Well, we know for fact that the game had at least one full fledged version at Blizzard north which was completely scrapped. I want to say there were probably two or three incarnations that had to be rebooted before the current one, but I don't want to scour the net for a source on that.
So, yes Blizzard has been trying to make Diablo 3 for a very long time, the product they are preparing for release was not the recipient of all that attention though.
My understanding of the earliest times of development, and this did come from a Blizzard statement of sorts that I can't be arsed to find, Blizzard North was essentially making Diablo 2 Part 2. It was the same mechanics, same click-unnecessarily-fest that Diablo 2 is. And that's why it got scrapped entirely when Blizzard North dissolved. Frankly, I'm not even curious as to what they had going. Considering Torchlight is the first time in years I've been happy with something that team has made, and it's only in the wake of Diablo 3's announcement, it couldn't have been good whatever it was.
Regardless though, I'm sure that even in those years there were lull-times where development wasn't in full-gear. Blizzard's dev teams can kick out a lot of amazing work in a couple years' time, and thinking about how much they've thrown away in the possible chance they have been full-on with Diablo 3 is staggering.
Maybe they can sell us a behind-the-scenes DVD about this.
I think a collector's edition bonus that included nitty gritty on the canned previous versions leading up to Diablo 3, and the attempted previous art direction styles would be really cool.
I think the best estimates we're going to get is from judging the dating of the concept art. At least one monster design is dated as far back as 2004, although it seems there was a significant ramp up of pre-production around 2006/7. I'd say about 5 years is a pretty good estimate to put on the actual development time for Diablo 3.
Whether it's a foregone conclusion or not, it comes across as having a serious sense of entitlement to call any sort of shenanigans on a company being tight lipped on the product due out after the product they still haven't finalized is out.
Of course there'll be an expansion. You know it, I know it, Blizzard knows it, but even breathing a word about it sets the fanbase in motion clamouring for information. The fanboys/girls have proven time and again to lose their shit over the tiniest perceived imperfection, theoretical, imagined or otherwise. Heaven forbid they wish to keep the clamor down to a dull roar until they've at least got the base game complete.
And bluntly, it'd be a sign of ego to already be talking about expansions months (or even years) before D3 itself comes out. Like a studio so in love with a tentpole movie that they announce 1-3+ sequels before it's even out. Sometimes that comes back to bite them in the ass, so I don't think we should really fault them for being vague when it's justified.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I've seen this said quite a bit. We're not specifically designing the witch doctor to leave room for a necromancer class. We're focusing on this game and making the classes fun. It's more of a case of, the witch doctor just isn't similar enough that it would prohibit us from adding a necromancer. Were one to be added in an expansion.
... it would have been so egotistical.
Let alone the fact that Blizzard told us they're working on another massively multiplayer game years ago that won't be out until years from now. Selective tight-lipped-ness?
"Serious sense of entitlement"? Please, get some perspective.
Let alone the fact that Blizzard told us they're working on another massively multiplayer game years ago that won't be out until years from now. Selective tight-lipped-ness?
I fail to see how that refutes my point at all. I specifically said that commenting on an expansion to an unreleased game was understandably something they didn't want to do. Unless that super secret MMO is actually WoW2: LOL it's an entirely new first game, so hinting at it is equally consistent with hinting at D3.
Similarly, I'd call bullshit on bothering to even ponder what might some day be a gleam in a developer's eyes regarding the first expansion of that unknown MMO, but we all know that's coming too.
"Serious sense of entitlement"? Please, get some perspective.
I'm not the one calling bullshit on what appears to be a perfectly reasonable stance on their products. You're the one with the issue on them being vague on the topic of expansions that may or may not come out before the sun engulfs the Earth, which given the current state of said product line, seems prudent enough to me.
Hell, even looking at the topic will draw ire from some sections of the community. "Already thinking about expansions? Why not just put those classes/mechanics/content sections into D3, this is Starcraft 2 all over again!" they'll exclaim, harumph'ing and scoffing up a storm. In this age of 'DLC' that's already on the disk for unlocking for some games, I don't see why keeping that on the down low for now is anything but the most sensible course of action.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Let alone the fact that Blizzard told us they're working on another massively multiplayer game years ago that won't be out until years from now. Selective tight-lipped-ness?
I fail to see how that refutes my point at all. I specifically said that commenting on an expansion to an unreleased game was understandably something they didn't want to do. Unless that super secret MMO is actually WoW2: LOL it's an entirely new first game, so hinting at it is equally consistent with hinting at D3.
Because your argument is that they have to remain tight lipped due to the perceptions of a rabid fanbase. Explain to me how "yeah, we'll probably be making an expansion for D3" is going to cause any more of a shitstorm than "yeah, we, the company who made the most popular MMORPG ever, are working on another MMOG."
Hell, if you'll scroll up enough, you'll see that Jay Wilson (but not Bashiok) wasn't afraid to admit that an expansion is an inevitability. And holy shit! Look at the throngs of fanboys clamoring for information on Diablo 3xp: Lord of More Destruction! Or not.
Similarly, I'd call bullshit on bothering to even ponder what might some day be a gleam in a developer's eyes regarding the first expansion of that unknown MMO, but we all know that's coming too.
"Serious sense of entitlement"? Please, get some perspective.
I'm not the one calling bullshit on what appears to be a perfectly reasonable stance on their products. You're the one with the issue on them being vague on the topic of expansions that may or may not come out before the sun engulfs the Earth, which given the current state of said product line, seems prudent enough to me.
Actually, it's being vague on the topic of an inevitability. If they admit there will be a Diablo 3 expansion, and the world is destroyed before it's released, then I don't think Blizzard loses anything more in that situation than if they hadn't admitted there was one. And there won't be any fanboys to cry about it, either.
Hell, even looking at the topic will draw ire from some sections of the community. "Already thinking about expansions? Why not just put those classes/mechanics/content sections into D3, this is Starcraft 2 all over again!" they'll exclaim, harumph'ing and scoffing up a storm. In this age of 'DLC' that's already on the disk for unlocking for some games, I don't see why keeping that on the down low for now is anything but the most sensible course of action.
They're going to draw that same ire either way. Because, guess what, anyone who isn't naive and/or clueless knows that Blizzard is already thinking about expansions. You have to stop somewhere in order to release a game; this isn't news to anyone with a reasonably functioning brain. And when "a game" happens to be one that will have been in some sort of development for over a decade by the time it's released, the people buying the game will be glad the devs decided to stop development and finally release it.
Considering how well SC2 sold, even though "it's only one-third of a game" in the minds of some idiotic, vocal minority (90% of whom probably bought the game anyway), I don't think baseless fanboy ranting registers to Blizzard as more than an ant fart.
If they admit there will be a Diablo 3 expansion, and the world is destroyed before it's released, then I don't think Blizzard loses anything more in that situation than if they hadn't admitted there was one. And there won't be any fanboys to cry about it, either.
Please. We both know that whining Blizzard fanboys transcend mere time and space. They will have their [strike]revenge[/strike] game, in this life or the next.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Also, I must be going on a different working definition of "fanboys," but I thought those were the ones of the mindset that "Blizzard is perfect" and would never complain about anything or admit to any of their mistakes.
Also, I must be going on a different working definition of "fanboys," but I thought those were the ones of the mindset that "Blizzard is perfect" and would never complain about anything or admit to any of their mistakes.
Oh no, fanboys are just as likely to hate on creators for "ruining" their precious whatever. Fan dumb goes both ways.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Whenever this damn game comes out I will buy it day 1. I'm so close to playing D2 again, but now that I have a 44 hour a week job... That isn't in the cards.
urahonky on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Every time I feel like playing Diablo 2, I remember I have Torchlight so I play that instead.
Seriously, Diablo 2 has not aged well for me and it's only getting worse with time. My eagerness to play Diablo 1, despite its frustrations, is way stronger than part 2 now.
Every time I feel like playing Diablo 2, I remember I have Torchlight so I play that instead.
Seriously, Diablo 2 has not aged well for me and it's only getting worse with time. My eagerness to play Diablo 1, despite its frustrations, is way stronger than part 2 now.
The opposite actually is true for me. That's partly because I was late to the party on D2, so it isn't old hat for me. My issues with Torchlight are that it doesn't control right -- too floaty -- and that it has seriously uninteresting skill trees.
It doesn't help that like an entire tree is shared across the classes, and while it includes things like magic find and whatnot, it almost feels like a requirement to pump a lot of those up, which in turn can make it feel like you're putting a lot of effort into characters that are just reskins of the same character at varying power levels. Like, across X levels a good portion of those points just go into the same shit for all the classes, or they did when I played it.
I enjoyed Torchlight, and while I'm intrigued by TL2, I can't say it really quite fulfills that itch for me. And for clarity, Steam says I put a good 36 hours into the game since purchase, so I definitely got my money's worth and more out of the experience. Just doesn't seem to have the same "how many weeks of your life does that equate to?" grip D2 had.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Yeah there were some parts that got a little crazy but for the most part I found the gameplay to be too simple and too boring most of the time. Maybe I just played all the wrong classes but barbarians spun and amazons shot, you used two, maybe three abilities and potoins.
Yeah there were some parts that got a little crazy but for the most part I found the gameplay to be too simple and too boring most of the time. Maybe I just played all the wrong classes but barbarians spun and amazons shot, you used two, maybe three abilities and potoins.
The classes really are all about specialization. Jacks of all trades tend to be weak. I think this is a design choice that has for the most part worked out OK but you can see how they went a different route balancing things in WOW. It seems to me that D3 is leaning towards the WOW model where you can be good at a few things rather than just one (or maybe 2 if you're a one point smiter).
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Hell, even looking at the topic will draw ire from some sections of the community. "Already thinking about expansions? Why not just put those classes/mechanics/content sections into D3, this is Starcraft 2 all over again!" they'll exclaim, harumph'ing and scoffing up a storm.
Why would anyone give a shit about those people? They'll buy the game anyway, not that it would make a blip on sales if they didn't.
Yeah there were some parts that got a little crazy but for the most part I found the gameplay to be too simple and too boring most of the time. Maybe I just played all the wrong classes but barbarians spun and amazons shot, you used two, maybe three abilities and potoins.
Funny, that's the issue I had with Torchlight.
JAEF on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Diablo 2 has bigger swaths of enemies than Torchlight, but gives you less tools to slaughter them en masse. Torchlight, on the other hand, was designed to give you tools to handle groups of enemies right away. It was constructed better, even if 'slower' paced.
Also, potion spam was removed as a gameplay element.
You don't need tons of skills to get pacing right. Diablo 2 had really immaculately tuned pacing-- your character starts off zippy and responsive, and only gets faster, while your skills have a satisfying sting.
Torchlight, by comparison, can feel a big more like you're lumbering around swatting at things.
Diablo 2 has bigger swaths of enemies than Torchlight, but gives you less tools to slaughter them en masse. Torchlight, on the other hand, was designed to give you tools to handle groups of enemies right away. It was constructed better, even if 'slower' paced.
They still start you off against small clumps of enemies. Diablo 2 pitted you against large amounts of monsters, but the tradeoff is that individually they weren't threatening until you got the tools to deal with them. Most classes get a way attack multiple monsters early, a way to manage them (via minions or other tools) or are beefy enough that it's not a huge deal. I guess that's poor construction?
Also, potion spam was removed as a gameplay element.
That's funny, my warrior was running into enemies I would have to spam potions against or die miserably to. Pretty much every encounter once I hit floor.. 28-32? Somewhere around that.
Don't blame blizzard blame the pirates, company wants to secure its property at very little inconveinance to the player.
It's an entirely revenue driven decision that removes options from real customers in order to secure more income for Blizzard. Pirates will still pirate. This is the exact same issue as LAN play in SC2, and here we still are 8 months after SC2's release having to deal with players in major tournaments disconnecting even though they're playing on the same stage less than 20 feet from each other.
You can apologize for Blizzard all you want and shake your fist at those nasty [strike]terrorists[/strike] pirates, the bottom line is that the end product is crippled for the people who buy it because of pure greed.
Wait, how will D3 be "crippled"? I think it's still too early to say for sure how single player will work until we've actually seen the beta. Plus, having to create an online account is not a huge burden on the gamer, even if they wish to play single player. (If you have no internet, you got other problems.) This game is intended to be an online product, and they say as much.
Second, securing the app online will make things like preventing cheats and dupes a manageable prospect instead of a virtual war on drugs. Even if people pirate the game (and they will), at least we won't see them on battlenet. That to me is worth the tradeoff of requiring an account.
