Yes
comrades, it's the 17th of September, and we're back with
our weekly Mailbag.
Now rip open a bag o' chips and get to readin'.
Next Week's Topic Will Be:
We asked you awhile back about the death of your hardcore
characters, now we want you to share your expriences when
dueling. Have a really funny or exhilarating story to
tell? Then please do so!
Now on to the feedback on last week's topic in
which we asked you:
In light of our recent articles
on ideas for new and innovative Multiplayer modes in Diablo,
which of these do you think would be most popular and
why? Here's
what you guys had to say:
From: Darth_Pleasant
Subject: Multiplayer in the Diablo Series article
The Missing Argument
I enjoyed your Multiplayer in the Diablo Series article.
You outline some excellent methods by which Blizzard could
strengthen the game and increase its longevity. However,
you leave out one argument that may not be obvious to
many of your readers.
"Why would Blizzard want to strengthen Diablo II?"
Should we assume that Blizzard would do it just to please
its fans? That would be a hasty conclusion. Every hour
of fun we experience in Diablo II exists because it turns
into a profit for Blizzard. I don't point this out as
a cynic -- we wouldn't have computers on our desks if
it wasn't for a market economy. But if we eliminate the
possibility that Blizzard will bless us with improvements
out of the goodness of its own heart (although it could
happen), the challenge becomes imagining how Blizzard
managers could be persuaded that increased profits would
result from improvements such as you described in your
article. Diablo II has already sold exceptionally well,
and the expansion should effectively piggy-back off of
Diablo II's success. One area that remains to be exploited,
as you mentioned but did not explain, is the game's longevity.
Longevity, at base value, doesn't create more revenues
for Blizzard. They do not charge us for Battle.net. The
more those of us who have already bought the game, actually
play the game, the more it costs Blizzard in the long
run. This gives extra value to the practice of releasing
expansions to the original game, and actually limiting
the longevity of the game and its expansion to create
a constant hunger for new titles at $30-$50 a sale. Why,
then, would Blizzard be interested in increasing the long-term
playability of Diablo II?
The only answer I can come up with, and dammit I'm a musician
not a market analyst, is that a game with a long shelf-life
keeps the door open for many new players to discover Diablo
II, and in-turn the software company Blizzard. If a game
is quickly played and discarded, its popularity will quickly
diminish, and no matter how good the game was, people
will soon forget the name Diablo II in favor of new titles,
or titles with a more longevity. And since Blizzard spent
most of its money on Diablo II during the development
cycle, its shelf-life has a large effect on the game's
return-on-investment. Therefore, the longer Blizzard can
keep people who own the game, talking about the game,
the more new sales (and potential long-term customers)
are likely to result. This is why new multiplayer options
are important. This is why it is important to give Blizzard
feedback about elements you do not like about the game.
Not because Blizzard wants to please those of us who already
love the game, but so Blizzard can create new customers
out of those who have not yet played.
Business
is business. That's a given. Your "future customer"
theory is also a fine point. However, present customers
are also "long-term" customers--or at least
a large number of them are. So I believe keeping them
in the same priority category as their prospective customers
is essential. A great way to do that is through modifications.
After all, the game did sell quite a bit. So you can't
just conclude that new clients will arise for each occasion.
From:
Aleksey Sundeyev
Subject: Multiplayer
in the Diablo Series article
Noone cares about your mods [Waaah.
Wait, they aren't mine!], and the best part is,
Blizzard is far too experienced of a company to allow
it.
Every game that came out since Quake, allows your to literally
RAPE it with mods, and leave it to be destroyed by 13-year-olds
creating mods with huge plasma turrets in every square
meter [Yeah, and they're so popular
aren't they?].
Normal servers for most games are virtually extinct, because
of the overwhelming amount of morons with rudimentary
C++ skills, who know or care nothing about the gameplay
itself.
You make no sense at all. Why should I waste my time providing
counterpoints to your arguments? Just about every reader
can decipher that poorly-made modifications don't last--and
you claiming that they do is rash. Servers for the pure
form of a game don't last tremendously long not because
of "morons" invading the modification scene,
but for the dying replay-factor of a game that is present
in every title. These mod-makers aren't "morons"--but
rather ingenious individuals.
See what you made me do? I just counter-argued.
From: ProfDrMorph
Subject: Multiplayer in the Diablo Series article
Hi!
you wanted feedback about your Multiplayer article and
here it is! [Ok, make way people!]
i mostly agree with what you said in your article. but
i think there should be something added about cheating.
why is there no client-side cheat checking? the client
could find things like hacked items (they are rare and
have slots) or that a player does impossible high damage
or something like that. This way a SDK would be no problem.
Another good multiplayer feature would be that the server
can change. the game could stop a few seconds while the
servers changes and the player can leave the game and
the other don't have to leave, too.
And a sync function would be good. even over LAN with
my friends we often got stuck because the games were out
of sync.
Why can't cheating be prevented client-side? Well, for
one, cheating comes in various forms and can be extremely
hard to stop through a series of redundant, coded functions
that would come about through a patch or something to
that extent. In order to prevent this fully, you'd need
to download a plethora of patches--something which most
players aren't prepared to do.
The "server leave; someone else take its place"
idea is good, however.
From: Robert Stanley
Subject: Multiplayer
in the Diablo Series article
Excellent article.
I disagree somewhat with the comments on cheating though.
The game is crying out for a team orientated competitive
mod (CTF, capture and hold, even a fantasy Counterstrike
!) to give it some life. To be honest, once I beat Diablo
my interest level fell rapidly. Sure, there is nightmare
and hell, and hardcore, but in effect it is still a repeat
of the same thing.
Although my hardcore character would stay at home, I would
be happy to risk someone cheating in that sort of mod,
if it existed. In any regular clan/squad/guild scene you
get to know people on other teams pretty well, and cheaters
would get weeded out early on.
I agree. Teamplay is key.
From: Ben
Subject:
Multiplayer in the Diablo Series article
Completely agree, I love 'trying' to make mods for Quake3
and it's Prequels. The fact that I normaly fail misserably
with a list of error messages which tell me that it don't
work dousn't mean that I don't want the same sort of disapointment
with Diablo II
RSS Feeds
