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

[rhorle]

The delay argument is moot when the results are clearly evident, as seen in the video.

Isn't it strange that you saying ARGPs are a fancy digital skinner box but do not call it a fancy digital slot machine? Terms matter as you seem to be aware of so the argument is not moot when discussing if something is a slot machine or not. The monetization of DI is not gambling heavy. You just explained that it is the nature of ARPG and the mechanics of DI that make it gambling heavy.

Every game exploits you in different ways. You spend $3k over years in PoE because they exploited you into buying cosmetics. Yet you don't persecute them the same way you are DI. The regular player experience of DI also has not suffered because of the monetization because as you said an ARPG is heavily gambling focused. You also again indicate it isn't about respect with your argument of "same money needs to be same value". It really comes down to you not being able to buy your way just like the other guy that got lucky. Your arguments are all over the place and again come across as a person just looking to hate on DI with out any clear argument.

[Hctaz]

Okay? You do get rewards from the boss and you get a bonus for killing the boss/dungeon in the battle pass. The bundles being offered are only a small part of the rewards you get and not the only reward you get. Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 didn't have a paid shop to offer any bundles so it is silly to compare them here.

How is it silly to compare them???

I'm saying that D2 and D3 didn't have bundles so that's a good thing and I'm saying that Immortal does have bundles and that's a bad thing.

[Elim Garak]

How is it silly to compare them???

I'm saying that D2 and D3 didn't have bundles so that's a good thing and I'm saying that Immortal does have bundles and that's a bad thing.

You are comparing premium games to freemium games. Freemiums games must have bundles.

[rhorle]

How is it silly to compare them??? I'm saying that D2 and D3 didn't have bundles so that's a good thing and I'm saying that Immortal does have bundles and that's a bad thing.

Because D2 and D3 didn't even have a cash shop to begin with. They had different monetization models. It also implies that your argument is solely based on bundles, and not monetization, when a game like D3 originally had micro transactions and pay to win in the form of RMAH.

[DarkAmbient]

As soon Diablo 4 comes out, I am sure that everyone who called DI a "franchise killer" will play it on release.

No doubt.

Are many saying that though? To me this doesn't feel like a 'real' Diablo game, it's a mobile spinoff and a separate entity from the main franchise. I'm still going to check out D4.

[Hctaz]

Because D2 and D3 didn't even have a cash shop to begin with. They had different monetization models. It also implies that your argument is solely based on bundles when a game like D3 originally had micro transactions and pay to win in the form of RMAH. So it shows how silly your entire objection is when the sole basis is having a bundle or not. Lmao.

I also was against the RMAH as well. They can have different monetization models and not have pay to win elements inside of them.

They already charge you for cosmetic rewards and they already have a battle pass system, they don't need to also include bundles that exclaim how much of a great deal they are (800% BONUS VALUE WOW) on top of that all.

- - - Updated - - -

You are comparing premium games to freemium games. Freemiums games must have bundles.

They don't "need" bundles.

They already have a battle pass system and fully cosmetic rewards. They don't need to include completely pay to win elements such as directly or indirectly purchasing materials that allow you to get better loot or upgrade your loot more quickly.

[rhorle]

I also was against the RMAH as well. They can have different monetization models and not have pay to win elements inside of them. They already charge you for cosmetic rewards and they already have a battle pass system, they don't need to also include bundles that exclaim how much of a great deal they are (800% BONUS VALUE WOW) on top of that all.

Why is it a bad thing to offer discounts or coupons?

[Elim Garak]

They don't "need" bundles.

They do. Because bundles sell.

They already have a battle pass system and fully cosmetic rewards. They don't need to include completely pay to win elements such as directly or indirectly purchasing materials that allow you to get better loot or upgrade your loot more quickly.

Irrelevant. BattlePass is relatively new thing that is implemented on top of bundles. Bundles are the primary drivers of revenue. Especially if you add more content and more bundles to buy at discount.
If you don't want to buy bundles - then don't. No one forces you to. But there are plenty of people who WANT bundles. And those people are the most important people, the VIPs of the game.

[TriggeredKid]

The game has a lot of details and features so they have to slowly unlock them for you as you progress. Otherwise new players would be overwhelmed by all the information.


It's just the game letting you know that an option is available.


-It's not a predatory business model. There's nothing unethical about it.
-Nobody is forced to play and nobody is entitled to their preferred game experience unless they created the game.
-You can experience most of the game for free.
-As far as I know F2P players can still achieve almost all of the same things but at a slower rate.

not sure if trolling or blizzard boot licker but god damn son you're far down the rabbit hole

[Vasilisa]

They do. Because bundles sell.

Skins & effects (spell, character, etc) sell as well and players don't call you greedy. Guess that's the matter of priorities.

[Inoculate]

Like read them before linking or something

From the first example: "According to data, in most top-grossing games, the whales represent the smallest percentage of users who are responsible for up to 50% or more in revenue sales of an app."

I had this information back in 2015. Thanks, for letting me know that nothing changed.

As for people who drop $20 and never return... The majority of people who never return - don't pay at all. And people who pay and leave is actually a problem that doesn't have a definitive solution. And developers will listen to those people way more than to those who doesn't pay. Because people who pay are actually the target audience.

You think devs want them to never return. And that's silly from the financial point of view. The market is limited. Retention is one of the important (the most important after acquisition) metrics.

- - - Updated - - -



It's been out just days. Considering it's already made into $1M - expect seasons, events, etc. It's hardly a D7 cash grab.

You said whales make up the majority of income. 50% isnt a majority. Nice goal post moving though.

[Elim Garak]

Skins & effects (spell, character, etc) sell as well and players don't call you greedy. Guess that's the matter of priorities.

Yes, and the priority is revenue. Players who pay don't call them greedy. Players who don't - free publicity on internet doesn't hurt. Negative PR equals PR.

[Jtbrig7390]

A new analysis has suggested it could cost players up to $110,000 in order to fully upgrade a character in Diablo Immortal via microtransactions.

41 years or $110k, what you don't have ether to spare well fuck you then....

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/...-up-to-110000/

In a video by Bellular News (as reported by Game Rant), its analysis suggests that the highest tier Legendary Gems, a premium currency in the game which can be used to upgrade a character in the post-game, can’t currently be earned by players who don’t pay for them with real money.

Thus, fully upgrading a post-game character would cost $110,000 worth of gems, the analysis claims.

What makes this worse is that currently, players can’t purchase Legendary Gems outright, instead, they are dropped from Legendary Crests, which are the game’s loot boxes.

Fuck this company and anyone who defends this shit.

[Jerot]

Every game exploits you in different ways. You spend $3k over years in PoE because they exploited you into buying cosmetics. Yet you don't persecute them the same way you are DI. The regular player experience of DI also has not suffered because of the monetization because as you said an ARPG is heavily gambling focused. You also again indicate it isn't about respect with your argument of "same money needs to be same value". It really comes down to you not being able to buy your way just like the other guy that got lucky. Your arguments are all over the place and again come across as a person just looking to hate on DI with out any clear argument.

Semantics...

By what means have I been exploited by PoE? The only argument I could possibly imagine is the fear of missing out on a limited time (3-4 month buy window) cosmetic pack.

Which is a stretch, as I've never felt pressured to buy anything. I could choose to never spend another dime on the game and my enjoyment wouldn't suffer for it. I have full access to everything I've paid for and more. I have no gameplay advantage over someone who hasn't spent 3k, or disadvantages against people who spent more.

Meanwhile if you stop paying for Diablo, your new characters don't get the benefit from your old purchases, you lose stash space, you will stop getting login bonus boosts. You will not have access to high rank gems. All of which will impede your ability to enjoy the game to the same level. You won't be competitive and could get kicked from your raid or pvp groups.

We play diablo-like games to get loot and improve our characters. The best way to gear your character in DI is to pay. Normal loot is much slower compared to the premium rate. This is worsening the base game experience for players to sell them something that should be the default. Same with increasing the grind by lowering gold and material rates to make buying them with real money more tempting.

Even if both exist on a spectrum of random outcomes. The best luck on a free player cannot compete with the worst luck on a paying player over the same period of time. This is a problem in a game that has competitive PvP, leaderboards, and group content.

It's like playing a game of poker with a 3 card hand where the other players bought fourth and fifth cards. The rules are skewed for the benefit of the person selling the cards, not the players.

The point wasn't that I can't buy my way like some lucky player can, the fact anyone can pay for a gameplay advantage is a non-starter for me. That the level of advantage is then determined by gambling is just another multiplier on the level of distaste I have for the model.

PoE doesn't get Ire because its not pressuring players to continuely buy gameplay advantages through layered gambling and psychological tricks like DI is. And DI is special because it marks blizzards first title to employ such blatantly anti-consumer tactics.

It could have been the same game with better baseline loot and cosmetic only microtransactions. Which I would have fully supported, along with the larger portion of the western gaming community. But they chose to give players a subpar experience to earn more money from whales and gambling addicts.

[Vasilisa]

Yes, and the priority is revenue. Players who pay don't call them greedy. Players who don't - free publicity on internet doesn't hurt. Negative PR equals PR.

Somehow GGG manages to make small expansion every couple of months while on the same time not selling any power-ups. Time will tell to see if bad PR will let Blizzard earn enough money to keep supporting their game in the long run.

[chiddie]

not sure if trolling or blizzard boot licker but god damn son you're far down the rabbit hole

As long as you can complete the campaign without spending a penny, i would say it’s fine.

Most people won’t even finish it, it’s not a puzzle game, it requires a minimum of dedication somehow.

[Elim Garak]

You said whales make up the majority of income. 50% isnt a majority. Nice goal post moving though.

That's the best self-complimenting I've seen today.

Not only "50% or more" is actually the majority

But I said "most", not the "majority"

- - - Updated - - -

Somehow GGG manages to make small expansion every couple of months while on the same time not selling any power-ups. Time will tell to see if bad PR will let Blizzard earn enough money to keep supporting their game in the long run.

They already made over $1M. I'm pretty and sure that people who paid that amount of money are not exactly arsing to worry about PR.

GGG has their own gig, Blizzard has theirs. But GGG has only ONE game under their belt. Only ONE IP in their catalog. Blizzard can be more brazen.

Also PoE is an old game. Let's wait and see what Tencent will make them do in PoE 2

PoE made $245k in first 6 days. Granted that's 2013 dollars. So probably 500k in current dollars.

[rhorle]

By what means have I been exploited by PoE?

They convinced you to pay $3k for cosmetics. You are just rationalizing it as not being exploited because you don't mind it. Note I am not saying buying cosmetics is inherently bad. Just that games manipulate people into spending money on them in various ways. We can't ignore that just because it isn't pay to win. If exploitation in game design is bad then it should be bad even with out pay to win, right?

Meanwhile if you stop paying for Diablo, your new characters don't get the benefit from your old purchases, you lose stash space, you will stop getting login bonus boosts. You will not have access to high rank gems. All of which will impede your ability to enjoy the game to the same level. You won't be competitive and could get kicked from your raid or pvp groups.

And? That is what happens with a subscription. You stop paying and you don't get the rewards.

And DI is special because it marks blizzards first title to employ such blatantly anti-consumer tactics.

No it doesn't. Hearthstone came out in 2014 and is pay to win and gambling. Isn't it funny how you and others always over look that in order to complain. The experience in Diablo Immortal is not sub par. It is your standard ARPG RNG grind game. Having short cuts or boosts to that grind is not a sub par experience because the core game play doesn't change. You've already stated that ARPG games are heavily gambling focused so you can't back down now.

[everydaygamer]

41 years or $110k, what you don't have ether to spare well fuck you then....

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/...-up-to-110000/



Fuck this company and anyone who defends this shit.

This is such a stupid argument. It assumes people need to max out there character as quickly as possible. That is a long term goal, even from a competitive stand point I'm not sure nescessary that is. Not that it matters since only the top 1% care about being competitive.

[Jtbrig7390]

This is such a stupid argument. It assumes people need to max out there character as quickly as possible. That is a long term goal, even from a competitive stand point I'm not sure nescessary that is. Not that it matters since only the top 1% care about being competitive.

Yep play 41 years (that's how long it would take to get a full set of legendary gems without spending a dime)....

Very long term goal....

People defending this shit you really should tell us how much stock you own.