well D4 was a dissapointment why delay league becuz of it?

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

OK so did PoE win this competition, for arguments sake?

Of course not. PoE will never win a metric competition against Diablo - ever. It just goes to show how large the competition actually was/is. That said, I have NO idea about peak/retention numbers during D3 seasons, and never actually seen any, ever. If you could provide some, I would appreciate it.

The only direction I want to go with this discussion, is to show you that the "PoE had little/no competition" is a stupid argument, because it had competition for the same players from the most popular ARPG ever made. It had MASSIVE competition.

"

Phrazz wrote:

Of course not. PoE will never win a metric competition against Diablo - ever.

Don't be so sure. The term Diablo is used too broadly. In very short order, I suspect D3 will become extremely low player count. POE will still be going long after Diablo 3 is a relic of the past and played by a proably smaller cross-section of players that don't want to play D2 and don't want to move on to D4. And before someone says "but POE2", it's been discussed at length that it is not a new game.

Longevity of active new content support and player base is a metric that I view as very important. In that realm, POE will absolutely win in very short order vs. D3. D4 will be a new game with new content, but it's still a new game with no connection to content previously released in D3..or D2...or D1.

I do view this conversation as relatively pointless, but metrics can be cherry-picked to support an argument of course, to what end though?

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

OK so did PoE win this competition, for arguments sake?

Of course not. PoE will never win a metric competition against Diablo - ever. It just goes to show how large the competition actually was/is. That said, I have NO idea about peak/retention numbers during D3 seasons, and never actually seen any, ever. If you could provide some, I would appreciate it.

The only direction I want to go with this discussion, is to show you that the "PoE had little/no competition" is a stupid argument, because it had competition for the same players from the most popular ARPG ever made. It had MASSIVE competition.

Well agree to disagree on D3 being "massive" competition. I just don't see it that way, and even if there was it didn't seem to matter to either.

I will stick with my opinion that PoE hasn't had much competition the past number of years and we can leave it at that. If you think its "stupid" anyone might disagree with you on that front, so be it.

They still have two things to worry about. The D4 launch and the first D4 season which is coming weeks after it. I think April 7th places them well for this season but they will still have a decision to make on when to release the league after it.

They still have two things to worry about. The D4 launch and the first D4 season which is coming weeks after it. I think April 7th places them well for this season but they will still have a decision to make on when to release the league after it.

"

Nubatron wrote:

"

Phrazz wrote:

Of course not. PoE will never win a metric competition against Diablo - ever.

Don't be so sure. The term Diablo is used too broadly. In very short order, I suspect D3 will become extremely low player count. POE will still be going long after Diablo 3 is a relic of the past and played by a proably smaller cross-section of players that don't want to play D2 and don't want to move on to D4. And before someone says "but POE2", it's been discussed at length that it is not a new game.

Longevity of active new content support and player base is a metric that I view as very important. In that realm, POE will absolutely win in very short order vs. D3. D4 will be a new game with new content, but it's still a new game with no connection to content previously released in D3..or D2...or D1.

I do view this conversation as relatively pointless, but metrics can be cherry-picked to support an argument of course, to what end though?

I have sometimes pondered this related notion -- how close did Diablo get to becoming Kleenex or Band-Aid or Velcro? And which is preferable: brand name as common noun, or brand as industry standard to beat? There are likely better fast food chains out there than Macca's but so far none have toppled it in terms of recognition.

Probably not that close then. A pity: I would rather say, in my best boomer impression, "go play a Diablo" than be constantly forced to use clunky terms like Diablo clone, Diablo-like, isometric ARPG...or, as seems possibly inevitable as people get dumber and lose grasp of nuance, MMOARPG.

Sigh.

Anyway it's startling how many threads started by people I wouldn't voluntarily interact with end up drawing me in thanks to its contributors. Or maybe that's just how these fora have always worked.

By now I can say to my partner "I read on the forum..." and she knows exactly which forum and can brace herself for yet another example of why she despises this place (hence me almost never starting a conversation with those words) -- but that is sort of the opposite of making a brand name a common noun. For a long time, PoE was "kill shit", but now that once again is the umbrella term for me playing any ARPG (and no other genre).

Kill shit should be the official name for the genre. Might rein in some of those folks with unnecessarily highfalutin notions of what an ARPG should be.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

I have sometimes pondered this related notion -- how close did Diablo get to becoming Kleenex or Band-Aid or Velcro? And which is preferable: brand name as common noun, or brand as industry standard to beat? There are likely better fast food chains out there than Macca's but so far none have toppled it in terms of recognition.

Probably not that close then. A pity: I would rather say, in my best boomer impression, "go play a Diablo" than be constantly forced to use clunky terms like Diablo clone, Diablo-like, isometric ARPG...or, as seems possibly inevitable as people get dumber and lose grasp of nuance, MMOARPG.

Sigh.

Anyway it's startling how many threads started by people I wouldn't voluntarily interact with end up drawing me in thanks to its contributors. Or maybe that's just how these fora have always worked.

By now I can say to my partner "I read on the forum..." and she knows exactly which forum and can brace herself for yet another example of why she despises this place (hence me almost never starting a conversation with those words) -- but that is sort of the opposite of making a brand name a common noun. For a long time, PoE was "kill shit", but now that once again is the umbrella term for me playing any ARPG (and no other genre).

