Diablo Immortal coming to PC

https://www.pcgamer.com/diablo-immortal-is-coming-to-pc-after-all/

I'm sure many of us will play it, I wonder for how long. I'm a little burnt on PoE atm but Elden Ring has been fun and still has some time left in it for me.

Not a fan of mobile games.
Even if they're ported to PC.

Not my pc.

Well, it's no Diablo 4 but maybe it can be a Diablo 3.5. I thought Last Epoch would emulate POE's FTP model but Diablo Immortal has beat it to the punch. Diablo Immortal is FTP with different passes offering cosmetics and separate cosmetics in the store.

I alpha/closed beta tested it on a Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 a fair bit (Australia was a testing grounds of sorts) and other than the obvious free to play trappings and mobile streamlining, I enjoyed it a lot more than I did Diablo 3. The gameplay was about as slick as you could expect from a mobile ARPG, the usage of D2 characters as npcs was nicely nostalgic and overall it does a better job of feeling like the sort of game that should have come after Diablo 2 in terms of scope and focus.

Skill customisation and gear wise, forget it. That's all so simplified there's virtually no real meaning to any of it. At times it felt a bit like a twin stick shooter due to how you aim skills while moving, but overall it's more about getting to spend more time in Sanctuary with familiar faces and doing short burst levels for shinies.

It's a solid Diablo 2.5 game IF the sequel/follow-on from Diablo 2 had to be a mobile game with very high production values, whereas Diablo 3, with its awful writing, bloated quests, cartoony look and plethora of busywork, always felt like a WoW spin-off cosplaying as a Diablo game to me.

If I used my phone for gaming at all I'd probably play it over any other mobile game. That is except for the fact that it's a blizzard game.

Have people really forgotten about blizzards already?

I doubt anyone's forgotten just how shitty Blizzard have become under Kotick's wing and how systemic the rot really is.

Two points however:

1) DI is free to play, and you only really need to put money in if you get invested in the endgame loop, so there's no real harm in playing the free portion, being the story and some limited endgame/replay; you might be contributing to their numbers but at least you're not actively funding the operation;

and

2) there comes a point where you have to decide, as a gamer, whether your personal moral outrage has any real bearing on the situation whether you play a game or not, especially when we're talking about developers and publishers with huge and generally shady ultimate owners (i.e. most of them now). That might seem like whataboutism but really they're all bad so it's more like accepting there is no meaningful moral stance as a player trying to negotiate which games to play and which to not. Still, if you want to personally avoid DI or any Blizzard game based on your own feelings, pretty sure no one here has the power to stop you. :)

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

2) there comes a point where you have to decide, as a gamer, whether your personal moral outrage has any real bearing on the situation whether you play a game or not, especially when we're talking about developers and publishers with huge and generally shady ultimate owners (i.e. most of them now). That might seem like whataboutism but really they're all bad so it's more like accepting there is no meaningful moral stance as a player trying to negotiate which games to play and which to not. Still, if you want to personally avoid DI or any Blizzard game based on your own feelings, pretty sure no one here has the power to stop you. :)

While I think this is fair, I also think what people say and what people do, really diverge in today's outrage and social media culture. I dont want to dive into cancel culture here tbh, but it's kinda the same thing. I think generally speaking there are plenty of folks that display faux anger on Twitter, Facebook, Forums, Reddit, etc... but that's where it ends. Essentially expanding on your point about moral limits that dont exactly eclispse your desire to play a game or spend some cash, but simultaneously, you certainly want it to appear it does to others.

This isn't unique to video games either. We see it all the time in the business world, in sports, in entertainment. Moral outrage tends to get real grey when big dollars are at stake, and it reveals the incredible hypocrisy that folks engage in.

