So, I asked the question Where to find Diablo 3 patch plans because I want to find out how to keep informed on what's going on with Diablo 3 updates. To me, asking this and it being on-topic makes sense, there are lots of games that get regular updates to them that add new features to the game or drastically change different dynamics. Some of them being:

  • Minecraft
  • World of Warcraft
  • Diablo 3

I tried finding this information myself, to no avail. Now, I understand that finding this information specifically for Diablo 3 is rather murky at best, which I'm ok with that being the answer. The attitude I got though was that this question wasn't constructive (and closed as such). That doesn't make sense to me. Why is this considered not constructive?


Avoiding speculative questions is obviously valuable. Avoiding questions that have any tangential connection to someone, somewhere speculating about something is probably bad for the site. Let's not let a healthy aversion to speculation on Arqade bleed over into banning questions that can be concretely answered just because someone off-site could be speculating about that concrete information.

"Does there exist a site where developers talk about their plans for game X?"

Seems like a valid question. It does not ask for speculation, it asks about existence. It is not asking Stack users to speculate, nor is the question itself engaging in speculation. It has two concrete, present-tense answer possibilities:

"Yes, here: [URL]."

or "No, sorry, that doesn't exist."

For a famous example of a developer who talked frequently about their plans, but in a place that was only known to the cognocenti, John Carmack of ID Games used to maintain a .plan file that was publicly-readable. It was his own personal scratchpad and game-dev diary for his own use, containing his development plans for games he was working on, and a was valuable insight to ID fans about game design in general and what he was currently working on—which inevitably influenced what ID released. Asking if such information exists for another developer/studio/game doesn't somehow magically become speculative-by-association just because the information that exists outside of Arqade is itself concerned with future possibilities.

  • 3
    Might as well ask "Where is [developer]'s website?" – user9983 Aug 27 '12 at 16:40
  • 3
    @OrigamiRobot Because the location of the developer's site is not necessarily the answer to the actual question? There's no magical internet force that makes developers organise their online writing about plans (if they write about plans) in such a standardised fashion. The Carmack example is there for a reason—for years the only way to read the .plan file was to know that it existed and use the finger UNIX command to remotely access it. – SevenSidedDie Aug 27 '12 at 16:42
  • And it still came from the lead developer. The problem with saying, "I can't find any information on planned updates from the developer's site, point me at another site" predicates the assumption that that other site has more accurate information than the developers themselves. Which is a false assumption if ever I heard one. Rejecting the single point of communication a company uses to announce it's plans is a good exercise in futility. – Frank Aug 27 '12 at 16:53
  • 3
    @fbueckert I still don't see a problem with the general form of the question as I put it in this answer. Again, there's no internet magic that forces developers to put the best information on the main site (whatever that is). Notch famously posted the most useful information on his personal blog, not on the Minecraft site—would asking "I can't find anything on minecraft.net about future plans, is there anywhere I can read about future plans?" be inappropriate? Why? Can you tell me what's wrong with asking "Is there somewhere that information X exists?" – SevenSidedDie Aug 27 '12 at 16:58
  • I get the feeling that those opposed are reading a different original question than I am. – SevenSidedDie Aug 27 '12 at 17:00
  • 1
    The original question followed the flawed logic of "What I am looking for is not on the developer's site. Therefore, there must be a better place." – user9983 Aug 27 '12 at 17:04
  • 2
    @OrigamiRobot I just re-read the question and its edits… (Could you do the same just now so we're on the same page? Humour me?) … and it does have a crappy title that smells of that kind of assertion, I'll give you that. The post body doesn't though: it explicitly asks, "Is there a site that has…" This is why I'm confused by the strong opposition to the question. If it did follow that logic I'd be in 100% agreement, but it doesn't as far as I can tell. – SevenSidedDie Aug 27 '12 at 17:07
  • The edits on the question just fixed spelling mistakes. The question is still making the assumption that the developer's site is not the most authoritative source for what he's looking for. My viewpoint is, "It does not have what I'm looking for. Show me a site that tells me what I want to know.". Which, for current info is fine. But for future information, the only source is the developers. Anyone else is either just pulling the data FROM the developers, or making things up. Either way, the developer's site is the only and correct answer. – Frank Aug 27 '12 at 17:17
  • @fbueckert Note in my previous comment I quote the part of the question where it explicitly avoids making that assumption. Can we seek agreement on what words are written before debating them? – SevenSidedDie Aug 27 '12 at 17:24
  • For more context: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5909648#5909648. He is specifically rejecting the only authoritative source because it does not contain the information he is looking for. – Frank Aug 27 '12 at 17:32
  • @fbueckert That's helpful for context. I still don't think it's an inherent problem with this kind of question, though, which is what everyone is saying here. Rather there's a problem with that answer: it doesn't say "No, sorry, your best source is the one you already know," it just kind of ignores the question's content without explaining why it's ignoring it. An answer that doesn't helpfully answer the actual question is usually considered bad, isn't it? – SevenSidedDie Aug 27 '12 at 17:38
  • I think these questions are inherently bad, for the same reasons as to why we don't allow speculation of the future of the industry. The only information we have comes straight from the developers. Anything else is speculation of the highest degree. Which is why when you ask, "Where can I find information about planned updates of game X?", the only answer is "The developer's website". Hence why the question is not constructive, because the answer is obvious. – Frank Aug 27 '12 at 17:49
  • 2
    @koviko No, that's true, but nobody is saying that asking for directions to what developers are writing about their games is off-topic, but rather unanswerable "because it's speculative." It's plainly not speculative, and people now seem to be saying "no, it's a bad question because the asker asserted there must exist an alternative location which makes it Not A Real Question". It's entirely possible that it's off-topic, but that's not under debate. I suppose someone could post that as an explanation for why it should have been closed. – SevenSidedDie Aug 27 '12 at 18:13
  • 1
    Agreed, I really don't see how speculation comes into it. The question doesn't ask for speculation... it asks what resources are available that detail upcoming patch notes. And us pretending like developer websites are the only (or even the best) places to get this info is wrong. As was pointed out, sometimes that information can be scattered over a dozen different posts on a developer's forums. Some games have fan sites that will gather and link this information, so while the main site is indeed "the source", it's not necessarily the best answer to say "go check the company's site". – Sterno Aug 30 '12 at 18:35
  • 1
    In much the same way, one might add, that any answer to a general question about a game on Arqade may have pulled its information from another source (such as the game's forums), but may be far more accessible and easy to find and use for someone than digging through a game's particular forums for the same question/answer. – Sterno Aug 30 '12 at 18:37

The best place to get information about future patches to a game is always going to be from the developers. Just go to their website. Some devs use third party sites for support or announcements. Those devs will have links to those places on their site.

If you can't find the information from the developer, how are we supposed to know? We are gamers just like you. We only know what the developers tell us.

You said in a comment that you were looking for specific information that you could not find. That is because that information hasn't been released yet. The only thing known about Patch 1.1 is that it is supposed to include PvP, but who knows if that is the next patch? As expected, I found this on the Blizzard website.

...likely the PvP patch (1.1).

  • 5
    You kind of just answered my whole point about why i find this a valid question "some devs use third party sites for support or announcements." Sometimes that's not always easy to find if you don't know it exists. – DForck42 Aug 24 '12 at 20:17
  • @DForck42 "Those devs will have links to those places on their site." – user9983 Aug 24 '12 at 20:18
  • 3
    And the last i checked, the whole point of stack exchange is to be a resource for information that's not inherently simple or easy to find. Just because i can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For all i know there is a place on the interest where all of d3's information has been collected into a single source, but you nor i know about it. – DForck42 Aug 24 '12 at 20:19
  • 1
    @DForck42 That place would simply be collecting it from Blizzard – user9983 Aug 24 '12 at 20:21
  • There's literally nowhere else you can get the information from. I'm not sure why you're so bent on discounting the only authoritative subject on the matter. – Frank Aug 24 '12 at 20:23
  • 1
    As i've stated, if that is the answer i am fine with it, but just because the information doesn't exist doesn't invalidate the question. That's why i'm ultimately trying to argue for and i guess doing a poor job. if the only authorative source is the company's website then that's a valid answer. it's not what i was hoping for but whatever. – DForck42 Aug 24 '12 at 20:33
  • 5
    Actually, the information not existing is literally the reason we don't allow speculation about the future of the industry. Unless we invent a time machine and come back from the future to tell you what's going to happen, the only source that CAN tell you what's going to happen is the developers themselves. So, yes, the information not existing invalidates the question completely. – Frank Aug 24 '12 at 20:38
  • 2
    DFork's point is that there might be a few thousand developer posts on a forum somewhere, exactly one of which confirms a plan or intention or whatnot that he's curious about. If someone has seen that answer before and can link to it on SE, everyone benefits. It's like asking how to spell a word and getting pointed to a dictionary- yeah, the answer is probably in there somewhere, but it's not very efficient. – Decency Aug 28 '12 at 1:26
  • For example, if DFork's question had been about Dota2, I would have linked him here: dotaworkshop.com/devTracker – Decency Aug 28 '12 at 1:36

I think the question is fine. I suppose it could be reworded to be more specific about looking for pre-patch information that isn't directly presented in patch previews. Stuff that is hidden away in a blue post in the forums, etc.

All of the information is from blizzard, but it is not necessarily easy to find when spread out all over the place. Forums, blog posts, AMAA's, developer interviews, etc.

A third-party site that compiles it all in one place would still be pretty useful. For example, there have already been a few details mentioned about patch 1.1 even though it is still a long ways off:

  • Average damage on offhands and block chance on shields will be searchable in the auction house (source)
  • Improvements to the social aspect of the game (source)

You wouldn't find this by just going to blizzard's website unless you spent many hours poring over the forums. I'm sure there's more out there and there certainly will be more as 1.1 draws closer. A question asking where to find this obscure information in a concise manner certainly seems appropriate to me.

  • Mentioning future details - as you mention some have been mentioned - doesn't mean that they're 100% going to be in the future patch, and thus is speculation. The only people who know 100% what is going into the patches is Blizzard, just before they release the patch. See "Diablo 3 and PvP" for precedent of Blizzard removing functionality at the last minute. – user27134 Aug 24 '12 at 20:57
  • 2
    @pixel what does the likelyhood of the changes getting put into the patch have to do with there being a resource on what was planned beforehand and what actually made it into the patch? You're arguing over a specific game when the discussion is aimed specifically at asking for resources on past and upcoming updates to any game. – DForck42 Aug 24 '12 at 21:02
  • @DForck42 remove all references of Blizzard and Diablo from the previous comment for a more generic approach to this - the only people that will 100% know what is going into a patch/expansion/content before it is released is the developer, with the possibility of delays/feature changes right up until it is released. – user27134 Aug 24 '12 at 21:05
  • Not concerned with whether that information will actually make it in the patch or not. The question was looking for a resource that could be used to easily look at the information that was out there. – dpatchery Aug 24 '12 at 21:16
  • I'm not sure which part of "Not concerned with whether that information will actually make it in the patch or not" indicates "not speculating" - considering the question was closed as not constructive for this... – user27134 Aug 24 '12 at 21:19
  • @pixel and that's fine. and they usually release what changed. I still don't get how that negates having a single resource that lists out past and future things, even if that resource ends up lagging behind. Maybe this will help: minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Version_history#1.3.2 somethign like that for any game would be awesome, but i understand it doesn't always exist. either way, the current existance of the resource doesn't negate the necessity of wanting a single point of clear information on what has changed and what's planned to change. – DForck42 Aug 24 '12 at 21:19
  • 3
    Getting bored of going around in circles now - the single point of reference will always be the developer, any other reference is just copies that information and sticks it on their site. This is the point made in chat by others. – user27134 Aug 24 '12 at 21:23
  • 3
    @Pixel I agree, I just don't see why it is an issue for someone to ask if such a reference site exists for a specific game that is more efficient than the alternative of searching through a forum. – Decency Aug 28 '12 at 1:46
  • 3
    Agreed. Just because the developer is probably the only source of the information doesn't mean that the developer's website is the only (or even the best) way to get that information. Sometimes they use twitter, facebook, or their own forums for updates, rather than making them obvious on the main site. Often, fan sites will gather those updates in one easy-to-find-and-read location. Why are we saying that such fan sites shouldn't be valid answers, when really they're often the best answer? – Sterno Aug 31 '12 at 14:48

I agree that asking about what isn't here yet is a problem; however I partially disagree with "just check the developer's web site". Sure, Blizzard sure as heck is going to make it easy to find updates, but there are plenty of games where this isn't so easy.

There are lots of old games or indie games where updates aren't hosted in an obvious place; the game may not have an official website (or at least not an easy to find one) and the company may not list the game/updates on their site. In that case I think asking "Where can I find (existing patch) for (game I can't easily find patches for)?"

In those cases it can be extremely hard to find updates, and it's often the case I wish there was an easy answer out there; if we can be that easy answer, great. I'm sure we can make it easier to find No Name developer's updates that used to be on Geofire but are now hosted on angelcities, or find the latest patch to some awesome game that fell off the interweb.

  • Asking where to find actual patches for games is another story. So is information on past patches for old games. This question is about future patches. Information on future patches will be provided by the devs. – user9983 Aug 24 '12 at 21:21
  • I also disagree with "just check the developer's web site." But I moreso disagree that StackExchange is the next logical step in your search for knowledge on future updates. – KOVIKO Aug 25 '12 at 2:40

The thing with trying to find upcoming updates for a game falls into the same category as why we don't allow questions that ask about what will happen next to a game; simply put, we don't know. And there's no way for us to know. Short of an inside source providing that knowledge.

I had suggested you use Blizzard's own site to keep tabs on what's upcoming for Diablo 3. That's the single most authoritative source, and you shot it down, because you couldn't find any info. You shot yourself in the foot by rejecting the only source that makes sense. Any other source will be pulling info from Blizzard to tell you what they're planning on doing.

I'm not sure how you expect a third party site to be able to tell you more about what's going to happen in any game than the people who are making the game.

The reason your question got closed is obvious: the answer is from Blizzard themselves, and you rejected that.

  • 4
    Whether or not a question is closed shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not an answer is "rejected" by the OP. I don't think it was your main point, but I kind of get a mixed message from this answer. – Sterno Aug 30 '12 at 14:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .