I don't hate Cata. I'm definitely not happy with everything, but I still generally like things....
However, a lot of people have been complaining that Cata was launched Prematurely. Is it possible that Blizzard has seen the error in their ways and made a special effort to delay Diablo 3? Or is it just business as usual and they always release games late? Or is this the difference between a game launch delay and an expansion launch. (Meaning Launching a poorly tuned game could destroy the game, while launching a poorly tuned expansion will just cause a few months of QQ as they make the required changes.)
I'm really hoping that the delay in D3 and the delay to launch FL was a sign that they do not want to make the same mistakes again.
*I'm just not sure that's so...
- Forums
- World of Warcraft
- General Discussion
- Diablo 3 Launch Delayed - A signal of past mistakes?
Diablo 3 Launch Delayed - A signal of past mistakes?Follow
You can't release something "late" when it doesn't have a release date. =P
We all know how they are, they release things "when they're ready". But, of course, some things are more ready than others!
We all know how they are, they release things "when they're ready". But, of course, some things are more ready than others!
I haven't heard any serious movement that asserts that Cataclysm launched too early. It was an incredibly smooth launch with the only complaints being in regards to the need for minor balance tweaks.
Your personal tastes may not have been fully satisfied, but I think most people have become very discerning. People complain about things that would once garner only praise. My personal theory is that the magic of MMOs wears off over time. You can't get back to that original euphoria no matter how you try. And people come up with every reason under the sun except 'it just might not be that fun to spend my life online slowly advancing my stats while conquering virtual obstacles any more.'
Blizzard has a VERY long history of delaying games. They also have a VERY long history of launching polished products. Rest assured that D3 will be everything it is supposed to be.
Jordster wrote:
I haven't heard any serious movement that asserts that Cataclysm launched too early. It was an incredibly smooth launch with the only complaints being in regards to the need for minor balance tweaks.
Your personal tastes may not have been fully satisfied, but I think most people have become very discerning. People complain about things that would once garner only praise. My personal theory is that the magic of MMOs wears off over time. You can't get back to that original euphoria no matter how you try. And people come up with every reason under the sun except 'it just might not be that fun to spend my life online slowly advancing my stats while conquering virtual obstacles any more.'
Blizzard has a VERY long history of delaying games. They also have a VERY long history of launching polished products. Rest assured that D3 will be everything it is supposed to be.
It's chasing the high. We all remember the first time we started on an MMO and it was truly a new experience (for many first playing WoW did that, others got that high in EQ or other games). Every time a new patch or expansion comes out we hope for that same rush as we explore new areas and play new games.
The problem is that we can't find that high in an expansion pack. They put a lot of effort into them and the game has new things to explore but it's never going to be truly a unique new game because it by definition needs to carry over parts of the old one. People don't notice this, only that the expansion isn't leaving them as elated as the original did, so they start seeking out flaws, picking at them until a little hiccup becomes a deal-breaker and the player can feel justified in not liking it.
Jordster wrote:
I haven't heard any serious movement that asserts that Cataclysm launched too early. It was an incredibly smooth launch with the only complaints being in regards to the need for minor balance tweaks.
What game were you playing? Because it obviously wasn't the same as me.
Just look at healing, for one. Or even the massive class-changing "tweaks" that happened on almost a daily basis. Sure, the launch itself wasn't too bad, but as I believe bodhi puts it, "It was months before there was any semblance of balance."
I distinctly remember there being huge, game-breaking bugs very late into the beta, even. Most people were expecting a release date delay. I'm still of the opinion they should have.
Edited, Sep 23rd 2011 9:58pm by IDrownFish
IDrownFish wrote:
Jordster wrote:
I haven't heard any serious movement that asserts that Cataclysm launched too early. It was an incredibly smooth launch with the only complaints being in regards to the need for minor balance tweaks.
What game were you playing? Because it obviously wasn't the same as me.
Just look at healing, for one. Or even the massive class-changing "tweaks" that happened on almost a daily basis. Sure, the launch itself wasn't too bad, but as I believe bhodi puts it, "It was months before there was any semblance of balance."
I distinctly remember there being huge, game-breaking bugs very late into the beta, even. Most people were expecting a release date delay. I'm still of the opinion they should have.
Millions of people playing. Thousands on the forums. Hundreds whining about balance while millions were just making the most of it.
Cata released too early, class and stat balance was non existant.
That isn't conjecture mixed with hyperbole, anyone that recalls the weekly (if not daily) drastic class changes in the first 90 days of release can attest to it. Not just that but the forum feed back on the Beta Forums saw feed back from some of the top theorycrafters and top 100 players in the world who were making arguments that weren't necessarily focused on a top end gameplay experience but how certain classes/moves/stats were broken in general.
WotLK and TBC had their hiccups but not like Cata.
That isn't conjecture mixed with hyperbole, anyone that recalls the weekly (if not daily) drastic class changes in the first 90 days of release can attest to it. Not just that but the forum feed back on the Beta Forums saw feed back from some of the top theorycrafters and top 100 players in the world who were making arguments that weren't necessarily focused on a top end gameplay experience but how certain classes/moves/stats were broken in general.
WotLK and TBC had their hiccups but not like Cata.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Jordster wrote:
IDrownFish wrote:
Jordster wrote:
I haven't heard any serious movement that asserts that Cataclysm launched too early. It was an incredibly smooth launch with the only complaints being in regards to the need for minor balance tweaks.
What game were you playing? Because it obviously wasn't the same as me.
Just look at healing, for one. Or even the massive class-changing "tweaks" that happened on almost a daily basis. Sure, the launch itself wasn't too bad, but as I believe bhodi puts it, "It was months before there was any semblance of balance."
I distinctly remember there being huge, game-breaking bugs very late into the beta, even. Most people were expecting a release date delay. I'm still of the opinion they should have.
Millions of people playing. Thousands on the forums. Hundreds whining about balance while millions were just making the most of it.
You're saying that just because not every single player, or a vast majority of them, was on the forums complaining, the bugs and changes were non-existent? They were still there, regardless of the people talking about them. The fact of the matter was that Cata wasn't ready for release, and they pushed it to make the holiday season.
For the love of little kittens, the horse is dead already. Let it rest in peace. Nobody is breaking arms to make people play. If you don't want to, fine. If you don't like it, fine. But the incessant whine is getting ridiculous. It is like listening to that friend you will all have some day -- the one who gets drunk and babbles endlessly about how horrible his ex-wife was.
Don't think this has anything to do with quality issues. It's about keeping WoW 4.3 and Diablo release dates further apart to properly milk their cash cows.
Kanngarnix wrote:
Don't think this has anything to do with quality issues. It's about keeping WoW 4.3 and Diablo release dates further apart to properly milk their cash cows.
That makes more sense than Blizzard not releasing it until 2012 so they can polish the game more.
Yes Rhodekylle, I agree completely.
Kanngarnix wrote:
Don't think this has anything to do with quality issues. It's about keeping WoW 4.3 and Diablo release dates further apart to properly milk their cash cows.
^ ding
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Kanngarnix wrote:
Don't think this has anything to do with quality issues. It's about keeping WoW 4.3 and Diablo release dates further apart to properly milk their cash cows.
Sounds about right for me. Then they will do something similar with Heart of the Swarm (SC2 first expansion/thingy) when it is ready for release.
Edited, Sep 25th 2011 11:04am by Anobix
That is a good reason.
Obviously part of me wants them to launch things when they are ready, but the other part of me realizes that "Ready" = a business decision as much as a programing decision.
Obviously part of me wants them to launch things when they are ready, but the other part of me realizes that "Ready" = a business decision as much as a programing decision.
Bad news for the naysayers out there but this was not planned to milk the proverbial cash cow. Approx 3hrs into the beta testing, Blizzard and/or players found some HUUUUGE bugs that had game breaking ramifications. I know one of the things that my brother (who has taken great pains to gloat about being in the beta) said they found big problems with the new auction house, npcs disappearing, quests that cause crashes etc. I think it is more along the lines of Blizzard trying to avoid the mistake that many MANY game companies make in releasing a game before it's been properly vetted by thorough beta testing.
Grigoryrasputin wrote:
Bad news for the naysayers out there but this was not planned to milk the proverbial cash cow. Approx 3hrs into the beta testing, Blizzard and/or players found some HUUUUGE bugs that had game breaking ramifications. I know one of the things that my brother (who has taken great pains to gloat about being in the beta) said they found big problems with the new auction house, npcs disappearing, quests that cause crashes etc. I think it is more along the lines of Blizzard trying to avoid the mistake that many MANY game companies make in releasing a game before it's been properly vetted by thorough beta testing.
Bugs can usually be fixed relatively quickly. The beta is just the first part of the game, you can't play the rest. They wouldn't have just delayed it for bugs (since the purpose of the beta is to find them), but instead because the rest of the game, namely the parts you can't play, aren't finished.
I think people have some pretty naive ideas about how the gaming industry works. Postponing a launch to polish a game... 
And while the proverbial horse is indeed dead, I believe people has as much right to whine about a subject as those who whine about the whiners. If not then the hypocritical ones should lead by example and gtfo first.
And while the proverbial horse is indeed dead, I believe people has as much right to whine about a subject as those who whine about the whiners. If not then the hypocritical ones should lead by example and gtfo first.
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
Maz that is exactly what I think every time I see a post ******** about the whiners.
Mazra wrote:
I think people have some pretty naive ideas about how the gaming industry works. Postponing a launch to polish a game...
I've rarely been called naive...
4.3 is not an expansion. 4.3 is not going to make people resubscribe to WoW, nor quit, in any significant numbers. 4.3 isn't going to make a lot of additional money for Blizzard - it will fulfil it's business goal of maintaining subscriptions, sure - but it's not of great importance in the overall target market.
Not getting D3 out before the Christmas season is going to have a stronger negative effect on sales than any chronological correlation with 4.3.
Also, the D3 beta has been reported to contain zillions of little bugs.
The game needs polish. Blizzard has an incredible reputation for polished releases spanning 20 years - every Starcraft and Warcraft Release, as well as Diablo II, were all delayed and released with relative balance, few bugs and good overall polish. Believe me - the timing if 4.3 is not their deciding factor here. The Christmas season sales are worth more than a few delayed sales to people who are playing through 4.3 first.
I'm no industry expert, but I've been consuming games for as long as I've had money to my name, right back to Apple ][ and Commodore games in the 80s when I was not even 10 years old. I've waited on more releases, and endured more delays than I can list. I've seen games released too early, games released too late, and games that faded from the spotlight to obscurity without ever getting released. I'm a lot of things - but I'm not naive.
Jordster wrote:
I'm no industry expert, but I've been consuming games for as long as I've had money to my name, right back to Apple ][ and Commodore games in the 80s when I was not even 10 years old. I've waited on more releases, and endured more delays than I can list. I've seen games released too early, games released too late, and games that faded from the spotlight to obscurity without ever getting released. I'm a lot of things - but I'm not naive.
In before "Back in my day," "20 miles in the snow," etc.
I know Blizzard has a track record of pushing things back until they're ready. That's respectable. And as much as I hate to be another tinfoil hat guy claiming that Activision will be the death of Blizzard, Cataclysm wasn't ready for release. Cataclysm was pushed out the door to make the holiday market after Activision took over. I'm just putting two and two.
The fundamental point we're arguing over was wether or not Cata was ready. You say it was, that there was only minor bugs and other things typical to a large-scale release like an expansion. I'm saying that's not true, that there was far more than just that, that it should have been delayed a little while longer to polish the final product.
I think we can probably agree to disagree on that, as this late in there's not much chance of changing someone's mind on that point.
People need to consider the differences between "Functionally ready" - (Read: Not crashing) and "Working as Intended Ready" - (Read: Balanced and properly tuned for game play.)
Jordster wrote:
I've rarely been called naive...
Wasn't aiming at anyone in specific, I was just thinking out loud.
Edit: Cataclysm wasn't ready for launch, though. It wasn't bugged, but it was as far from balanced as they could possibly come. Like others mentioned, the first three months after release were dominated by weekly, game-changing patches. Classes were turned upside down and inside out every other week. Things like triage healing was never implemented, nor was the new damage system (less spikes) and crowd control system (less AOE). Some abilities weren't working properly and still aren't to this day.
In terms of balance, Cataclysm has been the biggest failure of all the expansion, as far back as I can remember. The biggest because they ignored the advice given by the testers so they could push it for the holiday. And if they're willing to throw their century-long reputation on the bonfire for some extra moolah, what makes you think they wouldn't do it again? 4.3 might not be an expansion, but it's a major content patch that might pull people back into the game. It makes every bit of sense from a money-making perspective that they wouldn't release it alongside a new game. Release patch 4.3, get some subscriptions in the bank and then release Diablo 3 just as people get tired of the new patch.
Cha-ching, baby!
Edited, Sep 28th 2011 5:28pm by Mazra
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
On reflection I'm a bit glad that D3 won't coincide with WoW 4.3 or SWTOR (November-ish and December, respectively). Right now it's looking like releases are roughly scheduling out as: WoW 4.3, then SWTOR, D3 after that and then hopefully GW2. Which for those of us who enjoy different titles is a good thing =)
It's silly to assume that release dates aren't influenced by business decisions. But that's not to say that they are solely the discretion of the administration. Large corporations are often a giant game of tug-of-war between different departments with different goals and viewpoints. Healthy companies will come to a consensus that everyone can "live with" even if they don't love it. Executives (well, sane ones at least) realize that releasing crap just to make the holiday sales deadline isn't a solid, long-term business decision. While the developers I'm sure understand that releasing during the holiday, if possible, would be better for the bottom line. Both sides have to agree at some point that each goal (timing and quality) can meet somewhere between the extremes for mutual benefit.
My two pennies for those who haven't worked in a corporate environment.
It's silly to assume that release dates aren't influenced by business decisions. But that's not to say that they are solely the discretion of the administration. Large corporations are often a giant game of tug-of-war between different departments with different goals and viewpoints. Healthy companies will come to a consensus that everyone can "live with" even if they don't love it. Executives (well, sane ones at least) realize that releasing crap just to make the holiday sales deadline isn't a solid, long-term business decision. While the developers I'm sure understand that releasing during the holiday, if possible, would be better for the bottom line. Both sides have to agree at some point that each goal (timing and quality) can meet somewhere between the extremes for mutual benefit.
My two pennies for those who haven't worked in a corporate environment.
On the other hand Cata's solo content was well polished at release, and is the bright spot of the expansion in my opinion. Could just be a matter of priorities.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
On the other hand Cata's solo content was well polished at release, and is the bright spot of the expansion in my opinion. Could just be a matter of priorities.
I agree with that, in fact the solo content seems to be either what took the least time or what they spent most of their time on.
The problem is that you go through the solo content once, then the rest of the expansion pack is spent going back to the same unfinished endgame week after week.
IDrownFish wrote:
The problem is that you go through the solo content once, then the rest of the expansion pack is spent going back to the same unfinished endgame week after week. saying F@#$ the end-game, leveling is more fun and grinding out alt after alt.
Which is more or less what I did.
Besides end-game kinda feels like end-game starts at 70 nowadays. There's tons of old factions with relatively rare and neat rewards you can play around with. Nostalgia and stuff partly I suppose, but it's more fun then grinding 5-mans with PuGs in my book. It's like going back and listening to a 'greatest hits' album and forgetting all the terrible stuff the band put out between their hits.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Recent Visitors: 425
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (425)
- Forums
- World of Warcraft
- General Discussion
- Diablo 3 Launch Delayed - A signal of past mistakes?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC