Blizzard should focus more on Multiplayer. [Archive]

raveharu

19-10-2008, 07:41

As Diablo3 will cater to both single and multiplayer, I think Blizzard should introduce classes playable only in Battlenet (Closed only, if it still exist in 2.0).

Single and multiplayer varies in gameplay, the latter being more versatile, whereas the former is all about soloing.
This is the new century whereby internet is a common thing, *points* at the amount of people playing MMORPGs.

Compared to single player, multiplayer will definitely bring in more revenue to Blizzard, so they should concentrating more on it. Single player should only provide the basis of Diablo3 :nod:

Although it has been confirmed that D3 will be F2P, Blizzard might change their mind unexpectedly at the very last minute.
Honestly, I like the idea of having both P2P and F2P accounts, the P2P having more features, like extra character slots, or bigger inventory slots, so Diablo fans can choose which to play.

As mentioned earlier, multiplayer is more versatile.
By adding special features, classes and hosting frequent events/tournaments , the game will definitely be a hit!

Classes that should be available only in Battlenet should focus more on team play, such as support classes that heals or increases the experience of party members. I'm not good with ideas, but I'm sure Blizzard has the experts :smug:

What do you guys think?

phool

19-10-2008, 07:54

PvP-wise I think team pk should get more focus, PvM-wise SP.

Blizzard should introduce classes playable only in Battlenet (Closed only, if it still exist in 2.0).
Classes that should be available only in Battlenet should focus more on team play, such as support classes that heals or increases the experience of party members.

utterly horrible suggestions imo

raveharu

19-10-2008, 07:55

utterly horrible suggestions imo

And the reason being ...?

TheReadMenace

19-10-2008, 11:00

I think that's horribly elitist. It's almost a given that single player games will get nerfed somehow (just look back at the last few patches from D2) compared to b.net, but... c'mon! SP'ers pay the same price for the game as b.netters. I see no reason why those who choose to play with others (or alone in a passworded game) should be given extra special attention along the lines of a whole new playable class. I forsee special events or quests being online only (such as Uber Tristram and the Dclone from D2), not to mention the exclusitivity of trading, ladders, and PvP. But when it comes to creating tons of extra content for b.net, or inversely leaving content out of SP (like certain runewords in D2), it amounts to a slap in the face who love their games but prefer to play by themselves, lack an Internet connection, or have horrible pings.

Edit: Let me also add: to me it sounds like you're saying, "If someone has the remedial ability to remember a password and can tolerate random game drops, people who act (or are) 10 years old, and account/character deletion due to inactivity, they deserve way more than SP'ers." IMO, your prespective is a joke, seriously.

Brother Laz

19-10-2008, 11:07

If they do that they should just remove single player.

......

Honestly, I like the idea of having both P2P and F2P accounts, the P2P having more features, like extra character slots, or bigger inventory slots, so Diablo fans can choose which to play.

So you want to pay for Blizzard to set the 'extra slots/extra inv' toggle to 1, neither of which adding a substantial amount of extra stress to b.net (character files are what, 5 KB in D2? Times 50 million... one stack of HDs and they're set for life).

I wonder if you're the type who pays €20 extra for the blue version of his cellphone when the regular one works just fine and both cost the same to produce, just because the original colour is a horrible green which they did on purpose to sell more of the blue ones.

Telzen

19-10-2008, 11:23

Oh god don't give them bad ideas like this. Don't want D3 to turn into a Hell Gate London failure.

Mad Mantis

19-10-2008, 13:24

Why do you want to turn a perfectly serviceable hack&slash ARPG into yet another MMO and pay for features that should essentially be free? Do you really want to throw your money away?

I don't like all this focus on MMO's in the industry, but it is there. There are a ton of games to play for the MMO addicts. There aren't that many hack&slash ARPGs being made these days. Lets leave Diablo alone and go petition for World of Diablo.

Sein Schatten

19-10-2008, 16:21

Classes that should be available only in Battlenet should focus more on team play

If there are SP only classes who focus on fast killing and good survivability, why not? :thumbup:

Gigashadow

19-10-2008, 19:04

I think this idea is silly. First of all, support classes go against what Diablo represents, a game where you deal tons of damage no matter who you are. Diablo is a Hack&Slash. It's not a CRPG, it's not a play-your-specific role game, it's a "go and smash those monsters" game. That's the one part of Diablo they should never touch.

Second of all, why the Battle.net classes be in SP? Sooner or later, somebody would put them in there. What about mods? What about LAN (fans will add it, trust me)? Support classes may be plenty of use in SP...

Why should Blizzard focus more on MP? The sole reason MP is popular is because people like to play with others. SP always represented the true quality of the game... SP should be on even terms with MP or not exist at all.

Both P2P and F2P accounts? P2P is not required for an instanced game. P2P in an instanced game in any form for any reason automatically means you are giving your money directly into the company's pure profit. Blizzard can support DIII without P2P just fine unless they are going to turn it into a MMO with tons of free servers. Don't turn yourself into a sheep, don't pay more than you already do...

peasant

20-10-2008, 01:32

Compared to single player, multiplayer will definitely bring in more revenue to Blizzard, so they should concentrating more on it. Single player should only provide the basis of Diablo3 :nod:

I completely disagree there, and in fact think it's the other way around, especially if multiplayer remains free (if you want a MMO, Blizzard has WoW for that). True, multiplayer is what keeps players playing the game longer but it's almost a given that the vast majority of online players have probably played the single player mode where as the opposite is probably untrue (that the majority of single player players play online).

As such, Blizzard should focus on the single player mode. I see multiplayer as being a 'bonus' or 'added value' meant to increase the game's longevity (not to be mistaken as shelf life).

Jambe

20-10-2008, 02:57

I doubt Blizzard's approach to development is, "what can we do to differentiate the bnet experience from the SP experience?" It's more along the lines of, "let's develop a solid core SP experience which makes the purchase price warranted, and then we'll tweak & mod it for online play."

The developers have said pretty much exactly that, haven't they? Monetized, online and multiplayer-only content aren't inherently bad, but they should never affect the core game. On the other hand, SP players make the decision to eschew online play; they don't have a right to moan about stuff unless modifications don't fix SP bugs or outright nerf or hinder the SP experience. The same would be true of online players who never party up — they don't have a right to complain if they can't experience multiplayer-only content.

I'd support monetization of features as long as the features don't directly influence playability — extra storage is a great example. I'm gonna go on a bit of a rant here: there are two ways of assessing playability (or anything) — objectively and subjectively.

An objective assessment of playability is, "Can this class be played solo from start to finish?" A subjective quantification of playability would be, "How much storage capacity does a character need to make the game playable?"

One's an objective assessment — can the character get through the game on its own? Either it can or it can't. There are no ifs, ands or buts. Yes or no. The other assessment in its most common form is wholly subjective: how much extra storage (chest space) does *insert Joe Player here* need before his pack-rat wont is sated?

Fundamentally, nobody needs extra storage space aside from the inventory screen to complete either of the extant Diablo titles, so the number arrived at is determined arbitrarily and is wholly subject to individual opinion. You know, things like, "if I get 40 extra slots instead of 60 I'll never play this damned game!1!1!"

It's important to make these distinctions, especially on the internet where anonymity makes everybody a jerk. An objective notion remains the same regardless of individual opinion whereas a subjective one may differ based on individual beliefs, emotions, etc. I know this sounds pedantic of me but separating fact from opinion is something most forum-goers — diii.net'ers included — are generally bad at.

Phew. Being able to purchase "extra chests" or something like that would be fine. Being able to purchase entire playable classes? No. Purchasing a respec? Fine. Directly buying your way through an entire act of the game? No. Extra online or multiplayer-only dungeons or events? Sure. Online or multiplayer-only dungeons or events pivotal to enjoyment of the core experience? Nope.

Gigashadow

20-10-2008, 03:10

Extra chests would really piss me off as payable content. I think they matter a lot to gameplay because they decide what kind of combination and choice of items you have for different situations...

Neferim

20-10-2008, 04:14

It's interesting that Bnet-exclusive content is more likely than, say, single-player exclusive content even though it would make more sense for there to be SP exclusive content because SP is easier to balance. Also, when did the idea of buying a game and receiving the entire game become obsolete? I already paid $60 or whatever for their game, why do I need to pay another $5 for an extra set of stash pages, or $10 for an extra 10 character slots? These features aren't costing them thousands of dollars to maintain, so why not just include them for free?

Obviously I know the answer, and so does Benjamin Franklin.

It wouldn't even bother me if they added the features and raised the price of the game by five or ten bucks over the standard price of a PC title. Okay, sure, if the game is worth playing I'll pay sixty-FIVE dollars for it instead of sixty, it's not a big deal. Of course, this would preclude them from being able to hike up the initial price of the game AND include microtransactions, so that idea's out as well I guess.

Jambe

20-10-2008, 04:30

Extra chests would really piss me off as payable content. I think they matter a lot to gameplay because they decide what kind of combination and choice of items you have for different situations...

This is entirely a matter of opinion.

I agree that amount of storage matters to gameplay. The problem is, what you think is an "acceptable amount" may be too much or too little to somebody else. How much base storage folks have is ultimately the developers' arbitrary decision. Sure, they take into consideration how much stuff you'll want to keep so that you can diversify your combat abilities and satisfy your pack-rat tendency, but ultimately it boils down to somebody saying, "Okay, this is how much storage you will have, let's move on."

You seem to think everybody should be restricted to the exact same amount of storage at all times. This is ridiculous. Let's use D2 as an example. You have 48 extra spaces to use per character. Everybody has that limitation. If Blizzard decided to offer "secondary chests", how would it hamper your experience? Do you seriously think if you had 96 or 144 spaces you would have that space full of items you'd regularly swap out to fight different monsters?

Your argument is flawed because what you're saying is "nobody should be able to pay to keep more items." I think what you might be saying is "nobody should be able to make their in-game experience better with OOG monies," and that's a totally different argument, but it's dumb. As I said earlier, having extra chests won't hamper the core experience — hence the word extra. Extra as in "you don't need it to have fun with the game, but if you really like to collect things, you can buy more space."

I think that'd be a good way for a dev to make some extra money post-sale. To be clear, I'm not pushing for OOG money exclusively being used to buy extra storage. Blizzard could easily come up with a system where you use in-game gold to rent storage. If you lapsed on a rental payment the items you had in extra storage would get withheld and interest charged on them or something. They could make the prices really high to make people have to really work to hoard huge collections (or something like that).

Surely you see that your argument isn't really an argument. It's a subjective statement. To paraphrase what you said: "I pick a random number and everybody else should be bound to that number or I am pissed."

Creasy

20-10-2008, 09:55

No, they should focus (even) more on singleplayer.

cmc

20-10-2008, 13:49

I think you haven't thought this through at all. Why should a class be unavailable for SP use just because it has party specific skills? The Paladin has Auras + healing and Barbarian has battle cries, abilities which are useful for hirelings too.

I enjoy single player because It allows me to play at my own pace and absorb the atmosphere. It also takes more skill, planning and perseverance to solo. You're restricted already to use the equipment you found rather than traded for and to me that's what the spirit of the game is about. I see any further disadvantage unnecessary. If they made any character classes available only for Bnet, I will not even buy it. An utterly ridiculous suggestion.

Apocalypse

20-10-2008, 14:07

i really think diablo is too fast based to properly fit in support characters. i also feel that if you can use a char in mp you can use it in sp, the sp market is already getting hit hard and i would hate to see a company like bliz contribute to the death of good sp games

Gigashadow

20-10-2008, 21:01

You seem to think everybody should be restricted to the exact same amount of storage at all times.Yup. If Blizzard thinks that giving people infinite stash would not ruin the game, that's what they should do.

But using stash size as a money leech option is greedy tactics that I don't like. If they do that it means they can give us infinite stash, but they just want us to pay for it...

If they said like "we limit your stash because it enhances gameplay and makes you balance your items" I'd be fine. But "we limit stash for all you poor people" is not right. So I'll be one with a tiny stash because I never buy any in-game things, and everyone else will be having 100-300+ slot stashes where they store everything they want and they're happy, really, I don't see how that's a good decision. I buy a game, I want to get everything that game offers, not buy bits of it after I buy the game.

Surely you see that your argument isn't really an argument. It's a subjective statement. To paraphrase what you said: "I pick a random number and everybody else should be bound to that number or I am pissed."Go back to debate school.

Keighvin

20-10-2008, 22:25

I agree with Giga on this, especially since THERE IS NO P2P for multiplayer, that trying to monetize game components is not a good road to go. I've played games that have this type of thing, and it just pissed me off and really hurt the ability to really enjoy the games

HansF

21-10-2008, 00:10

I think that Blizzard should focus on Single Play first.

If Blizzard wants to add micro transactions. The transactions should be something minor, such as:

1. Have different voices or character looks. Maybe adding your voice to the character.

2. Have different titles for a completion of a difficulty.

If Blizzard wants to have something more in regards to transactions. New quests or maps that are available for download for single play, multiplayer, or both. It should be a single transaction. The cost should vary depending on the size of the content. We have a whole world to explore.

Q33

21-10-2008, 01:20

Man, these suggestions are just bad. Having multiplayer exclusive content just sends the signal that Blizzard doesn't care about the single player fanbase. Its just not a good idea to basically shun a whole group of your fans.

Similarly, I WONT play D3 if its P2P (but I think its been confirmed its not P2P). I WONT play D3 if there are microtransactions that actually affect the game play (i.e. paying people getting an advantage that is impossible for a non-paying person to get...like getting extra quests/events/rewards). I probably wont play D3 if there are any microtransactions whatsoever, unless they are COMPLETELY useless, like adding in custom voices as another poster suggested. I know I'll be sitting there playing and thinking about how other people are getting advantages that I don't get, and that would piss me off and ruin my playing experience.

And as another poster put up, support classes don't fit into Diablo because all characters are based on dealing damage. Every character is able to solo, whereas a healer would have a hard time soloing.

