They could do an "all-out war" story where some Nephalem are abusing their power (just because they're human, not magical corruption), so some angel factions want to purge humans again, and also the demons are out in force again. No need for there to be a singular bad guy who is the strongest ever to exist somehow.
I know that common video game design philosophy says the main character needs to be a human so that the player has something familiar to relate to. But I'd be perfectly happy with a Diablo game set in the heavenlies that doesn't include humans or nephalem at all. Let me be an angel from the Diablo universe please. They are some of the most badass character designs ever.
I freakin' love Tyrael and I would gladly play as an angel from this universe in a war of angels vs demons.
I think it'd be cool if the new Diablo or Diablo 4 would be a bit smaller in scope of the story. I still like the first one's the best. It's centered on a small town, Tristram, and what starts off as a seemingly small event turns into a huge thing. Diablo 3's story was so bad and presented like a Saturday morning cartoon. I couldn't have cared less about all the Nephalem stuff (which apparently was taken from Diablo novels?). I don't play Diablo for the story, but the first one had me genuinely interested in its world and characters (like reading the story in the giant manual). Perhaps it was a different time then...it was a new thing and i was a lot younger and hadn't played as many games yet.
The nephalem has to assemble a white soulstone, and go about killing the angels so they all get sucked into the white soulstone and merge back into the Prime Good so it can fight the Prime Evil that we accidentally created in D3.
Then you have to kill them both in the expansion and ascend as the new god.
I mean, I hope that's not it, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised either.
I think it'd be cool if the new Diablo or Diablo 4 would be a bit smaller in scope of the story. I still like the first one's the best. It's centered on a small town, Tristram, and what starts off as a seemingly small event turns into a huge thing. Diablo 3's story was so bad and presented like a Saturday morning cartoon. I couldn't have cared less about all the Nephalem stuff (which apparently was taken from Diablo novels?). I don't play Diablo for the story, but the first one had me genuinely interested in its world and characters (like reading the story in the giant manual). Perhaps it was a different time then...it was a new thing and i was a lot younger and hadn't played as many games yet.
This so much. Make it in the future and that the world was ravaged by all the shit from D3. Then have us start out in some small hamlet like the rogue encampment and search for survivors and build up a city a little kind of like darkest dungeon. It isn't like WoW where power levels need to grow by an order of magnitude every expansion. Diablo can tell a mostly new story every time.
Personally I'd just like to have an actual release of WC3 reforged, and fucking ride right into the WC4 cinematic right after the WC3 date reveal. There definitely needs to be an RTS reset for the wow universe, because retail wow is crap storywise.
And when the Prime Good and Prime Evil meet, they realize they have a lot in common and start boning. After the wedding, they decide to fly off into space and work together to create all new species and worlds.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
The nephalem has to assemble a white soulstone, and go about killing the angels so they all get sucked into the white soulstone and merge back into the Prime Good so it can fight the Prime Evil that we accidentally created in D3.
Then you have to kill them both in the expansion and ascend as the new god.
I mean, I hope that's not it, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised either.
The game actually directly states that the black soulstone was designed to hold angels as well. The fact that it never came up was kind of disappointing.
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
I predict that the core PvP mode of Overwatch 2 will be backwards compatible with OW1. It'll add a whole new PvE element which is separate, and maybe new heroes become OW2-only, but OW1 players can still play in the same game as them. Dividing your playerbase is never a good thing, and they've been putting too much work into the engine features etc in OW1 for me to think they're abandoning it.
Under normal circumstances I can certainly see Activision not caring about any of that and CoDing Overwatch and segregating each title, they know people will buy it "because Blizzard" regardless of Blizzard's relatively low reputation recently(hell it doesn't stop EA/Activision's sales and I'd say their online reputations are still way lower).
But CoD doesn't have a multi-million dollar esports scene invested in it either though, which I don't think Activision would be willing to risk burning. I think the official OW League stream still pulls 100k viewers pretty easy?
There is no distinction between Blizzard and Activision anymore. Activision-Blizzard is the company that's been running Overwatch from the start, and they haven't shown any sign of screwing over customers so far.
Activision Blizzard has absolutely been screwing customers over in Overwatch, and have been doing so from the very beginning.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
I predict that the core PvP mode of Overwatch 2 will be backwards compatible with OW1. It'll add a whole new PvE element which is separate, and maybe new heroes become OW2-only, but OW1 players can still play in the same game as them. Dividing your playerbase is never a good thing, and they've been putting too much work into the engine features etc in OW1 for me to think they're abandoning it.
Under normal circumstances I can certainly see Activision not caring about any of that and CoDing Overwatch and segregating each title, they know people will buy it "because Blizzard" regardless of Blizzard's relatively low reputation recently(hell it doesn't stop EA/Activision's sales and I'd say their online reputations are still way lower).
But CoD doesn't have a multi-million dollar esports scene invested in it either though, which I don't think Activision would be willing to risk burning. I think the official OW League stream still pulls 100k viewers pretty easy?
There is no distinction between Blizzard and Activision anymore. Activision-Blizzard is the company that's been running Overwatch from the start, and they haven't shown any sign of screwing over customers so far.
Activision Blizzard has absolutely been screwing customers over in Overwatch, and have been doing so from the very beginning.
I dunno, i bought overwatch with wow gold, so id say it was a pretty good deal
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I guess I don't feel screwed by Overwatch at all? I paid 40 bucks for it and have gotten more than my share of fun for the 40 dollars. I couldn't care less what they are doing with their skin economy or whatever because that shit is completely optional. No one is compelled to participate in the cosmetics game.
When Overwatch came out it was considered a model of ethical loot boxing. People are turning on loot boxes in general now, but Overwatch is still no worse than what anybody else with loot boxes is doing.
+2
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
You're right! Overwatch has always been just as bad as all other loot boxes, which are inherently unethical.
Gears of War 4 is what broke me on loot boxes, when I had to spend like the equivalent of $60 worth of currency (that, thankfully, I had earned playing the game) to get a single character skin I wanted. Just atrocious.
When Overwatch came out it was considered a model of ethical loot boxing. People are turning on loot boxes in general now, but Overwatch is still no worse than what anybody else with loot boxes is doing.
I've said this before but Blizzard has nearly always gotten a free pass on doing the same things other companies would get roasted for simply for being Blizzard, even though they were also frequently among the first ones to do it. Walled garden storefront? Always online DRM? RMAH? Buying in-game gold? Loot boxes? Last chance cosmetic bundles? Making Hearthstone card packs in China even scummier to circumvent loot box laws? You name the scummy practice, they've probably done it or tried to do it at least once, but nobody cared cuz Blazerd. I'm glad public opinion on the practices in general has been turning around because along with the other controversies it's now finally all coming down on them.
You're right! Overwatch has always been just as bad as all other loot boxes, which are inherently unethical.
Gears of War 4 at least had an actual honest-to-god game--a good one--that was completely removed and totally unrelated to skin skinner boxes. If I didn't play a single hour of multiplayer, I personally would've considered the $60 I spent justified by a good-looking co-op shooter with excellent mechanics (without ever once having to think about multiplayer skins). Overwatch couldn't even claim that--and you could easily spend $60 on lootboxes and not get a skin you were looking for, or enough in game currency to buy a particular skin. Hope a hundred player icons and decals were worth it!
Overwatch isn't the single worst example of loot boxes. It's still predatory as hell though.
Synthesis on
+4
Options
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
And when the Prime Good and Prime Evil meet, they realize they have a lot in common and start boning. After the wedding, they decide to fly off into space and work together to create all new species and worlds.
When Overwatch came out it was considered a model of ethical loot boxing. People are turning on loot boxes in general now, but Overwatch is still no worse than what anybody else with loot boxes is doing.
I've said this before but Blizzard has nearly always gotten a free pass on doing the same things other companies would get roasted for simply for being Blizzard, even though they were also frequently among the first ones to do it. Walled garden storefront? Always online DRM? RMAH? Buying in-game gold? Loot boxes? Last chance cosmetic bundles? Making Hearthstone card packs in China even scummier to circumvent loot box laws? You name the scummy practice, they've probably done it or tried to do it at least once, but nobody cared cuz Blazerd. I'm glad public opinion on the practices in general has been turning around because along with the other controversies it's now finally all coming down on them.
Like, if it were any other company, they'd get roasted for the little amount of content the game had for the price. Dear lord, did my enthusiasm for Overwatch drop off from that beta to launch. Kept on thinking, "Man, there's gotta be more in retail, right?" Turns out nope, there wasn't.
They'd have to really dig deep and come up with some original ideas for me to care about a sequel.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Didn't Overwatch used to have a la carte cosmetics that you could directly buy, but then actually switch to the more common/bullshit "lotto lootbox"? If it wasn't Overwatch, I think it was Heroes of the Storm. I just know Blizzard did it, and it's fucking scummy.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Buying lootboxes in OW always seemed really dumb to me, considering the low value of the boxes and how quickly you get them through play. Especially now that you get free boxes from playing supports or tanks. I've never felt incentivised to buy one.
Didn't Overwatch used to have a la carte cosmetics that you could directly buy, but then actually switch to the more common/bullshit "lotto lootbox"? If it wasn't Overwatch, I think it was Heroes of the Storm. I just know Blizzard did it, and it's fucking scummy.
That was HotS, Overwatch always had loot boxes.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
I spent a ton of money on skins and new-character bundles in HotS when everything was sold as actual goods and not gambling. As soon as they revoked that system and added loot boxes I never spent another dime on that game.
Didn't Overwatch used to have a la carte cosmetics that you could directly buy, but then actually switch to the more common/bullshit "lotto lootbox"? If it wasn't Overwatch, I think it was Heroes of the Storm. I just know Blizzard did it, and it's fucking scummy.
Never--though some content, like Mercy's pink costume and some Team merchandise, was sold normally for limited times. As Sea of Thieves--another multiplayer* game with limited content--demonstrated, we've come full circle from "LOLZ HORSE ARMOR IN MY SUPER-MOD-ABLE GAME" to seeing an actual straightforward cosmetic microtransaction store not necessarily as laudable, but least as an acceptable evil.
To be honest, "for once" the audience is right. Horse Armor mechanics might be easy to mock, but they're substantially less so in a game that has no modding element in it anyway (which has only become more normal since Oblivion's time). It is purely cosmetic (which is basically the entirety of Overwatch's defense). And finally, it's frankly less predatory. You're not riding gambling mechanics or trying to trick your audience into craving dopamine hits. You're not obfuscating the odds because there are no odds (laws increasingly say Overwatch and other gacha game mechanics can't do this either). You have a store full over overpriced trinkets, and you think some people will spend money there. For SoT, and games using the same model, that's two things they have over Overwatch.
"If it's so much less offensive, why wouldn't Blizzard switch?" Because it's plainly obvious that a successful lootbox system is going to make vastly more money than some trinket store. And here's where I beat the dead horse again: for cosmetic trinkets on a digital marketplace, selling your customer any particular product--let's say a character costume--that by its nature costs you nothing per unit (after the initial cost of designing and producing it, you can sell ten or a million people the same costume and it costs you the same amount) is pretty smart. Selling the customer a chance at said costume--and simultaneously, a chance not to get said costume but something else they didn't want, thereby naturally pressuring them to repeat the process--is fucking brilliant. Evil genius brilliant. "I'm going to take your money, probably give you something you don't want at zero cost to myself, and then take your money again," is basically the Holy Grail of marketplace transactions. Even plastic toys in gachapon capsules cost money to make.
All of this is true completely independent of whether or not the desired products actually change how a game works beyond the visual aspect (which is part of the game, just not a competitive part typically). Having played since the beta, it's pretty clear that Overwatch's success has relied in no small part on Blizzard effectively off-loading the actual world and mythos building aspect of the game to its audience, and leaving it up to a huge fanbase to advertise the game via speculation and creative production. Part of them doing the work themselves is actual costume creation (and the occasional new game mode and character). Suddenly, all this gacha box content takes on an added importance--if you can ignore it, fine, but that's not really more presumed than saying "Oh, I ignore new characters."
Yes, the cost goes to further development. Technically, that should be true for literally any game that gets content after release. But it's still predatory.
*Though I suppose you can technically play SoT by yourself in a way that's not true for Overwatch.
Synthesis on
+2
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I spent a ton of money on skins and new-character bundles in HotS when everything was sold as actual goods and not gambling. As soon as they revoked that system and added loot boxes I never spent another dime on that game.
Yeah, likewise.
I spent like, 20 bucks before 2.0 and then zero dollars afterwards.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Didn't Overwatch used to have a la carte cosmetics that you could directly buy, but then actually switch to the more common/bullshit "lotto lootbox"? If it wasn't Overwatch, I think it was Heroes of the Storm. I just know Blizzard did it, and it's fucking scummy.
That was HotS, Overwatch always had loot boxes.
HotS wasn't even subtle about it either, it was naked mobile gaming greed even down to the "best value!" meme stamp on the $100 gemstone package.
+5
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I do find it morbidly hilarious that one of the biggest downfalls to HotS was switching from a standard money marketplace to loot box bullshit
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Obviously just my opinion, and probably not everybody would agree with me, but I could easily provide a roadmap to Blizzard for how to fix HotS and restore a lot of community faith in that game.
1) Remote loot boxes and restore the original pay model to the game.
2) Reduce the TTK to a level closer to what it was during year one. If that is deemed "too slow" there is plenty of middle ground for compromise to reduce it without making it too slow. But I still consider the increased TTK to be one of the biggest detriments to that game, and removed a large chunk of identity that made it stand out from its competitors.
3) Stop making up brand new Nexus characters and give people the characters they are asking for. There's still plenty of hot requests out there. Use those.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Obviously just my opinion, and probably not everybody would agree with me, but I could easily provide a roadmap to Blizzard for how to fix HotS and restore a lot of community faith in that game.
1) Remote loot boxes and restore the original pay model to the game.
2) Reduce the TTK to a level closer to what it was during year one. If that is deemed "too slow" there is plenty of middle ground for compromise to reduce it without making it too slow. But I still consider the increased TTK to be one of the biggest detriments to that game, and removed a large chunk of identity that made it stand out from its competitors.
3) Stop making up brand new Nexus characters and give people the characters they are asking for. There's still plenty of hot requests out there. Use those.
I mean, the shipped sailed after they killed the competitive scene and moved nearly all its internal resources onto other projects.
The lootbox model has already been upended by the fact that you can't buy lootboxes with cash anymore. I mean, you can 'technically' by buying a month boost because you get a legendary box when you do that.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I do find it morbidly hilarious that one of the biggest downfalls to HotS was switching from a standard money marketplace to loot box bullshit
They made the switch presumably because it already wasn't doing very well, at least as far as the microtransaction sales went. If the loot box system did dramatically worst for them they would have simply reverted it.
+5
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I do find it morbidly hilarious that one of the biggest downfalls to HotS was switching from a standard money marketplace to loot box bullshit
They made the switch presumably because it already wasn't doing very well, at least as far as the microtransaction sales went. If the loot box system did dramatically worst for them they would have simply reverted it.
I only have anecdotal evidence but basically everyone I know who spent some coin pre-2.0 spent basically nothing post 2.0
A couple people did get gems but only to buy gem exclusive skins.
EDIT: And they did revert it as much as they could? Like it's a bell you can't unring, you can't just get rid of all the currency systems that they put in place
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I do find it morbidly hilarious that one of the biggest downfalls to HotS was switching from a standard money marketplace to loot box bullshit
They made the switch presumably because it already wasn't doing very well, at least as far as the microtransaction sales went. If the loot box system did dramatically worst for them they would have simply reverted it.
I only have anecdotal evidence but basically everyone I know who spent some coin pre-2.0 spent basically nothing post 2.0
A couple people did get gems but only to buy gem exclusive skins.
EDIT: And they did revert it as much as they could? Like it's a bell you can't unring, you can't just get rid of all the currency systems that they put in place
That's expected though. The loot box model raises more money overall, but usually from a smaller base. Loot boxes are a form of whaling.
They reverted some of it back because the tide of public opinion has turned sharply on loot boxes and the game was already put out to pasture so the team probably had the freedom to make people happier while making less money.
+1
Options
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
When Overwatch came out it was considered a model of ethical loot boxing. People are turning on loot boxes in general now, but Overwatch is still no worse than what anybody else with loot boxes is doing.
I've said this before but Blizzard has nearly always gotten a free pass on doing the same things other companies would get roasted for simply for being Blizzard, even though they were also frequently among the first ones to do it. Walled garden storefront? Always online DRM? RMAH? Buying in-game gold? Loot boxes? Last chance cosmetic bundles? Making Hearthstone card packs in China even scummier to circumvent loot box laws? You name the scummy practice, they've probably done it or tried to do it at least once, but nobody cared cuz Blazerd. I'm glad public opinion on the practices in general has been turning around because along with the other controversies it's now finally all coming down on them.
Devil's advocate, people were on their ass about RMAH for a long time until they were forced to take it out :P
I do agree though. Honestly the one that finally did it for me was the HotS change. That game had a perfectly fine DLC model and they turned it into scummy loot boxes while also cramming them full of useless crap like icons and sprays and stuff (seriously, did anyone ever use sprays in HotS?) as well as tinting the hell out of every costume to up the garbage factor.
Random side note - always online DRM has never really bothered me, at least in multiplayer games. It's a way to prevent cheating so I give it a pass. Purely single player stuff tho it doesn't really need to be there.
When Overwatch came out it was considered a model of ethical loot boxing. People are turning on loot boxes in general now, but Overwatch is still no worse than what anybody else with loot boxes is doing.
I've said this before but Blizzard has nearly always gotten a free pass on doing the same things other companies would get roasted for simply for being Blizzard, even though they were also frequently among the first ones to do it. Walled garden storefront? Always online DRM? RMAH? Buying in-game gold? Loot boxes? Last chance cosmetic bundles? Making Hearthstone card packs in China even scummier to circumvent loot box laws? You name the scummy practice, they've probably done it or tried to do it at least once, but nobody cared cuz Blazerd. I'm glad public opinion on the practices in general has been turning around because along with the other controversies it's now finally all coming down on them.
Devil's advocate, people were on their ass about RMAH for a long time until they were forced to take it out :P
I do agree though. Honestly the one that finally did it for me was the HotS change. That game had a perfectly fine DLC model and they turned it into scummy loot boxes while also cramming them full of useless crap like icons and sprays and stuff (seriously, did anyone ever use sprays in HotS?) as well as tinting the hell out of every costume to up the garbage factor.
Random side note - always online DRM has never really bothered me, at least in multiplayer games. It's a way to prevent cheating so I give it a pass. Purely single player stuff tho it doesn't really need to be there.
The main reason for that is not the act of the RMAH itself so much that they tied the drop rate and game difficulty around it. They tried to keep high difficulty drops valuable for as long as possible by basically making Inferno a credit card club, which resulted in the game being hideously un-fun to play at the highest levels. (iirc they even deliberately biased drops against your class, to nudge you into buying items for your class from the RMAH)
The RMAH could have worked for Blizzard, but they would have needed to put much more effort into the gameplay than simply bullying the player out of entering Inferno. Significantly greater item variety than they launched with, several more loot rarities, rotating loot tables, season-specific drops, rare cosmetics, etc. Like, if they had something like the Greater Rift system in place from the beginning, it would have been a perfect vehicle for an infinite difficulty tower to keep reaching for the higher loot peaks.
Now I'm not saying this wouldn't have still been a pretty scummy system in terms of general consumer impact, but if they approached it with more thought and more time in the oven, people would have eaten it up just like any other consumer-unfriendly practice Blizzard implemented.
Donnicton on
0
Options
Warlock82Never pet a burning dogRegistered Userregular
When Overwatch came out it was considered a model of ethical loot boxing. People are turning on loot boxes in general now, but Overwatch is still no worse than what anybody else with loot boxes is doing.
I've said this before but Blizzard has nearly always gotten a free pass on doing the same things other companies would get roasted for simply for being Blizzard, even though they were also frequently among the first ones to do it. Walled garden storefront? Always online DRM? RMAH? Buying in-game gold? Loot boxes? Last chance cosmetic bundles? Making Hearthstone card packs in China even scummier to circumvent loot box laws? You name the scummy practice, they've probably done it or tried to do it at least once, but nobody cared cuz Blazerd. I'm glad public opinion on the practices in general has been turning around because along with the other controversies it's now finally all coming down on them.
Devil's advocate, people were on their ass about RMAH for a long time until they were forced to take it out :P
I do agree though. Honestly the one that finally did it for me was the HotS change. That game had a perfectly fine DLC model and they turned it into scummy loot boxes while also cramming them full of useless crap like icons and sprays and stuff (seriously, did anyone ever use sprays in HotS?) as well as tinting the hell out of every costume to up the garbage factor.
Random side note - always online DRM has never really bothered me, at least in multiplayer games. It's a way to prevent cheating so I give it a pass. Purely single player stuff tho it doesn't really need to be there.
The main reason for that is not the act of the RMAH itself so much that they tied the drop rate and game difficulty around it. They tried to keep high difficulty drops valuable for as long as possible by basically making Inferno a credit card club, which resulted in the game being hideously un-fun to play at the highest levels. (iirc they even deliberately biased drops against your class, to nudge you into buying items for your class from the RMAH)
The RMAH could have worked for Blizzard, but they would have needed to put much more effort into the gameplay than simply bullying the player out of entering Inferno. Significantly greater item variety than they launched with, several more loot rarities, rotating loot tables, season-specific drops, rare cosmetics, etc. Like, if they had something like the Greater Rift system in place from the beginning, it would have been a perfect vehicle for an infinite difficulty tower to keep reaching for the higher loot peaks.
Now I'm not saying this wouldn't have still been a pretty scummy system in terms of general consumer impact, but if they approached it with more thought and more time in the oven, people would have eaten it up just like any other consumer-unfriendly practice Blizzard implemented.
Yeah but I think people were railing against it even before they knew that. I remember a huge backlash from the second it was first announced. I agree it was shitty the way they had it designed though. I remember original Inferno, it was complete bullshit. The ramp up in difficulty from Nightmare was stupidly high.
TBH I was a little sad they dumped the AH entirely though. It became really hard to get stuff like crafting recipes and gems after they dumped it (and this is talking the in-game gold version, not the RMAH even). Kind of a shame they tossed out the whole thing, though I also get it.
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
I mean back when Emerald farming was a thing, I made enough blizzard bucks profit to have paid off my D3 collectors edition, two ROS expansions, two of the three SC II expansions, SC remastered, and my pc copy of Overwatch...
I enjoyed it, but recognized it was killing the game.
The gold AH is what was toxic to the game, the RMAH had very little real impact. It was so expensive that most people never touched it.
I agree, though I would have liked to see a scaled down version where only consumable-type stuff was sellable. Limit it so you can't buy your way to success, but it's still easy enough to do crafting and what have you.
It's ironic because the gold auction house was just a non-horrible way of implementing the same sort of trading D2's economy used. Turns out if you make item trading easy and convenient, and force a currency medium of exchange so people don't have to jump through the hoops inherently required by barter trading, it makes it super easy to get the items you need. Oops!
Posts
I freakin' love Tyrael and I would gladly play as an angel from this universe in a war of angels vs demons.
Then you have to kill them both in the expansion and ascend as the new god.
I mean, I hope that's not it, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised either.
This so much. Make it in the future and that the world was ravaged by all the shit from D3. Then have us start out in some small hamlet like the rogue encampment and search for survivors and build up a city a little kind of like darkest dungeon. It isn't like WoW where power levels need to grow by an order of magnitude every expansion. Diablo can tell a mostly new story every time.
Personally I'd just like to have an actual release of WC3 reforged, and fucking ride right into the WC4 cinematic right after the WC3 date reveal. There definitely needs to be an RTS reset for the wow universe, because retail wow is crap storywise.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
The game actually directly states that the black soulstone was designed to hold angels as well. The fact that it never came up was kind of disappointing.
Activision Blizzard has absolutely been screwing customers over in Overwatch, and have been doing so from the very beginning.
I dunno, i bought overwatch with wow gold, so id say it was a pretty good deal
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
I've said this before but Blizzard has nearly always gotten a free pass on doing the same things other companies would get roasted for simply for being Blizzard, even though they were also frequently among the first ones to do it. Walled garden storefront? Always online DRM? RMAH? Buying in-game gold? Loot boxes? Last chance cosmetic bundles? Making Hearthstone card packs in China even scummier to circumvent loot box laws? You name the scummy practice, they've probably done it or tried to do it at least once, but nobody cared cuz Blazerd. I'm glad public opinion on the practices in general has been turning around because along with the other controversies it's now finally all coming down on them.
Gears of War 4 at least had an actual honest-to-god game--a good one--that was completely removed and totally unrelated to skin skinner boxes. If I didn't play a single hour of multiplayer, I personally would've considered the $60 I spent justified by a good-looking co-op shooter with excellent mechanics (without ever once having to think about multiplayer skins). Overwatch couldn't even claim that--and you could easily spend $60 on lootboxes and not get a skin you were looking for, or enough in game currency to buy a particular skin. Hope a hundred player icons and decals were worth it!
Overwatch isn't the single worst example of loot boxes. It's still predatory as hell though.
I see you’ve also been reading N.K. Jemisin.
Like, if it were any other company, they'd get roasted for the little amount of content the game had for the price. Dear lord, did my enthusiasm for Overwatch drop off from that beta to launch. Kept on thinking, "Man, there's gotta be more in retail, right?" Turns out nope, there wasn't.
They'd have to really dig deep and come up with some original ideas for me to care about a sequel.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
That was HotS, Overwatch always had loot boxes.
Never--though some content, like Mercy's pink costume and some Team merchandise, was sold normally for limited times. As Sea of Thieves--another multiplayer* game with limited content--demonstrated, we've come full circle from "LOLZ HORSE ARMOR IN MY SUPER-MOD-ABLE GAME" to seeing an actual straightforward cosmetic microtransaction store not necessarily as laudable, but least as an acceptable evil.
To be honest, "for once" the audience is right. Horse Armor mechanics might be easy to mock, but they're substantially less so in a game that has no modding element in it anyway (which has only become more normal since Oblivion's time). It is purely cosmetic (which is basically the entirety of Overwatch's defense). And finally, it's frankly less predatory. You're not riding gambling mechanics or trying to trick your audience into craving dopamine hits. You're not obfuscating the odds because there are no odds (laws increasingly say Overwatch and other gacha game mechanics can't do this either). You have a store full over overpriced trinkets, and you think some people will spend money there. For SoT, and games using the same model, that's two things they have over Overwatch.
"If it's so much less offensive, why wouldn't Blizzard switch?" Because it's plainly obvious that a successful lootbox system is going to make vastly more money than some trinket store. And here's where I beat the dead horse again: for cosmetic trinkets on a digital marketplace, selling your customer any particular product--let's say a character costume--that by its nature costs you nothing per unit (after the initial cost of designing and producing it, you can sell ten or a million people the same costume and it costs you the same amount) is pretty smart. Selling the customer a chance at said costume--and simultaneously, a chance not to get said costume but something else they didn't want, thereby naturally pressuring them to repeat the process--is fucking brilliant. Evil genius brilliant. "I'm going to take your money, probably give you something you don't want at zero cost to myself, and then take your money again," is basically the Holy Grail of marketplace transactions. Even plastic toys in gachapon capsules cost money to make.
All of this is true completely independent of whether or not the desired products actually change how a game works beyond the visual aspect (which is part of the game, just not a competitive part typically). Having played since the beta, it's pretty clear that Overwatch's success has relied in no small part on Blizzard effectively off-loading the actual world and mythos building aspect of the game to its audience, and leaving it up to a huge fanbase to advertise the game via speculation and creative production. Part of them doing the work themselves is actual costume creation (and the occasional new game mode and character). Suddenly, all this gacha box content takes on an added importance--if you can ignore it, fine, but that's not really more presumed than saying "Oh, I ignore new characters."
Yes, the cost goes to further development. Technically, that should be true for literally any game that gets content after release. But it's still predatory.
*Though I suppose you can technically play SoT by yourself in a way that's not true for Overwatch.
Yeah, likewise.
I spent like, 20 bucks before 2.0 and then zero dollars afterwards.
HotS wasn't even subtle about it either, it was naked mobile gaming greed even down to the "best value!" meme stamp on the $100 gemstone package.
1) Remote loot boxes and restore the original pay model to the game.
2) Reduce the TTK to a level closer to what it was during year one. If that is deemed "too slow" there is plenty of middle ground for compromise to reduce it without making it too slow. But I still consider the increased TTK to be one of the biggest detriments to that game, and removed a large chunk of identity that made it stand out from its competitors.
3) Stop making up brand new Nexus characters and give people the characters they are asking for. There's still plenty of hot requests out there. Use those.
I mean, the shipped sailed after they killed the competitive scene and moved nearly all its internal resources onto other projects.
The lootbox model has already been upended by the fact that you can't buy lootboxes with cash anymore. I mean, you can 'technically' by buying a month boost because you get a legendary box when you do that.
They made the switch presumably because it already wasn't doing very well, at least as far as the microtransaction sales went. If the loot box system did dramatically worst for them they would have simply reverted it.
I only have anecdotal evidence but basically everyone I know who spent some coin pre-2.0 spent basically nothing post 2.0
A couple people did get gems but only to buy gem exclusive skins.
EDIT: And they did revert it as much as they could? Like it's a bell you can't unring, you can't just get rid of all the currency systems that they put in place
That's expected though. The loot box model raises more money overall, but usually from a smaller base. Loot boxes are a form of whaling.
They reverted some of it back because the tide of public opinion has turned sharply on loot boxes and the game was already put out to pasture so the team probably had the freedom to make people happier while making less money.
Devil's advocate, people were on their ass about RMAH for a long time until they were forced to take it out :P
I do agree though. Honestly the one that finally did it for me was the HotS change. That game had a perfectly fine DLC model and they turned it into scummy loot boxes while also cramming them full of useless crap like icons and sprays and stuff (seriously, did anyone ever use sprays in HotS?) as well as tinting the hell out of every costume to up the garbage factor.
Random side note - always online DRM has never really bothered me, at least in multiplayer games. It's a way to prevent cheating so I give it a pass. Purely single player stuff tho it doesn't really need to be there.
The main reason for that is not the act of the RMAH itself so much that they tied the drop rate and game difficulty around it. They tried to keep high difficulty drops valuable for as long as possible by basically making Inferno a credit card club, which resulted in the game being hideously un-fun to play at the highest levels. (iirc they even deliberately biased drops against your class, to nudge you into buying items for your class from the RMAH)
The RMAH could have worked for Blizzard, but they would have needed to put much more effort into the gameplay than simply bullying the player out of entering Inferno. Significantly greater item variety than they launched with, several more loot rarities, rotating loot tables, season-specific drops, rare cosmetics, etc. Like, if they had something like the Greater Rift system in place from the beginning, it would have been a perfect vehicle for an infinite difficulty tower to keep reaching for the higher loot peaks.
Now I'm not saying this wouldn't have still been a pretty scummy system in terms of general consumer impact, but if they approached it with more thought and more time in the oven, people would have eaten it up just like any other consumer-unfriendly practice Blizzard implemented.
Yeah but I think people were railing against it even before they knew that. I remember a huge backlash from the second it was first announced. I agree it was shitty the way they had it designed though. I remember original Inferno, it was complete bullshit. The ramp up in difficulty from Nightmare was stupidly high.
TBH I was a little sad they dumped the AH entirely though. It became really hard to get stuff like crafting recipes and gems after they dumped it (and this is talking the in-game gold version, not the RMAH even). Kind of a shame they tossed out the whole thing, though I also get it.
I enjoyed it, but recognized it was killing the game.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
I agree, though I would have liked to see a scaled down version where only consumable-type stuff was sellable. Limit it so you can't buy your way to success, but it's still easy enough to do crafting and what have you.