Diablo 4 could end up having microtransactions

[Jastall]

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.

Will be treated literally the same way, as in costing the price of a house to reach maximum theoretical power and shoving the shop into the player's face more and more as they grow in level? I very much doubt it as well.

But there's a non-0 possibility that Blizzard sees how much raw dosh they make with Immortal and decides to sprinkle a bit of it into D4. Timesavers such as faster leveling. Guaranteed Legendary on your next boss kill. Pay to reroll stats with an increased chance of perfect ones. There's tons of ways they could add that sort of thing while still saying "hey you don't directly buy power!".

I'm not saying such is exactly their nefarious plan. It's very possible D4 comes out with the shop being just a few cosmetic sets, mounts and such, which I wouldn't have a problem with so long as there's also a bunch of these things earnable in-game such as in WoW. But I do think Immortal's scummy business model should leave us wary as to their monetization going forward.

[MoanaLisa]

But I do think Immortal's scummy business model should leave us wary as to their monetization going forward.

If D4 is F2P I'll agree with you. If it's $60.00 then I'll expect something different.

[Endus]

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.

You can't ever live up to pie-in-the-sky nostalgia hopes and dreams. It's folly to try.

Fact is that D3 sold more than 30 million copies, and was the fastest-selling game ever at launch (may still be), and was the best-selling game of 2012 overall. Calling that anything but a wild success is pretty fundamentally ridiculous.

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.

Player falloff is expected, particularly since they haven't added significant new content in 5 years (the Necromancer release). Seasonal updates are pretty trivial and only appeal to diehard players or players like myself who'll occasionally reinstall for a quick playthrough now and then; it's not intended to keep the peak playerbase constantly engaged so holding them to that expectation is pretty silly. Especially since they're doing it for free and not making any money off it.

What's harder to gauge is the indirect cost/indirect damage resulting from people being disappointed. How does this affect FUTURE revenues?

If you're making this argument about D3, then you don't actually know the sales data and the public response, which after a few patches was pretty overwhelmingly positive. Those sales figures peaked at 12 million by the end of 2012, but kept growing to north of 30 million by 2015. Sure doesn't seem like it hurt future revenues all that much, particularly with eventual releases on consoles.

I don't see a single metric where could even even make a legitimate argument that Diablo 3 was anything but a phenomenal success for Blizzard.

[Jastall]

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.

Again, PoE is just one example that is hard to see replicas of across the industry. Whereas we've had plenty of examples of full priced games shoving in a load of questionable monetization while not seeming to do anything extra on the content front. Blizzard hasn't exactly gained the benefit of the doubt as well considering their last two new games were Overwatch and Immortal... two titles that were called out for their monetization scheme, albeit I think the latter's is far worse.

Also, sure I can avoid monetization I don't like. But what I would hate is for a game I'm eager to play to launch and have that sort of shit making me not want to play it. I don't care much about Immortal since I dislike playing on mobile anyway but the next mainline Diablo game is another thing altogether.

[Relapses]

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.

Apologies -- I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I mostly wanted to comment that the monetization horse left the stable for video games as a service ages ago. I agree that there are good and bad examples of MTX and I think gamers would rightfully have a reason to be pissed if D4 gets released as a full-priced PC game with monetization similar to D:I's. More than anything, there's a lot of doomsaying going on in this thread but I think that has more to do with D:I being incredibly topical than it does any valid concerns about how D4 may potentially be monetized.

[Biomega]

Blizzard hasn't exactly gained the benefit of the doubt

I'm definitely NOT suggesting you give them the benefit of the doubt. Examine, closely and critically, before any purchase. For sure don't just buy on brand-name trust. All I'm saying is that a fair MTX model would make financial sense for them. MTX don't have to be predatory, even though they often are.

Also, sure I can avoid monetization I don't like. But what I would hate is for a game I'm eager to play to launch and have that sort of shit making me not want to play it. I don't care much about Immortal since I dislike playing on mobile anyway but the next mainline Diablo game is another thing altogether.

There's really no preventing that except by increasing customer awareness and willingness to be a critical, discerning consumer. Money is all they care about - fine. Then money is how we need to speak to them. Moaning and complaining but then paying anyway is exactly why we're in this mess.

I'm with you - I don't want D4 to be another DI; not even approaching DI from galactic distances, really. But I'm also saying, look, if you put in a fair MTX model to support a steady stream of content, that's something we can work with.

[Sluvs]

Apologies -- I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I mostly wanted to comment that the monetization horse left the stable for video games as a service ages ago. I agree that there are good and bad examples of MTX and I think gamers would rightfully have a reason to be pissed if D4 gets released as a full-priced PC game with monetization similar to D:I's. More than anything, there's a lot of doomsaying going on in this thread but I think that has more to do with D:I being incredibly topical than it does any valid concerns about how D4 may potentially be monetized.

Precisely my thoughts as well.

I do believe it is beneficial to be loud about D:I monetization, but to extrapolate that D4 will be the same is a little bit of a reach.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm definitely NOT suggesting you give them the benefit of the doubt. Examine, closely and critically, before any purchase. For sure don't just buy on brand-name trust. All I'm saying is that a fair MTX model would make financial sense for them. MTX don't have to be predatory, even though they often are.


There's really no preventing that except by increasing customer awareness and willingness to be a critical, discerning consumer. Money is all they care about - fine. Then money is how we need to speak to them. Moaning and complaining but then paying anyway is exactly why we're in this mess.

I'm with you - I don't want D4 to be another DI; not even approaching DI from galactic distances, really. But I'm also saying, look, if you put in a fair MTX model to support a steady stream of content, that's something we can work with.

IMHO voting with your wallet rarely works because there is always enough people that are willing to put up with said nonsense.

You cannot beat rabid capitalism at their own game. But that is just my 2 cents.

[Relapses]

IMHO voting with your wallet rarely works because there is always enough people that are willing to put up with said nonsense.

You cannot beat rabid capitalism at their own game. But that is just my 2 cents.

"Voting with your wallet," a bit of a double edged sword for gaming, especially on discussion forums. You end up with threads like this where the undercurrent is extremely against MTX and everything MTX-adjacent but I think the general gaming populace is far, far more neutral about its existence. And that's why we keep getting MTX in our video games.

[Endus]

IMHO voting with your wallet rarely works because there is always enough people that are willing to put up with said nonsense.

You cannot beat rabid capitalism at their own game. But that is just my 2 cents.

It's also that microtransactions are inherently appealing. It's a small price. Maybe less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks! Makes it really easy to justify spending a bit. And no, the "but you have to keep spending" doesn't really work as a counter, because people keep buying coffees, too. It's a lot easier to rationalize smaller payments more often than saving up for one big payment.

Microtransactions aren't a problem, unto themselves. The problem is what they pay for. Diablo's always had a one-time up-front cost, and has fostered a gameplay paradigm revolving around constant grinding for loot. IMO, the biggest failure in D:I's model is that you apparently need to buy the Battle Pass to repeatedly grind; otherwise you've got limits on daily play. That will absolutely kill D4. It may kill D:I. But it's such a common mobile game factor it's not surprising it got into D:I, IMO.

D4 needs to offer either an up-front price like D3 that lets you grind the content forever for free, or possibly an improved iteration on seasonal play, where the base game can still be played for free but the new seasonal content needs a $5 entrance token or something, with new seasons every 3 months. If you scale up what seasons bring over what they do in D3, that might be successful, and the community might go along with it, especially since you can just not pay and still play non-seasonal. Especially if seasonal gear gets added to the base pool after the season ends. If they try to monetize access to the gameplay in some way, it'll get pushback. If you monetize quality-of-life features like stash pages and there isn't a way to pay with in-game currency, it'll get pushback. Like, D3 makes you buy stash tabs, but I wouldn't complain if Blizzard let you pay $5/tab rather than saving up the gold, as long as it remains an accessible amount of gold.

[Nzx]

/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.

Lmao what?

Please, god of companies, tell me how companies work? Because the project I'm working on right now is funded by revenue from the parent company, but there's no chance in hell they're just going to get throwing money at us if we don't make our own profit in the near term. Once we do, that money will be reported up as being generated from us, but obviously (I say obviously but who knows around here) is part of the greater overall pool of the funds the organisation can then draw from to fund other projects.

I'm honestly not even sure what your argument is. Are you suggesting that zero percent of MTX proceeds are used to fund further development of a game? If you are, I'd love to see the budget/KPI documentation you're basing that incredibly bold claim on.

[Relapses]

It's also that microtransactions are inherently appealing. It's a small price. Maybe less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks! Makes it really easy to justify spending a bit. And no, the "but you have to keep spending" doesn't really work as a counter, because people keep buying coffees, too. It's a lot easier to rationalize smaller payments more often than saving up for one big payment.

Microtransactions aren't a problem, unto themselves. The problem is what they pay for. Diablo's always had a one-time up-front cost, and has fostered a gameplay paradigm revolving around constant grinding for loot. IMO, the biggest failure in D:I's model is that you apparently need to buy the Battle Pass to repeatedly grind; otherwise you've got limits on daily play. That will absolutely kill D4. It may kill D:I. But it's such a common mobile game factor it's not surprising it got into D:I, IMO.

