Blizzcon 2018, Major announcments on Friday. Highlight being something new for Diablo.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Hawki:

Dreiko:
Lol I don't think it being called 4 or having a separate subtitle is really the point. It's a Diablo game for phones, for some reason. You can name the game anything you want and you can make another diablo after it and have that one be 4 or 5 or you can even call them both diablo 4 if you want (though that's be confusing as hell haha) but this game that was shown, I think nobody ever asked for it.

Mobile games sell like hotcakes. You don't need a reason beyond that.

I will say that as far as mobile games go, it looks a cut above many of them, from the graphics (seriously, looks like D3, yet on mobile), to the premise (an interquel between D2 and D3, whereas most mobile games are bereft of any (meaningful) story), to the gameplay.

I play fate grand order and shadowverse and I think those are both legit good gaming experiences (though admittedly I play the latter on PC 99% of the time) with significant focus on story and actual ability to go f2p and clear everything so it's not like I am a bigot against phone games. You know what the problem is? When you take an existing game series and make it into a phone game that will be inherently more limited in what you can do compared to even the SNES controls wise (unless your game is a turn based rpg/strategy game, those can run fine on phone as much as on portables).

As long as it's something original like Granblue Fantasy or a spinoff in a series known to have various spinoffs like Fate nobody will complain but the Diablo series is not either of those. I think if blizzard wanted to make cash with mobile games they could just make a new IP and nobody would have complained. And I'm sure they could make a legit good new IP for this as well.

And ultimately you didn't say that anybody asked for this haha. I guess I'll take that to mean that you agree with my original point here.

ObsidianJones:

Exley97:
So....Blizzard shouldn't have announced a new game at their own conference?

Also, how many people were on site at the Anaheim Convention Center this year? 35,000? And how many people watched the live broadcast? Millions? And you're telling Blizzard they should cater more to the fraction of fans on site that, according to you, don't have an interest in a Diablo mobile game versus the millions of others fans watching remotely?

Look, I get the disappointment -- I've been to Blizzcon before and I know how amped up fans get with expectations for the next big thing. But FFS people, if you need a 30-second, non-gameplay cinematic "reveal" for Diablo 4 to justify spending $200 to go to Blizzcon, then it's time to rethink priorities.

You know, the problem isn't just the fact that there was disappointment. If it was that, it could have been like the Noctis reveal in Tekken. Where people just said "... What?" and moved on. Even the commentators where like "Wow, we need to move on."

When we already knew we didn't want this, it turned out to be an 8 Minute Long Pitch of why you're going to love this. Its one thing to be disappointed. It's a whole new bother when someone keeps harping over what you're bothered with.

And yeah, of course I get that's his job. I feel for him on that. Still doesn't make it less annoying.

Jones, who is "we"? You said "WE love the Diablo IP" and "WE already knew we didn't want this." Who exactly are you speaking for?

And again, I get the disappointment, but do you really think Chen or any other developer deserves to be shit on publicly by a so-called "fan" like that?

Meiam:

Exley97:

Meiam:
Ultimately the problem is that blizzcon wasn't where they should have announced diablo mobile, the two have completely different audience and people payed to go to blizzcon. Or at the very least it should have been some minor side announcement.

So....Blizzard shouldn't have announced a new game at their own conference?

Yeah pretty much.

And yeah the people who were there on floor should obviously be the priority. For the people who watched the lifestream, a random announcement on blizzard website on some random day or seeing it on the lifestream is the exact same things, news on the web. It makes absolutely no difference. For the people on the floor it means getting a really disappointing announcement that goes against every reason why people would even purchase blizzcon ticket and travel there in the first place. The problem is this is clearly exemplifying that blizzard is changing into something that old school fan (the people who travel to blizzcon) do not want, they've farmed there IP to a 3rd party company to make a mobile knock off of there game, a re-skin, and blizzard is somehow so out of touch with there fan that they though people would be excited to hear about it. This is everything people feared for when Activision Brough blizzard.

First, Activision didn't buy Blizzard -- *Vivendi*, which owned Blizzard Entertainment (there's a very long, somewhat shaky history of previous Blizzard ownership there if you're interested) bought Activision in 2007. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/technology/03activision.html

Second, you can make an argument that since Blizzcon is held in the US, and attendees are largely from US/North America (which I don't even know is true, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it), then Blizzard should have been aware that a mobile Diablo game might not have gone over great with such an audience. Fine. But that doesn't excuse acting like a total f#@%ing douchebag to the developers who've worked pretty goddamn tirelessly to entertain you. I'm not saying fans can't be upset about Immortal. I'm not saying they shouldn't criticize the company for outsourcing a valuable IP to a third party developer for what looks like a so-so mobile game.

I'm saying fans shouldn't overreact by taking Immortal as a personal insult toward them and then acting out their frustrations by trying to publicly embarrass the developers who worked on it.

Exley97:
Jones, who is "we"? You said "WE love the Diablo IP" and "WE already knew we didn't want this." Who exactly are you speaking for?

And again, I get the disappointment, but do you really think Chen or any other developer deserves to be shit on publicly by a so-called "fan" like that?

Excuse me for being vague. Everyone who downvoted the trailer and then doubled down while Blizzard de-listed the video and posted it up to the same results, who posted a comment of disapproval anywhere that this is what we're getting instead of diablo 3, who penned an article reporting while simultaneously understanding the level of disappointment... Basically, that collective is who I'm referring to when I say 'we'. There's a lot of us. Visually shown here.

I don't think anyone deserves to be shit on. I actually felt supremely bad for Chen. In the statement of which you quoted me, I said this:

And yeah, of course I get that's his job. I feel for him on that. Still doesn't make it less annoying.

But Fans aren't deserved, they are made. We will all be current fans of whoever we like as long as they continue down the path that we like. Stray from that, and we become 'Fans of their earlier stuff'. That doesn't excuse incivility.

But if you make an unpopular choice with your fandom, do not be surprised if your fandom pulls away from you. And that's actually not people being entitled. It's basis of the very concept. You do something I like, I'm your fan. You stop doing things I like, I don't have to continue to be your fan.

But I see how it raises ire. Like you said earlier before, these tickets were $200. Personally, I can't see paying that much for a Con. I don't even go to concerts. But people feel like they essentially paid 200 dollars for what is being taken as a marketing event for investors saying "Hey, we're REALLY going to go into that Micro-transaction thing with Mobile gaming". No one is going to come out from that smelling fresh.

Silentpony:
Isn't it just Diablo 1, Mobile? So cool downs for the random dungeons with an ability to skip them for in-game gems that are only $9.99 for 10

Nothing's been said about its payment model.

But at the least, no, it's not D1. Just looking at either the cinematic or gameplay trailer should make that abundantly clear.

Meiam:

And yeah the people who were there on floor should obviously be the priority. For the people who watched the lifestream, a random announcement on blizzard website on some random day or seeing it on the lifestream is the exact same things, news on the web. It makes absolutely no difference. For the people on the floor it means getting a really disappointing announcement that goes against every reason why people would even purchase blizzcon ticket and travel there in the first place. The problem is this is clearly exemplifying that blizzard is changing into something that old school fan (the people who travel to blizzcon) do not want, they've farmed there IP to a 3rd party company to make a mobile knock off of there game, a re-skin, and blizzard is somehow so out of touch with there fan that they though people would be excited to hear about it. This is everything people feared for when Activision Brough blizzard.

Look, I can sympathize with a lot of that, but I'd like to point out that:

-If they didn't announce Diablo Immortal, then they'd have nothing to announce for the IP, which would probably generate a similar level of furore.

-Diablo Immortal is one of at least three Diablo games Blizzard is working on, and that isn't some obscure secret. Now, if they'd said "BTW, we're working on these games as well" (ala Bethesda revealing Elder Scrolls VI and Starfield at E3), I could see that alleviating some of the fan outrage, but then you'd have to deal with fading hype. I forget where I read it, but I think Blizzard commented once that they'd revealed both SC2 and D3 too early (four years before release; compare that to Overwatch, which was revealed two years before release). There's plenty of games that were announced way too early within the landscape. I'm actually suspecting that ES6 and Starfield will be too such examples, because apparently they're so far out, they're going to be released on next-gen consoles.

-The whole "old school fan" thing is projecting a bit. If you're an "old school fan" of Lost Vikings, Blackthorne, or Rock n' Roll Racing, you're out of luck. If you're a "new school fan" who only started with stuff like Hearthstone or Overwatch (and Overwatch is big), then that could be the only reason you come to the event. I've detailed my thoughts on this elsewhere, the idea I've seen take root that creators should only do the same thing (BioWare is another example), but while it might suck to be a Diablo fan, that's just one of five (arguably six) IPs that are being shown.

-Technically Blizzard's worked with other companies before. Granted, none of those have been positive experiences in the past. However, I'm not sure if DI counts as "farming out," at least in the sense of Blizzard not being involved. Far as I can see, Blizzard is the one providing the art assets and story (DI's got so many story elements it practically feels like fan service at this point), while NetEase handles gameplay. Maybe it is a reskin, I dunno, but it's not without oversight.

Majestic Manatee:
Out of all the cruel jokes, this has to be top tier. Until we get the "Half Life: Origins" mobile announcement at a hyped up, umm, valvecon?

Is it a joke when you know it's coming though?

Also, I'd personally have no issue with a Half-Life: Origins game, because at least it would be something...in theory.

Remember when I was pissed at CnC Rivals (did I mention that?) Part of the reason was that it was offerring little in the way of gameplay or story. If it had offerred the latter at least, I'd be far more forgiving to it (this is in contrast to DI, which is a full-fledged interquel storywise). So even if a hypothetical HL: O was announced, I'd be partial to it if it at least had a story focus (even if I'm pretty indifferent to Half-Life).

Hawki:

Look, I can sympathize with a lot of that, but I'd like to point out that:

-If they didn't announce Diablo Immortal, then they'd have nothing to announce for the IP, which would probably generate a similar level of furore.

-Diablo Immortal is one of at least three Diablo games Blizzard is working on, and that isn't some obscure secret. Now, if they'd said "BTW, we're working on these games as well" (ala Bethesda revealing Elder Scrolls VI and Starfield at E3), I could see that alleviating some of the fan outrage, but then you'd have to deal with fading hype. I forget where I read it, but I think Blizzard commented once that they'd revealed both SC2 and D3 too early (four years before release; compare that to Overwatch, which was revealed two years before release). There's plenty of games that were announced way too early within the landscape. I'm actually suspecting that ES6 and Starfield will be too such examples, because apparently they're so far out, they're going to be released on next-gen consoles.

-The whole "old school fan" thing is projecting a bit. If you're an "old school fan" of Lost Vikings, Blackthorne, or Rock n' Roll Racing, you're out of luck. If you're a "new school fan" who only started with stuff like Hearthstone or Overwatch (and Overwatch is big), then that could be the only reason you come to the event. I've detailed my thoughts on this elsewhere, the idea I've seen take root that creators should only do the same thing (BioWare is another example), but while it might suck to be a Diablo fan, that's just one of five (arguably six) IPs that are being shown.

-Technically Blizzard's worked with other companies before. Granted, none of those have been positive experiences in the past. However, I'm not sure if DI counts as "farming out," at least in the sense of Blizzard not being involved. Far as I can see, Blizzard is the one providing the art assets and story (DI's got so many story elements it practically feels like fan service at this point), while NetEase handles gameplay. Maybe it is a reskin, I dunno, but it's not without oversight.

- I really don't think so. People would have been bummed that nothing would be announced but the insulting part is that blizzard really though they owned there fan so much that they could slap diablo on any product and people would be excited. The fact that the game won't even be available on PC is really the cherry on the poop pile.

- This just makes it worse, they could have confirm some of the other project, that would have been enough for people. Blizz fans are okay with waiting long time for game. They didn't, instead they chose the mobile game. I don't know what the third project would be (assuming D4 is one of them) but I can't see how it would have had a reception any worse than immortal. Maybe if it was a collection of diablo children book? I think even that would have had a better reception. A mobile game just show how much the people calling the shoot don't understand there core base, thinking that just because it's a video game they'll like it no matter what.

- I don't see why you don't consider diablo, release in 1996 (i.e. 20 years ago) old school.

- I remember a blizz dev talking about there development process some years ago, talking about how they were okay with killing game far in there development cycle because they didn't think they were good enough, like the Nova game, titan and some unnamed warcraft title. That's part of the reason people like blizz, they hold game to high standard. Will they be okay canceling a game that a 3rd party developer made if it suck?

Meiam:

- I really don't think so. People would have been bummed that nothing would be announced but the insulting part is that blizzard really though they owned there fan so much that they could slap diablo on any product and people would be excited. The fact that the game won't even be available on PC is really the cherry on the poop pile.

I'll start by agreeing that DI not being on PC is, well, the proverbial cherry. That's actually a problem I have with many mobile games. There's many I'd like to at least try on PC, but I don't have a smartphone, and my iPad is pretty old, so...

But on that note, I think that's projecting in a lot of ways.

This just makes it worse, they could have confirm some of the other project, that would have been enough for people.

Key word being "some."

There's a long history of games being announced far earlier than they should have been. Blizzard itself has reflected on this with SC2 and D3 being announced far earlier than they should have. Whether a game was revealed too early is something that can only be answered in hindsight, but if you tease a game, you're running the risk of the hype train running low on steam over time.

Also, those projects have already been confirmed, so it would just be a "here's what you already know." I mean, off the top of my head, take Starfield, a game that we already knew about, and all Bethesda did was go "hey, here's that game you already knew about." Have you heard anyone talk about Starfield since then? Even ES6 is off the radar.

Blizz fans are okay with waiting long time for game.

Define "okay," because they mostly seem quite impatient.

And fine, I get it, lord knows there's lots of sequels I'd like made.

They didn't, instead they chose the mobile game.

I don't think that's a case of choosing, it's simply a case of the mobile game being the furthest along.

I don't know what the third project would be (assuming D4 is one of them) but I can't see how it would have had a reception any worse than immortal.

D2: Remastered is my guess.

And okay, sure, it might not have a worse response than Immortal, but it could easily be in a place with little to show. Imagine if Warcraft III: Reforged was just announced. Not shown, not given gameplay and cinematic trailers, just announced. Chances are the hype levels for it would be much lower than they are now.

A mobile game just show how much the people calling the shoot don't understand there core base, thinking that just because it's a video game they'll like it no matter what.

Well, maybe. But I'd be expecting apathy rather than this level of vitriol.

CnC: Rivals actively pissed me off. Diablo Immortal is more "meh." I'd have expected that reaction as well TBH. If, like Rivals, DI was the only Diablo game confirmed, and was being billed as a successor like Rivals was then yes, I'd get the furore, but it isn't.

I don't see why you don't consider diablo, release in 1996 (i.e. 20 years ago) old school.

Didn't say I didn't consider it old school, just that "old school" can apply to any period of time.

Again, mini rant, but I really dislike the concept of "old school" in media, this whole idea that "it was made in the past and was therefore better." I know that's not what you were saying, but to reiterate what I was saying, there's plenty of people going to BlizzCon that have no interest in Diablo, or any interest in the period of deveopment history that Diablo belongs to (roughly 1994 to 2003 by my reckoning).

I remember a blizz dev talking about there development process some years ago, talking about how they were okay with killing game far in there development cycle because they didn't think they were good enough, like the Nova game, titan and some unnamed warcraft title. That's part of the reason people like blizz, they hold game to high standard. Will they be okay canceling a game that a 3rd party developer made if it suck?

Warcraft Adventures. Wasn't "unnamed" FYI.

And yes, Blizzard has canned games when they didn't meet their standards...and? Two points. First, is that DI hasn't been released yet, so we don't know if it even sucks or not, so whether it should have been canned is a judgement that can only be made in hindsight. Second of all, I doubt Blizz has final say over the game, whereas every other game they cancelled was an internal decision.

Now, being honest, I do actually suspect that there's quite a bit of shadiness with DI. Outsourcing it to NetEase, the issue of microtransactions, the possible Activision influence, etc. However, I can't get into the furore that many others had. Again, IF DI was the only Diablo game, or if Blizz basically said "we're only doing mobile now" then yeah, I'd get it. I'd probably be right there with them. Except it isn't, and we've known that it isn't for ages, so I can't get angry for that, just apathetic.

ObsidianJones:

But Fans aren't deserved, they are made. We will all be current fans of whoever we like as long as they continue down the path that we like. Stray from that, and we become 'Fans of their earlier stuff'. That doesn't excuse incivility.

But if you make an unpopular choice with your fandom, do not be surprised if your fandom pulls away from you. And that's actually not people being entitled. It's basis of the very concept. You do something I like, I'm your fan. You stop doing things I like, I don't have to continue to be your fan.

Okay, I do agree with that, but is this really a case of that?

Say I'm a fan of Bob who does X. One day, Bob says that he isn't doing X, but is now doing Y. Chances are I'd get pissed off at Bob.

