Difference between Blizzard and GGG

"

Tagek wrote:

"

xxnoob wrote:

"

Tagek wrote:

@xxnoob.

Implying diablo 3 is a singleplayer game, even though it's built from the ground up to work solely with an online platform, and is built heavily with co-op in mind.

As for the open beta:

I played for roughly 10 hours in the D3 beta without any problems, and that excludes the many hours I spent with the game in the background while doing something else, in which I could've played the game as well.
And sure, there were problems, but comparing a beta test that had a max of 10.000 people simultaneously online, to one that had more than 315.000 people on at the same time, is madness to begin with.

If you accept the madness that is always online drm, then you're mad yourself.

Also if you want to compare 10.000 people to 315.000 people, compare GGG size as a company to Blizzard-Activision.

That's where you go wrong though.
The bigger servers get, they also get far more complex.
It's not a question of 'just hire more people if you have a bigger server'. That's not how it works.

These are the same people that run WoW.

"

xxnoob wrote:

These are the same people that run WoW.

Well, not really. Diablo and WoW have seperate networks, infrastructure, and therefore employees.

But I don't really see the relivence. Most online services would kill for the uptime ratio of a WoW server. Unless you're refering to content quality, and then we're back to "subjective".

@ xxnoob. You think a single server cluster in WoW handles 318.000 people online simultaneously?

...

Besides that, these are new servers, on a new game, and on a new type of system.

"

Bonan wrote:

only a small % of players read forums (evan less D3 players as its for dumbed down players)..Blizzard know this and thay know thay will sell bucket loads of copys at $50 each..Blizzard go for quantity over quality(quality is just ok)

Your attitude offends me. It also tells me that you don;t actually understand what's going on in D3 from a decision making standpoint.

D3 has a NEW paradigm for character customization which does not translate well into the initial 90 minute tutorial that the beta showcased. IF you want to know how good the game is you have to actually PLAY it.

That being said: Majority of D3 character customization will be coming from items and the way they WILL interact with skills.stats at higher levels in the game. You CANNOT SEE that in the beta because it is a tutorial.

Anyway: GGG is a smaller company that needs to interact with their community to stay afloat. Blizzard is a larger company that consistently creates great titles (WoW, D1, D2, SC, SC2) and does so by following the course they feel is most correct.

PoE and D3 have certain minorites of gamers they do not appeal to. And they have a VAST majority that they appeal equally to and will be playing both games.

I'm not one to get petty about the meaning of words, so I don't have much to say about this really.

"

MaxTheLimit wrote:

It's not so much you, but rather the double talk employed to dismiss the situation. The original quote by Bill Roper who used to be with Blizzard North, but left Blizzard during the development of Diablo 3 went: ' I was interested by the big explosion that happened online when they released the first gameplay footage and screenshots, when that vocal minority was outraged that it didn't have that dark, gothic, gritty look.' Which makes it seem like even former Blizzard North employees were on board with the new art direction.

However, he does later admit that it's not the direction Blizzard North would have gone. The most interesting quote I found was where it was mentioned that there was a lot of internal upheaval within Blizzard about the new art direction. I just wish there was more information about what was really going on behind the scenes.

I don't think any source is reliable on any kind of info in that regard. For example, you can bet on it that Bill Roper just said they wouldn't have gone in that direction to gain (or maintain) popularity. After all, he would've received potential 'hate' if he said they would have done the same.

Blizzard has built a game in the attempts to make it stand out from Diablo 2. Die hard Diablo 1 fans did the same type of complaining when Blizzard developed Diablo 2. But as we all know, Diablo 2 was a game that excelled and largely set the standard for Action-RPG's. This is even more evident when looking at PoE since this game is built upon framework resembling Diablo 2.

To say that Diablo 3 is a bad game, or that it is viewed in a negative light and that must mean something is wrong with it or Blizard, simply because nostalgic gamers and people who simply wanted Diablo 2.5 is silly and useless. Blizzard has a history of making each game in a series so different from the previous installment and of course this ALWAYS draws the ire of die-hard fans of previous games. Of course, their complaints are almost always nullified and are drowned out by the massive amount of people that do enjoy Blizzard products.

It is too bad that in Blizzard's attempts to offer innovation, polish, and overall better game play to each installment of their games they are always met with people who fear change and think any difference from, say Diablo 2 to Diablo 3, is ultimately bad design :/

Also, what is even more ridiculous is the "Gaming Hipsters" who hate on successful companies by constantly saying whatever games they make are "softcore", "for casuals", "just to make a quick buck", or they "do not care about their games". But yet any fledgling company always cares about its customers and games simply because they have not been successful yet? lolwut?

People, it is not like Blizzard decided one day that since they are currently at the top of the PC world they no longer need to care about their products or customers. That is perhaps the silliest argument anyone could ever make simply because it is always based off of someones hatred for a company more so than any facts that can be provided.