Dude, I'm just thankful I was over PoE *before* it happened, because I absolutely do draw the line at giving Tencent money if I can help it. This includes paying for movies that they funded -- pretty sure the last ones I went to see were Kong and King of the Monsters, and neither rocked my world so that was an easy drop. If I see the Tencent Pictures logo when streaming, well, not much I can do about that. I just sort of sigh and keep watching. It really doesn't affect what follows at all. It's just a vague knowledge that they've got their thumb in the pie. And why wouldn't they? They've a lot of thumbs.

Equally, I'd never willingly pay for anything from NetEase (included Diablo Immortal). Sure, Tencent and NetEase are rivals, but they're rivals in the same deeply compromised game. That's honestly all I need to say about that, I think.

Different things bother us more. Different atrocities and methodologies. Different forms of breach. I'm of mainland Chinese descent, true peasant stock, so I feel a greater connection to the above than, say, abuse of women and an overall toxic work environment from an American games developer. Which leads me into the next point:

What you're talking about, the faux anger, there's another term for it. Performative outrage. Being offended on another's behalf without consent. I try *very* hard not to do that either, because taking away someone else's fight for your own glory is disgusting. Doesn't mean I don't think and feel these things are wrong -- it just means it's not my fight and unless invited, I don't think I've any right to enter that ring. This, of course, gets tricky when the fight is for those who either can't fight themselves OR are unaware that they're being abused. Be that as it may, I'm under no illusion that me not playing a f2p Blizzard game is in any way contributing to said fight.

There's a word I'm not using. I don't use the W word because, again, it was someone else's weapon in someone else's fight and it was, I think, co-opted by those who'd put them down. As so much of their shit is. I have no desire to engage with that. I have plenty of words to aptly describe the situation without that one.

To get back on topic: remember my call to boycott/not support GGG over the paid streamer priority login issue? I said, over and again, it wasn't about trying to 'kill' PoE or even really damage it. It was, first and foremost, about people themselves, not spending money on a cause that doesn't respect their contribution. A truly successful boycott, and they are so very rare, at most will get the company's attention and cause them to change their ways. You're not going to do that by simply not-using their product, especially if the damn thing is free. I'll admit it was foolish but I do not recant my stance; even now I'm outraged by what happened because it was near and dear to me. I wasn't offended on anyone's behalf; I *felt* offended, because THIS is where my own contributions have ended up? This?

Not all expressions of outrage are merely performative, but the most effective ones MUST be noticed, must be performed somehow. I think that's something we've forgotten, because so much of it IS. It can be hard to tell earnest from acting, although as you pointed out, when companies do it, it's not hard at all. I suppose it comes down to us paying attention to context and situation -- a big ask these days, I know. For example, game review sites boycotting Blizzard, or big streamers opting not to play certain games made by developers/publishers with whom they've some moral issue? I think that's both performative AND effective, since both have clear impact. Further back, we had the self-immolation protests against the Vietnam conflict -- maybe not that effective but we certainly noticed and they've become historical. There was, incidentally, a self-immolation protest in DC outside the Supreme Court a few days ago. No one noticed because the guy didn't promote it at all. Quietly just planned it, told no one, and did it. Sort of illustrates my point regarding the need to be performative in protest, even as we decry performative outrage.

Okay, I went and fed the cats, made some coffee and breakfast, and let this all percolate a bit. I THINK what we're really talking about here, when we say morals and outrage and faux-anger, is goodness. The idea of being a good person. And this notion that performative outrage is a part of being 'good'. It is extremely, EXTREMELY hard to be 'good' today. Probably the best modern exploration of this is in The Good Place, but the gist is this: things are now so complex that ultimately, it's impossible to even live within modern society without engaging with and contributing to 'bad' things. I think a lot of us know that, which is why the notion of performative outrage is so important: it's a cry against this reality, an attempt at acknowledging our futility. But performative outrage, much like performative charity, doesn't make you a good person. It just makes you look like someone with an agenda.

Believe it or not, PoE is the first and last time I contributed to something substantially and publicly wore very loud proof of it. Partly because I thought it was all a big joke, partly because I was tired of being 'good' and unacknowledged. Needless to say, I don't believe in altruism, only embarrassed generosity. The other day I donated anonymously to an old school friend's charity run the precise amount to reach her goal (it wasn't a little) -- we haven't seen each other in decades, she'll never know -- because I can and because THAT to me is being 'good'. I'll admit it here because you'll never be able to ruin my coveted anonymity and because my image here is already one of a rich arsehole throwing his money around for attention and glory. :) :) :) :)

POINT BEING, I sort of respect the effectiveness of performative protest AND performative charity but know it's not my path to feeling like a good person. Tried both here, repeatedly, yeah, bad call overall. Even though this is a cause about which I do feel deeply -- too deeply, clearly.

Anyway.

Outrage is important as long as it's earnest and personal, and an insult to those who are actually affronted and damaged when not. Gamers opting not to play DI because Blizzard are definitely earnest in this regard, but lack the power to make an effective protest of it. The initial protest against it became a meme, which I guess is the most any protest can hope for these days, but probably won't stop the game doing very well.

My coffee's getting cold and I'm finally waking up. TBC, maybe.

Yes I think you have touched on something that I find fascinating, and I'm not sure so that it's a "new" phenomenon, or, as so many things are now, a result of being able to see and consume so much more information in real time.

This notion that what you are actually angry about, or protesting about, isn't as important as how the process and expression of said anger makes you feel, and feel in an intrapersonal way, but also a social way. That somehow it's important that others see it, and respond. It's performative in a way, but not as the actor, more as a participating audience. An audience, that for some reason, has a socially pre-determined set of reactions that are seemingly agreed upon in an unspoken way before attending said performance. Honestly, it can be a disturbing thing to see, and what people can be whipped up into.

This is different from the subsequent idea that you spoke about; an earnest performative protest designed to encourage thought, consideration, and reflection. A good faith passionate protest, even if exaggerated, with these ideals in mind, is the essence of debate, growth, empathy; a desire to be better. To evolve, learn, share... the best parts of humanity, and being a "good person", as it were.

Bringing it back to gaming, as fuck we got deep here, it's this manifestation of the mob, that is so toxic. Whether it be review bombing, mass-downvoting, ironic upvoting, or whatever group/social justice feels good to participate in.

Regarding your not supporting GGG, hell I think it would be disingenuous to say it didn't feel good to have folks in your boycott thread that agreed with you. I was, and am, one of those speaking with their wallet as well as their words. You were not wrong (imo), and certainly not alone in the offense at how dismissive & callous it was. It was & still is, a shocking departure from the GGG we knew. I admit it's probably was a bit pollyannish to have imagined the money wouldn't have changed the Dev group, but it was still suprising to see that evolution over the years. That said, as far as how your thread went, it's only human to find satisfaction if you feel like you are in the right, that you are doing the right thing, that others see it. This is part of our humanity, it's biological, part of being social animals. (understanding not everyone felt that way in the thread either)

However when the mob is socially weaponized, it feels bad, really bad. Things go from 0-60 real fast, especially when there is the anonymity that the internet provides, and the speed it allows for. I suppose, and it's sad to realize, that the feeling someone gets from negativity can be just as satisfying as they get from being positive. I would argue it's far less rewarding and empty emotionally(depending on context), but from a biological response point of view, the differences are small.

Either way the toothpaste is out of the tube socially. There is no going back. There may be a reckoning at some point, but who knows when, or why that might be. Until then, all we can do is try our best. Sometimes we will fail in that endeavor, and sometimes, maybe even if we don't even realize it, we impact our surroundings in a positive way. It's part of growing. Admit when you are wrong, learn, and keep participating. It's when we give up that it's lost.

So I guess the TLDR is that yeah, faux-anger and outrage is fucking maddening, but it would be a real tragedy if the baby went out with the bath water for those genuine performative actions that really do have a good faith intentions for the better.