Kill shit should be the official name for the genre. Might rein in some of those folks with unnecessarily highfalutin notions of what an ARPG should be.

I think I would take less exception to the generic term Diablo if each succession built upon the last in a logical and expected manner. D3 felt like a large deviation from D2, and D4 feels like a strange marriage between WoW/Lost Ark gameplay, D3 graphics and D2 atmosphere. I'll confess, the only part of that sequence I find interesting is the atmosphere, but that's just not enough.

I'm fairly sure Kleenex, even with subtle changes, still has always looked and felt like Kleenex. I can't say the same for Diablo. Now I half expect some Kleenex expert to clean my clock with some grand failure of Kleenex to make it into towels or something. :)

But I do think continuity matters and using a franchise name can fork a little, but it feels like a faint echo of what it once was. So anyone who just carries the generic term Diablo as some standard bearer of Blizzard's prior glory, I have to take exception to that with regards to continuity of the when compared to a more monolithic thing like POE.

"

Nubatron wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

I have sometimes pondered this related notion -- how close did Diablo get to becoming Kleenex or Band-Aid or Velcro? And which is preferable: brand name as common noun, or brand as industry standard to beat? There are likely better fast food chains out there than Macca's but so far none have toppled it in terms of recognition.

Probably not that close then. A pity: I would rather say, in my best boomer impression, "go play a Diablo" than be constantly forced to use clunky terms like Diablo clone, Diablo-like, isometric ARPG...or, as seems possibly inevitable as people get dumber and lose grasp of nuance, MMOARPG.

Sigh.

Anyway it's startling how many threads started by people I wouldn't voluntarily interact with end up drawing me in thanks to its contributors. Or maybe that's just how these fora have always worked.

By now I can say to my partner "I read on the forum..." and she knows exactly which forum and can brace herself for yet another example of why she despises this place (hence me almost never starting a conversation with those words) -- but that is sort of the opposite of making a brand name a common noun. For a long time, PoE was "kill shit", but now that once again is the umbrella term for me playing any ARPG (and no other genre).

Kill shit should be the official name for the genre. Might rein in some of those folks with unnecessarily highfalutin notions of what an ARPG should be.

I think I would take less exception to the generic term Diablo if each succession built upon the last in a logical and expected manner. D3 felt like a large deviation from D2, and D4 feels like a strange marriage between WoW/Lost Ark gameplay, D3 graphics and D2 atmosphere. I'll confess, the only part of that sequence I find interesting is the atmosphere, but that's just not enough.

I'm fairly sure Kleenex, even with subtle changes, still has always looked and felt like Kleenex. I can't say the same for Diablo. Now I half expect some Kleenex expert to clean my clock with some grand failure of Kleenex to make it into towels or something. :)

But I do think continuity matters and using a franchise name can fork a little, but it feels like a faint echo of what it once was. So anyone who just carries the generic term Diablo as some standard bearer of Blizzard's prior glory, I have to take exception to that with regards to continuity of the when compared to a more monolithic thing like POE.

I took that to mean Diablo = Arpg as Kleenex = Tissue. Not a reflection on the Diablo franchise from a marketing or lore perspective.

In fact, you will often see articles describing arpg's as "Diablo-Clones" because they know that conveys a certain aspect of gaming that Diablo created.

At this point Diablo 4 has become an MMO and has little of D2 in it. I played both betas and while the graphics were great and it will appeal to those that love the feel of MMOs I don't see it as a direct competitor. I may play some at the end of a POE league but I am not a fan.

Aloe vera dude. ALOE VERA.

I dunno. It's easy to forget how much time separates each Diablo entry. With the necessary exception of D1 to D2, at least a decade. It feels like PoE has been around forever but it has only barely crossed a threshold of longevity we take for granted when it comes to Diablo titles. And what is the biggest complaint about this decade-old game, due for a facelift in lieu of a graceful retirement and proper renewal? That it is stuck in the past. And not even its own past, but the past of a franchise that outgrew PoE's core parent twice. D3 was a godawful ARPG at launch and an even worse Diablo game, and PoE was almost prescient in its timing. D3 was definitely Blizzard losing their way and straying too far from what made their series iconic. I blame the unwarranted supremacy of WoW there.

DIV by all measure seems to have returned just enough without regression to what PoE never outgrew. I refuse to play Lost Ark but still see more GW1/2 in DIV than any other "new" influence to the series, and I am willing to bet DIV devs have played a lot more of those games than LA. Equally willing to bet that those making that comparison to LA, a committed MMO cosplaying as an ARPG are missing the mark with what DIV wants to be. What it so far pretty much is. Lol, see above.

Assuming the rest of the game is on the same level as the first major area and the servers are up to the task, it will raise the bar for what "normal gamers" expect from an ARPG, just as Elden Ring did for so-called Soulslikes. D3 raised no bars worth discussing and the only bar PoE raised was one most other developers are happy to limbo under: aggressively complicated D2-era ARPG succession.

So while you are right that Diablo post 2 has a legacy of massive deviation, even with D3 it wasn't so much of a deviation that it utterly abandoned what makes a Diablo game a Diablo game. Same with IV, only much less so. Deviation in the pursuit of evolution in a wider, more diverse environment is not a bad legacy provided it isn't a dead end (d3 was close, no doubt) -- a better one than constant and generally pointless mutation in a stagnant ecosystem, I think.