Poll: What is your Sub Loss Prediction?

Page 34 of 41 FirstFirst ...
24
32
33
34
35
36
... LastLast
  1. #661
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post


    No, I say that because all the specific things people cite as being inferior to D2 are demonstrably better in D3.

    Ten years = complete memory wipe IMO.
    Nope. That is your own opinion. You are entitled to it. But claiming that everyone else is wrong is purely stupid, especially by saying that no one else's long term memory surpasses a decade except your own.

    That makes you pretentious. I suspect its your own bias and ignorance that makes you unable to see anyone else's point of view.
    Last edited by cityguy193; 2013-11-06 at 03:01 AM.
    Chronomancer Club

  2. #662
    I think I'm legitimately concerned for the people looking forward to this call.
    Quote Originally Posted by Princess Kenny View Post
    Avocado is a tropical fruit , south seas expansion confirmed.

  3. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    Yeah it did. And D2's randomly generated maps weren't very random either, I used to just follow an edge in a certain direction and skip through 90% of Act II...



    None of the previous Diablos had much in the way of story, people seem to be expecting Planescape: Torment or something, if you want super complex stories then Diablo isn't the game for you and never was. D3 had the most complex story of all three and expanded the Diablo universe significantly. Maybe you don't like it, but that's just personal taste.



    D2 was piss easy until Hell, at which point 1/4 of all monsters became completely immune to whatever type of damage you used.

    Well, some monsters were OP on Nightmare as well, notably Duriel vs. certain classes.

    D3 had much better difficulty progression than D2. And Inferno was actually legitimately hard, which was a huge improvement.



    Er, unlike the stats in D2 where you got enough STR to use your endgame gear (because getting STR to use armour as a Sorc was just awesome) and then just pumped your main stat? Unless you did PVP and then maybe you needed VIT instead...

    D2's stat system was primitive. Only acceptable because it was 2001 or whenever.



    A handful of shitty ones, even the sub-par ones you could make exotic builds out of. In D2 you picked one ability and just spammed it until you ran out of mana, then you chugged a potion. That had no CD lol.

    Please don't try to tell me that was a better design.

    - - - Updated - - -



    No, I say that because all the specific things people cite as being inferior to D2 are demonstrably better in D3.

    Ten years = complete memory wipe IMO.

    If you don't like D3, that's cool. You don't have to like the things I like. I scratch my head when people point out specifics that are just blatantly wrong though.
    D3 had random maps? There were things that could spawn in the map, but the over all map wasn't random. A node was on or off. D2 had maps that were actually random. Sure, act 2's desert was pretty featureless and could be sidestepped; but that's the design for every D3 map.

    I agree about the story. It's always been pretty limited. They tried to make the story more involved and it ended up being really really banal.

    Maybe inferno was legitimately hard and I just played over powered classes? I rolled through with a mage and monk pretty early on in the game. Witchdoctor seemed to have a decent level of difficulty earlier though, I'll give you that.

    With stats there were skill buffing stats pretty earlier on, and I vaguely remember a reflect build (paladin or barbarian? It's been awhile) that wanted vitality over other things. Anyway, yes, there wasn't much variety. In D3 they removed skill buffing stats which is a step toward less variety. I believe this changed later, Did D3 expand their viable stats yet? Regardless, we're discussing why people found it initially unappealing so that's pretty irrelevant.

    You could certainly play any of the one skill builds in D2 up till they introduced skill synergies. With D3 they went back to a pre synergy skill style which is pretty bad.

  4. #664
    Quote Originally Posted by Trakanonn View Post
    I know that

    Technically, I had an active game-time during this quarter (ended Aug 30th), but I have not logged in 1 single time this quarter or last.. That is my question. DO I count as a sub tomorrow?
    You will not, since your account was not active as of Sept. 30.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  5. #665
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    19,184
    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    I agree about the story. It's always been pretty limited. They tried to make the story more involved and it ended up being really really banal.
    It was terrible writing period. It had the depth of a kiddie pool. They constantly shoved the most obvious foreshadowing in your face and it wasn't sublte at all. The villains were written with republic serial dialogue from 50's. I was half expecting baal to come out with a cane to twirl and a moustache to curl as he gave me the gory details of some evil plot that he was telling me because i don't know why? Seriously he told me and I stopped it.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  6. #666
    Warchief
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    2,126
    Isn't it today? And what time is it?

  7. #667
    Is the call today????
    I am quite curious as how it turned out.

  8. #668
    Quote Originally Posted by enchanted View Post
    Isn't it today? And what time is it?
    Yes, today is the day. They start at 1:30 PM PST (so, slightly more than 8 hours from now).

  9. #669
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    You will not, since your account was not active as of Sept. 30.
    They count anyone that had an active subscription at any time during the quarter (in the West, there's different definition for the East without monthly subs).

  10. #670
    Quote Originally Posted by LeperHerring View Post
    They count anyone that had an active subscription at any time during the quarter (in the West, there's different definition for the East without monthly subs).
    No, I don't believe you are correct. They count the number of active accounts at the end of the quarter. For "subs", that means the account has to be active (that is, paid for) at that specific moment in time. For the east, where there is pay-per-hour, that means the account had to have been used in the previous month.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  11. #671
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    No, I don't believe you are correct. They count the number of active accounts at the end of the quarter. For "subs", that means the account has to be active (that is, paid for) at that specific moment in time. For the east, where there is pay-per-hour, that means the account had to have been used in the previous month.
    I guess this method would provide a number that would be closer to what people usually think of "the number of active subscriptions".

    That said, as long as they don't change the method between quarters (and they don't, I think), either of them is fine, because the interesting thing is dynamics.

  12. #672
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    never seen them change sub calc method since blizzard was rolled into Activision in 2008. there would be a sizable uproar if they ever did.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  13. #673
    It's out, 1.3mil subs lost.

  14. #674
    Quote Originally Posted by Morgaith View Post
    It's out, 1.3mil subs lost.
    The quarterly report isn't until this afternoon.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  15. #675
    Quote Originally Posted by ShimmerSwirl View Post
    5.4 will artificially boost Q3. Q4 is gonna have massive losses.
    How would it be "artificial" if players came back for 5.4? This makes no sense.

  16. #676
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    never seen them change sub calc method since blizzard was rolled into Activision in 2008. there would be a sizable uproar if they ever did.
    OFF TOPIC: Why does everyone always say that blizzard was rolled into Activision? For pete's sake, it was Activision that was bought and merged into Blizzard.

  17. #677
    Quote Originally Posted by PrivateSmiley View Post
    OFF TOPIC: Why does everyone always say that blizzard was rolled into Activision? For pete's sake, it was Activision that was bought and merged into Blizzard.
    They think that because that's what actually happened. Your second sentence there is simply wrong.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  18. #678
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    They think that because that's what actually happened. Your second sentence there is simply wrong.
    Not true. Vivendi and Activision were Merged and Activision became a part of Vivendi. If that's not called getting bought into another company, i don't know what is.

    now, if Activision had been the one to buy and merge with vivendi games, and They had been the entire parent company, i would say that yes, blizzard was rolled into Activision.
    but no, Activision was merged into Vivendi and then rolled into Blizzard. They totally just choose to call the company by alphabetical order.

  19. #679
    Losing $19.5 million dollars a month over last quarter is a real kick in the nuts. They will be under the 5 mil mark on the next one (quarter update). So what is going to give, meaning, what direction will they go. It is very possible they start throwing less resources at the cash cow now, this is all a bad sign. It is not good.

  20. #680
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    They think that because that's what actually happened. Your second sentence there is simply wrong.
    It was a fusion, no side bought the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grogo View Post
    Losing $19.5 million dollars a month over last quarter is a real kick in the nuts. They will be under the 5 mil mark on the next one (quarter update). So what is going to give, meaning, what direction will they go. It is very possible they start throwing less resources at the cash cow now, this is all a bad sign. It is not good.
    Well it is very possible that the do the opposing thing, which they have done. They need to push wow to make int attractive to new player, even if they go free to play they will need more resources to work that out.
    Last edited by Hellspawn; 2013-11-06 at 02:42 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •