Diablo 4 could end up having microtransactions

[Biomega]

It saddens me that you have convinced yourself that anything in a shop for a game you already pay for is "totally reasonable", but for this I will agree to disagree. Personally, I think cosmetics are the farthest it should ever go, and even there I find it distasteful. But again, to each their own.

If you think the leveling process in a game like D3 is engaging content, that's cool I guess. But it's objectively such a tiny fraction of the actual experience that losing it just isn't going to have any real impact - especially since it's your choice. It matters not one iota in the big picture, even in highly competitive settings.

It's kind of like leveling in WoW. It's just something you have to do for a bit at some point until the ACTUAL game begins. Skipping that is not just something that has very little impact on anything, it's something people actively WANT because it's such a tedious prerequisite.

[Aly31]

The second i saw mounts i knew micro transactions were going to be part of the game. I expect to see Mounts and various cosmetics in the shop. Anything more than that, including stash space and or XP boosts should be extremly frowned upon.

[Tojara]

Most people play ARPGs as a seasonal fix, at least those who play them as a 'main game'. The whole allure of these titles is fresh starts every 3-4 months with legitimate changes that go above and beyond what we experience in a title like D3. The amount of people who play on a non-seasonal version of a game like PoE is incredibly small, and pretty much non-existent.

Selling XP boosts just seem counter productive to their mission statement anyway. Yes, they could twist words (much like a lot here are doing) but pushing things that are borderline power by concealing them in the shop would be pretty stupid. Do we even know 100% how XP is going to work in D4 yet? I think they agreed that Paragon was sort of a silly system in D3, but I haven't heard much of it. Personally levels alone are fine if there's broad customization in your characters, and PoE proves that. D2 as ancient as it is, also proves this system as well. Do most of your builds start to work in the upper 70s or mid 80s? Yes, and that should be the goal. Getting to that point doesn't take that much time, but it does feel good in a game like PoE pushing up to 95 because it just broadens your power. D2 doesn't feel nearly as good in that regard because most builds don't gain much power aside from health when you go from lowers 80s to upper 90s (mostly allowing your merc to wear higher tier items, basically).

When I read the blurbs about people being hired for MTX shops and analyzing data, I'm not necessarily picturing it as nefarious. When collecting data it's likely they see what's worth investing time in (MTX for skills, frames, pets, or cosmetics for players). Is it possible they sneak in some QoL stuff? Sure, but I think those pills would be a bit harder to swallow for a big portion of the player base considering you have to pay 60 dollars for the game. I mean they absolutely show cased mounts in this game as a thing, and I imagine for those who are inclined for the more "MMO" aspect of the game, this will be a prime candidate for MTX.

The thread title is still sort of silly because of course the game is going to have microtransactions. I'd want it to because otherwise we end up with a game like D3 that barely gets any love as it has zero monetization behind it. Blizzard can LITERALLY copy PoE in regards to MTX and make a killing in this game because they're getting box sales as well. The only thing they have to stay away from is the QoL features PoE adds, because that would be pretty greedy coming from a game that still asks you to pay for the box sale. PoE can get away with it because it's a F2P game, but lets be serious, if you're playing PoE for multiple seasons and haven't spend 20-40 bucks on stash tabs you're probably a straight up serial killer. Yeah, you don't need to trade in the game (solo self-found, private leagues, etc), but the QoL afforded by having stash tab affinities (recent addition) just allow you to play the game a MASSIVE amount more instead of playing inventory tetris.

If they do indeed sell power the game probably won't be something I pick up. PoE will still be around so I'd just stick with that. Hopefully we enter a universe where D4 is awesome, and PoE and D4 can peacefully co-exist so ARPG players can jump between the two if the seasons are spread out.

[Fencers]

There is not enough stock inv space to store everything you want on 1 char let alone if you have more than one so what you say is false, the tabs are needed to actually play the game.

That is totally personal. There is no objective measure of "all the stuff you want".

Again, being convenient is another matter from being required. Is it way, way better to have extra tabs and trading? Of course. Does the game require it? Not at all.

[Beefhammer]

Somehow I still have my doubts, what with them being intellectually dishonest and saying that they weren't selling gear when they were selling gems, because "Gems aren't gear!" when what people were actually talking about was player power, which gems absolutely are.

Technically gems aren't gear but I get it. However a very big distinction everyone overlooks is mobile audience and PC audience. They have gone out of their way to make this distinction.D$ is dead in the water if they sell power, Blizzard knows this.

- - - Updated - - -

They also said for Immortal that you can't buy gear or player power and insist that buying crests isn't directly player power and the gems you get from the rifts aren't gear so technically they're right with their statement. It's semantics. Maybe they won't sell player power, maybe they'll sell a battle pass for each season, maybe they sell those runes to upgrade the normal dungeons to nightmare dungeons and they already said you need to do nightmare dungeons to do the raid bosses (except the world bosses).

They said they won't be selling gear. And hell even the gems have to be found by another player to be sold. All you can buy is improved chances to get drops. Yes, paying makes it a guarantee, but then you still have to rely on RNG to get what you want or want to sell.

[The Stormbringer]

If you think the leveling process in a game like D3 is engaging content, that's cool I guess. But it's objectively such a tiny fraction of the actual experience that losing it just isn't going to have any real impact - especially since it's your choice. It matters not one iota in the big picture, even in highly competitive settings.

It's kind of like leveling in WoW. It's just something you have to do for a bit at some point until the ACTUAL game begins. Skipping that is not just something that has very little impact on anything, it's something people actively WANT because it's such a tedious prerequisite.

Yes, but the fact that paying to skip becomes the only option is the thing that's the problem. If leveling isn't important or engaging, either get rid of it, MAKE IT engaging, or offer a free skip if you've already hit max level on another character. Solutions of varying difficulty from easy to challenging, depending on the outcome they want! A free skip would not only solve things, but give them some player respect too.

[Biomega]

Yes, but the fact that paying to skip becomes the only option is the thing that's the problem. If leveling isn't important or engaging, either get rid of it, MAKE IT engaging, or offer a free skip if you've already hit max level on another character. Solutions of varying difficulty from easy to challenging, depending on the outcome they want! A free skip would not only solve things, but give them some player respect too.

And I'm sure their shareholders will be happy to cash in that respect

Of course it would be nice to have this for free, but let's be real - if they're selling anything, I'd rather it be something marginal like this. I'm happy to sacrifice something small like leveling boosts for money in exchange for more content (which is what that money pays for).

[Big Thanks]

Well...

Blizzard removed lootboxes from Overwatch 2 Thats good news...right?
Hopeful for Diablo IV.

[RH92]

Well...

Blizzard removed lootboxes from Overwatch 2 Thats good news...right?
Hopeful for Diablo IV.

Didn't they announce Overwatch 2 is free to play and will be probably mantained like a MOBA?

Meaning you will be paying for cosmetics and new Heroes. Who knows, maybe they will also force you into 'updating' your battle pass in order play new content every season. I guess we still don't have any specific information on what exactly the 'battle pass' is.

With that out of the way, I think it's unrelated to Diablo IV. Most likely two different business models.

[Fencers]

More than microtransactions, I think the use of a "battlepass" system in Diablo 4 could be ruinous. Speculation on my part, but Immortal has some pretty counter to gameplay monetization. We have sen other games offered as 'live services' with battlepass systems as well.

[The Stormbringer]

And I'm sure their shareholders will be happy to cash in that respect

Of course it would be nice to have this for free, but let's be real - if they're selling anything, I'd rather it be something marginal like this. I'm happy to sacrifice something small like leveling boosts for money in exchange for more content (which is what that money pays for).

Perhaps it does. Those of us who have grown more cynical (me) just see it as them pushing in the wedge a little bit deeper, a little bit deeper. How much more can they charge money for? Soon they make you pay for everything even in a paid game...

[Biomega]

Perhaps it does. Those of us who have grown more cynical (me) just see it as them pushing in the wedge a little bit deeper, a little bit deeper. How much more can they charge money for? Soon they make you pay for everything even in a paid game...

I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I've seen the reverse, too - D3 basically died of stagnation because they refused to monetize it (despite it all being already made, for China). I don't want D4 to fall into the same trap.

[The Stormbringer]

I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I've seen the reverse, too - D3 basically died of stagnation because they refused to monetize it (despite it all being already made, for China). I don't want D4 to fall into the same trap.

Do we know if that's why D3 died, though? I will admit that it does sound plausible, but do we know that for sure? If that was the case, then I have to agree at least somewhat. I can only hope that they'll find some middle ground where there's some small amount of monetization to help push development further.

If I recall, part of the failure was that they were going to push a second expansion pack, but it got cancelled. I know they salvaged some bits and pieces from that, but I can only imagine how much dev time was lost there. Who knows where they would've gotten to if they'd gone through with it?

[Cayde69]

I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I've seen the reverse, too - D3 basically died of stagnation because they refused to monetize it (despite it all being already made, for China). I don't want D4 to fall into the same trap.

There’s absolutely no fuckin way you actually believe the game died specifically because they didn’t monetize it. What does this even mean?

[Sluvs]

Player power is such a finnicky thing though. Like the example of Wyatt Chang and Gems vs Gear as player power. Also would a XP boost (or magic find increase boost) be considered a player power MTX?

Technically, it doesn't directly affect player power but by shortening the time it takes to level to max or increase loot drops to be more favorable that could shift the balance of player power to a more P2W bias while still remaining a "non-player power" MTX.

- - - Updated - - -



Eh depends on how much of a QoL those MTX add.

Like let's say that you're limited to 4 character slots... But could buy additional slots for $1.99, that could be annoying considering that you have 5 character classes (so far in D4) meaning that you couldn't start up 1 of each class.

Similarly with storage space, taking a page from PoE, your basic tab is so limiting compared to a premium or quad tab. And then those specific tabs are quite a QoL add. As others have stated, you don't NEED to purchase the extra tabs from PoE to play but they do improve upon the experience quite a bit.

So then the question also arises for D4, what is the total price a player would need to spend to have an enjoyable experience? Is it just the up-front purchase cost or will there be certain MTX that are effectively must-buys which then increases the overall cost of D4?

While people might have slightly different definitions about P2W, ANYTHING that affects you character in anyway that is not cosmetic is player power in the end. Mainly for D4. But even if you disagree with me, the examples that you gave me are almost the definition of selling player power. XP boosts? Player power, it literally helps you level up faster. Increasing loot drop? Definitely player power. It is literally giving you power faster.

IMHO it should be cosmetics ONLY. AND even then it sucks big time, the only reason that I accept that is because D4 multiplayer will be more heavily featured, so it makes sense that they would need MTXs to some extent to support the game for longer. But even stash space should be COMPLETELY off the table.

Answering the question that you posed, 60 bucks. Or whatever the retail price they decided. That should be the total price that a player should spend to enjoy the game to its fullest. The fact that this is a point that is being discussed, the price that a player shold pay to have an ENJOYABLE experience, is quite fraknly, disheartening.

TBF, I do believe them when they said that it will be cosmetics. As I said before. D:I is made for a very specific target audience in mind. D4 is a different beast, Core players are WAY less tolerating of MTX.

[Biomega]

Do we know if that's why D3 died, though? I will admit that it does sound plausible, but do we know that for sure?

There’s absolutely no fuckin way you actually believe the game died specifically because they didn’t monetize it. What does this even mean?

Of course we don't know FOR SURE. But we do know they planned another expansion, and cancelled it. And we do know that games with monetization schemes for recurring revenue are incentivized to produce content that keep as many people playing as possible to increase the number of people who make use of said monetization. We also know that D3's development team has been severely curtailed over the years.

We'll never be SURE about anything like that, because companies rarely if ever reveal such information. But we can put 2 and 2 together.

[Cayde69]

Of course we don't know FOR SURE. But we do know they planned another expansion, and cancelled it. And we do know that games with monetization schemes for recurring revenue are incentivized to produce content that keep as many people playing as possible to increase the number of people who make use of said monetization. We also know that D3's development team has been severely curtailed over the years.

We'll never be SURE about anything like that, because companies rarely if ever reveal such information. But we can put 2 and 2 together.

But that has nothing to do with why or why not they monetized it and it has absolutely nothing to do with why it died. If they wanted to monetize it they would have, they TRIED to and it’s what made the first group of people leave Diablo 3 at the very start. The issue is they didn’t have content compelling enough to keep people playing the game. Simple as that. The game just sucked, especially compared to the market which offered you a FREE alternative that was objectively better all around.

[Biomega]

But that has nothing to do with why or why not they monetized it and it has absolutely nothing to do with why it died.

It "died" (and I'm using that term loosely) because they stopped developing significant content for it.

Do you think a game that has a model with ongoing revenue is more likely or less likely to suffer that fate?

The issue is they didn’t have content compelling enough to keep people playing the game. Simple as that.

Yes and why is that, pray tell? Surely not because they decided that putting money behind a game that has no ongoing revenue stream is a waste? SURELY NOT?!

[Violent]

3- online only is to prevent hacks, item dupes, and (help with) bots.

Wait, what? In what world does that make sense?
"You have to be online to play, to prevent from getting hacked" You can't get hacked/dupes/ect WITHOUT online.. No bots, if not "online".

So, here, I'm going to create a monster, it can only harm you if you're on the Moon though... Oh don't forget, here's your free-pass to the Moon, also, you're going to need to give me your SS#, so I can give you this gun, for when that monster comes.. On the Moon, because I sent you to the Moon.

You getting any of this?

[Cayde69]

It "died" (and I'm using that term loosely) because they stopped developing significant content for it.

Do you think a game that has a model with ongoing revenue is more likely or less likely to suffer that fate?


Yes and why is that, pray tell? Surely not because they decided that putting money behind a game that has no ongoing revenue stream is a waste? SURELY NOT?!

*sigh*

Let’s break this down for you… I can’t believe that I have to explain that ADDING monetization doesn’t bring in players…

Do you think a game that has a model with ongoing revenue is more likely or less likely to suffer that fate

Do you happen to understand what correlation and causation mean? The fact that the games have monetization options isn’t the catalyst to whether or not they will survive. Games that do well, have a lot of players, when you have a lot of players, it’s easy to monetize them. This is literally the driving model for mobile games. They are heavily monetized because they have a MASSIVE playerbase to fish from. They don’t have a massive playerbase because they monetize the players.

If Diablo 3 was a good game, it would have a ton more players, if they had a ton more players, they could easily monetize them better. They tried this at the very beginning and they lost a metric FUCK load of players because they way they chose to monetize them was terrible.

Yes and why is that, pray tell? Surely not because they decided that putting money behind a game that has no ongoing revenue stream is a waste? SURELY NOT?!

It’s a waste because they weren’t making any money off of it with or without monetizations because the playerbase is so insignificantly small. If they had a player base of millions and millions, they could easily get away with just releasing content behind paywalls in the form of expansions, but they decided that that wasn’t even worth it anymore because no one was playing.

Let’s walk through this like your 5 years old.

You see a new game release, what’s the FIRST thing you look for in order to see if you want to play it or not?

Is it how much microtransactions they have?

Or is it how fun the content looks?

If you don’t have the content as a video game, the monetization never even comes up. You need the first in order to even discuss the second.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, what? In what world does that make sense?
"You have to be online to play, to prevent from getting hacked" You can't get hacked/dupes/ect WITHOUT online.. No bots, if not "online".

So, here, I'm going to create a monster, it can only harm you if you're on the Moon though... Oh don't forget, here's your free-pass to the Moon, also, you're going to need to give me your SS#, so I can give you this gun, for when that monster comes.. On the Moon, because I sent you to the Moon.

You getting any of this?

I think you highly misunderstood what this guy was saying lol