5 ms·

The long tail on this game is absolutely amazing and should be an example to others.

treme 3y ago
good ol' days when Blizzard wasn't a public company that needed a way to generate on going revenue via some sort of game pass system.
cortesoft 3y ago
> should be an example to others. I am curious to know what sort of example it should be, and to whom. Video game developers and publishers will look at this as an example of leaving money on the table, since people continue to enjoy the game without having to pay them any more money. Yes, the tail is long, but it doesn't end up with more money for the game company so they will see it as waste.
- EchoChamberMan 3y ago
  They've sold it continuously over the last 20+ years, and continue to do so. I bought a copy this past year to try out Project Diablo 2[A], my second or third purchase of it, personally. They remastered it and sold that too, while selling D2, side by side. I also bought that to play with a friend. Quality sells. It should be an example to all companies that a game made with passion can produce money for a long time. Diablo 2 was also one of the games that launched Blizzard into the stratosphere of popularity (which can be turned into wealth directly and indirectly). Awards. Prestige. The obsession with cash is out of control. It might actually be a fat tail, if that's a thing, given how long it's been selling.[B] In fact, blizzard has probably made more money on me from D2, than D3, which I bought once, and I have not purchased D4 for a number of reasons. [A] https://www.projectdiablo2.com/ https://www.projectdiablo2.com/ - a lot of fun [B] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II#Sales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II#Sales [Edit] Wait, what exactly is a waste? Not charging a rent? aka a subscription?
  - sharken 3y ago
    Diablo 2 is very hard compared to Diablo III, which I find is a major selling point. I think the waste in D4 is that there is very little replay value, only the long grind or Seasons. But starting over and over has very little appeal, so that leaves only one option: New content released regularly. Which sadly is not planned for D4.
    - geraldhh 3y ago
      vanilla d3 was very hard, lod made me play hc exclusively
    - 123yawaworht456 3y ago
      diablo III difficulty is adjustable. you can make it as hard as you like during leveling and at the endgame. I played diablo 2 a lot when I was a kid, and really, the only hard parts were bullshit mechanics like damage immunities and iron maiden. it also had no real endgame, only mindless baalruns. ubers were only doable by a few paladin builds (with reasonable gear/effort).
      - generic92034 3y ago
        The endgame was your next character (playing hardcore to spice it up). :) I still prefer that design to pretty much everything aRPG developers have come up with as endgame in the meantime.
- prepend 3y ago
  They’ve sold millions of copies at $50 a pop. You could say they left money on the table. You could also say they’ve profited tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. And most games fail to realize this while maximizing revenue.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  When a company has a mission statement, that mission statement's core purpose is to define when you leave money on the table. It defines how you plan to achieve long term success, otherwise every single company would have one mission statement: "Increase shareholder value by maximizing next quarters profits" or "extract as much revenue from customers as possible, while minimizing investment into that extraction." Here is blizzards: We create the most epic interactive gaming and entertainment experiences on earth immersing players in new, unimagined worlds. Our products help build community and create social platforms that bring people together. Blizzard did that for years. Blizzard was an unstoppable gaming behemoth. WoW was culturally significant. Starcraft birthed, or at least popularized eSports. MOBA's came first from starcraft's "use map settings" maps, and later more directly from Warcraft 3's. Diablo 2 is still considered a better game than any of it's sequels. It's quite hard to understate just how influential blizzard was to the gaming industry. When blizzard was "leaving money on the table," they were arguably the leading game developer in the world. Lots of kids grew up dreaming about working for blizzard. I would bet money a large number of current day game devs were inspired by blizzards offerings. How many gaming companies have their own conventions? Blizzard wasn't a company that just made money. They altered the industry. They defined the industry, and they did it by "leaving money on the table." They made fun games first, and money second. Now they make money first and games second, and it shows.
  - WaxProlix 3y ago
    Okay, I agree, and they left a lot of money on the table. Any modern gaming company (well, publisher) with reach would see that fact towards the forefront of all Blizzard facts.
    - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
      How exactly did they leave money on the table? What more could they have done?
      - sdenton4 3y ago
        Paid loot boxes, obviously. /s
- michaelbrave 3y ago
  if you have long term fans that really love what you make I think making most of your money with merch is an area worth exploring. Most bands make their money that way, it's what made Star Wars rich, it's where most of the pokemon money comes from too. I don't think a game has to make money just from the game itself.
- lawn 3y ago
  I'd say that they do still make money of the game. The reason both Diablo 3 and Diablo 4 has sold well is because of the legacy of Diablo 2. Developing a great game is a surefire way of gaining a dedicated fanbase, which will carry your company a long time. (A shame that Blizzard is pissing away all that goodwill though.)
- hoseja 3y ago
  AoE2 seems to be finding ways to monetize the long tail in a good way. If whatever monstrosity is left of Blizzard had any positive intentions at all, they could release non-malicious remasters and expansions as well.
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    Well, now they're the "same" company.
- Unfrozen0688 3y ago
  hahah what a fucking outlook. Grim. Just grim. What about the profits on a game from 2002 that sold millions that the developer could still milk!!??? Are you an MBA? I guess you got into tech for the money and not the love. To your point I have bought the Diablo 2 Remaster but not yet played it :)
  - cortesoft 3y ago
    I think you are misreading my comment as something I believe. It isn’t, I just have been around long enough to know how companies think.
    - Unfrozen0688 3y ago
      Back then it wasn't as a big a market as it is today full of shit games
- hooby 3y ago
  > Video game developers and publishers will look at this as an example of leaving money on the table, since people continue to enjoy the game without having to pay them any more money. Yes, the tail is long, but it doesn't end up with more money for the game company so they will see it as waste. I understand where you are coming from - but it's not entirely true, that there's no additional money in it. Blizzard had built a very strong reputation of making games all of which have this long life and thus are are always guaranteed to be worth buying straight at launch. Who knows how many of Diablo IIs lifetime sales can be attributed to that, but it sure had some influence. And D2 again delivering on that Blizzard promise only strengthened that reputation - which again translated into a positive effect on sales on subsequent Blizzard releases. Resurrected is another title that most obviously and directly benefited from the longevity of D2. The way D2 was designed surely did translate into sales of Ressurected. But D2's longevity also contributed a LOT to the popularity of the franchise overall - which in turn surely had some influence on the sales of D3 and D4. Then there's also the battle chest, which didn't sell badly to my knowledge - and don't even get me started on all the various Diablo Merchandise you can get. I'm pretty sure that made them a little bit of money as well. It's not just the long tail of sales on the game itself - there's also a lot of additional, compounding long-term benefits. Publishers often disregard those benefits, because they aren't able to reliable measure those effects and put a number on it. And they generally often value short-time profit gains over nurturing a long-time fanbase. And all off that of course leads down the path of yearly sequels that barely improve anything over last years game, but are still soooo expensive to make, that publishers need to sell loot boxes and battle passes and microtransactions and dlcs, just to make even - and then cutting short the long tail with next years' release. Rince and repeat until people get fatigued and the cash-cow is milked dry... Maybe, just maybe, churning out a few less titles that each have a longer tail of sales and steadly grow a loyal fanbase and increase the sales-appeal of the franchise as a whole, is not that bad of a long-term strategy after all. Maybe this could serve as an example after all...
- cityofdelusion 3y ago
  It’s not well known but the original pitch deck for Diablo included loot boxes in the form of buyable CDs that would have random items on it, like booster packs for card games.
yazzku 3y ago
Or maybe the "others" simply don't exist because D2 was already the peak of the genre, and it's got a long tail as proof.
shagie 3y ago
In my stumbling around YouTube in the past week, I found "The Next Major RTS Will Fail. This Is Why" - https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc The publishers have listened to their hard core players - and created games for them. Is Diablo III for the people doing seasons? or the people who play through the campaign in solo mode? With modern games, this in turn means that the casual to competitive conversion rate is low (because of the lack of solo content to hook the casual players) and publishers look to milk more from the competitive players by making the game even less accessible. The games are being developed as multiplayer first today... and that in turn means that the solo modes that the casual games aren't there. Honestly, if MMO is one of the first things listed on a game, and solo content is lacking - that gets a "nope" or "meh" from me on Steam. Meanwhile, some fun old games I still pull up from time to time to play.
ycombinete 3y ago
It was the example for the makers of Path of Exile. I share Chris Wilson’s talk (Designing Path of Exile to Be Played Forever) here frequently! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmuy9fyNUjY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmuy9fyNUjY
ReptileMan 3y ago
Also heroes 3
- stavros 3y ago
  HoMM3 is one of my favorite games, and I also enjoy its modern reimagining, Songs of Conquest. You might like it too.
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    I was recently looking into it, sadly the community all seems to be on platforms like Discord and Reddit, which is a dealbreaker.
    - stavros 3y ago
      Is there a HoMM3 community? Where is it?
      - BlueTemplar 3y ago
        I was talking about SoC. For HoMM3 there used to be several, this one still seems to be active : http://heroescommunity.com/ http://heroescommunity.com/
        stavros 3y ago
        > I was talking about SoC. I know, but you'd only consider the lack of an open community a dealbreaker if you were already part of one such community for HoMM, so I was curious. Thanks for the link!

good ol' days when Blizzard wasn't a public company that needed a way to generate on going revenue via some sort of game pass system.

cortesoft 3y ago

> should be an example to others. I am curious to know what sort of example it should be, and to whom. Video game developers and publishers will look at this as an example of leaving money on the table, since people continue to enjoy the game without having to pay them any more money. Yes, the tail is long, but it doesn't end up with more money for the game company so they will see it as waste.

EchoChamberMan 3y ago
They've sold it continuously over the last 20+ years, and continue to do so. I bought a copy this past year to try out Project Diablo 2[A], my second or third purchase of it, personally. They remastered it and sold that too, while selling D2, side by side. I also bought that to play with a friend. Quality sells. It should be an example to all companies that a game made with passion can produce money for a long time. Diablo 2 was also one of the games that launched Blizzard into the stratosphere of popularity (which can be turned into wealth directly and indirectly). Awards. Prestige. The obsession with cash is out of control. It might actually be a fat tail, if that's a thing, given how long it's been selling.[B] In fact, blizzard has probably made more money on me from D2, than D3, which I bought once, and I have not purchased D4 for a number of reasons. [A] https://www.projectdiablo2.com/ https://www.projectdiablo2.com/ - a lot of fun [B] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II#Sales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II#Sales [Edit] Wait, what exactly is a waste? Not charging a rent? aka a subscription?
- sharken 3y ago
  Diablo 2 is very hard compared to Diablo III, which I find is a major selling point. I think the waste in D4 is that there is very little replay value, only the long grind or Seasons. But starting over and over has very little appeal, so that leaves only one option: New content released regularly. Which sadly is not planned for D4.
  - geraldhh 3y ago
    vanilla d3 was very hard, lod made me play hc exclusively
  - 123yawaworht456 3y ago
    diablo III difficulty is adjustable. you can make it as hard as you like during leveling and at the endgame. I played diablo 2 a lot when I was a kid, and really, the only hard parts were bullshit mechanics like damage immunities and iron maiden. it also had no real endgame, only mindless baalruns. ubers were only doable by a few paladin builds (with reasonable gear/effort).
    - generic92034 3y ago
      The endgame was your next character (playing hardcore to spice it up). :) I still prefer that design to pretty much everything aRPG developers have come up with as endgame in the meantime.
prepend 3y ago
They’ve sold millions of copies at $50 a pop. You could say they left money on the table. You could also say they’ve profited tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. And most games fail to realize this while maximizing revenue.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hayst4ck 3y ago
When a company has a mission statement, that mission statement's core purpose is to define when you leave money on the table. It defines how you plan to achieve long term success, otherwise every single company would have one mission statement: "Increase shareholder value by maximizing next quarters profits" or "extract as much revenue from customers as possible, while minimizing investment into that extraction." Here is blizzards: We create the most epic interactive gaming and entertainment experiences on earth immersing players in new, unimagined worlds. Our products help build community and create social platforms that bring people together. Blizzard did that for years. Blizzard was an unstoppable gaming behemoth. WoW was culturally significant. Starcraft birthed, or at least popularized eSports. MOBA's came first from starcraft's "use map settings" maps, and later more directly from Warcraft 3's. Diablo 2 is still considered a better game than any of it's sequels. It's quite hard to understate just how influential blizzard was to the gaming industry. When blizzard was "leaving money on the table," they were arguably the leading game developer in the world. Lots of kids grew up dreaming about working for blizzard. I would bet money a large number of current day game devs were inspired by blizzards offerings. How many gaming companies have their own conventions? Blizzard wasn't a company that just made money. They altered the industry. They defined the industry, and they did it by "leaving money on the table." They made fun games first, and money second. Now they make money first and games second, and it shows.
- WaxProlix 3y ago
  Okay, I agree, and they left a lot of money on the table. Any modern gaming company (well, publisher) with reach would see that fact towards the forefront of all Blizzard facts.
  - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
    How exactly did they leave money on the table? What more could they have done?
    - sdenton4 3y ago
      Paid loot boxes, obviously. /s
michaelbrave 3y ago
if you have long term fans that really love what you make I think making most of your money with merch is an area worth exploring. Most bands make their money that way, it's what made Star Wars rich, it's where most of the pokemon money comes from too. I don't think a game has to make money just from the game itself.
lawn 3y ago
I'd say that they do still make money of the game. The reason both Diablo 3 and Diablo 4 has sold well is because of the legacy of Diablo 2. Developing a great game is a surefire way of gaining a dedicated fanbase, which will carry your company a long time. (A shame that Blizzard is pissing away all that goodwill though.)
hoseja 3y ago
AoE2 seems to be finding ways to monetize the long tail in a good way. If whatever monstrosity is left of Blizzard had any positive intentions at all, they could release non-malicious remasters and expansions as well.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  Well, now they're the "same" company.
Unfrozen0688 3y ago
hahah what a fucking outlook. Grim. Just grim. What about the profits on a game from 2002 that sold millions that the developer could still milk!!??? Are you an MBA? I guess you got into tech for the money and not the love. To your point I have bought the Diablo 2 Remaster but not yet played it :)
- cortesoft 3y ago
  I think you are misreading my comment as something I believe. It isn’t, I just have been around long enough to know how companies think.
  - Unfrozen0688 3y ago
    Back then it wasn't as a big a market as it is today full of shit games
hooby 3y ago
> Video game developers and publishers will look at this as an example of leaving money on the table, since people continue to enjoy the game without having to pay them any more money. Yes, the tail is long, but it doesn't end up with more money for the game company so they will see it as waste. I understand where you are coming from - but it's not entirely true, that there's no additional money in it. Blizzard had built a very strong reputation of making games all of which have this long life and thus are are always guaranteed to be worth buying straight at launch. Who knows how many of Diablo IIs lifetime sales can be attributed to that, but it sure had some influence. And D2 again delivering on that Blizzard promise only strengthened that reputation - which again translated into a positive effect on sales on subsequent Blizzard releases. Resurrected is another title that most obviously and directly benefited from the longevity of D2. The way D2 was designed surely did translate into sales of Ressurected. But D2's longevity also contributed a LOT to the popularity of the franchise overall - which in turn surely had some influence on the sales of D3 and D4. Then there's also the battle chest, which didn't sell badly to my knowledge - and don't even get me started on all the various Diablo Merchandise you can get. I'm pretty sure that made them a little bit of money as well. It's not just the long tail of sales on the game itself - there's also a lot of additional, compounding long-term benefits. Publishers often disregard those benefits, because they aren't able to reliable measure those effects and put a number on it. And they generally often value short-time profit gains over nurturing a long-time fanbase. And all off that of course leads down the path of yearly sequels that barely improve anything over last years game, but are still soooo expensive to make, that publishers need to sell loot boxes and battle passes and microtransactions and dlcs, just to make even - and then cutting short the long tail with next years' release. Rince and repeat until people get fatigued and the cash-cow is milked dry... Maybe, just maybe, churning out a few less titles that each have a longer tail of sales and steadly grow a loyal fanbase and increase the sales-appeal of the franchise as a whole, is not that bad of a long-term strategy after all. Maybe this could serve as an example after all...
cityofdelusion 3y ago
It’s not well known but the original pitch deck for Diablo included loot boxes in the form of buyable CDs that would have random items on it, like booster packs for card games.

yazzku 3y ago

Or maybe the "others" simply don't exist because D2 was already the peak of the genre, and it's got a long tail as proof.

shagie 3y ago

In my stumbling around YouTube in the past week, I found "The Next Major RTS Will Fail. This Is Why" - https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc The publishers have listened to their hard core players - and created games for them. Is Diablo III for the people doing seasons? or the people who play through the campaign in solo mode? With modern games, this in turn means that the casual to competitive conversion rate is low (because of the lack of solo content to hook the casual players) and publishers look to milk more from the competitive players by making the game even less accessible. The games are being developed as multiplayer first today... and that in turn means that the solo modes that the casual games aren't there. Honestly, if MMO is one of the first things listed on a game, and solo content is lacking - that gets a "nope" or "meh" from me on Steam. Meanwhile, some fun old games I still pull up from time to time to play.

ycombinete 3y ago

It was the example for the makers of Path of Exile. I share Chris Wilson’s talk (Designing Path of Exile to Be Played Forever) here frequently! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmuy9fyNUjY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmuy9fyNUjY

ReptileMan 3y ago

Also heroes 3

stavros 3y ago
HoMM3 is one of my favorite games, and I also enjoy its modern reimagining, Songs of Conquest. You might like it too.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  I was recently looking into it, sadly the community all seems to be on platforms like Discord and Reddit, which is a dealbreaker.
  - stavros 3y ago
    Is there a HoMM3 community? Where is it?
    - BlueTemplar 3y ago
      I was talking about SoC. For HoMM3 there used to be several, this one still seems to be active : http://heroescommunity.com/ http://heroescommunity.com/
      - stavros 3y ago
        > I was talking about SoC. I know, but you'd only consider the lack of an open community a dealbreaker if you were already part of one such community for HoMM, so I was curious. Thanks for the link!