580°

Diablo IV Won't Have an Offline Mode; Will Support Local Co-op on Consoles

Following the announcement of Diablo IV at BlizzCon, Blizzard Entertainment provided more information during a panel focusing on the features of the game.

Read Full Story >>
twinfinite.net
ShockUltraslash1649d ago

Absolutely disgusting.
This means ALL assets you acquire can be taken away by Blizzard. Imagine supporting Hong Kong and losing your account.
Also this means that one day the servers will shut down an nobody will be able to play the game.
Dont believe me?
Try playing Lawbreakers.

2pacalypsenow1649d ago

Unfortunately we’re already slaves to a connected world.

1649d ago
2pacalypsenow1649d ago

If your internet goes down, can you still play it?

TK-661649d ago

@2pacalypsenow

Yes. I just tether my phone to my computer and use that instead...

2pacalypsenow1649d ago

@Tk-66

Hence my comment about a connected world. Without some sort of internet connection these games are useless.

Old McGroin1649d ago

@2pacalypsenow

Always see comments like this for always online games, can you still play if your internet goes down? Like how often does your internet go down? I live pretty rural and don't get super fast speeds but my connection never goes down. If you can't play a game because your internet is down regularly then you should probably look into switching broadband provider instead of bitching about always online.

Muzikguy1649d ago (Edited 1649d ago )

I'm not a slave as I don't play those games

@Old McGroin

That's only part of the equation, internet going down. It can get bogged down too, and become very slow. It's also another bill that has to be paid just to play a game you already paid for (and even more if it were a sub based game), AND Plus or Xbox Live. I'm not putting my faith in companies to be able to enjoy games. Internet, servers, networks.... Some games sure but not all. Definitely not for games that could easily have an offline mode and couch co-op

Psychotica1649d ago

You can't watch tv if the cable goes out either..

bluefox7551648d ago

I see lots of comments saying why it "isn't that big of a deal", but not seeing many telling why it's a good idea? Why not just have an offline option for those who want it? Can't be that difficult for a company the size of blizzard.

Brave_Losers_Unite1648d ago (Edited 1648d ago )

Imagine a world where you can't play Diablo by yourself... That is ridiculous. Blizzard shot themselves in the foot

SuicidalTendencies1648d ago

So many gamers have Stockholm syndrome now a days. It amazes me that people would defend this always online bullshit.

TK-661648d ago (Edited 1648d ago )

@2pacalypse

An area of the world that can't connect to the internet 99% of the time every year is not the sort of place a software company should want to base their financial results on.

@bluefox

No ones saying it's a good idea. Just saying that if average quality internet connectivity is an issue for you, you've likely got better things to be doing compared to spending it winging on an comment section.

The argument of "wut if yur internet dun wurk?" Is weak. It shouldn't be used to combat online only games.

Muzikguy1648d ago

@TK

There are many more arguments against online only gaming than "wut if yur internet dun wurk" people just refuse to listen. Still that alone is not a weak argument. You just don't like it sounds like

TK-661648d ago

@Muzikguy

Then make them and don't make the worst possible argument. And yes its a bad argument. If your internet is so shit that you can't play vidya gaems then you have no business telling others what is right and wrong in a comment section. Make a better argument like about how many major releases with a focus on online services often have instability issues at launch. Make a better argument than "yeh but wut if wun day yur internet not wurk?"

What your basically telling me is that I MIGHT not be able to play for 1 or 2 days a year, and even then your being really fucking desperate and hoping the stars align on those days for my internet to not work. That's how bad your argument is. It relies on a statistically unlikely event to happen at the same time I want to play the game in question. The position is weak; accept it.

2pacalypsenow1648d ago

@Tk-66

Another great example.

Yesterday the COD servers were down for a bit after the 1.06 update, I couldn't play the single player campaign, multiplayer or co op.

I just spent $50 on a game that I cant play because their network was down.

Do you see the problem here?

TK-661648d ago (Edited 1648d ago )

@2pacalypsenow

Yes, so make that argument instead of the dumb one.

"Do you see the problem here?"

Evidently I saw it before you if I had to be the one to make the argument for you...

Muzikguy1648d ago (Edited 1648d ago )

@TK

It sounds like you know plenty but you're focusing on one. There are plenty. And no, the original is not weak. Not everyone will have the same options available. It seems you fail to understand this. Mine goes down more than twice a year (quite a bit actually all over the area) and some areas of the country have it considerably worse. You are not everyone. Your circumstances don't represent everyone. Accept that. You have to put yourself in someone else's position sometimes to gain a better understanding. You don't seem to know how to do that.

2pacalypsenow1648d ago

@TK

That was my argument?

I just said we’re slaves to a connected world.

We’re all gamers here, and if in the future every game needs internet then we’re forced to have some sort of online connectivity.

This doesn’t just apply to gaming, but everything around us needs internet.

Imagine all internet connections end right now, what would people do?

TK-661648d ago (Edited 1648d ago )

@Muzikguy

"Not everyone will have the same options available. It seems you fail to understand this. Mine goes down more than twice a year (quite a bit actually all over the area) and some areas of the country have it considerably worse."

Falls within my estimation in my original criticism of the argument. Twice a year is less than one percent. So it seems I do understand when you describe a situation that lines up exactly within what I said.

Already addressed people who dont have a strong enough connection to meet a measly check-in ping. If the internet in your country is that bad then you're not playing video games. You're right that I'm not the world, but the people you're demanding be catered to with this argument dont have any value to the market so they will be looked over. Dont like it? Do what I said and make a better argument.

JackBNimble1648d ago

We are all slaves to the internet.
Social media anyone?
I grew up in a time where your phone was hardwired to the wall , and only the rich had the first cellphone aka the brick.

If you wanted to get ahold of someone and you were away from home you had to find a payphone.

Can imagine not being able to message people when ever you wanted or just Google something?

Back on topic...
Games like this being always online are garbage and I really don't see a valid reason the dev's would do this.

UltraNova1648d ago

Why Blizzard...why? What's so hard about giving us an SP mode (with local co-op) and a separate online mode for the meta?

I mean they've got the Holly Trinity of game development - money, man power and time...

Blizzard is fast approaching my permanent no buy list.

TK-661648d ago (Edited 1648d ago )

@2pacalypsenow

You made the argument "If your internet goes down, can you still play it?". If you believe this is a valid argument against online only games, then you have to admit that power outages are a valid argument against home consoles and desktop PC's.

"Imagine all internet connections end right now, what would people do?"

Imagine all power sources end right now, what would people do? Diablo 4's target audience has internet access 99% of the time in the year. If your line of argumentation is to ask me about people in the 3rd world or people who can't afford an average internet package, then you're arguing that the game needs to cater to people who have no business purchasing video games.

This argument everyone is making is dumb. If you want to rightfully argue against mandatory online connections make the best possible argument, and not the one that can be refuted by a simple analogy to electricity.

2pacalypsenow1647d ago

@TK-66

Diablo is not an online only game. It's a single player game with online features I never said anything about "Online only" games. Obviously an online only game needs internet, I don't expect to play Call of Duty online without internet, but I do expect to play the single player campaign without internet.

I'm talking about every game needing online, only to authenticate and not because of online feature.

+ Show (19) more repliesLast reply 1647d ago
Jrios3551649d ago

You're saying that as if online-only games haven't been around for years.

1648d ago
vTuro241648d ago

You're saying that as if that's a good thing that we should all accept and bow down to like a bunch of sheep.

Jrios3551647d ago

@vTuro24

No one seemed to have a problem with online-only games like Quake 3 Arena and Team Fortress 2. Why is Overwatch a problem?

Muzikguy1649d ago

Well would you look at that. I knew Blizzard couldn't be trusted (or Activision for that matter). They've successfully killed any hype I had for this game in less than 24 hours. Now I won't even bother looking at anything else for it as I know with 100% certainty that I won't be getting the game. I can not stand always online games and refuse to support them.

TRYNDAREUS1648d ago

Feel the same. Was gonna purchase but now, I'm not even gonna bother reading up on anything else to do with the game. Did the same for Breakpoint.

Xb1ps41648d ago

Same here.. very disappointed

rainslacker1648d ago

EA did the same thing with SimCity, and it was disappointing, because I really like SimCity. Their reasoning was that it was so I could connect to all these other people's cities from my own.

