Diablo 4 could end up having microtransactions

[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.

[matheney2k]

Of course diablo 4 will have micro transactions, that is the way the gaming industry has been shifting for a long time and blizz seems to be leading the charge these days.

Hell I don't doubt it will be P2W as well I have ZERO excitement for this game..

[Pyreo]

Of course diablo 4 will have micro transactions, that is the way the gaming industry has been shifting for a long time and blizz seems to be leading the charge these days.

Hell I don't doubt it will be P2W as well I have ZERO excitement for this game..

It'll have microtransactions. They'll be cosmetic. I doubt they'll sell power.

[Kallisto]

Will D4 have MTX? Yes
Is it Moral? No
Is it capitalism? Yes

There's the issue, people are still bitching about the existence of MTX and not going after where the issue lies. Not at Blizzard, Not at EA, it's the system itself. It's capitalism and capitalism is by itself 100% pure immorality where the fight isn't at company HQs it's in DC, Westminster, etc. Bitching on the forusm won't do shit. It's voting in people that will ban mtx.

[matheney2k]

It'll have microtransactions. They'll be cosmetic. I doubt they'll sell power.

I sincerely hope so, but little hope do I have

[MoanaLisa]

It's voting in people that will ban mtx.

MTX and loot boxes are not the same thing. Let's say that some rare item goes into a game store for $1000. That's not a loot box. All that will happen if loot boxes are banned everywhere is that MTX will just show specific items in specific packages. I play in a couple of mobile games right now with aggressive monetization but none of the hundreds of things in the store are mysteries. Pay $1.99, you know precisely what you're going to get.

So everything moves to that model and everyone is happy? That's not banning MTX.

- - - Updated - - -

It'll have microtransactions. They'll be cosmetic. I doubt they'll sell power.

Those with agendas will simply define power in new ways just so they can say that Blizzzard is selling power.

[Relapses]

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.

Yeah, it is a huge problem but hopefully developers are learning. A recent example I can think of is Battlefield 2042. Apart from the innumerable bugs (likely the result of a development timeline which emphasized getting the product released before it was ready), one of the more controversial changes to BF's class system was the introduction of specialists. This watered down version of one of BF's most characteristic features was almost assuredly implemented not because it simplified or improved gameplay in any meaningful way but rather because it was much easier to sell MTX-skins for specialists. (Gotta get that Fortnite $$ I guess.) This backfired magnificently so hopefully the pendulum will begin swinging the other direction.

[kenn9530]

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.

D3 offers players a way to reach and defeat its endgame quickly, eventually the limited variety of content gets a little boring but its still a great game and it delivered, vanilla D3 was difficult to even get to endgame and required a ton of playtime to progress, with RoS the game was more streamlined and easier to gear up so it allowed players to get to the endgame.

Its the most successful dungeon crawler game that is a buy to play model ever so far.

[Endus]

MTX and loot boxes are not the same thing. Let's say that some rare item goes into a game store for $1000. That's not a loot box. All that will happen if loot boxes are banned everywhere is that MTX will just show specific items in specific packages. I play in a couple of mobile games right now with aggressive monetization but none of the hundreds of things in the store are mysteries. Pay $1.99, you know precisely what you're going to get.

So everything moves to that model and everyone is happy? That's not banning MTX.

Frankly, the venom against loot boxes is pretty silly. Gambling-type mechanics should be regulated, to a certain extent, but criminalization of gambling in general is really fuckin' silly. Ever bought a pack of trading cards? Or a toy out of a random-dispensing vending machine? Or gone to most carnivals? Plenty of "gambling" options aimed at kids, in exactly the same ways as lootboxes are. If the problem is kids spending $5,000 on their parents' credit cards, then the problem there is their parents, not the game's systems. It'd be just as "bad" if they stole that card to buy one of those motorized mini-jeeps that rich kids get that I have no idea what they cost but as I type this it can't be $5k, can it? Still, point remains.

It always just came off as a moral panic used by those who were anti-MtX to try and not bother making a legitimate argument.

[Drudi]

And where is the problem?^^ Modern games usually have some kind of microtransactions anyways.

This whole design concept IS the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

If the problem is kids spending $5,000 on their parents' credit cards, then the problem there is their parents, not the game's systems.

No. It’s the systems. Because they are most likely designed in such a way that:
1) the game is advertised as “free”, which is criminal offense in itself
2) you are forced one way or another to link your card to some account, thus losing per-transaction control

People who publish such games should be burned alive, people who design such systems should be killed

[Jastall]

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.

The thing is, the more noise is made about D4's monetization now, the more likely it is Blizzard hears it and acts on it, even if the overall chance is small that they listen to people on MMO-C or their own forums over their in-house business and market analysts. If people only complain about it when the game is in beta a month away from release, well, it be too late mon.

I don't think most people paying in games like DI are moaning but putting cash down anyway- most don't care about the larger implications of their purchases but also won't throw tons of money at it. Of the two friends at work who play it, one gave up at around level 45 as he found the game got too grindy, the other has spent about 30$ on it so far and reckons he'll budget himself to about 60-70$- the price of a full game basically. While I can't back this up with data or anything I do believe they're relatively representative of most mobile players. They're not necessarily critical or discerning customers, much like I'm not a critical or discerning customer when it comes to thinks that only mildly interest me such as clothing or my car. They just go with their gut feeling at the moment like most people do for most purchases, I think.

I mean, I collect and play Warhammer 40k. I know what it is to pay far too much for entertainment so I won't pretend to be some saint on that front, if I can decide that 5 plastic space soldier men are worth 65$ CND then I can't in good faith judge someone who thinks 20$ for faster leveling in his video game or whatever is fair trade-off. But I do think I can judge companies who design problems and then sell the solutions with a particular propensity for exploiting people with poorer impulse control, which is all I see those time-savers and pay to win aspects as. Even when it comes to 40K I can personally control my purchases as I'm a naturally cautious person when it comes to my finances, but not everyone shares this trait and I know for a fact companies don't target people like me with abusive MTX- they target whales and people with problems and potential addictions.

[Alroxas]

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.

Uh where was the second expansion then? You know the one Blizzard axed for their "massive financial success" of a game.

Also the various "seasons" of D3 were mostly based on system rule changes and not exactly new content added. Granted I didn't expect any new content because there was no "monetization" to pay for it.

But let's shift gears over to another game... Take No Man Sky, plenty of updates with new systems and items added to the game which does cost the developer but there's no additional revenue from the player who already bought NMS.

"But NMS isn't an ARPG, it's not a good comparison". Ok then let's look at Path of Exile, which has new seasons added to it every few months or so. And each season has different (if not new) content. So much so that one of PoE problems is that various systems from different seasons don't interact very well for the player (Archnemesis mods leading to unkillable mobs, etc).

[Elim Garak]

While I can't back this up with data or anything I do believe they're relatively representative of most mobile players.

They are not. Most mobile players don't pay. And this is from the data that the devs have. That's actually a yuge monetization problem, called "conversion" as in converting free players to paying players. On average only 30% pay at least a buck (usual minimal price point).

[Alroxas]

Not every game needs to be a live service.

Agreed but I think corporations see the money from GaaS and so they want to turn anything/everything into a GaaS product.

- - - Updated - - -

It'll have microtransactions. They'll be cosmetic. I doubt they'll sell power.

Wyatt Chang - "In Diablo Immortal, there is no way to acquire or rank up gear using money."

Hey... What are gems then? Also Dawning Echoes?

Finding it hard to believe there aren't any player power in D4 until we see D4 beta/release.

[Endus]

No. It’s the systems. Because they are most likely designed in such a way that:
1) the game is advertised as “free”, which is criminal offense in itself

How? It is free. "Free" does not mean "will not contain potential optional purchases".

2) you are forced one way or another to link your card to some account, thus losing per-transaction control

You retain per-transaction control because you need to actively opt in to each transaction.

If you mean kids continuing to use your card for thousands of dollars of purchases; 1> get them their own Visa debit card that has a limited cash value, or 2> take your card off after the first purchase. Kids making unwarranted purchases on their parents' credit cards like this is practically always a parent's fault. The exception I'd allow is if the kid actually stole the card out of your wallet or something.

People who publish such games should be burned alive, people who design such systems should be killed

Yeah, you're not a serious person.

Uh where was the second expansion then? You know the one Blizzard axed for their "massive financial success" of a game.

It was cancelled right before Reaper of Souls was released to much acclaim. What content had already been created was rolled into the Necromancer pack or otherwise added to the game for free, places like Sescheron Ruins.

Beyond that, anything else is speculation. And they did release the Necromancer in 2017. Maybe they felt they didn't have enough for a 2nd expansion, idea-wise. Maybe they felt it was better to roll it into D4, or move on to D4 more quickly than otherwise intended. Maybe they want more of a cash-shop integration with Diablo than D3 offers, so they can get more recurring monetization where Diablo 3 is mostly up-front purchases.

The idea that they nuked it because D3 wasn't successful is just objectively untrue, though.

But let's shift gears over to another game... Take No Man Sky, plenty of updates with new systems and items added to the game which does cost the developer but there's no additional revenue from the player who already bought NMS.

I jump back into NMS every now and then, too. And? Their launch was a hell of a lot rockier than D3's, and bad word of mouth led to mass refunds and such. They've built NMS back into a powerhouse, sure, but they're approaching it from a completely different perspective.

"But NMS isn't an ARPG, it's not a good comparison". Ok then let's look at Path of Exile, which has new seasons added to it every few months or so. And each season has different (if not new) content. So much so that one of PoE problems is that various systems from different seasons don't interact very well for the player (Archnemesis mods leading to unkillable mobs, etc).

Frankly, I tried PoE, and quit because I couldn't stand it. I'm really not a fan of their monetization model, either. Not really sure what your point is, either; they're entirely funded by MtX, so they have to keep providing steady content to justify players continuing to play and thus continuing to spend. Diablo 3 doesn't need to dangle a carrot, because it's not seeking additional funding with each season.

[Biomega]

The thing is, the more noise is made about D4's monetization now, the more likely it is Blizzard hears it and acts on it

In theory, though what they're really interested in is the conversion rate of complaints to financial loss. Many people complain. Complaining is easy and cheap. How many of them ACTUALLY don't make a purchase BECAUSE of the thing they're complaining about, though, that is probably a fairly small percentage.

And even then - they're fine with losing some people. Their goal isn't to make the maximum amount of people happy. It's to make the maximum amount of profit.

[Fencers]

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

Totally base.

A lot of players like microtransactions in games. Especially ones that allow for "power", "glamour" or time-saving. Many customers view it as a trade-off of time to enjoy; as in I can spend $15 for this cool thing now or grind for X time. One might not have the time but the money they do have.

Also, the #1 reason people spend is the look cool or to seem impressive to other people. Social status is always a thing whether it is virtual or not.

I was working on the follow-up to the Yakuza game 'Like A Dragon' a few years ago. Without question, "I like to show others my achievements/power" and "I like to look cool and unique" were the most common responses people had to the motivation questionnaire of the game. That has been so in every game I worked on with microtransactions.

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.

This is absolutely the case. Different social platforms attract different user groups. Places like this are a niche within a niche for the most part.

[Jastall]

In theory, though what they're really interested in is the conversion rate of complaints to financial loss. Many people complain. Complaining is easy and cheap. How many of them ACTUALLY don't make a purchase BECAUSE of the thing they're complaining about, though, that is probably a fairly small percentage.

And even then - they're fine with losing some people. Their goal isn't to make the maximum amount of people happy. It's to make the maximum amount of profit.

Ye, which is why I said they listen to their market analysts more than us. But still, speaking up grants a greater guarantee the message is heard than saying nothing, however small the chance.

[Biomega]

But still, speaking up grants a greater guarantee the message is heard than saying nothing, however small the chance.

That is true.

Definitely voice your displeasure. Ideally follow it up with consequences, too, if it's ignored. That's being a responsible consumer.