Blizzard oh blizzard

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

Swoopdawhoop

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

[QUOTE="Swoopdawhoop"]

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

vlin1108

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

And skills might be automatically assigned, plus enemies leveling up with you...4 player multiplayer limit...

actually i think diablo 3 is safe. Well besides the color palette and only 1 returning class from diablo 2...... But other than that its looking pretty safe. ReaperV7

[QUOTE="ReaperV7"]actually i think diablo 3 is safe. Well besides the color palette and only 1 returning class from diablo 2...... But other than that its looking pretty safe. fethelth

[QUOTE="fethelth"][QUOTE="ReaperV7"]actually i think diablo 3 is safe. Well besides the color palette and only 1 returning class from diablo 2...... But other than that its looking pretty safe. Makari

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="fethelth"][QUOTE="ReaperV7"]actually i think diablo 3 is safe. Well besides the color palette and only 1 returning class from diablo 2...... But other than that its looking pretty safe. fethelth

Diablo 3 went from my most anticipated game to off my radar because of things that have already been said in here. I hope it turns out well but for now its just meh, especially with battle.net fee's.Whiteblade999

actually you should take a looksie here. http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing/

the only thing you would pay is for things like name changing and server transfers. No fees would effect the game.

[QUOTE="Whiteblade999"]Diablo 3 went from my most anticipated game to off my radar because of things that have already been said in here. I hope it turns out well but for now its just meh, especially with battle.net fee's.ReaperV7

actually you should take a looksie here. http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing/

the only thing you would pay is for are things like name changing and server transfers. No fees would effect the game.

Thanks for the link, I assumed it would be a full service and not micro-transactions. Microtransactions are a lot easier to live with then a full out fee.

[QUOTE="Swoopdawhoop"]

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

vlin1108

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

People are over-reacting.. To me I think half of you guys lack the IQ for having a clear and rational thought process on this.

A) Starcraft 2 is having 3 seperate singleplayers.. Is that a BAD thing? I think entirely no way.. Because that means we will be getting very shortly right after the game is released, a singleplayer that will span for quite some time.. We have read that the singleplayer will not only be much more story based, but it will be free form with decision making that may affect the entire campaign.. Based on pass experience, it has shown that Blizzard always makes very good LONG campaigns that span over a very long time.. And you guys are complaining over somethign where we may see 3 very long campaigns? No one is forcing you to buy the others, and on top of that blizzard has never made a full priced expansion.. Chances are they will sell for $30.. If not less. To me this is what I hear "OMG wtf is wrong with you blizzard, we don't want 3 very long campaigns with tons of options that may take us a very long time to complete.. We want a cut down single player like the AVERAGE RTS just so I don't have to pay more money"..

B) Diablo 3 paying monthly may be considered a good thing.. Now I know you guys seem to lack rational thought in this but lets put this to scrutiny.. How many devs actually keep with their game for years on end? Blizzard.. Which dev never really abandons their game even when its far from profitable for nearlya decade? Blizzard.. This small monthly fee to me GARENTEES the company will only release tons of content possibly monthly.. This is much better instead of a game rarely getting ANY updates what so ever.. Diablo 2 was already a amazing game with little real content added to it.. Can you imagine how much longer would play the game if we got new content every few months that could dramatically add alot of thigns to the game?

The WoW part I don't understand? WoW is not a sequel to Warcraft 3.. To me I just see a little kid crying because he didn't get the game he wanted, even when its illogical for Blizzard to make a sequel so soon over its other older franchises.

[QUOTE="vlin1108"][QUOTE="Swoopdawhoop"]

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

sSubZerOo

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

People are over-reacting.. To me I think half of you guys lack the IQ for having a clear and rational thought process on this.

A) Starcraft 2 is having 3 seperate singleplayers.. Is that a BAD thing? I think entirely no way.. Because that means we will be getting very shortly right after the game is released, a singleplayer that will span for quite some time.. We have read that the singleplayer will not only be much more story based, but it will be free form with decision making that may affect the entire campaign.. Based on pass experience, it has shown that Blizzard always makes very good LONG campaigns that span over a very long time.. And you guys are complaining over somethign where we may see 3 very long campaigns? No one is forcing you to buy the others, and on top of that blizzard has never made a full priced expansion.. Chances are they will sell for $30.. If not less. To me this is what I hear "OMG wtf is wrong with you blizzard, we don't want 3 very long campaigns with tons of options that may take us a very long time to complete.. We want a cut down single player like the AVERAGE RTS just so I don't have to pay more money"..

