In this Metacast episode, Joost van Dreunen, and Aaron Bush, join your host Maria Gillies to discuss Diablo Immortal Game Launch Results and if the pay-to-win uproar affected the game’s launch results. The team also discussed the launch of Offroad Unchained and why Meta doubled down on VR and Gaming.
Was the biggest launch in Diablo’s history, despite being the lowest rated Diablo game on Metacritic.
Reported that it got 7.3 million downloads on mobile and earned $14.5 million in first week of launch. Earned $24 million by second week.
Both its success and poor critical reception were generally expected.
Diablo is a huge IP, the game is well designed and was marketed well to a dedicated fanbase.
Dedicated Diablo fans were outraged at Diablo Immortal’s fundamentally different mechanics (Diablo Immortal was designed for a different audience)
The game’s pay to win mechanics generated controversy (discussed in this episode).
While the game has done well, has it met Blizzard’s expectations?
The game’s aggressive pay to win structure made many expect its profits to be higher.
Blizzard is a large company that makes $8-10 billion annually. A very successful launch is only necessary for the company‘s stability.
As Blizzard is currently undergoing merger with Microsoft, Blizzard might have needed more from Diablo Immortal’s launch.
Will it’s success be sustainable?
It may not be:
The download and revenue rates have already seen a sharp drop; soon after launch, even for a mobile game.
It may be difficult to find new users as most Diablo fans have already been appealed to.
It may:
The game has yet to be launched in China as the launch was delayed → may see great success there like many MMORPGs.
There is less play-to-win pressure at the beginning of the game → may be experiencing ‘revenue lag’, the time between players downloading the game and spending their first dollars on it.
They plan to introduce purchasable cosmetics (e.g. skins), which are often very lucrative, soon.
It is hyper casual (can be played with one hand), something many mobile games strive/ should strive towards, and is fun and addictive.
However, does not put enough pressure on players to spend money on the game → does not earn much.
How should developers strike a balance to create fun yet financially sustainable mobile games?
Searching for a mobile game you’d love amongst hundreds of games is like looking for a new favourite arcade game amongst many machines, or using a dating app.
Mobile enables users to try many games quickly and inconsequentially, similar to modern dating app culture or simply moving to a different arcade machine.
Mobile games can hook players by giving a brief premise and revealing features over time so as to not overwhelm the player. Similar to how arcade machines must communicate their premise instantly for players to even want to try it, or how people find others on dating apps based on brief summaries.
♾️ Meta Doubles Down on VR and Gaming
Context
Until recently, Meta’s overall strategy seemed conflicted between focusing on extreme vertical integration and creating VR software for the larger VR ecosystem.
Can they make the right decisions on what to prioritise? What should Meta choose to focus on now?
Possible reasons for Meta’s unfocused strategy:
Meta has seemingly endless capital → overly adventurous.
The market isn’t mature enough yet to be able to commit to a specific field.
Regulators are making it difficult for Facebook to grow further, but Meta is losing users to newer platforms → Meta needs to diversify.
Reasons this is the correct decision.
Meta has chosen to focus on infrastructure that can serve the broader VR ecosystem → will drive the larger VR movement → Meta would become the leader of a huge upcoming movement.
Meta is focusing on their strength: creating softwares designed to connect people. Hardware is too different from their specialty.
Reasons this is NOT the correct decision.
Will the Metaverse take off, or is it just solutionism?
Many are sceptical if VR will even become mainstream.
What is the goal for VR? Will VR be used more like video game consoles or like smart phones? How ubiquitous will it be?
Focusing on hardware could allow them to be like Microsoft; becoming their own biggest customer and forcing the market to adapt to their hardware.
Meta has been aggressively trying to own the VR gaming space before anyone else gets there. Is what they’re doing substance or noise?
To achieve that, they should focus on generating deep, immersive content and becoming the high bar future companies become compared to (like e.g. Nintendo).
New spaces should afford new forms of interaction. Will Meta be the one to define it or will they instead support other smaller companies, who will define it?
🧠 Can the Digital Age Truly Bring New Ideas?
Context
In 2014, Nick Yee, a social scientist and researcher at Ubisoft, published The Proteus Paradox, exploring how people behave online.
While upcoming online spaces are touted as entirely different worlds, Yee found that most people bring real world biases into virtual worlds → online experiences may not be as radically different as we presume.
Like how books acted as the defining art/entertainment medium of the 19th century and movies the 20th, gaming has been touted as the 21st century equivalent.
Will UGC digital worlds (e.g. the Metaverse) fundamentally change the way we interact? What is artful or innovative about it? Is it then worthwhile to create?
UGC has a lot of potential as it is democratising; everyone has the opportunity to be immersed in and create art → lowered barriers will change how we express ourselves.
Big tech companies, the ones spearheading this movement, may not be the most innovative → must protect small, independent firms from acquisition (See this episode where we talk about “consolidation mania”) → innovation can be facilitated → digital worlds can reach a point where they become truly artful.
Additionally, different large companies push for innovation in different ways. E.g. Google would never have created the Metaverse.
Perhaps we're just not there yet, but will get there eventually.
The movement is still new and not quite mainstream yet.
Perhaps we will only get there by protecting small firms.