On the other hand, I'm also a fan of Bill, who does X. One day, Bill says that while he's going to keep doing X, but he's also going to do Y. I don't like Y, but I do like X, so I don't get pissed off at Bill.

Thing is, Blizz has entered "Bob" territory for me in some areas (e.g. the minimizing of single player,), but DI is more a "Bill" scenario (to me). I actually posted an entire thread on this concept in the off-topic section.

Hawki:

Okay, I do agree with that, but is this really a case of that?

Say I'm a fan of Bob who does X. One day, Bob says that he isn't doing X, but is now doing Y. Chances are I'd get pissed off at Bob.

On the other hand, I'm also a fan of Bill, who does X. One day, Bill says that while he's going to keep doing X, but he's also going to do Y. I don't like Y, but I do like X, so I don't get pissed off at Bill.

Thing is, Blizz has entered "Bob" territory for me in some areas (e.g. the minimizing of single player,), but DI is more a "Bill" scenario (to me). I actually posted an entire thread on this concept in the off-topic section.

Bill isn't really doing that here. When what you have as Y is an inferior version of X, rational observers will wonder about why wouldn't you just put that work on X so that it'd be that much better for it in the first place instead of making a gimped version of it and calling it Y and trying to sell it to a group of people who aren't your fans (since no fan ever asked for this). Of course, the final nail on the coffin is the tone deaf act to advertise it at the place where your most hardcore fans payed hundreds (if not thousands of dollars when air-fare is considered) to be at, since that's where you actually have a moral obligation to reasonably please them. I'm pretty sure nonfans won't just randomly decide to go to blizzcon in any significant numbers unless they're there cause they're dating or are married to a fan and want to hang out or something like that.

Basically, like I said in an earlier post, this didn't need to be diablo. They could have just come up with a new IP or used an IP of theirs that is known to have tons of random weird spinoffs and milked the phone market that way and nobody would have complained.

Do you guys not have phones

undeadsuitor:
Do you guys not have phones

This whole thing in a nutshell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_ny2U0vnw

Hawki:

ObsidianJones:

But Fans aren't deserved, they are made. We will all be current fans of whoever we like as long as they continue down the path that we like. Stray from that, and we become 'Fans of their earlier stuff'. That doesn't excuse incivility.

But if you make an unpopular choice with your fandom, do not be surprised if your fandom pulls away from you. And that's actually not people being entitled. It's basis of the very concept. You do something I like, I'm your fan. You stop doing things I like, I don't have to continue to be your fan.

Okay, I do agree with that, but is this really a case of that?

Say I'm a fan of Bob who does X. One day, Bob says that he isn't doing X, but is now doing Y. Chances are I'd get pissed off at Bob.

On the other hand, I'm also a fan of Bill, who does X. One day, Bill says that while he's going to keep doing X, but he's also going to do Y. I don't like Y, but I do like X, so I don't get pissed off at Bill.

Thing is, Blizz has entered "Bob" territory for me in some areas (e.g. the minimizing of single player,), but DI is more a "Bill" scenario (to me). I actually posted an entire thread on this concept in the off-topic section.

Let's compare this with a real life scenario. Let's talk about Bayonetta. The first one was a cult classic, but cult classics don't really do well in the video game world. It was shelved for a while with no hope of seeing a sequel.

Then Nintendo came with their fat wallets. They said we like the series, we want to fund it totally, but that means it's only going to be on Nintendo. If you're platinum, you go for it. Wholeheartedly. You wish you could get it on more consoles so more people will play and hopefully like it more, but if you have to decide on whether never seeing another sequel because no one else is biting or console exclusivity? You take the exclusivity. Every day of the week.

Bill, in your scenario, is not just doing Y. He's doing a follow up to X in the form of Y, but in the form of Y that most of his fans find distasteful. And not only distasteful, but in a manner that his fans will never take part in.

Now, the difference between Platinum and Bill is that Platinum made the switch to an unpopular and little used Medium because it was the only way it was going to ever happen for them. Bill chose to do that out of whatever he got into his head that day and that was that.

I get Platinum's move. They had to in order to keep the Franchise alive. Bill (and of course Blizzard) are doing this because they think it's a good idea. For whatever reason, they got it in their head that this is the way to go. The sad truth is, when you're on the top of your game and you have fans that follow you, that's when you can be your LEAST creative. If you want those millions of Fans to stick with you, you better keep that magic alive.

When you got a dozen, fifty, maybe a hundred fans? Switch it up all you ever like. Nothing is set in stone yet. Your livelihood isn't based on those people, therefore your vision can take any form you like as long as you're doing it for the love of it. Hell, you can do that EVEN if you have the Millions of fans, if you're doing it for the sheer love of it.

But Blizzard and Bill are not. They want to make money off of this. They want this to be the next big thing, and they want their fans to follow suit. That's where the disconnect is. They don't have to do this. They want to. And hey, more power to them. But they upset their livelihood (AKA the Fans) with a move that is predictably an asinine move... and then they were condescending.

I get that dude made the April Fool's comment. Yeah, he's a jerk. But you have to get what happened. We don't have the numbers yet, but supposedly Blizzcon was supposed to surpass last year's numbers, and 2017 Blizzcon was 35,000 attendees. Forget just the 200 dollars per pop, that's transportation, hotels, food, and just the time to get there... For the big reveal to be a mobile game that (if the downvotes are anything to measure this by) very few people are interested in. To get hyped and let down like that.

And to have one guy have the balls to say "Really? You got me all this way, took my money for a mobile game I wanted on a computer", and their answer to be "Dude, you guys have phones".

They lost so much face with this, it's unbelievable.

The real comparison? If Bill was a stand up comic, hasn't done a live show in years, decided to hold an event one weekend with really hard to get tickets... And then his show isn't a comedy act of his, but a workshopped version of his Protege doing a version of his bits combined with the Protege's material.

Dreiko:

Bill isn't really doing that here. When what you have as Y is an inferior version of X, rational observers will wonder about why wouldn't you just put that work on X so that it'd be that much better for it in the first place instead of making a gimped version of it and calling it Y and trying to sell it to a group of people who aren't your fans (since no fan ever asked for this).

-Game development isn't a zero sum game. More developers doesn't necessarily mean a project will go faster, or be made better.

-The Blizz team working on DI hasn't been named, but we know it isn't Team 3, and NetEase is doing part of the development, so Team 3 is hardly losing staff to the DI team.

-The whole "no fan ever asked for this" is a slippery slope, because how often do fans ever ask for something that differed from the norm? Now, you're right in that no-one was asking for a mobile game, but if it's a spinoff made in the knowledge that the next installment is coming, then, yeah. I can get being disappointed, but this kind of outrage? Not so much.

Basically, like I said in an earlier post, this didn't need to be diablo. They could have just come up with a new IP or used an IP of theirs that is known to have tons of random weird spinoffs and milked the phone market that way and nobody would have complained.

Okay, fine, but let's be reasonable, if you're making a mobile game when you have established IPs, what makes more sense? Making a new IP, or making it a spinoff from an existing one? Besides, what would be the point of two ARPG IPs?

You can lament that, but there's a reason why so many companies do it. There's a reason why Nintendo made "Super Mario Run" rather than "Plumber Runner." There's a reason why EA made Command & Conquer: Rivals rather than "Command & Conquest." There's a...well, you get the idea.

Also, Blizzard doesn't have a single IP that has "tonnes of random spinoffs." The cloest you can get is Warcraft, which has covered three genres. Apart from that, every IP of theirs has stuck to the same genre.

undeadsuitor:
Do you guys not have phones

I do, but it's not a smart phone. :P

ObsidianJones:

Let's compare this with a real life scenario. Let's talk about Bayonetta. The first one was a cult classic, but cult classics don't really do well in the video game world. It was shelved for a while with no hope of seeing a sequel.

Then Nintendo came with their fat wallets. They said we like the series, we want to fund it totally, but that means it's only going to be on Nintendo. If you're platinum, you go for it. Wholeheartedly. You wish you could get it on more consoles so more people will play and hopefully like it more, but if you have to decide on whether never seeing another sequel because no one else is biting or console exclusivity? You take the exclusivity. Every day of the week.

Bill, in your scenario, is not just doing Y. He's doing a follow up to X in the form of Y, but in the form of Y that most of his fans find distasteful. And not only distasteful, but in a manner that his fans will never take part in.

Alright, I'm going to interject there, because this isn't the same scenario. Even if DI was sold as "the next evolution of Diablo" or something it still wouldn't be the same scenario.

