The Diablo 4 pre-order bundles, and their supposed cost

[Strawberry]

D4 is going to have a similar cash shop to path of exile, and the "cool" looking gear will be cash shop only.
So....


That aside, we know what stuff poe offers in their shop - and aside inventory space, it's all cosmetics.
D4 is yet to prove itself. Chances are, with what we've seen in WoW, that it's going to have more than just cosmetics.

Your argument can be used to counterargument your argument, lol.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not an excuse for anything though. I was responding to someone who posited the question of value. They challenged the notion that you would have a hard time finding fun//entertainment//value et el for under the absolute gauging price of d4.

I simply retorted that there was another game that provides such.

Yes PoE has a shop. You would be wise to spend $20 for some currency tabs. Aside from that (which if you don't want to, or don't have a spare twenty, you absolutely do not need to) the game is free. Not only this, but every three months they release what would equate to a diablo expansion (another $40 or more) for free. Every three months.

They also have league (seasonal for you diablos) achievements where you earn cosmetic rewards for free (because apparently that's the only thing preventing you from enjoying the game)

I digress, fair play, if you care a lot about aesthetics, and are willing to pay that amount just for that, good on ya! I personally won't, and that's fine too, but as stated at the beginning of this next to useless post, I was simply providing an answer to a myopic and poorly constructed question that one could answer easily and confidently within seconds, because aesthetics aside, PoE is vastly superior in almost every way to d3, and I'd be willing to wager a d4s price worth that PoE 2 will be infinitely better than the aforementioned competition.

I know how PoE plays and is being managed. I have many hours in the game. And I know that I don't want to play it, even if it's free.
F2P is not a business model I want to support, especially not business model like PoE has.
I will spend €100 at least on Diablo 4 (more if I decide to buy for both PC and PS5) and I will keep buying seasons every time it's released. But I will not play free PoE 2.

[Nymrohd]

D4 is going to have a similar cash shop to path of exile, and the "cool" looking gear will be cash shop only.
So....


That aside, we know what stuff poe offers in their shop - and aside inventory space, it's all cosmetics.
D4 is yet to prove itself. Chances are, with what we've seen in WoW, that it's going to have more than just cosmetics.

But we've seen cash shop cosmetics AND in game cosmetics for D4. I can't say that cash shop ones are straight better; they seem pretty similar.

[chiddie]

But we've seen cash shop cosmetics AND in game cosmetics for D4. I can't say that cash shop ones are straight better; they seem pretty similar.

This.

And on a side node I still fail in understanding why people are so obsessed with cosmetic stuff, playing RPGs since 1985’s Bard’s Tale and NEVER cared about cosmetics.

[Nymrohd]

This.

And on a side node I still fail in understanding why people are so obsessed with cosmetic stuff, playing RPGs since 1985’s Bard’s Tale and NEVER cared about cosmetics.

I mean in old RPGs cosmetics were pointless because we were looking at pixels. Even in the isometric era, cosmetics were barely visible. But these days cosmetics are seen as customization first and foremost. They are there to make your character look cool and/or to best match them with whatever fantasy archetype you are trying to replicate.

[chiddie]

I mean in old RPGs cosmetics were pointless because we were looking at pixels. Even in the isometric era, cosmetics were barely visible. But these days cosmetics are seen as customization first and foremost. They are there to make your character look cool and/or to best match them with whatever fantasy archetype you are trying to replicate.

For me it’s all about slaying demons, being the hero naked or with a Gold Saint armor is not that important, honestly.

[Coldkil]

For me it’s all about slaying demons, being the hero naked or with a Gold Saint armor is not that important, honestly.

I have a peculiar stance about cosmetics (i think).

Every character i create has an RP background, and it reflects on the build i will use with it. So cosmetics are kind of relevant since they are going to reflect that.

It's not that i care a lot about them but a well done cosmetic system definitely adds uo points to me.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean in old RPGs cosmetics were pointless because we were looking at pixels. Even in the isometric era, cosmetics were barely visible. But these days cosmetics are seen as customization first and foremost. They are there to make your character look cool and/or to best match them with whatever fantasy archetype you are trying to replicate.

Agree with this aswell. Woth modern graphics looking good or bad is much more discernible compared to 20/30 years ago.

[RobertoCarlos]

Cosmetics represent progression. Going from a loin cloth into full gothic themed armor shows character progression. It matters. For some reason gamers decided to throw a pity party for businesses and decided to give them away so they could chase unlimited profits because "its just cosmetics man its not pay to win"

[Biomega]

Cosmetics represent progression. Going from a loin cloth into full gothic themed armor shows character progression. It matters. For some reason gamers decided to throw a pity party for businesses and decided to give them away so they could chase unlimited profits because "its just cosmetics man its not pay to win"

While you're not entirely incorrect, it's a gross oversimplification rooted in the umbrella term "progression". It's kind of like saying it's "gameplay" because yes it's a game and yes it's a result of playing, but the technical correctness of that characterization glosses over vernacular understandings of such terms that are much more differentiated.

When people are talking "progression", most often they mean POWER progression - e.g. advancing an RPG character in a way that makes it more powerful. While acquiring cosmetics is undoubtedly a kind of "progression", it's distinctly different from THAT KIND of progression (i.e. power-based progression). The fact that they fall under a similar heading doesn't erase those differences, which for many people are far more distinguishing than they show similarity.

That's why "pay to win" doesn't apply to cosmetics in most every sense of the term; you don't WIN at cosmetics, because it's not a victory or power-based progression system to begin with.

In no sense does this mean cosmetics aren't a RELEVANT form of progression to many people, of course. Just a DIFFERENT kind of progression from several others, including power progression (and also things like e.g. progression based on in-game achievements and whatnot). Just because they can be grouped under the very general umbrella term "progression" doesn't mean they should all be treated the same. That's not reflective of player preferences OR the underlying mechanics.

[arandomuser]

if games prices scaled with inflation youd be paying way more than 70$ but then they might also be able to not have to do in game purchases and DLCs to make a profit.
"Nintendo released “Super Mario 64” as one of the first games for its Nintendo 64 console in 1996. At the time, the game sold for about $60, per the Times"- https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...%20the%20Times.

im bad at math so im just gonna google " 60$ in 1996 worth now" and its about 114-116$ ( acc to google maybe someone who does precise math gets a better number or if they only focus on electronics but i digress for the sake of the argument)
but how outraged would people be if companies started charging 115$ for a game even though it woulld be a fair price, ( assuming its the full game without all of the extra things they charge outside the base price)

so if people want to be free of the much hated in game purchases maybe they should start accepting more expensive games. the people that work at these companies gotta earn a living to

[RobertoCarlos]

if games prices scaled with inflation youd be paying way more than 70$ but then they might also be able to not have to do in game purchases and DLCs to make a profit.
"Nintendo released “Super Mario 64” as one of the first games for its Nintendo 64 console in 1996. At the time, the game sold for about $60, per the Times"- https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...%20the%20Times.

im bad at math so im just gonna google " 60$ in 1996 worth now" and its about 114-116$ ( acc to google maybe someone who does precise math gets a better number or if they only focus on electronics but i digress for the sake of the argument)
but how outraged would people be if companies started charging 115$ for a game even though it woulld be a fair price, ( assuming its the full game without all of the extra shit they charge outside the base price)

so if people want to be free of the in game purchases maybe they should start accepting more expensive games

Technology and software has improved so you can't say games cost the same to make.

Also the indie model shows you don't need to spend 100 million on a game in the first place

- - - Updated - - -

While you're not entirely incorrect, it's a gross oversimplification rooted in the umbrella term "progression". It's kind of like saying it's "gameplay" because yes it's a game and yes it's a result of playing, but the technical correctness of that characterization glosses over vernacular understandings of such terms that are much more differentiated.

When people are talking "progression", most often they mean POWER progression - e.g. advancing an RPG character in a way that makes it more powerful. While acquiring cosmetics is undoubtedly a kind of "progression", it's distinctly different from THAT KIND of progression (i.e. power-based progression). The fact that they fall under a similar heading doesn't erase those differences, which for many people are far more distinguishing than they show similarity.

That's why "pay to win" doesn't apply to cosmetics in most every sense of the term; you don't WIN at cosmetics, because it's not a victory or power-based progression system to begin with.

In no sense does this mean cosmetics aren't a RELEVANT form of progression to many people, of course. Just a DIFFERENT kind of progression from several others, including power progression (and also things like e.g. progression based on in-game achievements and whatnot). Just because they can be grouped under the very general umbrella term "progression" doesn't mean they should all be treated the same. That's not reflective of player preferences OR the underlying mechanics.

All you're essentially saying is that if it doesnt matter to you as an individual who cares. Because each player is gonna have different goals/expectations/different experiences playing but it all boils down to what is essentially the "game" and how much of that is bottled in the initial purchase vs ongoing purchases.

[bbr]

"Accelerated game pass"
oh boy.

"plus 20 tier skips"
oh no...

[The Oblivion]

"Accelerated game pass"
oh boy.

"plus 20 tier skips"
oh no...

oh no someone will get cosmetics 3 days before someone else. how will everyone survive

[Biomega]

I'm honestly GLAD you can pay for stuff like that.

Because it has no real impact on my gameplay, but it pumps money and incentive into developing more stuff without costing me a dime.

Win-Win for me.

[Coldkil]

[

"Accelerated game pass"
oh boy.

"plus 20 tier skips"
oh no...

Applies to cosmetics only. There are xp boosts but they're on the free track and they have prerequisites to use them so even paying doesn't make you actually speed up anything.

[Aliven]

I'm honestly GLAD you can pay for stuff like that.

Because it has no real impact on my gameplay, but it pumps money and incentive into developing more stuff without costing me a dime.

Win-Win for me.

Lol, keep dreaming the game would even see a cent from those microtransactions

- - - Updated - - -

Applies to cosmetics only. There are xp boosts but they're on the free track and they have prerequisites to use them so even paying doesn't make you actually speed up anything.

And we can see in OW2 how gracefully blizz do season passes. But it is totaly diff time u guys :P

[Endus]

My only issue there is the 20 tier skips. "By paying extra, you can play the game less!"

[Unlimited Power]

Lol, keep dreaming the game would even see a cent from those microtransactions

- - - Updated - - -



And we can see in OW2 how gracefully blizz do season passes. But it is totaly diff time u guys :P

It doesn't matter if the majority of the money goes to investors or the CEO.

If the game has the potential for recurring monetization, it means Blizzard will continue to fund updates for it, unlike D3 that was more or less abandoned after the RMAH was removed and first expansion shipped.

[Biomega]

Lol, keep dreaming the game would even see a cent from those microtransactions

You haven't thought about this for more than 2 seconds, huh.

The whole point is to give people INCENTIVES to come back EVERY SEASON - because these are SEASON passes they want to sell.

Without them making seasons attractive, less people will play, and less people will give them money.

This is a direct, economic, selfish incentive for them to keep developing new stuff. Because that's what'll attract paying customers. This isn't goodwill or giving players a gift - this is THE BUSINESS.

[Aliven]

It doesn't matter if the majority of the money goes to investors or the CEO.

If the game has the potential for recurring monetization, it means Blizzard will continue to fund updates for it, unlike D3 that was more or less abandoned after the RMAH was removed and first expansion shipped.

There would be updates for monetization, this is one is a sure thing. Bleed them dry and pack up.

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't thought about this for more than 2 seconds, huh.

The whole point is to give people INCENTIVES to come back EVERY SEASON - because these are SEASON passes they want to sell.

Without them making seasons attractive, less people will play, and less people will give them money.

This is a direct, economic, selfish incentive for them to keep developing new stuff. Because that's what'll attract paying customers. This isn't goodwill or giving players a gift - this is THE BUSINESS.

D3 worked with 28 seasons just fine. D2 has how many seasons?

The only thing they will develop is more and more predatory monetization

[Biomega]

D3 worked with 28 seasons just fine. D2 has how many seasons?

The only thing they will develop is more and more predatory monetization

Bullshit.

Everyone was complaining about D3 maintenance mode, and D2 barely changing anything in 20 years. And you know why? Because they didn't have ONGOING REVENUE attached to them.

Is this really what you want D4 to be? Half-hearted seasons with minimal changes designed by a 2-person team like in D3? Or 4 new runewords every couple of YEARS like we got in D2? That's something you think would be a better model than having constant, meaningful updates?