p2w is shit, but whats the alternativ?

[Okacz]

This right here is where I think the mental disconnect for players is. Blizzard is, at the end of the day, a company whose priority is making money for their shareholders. How this is done is quite simple, they sell a product. For some reason in the old days companies were allowed to make money selling games often for a premium in boxes to make their money and this was ok. They were still a "good company" that were "passionate" about making "good games."

Believe me, I get it. I worked in mobile game companies for some time, and yeah, it's sometimes hard to justify making full-fledged games that can completly fail when you can just pump up hypercasuals, whale bait or - spit - nft games. And as customers we have all the right to bitch about it, that's what customers are for. Personally, I just want better than this, that's anybodys right. Especially since companies like From Software can create quality games without those practices, and still make great dough.

[blahdiblah]

heres an idea. how about we stop squeezing everybody for every last god damn penny and accept modest and sustainable growth year over year instead of aiming for record shortterm profits quarter after quarter

[varren]

Plenty of great games without p2w or any micro transactions at all out there. No Man's Sky for instance has pulled itself out from being a laughing stock with dozens of free updates and hasn't charged a penny for it outside of the box price.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

The alternative is to support companies that don't milk you for every dime.

[Zenfoldor]

If this keeps up, eventually the richest people will have the best gear no matter what, correct? Is it even possible to keep up with someone who is willing to spend just 10 dollars a day on the game for a month, without spending more? It sure must be nice to be leet, I mean rich.

Think about that, people who love and defend this game. Are you okay with every single game being pay 2 win and asking for money at every opportunity going forward? If not, why are you okay with this game? Is it okay because they hook you with a good gameplay loop, showing they could make a great game if they wanted, before they start really pushing the p2w? Doesn't that make it worse though?

[Chilela]

In the context of F2P games, cosmetics-only, no lootboxes, is perhaps the most ethical, if not necessarily most profitable option. Bonus points if said cosmetics are fan service-y.

The alternative is to support companies that don't milk you for every dime.

Also this. There's literal decades of free/cheap titles that don't nickel-and-dime readily available nowadays, and that's not even taking into account more morally gray methods of acquisition.

[cparle87]

Believe me, I get it. I worked in mobile game companies for some time, and yeah, it's sometimes hard to justify making full-fledged games that can completly fail when you can just pump up hypercasuals, whale bait or - spit - nft games. And as customers we have all the right to bitch about it, that's what customers are for. Personally, I just want better than this, that's anybodys right. Especially since companies like From Software can create quality games without those practices, and still make great dough.

But that's the disconnect. Players see no microtransactions = good and any microtransactions even for cosmetics as a sign that a company is failing or doesn't care or it's a shameless cash grab or insert other negative thing here. Remember the cosmetic helms in MoP? Players got kicked from groups and even GUILDS for having them.

[Redroniksre]

Plenty of great games without p2w or any micro transactions at all out there. No Man's Sky for instance has pulled itself out from being a laughing stock with dozens of free updates and hasn't charged a penny for it outside of the box price.

Yeah but in their situation it was because they really, really needed to build up a reputation after basically trashing theirs. Blizzard doesn't need that, despite what people here will say, because loads will still buy their games no matter what. That said, I wouldn't mind if NMS put out a bigger sized DLC for like 10 - 20 bucks, for the extra support.

[Nymrohd]

See I will play devil's advocate and ask, why should cosmetics and QoL be what costs money and not competitiveness? There is a substantial number of players, likely a majority, who do not care to be competitive but do care about how their character looks. So why are people making the moral judgment that P2W is unethical but selling cosmetics is not? Many people don't care about winning.

Why is protecting YOUR game goal from money gatekeeping more important than protecting mine?

[Dezerte]

The alternative is for corporations to act more ethically. It's possible to make profit while being ethical, there are countless examples of games with little to no microtransactions that turn a profit. The problem is that profit has taken centre stage, it's not simply enough to make a profit - the profit must be as high as legally possible.

[Zenfoldor]

See I will play devil's advocate and ask, why should cosmetics and QoL be what costs money and not competitiveness? There is a substantial number of players, likely a majority, who do not care to be competitive but do care about how their character looks. So why are people making the moral judgment that P2W is unethical but selling cosmetics is not? Many people don't care about winning.

Why is protecting YOUR game goal from money gatekeeping more important than protecting mine?

Interesting question. Why are games where success is based on skill and hard work better than games based on the richness of the person playing them? Having to explain that without using morality, is not a super easy feat. We must also ignore the apparent legal bait and switch of making a really good diablo game them money gating on around that 40th hour to make sure whoever is playing it is really into it by then.

I believe there are some factors though. We must also not say that games based on spending money by increasing power are also by definition less fun, than games that do not involve cash money and pay to win.

We have to suspend disbelief quite a bit to even discuss this, lol.

But, I do think I have one reason. There are many who play this who aren't rich but who will be addicted to the game within that first 40 hour run before hitting the pay to win wall. Those people may not have bought cosmetics because they are cosmetics and only a certain subset cares about them. However, nearly anyone would want to get more powerful in a game right? Well, those people may decide to spend their money on this game who can't really afford it. Is that not a reason to regulate markets such as this and to remove the shine from your game goal of buying your way to the top?

[Clawsout]

I would of rathered to pay for diablo immortal and there be no mtx. In my opinion this now opens it up to throw this garbage in d4 which will definitely ruin the franchise

[Gaidax]

heres an idea. how about we stop squeezing everybody for every last god damn penny and accept modest and sustainable growth year over year instead of aiming for record shortterm profits quarter after quarter

Sacrilege.

---

Overall the problem is that all these big gaming corps are so huge and have so much staff and bullshit that they simply can't just do anything else than this and survive. That is even besides investors and charts.

Bottom line - for ActiBlizz moving back to good old "pay X bucks for a game and have fun" is not sustainable without firing 3/4 the staff. They drop some like these from time to time, but it might not even happen if not heavy hitters with MTX to power it all.

[Roanda]

Sacrilege.

---

Overall the problem is that all these big gaming corps are so huge and have so much staff and bullshit that they simply can't just do anything else than this and survive. That is even besides investors and charts.

Bottom line - for ActiBlizz moving back to good old "pay X bucks for a game and have fun" is not sustainable without firing 3/4 the staff. They drop some like these from time to time, but it might not even happen if not heavy hitters with MTX to power it all.

Not everything is a drama movie
How do you know "blizzard needs to do this to survive" and that "every big corporation needs to do this"?

I dunno...seems a bit dramatic

[Gaidax]

Not everything is a drama movie
How do you know "blizzard needs to do this to survive" and that "every big corporation needs to do this"?

I dunno...seems a bit dramatic

It's not dramatic, it's reality. They can't sustain thousands employees with pure B2P titles.

So yes, this milking happens because Bobby needs a new yacht, but also because Pam needs to pay rent.

[Caprias]

The market will regulate itself lol, what "alternative"?

"We" did this, companies will and always have tried to make all the money possible, anything else would be quite silly.

The reason it was better 15~ years ago was simply that the consumers back then wouldn't take as much shit as we do now, this is "our" fault.

Just watch the next quarterly investors call, everyone talks about how bad D:I is, how low the metacritic score has gotten, how predatory and evil the practices are, yada yada yada.

But it works, it'll make a metric fuck ton of RoI for Blizz, and the next title full of this shit will do as well.

I just hope more and more games become like it so the push to follow the example of Belgium, Netherlands and Spain is faster.

[Nymrohd]

Interesting question. Why are games where success is based on skill and hard work better than games based on the richness of the person playing them? Having to explain that without using morality, is not a super easy feat. We must also ignore the apparent legal bait and switch of making a really good diablo game them money gating on around that 40th hour to make sure whoever is playing it is really into it by then.

I believe there are some factors though. We must also not say that games based on spending money by increasing power are also by definition less fun, than games that do not involve cash money and pay to win.

We have to suspend disbelief quite a bit to even discuss this, lol.

But, I do think I have one reason. There are many who play this who aren't rich but who will be addicted to the game within that first 40 hour run before hitting the pay to win wall. Those people may not have bought cosmetics because they are cosmetics and only a certain subset cares about them. However, nearly anyone would want to get more powerful in a game right? Well, those people may decide to spend their money on this game who can't really afford it. Is that not a reason to regulate markets such as this and to remove the shine from your game goal of buying your way to the top?

That wasn't really the question I asked. Many people say MTX is OK if it is only cosmetics and quality of life improvements. And to that I asked, why is sacrificing the competitiveness aspect of a game to MTX unethical but sacrificing aesthetic progression and ease of play OK?

[BeepBoo]

It's not dramatic, it's reality. They can't sustain thousands employees with pure B2P titles.

So yes, this milking happens because Bobby needs a new yacht, but also because Pam needs to pay rent.

*insert numerous other examples of companies that can and do sustain with exactly such a release strategy*

[NineSpine]

That wasn't really the question I asked. Many people say MTX is OK if it is only cosmetics and quality of life improvements. And to that I asked, why is sacrificing the competitiveness aspect of a game to MTX unethical but sacrificing aesthetic progression and ease of play OK?

The worst part of that is quality of life. Let's say a game gives you one character slot but you can buy more. That means they believe the game is better if you have more character slots, but have artificially made the game worse to get people to spend money.

- - - Updated - - -

The market will regulate itself lol, what "alternative"?

"We" did this, companies will and always have tried to make all the money possible, anything else would be quite silly.

The reason it was better 15~ years ago was simply that the consumers back then wouldn't take as much shit as we do now, this is "our" fault.

Just watch the next quarterly investors call, everyone talks about how bad D:I is, how low the metacritic score has gotten, how predatory and evil the practices are, yada yada yada.

But it works, it'll make a metric fuck ton of RoI for Blizz, and the next title full of this shit will do as well.

I just hope more and more games become like it so the push to follow the example of Belgium, Netherlands and Spain is faster.

It's a little more complicated than that. This isn't a "we" problem. This is an income inequality problem. "We" includes Joe the plumber who plays games in his spare time and Steve the trust funder who can dunk $5000 on a game and not even think about it. There is no real "we" there. The Steves are ruining the industries for the Joes by distorting the market for games. This is directly caused by having so much income stratification. It means that it isn't worth pursuing Joe's dollars. It is ONLY worth pursuing Steve's dollars, not just because he has more but because the Steves have so much of the overall the available disposable income and the Joes simply do not.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not dramatic, it's reality. They can't sustain thousands employees with pure B2P titles.

So yes, this milking happens because Bobby needs a new yacht, but also because Pam needs to pay rent.

The gaming industry is absurdly top heavy in its pay structure, so this is a really silly point.

[Dioporco]

if we look from the companies pov?
bobby cant buy a yacht with integrity.
best option i can think of is an increase in pay to play and sub costs.

Elden Ring ?