Keighvin

21-10-2008, 01:23

This is no P2P, and microtransactions, as of right now, are for certain actions involving Bnet 2, not gameplay elements. So sayeth Pardo.

Kiley

21-10-2008, 03:26

Jambe

21-10-2008, 05:34

Yup. If Blizzard thinks that giving people infinite stash would not ruin the game, that's what they should do.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't once say "infinite" and the premise you suggest is ridiculous. I said extra, not endless.

But using stash size as a money leech option is greedy tactics that I don't like. If they do that it means they can give us infinite stash, but they just want us to pay for it...

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Secondarily, why does it mean they could give us infinite stash? Perhaps I' missing something; I don't equate "more than one" with "infinite".

Also, what's wrong with greed? Blizzard is out to make money. Refer again to my argument about D2. "If Blizzard decided to offer 'secondary chests', how would it hamper your experience? Do you seriously think if you had 96 or 144 spaces you would have that space full of items you'd regularly swap out to fight different monsters?"

If they said like "we limit your stash because it enhances gameplay and makes you balance your items" I'd be fine. But "we limit stash for all you poor people" is not right. So I'll be one with a tiny stash because I never buy any in-game things, and everyone else will be having 100-300+ slot stashes where they store everything they want and they're happy, really, I don't see how that's a good decision. I buy a game, I want to get everything that game offers, not buy bits of it after I buy the game.

The first three sentences constitute a fallacious argument by emotive language (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#emotive). The fourth sentence is more of the same with the added benefit of a bandwagon argument (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon) (in this case the bandwagon is previous game design conventions where post-purchase transactions are uncommon).

There's something more interesting to point out in the last sentence. You said you want "everything that game offers." Why? What gives you the right to determine what is and is not sold with the core product? I know what it is: greed — the same kind of greed that you suggest would criminalize blizzard should they decide to charge for extra storage.

Go back to debate school.

Ad hominem (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem).

/edit: I pretty much called you stupid with my last paragraph (the "pick a random number" bit) and initiated the ad hominem. I apologize.

s4nder

21-10-2008, 19:18

I'd like for single player and multiplayer to be completely identical. While I don't play SP in D2, on LANs and later on when bnet costs 15$ a month - hypothetical but, knowing Blizzard, very possible - I'd like not to be left out on any content.

Gigashadow

21-10-2008, 21:34

Jambe
Go back to debate school.

If you still don't understand what I mean by that, I'll explain it in simple terms:

If you want to talk to me, and argue any point, talk to me like another human on the same level as you, without the usage of secondary words that I may not know, further insulting me by suggesting that I go find out their meaning because you are too lazy to put it in simpler terms. Using funky words does not make you smarter, and debate is possible without them, so if you really want me to pay attention to you, cut it out and talk like a normal person. This is not a literature forum and this is not debate school.

Picking out sentences and labeling them as "argument by emotive language" because you felt like it means you are ignoring what I said. And if you are ignoring what I said because you think it is not in line with debate rules, don't even talk to me. Ever.

I've never been to debate school, sorry, and I'm not much of an orator. I say what I want to say in the simplest and honest form, one that may offend and confuse people sometimes, but that's how I write.

Oh, and, btw, English is my second language.

May His Shadow fall upon you.

Neferim

22-10-2008, 05:21

I have to agree with Gigashadow here on all accounts.

First of all, how is it jumping on a bandwagon to say "I disagree with the microtransaction model for games"? At the very frightening risk of having my post picked apart in detail and having each of the fallacies I'm undoubtedly using be exposed to the public, it seems as though the only bandwagon being jumped on here is "pretentious forum poster who thinks they're a master debater because they took a logic course in college and bookmarked a website with a list of logical fallacies". Not exactly as snappy as just quoting what you said and posting a link to some other website, but it gets the job done.

As for the issue at hand, I hate the idea of microtransactions. I want to buy a game once and have the entire game at my disposal. Yes, I understand the marketing scheme behind it and yes, I understand that the companies are just trying to make a buck. I don't begrudge them that, I am a supporter of capitalism. On the other hand, they will have to make a buck from someone other than myself and the others who dislike the microtransaction model. If this means I am "jumping on the bandwagon" of previous game design models, then so be it, but saying that I can't disagree with the price structure because it's a logical fallacy is absurd. I'll bet it's even a logical fallacy of some sort.

Sorry for the harsh words Jambe, but in addition to microtransactions, I also dislike it when people come in and say "everyone else's arguments are null and void because they use these logical fallacies: blah blah blah". It's not an effective argument and rarely gets anyone to agree with you. It will only annoy them and make them disagree with you regardless of whether you're right or not. Pure logic without rhetoric to support it will never win an argument.

Woah, I just checked the topic title and realized that this is actually a thread about Blizzard focusing on multiplayer, not the merits of their decision to implement a price structure based on microtransactions. I guess I will say something about that as well. As someone who played Diablo 2 almost exclusively single player, I'd have to say that I would prefer them to focus on the single player aspect of the game over the multiplayer aspect. After all, multiplayer is just an extrapolation of the single player game. This is even more true with Diablo 2 because of the horrible implementation of single player, where you are actually playing a TCP/IP game connecting to yourself. This is why the game still has desync issues and doesn't update health/mana bubbles in real time even when you are playing single player. Even though I had already stopped playing Diablo 2 for anything but mods by that time, I was still very upset that they implemented runewords that were exclusive for closed Bnet. Why couldn't a person use them in a single player game? What purpose did that serve?

As an additional part of focusing on SP, I want to point out that I also would like it if they did something they already confirmed that they won't do: support the modding community! Technically this isn't necessarily restricted to SP, but since they did away with LAN play, it seems there would be no inherent way to play mods with others. Anyway, there is a pretty extensive modding community for Diablo 2, and I would like to see official support for those of us who enjoy playing and making mods in the ame way that there is an extensive mapmaking community in warcraft 3. Unfortunately, Blizzard has already said they will not support modmakers and went so far as to equate them with hackers, a sobering clarification of their mindset indeed.

Blah, every time I make a post about Diablo 3 I just get disappointed all over again...

TarnishedHope

24-10-2008, 10:21

WRONG.

D3 should focus on SP with B.net incorporated. The idea is that it's an ARPG, not a MMO.

If you try to make it a MMO, D3 will fail.

Jambe

24-10-2008, 20:51

Please stop the ad hominem. This is getting ridiculous.

@Gigashow: I only linked for convenience — the concepts are easy to understand. I apologize if I offended you, but I wasn't wrong in any of my assertions.

@Neferim: I was responding to "So I'll be one with a tiny stash because I never buy any in-game things, and everyone else will be having 100-300+ slot stashes where they store everything they want and they're happy..."

Where do I begin? The words tiny and happy are used to differentiate between two arbitrarily made-up storage situations (this is emotive language). Furthermore, who is to say whether the the stash will be tiny? Tiny in comparison to what? Amount of useful items? Quest requirements? Whatever extra capacity other people might buy? What precludes people from being happy with a "base" amount of storage?

What his argument boils down to is this: "Nobody should be able to expand their game experience post-purchase with real-world money because that'll make my core game seem less fun / expansive / whatever by comparison." Again I'll mention the D2 example. He's effectively saying he'd play core D2 until blue in the face but if Blizz introduced extra pay-for storage he would quit. This is dumb; if the core game is fun, who cares whether other people pay for more storage capacity? Do people really gauge their satisfaction by comparing their experience to that of others? Materialism, much?

As to the bandwagon stuff: it's simple. "Because everybody else does it" is not a valid reason for anything. The assumption that you should "pay for the whole game" exists because games were traditionally stand-alone products and you bought the whole shebang upfront. That's not the case anymore; because the old way exists does not mean the new way is wrong.

@4th paragraph: I went out of my way in a previous post to discuss the difference between fact and opinion. People can cling to all the illogical opinions they want but they can't use said opinions as basis for arguments. If an argument is to be sound it must make reasonable sense! Also, rhetoric isn't my thing. It's more often than not entirely disingenuous; whether the people using it realize that fact is clearly another matter. Some prominent American revolutionary once said, "He who dares not offend cannot be honest."

5th: it's not inherently wrong to reward people for playing different game modes. The SP and online games needn't be exactly the same but in the same token no one mode of play should be less fun. The problem is, what makes something "fun" is more subjective than objective so introducing any change whatsoever between modes will always produce "that's not fair" reactions. Blizzard is damned if they do and damned if they don't because, well, this is just the "extra storage" argument again. If people gauge their satisfaction by looking at other people's experiences they're always gonna have the crappy end of the stick.

6th: totally agree here. If nothing else it'd be cool if the UI was moddable in D3. Giving the players control of how they view the game world is always a good thing. This is to say nothing of the total conversions and/or additional custom content you alluded to — you'd think Blizzard would want to support the mod community because it usually gives games much more longevity. It's a stupid move on their part to push the mod community away from their product!

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure if there's a correlation between "moddability" and "hackability". Like, if Blizzard makes the game more easily-moddable, does it also become more easily hackable? I'm not sure; just a thought. It would seem like a rock-solid un-moddable game would be less complex and thus less open to intrusion than a game with all sorts of facets for modification, but I'm no programmer.

Gigashadow

24-10-2008, 20:59

Please stop the ad hominem. This is getting ridiculous.Lol... this IS getting ridiculous.

Brother Laz

25-10-2008, 12:26

What his argument boils down to is this: "Nobody should be able to expand their game experience post-purchase with real-world money because that'll make my core game seem less fun / expansive / whatever by comparison."

YES.

If I pay to get the Super Saiyan Turbo Enigma armor, then you can't get what may be the best armor in the game unless you pay as well. This being a game where the whole point is to get the best items - why would you play if you can't get the best items?

If I can go to level 120 and you can only go to 100, again, why would you want to level up? You can't get to max level anyway.

......

'Yes, but how about stuff that doesn't affect gameplay, like a bigger or shared stash, or microtransactions for items that can still drop for non-payers...'

This does affect gameplay by not being implemented unless you pay, in hopes of annoying non-payers into paying. This isn't about adding features for payers anymore, but cutting features for non-payers. Hellgate did this.

The message is 'hey, you sucker, each time you lose items while muling or you spend an evening farming for that Super Rocket Windforce With Lazor Sight with no results, remember that you suffer because you didn't pay!!'. Yeah, that's going to keep people playing.

......

As I said before, 100% of the players are non-paying players at some point. You need to make a good free online game that doesn't bully people into paying up, and wait until they themselves decide to get the subscription plan themselves.

I compared this to Trackmania; the comparison isn't fair because you can download the base game entirely for free, but still free players are competitive online and enjoy the game a lot before deciding to shell out €30 for what amounts to an avatar and the ability to use custom user-created cars.

Jambe

25-10-2008, 16:31

@Laz: refer again to my D2 argument. Is D2 broken in its current state? Is it fun to play with base storage? I think so; if Blizz introduced pay-for-chests I would still play the game without extra storage.

If Blizzard decided to add extra storage for 5 bucks, it would only be a feature cut from the "core" game if the extra storage was available for free beforehand. Your baked-up premise that it's either a "cut feature" or an "add on" assumes players inherently deserve the maximum amount of storage available. Why? Have you some chart that monetizes storage capacity in RPGs by how it should relate to the cost of the game? I realize this is a stupid question, but it strikes right to the heart of the matter.

Also, I didn't say squat about paying for in-game gear. That's shouldn't be done; it removes a major incentive for playing!

This issue can't really be explained any more deeply, can it? The two extremes: some people gauge their enjoyment by looking at what others do and comparing it to what they do and some do their own thing and don't care what other folks are doing. Everybody's probably somewhere between those two extremes, right? I just find it ridiculous that people would base their opinions of a game's quality by how much storage they have and whether or not more can be bought. This line of thought ultimately boils down to "either everybody should have the same exact restrictions or they should get infinite storage."

I don't know what else to say! If the core game has 500 storage but people can get up to 800 storage then they won't be satisfied. If it has 20000 storage but people can get 21000 storage then they won't be satisfied. Who is to say the base amount isn't enough for the average player? WHO? The simple implication that some people could buy more storage means the base game isn't as good?

I give up. I just give up!

Gigashadow

25-10-2008, 18:51

You're ridiculous.

By your logic, we could make Diablo without a storage and inventory at all, and that would be fine, as long as inventory is buyable. Problem is, there are thresholds. Inventory has to be a certain size to be enjoyable. Stash has to be largest possible to be enjoyable (fact for most people = muling is proof). If one person has access to a stash as large as he wants it through money, while most people don't, yes, that is a problem. If the stash is 500 and the limit is 700 with pay no, that's not going to cause a problem because the only time there is a real difference is between small stash and near-unlimited stash.

All in all, it's called enjoyable gameplay mechanics. Was DII stash enjoyable? Not at all, personally. I started to enjoy the game much more when I acquired PlugY (stash mod). It has a whole new meaning to me. I think it's a biggie. DII may have been fun, but it wasn't due to the small stash...

A game should offer enjoyable gameplay mechanics without pay, or else that pay ceases to be non-mandatory. Especially in competition. If people are competing, and one got a godly item for money, that's a problem...

Jambe

25-10-2008, 19:35

Gigashow, for the third bloody time, two requests: stop the ad hominem and stop putting words in my mouth.

First off, where did I say D3 should have no storage or inventory? By what logic did I imply it? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think you're just making things up.

Second, you finally get it! "... the only time there is a real difference is between small stash and near-unlimited stash." Correct sir; we are in agreement! Gosh! Where did I ever advocate being able to pay for an infinite amount of storage? That's right, nowhere!

And again, you and I agree here but you're going out of your way to muddy the waters! "A game should offer enjoyable gameplay mechanics without pay, or else that pay ceases to be non-mandatory." I totally concur! My argument is that there has to be a basic amount of storage with which most players will be satisfied. Let's just take the 500 from your argument — let's say 500 is more than plenty for 90% of the people that pay. Then why couldn't Blizzard allow you to pay for 2 or 3 extra chests with 100 storage capacity apiece? That wouldn't break the game, would it? It wouldn't make it less enjoyable for the 90% of folk who were satisfied with "basic" storage, would it?

No!

The "pay for in-game items" crap is irrelevant to my argument. Allowing people to buy gear would remove a major incentive to play!

Brother Laz

25-10-2008, 22:29

If it is technically possible to have a stash of X and they give you only X/2 unless you pay, that's cutting features (large stash) that are actually in the game, hoping that you'll get sufficiently annoyed that you'll pay up.

Annoying your customers to squeeze money out of them doesn't seem like the best business strategy.

peasant

25-10-2008, 23:33

A game should offer enjoyable gameplay mechanics without pay, or else that pay ceases to be non-mandatory. Especially in competition. If people are competing, and one got a godly item for money, that's a problem...

Now, the thing about serious players who enter competitions, they aren't really the average player now, are they? Odds are, they're a very tiny minority of the community and so their wants/needs don't necessarily reflect those of the majority. And as far as pay-only features giving some competitors an edge, I think it would be fair to say that if one is taking the game seriously enough to compete in it, one is probably also going to be decked out with all these extra features.

If it is technically possible to have a stash of X and they give you only X/2 unless you pay, that's cutting features (large stash) that are actually in the game, hoping that you'll get sufficiently annoyed that you'll pay up.

Annoying your customers to squeeze money out of them doesn't seem like the best business strategy.

But here's the thing; say for most players, having a stash of X size is enough. It wouldn't really 'annoy' them to be limited to X even if it's possible to support a stash size of 2X.

Personally, as far as paid content is concerned, it is reasonable to charge for services deemed above and beyond what the typical player would expect to receive. One thing that comes to mind is additional characters. For instance, let's say each copy of Diablo 3 means you're allowed one character in multiplayer at any one time (with the option to delete said character and start a new one for free). Of course, some will want more than one character. As such, each additional character a player owns could be charged a fixed, monthly fee.

Jambe

26-10-2008, 00:27

But here's the thing; say for most players, having a stash of X size is enough. It wouldn't really 'annoy' them to be limited to X even if it's possible to support a stash size of 2X.

Exactly! A few more things: Blizzard shouldn't sell gear. If they did they'd be saying, "if you don't want to experience the content just pay us to bypass it." I think this is wrong. As to charging for extra "player slots", it's analogous to the stash argument — it would only work if there was an acceptable "base" amount of player slots (8, for example, as in D2).

peasant

26-10-2008, 00:47

Exactly! A few more things: Blizzard shouldn't sell gear. If they did they'd be saying, "if you don't want to experience the content just pay us to bypass it." I think this is wrong. As to charging for extra "player slots", it's analogous to the stash argument — it would only work if there was an acceptable "base" amount of player slots (8, for example, as in D2).

Agree on item selling. As for the base number of slots, I think it two numbers naturally come to mind; either one (since that's all you actually 'need' to play, though this is very restrictive) or five (one for each class).

Gigashadow

26-10-2008, 01:58

If they screw up the stash again... I'm not even touching bnet, since it will be the same old muling rubbish. Stash must be unlim. IMHO.

Gigashadow

26-10-2008, 02:00

Now, the thing about serious players who enter competitions, they aren't really the average player now, are they? Odds are, they're a very tiny minority of the communityMinority? Are you kidding me? PK'ers, people who go on ladder, people who say you need an Enigma, people who PvP, people who play HC, etc. etc. they are a minority? Umm, I don't think so. They are a defeating majority, personally. If there were 3 99 levels per ladder maybe they'd be a minority...

For instance, let's say each copy of Diablo 3 means you're allowed one character in multiplayer at any one time (with the option to delete said character and start a new one for free). Of course, some will want more than one character. As such, each additional character a player owns could be charged a fixed, monthly fee.No, that would suck. I hate the fact that bnet has a limit on characters already. That would be an awful move on Blizzard's part. One more reason to utterly ignore Bnet. This is not a MMORPG.

Brother Laz

26-10-2008, 02:46

it is reasonable to charge for services deemed above and beyond what the typical player would expect to receive. (...) For instance, let's say each copy of Diablo 3 means you're allowed one character in multiplayer

The typical player expects to receive one character?

peasant

26-10-2008, 02:24

The typical player expects to receive one character?

Just an example. If you read my response to Jambe just two posts below, you'd see the reason behind it as well as a more plausible number there. And again, even if you disagree with said number, it's more about the concept.

Sein Schatten

26-10-2008, 18:19

But here's the thing; say for most players, having a stash of X size is enough. It wouldn't really 'annoy' them to be limited to X even if it's possible to support a stash size of 2X.

Personally, as far as paid content is concerned, it is reasonable to charge for services deemed above and beyond what the typical player would expect to receive. One thing that comes to mind is additional characters. For instance, let's say each copy of Diablo 3 means you're allowed one character in multiplayer at any one time (with the option to delete said character and start a new one for free). Of course, some will want more than one character. As such, each additional character a player owns could be charged a fixed, monthly fee.

