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

[arkanon]

Why even play this game free to play? I already played Diablo 3 a decade ago

Besides all the convoluted systems that make you want to swipe your credit card, this is a stripped down Diablo 3 experience. Which obviously makes me very excited for Diablo 4 yea not really

OH it has PvP which is basically a place to entertain whales and to make the plankton, I mean, the other players frustrated so that they can start morphing into whales of their own

To be honest, the PvP really does feel like a way to PROVE to the whales that their $25,000 purchase really has made them leagues ahead of the F2P players - like justification of their spend. Which is a bit of a shame, because it does kind of look like it could be fun, if some barbar whale didnt just WW through the whole team killing everyone in 2 shots. lol.

[Biomega]

No, you are not. You paid for a good (the food) and a service (the delivery). If either are not up to the standard paid for, you can request a refund. If you pay $5 for food delivery, and the food is not delivered, you can get a refund. Gambling is putting down money with an unknown result, and if you put $5 on black and it lands on white, you cant ask for your $5 back. Do you actually know what gambling is?

While I'm sure the statement was a joke (even if a rather poor one), that's not quite how gambling works either.

You don't just put money down on an "unknown result" - you put it down on an unknown result FROM A SET RANGE OF RESULTS. And if things fall far enough outside of that range, you have the same recourse as with a messed-up food order. If your dice explode or your card suddenly comes up fifteen of stars or someone runs in and snatches up the roulette ball or whatever, that's still an unknown result - but it's not gambling, and you would get your money back.

In that sense, a food order could also be considered "gambling" just with a much narrower range of results - maybe the food is just a LITTLE different or a LITTLE less tasty than you thought; not enough for a refund, but well within the range of possible results you accept as an outcome for such a transaction. But that's more of a nitpicky technicality than a practical definition.

What's really setting actual gambling apart is two things: 1. the outcome is intentionally determined by chance to some meaningful degree; 2. you accept loss of the stake/wager (or at least a substantial part of it) in the event of an unsuccessful outcome within the predetermined range of the game.

That's why food orders aren't REALLY gambling: you don't expect them to be intentionally random, and you don't accept them to go so wrong you lose your money. That's also why (legitimate) investments or insurance policies aren't gambling: you might lose all your money, but even though they may be subject to "randomness" (bad stuff happens) they're not intentionally designed to be that way.

Where most of the discussion happens is in 1. by the way: how much chance actually determines the outcome. Something like roulette is pretty close to true random (unavoidable physics limitations aside). But something like e.g. poker is much more difficult to gauge - yes it has a lot of randomness in it, but it also has a significant amount of skill. A skilled poker player will get better results over a lesser-skilled player; but no roulette player can get better numbers than any other (and indeed no roulette betting system can ever remain profitable).

That's why it's difficult to determine what's going on in complex games like DI. There's a lot of factors in play where one might argue that chance can be "outplayed". Sure a 0.04% drop is forever a 0.04% drop, but over time more skilled players will still get more than lesser-skilled players (by virtue of playing more efficiently, usually). Is that enough skill to elevate it out of "chance-based" and into "skill-based" more than as a matter of technicality? That's largely for courts to decide.

It's harder than you think. Most people would easily agree that being good at poker means you win more over time and skill directly converts into success; and yet despite that, poker has been legislated in many jurisdiction as gambling, and banned or regulated as a result (see the collapse of US online poker some years back for that very reason). It's a very complicated, very tricky field.

[arkanon]

While I'm sure the statement was a joke (even if a rather poor one), that's not quite how gambling works either.

You don't just put money down on an "unknown result" - you put it down on an unknown result FROM A SET RANGE OF RESULTS. And if things fall far enough outside of that range, you have the same recourse as with a messed-up food order. If your dice explode or your card suddenly comes up fifteen of stars or someone runs in and snatches up the roulette ball or whatever, that's still an unknown result - but it's not gambling, and you would get your money back.

In that sense, a food order could also be considered "gambling" just with a much narrower range of results - maybe the food is just a LITTLE different or a LITTLE less tasty than you thought; not enough for a refund, but well within the range of possible results you accept as an outcome for such a transaction. But that's more of a nitpicky technicality than a practical definition.

What's really setting actual gambling apart is two things: 1. the outcome is intentionally determined by chance to some meaningful degree; 2. you accept loss of the stake/wager (or at least a substantial part of it) in the event of an unsuccessful outcome within the predetermined range of the game.

That's why food orders aren't REALLY gambling: you don't expect them to be intentionally random, and you don't accept them to go so wrong you lose your money. That's also why (legitimate) investments or insurance policies aren't gambling: you might lose all your money, but even though they may be subject to "randomness" (bad stuff happens) they're not intentionally designed to be that way.

Where most of the discussion happens is in 1. by the way: how much chance actually determines the outcome. Something like roulette is pretty close to true random (unavoidable physics limitations aside). But something like e.g. poker is much more difficult to gauge - yes it has a lot of randomness in it, but it also has a significant amount of skill. A skilled poker player will get better results over a lesser-skilled player; but no roulette player can get better numbers than any other (and indeed no roulette betting system can ever remain profitable).

That's why it's difficult to determine what's going on in complex games like DI. There's a lot of factors in play where one might argue that chance can be "outplayed". Sure a 0.04% drop is forever a 0.04% drop, but over time more skilled players will still get more than lesser-skilled players (by virtue of playing more efficiently, usually). Is that enough skill to elevate it out of "chance-based" and into "skill-based" more than as a matter of technicality? That's largely for courts to decide.

It's harder than you think. Most people would easily agree that being good at poker means you win more over time and skill directly converts into success; and yet despite that, poker has been legislated in many jurisdiction as gambling, and banned or regulated as a result (see the collapse of US online poker some years back for that very reason). It's a very complicated, very tricky field.

Poker isnt regulated - GAMBLING is. Anyone can play poker any way they want, with zero regulation. Its the GAMBLING component that is regulated. Otherwise everything you said aligns with what i said, whether you realise it or not.

There very well could be poker specific sections of the gambling laws, but they are still gambling laws.

[Elim Garak]

Always missed nuance of gambling: the outcome must be of the same nature of value (and it must be considered a reasonable value, not sentimental) as the stake. You bet money - you get money or goods easily convertible into money. That's the entire point of gambling. To win big. Without that bit - it's just a game of chance.

[Biomega]

Poker isnt regulated - GAMBLING is. Anyone can play poker any way they want, with zero regulation. Its the GAMBLING component that is regulated. Otherwise everything you said aligns with what i said, whether you realise it or not.

There very well could be poker specific sections of the gambling laws, but they are still gambling laws.

You mean poker NOT FOR MONEY. I.e. with no actual stakes.

That's true. You can play craps and roulette for monopoly money, too, and nobody cares.

Because you're not REALLY putting up a stake, and therefore not really losing it. The moment you do, it's no longer okay to just do.

Always missed nuance of gambling: the outcome must be of the same nature of value (and it must be considered a reasonable value, not sentimental) as the stake. You bet money - you get money or goods easily convertible into money. That's the entire point of gambling. To win big. Without that bit - it's just a game of chance.

That's true, but the "easily convertible" part is again where all the problems lie. Is a TV easily convertible? Some say yes, some say no. Is a plastic trinket "easily convertible"? Most would say no, but pachinko parlors in Japan have made an entire industry out of coincidentally locating places where you CAN convert ostensibly useless prizes into cash right next to places where a "game of chance" just so happens to provide such prizes.

[Elim Garak]

That's true, but the "easily convertible" part is again where all the problems lie. Is a TV easily convertible? Some say yes, some say no.

A value of TV can be easily assessed. How easy it would be for you to sell it (in reality) is irrelevant. You decide whether it's worth it for you to bet with or against a TV.

[arkanon]

You mean poker NOT FOR MONEY. I.e. with no actual stakes.

That's true. You can play craps and roulette for monopoly money, too, and nobody cares.

Because you're not REALLY putting up a stake, and therefore not really losing it. The moment you do, it's no longer okay to just do.

Yes, like i said, poker is not regulated - gambling is.

[Biomega]

A value of TV can be easily assessed. How easy it would be for you to sell it (in reality) is irrelevant. You decide whether it's worth it for you to bet with or against a TV.

That's not irrelevant at all, because depending on the jurisdiction you winning $500 in cash may be illegal, but you winning a $500 TV may be entirely legal. Or both may be illegal. Or neither.

This is a massive point of contention in jurisprudence.

Yes, like i said, poker is not regulated - gambling is.

Yes, and my point was about gambling for stakes, and poker was used as an example of gambling FOR STAKES.

The fact that without stakes this becomes a moot point I thank you for pointing out, but doesn't really change anything I said.

[Elim Garak]

That's not irrelevant at all, because depending on the jurisdiction you winning $500 in cash may be illegal, but you winning a $500 TV may be entirely legal. Or both may be illegal. Or neither.

This is a massive point of contention in jurisprudence.

Local laws in various states is really irrelevant here. Governments are full of idiots.
Hence I don't want them banning anything since they are idiots and will ban stupidly.

I'm talking about the gambling, not the laws about it. Laws are irrelevant to what gambling is.

[Hctaz]

To be honest, the PvP really does feel like a way to PROVE to the whales that their $25,000 purchase really has made them leagues ahead of the F2P players - like justification of their spend. Which is a bit of a shame, because it does kind of look like it could be fun, if some barbar whale didnt just WW through the whole team killing everyone in 2 shots. lol.

I think this is one aspect people are pissed about as well. D3 was trying to put PvP into the game, and people were pretty hyped to try it.
The fact that Immortal is the first Diablo game with PvP just kinda adds insult to injury.

[Gaidax]

I think this is one aspect people are pissed about as well. D3 was trying to put PvP into the game, and people were pretty hyped to try it.
The fact that Immortal is the first Diablo game with PvP just kinda adds insult to injury.

D2 had PvP, D:I is not the first.

It does, however, pay a lot more attention to it - that's for sure.

It's the basis for why I say that as far as a game itself goes - D:I is pretty good. Simply because it has so many game modes and they are done pretty well.

If not the MTX, it would be a great game.

[arkanon]

D2 had PvP, D:I is not the first.

It does, however, pay a lot more attention to it - that's for sure.

It's the basis for why I say that as far as a game itself goes - D:I is pretty good. Simply because it has so many game modes and they are done pretty well.

If not the MTX, it would be a great game.

IMO, it would be a great MOBILE game, and a below average pc game. It does have some cool ideas, i like the visual style, although obviously heavily restricted due to mobile client. Some cool abilities, but honestly, thats about it.

[Gaidax]

IMO, it would be a great MOBILE game, and a below average pc game. It does have some cool ideas, i like the visual style, although obviously heavily restricted due to mobile client. Some cool abilities, but honestly, thats about it.

The only 2 things it's worse than D3 is story and graphics.

Of course being mobile they could not crank up 2k22 graphics balls to the wall and the story suffers because it's a seq-prequel some sort of in-between thing.

You could argue it could use more skills too, but it's a mobile limitation again.

However - as far as things to do ingame? It has times more than D3 has nowadays 10 years forward. If D3 would have all that now - they'd probably not even need D:I.

[kamuimac]

D2 had PvP, D:I is not the first.

It does, however, pay a lot more attention to it - that's for sure.

It's the basis for why I say that as far as a game itself goes - D:I is pretty good. Simply because it has so many game modes and they are done pretty well.

If not the MTX, it would be a great game.

if not for mtx nobody would pay 40-50 euro for it on mobile to buy it. so out of 2 evils i prefer mtx which i will spend exackly 0 euro on and play it for free

[Biomega]

Laws are irrelevant to what gambling is.

I nose-exhaled more than a little, ngl.

Well done, Dictionary Man.

[Khaza-R]

if not for mtx nobody would pay 40-50 euro for it on mobile to buy it. so out of 2 evils i prefer mtx which i will spend exackly 0 euro on and play it for free

Never heard of a P2P mobile game costing that much. I think the sweet spot for most developers tops out around $14.99 USD for mobile

But nonetheless, that's kind of the MO of the mobile genre. F2P with engagement hooks that strongly encourage MTX at low price points but that can add quickly. Deceptive ploys to make consumers balk at at $20 price point but freely spend it without much thought on smaller transactions.

[Gaidax]

if not for mtx nobody would pay 40-50 euro for it on mobile to buy it. so out of 2 evils i prefer mtx which i will spend exackly 0 euro on and play it for free

Again you with your black or white. It's not a zero sum game - it can be F2P and not have cancerous MTX that shits on community. Cosmetics and even convenience MTX could have carried the game easily.

Plenty games like that or almost like that.

[Dhrizzle]

Why even play this game free to play? I already played Diablo 3 a decade ago

Besides all the convoluted systems that make you want to swipe your credit card, this is a stripped down Diablo 3 experience. Which obviously makes me very excited for Diablo 4 yea not really

OH it has PvP which is basically a place to entertain whales and to make the plankton, I mean, the other players frustrated so that they can start morphing into whales of their own

The gameplay is really fun, there is plenty of activities and routes for upgrades to keep you busy and the story drops a few nostalgia-bombs and cool lore moments.

- - - Updated - - -

You could argue it could use more skills too, but it's a mobile limitation again.

I'm not sure the issue is just being a mobile game, I think they kept it simplified for wider appeal.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm talking about the gambling, not the laws about it. Laws are irrelevant to what gambling is.

Laws are pretty damn important in determining what gambling is. That's why we have things that are classed as gambling in Belgium but not in other place.

[Unseen Guest]

Explain PoE then.

What about POE? Explain yourself. It has heavy mtx and ppl play what they want, pay what they want. End of story. Period. So what's your point?

Seriously, that's all you got? You just proved my point in a 3 word sentence.

[arkanon]

What about POE? Explain yourself. It has heavy mtx and ppl play what they want, pay what they want. End of story. Period. So what's your point?

Seriously, that's all you got? You just proved my point in a 3 word sentence.

Sure, i can help explain it for you. PoE is a shining example of how to do MTX in game correctly - im well aware some will still cry about price, or say its not fair that the "cool looking" cosmetics are all mtx, with in game gear looking shit, but the game is a genuine F2P title. No, its not on mobile, however a F2P player can experience literally every single part of the game, at the same level, with the same gear and augments as a player who chooses to invest money. One could argue that the higher inventory allows a paid player to farm more efficiently, but its not player power. You cannot buy your way to the top of the leader-boards, its all down to the player.

Hope that clears things up. Like i said, its not on mobile, but a comparison for people playing DI on pc, and an example of how MTX can be done in a game without limiting a f2p players ability to compete on an even playing-field with paid players, all while still making a tidy profit for the publisher/devs. No, i dont know the exact numbers, but the fact they are churning out more and more content for the game after all these years is a very strong indicator things are going well.

- - - Updated - - -

if not for mtx nobody would pay 40-50 euro for it on mobile to buy it.

Where did you come up with that number? What makes you think that would be the price?