'This is not World of Warcraft, we aren't going to be able to add new content every couple of months', says dev
There are not enough features for a long-term sustainable end-game in Diablo III, Blizzard's community manager has admitted.
Speaking on the official forum, Bashiok said that whilst there was still a lot for players to do, such as an item hunt, he recognised that users would run out of things to do.
He claimed that Blizzard were currently working on the issue, although it wouldn’t be resolved for some time, and also warned users not to expect the same amount of new content that World of Warcraft receives.
“We recognise that the item hunt is just not enough for a long-term sustainable end-game,” said Bashiok.
“There are still tons of people playing every day and week, and playing a lot, but eventually they're going to run out of stuff to do (if they haven't already). Killing enemies and finding items is a lot of fun, and we think we have a lot of the systems surrounding that right, or at least on the right path with a few corrections and tweaks.
Advertisement
“But honestly Diablo III is not World of Warcraft. We aren't going to be able to pump out tons of new systems and content every couple months. There needs to be something else that keeps people engaged, and we know it's not there right now.”
Bashiok went on to say that new ideas for progression systems would likely not be added until after version 1.1 was released, but said in the meantime there would be various fixed and changes made to the game to try and satisfy users who had already completed the game, as well as new PvP arenas.
Why does an arcade beat-em-up hack-n-slash RPG need an "end-game"? It's got a final boss right? And 3 difficulty levels, which should take more than a dozen hours to complete, per class, right?
Are we suprised that Mario doens't have an "end game" after saving the princess? Isn't that the end of the game?
This article is written in a way where it seems to be assuming that Diablo is some kind of MMO that you're supposed to be able to play forever and ever without ever finishing it... but it's not. It's got a final boss, you beat him, that's the end. You can replay it if you like, just like any other game...
I don't get it.
What you're saying does make sense but it's not quite true. D3 isn't a single player game similar to Mario nor is it an MMO like WoW. What it is, is a online multiplayer game that requires many people playing at this so called "end-game" for players of any level to get the most of of it. For example, playing at higher difficulty settings without being able to purchase gear from other players off the Auction House would be pretty much futile.
To that end, it makes sense that blizzard feel the need to keep people playing the "end-game".
The mistake, I think, comes from the assumption that replayability==endgame. Earlier games in the franchise were very replayable (D2 comes to mind; it is still actively played by many people). And while a lot of the players extended their play time doing Baal runs and grinding to L99 (the so-called "endgame" of D2), this did not comprise the bulk of the replayability. Further play time came from starting a new character, trying a new build, etc...
At some point, somebody decided that re-leveling a new character was "bad" and must be avoided at all costs. So respecs were allowed. Which is fine, I guess, but why is there this assumption that any play time, even play time spent on a character whose build is borked, is "wasted"? I've certainly never felt like I was wasting time by playing an Inferno and Warmth stacking sorceress, even if she was a hilariously punchable meat sack in Hell difficulty. The fun of playing a broken build came from doing another character later and learning from my mistakes.
So, since learning and playing non-optimal builds is wasted time, the logical conclusion was to make respecs free, eliminate the progression-based advancement of skill trees so that nobody had to ever be stuck with a bad build or even be allowed to make one (lol), and turn Diablo into a loadout-based shooter in which there is absolutely 0 incentive to ever re-roll a character of a given class once a character of that class reaches 60. A bafflingly idiotic move guaranteed to drastically reduce replayability in a game that supposedly builds upon the successes of one of the most replayable games ever. Brilliant.
In the end, I think, the MMO "end game" mentality did more to fail this game than the RMAH, the bad story, the hilarious lag/rubber-banding issues and lost progress in single-player games ever did. They made a game where reaching the "end game" (level cap, highest difficulty, top gear, all skill loadouts available) was the whole goal, and 6.5 million people bought it in anticipation of having all the goodies offered by D2 only, you know, MORE!! Then they come out and say "Uhhh... there's really no end game, and really no plans to expand the end game. And we took away any reason to replay the game. Derp."
Bill is right, the entire article is based on a faulty premise. Diablo isn't an MMO, and while it has a multiplayer component, it is fundamentally a "start, beat, finish" game. This idea that the game is somehow less re-playable because you don't have to restart broken characters is silly. It's D2 rose tinted glasses nostalgia. D2 was a mess of a game, and the reason we look so fondly upon it is that it was really the only game of it's kind for many years. Never forget, D2 wasn't the "game we see today" until after an expansion and 10 major patches.
