Blizzard Entertainment revealed today that it has pushed the release of its highly anticipated RPG Diablo III back, and will now release the game in early 2012.
The company noted that, while it has "a sterling record of always hitting its release targets," it was necessary to prolong the time until launch as a means of making sure the title is fully ready.
It will use the additional months to extend the closed beta, which began earlier this week, noting that more testers will be added than was originally projected.
Additional testing phases are also planned between now and the launch next year.
Mike Morhaime, CEO and co-founder of Blizzard, stated, "With every game we make, the temptation is always very strong to launch as soon as possible."
"However, we didn't put so many years of work into Diablo III to release a game that was almost ready. The beta test is going very well, and we look forward to making the most of the extra time we're taking to deliver an experience that lives up to our vision for the game and the expectations of our players."
Although Blizzard noted that it was pushing the release back, a 2011 release date was never actually confirmed at any point. Rather, the FAQs section on the Diablo III website notes, "It's too early to estimate Diablo III's release date. As with all Blizzard Entertainment games, our goal is to create a game that is as fun, balanced, and polished as possible."
Blizzard announced earlier this year that the auction house for Diablo III will be driven by real money, and that the game will require a persistent internet connection.
Even though no company will ever admit this, I wonder if this has something to do with the other games in that window. Namely, I do suspect some game delays have to do with Skyrim. I may be a bit biased, but I would say that TES games do tend to not only sell a ton, but also soak up a lot of people's time and attention for a while. Mass Effect 3 was supposed to release around the same window, but I don't think it was a coincidence that it moved as well. Though, ironicallly, a lot of titles moving means that the first quarter of next year is also looking to be stacked :)
Persoanlly I am way more excited about Skyrim than D3. Bring on more TES for me. I am so glad that they did not do that heavily rumored TES MMO. I would like a Co-Op TES game where more than one person could play together, but not an MMO. Single player or Co-Op only for TES please.
I doubt Diablo 3 was delayed for sales reasons - judging by past sales, I'm sure it will sell more than any of the other RPGs that everyone's mentioning. I'm sure they just wanted to put an extra layer of polish on the game before launch.
I'm less sure. Blizzard didn't get filthy rich by not watching their pennies. If their bean-counters crunched numbers and decided that they would make more money releasing pre-christmas, they would be releasing pre-christmas. They know people will buy it regardless of how much they polish it, it's going to sell very well in either case, so spending a few more months specifically on polish isn't necessarily a great business move in this specific situation
I don't imagine they were looking forward to competing directly with Skyrim and Torchlight 2(which is shaping up to be a cheaper direct competitior. I for one would anecdotally choose TL2 over Diablo 3, given the choice of two very similar games).
I guess it's a chicken or egg thing; are they delaying the game to polish it more, or are they polishing it more because they're delaying the game?
I think that's the silliest notion I've heard in ages. Blizzard gets their games down when they are done. If you think they'd rush out a game for Christmas just to make a date you're confused. Their games will sell in any window. A small handful of developers are allowed to only release a game when its done, meaning that the publisher recognizes that rushing an unpolished game tarnishes your brand. Blizzard is in such a state.
Torchlight 2 is an anticipated derivative work, but what you're suggesting makes no sense. Does Madden 2012 worry about Backbreaker? Does Call of Duty worry about Men of War: Vietnam? You may like Torchlight, and I do too, but trying to compare Torchlight to Diablo in sales or to suggest that Activision Blizard even considers Torchlight 2 as an impact is ridiculous. Its so ridiculous it makes me assume you don't know the games industry at all.
And Skyrim competing against Diablo is like saying that Gears of War and Halo compete with each other on Xbox. Its beneficial to not have them come out at the same time, but they are their enentities. Also, Diablo and Skyrim are not exact crossovers. Each will sell well for different reasons. Diablo is the quintessential top down multiplayer action RPG while The Elder Scrolls titles have become the essence of a 3D simulation RPG. Very different beasts.
a) You are assuming an infinite amount of money distributed within the games market, by suggesting that a game like Skyrim doesn't compete with a game like Diablo 3.
It doesn't matter if they are different genres(and they're only superficially different, but I'll get to that), gamers only spend a certain amount of money on games in a month. It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that if you release your game in a month where there are zero other game releases, your sales will be better than if you release your game in a month with two dozen game releases. Why? Because people will pick and choose what they want to spend their money on. If a gamer has enough money for one game, they will buy one game.
b) Diablo 3 and Skyrim will have a significant market overlap. They are both fantasy RPGs. Despite the fact that they have different presentations, doesn't mean that people who play games like Diablo 3 don't play games like Skyrim, and vice versa.
And since we're including ad homonym in our comments now: the fact that you don't get this, suggests to me that you don't know the game industry at all.
You assume that big developers just ignore the market as if they are too big to possibly be impacted by anything. But like I said, they got big by counting their pennies and making good business decisions. Not just making good games. WHEN a game is released is ALWAYS crucial. For smaller developers it can mean the difference between success and failure. For big developers it can mean the difference between 100 million dollars and 105 million dollars, and if you don't think they eye that 5 million dollars like hawks, you're incredibly naive.
Blizzard hasn't released a new IP in thirteen years. In fact, apart from the Holy Trinity of Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo, they only have released three other IPs in their full seventeen years of making games. Six IPs. Two of which did not belong to them.
They are the epitome of 'safe' game development, milking successful IPs for all they're worth(admittedly they're better at this than most), and never taking risks.
I'm not certain why you would think it's a stretch to assume that their business practices are any different. Yes, being very successful does afford you the ability to make business decisions that other companies can't, such as taking a very long time to develop a game (like Valve does, and Blizzard to some extent), and yes, choosing when to release.
But they are making their decisions differently. As a big brand with an established playerbase they don't need to release in the holiday season to get good sales. Many other games release in the holiday season to latch onto the rush. On average game sales spike leading up to christmas, and for less established companies it's a good time to attempt to ride that wave of sales. For more established companies it's largely unnecessary. If they decide they will sell more copies two months later, more than enough to make up for the cost of delay, then they can do that. And considering the considerable investment cost, when it finally comes time to release, they are going to release under the best possible circumstances.
Blizzard has nothing or no one to fear other than themselves. This is completely a money decision because they know that if they release a game that is not "done," it will hurt their initial sales and impact their reputation poorly. Between the releases of Diablo 2 and 3 the Elder Scrolls series will have released 3 different games. Blizzard does not fear the competition. They are all about longevity. Their "bean counters" are more concerned that Blizzard delivers a game that lasts another 10 years.
I highly doubt that. People buy buggy games then go right back for more. I think this is just Blizzard, which seems to focus strongly on quality, which in my opinion is a good thing.
I'm just happy Activision had no say in the release date, or in any sort of breaking up of the Diablo 3 campaign into, say, three separate chapters. I have no idea if Activision influenced the decision for SC2, but I do know that I'm all for letting Blizzard spend more time on products they have a reputation for doing very, very well.
I don't imagine they were looking forward to competing directly with Skyrim and Torchlight 2(which is shaping up to be a cheaper direct competitior. I for one would anecdotally choose TL2 over Diablo 3, given the choice of two very similar games).
I guess it's a chicken or egg thing; are they delaying the game to polish it more, or are they polishing it more because they're delaying the game?
I think that's the silliest notion I've heard in ages. Blizzard gets their games down when they are done. If you think they'd rush out a game for Christmas just to make a date you're confused. Their games will sell in any window. A small handful of developers are allowed to only release a game when its done, meaning that the publisher recognizes that rushing an unpolished game tarnishes your brand. Blizzard is in such a state.
Torchlight 2 is an anticipated derivative work, but what you're suggesting makes no sense. Does Madden 2012 worry about Backbreaker? Does Call of Duty worry about Men of War: Vietnam? You may like Torchlight, and I do too, but trying to compare Torchlight to Diablo in sales or to suggest that Activision Blizard even considers Torchlight 2 as an impact is ridiculous. Its so ridiculous it makes me assume you don't know the games industry at all.
And Skyrim competing against Diablo is like saying that Gears of War and Halo compete with each other on Xbox. Its beneficial to not have them come out at the same time, but they are their enentities. Also, Diablo and Skyrim are not exact crossovers. Each will sell well for different reasons. Diablo is the quintessential top down multiplayer action RPG while The Elder Scrolls titles have become the essence of a 3D simulation RPG. Very different beasts.
It doesn't matter if they are different genres(and they're only superficially different, but I'll get to that), gamers only spend a certain amount of money on games in a month. It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that if you release your game in a month where there are zero other game releases, your sales will be better than if you release your game in a month with two dozen game releases. Why? Because people will pick and choose what they want to spend their money on. If a gamer has enough money for one game, they will buy one game.
b) Diablo 3 and Skyrim will have a significant market overlap. They are both fantasy RPGs. Despite the fact that they have different presentations, doesn't mean that people who play games like Diablo 3 don't play games like Skyrim, and vice versa.
And since we're including ad homonym in our comments now: the fact that you don't get this, suggests to me that you don't know the game industry at all.
You assume that big developers just ignore the market as if they are too big to possibly be impacted by anything. But like I said, they got big by counting their pennies and making good business decisions. Not just making good games. WHEN a game is released is ALWAYS crucial. For smaller developers it can mean the difference between success and failure. For big developers it can mean the difference between 100 million dollars and 105 million dollars, and if you don't think they eye that 5 million dollars like hawks, you're incredibly naive.
They are the epitome of 'safe' game development, milking successful IPs for all they're worth(admittedly they're better at this than most), and never taking risks.
I'm not certain why you would think it's a stretch to assume that their business practices are any different. Yes, being very successful does afford you the ability to make business decisions that other companies can't, such as taking a very long time to develop a game (like Valve does, and Blizzard to some extent), and yes, choosing when to release.
But they are making their decisions differently. As a big brand with an established playerbase they don't need to release in the holiday season to get good sales. Many other games release in the holiday season to latch onto the rush. On average game sales spike leading up to christmas, and for less established companies it's a good time to attempt to ride that wave of sales. For more established companies it's largely unnecessary. If they decide they will sell more copies two months later, more than enough to make up for the cost of delay, then they can do that. And considering the considerable investment cost, when it finally comes time to release, they are going to release under the best possible circumstances.
Most other developers don't have that option.
Really? That one made me chuckle.