Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 23:56:

Beamer wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:28:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:17:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:03:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 13:03:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 12:43:
snipped

snipped

snipped

snipped

You're both wrong, but you're more wrong than he is.

The hallmark of games as a service is a continued revenue model. Not that it's on the servers of one entity, and not that it's feature-incomplete. It's just a continued revenue model. If you're not paying an access fee, it's not GAAS. Some will extend this to just continued revenue, including microtransactions, but I disagree and consider that a third model. GAAS just needs to be a service, such as cable or internet or gas or electricity, instead of something you buy once, such as your house or your car (most likely.)

Please don't tell me I'm wrong. I work in an IT department at an eCommerce company as the Lead Frontend Developer. We make SAAS products. I know what I'm talking about when I describe GAAS.

Firstly, anything labeled "-as-a-Service" is always going to have a service model (that quite literally is what "as-a-service" entails), and a service model typically involves a paid subscription. What the service provides either defines it has a Game or Software.

So, for example, Adobe's Creative Cloud is a SAAS. Google's upcoming Stadia is a SAAS. FreshBooks.com is a cloud-based SAAS.

It is correct to call all of those SAAS products because you subscribe to the service to access a product that receives continuous improvements. In one example, for Photoshop and Illustrator, and the other for video games.

Regarding, "[t]he hallmark of games as a service is a continued revenue model." Unlike Software-as-a-Service, Games-as-a-Service follows the same, almost identical, characteristics of a SAAS. However, there are several key differences.

1. You purchased the product once and connect to a live server to play without a subscription.
2. When you buy GAAS products (or live service video games), you typically do not get a finished product.
3. GAAS doesn't have a persistent revenue model, aka subscription service. (Even though microtransactions take in monthly income, they cannot be classified as a persistent revenue model. They are known as a business model. If you search online, almost everyone labels MTX as a "business model" which is not persistent.)
4. GAAS titles typically have lots of microtransactions to keep the product and/or company funded (though, again, microtransactions isn't considered a persistent revenue model).
5. THE KEY DEFINITION: the publisher intends to build out its product over time in an iterative manner. They do this by never informing the consumer that is their intention, nor do they ever tell the consumer that's the type of product they are purchasing. (IMHO it's borderline unethical business behavior but, you know, whatever.)

What is NOT a SAAS:

- Anthem, Fallout 76, and No Man's Sky cannot be classified as SAAS because you never subscribe to play them. You could buy and play them without spending another dime.

What is NOT a GAAS:
- World of Warcraft isn't a GAAS because vanilla WOW launched as a complete feature product where a player could experience the entire game from start to finish (up to level 60).
- League of Legends and Fortnite aren't GAAS because they both launched as feature-complete products full of options.
- Star Citizen isn't a GAAS because it's still in development and is classified as a early access product. However, it if it released today it would absolutely be classified as a GAAS product.

The bottom line is the reason companies haven't been clear with the gaming public is we are not ready for the Games-as-a-Service model. We are conditioned to expect that in exchange for our hard-earned gaming dollars, we get a full experience from start to finish. For an EA and Activision the promise of quickly releasing games that they can grow out over time is very attractive from a cost perspective. I can see why they want it, but again we are not conditioned for that kind of gaming.

You're wrong. And your experience as an IT dude doesn't make you an expert in business models. Feel free to contradict literally every source out there, though.

Maybe next time use Wikipedia first, though. It has better sources than the guy that writes buttons. It's fun, though, that you apparently consider yourself borderline unethical, since you claim the model is, yet claim it's the product you're developing. Don't people who are knowingly unethical end up somewhere very warm down the road?

Not sure why you'd disqualify games you deem to be complete at launch from GaaS.
And subscription based games have always been GaaS, but a subscription is not a requirement itself.

Beamer wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:28:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:17:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:03:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 13:03:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 12:43:
snipped

snipped

snipped

snipped

You're both wrong, but you're more wrong than he is.

The hallmark of games as a service is a continued revenue model. Not that it's on the servers of one entity, and not that it's feature-incomplete. It's just a continued revenue model. If you're not paying an access fee, it's not GAAS. Some will extend this to just continued revenue, including microtransactions, but I disagree and consider that a third model. GAAS just needs to be a service, such as cable or internet or gas or electricity, instead of something you buy once, such as your house or your car (most likely.)

Please don't tell me I'm wrong. I work in an IT department at an eCommerce company as the Lead Frontend Developer. We make SAAS products. I know what I'm talking about when I describe GAAS.

Firstly, anything labeled "-as-a-Service" is always going to have a service model (that quite literally is what "as-a-service" entails), and a service model typically involves a paid subscription. What the service provides either defines it has a Game or Software.

So, for example, Adobe's Creative Cloud is a SAAS. Google's upcoming Stadia is a SAAS. FreshBooks.com is a cloud-based SAAS.

It is correct to call all of those SAAS products because you subscribe to the service to access a product that receives continuous improvements. In one example, for Photoshop and Illustrator, and the other for video games.

Regarding, "[t]he hallmark of games as a service is a continued revenue model." Unlike Software-as-a-Service, Games-as-a-Service follows the same, almost identical, characteristics of a SAAS. However, there are several key differences.

1. You purchased the product once and connect to a live server to play without a subscription.
2. When you buy GAAS products (or live service video games), you typically do not get a finished product.
3. GAAS doesn't have a persistent revenue model, aka subscription service. (Even though microtransactions take in monthly income, they cannot be classified as a persistent revenue model. They are known as a business model. If you search online, almost everyone labels MTX as a "business model" which is not persistent.)
4. GAAS titles typically have lots of microtransactions to keep the product and/or company funded (though, again, microtransactions isn't considered a persistent revenue model).
5. THE KEY DEFINITION: the publisher intends to build out its product over time in an iterative manner. They do this by never informing the consumer that is their intention, nor do they ever tell the consumer that's the type of product they are purchasing. (IMHO it's borderline unethical business behavior but, you know, whatever.)

What is NOT a SAAS:

- Anthem, Fallout 76, and No Man's Sky cannot be classified as SAAS because you never subscribe to play them. You could buy and play them without spending another dime.

What is NOT a GAAS:
- World of Warcraft isn't a GAAS because vanilla WOW launched as a complete feature product where a player could experience the entire game from start to finish (up to level 60).
- League of Legends and Fortnite aren't GAAS because they both launched as feature-complete products full of options.
- Star Citizen isn't a GAAS because it's still in development and is classified as a early access product. However, it if it released today it would absolutely be classified as a GAAS product.

The bottom line is the reason companies haven't been clear with the gaming public is we are not ready for the Games-as-a-Service model. We are conditioned to expect that in exchange for our hard-earned gaming dollars, we get a full experience from start to finish. For an EA and Activision the promise of quickly releasing games that they can grow out over time is very attractive from a cost perspective. I can see why they want it, but again we are not conditioned for that kind of gaming.

jdreyer wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 18:14:
Ultima Online is the original GaaS?

I'd say all MMOs are GaaS... they just predated the concept being used for anything other than subscription based massive multiplayer online rpgs

Ultima Online is the original GaaS?

At its most basic it means instead of TheGame 2017, TheGame 2018, TheGame 2019... you have TheGame and they commit to long term maintenance and long term purchasable content, whether that content be cosmetics or playable content, and whether the revenue be microtransactions or subscriptions.

TF2 is GaaS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service

A study by DFC Intelligence in 2018 found Electronic Arts' value rose from US$4 billion to US$33 billion since 2012, while Activision Blizzard saw its value rise from US$20 billion to US$60 billion in the same period, with both increases attributed in part to the use of the GaaS model in their games catalog. Electronic Arts had earned US$2 billion from GaaS transactions in 2018.

Beamer wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:28:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:17:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:03:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 13:03:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 12:43:
1. It's Games-As-A-Service (GAAS).
2. Diablo 3 isn't a GAAS. Anthem and Fallout 76 are GAAS products.

D3 is actually a GaaS, if the service stops, so does the existence of that game. It's also the one where Blizzard showed you how it will handle Diablo 4, namely by only releasing 1 expansion and not adding anything anyone asks for ever. Like new, fucking, maps and some proper dynamic element of growth with ever escalating siege battles where you fight over the land for example. With generals and troops you can train and equip with your loots.. etc.

Point is, Blizzard ain't got what it takes to even make a good game anymore.

That's not a GAAS. What you're describing is an Always-On DRM. It's "a form of DRM that requires a consumer to remain connected to a server, especially through an internet connection, to use a particular product. The practice is also referred to as persistent online authentication. The technique is meant to prevent copyright infringement of software. Like other DRM methods, always-on DRM has proven controversial, mainly because it has failed to stop pirates from illegally using the product, while causing severe inconvenience to people who bought the product legally." source

The hallmark of GAAS products is a feature-incomplete product with continuous integration/evolution over time. It happens all the time with cloud apps. Very rarely has it happened with launched games. I don't consider early access games as GAAS since they're not released products. Anthem, Fallout 76, and No Man's Sky are three confirmed products that were launch as "completed full products" that were going be built out with features over time (No Man's Sky is probably the first). One example is a version of Anthem's road map with several Acts that is now not listed.

Conversely, Diablo 3 launched as a feature-complete product on May 15, 2012. All Acts were available at launch. Players could play the game through to completion. The Reaper of Souls expansion added additional content, but expansions don't fall under the classified of GAAS.

It's essential not to confuse GAAS with other types like early access, always-on, and beta. It's a very particular type of game that, at the moment, the number of games can be counted on a single-hand.

D3 runs entirely on Blizzards servers, it's a GaaS. There isn't even a point to debate that. If Blizzards shuts the servers off that is not DRM gone, that's literally the entire game-world, all enemies, loot and bosses gone. The entire game is online at all times, not just to check if you own it.

Put differently, you play Diablo 3 you are ALWAYS playing on servers. There is absolutely nothing happening that is local.

And what you forgot, is that there is absolutely no way to play that feature complete version from 2012 now. The game has evolved, has received a MAJOR overhaul with patch 2.0 and patch 3.0 to the point where it ain't even the same game anymore.

You're both wrong, but you're more wrong than he is.

The hallmark of games as a service is a continued revenue model. Not that it's on the servers of one entity, and not that it's feature-incomplete. It's just a continued revenue model. If you're not paying an access fee, it's not GAAS. Some will extend this to just continued revenue, including microtransactions, but I disagree and consider that a third model. GAAS just needs to be a service, such as cable or internet or gas or electricity, instead of something you buy once, such as your house or your car (most likely.)

Blizzard providing the game-world and logic for the game with their own servers ain't a service then? What would you call it?

Or are you being cynical and jaded enough to call this a rental service? Because yeah, sure, could call it that. I mean it does explain why we never got any real content for the game, with the AH gone they had no monetization strategy AT ALL. Pay once, own for X amount of decades rental service is not a business concept that works

If you want to have a modern Blizz experience, just try playing D3 from scratch on normal. You'll run through levels utterly alone, with no other player in sight... completely destroying everything that gets in your way. Bosses will KILL THEMSELVES BY HITTING YOU.

It's amazing how much they ruined everything in both Diablo and WoW, but at least they brought WoW back from the dead.

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:17:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:03:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 13:03:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 12:43:
1. It's Games-As-A-Service (GAAS).
2. Diablo 3 isn't a GAAS. Anthem and Fallout 76 are GAAS products.

D3 is actually a GaaS, if the service stops, so does the existence of that game. It's also the one where Blizzard showed you how it will handle Diablo 4, namely by only releasing 1 expansion and not adding anything anyone asks for ever. Like new, fucking, maps and some proper dynamic element of growth with ever escalating siege battles where you fight over the land for example. With generals and troops you can train and equip with your loots.. etc.

Point is, Blizzard ain't got what it takes to even make a good game anymore.

That's not a GAAS. What you're describing is an Always-On DRM. It's "a form of DRM that requires a consumer to remain connected to a server, especially through an internet connection, to use a particular product. The practice is also referred to as persistent online authentication. The technique is meant to prevent copyright infringement of software. Like other DRM methods, always-on DRM has proven controversial, mainly because it has failed to stop pirates from illegally using the product, while causing severe inconvenience to people who bought the product legally." source

The hallmark of GAAS products is a feature-incomplete product with continuous integration/evolution over time. It happens all the time with cloud apps. Very rarely has it happened with launched games. I don't consider early access games as GAAS since they're not released products. Anthem, Fallout 76, and No Man's Sky are three confirmed products that were launch as "completed full products" that were going be built out with features over time (No Man's Sky is probably the first). One example is a version of Anthem's road map with several Acts that is now not listed.

Conversely, Diablo 3 launched as a feature-complete product on May 15, 2012. All Acts were available at launch. Players could play the game through to completion. The Reaper of Souls expansion added additional content, but expansions don't fall under the classified of GAAS.

It's essential not to confuse GAAS with other types like early access, always-on, and beta. It's a very particular type of game that, at the moment, the number of games can be counted on a single-hand.

D3 runs entirely on Blizzards servers, it's a GaaS. There isn't even a point to debate that. If Blizzards shuts the servers off that is not DRM gone, that's literally the entire game-world, all enemies, loot and bosses gone. The entire game is online at all times, not just to check if you own it.

Put differently, you play Diablo 3 you are ALWAYS playing on servers. There is absolutely nothing happening that is local.

And what you forgot, is that there is absolutely no way to play that feature complete version from 2012 now. The game has evolved, has received a MAJOR overhaul with patch 2.0 and patch 3.0 to the point where it ain't even the same game anymore.

You're both wrong, but you're more wrong than he is.

The hallmark of games as a service is a continued revenue model. Not that it's on the servers of one entity, and not that it's feature-incomplete. It's just a continued revenue model. If you're not paying an access fee, it's not GAAS. Some will extend this to just continued revenue, including microtransactions, but I disagree and consider that a third model. GAAS just needs to be a service, such as cable or internet or gas or electricity, instead of something you buy once, such as your house or your car (most likely.)

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 17:03:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 13:03:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 12:43:
1. It's Games-As-A-Service (GAAS).
2. Diablo 3 isn't a GAAS. Anthem and Fallout 76 are GAAS products.

D3 is actually a GaaS, if the service stops, so does the existence of that game. It's also the one where Blizzard showed you how it will handle Diablo 4, namely by only releasing 1 expansion and not adding anything anyone asks for ever. Like new, fucking, maps and some proper dynamic element of growth with ever escalating siege battles where you fight over the land for example. With generals and troops you can train and equip with your loots.. etc.

Point is, Blizzard ain't got what it takes to even make a good game anymore.

That's not a GAAS. What you're describing is an Always-On DRM. It's "a form of DRM that requires a consumer to remain connected to a server, especially through an internet connection, to use a particular product. The practice is also referred to as persistent online authentication. The technique is meant to prevent copyright infringement of software. Like other DRM methods, always-on DRM has proven controversial, mainly because it has failed to stop pirates from illegally using the product, while causing severe inconvenience to people who bought the product legally." source

The hallmark of GAAS products is a feature-incomplete product with continuous integration/evolution over time. It happens all the time with cloud apps. Very rarely has it happened with launched games. I don't consider early access games as GAAS since they're not released products. Anthem, Fallout 76, and No Man's Sky are three confirmed products that were launch as "completed full products" that were going be built out with features over time (No Man's Sky is probably the first). One example is a version of Anthem's road map with several Acts that is now not listed.

Conversely, Diablo 3 launched as a feature-complete product on May 15, 2012. All Acts were available at launch. Players could play the game through to completion. The Reaper of Souls expansion added additional content, but expansions don't fall under the classified of GAAS.

It's essential not to confuse GAAS with other types like early access, always-on, and beta. It's a very particular type of game that, at the moment, the number of games can be counted on a single-hand.

D3 runs entirely on Blizzards servers, it's a GaaS. There isn't even a point to debate that. If Blizzards shuts the servers off that is not DRM gone, that's literally the entire game-world, all enemies, loot and bosses gone. The entire game is online at all times, not just to check if you own it.

Put differently, you play Diablo 3 you are ALWAYS playing on servers. There is absolutely nothing happening that is local.

And what you forgot, is that there is absolutely no way to play that feature complete version from 2012 now. The game has evolved, has received a MAJOR overhaul with patch 2.0 and patch 3.0 to the point where it ain't even the same game anymore.

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 13:03:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 12:43:
1. It's Games-As-A-Service (GAAS).
2. Diablo 3 isn't a GAAS. Anthem and Fallout 76 are GAAS products.

D3 is actually a GaaS, if the service stops, so does the existence of that game. It's also the one where Blizzard showed you how it will handle Diablo 4, namely by only releasing 1 expansion and not adding anything anyone asks for ever. Like new, fucking, maps and some proper dynamic element of growth with ever escalating siege battles where you fight over the land for example. With generals and troops you can train and equip with your loots.. etc.

Point is, Blizzard ain't got what it takes to even make a good game anymore.

That's not a GAAS. What you're describing is an Always-On DRM. It's "a form of DRM that requires a consumer to remain connected to a server, especially through an internet connection, to use a particular product. The practice is also referred to as persistent online authentication. The technique is meant to prevent copyright infringement of software. Like other DRM methods, always-on DRM has proven controversial, mainly because it has failed to stop pirates from illegally using the product, while causing severe inconvenience to people who bought the product legally." source

The hallmark of GAAS products is a feature-incomplete product with continuous integration/evolution over time. It happens all the time with cloud apps. Very rarely has it happened with launched games. I don't consider early access games as GAAS since they're not released products. Anthem, Fallout 76, and No Man's Sky are three confirmed products that were launch as "completed full products" that were going be built out with features over time (No Man's Sky is probably the first). One example is a version of Anthem's road map with several Acts that is now not listed.

Conversely, Diablo 3 launched as a feature-complete product on May 15, 2012. All Acts were available at launch. Players could play the game through to completion. The Reaper of Souls expansion added additional content, but expansions don't fall under the classified of GAAS.

It's essential not to confuse GAAS with other types like early access, always-on, and beta. It's a very particular type of game that, at the moment, the number of games can be counted on a single-hand.

Orogogus wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 00:17:

SirKnight wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 20:45:

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 16:43:

jdreyer wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 14:52:
Diablo 2 Remaster? Day one purchase.

Diablo 4, with MTs and lootboxes, and requiring an internet connection? No thanks.

Well, I think the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia are coloring some peoples' memories of Diablo 2, because that game was a primitive mess in so many ways. Some of the MODS were great though.

Diablo 4 will no doubt be atrocious in terms of modern day video game hassles, I agree.

I still go back to D2 from time to time and in no way is it a "primitive mess." The only bad thing is the low resolution it runs at, but it's not that big of a deal to me. It still looks fine. The game I think still holds up today and is just as awesome now as it was back then. D2 is one of the best aging games I've ever seen.

I remember feeling that clicking to pick up gold was kind of a throwback. Like picking up ammo in Borderlands 1 & 2; it seems like a little thing, but you end up spending a lot of time doing it.

Yeah, Torchlight 2 does it better. Picks the gold up automatically as soon as you get near.

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 13:03:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 12:43:
1. It's Games-As-A-Service (GAAS).
2. Diablo 3 isn't a GAAS. Anthem and Fallout 76 are GAAS products.

D3 is actually a GaaS, if the service stops, so does the existence of that game. It's also the one where Blizzard showed you how it will handle Diablo 4, namely by only releasing 1 expansion and not adding anything anyone asks for ever. Like new, fucking, maps and some proper dynamic element of growth with ever escalating siege battles where you fight over the land for example. With generals and troops you can train and equip with your loots.. etc.

Point is, Blizzard ain't got what it takes to even make a good game anymore.

Well, they don't make games for US anymore, I'd agree. Arguably they are making billions and having a ton of success with Overwatch and Hearthstone? Or is Hearthstone dead already?

Plus never ending WoW money, probably discourages them from making anything great.

Kxmode wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 12:43:
1. It's Games-As-A-Service (GAAS).
2. Diablo 3 isn't a GAAS. Anthem and Fallout 76 are GAAS products.

D3 is actually a GaaS, if the service stops, so does the existence of that game. It's also the one where Blizzard showed you how it will handle Diablo 4, namely by only releasing 1 expansion and not adding anything anyone asks for ever. Like new, fucking, maps and some proper dynamic element of growth with ever escalating siege battles where you fight over the land for example. With generals and troops you can train and equip with your loots.. etc.

Point is, Blizzard ain't got what it takes to even make a good game anymore.

1. It's Games-As-A-Service (GAAS).
2. Diablo 3 isn't a GAAS. Anthem and Fallout 76 are GAAS products.

Orogogus wrote on Oct 7, 2019, 00:17:

SirKnight wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 20:45:

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 16:43:

jdreyer wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 14:52:
Diablo 2 Remaster? Day one purchase.

Diablo 4, with MTs and lootboxes, and requiring an internet connection? No thanks.

Well, I think the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia are coloring some peoples' memories of Diablo 2, because that game was a primitive mess in so many ways. Some of the MODS were great though.

Diablo 4 will no doubt be atrocious in terms of modern day video game hassles, I agree.

I still go back to D2 from time to time and in no way is it a "primitive mess." The only bad thing is the low resolution it runs at, but it's not that big of a deal to me. It still looks fine. The game I think still holds up today and is just as awesome now as it was back then. D2 is one of the best aging games I've ever seen.

I remember feeling that clicking to pick up gold was kind of a throwback. Like picking up ammo in Borderlands 1 & 2; it seems like a little thing, but you end up spending a lot of time doing it.

Do it like speed-runners, only pick up javelins, gold pick ups are NEVER worth it. ^^

Hmmmm. I'd be fine with either a D2 Remaster with better graphics and more things, as well as the next iteration of the series.

Though for some reason, I think I'd like to see a voxel-based Diablo game with destructible environments. Not sure why.

SirKnight wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 20:45:

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 16:43:

jdreyer wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 14:52:
Diablo 2 Remaster? Day one purchase.

Diablo 4, with MTs and lootboxes, and requiring an internet connection? No thanks.

Well, I think the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia are coloring some peoples' memories of Diablo 2, because that game was a primitive mess in so many ways. Some of the MODS were great though.

Diablo 4 will no doubt be atrocious in terms of modern day video game hassles, I agree.

I still go back to D2 from time to time and in no way is it a "primitive mess." The only bad thing is the low resolution it runs at, but it's not that big of a deal to me. It still looks fine. The game I think still holds up today and is just as awesome now as it was back then. D2 is one of the best aging games I've ever seen.

I remember feeling that clicking to pick up gold was kind of a throwback. Like picking up ammo in Borderlands 1 & 2; it seems like a little thing, but you end up spending a lot of time doing it.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 16:43:

jdreyer wrote on Oct 6, 2019, 14:52:
Diablo 2 Remaster? Day one purchase.

Diablo 4, with MTs and lootboxes, and requiring an internet connection? No thanks.

Well, I think the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia are coloring some peoples' memories of Diablo 2, because that game was a primitive mess in so many ways. Some of the MODS were great though.

Diablo 4 will no doubt be atrocious in terms of modern day video game hassles, I agree.

I still go back to D2 from time to time and in no way is it a "primitive mess." The only bad thing is the low resolution it runs at, but it's not that big of a deal to me. It still looks fine. The game I think still holds up today and is just as awesome now as it was back then. D2 is one of the best aging games I've ever seen.