B) Diablo 3 paying monthly may be considered a good thing.. Now I know you guys seem to lack rational thought in this but lets put this to scrutiny.. How many devs actually keep with their game for years on end? Blizzard.. Which dev never really abandons their game even when its far from profitable for nearlya decade? Blizzard.. This small monthly fee to me GARENTEES the company will only release tons of content possibly monthly.. This is much better instead of a game rarely getting ANY updates what so ever.. Diablo 2 was already a amazing game with little real content added to it.. Can you imagine how much longer would play the game if we got new content every few months that could dramatically add alot of thigns to the game?

The WoW part I don't understand? WoW is not a sequel to Warcraft 3.. To me I just see a little kid crying because he didn't get the game he wanted, even when its illogical for Blizzard to make a sequel so soon over its other older franchises.

My only gripes with Diablo 3 at the moment was paying for battlnet and is auto assigning stats along with the no hostiling and no real talk of an arena (it was mentioned but nothing really new on it). The assigning stats are gonna be a joke but I would rather have the new rune system than assigning stats, the sheer possibilities and actual impact makes it much more of a difference. Hostiling I LIKED how it was in the original, only thing I would like to see changed is let both players have to agree to hostile and if one wants to cut the option they can at any time in town. It solves most of the problems instead of flat out removing it.

As far as paying goes I cannot stand paying extra for something that has been free for as you said over 10 years. How would you like it if Valve started charging $10 a month to play TF2? I am sure you wouldn't be a happy camper considering steam has been free for nearly 4 years now and half lifes original online (over 10 years old) was free. If it didn't start as free that is one thing but going from free to p2p is just stupid. Sort of how companies think limiting the number of installations on a game is a good business move when as the saying goes "if it isn't broke don't fix it".

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.Swoopdawhoop

There is nothing to prove (or even suggest) that the WarCraft RTS series has been discontinued.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.Swoopdawhoop

Why is it a bad thing? You don't *have* to buy all three, and even if you do (and remember pricing hasn't been determined yet), you get what you pay for at least in terms of quantity, and probably quality, too.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.Swoopdawhoop

I think most of the people criticising Diablo 2 feel that Diablo 2 is perfect, and therefore all change is bad. But Diablo 2 isn't perfect, and while I was skeptical about many of the changes initially, they seem to be changes for the better (visual changes notwithstanding) now that I understand the rationalisation behind the changes.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="vlin1108"][QUOTE="Swoopdawhoop"]

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

Whiteblade999

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

People are over-reacting.. To me I think half of you guys lack the IQ for having a clear and rational thought process on this.

A) Starcraft 2 is having 3 seperate singleplayers.. Is that a BAD thing? I think entirely no way.. Because that means we will be getting very shortly right after the game is released, a singleplayer that will span for quite some time.. We have read that the singleplayer will not only be much more story based, but it will be free form with decision making that may affect the entire campaign.. Based on pass experience, it has shown that Blizzard always makes very good LONG campaigns that span over a very long time.. And you guys are complaining over somethign where we may see 3 very long campaigns? No one is forcing you to buy the others, and on top of that blizzard has never made a full priced expansion.. Chances are they will sell for $30.. If not less. To me this is what I hear "OMG wtf is wrong with you blizzard, we don't want 3 very long campaigns with tons of options that may take us a very long time to complete.. We want a cut down single player like the AVERAGE RTS just so I don't have to pay more money"..

B) Diablo 3 paying monthly may be considered a good thing.. Now I know you guys seem to lack rational thought in this but lets put this to scrutiny.. How many devs actually keep with their game for years on end? Blizzard.. Which dev never really abandons their game even when its far from profitable for nearlya decade? Blizzard.. This small monthly fee to me GARENTEES the company will only release tons of content possibly monthly.. This is much better instead of a game rarely getting ANY updates what so ever.. Diablo 2 was already a amazing game with little real content added to it.. Can you imagine how much longer would play the game if we got new content every few months that could dramatically add alot of thigns to the game?