Far as I'm aware, Bayonetta 2 plays similarly to Bayonetta 1. Bayonetta 1 was already on console. Making Bayonetta 2 a Nintendo exclusive doesn't really change anything apart from availability. In contrast, this is simply a case of "hey, we're working on D4, but here's a mobile game in the meantime."

I get Platinum's move. They had to in order to keep the Franchise alive. Bill (and of course Blizzard) are doing this because they think it's a good idea. For whatever reason, they got it in their head that this is the way to go. The sad truth is, when you're on the top of your game and you have fans that follow you, that's when you can be your LEAST creative. If you want those millions of Fans to stick with you, you better keep that magic alive.

When you got a dozen, fifty, maybe a hundred fans? Switch it up all you ever like. Nothing is set in stone yet. Your livelihood isn't based on those people, therefore your vision can take any form you like as long as you're doing it for the love of it. Hell, you can do that EVEN if you have the Millions of fans, if you're doing it for the sheer love of it.

But Blizzard and Bill are not. They want to make money off of this. They want this to be the next big thing, and they want their fans to follow suit. That's where the disconnect is. They don't have to do this. They want to. And hey, more power to them. But they upset their livelihood (AKA the Fans) with a move that is predictably an asinine move... and then they were condescending.

I'm not going to claim that DI is some kind of artistic masterpiece (though I will say it has more merit lorewise than your average mobile spinoff), but let's go through an earlier point - I highly doubt that there's correlation between the number of fans you have and the amount of creativity you can wield. If anything, I'd assume that the smaller your fanbase, the safer you'd have to play it. Since you're already using Platinum as an example...well, Platinum's never really made anything other than action/beat 'em up/hack n' slash games bar a few exceptions that either no-one talks about (Infinite Space) or were panned (Star Fox Zero). They're small, and they stay in their niche. There's a high likelihood that if someone's a fan of one Platinum game, there's a strong chance that they'd at least be interested in another. In contrast, someone like Blizzard can spread itself out over multiple genres. Being a fan of one Blizzard IP in no way guarantees you'll be a fan of another.

But as for disconnect:

I get that dude made the April Fool's comment. Yeah, he's a jerk. But you have to get what happened. We don't have the numbers yet, but supposedly Blizzcon was supposed to surpass last year's numbers, and 2017 Blizzcon was 35,000 attendees. Forget just the 200 dollars per pop, that's transportation, hotels, food, and just the time to get there... For the big reveal to be a mobile game that (if the downvotes are anything to measure this by) very few people are interested in. To get hyped and let down like that.

And to have one guy have the balls to say "Really? You got me all this way, took my money for a mobile game I wanted on a computer", and their answer to be "Dude, you guys have phones".

They lost so much face with this, it's unbelievable.

Okay, let's go through this.

-I actually don't think the AF guy is a jerk per se. He's frustrated, and I feel for the developers, but he's not a jerk. But that said...

-There's an implication in your statement that the people going to BlizzCon are just one type of fan. And, okay, they might be, in as much that they're fans enough of Blizz to spend the time and money to go there (even if I wasn't on the wrong side of the world for BC, I can't see myself going to the event). Except people are going to go there for different reasons, because right now, Blizz is effectively showing six IPs across six genres. Maybe you're a fan of all six. Maybe you're a fan of just one. Maybe you're a fan of some, and have no interest in the others. So I don't think it's out of place that something like DI is shown at BC when of those six IPs, one already has a presence on mobile (Hearthstone), and only half are PC exclusive (StarCraft, WoW, HotS). I mean, I remember there being some discontent over Hearthstone when it was announced, but Hearthstone didn't stop WoW. If there was evidence that DI shut down D4, then sure, go for it, except last we've heard, that isn't the case.

-Even if someone did come to the con just for Diablo, then, well, what were you expecting? It was already 100% confirmed that D4 wouldn't be shown, and already, like, 90% confirmed that there'd be a Diablo and/or Warcraft mobile game revealed. I mean, if John Doe went to just see D4, and had absolutely no presence on the Internet, then okay, I can get JD being upset, but...

Well, I'll put it this way. Every so often in the libraries I work at, there's someone who comes in wanting to see a JP. A lot of the time, I have to explain that there isn't a JP here today. Now, they have my sympathy, but I'm not going to apologize when it was well within their means to visit our website or call ahead rather than just turning up and assuming there'd be one. So when Blizzard says "hey, just so you know, D4 won't be shown," and you go expecting D4, then, well, what were you expecting?

The real comparison? If Bill was a stand up comic, hasn't done a live show in years, decided to hold an event one weekend with really hard to get tickets... And then his show isn't a comedy act of his, but a workshopped version of his Protege doing a version of his bits combined with the Protege's material.

If we're putting this in the context of Diablo, it would be more Bill saying "hey, I'm working on my comic routine, but it isn't ready yet, so here's my Protege version in the meantime," and making it clear well before the weekend in question.

Hawki:

-Game development isn't a zero sum game. More developers doesn't necessarily mean a project will go faster, or be made better.

-The Blizz team working on DI hasn't been named, but we know it isn't Team 3, and NetEase is doing part of the development, so Team 3 is hardly losing staff to the DI team.

-The whole "no fan ever asked for this" is a slippery slope, because how often do fans ever ask for something that differed from the norm? Now, you're right in that no-one was asking for a mobile game, but if it's a spinoff made in the knowledge that the next installment is coming, then, yeah. I can get being disappointed, but this kind of outrage? Not so much.

There are two distinct categories of things nobody asked for. The "I never knew I needed this in my life but now I do" one and the "I didn't ask for this cause I don't want this at all" one. I deem it the duty of a company to be able to tell which of the two a potential project of theirs will fall in. At the very least, faulting them for a critical failure in understanding their most faithful fans I believe is in order.

Okay, fine, but let's be reasonable, if you're making a mobile game when you have established IPs, what makes more sense? Making a new IP, or making it a spinoff from an existing one? Besides, what would be the point of two ARPG IPs?

You can lament that, but there's a reason why so many companies do it. There's a reason why Nintendo made "Super Mario Run" rather than "Plumber Runner." There's a reason why EA made Command & Conquer: Rivals rather than "Command & Conquest." There's a...well, you get the idea.

Also, Blizzard doesn't have a single IP that has "tonnes of random spinoffs." The cloest you can get is Warcraft, which has covered three genres. Apart from that, every IP of theirs has stuck to the same genre.

I mean, I did say they could also use one of their other franchises that has been known to get random spinoffs if they absolutely can't come up with a new IP. Though I think Overwatch should be enough evidence for anyone working at Blizzard that you can do amazingly well on a new IP so if even with THAT support they won't go for it I think we might as well give up on new IPs on these games lol. In a way that's more cynical of a statement regarding mobile gaming than any other I've seen in this topic haha.

And yeah I was thinking of warcraft which would be suitable since Hearthstone added an ounce of frivolity to the lore and they also had that movie made a while back too. It's definitely more suitable than diablo which has never had a name for weird random spinoffs.

Dreiko:

There are two distinct categories of things nobody asked for. The "I never knew I needed this in my life but now I do" one and the "I didn't ask for this cause I don't want this at all" one.

Okay, sure, but not only will that vary from person to person, but it can generally only be decided in hindsight. Numerous IPs have had spinoffs or deviations. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. As much of a rap that DI is getting now, its success will likely be premised on how well it sells.

I mean, I did say they could also use one of their other franchises that has been known to get random spinoffs if they absolutely can't come up with a new IP.

Okay, quick question - has there ever been a AAA developer with a list of well established IPs that, upon entering the mobile space, decided to make a new IP rather than make a spinoff?

I think Nintendo did some RPG, but even then, when I think of their mobile games, I think of stuff like Mario and Fire Emblem.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD (business-wise).

Though I think Overwatch should be enough evidence for anyone working at Blizzard that you can do amazingly well on a new IP so if even with THAT support they won't go for it I think we might as well give up on new IPs on these games lol.

There's a world of difference between something like Overwatch and a mobile game.

And yeah I was thinking of warcraft which would be suitable since Hearthstone added an ounce of frivolity to the lore and they also had that movie made a while back too. It's definitely more suitable than diablo which has never had a name for weird random spinoffs.

First of all, Diablo's lack of spinoffs isn't for lack of trying.

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_Junior

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_MMO

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_(Film)

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_(Netflix)

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Starblo

Second of all, I'm not fond of the idea of Warcraft being the dumping ground for every spinoff, while every other IP remains in one genre (this is a view I have on game libraries as a whole BTW). If Warcraft gets three genres (RTS, MMORPG, CCG), and every other IP gets one...well, Warcraft is to Blizzard what Mario is to Nintendo, but that doesn't mean the others can't get some love.

Third of all, it's been stated that every Blizzard IP is getting a mobile spinoff (though I'm dubious as to whether that includes HotS), and we already know that Warcraft is getting a MMORTS, so like it or loathe it, Diablo Immortal is par for the course as far as mobile spinoffs go. At the least, it's keeping in the same genre as the previous Diablo games.

Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you, but my personal view (this generally extends to mobile games) is that I'm fine with them existing as long as they're not replacing 'core' games (which, as stated, DI isn't). Course I'd love something like Warcraft IV, but even without a mobile game, WoW and StarCraft make that difficult anyway.

Hawki:

Okay, quick question - has there ever been a AAA developer with a list of well established IPs that, upon entering the mobile space, decided to make a new IP rather than make a spinoff?

I think Nintendo did some RPG, but even then, when I think of their mobile games, I think of stuff like Mario and Fire Emblem.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD (business-wise).

Though I think Overwatch should be enough evidence for anyone working at Blizzard that you can do amazingly well on a new IP so if even with THAT support they won't go for it I think we might as well give up on new IPs on these games lol.

There's a world of difference between something like Overwatch and a mobile game.

And yeah I was thinking of warcraft which would be suitable since Hearthstone added an ounce of frivolity to the lore and they also had that movie made a while back too. It's definitely more suitable than diablo which has never had a name for weird random spinoffs.

First of all, Diablo's lack of spinoffs isn't for lack of trying.

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_Junior

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_MMO

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_(Film)

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_(Netflix)

https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Starblo

Second of all, I'm not fond of the idea of Warcraft being the dumping ground for every spinoff, while every other IP remains in one genre (this is a view I have on game libraries as a whole BTW). If Warcraft gets three genres (RTS, MMORPG, CCG), and every other IP gets one...well, Warcraft is to Blizzard what Mario is to Nintendo, but that doesn't mean the others can't get some love.

Third of all, it's been stated that every Blizzard IP is getting a mobile spinoff (though I'm dubious as to whether that includes HotS), and we already know that Warcraft is getting a MMORTS, so like it or loathe it, Diablo Immortal is par for the course as far as mobile spinoffs go. At the least, it's keeping in the same genre as the previous Diablo games.

Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you, but my personal view (this generally extends to mobile games) is that I'm fine with them existing as long as they're not replacing 'core' games (which, as stated, DI isn't). Course I'd love something like Warcraft IV, but even without a mobile game, WoW and StarCraft make that difficult anyway.

Square Enix made Granblue Fantasy which is a super popular new IP which became popular enough to have its own spinoff actually (shadowverse, it's like anime hearthstone and one of the two phone games I love). It's also getting a ps4 game now too, developed by Platinum games. Just think of that for a minute, a phone game IP coming to console cause it's actually a good game with interesting chars lol. Also the Nier Automata dev (Yoko Taro) is making a new phone game IP called Sin No Alice for Square Enix too, this one will be out in a bit I think and I have my eye on it.

But yeah, I'm not much for making a million warcraft spinoffs either, ideally they'd just make a new IP. Still, it makes more sense than diablo at the end of the day.

Hawki:

Alright, I'm going to interject there, because this isn't the same scenario. Even if DI was sold as "the next evolution of Diablo" or something it still wouldn't be the same scenario.

Far as I'm aware, Bayonetta 2 plays similarly to Bayonetta 1. Bayonetta 1 was already on console. Making Bayonetta 2 a Nintendo exclusive doesn't really change anything apart from availability. In contrast, this is simply a case of "hey, we're working on D4, but here's a mobile game in the meantime."

The scenario isn't about the game play. The situation is about the unpopular choices content producers make. Sometimes it's out of Necessity, like Bayonetta 2 being made a Nintendo Exclusive just to get funding. And sometimes, the unpopular decision is made just to get every dime out of you. That's what people feel this DI port is.

Whether they are right about the getting every dime out of you, NetEase is a freemium company. So that doesn't do much to dissuade fears.

I'm not going to claim that DI is some kind of artistic masterpiece (though I will say it has more merit lorewise than your average mobile spinoff), but let's go through an earlier point - I highly doubt that there's correlation between the number of fans you have and the amount of creativity you can wield. If anything, I'd assume that the smaller your fanbase, the safer you'd have to play it. Since you're already using Platinum as an example...well, Platinum's never really made anything other than action/beat 'em up/hack n' slash games bar a few exceptions that either no-one talks about (Infinite Space) or were panned (Star Fox Zero). They're small, and they stay in their niche. There's a high likelihood that if someone's a fan of one Platinum game, there's a strong chance that they'd at least be interested in another. In contrast, someone like Blizzard can spread itself out over multiple genres. Being a fan of one Blizzard IP in no way guarantees you'll be a fan of another.

But as for disconnect:

Lore is actually the worst part for me. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm a Lore Person. This game has very specific Lore of the time between Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. It's another instance to me that this game being something I could have just shrugged off to being something that I'll deny myself if I don't pick it up. And I can't, because my current phone is trash.

And while you're completely on point with how small Platinum is and how they found their groove, compared to Blizzard easily being big enough to hit many different types of games... we're not talking about many times of games. We're talking about follow ups or sequels to direct games.

Okay, let's go through this.

-I actually don't think the AF guy is a jerk per se. He's frustrated, and I feel for the developers, but he's not a jerk. But that said...

-There's an implication in your statement that the people going to BlizzCon are just one type of fan. And, okay, they might be, in as much that they're fans enough of Blizz to spend the time and money to go there (even if I wasn't on the wrong side of the world for BC, I can't see myself going to the event). Except people are going to go there for different reasons, because right now, Blizz is effectively showing six IPs across six genres. Maybe you're a fan of all six. Maybe you're a fan of just one. Maybe you're a fan of some, and have no interest in the others. So I don't think it's out of place that something like DI is shown at BC when of those six IPs, one already has a presence on mobile (Hearthstone), and only half are PC exclusive (StarCraft, WoW, HotS). I mean, I remember there being some discontent over Hearthstone when it was announced, but Hearthstone didn't stop WoW. If there was evidence that DI shut down D4, then sure, go for it, except last we've heard, that isn't the case.

-Even if someone did come to the con just for Diablo, then, well, what were you expecting? It was already 100% confirmed that D4 wouldn't be shown, and already, like, 90% confirmed that there'd be a Diablo and/or Warcraft mobile game revealed. I mean, if John Doe went to just see D4, and had absolutely no presence on the Internet, then okay, I can get JD being upset, but...

Well, I'll put it this way. Every so often in the libraries I work at, there's someone who comes in wanting to see a JP. A lot of the time, I have to explain that there isn't a JP here today. Now, they have my sympathy, but I'm not going to apologize when it was well within their means to visit our website or call ahead rather than just turning up and assuming there'd be one. So when Blizzard says "hey, just so you know, D4 won't be shown," and you go expecting D4, then, well, what were you expecting?

My implication is that, yes, there was one type of fan that went to Blizzcon, but not the way you're meaning.

Mobile games aren't as big here as they are everywhere else. The North American Gamer (I don't know how UK fares with this) like their games on their consoles or their PCs. For the most part, the majority of the attendants there probably feel like how I just described. Given the response of the announcement at the event (complete silence save for a few claps), the overwhelming dislikes on DI trailer and gameplay footage, and the amount of uplikes pointed towards condemning Blizzard's decision, there's enough to say that I'm close to right on this one.

I don't think anyone believes that DI shut down D4. And once again, I believe that if Diablo Immortal wasn't the Marquee Final Event, we'd actually be ok with this. I just got to level 60 with my Crusader in D3 on the switch, so maybe I wouldn't care as much. But this could be for someone. It could have been like the Gears of War 5 fake out.

The Elder Scrolls 6 teaser trailer shows nothing. Says nothing. Gives nothing. Other than the fact that it exists. At the time of writing this, it has an like rating of 195k to 3.4 dislikes. for a musical swell and a title card.

That's all people want. We want to know what we like exists. We don't want coy statements (which Diablo loves to do), we don't want hints and winks, We even barely want dates as this teaser shows. Just let us know it's coming. Define it. After Diablo Immortal, just a 15 second sound clip of the Barbarian yelling, slashing at the screen until the pattern resembles a 4. All would have been fine.

And to be fair, it was 100% suggested that Diablo 4 wouldn't be shown. Saying "Well, we should have known one of those projects is going to be Diablo 4" is just as simple as saying "Well, they should have known trying to sell a mobile only game to a society of console and pc players would have fell flat". Both sides hoped against hope and we disappointed with the outcome.

If we're putting this in the context of Diablo, it would be more Bill saying "hey, I'm working on my comic routine, but it isn't ready yet, so here's my Protege version in the meantime," and making it clear well before the weekend in question.

If you can post to me something other than their vague "We know what many of you are hoping for and we can only say that ?good things come to those who wait,? but evil things often take longer" comment, I'll acquiesce. But to your comment earlier about the implication that there was only one type of fan going to Blizzcon, there's more than one hope going into this.

Fans could have been hoping for an 8 minute demo of Diablo 4's gameplay and full of juicy tidbits of what to expect. Fans could have been hoping for a defined release date. Fans could have been hoping for a remastered Bundle of all 3 games in one package. Fans could have been hoping for another expansion/new class for Diablo 3. Offline for Diablo 3. Fans have been literally asking for all these things all the time.

So if you can find me Blizzard definitely saying "No Diablo 4", I could have easily applied that statement to anyone of one of those constantly requested desires and said it has equal chance to apply to all of them. Not just closing the door on Diablo 4 entirely.

Dreiko:

Square Enix made Granblue Fantasy which is a super popular new IP which became popular enough to have its own spinoff actually (shadowverse, it's like anime hearthstone and one of the two phone games I love). It's also getting a ps4 game now too, developed by Platinum games.

Granblue Fantasy was made by Cygames, which has made nothing BUT mobile games (also, can't find a source for Square Enix playing a roll). Also, Platinum Games isn't a AAA developer (they're more AA).

Just think of that for a minute, a phone game IP coming to console cause it's actually a good game with interesting chars lol. Also the Nier Automata dev (Yoko Taro) is making a new phone game IP called Sin No Alice for Square Enix too, this one will be out in a bit I think and I have my eye on it.

Square Enix is only publishing, not developing.

Again, this isn't really dismissing my points, that when AAA developers develop mobile games in-house, they almost always use pre-existing IPs. Whether that's bad or good is subjective, but it's the observable trend.

ObsidianJones:

The scenario isn't about the game play. The situation is about the unpopular choices content producers make. Sometimes it's out of Necessity, like Bayonetta 2 being made a Nintendo Exclusive just to get funding. And sometimes, the unpopular decision is made just to get every dime out of you. That's what people feel this DI port is.

Whether they are right about the getting every dime out of you, NetEase is a freemium company. So that doesn't do much to dissuade fears.

If it's about "unpopular decisions," then that's even less relevant, unless there's evidence that DI is somehow subtracting from D4.

Lore is actually the worst part for me. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm a Lore Person. This game has very specific Lore of the time between Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. It's another instance to me that this game being something I could have just shrugged off to being something that I'll deny myself if I don't pick it up. And I can't, because my current phone is trash.

I'm a lore person as well, but I see that as a plus in this case. Lore is lore. Even if you don't have the platform for it, you can still easily get it from stuff like YouTube or wikis. I mean, Kingdom Hearts managed to pull this off.

Course I think it would be much better if DI was ported to PC (and apparently that's now a possibility), but I'll take what I can get.

I don't think anyone believes that DI shut down D4. And once again, I believe that if Diablo Immortal wasn't the Marquee Final Event, we'd actually be ok with this. I just got to level 60 with my Crusader in D3 on the switch, so maybe I wouldn't care as much. But this could be for someone. It could have been like the Gears of War 5 fake out.

There's a world of difference between Gears Pop and Diablo Immortal. Such differences being:

-There was plenty of evidence pointing to a Diablo mobile game being revealed at BC 2018 beforehand, there wasn't for Gears Pop.

-We knew Diablo IV was coming. Gears 5 wasn't an absolute certainty.

-Gears Pop tells us nothing about the game, like, at all. Diablo Immortal does.

(On a related subject, am I the only one who doesn't get why Gears Tactics is a PC exclusive?)

The Elder Scrolls 6 teaser trailer shows nothing. Says nothing. Gives nothing. Other than the fact that it exists. At the time of writing this, it has an like rating of 195k to 3.4 dislikes. for a musical swell and a title card.

Except we've known ES6 was in development since 2016. Telling us that ES6 is in development technically isn't telling us anything we didn't already know.

I'll be honest, stuff like the ES6 trailer kind of aggravates me. The trailer tells us nothing. The trailer is less than 40 seconds and shows off landscape. Course, I don't really care about Elder Scrolls anyway, but that ES6 was in development wasn't a secret. That Starfield (which gets a similar "tells us nothing" trailer) was in development wasn't a secret. Something like Metroid Prime 4 is something I can kind of get the hype for, if only because MP4 wasn't a game that was confirmed prior to its trailer, but the trailer's still low effort.

I can name numerous IPs that this kind of trailer would get me hyped for, but Diablo isn't one of them.

That's all people want. We want to know what we like exists.

So basically, people want to know that what they know already exists...exists.

Yeah, rhetorical question, because as stuff like the trailers for ES6 and Starfield show, there's apparently a market for this kind of, um, marketing. All I can say personally is that if BC had a D4 equivalent, I'd have been kind of pissed, along the lines of "you made a trailer that tells me nothing to tell me that a game I know is in development...is in development?"

In hindsight, I can admit (and said) that something like what you described might have helped. I really don't understand that philosophy, but fine, whatever.

Define it. After Diablo Immortal, just a 15 second sound clip of the Barbarian yelling, slashing at the screen until the pattern resembles a 4. All would have been fine.

Which technically wouldn't be defining anything other than saying there's a Barbarian class. And at this point, saying there's a Barbarian in a Diablo game is like saying water's wet.

Blizzard messed up big time. WhyTF D4 isn't in development I don't know, but how they thought a group of D3 PC gamers would be remotely interested in a mobile, MTX laden cash crab shows how completely out of touch they are. Here is what people want:

- D2 Remastered
- D4
- WC3 Remastered
- WC4

What do they get instead? Diablo Immortal. And they aren't even making it, a Chinese mobile games company is making it, most likely a Diablo reskin of their existing game. They deserved the Booos.

What are they actually doing over there? They must have game developers in a studio somewhere, WTF are they working on right now if not D4, WC4, why aren't they being made right now this minute for a circa ~2020 release? Perhaps between WoW and CoD, ActiBlizz don't care about other things. EA could be making a new C&C game right now, but they don't give a shit about PC strategy games. Even Star Wars, the franchise that lends itself to epic single player adventures, they churn out a multiplayer shooter for. It shows lack of understanding the IPs, the audiences and a new business strategy that just doesn't involve making these games any more. Live services, lootcrates. MTX, DLC, that's sadly where AAA development is directed.

Hawki:
If it's about "unpopular decisions," then that's even less relevant, unless there's evidence that DI is somehow subtracting from D4.

Popular Decisions are the most important thing when it comes to products created for mass purchase. We need to put personal philosophies aside here. I personally hate Multiplayer Shooters (even now Overwatch) because of it's usual toxic community. That and I'm more of a planner than a twitch gamer. But I can't deny the intelligence of trying to make the next new game changer because it will put you on the map. Player Unknown can tell us all a little something about that.

In fact, PUBG shows us a game doesn't even have to be finished or even that new to be popular enough to break sales records and unseat the Previous Kings of Twitch, the MOBA community.

Keeping your finger on the pulse of what gamers want is the essence of having a game be successful. Again, it's not about DI subtracting from D4. It's about not being what people wanted. Like Command and Conquer.

If a company has to ask die-hard fans of an IP to give a fair shake to their newest iteration, one could argue that they didn't design a game with their fans in mind. Only what they wanted. And hey, they are absolutely in the rights to do that. But they can't expect to appeal to people who don't want that. And from the responses that the games have been getting... that's almost everyone.

I'm a lore person as well, but I see that as a plus in this case. Lore is lore. Even if you don't have the platform for it, you can still easily get it from stuff like YouTube or wikis. I mean, Kingdom Hearts managed to pull this off.

Course I think it would be much better if DI was ported to PC (and apparently that's now a possibility), but I'll take what I can get.

Where did they state that they are going to move DI to PC? I've searched since you've said that but they only news that is popping up is that Blizzard refuses the idea that they pulled a Diablo 4 announcement?

There's a world of difference between Gears Pop and Diablo Immortal. Such differences being:

-There was plenty of evidence pointing to a Diablo mobile game being revealed at BC 2018 beforehand, there wasn't for Gears Pop.

-We knew Diablo IV was coming. Gears 5 wasn't an absolute certainty.

-Gears Pop tells us nothing about the game, like, at all. Diablo Immortal does.

(On a related subject, am I the only one who doesn't get why Gears Tactics is a PC exclusive?)

