3 ms·
I still don't understand why they didn't go with either Diablo or Diablo 2. Much easier to make compatible with modern settings, much easier for new and casual
by seattle_spring 8y ago
I still don't understand why they didn't go with either Diablo or Diablo 2. Much easier to make compatible with modern settings, much easier for new and casual players to get into, much easier to maintain, and arguably more people hungry to play it online over legacy WoW players.
- charlesdm 8y agoAnd likely much less profitable as well
- wmil 8y ago> Much easier to make compatible with modern settings, much easier for new and casual players to get into, much easier to maintain, I'm not sure that's true. Implementing classic wow in the modern client sounds like a straightforward data migration that will have some hiccups. The Diablo 2 code is probably a visual studio 5 project built in direct x 5, they'd have to port all that to something modern. Their server code would need to support their current login system, and is probably not even going to build on a current is without changes. On top of that Diablo 2 players aren't expecting a monthly charge. I don't think the money is there.
- swebs 8y agoI think "THE BLIZZARD RANT" explains it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzT8UzO1zGQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzT8UzO1zGQ
- Rebelgecko 8y agoDiablo 1 and 2 are still playable online today, so those who really want to play them already are. D1 and D2 are also harder to monetize than WoW, where there's the expectation of paying a monthly subscription instead of making a one-time purchase