A Theory of Everything

General Discussion
This may be a bit of a conspiracy theory, but (if you read through) it may make sense.

1) Any potential for a D2 remastered, being announced, was potentially held off due to WC3R. It's possible that the dev team/management felt that WC3 would have a higher response, plus is the fanchise w/ the least activity in recent years.

2) Announcement of D4 was likely held off due to the release of D3 on switch, as Blizz likely felt it would hinder sales.

3) Diablo is likely their least profitable franchise, not having any microtransactions, making it the prime candidate for a mobile title.

4) Diablo is also likely the least beloved franchise, by Blizz devs, as most of the people that worked on this franchise are gone. This means it can be sacrificed without any emotional attachment.

5 - 4 1/2) Seeing as how Blizz feels that can afford to sacrifice the Diablo franchise, this also means that the future of the franchise hangs on the success of said mobile title. If it fails, it could potentially destroy the Diablo franchise as a whole, which Blizzard likely sees as a minimal loss.

If it succeeds, it will give Blizzard an idea of how to monetize a future PC/console title.

6) It makes sense to outsource the development of their first mobile title that isn't a known successful mobile genre. If it fails and customers are unsatisfied, Blizz can blame it on Netease, thus not really effecting their name.

If it succeeds, they stand to gain a lot of money, and gain valuable intel on monetizing mobile titles on their more successful franchises.

Notice how they said they're developing mobile titles in house.

7) Diablo Immortal HAS to be using the core code and engine of Netease's other titles, as the partnership doesn't make much sense for a ground up development process. It would have to low a return on investment, as the revenue will be split; Netease likely receiving the larger sum, due to being the core developer.

The argument has also been made that it's for the sake being able to make sales in China. This statement doesn't feel to be entirely true, as Netease has been managing their other titles, in the China market; This means that development by a Chinese company isn't specifically needed, or their other titles wouldn't need a Chinese management company.

8) The future of Diablo 4 hangs on the success of Diablo Immortal. This is potentially another reason for not announcing D4 at Blizzcon. Much of D4's development, and how much can be monetized, is likely to be determined by what they learn from Diablo Immortal.

9) Contrary to Blizzard's statements, Diablo Immortal is NOT intended for their core audience, nor is it intended to bring more players into the franchise. Any market analyst would likely tell you that there is little to no transition from mobile players into being active console/PC consumers. Mobile consumers are typically a separate group, with a small amount of overlap, in the direction of console/PC consumers having some overlap into mobile. These console/PC consumers are also likely to be the lowest investors of time and money, into mobile.

It is very likely that Blizzard does not see any potential for increased sales, on core titles, due to mobile success, as they probably are aware that mobile and core do not share a market base.

10) Diablo Immortal is an attempt to develop an MMO that doesn't compete with WoW. Seeing how (in #9) we can see that mobile will likely not equal any increased sales for their core audience, there is no risk to the success of their core franchises having to compete with a mobile franchise. (Notice I separate the mobile franchise from the Core franchise).

11) (This one is my personal theory/opinion) Though analysts have claimed DI to have a potential revenue of 300 million dollars yearly, it's safe to assume that DI will not survive more than a year or two, and will not be a continually supported franchise, such as WoW. I feel I can safely say this by seeing the trends of other MMO and ARPG based titles seen on mobile. The titles that seemly have the longest survival, on mobile, are titles such as candy crush, as they have a more casual based development style. MMOs typically require more time and resource investment, causing players to lapse more, as mobile is typically a more casual customer base, wanting to play in smaller spurts of time. (again, this is my personal theory and may be WAY off)

TL;DR - The future of the Diablo franchise is being sacrificed for the sake of Blizzard gaining intel into the mobile market.

Personal opinion that, success or failure, it will likely be detrimental to the Diablo franchise.

If it fails, it takes the franchise down with it.

If it succeeds, the Diablo franchise gains monetization based on what brings the most revenue to DI. The more success, the more monetized we can expect it to be.

