Oh Blizzard, how you have fallen (Diablo Immortal).

[Ghost of Cow]

Blackjack is another example, you do NOT gamble with money in Blackjack, you buy blackjack CHIPS that you use. At least I never seen anyone use cash on the tables, only chips.

Buying chips isn't gamble, only using them is. Same thing here with crests.

Let me know when you can buy crests and then turn them back in for the same amount of cash...

It's weird how we can agree on the conclusion but your logic for getting there is so out in left field.

[Delekii]

You say it yourself "if you paid directly with cash for the gamble" that means they don't DIRECTLY sell gambling, so it's slander to say they do.

I know crests just have 1 purpose, but by selling crests instead of gambling directly, now you can save crests and use them whenever you want, or not use them at all, who knows, they could have another purpose in the future. With crests you have more control, how is that a bad thing?

- - - Updated - - -



Blackjack is another example, you do NOT gamble with money in Blackjack, you buy blackjack CHIPS that you use. At least I never seen anyone use cash on the tables, only chips.

Buying chips isn't gamble, only using them is. Same thing here with crests.

Fuck me, you really are dumb.

In what way does it give you MORE control you buy crests on the way to gambling them? If you buy crests first, you LOSE control of your money, which you could otherwise have held until you actually use it. If, for some reason, you buy crests before you intend to use them, you give Blizzard access to your money before you intend to use the product you paid for, which is nonsensical. Would you pay for groceries a week before receiving them, just because you can? There is no reason to obtain crests before you intend to use them; they have unlimited supply, and they do nothing until used, to gamble with.

Crests are functionally real-world money that cannot be used for anything but rift gambling. They serve zero purpose other than representing your dollars and cents in diablo immortal.

As I said literally in the post you quoted, the only reason the crests exists is to obfuscate real cost and make it seem less consequential, thus making it more likely for people to spend money. If it were the case that people more readily paid directly in cash, the crests wouldn't exist.

[Kyanion]

? Most guilds collected the rare raid only resource to forge gear for their raid team to help them easier kill content. Gear itself was Master Looted and distributed out by either council or DKP usually.

Again, 'most' and 'every' are incorrect when you are looking at Vanilla guilds from 16 years ago. Sure there are guilds that did it and there were guilds that didn't do it. But unless you were on every server and saw how every guild handled their runs then you can't say things like most and every. It was not some universal thing.

I can't speak to classic but I am going to wager that 'every' and 'most' did not apply there either.

- - - Updated - - -

Blackjack is another example, you do NOT gamble with money in Blackjack, you buy blackjack CHIPS that you use. At least I never seen anyone use cash on the tables, only chips.

Buying chips isn't gamble, only using them is. Same thing here with crests.

Ah yes, I guess Vegas better change how they do things. You aren't there to gamble you're there to... you know what, fuck it. I don't even want to come up with shit for such a stupid statement. You have a warped view on how the world works and you just are wrong over and over.

[bullseyed]

I think they more so mean how they removed the quiver which used to appear on the model. They should have kept the quiver slot as a cosmetic and just say it has infinite arrows.

Give the legion legendary items came with quiver appearances, they could certainly add a quiver model that varies for every bow in the game. They did add a cloak-as-a-quiver thing for Sylvanas.

- - - Updated - - -

But the item was entirely removed. Keep the item. Have the hunters replace it a few times per expac.

They aren't going to have different classes need more or less items than others. While some 1H specs have dual wield, hunter has ranged + 2H weapons so that's already "2" weapon items to fill. Same reason why hunters don't get dual wield.

[KainneAbsolute]

I suggest we change this post to a Megathread hahah

[Strawberry]

Genshin Impact's battle pass has been the same for a long time
So i wouldn't expect this one to change much.

What does Genishin has to do with Diablo?
Might as well say that since Rocket League Sideswipe has completely different battle pass items every season, we should expect Diablo Immortal to change a lot.

[Mendzia]

What does Genishin has to do with Diablo?
Might as well say that since Rocket League Sideswipe has completely different battle pass items every season, we should expect Diablo Immortal to change a lot.

Some people here have such a strange tendency to use 'X game also have this so it is okay here' argument to defend any dogshit monetisation/system.
It is same thing in store mounts threads where they say 'but FFXIV also have $$ store so it is fine!!!!'.

[Elim Garak]

Dogshit monetization systems don't survive. If you see such systems in many successful games - they are GOOD systems. The matter of dog shit is just your subjective opinion, which is wrong as proven by reality.

[Blackcoffin]

Dogshit monetization systems don't survive. If you see such systems in many successful games - they are GOOD systems. The matter of dog shit is just your subjective opinion, which is wrong as proven by reality.

Your opinion of what is considered a good system is subjective as well. Your premise implies people play a game for its monetary composition. It might be the case for some, but as a broad conclusion, no. Its not a strict dichotomy.

A game can have excellent graphics, gameplay, replayability, but a horrendous monetization system. Will this be considered a good game or system? From a corporate point of view, it would be excellent, because they make money. The moral implication however, is that they're prying on impulsive human behaviour - and from that point of view, it is predatory.

[Elim Garak]

Your opinion of what is considered a good system is subjective as well.

No, it's objective by the data. Bad systems don't survive. Therefore the current systems are creme de la creme. Your opinion of them is subjective though. As is mine.

[Huehuecoyotl]

No, it's objective by the data. Bad systems don't survive. Therefore the current systems are creme de la creme. Your opinion of them is subjective though. As is mine.

Someone needs a quick run-through of the US Healthcare system. Maybe you could explain how that's a "good" system?

Actually, don't bother. Because it is a "good" system, for the insurers and healthcare providers. It allows them to get enormous amounts of money from US citizens and into their own pockets. That's why it survives, because it's good for the providers, not the users.

Same thing with monetization processes; they can survive because the companies love how much money it makes for them for relatively little effort. Doesn't mean that they are in any way good for gamers.

Flying visit from me, I'm not going to get involved in this "discussion" again. I lost 20 IQ points just catching up on the last couple of pages.

[Blackcoffin]

No, it's objective by the data. Bad systems don't survive. Therefore the current systems are creme de la creme. Your opinion of them is subjective though. As is mine.

My contention is, that a system has no intrinsic objectivity. Which is why it is asinine to say, that a bad system will not survive. It is up to the consumer or developer to determine if a system is good, bad or something else entirely. A system just is, which is the only objective thing you can say about it.

[Elim Garak]

My contention is, that a system has no intrinsic objectivity. Which is why it is asinine to say, that a bad system will not survive. It is up to the consumer or developer to determine if a system is good, bad or something else entirely. A system just is, which is the only objective thing you can say about it.

That's just "you are right but I won't admit it" in too many words. With sophistry on top.
We are talking about the specific system that consumers and developers have already determined to be good. Because if it wasn't - it would've been dead 10 years ago.
Market (consumers and producers) decides.
Sucks if you are not agreeing with the market - but it's ok.

[Battlebeard]

Dogshit monetization systems don't survive. If you see such systems in many successful games - they are GOOD systems. The matter of dog shit is just your subjective opinion, which is wrong as proven by reality.

Then why is this game growing and making more and more money? It's anything but dying.

[KrayZ33]

That's just "you are right but I won't admit it" in too many words. With sophistry on top.
We are talking about the specific system that consumers and developers have already determined to be good. Because if it wasn't - it would've been dead 10 years ago.
Market (consumers and producers) decides.
Sucks if you are not agreeing with the market - but it's ok.

I mean... it's not unlikely that one side is absolutely "losing" in a system and it can still exist.
I have no idea why you think a system has to be "good" (in this case "fair") or otherwise it will fail.


That's unreal.
It makes no fucking sense at all. A system, especially *this* system, can be good for a certain type of player, for example whales, and absolut dogshit for F2P/low spender players. All this monetization model tells you is that Blizzard *thinks* this will get them the most money. It's not even *certain* either but I'm willing to say it's the best for THEM when their goal is to make as much money as possible *right now*.

[Blackcoffin]

That's just "you are right but I won't admit it" in too many words. With sophistry on top.
We are talking about the specific system that consumers and developers have already determined to be good. Because if it wasn't - it would've been dead 10 years ago.
Market (consumers and producers) decides.
Sucks if you are not agreeing with the market - but it's ok.

That's a red herring if I've ever seen one. The fact that people play this game, has no saying about the nature, morality or even rating of the system. There a nuances to these mechanics you can grade. Its not black or white, 0 or 1.

Judging by the thread, many people seem to agree that its over the top, even by conventional Gacha standards. Are they not part of the market?

[Elim Garak]

Then why is this game growing and making more and more money? It's anything but dying.

Because the system is good

That's unreal.
It makes no fucking sense at all. A system, especially *this* system, can be good for a certain type of player, for example whales, and absolut dogshit for F2P/low spender players.

Lol. this system is good for MAJORITY of the players in the market. Welcome to the marginal fringe. First time?

That's a red herring if I've ever seen one. The fact that people play this game, has no saying about the nature, morality or even rating of the system. There a nuances to these mechanics you can grade. Its not black or white, 0 or 1.

Judging by the thread, many people seem to agree that its over the top, even by conventional Gacha standards. Are they not part of the market?

That's a strawman moving goal posts like many have seen before.

[Blackcoffin]

That's a strawman moving goal posts like many have seen before.

Im addressing what you reply to me, yet I'm strawmaning? Whatever you say skip.

[Edge-]

Dogshit monetization systems don't survive. If you see such systems in many successful games - they are GOOD systems. The matter of dog shit is just your subjective opinion, which is wrong as proven by reality.

Qualify "good" here.

Good as in beneficial to players? Good as in beneficial to the overall experience? Or maybe good as in it generates a lot of revenue?

[Elim Garak]

Qualify "good" here.

Good as in beneficial to players? Good as in beneficial to the overall experience? Or maybe good as in it generates a lot of revenue?

This was qualified already and explained.
It's good because it works good. It cannot work good without the support from players. Support from the players means it's good for THEM.

And no, just because a loud minority doesn't like it - doesn't make it bad.

Im addressing what you reply to me, yet I'm strawmaning? Whatever you say skip.

You are confusing ad hominem with a strawman. Figures.
We are talking monetization system here - not morality. Your moral stance is irrelevant to how good a system is.