Diablo IV Launches June 6, 2023

[Biomega]

It costs more to make now, but they likewise SELL way more now (assuming the game doesn't suck and get review bombed).

While that's true, you're assuming that the increased production is outpaced by the increased sales - which is neither evident nor necessarily true. Also, you need to factor in general inflation - no one expected $60 to remain the go-to AAA price for much longer, for years now. That's completely normal economics. People tend to underestimate inflation's impact on prices over time; you can't really compare now to 20 years ago. Even 10 years is on shaky ground.

[BeepBoo]

That's completely normal economics.

Normal economics also sees the cost of plenty of tech goods come down or remain equivalent (when inflation adjusted) while quality rises significantly, too, though.

Ford model T OG price was 850. In today's dollars that's ~$25k. About what a normal bare bones car costs today, but a barebones car today is SIGNIFICANTLY better than a model T from back in the day in absolutely every way, shape, and form. Like... orders of magnitude better.

Or, take a more modern appliance, the IPhone.

Original 2007 price of $600. Inflation adjusted, that's $861.
Iphone 14 price is $800 and is immensely improved, again, in nearly every technical spec way.

CHEAPER price, better product.

Until tech industry profit margins come down to normal profit margins of things like bread companies, I'm going to expect that trend to continue.

[Biomega]

Normal economics also sees the cost of plenty of tech goods come down

Games are no more "tech goods" than movies are.

[BeepBoo]

Games are no more "tech goods" than movies are.

You'd find the same to be true of movie ticket prices. The budgets are way larger, but they make way more and sell to way more people, all while the quality of the movie (as far as technical specs go anyways) has increased. Price has gone up marginally when inflation adjusted, but far less than the value received IMO. We're getting 10x the movie at 100x the budgets for like 30% more cost.

[Biomega]

You'd find the same to be true of movie ticket prices. The budgets are way larger, but they make way more and sell to way more people, all while the quality of the movie (as far as technical specs go anyways) has increased. Price has gone up marginally when inflation adjusted, but far less than the value received IMO. We're getting 10x the movie at 100x the budgets for like 30% more cost.

According to NATO, movie theater ticket prices increased ~16% between 2010 and 2019.

Would you like to guess what a $60 AAA video game would cost now with a 16% increase? $69.60. Which means that to the surprise of absolutely no one, the new $70 price tag is EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE EXPECTED IT WOULD BE.

[Relapses]

Imaging supporting bad monetization, lol, so fucking spiteful. its sad.

What is "good monetization"? We're posting on a website for a video game that pretty much lit the firework that is the late stage ultra-capitalistic games-as-a-service hellscape we currently reside. The ship sailed for calling game developers out for their shitty monetization schemes eons ago.

[HansOlo]

So you are making the assumption im trolling you and are a bot? And when you cant discuss or argue against something and start defending, you instantly call others lack of knowledge? Damn. Why I said googling is quite simple, you didnt understand how a company like blizzard works, but then suddenly for some reason you understand it but in some weird way also dont. Its quite confusing how you keep changing your ideology.

And yes, you are extremely bad with communication. Its something that can be trained though.

I never said I compared between them. Said something where they can be identical but also not sure, but never said D4 shouldnt cost money.
And didnt you say they had very clever marketing ppl and thats why they increased it to 70? Now its changed to a simple idea and explanation. Makes alot more sense then what youve been defending with before.

D4 if the make it correctly can truly be worth 60-70euro sure, I dont say anything about it. I only complained about it due to how the economy is today due to inflation. Been my entire point. If it were before the war and inflation were down, I wouldnt bother as much about it even if I still dont like the "Battle pass + MTX + full cost" game option, has nothing to do with its original price.

I even explained i'm sadly a MTX addict in a certain way, even if I dont like to be one. And I argued on that point and inflation point.

Is D4 worth 70 euro? Without battle pass and MTX? Sure, if you could get battle pass + mtx from the store from just playing. Then yeah, it would be worth it. But as it stands right now, for me, its not.

Blizzard have stated before that the battle pass is to give them enough money to continue content for D4, which is fine as long as they actually do it. But then I wonder if next expansion you have to pay for (that is content) with additional battle pass costs with it. Meaning: Expansion + battle pass for every content. But only time will tell how they will build around it, but I dont have high hopes due to Diablo Immortal. Even if they say they learned from it, they kept saying that about everything but 90% of the time never did.

