It's time for GGG to take back reigns of trade for the sake of the game
|
I don't think launch D4 will be able to compare to current PoE but it should prevent GGG from making the game any more grindy. People will be splitting time between the 2 games for at least 6 months even if D4 is bad and they won't want to engage if it takes too long to get powerful.
|
|
" Imagine actually thinking D3 was a failure. It wasn't, literally by any measure. Maybe you feel a certain way about the games mechanics, but that's personal preference. D3 is one if the most sucessful games of all time. It still draws many hundreds of thousands, 10 years later, each season. It wasn't a launch success on franchise name only, the RoS expansion was wildly successful and the console ports are great. I actually prefer D3 on my PS5. I get the PoE boards are not exactly the ideal place for Diablo love, but let's not go crazy here when discussing the Diablo IP. PoE is a fart in the wind comparatively. And that's ok, both games can exist simultaneously, and you can play both. My contention has been that GGG is torn between developmental ideals and financial realities. They want the game to be more elite, hardcore, player hostile, punishing, whatever you want to describe in that vein, but they also want to market broadly and capture casual/average player revenue. It's a recipe for a toxic divided community, and GGG seems super negative to average player feedback when given. Basically they lost their identity, and are now "too big" to go back. I'm sure it's hard for the Senior folks at GGG to accept, but right now the players (on average) are getting the short end of this stick as GGG battles with itself. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln |
|
" 10 years after launch D3 had sold 65 million copies, it's pretty ludicrous to call that a failure or try and claim nobody plays it. Maybe it's not to your taste but it's still a popular game even now. " I wouldn't read too much into that - go and look at the Steam achievements on any game and you'll see a surprising number of people have hardly achieved anything in said game and this is especially true of F2P games when the only thing you lose by trying it is the time taken to download it and give it a whirl. In fact, people who only make it to yellow maps in most cases probably don't spend that much so why even bother trying to cater to them? I'm aware there are people with a list of supporter titles longer than my arm who rarely play endgame stuff but those are outliers. " They didn't invest in the game for a share of the profits in the international market, surely people have worked this out by now? They care about having control of the Chinese client and that is where they make their money since the market is way bigger and they have control over how it is monetized. Last edited by Randall#0850 on Feb 22, 2023, 9:50:42 AM
|
|
" D3 failed is an interesting platform to build your argument on. It's arguably the most successful ARPG of all time in terms of revenue and players. If not the most, then certainly in the discussion for top 3. I stand by my assertion that it is the most successful though in terms of those data points. In terms of longevity, it's hard to compete with D2 -- though POE is starting to enter that conversation. It's been said so many times in this thread, and I have a nagging suspicion I said it in here as well, but there are already a lot of games that cater to casuals. There are so very few that cater to the niche that POE caters to. Moving into an already owned market space like D3 is not how Path of Exile has succeeded, and I don't believe it's the path to continuing to exist. There are already other games trying to move into that space alongside D3. None of them are trying to take the crown from POE in the small niche that it resides in. That's their market. That's where they are special. And here is the rub about making another mode. Part of the draw of these games is the rarity of things, and resistance to get those things. That draw is driven by several factors including finding the best way to get those things in the shortest amount of time possible -- meaning playing efficiently. When a mode trivializes that resistance and becomes the de facto baseline of the game because most people will choose the path of least resistance, the game loses some of the appeal. The easiest version of the game needs to be balanced around that chase to fill this niche for the players that like the chase and finding the easiest path to their version of what victory is. Putting it another way, part of the appeal is finding the path of least resistance to the end state without artificially handicapping yourself. Another thing for perspective is that Trade league is easy mode. I personally think they offered up Ruthless as an example of how they want the game to be, and how the current baseline of the game is their compromise of making it easier. Thanks for all the fish! Last edited by Nubatron#4333 on Feb 22, 2023, 9:55:43 AM
|
|
" Not to get too sidetracked, but that's essentially the rub no? It's hard to know what GGG actually feels about the current state of PoE. I agree with you that Ruthless is more in line with what they want the game to be like. But they continue to offer that Ruthless is just a pet project, and doesnt mean much in the overall scheme. If its true they actually prefer a more Ruthless style if they had their way, then you see the problem. The general notion that trade is "easy mode", leaves me wondering when did that happen? When did GGG lose control of what they really wanted, to try and appeal to a casual market they didnt actually wish to develop for? (Minus the money of course) was it Harvest? Was it Tencent? Was it the allure of the cash grab with "mystery boxes" (which wow in their original form was a predatory a loot box as there was in any game. No drop tables, no dupe protection) If we are viewing it through that lens, that Ruthless should be the core game, then Trade League shouldn't be hampered by ideals they dont even believe in to begin with. Again I absolutely think this is an internal GGG struggle that's taken out on the players. It's like two parents headed for divorce, constantly arguing, and the kids (players), catching the shrapnel. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln |
|
" Diablo 3 succeeded because they handed out free copies to every person who paid for a wow sub on a yearly basis. Diablo3 was literally a test bed to see if they could put an RMT AH in WoW so they got it into as many customers hands as possible. It is also the Diablo franchise, and after Diablo 2, it was a sure buy for everyone who ever played Diablo. If you use product ownership as a metric, sure it did well, but its longevity went straight into the toilet as soon as they saw people won't spend money on their RMT AH. " There are other games out there that do this, but none of them are really any good or have the multiplayer support this one has. That is like saying "Here is a Lambo, it is a car. There are other cars out there, please go drive a Pinto." The argument lacks merit as there is no equal comparison to be made, yet. Diablo 4 is the equalizer here if it is any good at all. " To you. This is a personal opinion, and nothing else. Sure others share it, but as you can see by this thread, people share a differing opinion also. " If people take the path of least resistance, that is their decision to make. There are other modes they can select if they want a harder metho of doing things, take Ruthless for instance. " No, it really doesn't. There are harder modes for those people who want more of a challenge and more resistance. They can go play those modes. Again, it is their decision to play an easy mode or not. If they play an easy mode because that is where everyone else is, they can't complain about how easy it is. I don't go to Ruthless and complain about how hard it is. That would just be absolutely moronic. " This is the only thing I actually agree with you on. Chris has this vision from 2010, where his game is a hard core ARPG, it isn't, and probably won't be ever again. The problem is that line of thinking is going to cost him 70% of his player base who are casuals when something easier comes out, just like I have stated many times over. Do you think the casual crowd is going to stick around? Answer is no, why keep playing the same slog that has been around for a decade when you can play something that isn't a slog and brand new. PoE is absolutely going to suffer the first 6 months+ that Diablo4 releases because 1 its new ,and 2 it isn't a slog. I get people wanting to keep it the way it is, but just like every other game out there that has longevity in a competitive market place, you need to cater to the lowest common denominator, the casual gamer. I want to ask you, why are you ok with Ruthless and not with a mode the exact opposite of Ruthless? Is it because you are afraid most people will play that and leave the mode you like? Or is there some other reason? Last edited by Nulledout#3809 on Feb 22, 2023, 11:07:23 AM
|
|
" Defending "the AH"? What are you talking about? I don't want an AH anywhere near my game (and no, what we have now is not an AH). And I hate RMT with every bone in my body, but I do think this game - in the grand scheme of things - does benefit from trading. RMT is, sadly, a biproduct of having an open market/trading in a game - and even in games without trading. Regarding an "easy mode"; it's a slippery slope kind of thing that I seriously think would hurt the game in the long run. What happens when a new batch of players comes into this "easy mode" and finds it too hard? Make a "super, duper easy mode"? PoE is "designed to be played forever"; it's the game's foundation. An "easy mode", making players fulfilled after a weekend or two isn't really working alongside that foundation. " And they are - with probably 90%+ of the game. Sometimes, just sometimes, you should really consider adapting to the world, instead of demanding that the world adapts to you. Last edited by Phrazz#3529 on Feb 22, 2023, 11:31:06 AM
|
|
" I think the label of pet project is largely attached to them accepting that their version of the game would likely not have a large enough appeal to pay the bills. Trade/Easy mode has sustained the game for a very long time and lets them keep the servers online. If I had to guess, they compromise enough to keep actively developing and growing the game, without compromising so far that they lose sight of what they wanted the game to be. They never lost control as you stated above. They made a decision to let their dream live within bounds of compromises that they were willing to make. This entire thread is an altar to them compromising, but not so far that the game became D3 easy. Their compromise walks a very fine line between Ruthless and D3, and I personally hope they stay on that fine line. Ruthless is fun, but some of their choices were strange. The removal of movement skills as an example. That was just a straight subtraction from gameplay capabilities, when really, they should have limited the ceiling on how fast someone can move whether that be a hard cap or severe diminishing returns. But that's a mode that someone can choose to partake in to make the game harder; that's an important distinction because that doesn't affect the path of least resistance as I described above. If they actually lost control, they would just bend to the will of the casuals in this thread since they will always represent the majority of players in any game. Thankfully they have largely not bent to that crowd as most every other game eventually does. We already have a D3. We don't need another one. Casuals want easy and non-grindy games with end game that can be reached within the confines of a 40-hour work week, family and kids, and obligations of a family person. There are plenty of those games. Shouldn't there be a game that caters to people that don't fit into that mold? As for their monetization, loot boxes are an unfortunate monetization model that the gaming industry as a whole has experimented with. GGG partaking is unfortunate, but if I were to try to defend it, they only offer cosmetics -- meaning no in-game benefit. Informed consumers know that and know the risk. Buying it doesn't matter in terms of the game. Now I'll stop pretending to defend it and acknowledge it preys upon weakness of addiction for members of our community and that should be frowned upon. It's a disgusting monetization model and I hope the gaming industry moves away from it. Thanks for all the fish! Last edited by Nubatron#4333 on Feb 22, 2023, 12:23:24 PM
|
|
" This simply isn't true. Competition is there and a lot of it, just nothing is on par with PoE. Level of work, passion and thought GGG gave to this game is something no other studio did, at least not to be neck and neck with PoE. D3 failing is just this ^^ It's not like someone forbid them to develop and expand the game, they couldn't compete with PoE for variety of reasons. Also claim that people don't use trade because they can't bother is beyond me. My best friend plays one league a year maybe, he's 100% casual yet he never complained about trade being too troublesome. Where's the logic in trade being too troublesome so people will play pseudo ssf, like that's the easier thing to do... Complaints about trade are from people that actually trade a lot, not the other way around. I'd say there is no way D4 pass in quality PoE if PoE2 is any good. Last edited by TorsteinTheFallen#1295 on Feb 22, 2023, 11:36:18 AM
|
|
" 90% feels low. Really low. Game makers are mostly in the business of making money. With very few exceptions, developers seem to side with the majority on most of their decisions.... Even when it is so short-sighted that it leads to the demise of their game, because siding with the majority tends to lead to near term monetary gains. I don't know what the % is, but if 90% is the over/under then the over is free money :) Thanks for all the fish! Last edited by Nubatron#4333 on Feb 22, 2023, 11:40:15 AM
|
|
