Is Blizzard Developing Diablo "Sequels"?

[acosn]

Not that I'm into starcraft at all (mostly due to my suckage at RTS) but the whole "pay 120 for the complete story" seems like a total rip. Expansions are great but their method is kind of lame.

One of the main appeals of SC1 was the three race campaigns. You could play all three or you could just play your favorite race and skip the other two and it would still be a worthwhile purchase.

I think if they released 1/3 of each race campaign with each iteration it would have gone over much better than the way they are doing it.

It's hardly a rip off- instead of one game that has three smallish campaigns they're doing a much larger one that focuses on one plot line. I also don't think Blizzard's just releasing a glorified map pack- long before other companies even thought of expansions Blizzard released them and set bench marks for what's to be expected that veritably embarrassed most of the rest.

And lets be honest- the entirety of the industry does this. They might not be so obvious about it, but lets face it- everyone plans out sequels and continuations. We're looking at halo 5 (6 if you count the RTS), Mass Effect 3, We'll probably see bioshock 3, God of War 3, and so on and so forth.

As far as Diablo, D2-LOD was nearly perfect. The only thing that could make it better would be to release a bethesda-ish mod kit that let non-programmers add/tweak skills, monsters, items, quests, rewards, etc.

Cutting out LAN play is just a kick in the nuts, particularly for longtime fans. As much as I was looking forward to D3 I don't think I'll buy it until someone figures out how to set up private severs. Any single player game or non-persistent world game that requires phoning in to the home office just to play with your friends = fail.

So you're waiting to buy it so that you can basically do something illegal rather than pay for internet you probably already have?

The dirty little secret no one wants to talk about when they bring up the end of LAN in B.net 2.0 is that if everyone has a legitimate copy, and they can all connect to battle.net (nevermind the connection quality here, bear with me) from the same internet connection it will function almost identically to a LAN. B.net (or at least the old version- I see no reason as to why they'd change the functionality when they intend for the games to be played professionally) had the capacity to see that if multiple people were within the same internet connection and all only played against each other that it could effectively make the game function like a LAN and prevent irritating lag issues.

 

[scotth266]

The expansions, as has been mentioned about 3 million times, will cost $30 each.

By expansions, do you mean only the Zerg/Protoss versions of the game? Or will all three be $30?

If it's the latter, then that's better than expected, and might be worth it.

Also, that's the first I've heard of any pricing details. So don't bite my head off please, it's not my fault

 

[Weaver]

The expansions, as has been mentioned about 3 million times, will cost $30 each.

By expansions, do you mean only the Zerg/Protoss versions of the game? Or will all three be $30?

If it's the latter, then that's better than expected, and might be worth it.

Also, that's the first I've heard of any pricing details. So don't bite my head off please, it's not my fault

Hmmm, maybe I'm crazy. I SWEAR I read it somewhere, but for the life of me I can't find the source

The idea is that wings of liberty would be $50-60 or whatever the hell games cost now, include the terran campaign and the online stuff. The two expansions would be just the campaigns and be at a reduced price.

But now that I can't find where I read this, I don't even believe myself.

 

[scotth266]

Snip.

The official website's FAQ [http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml] says that they're still deciding on the pricing. So you probably read a rumor, or Blizzard needs to update their FAQ

 

[Weaver]

Snip.

The official website's FAQ [http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml] says that they're still deciding on the pricing. So you probably read a rumor, or Blizzard needs to update their FAQ

Welp, colour me embarrassed! I guess I'm with you then, hopefully the games don't cost $150 or I'll be pissed. What's more, people would probably just simply not buy them if they're $50 each. The lifeblood of SC is in it's online component, you don't NEED the expansions for that.

 

[teisjm]

Maybe they're making it for consoles as well?
Diablo(1) was on playstation after all, and if theres extra money to make by catering to a wider audience, then this could be the reasons for teh extra S

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

It's hardly a rip off- instead of one game that has three smallish campaigns they're doing a much larger one that focuses on one plot line. I also don't think Blizzard's just releasing a glorified map pack- long before other companies even thought of expansions Blizzard released them and set bench marks for what's to be expected that veritably embarrassed most of the rest.

And lets be honest- the entirety of the industry does this. They might not be so obvious about it, but lets face it- everyone plans out sequels and continuations. We're looking at halo 5 (6 if you count the RTS), Mass Effect 3, We'll probably see bioshock 3, God of War 3, and so on and so forth.

Having a single race campaign is inferior to campaigns for each race even if each is individually smaller. The only reason they can get away with it now is because SC1 is so popular. If they had does this crap originally SC1 wouldn't have sold nearly as well.

Cutting out LAN play is just a kick in the nuts, particularly for longtime fans. As much as I was looking forward to D3 I don't think I'll buy it until someone figures out how to set up private severs. Any single player game or non-persistent world game that requires phoning in to the home office just to play with your friends = fail.

So you're waiting to buy it so that you can basically do something illegal rather than pay for internet you probably already have?

The dirty little secret no one wants to talk about when they bring up the end of LAN in B.net 2.0 is that if everyone has a legitimate copy, and they can all connect to battle.net (nevermind the connection quality here, bear with me) from the same internet connection it will function almost identically to a LAN. B.net (or at least the old version- I see no reason as to why they'd change the functionality when they intend for the games to be played professionally) had the capacity to see that if multiple people were within the same internet connection and all only played against each other that it could effectively make the game function like a LAN and prevent irritating lag issues.

Illegal is not the same as immoral. So the answer is so what if it is "illegal"? My computer, my rules, if I want to run a private server and me and my friends choose to connect to that private server who are you to say I "shouldn't"?

The completely obvious "secret" is that the only purpose of forced online activation and forced phoning home is to destroy the ability to rent, resell, and loan out a game.

Having 3 people in the same room connect to B-NET is unnecessary if we just want to play together. If connecting to a server doesn't add any value then I'm not doing it. And if your poor design choices would force me to connect to your server because you stupidly didn't include the ability to run multilayer on my local network then you don't get my money.

And for a historical example of how well that worked out look up Hellgate London.

 

[VanBasten]

I'm pretty sure the focus is on how to milk Diablo III for an extended period of time, a la the splitting of Starcraft 2 into 3 games. It is a very safe bet that money for the initial purchase of Diablo III isn't the only money Blizzard expects to get from gamers.

Oh noes, it has TWO expansions! That's more than the ONE expansion every other Blizzard game has!

Oh come on please, 10 years ago those 2 expansions would have come with the game in the first place. Maybe they would have been slightly shorter, but all three campaigns would have been there at the start.

 

[DTWolfwood]

y ponder something that is YEARS away shoot D3 probably wont even make it on 2011 if Blizzard is doing something I want it! Blizzard and Bioware can do no wrong at this point regardless of which publishing devil they belong to!

 

[Rack]

Hmm, I'm seeing Diablo III: Witch Doctor, Diablo III: Wizard, Diablo III: Barbarian and so on.

 

[EmmerikXXII]

No mention of the no-name mmo? Fishy.

 

[Amnestic]

Oh come on please, 10 years ago those 2 expansions would have come with the game in the first place. Maybe they would have been slightly shorter, but all three campaigns would have been there at the start.

Except each part of SC2 is meant to be as long as the original, meaning a full 30~ missions.

Meaning you'll end up with ~90 missions with a full set, in comparison to SC1's 55-60~ with Broodwar.

 

[VanBasten]

Oh come on please, 10 years ago those 2 expansions would have come with the game in the first place. Maybe they would have been slightly shorter, but all three campaigns would have been there at the start.

Except each part of SC2 is meant to be as long as the original, meaning a full 30~ missions.

Meaning you'll end up with ~90 missions with a full set, in comparison to SC1's 55-60~ with Broodwar.

I doubt that will be the case, but even if it were, volume isn't the issue I was trying to address, it's the experience. In SC you played the singleplayer and experienced all three races. In SC2, you'll have to buy all 3 to get the whole thing.

SC1 was a game which later had an expansion, which is fine, expansions are a great thing for people who love the game, if Blizzard made 50 of them I wouldn't mind.
But here's where SC2 differs, it's not a game and 2 expansions, it's a game that's split in three parts. Sure, part one may be huge, but there's still 2/3 of the game missing.

 

[John Funk]

Yes, I know! They couldn't fit the story of the Barbarian, Wizard, Monk and Witch Doctor going through the same Campaign in one game so they'll make 4 parts... brilliant!

This again? Really?

The game looks fine. When artists who work on the original Diablo and Diablo II say outright that they have no idea what the fuss is about, you have absolutely no room to stand on. I can't believe people are still bringing this up.

Yeah that sounds about right, I mean they could always say "I'm personally fucking annoyed by the new artstyle but my boss told me to make it like that because It appeals more to the WoW and kiddie-crowd and it'll run on a commodore and make us more money", that'd always be an option xD

(IMAGES CUT)

And before you put me into the "I want it darker" crowd, I couldn't care less about that. My gripe is with the art style itself. I'll take high-res detailed, handdrawn environments a la Baldur's Gate, Planescape and Diablo 2 any day for this kind of game.
Now it looks almost the same as the other dozen "3D Hack&Slash games" out there e.g. Torchlight, Mythos, Silverfall...

Blizzard games used to distinguish themselves from the mass of other games out there through dozens of things and differentiate in the style and feel they have from brand to brand, not anymore.

Sorry, should have clarified: The artist I spoke to, who was instrumental in setting the color palette for D2, is no longer at Blizzard and therefore has no stake in the matter.

and I retort:

We've seen *two acts* out of five. Already, Act Two is a lot more washed-out and bleaker than Act One.

I'm pretty sure the focus is on how to milk Diablo III for an extended period of time, a la the splitting of Starcraft 2 into 3 games. It is a very safe bet that money for the initial purchase of Diablo III isn't the only money Blizzard expects to get from gamers.

Oh noes, it has TWO expansions! That's more than the ONE expansion every other Blizzard game has!

Oh come on please, 10 years ago those 2 expansions would have come with the game in the first place. Maybe they would have been slightly shorter, but all three campaigns would have been there at the start.

Slightly shorter? StarCraft I had 30 campaigns (10 Terran, 10 Zerg, 10 Protoss), StarCraft II: WoL is going to have... 30 campaigns. The exact same amount of content. I don't get how you can even argue that.

If Blizzard had just gone the original SC route, and split the game up into thirds, with each third containing a third of a race's story (a la the original), people would probably be rejoicing even though that way, it would mean that they wouldn't be able to spend so much time making the campaigns feel different from each other.

Here's what I don't understand. People complain that you need to buy all three games to get the full story... but you'd have to do that anyway if they split the stories up to fit all three races in a single game.

Personally I think it'll be a StarCraft MMO.

Who says that? Everywhere I checked it still says it's "to be determined" and I'd eat my shirt and post a pic of it if it won't end up at full price...

Also again... the "expansion packs" will not only be "Singleplayer content" but will add to the Multiplayer and split the community between the people that bought only the first, bought two or bought all three, you will need all 3 to play the full game and stay competitive... from the FAQ:

How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.

If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?

Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.

Already confirmed it was a new IP, sorry.

And I look forward to the shirt-eating. Can hold you to that?

(BTW, what you mentioned, with the expansions affecting the multiplayer? And fragmenting the fanbase? What do you think StarCraft: Brood War did? Or WC3: Frozen Throne? This is nothing new. And beyond that - if there WEREN'T any additions to the multiplayer gameplay, you'd have people shouting that they didn't include enough to be worth the price. Damned if you do/if you don't scenario).




People can be outraged all they want, but when they get outraged over false information, that's when it pisses me off. It's like when people complain about the marketing department and janitorial staff at Valve not making Episode III.

 

[Alar]

Slightly shorter? StarCraft I had 30 campaigns (10 Terran, 10 Zerg, 10 Protoss), StarCraft II: WoL is going to have... 30 campaigns. The exact same amount of content. I don't get how you can even argue that.

If Blizzard had just gone the original SC route, and split the game up into thirds, with each third containing a third of a race's story (a la the original), people would probably be rejoicing even though that way, it would mean that they wouldn't be able to spend so much time making the campaigns feel different from each other.

I have yet to find the article, but I BELIEVE Blizzard said that the Terran campaign was going to have about 22-missions in it, not ten. They stated they're trying to -extend- the campaign experience for each race, not keep it the same length.

I'll look for the article.

Also, where did you hear it was going to be ten missions...?

 

[John Funk]

Slightly shorter? StarCraft I had 30 campaigns (10 Terran, 10 Zerg, 10 Protoss), StarCraft II: WoL is going to have... 30 campaigns. The exact same amount of content. I don't get how you can even argue that.

If Blizzard had just gone the original SC route, and split the game up into thirds, with each third containing a third of a race's story (a la the original), people would probably be rejoicing even though that way, it would mean that they wouldn't be able to spend so much time making the campaigns feel different from each other.

I have yet to find the article, but I BELIEVE Blizzard said that the Terran campaign was going to have about 22-missions in it, not ten. They stated they're trying to -extend- the campaign experience for each race, not keep it the same length.

I'll look for the article.

Also, where did you hear it was going to be ten missions...?

Sorry, I was unclear: You're correct in that Blizzard is extending the campaign (last I heard, they were around the high-twenties/thirty mark). I was saying that the FIRST StarCraft had 10 Terran missions in the campaign, and was that what people really wanted out of StarCraft 2? If Blizzard included 10/10/10 in this game, 10/10/10 in expansion 1, and 10/10/10 in expansion 2, it'd work out to being the exact same amount of content, but they couldn't devote resources to making the campaigns feel *different* from one another. Aka, it'd be worse.

 

[VanBasten]

Oh come on please, 10 years ago those 2 expansions would have come with the game in the first place. Maybe they would have been slightly shorter, but all three campaigns would have been there at the start.

Slightly shorter? StarCraft I had 30 campaigns (10 Terran, 10 Zerg, 10 Protoss), StarCraft II: WoL is going to have... 30 campaigns. The exact same amount of content. I don't get how you can even argue that.

If I may divert your attention to my post directly above yours, I'm not trying to argue that.

What I meant to imply was that there was a time in the past when it wasn't unheard of for studios to make a game, and then a sequel that was almost three times as big, but sold at the same price. What I don't get is, why do you keep pretending that as if this split isn't a money grabbing scheme. If Blizzard sold all three parts of SC2 together at 20$, they'd still get the money they invested back, probably tenfold. It would be stupid to think they would do that, of course, but it's equally stupid to pretend that this move is for the good of the gamer and not for the good of the company.

Here's what I don't understand. People complain that you need to buy all three games to get the full story... but you'd have to do that anyway if they split the stories up to fit all three races in a single game.

I'm not even arguing we'd need to get the full story(as long as it has a beginning and an end, I'm fine with it being only a part of a bigger story, as SC2:WoL story will undoubtedly be) but that we need to get the full game. You simply do not get to experience 2/3 of SC gameplay in SC2:WoL singleplayer, and I don't see how you can argue against that.

If Blizzard had just gone the original SC route, and split the game up into thirds, with each third containing a third of a race's story (a la the original), people would probably be rejoicing even though that way, it would mean that they wouldn't be able to spend so much time making the campaigns feel different from each other.

Actually, I wouldn't complain to that. And I disagree that Blizzard wouldn't have managed to bring three shorter unique campaigns in one game. They're Blizzard, they are the best in making things work.

I'm not arguing the games won't be awesome. They will. I'm not arguing that SC fans will wet their pants with every mission of every campaign of every expansion. They will. I'm not even saying that this isn't the best way to cater to SC2 fans, they'll get three doses of their favourite game nicely polished and in a relatively short period of time. That is great for them. But...

... for a gamer that isn't a fan of SC this way of publishing just plain sucks.

When I buy a game I expect to get a whole product. It might be long, it might be short, there might be expansions for it, there might not be, it shouldn't really matter. You just simply do not get the whole thing here. SC2's expansions aren't really expansions in the traditional sense("hey, you liked this content, here's some more of it with a few tweaks"), they're parts of the game that are missing from the start, and that's the key difference. You can't say I've played SC2, and by that mean I've only played the Terran campaign, you need the other two parts.

You're thinking from a perspective of a fan who will definitely buy all 3 games, and that's fine, SC2 is awesome in that case. But from a guy with a passing interest in it, the game is asking for a commitment of buying 3 of them to experience it fully, and that's just not fair, regardless of whether the games are worth it or not.

 

[John Funk]

If I may divert your attention to my post directly above yours, I'm not trying to argue that.

What I meant to imply was that there was a time in the past when it wasn't unheard of for studios to make a game, and then a sequel that was almost three times as big, but sold at the same price. What I don't get is, why do you keep pretending that as if this split isn't a money grabbing scheme. If Blizzard sold all three parts of SC2 together at 20$, they'd still get the money they invested back, probably tenfold. It would be stupid to think they would do that, of course, but it's equally stupid to pretend that this move is for the good of the gamer and not for the good of the company.

Sure, a sequel that was three times as big, but also cost three times as much time to make.

Here's the thing: Do you know why journos usually talk to PR people other than in pre-arranged interviews (with PR people standing by)? It's because the average guy working on a game usually isn't that great a liar. I've spoken with multiple people working on SC2, just idly chatted at BlizzCon, and I know that - unless they've all suddenly become great liars - they genuinely believe this is the best way to release the game, and their arguments make sense.

Sure, they could release all parts at $20, but would any company do that? Seriously? Blizzard planned for one expansion when it released StarCraft, it planned for one expansion when it released WC3, and all of those came out at standard release/expansion prices. StarCraft 2 has two expansions, because people want to play the game already, the multiplayer is all but done, and it's taken way too long to get this far. Do you really want SC2 to not come out until two years from now?

I'm not even arguing we'd need to get the full story(as long as it has a beginning and an end, I'm fine with it being only a part of a bigger story, as SC2:WoL story will undoubtedly be) but that we need to get the full game. You simply do not get to experience 2/3 of SC gameplay in SC2:WoL singleplayer, and I don't see how you can argue against that.

I can argue against it because I think it's irrelevant. If somehow the Zerg and Protoss weren't available in the multiplayer, you'd have a point. Look at Dawn of War 2 - the space marines were the ONLY ones with a campaign despite four races being in the game's multiplayer.

Do you just want missions where you control other races? They've already announced they'll have a handful of Protoss bonus missions.

Actually, I wouldn't complain to that. And I disagree that Blizzard wouldn't have managed to bring three shorter unique campaigns in one game. They're Blizzard, they are the best in making things work.

Well, here's the thing. There was an interview with Samwise right after BlizzCon or so when he said that the team hadn't really even started planning for the Zerg or Protoss mechanics yet (and by that I mean how Jim Raynor walks around the Hyperion, talks with the crew, upgrades his units, etc). They're putting their all into the Terran campaign right now, and that's something I respect as a gamer and someone who sees a bit more into development these days than he used to. If SC2:WoL were coming out with all three races, I don't think they'd be able to do that - at least not without maintaining some semblance of a schedule.

I'm not arguing the games won't be awesome. They will. I'm not arguing that SC fans will wet their pants with every mission of every campaign of every expansion. They will. I'm not even saying that this isn't the best way to cater to SC2 fans, they'll get three doses of their favourite game nicely polished and in a relatively short period of time. That is great for them. But...

... for a gamer that isn't a fan of SC this way of publishing just plain sucks.

When I buy a game I expect to get a whole product. It might be long, it might be short, there might be expansions for it, there might not be, it shouldn't really matter. You just simply do not get the whole thing here. SC2's expansions aren't really expansions in the traditional sense("hey, you liked this content, here's some more of it with a few tweaks"), they're parts of the game that are missing from the start, and that's the key difference. You can't say I've played SC2, and by that mean I've only played the Terran campaign, you need the other two parts.

You're thinking from a perspective of a fan who will definitely buy all 3 games, and that's fine, SC2 is awesome in that case. But from a guy with a passing interest in it, the game is asking for a commitment of buying 3 of them to experience it fully, and that's just not fair, regardless of whether the games are worth it or not.

I'm sorry, I disagree - though you're fully welcome to your opinion. Again, I refer back to Dawn of War 2, where the only campaign was the Space Marine one. If you pick up SC2 WoL, you're getting a complete game. You aren't getting a third of a game; it was developed from the ground up with the mindset that it would be a Terran-only campaign. In response, it's a campaign that's going to be three times the length that it would have been.

If you only bought StarCraft 1, you'd miss out on some of the coolest parts of the story. If you only bought WarCraft 3, you'd miss out on the ascension of Arthas to the Frozen Throne. Either way, you can make the argument there that you're missing some part of the StarCraft/Warcraft experience by not buying the expansions.

 

[VanBasten]

Sure, a sequel that was three times as big, but also cost three times as much time to make.

Not necessarily so, when you make the first one you need a lot of things to figure out, when you're making a second one, you sort of have a framework in place, and it's much easier to develop and refine content for it. Not to mention that if you've made a lot of money on the first one you could afford to cut the margin a bit on the second one. But that's a giant digression of the point I'm trying to make so let's not dwell on that.

I've spoken with multiple people working on SC2, just idly chatted at BlizzCon, and I know that - unless they've all suddenly become great liars - they genuinely believe this is the best way to release the game, and their arguments make sense.

Again, not arguing that it isn't a godsend to existing SC fans, my point of view is of an mildly interested observer.

StarCraft 2 has two expansions, because people want to play the game already, the multiplayer is all but done, and it's taken way too long to get this far. Do you really want SC2 to not come out until two years from now?

Let's not get into how long it should have taken them to make this game, that's a whole other digression.

I can argue against it because I think it's irrelevant. If somehow the Zerg and Protoss weren't available in the multiplayer, you'd have a point.

Not much of a multiplayer RTSer me. That's more of an icing for me, not the reason to buy the game.

Do you just want missions where you control other races? They've already announced they'll have a handful of Protoss bonus missions.

SC2 is a game with 3 races, i would like to have seen(played to be exact) all 3 of their respective stories, regardless of the length. That is all.

If you pick up SC2 WoL, you're getting a complete game. You aren't getting a third of a game; it was developed from the ground up with the mindset that it would be a Terran-only campaign.

I disagree. Think of it this way. Had Blizzard announced SC2:WoL as SC2, no expansions mentioned, would you still feel that this is all SC2 is supposed to be, that it was a complete game, or would you think that maybe, just maybe, some part of the single player was missing?

If you only bought StarCraft 1, you'd miss out on some of the coolest parts of the story. If you only bought WarCraft 3, you'd miss out on the ascension of Arthas to the Frozen Throne. Either way, you can make the argument there that you're missing some part of the StarCraft/Warcraft experience by not buying the expansions.

You'd miss out significantly less of the game, you'd miss some story bits, but you'd get to experience playing from all sides, and see their respective side of the story.
I've played SC1 and I liked it, wasn't that into it to get the expansion, but I liked it, and didn't feel like I was missing something.

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm a Warcraft fan(WoW included of course, not a RTS zealot ), if they announced tomorrow they are about to release Warcraft 4 in the same way I'd jump for joy, pee my pants and throw my money at them, not necessarily in that order. But that still isn't fair to the average gamer who wants to play a nice standalone game. Playing, for example, only one long Lordaeron campaign would be fun, but it just isn't the whole Warcraft experience, and that's the point I'm trying to make, to get the whole experience you need to buy all 3 games. And that's not fair to ask of gamers.