Now that I've said my piece, I will remove my tinfoil hat.
Hmm... I think I may have put to many words on this post to be able to draw attention... Can't say as I blame anyone though.
I can make long threads, but I to can't stand to read them, lol.
11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
8) The future of Diablo 4 hangs on the success of Diablo Immortal. This is potentially another reason for not announcing D4 at Blizzcon. Much of D4's development, and how much can be monetized, is likely to be determined by what they learn from Diablo Immortal.


Reasons 3, 4, and 5 pretty much means D4 is not in production for PC, if at all. Having no love for the Diablo franchise means it would be easier for them to transfer the whole franchise mobile and console where they do not have a solid foothold yet. A big expensive PC project is not where their business model is trending. They are looking for easier, quick cash grabs. As the last Blizzcon showed, they have no worries about upsetting the Diablo fan base. The negative solidarity reaction from their lucrative PC games (WOW) is what is scaring them. D4 on the PC is a pipe dream at this point.
11/14/2018 08:03 PMPosted by Alexismad
transfer the whole franchise mobile and console where they do not have a solid foothold yet.


The only disagreement I have, with your statement, is the claim to pushing to console.
Truthfully, if they're not targeting PC, then they're not targeting console.
These two groups have equal foothold on the market, so if they drop one, they drop both.
11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
2) Announcement of D4 was likely held off due to the release of D3 on switch, as Blizz likely felt it would hinder sales.


No, they could have another team working on D4. Just announcing D4 at Blizzcon wouldn't hurt D3 NS sales since it would be about another 2 years before they could release it.

11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
4) Diablo is also likely the least beloved franchise, by Blizz devs, as most of the people that worked on this franchise are gone. This means it can be sacrificed without any emotional attachment.


That is the wrong way of thinking. Diablo is one of the games that helped put them on the map. It help make them what they are today. Throwing it out also doesn't bode well for their other titles due to the fact that the ones that play this game no doubt play some of Blizz's other games.

11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
5 - 4 1/2) Seeing as how Blizz feels that can afford to sacrifice the Diablo franchise, this also means that the future of the franchise hangs on the success of said mobile title. If it fails, it could potentially destroy the Diablo franchise as a whole, which Blizzard likely sees as a minimal loss.


Again Diablo is a franchise that is not a good sacrificial goat. That could have a trickle down effect on the rest of their other games.

11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
6) It makes sense to outsource the development of their first mobile title that isn't a known successful mobile genre. If it fails and customers are unsatisfied, Blizz can blame it on Netease, thus not really effecting their name.


Fun fact, in order for a foreign game company to have their game legally in China they have to have a Chinese developer help them as far as licensing goes. The game has to conform to China's laws about gaming.

11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
7) Diablo Immortal HAS to be using the core code and engine of Netease's other titles, as the partnership doesn't make much sense for a ground up development process. It would have to low a return on investment, as the revenue will be split; Netease likely receiving the larger sum, due to being the core developer.

The argument has also been made that it's for the sake being able to make sales in China. This statement doesn't feel to be entirely true, as Netease has been managing their other titles, in the China market; This means that development by a Chinese company isn't specifically needed, or their other titles wouldn't need a Chinese management company.


No doubt an existing game engine would be used for a new game as long as it is a good engine. You don't have to have new engines for every game in existence. A Chinese developer doesn't have to be involved in making the game. They just need to be involved in helping Blizz get the game legally in China. Which means that if it doesn't meet China's gaming laws then they can use that developer to help them change the game to conform to those laws.

11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
8) The future of Diablo 4 hangs on the success of Diablo Immortal. This is potentially another reason for not announcing D4 at Blizzcon. Much of D4's development, and how much can be monetized, is likely to be determined by what they learn from Diablo Immortal.


I disagree, putting all of your eggs in one basket is not a wise idea imo.

11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
9) Contrary to Blizzard's statements, Diablo Immortal is NOT intended for their core audience, nor is it intended to bring more players into the franchise. Any market analyst would likely tell you that there is little to no transition from mobile players into being active console/PC consumers. Mobile consumers are typically a separate group, with a small amount of overlap, in the direction of console/PC consumers having some overlap into mobile. These console/PC consumers are also likely to be the lowest investors of time and money, into mobile.


This all depends on the player and word of mouth advertising. If the player that is playing mobile games also plays PC games from time to time but have never heard of Blizz before might decide to check them out. The same rings true for word of mouth a PC player that hasn't heard of Blizz due to being new to playing games on a computer might check them out. Sure the numbers might be small but it could be enough to make it worthy to bring them in.

11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
10) Diablo Immortal is an attempt to develop an MMO that doesn't compete with WoW. Seeing how (in #9) we can see that mobile will likely not equal any increased sales for their core audience, there is no risk to the success of their core franchises having to compete with a mobile franchise. (Notice I separate the mobile franchise from the Core franchise).


If Diablo Immortal was PC I highly doubt that it would be a good competition to WoW. That is due to the fact that this game is practically a WoWablo to start with and hasn't caused any problems.
I disagree, putting all of your eggs in one basket is not a wise idea imo.


Are you the same Aegis from Anniefuschia stream?
Seems like a good theory. They probably also did look at PoE. That game is pretty popular and is gaining more thanks to Blizzard's shortcomings but it does feature a lot of micro transactions. I'm not hating on PoE but what I'm saying is that by their model, you can make a successful and gamer friendly game that still has microtransactions in it.

Blizzard was still wrong to go to phones, they could have done this with D3 or just making D:I a spin off game for PC still. Like you said, they're probably testing and hoping they can establish their own micro transaction system before they throw it into D4.
Nothing of this makes much sense tbh.
11/18/2018 12:29 PMPosted by FuturePhunk
I disagree, putting all of your eggs in one basket is not a wise idea imo.


Are you the same Aegis from Anniefuschia stream?


I don't work as a streamer nor have an account where I can comment on streams in Twitch.
I think you are pretty spot on
What about quantum gravity?
I mean a theory of everything should solve quantum gravity, shouldn't it?! :8
Also add to your theory that Activision is slowly over taking Blizzard, and replacing all the workers, which would explain the recent pay cuts, and a lot of the limitations to the development and hush-hush projects.

I would seem like Blizzard is slowing facing a closure or full incorporation into Activision. Basically they are gone.
11/19/2018 03:44 AMPosted by KiWeN
Also add to your theory that Activision is slowly over taking Blizzard, and replacing all the workers, which would explain the recent pay cuts, and a lot of the limitations to the development and hush-hush projects.

I would seem like Blizzard is slowing facing a closure or full incorporation into Activision. Basically they are gone.


Well, I know it's been near 2 months, but it seems this particular reply is becoming more and more accurate each day.
I can certainly see more and more indications of it. And the more one dives into the current status and what has happened in the past 6 months, the more it seems to paint a very clear picture of a closing Blizzard.
Agreed with OP. But it seems mobile development for all popular franchises seem to have been officially stated so they may not be as patient as waiting to see the money response to dim-mortal.
11/18/2018 12:42 PMPosted by Bradlas
Seems like a good theory. They probably also did look at PoE. That game is pretty popular and is gaining more thanks to Blizzard's shortcomings but it does feature a lot of micro transactions. I'm not hating on PoE but what I'm saying is that by their model, you can make a successful and gamer friendly game that still has microtransactions in it.

Blizzard was still wrong to go to phones, they could have done this with D3 or just making D:I a spin off game for PC still. Like you said, they're probably testing and hoping they can establish their own micro transaction system before they throw it into D4.


I'm OK with microtransactions if the game is free. If you still want to charge $60, then get those microtransactions and lootboxes out of there.
12/27/2018 07:20 AMPosted by Killian
I'm OK with microtransactions if the game is free. If you still want to charge $60, then get those microtransactions and lootboxes out of there.


I'm actually okay with both existing, if and only if, the microtransactions fund new content each season/year. (depending on how the game cycles are set up) Basically paid initial purchase + microtransactions must mean free expansions. If you want to charge for expansions, then microtransactions shouldn't exist.
11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
11) (This one is my personal theory/opinion)


All of these points are your own personal, given without any evidence or primary sources, theories/opinions.
12/27/2018 09:45 AMPosted by Mercury
11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by HELLBOUNDMAN
11) (This one is my personal theory/opinion)


All of these points are your own personal, made up without any evidence or primary sources, theories/opinions.


That's not entirely true, as many of these have solid basis in reality, but ultimately yes, you are correct.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum