Link to the fun

For those not familiar with the situation, Jay Wilson, the director of Diablo 3, took a nice trip on the creator of the Diablo franchise.  The latter claimed that the soul of the game was gone and that there were some balancing issues that had yet to be overcome.  Quite right by any means.  Jay said “f*** that loser”.  Classy.  So less than a week later, here comes the apology.

Tidbits:

The Auction House can short circuit the natural pace of item drops, making the game feel less rewarding for some players. This is a problem we recognize. At this point we’re not sure of the exact way to fix it, but we’re discussing it constantly, and we believe it’s a problem we can overcome. … If you don’t have that great feeling of a good drop being right around the corner — and the burst of excitement when it finally arrives — then we haven’t done our jobs right.

This exact issue has been my #2 complaint for the game thusfar.  In a game where loot is the be-all, end-all, having a non-binding trade system is ridiculously flawed.  It does make sense from an RMAH position though, which is becoming more and more evident as the primary driver for the AH.

Part of the problem, however, is not just item drops, but the variety of things to do within the game. Many of you have stated that there needs to be more to the game than just the item hunt, and we agree completely. The Paragon system is a step in the right direction, giving meta-progress for your time in the game, but it does little to address the variety of activities you can do while playing. I don’t think there’s a silver-bullet solution to this problem, but I do think we can make this aspect of the game better, and as such we’re planning more than just PvP for the next major patch.

This part I agree with and disagree with.  Sure, Diablo 2 had ladders but the final levels were pretty much horizontal in terms of difficulty.  You killed Baal well before level 99.  Weeks if not months before.  In Diablo 3 you hit 60 well before Inferno.  Then climb a stupid crazy mountain of difficulty to get through Act 4.  If you’re able to even start Act 4 (the first enemy is a boss), then Act 1 and Act 2 are a complete joke and Act 3 is easy enough.  This means that if you are able to clear the game, then <10% of the actual game has any challenge at max level and that challenge is artificial. Not to mention that Act 4 has some of the worst enemies in the game in terms of mechanics.

Later in the development of Diablo II, the ‘players 8’ command — which let people set monster difficulty — was added to address this issue, and we’re considering something similar for the next major Diablo III patch to allow players to make up their own minds about how hard or how easy is right for them.

What?  Later as in 3 years after launch later.  They didn’t turn that feature on for challenge, they turned it on for experience and loot to try to get to 99 on a ladder challenge.  It’s messages like this that make you wonder exactly how such an iconic franchise is being led.

I might sound like an angry gamer but it’s more like a confused one.  I hate to compare anything to TOR but D3 is right up there.  The game up until max level is an interesting one and a decent one.  Review scores show that as I don’t think there’s a single reviewer that even passed Act 1 before sending their score out.  The end game (as in TOR) is: unbalanced, unforgivably challenging (less so after 1.04), lacking rewards (you’re trading to people under you to buy better on the AH) and built on a system of unequal plateaus.

It’s like Blizzard didn’t learn a darn thing from Cataclysm’s massive failure of “moar challengez”.  People played Diablo 1 & 2 because it was an easy to pick up game with shiny rewards you could use.  Not to chain die to a whelp.

Update: Giant patch notes

So I leave for a week and Diablo 3 decides to start building a new game.  Every class is getting huge boosts to power (only 1 nerf that I saw).  The entire class posts read as if they took the loudest complaining player and asked them what they wanted.

Auction house changes are coming too.  Big changes to how it will display items and allow searches.b  6 stats to search for means people will be able to find gloves again.  The entire system turned into a pile of cement at max level with the current UI.  Maybe Blizz can make some RMAH cash from this fix.

Paragon Levels are coming.  Once you hit 60, you can gain more horizontal levels.  They give minor stat boosts but also 3%mf/gf per level, to a cap of 300%.  MF is also going to be capped at 300% so that at level 100 paragon, you won’t need a single MF piece of gear.

I’m pretty sure I alluded to a system like this in the past, if not on the post then in social circles.  Many bloggers and players have asked for the same as well (Kripparian in particular).  The system can be used as a framework for future innovation.

To top if all off, the entire massive patch comes in a week – on GW2 launch day no less.  These aren’t small changes, massive balance changes.   Essentially a massive nerf to Inferno, allowing pretty much anyone to kill Diablo with only few hurdles.

So to sum up, Diablo 3 is not even 6 months old and there will be a larger update to the system than WoW (which is sub-based) has had in a year.

1.04 Preview #1 is up.

Of note:

• magic find is no longer averaged in multiplayer (this will cause griefing – needs a vote kick button)
• monster hit points are being dropped in multiplayer
• no more enrage timers, or heal to full on elite/champ packs
• inferno regular mobs getting 5-10% more hitpoints (no biggie), champ/elite/rare dropping hp by 15-25% (big difference)
• also, regular enemies are getting 4x more loot (most people skip them completely)
• some affixes are being tweaked to be easier (fire chains and shielding noted)
• Invulnerable minions are being removed (holy cow)
• Increasing 2hander DPS
• Reducing repair costs by 25% (currently ~50K for 100% repair)
• 61/62 weapon dps is being increased to close to 63 weapons

Now, there are more blog posts coming and there’s no date on the patch.

Now, there are 3 ways to read this.  First, if you’ve never played Diablo 3, then this means nothing and is gibberish.  If you played but never bothered with Inferno, you’ll wonder what the fuss is about.  If you played Inferno past Act 1, then every single item in that list is a “Oh my god, why didn’t you do this earlier” type of statement.

Listen, Blizzard makes money off this game the more people play.  If only the “hardcore” can play, they make money for 1 month and then the game dies.  If the “casuals” can play, they make money for years.  Every single one of the changes helps the average player.  Every single one of those changes has been asked for since the first person set foot in Inferno too.

On a final, sarcastic gamer note, these patch notes read like beta patch notes.  This isn’t patch 1.04.  This is patch 1.1, as nearly every single aspect of the game mechanics is going to be changed.

This from the epic “content consumption thread” for WoW.

i dont want LFR on the same lockout. i want it removed. if players dont put in enough time and effort, they dont deserve to be rewarded with content.
What benefit would that bring to the game?

How do you explain to John Doe that he shouldn’t even think about raiding in World of Warcraft because you feel that anyone that can’t devote *this* much time to raiding just should not be allowed in? Furthermore, why would John Doe, the person that can’t devote *this* much time to raid but would like to, have any interest in venturing into Azeroth?

Do you feel it’s just alright to tell someone “sorry bud, you’re interested on this game, but you don’t have the time, go play something more fitting to you, like Solitaire”?

If you don’t see anything wrong with that, then it’s going to be difficult to have any kind of discussion in that topic. (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)

 

I think this is the breaking point of the conversation.  If you side with the poster, clearly WoW is no longer your game (as it was in BC).  Find another game with a huge artificial wall for progress, a game where the developers make content for a minority of players and have next to no return on it.

If you side with Blizzard, you agree with the “casualization” of content, where everyone and their dog should be able to play everything and get everything that the hardcore can get, time willing.

I think with MoP, we’ll see the end of hardcore raiding and gaming for the masses.  The space where there is a clear and definite divide between the haves and have-nots.  There are certainly some niche games around that let you do that but the flagship MMO that the world refers to has decided it’s had enough.  Cataclysm has caused a 25% subscription drop and that was primarily due to listening to the hardcore crowd.  Perhaps it was that the casuals now have more options (sort of how WoW took people from UO and EQ?) but Blizzard isn’t giving up.

MoP will define the way forward for Blizzard and WoW.  Either they maintain their user base or the game simply continues its downward trend towards F2P.

Giving SWTOR’s move to F2P and the apparent downfall of subscription based MMOs, it begs the question as to what you get for your 15$ a month.  If you look at a year’s sub, you’re spending over 150$.  Think of a F2P game and the need to spend anywhere close to that amount.

Let’s start off by putting the games into 3 boxes.  Subscription-based, where you get all options, all content unlocked.  Free to Play components, where you have unlimited access to content you have purchased (dungeons, expansion packs, bags).  Free to Trial, where you have limited access to various components (x number of dungeons/day, etc…)

The first type is more like WoW, RIFT and EvE.  The second is DDO, LOTRO, STO and most western F2P games.  The third is more like the Asian games – Vindictus is a good example and from what we’ve seen, SWTOR will be like this too.  Every Facebook game is like this too if you think about it.

It’s also important to state that some games in the 2nd type are so overly restrictive, that they function like the 3rd.  EQ2 is a perfect example of this, where even if you bought everything in the store, you still would need a subscription to have access to more stuff.  This model, to me, is simply a free trial where they milk you for more money.

So for 15$ a month, you should be getting access to everything the game has to offer.  Even in F2P games where subscriptions are an option, you’re given a stipend to buy additional items if you so wish.  The rate at which you can access items is interesting though.  A F2P game must release content (items, dungeons, etc.) at a decent clip, otherwise people won’t have anything to buy.  Take a look at WoW’s development cycle.  You get new content every 6 to 8 months.  In a F2P market, your playerbase would buy that upon release and maybe for a month or 2 after but then your entire money flow dries up.  This, by the way, is the reason WoW can’t go F2P.

If you do decide to just buy what you want to use, then you have to make sure that the other people you’re playing with have this as well.  Dungeon Defenders might be cheap but if your friend doesn’t have DLC #6, then you can’t play that content with them.  In said games, the social aspect is ultra important for the developer to make money.  This adds a peer pressure mentality to it all.

The Free to Trial type of game is an odd-ball.  Designed for the ultra casual, some in-game limitation essentially prohibit you from any long play session.  This is sort of the arcade game mentality that if you want to play longer, you have to pay more.  This revenue stream is extremely odd in western cultures and hard to balance.  Do people need to run 1 dungeon a day?  5?  How much should an extra run cost?  What do they get out of that run other than time spent in game and the chance to wipe for 2 hours and get no rewards?  Zynga’s extremely large financial downfall over recent months is a prime example of how this revenue stream is risky.

Now, I love me some F2P games and the entire business model.  I don’t want to pay 150$ a year for 1 piece of content.  For that price, I could buy everything in the store for DDO and have enough left over for a nice supper.  Giving players choice not only gives power to the players but great analytics for the developers.  If you see that 25% of the players buy X and 50% buy Y, then you should make more Y while improving X.  Who in their right mind would have bought the Troll package in WoW 4.1?

The next successful MMO will be one that launches with the 2nd business model and next to no player restrictions within the game.  GW2 has a chance for this.  Firefall too.  If I was the mind behind TESO right now though, I’d be crapping my pants.

An interesting article on IGN from a developer who has yet to be stolen from got me thinking.  Is there a point where you can say it’s stealing and not simply influence?

Watching Torchlight assets being stolen (along with misspelled file names) seems a rather clear event of theft.  Having Zynga use the same Tiny Tower play style and graphic styles for their Dream Heights game makes me think theft, but more so because Zynga is the one doing it and they’ve done it for every one of their games.  Uniloc suing Mojang for patent infringement though, that’s grey for me.  The entire patent industry is full of trolls just trying to find a big fish to make some cash and Uniloc has done it in the past.

I don’t think you can steal an idea but you can steal an implementation of that idea.  If I drew a black and white anomorphic mouse that talked, you bet Disney would be all over me.  If I drew him blue and pink, I’d be fine though.

In games, certainly there are limitations on the art assets of main characters.  Ezio in Assassin’s Creed and Marcus Phoenix are identifiable and likely people won’t try copying them.  But the secondary characters in both games are stereotypes that you’ll find in many others.  If I had 1000 characters in my game and took 200 of them from another – straight copy mind you – would that diminish the quality of my game?  At what point does it?

WoW made it’s success from being able to take existing systems and improve upon them.  They certainly innovated with the LFD/LFR tools and in-game flight but every other system clearly existing in another game first.  Rift further improved on those systems with dynamic content (to some degree) but it still used the same systems.  TOR is the same.

Back to the original story.  Borderlands is an amalgam of FPS and RPGs that has yet to be replicated.  I think it’s fair to say that it had success as 2 years later, the game still has a fairly solid multiplayer going on.  It’s surprising to me that no one has attempted this model again.  There is certainly some money to be made.

Perhaps there isn’t a defined line for theft and inspiration.  Maybe it’s up to the people to decide when it’s clear theft (Torchlight), system inspiration (Tiny Tower) and trolling (Mojang).  It sure does make for an interesting read.