Blizzard Aiming For Q3 Diablo 3 Beta, 2011 Release

During an earnings call this afternoon, Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime revealed the company's goals for testing and releasing the much-anticipated new chapter in the Diablo series. "[Morhaime said], 'On the Diablo 3 front, I'm pleased to report that we began internal, company-wide testing last week. The game is looking great and we are currently targeting a Q3 launch for external beta testing. The development team is working hard to try to launch Diablo 3 this year, but I want to be clear. We do not have an official release date or window yet.' Details on the external beta are currently extremely limited, so we don't know the scope of how many testers will be involved or what the beta will include. It's hard to imagine that anything could match the gargantuan beta for StarCraft 2, but Blizzard has said that Diablo 3 will have plenty of online functionality, and that sort of functionality needs plenty of testers to succeed."

Comments

Diablo 3 Forever?

[Flipstylee]

The development team is working hard to try to launch Diablo 3 this year, but I want to be clear. We do not have an official release date or window yet.

I don't care either way, when it comes then very nice, but could we hold off on these sort of posts until, say, a few months before it comes out in 2014?
Call me troll i don't care, i'm just sick of hyping up the hype that leads to endless post-pones that have been the norm in recent years.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Chris Burke]

I don't care either way, when it comes then very nice, but could we hold off on these sort of posts until, say, a few months before it comes out in 2014?
Call me troll i don't care, i'm just sick of hyping up the hype that leads to endless post-pones that have been the norm in recent years.

I agree, and that's even accepting that Blizzard product delays are typically because they want to make the product as high quality as possible, not because they're a shit developer who needs the extra time to make their product barely salable. Or to chase a never-ending stream of complete revamps like a certain notable example.

"It's done when it's done" is a great mantra, but we already knew that. So "no official release date" is as non-newsworthy as possible.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[black3d]

To be fair, it's expected - nay, highly anticipated - that Blizzard posts "soon" announcements rather than specific dates. Official dates are announced at Blizzcon (or Blizzard Invitational) and everything else is "soon". I think we'd be disappointed if they made an official date announcement outside of a Blizzcon.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Soon

Blizzard don't really postpone things. They just don't commit to releasing. And when they do announce they'll be releasing, they almost always release on date. (rarely, a few weeks later, but no long-term postponements or delays). If it was any other company I'd understand - announcing and then postponing is commonplace in the industry. Blizzard doesn't announce until they're sure they can deliver, though. They doing in-house testing now, which puts them on-track for an open (but selective) beta by Blizzcon (October), and launch just in time for Xmas. And then patched in January. ;)

If they say they're expecting to release in 2011, their track record says they'll be releasing either in 2011, or early 2012. Not 2014. They good marketers as they don't fail to deliver.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[e1618978]

They will get higher sales numbers if they are late, IMHO - since Elder Scrolls V comes out in November, and it will probably be another 500+ hour game.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Zuato]

If only they released things when they were done now. Take StarCraft 2 for instance. Prior to Activision taking over we would not have seen SC2 released until all three races single player campaigns were in place. Now we are going to get charged 3 times to get the entire experience. I fear what they will do to get D3 out the door, and how much will be cut and us players will get charged for later. Because of them wanting to charge for each of the SC2 campaigns I'm taking a huge wait and see approach with anything from Activison/Blizzard from here on out.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[black3d]

Really, I think Blizzard figured that out all on their own after seeing how much money they make from Warcraft expansions. Folks like to blame Activision for anything they see Blizzard as doing "wrong", but it's not like Blizzard hadn't already figured out staggered release beforehand. It's not like World of Warcraft launched with the "entire experience" either, and that was well before Activision.

If anything, Blizzard identified that they can make better gameplay/story if they're concentrating on one race at a time, and making massive revenue while they're at it. Take SC1, where the "story" was told by a few videos and otherwise, plain text in your mission screen. That was pretty much awesome tech at the time, however they couldn't create enough character interaction/storyline in a text screen to "drag out" each race into individual expansions. Nowadays, they can. You can easily spend 5-10 minutes between missions in SC2, as opposed to 30 seconds in SC1.

Of course Blizzard AND Activision want to maximize profits. And naturally, breaking up a single game into 3 games does that. However, it also allows for a more polished experience from each game as well, with much longer development time. I truly believe had Activision not come on the scene, Blizzard was already clued up enough to make SC2 into three separate games.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Zuato]

That's certainly in their best financial interests to release this way, but it doesn't work for me. As such they now have to work harder for my gaming dollar.

The reason I didn't mention WoW is because an MMO is vastly different than a release such as a RTS or a Diablo like game. Blizz does have to maintain the back end for both (battle.net), but neither one has persistent worlds to play in and as such the expectations are different and always have been.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Macgrrl]

The date on my pre-order for Diablo III is 5 May 2009. I don't think Elder Scrolls V coming out is going to affect my purchase.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Your.Master]

I'm a person who really just got SC2 for the single-player campaign. I'd have preferred more for sure, but it wasn't exactly short. I kind of wonder whether this would be an issue if they had traded some of the Terran missions for Zerg missions (they already had a few Protoss). Or if they had outright decided not to ever release expansions and this is the full campaign.

I think arguing you're being "charged 3 times to get the entire experience" is hollow They always had expansions, so you always had to pay more than once to get the "entire experience" from that aspect.

A better argument you might make is that for the price of a full game, you want X out of the single-player experience. X can be Y hours of gameplay, a campaign for each race, branching storylines, linear storylines, cutscenes, no cutscenes, whatever.

However, when you look at the future release plans, and decide everything about Starcraft 2 should be released at once or not at all, you lose me. You're not talking about being unsatisfied with what is available, you're talking about wanting to not have more entertainment products in the future, because add-ons are offensive. And anyway, I'm sure when all the expansions are out (in other words, "when it's done") there will be some kind of "battlechest" deal.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[murdocj]

I don't care either way, when it comes then very nice, but could we hold off on these sort of posts until, say, a few months before it comes out in 2014?
Call me troll i don't care, i'm just sick of hyping up the hype that leads to endless post-pones that have been the norm in recent years.

I agree, and that's even accepting that Blizzard product delays are typically because they want to make the product as high quality as possible, not because they're a shit developer who needs the extra time to make their product barely salable. Or to chase a never-ending stream of complete revamps like a certain notable example.

"It's done when it's done" is a great mantra, but we already knew that. So "no official release date" is as non-newsworthy as possible.

If only ALL developers were such shit developers.

In other news, yes, you are a troll. Try harder next time.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[CronoCloud]

I always refer to Blizzard as a bunch of lazy bums. Because in the console development world that Blizzard was once a part of, you get the sequel out in 5 years or less or heads will roll.

And considering how much D3 looks like a Snowblind Engine games on the PS2: Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance and it's sequel, Champions of Norrath and it's sequel,and so on.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[filthpickle]

You get 10% off Duke Nukem Forever if you pre-order on steam. That should tide you over.

I almost really pre-ordered because I thought it would be funny. Not $45 funny though.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Zuato]

I think you missed my point. I bought SC1 and had three races worth of single player content. SC2 came out with just one: Terran. And they have told us that we will be buying 2 more expansions just to get the story for the remaining two races.

SC1 had an expansion and it included story lines for all three races. Do you see why I don't like the way they are doing things now? Both SC1 AND its expansion both had all three races from the start.

And now they've set themselves up on a slippery slope with the battlechest options. Do players jump and buy at full price or just wait it out for the battlechest for a largely discounted price to get all three races campaigns? Guess which one I will be doing in the future? They will get a lot of people that have to have it at release. I, by choice, no longer fall into that category. Hell, I had SC1 the day it released - April 1st, 1998. I remember the release date because I had pre-ordered and I thought the guy was trying to pull one over on me when he called. I had the expansion for it the weekend it came out at the end if 98.

I don't understand where you think I inferred that add-ons were offensive. I have all the expansions for WC2, SC1, D2, WoW, etc. Perhaps my expectations for Blizzard are high based on how they've operated in the past?

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Chris Burke]

If only they released things when they were done now. Take StarCraft 2 for instance. Prior to Activision taking over we would not have seen SC2 released until all three races single player campaigns were in place.

Yeah, that's true, Activision has been a baleful influence on Blizzard.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Chris Burke]

I think you misunderstood me, to say the least. I said they're not shit developers. Their products, when they're released, are top-notch.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[thesandtiger]

I haven't played SC 2, but how long in number of missions and hours of play is the Terran storyline, and how does that stack up against the number of missions & hours of play I n SC 1?

If it's 60 missions and 30 hours of play vs. 60 missions and 30 hours of play (just guestimating) then no biggie. But if it's only 20 missions and 10 hours of play vs. 60/30 then you have a fair point.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Anonymous Coward]

You make it sound like Starcraft 2 contains 1/3 of the content of Starcraft singleplayer-wise and that's not the case.

Starcraft 2 contains 29 missions(26 can be played through any particular play through). I believe there is one bonus mission but I have not played it.

Starcraft contained 30 missions. That is a slightly higher number and there were zerg missions as opposed to just Terran and Protoss as in Starcraft 2 I think people make a bigger deal out of breaking the game into three pieces. I prefer having three pieces because that means a longer, more in-depth campaign.

Personally, I though I got my moneys worth with Starcraft 2.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Surt]

You definitely delivered that message oddly. Your phrasing ("that's even accepting") strongly implies that one should NOT accept the premise. And if one does not accept the premise, one believes Blizzard is a shit developer.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[calinduca]

"It's done when it's done" is a great mantra, but we already knew that. So "no official release date" is as non-newsworthy as possible.

Not true. What's newsworthy is that a beta will be available soon. Great news for people who will sign up for the beta.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[LambdaWolf]

I love Civilization. I've been a big fan of the series since I played Civ II at the age of 13 or so. Just the other day I enjoyed getting reacquainted with Alpha Centauri. But when I found out last year how Civilization V was being released—with every little civ and scenario nickel-and-dimed out as DLC, with a pitifully small selection of starting content for your fifty bucks and it being painfully obvious that they were withholding finished content to sell it to you later—I said "no thanks". Some day, when they're done shilling their so-called "expansion content" and the complete, ne-plus-ultra pack is available on Steam for $20 or $30, maybe—maybe—I'll buy it and find out if there was a good game under all the shameless greed.

So I hope it means something when I say that StarCraft 2 doesn't seem to be done that way at all. It plays like a finished game, with no game mechanics visibly held back to make the expansions more appealing. Blizzard hasn't tried to squeeze any more money out of it with DLC; on the contrary, they've pushed out free bonus maps as they did for their other RTSs. The campaign's story is the right length, and feels like a complete, self-contained episode in a series. If (as they plan) each expansion gives us another equally-sized chunk of story and some new game mechanics as a bonus, I think that's a fair product to sell and I'll happily buy them. And in case anyone from 2K Games is listening, take note: this is why I happily bought the expansions to Civilization III and IV also.

And just so you don't think I'm a fanboy, I don't think everything is perfect with SC2. The all-online model is obnoxious, forcing you to download custom maps through an "app store" is hideously stupid, and the DRM and "you get only one username and profile" thing still make me want to punch someone in the head. (Maybe I want another name! Maybe I think it would be fun to start over earning achievements on a blank slate! Did you think about that when you were trying to make the next Steam or Facebook or whatever? *pant* *heave*)

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[RogueyWon]

The "like Duke Nukem Forever" label gets bandied around a lot. However, the launch of DNF pre-orders on Steam yesterday triggered a conversation between myself and a few friends about what else has happened in gaming terms since DNF went into development in April 1997.

- The first Gran Turismo game was still a few months from release. Gran Turismo 5's development was often compared to DNF's, but it was the 5th main installment in the series to be released since work started on DNF.

- Final Fantasy VII had just been released, triggering the start of whole JRPG boom in the West. The 11th and 12th installments had pretty epic development cycles, but the series still went from 7 to 14 (with many, many spin-offs) in the time it took to develop DNF.

- Following the release of Final Fantasy VII and a few other high-profile titles, people were just starting to realise that Sony's Playstation might actually have some staying power, rather than being the next 3DO.

- Nobody had heard of Bioware. The original Baldur's Gate was still 18 months or so from release. The Western RPG felt like a dying genre at the time, with many of the old 80s and 90s franchises on the rocks. Since then, just from Bioware and Black Isle, we've had the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games, Planescape Torment, the Neverwinter Nights games, the KOTOR games, Jade Empire, the Mass Effect games and the Dragon Age games. And probably a few more I'm forgetting.

- MMORPGs basically didn't exist in the wild. Ultima Online was still a few months from its official release, with Everquest still about 2 years into the future.

- People were only really beginning to take an interest in 3d acceleration. Quake 2 wouldn't appear until the end of the year. People with 3dfx cards and the like were still very much a lucky minority.

- Blizzard had only recently put out the original Diablo. Its sequel was still to come, the original Starcraft was still over a year away and World of Warcraft wasn't even a pipe-dream at this point.

So really, comparisons to Duke Nukem Forever don't actually hold up for any other titles currently under development. Prey was perhaps running close for a while, but even that came out a good few years ago now (and was comprehensively underwhelming). Diablo 3 was announced in 2008, so if it does go the way of DNF, we would expect to see a release in 2022. I can't really imagine it will be that bad.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[xouumalperxe]

That's certainly in their best financial interests to release this way, but it doesn't work for me. As such they now have to work harder for my gaming dollar.

Can you accept that it works for others though? I'm not too much into the whole competitive online side of Starcraft, yet still bought WoL for the campaign. Granted, I didn't get to play as zerg (and played only a mock-protoss sort of thing) yet I still did not, in any way, shape, or form, feel cheated out of my money.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[ifrag]

I haven't played SC 2, but how long in number of missions and hours of play is the Terran storyline

Apparently you haven't bothered to read anything about it either. It's 29, but not all can be played on a single run through (without going back to prior saves anyway). And if you spent 30 hours to get through the original then I'd say you are looking at a fairly long playtime on SC2. Just play through on hard the first time.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[smelch]

I don't know, it seems to me like you're complaining over nothing. SC2 didn't feel like it was a third of a game to me. It's a full game with 2 planned expansions. Sorry you didn't get three races in your single player, but that doesn't mean it was shipped incomplete, it means they didn't give you exactly what you want. Seeing as how it is a multiplayer game at heart, I don't think it is that big of a deal. Nobody complains that SC1 was released without the Brood War campaign.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[nanoflower]

Isn't Torchlight II due out around the same time? That's a much more direct competitor given that it was designed by some of the same people behind Diablo I/II. Should be interesting to see if Runic Games tries to put out Torchlight II early since it will appeal to many of the same people (and it includes a multi-player option unlike Torchlight I.)