My only thought was, "why would I want to do that?". Not that I would mind if it was an option, but I don't like the idea of making a game online only, when the SP component doesn't really require it for any reason at all.

Thunder_G0d_Bane1649d ago

Why would anyone expect offline play? Can you offline play on destiny? Or even Diablo 3?

And I dont give a shit about China.

Nu1649d ago

No online require d for D3

CorndogBurglar1648d ago (Edited 1648d ago )

Bringing up other games (like Destiny) that have online only play does not justify other games doing it. Especially when people complain about Destiny being online only as well.

TRYNDAREUS1648d ago (Edited 1648d ago )

That's why breakpoint was a disaster. Go to the forum and you will see a thread nearly 60 pages long of people asking for it to be offline. This is one of the main reasons games are flopping.

Single player games are being made online only, and when no one buys them they give the excuse its because gamers dont like single player games anymore. Destiny 2 is not a single player game and Diablo 3 can be played offline.

2pacalypsenow1648d ago

Their servers were down for a few hours yesterday which locked me out of the Single player, wich made the entire game unplayable.

"Why would anyone want to play a single player campaign without internet."

Does that sound logical?

rainslacker1648d ago

If there is a SP portion of the game, why would anyone expect to have to connect to the internet to play it?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1648d ago
CobraKai1648d ago

I can play all my games from NES to PS 2 without internet. I’m just saying

starrman19851648d ago

It will be like playing Diablo 3 on PC.... which really isn't that bad.

Zenbaby3691648d ago

Omg they could stop letting me play! The evidence shows that I'll only be able to play the game online for...24 years and counting? Pretty sure you can still play Warcraft 2 online, and Starcraft etc. etc. So..evidence suggests you have anything to worry about. I would recommend comparing Diablo 4, to Diablo 2. Because they are much more similar than Diablo 4 and Lawbreakers.

I mean I get it, it might be somewhat annoying to some people that they might not be able to play it someday. Assuming they don't just patch an offline mode when/if they stop support in your lifetime. But the evidence all suggests that it seems unlikely support will stop in that time frame.

I wanted to say that the only thing disgusting here is how sensitive you must be to be disgusted by something so trivial. However, I understand that people develop opinions, and/or can be come jaded to certain things. I do strongly believe people who are so upset by this aren't really thinking it through all the way. I can somewhat sympathize, but in the end. There are reasons why online only can be better. There could be coding issues, things that get run server side, the world areas not being easily translated for offline. Having save files on the user side could potentially make hacking easier "even if only offline were on the user side" etc. etc. I don't know.

What I do know, is that in my opinion, the world we live in where basically everyone always has a connection. The incredibly small quantity of people that aren't and still have a computer/console plus the time internet can be down for anyone that is connected, is so infinitely small..that it quite literally isn't a big deal.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1647d ago
Ristul1649d ago

Guess there will be no single player this time around. Well, I had no intention to support this company anyway, this just makes it even more clear.

CorndogBurglar1648d ago

Online only and no single player are two different things entirely. Just because you need to be online doesn't mean you can't play solo.

Ristul1648d ago

CorndogBurglar: true, but the fact that the content is not available offline makes it a hard pass for me.

Tross1648d ago

Agreed. I would have been far more conflicted as I love this series, but thanks to it being online-only it's now an easy pass.

@CorndogBurglar But there's zero reason why singleplayer content should require an online connection to work. Clearly the game isn't meant to be played solo.

BLizardXD1648d ago

"F**k you Blizzard."

..... :O

masterfox1649d ago

wow an RPG that you need internet all the time ?, that's actually pretty horrible.

Thunder_G0d_Bane1649d ago

Diablo is a multiplayer focused game. Diablo 3 needs constant connection too.

Who cares?

Can’t wait for Diablo 4.

Muzikguy1649d ago

Who cares? Lol..... I can see where that's going. It's hard for many to think about why others feel the way they do about something...

Ristul1649d ago (Edited 1649d ago )

Diablo 3 on consoles could be played offline, so that is not accurate.

Mr_Luke1648d ago

On my PS4 i played offline with couch co-op. So it's fake you must be always online. And since when it's a multiplayer focused game? Always played the first one alone, the second one too. And the third one as well, besides the times i was with my girlfriend and she wanted to play too.
This said, no Diablo 4 for me, there are so many games to play anyway around.

BlaqMagiq11648d ago

Wrong. Diablo 3 can be played offline on consoles. AND can be played alone.

Do your research next time.

MWH1648d ago

Do you realize that there are other people on this planet? Who cares, right?

Thunder_G0d_Bane1648d ago

I primarily play on PC so don’t care about consoles versions of PC games. Diablo started on PC.

Don’t buy it if constant online is a problem for you.

Destiny, WoW, Division all online only games. You just gonna have to deal with it.

Don’t care if you the small minority of antisocial A holes don’t buy a multiplayer first game.

william_cade1648d ago (Edited 1648d ago )

Diablo 3 was an anomaly like Immortal.

rainslacker1648d ago

SimCity was a SP focused game. In fact, there was no real MP where you play with another person. yet, the last release required online so you could connect to other people's cities...regardless of if you wanted to use that feature or not.

The last Sims game...same deal. It had MP portions where you could connect to other players, but it also had a strong SP component, but it required a connection at all times.

Diablo is indeed a MP focused game, but it also has a strong solo component, so why should it require an online connection to play that part of the game?

Nothing wrong with having to connect for MP features, but the issue comes in when that's required for SP play.

Hungryalpaca1648d ago

Who cares? Lots of people. I couldn’t play Diablo 3 on my laptop while taking train rides cross country. Couldn’t play it went my internet went out. Why you people are defending this shit is beyond me.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1648d ago
PhoenixUp1649d ago

Seems like they haven’t learned their lesson the first time

Show all comments (121)
150°

Diablo IV is Available on PlayStation Cloud Gaming - Beats Xbox to the Punch

Diablo IV is now available to play via PlayStation Cloud Gaming! Still not available to Play on Xbox Cloud Gaming.

We ran our script again and found 15 other PS5 games (a lot of popular ones!) that got PS5 Cloud Gaming support within the last month as well.

Read Full Story >>
clouddosage.com
Hugodastrevas2d ago

Not for me, I'm 100% physical media all of the time.

jwillj2k42d ago

I hate that I have to keep calling this out, but your physical disks mean nothing if the game code attempts to connect to a server prior to playing.

Hugodastrevas2d ago

And that happens when? I'm playing completely offline here, stellar Blade to be more precise.
I'm sorry but I've never run into that imaginary problem you're talking about, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it has never happened to me.

jwillj2k42d ago

You not running into the problem yet has no bearing on my argument. You’re acting like the medium is the shield for you being able to always play your games when it effectively is not. The game code itself can try to connect to a server or the console you’re playing on may receive an update that requires that game to connect to a server. Just because you haven’t ran into it doesn’t mean anything lol you don’t own your games no matter how you try.

Hugodastrevas2d ago

So I have never run into the problem you're talking about and your answer is an hypothetical? Look I can play any game of my library offline right now without issue.
That issue is in your mouth and alone.

Crows902d ago

Actually...there's an easy way...don't connect. If it doesn't require a connection and you don't connect...the code can't update...obviously....confused why you don't get what he's saying.

outsider16242d ago

Hold on..lets say i dnt have an online connection, can i atleast play the game offline though. Was thinking of getting this

jwillj2k42d ago

None of you use your brains.

OK, let’s explore this playing offline. not talking about Diablo specifically just gaming in general.

Are you going to buy two PlayStations? One offline one online? If not, moment you want to play something that requires a connection you’re cooked.

Does game experience you love so much stay the same offline?

Is the game even playable offline?

The whole point of my argument is that we don’t hold the keys anymore. The gatekeepers are the developers and console makers regardless of whether it’s digital or physical. You altering your play style for a lesser experience is not a workaround, it doesn’t solve the overall problem.

None of this matters since the move to the cloud is inevitable.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2d ago
spicelicka2d ago

So you have to buy the game and can only stream to the PS5 devices using PS plus premium? What is the point of that. Much more useful when you can stream to other devices.

MrNinosan2d ago

Works great on my Portal while at work 👍

spicelicka2d ago

That's streaming off your PS5, not from the cloud. This is specifically referring to cloud gaming.

CrimsonWing692d ago

Can’t you, uh, do this on your phone?

Tacoboto2d ago

Sony doesn't yet have a web or app-based solution to stream games off their cloud service, the closest you may be able to get would be Remote Play if they allow cloud streaming during a Remote session.

And yes this applies to the Portal too.

Einhander19721d 19h ago (Edited 1d 19h ago )

Tacoboto

Please stop talking about PlayStation Streaming, you don't know what you're talking about.

I just explained this to you the other day where you were telling people that remote play was their only cloud solution, because apparently you didn't understand how PlayStation Premium works even though PS Now was a thing since shortly after the launch PS4..

You can stream to PC and Mac, and they had mobile clients for it in the past but probably for the same reason Microsoft is fighting Apple and Google PS Now wasn't allowed on App stores. Which is why it's not on iPhone and Android still.

And to be honest, I am glad they are trying to keep it on the console, all their moves away from the console seem like a step in the wrong direction, which isn't working so great for Microsoft...

anast2d ago

Blizzard is shoving this game everywhere. Diablo 4 is going to take an even bigger hit soon. Path of exile 2 is coming out and it looks insane.

Crows902d ago

Well they're about to release the next season...I think that might be way they're pushing the game again.

anast1d 17h ago

I mean I get what you are saying, but D4 isn't doing that well either.

UnbreakableAlex2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I completed it on gamepass. Thanks God I dint pay it full price. It plays like a lazy mobile game. I am not a pro diablo gamer (Diablo 1 was the only one I completed) but D4 has no atmosphere, no creepy feeling and soundtrack like the first one and its so easy, I managed to not buy any weapon and had 4 Million Credits on level 55. I always used the same 4 attacks from the beginning and died maybe 10-15 times. It's so easy, wtf. I remember D1 to be pretty hard.
WTF happened? Is Diablo 3 also that bad?

jwillj2k42d ago

Diablo 3 was my first Diablo game. I had to use the mailbox cheats to keep it interesting.

Crows902d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Diablo 3 was really hard at launch....then they made it easy.

They love scaling difficulty though.

anast1d 17h ago

D2 is the pinnacle. I still fire it up from time to time.

GrmpyolGamer 2d ago

Considering that the PS cloud steaming is garbage compared to XCloud and is limited to certain devices this isn't something to brag about. Wake me up when Diablo is on PS plus

240°

Huge new Diablo 4 stats are super encouraging for Xbox Game Pass

Xbox Game Pass and Diablo 4 are a match made in heaven, with the hellish RPG series blazing a path for ActiBlizz’s future on the service.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
Lightning7712d ago

“Last month we added our first Activision Blizzard title, Diablo 4, to our Game Pass service,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says during the company’s latest earnings call. “Subscribers played over 10 million hours within the first 10 days, making it one of our biggest first-party Game Pass launches ever.”

Sarah Bond announced this a few weeks back. That's the gamepass effect I suppose.

Zeke6811d ago

So 1 million players tries the game for 10 hours each and quit -check on that... 🤷😉

S2Killinit11d ago

Lol but how many bullets were fired?

Lightning7711d ago (Edited 11d ago )

If that was even the case since you don't know anything, let's entertain that it's no different than 1 million ppl buying a game and playing for 10 hours and quitting. Though it doesn't matter to the pub since they bought the game for 70$ they don't care if you throw your disc like Frisbee. Same with subscription, they got the money so a completion rate doesn't matter. 50% of the ppl didn't even play past the first lvl in Baldurs Gate. What does that mean?

If you troll me you get put down I don't put up with that just FYI, not sure if you're new or not I'm just letting you know.

@S2 No different than HD2 killing 1 billion bugs or whatever.

Zeke6811d ago

It was a joke. "Why so serious??" 🤣🤣

S2Killinit11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

@Zeke68
Im not sure why they get defensive. Its a fair assessment since this is a service. I also wonder if they round up the hours. Say I only played it for 10 minutes to try it out. There is no telling how they come up with these.

Zeke6811d ago

@Lightning77
"If you troll me you get put down I don't put up with that just FYI, not sure if you're new or not I'm just letting you know."

If that was for me , I joined this site at least 5 years before you.
And put down? Is that a threat for my life?
Not sure if I should report you to your local police or invite you here to my country for a real paratrooper knifefight?!
Last man standing kind of fight 🤷😉
Just an advice, watch out behind your keyboard challenging people you don't know anything about. Someone might pick you up on that offer.
So many different kinds of people out here in the real world. Just saying.
Take care. 🙂

Fonsecap11d ago

That was exactly my case, and find it quite boring... I rather play diablo 2 remastered. The game is all grind and all about the end game, you level up so quickly that I think it's pointless, they should let you choose the skills from the begining of the game, it's all about the loot anyway so what's the point of the level up system?

Crows9010d ago

@lightning

Huge difference...can't believe you actually think you outsmarted anyone.

The big difference which you mention but ignore is that one is successful and the other not necessarily.

Also a big difference here is genre. 10 hrs of another game could mean it was completed and everything was done...whereas 10.hrs of diablo 4 doesn't amount to much.

S2Killinit10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

@Lightning

Lol that comment was so cringe. You are going to “put him down”? Haha please do show us so we can all have a laugh.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 10d ago
Ps5conehead11d ago

They would not be in the mess there in if they sold all those copy’s of games instead

TheEroica11d ago

Sony fans are salting everyone's fries today... Lol 🍟

Crows9010d ago

You don't have to be a fan of another platform to see the obvious.

UltimateOwnage11d ago

Guess they had to find at least one glimmer of positive news to combat the poor Xbox hardware sales trends. GamePass stats on game from a 1st party studio that they spent $70bn to acquire are kind of useless IMO, especially when other than Act/Bliz the entire XBOX division was flat. I hope that spike on Diablo 4 was worth having to the XBOX brand go multi platform for.

Lightning7711d ago

You mean with out ABK they would be flat with nearly no growth.

They actually made allot of money only because of ABK. With out it they would suffer and slowly be obsolete.

Xbox Content & Services Revenue +62%

- Gaming Revenue +51%

- Revenue $61.9 billion +17%

- Operating income $27.6 billion +23%

- Net Income $21.9 Billion +20%

- Cloud Revenue $35.1 Billion +23%

- Xbox Hardware -31%

shinoff218311d ago

Without abk it was negative not flat. It's said so itself. They were negative.

TheEroica11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

ABK is Microsoft.... Sonys profits have dropped from 12% to 9% to 6% three consecutive years... At this rate they will also be unprofitable in just a short while. Games cost too much to make because people are drunk on visuals and performance instead of innovative gameplay ideas. Games are all going multiplatform to the benefit of developers and gamers.... Only corporation lusting gamers are still shilling for the exclusive model.

jjb198111d ago

They probably all fell asleep due to severe boredom and left their consoles on overnight.

Tody_ZA11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

I really don't get the obsession with these stats. So what? Is always my response.

If 10 million people bought the game, it doesn't matter at all how long they played it for. It's irrelevant. The sale is made, the revenue is earned. The person can take a year to finish the game for all the developers care.

If 10 million played the game on a sub, what does it achieve? They could play 1 hour and delete it as quickly as they downloaded it. I've done this with games like Need for Speed Unbound or Immortals of Aveum, I just don't have the time for every single game.

Unless Games Pass generates developer and publisher revenue for every hour spent, this is meaningless.

sagapo11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

In case of a gaas game, hours played is an important indicator for the succes of the game imo. The game needs to generate money AFTER purchase (when bought) or when the game is on a sub.

Tody_ZA11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

This is a non-point, because in-game purchases generate revenue and can be tracked. Number of players is a meaningless statistic unless you're talking about a PURE multiplayer game. Otherwise you can make that point about any game that has DLC or microtransactions.

It's irrelevant how many baterangs are thrown in Arkham Knight or how many hours people spent playing The Witcher 3. A sale made five years ago or a sale made now is a sale.

Michiel198911d ago

why are you even comparing witcher or arkham to d4? They don't have the same business model. Your punchline "a sale is made" is cool and all, but d4 is not an offline, single player rpg. It has a battle pass, cosmetics to buy and by the look of it yearly expansions. Every 3 months the game gets changed up and they try to incentivize you to buy things because the cosmetics you can earn ingame look dogshit.

Your logic is super flawed, diablo 4 is a gaas game.

Lightning7711d ago (Edited 11d ago )

"They could play 1 hour and delete it as quickly as they downloaded it. I've done this with games like Need for Speed Unbound or Immortals of Aveum, I just don't have the time for every single game."

So you just proved it doesn't matter if it's on sub or bought full price, half price whatever, you still deleted those games, allot less ppl beat or stick with games unless it's LS like Fornite, Minecraft etc you always here about a backlog of games. That's just a world we live in, doesn't matter if it's sub service or bought anymore. It's made worse with sub because you have access to many other games of course but the metrics are still not that distinguish from sub to fully own since backlogs are a growing issue regardless.

People don't beat games like they used to that's just facts.

Tody_ZA11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

Did you read my comment? Your response is literally nothing to what I wrote? I got Need for Speed Unbound and Immortals of Aveum off PS Plus, I paid nothing for them. Me playing them for an hour generated nothing for the developers. However if I had bought them, even for a dollar, my playtime would be utterly irrelevant because a sale was made. People not beating games is exactly the point - if they bought it, it doesn't matter how long they played it for. Hence, hours played is a meaningless statistic, yet Microsoft keeps peddling it.

It literally does matter if it's played off a service or bought - you're buying into Microsoft philosophy now. Game Pass monthly sub revenue goes to Microsoft, it isn't going to lead to better games unless it's a small indie studio getting a payout from MS.

On Diablo IV, if I buy it off Steam for 50% off, developers get revenue. If I download it from Game Pass and then delete it after an hour, worthless statistic and nothing else.

Diablo IV generated over $600 million in revenue from sales. Do you think MS' compensation package would match this if it was released exclusively on Games Pass and nowhere else for sale?

Crows9010d ago

Not true yet again.

It matters for the success of a game. A sub does not equal a purchase.

It matters depending on type of game...10 hrs of gas means little but 10 hrs of a single player means much more.

People do beat games...there's a huge pool of additional gamers compared to before when gaming was much less popular.

Backlogs aren't really an issue. People will put down whatever they're playing unless they were truly enjoying it. You couldn't have paid me to put down hollow knight for instance...

More gamers means the percentage that used to beat games gets smaller.

Tody_ZA11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

@Michiel1989 As per my comment above: "in-game purchases generate revenue and can be tracked" That aside, however, Diablo IV generated millions in revenue from sales and was a huge financial success, which is a metric that can be measured. I reiterate that the hours it was played on Games Pass means nothing. If they tell me that millions of $ was spent on in-game cosmetics, that obviously means something.

My point is little other than Microsoft repeatedly peddling worthless statistics and they've been doing it for months. They won't tell you how many Xbox units were sold (until financial results forced this), but they'll certainly tell you how many locusts were killed in Gears of War.

By the way, I'm not comparing Diablo IV and The Witcher 3 or Arkham. I'm comparing the difference between playing a title on Games Pass for some time and buying it at any point it's on sale.

I don't get why people argue this. I bought A Plague Tale: Innocence and enjoyed it. I then played A Plague Tale: Requiem on Game Pass and cancelled my sub soon after. Which scenario helped the developer? I don't see the long term sustainability of the Game Pass model, and adding all these high profile triple A games to it from mega publishers is going to come crashing down in the next few years unless Microsoft releases its games on all platforms, which they're clearly setting themselves up for.

Crows9010d ago

Requiem is fantastic. Beat it on Gamepass...you're right...Ive been meaning to purchase it in order to support them but haven't gotten around to it...since I've already gotten to play it for free.

Tody_ZA10d ago

@Crows90 Absolutely! Requiem was one of my favourite games last year and the only reason I subbed to Games Pass for a month. I'm in exactly the same boat as you are. I have it on my wishlist to buy it at a discount to support the developers, but haven't been in a hurry because I played it on Games Pass.

Pity because it was a superior sequel in every possible way, and playing both games in French was a treat for the story.

Lightning7711d ago

"I got Need for Speed Unbound and Immortals of Aveum off PS Plus, I paid nothing for them. Me playing them for an hour generated nothing for the developers. However if I had bought them, even for a dollar, my playtime would be utterly irrelevant because a sale was made."

You made no mention of getting of Plus not like it makes a difference because those games come with your subscription. Those games are part of your paid subscription, so Sony gets your money and whatever cut they're giving to Immortal and NFS devs. These things aren't for free and devs aren't going bankrupt from it either.

Plus you literally just made my point. When you said play time is irrelevant when a 70$ transaction was made. Which is 100% true.

"Hence, hours played is a meaningless statistic, yet Microsoft keeps peddling it."

Attach rate/console engagement is important to MS. Having high attach Tate means more will spend in the echo system that's why they track that. They have high console engagement but can't sell Xbox's they have to pick their battle.

"Game Pass monthly sub revenue goes to Microsoft, it isn't going to lead to better games unless it's a small indie studio getting a payout from MS."

I dunno HB2, Indy Stalker 2, Avowed look pretty good this year and they're all on gamepass this year.

Tody_ZA10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

@Lightning77 Well I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about a sub service there based on the paragraph you're quoting, but if it was unclear I'll take it, it's been clarified.

You need to understand the difference between putting a game on a sub after the sales dry up, or putting it on a sub day one. You also need to understand the difference between having a sub as a supplementary offering and having it as your MAIN triple A selling point. Then if you can understand those differences, you'd realise what I'm saying when I state that it's not sustainable.

Personally, the only sensible ways these sub services can work is promotion of indie titles, where the compensation can benefit the developers who don't cost or pull triple A numbers, or putting games on where sales are flatlined.

Take Diablo IV. It generated $600 million in revenue from sales. Let's say Diablo V releases day one exclusively on Games Pass and nowhere else. Do you think play time will compare to the profits noted above? Do you think Microsoft will pay Blizzard $600 million as a compensation package for putting the game on Games Pass? How do they recoup the cost and turn a profit? There logically can only be two ways: release on other platforms where sales are made and get your cut from owning the publisher while the developer gets sales revenue, or monetise and incentivise microtransactions or in game purchases. Without that, Diablo VI becomes dubious as an investment.

You're bringing up games that have already been in development before the acquisition. And since we're on that note, neither Starfield nor Redfall appear to be phenomenonal successes, at least not near expectations. Do you seriously think The Elder Scrolls 6 and Fallout 5 can follow the same model?

Put it together with Xbox hardware sales being massively down: there aren't enough Xbox consoles out in the market to justify the mammoth investment required in triple A monsters like Call of Duty and Elder Scrolls. They have to release on other platforms - it's simply not sustainable to keep the PS market out indefinitely taking into account the kind of sales numbers these games pushed before the acquisition.

Microsoft is trying to have its hand in every pie, earning revenue through ownership. That's the point of these acquisitions. They don't care if Call of Duty releases on PlayStation, they care that they get their cut. They don't care about making GOTY titles, they care about their Game Pass revenue.

And no, high attach rate at best means a higher PROBABILITY that someone will spend on the game, it certainly isn't a guarantee. Again, "attach rate" is worthless. Because I am part of the "player base" and "attach rate" of Need for Speed Unbound and Immortals because I downloaded them off a sub and played for an hour. I played High Fi Rush on Game Pass for a couple of minutes too. I'm part of a statistic for those games, not part of the sales or contributors.

The Game Pass model will not result in better games or higher quality games. I'll be glad to eat my words, but don't think I will.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 10d ago
anast11d ago

A bunch people played a game for two seconds and they added up the hours.

Show all comments (49)
70°

Hurry Up and Get Diablo 4 on Steam Discount For Half the Price

If you are considering getting Diablo 4, Steam offers an incredible discount, so now is the perfect time to do it.

anast12d ago

Still not worth it, especially with Path 2 around the corner.

Firebird36012d ago

Poe2 is a long way off. 2025 at the earliest.

Firebird36012d ago

Great game, patches have fixed alot of the initial problems.