But I mean, you are a fanboy? I hope you understand the meaning of it?
And sadly, according to my knowledge/background, I know more about companies than you seems to do. Or you might lack knowledge/background :/

You know inflation might be the reason for the pricetag and it might even be lower than expected. We will see if we start to see games around 100$.

If a dev needs to earn more to buy more food, that means the company needs to pay him more. That obviously means that the company needs to earn more.

Meanwhile their datacenter(where your WoW toon is stored), costs 500% more to run due to electricity compared to last year.

But that is not a Blizzard problem - that is a global crisis.

- - - Updated - - -

Normal economics also sees the cost of plenty of tech goods come down or remain equivalent (when inflation adjusted) while quality rises significantly, too, though.

Ford model T OG price was 850. In today's dollars that's ~$25k. About what a normal bare bones car costs today, but a barebones car today is SIGNIFICANTLY better than a model T from back in the day in absolutely every way, shape, and form. Like... orders of magnitude better.

Or, take a more modern appliance, the IPhone.

Original 2007 price of $600. Inflation adjusted, that's $861.
Iphone 14 price is $800 and is immensely improved, again, in nearly every technical spec way.

CHEAPER price, better product.

Until tech industry profit margins come down to normal profit margins of things like bread companies, I'm going to expect that trend to continue.

But that doesn't make sense - better product compared to what? You don't have to compare the first lightbulb to the LED, just to prove that the tech got cheaper.

Why was the iPhone pricetagged 600$ to start with, when the competitors charges 50% off for better tech(been like that historically)? That comparision would be more relevant to this topic.

[Verissaugh]

You know inflation might be the reason for the pricetag and it might even be lower than expected. We will see if we start to see games around 100$.

If a dev needs to earn more to buy more food, that means the company needs to pay him more. That obviously means that the company needs to earn more.

Meanwhile their datacenter(where your WoW toon is stored), costs 500% more to run due to electricity compared to last year.

But that is not a Blizzard problem - that is a global crisis.

I mean if you can prove that the devs earns more money compared to before, and not like a 50 euro higher pay but more (which I doubt) then id agree with you.

And with the electricity for storing WoW datacenter can be wrong with how you are counting. Alot of the bigger companies with storage usually have a contract where they always pay the same and does not change depending on electricity costs. Amazon has that in Sweden for example what ive read into and some other companies in sweden also has that. Atleast thats known facts here.

The thing is, when companies or anything rly just increases price for usually no reason, it gives a bad taste in ppls mouth (for us who cant really save much per month).
But lets say they aknowledge inflation and said due to having to give a raise to their devs they had to increase the price of the game. That would be different for alot of people and more understanding. Thats kinda what alot of ppl dont understand, more info gives less worries or less theories/thinking.

So that mindset you are using there is not wrong, but it can also be entirely wrong. Same with what I am saying aswell unless proof as been shown. And as long as proof isnt there, these mindsets will keep being there. But all in all, theres alot of companies/stores that increases price and falsely claims its due to inflation, thats also known facts. People just dont know if its alot or not with it.

[Krawu]

Can't wait to not play it. Grim Dawn and PoE all the way.

[Akka]

And how do you pay for new content? Magical money printing machine powered by players "just playing the game"?

By selling the game ?
No Man's Sky has been in development nonstop for four years now, no microtransaction, no shop, and they don't seem to go bankrupt.
But hey, defend more billionnaires, they need simps to shield them from valid criticism.

[Biomega]

By selling the game ?
No Man's Sky has been in development nonstop for four years now, no microtransaction, no shop, and they don't seem to go bankrupt.
But hey, defend more billionnaires, they need simps to shield them from valid criticism.

If you think that a box price can pay for a full, polished AAA game and *also* for several years worth of actual content, I guess you live in a parallel reality where the regular rules of business don't apply.

But hey, defend your "I deserve stuff for free" attitude by making snide remarks about corporate greed and cloaking it in the pretense of valid criticism.

[Akka]

If you think that a box price can pay for a full, polished AAA game and *also* for several years worth of actual content, I guess you live in a parallel reality where the regular rules of business don't apply.

But hey, defend your "I deserve stuff for free" attitude by making snide remarks about corporate greed and cloaking it in the pretense of valid criticism.

Okay bootlicker.

[Biomega]

Okay bootlicker.

Compelling retort! You got that from your Harvard MBA?

Why think - just ramble. So much easier, so much more self-congratulatory, so much more satisfying! And none of the risk of, you know, being wrong.

There's a REASON players WANTED them to put in recurring revenue models. We've been through D3. We've seen what happens to content when there's no incentive to produce updates. Nobody wants a repeat of that. And an optional cosmetic/QoL model that gives free content? That's about as good as it gets.

I'd ask you what you think works better, but I think we both know it'd be a waste of time.

[Ihavewaffles]

I looked at what the Dragonflight collector's edition box cost, €129,99

But D4 has separated the box from the game, so you have to buy stuff separately
the box costs €109,66
the game + in-game goodies - ultimate edition, €99,99

= €209,65


Like...holy shit are we being ripped off...how many yachts does Bobby need??

[munkeyinorbit]

If you think base cost + battle pass + mtx shop + pay more for headstart is not predatory, then there is little to discuss with you.

I said point out the predatory part. There is nothing in your reply that could be remotely construed as predatory. Unless there are loot boxes in the store?

Thinking that something is too expensive doesn't make something predatory. It just means that you don't see value in the product and the add-ons. I liked D3. I even bought a little gold from the RMAH. I see the prices and I'm thinking I might buy just the base because I see value in that for me. I think it will be a good game and I will probably be back to it a number of times over the next 5 years. I am making purchasing decisions as an adult. Instead of making unfounded accusations, maybe you should too.

- - - Updated - - -

It's predatory because ppl can't control themselves and will spend any money to get another cosmetic wings.

People can control themselves. They choose not to. There is nothing predatory about that.

[OscaR]

Don't buy the stuff if you think it's expensive and predatory man. It doesn't have to be a difficult decision. You'll play the game just fine if you choose to play it.

[Yseraboy]

So odd that I'm interested in the game, but now I have to research what "Season Battle Pass unlock", "Premium Season Battle pass unlock", and "skip 20 Tiers" mean.

"Accelerated Seasonal Battle Pass Unlock in Diablo IV (a Premium Seasonal Battle Pass Unlock plus 20 Tier Skips and a cosmetic)"

Wut??

How much of a savings is the Battle Pass unlock? How much of a 'grind' am I by-passing with a 20-tier skip???

And the legalese always makes me cringe: "Minimum Open Beta duration is 2 days."

[Biomega]

How much of a savings is the Battle Pass unlock? How much of a 'grind' am I by-passing with a 20-tier skip???

We don't know the details yet. But do keep in mind that the BP is purely cosmetic/convenience based, and locks no actual content. That you just get for free.

People's expectations are that the BP skip isn't all that relevant to anyone who plays the game like a grinder - as Diablo players are often wont to do. If you are in the habit of playing hours every day during a season, you likely won't need skips. But if you just play every now and then, it might be something that'll help you complete the season goals without having to do dedicated grinding.

All that is speculation, though. We have no concrete information yet, beyond Blizzard's promise that the BP will only be cosmetic/convenience. For whatever that's worth to you. It's likely we'll see Beta at some point early next year, and probably have a better idea then. I encourage everyone not to prepurchase until they have all the info they need to make a reasoned, informed decision. I'll wait until Beta for sure.

[cozzri]

If you think that a box price can pay for a full, polished AAA game and *also* for several years worth of actual content, I guess you live in a parallel reality where the regular rules of business don't apply.

But hey, defend your "I deserve stuff for free" attitude by making snide remarks about corporate greed and cloaking it in the pretense of valid criticism.

I think it's safe to downgrade Blizzard from AAA to DDD, maybe BBB at best. Corporate culture has stranglehold on the development and profit metrics. Being a corporate entity, they are obligated to remain profitable for shareholders; it's why we see the injection of MTX, FOMO, etc.. into WoW; the numbers must be shored up to secure market value. This issue, conflated with the large teams and overhead, you rub into some serious problems on the creative aspect of development; risk taking is sidelined for methodic development. This can be seen in WoW; the writing, the gameplay, minimal development of new systems. Working under such constraints is taxing on employees, not to mention hours, pay, harassment, and any other problems with office dynamics for such a large team.

No Man's Sky, by contrast, is privately owned. The team size is under 30. They have the freedom to take more risks and express more creativity throughout the development process. The company is under no obligation to appease stockholders. In a way, the company as it is now resembles early Blizzard; when they made highly popular games by their own merit, i.e. not riding on the coattails of a brand name created well over a decade ago.

At what point do you stop thinking about money and start thinking about the player experience? As a player OR developer? Nothing is "free" there is a time investment and salaries to be paid. So maybe the question that should be asked is "where is the money going? So many cool things could have been added to WoW over the years; systems upon systems, housing, mini games, etc etc. But the game would have severe development bloat, excessively more than where is stand currently. But the money is there to throw at it to make it happen? Surely it is, but the bloat could reach a breaking point where stockholders are losing value, so the scope of the game must remain limited, profits must be secured through MTX so stockholders aren't losing value. FOMO must be introduced to maintain sub numbers so stockholders aren't losing value. Are you seeing a trend here?

[Biomega]

I think it's safe to downgrade Blizzard from AAA to DDD, maybe BBB at best.

That's not how it works. AAA is about the size and scope of publishing behind a title, not the game's quality or the reputation of the publisher. While borrowed from financial rating systems in its origin, the term is not used as a rating system, only as an informal classification of budget and reach. Plenty of AAA games are critically or financially unsuccessful. That doesn't make them DDD games. It just makes them terrible AAA games.

If your faith in Blizzard has been shattered, fair enough - they certainly haven't done themselves any favors. Express that if you wish, but don't use existing terminology in ways that aren't really widely applicable. It only confuses people. Blizzard is and remains a AAA publisher in the sense that this term is usually employed within gaming, i.e. they are a big-budget, top-of-the-industry, major-league publisher/developer. They make AAA games, whether or not those games are critically or financially successful, and whether or not they have problems in their corporate infrastructure or workplace climate; that term has no direct bearing on those things.

Being a corporate entity, they are obligated to remain profitable for shareholders; it's why we see the injection of MTX, FOMO, etc.. into WoW; the numbers must be shored up to secure market value. This issue, conflated with the large teams and overhead, you rub into some serious problems on the creative aspect of development

You're not wrong, but that's the nature of business. It also means money for grander scales, and projects that smaller, more creatively focused companies could not or would be unlikely to produce. It's somewhat like the motion picture industry - Marvel & Co. are largely creatively bankrupt cash grabs, designed and optimized for revenue above all else. If you want brilliantly written, expertly crafted pieces of cinema, there's independent film makers out there that can give you that; but you can't expect those films to also have a seven-figure special effects budget and deliver a CGI extravaganza.

If you prefer a different kind of game, you should put your money behind that. Vote with your wallet. Corporations maximize their profits any way they can get away with, so don't let them get away with what you don't support. And if other people DO support it, well, they have that right. You can disagree and try to change their minds.

Working under such constraints is taxing on employees, not to mention hours, pay, harassment, and any other problems with office dynamics for such a large team.

That's a bit of a separate issue as it's an industry-wide problem with deep systemic entanglements that go far beyond the industry. It's part of the larger philosophy of labor and market that's been steering US-based industry in particular (but not exclusively) for many decades. We should all want better working conditions, but the way to get there is mostly through legislation, not consumption. They need unions and other forms of collective bargaining, government oversight, robust labor legislation, and so on. That's a very different fight fought on very different fronts.

No Man's Sky, by contrast, is privately owned. The team size is under 30. They have the freedom to take more risks and express more creativity throughout the development process.

Yes. And they have forever enshrined their place in history as "most disappointing hype bubble of all time". For whatever that's worth. They couldn't deliver on what they promised, and should never have promised as much as they did. The fact that they now promise less and deliver on that is them returning to the baseline, not them suddenly rising to a higher standard. Don't confuse the two. Coke didn't somehow improve after reverting from New Coke.

The company is under no obligation to appease stockholders.

And in return, it has less money to realize their creativity with. It's a world of trade-offs. You have more freedom to do what you want, provided what you want doesn't cost too much money.

At what point do you stop thinking about money and start thinking about the player experience?

At the point where players value that experience enough to back it with their money. The reason all the "bad stuff" you criticize works is that customers let it happen. If people valued, say, engaging, sophisticated, complex writing enough to make it the core of their purchasing decision, companies would be REAL quick in making sure they have that. The reality is, most people don't. They WANT the "Marvel experience" of big boom boom kapow pew pew pew. Or at least, enough of them want enough of it to make that the selling point, rather than something else. That sucks for the people who would perhaps like more than dumb formulas retreading stale stereotypes, but that's majority rule at work. Don't like it, don't buy it - send the right signal, and maybe it'll be heard.

I'm with you in principle - I want great writing, I want complex, engaging systems, I want fair pay and healthy working conditions. I try to put my money where my mouth is, and in my job, I try to work on the root causes of these trends by providing education and research into various forms of fiction, so hopefully more people come over to the side of being a more sophisticated, more discerning, and more demanding audience.

...but all that being said, I STILL think the Diablo monetization model is at its core a fair and reasonable system to provide both players and companies with what they want and need.