Diablo 4 could end up having microtransactions

[Endus]

Do we know if that's why D3 died, though?

D3 sold like 30 million copies. It's one of Blizzards biggest successes, ever. Is it still as popular today as 10 years ago? No. Why would it be, though?

I just reinstalled because talking about D4 made me nostalgic. But D3 was a massive financial success. If it "died", it was after a full life and a burial in a golden coffin, from which it rises seasonally for whatever audience remains.

[Biomega]

*sigh*

Let’s break this down for you… I can’t believe that I have to explain that ADDING monetization doesn’t bring in players…

And I didn't say it did.

CONTENT brings in players. And having monetization means a game is more likely to put out content that brings in and keeps players, because with more people overall there also tend to be more people buying shit. Whereas without monetization, making additional content suddenly plummets as a value proposition; so either you don't add any, or you keep it very simplistic.

D3 players didn't want MTX because they thought 3 more stash tabs or whatever would suddenly mean 100,000 new players - they wanted it because they wanted actual CONTENT and knew that something needs to pay for that content development.

[Cayde69]

And I didn't say it did.

CONTENT brings in players. And having monetization means a game is more likely to put out content that brings in and keeps players, because with more people overall there also tend to be more people buying shit. Whereas without monetization, making additional content suddenly plummets as a value proposition; so either you don't add any, or you keep it very simplistic.

D3 players didn't want MTX because they thought 3 more stash tabs or whatever would suddenly mean 100,000 new players - they wanted it because they wanted actual CONTENT and knew that something needs to pay for that content development.

Wait a minute, do you seriously believe micro transactions fund expansions? I….I… don’t even understand where to start with this. Truly I feel like I’m explaining how the earth is round to a flat earther. Did companies seriously brain wash you so much to come to this conclusion?

[Biomega]

Wait a minute, do you seriously believe micro transactions fund expansions? I….I… don’t even understand where to start with this. Truly I feel like I’m explaining how the earth is round to a flat earther. Did companies seriously brain wash you so much to come to this conclusion?

Yes, yes, we get it. MTX are the devil, they funnel money from your wallet directly into the hooker & cocaine fund of Bobby Kotick's private accountant.

And PoE finances its content exclusively through crypto currency that's generated every time Quin69 dies in hardcore.

Let's just move on here, bud.

[Cayde69]

Yes, yes, we get it. MTX are the devil, they funnel money from your wallet directly into the hooker & cocaine fund of Bobby Kotick's private accountant.

And PoE finances its content exclusively through crypto currency that's generated every time Quin69 dies in hardcore.

Let's just move on here, bud.

I never said it was evil, but do you actually believe expansions are funded through MTX. Yes or no

[arkanon]

Yes, yes, we get it. MTX are the devil, they funnel money from your wallet directly into the hooker & cocaine fund of Bobby Kotick's private accountant.

And PoE finances its content exclusively through crypto currency that's generated every time Quin69 dies in hardcore.

Let's just move on here, bud.

So do you or do you not believe expansions are funded by mtx? You kind of completely dodged the question there.

[Endus]

Wait a minute, do you seriously believe micro transactions fund expansions? I….I… don’t even understand where to start with this. Truly I feel like I’m explaining how the earth is round to a flat earther. Did companies seriously brain wash you so much to come to this conclusion?

MtX contribute to the revenue from the game, and that revenue is how they determine whether or not an expansion is fiscally viable or too big of a risk. Any revenue re-invested into an expansion is expected to more than make back that investment. And if you're only making revenue via microtransactions, that's the only source of funding you've got to work with.

To use D:I as the example, as it's free; there'd only even potentially be an expansion for that game i that game made enough in revenue to justify further investment.

It's impossible to say it's directly funding, because all that revenue goes into the parent company's pockets, and then comes back out to fund the expansions, so there's always that extra step in there, but if it weren't making enough revenue, they'd never invest the extra cash like that in an expansion project.

[Cayde69]

MtX contribute to the revenue from the game, and that revenue is how they determine whether or not an expansion is fiscally viable or too big of a risk. Any revenue re-invested into an expansion is expected to more than make back that investment. And if you're only making revenue via microtransactions, that's the only source of funding you've got to work with.

To use D:I as the example, as it's free; there'd only even potentially be an expansion for that game i that game made enough in revenue to justify further investment.

It's impossible to say it's directly funding, because all that revenue goes into the parent company's pockets, and then comes back out to fund the expansions, so there's always that extra step in there, but if it weren't making enough revenue, they'd never invest the extra cash like that in an expansion project.

Your thought process and your signature couldn’t be anymore ironic

[Jastall]

I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I've seen the reverse, too - D3 basically died of stagnation because they refused to monetize it (despite it all being already made, for China). I don't want D4 to fall into the same trap.

Better to stagnate (and really D3 had a great expansion and years of updates) than to become something even remotely close to Immortal I say. Plus, aggressive monetization doesn't incentive good content which is often long and hard to make, it incentive whatever brings the most revenue with the lowest investment, which looks more like cosmetic MTX, "time savers" and outright selling power. Games with such monetization may make ludicrous amounts of money but for some reason they rarely funnel that cash into tons of great content at the end of the day.

Not every game needs to be a live service.

[Relapses]

Not every game needs to be a live service.

We're in 2022, m8. The late stage capitalist hellscape is in full swing. Hell, the whole reason most of us are here (WoW) is one of the industry's best examples of why video games as a service are so stupidly profitable. It's a bit late to lament the downfall of gamers and most of the "backlash" I see against anything MTX-adjacent comes from the same type of people who think "the message" is corrupting society.

[Nzx]

So do you or do you not believe expansions are funded by mtx? You kind of completely dodged the question there.

I mean, he dodged it because the question is moronic. It's Schrodinger's funding - literally everything is "funded" by MTX at the same time as nothing is. The money X company receives from any revenue generating activity is more or less the same, and no one here knows if a given company has a "you can only fund more development on Diablo using the money that Diablo generates" policy.

There's also the fact that "expansion" is a bit of a loaded term. WoW "expansions" are, ostensibly, funded by box sales and sub payments, but I guarantee some of the money generated from level boosts and server/faction/race transfers gets used as well. They're also different structurally from PoE "expansions", which are 100% funded by MTX.

[Unholyground]

It will be cosmetic only but there will be XP potions in D4 in China like there was in D3 in China very likely. People like to forget that whoever is in charge of the store is in charge for all regions.

[Biomega]

So do you or do you not believe expansions are funded by mtx? You kind of completely dodged the question there.

I dodged the person.

P2P expansions are not financed by MTX, they're financed by their price. That's why they're P2P. But that's increasingly becoming an outdated model, and perhaps with good reason.

Better to stagnate (and really D3 had a great expansion and years of updates) than to become something even remotely close to Immortal I say.

Well, yes, but there's a lot of space between here and DI.

Plus, aggressive monetization doesn't incentive good content which is often long and hard to make, it incentive whatever brings the most revenue with the lowest investment

That's because you added an adjective. MTX/monetization is a tool like any other - it can be used for good or for ill. Does it have the potential to be abused, to be egregious, to be anti-consumer? Absolutely. But it can also serve as a platform for a lot of free content that you otherwise either wouldn't have gotten, or definitely would have had to pay for. PoE is an example of that.

Just because I'm saying "I want some MTX to finance more content" doesn't mean I write a blank check to all MTX ever and raise my arms in glorious praise of $20,000 power packs.

[Cayde69]

I mean, he dodged it because the question is moronic. It's Schrodinger's funding - literally everything is "funded" by MTX at the same time as nothing is. The money X company receives from any revenue generating activity is more or less the same, and no one here knows if a given company has a "you can only fund more development on Diablo using the money that Diablo generates" policy.

There's also the fact that "expansion" is a bit of a loaded term. WoW "expansions" are, ostensibly, funded by box sales and sub payments, but I guarantee some of the money generated from level boosts and server/faction/race transfers gets used as well. They're also different structurally from PoE "expansions", which are 100% funded by MTX.

/facepalm

You people have absolutely no clue how companies work at all. This is why games like Diablo immortal exist because you justify it by your ignorance.

[kenn9530]

Do we know if that's why D3 died, though? I will admit that it does sound plausible, but do we know that for sure? If that was the case, then I have to agree at least somewhat. I can only hope that they'll find some middle ground where there's some small amount of monetization to help push development further.

If I recall, part of the failure was that they were going to push a second expansion pack, but it got cancelled. I know they salvaged some bits and pieces from that, but I can only imagine how much dev time was lost there. Who knows where they would've gotten to if they'd gone through with it?

What are you on about failure, D3 has never been a failure, D4 is being made as a sort of MMO version so they are going to support constant updates so that should keep players in the game for longer, D3 was desinged as a simple dungeon looter and at some point the content will be boring and without constant content updates and variety after a while you will be finished with the game just like a single player RPG. But still D3 is highly successfull.

[Biomega]

But still D3 is highly successfull.

That depends on how you look at it. In terms of sales it absolutely delivered. No question about that. But it's hard to stack up against people's expectations, and their hypothetical "what this game could have been" scenarios. And that's reflected in the player dropoff - which doesn't really matter directly for the bottom line because it was p2p cash up-front no ongoing revenue, so even if 100% of people had quit after buying it they'd still have made the same amount of money.

What's harder to gauge is the indirect cost/indirect damage resulting from people being disappointed. How does this affect FUTURE revenues? Who can say. I'm sure Blizz has done some estimates and guesses we'll never ever get to see, but it seems pretty clear from how the ongoing development went that it didn't quite work out how they expected/wanted things to work out. How that translates into D3 being "a success" is up for interpretation.

[FelPlague]

Wait, what? In what world does that make sense?
"You have to be online to play, to prevent from getting hacked" You can't get hacked/dupes/ect WITHOUT online.. No bots, if not "online".

So, here, I'm going to create a monster, it can only harm you if you're on the Moon though... Oh don't forget, here's your free-pass to the Moon, also, you're going to need to give me your SS#, so I can give you this gun, for when that monster comes.. On the Moon, because I sent you to the Moon.

You getting any of this?

What is this mad ramblings? I am so confused what in the utter hell you are talking about. You ok man?
Where did I say "getting hacked" I said "hacks" as in hacking the game for an advantage.

[Jastall]

We're in 2022, m8. The late stage capitalist hellscape is in full swing. Hell, the whole reason most of us are here (WoW) is one of the industry's best examples of why video games as a service are so stupidly profitable. It's a bit late to lament the downfall of gamers and most of the "backlash" I see against anything MTX-adjacent comes from the same type of people who think "the message" is corrupting society.

I'm really not sure why you're putting words in my mouth in such a way. I lament nothing, there's plenty of great games that still come out with fair monetization than I enjoy. I mostly don't want Diablo to veer too hard towards the Immortal model for its main numbered entries. Cosmetics I can accept even if I think it a bit iffy in a full priced title, but power would be utterly unacceptable for me.

Besides, WoW is one type of live service- one that has been replicated only to middling success. IIRC only FF14 is still a sub-only MMO and even then its free to play experience is far more extensive than WoW's. This game is not what led the charge when it came to changes in the wider market RE monetization.

@Biomega PoE is kind of an exception among free-to-play titles however. It's a very fair model but well above the average of what that type of game offers. I haven't seen very many games with loads of MTX then deliver loads of great content with that increased return, historically. I'm quite skeptical of the idea that by taking more, game companies will necessarily give back more. They might just as well pocket the extra change and call it a day. In fact, thinking about the somewhat recent games I find had great post-launch support and content such as Fallout New Vegas, Starcraft II, Total Warhammer, Witcher 3, From Soft games, Deep Rock Galactic, Mass Effect 2-3 (among others), few had any sort of monetization past just paying for the newest big chunk of content. This trend does not lend me to trust the idea that more monetization always = more or better content and support.

Would more monetization have gained D3 a second expansion? Who knows, it's possible certainly. They did make a DLC out of it with Necromancer and I'm pretty sure some of the newly added areas and mechanics added in patches would have been Act 6 content in the first place. And anyway, let's not forget D3 launched with an experimental monetization model so bad Blizz shut it down once RoS landed. If that was their idea of the sort of practice that would justify 2 xpacks then I'm glad this scenario didn't happen.

[MoanaLisa]

I mostly don't want Diablo to veer too hard towards the Immortal model for its main numbered entries. Cosmetics I can accept even if I think it a bit iffy in a full priced title, but power would be utterly unacceptable for me.

Not you so much but it's been entertaining to see everyone twist themselves into knots while trying hard to ignore that it's very unlikely that what Blizzard has already labeled a full-price game (Diablo IV) will be treated the same way as a F2P mobile game with respect to revenue models.

D3 had its run and there was a decision made to do work on D4 instead of doing another expansion for D3 (which at that point was pretty old in internet years). It's a perfectly logical decision.

[Biomega]

I'm quite skeptical of the idea that by taking more, game companies will necessarily give back more.

I think what's more realistic is that by taking more, games companies won't give back PROPORTIONATELY more.

It only makes sense - once you have a recurring revenue stream, it's in your financial best interest to keep the spice flowing. Giving people content on the regular is a good way to keep them in your game, and therefore as (potential) customers for your MTX. Making a game and then not delivering any extra content risks players leaving, thereby reducing your potential customers.

Now, I'm not saying that equation works just like that ez-pz 100% of the time. Obviously not. Everything has a time limit on it, and there's many factors in play; plus - as you pointed out - there's also ways in which you simply lure people in and then mostly leech off of whales that'll spend enough for you to not have to care about making too much new content even if it costs you legions of Average Joes. But that's usually fairly clearly telegraphed: if you see aggressive and predatory monetization, stay the fuck away. Should do that on principle anyway.

That's not really the debate here, I think. The assumption is that the MTX will be limited and "fair" (cosmetics/convenience only), because if it's not, then you can just not play and avoid the problem that way and we don't need to discuss the model (because predatory and egregious p2w MTX are bad, period, pretty much no matter what). So the question is purely: will those MTX translate into content? And to a lesser degree: how much/what content?

That's a debate to be had. But as I said earlier, with a model like that (fair MTX not based off of whales) you are strongly incentivized to keep making content. PoE is that kind of model, and they have QUITE the pipeline. They've been going full steam for years. That's not surprising, because that's what keeps people playing and paying.