Yes, it does. Especially with alts. Make it as big as possible. The extra money should be for the extra work it takes to make stash bigger.

A monthly fee for a bit more DB space? Are you nuts?

CBGB

27-11-2008, 20:11

Blizzard should introduce classes playable only in Battlenet...
I like the idea of having both P2P and F2P accounts, the P2P having more features, like extra character slots, or bigger inventory slots, so Diablo fans can choose which to play.

An awful lot of posts in the forums boil down to 'force more people to play the way I like.'

You hear that when people say 'I don't want to save before a boss, so don't allow a Save/Load system,' or 'they should make a time limit for finishing Normal.'

If you want to play faster, play without saving, or play certain classes online, go for it. You won't be hurt one bit by my doing differently here.

Whatever you like best in the game, one thing we can all agree on is that Diablo isn't WoW, and as such, it deserves a solid singleplayer experience as an option.

sbn

27-11-2008, 23:26

An awful lot of posts in the forums boil down to 'force more people to play the way I like.'

You hear that when people say 'I don't want to save before a boss, so don't allow a Save/Load system,' or 'they should make a time limit for finishing Normal.'

If you want to play faster, play without saving, or play certain classes online, go for it. You won't be hurt one bit by my doing differently here.

Whatever you like best in the game, one thing we can all agree on is that Diablo isn't WoW, and as such, it deserves a solid singleplayer experience as an option.

This is a very poignant statement "An awful lot of posts in the forums boil down to 'force more people to play the way I like". I have to say this is probably one of the most frustrating aspects of discussion when people wish to merely impose their idea of how the game should be, even when they still have the option to play the game the way they want.

Teleportftw

28-11-2008, 07:12

This is a very poignant statement "An awful lot of posts in the forums boil down to 'force more people to play the way I like". I have to say this is probably one of the most frustrating aspects of discussion when people wish to merely impose their idea of how the game should be, even when they still have the option to play the game the way they want.

ppl prefer games they don't have to put artificial constraints on. And because diablo is competitive(it has a ladder) to a large extent its fairly important to make the game the way you intend people to actually play it. This isn't a sandbox game.

CBGB

29-11-2008, 19:52

because diablo is competitive(it has a ladder) to a large extent its fairly important to make the game the way you intend people to actually play it. This isn't a sandbox game.
The way you play it is competitive, and I have no problem with that. There's no reason to expect everyone to play the same way.

Since I prefer singleplayer, there's no reason D3 can't excel at both, just as D2 does. You don't improve multiplayer by denying features in singleplayer.

Lazarus II

29-11-2008, 19:57

I get nothing out of Diablo MP, so I hope they treat the SP game with the same respect.

Teleportftw

29-11-2008, 22:01

The way you play it is competitive, and I have no problem with that. There's no reason to expect everyone to play the same way.

Since I prefer singleplayer, there's no reason D3 can't excel at both, just as D2 does. You don't improve multiplayer by denying features in singleplayer.

D3 is centered around coop play, just listen to beginning of gameplay video on blizz site. Not that single player will suck, but it will come at the backend of developing the bnet experience.

also like I said earlier, it has a ladder. competitive games need to be controlled much more tightly than sandbox games.

Synchrotron

29-11-2008, 23:35

lumpor

30-11-2008, 00:26

I think the single player and multiplayer should be the same size. I mostly don't play multiplayer, I usually play solo. Why? Becuase most people on bnet are anti-social unfriendly fanatics who just piss you off. And even if you do manage to join a game with civilized people, I still don't really like it, since I to do like things at my own pace, and not sell items/organize inventory etc in a hurry so the others don't need to wait or so the others don't start questing without you.

I really think you should get the freedom of choice. People are different.

Although I do think they should make a better trading system and better join-game system and better friend system and better chat system etc

sbn

30-11-2008, 20:18

I would like to see different types of games in Diablo 3, not only the standard games that appears in Diablo 2.

I don't remember where I read those ideas but the devs could add some game types like:

- Defend the city: hordes os monsters attacks a city and you and your team must defend it from them. (Just like "defend the castle" maps in Warcraft 3).
- PvP Arenas
- Normal games
- Auction houses
- Etc

These are some really good ideas, I really like the first one a lot. Let's be realistic here on what will happen to this game. Once the excitement and freshness wears off for most players, people will seek out some sort of Baal/Cow type game for obvious reasons. They probably will have some secret cow type level, but it remains to be seen whether it will be anything like the good old pre 1.10 cow games. I like the idea of having to defend an area against swarms and waves of creatures.

One other idea would be to have Quest games, where you enter the game and receive a special random quest to complete for any number of random prizes may it be currency, items, or even experience.