WoW is basically "Diablo II: The MMO" with a change in setting.
I see this all the time, and I have never understood it. Someone start explaining, because until proven otherwise, that statement is straight-up retarded.
Longtime Diablo/II/LoD and WoW fan. It's absolutely true.
Look, the thing that made Diablo just so gosh darned popular was that it was:
A) Accessible (that is, an easy to understand pick-up-and-play game)
Addictive ("must stay awake to beat Baal a 3rd time even though it's 3 a.m.")
C) Free to play online
WoW's gameplay is very similar (down to the skill trees for christ's sake) and not surprisingly, it's even more addictive than Diablo was. You can play it in short bursts, you're always looking for that "next shiny piece of loot" and you run dungeons killing bosses over and over until you get it. It's a pretty clear parallel.
While I'm not quite sitting at a cock-eating level of confidence that D3 won't see the light of day while WoW is profitable, I'm comfortable in that assumption. I just do not see how they could release it (and for damned sure not release it as an MMO) and not expect it to cannibalize their own profits with WoW.
Now, they could do something like release Diablo 3 as strictly a console game, and that would do two things:
1) Piss off the PC-exclusive gamers
2) Give them an entry into the one market they've yet to dominate
The latter is key, and I'm very sure that the execs at Activizzard and Vivendi are thinking about this very thing. How they go about doing that is another matter, but with Starcraft: Ghost dead and buried, I have to believe they're wanting something to fill that void, and they'll want a large franchise to do it.
To that, you might as well say any game is a clone of D2. Skill trees? D2 clone. "Accessible"? D2 clone. They don't share free online.
Essentially, saying WoW is a D2 clone is exactly the same thing as saying any other MMO is a clone of D2.
WoW also has: arenas, BGs, skills you can get without the use of a skill tree, crafting, but that's copied straight from D2, or is simple D2++, right?
Also, that addictive thing is arguably the user's fault. It's addictive in that you'd want more gear, but, again, many many many games have gear to get. You know what? D2 is a clone of Dungeons and Dragons. In Dungeons and Dragons, you fight big monsters with multiple dudes, and often get gear. Obvious rip from D2. Assholes. In dungeons and Dragons, you have different talent branches to follow. Rip.
I am saying it is retarded to say D2 is a clone of WoW based on what you have stated, as those are common denominators of anything in the RPG genre.
WoW is not a D2 clone. However they did use a lot of things from D2 but also invented new things in WoW.
They used what worked in D2 and kept it going in WoW. That makes sense, but in its own WoW also copied what worked from many MMOs also. Of course they are gonna use things taht worked from previous games.
What they need to do is make it so I can solo everything in D2 lol...
Skill trees and sets are the one that makes most sense to me.
WoW was the first MMO I ever played, but I've always assumed its about 90% Everquest, 10% Diablo.
DisruptorX2 on
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
I think if they make a Diablo MMO it would be more in the vein of Guild Wars. It seems to me to be the only way to help keep the core spirit of Diablo. You vs. hordes of monsters.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
I think if they make a Diablo MMO it would be more in the vein of Guild Wars. It seems to me to be the only way to help keep the core spirit of Diablo. You vs. hordes of monsters.
When I had to describe Guild Wars to a friend of mine, the only answer I could come up with was "Diablo 3".
Guild Wars is Diablo 2, with a few new things thrown in to balance it better for PvP.
WoW is EQ with all the good stuff stolen and modified from D2.
I think if they make a Diablo MMO it would be more in the vein of Guild Wars. It seems to me to be the only way to help keep the core spirit of Diablo. You vs. hordes of monsters.
When I had to describe Guild Wars to a friend of mine, the only answer I could come up with was "Diablo 3".
Guild Wars is Diablo 2, with a few new things thrown in to balance it better for PvP.
WoW is EQ with all the good stuff stolen and modified from D2.
I'd describe GW as "World of Warcraft, but everything is instanced"
Why not go ahead and say that every single game is WoW? I mean, they're all played on a PC or console, right? They all use modern electronics to provide entertainment, so what's the difference?
Player_Zero on
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
For 27 points of damage.
Either argument can be exaggerated to absurdity. Rock and Roll Racing isn't RC Pro Am because the names are different, etc. The trick is viewing things at the "right" level of abstraction.
That being said, calling WoW and GW highly similar (within the scope of MMORPGs) is pretty absurd. For one, GW does pvp well.
I still would like to know how Blizzard can make a Diablo MMO that is different enough from WoW and similar enough to Diablo. How many people here would have paid a monthly fee to play D2? I wouldn't have, but I stayed the hell away from BNet most of the time and only played MP with friends, so maybe I didn't "get it."
If they do an MMO it would have to be the war between heaven and hell and you can be either faction. Similar to WoW. I would love to serve the Lord of Terror.
Why the hell would they make Diablo 3 an MMO? WoW already borrowed half its ideas from Diablo. If they want to make another MMO it will be Starcraft. For D3 I imagine they'd follow the Guild Wars route with shared city instances and whatnot, but there's no point in making a Diablo game that isn't a hack 'n' slash(which Guild Wars is not, btw).
Yeah, giving up the hack and slash will make it un-diablo-esque. I am still hoping/praying that Diablo isn't made into an MMO. If they do I'm sure it'll make $Texas too, but still...
The only difference would be setting and Diablo is more You vs Hordes then Wow's You vs 1 or 2 Enemies.
Base combat mechanics?
Combat in WoW is really, really slow paced compared to D2. Movement in Diablo is paramount, its only used in WoW to avoid occasional AoE strikes. Diablo is a clickfest, WoW uses targeting and autoattacking.
WoW is also two games in one; the GRINDAN and the endgame. Neither resemble D2 in the least. Diablo is about action, and engaging enemies in your own ways, not a series of puzzles designed by the developer.
That wouldn't survive the move to MMO. Alot of MMO conventions are due to it running over a network.
Eh, it can be done, you just have to be smart about your server architecture and game design to work with it.
Could you describe the overlap in the markets? I feel confident that there wouldn't be an analogue to WoW raiding in a Diablo sequel, so it's not going to draw that group away. The gameplay in each is quite different too. I know a lot of people that play WoW and would absolutely hate "twitchier" combat.
Could you describe the overlap in the markets? I feel confident that there wouldn't be an analogue to WoW raiding in a Diablo sequel, so it's not going to draw that group away. The gameplay in each is quite different too. I know a lot of people that play WoW and would absolutely hate "twitchier" combat.
Well for one, there's probably something to be said for Blizzard fans in general, and the more specific set of fantasy Blizzard fans (i.e. not StarCraft...of which I am a part). People who started on D2 and were led into MMOs from there, etc. It'd be going home.
Well, to argue that it's bad because they'll draw away Blizzard fans seems to imply that they should scrap any project that isn't a WoW expansion (or other subscription games, I guess, but even that would increase maintenance costs). As for the action-rpg crowd that wandered in to MMOs, I would argue that either they've grown to like the things that are unique to MMOs or Blizz was gonna lose them anyway and might as well grab another $50 (or whatever) at the door.
I go away for a few days and a post of mine actually gets responses. Figures.
I said that WoW is basically Diablo II: the MMO. I didn't say it's a Diablo II clone.
If they'd made World of Diablo, the game could play exactly the same. You'd just pick Heaven or Hell instead of Alliance or Horde, and you'd have the Pandemonium Fortress instead of Honor Hold. Kurast instead of Orgrimmar. Deckard Cain instead of Medivh. Diablo instead of Kil'Jaeden. Tyrael instead of... Bolvar, maybe, who knows.
It's the same concept, executed in a different setting. Blizzard sort of sets up the same general story arc in each of their franchises, anyway. They also reuse concepts from other games: see Zerg Creep -> Scourge Blight, Protoss buildings -> Undead buildings, point-per-level skill trees with 3 branches -> point-per-level talent trees with 3 branches, randomized prefix/suffix items -> randomized "of the X" loot, and so on. There's a lot they recycle. Kerrigan -> Silvanas/Arthas, Lothar -> Raynor -> Uther, the list goes on.
I do think the Warcraft universe, as expanded in WC3, makes for a better game. Had they not made WC3 and TFT then there wouldn't be much to go off of, but in a way those were prequels to WoW. I believe there's a quote from someone at Blizzard who said as much, that WC3 had to happen before WoW could happen, but maybe I'm wrong.
My point is that if Diablo were made into an MMO, it'd have to be substantially different from WoW. Which means it'd have to have different mechanics than WoW, which has already cannibalized the best ideas from all their franchises anyway. And it'd have to do that while still retaining all of the standard features of an MMO, which WoW has basically made obsolete by perfecting them. Blizzard can't make another classic MMO (as in EQ/DAOC/AC style) without rehashing 99% of what WoW does.
They would have to come up with some brilliant new approach to the genre, which isn't what Blizzard does. Diablo 1/2 were refinements of the roguelike/dungeon crawl genre, nothing new but well-executed. WC1/2 and SC were refinements of the RTS genre, also nothing new but they were exemplary games that shaped the genre. WoW took the classic MMO formula and added their customary leve lof accessibility and polish, and hooked people with an existing IP to get them in the door.
