Diablo 3 in 3 minutes (spoilers)

Why Diablo 3 took 10 years to make & the future of gaming (debate)

I think the main reason that Diablo 3 got postponed for so long is because it doesn't bring profit over time as a genre and orientation (if any1 can help here with sales vs. production cost figures it'd be great).

Most games and companies have resorted to all sorts of methods to make an extra income from their work. This in the past used to be a "simple" expansion - LoD, Frozen Throne, TBC, WotLK, etc. Now (because I'm assuming production costs went up a lot and well because money is nice :D ), we have a short term strategy for an over time income. Things like certain features/payment in WoW (mounts, char names, faction change, pets, etc), DLCs (many games do this, so the content of a DLC is short compared to expansions but brings maybe the same income), features that give advantages or simple pimp-my-char options (we can mention Valve and TF2 here with items and crates that require keys to open) and ofc, many more such systems needed to make one's work benefit of revenue over time instead of only through the release and occasional buyers over time (due to either interest, advertising or fame of the product).

Now (and I myself am guilty of QQing towards the fact that I couldn't post on WoW forums w/o an active subscription - explanation will follow), it is crystal clear that a subscription based game will produce a LOT more revenue (given it's success) over time. Still we forget that for WoW we payed 4 games (4 releases) + subscriptions (monthly fee and other services)!!! Even by doing a few simple calculations, it becomes clear how large the gap is between the two models. 15 million players (at some point) paying 12$ / month VS. 7 million D3 buyers (period). This much is clear to us all I think ... BUT (yes, that part comes along ^^)

But... After reading thru posts for the past month, after my own experience within D3, after I myself raging about whatnot (and I'm not saying I was wrong all the time either -.-), I think it's a good exercise to stop and try a different approach in dropping subjectivity (and I hope y'all can contribute on this). The starting issue for me was the amount of rage found on the forums and the fact that I myself started to think how much is nostalgia and conservator-ism involved (repair costs are not fine -.-), when talking or thinking about several matters in a game that holds A LOT OF INTEREST TO BOTH ITS DEVS AND ITS FANS!

I figured a few simple statements and questions (trying to keep them as simple as possible ...Ocam's razor ...sorta):

a. fact: a company needs and wants to make money (not getting into details)

b. fact: there is A LOT of rage on several topics regarding the game and it's patches

This made me wonder: are we all really just victims of mass behavior or a mass psychology issue? Are we really blind and Blizz has not changed? If this is a good game, why don't I feel like playing a good game?

Reviewing my two statements above (a and b), I was able to get the following answer (open to debate): the amount of negative opinion is just too large in order to consider it false AND it conflicts directly with the main purpose of making a product and a company's goal: money.

As a conclusion to the wall of text I think that:

- MMOs and the different schemes used for multiplayer make a lot more money and are part of today's strategy as they seem much more appealing for developers (this is easy to understand tbh);

- the implementation of such systems may conflict with the overall manufacturing and construction of the game, thus it is a KEY issue when building one with this in mind. From my limited knowledge on this matter, I think most games implemented such schemes AFTER a while and AFTER game release. Thus they did not build the game around such a concept (the current opinion about RMAH is the opposite of this);

- is it still worth making single player games? From all points of view... hacking, botting, revenue wise, etc. If not, what can we expect of D3 and the future of gaming?;

- the main difference between an MMO and a single player is dynamics of the game. This can also be translated into the life span of interest in such a game, while at the same time it seems almost like a definition that a single player game is short life span oriented by make, while an MMO would defeat it's own goal if this happened. Thus, D2 had a grand life span for various reasons, some other games kick back out of nostalgia, but wouldn't it have been much more profitable if D3 was a game built for a game and later on it would have provided the option to RMAH and so on? for me D2 meant going fishing for items while being able to stay young and not age 1 month with every 5 hour session of gameplay.

D3 is stuck in between somehow. It's neither single player (not thru rmah but thru balances since THE EXISTENCE OF AH MOTIVATES THE NEED TO BALANCE CLASSES IN THE ABSENCE OF PVP!!! I see no other reason for nerfs! The only reason for that would be the exact lifespan I was talking about), nor is it or will ever be more than a co-op game. RMAH only makes the imbalance between players, the time they invest in the game and RNG luck more obvious and also forces the devs into taking a global MMO like approach in balancing the game in the manner that they do in d3 atm. Decide what you want to do with it 1st.

There is clearly a large gap between user demand and company goal.
To quote master Kripparrian: "Why nerf a game that is nerfing itself?"