Poll: Diablo 3: Will you buy it?

[Bostur]

I'm pretty sure D3 will be excellent. However SC2 gave me a lot of frustration with its online system and it seems D3 will be even worse. I think I'll pass.

I like Blizzard's games, I hate their social systems.

 

[DanielBrown]

Yes, I care but I have no willpower.
Every announcement the past two years has been for the worse in my opinion. The crafting system still seems intresting, but it's just a matter of time before they decide to change that as well I bet.
I'm probably one of the few that like the RMAH however. I'll be playing like obsessed anyways, so if I'm able to actually make some real money for my efforts then why the hell not?

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I only ever played the first one and have never been into PC Exclusive games so, no. My PC can barely run Minecraft but even if my PC was top of the range I would probably skip the game anyway. I mean if you're going to be required to play online why even make it a single-player to 4-player game? Make Diablo 3 an MMO game Blizzard because right now it's just an "O(h)..."

 

[Continuity]

I think this is relevant, and quite lulzy if I do say so myself:

Amusing the nerd rage is inevitable I guess and that's an important but niche concern.

On a more serious note though I truly believe that Diablo 3 is a nexus point... if we (the consumer) demonstrate that we are willing to tolerate this sort of liberty taking and out and out "nickel and dime" monetisation, then god help us in the future because we will be up to our necks in this shit.

 

[Redem]

Diablo 3 feel underwhelming to me, it feel like a relica of another era that somehow that's coming our way, like nothing really change since 1998.

Plus they got rid of the necromancer (and I switched to console gamng a while ago)

 

[camazotz]

You'll see, trust me. It's going to be a new dark age for gaming, I think. Read up on what's going on over at EVE Online.

I don't begrudge the concept, and I accept that people will pay stupid amounts of cash for virtual objects, but I lament that one day not far from now it might be possible that I simply can't pick up and buy a game for a set price and get the whole game in one package, that any proper experience with a game will require a steady stream of income to purchase it, piece by piece, with no proper end in sight. Blizzard is going to get us used to the idea of micro-transactions as a way of life. Even though we wouldn't pay to see a movie that stops every fifteen minutes until we feed a machine another dollar....we're going to end up doing exactly that for games.

....but that day arrived years ago.
What do you think DLC is?
Look at the Sims 3 - 50% of content missing from day one as you have to buy it. ME2 - you want all the characters and storyline? Well don't expect to get that in one of our games!

With this method, at least you can make some money back and abuse people who have to pay to win rather then just losing out.

Maybe, but consider this: look at how the gold value in WoW has blown up through in-game inflation. Now, instead of that 50 silver item that's being stocked for 50 gold, imagine it's a 50 cent item now worth $5.00....or even $50.00. Think of the EVE Monocle situation...the only hope we have is that people will be smart enough not to throw that money away....but if they were, then I would think gold farmers would soon be out of business!

As for DLC...yeah, I agree, but done right it serves as a cheap continuation of a good game (ala Mass Effect, Fallout and so forth) rather than the withholding of content that should have been there in the first place. I could enjoy those games in their totality without the DLC....but the DLC was a price-savvy inclusion of more content for those games, so I don't quite see it the same way. Now, DLC that's basically just weapons, extra characters (MK, ahem) or other stuff that really does look and feel like it should have been in the primary product? Definitely agree with you that its yet more evidence that we're already there.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Maybe, but consider this: look at how the gold value in WoW has blown up through in-game inflation. Now, instead of that 50 silver item that's being stocked for 50 gold, imagine it's a 50 cent item now worth $5.00....or even $50.00. Think of the EVE Monocle situation...the only hope we have is that people will be smart enough not to throw that money away....but if they were, then I would think gold farmers would soon be out of business!

As for DLC...yeah, I agree, but done right it serves as a cheap continuation of a good game (ala Mass Effect, Fallout and so forth) rather than the withholding of content that should have been there in the first place. I could enjoy those games in their totality without the DLC....but the DLC was a price-savvy inclusion of more content for those games, so I don't quite see it the same way. Now, DLC that's basically just weapons, extra characters (MK, ahem) or other stuff that really does look and feel like it should have been in the primary product? Definitely agree with you that its yet more evidence that we're already there.

But gold inflation is only to do with the introduction of the expansions. Each expansion leads to more gold in the game, thus inflation.
Which brings me onto my next point.

Why have DLC when expansion packs were better. They were cheaper and offered far more. Also, expansion packs only game out ~ a year after the game as they were never confirmed before the game was released. However DLC is clearly planned before the game is released meaning that it is done for money rather then any other reasons.

 

[Dyme]

I would easily not buy this game, if the developer wasn't Blizzard.
Blizzard means it will the best game of the year, unless they release another game, which they don't often do.

 

[somonels]

No, I'll buy Torchlight II instead.
Besides, there are a lot of good "F2P" games nowadays. Doesn't help that Diablo 3 appears more MOBA-ish than a traditional hack-and-slasher.

 

[camazotz]

Maybe, but consider this: look at how the gold value in WoW has blown up through in-game inflation. Now, instead of that 50 silver item that's being stocked for 50 gold, imagine it's a 50 cent item now worth $5.00....or even $50.00. Think of the EVE Monocle situation...the only hope we have is that people will be smart enough not to throw that money away....but if they were, then I would think gold farmers would soon be out of business!

As for DLC...yeah, I agree, but done right it serves as a cheap continuation of a good game (ala Mass Effect, Fallout and so forth) rather than the withholding of content that should have been there in the first place. I could enjoy those games in their totality without the DLC....but the DLC was a price-savvy inclusion of more content for those games, so I don't quite see it the same way. Now, DLC that's basically just weapons, extra characters (MK, ahem) or other stuff that really does look and feel like it should have been in the primary product? Definitely agree with you that its yet more evidence that we're already there.

But gold inflation is only to do with the introduction of the expansions. Each expansion leads to more gold in the game, thus inflation.
Which brings me onto my next point.

Why have DLC when expansion packs were better. They were cheaper and offered far more. Also, expansion packs only game out ~ a year after the game as they were never confirmed before the game was released. However DLC is clearly planned before the game is released meaning that it is done for money rather then any other reasons.

On both points I disagree. While new expansions in MMOs can devalue gold or make it more plentiful, take a look in the auction houses of WoW or DDO and notice that there's a lot of price fixing going on; it's an easily abused inflationary economy. On consideration, though, I am not sure if that can apply to real world currency; gold is a useful medium because people are more likely to spend something that isn't directly identifiable as cash (thus why Microsoft and others use "points" you buy to spend, rather than just straight cash transactions).

On DLC: I think that the problem here is that DLC has become the catch-all term for any after-release content, and that it would be hard these days to release an expansion pack that didn't get called DLC now, too. As far as I can tell, the DLC for games I buy (Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2, and so forth) are expansion packs, but the terminology has changed (as has the price; $10 for an expansion with 5-10 hours of content is a better deal than five or ten years ago, when an expansion pack might offer the same content for $30). And these days, if you don't want to buy the DLC on release, just wait six months for the Game of the Year edition and get it all on the cheap, anyway.

The DLC that I feel gouges is when its clearly content that should have been in the game from day one.....the problem right now (and why DLC works so well) is that that can sometimes be subjective. One example I can think of off-hand of DLC that was clearly the "rest of the game" was Tomb Raider: Underworld.

I don't have a problem with a developer planning DLC from the get-go; the dynamics of game development have changed over time, and it's difficult and costly to restart a project a year later when you realize sales were good just to do an expansion; to draw an analogy from print media, its like getting angry when you finish a book to find out that it's part one of a trilogy and the author had planned it all along (to be fair, in print media people get mad when a stand-alone novel is turned into a trilogy because of publisher demands, but that's another story).

I think a really valid issue though is the one you are suggesting, that developers might build a game, then cut off parts they feel they can sell as extra content. That's not healthy for gamers, and is a bad practice for developers. I think we can pretty much hope that gamers are savvy enough to those game publishers that engage in such money-gouging tactics that we don't patronize their games (but it doesn't seem to be working that way).

 

[Jimbo1212]

On both points I disagree. While new expansions in MMOs can devalue gold or make it more plentiful, take a look in the auction houses of WoW or DDO and notice that there's a lot of price fixing going on; it's an easily abused inflationary economy. On consideration, though, I am not sure if that can apply to real world currency; gold is a useful medium because people are more likely to spend something that isn't directly identifiable as cash (thus why Microsoft and others use "points" you buy to spend, rather than just straight cash transactions).

On DLC: I think that the problem here is that DLC has become the catch-all term for any after-release content, and that it would be hard these days to release an expansion pack that didn't get called DLC now, too. As far as I can tell, the DLC for games I buy (Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2, and so forth) are expansion packs, but the terminology has changed (as has the price; $10 for an expansion with 5-10 hours of content is a better deal than five or ten years ago, when an expansion pack might offer the same content for $30). And these days, if you don't want to buy the DLC on release, just wait six months for the Game of the Year edition and get it all on the cheap, anyway.

The DLC that I feel gouges is when its clearly content that should have been in the game from day one.....the problem right now (and why DLC works so well) is that that can sometimes be subjective. One example I can think of off-hand of DLC that was clearly the "rest of the game" was Tomb Raider: Underworld.

I don't have a problem with a developer planning DLC from the get-go; the dynamics of game development have changed over time, and it's difficult and costly to restart a project a year later when you realize sales were good just to do an expansion; to draw an analogy from print media, its like getting angry when you finish a book to find out that it's part one of a trilogy and the author had planned it all along (to be fair, in print media people get mad when a stand-alone novel is turned into a trilogy because of publisher demands, but that's another story).

I think a really valid issue though is the one you are suggesting, that developers might build a game, then cut off parts they feel they can sell as extra content. That's not healthy for gamers, and is a bad practice for developers. I think we can pretty much hope that gamers are savvy enough to those game publishers that engage in such money-gouging tactics that we don't patronize their games (but it doesn't seem to be working that way).

Blizz actually work their arse off to work out inflation rates etc so price fixing will occur at reasonable rates.

As for DLC, they are not expansion packs simply for the price and lack of content. An expansion pack always consisted of a new campaign, new race/character/approach etc. It was basically an expansion as it used the same core engine (but improved) with a different story. It was also far far longer.

You say DLC was longer, but I can not think of any examples of when that has been the case. The Dawn Of War expansions were a 5+ hours with new races and campaigns. Morrowinds expansions went on for 10's of hours. Yet DLC, each ME2 DLC was 2 hrs at best at a £10 price tag per DLC...and that is the best value DLC I can think of.

In short, DLC provides far less for a higher cost to the consumer.
It will have an hour or two of side missions and not a new campaign. Also, the engine will be exactly the same which is something that never happened with expansions.


So this is why I prefer Blizz's approach to the AH. Blizz get their extra money from AH sales rather then DLC whilst the player does not get screwed over by missing content etc.