Diablo III General Discussion - Page 250

On August 20 2011 13:41 Rybka wrote:


fixed >_<

Look I'm not saying D3 doesn't look awesome, but weeks upon weeks of radio silence coupled with hundreds of pages of threads about RMAH/color scheme bitching has really taken things back a notch imho. I think Blizz announced that the beta was coming "soon" way too early.

Meanwhile, games like BF3, DotA2, Rage, and Dead Island are coming out. People are pumped and the games look great.

On August 21 2011 00:00 absalom86 wrote:


Come on now... do you know what company this is ? Blizz takes longer to release their stuff, but once it's out it is always flawless... You can go play your second rate, rushed games all you want but I'll stick with quality instead of rate of release.

On August 21 2011 01:07 Rybka wrote:


Who said that Diablo 3 wouldn't be great? Nobody is disputing that Blizzard puts together great games or that Diablo 3 will be an excellent title, just that in the past they've relied on their star power to introduce things waaaaaay before they are ready. They would almost always deliver (I would argue that WotLK and Cata were a departure from their standards, but that's another thread), but the waits were brutal. However, if the game you're going to release is clearly better than competing titles, who cares right?

The thing is, you have to respect that BF3 won best of show at Gamescom, and that the lines to play that game were 9 hours long. You also have Valve coming out with DotA 2, which has a serious shot at winning the IGN people's choice award. Just like Blizzard, when Valve puts their name behind a title you know it will be epic, and the playerbase for DotA is HUGE.

There are many great titles coming out now, and imho D3 doesn't stand out against these titles as an obvious "faceroll" win. Is D3 awesome? Yes. Is it clearly best at Gamescom? Not by a long-shot. Just my opinion.

What's news to me is that Battlefield 3, DotA 2, Rage, Torchlight 2 (made by some of the original team that made Diablo 2 BTW), and Dead Island are "second rate rushed games." I've never heard that before.

On August 21 2011 01:14 Simberto wrote:

So, your argument is that one should only announce stuff shortly before it is ready, and that that would be a good thing? I simply don't see the reason for that. As a player, i find earlier announcements and information better than later, but other people should view that differently. The time of announcement should not influence the time of release in any way, so if you announce closer to launch you don't get games that launch earlier, just announcements that are later. No advantage in that in my opinion.

On August 21 2011 01:33 Rybka wrote:


Exactly!

The reason for doing it is that you avoid all of the negative press that Diablo's own fans are pushing. Consider the timeline...

-Blizzard announces Diablo 3 beta coming "soon."
-Fans freak out with excitement. They track every word the Blues post. They follow twitter feeds and leaked screenshots.
-However, Diablo 3 isn't ready. They are at least 2-3 months out from having a product ready to present to the public.
-The community demands info, but semi-complete armor concepts and cryptic tweets are the only things they have to latch onto.
-The fanbase begins to make sketchy assumptions about basic game concepts (ex: RMAH) without any context. They begin to draw negative inferences without complete information.
-Most of the conversation in the community turns negative.

Given what we've all seen, not the least of which can be found in the last 200+ pages of this thread, tell me how announcing things early is good thing? Even though it will surely be amazing and a worthy successor to the franchise, I don't think Blizzard has done itself any favors with the way it's marketed this game.

On August 21 2011 01:38 vaporizor wrote:
was this this much bitching pre d2????? like people really mad they were gonna screw it up? this thread a flame war

On August 21 2011 02:37 Dreamscythe wrote:
http://eu.blizzard.com/en-gb/company/events/diablo3-announcement/index.html#beta:d3-interview

I bet that most of you guys have read it already,but there is a link anyways.

This may be noobish question but here it goes anyways. I load system check for exe and send my computer info for blizzard. Will they randomly pick people for beta or do we need to apply for it?

On August 21 2011 02:39 ZeraToss wrote:


i guess random, but with huge variety of comp specs because, they want to test it on high end and low comps

On August 21 2011 02:49 Dreamscythe wrote:



Danke. That seems actually quite logical. Hoping that i get into beta because i am playing with bit older computer

On August 21 2011 01:55 SKC wrote:


You also get a lot of feedback during your whole development cycle. As long as you manage to focus or what's helpful and ignore what is not, this can only be a good thing. It's always hard to say what changes Blizzard does that are actually influenced by the feedback, but I doubt there are none. They also seem very good about stickying to their original design intentions if they believe they are superior, sometimes maybe too good.

As long as you don't mind the bad talk and immediate backlash of some annoucements, I can only see it as a good thing for the developtment of the game. It's not like people will not buy the game in the end because the information came sooner. If they released all the controversial stuff they have done sooner to the release, I think more people would actually not buy it since the information is fresh in their memory. Those boycott some people claim really fade away with time.

Edit:I skimmed through the article and I honestly don't believe it applies to Blizzard. There are no delays if there are no annoucement dates. There is no rush to complete it on time if there is not time to complete it in. That's basically what Blizzard always said when they claim their "When it's done" policy. The whole point of that article seems to be about the negative sides of companies rushing their products when close to the deadline, having to add new progammers or maybe annoucing their games even they know it will be complete. Do you believe the game would be better and would release sooner if Blizzard didn't announce it when they did? I honestly don't, I just think the announcement would be later but we would still not have the game, which is not what the article says.

On August 21 2011 03:48 Manit0u wrote:


My take on Blizzard announcing games way earlier than the actual release date (even years before that): If they didn't announce SC2 or D3 at all, just said "Here! SC2 for you, we kept it secret and now you can buy it!", guess what, I'd buy it.
As it is, I didn't bother to buy SC2 as it failed my expectations even during the beta (b.net 2.0 especially). And I feel that the same thing is going to happen with D3 for me. I've lost all interest in this game whatsoever (especially with F2P indie game PoE coming out soon, I will at least give it a shot since it's free and I don't think I'll do that for D3) and I have to admit that when they announced it I was totally hyped.

P. S.
And screw the feedback. They can just release the game, THEN take feedback and just patch it. Where's the problem in that? There are games that undergo huge changes since original release. I don't see how feedback based on some in-game footage, rumours and screens is going to benefit anyone.