Least your balence team GGG isn't bad as Blizzards.

"

Xystre wrote:

While this entire thread is bait.

I will bite a bit and say this:

Some of you LOVE to ignore the many many many many wrongs they have done to gems, skills, ascendencies, items, league mechanics, drops and so on..

You think TGGG balance is good?

Spoiler

it really isnt different than blizzard.

I'm still having fun playing PoE. So, for me, at least, good enough. =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

I'm still having fun playing PoE. So, for me, at least, good enough. =^[.]^=

we are already way past the half mark of the league and there's still a 25k player peak. Balance can't be that bad with about 10% of the players playing that late into the league :)

If the balance was that terrible like some say than we would have the 25k peak or even less already during week one. But funny enough the last few leagues had higher player counts than the "perfectly balanced" leagues of the past on release day and past the half way point.

Not to mention the numbers are steam only and we have no clue how many people still play over the normal PoE launcher.

"

Xystre wrote:

While this entire thread is bait.

I will bite a bit and say this:

Some of you LOVE to ignore the many many many many wrongs they have done to gems, skills, ascendencies, items, league mechanics, drops and so on..

You think TGGG balance is good?

Spoiler

it really isnt different than blizzard.

As Carl once said, "Balance is a moving target".

Smart devs only pretend to want to hit it.

"

Pashid wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

I'm still having fun playing PoE. So, for me, at least, good enough. =^[.]^=

we are already way past the half mark of the league and there's still a 25k player peak. Balance can't be that bad with about 10% of the players playing that late into the league :)

If the balance was that terrible like some say than we would have the 25k peak or even less already during week one. But funny enough the last few leagues had higher player counts than the "perfectly balanced" leagues of the past on release day and past the half way point.

Not to mention the numbers are steam only and we have no clue how many people still play over the normal PoE launcher.

It's not just league, either, if only anecdotally. I've been playing in Standard for the past week with teh missus, and the towns are usually packed. =^[.]^=

"

鬼殺し wrote:

As Carl once said, "Balance is a moving target".

Smart devs only pretend to want to hit it.

Without question or doubt there will never be a perfect balanced game and that's fine but sometimes dev's here and over there they overextend themselves.

The title alone is giant bait and it can be easily dismissed by simply linking threads and videos. They killed entire builds and unique enablers.. they are not the "holy church" OP is 25/8 trying to preach.

"

balence team GGG isn't bad as Blizzards.

Melee that struggle for years without GGG doing anything about it want to have a chat with you.

"

acillatem wrote:

"

Game prices have not kept up with production costs and inflation. Its crazy that gamers cant realize this. I mean we were paying 50 bucks for a game in the 90s, 60 in the early 2000s. Hell, N64 games were like 80 bucks.

I mean at the time a game cost me 50 bucks, I was still paying .85 cents a gallon for gas in HS. Let that sink in.

So game costs have went up 10-20 bucks in 20-25 years? Meanwhile Gas prices have tripled to quadrupled, on top of other things.

And people scoff at game prices, saying their are getting ripped off. Microtransactions are a direct result of companies keeping a game 50-60 bucks, or being F2p.

For all the bad things people complain about, game prices are by far one of the more absurd ones. They have been relatively unchanged, compared to most things, for 2 decades.

Diablo 4 made its development money back in 5 days. They could sell it for 10 bucks and would still make profit. And this is without future expansion, battle passes and any mtx.

How much are they spending in server costs, developer salaries, and other support roles post-launch?

Why do Blizzard games always have the long login queues and lag issues on launch? The intentionally underbudget on servers knowing that some of the playerbase will drop off in the first month or two, and infrastructure alone is expensive.

"

feike wrote:

D4 is indeed too big to fail, it already was a finantial success

Hardly a surprise, honestly

It also scored remarkable mediocre on users rating, critics obviously gave it tons of perfect scores gushing how its "the best game from blizzard ever", and users reviews fluctuate between chilling, hating, but mostly "its not bad, but its agressively mediocre"

See the above. Always online games need continued success in order to continue to break even, and the critic reviews aren't the ones that contribute to success.

There's a reason they broke from the plan of 2-3 years between Call of Duty titles and are intending to release another remake. They need the income from selling the base game. Player counts and MTX transactions dropped off, but they're still paying for servers, maintenance, and salaries.

World of Warcraft was estimated to cost between $120,000 and $150,000 PER DAY, or in other words ~3.6MM-4.5MM per month depending on current player counts.

With a 21% corporate income tax, only $55.30 is coming in from a $70 title sold direct on Battle.net. XBox and PS5 there's another cut, so we're talking around $38.71 coming in. That means for every month the game is online, it will eat the full profit of 65,099-81,374 copies sold.

Now consider they've said they made around $666MM. Development costs for CoD, Cyberpunk, etc are around $350MM. Half their profit is already gone to repay the money that was fronted for the initial development.

Can Blizzard/Activision screw it up? Absolutely. They're great at getting boycotted lately.

There are still tons of landmines they can step on, and Diablo isn't a title they can just pop out on a yearly basis like their other ones.

At least ggg balence is funny, blizz is just sad.

Nerfing xp and mob density, whew gotta make that mount meaningful.

"

chipninja wrote:

[

There are still tons of landmines they can step on, and Diablo isn't a title they can just pop out on a yearly basis like their other ones.

I mean they could, but being that they only produce something when Jupiter's orbit lines up with Neptune's....

"

chipninja wrote:

See the above. Always online games need continued success in order to continue to break even, and the critic reviews aren't the ones that contribute to success.

There's a reason they broke from the plan of 2-3 years between Call of Duty titles and are intending to release another remake. They need the income from selling the base game. Player counts and MTX transactions dropped off, but they're still paying for servers, maintenance, and salaries.

World of Warcraft was estimated to cost between $120,000 and $150,000 PER DAY, or in other words ~3.6MM-4.5MM per month depending on current player counts.

One important piece is that even that number of cost on wow you wisely marked with "was", as in, past. That cost was when the game was at its prime

One thing about always online is that the mantenance cost is flexible. If the playerbase is small, there are places to cut budgets and adapt. If you simply decide to not churn out any more new content, that alone saves a vast amount of cash. Just keep the servers running is actually not expensive, there are many games that keeps alive on life suport for years. Its certainly not enough to keep the company afloat, thus, they need new titles, but its hard for a game to not make enough to, if nothing else, justify keeping the servers running

Blizzard can botch on D4? Sure they can, but saying the game can fail, as in, hit significantly the company its dubious. Even now, where they are hiding the number of sales and putting foward a number that includes EVERY sort of income related to the title including early acess, microtransactions, battle pass and w/e else i might be missing, people are more in awe of "look how much money it made" than "wait, does it makes sense to measure a game by net profit? How many copies the game actually sold?". That is good enough, most people cant interpret data

Also, activison is doing super well, the whole microsoft stuff is because microsoft is looking at activison titles to make xbox exclusive. They can carry blizzard on their backs and i think they might have made too deep of a fusion to dich them