Not to be flippant, but you forgot one difference: Gears was wanted. Diablo Immortal was not.

I mean, we're arguing knowledge of Diablo 4 coming out, people's response, and all of this. But does it matter? Thoughtful musing aside, we can see with our eyes that people do not want Diablo Immortal. They only wanted Diablo 4. The Fans want X, you gave them Y. Backlash ensues.

Bare in mind that Diablo 3 came out May of 2012. It's sixth year anniversary just passed. And people are told to still wait. What people are seeing is that we'll have to wait until 2019 to year that Diablo 4 is coming soon. When? 2020?

People came into this frustrated, and as we can see by the overwhelming response, Diablo Immortal doesn't sate that frustration.

Except we've known ES6 was in development since 2016. Telling us that ES6 is in development technically isn't telling us anything we didn't already know.

I'll be honest, stuff like the ES6 trailer kind of aggravates me. The trailer tells us nothing. The trailer is less than 40 seconds and shows off landscape. Course, I don't really care about Elder Scrolls anyway, but that ES6 was in development wasn't a secret. That Starfield (which gets a similar "tells us nothing" trailer) was in development wasn't a secret. Something like Metroid Prime 4 is something I can kind of get the hype for, if only because MP4 wasn't a game that was confirmed prior to its trailer, but the trailer's still low effort.

I can name numerous IPs that this kind of trailer would get me hyped for, but Diablo isn't one of them.

I think the issue is that you're looking at this situation as how you parse it. You're right. the teaser tells us nothing. Other than one crucial thing: "We're listening". It's lip service, but sometimes that's what people need. To know that they are heard, to know that they WILL get it.

Blizzard is even going so far as to make sure no one thinks that Diablo 4 was ever going to be announced at Blizzcon. Blizzard keeps holding its cards close to its chest, and people are simply tired of it.

To put it simply, it's like dating. You have a girl who coyly flirts with you without ever defining things, who goes out of her way to make sure nothing is definite but wants you to stick around, and suggests outings that are definitely not dates. Close to what you want, but without the actual next step of romance. Because for whatever reason, not only is she not ready for a commitment, but she's not even telling you why.

I'd get tired of that real quick.

After you move on, you meet a girl who says "Hey, this is mutual. But I'm in grad school. I got to finish this up without distractions before we can get serious". Ok. Even that statement is something. Will it keep me sated forever? Don't know. Guess that's up to how great the girl is. But it's something rather than always being implied but never stated.

That might be ok for you. Evidence might be enough. But again, as you see around you, people want definite. No matter how likely something is to happen, people want to have a firm grasp on things.

So basically, people want to know that what they know already exists...exists.

Yeah, rhetorical question, because as stuff like the trailers for ES6 and Starfield show, there's apparently a market for this kind of, um, marketing. All I can say personally is that if BC had a D4 equivalent, I'd have been kind of pissed, along the lines of "you made a trailer that tells me nothing to tell me that a game I know is in development...is in development?"

In hindsight, I can admit (and said) that something like what you described might have helped. I really don't understand that philosophy, but fine, whatever.

It's just the fact that it's been six years. People are tired of guessing when it's going to come out. People are tired of combing for evidence and trying to understand Blizzard's minds. They just want their lip service to know that they will be rewarded for their patience. Not "Sit there and don't say anything. We'll get to you when we're ready"

Which technically wouldn't be defining anything other than saying there's a Barbarian class. And at this point, saying there's a Barbarian in a Diablo game is like saying water's wet.

*shrugs* I personally do not like the Barbarian Class. I'm a Crusader all the way. But he's the Mascot. It would have been weird if they did it with the Witch Doctor.

Exley97:

First, Activision didn't buy Blizzard -- *Vivendi*, which owned Blizzard Entertainment (there's a very long, somewhat shaky history of previous Blizzard ownership there if you're interested) bought Activision in 2007. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/technology/03activision.html

Second, you can make an argument that since Blizzcon is held in the US, and attendees are largely from US/North America (which I don't even know is true, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it), then Blizzard should have been aware that a mobile Diablo game might not have gone over great with such an audience. Fine. But that doesn't excuse acting like a total f#@%ing douchebag to the developers who've worked pretty goddamn tirelessly to entertain you. I'm not saying fans can't be upset about Immortal. I'm not saying they shouldn't criticize the company for outsourcing a valuable IP to a third party developer for what looks like a so-so mobile game.

I'm saying fans shouldn't overreact by taking Immortal as a personal insult toward them and then acting out their frustrations by trying to publicly embarrass the developers who worked on it.

But it feels like an insult to the people at Blizzcon. The fans that paid all that money to travel from all over the US and EU, to make it to a convention only to get a game reveal that Blizzard didn't make and isn't for them. I think they have every right to be upset.

Blizzard could have done 1 or 2 simple things to make this go over perfectly fine with people.

1. Bring to to PC too. It would take almost no effort to do so, no-effort mobile ports appear on Steam all the time. It should be easy as fuck for Blizz.

2. Tease another game to be announced later. D4 or a D2 remaster. Just a picture, not even a trailer a simple tease would have been fine.

They could have avoided this completely. It's very clear that a mobile game isn't what anyone who would go to Blizzcon wanted. I've been to Blizzcon a few times back in the day. Once when Cataclysm got announced, and again when Diablo 3 was revealed. And I'll tell you. Those demo stations where endlessly packed.

Diablo Immortal's demo station https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj7sYifsMfeAhViFjQIHbNwABgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fdiablo3%2Fcomments%2F9tpeaa%2Fmobile_diablo_immortals_demo_booth_right_now%2F&psig=AOvVaw0Sv_PBdMaYpuOSCUkjvd4Z&ust=1541855158709937

Fucking empty. That is unheard of. A brand new Blizzard game, at Blizzcon, and nobody wants to play it.

Watch the Q&A's on Youtube. Even the people trying to find the good side of this game, asked questions about it. Things that fans have been hoping for with a Diablo game like:

1. Will Mephisto be back?
2. Will the game have customized armor?
3. Will we be able to customized our skills like in D2 with runes or something?
4. Will there be character builds that we can customize?
5. Can we customize character appearance?

On and on....and every answer was "not really" or "we don't know yet". Basically they dodged the questions because the answer is frankly no. All those things, are big fat nopes. You might find costumes behind loot boxes, I'm sure you'll have a lot of shit behind your lootboxes.

Hell people who know about Netease as a company are warning fans that it wont be a pleasant game. https://www.reddit.com/r/Diablo/comments/9ts6mw/feedback_from_a_chinese_gamer_about_netease/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Diablo/comments/9tzn9i/something_you_should_know_about_netease/

Nothing about this has given the player-base ANY hope that this would be a good game in any way. Even when players are trying to find possible things that could be good in their questions, the answers they are getting are just not confidence building.

Now I'll never support players attacking devs with threats and things of that nature. But I've been looking around all week and I've not seen a whole lot of toxicity directed at devs. People are upset with Blizzard as a company, upset with the game, and frankly most of what I've seen has been fairly reasonable and constructive negativity.

Remember Journalists like to take one comment and blow it up like we are all evil people.

Commanderfantasy:
Remember Journalists like to take one comment and blow it up like we are all evil people.

Here's the most important point of this entire debacle. One man said a sarcastic comment live to the Developers. He didn't wish a Pox on their Houses. He didn't ask why did they waste their time with this shit. He didn't ask where could he get his money back. "Is this an off season April fool's joke" isn't the kindest comment, but not as rude as we can be.

And all Gamers are labelled as entitled pricks.

Comments online? Downvoted trailers? How is that different than any media? Blizzard made a vastly unpopular move, and WE'RE somehow all wrong because we don't accept it with the "Calm stoic poise that the rest of the world exhibits"? Hyperbole at its finest.

Commanderfantasy:

Exley97:

First, Activision didn't buy Blizzard -- *Vivendi*, which owned Blizzard Entertainment (there's a very long, somewhat shaky history of previous Blizzard ownership there if you're interested) bought Activision in 2007. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/technology/03activision.html

Second, you can make an argument that since Blizzcon is held in the US, and attendees are largely from US/North America (which I don't even know is true, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it), then Blizzard should have been aware that a mobile Diablo game might not have gone over great with such an audience. Fine. But that doesn't excuse acting like a total f#@%ing douchebag to the developers who've worked pretty goddamn tirelessly to entertain you. I'm not saying fans can't be upset about Immortal. I'm not saying they shouldn't criticize the company for outsourcing a valuable IP to a third party developer for what looks like a so-so mobile game.

I'm saying fans shouldn't overreact by taking Immortal as a personal insult toward them and then acting out their frustrations by trying to publicly embarrass the developers who worked on it.

But it feels like an insult to the people at Blizzcon. The fans that paid all that money to travel from all over the US and EU, to make it to a convention only to get a game reveal that Blizzard didn't make and isn't for them. I think they have every right to be upset.

1) As I said earlier, I'm not arguing that fans can't be upset or disappointed. My issue is with the overreaction to and *characterization* of the situation, which brings me to....

2) Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, think Blizzard devs sat down and planned to insult you and other fans? Do you believe a company with a track record and history like Blizzard actively sought to alienate folks in that convention center? Again, I don't care if you're upset. That's fine. Be upset. But people are reacting to this like it's Aliens: Colonial Marines (actually, I don't even think this got the kind of reaction that Immortal got). It's a freakin' mobile game. I understand if that's not your thing. Don't buy it. But other people may want to buy it. Regardless...Diablo 4 is still coming! Reading this reactions, you'd think Blizzard got on stage and said "No more Diablo PC games, we're straight mobile now!" and *literally* slapped fans in the face. Good god...

Commanderfantasy:

Now I'll never support players attacking devs with threats and things of that nature. But I've been looking around all week and I've not seen a whole lot of toxicity directed at devs. People are upset with Blizzard as a company, upset with the game, and frankly most of what I've seen has been fairly reasonable and constructive negativity.

Remember Journalists like to take one comment and blow it up like we are all evil people.

1) I think the scores of people calling the guy who made the April Fool's crack a "hero" and cheering him on is pretty bad. We can debate on whether or not that is "toxic," but it's still shitty.

2) As for the journalist remark, who's calling you "evil"? Also, as stated above, it's not just one comment.

ObsidianJones:

Commanderfantasy:
Remember Journalists like to take one comment and blow it up like we are all evil people.

"Is this an off season April fool's joke" isn't the kindest comment, but not as rude as we can be.

Really? Your argument is it could have been worse, so it's really not that bad?

ObsidianJones:

And all Gamers are labelled as entitled pricks.

Well, when gamers suggest that Blizzard should be thankful that fans weren't *more* insulting than the Blizzcon DB, then I submit you make it easier for folks to apply that label.

Exley97:

ObsidianJones:

Commanderfantasy:
Remember Journalists like to take one comment and blow it up like we are all evil people.

"Is this an off season April fool's joke" isn't the kindest comment, but not as rude as we can be.

Really? Your argument is it could have been worse, so it's really not that bad?

ObsidianJones:

And all Gamers are labelled as entitled pricks.

Well, when gamers suggest that Blizzard should be thankful that fans weren't *more* insulting than the Blizzcon DB, then I submit you make it easier for folks to apply that label.

No, my argument is that one person perceived rudeness must speak for and color us all. That's monstrously unfair.

Be it a misconstrued comment that was actually benign to an actual campaign to give out all the developers information so people can stalk and harass them... whatever the case may be, it was still ONE person who directly confronted them. Out of how many people?

I mean, have you even seen the full Q&A?

11 questions. 1 truly off-color. The rest with honest questions like Hardcore mode, the appearance of the models, Skill customization, release date... And one guy comes with an off brand question and that gives Journalists and the like the right to call all Gamers 'Entitled Pricks'.

Does that seem fair? Remove the concept of all gamers now. Is it fair to those 9 other people's honest curiosity about the game is going to be and how will it take shape. All of that is eroded and lost to time because of one guy.

And my math is correct. The last question was a plant. The next day we see he is a community manager who apologized for the previous day. In fact with the follow up to that guy, I'm assuming a lot of these questions were 'scripted'.

But to directly answer your question, even though it wasn't my point at all. Yes. I do believe in the severity of what could have been said, it was mild at best. Does it excuse it was a possible jerky action. No. Not at all. But a 'possible jerky action' is better than Doxxing, Death Threats, and whatever nonsense that has become the norm in all aspects of life. Doxxing is a gamer thing, so I included it, but we only have to look at Politics, Religious arguments, Gender and Racial subjects (like the kneeling) and we see that everyone in the world is collectly losing their minds and overreacting to everything. Gamers aren't toxic. Gamers are human... And Humanity itself is toxic.

But I digress slightly. We do live in a world of shades, and not Black and White. When my mother called me and I annoyed yelled back "What?!", I got a talking to and I had to be on my P's and Q's. If my mother called me and I said "Leave me alone, you B*tch" (never, ever did that), my mom would beat me, she'd tell my dad when he got home and he would beat me, and they would tell my family and I would be the black sheep for months.

That's because there are levels to offenses. Our criminal justice is built around that very concept. That's why I'm not outraged by what this guy did. It's cringe-inducing. But it wasn't a call to virtual arms to harm these Developers.

And besides, you yourself are proceeding to namecall Gamers because these responses have soured you.

Exley97:
Second, you can make an argument that since Blizzcon is held in the US, and attendees are largely from US/North America (which I don't even know is true, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it), then Blizzard should have been aware that a mobile Diablo game might not have gone over great with such an audience. Fine. But that doesn't excuse acting like a total f#@%ing douchebag to the developers who've worked pretty goddamn tirelessly to entertain you. I'm not saying fans can't be upset about Immortal. I'm not saying they shouldn't criticize the company for outsourcing a valuable IP to a third party developer for what looks like a so-so mobile game.

I'm saying fans shouldn't overreact by taking Immortal as a personal insult toward them and then acting out their frustrations by trying to publicly embarrass the developers who worked on it.

First of all, they aren't working tirelessly to entertain us out of some altruistic drive. They want our money. And as fans, Blizzard is welcomed to it if they give fans what we want. The people in Blizzard don't really give a crap on my betterment as a person. They just want to supply me with a product I might purchase. That's as deep as our 'love' goes.

They don't care how hard I worked to get the money to pay for the product. They don't worry about my overtime. Or my decision between going all out on my birthday dinner, and deciding to hold back because I want to purchase Overwatch tomorrow. What I or others sacrificed to buy the games never enters into the conversation as much as their work to make the product.

Secondly, you might not be talking to all of us gamers. I'm fine with that. But say you're just talking to this guy? What was bolded is still a harsher thing than he said. Going back to the severity of a situation. So Yes, I argue that asking an off the cuff remark like "Is this an April's Fool Joke" is infinitely better than going up and asking "Are you guys total f#@%ing douchebags".

Really, what is the difference between your reaction due to their (or his) actions offending you, and their actions after Diablo offended them? They are both perceived offenses, and both sides are acting with passion.

What makes your passion and the slight vitriol that comes with it acceptable, and their passion with vitriol inexcusable?

Samtemdo8:

undeadsuitor:
Do you guys not have phones

This whole thing in a nutshell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_ny2U0vnw

F*cking badass! Some things never change...

ObsidianJones:

Bare in mind that Diablo 3 came out May of 2012. It's sixth year anniversary just passed. And people are told to still wait. What people are seeing is that we'll have to wait until 2019 to year that Diablo 4 is coming soon. When? 2020?

People came into this frustrated, and as we can see by the overwhelming response, Diablo Immortal doesn't sate that frustration.

I'm only going to respond to this because it's about the only subject I didn't touch on in the other thread. The issue of delay between releases.

Okay, first of all, that's technically misleading, since D3 was getting content up until 2017 - that includes Reaper of Souls in 2014 (which is reportedly when D4 began development BTW).

Second of all, in the context of Blizzard, it's nothing. Warcraft III was launched in 2002, WoW in 2004, StarCraft II in 2010, and Diablo III in 2012. I can't help but be kind of pissed off that we're getting Diablo IV before WC4 or SC3 (not so much WoW 2, because I doubt anyone's actually asking for that).

Third of all, in the context of Diablo itself, six years means very little. There was a 12 year gap between D2 and D3, similar to the 12 year gap between SC1 and SC2, along with the knowledge that we're never going to get Warcraft IV, or fuck, Lost Vikings 3 (yes, I played the Lost Vikings back in the day, thanks for asking). Even D1 and D2 had a four year gap, and neither of those games had years of post-launch content.

Fourth, and most importantly of all, if Diablo fans have gone for six years without a major release, even if Blizzard develops at a, ahem, "glacial" rate...sorry, you're not getting my sympathy. Least not to the extent that I believe many are owed. There's many IPs that have gone longer than six years with nothing in sight. There's plenty of IPs that will almost certainly never have another installment in their series for whatever reason. So when people complain that six years is too long, in the knowledge that they're getting at least three games in the future, my sympathy is very, VERY limited. Even if you're only interested in one of those games, you're at least getting such a game. That's more than many IPs can say.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here