How would you want to pay for Diablo 4?

[Vofka]

After returning and playing Grim Dawn i will absolutely refuse to play any game that:
- Has any kind of micro-transactions no matter if it's cosmetics only or not
- Has a DLC that add such things as cosmetics and QoL improvements
- Has a "meta" where are only 2-5 builds can perform and the only thing developers are doing about it is number changing
- Always online

*Huge bonus would be a modding support.

F*ck AAA publishers with their predatory market practices. Seriously, for me Grim Dawn and what Crate interactive doing with it was a huge eye opener. Of course the game itself could use some more polished animations but everything else about this game is just great.

[Lord Pebbleton]

I think it's clear that Blizzard cannot really provide continuous, frequent and engaging content even if a sub is involved. Also I would just turn to free or pay-once alternatives if they pulled that.

[Martymark]

Do you not have a phone?

Popups like most other phone games of course!

[Florena]

Assuming it's the same style of game Diablo 3 was, buy once then done. Maybe pay for an expansion or two if the content is worth it. But no micro transactions and no subscription for it.

If D4 was like, a Diablo MMORPG with content and story patches, I'd be fine with a sub fee.

[Tojara]

Paid expansions take way too long.

I don't play PoE but I watched one of the lead developers talk for an hour during a GDC explaining what worked for their game. They arrived (much like D3) that seasonal approach works best around the three month mark. Over the years they also felt what worked best for the game was introducing a medium to small (repeating) approach to adding content to the game. So one season would be pretty big, with the next one being fairly minor. Giant patches work too, but the cost of doing them is a couple cycles of small content patches as most of the development time is put into that single big one, so over time they gravitated towards the medium to small approach.

The reason they settled on medium to small is because it's much easier to maintain for them, and if somebody doesn't like a particular season they know a new one is coming out in a few months. Big patches take way too much time and they run the risk of it not being received as well, which would be costly to them considering the next couple patches/seasons are likely to be small.

With that said, I think a new entry for Diablo needs to have a constant revenue stream if it wants to be updated in a regular fashion. It's updated right now with a skeleton crew, but those updates are pretty laughable at best. I honestly don't view micro-transactions as the devil like many people commonly do, the issue with micro-transactions is when a company does them poorly. Nothing about the PoE system seems predatory and nothing about it gives you such a massive advantage that it feels like P2W. While there are a lot of games that do micro-transactions badly, there are some that do it well.

ARPG as a genre need updates semi-regularly to survive, or keep interest IMO, at least in this day and age. You aren't going to get this with a one time purchase, especially considering development costs of modern games either. Revenue streams come in the form of micro-transactions, paid DLC, expansions or subscriptions. Personally if I had to choose one of those four, I'd go with micro-transactions hands down. DLC feels mandatory and while full-blown expansions feel good, they take way too long generally. These games feel better when they are living and breathing entities, where you have content added every 3-4 months.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

$60.00 USD purchase with expansions on the way(Since that would be the way to go and I believe if they actually commit to it it can work).

[whywhatwhowhenhow]

Via the Play Store on my phone.

[mrgreenthump]

If it has microtransactions, 0. If it's B2P 60 Euros. That's assuming it will be good and an ARPG though, which at this point is quite unlikely considering where Blizzard seems to be headed.

[Dhrizzle]

Buy the game then regular paid expansions.

[Dread Pirate Phayde]

I prefer buy once, with the option for offline play, and then reasonably priced expansions. I'm fine with optional microtransactions if it's something cosmetic, and ideally a balance that some can be unlocked by playing the game.

[oplawlz]

Just sell me the game, please. What is with this recent obsession with playing the same game for hundred of hours a month? Screw subs or micros - play a game you like until you're tired of it, then buy another game. Chances are with an ARPG like diablo once you finish playing something else you'll come back and build a new character or try hardcore or something.

Now you've spent the same money and own two entirely different games rather than tunneling one game so hard that you have physical reactions to things you don't like about it.

[Gourami]

buy once, then buy expansions every 12-18-24 months and no cash shop at all.

[Aresk]

I'd prefer buy once per expansion, as it has been, though I could also see a Guild Wars 2 model working if they need a better revenue stream (I don't think they would).

[MoanaLisa]

I'd rather buy it. I don't mind additional DLC down the road if it's something substantial. But no on subscriptions, micro-transactions, real money auction house (why would anyone even suggest that at this point).

[endersblade]

It's very difficult for any AAA $60 game to provide any kind of continual support without a continual revenue model.

If you believe that, I've got some prime beachfront property in Arizona that I'm willing to let go for cheap.

Back in the day, before 'AAA' was a thing, before all the gaming companies were owned by greedy CEOs, it was perfectly viable to release a game for retail price and survive on it. If you need more money, you released these crazy things called 'expansions' that added more content. Diablo 2 got patches and updates for SIXTEEN YEARS after launch. If companies like EA and Bethesda weren't trying to rape, pillage and plunder every goddamned dollar to line their pockets with, they could easily support their games properly.

That said, I voted for the buy once, free forever option, with the caveat that I support QUALITY DLC.

[God Save The King]

If you believe that

It's not about belief. There have been plenty of people in the actual industry discussing the unsustainability of the $60 game for ages. If you think that you can hold the price of an item constant for 20 years, while also demanding new features, better graphics, better service, patches, updates, and continual support while also refusing to accept that the people making said item need additional revenue, I wouldn't be surprised to discover if you actually think you have beachfront Arizonan property.

There is a reason that no modern game has adopted a $60 one and done policy, while also being anything good or having continual support. Sure, you can get a 15-20 hour campaign for $60 that is pumped out yearly, which is the alternative direction I suppose I forgot to mention.

Also sixteen years of "patches and updates" makes it sound impressive. If you look at the content of those patches, it's pretty negligible. Most companies do offer support for older products, and generally do make enough revenue to justify it. Classic games is not a huge market, but keeping them running on modern operating systems, fixing new bugs, and maybe tossing in a little bone here and there can usually justify have a dedicated employee.

Also if you bothered reading my post, I did mention continual DLC as an option for continual revenue. You call them "expansions", which is the same thing just renamed. I mean, there is a minor semantic difference, but I was counting expansions in the "DLC" group. I was being a bit hyperbolic when I said every six months, but several games do offer DLC/expansions for their continual revenue, such as the Civilization and the Sims series.

[Donald Hellscream]

Same as previous Diablo games, a one time fee+ whatever fees for expansions and character packs should they decide to make those again.

[oplawlz]

It's not about belief. There have been plenty of people in the actual industry discussing the unsustainability of the $60 game for ages. If you think that you can hold the price of an item constant for 20 years, while also demanding new features, better graphics, better service, patches, updates, and continual support while also refusing to accept that the people making said item need additional revenue, I wouldn't be surprised to discover if you actually think you have beachfront Arizonan property.

This has been debunked so many times I'm tempted to assume people who bring it up are paid trolls. The gaming market has grown well beyond the rate of inflation, and with digital distribution reducing cost per unit to a fraction of a fraction of what it was there is no possible scenario in which the upfront price tag has become less sustainable than it was 20 years ago.

[God Save The King]

This has been debunked so many times I'm tempted to assume people who bring it up are paid trolls. The gaming market has grown well beyond the rate of inflation, and with digital distribution reducing cost per unit to a fraction of a fraction of what it was there is no possible scenario in which the upfront price tag has become less sustainable than it was 20 years ago.

If it's been debunked, then go ahead and show me the sea of $60 games with 60~ hours of content, with no continual revenue stream. By your own argument, they should be everywhere, if they are sustainable from a fiscal perspective.

I'll be waiting until I'm dust.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

If it's been debunked, then go ahead and show me the sea of $60 games with 60~ hours of content, with no continual revenue stream. By your own argument, they should be everywhere, if they are sustainable from a fiscal perspective.

I'll be waiting until I'm dust.

They don't do it(Not pointing out Blizzard in this) because greed and it's gotten to point where they know they can get away with it.