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Internetuser1248]

Not to mention they probably want to get at least something out before PoE comes out because the games are likely to be in direct competition for customers, and due to the fact that PoE is free to play, it might be difficult to pull people away after the fact.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Some day, when they're done shilling their so-called "expansion content" and the complete, ne-plus-ultra pack is available on Steam for $20 or $30, maybeâ"maybeâ"I'll buy it and find out if there was a good game under all the shameless greed.

If you liked Civ 2/3/4 and AC, IMHO, there really isn't. Combat got more intricate in some ways and simplified in others, and every other aspect of the game is drastically simplified.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[ganjadude]

black ops used an existing engine though, I am sure if you are building an engine from scratch you need to add more time to that

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Surt]

English, as a non-dead language, is defined by usage. Since most of the replies agreed with me, I win.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Alamais]

Exactly. Wings of Liberty was awesome, and there was more story and awesomeness in that "fragment" than in the entire SC1 campaign. Well worth the money, would spend it again, will pay for the other two parts and probably still want more.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[tlhIngan]

Yeah, Activision has pretty much screwed up Blizzard.

I got SC2, and it's nice, but Bnet 2.0 pretty much soured me off it trying to get a really idiotic issue resolved (the name you enter in the dialog is permanent and unchangable - this was fixed a month later with an announcement of paid name changes - WTF? Fine print does not constitute adequate warning and reeks of nickel and diming).

The scary part is, they'e snagged Bungie with a 10-year deal as well, so there goes yet another good developer;

I wanted to preorder Diablo 3 when I picked up my SC2 preorder. Something said I should wait, and I heeded that. Given my Bnet 2.0 experience, I think I'll pass. The game will be good (courtesy Blizzard), but the business side of it leaves a lot to be desired. I only ever got the impression that what you get is a subscription-fee free version of WoW, made that way by simply charging you extra in every other area.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[smelch]

Bnet 2.0 pretty much soured me off it trying to get a really idiotic issue resolved (the name you enter in the dialog is permanent and unchangable - this was fixed a month later with an announcement of paid name changes

What the hell is wrong with you? That is not nickle and diming. Usually when I create an account I can't change my login. Thats pretty much standard. Can you randomly change your account information on, say, slashdot? (I'm not sure if you can or not, I'm just asking) The reason they give you one free name change (which you didn't mention) and charge for others is so that you don't keep changing your account name. Duh. If I can just change my name all the time it becomes easy to harass people, easy to disguise who you are and what you do, and generally serves no purpose. Why do you need to change your name so damn bad that this one thing soured you on Bnet 2? They aren't charging to raise money, they're charging to allow people who really want a name change to be able to do it without making it so you can't even track people in the ladder.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[smelch]

I'm a little insulted you just compared COD to any Blizzard game. The reason Blizzard doesn't release very frequently is because they truly are artists. SC2 didn't need to come out before it did. I will take highly polished games once every decade rather than a bucket full of shit every year that is exactly the same as before just different geometry and lighting. 2.5 years? Fuck that, it should come out not when they think they can sell the most, but when they think people will still be playing over a decade later.

Re:Diablo 3 Forever?

[Chris Burke]

The only other reply to my post understood what I was saying, by pointing out how Activision's influence has undermined Blizzard's "it's done when it's done" philosophy, which was understood to be a positive thing.

And then the only reply to you disagreed with you. So it's 2:1 against. Sorry! Maybe next time the "definitions by democracy" game will work out for you. ;)

Slashvertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm starting to think Blizzard is paying off Slashdot for coverage. Most of the game industry won't even get a passing mention on the frontpage, but if even a peep comes out of Blizzard then it's BREAKING NEWS.

Re:Slashvertisement

[black3d]

A click on the "Games" tab to the left there reveals launch announcements for:

Blizzard - Diablo 3 (this announcement)
Two MIT Alumi - Gitionary
id Software - Rage
Paradox - Magicka 2 (possibly)
Ubisoft - Movie Company

This is the first page of results. I think if you keep clicking, you'll find plenty more announcements for other games popular in the geek community. Blizzard doesn't appear to have any sort of monopoly on this. So either, they're ALL paying, or it's just the editors/firehose trying to pick out what's likely to be of interest.

Re:Slashvertisement

[gknoy]

Diablo (1, 2, and soon 3) has enough nerds who like it or want more that it is most certainly news that matters. Hell, I didn't get into D1 or D2 and I would LOVE to get in the D3 beta. It's OK to feed us from the hype machine if it's something we're genuinely interested in.

Re:Slashvertisement

[plsenjy]

With this in mind, should we consider any announcement on any development carried out by a firm such as GE as form of advertisement? Short answer: No. We read Slashdot to be informed on the latest and greatest within our respective interests/industries.

Re:Slashvertisement

[smash]

could also be that blizzard don't put out shit games

Re:Slashvertisement

[DSwitz]

Actually, in this particular context, I believe he was speaking to the lord of terror. Offering his soul for D3 beta.

OMG

[Rippy the Gator]

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG.. err.. ahem.. so, that's pretty cool.

Re:OMG

[hort_wort]

Too bad you're not. Cunt.

I'm amused because I envisioned Hit-Girl saying exactly this. Realizing you're probably not a 12 year old crime-fighting girl sorta ruins it though. :/

Re:OMG

[An ominous Cow art]

On the internet, the 12 year old crime-fighting girls are really 40 year old crime-fighting men.

I Still Play...

[zanian]

Diablo 2 Hccl. I cannot wait for D3, but I probably will have to knowing Blizzard's release track record and the fact that they will be pumping out D3 simultaneously with the second Sc2 instalment.

Re:I Still Play...

[IHateEverybody]

I still play Diablo II as well. The varied characters and their diverse skill trees make for high degree of re-playability. And it looks like Diablo III's characters and their skills will be just as diverse. I'm already salivating over the Demon Hunter.

How reliable?

[TriezGamer]

... I really hope Blizzard actually gets this release out on time. Past history doesn't give me much hope. I would love to be playing it this year, but ...

Re:How reliable?

[Anonymous Coward]

... I really hope Blizzard actually gets this release out on time. Past history doesn't give me much hope. I would love to be playing it this year, but ...

... I agree. I'd like to be playing it, but then again, I have a wife and a mortgage ...

Re:How reliable?

[Caerdwyn]

There is no "time" to be "on". If anyone has ever mentioned a specific date, they've pulled it out of their ass; some random blogtard at whatever fan or industry site is hardly credible or authoritative. Blizz has never promised that D3 would be out in 2010, 2011 or 2012. Saying "we'd like it to be this year" is not the same as "we are officially setting a date for this year", as Morhaime went to great pains to point out.

It could arrive in 2020 and still not be late, if Blizz never promised a specific release date.

Re:How reliable?

[Chris Burke]

It could arrive in 2020 and still not be late, if Blizz never promised a specific release date.

That was all true. Though I think that if it did end up getting to be 2020 then whether they've technically been "late" wouldn't really matter and comparisons to DNF would be rather apt.

Not that I think this will happen. Just sayin. :)

Re:How reliable?

[AbyssLeaper]

There is no "on time" because they haven't given a date. They've given a goal that they'd like to hit. Given Blizzard's past history, both with release dates and success of their games, we'll see it when they feel it's done and ready. It's a formula that they've used before with great success.

Re:How reliable?

[ThinkDrink]

Blizzard is the best company I know at being amazingly late when it comes to releases.. we'll see it in a few years haha

typical

[alphatel]

Blizzard announces there's a beta in Q3 but not a diablo 3 release date yet. And confirms no one should expect a release date... ever?

Re:typical

[thedarkchaos]

Blizzard announces there's a beta in Q3 but not a diablo 3 release date yet. And confirms no one should expect a release date... ever?

At this point, even if I did see it, I wouldn't believe it.

Diablo 3

[The Great Pretender]

What's a Diablo? I grew up with Diablo, I enjoyed Diablo II, but cummon! Can you not think of something a little more original? If the game ends up being so different to Diablo I/II that it's not really Diablo call it something else and let it stand on it's own merit. Stop mooching off the name. If the game is a modernized version of I/II then I'm not interested. I'll just go buy me a "been there done that ooooo pretty graphics" t-shirt.

Re:Diablo 3

[artor3]

You enjoyed Diablo 2, even though it was just a modernized Diablo. Same story here, only the modernization will be to an even greater extent. They're taking a formula that works, updating it with improved mechanics, and giving people more of what they want. What's wrong with that?

Re:Diablo 3

[smash]

its unoriginal god damn it. why can't they make stuff nobody wants, it will sell like hotcakes based on its originality

Re:Diablo 3

[Whorhay]

I actually think that D3 will be more like D2 than D2 was like D1.

Diablo 2 added and changed a ton of stuff. Area's repopulating, Way Points, Unique and Champion Mob packs, gold going to a wallet instead of stacks in inventory, Stash for items and gold, crafting via Horadric Cube, a nearly monolithic skill system with three unique main branches for each class, Socketing and eventually runewords, and finally ammunition requirements. I can't remember clearly if mobs in D1 used any special abilities at all, I remember that some had ranged attacks but that's about it, where as in D2 mob size, attack styles/skills and such including immunities is varied to a huge degree.

D3 seems to be more about improving the graphics, designing more intricate boss events, and coming up with new skills and abilities. They are also changing the loot drop method, in a positive way I feel. And I seem to remember reading about how the rune system for augmenting abilities and equipment will be completely different but I don't remember much other than thinking it didn't sound as fun as D2's system.

awesome!

[larry bagina]

I can't wait to find out what kind of exciting new DRM I have to fight just to play the game!

Re:awesome!

[black3d]

What DRM have you run into with other Blizzard games? None currently have any DRM attached, unless you consider playing an online game online "DRM". >

The sole exception could be SC2 which you need a BattleNet account to activate (which, if you purchased it, is a one-off). It can then be played in offline mode. I don't really see any DRM that one could be "struggling" based on Blizzard's current behavior.

In fact, Blizzard recently went through stripping out the DRM from all their older games (Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, Starcraft) so you just run the installer and you're good to go. Only need an online account if you want to play them online.

Re:awesome!

[zigmeister]

Are you being serious? Okay let me list off all the things SC2 does that I find to be jerk-ish, call them DRM or Flying Monkeys With Tophats, I don't really care they're asinine:
1) Online activation for install (this one I'm cool with, especially if it means I don't need to type in a bloody CD key again... either or would be cool but whatever)
2) Periodic activation every 30 days - this one seriously ticks me off after I've already activated once then wtf?
3) Can only play offline/not logged in under guest account, prisoner on your own machine blah blah, also that play can't be translated to your battlenet account
4) must make a battlenet account to install the game, and that comes with several onerous restrictions which I won't go into here
5) no LAN - where I grew up, which is where my parents still live, which is the only place where I see all three of my brothers at the same time, there is no freaking internet. Now where I'm at the 'net is very nice, beyond nice, but I will never pay money for a game which asks me to be beholden to what the dev's thought was 'enabling piracy' when that feature is and has been part and parcel of games since I was old enough to hold a mouse, as regards LAN, I don't care if the shadow copy comes back or not, we can each buy a copy that's cool, but I want my game to just work, not install haxxorpatch.exe just to play the stupid thing, I hear DOW2:R has very nice LAN capabilities, guess which one I bought?

The reason I can live with a one-time on install online activation but not the periodic one, and not the must be logged into "really use it", and not the no LAN play is practical too: at my parents house we'd haul our machines to somewhere with a connection get the games working and installed, unplug, test, then haul them back home, ya it was a PITA but it worked. But with the periodic or always on stuff... that's no longer viable. And any dev' who thinks it's "ok because everybody has internet and if they don't they must live in the backwoods lol" will never see a red cent from my ass.

With that in mind:

The sole exception could be SC2 which you need a BattleNet account to activate (which, if you purchased it, is a one-off). It can then be played in offline mode

is either ignorant or very dishonest.

Re:awesome!

[black3d]

is either ignorant or very dishonest.

No LAN play, which is about half your complaint (although it's only #5, most of the rest of the text is then about the inconveniences this causes) is not DRM. It's simply no LAN play. You can play single player, or online, but not on LAN. LAN play is additional functionality which I would also like, but we knew it had no LAN play before it came out. That doesn't fall under "struggling with DRM".

The complaint in #3 relies on what you're complaining about in #4. "I can't earn achievements on my BattleNet account when playing offline.. waah". "I have to have a BattleNet account.. waah". That's fairly contradictory complaining. As I understand it, you want all the functionality of a BattleNet account, without any of the drawbacks of having to, for instance, actually legally buy the game. I don't see having a BattleNet account as a struggle, again. I find the whole thing very convenient, but of course, if you intentionally segregate yourself from society then not being able to periodically activate your BattleNet account pales in comparison to not being able to keep up to date in news, or buy milk, or post on Slashdot.

Which brings me to #2 - the only actual genuine contradiction to my post. You're right. It was an oversight on my part (forgot about it while posting) that it requires occasional server connection to maintain offline play. That *is* DRM. And indeeed, if you have no access to the internet, it could be cubersome. Like the lack of LAN play however, the fact that an internet connection is required is established before you buy the game.

Struggling with DRM implies difficulties one encounters after buying and installing a game on a system which meets the game requirements. Such as having to keep having a certain disk in the drive, or having to *constantly* log in to play a single-player game. Once every 30 days is not a struggle. Most EA games require you to log in every play. That's a hassle. If you install SC2 on a system which meets the game requirements (including the net connection), what struggles could you possibly encounter? (Although, their updating method for SC2 is stupid, but that's nothing to do with DRM).

Re:awesome!

[TriezGamer]

Point 2 happens entirely automatically just by playing the game while online at least once every 30 days. It's a valid complaint, but hardly one I'm concerned with -- it's trivially easy to just install the game on 10-15 PCs, and given that the entire campaign can be played offline, I don't blame Blizzard for trying to ensure that people aren't just giving free installs to everyone else.

Do you care to clarify on 3 and 4?

3 is false in my experience, unless I'm reading it wrong. I can play in offline mode using my battle.net account without any issues, and the only thing that I miss out on is achievements (which require being online at the point they are earned). I'm not forced to use a guest account at all.

4 is a worthless argument entirely without details.

5 actually does irritate me, and is far and away my largest complaint with SC2 -- I would prefer that it allows you to play LAN play as long as each machine was activated in the last 30 days using a different BNet account. This would effectively accomplish keeping people from wanton copying while still giving people a way to play networked offline.

Re:awesome!

[hughperkins]

> 2) Periodic activation every 30 days - this one seriously ticks me off after I've already activated once then wtf?

To save other people from googling, what the parent means is that if you want to play starcraft offline on a particular computer, you must have played starcraft online on that computer in the last 30 days.

I was panicing for a bit, thinking I'd just lost my battle.net profile, since I havent played sc2 for... a while...

Re:awesome!

[chispito]

No LAN play, which is about half your complaint (although it's only #5, most of the rest of the text is then about the inconveniences this causes) is not DRM. It's simply no LAN play.

The forcing of players to be online where gameplay does not require, for the sole reason of preventing piracy, is Digital Rights Management in the fullest sense.

Re:awesome!

[black3d]

This is false dichotomy.
* They didn't decide not to add LAN play to stop piracy. In fact, PIRATED versions *can* be played on LAN, as they connect to emulated servers.
* If LAN was added it wouldn't increase piracy, as you still need to activate each copy, ruling out "casual copying".

Thus, lack of LAN play is not DRM. The activation system is, but we're not talking about activation. We're talking specifically about lack of LAN play. I noted activation as an exception in my original post well above. Both what you quoted and what I replied to relate specifically to LAN play (just making this clear in case you're trying to muddle things).

In the case of the BattleNet enabled game system, LAN would simply confuse the issue. As soon as you go offline, ranking (managed by a central server) stops working. Achievements (managed by a central server) stop earning. Earned player icons and logos (managed by a central server) become unusable - sure your copy can remember its own, but how can it "know" the other player has the right to the ones they're saying they're using). Chat (managed by a central server) becomes unavailable. Etc etc etc.

You might not care about icons, or chat, or whatever. That's not the point. It's a combined package, which works harmoniously together, and which (other) people expect the complete experience from. Sure, Blizzard could write ANOTHER chat module which doesn't connect to BattleNet IRC chat servers. But why bother?

Seriously, I have yet to meet a single person who complains about lack of LAN play who doesn't have a permanent net connection anyhow. I'm sure they exist - but it's not that big of a market share anymore. It's not worth the extra development time and money it takes. Most of my modern multiplayer games don't support LAN play. And lacking a feature is still not DRM.

Re:awesome!

[black3d]

Contortions? The arguments I'm arguing against are also contorted against reality, so the complication of the explanation is unfortunately necessary. Alternatively, I could break it down to this:

You bought a game which says it requires the internet to play. The entire multiplayer experience has been built around centralized, online servers. All the complaints I've seen attached are about the fact it requires the internet to play.

Thus, the complaint becomes entirely subjective, and turns into "hey, I could happily give up X if it meant I could do Y." For instance "I'd happily give up achievements if it meant I could LAN play." Right. But what about the guy next to you? Personal opinion has no place in discussions about fact, which this was - OP originally implying he has to fight with the DRM in Blizzard products.

I only see people fighting with the DRM if either a) they're pirated it, or b) they want a feature which doesn't exist in the product. Neither promote logical discourse.

Re:awesome!

[zigmeister]

I didn't buy the game because of these... issues. So if 3 and 4 are more or less untrue then I guess my friends who bought it don't know what they're are talking about. But I'm dead positive 2 and 5 are true which is enough reason for me not to buy the game. And by not buy the game I don't mean hit the torrents, I refuse to sink to blizzards level.

Point 2 happens entirely automatically just by playing the game while online at least once every 30 days. It's a valid complaint, but hardly one I'm concerned with -- it's trivially easy to just install the game on 10-15 PCs, and given that the entire campaign can be played offline, I don't blame Blizzard for trying to ensure that people aren't just giving free installs to everyone else.

Okay, so it may not seem like a big deal if you have a decent net connection, heck even satellite would be fine, however if you don't it's a nightmare. Hence no sale. Yes it's trivially easy to just install the game on 10-15 PCs, it's also pretty easy to pirate the stupid thing from what I hear so the bloody mess is just token resistance (as others have pointed out). I guess we'll just have to politely disagree.

Blizzard ruined fun games such as....

[jhoegl]

Back when I was on Kali, people used acronyms such as "D2" (Descent 2), WC2 (Wing Commander 2), and SC (Southern Charms).
OKay, maybe not the last one, but come on!!!! Those games rocked.

Re:Blizzard ruined fun games such as....

[artor3]

Youngin'. I remember back when D2 was about impossibly talented kids playing hockey!

The mice....

[Carnivore24]

....shall click.

Re:*YAWN*

[Azadre]

MAFIAA?

Re:Will it have LAN play?

[filthpickle]

Then I think you're out...because I'm pretty sure they've already said that there's no LAN play.

Re:Woot :D

[battling]

I can not wait for the releeeeaseee! Two week holyday waiting for me playing Diablo 3 :-D

I hope they don't screw up the exchange rate again

[complete loony]

I have refused to buy StarCraft II due to it being region lock and priced locally way above the exchange rate. The US version is I think $59.95 USD, the AU version is $89.95 AUD (=$96.85 USD). I'm not holding my breath that Diablo 3 will be priced appropriately. I refuse to pay a 60% premium for a digital download simply because of the country I live in.

ATVI isn't bigger than NTDOY

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Could be related to Blizzard being the largest game company in the world

Blizzard may be bigger than some other publishers but not bigger than any of the console makers, including Nintendo which is a pure-play video and tabletop gaming company. Here are some market capitalizations to provide a ballpark estimate of where Blizzard stands relative to other companies in this industry:

• Ubisoft (UBI): $0.89 billion (0.62 billion EUR)
• Namco Bandai (7832): $2.66 billion (213.6 billion JPY)
• Hasbro (HAS): $6.39 billion
• Blizzard (ATVI): $13.63 billion
• Sony (SNE): $28.81 billion
• Nintendo (NTDOY): $37 billion
• Time Warner (TWX): $39.44 billion
• Microsoft (MSFT): $218.16 billion

Diablo 3 will be out before...

[tepples]

I would bet money that the release date for Diablo 3 comes before the release date of the film Song of the South on DVD in the United States.

Nothing short of 2012 Mayan Apocalypse ...

[perpenso]

They will get higher sales numbers if they are late, IMHO - since Elder Scrolls V comes out in November, and it will probably be another 500+ hour game.

The launch date of Diablo 3 will not affect the sales. Other games will not affect Diablo 3's sales. Consider that Diablo 1, an unproven title at the time, ***missed Christmas***. The Christmas season is normally the most important sales period, missing Christmas has killed other games. However Diablo 1 was instantly a #1 best seller and set records for game sales.

People generally don't cruise down the game isle searching for something to buy and pick a Blizzard game. They generally make a special trip to the store specifically to get the latest Blizzard game. Hell, across the country select retailers will open at midnight just to sell the latest Blizzard game. My locale Frys electronics has a football field sized building, the lines to get in at midnight are often reported to wrap the building more than once for these Blizzard launch events.

Nothing short of the mayan 2012 apocalypse is going interfere with Diablo 3 sales. ;-)

Re:I hope they don't screw up the exchange rate ag

[Macgrrl]

I'm surprised about the region lock, lots of people I know bought the WoW Cataclysm expansion ordered from the US with no issues, shipped to Australia. Though, we do play on 'US' servers.

sadly, I won't be able to run it

[cats-paw]

because my windows hardware won't be good enough.
really don't have any desire to play the gaming hardware game.

Diablo 3 will not live up to the hype

[Nyder]

While I'm sure it will be a fine game, you got tons of fans thinking this game is going to be the best game evar.

Sorry. The fun you had playing Diablo & Diablo 2, you will not get back. Those days are over. You can NOT relive it.

I'm sure Diablo 3 will be a fun game on it's own, but lets be real, hype is just hype, it has no bearing on the product you will get in your hands.

Re:Diablo 3 will not live up to the hype

[artor3]

That's what people were telling me about Starcraft 2. Then the game came out, and lo and behold, it was every bit as fun as the original. Better, even. I see no reason to think that D3 won't be just as good.

Re:Diablo 3 will not live up to the hype

[calinduca]

That's what people were telling me about Starcraft 2. Then the game came out, and lo and behold, it was every bit as fun as the original. Better, even. I see no reason to think that D3 won't be just as good.

Mod parent up. Starcraft 2 rocks : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starcraft_2#Reception [wikipedia.org]

Re:Diablo 3 will not live up to the hype

[Tuan121]

Just because your sex life went downhill after the first time doesn't mean things can't improve...

Re:*YAWN*

[sstamps]

I listen to plenty of music, watch movies, and read books. You're right I don't watch television, though.

Only a moron presumes that media can only come from megacorporations.

No, I don't pirate anything, at all. I don't have any need to. I have plenty of money to spend on entertainment, and regularly do so.

The ad dodge is bullshit, as that wasn't the issue with bnetd at all.

Re:Boycott? Posers most likely ...

[sstamps]

I don't care. I'm not doing it for them, I'm doing it for me. I can't in good conscience support such stupidity, so I don't. That other people can, well, that's on their heads. *shrugs*

Re:I hope they don't screw up the exchange rate ag

[complete loony]

Technically the version you purchase limits the servers you can connect to. I could buy the US version, but then a can't play with friends.

Re:I hope they don't screw up the exchange rate ag

[calinduca]

Technically you're a complete loony. You pay more than everybody else because you technically buy two accounts: one SEA, and one NA. So you technically pay less than everybody who wants to buy two versions. When buying the SEA version, you also get a a NA account/version.

Re:Linux

[dokc]

Only with Wine. All Wine bugs which affect Blizzard games are very fast fixed, hopefully that will also be the case with D3. Concerning native Linux client, Blizzard doesn't want to publish it. There's a petition http://www.petitiononline.com/ibpfl/petition.html but Blizzard doesn't care. It's cheaper that geeks do the job for them.

Re:I hope they don't screw up the exchange rate ag

[complete loony]

... which we wouldn't need if it wasn't region locked, or if Blizzard ran servers in Australia.

Re:Linux

[smash]

the 3 non-windows using linux users with working 3d hardware and accelerated audio await the answer with baited breath

Really...?

[CdrGlork]

I still remember the inside cover of my StarCraft CD case saying "Coming in 1999: Diablo 2".