Poll: Diablo 3 Expansion Confirmed

[Soods]

Sad people on here don't know that Blizzard has actually really improved Diablo 3, the 2 latest updates have really improved the game and are awesome.

I tried it a few weeks ago. The difficulty levels were cool, but they really couldn't keep me interested for long. And the hyperinflated prices were not helping.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

Pff.

Wasted 50 euros on this game at launch, it was "meh" at first and then the grind-part happened and I just put it down never to look back.
No one I know that bought it still plays it.

CaptchaL Life's too short. Damn straight.

 

[WoW Killer]

The 6 million something sales in the first week is something that is achieved by having a huge name and a starved genre. I'm not going to get into what the game does and does not do well in terms of staying power and appealing to certain demographics, but to deny that its huge success is anything but a product of the two aforementioned factors is ludicrous on its face.

I can see how a bad game could get such sales by a name alone, sure, but if most of those buyers hated the game then they won't be buying the expansion. So, if the expansion sells well, will you admit that a lot of people actually like this game?

 

[CAPTCHA]

Well I'm guessing the expansion is going to sell well as they have know exacly how many people eare playing the game and wouldn't have made it otherwise. I'm not buying it however. Hell, I can't even play the game. My account got suspended for suspicious activity even though I didn't do anything (second time it's happened). Support say there's nothing wrong and call me a liar.

Fuck Blizzard.

 

[VoidWanderer]

...

Watch the end cinematic / Diablo's death again.

Part of him survives... Adria will be new vessel...

Blizzard will 'kill' off Diablo again, who has become the new Joker.

Just when you think he is dead.

'Psych'...

/groan

 

[Djcian]

I'm also curious how they'll find a final boss bigger and badder then THE prime evil. seriously, after clumping every major boss from diablo 2 and diablo 3 sans the butcher into one large super-boss there's not much more to do besides start slaughtering the angels, which may not be as crazy as it sounds. As the great dragon Trag'oul says, though good must always outshine evil, there has to be evil - or else good would fade into darkness itself. or perhaps the black soulstone with ALL of the prime evils will combine with ALL of the arch angels into..... i don't know, and I honestly don't care as long as they add the necromancer class in for the expansion. they've specifically said that necromancer is possible for an expansion and that the witch doctor is not meant to be a replacement.

 

[WoW Killer]

I can see how a bad game could get such sales by a name alone, sure, but if most of those buyers hated the game then they won't be buying the expansion. So, if the expansion sells well, will you admit that a lot of people actually like this game?

Since I've already quoted myself, let's do that again.

Without Diablo 2 being practically the creation of an entire genre and remaining the best game in that genre for a decade, I doubt D3 would've made numbers any better than Starcraft 2's - somewhere around 3 million sales in the first month.

I'm not quoting this because I wrote something profound there, I just hate writing the exact same things. And a little correction/caveat here. Starcraft 2 was also a long-awaited sequel to a game that's huge in South Korea and somewhat popular elsewhere, and it only sold 3 million in the first month. So to be clear and specific on my thoughts about what the game would've sold without being Diablo (or, let's say, Diablo never existed) - my guess is that'd be around 1.5 million in the first week and maybe 2.5 million in the first month.

There's a reason I specifically avoided talking about how good the game is in the context of sales, the issue of people who hated it not returning, et cetera. That reason is, quite simply, it would take a whole lot of time to write up. You were simply flat out wrong on the assumption that huge initial sales indicate some sort of quality to anything near the extent they indicate brand recognition, overall state of the genre, the amount of hype and things like that, and that's what I called you out on.

On to your question. How about this. I'll admit that a lot of people like the game *checks the clock* six months ago. I actually think a huge majority of the people who bought Diablo 3 are at least content with it, if not outright love it. So as an extension, I think the expansions will be incredibly profitable as well.

And that... Doesn't make a bit of difference to me. Nor does it seem like a particularly relevant question or a persuasive argument. The game wouldn't have sold a third of what it sold without being part of a monster franchise in a really stagnant genre.

That wasn't an attempt at persuasion. I'm aware that you don't like the game. But your posts come across as implying some sort of conspiracy in its success. And I didn't say at all that initial sales were in any way reflective of the games quality; I understand that the name counted for a great deal in that (even people bashing on the game before release seemed to end up buying it; yourself included iirc). I suggest the expansion is a fair test: if the expansion sells well then people were generally content, at the least, with the initial purchase, and its success is justified. It can't be claimed that the expansions success is due to the previous instalments generating hype, as people have already seen the bulk of the product they're paying for.

 

[WoW Killer]

I don't think we're understanding each other too well. I never said the game would fail without its name, I only said that that's the sole reason for the massive success that it saw. I also said that I think the vast majority of the players are satisfied with it. So, to the point of your test: I grant it right off the bat. I think the expansion will also be a massive success. That doesn't mean the expansion, like the game itself, would do anywhere near as well if it had been an expansion to some unestablished new franchise.

When you're talking about the success being justified, I don't know what exactly you mean. If you're going to say that an expansion selling about as well as the base game means it's a quality game, we're going to massively disagree. If you're going to say that the game did well to cater to certain types of audiences, you'll see no objections here.

If the games success rests on the success of the series, and the majority of players are happy, then the 'certain type of audience' the game appeals to would be the same kind of audience that found appeal in the previous games. Diablo 2 was not some obscure indie title after all.

In other words, you can't pull both the watered-down card and claim the success is due to the name, so long as the playerbase is content. If the game was such a big departure from the series, and if that is why it has been enjoyed by the casual masses (who don't have refined enough tastes to realise how awful the game is), then it wouldn't have been the happy memories of Diablo and Diablo 2 that caused them to go out and buy it.

I think you're probably right that the name had a lot to do with it. I think if opinions are generally positive then it will likewise be because the people who bought it are those who like that sort of game. The people who didn't like it, on the other hand, are probably those who don't particularly like Diablo games. It makes a lot more sense that way.