Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ...
10
18
19
20
21
22
... LastLast
  1. #381
    The Lightbringer Violent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,019
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    3- online only is to prevent hacks, item dupes, and (help with) bots.
    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?
    <~$~("The truth, is limitless in its range. If you drop a 'T' and look at it in reverse, it could hurt.")~$~> L.F.

    <~$~("The most hopelessly stupid man is he who is not aware he is wise.")~$~> I.A.

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    It "died" (and I'm using that term loosely) because they stopped developing significant content for it.

    Do you think a game that has a model with ongoing revenue is more likely or less likely to suffer that fate?


    Yes and why is that, pray tell? Surely not because they decided that putting money behind a game that has no ongoing revenue stream is a waste? SURELY NOT?!
    *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…

    Do you think a game that has a model with ongoing revenue is more likely or less likely to suffer that fate
    Do you happen to understand what correlation and causation mean? The fact that the games have monetization options isn’t the catalyst to whether or not they will survive. Games that do well, have a lot of players, when you have a lot of players, it’s easy to monetize them. This is literally the driving model for mobile games. They are heavily monetized because they have a MASSIVE playerbase to fish from. They don’t have a massive playerbase because they monetize the players.

    If Diablo 3 was a good game, it would have a ton more players, if they had a ton more players, they could easily monetize them better. They tried this at the very beginning and they lost a metric FUCK load of players because they way they chose to monetize them was terrible.

    Yes and why is that, pray tell? Surely not because they decided that putting money behind a game that has no ongoing revenue stream is a waste? SURELY NOT?!
    It’s a waste because they weren’t making any money off of it with or without monetizations because the playerbase is so insignificantly small. If they had a player base of millions and millions, they could easily get away with just releasing content behind paywalls in the form of expansions, but they decided that that wasn’t even worth it anymore because no one was playing.

    Let’s walk through this like your 5 years old.

    You see a new game release, what’s the FIRST thing you look for in order to see if you want to play it or not?

    Is it how much microtransactions they have?

    Or is it how fun the content looks?

    If you don’t have the content as a video game, the monetization never even comes up. You need the first in order to even discuss the second.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Violent View Post
    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?
    I think you highly misunderstood what this guy was saying lol

  3. #383
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,705
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Endus; 2022-06-16 at 11:02 PM.


  4. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by Cayde69 View Post
    *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.

  5. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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?

  6. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by Cayde69 View Post
    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.

  7. #387
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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

  8. #388
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Exkrementor View Post
    Nobody uses Online forums anymore.

  9. #389
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Cayde69 View Post
    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.


  10. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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

  11. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  12. #392
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    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.

  13. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    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.

  14. #394
    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.
    Super Mario Maker 2: Maker ID 8B7-CTF-NMG

    - The subscription for WoW will be added to Gamepass Ultimate at no additional cost, mark my words.

  15. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    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.

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by Nzx View Post
    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.

  17. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    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.
    STAR-J4R9-YYK4 use this for 5000 credits in star citizen

  18. #398
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    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.

  19. #399
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    24,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Violent View Post
    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.

  20. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    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.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •