Diablo III Beta Preview
What's new, what's changed, what's in the test.
Diablo III has hardly been under wraps since its Paris unveiling three years ago. It's been playable at BlizzCons and other events, and Blizzard's currently open mood has allowed press and punters to follow its development in some detail.
But last week was the first time the studio has invited press to its Orange County campus for a full briefing on the game - from first principles to latest developments, including a hands-on preview of the coming public beta. Despite the game's familiarity, we emerged from a 100-minute presentation and Q&A with our heads spinning - from the accumulated mountain of detail on this apparently simple and visceral game, from its quite dizzying quality, but also from the boldness of the thinking behind it.
The big shock is an officially sanctioned real money auction house - an in-game eBay - where players will be able to sell loot to each other in their local currency. This development is so daring, complex and potentially controversial, we'll discuss it separately in a full article soon. There'll be a separate but functionally identical auction house where players can trade using game gold.
The game's online features on the Battle.net platform were also confirmed. It will, of course, support achievements and the same Real ID centralised friends list as StarCraft II and World of Warcraft. You'll be able to broadcast invites to all your Real ID friends simultaneously and join each other immediately at any point in the game, the difficulty and rewards dynamically scaling to the number of players. There'll be a public game finder for co-op with strangers, and matchmaking similar to StarCraft II's for the 'Versus' competitive multiplayer mode.

Your banner can show achievement tallies, whether you're a hardcore player, a Versus enthusiast and so on.
A 'banner' system visually represents your play style and achievements to other players in a customisable pennant that stands behind your chosen character on select screens. Game characters are persistent and cloud-saved, and you can instantly swap items between them using an account-level shared stash, accessible in any town.
All of this comes at a considerable cost: Diablo III will not be playable offline in any form. Blizzard points to the deep integration of the online features (especially the character persistence) and to its zero-tolerance approach to cheating and account security to excuse this decision. It's a good argument - but it's no coincidence that it makes the game impervious to piracy, too.
The famous five
Lucky players who've registered interest on their Battle.net profile will be able to experience much of the above, excluding Versus but including the game gold auction house, in the beta test soon. This very short but alarmingly replayable snapshot covers the very beginning of the game - around 8 levels or so - and offers all five character classes to play: the barbarian, monk, wizard, witch doctor and demon hunter.
It's primarily a hardware test for the game's server infrastructure, says lead designer Jay Wilson, and its brevity is to save players from spoilers. "Really, we just don't want to ruin the story."
So you can beat the beta in an hour or so - although you can spend many more trying it out with friends online and experimenting with the five characters, who even at this early stage of the game, with few skills unlocked, display a breadth of tactical choice and an inventive capacity for spectacular slaughter. It will be very, very hard to choose which of these to roll first when Diablo III is finally released (and no, we still don't know when that is). The crossbow-slinging demon hunter, so impressive at BlizzCon last year, is a little muted at this early stage. But the barbarian has been given a huge boost by recent changes, while the martial-artist monk has recovered from a recent slump in form ("he was getting the crap kicked out of him" in the internal alpha, according to Wilson) to become an instant favourite with the visiting press.

Online only: the dream of playing Diablo III on a plane dies today.
The witch doctor's voodoo zoo of weird pets gets more insane with every viewing: human ladders of body-slamming zombies, totems that turn enemies into chickens. I spend the most time with the wizard, a class that instantly obliterates the quaint echoes in its name in a storm of withering lightning.
In previous demos, most classes were using placeholder mana pools to fire off skills, but they've all now had distinctive resource mechanics ironed out. The wizard spams spells with fast-regenerating arcane mana (I typed 'arcade mana' - a telling slip) while the demon hunter has a curious split pool of of Hate (fast-regenerating, offensive skills) and Discipline (slow, defensive).
Wilson's team has achieved an exquisite balance between the relentless, onrushing slaughter of traditional Diablo with a more tactically sophisticated and spatially aware style of play. "Spammable" attacks are blended with big-spending "breakout" skills and a new focus on defensive and crowd-control abilities, slowing being a favourite tactic. And thanks to the latest brave revision of the game's skill system, you can experiment with them all with complete freedom.
Skilling in the name
Each character now has just six active skill slots (and three powerful passives, replacing the more complex traits from last year). Skills simply unlock as you level up, as do the slots - you start with two. Skill points and character respecs have followed attribute points into the bin, and skills can be swapped in and out of slots completely at will. The system is breathtaking in its simplicity and flexibility.
Wilson explains the change of heart. Players faced difficult choices on whether to go deep or wide in their skill investment - yet those choices were subsequently trivialised by the ability to respec, and the whole system conflicted with the Diablo player's desire to swap disposable early skills out for shiny new ones.
"What the system wanted to be [is] almost, in some ways, more like Borderlands," he says. "If you played Borderlands, the primary thing that you're doing all the time is shooting a gun. And that changes frequently because you always get new items that change what you're doing, and that's what keeps the combat really interesting. Diablo is the same model, except we don't base our skills off weapons, we base them off of the skill system.
"If changing [skills] was a really big deal, we're basically telling the player, 'You're not really supposed to do that.' But they are supposed to do that. What's the problem of just letting players change the skills whenever they want?"

It's a deeply beautiful game, achieving painterly atmosphere and striking depth despite the isometric camera and simple tech.
The runes that increase skills' power and alter their effects are the counterbalance to this freedom: this is where choice, investment and customisation come in, and where long-term players can start to build highly specialised variations of the classes.
Wilson demonstrates the amazing flexibility of the rune system by turning his wizard, normally the definition of a fragile 'glass cannon' caster, into a melee-focused battle mage - a build that took him a couple of hours to design ("it was a lot of fun") and for which he rejected another seven entirely viable skills. A ranged attack is transformed by a rune into orbiting armour. Other skills gain healing properties and reflective damage, have their delays removed, or leave crowd-controlling frost trails on the floor.
"One of the things we tried when we came up with each one of the classes is to come up with as many different alternate fantasies as we could think of for that class and then try to make sure that we accommodated those. We don't pretend to know all the variations... It's no mistake that there's a lot of options for making a battle mage with the wizard - it's because I think that's cool," Wilson says.
It's also a "highly inadvisable" way to play the class, he admits, but he's happy that playing Diablo doesn't have to be about 'theorycrafting', the obsessive fine-tuning of optimal character builds at the heart of World of Warcraft raiding culture. "One of the things I've always liked about Diablo is that, to a certain degree, the audience doesn't care as much about what's the best. They care a lot about what they want to make."
The many deaths of the Skeleton King
If Diablo III's systems are the last word in finely-crafted freedom, then the same unobtrusive care is being taken with the game's storytelling, a neglected element in the previous two games in the series. Chris Metzen, Blizzard's world-builder in chief - or senior vice president of creative development to you - thinks that's been a waste.

An introductory cut-scene is delivered in a sepia-toned monochrome animation in a hand-drawn style - not Blizzard's usually glossy cinematics.
"The dirty secret is, Blizzard North, who built most of those games, they didn't love story," he tells me. "It facilitates this and that, but they were much more about the items and the slot-machine type gameplay of it all... It was always just a bitch to put you in the midst of the narrative for Diablo games.
"I've always held that Diablo was by far the most interesting universe we were sitting on top of. I've always believed this. 'Cause you know, Warcraft and StarCraft have their roots in... the zeitgeist of pop fantasy and science fiction, in many ways their worlds are built to substantiate any wacky idea. Especially Warcraft, goblins with jet bikes and all that kind of shit. I really think [Diablo] has the most thematic potential of any of our universes to be... I don't know, a bit more personally engaging."
Along with lead world designer Leonard Boyarsky, who worked on Fallout, Metzen believes that it's been necessary to shed a little light in Diablo's relentlessly dark world, to leaven the bleakness, to give players hope and something to fight for. But their biggest challenge was to find a way to deliver story - including the backstory about the creation of Sanctuary, Diablo's world, by the rebel demons and angels who sired mankind - without slowing the game's voracious pace.
"Even if you don't stop and listen to all the quest text, the context of where you are and what you're doing strings together a little more directly in a way that I think is non-cumbersome," Metzen says. "That's a concern we've heard from Diablo players for years and years: 'Don't bore me with it, I'm really just interested in the slot-machine.' I think we've found a good compromise. We're not attempting to build Dragon Age here."
It's mostly, says Boyarsky, about keeping the word count down. But the elegant direction of the adventure and the discreet, optional delivery of backstory - mostly using dialogue and audio clips, so you can listen while you kill - are also hugely effective. That much is clear even from the beta's mini-adventure.

Every time you discover a new monster, you can play an audio clip of Deckard Cain's scholarly ramblings on it.
Your character arrives at New Tristram, a gold rush town thriving on the ruins of the village that was the setting of the original Diablo. Or it was thriving until a meteor drove straight into the old cathedral and raised a plague of undead commanded by the Skeleton King, an old foe from the first game.
Your journey takes you through some light skirmishes to a mission to rescue the series' aged sage, Deckard Cain, from the cathedral, at the urging of his adopted niece Leah. Once saved, Cain sends you off to find the Skeleton King's crown in a series of crypts so you may return to the cathedral to summon and then slay him. (This guy is going to die a lot while the beta is running.)
On the way, you're helped by a blacksmith - the first of the crafting artisans who will follow and supply your campaign against the Burning Hells - and, in the final battle through the cathedral, a Templar knight. The Templar is a 'follower', a sort of customisable henchman. These will join you at certain points to throw the story into relief with their comments as well as assist you in combat.
This first episode is simple stuff, but what's striking is how smoothly it flows, how much clearer your sense of place and purpose are than they were in the earlier games, how heightened the flavour and more varied the pacing. Like everything else about Diablo III, its narrative has an effortlessness about it that belies how carefully put together it is.

There's a two-tier checkpointing system that saves your progress, while waypoint teleports remove travel time.
Little efficiency savings are everywhere. You now have three permanent utility items: a Stone of Recall to get you back to town (no longer viable as an escape skill); a Cauldron of Jordan that you can use to sell items wherever you are ("'My bag is full' is not an awesome reason to go back to town," says Wilson); and a Naphalem Cube which converts items into crafting material. There's less makework and more time to spend on new systems like that crafting, which balances the randomised loot by allowing you to predictably plug gaps in your equipment with decent-quality items.
But Boyarsky reveals that the team didn't get to include every novelty that it wanted to. "At one point, we were putting player choice in," he says. "You'd choose to finish quests in different ways, and with the speed of the gameplay and multiplayer and the flow of Diablo game, it just did not work... It just stopped the game in its tracks. It was a great idea, but it really didn't fit." The restraint is typical.
Diablo III is more game, cunningly disguised as less. Even after completing the beta twice over, it was painful tearing myself away from it; it's so disarmingly gratifying and deceptively sophisticated, and so, so much fun. This tantalising preview will only stoke your cravings. The game itself - now quite obviously, and vastly, better than its predecessors - can't come soon enough.
You may also like...
-
In Theory: How iPad 3 Breaks the 1080p Barrier
-
The Rise and Fall of Sega Enterprises
-
Ridge Racer Vita Review
-
The Essential PlayStation Vita
-
GAME to close 35 stores
-
Syndicate Review
-
Battlefield: Aftershock pulled from App Store
-
GAME: "we can't stock absolutely everything"
-
Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs announced for PC
-
Dating site for gamers launches in the UK
-
Guild Wars 2 open beta sign-up begins
-
Can SSD Upgrades Boost PS3 Performance?
-
Japan chart: Strong debuts for Binary Domain, Theatrhythm
-
Borderlands 2 release date announced
-
Leaked Mass Effect 3 DLC reveals race of secret squad member
-
PlayStation Vita midnight launch: cosplay and commitment
-
Pokémon Company blasts iPhone game scammers
-
Doctor Who: The Eternity Clock powered by Unreal Engine 3
-
Nvidia GeForce 295.73 drivers better Skyrim, Mass Effect 3 performance
-
Mass Effect 3 gets simultaneous US PSN digital release
-
App of the Day: Orbital HD
-
PS Vita: Sony defends Uncharted, FIFA price, explains expensive third-party digital games, reveals larger memory cards are coming
-
Motorstorm RC for PlayStation Vita - first 15 minutes
-
Gravity Daze Review
-
PS2 Classics Virtua Fighter 4, NFS on EU PlayStation Store









Comments (72) Latest comment 4 months ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Yea, like World of Warcraft right? Or even Starcraft 2 for that matter?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Ah, screw you and your online only....
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Down with boneheaded DRM schemes like this.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Warhammer and Warhammer 40K?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Well since it looks shit and requires real money to auction the console crowd can have it and enjoy it to the fullest in fact I recommend it to them.
This just goes to show why people think console gamers are idiots.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'm a big fan of the first two games so I'll buy it, however it won't be without a certain degree of skepticism.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Warhammer and Warhammer 40K? "
That did make me smile. He should have just said Diablo is our only vaguely original IP.
That said I can't wait for this.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I think they're saying that all your campaign progression and loot will simply be automatically part of your online experience, whereas before you'd choose to play either 'locally' or online.
So, as I understand there is no single-player; every game will essentially act as an instanced dungeon, unified by trade and chat hubs (and PvP arenas?) It's a step towards MMO-lite, almost like Phantasy Star.
Not quite the same as 'Internet Connection Required to play Single Player'.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Why can't developers just make games, and then sell them to you? I probably will end up getting this, as a whole bunch of us are getting it for online play, but why all the constant bullshit? Maybe half a dozen of my clan will get this, and you know how many of us will give a shit about Battle.net? Zero.
All these developers and publishers seem to be obsessed with these centralised accounts these days. I've got news for Activision, Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft and anybody else with grand designs for their own 'platforms'. I do not have any brand loyalty where gaming is concerned, and I do not care about stats, and centralised meaningless pap. No fucker does. If your game is good, and appeals to me, I will buy it. If not, then I won't.
Just sell me the game and then fuck off.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I can forsee the next few years gaming between me playing this a few hours then switching to battlefield. Throw in some heart of the sworm for good measure. Future is bright again
edit - guild wars 2 may very likely end up overshadowing this but ive no problem with an amazing title overshadowing an incredable title
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I want Diablo 3 so very much, but being force to playing online only drops my enthusiasm sharply. Too bad I won't be able to resist the urge to purchase this abomination.
Shame on you guys. Really. Not that you'd care, you already sold your soul ages ago.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
These are the days of CoD and Gears, and Uncharted.
And thats a good thing??
Those games bore me to tears, especially CoD, I can only take so many sequels. Each to their own and all that
If you don't like the mouse, I assume you don't like a keyboard for games either. Yet that is the control method for games like Starcraft 2 and Warcraft, both of which sold in large numbers. Both of which are also from Blizzard. Diablo has a huge fanbase and being developed by Blizzard means it's pretty much gauranteed to sell, regardless of what the game is like. Bit like CoD in that regard.
With regards to Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance, I hope your not actually trying to compare that BG and BG2 on the PC, and that DA is the better game...
As for being "like the 90's". You are aware of how huge Starcraft was before Starcraft 2 was released last year. It was a hugely popualr games right up until 2010.
I assume your also aware of all the large selling PC games of recent years? There are quite a few of them.
New doesnt always equal better you know, in fact these days it often means quite the opposite. The games industry of 2010 would do well to look back to how things were done in the late 90's from time to time.
Now, quit being a fucking troll, you just look like a child.
Back on subject.
Are Activision now making their prescence felt? I don't see the need for permanent connection. If I want to play offline and don't care about taking my charachter online, bloody let me. Although I don't buy any of that as the reason, all about the piracy isn't it.
Anyway I was looking forward to this, but after seeing these 'features' I'll live without it thanks. There's always torchlight. Idiots
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Anyway, this is sounding like it could be a new addiction. Not sure I can commit to it.. But I definitely won't be able to resist!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Edit: They seem to be making it more MMO-ish.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The most amusing thing is that he seems to think there were no games like CoD or Uncharted around when Diablo 2 was released. And that he doesn't seem to know that Diablo 2 still has a massive online community, 10 years later. Guess he's a very young, inexperienced gamer who was brought up on a very one-sided diet of console action games.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It's not even totally DRM related. Anyone who played Diablo II will confirm that the vast majority of hacks/cheats were possible BECAUSE your character was saved offline. Now we have online character saving, online shared stash between characters, etc. All of these are welcome additions for me.
Saying "but I want to play when my internet goes down" is like saying "I want to play when my power goes out". :-/
Comment below viewing threshold Show
However, when I played with my GF (2x2 - us against the AI) in the SAME ROOM we got lag spikes every few seconds that made it less enjoyable because we were forced to be online with battle.net...this for me means that during a single player game in D3 (while being forced online at all times) that I'll also get similar lag spikes and I'm afraid I personally just don't find that acceptable.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
An even more sad: some people liked the changes.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Welcome to "next-gen".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
That is the 2nd time today I've read this extremely silly statement. Worrying there are actually consumers out there with this "logic".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Diablo 3 is not a single player game just because Diablo 2 was, it's absolutly nothing like what Ubisoft do with Assassins creed which is simply an internet connection for the sake of it, Diablo 3 is meant to be an single account totally online experience.
Blizzard is merging their 3 main games into the facebook inspired battle.net 2.0, hell the profits from in game item selling can pay for your wow subscription.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Seriously, you made my day.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Thanks, I will.
I will have fun playing TF2/3.
I will have fun playing WoW.
I will have fun playing Guild Wars 2.
I WILL have fun playing Diablo III.
They'll be even more fun cos people like you, who want to remain stuck in the 1990's era of gaming where being online was not an essential part of the games you were playing, won't be playing them.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Indeed. I hate it already.
"Really, we just don't want to ruin the story."
We'll leave that for the reviewers.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
TLDR: The only other solution would be for Blizzard to ban single player characters from multiplayer which is a big no-no.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Could be a genious decision from a business standpoint tho as if this picks up steam Blizzard is gonna get filthy rich as they are probably going to take a small fee for each item sold (like eBay). But FUCK the business standpoint, I don't want the boring horrors of real life economy to infect my games as gaming for me is kind of an escape from reality.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Yeah 3 of the games you listed are MMO/online shooters you oh so hip youngster of the 21century.
Seems to me todays youth is even stupider than yesterdays 90's era oldschool people.
Must be some educational problem or too much PR indoctrination from the internet that you can't seem to exsit without for a second.
Then again it seems they made Dio3 a complete MMo anyway which is sad but the hipster boys like it anyway.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
They will certainly lose some revenue from those that oppose the idea, but take it or leave it but it's a business model that will probably work for them. High-speed, stable, internet connectivity is the future and games companies will increasingly seek to leverage that.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
lol at "today's youth". I was editting my autoexec.bat file to run games while you were still in nappies I'd wager.
The fact is gaming has changed from those days. Being online back then was a rarity, not the norm. Requiring an internet connection now is no different to games that first required a 3D accelerator card. Gaming evolves over time - evolve with it, or get left behind. If games companies want to provide additional features/security via an online connection I have no problem with that. If you do, don't buy it, that simple.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
@CouldntResist: I think you got their business model just right, and I agree with you, but the the bottom line here is that Ubisoft are getting flamed and boycotted on every turn, while Blizzard, which have the same draconian DRM (or even a worse one, when you consider the fact that I wasn't able to play my overly-priced purchased game for 3 days after release due to it), are getting away with it without a single outcry just because people treat them as some form of an untouchable deity in the gaming industry, and that really pisses me off.
Think about it - Diablo 3's gameplay could be the ultimate pass time for flights and vacations, yet they turned it into something else for no apparent reason. I mean, come on, it's Blizzard, people will buy their games by the millions regardless of piracy, why did they choose that path?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I visit 3 to 4 gaming sites regularly, and everywhere people have been crying about it. I am completely at a loss what you mean with "without a single outcry".
Besides, at least Blizzard does have a few good reasons (items generated server-side, so no client ever sees the co de etc.) as it's almost an MMO - as opposed to Ubisoft's games, even if their main motive might as well be copy protection - and I can't really blame them for at least trying it. Starcraft 2 set a new world record for illegal downloads, several million within 2 or 3 months.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
So whens Torchlight 2 out then?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Also, always online? WTH?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The fact that you mentioned that items are generated server side is enough to ruin the entire Diablo experience for me, but no skill trees, no town portals (not the way they were used in the past, anyway), fetching dropped orbs instead of relying on potions stock, and to top it all - items' auctions with real money, this is getting worse the more I hear and read about it, honestly. They mentioned that it's like Borderlands, and I agree, it does sound like it, but this is Diablo, not Borderlands. Blizzard shaped the Action-RPG genre to what it is today, and now they rely on such an uninspired game for their outside influence? Too bad you defend their flaky choices, because as a long time Diablo fan, this is really as bad as it gets, in almost every aspect.
It was one of my most anticipated games. A shame, really.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The RPS article was basically an "Uh oh, here's the very bad news", followed by 600 comments, for example.
The fact that you mentioned that items are generated server side is enough to ruin the entire Diablo experience for me
What do you mean, because it requires an internet connection (fair enough) or because it is a bad thing per se (which I'd ask you to elaborate on - mods?)
Too bad you defend their flaky choices, because as a long time Diablo fan, this is really as bad as it gets, in almost every aspect.
I've been a Diablo fan since the launch day of the first one, and I politely disagree.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Items being generated on the server side means exactly that: No Internet or a load on the servers in a certain day equals no game, and that's that. It means that just a few steps separate this title from being a full MMO. Since I never played Diablo or Diablo 2 online, despite the fact that I purchased multiple copies of both games and their expansion packs back in the day, and since I simply can't enjoy World of Warcraft, Guild Wars or any other MMO out there, despite giving them all my best efforts time and time again with the encouragement of hooked-friends and family members, it is easy to understand why I'm quite unhappy about these steps. If I wanted an online game, I would purchase on online game. But I want Diablo.
As a devout fan of the first Diablo back in the end of 96' as well (see? my e-penis is just as small as yours, ha!
I'm not afraid of changes and I don't want a Diablo 2.5 with better graphics, but I do want a Diablo, and this turned out to be (on paper, at least) something else.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'll totally admit that I'll be disappointed as well if it's not a good single-player game anymore, but on the other hand I adore the idea of a game like Diablo, with no subscription fee, being tightly integrated into some sort of "persistent" multiplayer world, which will also (at least I hope so) generate a stream of more content over the years than just one expansion pack. That's what I liked so much about Hellgate: London as well - you could play it solo, but had the "social hubs" for item trade, chatting, etc., and if Diablo 3 pulls that off as well, I'll be happy, and I can see me playing it for years to come with the multiplayer integration being an added incentive.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
And again, offering more content online is still not good enough of an excuse, sorry. Especially since I could always connect whenever I want and update my game to the latest update that has the latest and greatest new content. And if I want to connect to a hub of friends, why not keep Diablo 2's model of Open Battle.net vs Closed Battle.net so players that want online can have it and players that don't, won't?
I understand what you mean, but please understand what I mean: what Blizzard are doing is basically giving me the finger and saying - 'Yes, you've had your fun, but you're just not economical enough for us so shut up and play only as we tell you'. It's good enough for you, I'm sure, but too bad you don't understand and get even slightly upset that Blizzard simply kick long-time fans off without a hint of remorse in the name of the all-mighty dollar.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I honestly believe that the core audience for Diablo III will not be adversely affected to a significant degree. Like it or not, single-player is not the focus of this game. They obviously cannot please everyone and the benefits of the always-online requirement are certainly justified in the context of serving their primary target market. That's why i think this game will succeed and that's why i don't think Blizzard have made their decision on a purely commercial basis.
Yes, there are hundreds of comments on game sites far and wide decrying this news but as with anything, people love a good moan, especially the internetz. Those that are happy with the decision or apathetic will stay silent. Let's wait for sales figures, server population sizes, player retention rates etc to see how well this is received.
Now watch as i get negged for daring to disagree with (observed) popular opinion.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Well, I can't blame anyone for being a rabid fanboy, since I AM a rabid fanboy, myself. And I'm sure everyone understands the implications of this move, but saying stuff like 'well, that's how it's going to happen, so deal with it' is wrong. I'll tell you a little story. I doubt you'll believe me, but I swear it is true:
Back in around 1999 or 2000, or maybe even 2001, I'm not entirely sure, Blizzard published that their great new game in a long running series called 'Warcraft 3' is planned, but it will be a RPG/RTS hybrid, where the player will control a single hero, gain levels, and just control a handful of units with him (League of Legends, anyone?). Being a long time fan of the series, I've sent Blizzard an email, saying that what they're doing is wrong, that they neglect the fans, that they ruin the entire RTS legacy Warcraft was based on. I received a quick email back from an employee that read: 'Don't worry, we're not ruining anything. It will be great, you'll see'. A few months later, and Warcraft 3 is a full fledged RTS with a few RPG elements, as it should be.
I know, I know, it's all thanks to little old Megalodon, who saved Warcraft 3 from being a bad RPG/RTS hybrid, hooray for him!
No, what I'm saying is that we CAN make a difference. I'm sure many other little Megalodons sent their ranting emails to Blizzard, until they've decided to change it. Sure, things were much more simple and naive back then, but all I'm saying is that simply rolling over and accepting everything they say as a fact is not the right way. The main difficulty, though, is actually convincing enough people (or enough influential people, that is) that what Blizzard are doing is wrong, and that just moaning in these little debates is really counter-productive, but that's what I'm trying to do.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
1. I'm not saying take it lying down at all. I said they were catering to their core market for this game, which i think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. By all means fight for what you believe suits you. That is your opinion, your perogative and your right as a consumer, and if all else fails simply vote with your feet by not purchasing the product.
2. When you say what Blizzard is doing is 'wrong', i would counter by saying 'well only from your perspective'. Your example is different in the fact that it was probably a significant minority or even a majority that were dubious of Blizzard's plans for WCIII. In this instance i think you're going to be in small minority, although i obviously have no facts to back this up! We will have to wait to see if they follow through and on sales figures etc to judge.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I literally cannot remember the last time I gamed without Facebook, Grooveshark and Skype running in the background. If everyone here has so much time online that you can come and post your opinions on a message board, how is internet connection a problem to you? And look at what we're gaining. Cheater protection, instant contact with your gaming friends, and persistent character saves. I remember when internet was a 56k pain in the ass but nowadays, owning a gaming computer that is not online seems like a waste of money. Seriously, get with the times ppl.
I played the hell out of D1 and D2, but I'm glad they redesigned the character progression. D2 skill points were an inferior version of WoW's talents, and stat allocation always followed a set path once you knew what you are doing, few real choices existed, only the illusion of choice. This removes that stiff model altogether, giving us the experimentative freedom that WoW's cookie cutter builds never allowed by giving us extreme skill modification.
This game sounds ever more ridiculously awesone, day 1 buy for me.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
As for the AH ... it does pose as an interesting option, I can't fully disagree on it but I can't also fully buy the reason you put out for this choice... "stopping gamers from using 3rd parties, scams and so on and so forth", I think it has a much broader implication. This will be very tricky for the future of this game for reasons easy to guess: how to keep gold farmers out, how will the 1000$ budget of someone affect your MOST trusty fans with 10$ budgets? How will pvp work with this "chinese" tactic etcetc.
Other things that made me think you are leaning to the dark side: "guild usurping thing" in WoW = forcing some players to keep an active subscription even if not playing, on a break or anything else for that matter. This opens the possibility to scam in ways it hasn't been open before. Access to guild bank and much more. IMO it should take atleast 3 players to vote for the new GM. That would sound fair and not a well hidden tactic to keep WoW going and it's core players: THE REAL GUILD MASTERS.
2ndly. Unable to comment when not having WoW active subscription after 5 years of fees and playing it, after buying 4 expansions is also complete and total BS! How can you do that ???? And don't go for: servers capacity, spam and such BS cuz then you will be forever lost in my eyes. Aren't your WoW servers empty enough to hold the text? :">
I do hope Blizz and their damn masters get this in time, before ruining one of the BEST brands and games in GAME HISTORY! It is no longer the right of manager pricks to call such changes! Don't kill your initiators! You will ruin what we love and in the end you will be the ones to lose.
You can read much more stuff and join in for debate on my blog:
[link url=http://arreatsummit .blogspot.com/
]http://arreatsummit .blogspot.com/
[/link]
Cheers, uZu.