So how bout that Justin Bieber fella. you guys like?
So how bout that Justin Bieber fella. you guys like?
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and feature at least one persistent world.
What keeps D3 from being a MMO is the fact a game can only support up-to 4 players in any one game, by which no means is massive. How ever there is a lo of similar qualities in the game play compared to other MMO, especially with all the things the took from WoW.
I love the game, but it is most definitely flawed. But I also believe it can be fixed. The other thing is that $60 doesn't mean as much to me as it may mean to others. That could be their whole budget for entertainment that summer.
The company is definitely headed in the wrong direction. A lot of people will blame the merger with Activision I guess or the popularity of WoW.
The problems with D3, the redundancy of SC2 and the staleness of WoW aren't enough to derail Blizzard though. I believe all 3 franchises will end by the time TITAN comes out. Which leads to an "all eggs in one basket" type of scenario. Which, if you're a creative, innovative developer is probably a bad idea. But if you're trying to produce a product that hits as many people as possible for the largest profit possible it's a very good idea.
I disagree with the idea that TITAN would be a FTP micro-transaction model. I definitely think they can still get people to pay $15.00 / month for it no problem and probably have micro-transactions on top of that.
Blizzard probably wants TITAN to crush the MMO market and concentrate all their development on retaining subscribers. From a business point of view that's a much better plan than spending like 10 years to develop a new game that can only get you $60. An MMO will get you that much in 4 months of added playtime for a person.
What's easier? Adding content to retain a subscriber for 4 months or creating an entirely new game from scratch... pretty obvious which one makes more sense. Especially when there tends to be more and more player overlap between Blizzard titles.
You just have to wonder if Blizzard has enough creativity left in the tank to make TITAN good enough to be the MMO that completely takes over the market.
I would imagine if Blizzard continue to drag their name through mud like they have lately Titan will fail, because people will not buy it.
As an example just look most of the all time gaming classics. Majority of them are the prologues of their creators careers with very few epilogue exceptions. Even today's big name League of Legends is one of them. Few years back no one had heard the name Riot games. Diablo 3 on the other hand is classic Hollywood reboot. 100% American Idol bull**** to the bone.
It's certainly about the quality of the loot, but you are talking about the content. Playing seleted parts of selected acts in a selected difficulty again and again is definitely a matter of quantity.It's not about quantity, but quality.
People are certainly the game because of the action, but the real long-time factor is the aspect of loot. Likewise, nobody was probably thrilled by the action when doing the moat trick versus Mephisto in D2 for the 123rd time, but by the aspect of a golden shako, orspiderweb sash on the ground when he died. People aren't replaying the content, but the act of finding loot and once you found so much that almost nothing is better than what you already have, the game doesn't offer anything new.ARPG are expected to give you a lot of hours of gameplay, because you are replaying the content.
There's a point in saying that the game doesn't offer enough of that (among other topics), but that might be covered in an expansion. If people refuse to pay for one after they played D3 for 200 hours, then they might not be the kind of customer in which Blizzard is interested. After all, they do it for the money.
I don't know these games. Do they focus on loot in the same manner as D3? I agree that the storyline of D3 is shallow, if not embarassing, but there's no game which makes people play them for years because of what you call content (i.e. something else than looting and trading in this case). I think everybody who informs himself just a little bit about D3 in advance would notice that it's about killing monstes and hoarding the loot and not about your eidea of content.I've been by far more satisfied with experience of playing Witcher 2 or Deus Ex 3, who even 20-30h long, provide a much more quality content that D3 does.
Anyway, whatever your criteria for quality are, I had fun not just in the first 20-30 hours, but in all thiose 150-200 hours I played the game so far. If you say that these other games don't offer fun for that long, they cannot compete with D3 with respect to that in my eyes, no matter what makes up the fun of playing them.
I also would like to state that Companies like Blizzard set their own bars, and they should make sure they meet them every time when they come out with something new. Blizzard might of not been a huge company like Activision ( which I believe tainted the company with greed) or EA, but they were a better one because the games where about the "Quality" and not the "Quantity." This goes for other companies, as many people would expect BOSS to continue to make the best audio devices and Dyson to make the best vacuums; If these companies would release a new product that did not meet there standard, people would be outrages and returning what they bought, and looking else where to spend their money. Blizzard needs to step up and fix their mistakes.