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

[BeepBoo]

If some addictions are unacceptable TO YOU, you can use the sheer power of your will to avoid them.

I can also give shit to people for attempting to take advantage of those weaknesses. I (semi) don't care that people are weak and might suffer addictive tendencies. I do care if people attempt to exploit others via that means, though. Do I think they shouldn't be allowed to do it? That's not what I'm saying or have said. They can. I'm also going to give them shit for it, just like I do anyone who does something I disagree with.

[Elim Garak]

They said it wasn't a problem for them because of that. Try better?

It wasn't a problem for anyone in 2000. Bet trier?

- - - Updated - - -

I can also give shit to people for attempting to take advantage of those weaknesses. I (semi) don't care that people are weak and might suffer addictive tendencies. I do care if people attempt to exploit others via that means, though.

To give shit you must have a shit. First you must realize that your opinion is just your opinion and what you call a weakness is just your opinion. Humble yourself, keep your shit together and close to heart.

[uuuhname]

It wasn't a problem for anyone in 2000. Bet trier?

notice how we had those things and still had games that came out and you bought it once and that was the whole amount you'd end up paying for it. it's almost as if this push towards microtransactions wasn't a thing until the 7th generation consoles.

[BeepBoo]

Humble yourself, keep your shit together and close to heart.

Best I can do is 1 out of 3 of that. I'm not humble, or reserved.

[rhorle]

I think ten years straight of playing the game is equally absurd. it is made that way to entice you to spend money, that is a key part of the scam.

Isn't that time frame based only on the 3 legendary crests from the battle pass? That it doesn't account for crafting from runes or random drops? Even then is that really an issue? Do games really need to allow you to get the max power in a reasonable time frame? Isn't the entire point of ARPG's to grind out upgrades and have fun hacking and slashing things in the process?

Could it be better? Probably. But it isn't unethical or anything just because it can take a long time.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't benefit from that level of grind if they aren't selling a way for people to skip it, 99.9% of people would quit before getting anywhere near, it's not a good retention tactic in such a repetitive game.

Why is it a problem that 99% of people would quit before getting anywhere near best in slot? Wouldn't get best in slot quickly also be a poor retention tactic in a repetitive game? Because they would no longer have a reason to play if all they are playing for is best in slot, right? It isn't unethical to have long grinds when you can have skip. Making the skip cheaper would also sell a lot more as well so it really has nothing to do with the length of the grind. Even if you could grind it in a year people would still be buying the skip.

[Elim Garak]

notice how we had those things and still had games that came out and you bought it once and that was the whole amount you'd end up paying for it. it's almost as if this push towards microtransactions wasn't a thing until the 7th generation consoles.

Yeah, but graphics get old, console capabilities are limiting to get new gameplay ideas. So we needed new hardware. Better hardware, expensive hardware. And game development got expensive as a result while the price tag for the game remained at roughly $60 across the board.

Go try to entice a kid to play on PS2 while there's PS5.

But then something happened. People find out that you can make games in a browser, and people will play online, for free. But your site has ads on it (all sites had ads on them, still do), so they are playing a silly game you made in an evening, FOR FREE, and you get paid from ads.

The free to play has been born.

On PCs.

Then facebook happened. Social games arrived. Then iPhone happened, free to play mobile games arrive and EXPLODED the market.

If you think it's all bad - all that ad/f2p money gave us the games we love. How about that? Without them you'd still be playing the same games on PS2.

[uuuhname]

Yeah, but graphics get old

dude I legit have no fucking clue what this tangent this is supposed to address. take my advice and cool off for a bit.

[rhorle]

They said it wasn't a problem for them because of that. Try better?

But it was still a problem in the industry. The sims released the same year as the PS2 and it sold many expansions that were just glorified dlc. People always try to act as if gaming was different and you got full games with out understanding that they just sold less content to those games compared to now. And that DLC and stuff are what were sold in expansions.

[BeepBoo]

If you think it's all bad - all that ad/f2p money gave us the games we love. How about that? Without them you'd still be playing the same games on PS2.

That's a pretty big presumption to make considering it was never the case before f2p games. PCs and tech improves regardless of the game market. Companies constantly try to out-do one another and were pushing the game boundaries already. COnsoles, like the rest of tech, were inherently making leaps and bounds without the influence of cafeworld and farmville.

[uuuhname]

But it was still a problem in the industry. The sims released the same year as the PS2 and it sold many expansions that were just glorified dlc. People always try to act as if gaming was different and you got full games with out understanding that they just sold less content to those games compared to now. And that DLC and stuff are what were sold in expansions.

game expansions are not the same as microtransactions. for one again you pay for it once and you get the content, instead of paying over an over again for a chance at a new hat from this "not" a gambling box. this of course is the company that pioneered the loot box which as has been the subject of much legislation and controversy because it's obviously gambling.

[Iliena]

I've played the campaign, it was fun but I'm done now! If it had a less aggressive monetization I would play more, but being greeted on my first log in with 800% value for less than £1.00! Then the shop flashing that you can buy shit with real money after you cleared a dungeon! killed any further interest in it for me. Before even touching on the biggest issue of much you have to spend to get high level gems, if you want to PVP or challenge leaderboards.

I don't mind spending a reasonable amount of money in a free game (like the supporter packs in POE), but this is a blatant cash grab tbh.

[Elim Garak]

That's a pretty big presumption to make considering it was never the case before f2p games. PCs and tech improves regardless of the game market. Companies constantly try to out-do one another and were pushing the game boundaries already. COnsoles, like the rest of tech, were inherently making leaps and bounds without the influence of cafeworld and farmville.

Before free to play games? The very first game was free to play. The second too.

And in the early 90s there was this thing called Shareware.

Do you know what it was?

It was a trial (f2p) version of a game with a PAYWALL after part 1. it was using a predatory technique of hooking you up on a game so you shell out your last money to keep playing.

I understand studying history is not popular- but as a gamer at least study history of gaming.

[BeepBoo]

Before free to play games? The very first game was free to play. The second too.

Sure, I'll amend my original statement: before the F2P examples you used, since that's what I was referencing.

[rhorle]

game expansions are not the same as microtransactions. for one again you pay for it once and you get the content, instead of paying over an over again for a chance at a new hat from this "not" a gambling box. this of course is the company that pioneered the loot box which as has been the subject of much legislation and controversy because it's obviously gambling.

You keep trying to make the argument that all micro transactions are things that would have existed in full games for free with out understanding that they just wouldn't have existed. Is some content cut to be sold? Sure. But expansions and stuff, like with the sims, were the same as DLC now. Or they were map packs.

I'm not sure what company you are refering to because neither EA (this sims) or Blizzard pioneered the loot box. EA may have been one of the first console/pc makers to introduce them but they didn't invent the concept. Even Valve jumped on the band wagon with Team Fortress 2 and look how beloved they are even when selling cosmetics for their retail store.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loot_box#History

[Elim Garak]

Sure, I'll amend my original statement: before the F2P examples you used, since that's what I was referencing.

I haven't used any f2p examples.

[uuuhname]

You keep trying to make the argument that all micro transactions are things that would have existed in full games for free with out understanding that they just wouldn't have existed. Is some content cut to be sold? Sure. But expansions and stuff, like with the sims, were the same as DLC now. Or they were map packs.

I have not made this argument, I have been making the argument that the microtransactions IN THIS GAME that we are talking about are totally unacceptable. but yes I do have a general disdain for microtransactions and at no point has that stance been properly challenged as being incorrect.

I'm not sure what company you are refering to because neither EA (this sims) or Blizzard pioneered the loot box. EA may have been one of the first console/pc makers to introduce them but they didn't invent the concept. Even Valve jumped on the band wagon with Team Fortress 2 and look how beloved they are even when selling cosmetics for their retail store.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loot_box#History

blizzard popularized them with Overwatch...

[BeepBoo]

I haven't used any f2p examples.

Then you're just nit-picking yourself with your history statement?

But then something happened. People find out that you can make games in a browser, and people will play online, for free. But your site has ads on it (all sites had ads on them, still do), so they are playing a silly game you made in an evening, FOR FREE, and you get paid from ads.

The free to play has been born.

On PCs.

Then facebook happened. Social games arrived. Then iPhone happened, free to play mobile games arrive and EXPLODED the market.

You're the one who put out the timeline and influence of F2P. I'm saying it's fucking stupid to make the assertion you did that we have games we love today because of the money or enablement from the things you brought up.

I'm not adding 100 qualifiers "before the internet popularization of F2P games with ad revenue and/or MTX" or whatever else it is you want me to caveat my statements with. Use context and piece it together yourself.

[rhorle]

I have not made this argument, I have been making the argument that the microtransactions IN THIS GAME that we are talking about are totally unacceptable. but yes I do have a general disdain for microtransactions and at no point has that stance been properly challenged as being incorrect.

wow, you mean back in the day when you bought a video game and that was the complete game? when none of the content was behind another pay wall? yeah I remember those days with fondness as well...

You did make that argument. Also in no way shape or form did Blizzard popularize loot boxes with Overwatch. They were already popular and already around. It is highly strange how many people think Blizzard is responsible for different things and how sheltered people are do the industry as a whole. It also ignores how Hearthstone, which came out before Overwatch, has loot boxes.

[MoanaLisa]

yes I do have a general disdain for microtransactions and at no point has that stance been properly challenged as being incorrect.

What's to challenge? It's an opinion. You think microtransactions in games are bad. OK.

I play some mobile games where people enjoy dropping a bit of money to improve their game situation. It makes them happy. That's fine too. You don't have to like it or them but quite honestly what someone else does in a game is none of your damn business. None of my business either.

[uuuhname]

You did make that argument. Also in no way shape or form did Blizzard popularize loot boxes with Overwatch. They were already popular and already around. It is highly strange how many people think Blizzard is responsible for different things and how sheltered people are do the industry as a whole. It also ignores how Hearthstone, which came out before Overwatch, has loot boxes.

no, I made a point that in the past you could buy a game once and that was the end of it, which is preferable to *gestures* this video game which we are talking about.


okay, you can pretend that loot boxes didn't explode after Overwatch came out, you can keep your head stuck in the sand on that. it's not that important to the overall point I'm making but of course on these forums every throw away sentence has to be analyzed all while ignoring the point that's being made because otherwise the forum pedants wouldn't actually have anything to contribute to the conversation.