So I don't expect to see a Diablo MMO any time soon.
However, WoW won't last forever. It'll need a spiritual successor, if not a direct sequel, at some point in the not-too-distant future. Considering the excruciatingly-long dev cycle involved with making a AAA-class MMO, it would be prudent of Blizzard to start thinking about that sooner rather than later. They aren't dumb. It is entirely possible that, when they do sit down and decide where to go after WoW, they'll pick right back up with World of Diablo, with nothing really new, just some changes made with lessons learned from WoW.
But in the same way that WC3 had to happen before WoW could happen, I do think the Diablo 'verse needs fleshing out with a Diablo 3 before we see an MMO. Diablo 2 did a lot, but it wasn't quite enough story-wise. There's no set-up for a freeform world in which you can make characters and do whatever: Diablo has always been a single-story-arc game where you're the hero and that's it. Diablo 2 doesn't even attempt persistance, it just lets you rerun the same game over and over. An MMO needs persistance.
So, TL;DR: World of Diablo, in the unlikely event it ever happens, is at least 5-10 years out, and we'll see Diablo 3 before then.
Am I the only one who thought of Diablo as a single character RTS? Seriously, you even get tech upgrades over the levels. It has some RPG trappings, but the gameplay is really reminiscent of an RTS.
I would hate it if they made a Diablo MMO, however, because that would take away alot of the core gameplay/background. You mean I'm NOT the only one travelling through these desert wastes on my quest to destroy the fucking devil?
The only thing I'd like to see happen for Diablo is shared cities, but instance everything else. Then throw in some cool quests and maybe battlegrounds or a couple zones where pvp happens. I really want a character editor, too.
I really dug that the classes had a background to them in Diablo. You weren't just a barbarian, you were a savage that hailed from these specific mountains, etc.
Considering the excruciatingly-long dev cycle involved with making a AAA-class MMO, it would be prudent of Blizzard to start thinking about that sooner rather than later. They aren't dumb.
Considering the number of job postings that we've seen on Blizzard's site for "a next gen MMO" that does NOT appear to be the next WoW expansion, I'd say they're already working on it, and have been for quite a while.
Maybe just the raw mechanics and math behind the levelling/grind/classes/encounters, or some concept stuff and research into what's really driving WoW's thriving playerbase, but while I'm sure we're years and years from it seeing light, I suspect they're going to be quite prepared when it's time to get something out there.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Am I the only one who thought of Diablo as a single character RTS? Seriously, you even get tech upgrades over the levels. It has some RPG trappings, but the gameplay is really reminiscent of an RTS.
I'm now convinced that at least half the people in this thread are trolling.:P
The only thing I'd like to see happen for Diablo is shared cities, but instance everything else. Then throw in some cool quests and maybe battlegrounds or a couple zones where pvp happens. I really want a character editor, too.
Have you played Guild Wars? Because it really sounds like you should play Guild Wars. Some folks left Blizzard for ArenaNet, presumably because they were dissatisfied with the direction WoW was taking, and you can really see some cross-pollination from Diablo there. It also works exactly how you describe, except that all pvp is done in arena/battleground type places so there isn't a "wander in to this zone and pick fights with other players" part of the game. (That's AFAIK, I haven't played any of the expansions)
I played Guild Wars and wasn't really too excited with it. It's a good game, don't get me wrong. But to me it was a more "complex" version of Diablo 2 and a dumbed down version of WoW. It is in between those games and I don't think it did it very well. But I didn't like it. I liked WoW, but I think that if they did Diablo as an MMO rather than Warcraft, I would be playing that more than WoW. I quit WoW mainly because the story didn't really interest me as much as Diablo did.
Someone here said that Diablo doesn't develop their story as much as Warcraft, but that's not true. The main story line of the games are pretty linear, but there is plenty of other avenues that can be explored. There are books in Diablo 1 that give a lot of back story and explain some things as well. There is even a background on all of the prime evils and the lesser evils as well. They have a lot that they can do and an MMO would be a great genre for them to explore it in.
I know some people probably don't want an MMO of Diablo, but there are a lot of reasons for Blizzard to do it, and most of them involve the pictures of dead presidents.
But in the same way that WC3 had to happen before WoW could happen, I do think the Diablo 'verse needs fleshing out with a Diablo 3 before we see an MMO. Diablo 2 did a lot, but it wasn't quite enough story-wise. There's no set-up for a freeform world in which you can make characters and do whatever: Diablo has always been a single-story-arc game where you're the hero and that's it. Diablo 2 doesn't even attempt persistance, it just lets you rerun the same game over and over. An MMO needs persistance.
Are you kidding? The end of D2X gives them full license to do anything they feel like...moreso than about any other game ending I can think of.
The worldstone got wrecked. I think Tyrael himself says he has no idea what the consequences could be. The world could be post-apocalyptic fantasy, or pre-industrial age, or heaven/hell bleeding into the normal reality. Anything at all!
Plus Diablo in general gives me the impression of a bunch of would-be heroes approaching the conflict, attempting to find glory. That's the story you get from the original Diablo. D2 is more specific due to you having important people like Cain at your side, but I can still imagine a lot of others trying to follow the same path as the hero.
Bcause it's true? The markets for WoW and Diablo3 overlap quite a bit. If Diablo3 is BNet-style Free-to-Play, that cuts into WoWs userbase.
Why would it? I know that personally, as a WoW player, I don't play one game exclusively. I play a lot of WoW, but I still make plenty of time for other games. I do, however, play only one MMO exclusively, since paying two monthly fees is just too much for two massive time-sink games. I really don't think Diablo 3 would cut significantly into WoW's profits, as long as it remains just a one-off purchase like most other games.
The question becomes this: Would the move of Diablo to an MMO increase Blizzard's overall number of subscribers significantly over what we have with just WoW? My guess is no.
Bcause it's true? The markets for WoW and Diablo3 overlap quite a bit. If Diablo3 is BNet-style Free-to-Play, that cuts into WoWs userbase.
Why would it? I know that personally, as a WoW player, I don't play one game exclusively. I play a lot of WoW, but I still make plenty of time for other games. I do, however, play only one MMO exclusively, since paying two monthly fees is just too much for two massive time-sink games. I really don't think Diablo 3 would cut significantly into WoW's profits, as long as it remains just a one-off purchase like most other games.
The question becomes this: Would the move of Diablo to an MMO increase Blizzard's overall number of subscribers significantly over what we have with just WoW? My guess is no.
Well I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I would be smart of Blizzard to make it so you can play both WoW and Diablo 3 (should it ben an MMO) on one subscription fee. For instance, you can get both games for 20 a month subscription fee or 15 a month for just one of them. I think that a lot of people would quit WoW and look for something new in Diablo 3. So they won't lose or gain money with that. I do see a lot of people playing Diablo 3 that don't currently play WoW so that is them gaining money. Either way they will get money. But if they do the 20 a month, they will have their current WoW players keep both accounts active (most likely) for only 5 extra dollars which is them gaining more money. In my opinion, this is the best way to do it from a business stand point. I would probably reactivate my WoW account just for this because... it's only 5 extra dollars.
Bcause it's true? The markets for WoW and Diablo3 overlap quite a bit. If Diablo3 is BNet-style Free-to-Play, that cuts into WoWs userbase.
Why would it? I know that personally, as a WoW player, I don't play one game exclusively. I play a lot of WoW, but I still make plenty of time for other games. I do, however, play only one MMO exclusively, since paying two monthly fees is just too much for two massive time-sink games. I really don't think Diablo 3 would cut significantly into WoW's profits, as long as it remains just a one-off purchase like most other games.
The question becomes this: Would the move of Diablo to an MMO increase Blizzard's overall number of subscribers significantly over what we have with just WoW? My guess is no.
Well I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I would be smart of Blizzard to make it so you can play both WoW and Diablo 3 (should it ben an MMO) on one subscription fee. For instance, you can get both games for 20 a month subscription fee or 15 a month for just one of them. I think that a lot of people would quit WoW and look for something new in Diablo 3. So they won't lose or gain money with that. I do see a lot of people playing Diablo 3 that don't currently play WoW so that is them gaining money. Either way they will get money. But if they do the 20 a month, they will have their current WoW players keep both accounts active (most likely) for only 5 extra dollars which is them gaining more money. In my opinion, this is the best way to do it from a business stand point. I would probably reactivate my WoW account just for this because... it's only 5 extra dollars.
Would $5 really make up for the difference in expense for running Diablo 3 as an MMO vs Diablo 3 the same as Diablo 2? MMOs require exponentially greater amounts of work to create and maintain than something like Diablo 2.
Bcause it's true? The markets for WoW and Diablo3 overlap quite a bit. If Diablo3 is BNet-style Free-to-Play, that cuts into WoWs userbase.
Why would it? I know that personally, as a WoW player, I don't play one game exclusively. I play a lot of WoW, but I still make plenty of time for other games. I do, however, play only one MMO exclusively, since paying two monthly fees is just too much for two massive time-sink games. I really don't think Diablo 3 would cut significantly into WoW's profits, as long as it remains just a one-off purchase like most other games.
The question becomes this: Would the move of Diablo to an MMO increase Blizzard's overall number of subscribers significantly over what we have with just WoW? My guess is no.
Well I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I would be smart of Blizzard to make it so you can play both WoW and Diablo 3 (should it ben an MMO) on one subscription fee. For instance, you can get both games for 20 a month subscription fee or 15 a month for just one of them. I think that a lot of people would quit WoW and look for something new in Diablo 3. So they won't lose or gain money with that. I do see a lot of people playing Diablo 3 that don't currently play WoW so that is them gaining money. Either way they will get money. But if they do the 20 a month, they will have their current WoW players keep both accounts active (most likely) for only 5 extra dollars which is them gaining more money. In my opinion, this is the best way to do it from a business stand point. I would probably reactivate my WoW account just for this because... it's only 5 extra dollars.
Would $5 really make up for the difference in expense for running Diablo 3 as an MMO vs Diablo 3 the same as Diablo 2? MMOs require exponentially greater amounts of work to create and maintain than something like Diablo 2.
Yes, it would. They are making a shitload of money from WoW that they could probably make a Diablo 3 MMO, and not charge the subscription fee, and maintain the servers from the WoW fee. Like I said, if the person goes from WoW to Diablo 3 they aren't going to gain or lose money at all. They break even but still Blizzard maintains two servers. But if they are paying 10 dollars for both games, which is basically what it is, then Blizzard is still coming out on top. Now, this is all just estimation on my part, but it sounds like it would work for me.
Considering the excruciatingly-long dev cycle involved with making a AAA-class MMO, it would be prudent of Blizzard to start thinking about that sooner rather than later. They aren't dumb.
Considering the number of job postings that we've seen on Blizzard's site for "a next gen MMO" that does NOT appear to be the next WoW expansion, I'd say they're already working on the starcraft mmo to come out after SC2, and have been for quite a while.
Bcause it's true? The markets for WoW and Diablo3 overlap quite a bit. If Diablo3 is BNet-style Free-to-Play, that cuts into WoWs userbase.
Why would it? I know that personally, as a WoW player, I don't play one game exclusively. I play a lot of WoW, but I still make plenty of time for other games. I do, however, play only one MMO exclusively, since paying two monthly fees is just too much for two massive time-sink games. I really don't think Diablo 3 would cut significantly into WoW's profits, as long as it remains just a one-off purchase like most other games.
The question becomes this: Would the move of Diablo to an MMO increase Blizzard's overall number of subscribers significantly over what we have with just WoW? My guess is no.
Well I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I would be smart of Blizzard to make it so you can play both WoW and Diablo 3 (should it ben an MMO) on one subscription fee. For instance, you can get both games for 20 a month subscription fee or 15 a month for just one of them. I think that a lot of people would quit WoW and look for something new in Diablo 3. So they won't lose or gain money with that. I do see a lot of people playing Diablo 3 that don't currently play WoW so that is them gaining money. Either way they will get money. But if they do the 20 a month, they will have their current WoW players keep both accounts active (most likely) for only 5 extra dollars which is them gaining more money. In my opinion, this is the best way to do it from a business stand point. I would probably reactivate my WoW account just for this because... it's only 5 extra dollars.
Would $5 really make up for the difference in expense for running Diablo 3 as an MMO vs Diablo 3 the same as Diablo 2? MMOs require exponentially greater amounts of work to create and maintain than something like Diablo 2.
Yes, it would. They are making a shitload of money from WoW that they could probably make a Diablo 3 MMO, and not charge the subscription fee, and maintain the servers from the WoW fee. Like I said, if the person goes from WoW to Diablo 3 they aren't going to gain or lose money at all. They break even but still Blizzard maintains two servers. But if they are paying 10 dollars for both games, which is basically what it is, then Blizzard is still coming out on top. Now, this is all just estimation on my part, but it sounds like it would work for me.
To me it sounds like all it would do is almost double Blizzard's costs without significantly increasing their income. Sure, they would still be profiting, but not as much as they were.
Considering the excruciatingly-long dev cycle involved with making a AAA-class MMO, it would be prudent of Blizzard to start thinking about that sooner rather than later. They aren't dumb.
Considering the number of job postings that we've seen on Blizzard's site for "a next gen MMO" that does NOT appear to be the next WoW expansion, I'd say they're already working on the starcraft mmo to come out after SC2, and have been for quite a while.
Fixed
Dammit, if you're going to fix it... Bold the things you changed, now I have to read through both the comments and find out what is different.
Bcause it's true? The markets for WoW and Diablo3 overlap quite a bit. If Diablo3 is BNet-style Free-to-Play, that cuts into WoWs userbase.
Why would it? I know that personally, as a WoW player, I don't play one game exclusively. I play a lot of WoW, but I still make plenty of time for other games. I do, however, play only one MMO exclusively, since paying two monthly fees is just too much for two massive time-sink games. I really don't think Diablo 3 would cut significantly into WoW's profits, as long as it remains just a one-off purchase like most other games.
The question becomes this: Would the move of Diablo to an MMO increase Blizzard's overall number of subscribers significantly over what we have with just WoW? My guess is no.
Well I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I would be smart of Blizzard to make it so you can play both WoW and Diablo 3 (should it ben an MMO) on one subscription fee. For instance, you can get both games for 20 a month subscription fee or 15 a month for just one of them. I think that a lot of people would quit WoW and look for something new in Diablo 3. So they won't lose or gain money with that. I do see a lot of people playing Diablo 3 that don't currently play WoW so that is them gaining money. Either way they will get money. But if they do the 20 a month, they will have their current WoW players keep both accounts active (most likely) for only 5 extra dollars which is them gaining more money. In my opinion, this is the best way to do it from a business stand point. I would probably reactivate my WoW account just for this because... it's only 5 extra dollars.
Would $5 really make up for the difference in expense for running Diablo 3 as an MMO vs Diablo 3 the same as Diablo 2? MMOs require exponentially greater amounts of work to create and maintain than something like Diablo 2.
Yes, it would. They are making a shitload of money from WoW that they could probably make a Diablo 3 MMO, and not charge the subscription fee, and maintain the servers from the WoW fee. Like I said, if the person goes from WoW to Diablo 3 they aren't going to gain or lose money at all. They break even but still Blizzard maintains two servers. But if they are paying 10 dollars for both games, which is basically what it is, then Blizzard is still coming out on top. Now, this is all just estimation on my part, but it sounds like it would work for me.
To me it sounds like all it would do is almost double Blizzard's costs without significantly increasing their income. Sure, they would still be profiting, but not as much as they were.
Well my point is hard to get it accross without you being in front of me. I'm gonna try to do this simple and use smaller numbers rather than the actual WoW numbers.
Let's say 1 server on WoW costs 1000 dollars a month to maintain, keep updated, and blah blah blah. A server can fit a maximum of 300 people on it. Blizzard charges 15 a month to play WoW. This would mean they need to have at least 67 players to break even (67x15=1005). OK? Imagine the same thing for Diablo 3 servers as well.
Blizzard has on that one server 250 people playing on it. So they are making 3750 a month, 2750 profit. Let's assume they start up their Diablo 3 server and they get 100 brand new subscribers and 100 to "switch" from WoW to Diablo 3.
They now have 150 playing WoW (2250 a month) and 200 playing Diablo 3 (3000 a month). Blizzard now has to spend 2000 a month to maintain both servers, and are getting 5250 a month, making 3250 profit. So based on my example, they are making more money, but this may not happen. It's a very crude example.
Let's assume that Blizzard does my idea of 20 dollars to play both games. Now, 50 people switch from WoW to Diablo and 50 people pay 20 for both games.
This means that Blizzard has 150 paying 15 for WoW and 50 paying 10 for WoW (2750 a month) and 150 paying 15 a month for Diablo 3 and 50 paying 10 for Diablo 3 (2750 a month) which means they are now making 5500 a month. They are making an extra 250 a month doing my example.
Now this is just under ideal circumstances. It could turn out to shit all over their faces and they lose money, but it's Blizzard. Nothing they do loses money.
Posts
WoW is not a D2 clone. However they did use a lot of things from D2 but also invented new things in WoW.
They used what worked in D2 and kept it going in WoW. That makes sense, but in its own WoW also copied what worked from many MMOs also. Of course they are gonna use things taht worked from previous games.
What they need to do is make it so I can solo everything in D2 lol...
Skill trees and sets are the one that makes most sense to me.
When I had to describe Guild Wars to a friend of mine, the only answer I could come up with was "Diablo 3".
Guild Wars is Diablo 2, with a few new things thrown in to balance it better for PvP.
WoW is EQ with all the good stuff stolen and modified from D2.
That seems eerily accurate.
Why not go ahead and say that every single game is WoW? I mean, they're all played on a PC or console, right? They all use modern electronics to provide entertainment, so what's the difference?
For 27 points of damage.
That being said, calling WoW and GW highly similar (within the scope of MMORPGs) is pretty absurd. For one, GW does pvp well.
I still would like to know how Blizzard can make a Diablo MMO that is different enough from WoW and similar enough to Diablo. How many people here would have paid a monthly fee to play D2? I wouldn't have, but I stayed the hell away from BNet most of the time and only played MP with friends, so maybe I didn't "get it."
Diablo3 will be an RTS!!!! Skelly Mancers = Zerg rush!
I am super, super cereal about this guys.
Given the ending of D2: LOD anything could happen.
Why are you doing this shryke!
Eh, it can be done, you just have to be smart about your server architecture and game design to work with it.
As much as I agree, I just didn't want to start another 4 pages of flaming. :P
Buncha pussies.
I said that WoW is basically Diablo II: the MMO. I didn't say it's a Diablo II clone.
If they'd made World of Diablo, the game could play exactly the same. You'd just pick Heaven or Hell instead of Alliance or Horde, and you'd have the Pandemonium Fortress instead of Honor Hold. Kurast instead of Orgrimmar. Deckard Cain instead of Medivh. Diablo instead of Kil'Jaeden. Tyrael instead of... Bolvar, maybe, who knows.
It's the same concept, executed in a different setting. Blizzard sort of sets up the same general story arc in each of their franchises, anyway. They also reuse concepts from other games: see Zerg Creep -> Scourge Blight, Protoss buildings -> Undead buildings, point-per-level skill trees with 3 branches -> point-per-level talent trees with 3 branches, randomized prefix/suffix items -> randomized "of the X" loot, and so on. There's a lot they recycle. Kerrigan -> Silvanas/Arthas, Lothar -> Raynor -> Uther, the list goes on.
I do think the Warcraft universe, as expanded in WC3, makes for a better game. Had they not made WC3 and TFT then there wouldn't be much to go off of, but in a way those were prequels to WoW. I believe there's a quote from someone at Blizzard who said as much, that WC3 had to happen before WoW could happen, but maybe I'm wrong.
My point is that if Diablo were made into an MMO, it'd have to be substantially different from WoW. Which means it'd have to have different mechanics than WoW, which has already cannibalized the best ideas from all their franchises anyway. And it'd have to do that while still retaining all of the standard features of an MMO, which WoW has basically made obsolete by perfecting them. Blizzard can't make another classic MMO (as in EQ/DAOC/AC style) without rehashing 99% of what WoW does.
They would have to come up with some brilliant new approach to the genre, which isn't what Blizzard does. Diablo 1/2 were refinements of the roguelike/dungeon crawl genre, nothing new but well-executed. WC1/2 and SC were refinements of the RTS genre, also nothing new but they were exemplary games that shaped the genre. WoW took the classic MMO formula and added their customary leve lof accessibility and polish, and hooked people with an existing IP to get them in the door.
So I don't expect to see a Diablo MMO any time soon.
However, WoW won't last forever. It'll need a spiritual successor, if not a direct sequel, at some point in the not-too-distant future. Considering the excruciatingly-long dev cycle involved with making a AAA-class MMO, it would be prudent of Blizzard to start thinking about that sooner rather than later. They aren't dumb. It is entirely possible that, when they do sit down and decide where to go after WoW, they'll pick right back up with World of Diablo, with nothing really new, just some changes made with lessons learned from WoW.
But in the same way that WC3 had to happen before WoW could happen, I do think the Diablo 'verse needs fleshing out with a Diablo 3 before we see an MMO. Diablo 2 did a lot, but it wasn't quite enough story-wise. There's no set-up for a freeform world in which you can make characters and do whatever: Diablo has always been a single-story-arc game where you're the hero and that's it. Diablo 2 doesn't even attempt persistance, it just lets you rerun the same game over and over. An MMO needs persistance.
So, TL;DR: World of Diablo, in the unlikely event it ever happens, is at least 5-10 years out, and we'll see Diablo 3 before then.
I would hate it if they made a Diablo MMO, however, because that would take away alot of the core gameplay/background. You mean I'm NOT the only one travelling through these desert wastes on my quest to destroy the fucking devil?
The only thing I'd like to see happen for Diablo is shared cities, but instance everything else. Then throw in some cool quests and maybe battlegrounds or a couple zones where pvp happens. I really want a character editor, too.
I really dug that the classes had a background to them in Diablo. You weren't just a barbarian, you were a savage that hailed from these specific mountains, etc.
Considering the number of job postings that we've seen on Blizzard's site for "a next gen MMO" that does NOT appear to be the next WoW expansion, I'd say they're already working on it, and have been for quite a while.
Maybe just the raw mechanics and math behind the levelling/grind/classes/encounters, or some concept stuff and research into what's really driving WoW's thriving playerbase, but while I'm sure we're years and years from it seeing light, I suspect they're going to be quite prepared when it's time to get something out there.
Someone here said that Diablo doesn't develop their story as much as Warcraft, but that's not true. The main story line of the games are pretty linear, but there is plenty of other avenues that can be explored. There are books in Diablo 1 that give a lot of back story and explain some things as well. There is even a background on all of the prime evils and the lesser evils as well. They have a lot that they can do and an MMO would be a great genre for them to explore it in.
I know some people probably don't want an MMO of Diablo, but there are a lot of reasons for Blizzard to do it, and most of them involve the pictures of dead presidents.
Plus Diablo in general gives me the impression of a bunch of would-be heroes approaching the conflict, attempting to find glory. That's the story you get from the original Diablo. D2 is more specific due to you having important people like Cain at your side, but I can still imagine a lot of others trying to follow the same path as the hero.
Why would it? I know that personally, as a WoW player, I don't play one game exclusively. I play a lot of WoW, but I still make plenty of time for other games. I do, however, play only one MMO exclusively, since paying two monthly fees is just too much for two massive time-sink games. I really don't think Diablo 3 would cut significantly into WoW's profits, as long as it remains just a one-off purchase like most other games.
The question becomes this: Would the move of Diablo to an MMO increase Blizzard's overall number of subscribers significantly over what we have with just WoW? My guess is no.
Well I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I would be smart of Blizzard to make it so you can play both WoW and Diablo 3 (should it ben an MMO) on one subscription fee. For instance, you can get both games for 20 a month subscription fee or 15 a month for just one of them. I think that a lot of people would quit WoW and look for something new in Diablo 3. So they won't lose or gain money with that. I do see a lot of people playing Diablo 3 that don't currently play WoW so that is them gaining money. Either way they will get money. But if they do the 20 a month, they will have their current WoW players keep both accounts active (most likely) for only 5 extra dollars which is them gaining more money. In my opinion, this is the best way to do it from a business stand point. I would probably reactivate my WoW account just for this because... it's only 5 extra dollars.
Would $5 really make up for the difference in expense for running Diablo 3 as an MMO vs Diablo 3 the same as Diablo 2? MMOs require exponentially greater amounts of work to create and maintain than something like Diablo 2.
Yes, it would. They are making a shitload of money from WoW that they could probably make a Diablo 3 MMO, and not charge the subscription fee, and maintain the servers from the WoW fee. Like I said, if the person goes from WoW to Diablo 3 they aren't going to gain or lose money at all. They break even but still Blizzard maintains two servers. But if they are paying 10 dollars for both games, which is basically what it is, then Blizzard is still coming out on top. Now, this is all just estimation on my part, but it sounds like it would work for me.
Fixed
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
To me it sounds like all it would do is almost double Blizzard's costs without significantly increasing their income. Sure, they would still be profiting, but not as much as they were.
Dammit, if you're going to fix it... Bold the things you changed, now I have to read through both the comments and find out what is different.
happy?
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Fixed.
Well my point is hard to get it accross without you being in front of me. I'm gonna try to do this simple and use smaller numbers rather than the actual WoW numbers.
Let's say 1 server on WoW costs 1000 dollars a month to maintain, keep updated, and blah blah blah. A server can fit a maximum of 300 people on it. Blizzard charges 15 a month to play WoW. This would mean they need to have at least 67 players to break even (67x15=1005). OK? Imagine the same thing for Diablo 3 servers as well.
Blizzard has on that one server 250 people playing on it. So they are making 3750 a month, 2750 profit. Let's assume they start up their Diablo 3 server and they get 100 brand new subscribers and 100 to "switch" from WoW to Diablo 3.
They now have 150 playing WoW (2250 a month) and 200 playing Diablo 3 (3000 a month). Blizzard now has to spend 2000 a month to maintain both servers, and are getting 5250 a month, making 3250 profit. So based on my example, they are making more money, but this may not happen. It's a very crude example.
Let's assume that Blizzard does my idea of 20 dollars to play both games. Now, 50 people switch from WoW to Diablo and 50 people pay 20 for both games.
This means that Blizzard has 150 paying 15 for WoW and 50 paying 10 for WoW (2750 a month) and 150 paying 15 a month for Diablo 3 and 50 paying 10 for Diablo 3 (2750 a month) which means they are now making 5500 a month. They are making an extra 250 a month doing my example.
Now this is just under ideal circumstances. It could turn out to shit all over their faces and they lose money, but it's Blizzard. Nothing they do loses money.