Diablo 4 to feature microtransactions

[Pandragon]

That's just like a piece of shit on a cake. Damn, why? Unless the "entry fee" for the game isn't just 10 or 20 bucks there is no reason to put micro-transactions in it

Yes there is. It's called Activision wants their money.

[RoKPaNda]

https://twitter.com/SkillUpYT/status...02103212802049

So on top of the paid game and expansions, there will be microtransactions. Shame, my excitement had almost made it through one entire week.

Welcome to the past several years in gaming. Games have microtransactions now whether they're paid or f2p games.

Some of the absolute sleaziest microtransactions in the world are in PoE for example which is a F2p game. You should see what they cost, and the lead dev admits that his goal is to get everyone to login every 13 weeks and buy something.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Cosmetics are kinda important in Diablo IMO.

Idk how I feel about it. I understand why, but I'm not sure if it's ok. I guess that so long that the transmog doesn't have some very sick things compared to what's available in-game, it's fine.

[Sevarin]

well that sucks. it absolutely sucks. i like my character to look nice. thats why transmog systems and such exist. its not the end of the world, but im sure as hell not happy about it.


on the other hand, if it keeps the game more updated (which honestly it probably wont make a difference) then its not a completely horrible thing. unfortunately it probably will not help keep the game more up to date.

[Deadite]

https://twitter.com/SkillUpYT/status...02103212802049

So on top of the paid game and expansions, there will be microtransactions. Shame, my excitement had almost made it through one entire week.

Have you met Blizzard? Wringing every penny they can from their customers is kinda their thing.

[Netherblood]

If you want the game to get constant updates like PoE and not die with no new updates like D3:RoS it needs micro-transactions. To constantly develop the game there needs to be a constant cash flow. I really wanted them to add mtx to D3 too so taht we would get better servers and not lag when doing dense Greater Rifts as 4man party with tornado wizard, when we used to stack tornadoes on corners.

Early D3:RoS seasons were very populated, its just after no new content for a year and rampart bots everyone quit. There could have been new content and updates to deal with bots if there was mtx to fund it.

[CrawlFromThePit]

https://twitter.com/SkillUpYT/status...02103212802049

So on top of the paid game and expansions, there will be microtransactions. Shame, my excitement had almost made it through one entire week.

Cosmetic microtransactions are fine.
I most likely won't be buying anything but I don't care if people do since it's irrelevant.

Question to you and I guess this tweeter: why does it bother you that something that is objectively not a bad thing is put in a game?

[jakeic]

Using your example of WoW, they have not increased the subscription cost in its history despite the value of $15 in 2004 being $20 and some change today. There are also less players while I would think production costs have increased which is where the cash shop off sets things.

For D4 it depends what they do post release to see if the cash shop is justified imo. If they use it to fund additional development outside of expansions great. If they just do it to try and milk the product, then that isn't as consumer friendly obviously.

Production costs decrease over time, not increase. For instance, World of Warcraft used to come with a box, a couple of CD's in a plastic case, an instruction manual, and a number of other physical items. There are no more physical items associated with the game except in some collector's edition which you pay for those physical items, yet despite this being the case the game is not any cheaper. There are other additional costs associated with the old model, such as storage of the items before sale, shipping, and the retailers cut, all which have disappeared, yet we receive no savings.

That is just one side in which games are cheaper to make, if we were to look on Blizzard's side we would see that there is still more savings yet. For example, every two years the amount of computing power you get for your money doubles, meaning that writing, drawing, rendering, compiling the game becomes much cheaper overtime. On top that the tools that are used to create the game have become far more sophisticated allowing for quicker and more robust content creation, which when combined with cheaper computing power, that is also cheaper. Also the power of workstations allow for a single person to do far more work than a Blizzard employee of the past, making each employee more productive. And on top of all these savings are the savings on the servers, the cost of which has dramatically decreased from the launch of Starcraft (which offered B.net for free) as the "cloud" industry began around the same time of the release of World of Warcraft.

Despite all these savings, the game is more expensive now than ever. Not only are there micro transactions, which functionally remove parts of the game you purchased (and continually support with a subscription fee) to sell back to you, and the a fore mentioned subscription fee, but Battle for Azeroth was $60 while including no game time, so to even play the game cost $75 at a minimum.

[korijenkins]

Well i guess i won't be buying it then. Shame i would have liked to play the druid again.

Why? You act as if these will somehow paywall you.

My criticism of Blizzard for focusing on the cash shop in WoW is loud, because that game has a subscription AND a box price AND a shop.

D4 will have a box price and a shop. Not nearly as bad.

[Sencha]

Problem with cosmetic microtransactions is it attracts casual players who then feel entitled to ask to nerf everything in the game.

[Malacrass]

People still defending MTX in games which you pay full price for and are made by companies worth billions? I never understand it.

MTX in games is a cancer.

Blizzard managed to establish a friends and family-style bond with its players. Almost like one of those mega celebrities with their cult-like fanbase ("Belieber army", "Little Monsters" etc.).
And people don't treat their friends and family like a company, they treat them like.... well friends and family. And you support your family, right?

That's the only explanation I can come up with, because other games don't get away with double or even triple-dipping like they do (buy the game, pay the sub *and* pay for extras).


That said, wait and see. If they are double-dipping I'm out, that's for sure. But if they do MTX only in certain regions (see Asian D3) or after the main games are out for quite a while (2 years+)? Fine. I would prefer expansions only, but I wouldn't want them to poop out half-assed expacs because they have to keep the servers running.

[Rendark]

Why? You act as if these will somehow paywall you.

My criticism of Blizzard for focusing on the cash shop in WoW is loud, because that game has a subscription AND a box price AND a shop.

D4 will have a box price and a shop. Not nearly as bad.

Just because it's not nearly as bad doesn't make it good. If the game has a box price then it should not have a real money shop.

[valky94]

I guess it was canada and Brazil. But they also increased service costs in the eu in 2017

i think it was increased in brasil due to inflation, but i could be wrong

[alexchaos]

We're talking about costemics only. Nothing that will affect your gameplay.

[Endus]

People need to stop blaming companies and developers for microtransaction models.

There's a reason they use them. Because consumers like them. They pay a bunch of extra money for those features. Enough so to be worth the cost of developing that content.

If you don't like them, then . . . just don't buy them? If they're cosmetic-only, it won't negatively impact your gameplay one bit. If they aren't, maybe don't buy the game . . . at all?

The reality right now is that there's a tiny vocal minority who snarl about microtransactions, and then they buy the game anyway. That's implicit support for the MtX model, folks. If you're going to speak out with your wallet, that means not spending money with that company, period. Unless customers actually start not buying these games, companies are going to continue giving customers options that customers pay additional money for. They'd be fools not to, frankly. Their job, as a game developer/publisher, isn't to "serve a niche hardcore gaming community's desires", it's "to make as much money as possible off as many customers as possible". Any decision to appeal to a smaller niche is a decision that you want to make less money, and sure, some companies can make a living doing that, but the big AAA developers realy can't. They're going to find every path to profit they can, because that's what they exist to do.

And the only real say you get, as a customer, is in choosing whether or not to buy. If you rant and then buy it anyway, why should the company change a thing?

[hulkgor]

you expect to pay a minor sum one time than that will cover the server cost, employee cost etc? Don't be a dumbass, you don't have to buy cosmetics at all. Easy peasy.

You do realize games, servers, multiplayer, patches, development used to exist, before microtransactions... right? Right?

It's absurd to think we live in a world where people actually defend microtransactions.

I remember buying a game and getting everything that game had to offer, and having that game supported for years and years without no further costs... yet now people want to be nickel&dimed their way, 5-20€ a skin, glow or effect at a time.

[Balir]

If it's cosmetics - who cares. The same with WoW, mounts etc - who cares. Heck I'd gladly pay for some HD remakes of old Tier 1-5 gear if they were in the shop.

[Video Games]

We're talking about costemics only. Nothing that will affect your gameplay.

But the arguments is these exist so we get post launch content. Does that not affect gameplay?

[hulkgor]

Using your example of WoW, they have not increased the subscription cost in its history despite the value of $15 in 2004 being $20 and some change today. There are also less players while I would think production costs have increased which is where the cash shop off sets things.

Again, sub prices did not rise, but the expansion box did however increase, AND, they make more money out of subs via tokens (20€ instead of 13€ which is massive).

So yea, they had increases in other forms.

[Endus]

It's absurd to think we live in a world where people actually defend microtransactions. wow.

There's no need to "defend" microtransactions at all.

They're a revenue model that's popularly enjoyed by both game developers and their customers. If they weren't popular with customers, then customers woudn't keep buying them, and developers wouldn't have any reason to include them in games.

Their popularity and financial success as a revenue stream defend their existence all by themselves.