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

[Ielenia]

Yes, I have, and I just...don't buy the stuff.

Maybe, but you not partaking in the microtransactions doesn't mean you don't get "buy this!" or "don't miss the sale!" advertisements within the game teasing and taunting you to spend money.

- - - Updated - - -

It's the same game in b.net store. Diablo Immortal has no microtransactions if you are not using them.

That's not how it works.

I cannot claim WoW is a game "without any cash shop" if I choose not to buy anything from the cash shop. PvP is still there, regardless if I partake in it or not. Same thing with Diablo: Immortal: the microtransactions are still there. The boosts are still there. The exclusive stuff is there.

[Aliven]

Maybe, but you not partaking in the microtransactions doesn't mean you don't get "buy this!" or "don't miss the sale!" advertisements within the game teasing and taunting you to spend money.

- - - Updated - - -


That's not how it works.

I cannot claim WoW is a game "without any cash shop" if I choose not to buy anything from the cash shop. PvP is still there, regardless if I partake in it or not. Same thing with Diablo: Immortal: the microtransactions are still there. The boosts are still there. The exclusive stuff is there.

You reply to people or bots who entire modus operandi is "nu uh, u" with a lots more words.

[Ghost of Cow]

Maybe, but you not partaking in the microtransactions doesn't mean you don't get "buy this!" or "don't miss the sale!" advertisements within the game teasing and taunting you to spend money.

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said that it's not somehow obligating you to buy them just because you're "teased" or "taunted".

Seriously, this is just Adulting 101. I guess consumerism has tried to teach people that they MUST purchase everything or they're "missing out" and that's horrible and unfair, but none of that is true.

[Kyanion]

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said that it's not somehow obligating you to buy them just because you're "teased" or "taunted".

I mean there is also the fact I've pointed out to you that you ignore. There is a system in the game you can NOT do as a F2P with the gems.

[Battlebeard]

my great aunt died of cancer few years back, and my father died of cancer 3 weeks ago
addiction absolutely IS DISEASE, its not deadly, very few mental diseases are, but it is very serious disease

and sure it "just needs discipline" (that is serious understatement but lets go with it), same way type2 diabetes just needs discipline - diet and exercise are nothing but discipline - yet somehow nobody in their right mind would say diabetes is not a disease...

wait a minute.. arent you the guy with thread how its the games fault you save useless trash instead of selling it and then not have space? i got it now, you cant admit addiction is disease, bcs you would have to admiot you have mental issues, and its easier to lie to yourself

I don’t know you but I am still sorry to hear that, cancer is evil

But lets drop the addiction question, we never gonna agree and just run in circles here

[Ghost of Cow]

I mean there is also the fact I've pointed out to you that you ignore. There is a system in the game you can NOT do as a F2P with the gems.

Um, how did I ignore it when I replied to you about it?

The only argument there MIGHT be that "gear IS content" which is fine if you want to make that argument. I'd disagree, but that's ok.

[Battlebeard]

I wouldn't say the highest, but it would score higher, yes. But hey, they can serve you a delicious beef wellington, but you'd still give the overall dish a low rating if it came coated in liquid diarrhea, wouldn't you?

That is a good example, but in this case, we are lucky enough to be able to enjoy the beef wellington without having to even deal with the diarrhea.

[Aucald]

You too are confusing talent/skill with art. You seem to be judging talent by the art. That's where YOUR subjectivity gets in the way of your thinking. Talent is objective. You see it, even in the art you don't like (if you are able of seeing it that is).

You can see a great artist - paint a piece of shit (but with a great skill) in your humble opinion. You can hear a pianist plying something horrible to your ears (but so complex you wonder how his hands work).

Talent and skill are objectively recognizable.

Back to Diablo Immortal though, it's not just about whales. It's also about all those non-paying players having a blast without paying. Diablo Immortal is objectively good game. It's popular in it's niche and it earns a pretty dollar. No amount of minority screams can change that.

I'm talking about artistic talent, yes. Since art in its various forms is what we're discussing, the associated talent would be the context, and that is essentially subjectively - both the art itself and the talent (or lack thereof) creating said art. Talent in mathematics, for example, could be said to be objective because mathematics only has a binary state, it is either correct or incorrect. You can't say the same of art, since it has no objective basis on which it can be judged, and even the judgments we apply like "good" or "bad" are themselves relative and subjective.

Your examples are all subjective understandings of given artistic processes - like a painting being a "piece of shit" or playing "something horrible," whereas other people may come to a different judgment altogether depending. A lot of people love artistic expressions like Free Jazz, and a lot of people just think it's cacophonous noise. Both of those judgments are equally true and equally valid, therefore neither of them can be objective (unless you think reality is intrinsically paradoxical).

I actually enjoyed Diablo: Immortal up to a point, and I think it's actually a good game - making it a dual shame that it has to have an MTX thrown on top of it to seemingly and artificially stop forward progress without paying exorbitant amounts. Of course, that's just my judgment, and a lot of people think Diablo: Immortal is superficial and lacking in gameplay - they're equally entitled to their opinion as well, and neither is an objective reality (or they both are, which renders the debate moot all the same).

[Ielenia]

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said that it's not somehow obligating you to buy them just because you're "teased" or "taunted".

And I never said it "obligates" you to spend. But it doesn't make the microtransactions any less obnoxious even if I don't partake in them. And as people pointed out, if you plan on playing competitively, you are either forced to spend money into the game, or face the fact you'll mostly likely never be anywhere near the top.

[Kyanion]

And I never said it "obligates" you to spend. But it doesn't make the microtransactions any less obnoxious even if I don't partake in them. And as people pointed out, if you plan on playing competitively, you are either forced to spend money into the game, or face the fact you'll mostly likely never be anywhere near the top.

And you're not able to do the awakened system for items and gems, so RIP that stuff too.

[Ielenia]

That is a good example, but in this case, we are lucky enough to be able to enjoy the beef wellington without having to even deal with the diarrhea.

Except you do have to "deal" with it, because the game offers you promotions, and advertises its microtransactions, its sales. Not to mention that, if you're playing competitively, you either have to spend money into the game, or settle for the fact that you'll never be near the top.

[Ghost of Cow]

And I never said it "obligates" you to spend. But it doesn't make the microtransactions any less obnoxious even if I don't partake in them. And as people pointed out, if you plan on playing competitively, you are either forced to spend money into the game, or face the fact you'll mostly likely never be anywhere near the top.

And that's the other part where having realistic expectations and making decisions comes in.

You know what kind of game D:I is. You want to be at the top? It probably costs money. Not ok with that? Well then you have two choices: Just play without worrying about leaderboards (and be honest, how many of you are #1 on D2 or D3 leaderboards anyway?) or just don't play it.

It's that simple. No one is twisting your arm and making you play any given game. And you're not entitled to be #1 in any given game without following the criteria put forth by that game.

[Ielenia]

It's that simple. No one is twisting your arm and making you play any given game. And you're not entitled to be #1 in any given game without following the criteria put forth by that game.

This is not about "entitlement to be #1" or anything. And there is no "criteria" to be top ranked in the competitive aside from "beat the other players" and no rules aside from "don't cheat".

But you simply can't compete without spending money in games such as Diablo: Immortal. Being able compete for the first place and not go into crippling debt (hyperbole, but I hope you get the point) in a game such as D:I. A reasonable portion of the game ends up 'kept away' from you because you're not spending the game.

[Kyanion]

Just play without worrying about leaderboards (and be honest, how many of you are #1 on D2 or D3 leaderboards anyway?) or just don't play it.

Ah yes I suppose only #1 matters no other spot on the leaderboard. I didn't know I had to spend 100k+ to place on D3's leaderboard either. I knew I been doing it wrong.

[Elim Garak]

I'm talking about artistic talent, yes. Since art in its various forms is what we're discussing, the associated talent would be the context, and that is essentially subjectively - both the art itself and the talent (or lack thereof) creating said art. Talent in mathematics, for example, could be said to be objective because mathematics only has a binary state, it is either correct or incorrect. You can't say the same of art, since it has no objective basis on which it can be judged, and even the judgments we apply like "good" or "bad" are themselves relative and subjective

Again, you fail to separate talent/skill from the product. There's more to art production than the resulting art itself. And it's objective. There are objective techniques and color theory, music theory, etc. Some people learn it to gain a skill, others are natural at it - they have a talent.

But they still can produce a piece of art you subjectively don't like, they like it, subjectively - hence they produced it. But they have objective skill/talent.

[MoanaLisa]

Sure. But the overall point doesn't change, now does it? I mean, you still have that "side of shit" stinking up the table, even if you avoid it, right?

No, not really. I dislike PVP. I don't think that my dislike for it stinks up the rest of Diablo II, D:I, or WoW for that matter. I'm sure there will be some bullshit reason why people will disagree but simply on the point that because there's stuff you can ignore in a game, that doesn't mean it ruins the rest of the game because it exists. That's just willfully stupid and easily proved wrong. Ads can easily be ignored.

[Aucald]

Again, you fail to separate talent/skill from the product. There's more to art production than the resulting art itself. And it's objective. There are objective techniques and color theory, music theory, etc. Some people learn it to gain a skill, others are natural at it - they have a talent.

But they still can produce a piece of art you subjectively don't like, they like it, subjectively - hence they produced it. But they have objective skill/talent.

If you're claiming that the production of an artistic "thing" is objective, sure - although I wouldn't relate that to subjective talent or skill, simply the process of applying paint to canvas to manual dexterity to an instrument. A thing was done, granted; but you're not implying simple output of some kind, you're making the explicit value judgment that said output is of some kind of quality or merit, and that's where objectivity ends.

A canvas containing paint is by no means what art actually is, art is in the eye of the beholder who assigns meaning, worth, and ultimately value to what they're beholding. An artist can only hope their skill and talent successfully convey what they hoped. The same is true for all other artistic mediums.

[Ielenia]

No, not really. I dislike PVP. I don't think that my dislike for it stinks up the rest of Diablo II, D:I, or WoW for that matter. I'm sure there will be some bullshit reason why people will disagree but simply on the point that because there's stuff you can ignore in a game, that doesn't mean it ruins the rest of the game because it exists. That's just willfully stupid and easily proved wrong. Ads can easily be ignored.

It's about monetization, not PvP. But still, ads can be "easily ignored", but they're still there, and they still pop up on your screen offering you the "latest deals" or "reminding you of a limited offer", etc.

PvP doesn't constantly pop up in front of you with "hey don't forget to turn on Warmode!" or "Come get our exclusive PvP armor sets before the season ends!" or stuff like that.

[Elim Garak]

If you're claiming that the production of an artistic "thing" is objective, sure - although I wouldn't relate that to subjective talent or skill, simply the process of applying paint to canvas to manual dexterity to an instrument.

Talent/skill is objective. You can have the most brilliant artistic ideas - but without skill/talent you will never express them in a way that people would see it for what it is.

There's nothing subjective about talent and skill - you still fail to separate them from the actual art. A great artist might be doing some shit for money simply because it's popular. But that doesn't make them any less great objectively speaking.

And a shitty artist might be doing the same - and you will be able to tell which got the most talent. Objectively. Even though they are doing the same thing, artistically. It's just a canvas containing paint. Heck it's the black square from Malevich. Go try painting one with a brush and no ruler.

[Aucald]

Talent/skill is objective. You can have the most brilliant artistic ideas - but without skill/talent you will never express them in a way that people would see it for what it is.

There's nothing subjective about talent and skill - you still fail to separate them from the actual art. A great artist might be doing some shit for money simply because it's popular. But that doesn't make them any less great objectively speaking.

And a shitty artist might be doing the same - and you will be able to tell which got the most talent. Objectively. Even though they are doing the same thing, artistically. It's just a canvas containing paint. Heck it's the black square from Malevich. Go try painting one with a brush and no ruler.

If you're unable to realize the art in your mind, you lack talent and/or skill in the artistic medium. Imagination, unfortunately, has no quantifiable existence beyond your own stream of consciousness, and no concrete existence in and of itself. Talent and skill are the ability to realize said artistic imagination and have it recognized as such by external observers.

If a "great artist" produces nothing but drivel for money for the entirety of their career, then they were never "great" except perhaps in their own heads - which, again, is something that can't be confirmed. For all we know, perhaps drivel is all they had. The unrealized and unmanifest isn't reality, and that is objective.

That's kind of the point - a canvas with paint isn't art and has to be judged by external observers to qualify as art, and subject judgments are entirely subjective. Even if we agree with the judgments of others, we're still making our own judgments, and those judgments can change over time as well. Van Gogh only sold a single painting during his lifetime, his great skill and talent only being recognized after his sad death. Objectivity isn't subject to change over time, but art is a moving target as many a posthumously famous artist could attest if they were able.

And at this point, I think we're well off-topic and should probably end this debate or move it to PMs if you prefer.