So, has anyone tried "Diablo: Immortal"? I haven't tried "Diablo:
Immortal". In fact, I am unlikely to ever play "Diablo: Immortal".
It's not just that loot-quest RPGs aren't that interesting to me. It's
not just that - if I'm playing a game on PC, I want a game designed to
take full advantage of that platform's capabilities and not something
mainly targeted at mobile devices. It's not just that it's being
published by a corporation so devoid of ethics I don't want to support
them with my money. It's that - from everything I hear - "Diablo:
Immortal" is even more rapacious than originally feared.

This, after Blizzard - only a few months ago - ensured players there
was no way to 'acquire or rank up gear using money'*. This, after it's
been shown repeatedly that the difference between the free-to-play and
the pay-to-win is that the former gets no loot (or almost no loot),
while the latter is inundated with the stuff.** This, after reports
show it would cost over $100 grand to max out a character***. This,
after the gameplay has been shown to be barebones despite four years
in development and has been panned by most critics.

That I can be disappointed even after expecting the worst from
ActiBlizz is almost impressive itself. If anything shows how
creatively (not to mention morally) bankrupt Activision is, it's
"Diablo Immortal".

Then again, I haven't played it. All I know about the game is what I
read, and what I see on youtube LetsPlays. Maybe it's a good game. But
it sure doesn't look it. I can't imagine why anybody - except the
diehard fans or the unfortunate souls who can't resist the
psychological tricks Activision uses to rope in its whales - would
want to play the game. There are so many better games out there.

------------------
* https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/v4h7t9/4_months_ago_the_lead_developer_on_diablo/?$deep_link=true&correlation_id=f750cff7-6fe2-43ab-974e-8f318b483536&post_fullname=t3_v4h7t9&post_index=2&ref=email_digest&ref_campaign=email_digest&ref_source=email&p=e_as&_branch_match_id=1046439569193077573&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA22QXW7DIBCET+O+2WkNiZNKUVWp6jVWG1hsVP4E66TH77pp3iqBNPqGZQYW5tJed7tK1noesJQh+PS1U+WtG7UqZwJsTyJz9bNPGGCt4bxsU51678ZPWbfbbfibNzkKqLKLmTH6NIsUGClxE3nVy8QnERpiTrw0wDkDLwSB0IKlK4VcqEJOYD1eQt4ilKRoS1Rg69apD64rdePB5FopIHs57a1wN+2fjXNTf3A09lrhpT9NmvqjUy/Hiz6qvTrIXMmNwa0hJIy0XafgUezu+WTpW4xRQCUniiL6IJVmanyHYDAW9HP63215rYYensCVIxh5s/yE0N8Y9hzoBz6aGYyCAQAA
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RWh6cxDKHY
***
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/maxing-out-a-diablo-immortal-character-could-reportedly-cost-up-to-110000/

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:28:34 PM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> So, has anyone tried "Diablo: Immortal"? I haven't tried "Diablo:
> Immortal". In fact, I am unlikely to ever play "Diablo: Immortal".
> It's not just that loot-quest RPGs aren't that interesting to me. It's
> not just that - if I'm playing a game on PC, I want a game designed to
> take full advantage of that platform's capabilities and not something
> mainly targeted at mobile devices. It's not just that it's being
> published by a corporation so devoid of ethics I don't want to support
> them with my money. It's that - from everything I hear - "Diablo:
> Immortal" is even more rapacious than originally feared.
>
> This, after Blizzard - only a few months ago - ensured players there
> was no way to 'acquire or rank up gear using money'*. This, after it's
> been shown repeatedly that the difference between the free-to-play and
> the pay-to-win is that the former gets no loot (or almost no loot),
> while the latter is inundated with the stuff.** This, after reports
> show it would cost over $100 grand to max out a character***. This,
> after the gameplay has been shown to be barebones despite four years
> in development and has been panned by most critics.
>
> That I can be disappointed even after expecting the worst from
> ActiBlizz is almost impressive itself. If anything shows how
> creatively (not to mention morally) bankrupt Activision is, it's
> "Diablo Immortal".
>
> Then again, I haven't played it. All I know about the game is what I
> read, and what I see on youtube LetsPlays. Maybe it's a good game. But
> it sure doesn't look it. I can't imagine why anybody - except the
> diehard fans or the unfortunate souls who can't resist the
> psychological tricks Activision uses to rope in its whales - would
> want to play the game. There are so many better games out there.
>

I have no plans to play it. I read it was full of microtransactions and
pay to win, and that's a huge turn off. There's plenty of other Diablo-
likes if the mood should strike me that have much better reviews.

- Justisaur

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:28:34 PM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> > So, has anyone tried "Diablo: Immortal"? I haven't tried "Diablo:
> > Immortal". In fact, I am unlikely to ever play "Diablo: Immortal".
> > It's not just that loot-quest RPGs aren't that interesting to me. It's
> > not just that - if I'm playing a game on PC, I want a game designed to
> > take full advantage of that platform's capabilities and not something
> > mainly targeted at mobile devices. It's not just that it's being
> > published by a corporation so devoid of ethics I don't want to support
> > them with my money. It's that - from everything I hear - "Diablo:
> > Immortal" is even more rapacious than originally feared.
> >
> > This, after Blizzard - only a few months ago - ensured players there
> > was no way to 'acquire or rank up gear using money'*. This, after it's
> > been shown repeatedly that the difference between the free-to-play and
> > the pay-to-win is that the former gets no loot (or almost no loot),
> > while the latter is inundated with the stuff.** This, after reports
> > show it would cost over $100 grand to max out a character***. This,
> > after the gameplay has been shown to be barebones despite four years
> > in development and has been panned by most critics.
> >
> > That I can be disappointed even after expecting the worst from
> > ActiBlizz is almost impressive itself. If anything shows how
> > creatively (not to mention morally) bankrupt Activision is, it's
> > "Diablo Immortal".
> >
> > Then again, I haven't played it. All I know about the game is what I
> > read, and what I see on youtube LetsPlays. Maybe it's a good game. But
> > it sure doesn't look it. I can't imagine why anybody - except the
> > diehard fans or the unfortunate souls who can't resist the
> > psychological tricks Activision uses to rope in its whales - would
> > want to play the game. There are so many better games out there.
> >

> I have no plans to play it. I read it was full of microtransactions and
> pay to win, and that's a huge turn off. There's plenty of other Diablo-
> likes if the mood should strike me that have much better reviews.

Ew. I guess I won't bother. I played it briefly in my iPhone, but hated
its controls. I found out there is an open beta for Windows. I will wait.

--
Slammy weekend again due 2 HP printers & colony. Finally, GSW beat Boston Celtics in game #2! Still negatives, but still masked up thrice indoor. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

I have read the reviews and what I found interesting, although probably
to be expected, is that the 'professional' reviews are generally
positive and although they mention the monetisation the tend to treat it
with kid gloves. The user reviews on the other hand, well they have
tended to slate it heavily and by heavily I mean really heavily.

Like you I've not played it but from what I've read they really have
gone overboard this time and for me it crosses over the line of when is
a free to play game not a free to play game. There's also the issue that
it seems to be heavily pay to win and that does put me off. I can't
remember where I read it but someone did look at gamers attitudes to
payments that can give you an advantage and one of the conclusions they
came to was players would generally accept it if that advantage was
small but not if it was large.

So it's going to be a no* from me because as Justisaur says why play
this when there's lots of other good games in the genre available
especially as many of them are now pretty cheap. I have no intention of
investing my time into a game where my expectation is that the level of
'player engagement' will be dialled up to 11 to get me to open my wallet
if I want to carry on playing.

Maybe it should have been name Diablo Immoral?

*To be fair even if it didn't contain the garbage it does and was just a
game (we remember the times when games were just games and not financial
models with a game fitted around them) I probably still wouldn't buy it
as it's not a genre I particularly like even though I've spent many an
hour playing Titian Quest and Torchlight II**.

**Another franchise which I believe was ruined as they tried to go down
the same route.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:28:26 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>So, has anyone tried "Diablo: Immortal"? I haven't tried "Diablo:
>Immortal".

Its OK

It's essentially Diablo 3 so if you have D3 there is little point in
playing Immortal unless you just like grinding for gear in looter
games and fancy a mildly modified Diablo 3 that has the same settings
but some reworked quests.

The moment you start playing and reach Wortham a couple of minutes
later you realise it is D3 +

The micro transactions are mostly aimed at endgame content and allow
players to gear up for tougher mobs and bosses. The main game is
perfectly playable without spending any money.

--
Rob

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 3:40:08 PM UTC-7, Mr Rob wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:28:26 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >So, has anyone tried "Diablo: Immortal"? I haven't tried "Diablo:
> >Immortal".
> Its OK
>
> It's essentially Diablo 3 so if you have D3 there is little point in
> playing Immortal unless you just like grinding for gear in looter
> games and fancy a mildly modified Diablo 3 that has the same settings
> but some reworked quests.
>
>
> The moment you start playing and reach Wortham a couple of minutes
> later you realise it is D3 +
>
>
> The micro transactions are mostly aimed at endgame content and allow
> players to gear up for tougher mobs and bosses. The main game is
> perfectly playable without spending any money.

Wow. I didn't think it could get worse. Reselling the same game adding
more microtransactions.

I did play D3, each class at least up though one play through. Some more.
I think I got the farthest with witch doctor, but that was after returning
after they got rid of the store and changed the game quite a lot.

So really no reason for me to try it.

- Justisaur

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 06:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 3:40:08 PM UTC-7, Mr Rob wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:28:26 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>> <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >So, has anyone tried "Diablo: Immortal"? I haven't tried "Diablo:
>> >Immortal".
>> Its OK
>>
>> It's essentially Diablo 3 so if you have D3 there is little point in
>> playing Immortal unless you just like grinding for gear in looter
>> games and fancy a mildly modified Diablo 3 that has the same settings
>> but some reworked quests.
>>
>>
>> The moment you start playing and reach Wortham a couple of minutes
>> later you realise it is D3 +
>>
>>
>> The micro transactions are mostly aimed at endgame content and allow
>> players to gear up for tougher mobs and bosses. The main game is
>> perfectly playable without spending any money.
>
>Wow. I didn't think it could get worse. Reselling the same game adding
>more microtransactions.
>
>I did play D3, each class at least up though one play through. Some more.
>I think I got the farthest with witch doctor, but that was after returning
>after they got rid of the store and changed the game quite a lot.

I'mma gonna just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zQdusAXmNs

If you're not familiar with the Carbot animation team, they've made
dozens of Diablo-themed cartoons (not to mention even more based on
other Blizzard properties such as World of Warcraft and Starcraft).
Each skit is filled with easter eggs and nods to the lore and
mechanics of the games. These are people who know the games
intimately, have played them repeatedly, and absolutely love them.
They are the ultimate fanboys...

.... and even they despise "Diablo Immortal".

I'm sure the game will make Activision/Blizzard money, especially if
it so egregiously reuses the mechanics and assets of an older game.
You only need a tiny percentage of 'whales' to make up the development
costs. But is that promise of income really worth annoying your most
ardent fans and ruining your brand's reputation even further?

Blizzard once was a can-do-no-wrong company; the sort of development
house where gamers would buy their games sight-unseen on day one
because their reputation ensured quality titles. But over the years,
Blizzard has been squandering this valuable resource. "Diablo
Immortal" won't kill the company... but it may knock them down to
being a B-listed company, with significantly less earnings because
people don't trust them to offer value for money anymore.

I don't know what happened to Blizzard; was it Kotick's money-first
approach to development overwhelming the desires of the Blizzard devs?
Did Blizzards C-levels themselves get infected by the money-bug? Was
it the loss of key talents who took the ideals and artistry with them,
leaving the game a hollow shell? Maybe they just burnt out? Perhaps
there are financial issues in the company forcing them to focus on
short-term gains over future profits? I don't know...

On 07/06/2022 17:26, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 06:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
> <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 3:40:08 PM UTC-7, Mr Rob wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:28:26 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>>> <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, has anyone tried "Diablo: Immortal"? I haven't tried "Diablo:
>>>> Immortal".
>>> Its OK
>>>
>>> It's essentially Diablo 3 so if you have D3 there is little point in
>>> playing Immortal unless you just like grinding for gear in looter
>>> games and fancy a mildly modified Diablo 3 that has the same settings
>>> but some reworked quests.
>>>
>>>
>>> The moment you start playing and reach Wortham a couple of minutes
>>> later you realise it is D3 +
>>>
>>>
>>> The micro transactions are mostly aimed at endgame content and allow
>>> players to gear up for tougher mobs and bosses. The main game is
>>> perfectly playable without spending any money.
>>
>> Wow. I didn't think it could get worse. Reselling the same game adding
>> more microtransactions.
>>
>> I did play D3, each class at least up though one play through. Some more.
>> I think I got the farthest with witch doctor, but that was after returning
>> after they got rid of the store and changed the game quite a lot.
>
>
> I'mma gonna just leave this here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zQdusAXmNs
>
> If you're not familiar with the Carbot animation team, they've made
> dozens of Diablo-themed cartoons (not to mention even more based on
> other Blizzard properties such as World of Warcraft and Starcraft).
> Each skit is filled with easter eggs and nods to the lore and
> mechanics of the games. These are people who know the games
> intimately, have played them repeatedly, and absolutely love them.
> They are the ultimate fanboys...
>
> ... and even they despise "Diablo Immortal".
>
> I'm sure the game will make Activision/Blizzard money, especially if
> it so egregiously reuses the mechanics and assets of an older game.
> You only need a tiny percentage of 'whales' to make up the development
> costs. But is that promise of income really worth annoying your most
> ardent fans and ruining your brand's reputation even further?
>
> Blizzard once was a can-do-no-wrong company; the sort of development
> house where gamers would buy their games sight-unseen on day one
> because their reputation ensured quality titles. But over the years,
> Blizzard has been squandering this valuable resource. "Diablo
> Immortal" won't kill the company... but it may knock them down to
> being a B-listed company, with significantly less earnings because
> people don't trust them to offer value for money anymore.
>
> I don't know what happened to Blizzard; was it Kotick's money-first
> approach to development overwhelming the desires of the Blizzard devs?
> Did Blizzards C-levels themselves get infected by the money-bug? Was
> it the loss of key talents who took the ideals and artistry with them,
> leaving the game a hollow shell? Maybe they just burnt out? Perhaps
> there are financial issues in the company forcing them to focus on
> short-term gains over future profits? I don't know...
>

If it was a mobile platform game only I could understand it as, well for
mobile free-to-play this is the norm. Bringing it to the PC also, not so
good and I do wonder what it's means for the franchise as a whole.