Blizzard Admits Diablo III End-Game Failure

[Zenn3k]

They've already lost me and I don't plan on coming back.

1.03 made the game unplayable for me (repair costs, FYI), since ALL their changes have been moves towards destroying the game and making it less and less fun to play, I have no confidence that 1.04 will do anything different than this.

I could really care less about what the do now, since I'm not playing anymore.

However, PvP Arena will NOT fix this game at all. Its going to end 1 of 2 ways in PvP. Everyone gets 1-shot by massive crit damage or nobody dies due to super high armor and resistances. Its not going to be fun either.

Blizzard really screwed up with Diablo 3, BAD. There isn't a single redeemable element to the game. The story is horrible, the item hunt is boring, the game play is boring due to excessively long ability cooldowns, always online DRM, everything is just BAD.

Personally, I'm looking forward to Path of Exile, the true spiritual successor to Diablo 2. Dark art style, cool item system, FREE TO PLAY, no online requirement.

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

Okay, you realize you did invalidate your argument by saying that StarCraft 2, which has dominated the esports scene, is "Eerily quiet"? If anything it's one of their biggest triumphs.

Let me get this right. My argument to do with DIABLO 3 ITEMS is invalidated because I mentioned, in an unrelated point, another game.

Bravo.

The esports scene is minuscule. Dominating that is hardly any sort of success. If SC2 is anything like D3, I imagine the volume of players on it is plummeting every month until it reaches a pitifully small plateau.

Hahahahahaha wow.

Like, you do realize you couldn't be more wrong if you tried, right? SC2 has been --growing-- esports phenomenally into the mainstream. Just look at the Barcraft phenomena. But I don't suppose things like reality or facts means much to you.

Only Blizzard can get away releasing a game that had been in development for over a decade, unfinished, missing key systems, in many ways completely broken and STILL have fans lining up to sing their praises.
I hope their fans start to wake up soon.

You know... This has me thinking. Why is the reaction to this game so non existent? Had this been EA and say Bioware... people would demand heads on pikes. But Blizzard and Activision do something that is far far far more insidious, and its like no one is even remotely miffed about it.

Because the game itself is awesome? It's the stuff around it that people don't like.

Sorry, that does more to reinforce what we said than detract from it. Look at ME3. The 50+ hours of gameplay was great and generally very well received. It was the last 5 minutes that sparked a massive outrage. But Blizzard creates a game that actually screws with the industry, screws people out of playing long term/short term, adversely effects the entire performance of the game, utilizes broken and incomplete systems and demands constant upkeep on the game of which the staff failed to prepare for, but fans say "because its awesome!"

Well, I though the ME3 whiners were being stupid, too

I'm sorry, I'm not going to ***** and moan about a game that gave me over a months' worth of solid playtime and fun for a couple of hours' wages. I thought the game was great. I've never been screwed out of playing it except for at the very beginning of launch. For me, Diablo 3 was everything I wanted it to be.

So you expect me to complain because it isn't what other people wanted it to be for them?

 

[viranimus]

Well, I though the ME3 whiners were being stupid, too

I'm sorry, I'm not going to ***** and moan about a game that gave me over a months' worth of solid playtime and fun for a couple of hours' wages. I thought the game was great. I've never been screwed out of playing it except for at the very beginning of launch. For me, Diablo 3 was everything I wanted it to be.

So you expect me to complain because it isn't what other people wanted it to be for them?

I agree with you that the ME3 detractors are rather baseless. However, Yeah there needs to be complaints, even from those who "liked" the game because you cannot claim that damaging the video game industry with the eventual progression that will come from RMT was one of your expectations. That is something every gamer should be up in arms about, but they simply are not.

Its irrational company loyalty. Had Valve developed D3 and ME3 exactly the same way they were currently developed, you would not have heard a peep out of the general gaming populous. Those who would speak up, would be viewed as insane wingnuts wearing tin foil hats and the like.

 

[direkiller]

My question is, what kind of endgame is even really considered an "endgame" for ARPGs? Endless dungeons? PvP? The only games of this type that I have played recently are Torchlight and Diablo 3 so I'm not exactly sure what an endgame would even entail with this genre. What did Diablo 2 do that kept people around for like a decade? and was it even an endgame or did people just play the game over and over with different characters?

I kinda agree... Diablo 3 isn't World of warcraft? ummm... no shit? What kept people playing D2 was hunting for items and PvP.

You put in an AUCTION HOUSE and expect the item hunt to be sustainable?

That kinda ruins the item hunting, so PvP is all thats left?

that and leveling
most people did not have the time to get a level 99 charter it was nice to spend a few hours with buddys and at least see some progress

 

[Canadamus Prime]

One thing you could do is get rid of the maditory Battle.net connection for single player games. I'm not going to gripe and whine (unlike SOME people), but it is kinda irritating to be randomly teleported around and sometimes even killed due to latency and lag issues when I'm not even playing with other people. Not to mention the spam in the chat field is esp. irritating. It would be nice not to HAVE a chat field when I want to play by myself. If I want to use your auction house then let me sign on to Battle.net, not before.

 

[cahtush]

Okay, you realize you did invalidate your argument by saying that StarCraft 2, which has dominated the esports scene, is "Eerily quiet"? If anything it's one of their biggest triumphs.

While the professional scene is thriving, the game itself?
Not so much.
Due to the complete failiure of B.net "2.0", most prominently the do called "ghost town effect".
The player count i dvindling. Although many, like me, watch it but dont play it anymore.

Heres some greate posts on Teamliquid explaining it:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=317944
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=308482

 

[Aeonknight]

People are still bitching about Diablo 3? I thought everyone would've moved on by now. And it looks like from reading the article... Blizzard was under the same impression.

 

[ben-]

What do you mean "nothing to do", wasn't Diablo always about running the same few stages over and over again and gather better and better loot, until you got the best set, and then you began again, but with another character?
Has it ever had another point?

Yes that is\was Diablo, a gear grinder. Adding the auction house took away the replay value. Now instead of logging in and killing monsters for better loot, you log in and hope you get good auction house listings.

 

[Erttheking]

I haven't played Diablo 3 (heck I haven't really played anything by blizzard) but I do respect them for admitting that they fucked up, unlike some other people with their games "cough" Mass Effect 3 "cough"

 

[Realitycrash]

What do you mean "nothing to do", wasn't Diablo always about running the same few stages over and over again and gather better and better loot, until you got the best set, and then you began again, but with another character?
Has it ever had another point?

Yes that is\was Diablo, a gear grinder. Adding the auction house took away the replay value. Now instead of logging in and killing monsters for better loot, you log in and hope you get good auction house listings.

So now, in order to really screw yourself, you spend real money on gear, only to realize that you know have the best of everything, and there is nothing left for you to grind for, and thus the game becomes pointless.
It's like Blizzard thought this up on purpose, like some devious plan for a forced epiphany.
I can just imagine it, a grown man in his thirties, knowing that not only did he throw money away like crazy, but in his effort to become the best, he has pushed everything he enjoyed about the game away from him.
He stares at his hands, disgusted. And he shrieks, shrieks in horror.

"My god. My god..What..What have I done? MY GOD, WHAT HAVE I BECOME!?"

 

[Royas]

Here's a thought, how about finally making a patch that allows players to game WITHOUT BEING ONLINE ALL THE TIME?! I have no interest in making a diablo account, a battle.net account and I have no interest in having the game lag and be tied to the whims of my (relatively poor) internet connection.

Hence, no sale. Do something Blizzard. It's not your end game that's broken. It's your GAME.

The game is broken because your internet connection sucks?

OT: That's fine by me, I stopped playing after I completed the game on Normal and have only just gone back to it and I'm still playing through Nightmare, so I still have plenty of stuff to do.

The game is broken because it requires an internet connection for someone to play single player. I don't buy the argument that Diablo is primarily a multi player experience, as I've only played it single player. Ditto for pretty much all of my friends. Given that some people don't want to play this game with others, requiring a connection even for playing solo is adding a point of failure that is extraneous to the function of the game. Thus, the game is broken if anything keeps a solo gamer from playing.

Whether you buy the argument that it's a multiplayer experience because you have only played it on your own is irrelevant, because it did in fact originally start out as an MMO and there will plenty of people that play it multi-player. Requiring an always on internet connection does not break the game, if it did, the majority of players would be experiencing problems, and if someone doesn't want to play it because they don't want to be online all the time that does not make the game broken.

People need to stop overreacting to the always online requirement and people also need to stop using the word 'broken' to describe Diablo III because the game is by no means broken. Have a go at Blizzards stupid decisions until your hearts content, don't have a go at what is a perfectly functional game.

You need to actually read what I wrote, friend. It's a basic engineering principle that you attempt to avoid what are called "point failures" in a design, unless the very nature of the design requires it. For example, one could call your electrical supply to your computer a point failure of any computer game. One would be correct, but it's a necessary point failure, dictated by the nature of the device itself.

Now, for a person playing single player, there is no need for an online connection, except for the fact that Blizzard decided to make it so. It serves no other real purpose for someone who plays single player. If removed as a requirement, it would have exactly zero effect on the actual gameplay. It is, therefore, an unnecessary point failure, engineered into the system without regard to actual need. Really, it isn't much different from the system Ubisoft was using.

Now, maybe Diablo III was at one point supposed to be an MMO, that is true. However, what it was supposed to be originally is completely irrelevant, it isn't one now. Now, it's game that can be played alone or with friends, as preferred. The online requirements for someone who wishes to play alone have nothing to do with making the game better for anyone, they are purely for the purpose of anti-piracy and monetization via the auction house. They benefit not the consumer, but the company only. That, to me, is the real broken part.

 

[Vault101]

theres not justification for being forced to be online for single player

none at all

 

[zinho73]

My question is, what kind of endgame is even really considered an "endgame" for ARPGs? Endless dungeons? PvP? The only games of this type that I have played recently are Torchlight and Diablo 3 so I'm not exactly sure what an endgame would even entail with this genre. What did Diablo 2 do that kept people around for like a decade? and was it even an endgame or did people just play the game over and over with different characters?

Diablo 2 had a lot of different builds to try. Yeah, people say that only one or two were viable but the truth is that just a few were viable for high level PVP. To just play the game you could even defeat bosses naked.

So what happened a lot to me was getting interesting endgame equipment that gave me new ideas for builds so I started over and over again.

And co-oop.

And ladders.

And some PVP, of course.

And trade.

Never used black market, never bought an equipment, never feel the need to.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Huh!? Would someone please explain to me what "end game" means in this context? I assume it's not the same as "ending" right? I am not being disingenuous I really don't know wtf this article is talking about

 

[Li Mu]

You put in an AUCTION HOUSE and expect the ITEM HUNT to be sustainable?

Go work for Blizz in their 'concept dept'. What you say is pretty simple, clear and most importantly, TRUE!
Odd that they overlooked it. They must have been inspired far too much by WoW and assumed that if it works in WoW it'll work in anything. Which is clearly not the case.

Hey now, Blizzard did do something! They gave us all a ton of good reasons to buy Torchlight II.

Most of your game's a failure, Blizzard. Learn from this and do better next time.

*buys Torchlight 2*

Now here's an odd thing. Don't you guys realize that you could buy Diablo 3 AND Tourchlight 2? There is nothing stopping you from doing so. Why do you think that just because they are in the same genre they have to compete?
Mindlesspuppet (appropriate name) states "They gave us a ton of good reasons to buy TL2"
Right, so TL2s game design and gameplay wasn't a good enough reason at all? Only screw ups by Diablo 3 is a good enough reason to buy a different game.
Are you suggesting that if Diablo 3 was perfect that you wouldn't be able to buy TL2?


I understand that you're clearly a TL2 fan and never had any intention of buying D3. This is just 'supporting your team' and dissing the 'opponent'.
Republican vs Democrat. etc.

This is something which I always find odd. What's wrong with loving two games of the same genre? I did something absolutely insane! I bought BOTH COD4 AND BF3.
Now I know that many of you are utterly stunned and are saying to yourselves, "How is it possible to buy both COD4 and BF3 and own them at the same time? They are opponents...how can this be done?"

Well, I just went to the store and bought them both! Crazy isn't it.
And I enjoy both games, in a different way.
The same can be done with D3 and TL2. You can buy both and enjoy them for having qualities of their own.

Just a suggestion guys. Not everything has to be a competition.

Amazingly, TL2 isn't even out yet and you are all so sure that it will be perfect! God save us if it has any flaws. Then the TL2 zealots will be defending it to the death while ignoring the aspects of it which are broken and the Diablo 3 zealots will be attacking TL2 whilst ignoring all of D3s failings. We'll have a cluster fuck of morons arguing over who's game is more broken.

Anyway, poor show by Blizz in general. I'll give them a C+. Must do better next time.

 

[Artemis923]

Diablo II is one of my favorite games of all time.

I love the Diablo world, and I had high hopes for D3.

Suffice to say, those hopes have been crushed, and I will never buy another Blizzard game, period.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Here's a thought, how about finally making a patch that allows players to game WITHOUT BEING ONLINE ALL THE TIME?! I have no interest in making a diablo account, a battle.net account and I have no interest in having the game lag and be tied to the whims of my (relatively poor) internet connection.

Hence, no sale. Do something Blizzard. It's not your end game that's broken. It's your GAME.

The game is broken because your internet connection sucks?

OT: That's fine by me, I stopped playing after I completed the game on Normal and have only just gone back to it and I'm still playing through Nightmare, so I still have plenty of stuff to do.

The game is broken because it requires an internet connection for someone to play single player. I don't buy the argument that Diablo is primarily a multi player experience, as I've only played it single player. Ditto for pretty much all of my friends. Given that some people don't want to play this game with others, requiring a connection even for playing solo is adding a point of failure that is extraneous to the function of the game. Thus, the game is broken if anything keeps a solo gamer from playing.

Whether you buy the argument that it's a multiplayer experience because you have only played it on your own is irrelevant, because it did in fact originally start out as an MMO and there will plenty of people that play it multi-player. Requiring an always on internet connection does not break the game, if it did, the majority of players would be experiencing problems, and if someone doesn't want to play it because they don't want to be online all the time that does not make the game broken.

People need to stop overreacting to the always online requirement and people also need to stop using the word 'broken' to describe Diablo III because the game is by no means broken. Have a go at Blizzards stupid decisions until your hearts content, don't have a go at what is a perfectly functional game.

You need to actually read what I wrote, friend. It's a basic engineering principle that you attempt to avoid what are called "point failures" in a design, unless the very nature of the design requires it. For example, one could call your electrical supply to your computer a point failure of any computer game. One would be correct, but it's a necessary point failure, dictated by the nature of the device itself.

Now, for a person playing single player, there is no need for an online connection, except for the fact that Blizzard decided to make it so. It serves no other real purpose for someone who plays single player. If removed as a requirement, it would have exactly zero effect on the actual gameplay. It is, therefore, an unnecessary point failure, engineered into the system without regard to actual need. Really, it isn't much different from the system Ubisoft was using.

Now, maybe Diablo III was at one point supposed to be an MMO, that is true. However, what it was supposed to be originally is completely irrelevant, it isn't one now. Now, it's game that can be played alone or with friends, as preferred. The online requirements for someone who wishes to play alone have nothing to do with making the game better for anyone, they are purely for the purpose of anti-piracy and monetization via the auction house. They benefit not the consumer, but the company only. That, to me, is the real broken part.

Well thank you for adding more clarity to your previous post. I can even agree on some points. I've always been indifferent to online requirements in games, as I said in a previous post, I can understand why it would be an issue for some, but to me it isn't an issue. You're right, taking away the online requirement would have zero effect on the gameplay, but then, if you have a stable connection, having the online requirement has zero effect on the gameplay also, well most of the time. Sure there will be times where you'll get lag, most likely due to Blizzards servers having a little fit, but I've played the game for 70 hours now and I've had like 2 lag spikes, that's it. It's a stable game.

All I see the online requirement as, is a minor inconvenience, an inconvenience that's been completely blown out of proportion. Sure there's no reason to force it, but it's there and people are just going to have to deal with it. The only massive downfall I see about the online requirement is spammers, I've had 2 friend requests from gold sellers in the last 2 weeks and there's always sellers spamming the channels, but with anything, there are pros and cons to having an always online requirement. Yeah, it's mostly there to prevent piracy and monetization through the RMAH and I think we all know by now that online DRM's do not prevent piracy and developers should know that by now as well, but put yourself in the developers shoes, if you spent all that time making a game, would you not be doing everything you could to prevent it being stolen? As for the monetization through the AH, well as a business they're supposed to be trying to make money. OK, they probably get more than enough from World of Warcraft subs alone, but making money is what they are supposed to do as a business, it's how they keep themselves going and how they continue to develop games.

As I've mentioned in multiple Diablo III threads now, I've never played Diablo or Diablo II. Perhaps if I had my opinions on everything about Diablo III would be different. But Diablo III is all I have known from the series and I am perfectly happy with the game I got.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

Hey now, Blizzard did do something! They gave us all a ton of good reasons to buy Torchlight II.

Most of your game's a failure, Blizzard. Learn from this and do better next time.

*buys Torchlight 2*

Now here's an odd thing. Don't you guys realize that you could buy Diablo 3 AND Tourchlight 2? There is nothing stopping you from doing so. Why do you think that just because they are in the same genre they have to compete?
Mindlesspuppet (appropriate name) states "They gave us a ton of good reasons to buy TL2"
Right, so TL2s game design and gameplay wasn't a good enough reason at all? Only screw ups by Diablo 3 is a good enough reason to buy a different game.
Are you suggesting that if Diablo 3 was perfect that you wouldn't be able to buy TL2?


I understand that you're clearly a TL2 fan and never had any intention of buying D3. This is just 'supporting your team' and dissing the 'opponent'.
Republican vs Democrat. etc.

This is something which I always find odd. What's wrong with loving two games of the same genre? I did something absolutely insane! I bought BOTH COD4 AND BF3.
Now I know that many of you are utterly stunned and are saying to yourselves, "How is it possible to buy both COD4 and BF3 and own them at the same time? They are opponents...how can this be done?"

Well, I just went to the store and bought them both! Crazy isn't it.
And I enjoy both games, in a different way.
The same can be done with D3 and TL2. You can buy both and enjoy them for having qualities of their own.

Just a suggestion guys. Not everything has to be a competition.

Amazingly, TL2 isn't even out yet and you are all so sure that it will be perfect! God save us if it has any flaws. Then the TL2 zealots will be defending it to the death while ignoring the aspects of it which are broken and the Diablo 3 zealots will be attacking TL2 whilst ignoring all of D3s failings. We'll have a cluster fuck of morons arguing over who's game is more broken.

Anyway, poor show by Blizz in general. I'll give them a C+. Must do better next time.

Way to take a post that was meant as a quip way too seriously.

Just a suggestion guy. Chill out.

 

[Easton Dark]

Hey now, Blizzard did do something! They gave us all a ton of good reasons to buy Torchlight II.

Most of your game's a failure, Blizzard. Learn from this and do better next time.

*buys Torchlight 2*

Snip

Edit: I thought you had bought D3 and TL2, sorry, edited to reflect that.

You misunderstand that voting with your wallet is important.

Good for you, you bought both. You just bought two games. Two games with a not-so-similar playstyle. They're both FPS games, sure.


You see, if I wanted to buy Diablo 3, I could. It's $60, that's really nothing at all. I could buy both it and Torchlight 2 for $80, and with its pre-order bonus I could get Torchlight 1 as well. But here's the thing: Blizzard fucked up. It doesn't deserve my money.

It has changed the Diablo formula to something that just isn't worth the $60. People that got it for free can't muster up the will to play it.

It has added the auction house, making the loot-hunt way more grind-y than it should be and a lot less efficient than just buying what you need.

It has the always on DRM, which is a practice I cannot and will not ever support in my life-time. My game, I paid for it, you can't tell me when I can or can not play. And lag in Single player? Fuck you.

Now all of those apply to Diablo 3. Add with it their servers fucking up, themselves admitting the game isn't as good as it could be, and their smug sense of protecting their consumers, it all just disgusts me.

They're a company I used to love that has failed time and time again, consistently, for over half a decade.

I'm not going to support their continued demise.

I'm going to pay 1/3 the cost and get Torchlight 1 and 2, similar products with more features.

Now go tell me I can enjoy both games. Go on. Good god, it's like you think the only consideration when you buy a game is what's in that game. If it is, you're being a bad consumer.

 

[Li Mu]

Now go tell me I can enjoy both games. Go on. Good god, it's like you think the only consideration when you buy a game is what's in that game. If it is, you're being a bad consumer.

You raised some good points and I agree with you to a point.
As for your last statement; not to be an asshole, but a consumer consumes.
So actually I would be being a good consumer. I wont throw out a dictionary definition for 'consumer', but you get what I'm saying and I also know what you are getting at.

Anyway, I totally see where you are coming from. But Diablo's failings do not automatically make Tourchlight2 a good game as some people seem to suggest (i'm not saying you, but 'some' people). Whenever there is an issue with Diablo 3 you can guarantee that the TL2 fans will ascend and somehow use the D3 issue as a way to somehow prove that this makes TL2 a great game. It's as stupid as me saying "Battlefield3 has lag...therefore, Dance Dance Revolution is a better game".

I don't disagree that Blizzards attitude towards it's customers has been awful. They have gotten too comfortable with having a very hardcore dedicated WoW fanbase. They seemed to assume that this was how it would always be no matter what they do.

But, Diablo 3 does have some good enjoyable gameplay. The game is not shit.
I think of it as a car. It's a good car overall, but the added extras are superfluous, the insurance is too high, it drinks a thousand gallons per mile, you have to use their mechanics if you have a break down...etc. But at the end of the day, it's still a good car.

And Diablo 3 (IMO) is still a good game. It's just a shame that whilst you try to play a good game Blizz comes into your house and poops on your face.

So yes, I can enjoy both games. I don't enjoy the extra crap Diablo3 brings, but as a game I can enjoy it.

Way to take a post that was meant as a quip way too seriously.

Just a suggestion guy. Chill out.

You forget that the internet is serious bizzniss. ;p