D4 needs to offer either an up-front price like D3 that lets you grind the content forever for free, or possibly an improved iteration on seasonal play, where the base game can still be played for free but the new seasonal content needs a $5 entrance token or something, with new seasons every 3 months. If you scale up what seasons bring over what they do in D3, that might be successful, and the community might go along with it, especially since you can just not pay and still play non-seasonal. Especially if seasonal gear gets added to the base pool after the season ends. If they try to monetize access to the gameplay in some way, it'll get pushback. If you monetize quality-of-life features like stash pages and there isn't a way to pay with in-game currency, it'll get pushback. Like, D3 makes you buy stash tabs, but I wouldn't complain if Blizzard let you pay $5/tab rather than saving up the gold, as long as it remains an accessible amount of gold.

As long as the convenience can alternatively be grinded in-game at a reasonable rate then I wouldn't mind. If it's a proposition of paying $5 or spending 60 hours doing repeatable content, though, I think that's a line in the sand that I draw.

[Rucati]

Who cares?

As long as the game is fun what difference does it make? The only problem is if they lock important content behind it, as long as it's just cosmetics then it's completely fine.

[Coldkil]

You're paying to "go fast" and "play less". I have more of an issue with D:I apparently limiting playtime unless you pay, than anything else they're offering.

Point is that immortal has PvP (and D4 will have aswell). So that's literally "winning". For the rest i agree with you.

My opinion on the whole thing is that if someone can pay and skip/have faster progress it directly affects me. Simply because i know that if you can pay you can be more "successful" at the game than someone who's not - and that kills the fun i can have from a game like Diablo.

It's a personal thing, but i love the game as a "strive to efficiency". If paying makes people more efficient, it automatically makes me less and i'm not going to play that. I also think that trading in these games is the same as MTX - simply because in an official way or not you can buy stuff and "cheat" the gameplay itself.

Free to disagree, but it's basically my total dislike about how the gaming scene is all about burning through games as fast as possible without caring about the games, only because it's new and exists now. I'm probably not the target of pc gaming anymore, or gaming in general.

EDIT: i don't expect MTX to go away. But they have made the whole thing worse to me and there's nothing that can change it until you remove them completely from everywhere. This said, there are fair business/monetization models around so it's not all doom and gloom.

[Elim Garak]

I also think that trading in these games is the same as MTX - simply because in an official way or not you can buy stuff and "cheat" the gameplay itself.

Well, then D1 had MTX. And D2. And D3. And D4 will certainly have MTX. Since trading is the integral part of D games.

[Coldkil]

Well, then D1 had MTX. And D2. And D3. And D4 will certainly have MTX. Since trading is the integral part of D games.

I know. That's why i stated it's my personal opinion. I always play SSF, i just find it way more satisfactory than "i can buy my gear and be done". Especially when real money is involved. I loved D3 when they removed AH - too bad the issues were deeply rooted in other aspects of the game and trading/AH had no real connection with that. Point is that supported or not, there will always be ways for people to "cheat" their way in the game.

If i can play without trading and have a satisfactory experience then i'm fine. What i'm worried about is the trend the gaming industry is taking so every new game has that "little something more" that is slowly killing my desire to play. Very very likely i was less affected bythis back in the days just because there was much less visibility on games in general.

Now everything is discovered and made public in a matter of minutes.

[Sluvs]

"Voting with your wallet," a bit of a double edged sword for gaming, especially on discussion forums. You end up with threads like this where the undercurrent is extremely against MTX and everything MTX-adjacent but I think the general gaming populace is far, far more neutral about its existence. And that's why we keep getting MTX in our video games.

I honestly cannot remember a single time voting with your wallet has worked. I'm sure it happened but I just can't remember.
People tolerate way more than we think. I have a friend that literally plays overwatch to this very day and never spent one dollar on it. I asked him about the MTX a long time ago and he simply said: I don't use and I don't care with someone use it.

For most people, gaming is a hobby, and they don't care about its inner workings or at least not enough to get enraged about it. They just play it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's also that microtransactions are inherently appealing. It's a small price. Maybe less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks! Makes it really easy to justify spending a bit. And no, the "but you have to keep spending" doesn't really work as a counter, because people keep buying coffees, too. It's a lot easier to rationalize smaller payments more often than saving up for one big payment.

Microtransactions aren't a problem, unto themselves. The problem is what they pay for. Diablo's always had a one-time up-front cost, and has fostered a gameplay paradigm revolving around constant grinding for loot. IMO, the biggest failure in D:I's model is that you apparently need to buy the Battle Pass to repeatedly grind; otherwise you've got limits on daily play. That will absolutely kill D4. It may kill D:I. But it's such a common mobile game factor it's not surprising it got into D:I, IMO.

D4 needs to offer either an up-front price like D3 that lets you grind the content forever for free, or possibly an improved iteration on seasonal play, where the base game can still be played for free but the new seasonal content needs a $5 entrance token or something, with new seasons every 3 months. If you scale up what seasons bring over what they do in D3, that might be successful, and the community might go along with it, especially since you can just not pay and still play non-seasonal. Especially if seasonal gear gets added to the base pool after the season ends. If they try to monetize access to the gameplay in some way, it'll get pushback. If you monetize quality-of-life features like stash pages and there isn't a way to pay with in-game currency, it'll get pushback. Like, D3 makes you buy stash tabs, but I wouldn't complain if Blizzard let you pay $5/tab rather than saving up the gold, as long as it remains an accessible amount of gold.

I still rather have no MTX tied to convenience in any way shape or form. But if the stash can be bought with gold (and not be a exorbitant amount of it) and bought with U$, I actually think that might be fine. TBH, I rather like the model that DBD has of a battle pass. It only unlocks cosmetics and the main cosmetics you get o the free track as well. And ofc, its seasonal. That I actually might enjoy.

[Relapses]

I honestly cannot remember a single time voting with your wallet has worked. I'm sure it happened but I just can't remember.
People tolerate way more than we think. I have a friend that literally plays overwatch to this very day and never spent one dollar on it. I asked him about the MTX a long time ago and he simply said: I don't use and I don't care with someone use it.

For most people, gaming is a hobby, and they don't care about its inner workings or at least not enough to get enraged about it. They just play it.

Voting with our wallets does work, it just doesn't work in the way the super-invested people on discussion forums would like to think it does. For every anti-MTX fanatic we see in this thread, there are dozens of people like your friend. And while I get the "death by a thousand cuts" slippery slope the anti-MTX crowd insists is destroying the integrity of modern gaming, I think most developers seek to act in the best interest of their games.

[Endus]

Voting with our wallets does work, it just doesn't work in the way the super-invested people on discussion forums would like to think it does. For every anti-MTX fanatic we see in this thread, there are dozens of people like your friend. And while I get the "death by a thousand cuts" slippery slope the anti-MTX crowd insists is destroying the integrity of modern gaming, I think most developers seek to act in the best interest of their games.

The central point of conflict is the idea that microtransactions are undesirable to players.

That's simply a false tenet. The reason microtransactions have exploded as a monetization model is precisely because players opt into microtransactions so readily. When they first started being introduced, if they hadn't been actively bought into by players preferentially, and made more money for the developers/publishers in doing so, they never would have been extended further into new games and genres. The glut of microtransactions in every game these days isn't a plot by developers, it's a direct response to user demands.

I'm not saying everyone should like them. I don't, myself, really, especially not how they're implemented in most popular mobile games. But I'm an exception. I'm an outlier. It would be ridiculous for me to pretend that I'm somehow the "average gamer", here. And that's why the "vote with your wallet" won't end up working, with regards to MtX. Because everyone else is also voting with their wallets, and they're mostly voting the other way. So of course developers are gonna favor the side that makes them the most money and satisfies the most customers.

And you might not hear about them much on forums, because happy customers don't rush to forums and review sites to make posts about being satisfied. There's a massive selection bias in who ends up posting their opinions; it's far more likely an unhappy customer will post than a happy one.

[Sluvs]

Voting with our wallets does work, it just doesn't work in the way the super-invested people on discussion forums would like to think it does. For every anti-MTX fanatic we see in this thread, there are dozens of people like your friend. And while I get the "death by a thousand cuts" slippery slope the anti-MTX crowd insists is destroying the integrity of modern gaming, I think most developers seek to act in the best interest of their games.

Fair enough. I can see your point and agree with most of it.

I 100% believe that most developers act in the best of their games. But I also believe that at the end of the day, they dont really have a lot of control over monetization, that is kinda for the upper management (or even an entire different area) to decide. And that is a problem IMHO.

[Unseen Guest]

The listing in question, which is for a Product Manager for Diablo 4, reveals that the successful candidate "will play a critical role in managing the Diablo 4 in-game store experience," which is described by the listing as "a key component of the game's seasonal content strategy." Whoever gets the job will also be responsible for identifying sales trends and quantifying purchase behaviors, as well as using tools to configure prices and availability within the in-game store.

https://gamerant.com/diablo-4-diablo...otransactions/

The job add in question:

https://careers.blizzard.com/global/...ager-Diablo-IV

No one cares. It's still a day one purchase for me.