|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Diablo 3 - How the endgame failed @ PC Gamer

Default Diablo 3 - How the endgame failed @ PC Gamer

November 14th, 2012, 20:09
Even Thrasher sees this, so I doubt it can get anymore obvious
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#61

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,474

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 20:11
Funny how your subjectivity goes out the window when it's inconvenient to your argument.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#62

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,991

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 20:16
My subjectivity is pretty static when I'm sitting down - but your lack of insight into my use of the big words is not without entertainment value
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#63

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,474

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 20:19
What you're explaining is simply a difference in philosophy.

Why are you considering it "bad" to make a game with less depth and sell it for $5 rather than make a game with tons of depth and sell it for $60? Why is it considered "bad" to offer a costume pack for $5 instead of a 30-hour expansion for $30?

You may personally prefer the "more for more" concept (i.e. a $30 expansion pack that adds 30 hours of new content), but many prefer the "less for less" model (a $5 DLC that nets them one or two new missions).

It's like comparing sonnets to novels. I mean, sonnets are great, but are they as in-depth as novels? Of course not. But that doesn't mean they are crap, either. You can still sell a beautifully crafted sonnet and have a great time reading it, rather than spending a week reading a novel that was 5 times the price of the sonnet.

There's nothing inherently bad about offering smaller, less in-depth games for cheap. Just like there's nothing wrong with offering less in-depth DLC for cheap either.

The reason there aren't expansions is because maybe an expansion is not in the budget or feasible to pull off. It's easier to make smaller DLCs that offer less, but they are also asking less money for them as well. So it balances out.

And I definitely don't agree that large publishers don't give gamers what they want. They may not give you what you personally want, but I could almost guarantee you they give DLC that the majority of fans (be they casual, hardcore or in between) want. They can't please everybody, but it makes perfect business sense that they at least try to please the majority of players of their game. Otherwise they would quickly go out of business, no?

EA published one of my favorite games of all-time, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. And you know what that game got? 2 awesome DLCs that added 2 entirely new areas, new gear, many new quests and storylines, etc. They were well worth the asking price. And that came from EA. So I just don't buy it.
Fluent is offline

Fluent

Fluent's Avatar
RPG Fiend
RPGWatch Team

#64

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,239

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 20:21
I've tried explaining this 3 times - and it has to stop now. Ok, one last time.

Less content for less money isn't BAD. It's only BAD when it EXCLUDES the alternative called more content for more money. I'd be great with DLC if it didn't exclude expansions in all but the most rare of cases.

Are you trying to tell me that expansions somehow disappeared out of the budget for 95% of AAA games over the last 5 years?

Ok?

Supporting DLC = killing expansions. Actually, it's no longer relevant - because expansions are dead. People would need to make a very loud noise to get publishers to stop going the easy route. It just won't happen. Expansions are all but gone forever - or until the industry changes completely.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#65

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,474

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 20:50
Dart, Fluent is a corporate console-gamer plant, who would be violating his contract if he agreed with us.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#66

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,991

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 20:57
Well, that makes sense
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#67

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,474

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 21:13
By what mechanism is DLC killing expansions? Is it just that the devs can only do one or the other because of limited time, so go for the more popular option?

I prefer expansion sized content myself, but I've known I'm a minority gamer for some time.

The SC2 expansion has just been dated, and the initial pricing is shockingly high, perhaps what they cost compared to DLC? I was very surprised.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#68

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 21:22
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
By what mechanism is DLC killing expansions? Is it just that the devs can only do one or the other because of limited time, so go for the more popular option?

I prefer expansion sized content myself, but I've known I'm a minority gamer for some time.
The DLC in itself is not to blame. It's the opportunism inherent in human nature.

Does it make sense to invest a lot of time, money and resources and sell for a higher price - or do you take advantage of the impulse-buy price point and sell trivial efforts for much less?

Again, look to the iPad/Smartphone market. You sell at a lower price point - and you get a ton of people to buy it. It doesn't have to be deep, long or all that great. Just "pretty good".

Expansions are just a waste of time when you can proft that much more from doing that much less. They're a much bigger deal to develop and market as something truly significant worthy of the higher price.

These days, with casual gamers leading the way - you don't need to balance anything. You can just add weapons and tools and people won't even know how easy the game is. Challenge isn't in demand - so they don't even have to bother with that aspect of design.

Just add assets and charge a low price. If you have a strong main game - you have a DLC platform. Again, it's a "service" that's ongoing.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#69

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,474

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 21:23
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
By what mechanism is DLC killing expansions? Is it just that the devs can only do one or the other because of limited time, so go for the more popular option?

I prefer expansion sized content myself, but I've known I'm a minority gamer for some time.

The SC2 expansion has just been dated, and the initial pricing is shockingly high, perhaps what they cost compared to DLC? I was very surprised.
SC2 is a rare exception - and Blizzard have a fully developed story they want to tell. Originally, it was all one game - and they decided to split it up. Incidentally, Blizzard is one of the last developers to make expansions. I have a hard time thinking of any other AAA developer who does it for non-MMOs these days.

It used to be the absolute norm for a succesful game.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#70

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,474

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 21:27
Challenge isn't in demand. That's a genre defining point today, sadly. Reward and "achievement" is, though. If devs could figure a way to directly stimulate our pleasure centers without any "game" features, they would.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#71

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,991

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 21:37
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Challenge isn't in demand. That's a genre defining point today, sadly. Reward and "achievement" is, though. If devs could figure a way to directly stimulate our pleasure centers without any "game" features, they would.
How do you find Diablo 3 on Hell and Inferno then? I'm finding them relatively challenging.

I don't think the comments on casual gaming are fair - they're designed for a different purpose. In life there have always been pastimes that were relaxing/recharging, and those that were exhilarating/exerting. We had Minesweeper alongside Might and Magic 3 even several years ago.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#72

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 21:46
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
How do you find Diablo 3 on Hell and Inferno then? I'm finding them relatively challenging.

I don't think the comments on casual gaming are fair - they're designed for a different purpose. In life there have always been pastimes that were relaxing/recharging, and those that were exhilarating/exerting. We had Minesweeper alongside Might and Magic 3 even several years ago.
Why do you think Blizzard changed Inferno so very much? It's a complete pushover these days.

Also, what do you mean about unfair comments on casual gaming? I don't believe I've spoken badly about them.

Challenge isn't in demand anymore, and that's obvious. That's not a bad thing if you're a casual gamer who just wants to have fun. There's nothing wrong with that. It simply means that, as an enthusiast gamer, I really don't have much of a challenge left in the vast majority of games. Too bad for me, but if the majority is happy - that's fine for them.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#73

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,474

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 21:49
@K How many people here have been satisfied by D3 on Hell and Inferno? Few to none from what I've heard. On the other hand, many played D2 with multiple characters all the way to Hell level because it was challenging AND rewarding. But that is all off topic.

We are talking about shitty simple or cheat DLC vs challenging interesting expansions.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#74

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,991

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 22:55
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Also, what do you mean about unfair comments on casual gaming? I don't believe I've spoken badly about them.
Your commend about casual gaming leading the way these days and implying it therefore affected other games. I'm saying that's not the case today any more than it was in the past - we've always had casual games and non-casual games side by side with different purposes. Chris Taylor talks about energy giving vs energy sapping games.

Challenge isn't in demand anymore, and that's obvious.
I don't think it's obvious at all.

That's not a bad thing if you're a casual gamer who just wants to have fun.
Well it kind of is, because if you're a casual gamer you want casual cheap games, not AAA blockbusters that involve effort. The reality is most people are both casual and enthusiast gamers, depending on their mood, time of day, workload etc. The last game I finished was Botanicula and I loved it. I'm currently playing Ultima VII. And the game I'm most looking forward to playing is Project Eternity.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#75

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

November 15th, 2012, 08:57
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
Your commend about casual gaming leading the way these days and implying it therefore affected other games. I'm saying that's not the case today any more than it was in the past - we've always had casual games and non-casual games side by side with different purposes. Chris Taylor talks about energy giving vs energy sapping games.
You don't think the casual/mainstream gamers have affected the market and reduced the ratio of "enthusiast" games coming out in the AAA segment?

I see.

I don't think it's obvious at all.
I didn't say it was obvious to everyone in the world. I think Scientology is an obvious hoax - but it doesn't mean Tom Cruise would agree with me.

Well it kind of is, because if you're a casual gamer you want casual cheap games, not AAA blockbusters that involve effort. The reality is most people are both casual and enthusiast gamers, depending on their mood, time of day, workload etc. The last game I finished was Botanicula and I loved it. I'm currently playing Ultima VII. And the game I'm most looking forward to playing is Project Eternity.
No, the reality is that most gamers are casual/mainstream gamers. That's why publishers have steadily been making games less and less challenging. Anyone willing to know the truth can simply take a look at the games themselves. If you think the big-budget games are as hard today as they were 15 years ago, then it's another example of Tom Cruise.

You're thinking of yourself as the typical example, but that's a very big mistake. Most people aren't both enthusiasts and casuals when it comes to their interests. Most people are one or the other - primarily.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#76

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,474

Default 

November 15th, 2012, 11:10
The next SC2 title isn't an expansion, it's a full-fledged game.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#77

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 17,831

Default 

November 16th, 2012, 13:59
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
The next SC2 title isn't an expansion, it's a full-fledged game.
No it's not. From Blizzard's website:
Originally Posted by Blizzard
We do view Heart of the Swarm as an expansion set
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#78

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

November 16th, 2012, 14:01
They can claim to view it however they like, but it's obviously not a typical expansion. It's a standalone game with a full campaign and access to all the races in multi-player… just like the first game. The term "expansion" is being used for marketing purposes.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#79

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 17,831

Default 

November 16th, 2012, 16:14
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
They can claim to view it however they like, but it's obviously not a typical expansion. It's a standalone game with a full campaign and access to all the races in multi-player… just like the first game. The term "expansion" is being used for marketing purposes.
Where did you hear that? They appear to be telling their retail partners otherwise:

Originally Posted by amazon
Please Note: Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm is an expansion pack and requires Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty to be played.
Or again from Blizzard themselves:
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/game/hea…preview/faq#q6
Originally Posted by blizzard
For the regions that have a standard box business model such as North America and Europe, yes, Wings of Liberty will be required in order to play Heart of the Swarm.
There is nothing stand alone about it. It's an expansion pack to Wings of Liberty and according to them you need the base game in order to play the expansion.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#80

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Diablo 3 - How the endgame failed @ PC Gamer
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:29.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch