While I like Diablo 3, I was burned out by it far faster than the previous two. I played Diablo for years and Diablo 2 almost just as long, while Diablo 3 I was tired of after a month or so. It just didn't have the same level of depth or diversity. Getting rid of Diablo 2's skill tree was a huge mistake, it allowed for such great customization and it was a huge part of what made that game a success.
The second biggest problem I have with Diablo 3 is that you can't play single player offline, it annoyed me to no end that I could not play single player out of the box when the game first launched because there was a server problem, this should NOT affect SINGLE player! Everyone knows that this doesn't deter true hackers, it only hurts all the legitimate fans, and not everyone wants to play multi-player. Diablo 2's system with an open and closed battle.net was perfect, and at the same time it kept single player offline the way it's supposed to be.
Tertiary, I felt the game was way too short and too easy on the first modes. I took me much longer to get through the first two games than this one. Don't get me wrong, I think D3 has great graphics and obviously much care went into it, but at the same time it felt rushed and incomplete, especially the last act. Had the game been longer, with a little more in depth storyline, more quests and puzzles, it would've been an instant classic, but unfortunately it became an item and level grinder way too fast, and I'm really disappointed because I waited about a decade for it.
If there's another sequel or expansion, I really hope they get back to their roots and make it a little more challenging, longer, and have bigger worlds to explore. The atmosphere of Diablo is still by far the best, if they can get closer to that, they'll have a game with longevity and another classic, but as of now D3 is just a little better than the competition. I hate to say it but Blizzard is slipping a bit, and maybe WoW has made them a bit too comfy and content.
Joeguy00, I see what you're saying, but as long as they offer the free to play and the paid version, then it should be fine. The paid version will be better naturally, and the free version is a step down.
Now do I think that all games should model this paradigm? No, of course not. I think it works great for MMOs, but it doesn't really suit FPS, RTS, etc. They need to apply it where it's reasonable, not to all games. I seriously doubt they'd do it for all genres because not everyone is crazy about such a plan, it's typically as you say the more hardcore gamers that like it. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they applied this to all games.
Also people need to keep in mind what I said before, if EA releases shoddy games and provides lackluster customer service, then drop them as a hot potato, don't support crappy companies, I know I don't, and that's the only way that they'll take notice, not by comments on an online forum. I only support gaming companies that care about its consumer base and provide decent service.
I do agree about having an offline mode, like in Diablo 3, it's ridiculous that one must have an always on connection in order to play single player, because there's no reason for a connection when it comes to single player. One should be able to enjoy games without having to log on, and if Blizzard and other companies continue to follow this model for single player, then I won't be buying their games.
You didn't say it but the way you phrased your argument it sounded like gamers were forced into this model, it's a choice, if people don't like it, then they simply choose not to partake. If EA wants people's business, then they'll have to make better products and improve their customer relations. I rarely buy games from EA because I haven't seen a good game from them since the early Medal of Honor days. I see many people bitching at EA but clearly they're not doing it with their pocket books because that's the only way that EA will actually listen to gamers' concerns, by boycotting EA's products until the aforementioned improves.
There's no big fascination with sticking up for EA, it's curious you misinterpreted it that way, I'm merely being objective, open minded and logical. F2P isn't a revolutionary concept, it's been around for decades, in fact most games had various versions of this up until the advent of MMOs. People are their own worst enemies, they buy bad games, continue to buy from the same company, and they continue to bitch about it without taking action where it truly hurts EA, their bank accounts. EA wouldn't be where they are today if gamers stopped buying mediocre and sub-par games, so you can't solely blame them for today's gaming landscape, takes two to tango.
DRM was only a problem when it prevented people from either installing or playing the game due to encryption, restrictions, spyware, etc. As long as these aspects are removed and people can game without a CD/DVD, life is good. If they don't abide by this, then guess what, people shouldn't buy or use their games or online services, period. The consumer has all the power, not the publisher.
Of course you have to abide by a company's rules when playing any game, that's part of any EULA which have been around since the dawn of gaming, this hasn't changed so this is a moot point. If the EULA is unreasonable then gamers can choose to avoid the product, caveat emptor.
Naturally ads will be present in many of the F2P services, as the saying goes, nothing's free, or if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Personally I avoid anything that's free that comes with ads, I'd rather buy the complete version for a small amount than deal with annoying advertising, but again, that's a choice. If it's free and you haven't paid a dime, then you can't really complain about the ads, can you? That's basically looking a gift horse in the mouth. The stuff that gamers will pay for will most likely be worth their money, if not, then well the business will quickly go under. As I said before, it's in EA's best interest to make gamers WANT to buy the in-game items for a price, and if the items, game or customer service isn't up to par, then the whole game will probably fail and people won't buy into their other products because they've been proven to be unreliable.
My argument about digital retail doesn't last forever is this, unless you physically own the item, you have no guarantee of getting your money's worth for as long as you're alive, this goes for anything's that digital, which is why I generally prefer buying the physical object, game, movie or otherwise, because if the business, service or product ever goes under, at least I'll still have my physical copy so I won't lose that investment. Many games may last for years or just a few months, the point is unless it's hugely popular games like Blizzard's, they're probably not going to be around forever and any items you buy, or services thereof, have a high risk of being a losing investment in the long run. If you're simply using the free version, well then you haven't lost anything. Think before you buy that $10 mount or pet, that's the argument.
I don't doubt what you say about the micro-transactions, of course that's true, that's why Peter Moore's so excited about this, but so what, companies are in the business to make money, and everyone here has played a more than willing part in that arrangement. The fact that some of their products will be free should be welcomed, not booed. This whole notion of protesting F2P is ludicrous, it's like playing an extended demo, this is a GOOD thing, and if you don't like what you see, stop playing it, uninstall and move on, nobody is forcing anyone to pay a single cent, the choice is yours. People are letting their bias against EA dictate their responses here, 99% of the responses are based on emotions and preconceived notions rather than facts and logic. F2P is a step in the right direction, how people choose to interact with that model is their choice, and giving that choice to gamers is positive. People are only hating on it because it comes from the mouth of an executive from one of the most disliked gaming companies around, had this same message been delivered by one of the respected Gamespot editors, I guarantee you'd see a reversal of most of these responses, or at least far more positive replies than this overwhelming amount of negative comments. People are shooting the messenger as well as the message and they can't see the forest for the trees, all they see is "EA is an evil conglomerate and anything they say is bad".
You missed my point about discontinued games, which is that any game is subject to that reality, regardless of popularity. Of course they have to pull the plug if it's no longer profitable, again, they're in the business to make money, not just to make everyone happy, this is true for ANY business. They're not non-profit agencies, I mean sure, that'd be nice, but it's unrealistic. Having a F2P is as close to non-profit as you'll get in the gaming industry. Personally I'd rather have something that's F2P than not. If I don't like it, uninstall and move on, it's that simple. If it's a game that I've paid for, then yes I'd be up in arms about it, but it wouldn't make sense to complain about something that's free. Nothing lasts forever, even the most popular games, so if a game all of a sudden stops, people should be prepared for that. If they paid for something and didn't get it, then they have a right to a refund, and if they don't get it then they can sue the company, pretty simple.
Yes, I know it's not just MMOs, I was just using that as an example since that's the most common genre for this type of pricing model. Games like 'Lord of the Rings Online' went free and I was far more inclined to try it than I was when it was a monthly subscription. It's like an extended demo, but it's even better if you think about it because as long as you don't buy any in-game items, you're not out a penny. Gamers at this point have a choice of whether to invest in it or not, if the game's of solid quality and is fun to play, then they'll probably buy some things here and there, and that's their prerogative, much like how millions of fans have been paying monthly subscriptions for WoW and EverQuest for years. If they're not happy with their investment, they have nobody to blame but themselves, but if it's free, then there's noting to complain about.
I see what you're saying but I honestly don't see that happening. Perfect example, Guild Wars 2 is coming out next Tuesday and it's expected to be a huge hit, much like its predecessor, and they're both F2P, about the only thing you have to pay for is character server transfers, but to simply play it is free. That or most of Blizzard's games are F2P, like the Diablo games, WarCraft 1, 2 and 3, even WoW is free for the first 20 levels, and they're all huge successes with millions of loyal followers. As long as the content's good and the customer service is up to par, it can work, EA just needs to improve their gamer relations and to listen to its customers, but the actual idea of F2P is sound and welcome.
@Joeguy00 I disagree. Nobody's forcing anyone into any F2P game, the choice is open. This marketing model will be primarily for MMOs, not all games, and call me crazy but I prefer the free model over the monthly $15 that's been the industry norm.
-Online DRM, guess what, Steam has had this since its inception, and it's the most popular PC gaming service around. DRM done right doesn't interfere with gaming, so as long as they copy Steam, it should work fine
-Registering an account, Steam has this as well and 20 million + gamers don't mind; this is common in all MMOs
-It would be EA's version instead of Steam, Origin probably, and granted it sucks now but Steam wasn't perfect when it first started either, it'll take time to improve it
-Steam can ban/block members if they're proved to be hackers, this is a GOOD thing
-Steam has their own ads, but they're not intrusive or annoying and can be disabled
-Games that are bought and subscribed to are also shut down without much of a notice, sometimes none, so this point's moot
-It's free to play, not "required to pay", anytime you're paying for digital items, there is no guarantee that you'll have it forever, that's the nature of the online world. Companies come and go, as do various online games, and if you don't know this going in then you probably shouldn't be paying or even playing in the first place. Publishers/developers like EA have disregarded fans' wishes for years in their paid games, so if they continue to do this in free games, then you're not really losing anything, are you? The problem is with the paid games, not with the free ones, it's a win win
-It's in EA's best interest to provide solid gameplay if they expect the free to play model to work, because players won't pay for items in a game that sucks, so this doesn't seem likely
-As far as discontinuation of a game's production and endings not being realized, hey guess what Half-Life 2 still hasn't released episode 3, among countless other games that were either cancelled before or during their development, nothing's certain in the gaming world, their success is quite volatile because it's such a competitive market, developers and publishers come and go, it's just the way the cookie crumbles, having a free to play model isn't going to change this fact
Seems rather ridiculous for so many haters to come down on EA for this, it screams bias against EA for every other reason BESIDES offering free games. Granted it's understandable why there's so much EA dislike, but at least try to be objective here, this is a win-win situation for gamers, if you want to play it, there's no cost to you unless you CHOOSE to. It's like going to the movies, sure you can waste a small fortune by buying popcorn, coke and candy, or you can simply save your money and enjoy the show, saving money in the process. What's great about this new model is that it gives players a CHOICE, and that's always a good thing. It's a win-win, people, stop being so negative just because it's EA and some big shot exec. If anything you should be thanking this guy for giving back to the consumer. I'm far more inclined to try games if they're free to begin with, and if I like it enough, I wouldn't mind maybe buying one or two items, given that the price is right, but still, I don't HAVE to buy anything, and that's the beauty of it, the choice is yours. Think about this a little more.
Conner_Macleod's comments