Blood, Sweat, and Pixels, Chapter 4: Diablo III

Ah, Blizzard, how tumultuous your story is. It seems that for every major success of the now infamous gaming giant, there’s a problem hot on its tail. Indeed, chapter 4 of Blood, Sweat, and Pixels covers one of Blizzard’s rockier game stories: the release of Diablo III.

To call the release version of Diablo III a disaster would be an understatement. At launch, the game was faced with a full charcuterie board of problems: server issues that locked players out of the game, the lack of an offline mode or proper pausing, which, beyond requiring internet connection at all times, caused players to get booted out of stages and have their progress erased, among other annoyances. However, the biggest headache for the game by far was the Auction House. A new addition to the Diablo franchise, the Auction House was an in-game marketplace for the trading and purchasing of in-game items. Along with trading, the Auction House also featured a real money element, allowing players to directly purchase high-value loot. This microtransaction shortcut for loot acquisition, a direct purchase as opposed to engaging with the gameplay proper, was only exacerbated by extremely poor loot quality at launch. All of these factors combined made Diablo III a slog to play, and why suffer through the grind when the loot can be acquired directly with minimal effort? The Auction House shattered the gameplay loop (and in a way, the entire point) of Diablo. In a surprise twist for Blizzard, however, it didn’t take long for them to recognize the Auction House was doing more harm than good and greenlight changes, primarily overhauling the loot system and removing the Auction House entirely.

I’m of the opinion that this was a good decision on the part of Blizzard. It was clear that the game was struggling, and without a major overhaul, it would die sooner rather than later. The question of massive overhauls to a game’s mechanics is a tricky one, as altering the core function of a game is inherently a risk. It could alienate players and undo countless hours of progress, while changing the core identity of the title. However, it is often the case that a game would change for the better when said changes are made to a system that is fundamentally flawed. In the case of Diablo III, the Auction House system was exactly the kind of flawed system that necessitated a massive mechanical change. Its existence, left unchanged, would be more detrimental to the game’s long term health than the brief moment of upheaval that would result from the types of changes ultimately implemented into the game.

I must admit, though, I am heavily biased against in-game purchases, especially within a full price title and for items with mechanical significance. Purchasing cosmetic items in a free-to-play game is something I can generally accept. However, in the case of the Auction House, players could purchase actual usable loot, such as weapons. This completely destroys the intended gameplay loop and progression, and nullifies much of the game and what makes it fun. That fact only reinforced my opinion that the removal of the Auction House was a positive decision by Blizzard.

In any case, the entire Diablo III situation was disastrous from start to finish. The problem was eventually resolved, but for a smaller franchise, or a company any less massive than Activision-Blizzard, such a disastrous launch may very well have spelt doom before a resolution could be reached. The entire scenario serves to underpin the importance of proper QA testing, as well as listening to and acting based on external feedback to ensure such a catastrophe never occurs in the first place.