Diablo Immortal is POE killer

I'm starting to suspect that this whole Diablo Immortal thing was just Blizzard, trying to set the expectation bar of Diablo 4 as low as they possibly could.

Then I soon realize how much money they are going to make on Diablo Immortal, that even Diablo 4 will seem like an indie game in comparison.

"

Phrazz wrote:

I'm starting to suspect that this whole Diablo Immortal thing was just Blizzard, trying to set the expectation bar of Diablo 4 as low as they possibly could.

Then I soon realize how much money they are going to make on Diablo Immortal, that even Diablo 4 will seem like an indie game in comparison.

Allow me an anecdote, if you will.

Long ago, I interviewed a senior book editor at Penguin for some reason or another, and the topic of 'Twilight' came up. Although Penguin didn't handle that series, it's certainly notorious enough for both its popularity and its less-than-literary approach to writing. So in this case, 'Twilight' was a stand-in for pulp, and I asked whether it was tempting to just publish easy money-makers rather than more challenging works.

I'll never forget her response, because it was the singularly most beautiful thing I've heard on the topic of 'quantity' vs 'quality'. She said that the money made from selling the less-challenging works directly enabled them to publish works they knew wouldn't sell all that well but were of significant literary value and that they were proud to produce. Because of course every publisher worth their salt wants to find the next James Joyce or Thomas Pynchon or whatever. It's a bit like Hollywood I guess: actors won't say no to a big paycheck in a blockbuster, but few would turn down a role in a movie that might change the very nature of movie-making.

That isn't to say that Diablo 4 will do that. Certainly not. But I do find Diablo Immortal's relentless assault on ethics and good will a little less unpalatable when I remember that story. If some of the dirty money brought in by the f2p, p2w DI enables a high production, buy-to-play Diablo 4 that, as you observed, very likely won't make as much money a DI, then I think that's...not entirely abhorrent.

In other words, DI's guaranteed financial success may mean more resources can be poured into Diablo 4 despite it being a more traditional product. There is a chance that Blizzard really do want Diablo 4 to be not just profitable but also...possibly...respectable. If any title could initiate an attempt to crawl out of the gutter the company's been in for years, a new Diablo game is as good as any.

Of course, it may turn out to be just as blatantly greedy as DI, but so far they've gone to pains to say otherwise. They've stressed that D4 will be a PC/console buy to play product supported by cosmetic mtxes and later paid expansions, and I have no reason to doubt that, the same way that I won't presume a publisher of easy pulp doesn't also have some ambitions towards putting out more enduring, critically acclaimed works.

I'm quite interested in Diablo 4. I signed up for the beta, because why not? As long as one doesn't allow detached, casual interest to metastasize into emotionally-fragile hype, there is no harm in giving even Blizzard the benefit of the doubt. I understand this is very difficult for some people to do, but they'd do well to at least give it a go. You have everything to gain and (almost) nothing to lose so long as you don't invest your feelings into something as superficial and ephemeral as someone else's upcoming game. Or movie. Or even a book.

I guarantee the worst that can happen to you as a gamer if the game is awful (you don't play it/refund it/regret buying it) is nowhere near as bad as the worst that can happen to the people whose livelihoods actually depend on its success. And again, if DI's reliable cashflow means that Diablo 4's success doesn't have to be purely financial, then that should encourage those working on it to believe it might not be another Blizzard soulless cash-grab after all, but something about which they can be genuinely proud.

That'd be nice. :)

"

wjameschan wrote:

In other words, DI's guaranteed financial success may mean more resources can be poured into Diablo 4 despite it being a more traditional product. There is a chance that Blizzard really do want Diablo 4 to be not just profitable but also...possibly...respectable. If any title could initiate an attempt to crawl out of the gutter the company's been in for years, a new Diablo game is as good as any.

I actually think that Diablo 4 can be a good game, but respectable? The IP is so blurred now. What is Diablo? And what is respectable? Hell, some people would call Diablo 3 both "good" and "respectable", even though I, subjectively, think they shat on the legacy of the IP when they made Diablo 3.

But I realize that I'm old, when everyone around me is talking about (and praising) the aesthetics of Diablo 4, calling it a good game already. What about the depth? What about the itemization? What about the character customization/specialization? What about the freakin "R" in ARPG? Nah, the A, P and G are enough for people these days. Hell, even the "P" is getting less and less important, it seems, and it saddens my heart.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

wjameschan wrote:

In other words, DI's guaranteed financial success may mean more resources can be poured into Diablo 4 despite it being a more traditional product. There is a chance that Blizzard really do want Diablo 4 to be not just profitable but also...possibly...respectable. If any title could initiate an attempt to crawl out of the gutter the company's been in for years, a new Diablo game is as good as any.

I actually think that Diablo 4 can be a good game, but respectable? The IP is so blurred now. What is Diablo? And what is respectable? Hell, some people would call Diablo 3 both "good" and "respectable", even though I, subjectively, think they shat on the legacy of the IP when they made Diablo 3.

But I realize that I'm old, when everyone around me is talking about (and praising) the aesthetics of Diablo 4, calling it a good game already. What about the depth? What about the itemization? What about the character customization/specialization? What about the freakin "R" in ARPG? Nah, the A, P and G are enough for people these days. Hell, even the "P" is getting less and less important, it seems, and it saddens my heart.

This is not hard to counter. Path of Exile has always greatly favoured the 'A'(ction) over the 'R'(oleplaying); your character has absolutely no agency in the world and mostly just accidentally affects things by completing tasks with the sole intention of getting a reward. In contrast to this, Blizzard have already clarified that world event outcomes will change what happens next. For example, you might clear an enemy stronghold that will then become a friendly town. Sure, it's scripted, but it's still much closer to what we expect in a game with 'R'(oleplaying) than anything in Path of Exile.

It seems to me when you talk about 'depth' and 'itemization' and 'customization' you're designating that as part of the 'R'(oleplaying) but if that's true, then games like Mechwarrior 5 and Elite: Dangerous are just as deserving of the 'R'(oleplaying) status simply because they have all of those. But of course that isn't the case unless those features facilitate the roleplaying itself, which it doesn't in the former and only occasionally does with the latter. Otherwise you're confusing 'loadout' for 'character', which I understand is easy to do with Path of Exile because without the loadout, your character is non-existent.

In any roleplaying game, the stats exist purely to enrich the character. In PoE, the stats *are* the character. I cannot in good conscience call that 'roleplaying'. The only reason PoE has that 'R' is because it copied it from Diablo 2, which inherited it from Diablo 1, which kept it because it was meant to be a turn-based game. Also, you have the fantasy aspect. To many, once a game has any sort of fantasy it's automatically 'roleplaying'. I am sure we are both more enlightened than that, however.

But certainly, a game is 'roleplaying' once it's about controlling and actively evolving just one character as opposed to entire armies. Party-based RPGs are mostly a necessary carryover from Dungeons & Dragons, which a person almost never played alone. But what is a roleplaying game and what is not is well-trod ground and I get tired just considering wasting any more time on it.

I see no correlation between any of this and declaring Diablo 4 a 'good game'. It's a few trailers, some revealed concepts and a very, very small scale, limited time demo. I suspect the reason people love to compare it to Path of Exile '2' around here is because Path of Exile 2' is also a few trailers, some revealed concepts and a very, very small scale, limited time demo. Beyond that, they have almost nothing in common!

What little I remember of PoE '2', in fact, has more in common with Diablo 3, not 4: more scripted, cinematic quests and events.

As for Diablo 3? I think it clawed its way back from a laughably bad launch with some good decisions (dropping the RMAH, smart loot, adventure mode to bypass the godawful story) to being a fun, accessible, polished fantasy beat-em-up with very light itemization. Just enough to facilitate the action. Not a good ARPG, but a pretty good buy-to-play no strings attached co-op action game. A lot of fun if you take it as it is.

I find that quite respectable.

I don't think Blizzard are smart enough to make DI the devil so that D4 looks angelic in comparison, they just want to fleece as much money as they can while they have the brand value to leverage it.

If anything I think it will hurt their sales for D4, it just doesn't matter because it will make more money than D4 anyway so the results won't matter.

God I hate them now! DI makes me so angry because they deserve to go out of business for this and they will be rewarded excessively for it instead. Where is justice!!

"

wjameschan wrote:

It seems to me when you talk about 'depth' and 'itemization' and 'customization' you're designating that as part of the 'R'(oleplaying)

Correct. I feel like the ability to design your character as you want to, in a way that lets you play it the way you want to - to make it "work" the way you want to - in a setting like this, absolutely fits into the "R" part of the game. Especially the way PoE does it, where you have no "forced" autoat tacks. You don't have a small pool of skills you can choose from on each character. The table isn't "set" for you; you set your own table.

I understand that most people's definition of the "R" goes into the story, relations to other characters, choices, consequences and stuff like that, and I'll agree with that too. But Diablo doesn't offer much of that either, nor does PoE.

The word I think I'm searching for when I define my "R", is "progression". I like the progression of your character in PoE. I like that it feels pretty bad in the beginning, but will keep feeling better and stronger for the rest of that character's life. You often don't use the same skills at level 1 as you do post 90 - and if you do, those skills feel totally different.

But yes, you are probably right; that isn't what most people think about when they read the "R" in ARPG. But I do; sue me :)

That's why Diablo 3 was such a letdown. No real builds. No real skill trees. No real specialization or customization. No real way of making your WW Barb different from mine.

I also understand that some people refer to the "A" as the most important part of PoE. But not me. I don't need as much density as we have now. I don't need as much speed as we have now. But I do need the ability to make my OWN character, different from ALL other characters - if I so choose. I can NEVER even ATTEMPT to mentally roleplay ("R") anything if the game more or less has decided how my character is going to play out mechanically.

The bottom line is: The depth, customization and specialization offered in PoE has probably spoiled me forever. Though, the Paragon Boards in Diablo 4 looks promising.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

wjameschan wrote:

It seems to me when you talk about 'depth' and 'itemization' and 'customization' you're designating that as part of the 'R'(oleplaying)

Correct. I feel like the ability to design your character as you want to, in a way that lets you play it the way you want to - to make it "work" the way you want to - in a setting like this, absolutely fits into the "R" part of the game. Especially the way PoE does it, where you have no "forced" autoat tacks. You don't have a small pool of skills you can choose from on each character. The table isn't "set" for you; you set your own table.

I understand that most people's definition of the "R" goes into the story, relations to other characters, choices, consequences and stuff like that, and I'll agree with that too. But Diablo doesn't offer much of that either, nor does PoE.

The word I think I'm searching for when I define my "R", is "progression". I like the progression of your character in PoE. I like that it feels pretty bad in the beginning, but will keep feeling better and stronger for the rest of that character's life. You often don't use the same skills at level 1 as you do post 90 - and if you do, those skills feel totally different.

But yes, you are probably right; that isn't what most people think about when they read the "R" in ARPG. But I do; sue me :)

That's why Diablo 3 was such a letdown. No real builds. No real skill trees. No real specialization or customization. No real way of making your WW Barb different from mine.

I also understand that some people refer to the "A" as the most important part of PoE. But not me. I don't need as much density as we have now. I don't need as much speed as we have now. But I do need the ability to make my OWN character, different from ALL other characters - if I so choose. I can NEVER even ATTEMPT to mentally roleplay ("R") anything if the game more or less has decided how my character is going to play out mechanically.

The bottom line is: The depth, customization and specialization offered in PoE has probably spoiled me forever. Though, the Paragon Boards in Diablo 4 looks promising.

Thank you for that clarification. I cannot (and do not wish to!) contend with your personal idea of the 'R'. I agree that there isn't really an existing term for it in gaming (perhaps there should be; it would emphasize the strategic nature of such games over the tactical, further pulling them away from the 'A') and anything we could come up with would probably require more explanation, rendering the convenience of the label...inconvenient.

I recall when D3 was much closer to what PoE ended up doing. The plan was to have skill runes drop and for them to have tiers of power. I thought that was just wonderful, but when they threw that out in favour of simply unlocking runes as you level, it lost almost all of its complexity. Had it not done so, I very likely would never have become an Exile in the first place. It was the support gem system that sold me on the game. Everything else was secondary, because whether GGG knew it or not, they had responded to the titanic Blizzard's failure to follow through on Diablo 3's most ambitious angle.

And, as is the nature of things, the wannabe became the standard, and started to take on the properties of that standard. Diablo 3 was definitely faster than Path of Exile in the first few years. Perhaps it was inevitable that as Diablo 3 faltered and PoE flourished, whatever it is that keeps people interested in an ARPG started to seep into PoE. Now I know you disagree; as do I. But at least until recently, I don't think GGG allowed their game to get so fast and chaotic without reason. It is a strange quirk of this particular echo chamber that it seems almost everyone here is against how frenetic PoE has become, and yet...it remains a very popular game within the genre and overall. There are bigger games that are lesser known to mainstream gaming, but certainly none are ARPGs. Which is all to say, that 'A' is probably the most important of the four letters, even to GGG. Or at least a presentation of it, since we've already established that PoE is much more strategic than tactical, and strategic action games are much rarer than tactical. A well-executed strategy precludes much of the excitement we expect from action, doesn't it? Sun Tzu would be horrified at the Dynasty Warrior games. :)

Lastly, I want to return to that notion of 'loadout' being 'character'. It is certainly a form of roleplaying to make loadouts that fit a certain archetype, and in that regard PoE is far and away the most flexible roleplaying game out there. No game to my knowledge comes close, regardless of genre. But then there's that familiar argument of viability, and who wants to roleplay a hero who only makes it halfway through the story? Conversely, if only certain types of heroes make it all the way, and that select few do not include some traditional fantasy hero types at all (but has its share of modern shooting types), then I think we can definitely call into question the roleplaying freedom of the game. It might be a soft limitation, but essentially we're talking about a much smaller offering to play through the story than is at first apparent.

Naturally game knowledge and metagame activities can expand that offering, but...it shouldn't have to. Game knowledge and metagame activities should, ideally, make anything viable, not merely expand the roster somewhat. In my experience, that has been the case with almost every ARPG until PoE. We had singing barbarians in D2, and throwing knife Sorceresses, and Staff-wielding Assassins. In Titan Quest we had archers of almost every class combination and every damage type, single target assassins, dual-wielding chakram slingers, and so on...in both games, there were very few skills I didn't somehow make work.

But ah, the counterargument: if you were to whittle down the offerings of PoE that do work and completely excise the rest, it is absolutely true that you'd still have a roster that eclipses most other ARPGs, at least in terms of absolutely different build types. Perhaps that is where PoE loses so many of us: GGG appear not to have done what every other ARPG developer in history has done, which is ensure most if not all builds are viable by simply culling most of them before release. Instead they just release a slew of skills at a time, tantalising players with their newness. It is not until release that it becomes clear some of them needed much longer in the oven.

So that counterargument runs face-first into this very particular wall: sure, even with extreme culling PoE would have more unique build types, but GGG expect players to do that culling for them. And players seemed happy to do so for a while, but I think at this point even most hard-bitten Exiles are a little tired of being essentially beta testers every three to four months.

I think loadout=character works just fine as a roleplaying jumping point when the majority of those loadouts aren't actively shut down by the game well before its core campaign's conclusion. But if they are, you might as well be playing...well, Diablo 3. At least in terms of class and skill selection. In fact, I'd argue D3's skill mutators are far more dramatic and interesting than most of PoE's. I would be at least a little interested to find out which has more unique builds skill-wise that can get a casual player through the main campaign. I strongly suspect D3 because pre-assigned skill mutators are much easier to balance than 'support gems' that can affect a wide range of skills. Also, D3 is just a much easier game. :)

There ARE ways to make my D3 WW barbarian different to yours, but the significance of those differences will come down to how much weight you put on aesthetics rather than performance. Consider this slim but distinct set of mutators:

"

Dust Devils: as the Barbarian moves under Whirlwind, they create one harsh and fast tornado per tick. Each tornado moves up to 60 yards in roughly the same direction the Barbarian is traveling, dealing 120% damage as Physical per tick to enemies in its path. Dust Devils will pierce through enemies, most obstacles and even solid walls.

Hurricane: damage type changes to Cold, and Whirlwind also randomly pulls one enemy per tick from up to 35 yards away towards the Barbarian. Has no effect on enemies immune to Knockback.

Blood Funnel: Critical Hits restore 1% of the Barbarian's maximum Life.

Wind Shear: damage type changes to Lightning, and regains 1 Fury per tick for every enemy hit.

Volcanic Eruption: damage type changes to Fire, and damage increases to 400% per tick.

With the exception of Blood Funnel, I'd say you could tell at a glance between those variants. These are, of course, incredibly simple compared to what you can do with a 6L Cyclone, but barring mtxes, they're also all far more dramatic aesthetically.

I'd argue that most roleplayers would preference the aesthetic distinction over the performance, since so much of loadout-based roleplay is about how a character looks.

Conversely, to treat PoE the same way just costs a lot of money. To this day I am delighted when I equip a magical weapon in a game and the effect is built in. Seems oddly...decadent after PoE. :)

Compared to either, Diablo Immortal is an arcade game. I appreciate that virtually every change in gear is reflected on the character model (this is extremely rare in mobile games), but you have absolutely no skill choice and no meaningful mutators that don't sit firmly in P2W territory. So whatever else we may discuss, this much we can put to rest: Diablo Immortal is an ARPG in the weakest of senses. It's an ARPG the way a modern poker machine is a video game: it has a screen, it has buttons, it has music and sounds, and it has win conditions. Similarly, DI has a roughly isometric perspective, it has skills, it has cut scenes and voicework, and it has gear you can equip. And, in both cases, that is where the similarities end. Both are just money slots bypassing the 'effort' of actually playing and skipping straight to the adrenal rollercoaster of win/lose/mostly lose. Clearly, this has its fans, whether they admit it or not.

...Odd. We are off-topic but not entirely. The thread title is 'Diablo Immortal is POE killer' but it seems that Diablo 3 vs PoE is the Diablo Immortal Thread killer. Ironic, given 'Diablo 3 vs PoE' is probably one of the oldest discussions on this forum.

"

Phrazz wrote:

I'm starting to suspect that this whole Diablo Immortal thing was just Blizzard, trying to set the expectation bar of Diablo 4 as low as they possibly could.

Then I soon realize how much money they are going to make on Diablo Immortal, that even Diablo 4 will seem like an indie game in comparison.

I'm fully expecting Diablo 4 to be a passionless obligation, completely souless, and made only as a response to backlash; I think Immortal is more likely the game they actually wanted to make and the game they wanted their audience to be excited about.

Diablo 4 will probably come out, be well beloved, but Immortal will continue to get support for longer than 4 does because that's the game that makes the money.

Diablo 4 might be good game at release but dont expect for it to be game for a long time. They wont bother spending A LOT of time developing game when they can spend tenth of that on some mobile crap and make 10 times more money

As a certain famous young girl once queried hypothetically, 'por que no los dos?'

It is needlessly reductive to conclude that Diablo Immortal will take significantly more effort to remain heinously profitable than Diablo 4 will take to present itself as and remain a passable triple A game. As I said, one can fund the other, and there is no indication that any given chunk of resources allocated to Diablo Immortal would have a similar efficacy if allocated to Diablo 4, and vice versa. I elaborated on this in my post, but I understand if the point was somehow lost in the mix.

First Diablo Immortal needs to justify its own production costs which, going by the credits (through which I actually sat), were significantly higher than your standard p2w mobile gacha game. Then it can perhaps start supporting Diablo 4. Or maybe it won't, and D4 will be developed independently of DI.

But I suspect DI will indeed supplement some of D4, not entirely unlike how Honor of Kings and PUBG mobile/Peace Keeper Elite probably supplement some of PoE's development, once you follow the money back and forth. Does PoE make enough to support itself? Absolutely. But GGG are not an independent company, and it is naïve to think there are no connections at all between one Tencent-owned game and another.

Once you start to consider how money flows in a large, multifarious entity, it becomes difficult to condemn even its shadier methods of raising revenue. Is gambling shady and reprehensible and predatory? Absolutely. But take away all the money it raises for any given government and see what happens to the overall machine. To seemingly unrelated works like parks and recreation.

Given the breadth and complexity of their own operations, Blizzard are definitely more akin to a full government than a mere casino trying to fleece its punters.

Blizzard can have their cake and eat it too here, and going by the lengths to which they're going to distance Diablo 4 from Diablo Immortal, to try to convince players that Diablo 4 will be everything Diablo Immortal is not (a buy to play premium product made for PC and console, supported by cosmetic mtxes and future expansions), I suspect they intend to.

Think of it this way: if they already have a fairly low effort game making them a lot of dirty money, they don't really need another one when they can then use some of that money to launder their long-stained image with a game 'worthy' of the Blizzard of old, of the Diablo legacy. Hence: having the cake and eating it too.

Will it turn out like this? No one knows. But I do believe that they're smart enough not to try to pull off the same trick twice. It's not Blizzard releasing another Diablo Immortal I fear; it's lesser studios trying to capture the same filthy lightning in lesser bottles.