Another Blizzard dev post triggered this post.  Currently, Act 3 &4 drop rates have seen a rather sharp decline than before the 1.03 patch, which was supposed to improve overall rates.  Here’s the particular quote.

With all the said “development and testing” that goes into these patches, how did the development team not identify the current loot table/drop rate issues? Doesn’t make sense.
The drop rates in 1.0.3 are exactly as they’re listed in the 1.0.3 design preview blog, so there were no issues as far as validity/accuracy of the changes. Obviously a reduction in drop rates later on in favor or increased drop rates earlier on (and overall more high end items circulating in the economy) wasn’t very popular. We agree it was a bad change, so we’ll be correcting it, but it wasn’t a quick enough change to get into 1.0.3a.

There are 2 ways to read this.

First, the drop rates for Act 3 & 4 were originally higher pre-1.03 and they purposefully reduced the drop rates.  This seems absurd.  Completely absurd.  Why would they reduce the rewards for the absolute hardest content?

Second, that they think there are too many high level items in the game at low levels – like Act 1 – and that they plan to make changes.  What changes?  Reduce the drop rates for all items?  Drop rates aren’t a problem, the AH is a problem.  Even a 0.1% change over 1 million Inferno players is 1,000 items.  How are they addressing the issue of bad high level drops?

Blizzard sure does make you scratch your head with their comments.

As I quickly mentioned in the last post, EA’s stock price has dropped 50% in the past year, though most drastically since TOR’s launch period.  The total value lost is around 2 billion dollars.

The world 2nd largest gaming company (Activision being #1) lost half it’s value by hedging it’s bet on a game that was to compete with WoW and by all accounts has lost 90% of its playerbase in 6 months.  I guess they are praying that Madden and Battlefield can re-supply the coffers.  As an investor though, you really have to be wondering if the people leading the company are the ones that should be.

Let’s look at a couple misteps from EA over the years.  First and most obviously, is their inability to market any MMO.  They bought UO a few years after it’s prime, killed 3 expansion packs and have since left it alone.  The other ones that they’ve launched and failed are:

• Motor City online
• Earth and Beyond
• Sims Online
• Tiger Woods online
• Warhammer Online
• Star Wars Old Republic

I wouldn’t actually call any of their games real large successes but perhaps the Battlefield Heroes F2P game is the closest.  Even their Origin service has had issues.  First, they removed their games from Steam for no explained reason.  Then they launched a service that was always on, yet failed to connect.  Then they banned players who played storebought games through their service.  Then they simply had foot in mouth disease – lately the idea that Steam discounts are a bad idea while EA is simultaneously selling their games at 50% off.

Many of their new IPs have failed, for various reasons and those that have succeeded have been on a yearly pillage for some time now.   FIFA, NHL, Madden, Battlefield are all games with mediocre if barely noticeable improvements sold as a new game every year.  Any time there’s a small or medium company that makes decent games, EA will buy them up and turn them into a corporate beast.  BioWare is certainly the most prominent recent example where their quality games have been diluted to all new lows.

This coming from the company that used to send out amazing quality games, various IPs and always had people talking about them in a positive light.  10 years ago you’d be hard pressed to find someone who had something bad to say about EA.   Today’s it’s the complete opposite and investors have to be scratching their heads as to why that is.

What turn did EA take along the path that made the gamer base turn against them?  Was it a single step, did they take risks where inappropriate (Dante’s Inferno anyone?!), did they simply absorb the smaller companies and change the spirit of those games?  Is it possible for EA to turn the boat, the giant boat, so that they get back to their gaming roots and start giving us the quality games we know they are capable of producing?

As a gamer, you have to really worry when the #2 company loses half it’s value and is unable to turn out quality anymore.  That slope is getting slippery.

I’m in the middle of a Quest for Glory marathon – well slow-a-thon I think – and recently finished the 3rd game, arguably the weakest of the 5.  This series was the starting point for adventure RPGs and since then, we really haven’t see any strong outings.  Action RPGs are all over the place, were combat takes massive precedence over story.  At least recently, with Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 as good examples.  Where are the adventure games though?  The thrill of using your mind to solve something rather than your twitch muscles just seems like a lost art.

Where do I have to look now?  I can only find minor outings on mobile devices but a large game?  The last adventure game I can remember is Mist!  The main issue with adventure games is that there is typically only 1 solution to a given problem and that makes games have only 1 playthrough at best.  Heavy Rain sure did try to change this and had some moderate success but it felt more like a choose-your-adventure game rather than a true adventure.

I’d love to have a game with that Indiana Jones combination of brains and brawn once again.  Puzzles that have various solutions based not only on the tools available but on the skills you have.  If you’re a gunslinger, perhaps you can shoot the lights out in the room but if you’re an acrobat, you can sneak behind everyone instead.  And having your success based on a skill check too, with a failure bringing you back down to the common thread outcome – a fistfight.

I wonder who will take a stab at this niche in gaming that just isn’t seeing the love it deserves.