Finally, you guys accuse Blizzard of greed for wanting to make sure they get paid for their product? If you spent millions of dollars and person-hours developing software that you knew could be hacked in the space of a few hours, wouldn't you try to change your business model to make sure those pirates had a minimal impact on your sales? Yes, it's a business decision. Any reasonable person would do the same - or risk going out of business. "Greed is good". Without greed, we would not have the plethora of awesome video games we enjoy today.
Diablo 2 prevented pirates from playing on (Realm) battle.net as well...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no.
Diablo 2 had CD keys that were cracked very quickly. Blizz would occasionally do a sweep and boot people with forged CD keys, but all they had to do was go generate another key and reinstall.
El Guaco nothing in that post is telling me why removing options that were present in Diablo 2 will be good for the consumer?
Diablo 2 had full LAN and TCP/IP support, a secure (as secure as was feasible with the tech they built it on) online portion (Closed BNet) that required verified ownership via CD Key, and a playground for non-secure characters or characters from single player (Open BNet) which still required verification to connect to.
Clearly the pirates won, as Diablo II has only sold over 4 million copies (this figure brought to you by a press release from August 2001) and continues to secure a place on store shelves and sell at $30 for the game and expansion bundle. Not bad for a game over 10 years old.
Greed to me is the removal of features on the hope or assumption (there is really no way to verify any success) that this will net you the sale of more product. That is not good. That means a weaker product. They are not at risk of going out of business and this is not a change in business model. They are at risk of perhaps marginally fewer boxes. Diablo 3 will be hacked as fast as ever whether they include those features or not.
El Guaco nothing in that post is telling me why removing options that were present in Diablo 2 will be good for the consumer?
Diablo 2 had full LAN and TCP/IP support, a secure (as secure as was feasible with the tech they built it on) online portion (Closed BNet) that required verified ownership via CD Key, and a playground for non-secure characters or characters from single player (Open BNet) which still required verification to connect to.
Clearly the pirates won, as Diablo II has only sold over 4 million copies (this figure brought to you by a press release from August 2001) and continues to secure a place on store shelves and sell at $30 for the game and expansion bundle. Not bad for a game over 10 years old.
Greed to me is the removal of features on the hope or assumption (there is really no way to verify any success) that this will net you the sale of more product. That is not good. That means a weaker product. They are not at risk of going out of business and this is not a change in business model. They are at risk of perhaps marginally fewer boxes. Diablo 3 will be hacked as fast as ever whether they include those features or not.
I have to disagree. I hardly think that theyre taking out LAN because they think it will sell them more. Honestly it's foolish to even think that would be the case considering how many people were upset about it not being in SC2, for example. It was even a deal breaker for a couple people I know. But the game still sold well without it, and so will Diablo 3, and that's exactly why they can be ok with taking it out to make things even just a little bit more secure or give people less of a reason to pirate it. In the end, it doesn't matter, so they'll go what they feel is the safer route for their product. It's not greed, its them wanting to protect their software, as Guaco said.
The new battle.net is also more secure than youre giving credit for. As far as I know (and after a quick glace around a certain popular torrent site), even if you do get a pirated version of SC2 you still cant get online to play against people over b.net.
Also, I also doubt that back in 2001 pirates were as abundant as they are today.
Even if you think it makes zero difference one way or another it sure as hell IS all about selling more. They want to monetize B.net. They admit this. Simple as that. It's not the end of the world, but it sure sucks if you like LAN.
Xeddicus on
"For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
I don't even understand how LAN play even makes sense for D3, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to you. (Personally, I can't even remember the last time I had a LAN match of anything. It was probably 5 or more years ago.) The only reason most people played on Open Battle.net was because they wanted to use their hacked characters and items with other players. If you wanted to play legit, you had to use Closed Bnet.
I will tell you how it benefits us as gamers. It means Blizzard doesn't have to spend time and effort on a feature very few people are likely to use. As you argued, it will make little difference in sales. So why bother? The result is that they focus on the features that everyone wants.
Posts
My understanding of the earliest times of development, and this did come from a Blizzard statement of sorts that I can't be arsed to find, Blizzard North was essentially making Diablo 2 Part 2. It was the same mechanics, same click-unnecessarily-fest that Diablo 2 is. And that's why it got scrapped entirely when Blizzard North dissolved. Frankly, I'm not even curious as to what they had going. Considering Torchlight is the first time in years I've been happy with something that team has made, and it's only in the wake of Diablo 3's announcement, it couldn't have been good whatever it was.
Regardless though, I'm sure that even in those years there were lull-times where development wasn't in full-gear. Blizzard's dev teams can kick out a lot of amazing work in a couple years' time, and thinking about how much they've thrown away in the possible chance they have been full-on with Diablo 3 is staggering.
Maybe they can sell us a behind-the-scenes DVD about this.
I think the best estimates we're going to get is from judging the dating of the concept art. At least one monster design is dated as far back as 2004, although it seems there was a significant ramp up of pre-production around 2006/7. I'd say about 5 years is a pretty good estimate to put on the actual development time for Diablo 3.
If Vegas ran odds on "Blizzard will make an expansion for this PC game they're releasing," the payoff would be 0:1, since it's a sure thing.
Of course there'll be an expansion. You know it, I know it, Blizzard knows it, but even breathing a word about it sets the fanbase in motion clamouring for information. The fanboys/girls have proven time and again to lose their shit over the tiniest perceived imperfection, theoretical, imagined or otherwise. Heaven forbid they wish to keep the clamor down to a dull roar until they've at least got the base game complete.
And bluntly, it'd be a sign of ego to already be talking about expansions months (or even years) before D3 itself comes out. Like a studio so in love with a tentpole movie that they announce 1-3+ sequels before it's even out. Sometimes that comes back to bite them in the ass, so I don't think we should really fault them for being vague when it's justified.
Let alone the fact that Blizzard told us they're working on another massively multiplayer game years ago that won't be out until years from now. Selective tight-lipped-ness?
"Serious sense of entitlement"? Please, get some perspective.
I fail to see how that refutes my point at all. I specifically said that commenting on an expansion to an unreleased game was understandably something they didn't want to do. Unless that super secret MMO is actually WoW2: LOL it's an entirely new first game, so hinting at it is equally consistent with hinting at D3.
Similarly, I'd call bullshit on bothering to even ponder what might some day be a gleam in a developer's eyes regarding the first expansion of that unknown MMO, but we all know that's coming too.
I'm not the one calling bullshit on what appears to be a perfectly reasonable stance on their products. You're the one with the issue on them being vague on the topic of expansions that may or may not come out before the sun engulfs the Earth, which given the current state of said product line, seems prudent enough to me.
Hell, even looking at the topic will draw ire from some sections of the community. "Already thinking about expansions? Why not just put those classes/mechanics/content sections into D3, this is Starcraft 2 all over again!" they'll exclaim, harumph'ing and scoffing up a storm. In this age of 'DLC' that's already on the disk for unlocking for some games, I don't see why keeping that on the down low for now is anything but the most sensible course of action.
Hell, if you'll scroll up enough, you'll see that Jay Wilson (but not Bashiok) wasn't afraid to admit that an expansion is an inevitability. And holy shit! Look at the throngs of fanboys clamoring for information on Diablo 3xp: Lord of More Destruction! Or not.
Not sure what that has to do with anything here.
Actually, it's being vague on the topic of an inevitability. If they admit there will be a Diablo 3 expansion, and the world is destroyed before it's released, then I don't think Blizzard loses anything more in that situation than if they hadn't admitted there was one. And there won't be any fanboys to cry about it, either.
They're going to draw that same ire either way. Because, guess what, anyone who isn't naive and/or clueless knows that Blizzard is already thinking about expansions. You have to stop somewhere in order to release a game; this isn't news to anyone with a reasonably functioning brain. And when "a game" happens to be one that will have been in some sort of development for over a decade by the time it's released, the people buying the game will be glad the devs decided to stop development and finally release it.
Considering how well SC2 sold, even though "it's only one-third of a game" in the minds of some idiotic, vocal minority (90% of whom probably bought the game anyway), I don't think baseless fanboy ranting registers to Blizzard as more than an ant fart.
Please. We both know that whining Blizzard fanboys transcend mere time and space. They will have their [strike]revenge[/strike] game, in this life or the next.
Oh no, fanboys are just as likely to hate on creators for "ruining" their precious whatever. Fan dumb goes both ways.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Seriously, Diablo 2 has not aged well for me and it's only getting worse with time. My eagerness to play Diablo 1, despite its frustrations, is way stronger than part 2 now.
Yeah I guess it was fast, but it didn't really feel different from Torchlight.
The opposite actually is true for me. That's partly because I was late to the party on D2, so it isn't old hat for me. My issues with Torchlight are that it doesn't control right -- too floaty -- and that it has seriously uninteresting skill trees.
I enjoyed Torchlight, and while I'm intrigued by TL2, I can't say it really quite fulfills that itch for me. And for clarity, Steam says I put a good 36 hours into the game since purchase, so I definitely got my money's worth and more out of the experience. Just doesn't seem to have the same "how many weeks of your life does that equate to?" grip D2 had.
Or blind teleporting on hardcore.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
The classes really are all about specialization. Jacks of all trades tend to be weak. I think this is a design choice that has for the most part worked out OK but you can see how they went a different route balancing things in WOW. It seems to me that D3 is leaning towards the WOW model where you can be good at a few things rather than just one (or maybe 2 if you're a one point smiter).
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Why would anyone give a shit about those people? They'll buy the game anyway, not that it would make a blip on sales if they didn't.
Also, potion spam was removed as a gameplay element.
Torchlight, by comparison, can feel a big more like you're lumbering around swatting at things.
That's funny, my warrior was running into enemies I would have to spam potions against or die miserably to. Pretty much every encounter once I hit floor.. 28-32? Somewhere around that.
55
Second, securing the app online will make things like preventing cheats and dupes a manageable prospect instead of a virtual war on drugs. Even if people pirate the game (and they will), at least we won't see them on battlenet. That to me is worth the tradeoff of requiring an account.
Finally, you guys accuse Blizzard of greed for wanting to make sure they get paid for their product? If you spent millions of dollars and person-hours developing software that you knew could be hacked in the space of a few hours, wouldn't you try to change your business model to make sure those pirates had a minimal impact on your sales? Yes, it's a business decision. Any reasonable person would do the same - or risk going out of business. "Greed is good". Without greed, we would not have the plethora of awesome video games we enjoy today.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no.
Diablo 2 had CD keys that were cracked very quickly. Blizz would occasionally do a sweep and boot people with forged CD keys, but all they had to do was go generate another key and reinstall.
Diablo 2 had full LAN and TCP/IP support, a secure (as secure as was feasible with the tech they built it on) online portion (Closed BNet) that required verified ownership via CD Key, and a playground for non-secure characters or characters from single player (Open BNet) which still required verification to connect to.
Clearly the pirates won, as Diablo II has only sold over 4 million copies (this figure brought to you by a press release from August 2001) and continues to secure a place on store shelves and sell at $30 for the game and expansion bundle. Not bad for a game over 10 years old.
Greed to me is the removal of features on the hope or assumption (there is really no way to verify any success) that this will net you the sale of more product. That is not good. That means a weaker product. They are not at risk of going out of business and this is not a change in business model. They are at risk of perhaps marginally fewer boxes. Diablo 3 will be hacked as fast as ever whether they include those features or not.
I have to disagree. I hardly think that theyre taking out LAN because they think it will sell them more. Honestly it's foolish to even think that would be the case considering how many people were upset about it not being in SC2, for example. It was even a deal breaker for a couple people I know. But the game still sold well without it, and so will Diablo 3, and that's exactly why they can be ok with taking it out to make things even just a little bit more secure or give people less of a reason to pirate it. In the end, it doesn't matter, so they'll go what they feel is the safer route for their product. It's not greed, its them wanting to protect their software, as Guaco said.
The new battle.net is also more secure than youre giving credit for. As far as I know (and after a quick glace around a certain popular torrent site), even if you do get a pirated version of SC2 you still cant get online to play against people over b.net.
Also, I also doubt that back in 2001 pirates were as abundant as they are today.
I will tell you how it benefits us as gamers. It means Blizzard doesn't have to spend time and effort on a feature very few people are likely to use. As you argued, it will make little difference in sales. So why bother? The result is that they focus on the features that everyone wants.
Locked regions means I can't play with the PA people I usually play online with which just seems like a huge leap backwards.