D3 is "Technically Finished," Probable 2011 Release Date

[simonizor]

I bet they're holding it back, waiting to see what's happening with Guild Wars 2.

Doubt it. People that want D3 are people who played D2 (and probably D1) and will buy D3 regardless of how good GW2 is.

 

[zebano]

Doubt it. People that want D3 are people who played D2 (and probably D1) and will buy D3 regardless of how good GW2 is.

This is true. However I sunk so much time into D2 and now that I'm older and less inclined to grind for loot, I'm a little worried that I may not like D3.

 

[Anubis]

I bet they're holding it back, waiting to see what's happening with Guild Wars 2.

what

GW2 and D3 are nothing alike

its like comparing Zelda to Final Fantasy

 

[Texashiker]

I bet they're holding it back, waiting to see what's happening with Guild Wars 2.

That is kinda like saying toyota is holding off on a car to watch what chevy does. Diablo has a loyal fan club that could care less about Guild Wars 2 - and I'am one of them.

There are 4 big games I'am looking for in 2011, and Guild Wars 2 ain't one of them.

 

[zerocool84]

That is kinda like saying toyota is holding off on a car to watch what chevy does. Diablo has a loyal fan club that could care less about Guild Wars 2 - and I'am one of them.

There are 4 big games I'am looking for in 2011, and Guild Wars 2 ain't one of them.

I'll look at Guild Wars 2 as I enjoyed the first one but there's many more things I'm interested in.

 

[Ross Ridge]

You really think they'd hold the PC version for a PC/console simultaneous release? What would be the harm in releasing the PC version ASAP, then a console version 6-12 months later?

Well that's what happened with Dragon Age: Origins, so there's precedent for this kind of thing happening. If it was just up to the people who ran the BioWare division of EA then I don't think they would've delayed the release of the PC version. I don't think the guys at Blizzard would want to wait either, but ultimately it's up to the bosses at Activision. They could easily believe, like the people at EA apparently did, that a PC release would be so widely pirated by the time the console versions are released that they'd make a lot more money with simultaneous release.

I don't think it's hugely likely in this case, but I think it's the most likely reason why the PC release of Diablo 3 wouldn't get released this year.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

They could easily believe, like the people at EA apparently did, that a PC release would be so widely pirated by the time the console versions are released that they'd make a lot more money with simultaneous release.

Is StarCraft II being pirated? I'm not into that stuff, so I have no clue, but I'd think that it would be near impossible given how much you're required to be connected to Battle.net.

 

[zinfamous]

I doubt it. GW2 isn't going to have a noticeable impact on D3 sales.

I agree, though the most criticism levied at GW is that it is basically Diablo 2 with fancier skin. And while I haven't played Diablo 2, I know most of my GW buddies were huge D2 players, so the games attract the same type of individuals, i think.

I assume that Diablo is more of the sentimental favorite, though.

Ive been off GW for more than a year now...though I fear GW2 might suck me back in. I hope not.

 

[Schfifty Five]

sweet, my wrists have been asking for a grueling workout, d3 will allow that.

i find that hard to believe.

roflmao

 

[Kabob]

I agree, though the most criticism levied at GW is that it is basically Diablo 2 with fancier skin. And while I haven't played Diablo 2, I know most of my GW buddies were huge D2 players, so the games attract the same type of individuals, i think.

I assume that Diablo is more of the sentimental favorite, though.

Ive been off GW for more than a year now...though I fear GW2 might suck me back in. I hope not.

I played D2 to death, I played a little bit of GW. I guess there's a few similarities but to me they play nothing alike.

 

[zinfamous]

I played D2 to death, I played a little bit of GW. I guess there's a few similarities but to me they play nothing alike.

in the end, GW is just loot grinding. If you're a PvPer, you still need to get the elite loot skins to show off how badass you are. as a PvEer, there is really nothing else to do, heh.


game mechanics, though, I'm not sure. GW is highly dependent on skill build sets, which what makes the game so fun, imo. either solo builds or team-based builds, it can be quite fun when everything is working. I haven't played Diablo 2, so I don't know if it's anything like that.

I just know that they seem to share fans.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

GW =! Diablo. Diablo is not a MMO, while GW is.

Sure, there are thousands of players on Battle.net to play Diablo with, but the game is still FULLY enjoyable as a single player. GW, to my dismay however, basically requires cooperative play - at least it does late in the game. Too often I found myself waiting forever for a Monk to join my GW party so I'd have a chance at beating some mission, only for that person to laugh as they quit right when they were needed most.

Diablo >>>>>>>> GW!

 

[zerocool84]

GW =! Diablo. Diablo is not a MMO, while GW is.

Sure, there are thousands of players on Battle.net to play Diablo with, but the game is still FULLY enjoyable as a single player. GW, to my dismay however, basically requires cooperative play - at least it does late in the game. Too often I found myself waiting forever for a Monk to join my GW party so I'd have a chance at beating some mission, only for that person to laugh as they quit right when they were needed most.

Diablo >>>>>>>> GW!

PSA: Guild Wars is not an MMO

 

[Schfifty Five]

GW =! Diablo. Diablo is not a MMO, while GW is.

Sure, there are thousands of players on Battle.net to play Diablo with, but the game is still FULLY enjoyable as a single player. GW, to my dismay however, basically requires cooperative play - at least it does late in the game. Too often I found myself waiting forever for a Monk to join my GW party so I'd have a chance at beating some mission, only for that person to laugh as they quit right when they were needed most.

Diablo >>>>>>>> GW!

PSA: Guild Wars is not an MMO

This.

Though I guess GW has a few aspects of an MMO. It's been years since I played, but in the big cities/towns, there are lots of ppl running around right? That can be considered an MMO aspect right?

 

[Malak]

I agree, though the most criticism levied at GW is that it is basically Diablo 2 with fancier skin. And while I haven't played Diablo 2, I know most of my GW buddies were huge D2 players, so the games attract the same type of individuals, i think.

GW and Diablo are nothing alike whatsoever. Guildwars was never about the loot, while Diablo was entirely about the loot.

 

[Malak]

This.

Though I guess GW has a few aspects of an MMO. It's been years since I played, but in the big cities/towns, there are lots of ppl running around right? That can be considered an MMO aspect right?

Any game can be said to have MMO aspects because they are actually RPG aspects, not MMO aspects. There is one unifying quality to MMO's, they are massively multiplayer in a single world shard. GW doesn't do this, all gameplay is restricted to like 8 or 16 players? There are FPS games that support 10x that, and they aren't considered MMO's either. Games that are entirely instanced are not MMO's.

 

[Sureshot324]

This.

Though I guess GW has a few aspects of an MMO. It's been years since I played, but in the big cities/towns, there are lots of ppl running around right? That can be considered an MMO aspect right?

TBH GW2 is sounding a lot more like a traditional MMO than GW1. Level cap 80, sidekick system like City of Heroes, no alternate classes.

 

[zinfamous]

GW =! Diablo. Diablo is not a MMO, while GW is.

Sure, there are thousands of players on Battle.net to play Diablo with, but the game is still FULLY enjoyable as a single player. GW, to my dismay however, basically requires cooperative play - at least it does late in the game. Too often I found myself waiting forever for a Monk to join my GW party so I'd have a chance at beating some mission, only for that person to laugh as they quit right when they were needed most.

Diablo >>>>>>>> GW!

eh, long since they added heroes, and certain builds showed up, it became quite easy to plow through nearly all of GW without any other human players--it was often easier, actually, as healer heroes tend to be much better/quicker/efficient.

there were only a few missions where you needed some human players, but that was for strategy purposes. Henchman/hero healers were almost always superior, though.

Sabway FTMFW!

 

[zinfamous]

GW and Diablo are nothing alike whatsoever. Guildwars was never about the loot, while Diablo was entirely about the loot.

sorry, GW is completely about the loot. there is nothing to do but get loot. No one gives a flip about finishing the game.

all of the special weekends are about increasing drop rates for certain items, or extra points that lead to trade in for better loot.

The whole reason you play through areas is to open up more loot potential. get a particular class to certain area b/c they are better at farming than others.

 

[zinfamous]

Any game can be said to have MMO aspects because they are actually RPG aspects, not MMO aspects. There is one unifying quality to MMO's, they are massively multiplayer in a single world shard. GW doesn't do this, all gameplay is restricted to like 8 or 16 players? There are FPS games that support 10x that, and they aren't considered MMO's either. Games that are entirely instanced are not MMO's.

GW is not entirely instanced, either--just the exploration parts (yes, that's really what matters, though).

does official MMO designation really require one to have unlimited party size?

though, I guess you don't have to make parties, b/c people just show up, right?

 

[zinfamous]

TBH GW2 is sounding a lot more like a traditional MMO than GW1. Level cap 80, sidekick system like City of Heroes, no alternate classes.

yeah, GW2 is supposed to do away with instancing completely.

 

[zerocool84]

eh, long since they added heroes, and certain builds showed up, it became quite easy to plow through nearly all of GW without any other human players--it was often easier, actually, as healer heroes tend to be much better/quicker/efficient.

there were only a few missions where you needed some human players, but that was for strategy purposes. Henchman/hero healers were almost always superior, though.

Sabway FTMFW!

I did 90% of the game with the heroes. I wasn't in a guild and didn't know anyone else that played it but the heroes made it easy for me to play it solo.

 

[tedrodai]

Well that's what happened with Dragon Age: Origins, so there's precedent for this kind of thing happening. If it was just up to the people who ran the BioWare division of EA then I don't think they would've delayed the release of the PC version. I don't think the guys at Blizzard would want to wait either, but ultimately it's up to the bosses at Activision. They could easily believe, like the people at EA apparently did, that a PC release would be so widely pirated by the time the console versions are released that they'd make a lot more money with simultaneous release.

I don't think it's hugely likely in this case, but I think it's the most likely reason why the PC release of Diablo 3 wouldn't get released this year.

It's always possible for the bosses to screw up in that manner, but as even you mentioned, it's not hugely likely in this case. More likely: they take longer to test, QA, make changes, etc than what would allow a 2011 release. I'd love to see it this year, but won't be holding my breath. They'll give us an official release date when they give us an official release date.

 

[Ross Ridge]

It's always possible for the bosses to screw up in that manner, but as even you mentioned, it's not hugely likely in this case. More likely: they take longer to test, QA, make changes, etc than what would allow a 2011 release.

If the game is "technically finished" now, then unless testing reveals the game is fundamentally flawed and needs a major redesign/rewrite, it's not going to delay the game until next year. Final testing takes time, but if it takes a year something is seriously wrong. It's morely likely to get delayed for release scheduling reasons, but even that's very unlikely.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Don't hold your breath. Large software projects, especially those from Blizzard, are notorious for taking a long time after "development complete" to actually ship. There is bug fixing, integration testing, balance testing, manufacturing testing, alpha, beta, RC testing, etc. I suspect any dev builds are in a pre-alpha stage, which means the game is at least a year out.

Once beta finalizes, they have a trend of releasing the game within <6 months ... typically.

I am guessing a Q1 2012 though.

I'd love to see it Q4, before Christmas surge.