I hope next Expac brings Level 80 and serious change

General Discussion
10/26/2015 02:22 PMPosted by MissCheetah
10/26/2015 02:18 PMPosted by kneo24
I was under the impression that China got the game for free. So how would that equate into sales numbers? Is there an option for them to buy the game to get some mega goodies?


They get a limited version of Vanilla for free with fewer stash tabs and such. If they want RoS they need to buy a bundle package. The stats posted for Q2 don't say where that 30m figure comes from (D3V, RoS, console, China RoS packages )- so we don't know if it includes sales of those RoS bundles in China between April and June or not. Hence why some people think maybe it was China bundles that pushed it up to 30m in sales.


That is good to know. I was always slightly curious as to how their free to play market worked in regards to that.

Even if we assume that china is responsible for 10 million, and we subtract that out because reasons, 20 million units sold is quite a lot and nothing to snub to your nose at. It's even more impressive when you consider the state the game was in for so long. It was never in a state of what I'd call a bad game, but more of a, "why is this such a let down?"

I realize releasing anything to China is an arduous process, but I wonder if they delayed releasing to China for just slightly longer to generate that many more sales.
10/26/2015 02:30 PMPosted by kneo24
20 million units sold is quite a lot and nothing to snub to your nose at.


They actually hit 20million sales in D3 in June 2014 so the 10m can't just be China. :) I agree numbers are pretty good though.
Take the figure of 30m units at a one-time payment. Then subtract the development costs. Then subtract the promotion costs. Then subtract the server costs. Then subtract the upkeep and staffing.

How long before they are in the red on this game? Not long. Especially when they were counting on the percentage of the RMT from the RMAH that failed far too early to put much in their pockets.

Now compare this with a game that has under 10 million people playing, if I remember correctly, but each one of those people pays a fee each month and re-buys the game once a year (expansions).

Think about this for a few minutes, people. Then ask yourself why D3 is so unsupported. Unsupported to the point that the janitors closet is more visible at Blizzcon than the D3 booth.

TLDR: 30 million units is not even break-even for a non-MMO, non-MT game.
Wouldnt change anything because items scale with your level.

So still setiablo will stay the same. Maybe there are one or two new skills, but this would still make no difference.

BUT

I realy wish lots of skills will get overworked much.
10/26/2015 02:58 PMPosted by Kukiri
Take the figure of 30m units at a one-time payment. Then subtract the development costs. Then subtract the promotion costs. Then subtract the server costs. Then subtract the upkeep and staffing.


Are you trying to tell me that the highest selling PC game of all time can't handle 3 years of modest support at an average of 10 million sales a year? I am simply not going to go for that. Even assuming the lowest price of $20 per unit that is 200million in revenue per year. Of course a fair percentage of those are goign to be CEs, DEs, RoS, etc which cost more than $20. So 200 million a year is on the low side of an estimate.

Trust me, they are not blowing through that much cash and the game is most certainly capable of supporting itself. This whole vision of 3 devs sitting around on carboard boxes dressed in rags needs to go.

10/26/2015 02:58 PMPosted by Kukiri
TLDR: 30 million units is not even break-even for a non-MMO, non-MT game.


Not even remotely true. If so PC game companies, all of them, would have been out of business long ago. D3 is the highest selling PC game ever... and yet you claim that is not successful. Sometimes things here make my brain hurt a bit.
10/26/2015 02:33 PMPosted by MissCheetah
10/26/2015 02:30 PMPosted by kneo24
20 million units sold is quite a lot and nothing to snub to your nose at.


They actually hit 20million sales in D3 in June 2014 so the 10m can't just be China. :) I agree numbers are pretty good though.


If you look at some of the games beating it in the top ten of all time, the only game that's recent is GTA:V.

I realize this forum is sometimes a cesspool of negativity, but I hope the team for this game reads that part. They should be extremely proud of themselves for being part of a game that has managed to move that many units in a short period of time. It's no small feat. This game still has a lot to improve on, but a bad game wouldn't sell that many units, period.

10/26/2015 02:58 PMPosted by Kukiri
Take the figure of 30m units at a one-time payment. Then subtract the development costs. Then subtract the promotion costs. Then subtract the server costs. Then subtract the upkeep and staffing.

How long before they are in the red on this game? Not long. Especially when they were counting on the percentage of the RMT from the RMAH that failed far too early to put much in their pockets.

Now compare this with a game that has under 10 million people playing, if I remember correctly, but each one of those people pays a fee each month and re-buys the game once a year (expansions).

Think about this for a few minutes, people. Then ask yourself why D3 is so unsupported. Unsupported to the point that the janitors closet is more visible at Blizzcon than the D3 booth.

TLDR: 30 million units is not even break-even for a non-MMO, non-MT game.


Can I have what you're on? Activision (you know, Blizzard's other half) keeps pumping money into the CoD franchise. I'm sure their marketting budget for each game eclipses what Blizzard has used for D3. The CoD franchise is huge, so that's how I come to that conclusion. The last two CoD games didn't sell anywhere near what D3 has sold as far as current sales numbers that I can dig up show.
If you look at some of the games beating it in the top ten of all time, the only game that's recent is GTA:V.


To compare the two I would have to see stats on how console sales factor in to both game stats. So far everything I see on D3 says it is the top PC game, but consoles are a different beast.

10/26/2015 02:58 PMPosted by Kukiri
Then subtract the server costs.


I forgot to address this. Costs are shared between games. The data centers they run host multiple games out of them, not just one. So the whole operation per data center is funded by all the games that Blizzard has seeing as they share all hardware and operating costs. D3 does not have some magical solo operation. They just have a set of servers at a datacenter dedicated to them while the next set of servers over hosts HS and the next HotS, etc. Hardware upgrades, staffing, operating costs, ISP fees, are all handled out of one pot of money that all the games contribute to.
Doesn't matter what Blizz does, when Blizz does it or why Blizz does it - haters just gonna hate, regardless.

Hell, the coming expansion pack announcement could include epic PvP, the return of trading, and all kinds of gameplay and QOL improvements, and they'd still find something to complain about. Or make up stuff to complain about...

Never happy unless they're unhappy.
10/26/2015 03:12 PMPosted by MissCheetah
Sometimes things here make my brain hurt a bit.


You just made my day. :)
10/26/2015 03:49 PMPosted by MissCheetah
If you look at some of the games beating it in the top ten of all time, the only game that's recent is GTA:V.


To compare the two I would have to see stats on how console sales factor in to both game stats. So far everything I see on D3 says it is the top PC game, but consoles are a different beast.


This is the list I was going by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

I'm amused that Tetris is in there twice as it should just be lumped into the first one. If you notice, it doesn't differentiate between platform typically until you start looking at the other lists on the page. It instead just includes them all. The other lists are very dated in a lot of spots, more than likely due to the lack of breakdowns available for figures.
heh. I want by a similar list but focused on the PC games because that is what is linked in the D3 wiki entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games

They have it #2 there but the stats are very old from 2013. Nothing has been updated. You are right though, the more recent quarterly reports have not provided a great data breakdown to work with.
10/26/2015 03:12 PMPosted by MissCheetah
D3 is the highest selling PC game ever... and yet you claim that is not successful.


success depends whether you go by quality of the game or just by sales quantity.

1.) game A sells 50k copies p.a., 99% of the buyers are constantly playing the game
2.) game B sells 2000k copies p.a., 1% of the buyers are constantly playing the game

what's a more successful?
10/26/2015 11:02 AMPosted by Halcyon
10/26/2015 07:52 AMPosted by Beliz
i really hope that they dont add another xpack. i hate going to lvl80 and losing all my stuff overnight, just because they are trying to increase their income. the game is so badly designed that every patch/xpack simply underlines the huge discrepancies in the initial design. it is like being in the ocean and sinking even more. just end the diablo3 lifecycle and devote all resources to diablo4, even to come out in 5 years from now.


Believe it or not, I am in the exact same boat as you. Having to retool my characters infuriated me to no end--its just that what we have now is so beyond acceptable that unless they make sets "unforced" and give us some sort of leverage or option to what we want to actually do with our characters, there really is no other alternative but a total shift in paradigm.

Look at Demon Hunter.

Every DH you see is running Yangs and UE.
Monks are Ulianas or Borne's
etc.

The only "variety" people get in this game right now are those who get to stay in lower difficulties because their favorite build simply cannot handle the higher levels, and that is wrong.

Any build should be able to handle any levels, provided they are skilled and equipped for it. And by skilled I mean balanced, and by equipped I mean complimentary gear to the skills--not "play it devs way" sets.


You probably know better then most it ain't happening. Devs have said it over and over again skills will be balanced and buffed around sets. If your skill doesn't have a set it most likely won't be viable. But I agree that's shallow design. Nothing we can do now but hope for an xpac that would totally redesign the game.

I'll say this though, monks and barbs have at least 4 builds each that can reach into higher grifts. If that's the best diversity we'll get I'll take it. Wd has quite a few too...

The problem is like you said with sets, they're just to powerful to ignore. If we put on a bunch of oranges you won't progress and d3 is all about efficiency which is another can of worms:/
Im happy with changes but another lvl cap increased would seriously make alot of players just uninstall
IF blizzard decides on a next xpac, I hope you are NO WHERE near the development of it OP.

Jesus christ, invading Russia in winter looks like a great idea compared to some of the crap you just suggested.
10/26/2015 04:47 PMPosted by Keyblade
Im happy with changes but another lvl cap increased would seriously make alot of players just uninstall
4

I forgot to put in my counter to that in the main post, which I'll fix here in a sec.

The fix to that is to let gear start leveling.

Example Piece:
Before ideal patch--Held by Level 70 character
Immortal King's Boulder Breaker
4198.1 damage
3505-4128 base
1.10 aps
+1724-2144 damage
10% damage
1258 strength
gain 2281 life per fury spent
Call of ancients gets 55% extra damage
+21 max fury
Ignores durability loss
Ramaladini Socket

After suggested patch--Held by Level 71 character
1. Main Stats are squished and rounded.
2. All stats are "gray" as "runic" and/or until confirmed by miriam.
3. Base weapon can now level with the character.
Immortal King's Boulder Breaker
4198.1 damage
3505-4128 base
1.10 aps
+1724-2144 damage
X% damage (Rune Level 71)
X Strength (Rune Level 71)
Gain X life per fury spent (Rune Level 71)
Call of ancients gains 55% extra damage (Random Roll, weapon specific mod)
+21 max fury (resource allocation untouched generally)
Ignores Durability loss
Ramaladini Socket
Weapon Level 71/80*

Player "loses" damage in the short run, but in the long run has a more powerful weapon by comparison, and more customizable, as runes can be removed and resocketed as player decides he/she likes something else better.

*Weapon on patch going live becomes the level of first character to pick it up. Cheap and probably exploitable, but in the long run they're all going to match character level anyways, so best to make it easy. For a weapon in the stash, it would be level 1/80. Base stats then upgrade as the character levels.

Long story short? You don't have to worry about level increases. Ever. Again. Sorry I forgot to add this in to main post. Change occurs to gear as equipped. In terms of fresh character from level 70-71, the change only occurs once a character hits level 71.

So if somebody wants to stay on ROS paradigm, they can. Everyone else can take the level plunge and move to different pastures.
10/26/2015 04:25 PMPosted by Alukat
10/26/2015 03:12 PMPosted by MissCheetah
D3 is the highest selling PC game ever... and yet you claim that is not successful.


success depends whether you go by quality of the game or just by sales quantity.

1.) game A sells 50k copies p.a., 99% of the buyers are constantly playing the game
2.) game B sells 2000k copies p.a., 1% of the buyers are constantly playing the game

what's a more successful?

Dear god please stop. You've already made it wildly evident that you are lacking any business sense, mathematical ability (might I suggest a calculator, your phone comes with one), and any common understanding of a how a basic free market works.

And for the record, game B is more successful. Once they've sold you the game, THEY HAVE YOUR MONEY ALREADY. For a game with no recurring fees or microtransactions, every second you play the game is a COST to them. They would prefer you never play.

How do you not get this? Seriously...
10/26/2015 12:27 PMPosted by MissCheetah

I find it really funny, that there are actually people who post acting like D3 has no income and somehow is suffering so needs MT. It is the best selling PC game of all time with huge sales...and we are debating if it managed 10m in 9 weeks in China. They are not suffering financially. Heh.


D3's total value to Blizzard is probably in the neighborhood of 1.5 billion.

Not including development wages, hardware/software costs and maintenance, cross platform licensing, marketing, corporate costs, distribution and the ever present stockholder's and the cut they get.

The question isn't how much D3 HAS made but how much D3 will CONTINUE to make. How many MILLIONS of people got burnt on Vanilla and walked away never to even look back again? That's money that Blizzard got, sure but money they're not getting again as evident in RoS sales. How many people got burnt on RoS? I'm not sure to be honest because I loved RoS but if you google it... lotta hate.

How active are these forums? Not even remotely close to as active as other Blizzard forums. Not by a long shot. That alone should give you an inkling of concurrent users. "Oh, but only a tiny fraction of players blah blah blah". Yeah, check concurrent games listed in-game. You get where I'm going with this?

D3's development cycle is mind blowingly slow.

Full blown, virtually immersive, INFINITELY MORE COMPLEX mmos develop at a staggeringly faster pace with dumbfoundingly more content than D3 does. This isn't fanciful exaggeration. This is stone cold Google-Fu supported fact. And you have to ask yourself...

Why?

WHY?!?

Why is Blizzard so technologically restricted that they PHYSICALLY CANNOT expand inventory without crashing the interwebs?

Yet ARPGs with 20x the sum of in-game items have ZERO PROBLEM doing this? They hand it off to the Chinese, yeah they fixed that... no problemo. Not, later on down the road. Right out the gate. Nailed it.

But for WHATEVER REASON Blizzard can't get their tables sorted. Blows... my... friggin'... mind.

No one, but the most intellectually obtuse and/or optimistically imaginative can possibly look at D3 and say, "Oh yeah, it's great. Totally fine as is. They don't need to do nuffin'. Smooth sailin."

D3 is a fraction of what it was.

WoW is hemorrhaging subs every quarter.

It doesn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall.

Blizzard needs to open it's doors and it's culture to TODAY'S market and gamer. This isn't 2004 anymore. Blizzard isn't the only kid on the block with cool toys. I haven't logged into D3 on any of my accounts (yeah, that's plural) in like... a month. At best. I swing by, digest the latest drama, check for anything substantial from the mods then move on.

Seasons are a joke. Exploits every patch. Bots friggin' everywhere.

I simply can't take D3 seriously anymore and I'm one of the more "profitable" of Blizzard's customers and I guarantee you I'm not alone in my sentiments.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum