Wich is the opposite to have 2x realms to give support/maintenance
Having two realms would increase both development and maintenance cost. The question is the magnitude of those costs versus gain in sales. You will see I use the term “net profit”.
Hypothetically speaking: let’s say the additional early on costs over the first two years of D2R is $500,000 and leads to 50,000 more sales @ $40. Blizzard would recoup their costs and then some. These numbers are simply for illustration purposes.
Also, Blizzard’s operating margin hovers around 30%. Remasters are less costly to make than new games that take far more time and resources to develop.
2 Likes
It would be a great idea. I’d rather play PD2 than a graphical update with SAME exact stale vanilla piece. Which is what this may turn into if Blizzard doesn’t make gameplay changes soon.
It would appease both parties for sure.
I just can’t wait to play the thing, I need D2R like I need water.
3 Likes
At this point, I’d be perfectly fine with two different realms. I want more changes and some people just want to play the same exact game.
5 Likes
Really, it would depend on how much is changed. A balance pass is not enough of a change to mandate a separate realm. Adding something like a charm inventory or rune/gem stacking in stash is not enough of a change to warrant a separate realm, even when combined with a balance pass. Adding personal loot option in coexistence pending the amount of loot stays the same, is not enough of a change to need a separate realm. Added world events such as a new uber questline…well, you get the point.
Now, if they were to do a massive gameplay change, like reduce the experience curve and add paragon levels, rifts, etc to the game, then yes, that might warrant a separate realm. I would even say adding dueling arenas or guildhalls (a common wanted change among pvpers) would be enough of a change to warrant another realm. Even D3 didn’t have a separate realm when loot system was changed and paragon levels were added.
Would I support if asked by Blizzard, sure. But I do not believe it to be necessary. Key rebinds and controllers are pretty big gameplay changes, yet they will be in the launch of the game. With D2 having offline single player, it should be possible to always play the launch version of the game for those that want to play the most vanilla version.
1 Like
Oh this forum is so bad I can’t even believe it.
Congratulations to all people like MicroRNA and Vechain who have lots of time on their hands but use it poorly. Type type type irrelevant things that will lead nowhere.
I will try to simplify so you guys understand.
D2R is REMASTER, not a REMAKE.
That was Blizzards choice, and the way they believe they will make the most money.
was that simple enough?
Thanks, now stop with the narcissistic posts.
(mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance)
1 Like
Disagree - I think those optional changes would totally warrant a new realm. Theyd seriously change the feel of the original realm if they were added as options. Add in balance changes and there’s more than enough for a parallel Diabloverse imo.
I really don’t care it seems to just be a select group that puts up a big stink about change…
1 Like
That really depends on what you mean with “more changes”.
More optional QoL changes and maybe very minor skill balance changes are fine by me.
Loot filter, Rune/Gem/Key stacking, ilvl/mlvl toggle, even larger shared stash and some other stuff like that would be really nice for the people who want to use it, while not really affecting anyone else.
Anything that goes beyond that is too much imo and should be left to the modding scene.
Private Loot, new skills, changed items, increased droprates, new heroes/areas etc. have a huge potential to change so much that it doesn’t feel like D2 anymore - which would ultimately be a dealbreaker for a lot of people.
The 100% purist approach probably isn’t for me either, so I’d rather prefer them to find a good middle ground.
Ok. Add balance pass separate realm. Hmm…Gem stacking in stash, throw in another separate realm because if we had to preserve basic changes from entering into launch realm, we can’t have any changes polluting the previous changed realm, etc. Yeah, I know, sounds silly. Games that are played online get patched, hell almost any game gets patched these days for some reason or another. If D2R gets any patches post launch, I highly doubt that they will be separate realms. You just don’t do that unless you add by expansion. Even adding Necromancer DLC to D3 did not add a new realm, and they added A NEW CLASS.
All signs point to no major changes besides accessibility and qol, but all media interviews show a willingness to add more if players want. This feedback from players won’t just be current D2 players, but the new players to the game as well. This recent scandal could possibly change that willingness, especially if dev teams are moved around to cover gaps though.
1 Like
This is my sense. We will see what happens. I suspect that Blizzard will be more cognizant and responsive to internal criticisms and player feedback in terms of inclusivity and accessibility moving forward.
1 Like
I was actually meaning more in terms of continued support of the game post launch. Seen on reddit a bit ago, that the image of the 2013 blizzcon “Cosby Room” is under debate, and in the picture is the current D4 lead and Josh Moquira (who posted a response on another page) of D3 RoS fame. We know VV started helping the D4 team this year, which could lead to more of VV devs posted to it if something happens.
1 Like
option and choice are always the welcome
2 Likes
Definitely.
Thats the best of both worlds and actually the only way to not disappoint a huge part of the community - which would happen if you either do no changes OR changes.
4 Likes
No. Get over it. 1:1 remaster. Grow up. Move on. It’s time.
1 Like
This is the way it already is, in other words “Battle.net” and “mod servers”.
See this post, to see why mods that inject will not be allowed for D2R.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/separate-strict-remaster-and-modern-realms-in-d2r/37509/28
2 Likes
If you’re criticizing a suggestion to add new realms for every single optional deep change, then I’m with you - only one new realm would be needed. Not one for every deep change. I’m not sure I understand what you were trying to say, though.
Why would anyone think to add a new realm for a new class like the necromancer in D3? Nothing about the deep gameplay rules are being changed by adding a new class. The entire reason for a new realm would be to keep the community playing by the same deep gameplay rules - ie ffa/p-loot, charm invs, stackables, or loot filters. Can’t debate those details here though, I’ve done it too much… and it seems the people who want those optional deep changes wouldn’t really care about more, so I don’t think there’d be any reason to keep adding new realms for each change. Just one as VV has announced it, and one other for optional deep changes like the ones I listed.
I agree it’s unlikely Blizz would add a new realm for those, but I think it’d be faaar better than including those deep changes as options within one community - multiplayer D2 won’t feel the same if a huge number of people are plooting. Different realm, no problem. That’s my whole argument, agree or disagree, but it’s fairly simple. All about preserving the essential feel of multiplayer D2. Be well man.
In D3, even if you don’t own the Necro dlc, you still get items for it in your loot pool, thus affecting the loot core. I did admit the whole sarcasm sounded silly, but Blizzard will not do a separate realm for patch changes. Nothing in Diablo history points to such a measure. If they add new content or balance changes, it will stay on the same realm unless it is an actual expansion and not just dlc. They will then have still fulfilled the promise of preservation as long as you can play launch version on single player as you can now.