is happening or that the game is even keeping steady"

Why did you completely ignore his post?

[Deleted]

Goal?.

Standing on the shoulders of giants. And failing.

Guess who are 'giants' (hint: it ends with 'North').

[fruitypebble]

It's not just public games. That's one thing that point's to that. Nobody has any direct proof but theirs definetly enough evidence that suggests and supports the fact that it's loosing players left right and center. As someone opined on the official forums "I see no evidence that the opposite is happening or that the game is even keeping steady"

You do realize there was really nothing substantial whatsoever in this post right? You claim that public games are irrelevant and that there's other evidence, but don't bother even so much as hinting at what that evidence is.

Your post basically says "Population is going down. I don't have proof, I don't know where to find proof, and I can't point to someone else that can prove it on my behalf, but it's still true".

[maceron]

It honestly feels like Activision wanted Blizzard to make Diablo 3 purely for the RMAH.

The game itself is ok but the amount of glitches and stupid things (cooldowns for health potions, elites spawning at the entrance of dungeons, ilvl55 drops in inferno to name a few) really ruin the game.

Diablo 2 needed a fair amount of patches so maybe things will improve in time?

[Nerraw]

It honestly feels like Activision wanted Blizzard to make Diablo 3 purely for the RMAH.

The game itself is ok but the amount of glitches and stupid things (cooldowns for health potions, elites spawning at the entrance of dungeons, ilvl55 drops in inferno to name a few) really ruin the game.

Diablo 2 needed a fair amount of patches so maybe things will improve in time?

The health potion cooldown is there to encourage strategic gameplay.

[Glorious Leader]

You do realize there was really nothing substantial whatsoever in this post right? You claim that public games are irrelevant and that there's other evidence, but don't bother even so much as hinting at what that evidence is.

Your post basically says "Population is going down. I don't have proof, I don't know where to find proof, and I can't point to someone else that can prove it on my behalf, but it's still true".

I don't have hard or definite proof because Blizzard won't hand that out. Theirs all kinds of evidence if you want to look thought and the signs all point to it loosing players. The anecdotal feeling that many people describe where the friends have all stopped playing is one example. The length of time it takes to sell anything on the AH is another example. Public games is another example. Lot's of evidence if you bothered to look.

On the other hand I see no evidence the game has STOPPED bleeding players or even GAINED players.

---------- Post added 2012-07-24 at 10:58 PM ----------

Why did you completely ignore his post?

I put him on ignore because it's useless to debate and argue with him. No amount of reason will sate his ability to defend blizzard and arguing with him was starting to become alot like listening to glen beck....

[Orange Joe]

I don't have hard or definite proof because Blizzard won't hand that out. Theirs all kinds of evidence if you want to look thought and the signs all point to it loosing players. The anecdotal feeling that many people describe where the friends have all stopped playing is one example. The length of time it takes to sell anything on the AH is another example. Public games is another example. Lot's of evidence if you bothered to look.

On the other hand I see no evidence the game has STOPPED bleeding players or even GAINED players.

Where is your proof? At least say what it is instead of just saying it's there. So it's ok for you to make claims with nothing to back it up but if anyone else does they are just fanboys?.......

I put him on ignore because it's useless to debate and argue with him. No amount of reason will sate his ability to defend blizzard and arguing with him was starting to become alot like listening to glen beck....

You should look in the mirror and repeat that. Only difference is you prefer to attack blizzard.

I also how you still skip over it completely. Is that because you have nothing to counter it?

[quras]

You should look in the mirror and repeat that. Only difference is you prefer to attack blizzard.

A imagine a good many of benbos posts are probably ignored due to his simple lie he told in the post about blizzard big d3 announcement from mike.

people tend to ignore you after things like that?

But either way back on topic, blizzards goal was the success of the RMAH at the expense of a great sequel.

[Orange Joe]

A imagine a good many of benbos posts are probably ignored due to his simple lie he told in the post about blizzard big d3 announcement from mike.

people tend to ignore you after things like that?

But either way back on topic, blizzards goal was the success of the RMAH at the expense of a great sequel.

LOL and you talk about lies.

[quras]

LOL and you talk about lies.

Or opinion but I know it's hard for some posters to tell who's opinion is who's without actually stating it in writing.

Especially on a thread topic that's asking for posters opinions.

[Throrion]

Is this wrong or right? Has a large portion of the D3 population stopped playing? I seriously do not know but people keep saying this and I see no back up on those claims...true or not?

Nope. It's pretty much just people using "I quit because I find it boring, therefore a lot of people must have found it boring and quit" logic.

[Orange Joe]

Or opinion but I know it's hard for some posters to tell who's opinion is who's without actually stating it in writing.

Especially on a thread topic that's asking for posters opinions.

I know someone posted a link to a rant about Blizzard lying and all that. I just want to see if we can come up a realistic answer to what Blizz's goal is for D3 currently and future.

Regardless of what your feelings are towards the game, be honest/realistic on the following:

What is Blizzards goal for Diablo 3? We will call that goal A, because at the moment we do not know or there is no consensus. Maybe after some discussion we will be closer.

To get the result of A, (Blizzard wants to achieve A..whatever that is) and to do this...they need to do B. What is B?

What is A and what is B?

There you will find the answer. The root.

Your answer is unrealistic whether it is your opinion or not. No company is stupid enough to plan on destroying a franchise while testing out a new feature. Yes I agree the RMAH is 100% a test to see what people reactions are and what they can do legally. But in no way did they plan on doing it at the cost of a franchise.

To think so is just stupid.

[quras]

Your answer is unrealistic whether it is your opinion or not. No company is stupid enough to plan on destroying a franchise while testing out a new feature. Yes I agree the RMAH is 100% a test to see what people reactions are and what they can do legally. But in no way did they plan on doing it at the cost of a franchise.

To think so is just stupid.

Unrealistic? I disagree. I think it's dead on.

Blizzard stupid, maybe. Bold enough to try it, he'll yea.

As I have said in another thread, I'd bet the RMAH was created well before another game elements and probably near what blizzard would call the end of the d2 cycle. If not much sooner.

They saw how much cash it was generating and wanted to tap into that revenue stream even when saying during d2 how much it was not to be done. Well before story or game play or even a fun factor, the RMAH was conceived during if not while D2 as still running strong.

It was most likely the first item on the table in D3 designing and everything else came second if not suffered for the goal of creating a RMAH with the longevity of item selling from D2 and the game was designed around that goal.

[Venziir]

Goal: To create a sequel to Diablo 2.

[Glorious Leader]

Where is your proof?

Rarely in life are we handed proof that easily. Especially so in the case of Blizzard as they are fairly tight lipped about these sorts of things. We can have ever look at the available evidence and make some fairly good conclusions within a reasonable margin or error. If that doesn't satisfy you well then I'm sorry Blizzard won't give me concrete proof so you can feel free to drown me out or put me on ignore. For everyone else who is reasonable and willing to consider the possibilities we can have a conversation I guess. All the signs point to one thing and one thing only. On the other hand as someone on the official forum opined "I see no evidence that the game has stopped bleeding players or is gaining back players"

[Orange Joe]

All the signs point to one thing and one thing only. On the other hand as someone on the official forum opined "I see no evidence that the game has stopped bleeding players or is gaining back players"

LMFAO you are just too much. So public games is not an indicator yet the ONLY proof you have is random internet people saying their friends quit.


What is your world called again?

[jbombard]

Step 1) Turn people into mindless monkeys willing to push the button to receive goodies over and over again
Step 2) Make the game too hard to complete without pulling the hair out of your head unless you buy goodies from other monkeys
Step 3) Make a place for monkeys to sell goodies to other monkeys and take a cut
BOOM! Profit

Unfortunately step 1 didn't work out so well.

Too bad they don't use the ol' tried and trusted
Step 1) Make fun game
Step 2) Sell game

[quras]

SNIP


Too bad they don't use the ol' tried and trusted
Step 1) Make fun game
Step 2) Sell game

What I find even funnier is that is how blizzard used to make games and that same design is what put them way ahead in the gaming world, along with amazing polish.

It's just not true anymore.