The WoW part I don't understand? WoW is not a sequel to Warcraft 3.. To me I just see a little kid crying because he didn't get the game he wanted, even when its illogical for Blizzard to make a sequel so soon over its other older franchises.

My only gripes with Diablo 3 at the moment was paying for battlnet and is auto assigning stats along with the no hostiling and no real talk of an arena (it was mentioned but nothing really new on it). The assigning stats are gonna be a joke but I would rather have the new rune system than assigning stats, the sheer possibilities and actual impact makes it much more of a difference. Hostiling I LIKED how it was in the original, only thing I would like to see changed is let both players have to agree to hostile and if one wants to cut the option they can at any time in town. It solves most of the problems instead of flat out removing it.

As far as paying goes I cannot stand paying extra for something that has been free for as you said over 10 years. How would you like it if Valve started charging $10 a month to play TF2? I am sure you wouldn't be a happy camper considering steam has been free for nearly 4 years now and half lifes original online (over 10 years old) was free. If it didn't start as free that is one thing but going from free to p2p is just stupid. Sort of how companies think limiting the number of installations on a game is a good business move when as the saying goes "if it isn't broke don't fix it".

I wouldn't mind IF it added things such as updates monthly.. As I say again, most devs abandon their games after awhile never really adding any content.. I would be estatic if we got huge patchs for Diablo 3 all the time that added items, new areas, quests, etc etc..

[QUOTE="vlin1108"][QUOTE="Swoopdawhoop"]

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

Mr47fitter

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

And skills might be automatically assigned, plus enemies leveling up with you...4 player multiplayer limit...

Not skills. stats. Don't get them confused. You will still have the skill trees to pick what you want. Base stats are auto-assigned.

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

Swoopdawhoop

I'm seriously gonna tell Blizzard to frak off if they mess up D3.

Tom Chilton already messed up WoW

They already messed up Starcraft 2, yess I'm complaining about the sequel turning into a trilogy and why? I want to play as the damn protoss but guess what they are coming out last in the "trilogy" so I'll be lucky if I can play the damn game before 2015

Yes I'm still pissed about them canceling Starcraft: Ghost.

Maybe I've just got more cash than the average gamer, but $15 a month to make sure an awesome game runs smooth with constant updates is totally worth it to me. Now, I don't see the need for holiday quests in D3, like they have in WoW, but unique and fun content that's constantly updating is worth the extra buck to me. Hell, having monthly access to just about anything on the net is usually $30, and never as fun as a Blizzard game.

Now SC2 may not have all the campaigns in the first box, but who cares, if you wanna play the protoss go play on battlenet. And SC Ghost was a guaranteed flop, that's why they cut it. Blizzard doesn't release bad games, and that's why they can do whatever they want to take your money. Be thankful that they dont make everything have a $50 monthly fee, cuz I know you would all still be saving those pennies just to play Blizzard's great games.

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

Swoopdawhoop

I dont see whats the big deal is if each of the 3 parts of starcraft is as big as a normal strategy game and as for warcraft is gonna be a warcraft 4

Maybe I've just got more cash than the average gamer, but $15 a month to make sure an awesome game runs smooth with constant updates is totally worth it to me. Now, I don't see the need for holiday quests in D3, like they have in WoW, but unique and fun content that's constantly updating is worth the extra buck to me. Hell, having monthly access to just about anything on the net is usually $30, and never as fun as a Blizzard game.

Now SC2 may not have all the campaigns in the first box, but who cares, if you wanna play the protoss go play on battlenet. And SC Ghost was a guaranteed flop, that's why they cut it. Blizzard doesn't release bad games, and that's why they can do whatever they want to take your money. Be thankful that they dont make everything have a $50 monthly fee, cuz I know you would all still be saving those pennies just to play Blizzard's great games.

Zigeye

I disagree. When I played WoW, my interest was mostly PvP'ing on a pvp server. And most of the patches have brought many many dungeons but only 3 battlegrounds in the span of 3 years that I played the game. So I realized that the 15$ just didn't become worth it.

And as for the SC campaigns, so people DO actually care about them, because their favorite race (be it Zerg or Protoss) will come after the Terran and we don't know yet how long we will wait for the next SC part to come in. I was attracted to SC's campaigns, not online when I bought the game so I care alot about the campaigns.

And if Blizzard charged 50 dollars monthly fee, there would be 2 scenarios: Worst case being me firebombing their main offices and best case scenario me ignoring all their products and showing them a middle finger.

Yes I'm still pissed about them canceling Starcraft: Ghost.

Ballroompirate

which oddly enough wasn't planned for the PC and essentially would have been what WoW was to Warcraft.

[QUOTE="vlin1108"][QUOTE="Swoopdawhoop"]

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

Mr47fitter

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

And skills might be automatically assigned, plus enemies leveling up with you...4 player multiplayer limit...

I love how people bash a game they have no information about and have never played. :roll:

"Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3."

No, they won't. Only for certain features that are hard to change.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing/

"With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra."

Secondly...

"And skills might be automatically assigned, plus enemies leveling up with you...4 player multiplayer limit..."

Skills won't be automatically assigned :roll:, the various points associated to the ****will. For example, if you're playing a Wizard, it won't make any sense to put points into strength, therefore, it will automatically assign you points into intellect and stamina.

Enemies leveling with you gives the game replay value. As for the 4 multiplayer limit, I believe Blizzard is referring to multiplayer outside of cities (Guild Wars ****. In the cities there will be an unlimited number of players in different districts.

[QUOTE="Mr47fitter"][QUOTE="vlin1108"][QUOTE="Swoopdawhoop"]

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

chrisrooR

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

And skills might be automatically assigned, plus enemies leveling up with you...4 player multiplayer limit...

I love how people bash a game they have no information about and have never played. :roll:

"Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3."

No, they won't. Only for certain features that are hard to change.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing/

"With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra."

Secondly...

"And skills might be automatically assigned, plus enemies leveling up with you...4 player multiplayer limit..."

Skills won't be automatically assigned :roll:, the various points associated to the ****will. For example, if you're playing a Wizard, it won't make any sense to put points into strength, therefore, it will automatically assign you points into intellect and stamina.

Enemies leveling with you gives the game replay value. As for the 4 multiplayer limit, I believe Blizzard is referring to multiplayer outside of cities (Guild Wars ****. In the cities there will be an unlimited number of players in different districts.

While I don't like the fact that there won't be a campaing for each race on release Blizzard had three choices

1) Delay the game for atleast two years

2) Include all three but in their words "Provide the players with only something slightly better than WarCraft 3"

3) Focus on one race but make it much better than anything that they have done before.

Also I am not sure where people are getting "$30 maybe less" price tag from, the cheapest Blizzard expansion is something like $39.99, the standard industry pricing. Considering that something like a standard RTS is going to have 10 missions with no adventure mode and be rather linear I say having "26-30" missions in non-linear structure and an adventure mode is good value.

blizzard oh blizzard...

get your damn wow servers running! im a paying customer!!

[QUOTE="vlin1108"][QUOTE="Swoopdawhoop"]

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

sSubZerOo

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

People are over-reacting.. To me I think half of you guys lack the IQ for having a clear and rational thought process on this.

Ugh, mes tu stopid to undirstnd wat u say.

blizzard oh blizzard...

get your damn wow servers running! im a paying customer!!

Ninja_Dog

to that I say yes. however, it looks like they may have been accidently DDoS'd by people overwhelming the servers.

blizzard oh blizzard...

get your damn wow servers running! im a paying customer!!

Ninja_Dog

[QUOTE="vlin1108"][QUOTE="Swoopdawhoop"]

You had it all my friend. Fame, money, women, RTS, RPG. And you blew it!

You had the warcraft franchise. But now no more building small armys, no more making bases. You had to make World of Warcraft, so we can get te phay lewtz.

You had the starcraft franchise. But now no more at all, because you tryed to to sell 1 game for 3 times its worth.

Please, I beg you, leave Diablo alone. Keep whatever is left of you intact.

Mr47fitter

Blizzard said that it will charge money for additional content for Diablo 3. :lol:

And skills might be automatically assigned, plus enemies leveling up with you...4 player multiplayer limit...

They already showed off the skill trees and how YOU CAN CHOOSE which skills to upgrade and what not... Go to gametrailers... it is there.