Would you Support a 5-10$ Monthly subscription for D4 IF......

[Nite92]

No. If they want a subscription from me, they better give me something new to do every four months at least. And an expansion every two years.

I'd prefer a sub for PoE too. I'd rather have the cosmetics earnable in game, and pay 10€ per month

[A Chozo]

No, because it has a single-player mode, and if the game can't entertain me without charging extra it's just an overly expensive game.

[archelos91]

I'd prefer a sub for PoE too. I'd rather have the cosmetics earnable in game, and pay 10€ per month

I prefer they way they have it. If PoE has taught me anything I don't give two licks about cosmetics, I've only spent money on stash tabs as it directly effects gameplay.

[Wangming]

I'd prefer a sub for PoE too. I'd rather have the cosmetics earnable in game, and pay 10€ per month

I'd prefer not to sub for PoE. I mean it is a great mix of Diablo II, the Materia system from Final Fantasy VII and the sphere grid from Final Fantasy X. But it is also a poorly optimized game that lags like there is no tomorrow.

[Thelxi]

Of course not fuck that.

[Eosia]

They promised

- Added additional Classes
- more Events/Bosses
- more unique items/affixes on a consistent basis
etc....

No. Because this makes it subscription and thus mandatory to pay for things that normal one-time purchase DLCs took care of. And especially not in the latter two because then it becomes Pay-to-Win.

[Tojara]

Subscriptions just rub people the wrong way, then again, everything and anything rubs people the wrong way it seems.

What is acceptable? Do you just want to pay for a game and then wait 2 years for an expansion down the road, all the while having the updates that D3 currently has? For some that might be fine, but what I want out of an ARPG requires things to be a bit more fresh than extra treasure goblins and set bonuses being buffed. Balance shifting alone isn't enough. To me core systems need to be added, iterated on, with the game slowly growing with each and every season.

How many games are there that offer a base game with substantial content post launch from the developers themselves, for free on a consistent basis? There's the problem.

PoE is free to play and offers massive amount of micro transactions. To some people (eye rolling here), this is unfair, and there's truly people out there who think everything should just be free. Any realist however who has set foot in the game knows that aside from a few stash tabs (which will run you 20-30 dollars maximum), is all you really need to enjoy the game to it's fullest. Aside from those who are just trying it out for a season to see if they like it, you can absolutely play the game with zero dollars invested if you truly want (although I'd advise against it, and I'd probably contact the feds about you because you're probably a serial killer).

Warframe is another game that is free to play and has loads of microtransactions in the game. I don't know what it's like now, but when I played it like three years ago, it was probably one of the fairest models I've seen for F2P games. There's a trading eco system in the game that gets you the premium currency by selling items you can farm in the game (to cosmetics that you can't physically farm in the game), and pretty much everything (at least at the time) was something that you could physically farm yourself or buy from other players in game. Nothing about it felt unfair, you could obtain everything, and the advantage that those who swiped their credit card had over you was mostly a time thing anyway.

What I don't want from Diablo is how D2 and D3 were approached. I don't want to buy a physical copy with very little post launch support (balance changes, bug fixes), only to buy an expansion two years later. Whatever approach they take, I'd rather they have an actual revenue stream that encourages them to have beefy post launch content that's of the level or superior to PoE. I think part of the rub that people don't like about PoE (I'm not one of these people) is that they add loads of micro transactions, with no way to obtain them in game. Diablo 4 could literally take the Warframe approach where you can flat out buy cool transmog, mount appearances, and effects on skills, all the while being able to earn them in game as well (in addition to having seasonal rewards, much like PoE has).

Some might dislike microtransactions in D4, but anything that gets Blizzard to actually support the fucking game post launch is good in my book. I've spent 40 dollars in PoE and despite only playing it for 5 seasons now, it's fast approaching my total playtime in D3 (which is a lot). Why? Because the game has beefy updates that are basically free every 3 months, and the game feels new and fun enough to jump back into. D3 (for me), isn't like this and the seasons are generally a sad attempt of just playing the same game again with barely anything new.

All of that said, I don't think monthly subscriptions are an ideal candidate for an ARPG. Development cycles need to be every 3-4 months like PoE and most people aren't playing ARPGs throughout the entire season, making the model kind of a bad fit. Microtransactions work, as do the occasional bundles they could offer for purely cosmetic things in game.

TLDR; D4 needs some sort of monetization for post launch content, I don't care about a D4 expansion, PoE model at the very least would work fine.

[Nite92]

I prefer they way they have it. If PoE has taught me anything I don't give two licks about cosmetics, I've only spent money on stash tabs as it directly effects gameplay.

That is okay. But Id rather pay a bit for, so I dont have to pay to not look like a trash can.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd prefer not to sub for PoE. I mean it is a great mix of Diablo II, the Materia system from Final Fantasy VII and the sphere grid from Final Fantasy X. But it is also a poorly optimized game that lags like there is no tomorrow.

What is the difference? You basically need to spend money anyway to play the game.

[Iliena]

No and I wouldn't buy the game in the first place if they announced it up front, I won't be nickel and dimed to please the shareholders they can fuck off!

I don't mind paying for expansions (if I enjoy the base game) but POE exists and plenty other quality indie developers who work without exploitative monetization systems.

[DeltrusDisc]

I'd prefer not to sub for PoE. I mean it is a great mix of Diablo II, the Materia system from Final Fantasy VII and the sphere grid from Final Fantasy X. But it is also a poorly optimized game that lags like there is no tomorrow.

What lag? When did you last play? They fixed almost all of their huge lag issues ages ago.

[Florena]

If they made a full blown Diablo MMO that's the only way they'd get me to pay a subscription.

[Flame6]

What lag? When did you last play? They fixed almost all of their huge lag issues ages ago.

Probably talking about low FPS. Even with a monster rig the game will slow way down when things get super crazy. I dont think its really an issue since its fairly rare, but it does happen.

[Dequanacus]

I'm not really sure how people even conceptualize sub based services opposed to one time purchases. If the game is good, I'll pay money for it. If the game isn't good, I won't pay money for it and therefore won't have a subscription running.

At the end of the day, I'm either paying $60 once to play the game when it's still interesting to me, or paying monthly until I grow disinterested in the game. Either way, the means of paying for the game doesn't matter, it's whether the game is something I want to pay for.

[DeltrusDisc]

Probably talking about low FPS. Even with a monster rig the game will slow way down when things get super crazy. I dont think its really an issue since its fairly rare, but it does happen.

Yeah, that I get, but if more people would read what GGG has said about the fps in those situations, maybe they'd get it. =|
Sigh, some people, amirite?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not really sure how people even conceptualize sub based services opposed to one time purchases. If the game is good, I'll pay money for it. If the game isn't good, I won't pay money for it and therefore won't have a subscription running.

At the end of the day, I'm either paying $60 once to play the game when it's still interesting to me, or paying monthly until I grow disinterested in the game. Either way, the means of paying for the game doesn't matter, it's whether the game is something I want to pay for.

Wow you scare me.
You're way too prepared to pay a sub, just because.

[Darkeon]

Now this a based consoomer type of suggestion.

[Dequanacus]

Wow you scare me.
You're way too prepared to pay a sub, just because.

Maybe you can articulate what the problem is with paying a sub when I'm free to stop paying it if I stop playing the game.

Again, my post said "if the game is good" so we're assuming the quality of the game isn't bad because it is sub, the only question is whether you would pay for it once or only pay for it when you want to play it.

[Inoculate]

Personally, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, I would rather pay 300-500 for a game and never have to worry about a sub or DLC or expansion price and just know they're working on it. I also know that no studio would continue to make stuff outside of their normal development cycle to make it worth it. Just be nice to pay that for a game and know I can eventually get every cosmetic, every mount and every pet but not have to keep shelling out money each month.

[Verdugo]

Maybe you can articulate what the problem is with paying a sub when I'm free to stop paying it if I stop playing the game.

Again, my post said "if the game is good" so we're assuming the quality of the game isn't bad because it is sub, the only question is whether you would pay for it once or only pay for it when you want to play it.

Because you end up paying way more than with one time purchase?

[Dequanacus]

but not have to keep shelling out money each month.

You would only be paying while you're actively playing the game, right? Assuming that the sub is $5 and the game would otherwise be $60, do you think the game would have enough content to where you would actively be playing nearly every day for a year and still not be done with the content. And, if the game really did have enough content to where you wanted to actively play the game over an entire year, would it not be worth paying the $5?

I genuinely just do not understand the logic. Even in a game like WoW, when I'm not playing, I just turn off my sub. When I turn on my sub, I'm playing enough to easily make the $15 worth it.

[Spacewalrus2010]

It would not bold well for them. Would have to compete with PoE's F2P model.

I think PoE is hot garbage though, so I wouldn't mind paying a little extra month to get consistent updates. It would have to be expanded beyond the 3 you listed though. Tile-sets for dungeons, new areas to explore things like that would be nice.