The Diablo 4 pre-order bundles, and their supposed cost

[crusadernero]

Steep prices!

This time I wont pre order. I'll wait it out until the base game is on sale, buy it & clear the campaign and maybe dabble some more with it if its fun. Besides that, im already playing wow. Dont have the desire or need to have another game to spend ALOT of time on. Jump in, jump out.

[RH92]

Except the game does just that if you want to unlock everything

If you want to unlock all cosmetics, yes. It was stated multiple times you unlock everything else by playing.

[hulkgor]

Except the game does just that if you want to unlock everything

Then don't... unlock everything? Particularly if its insignificant cosmetics?

[Fencers]

To me cosmetics selling isnt reasonable for bought games. Okay for f2p but definitly not for 40 plus dollars games.

Game development and advertising have increased significantly while purchase price has remained about the same for decades. More games having long development and support cycles have also increased operational costs.

I remember buying Earthbound on SNES for $100 at KB toys and Final Fantasy 3/6 for $79.99. This was back in 1994.

Just having a game with significant voice work can be millions of dollars in development and production.

$40? For a game one can potentially play endlessly, consumers are getting a bargain.

I ordered lunch today for 2 adults. $52.

[Ielenia]

So don't get the battle pass? It's only cosmetics. You still get the content for free, even without the battle pass. That way, it's pretty much the regular price of any ol' AAA game.

It may be the "regular price of any ol' AAA game", but it surely isn't the "regular content of any ol' AAA game", considering such cosmetics, back in the "ol' days" would be attainable in-game either through mob/boss loot drops, or by completing challenges.

Now, there's the battle pass. On top of the original price of the game.

[HeatBlast]

Game development and advertising have increased significantly while purchase price has remained about the same for decades. More games having long development nad support cycles have also increased operational costs.

I remember buying Earthbound on SNES for $100 at KB toys and Final Fantasy 3/6 for $79.99, This was back in 1994.

Just having a game with significant voice work can be millions of dollars in development and production.

$40? For a game one can potentially play endlessly, consumers are getting a bargain.

I ordered lunch today for 2 adults. $52.

Equally plausible that they can charge this bullshit and enough people keep funnelling money into it, so why not keep sucking money outta them at an uncapped or exorbitant level? Big difference between inflation and operating costs taking a box game from 70 bucks to 120 after 25 years, but it doesn't explain why we have to pay that 100 and have numerous other methods of monetization.

[Fencers]

Equally plausible that they can charge this bullshit and enough people keep funnelling money into it, so why not keep sucking money outta them at an uncapped or exorbitant level? Big difference between inflation and operating costs taking a box game from 70 bucks to 120 after 25 years, but it doesn't explain why we have to pay that 100 and have numerous other methods of monetization.

"Exorbitant" is relative. You don't have to pay anything. Don't play games if you can't afford them. They are an indulgence, a pastime.

The cost of development, marketing, and operational costs can be huge. Even for tiny mobile games, it costs money to keep people on staff. That's just the way it is, my dude. And it will never go back.

[Endus]

It may be the "regular price of any ol' AAA game", but it surely isn't the "regular content of any ol' AAA game", considering such cosmetics, back in the "ol' days" would be attainable in-game either through mob/boss loot drops, or by completing challenges.

Now, there's the battle pass. On top of the original price of the game.

Back in the "olden days", there never would've been any cosmetics to begin with. And we don't even have to guess; we can look at Diablo 1 and 2, which had no cosmetics other than the gear itself.

Much like how people complain about Day 1 patches, when in the past, if the game shipped broken, you were just SOL and had to live with the broken, glitchy game, most likely forever.

- - - Updated - - -

Equally plausible that they can charge this bullshit and enough people keep funnelling money into it, so why not keep sucking money outta them at an uncapped or exorbitant level? Big difference between inflation and operating costs taking a box game from 70 bucks to 120 after 25 years, but it doesn't explain why we have to pay that 100 and have numerous other methods of monetization.

Diablo IV standard edition is the same $70 bucks. The other editions come with additional content beyond the base game. So you're literally getting more than in the past, as well, which is why it costs more.

[Ielenia]

Back in the "olden days", there never would've been any cosmetics to begin with. And we don't even have to guess; we can look at Diablo 1 and 2, which had no cosmetics other than the gear itself.

Except we're not talking exclusively about the Diablo games. We're talking about all games who, in the past, had all their unlockable stuff in the game. From the time before "battle passes" and "microtransactions" became the horrible norm.

[Endus]

Except we're not talking exclusively about the Diablo games. We're talking about all games who, in the past, had all their unlockable stuff in the game. From the time before "battle passes" and "microtransactions" became the horrible norm.

And that's what I'm saying. This era where we have all kinds of optional cosmetics for microtransactions, you can't point to the past and say "the price used to include everything!" In the past, you didn't get those extras. They literally would not have existed in the first place. We can see that directly with the Diablo franchise, but it's true pretty much across the board. Hell, it was true of early WoW and stuff, too, before transmog features became pretty common. You can literally see the change in the market over WoW's lifetime.

There was never any past where you paid one price and got "the base game and all the bonus cosmetics and stuff". There was only ever the base game. No extra "cosmetics and stuff" at all. It's a false comparison.

I do acknowledge some instances of content being cut just to sell it to customers separately. ME3 is a good example of that, the From Ashes DLC specifically; it contained Javik who's integral enough in the story as it unfolds that it's odd he'd be cut out for separate sale, and the content was published at the same time as the game proper, even included on physical discs but not unlocked until you bought the pack. But it's that combination of timing and plot relevance that raises eyebrows, and that doesn't apply to cosmetics, which have no plot relevance. This idea that most DLC are bits of the base game that were carved out to be sold separately rather than additional supplements is mostly just false. A false sense of entitlement to content in an industry that's actually been pretty price-positive for consumers, shockingly. NES games back in the '80s sold for $60, brand new. With inflation, that's like $150 today, by comparison. Prices have not kept up with inflation, they stayed mostly static, which is an effective slow reduction in price over time.

[Twdft]

If you want to unlock all cosmetics, yes. It was stated multiple times you unlock everything else by playing.

Then don't... unlock everything? Particularly if its insignificant cosmetics?

So here's the thing: it used to be that a (single player) game's a game and when you pay for the game you got the fucking game and could access everything it contained. Developers would then high five each other for a successful launch and go work on their next game. Later they wouldn't go for another game entirely but for an update to the first game, aka DLC. We paid for the DLC and guess what... paying for the DLC we could access everything that the DLC contained. Do you see a pattern here?

Nowadays developers make a game and by paying for it we do not get to access everything that's in the game. This is the fundamental critique. I have no problem paying for additional content, but for finagles sake sell it as an addition of the base game and do not make us pay to unlock stuff that is in the base game I already paid for.

[Endus]

So here's the thing: it used to be that a (single player) game's a game and when you pay for the game you got the fucking game and could access everything it contained. Developers would then high five each other for a successful launch and go work on their next game. Later they wouldn't go for another game entirely but for an update to the first game, aka DLC. We paid for the DLC and guess what... paying for the DLC we could access everything that the DLC contained. Do you see a pattern here?

Nowadays developers make a game and by paying for it we do not get to access everything that's in the game. This is the fundamental critique. I have no problem paying for additional content, but for finagles sake sell it as an addition of the base game and do not make us pay to unlock stuff that is in the base game I already paid for.

It remains a dishonest critique. And I do mean "dishonest", not "mistaken".

You still get the full game. You're buying additional content that wasn't included in the original game. If you want to compare to yesteryear, it would be you getting the same full game as today, without the option of those extra cosmetics and DLC. Because those would never exist. You're being offered new services and options that never existed in the past, on top of the same type of game offerings you always had. At significantly cheaper prices, considering inflation, no less. Yes, even with this latest bump in prices.

There was never a case where buying a game would entitle you to future content for that game, unless that game's license explicitly stated that as a feature. This is an assumption that's never had merit, it's just rank and baseless entitlement.

[HeatBlast]

Back in the "olden days", there never would've been any cosmetics to begin with. And we don't even have to guess; we can look at Diablo 1 and 2, which had no cosmetics other than the gear itself.

Much like how people complain about Day 1 patches, when in the past, if the game shipped broken, you were just SOL and had to live with the broken, glitchy game, most likely forever.

- - - Updated - - -



Diablo IV standard edition is the same $70 bucks. The other editions come with additional content beyond the base game. So you're literally getting more than in the past, as well, which is why it costs more.

https://techland.time.com/2012/03/15...ell-on-may-15/

It was 79.95 AUD for diablo 3 10 years ago, plus tacked onto a yearly sub which eh, cheaper to go with 80 bucks when I wasn't doing 6 more months of dragon soul. It had a RMAH so it had player power implemented in their system for purchase too. Diablo 4 is now 109.95 AUD, from exactly the same shopfront (yes this is base edition, not any extra editions). Paying the same amount wouldn't even get me into the front door, not to mention it has additional monetization's as well as diablo 3 had, so it's climbed 30 bucks AND still wants more, more, more. I'm not getting more at all for 30 bucks more, I'm getting the base game with the ability to spend more. If anything, Diablo 3 at least I could have had a decent mempo drop for myself I guess (though it never did), but current diablo unless I spend more, I won't get the shit on any additional shops or battlepasses. For a 1:1 comparison, SOMEHOW diablo 3 comes out better than diablo 4 in this comparison.

To point out my massive issue with this shit: I play PoE, I paid 20 bucks to get the stash tabs, actual gameplay held behind mtx, but that's it, I get a full game for free or 20 bucks, with seasonal content updates, and people with more money can spend more money. Paying 110 bucks to get in the front door, or even 70 bucks I'd never have even touched it. "AAA vs indie so they gotta do something else" doesn't fly because AAA isn't doing anything else other than slapping an entry fee on the front door. Slap 110 bucks on that, but then charge for Expansion/dlcs, stop trying to squeeze absolutely every little thing you can out of players just because you can, it's just blatant corporate greed.

[Endus]

https://techland.time.com/2012/03/15...ell-on-may-15/

It was 79.95 AUD for diablo 3 10 years ago, plus tacked onto a yearly sub which eh, cheaper to go with 80 bucks when I wasn't doing 6 more months of dragon soul. It had a RMAH so it had player power implemented in their system for purchase too. Diablo 4 is now 109.95 AUD, from exactly the same shopfront (yes this is base edition, not any extra editions). Paying the same amount wouldn't even get me into the front door, not to mention it has additional monetization's as well as diablo 3 had, so it's climbed 30 bucks AND still wants more, more, more. I'm not getting more at all for 30 bucks more, I'm getting the base game with the ability to spend more. If anything, Diablo 3 at least I could have had a decent mempo drop for myself I guess (though it never did), but current diablo unless I spend more, I won't get the shit on any additional shops or battlepasses. For a 1:1 comparison, SOMEHOW diablo 3 comes out better than diablo 4 in this comparison.

An inflation calculator tells me that $79.95 in 2012 AUD would be about $95 in 2021 AUD. So that's half the difference right there. D3 was also marketed at $60 USD, where DIV is starting at $70 USD.

Given that's a ~17% increase, that'd pump the $79.95 from 2012 to $93.28, and in 2021 AUD, that's $110.27 in 2021. I'm using 2021 because the RBA calculator I'm using doesn't have 2022 data yet (as the year's not over), but it's close enough.

So it sure looks like the price difference is down to the small price hike which is an industry-wide thing, and it's way more unusual that prices haven't risen with inflation, and then the change in value of AUD over the last decade. I don't really see the complaint.

Prices change over time, dude. Gaming has been shockingly resistant to that process, and that's just recently started to change, so you might need to pay more. 8-bit Nintendo games back in the day were the equivalent of $150 USD in today's USD. You've gotta factor in inflation.

[RH92]

So here's the thing: it used to be that a (single player) game's a game and when you pay for the game you got the fucking game and could access everything it contained. Developers would then high five each other for a successful launch and go work on their next game. Later they wouldn't go for another game entirely but for an update to the first game, aka DLC. We paid for the DLC and guess what... paying for the DLC we could access everything that the DLC contained. Do you see a pattern here?

Nowadays developers make a game and by paying for it we do not get to access everything that's in the game. This is the fundamental critique. I have no problem paying for additional content, but for finagles sake sell it as an addition of the base game and do not make us pay to unlock stuff that is in the base game I already paid for.

Nah, you are wrong about two things actually.

1. This isn't single player game anymore, it's more or less a MMO where grouping up is only optional with the exception of world bosses.

2. Times have changed. You are still getting everything as before and more in my opinion. Nowadays the plan is to support the game for longer than it ever used to be. The games have became way more complex, I am no developer, but I imagine it is easier and more profitable to keep releasing more and more content to the exisitng game than releasing a brand new game every 2 or 3 years. It's just a diversification of income for an existing game really.

I think it mostly depends on the way you look at it. Sure, if you look at percentages, there is a portion of content (even though it's just cosmetics) available only by spending additional money. However when you look at the raw numbers, it's different. For example in DII you have like what? 3 or 4 armor 'sets'? Now compare that to Diablo III where every class has 25 armor sets. To me I am getting everything I supposed to get and rest is just an optional bonus I can spend my money on to support the company (Which I don't plan on doing by the way).

[HeatBlast]

An inflation calculator tells me that $79.95 in 2012 AUD would be about $95 in 2021 AUD. So that's half the difference right there. D3 was also marketed at $60 USD, where DIV is starting at $70 USD.

Given that's a ~17% increase, that'd pump the $79.95 from 2012 to $93.28, and in 2021 AUD, that's $110.27 in 2021. I'm using 2021 because the RBA calculator I'm using doesn't have 2022 data yet (as the year's not over), but it's close enough.

So it sure looks like the price difference is down to the small price hike which is an industry-wide thing, and it's way more unusual that prices haven't risen with inflation, and then the change in value of AUD over the last decade. I don't really see the complaint.

Prices change over time, dude. Gaming has been shockingly resistant to that process, and that's just recently started to change, so you might need to pay more. 8-bit Nintendo games back in the day were the equivalent of $150 USD in today's USD. You've gotta factor in inflation.

That completely, and totally misses the core complaint of the issue: Game prices increasing based on inflation is fine, as long as it's what I pay: The base game, or any expansion content: I'm paying twice your inflation calculations to then be asked to keep paying more: Before it was to gamble, gamble gamble! (and to a degree, still is depending on your game/s of choice). Base price increasing due to inflation and costs is one thing, increasing base price under that assumption WHILE ALSO shovelling in extra shit on top of it to pay for. 110 bucks and everything release is in there? no worries, I can jibe with that. 110 bucks and "who the fuck knows how much extra stuff behind paywalls!" This isn't just a Diablo or Blizzard issue, it's endemic. That is my issue: This shit IS there at release, but locked behind EVEN FURTHER cash gates, and as a single parent who 110 bucks is a month of careful spending to buy getting "hey welcome you got more cash?" is fucking cringe.

[Endus]

That completely, and totally misses the core complaint of the issue: Game prices increasing based on inflation is fine, as long as it's what I pay: The base game, or any expansion content: I'm paying twice your inflation calculations to then be asked to keep paying more: Before it was to gamble, gamble gamble! (and to a degree, still is depending on your game/s of choice). Base price increasing due to inflation and costs is one thing, increasing base price under that assumption WHILE ALSO shovelling in extra shit on top of it to pay for. 110 bucks and everything release is in there? no worries, I can jibe with that. 110 bucks and "who the fuck knows how much extra stuff behind paywalls!" This isn't just a Diablo or Blizzard issue, it's endemic. That is my issue: This shit IS there at release, but locked behind EVEN FURTHER cash gates, and as a single parent who 110 bucks is a month of careful spending to buy getting "hey welcome you got more cash?" is fucking cringe.

So it's the baseless sense of entitlement I mentioned a couple posts up, then.

Nothing about paying the asking price for a game entitles you to any content that isn't listed on the box as being included. There is no such thing as a "full price" that includes all content unless the game publishers explicitly state that this is the case. You're not entitled to anything more than you actually pay for, and the additional-cost cosmetics you did not pay for. It doesn't matter if that means you're spending even more on the game; that's irrelevant. If you don't have the money to spend on it, that's sad, but also doesn't matter; it means the game's too expensive for you to afford, at best.

It's like walking into a restaurant and wondering why you have to pay extra for drinks when you just paid for a "full meal". Did it say it came with free drinks? Oh, and you want a side of wings? How unfair to pay more, right?

Or maybe this is a totally normal thing and you really don't have any actual basis for complaint other than it being more expensive than you want to pay. Which is a you problem.

[HeatBlast]

So it's the baseless sense of entitlement I mentioned a couple posts up, then.

Nothing about paying the asking price for a game entitles you to any content that isn't listed on the box. There is no such thing as a "full price" that includes all content unless the game publishers explicitly state that this is the case. You're not entitled to anything more than you actually pay for, and the additional-cost cosmetics you did not pay for. It doesn't matter if that means you're spending even more on the game; that's irrelevant. If you don't have the money to spend on it, that's sad, but also doesn't matter; it means the game's too expensive for you to afford, at best.

It's like walking into a restaurant and wondering why you have to pay extra for drinks when you just paid for a "full meal". Did it say it came with free drinks? Oh, and you want a side of wings? How unfair to pay more, right?

Or maybe this is a totally normal thing and you really don't have any actual basis for complaint other than it being more expensive than you want to pay. Which is a you problem.

This is one of the most cooked takes I've ever read, in a long time, especially since my point seems to sail over your head which is, "Games used to cost a base price and come with everything IN the game when I paid for it". Your point would be more accurate if I paid for a steak dinner, and got a piece of skirt steak and 3 chips, being told I have to pay extra for the "full chip experience", but whatever, capitalists gonna capitalist.

[Biomega]

"Games used to cost a base price and come with everything IN the game when I paid for it"

And that didn't include the things that games now include.

You get more now.

So you pay more now.

The fact that you used to pay less to get less doesn't magically mean you now get to pay the same and get more.

You realize that something like Diablo 2 had a PITIFUL amount of additional content, right? They gave you seasons that were basically three sets of new runewords and 1 endgame boss event with reused models OVER A SPAN OF TWENTY YEARS. That's what you used to get for your one-time purchase (or two-time, if you count LoD). Now you get rolling content updates every few months. How, exactly, is it unfair that this also costs more?

[marulol]

There we go.


A decent chunk of change.

But also interesting - Platinum, an ingame currency used for buying - you guessed it, ingame cosmetics.

naw. i dont think i'll even buy this game. definitely not pre ordering it. 130$ for a fucking horse skin. get the fuck out of here.