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

[Ringthane]

Lol, keep dreaming the game would even see a cent from those microtransactions

- - - Updated - - -



And we can see in OW2 how gracefully blizz do season passes. But it is totaly diff time u guys :P

Oh, who cares? Who really cares? Who's buying a Diablo game because they're concerned about where the money they pay goes?

People buy games to play them. If they don't, they're idiots who deserve to be parted from their money.

[Coldkil]

And we can see in OW2 how gracefully blizz do season passes. But it is totaly diff time u guys :P

Different game, apple to oranges etc.

They have been pretty clear and straightforward about how monetization works in D4. Again, not saying this cannot change or they cannot be lying but until i see it it makes no sense to say "but but but they're bad guys".

Don't buy the game and don't play it if you believe it's going to be a shitshow.

[Flame6]

I have no qualms with a season pass that offers cosmetics. I like this system more than any other MTX system.
I'm pro-FOMO, so I really don't see any downside here.

[Mysterymask]

My only issue there is the 20 tier skips. "By paying extra, you can play the game less!"

I mean Blizzard players have a strong desire to not play Blizzard games usually

[chiddie]

Lol, keep dreaming the game would even see a cent from those microtransactions

- - - Updated - - -



And we can see in OW2 how gracefully blizz do season passes. But it is totaly diff time u guys :P

OW2 is a different game.

But dude, you should really surrender to the fact that the old model “I buy a game once and then I receive endless support and additions for free” is long dead, unless we are talking about 100% single player games with limited replayability like Hogwarts Legacy.

Constant development throughout years require money. D3 is in maintenance mode since the Necro DLC came out: seasons are basically all the same. S28 saw a spike due to D4 hype train and the power spike they gave to players, but it lasted 2 weeks.

As long as only cosmetics are involved, they can create all the shops they want.

[RobertoCarlos]

OW2 is a different game.

But dude, you should really surrender to the fact that the old model “I buy a game once and then I receive endless support and additions for free” is long dead, unless we are talking about 100% single player games with limited replayability like Hogwarts Legacy.

Constant development throughout years require money. D3 is in maintenance mode since the Necro DLC came out: seasons are basically all the same. S28 saw a spike due to D4 hype train and the power spike they gave to players, but it lasted 2 weeks.

As long as only cosmetics are involved, they can create all the shops they want.

I dunno, I wouldnt be suprised if Hades 2 competes with D4 in terms of end game content, because so far its basically rifts and dungeon spam for end game. Unless a D4 content update or expansion expands that, I can easily see an indie game like hades 2 having more replayability.

[chiddie]

I dunno, I wouldnt be suprised if Hades 2 competes with D4 in terms of end game content, because so far its basically rifts and dungeon spam for end game. Unless a D4 content update or expansion expands that, I can easily see an indie game like hades 2 having more replayability.

I would instead be really surprised if D4 endgame would be lackluster after all these years of development and seeing how poor D3 endgame was (I mean I still love it but I can’t not admit it’s only rifts or nothing, collateral activities tied to seasonal journeys have a short duration).

[Aliven]

OW2 is a different game.

But dude, you should really surrender to the fact that the old model “I buy a game once and then I receive endless support and additions for free” is long dead, unless we are talking about 100% single player games with limited replayability like Hogwarts Legacy.

Constant development throughout years require money. D3 is in maintenance mode since the Necro DLC came out: seasons are basically all the same. S28 saw a spike due to D4 hype train and the power spike they gave to players, but it lasted 2 weeks.

As long as only cosmetics are involved, they can create all the shops they want.

Elden Ring enters the stage

Why do you need endless game?

- - - Updated - - -

Bullshit.

Everyone was complaining about D3 maintenance mode, and D2 barely changing anything in 20 years. And you know why? Because they didn't have ONGOING REVENUE attached to them.

Is this really what you want D4 to be? Half-hearted seasons with minimal changes designed by a 2-person team like in D3? Or 4 new runewords every couple of YEARS like we got in D2? That's something you think would be a better model than having constant, meaningful updates?

You wont have anything, except some sort of power reset to farm new gear which would be inmvalidated by a new season. There is no game in the market in which season pass was good for the players or showed better expansion and content for the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, who cares? Who really cares? Who's buying a Diablo game because they're concerned about where the money they pay goes?

People buy games to play them. If they don't, they're idiots who deserve to be parted from their money.

People who say that to justify predatory monetizations. They somehow thinks this is for the good of the game and, by proxy, themselfes.

- - - Updated - - -

Different game, apple to oranges etc.

They have been pretty clear and straightforward about how monetization works in D4. Again, not saying this cannot change or they cannot be lying but until i see it it makes no sense to say "but but but they're bad guys".

Don't buy the game and don't play it if you believe it's going to be a shitshow.

They are blizzard. They would lie through their teeth to screw you ower. Immortal - diffurent game u guys! / OW2 - diffurunt game u guys! / Wow - diffurunt game u guys!
At this point people like the abuse i recon

[chiddie]

Elden Ring enters the stage

Why do you need endless game?

- - - Updated - - -



You wont have anything, except some sort of power reset to farm new gear which would be inmvalidated by a new season. There is no game in the market in which season pass was good for the players or showed better expansion and content for the game.

- - - Updated - - -



People who say that to justify predatory monetizations. They somehow thinks this is for the good of the game and, by proxy, themselfes.

- - - Updated - - -



They are blizzard. They would lie through their teeth to screw you ower. Immortal - diffurent game u guys! / OW2 - diffurunt game u guys! / Wow - diffurunt game u guys!
At this point people like the abuse i recon

It’s not that I need, it’s just the core feature of isometric ARPGS: they can virtually last forever, especially with seasons.

And I like it.

[Adamas102]

That's something you think would be a better model than having constant, meaningful updates?

Yes. I'd much prefer to pay for a game once and be done with that transaction. It's a shame that the prevailing design philosophy now is constant monetization for relatively minor updates in order to maintain consistent playerbases. LAST thing I want (after the first 10 years of paying a WoW sub) is to sink hundred of dollars into a single video game.

[Biomega]

Yes. I'd much prefer to pay for a game once and be done with that transaction. It's a shame that the prevailing design philosophy now is constant monetization for relatively minor updates in order to maintain consistent playerbases. LAST thing I want (after the first 10 years of paying a WoW sub) is to sink hundred of dollars into a single video game.

Then DON'T SINK HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS INTO A VIDEO GAME.

Those season passes are cosmetic/QoL stuff. Just... DON'T BUY THEM. I know I won't. But I'll still benefit from all the actual season content they'll put into it, since that is free.

Which means you can still get the "pay for the game once" deal, if that's how you want to play it. The rest is purely a matter of showing restraint against the shiny sparkly mega cosmetics and whatnot.

[mst3kfan]

None of this complaining makes any sense. When you buy the game you get complete access to the game. If you want to buy extra stuff that people spent a lot of time creating you are being offered an opportunity to buy them. They are essentially selling art assets. If you are either unwilling or unable to buy the cosmetics due to your financial situation you just do with out.

Even the battle pass isn't terrible. It makes perfect business sense. You the player get whatever Blizzard is offering monthly as far as cosmetics tied to the battle pass, and they Blizzard gain a more stable and predictable flow of income. Allowing them to better plan and forecast their profits/income which helps maintain staffing, and cover luls in-between game releases. Which supports further investment from investors helping to maintain the companies value so they can keep making new products.

[Adamas102]

Then DON'T SINK HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS INTO A VIDEO GAME.

Those season passes are cosmetic/QoL stuff. Just... DON'T BUY THEM. I know I won't. But I'll still benefit from all the actual season content they'll put into it, since that is free.

Which means you can still get the "pay for the game once" deal, if that's how you want to play it. The rest is purely a matter of showing restraint against the shiny sparkly mega cosmetics and whatnot.

Well yeah, I'm obviously not going to spend my money on this game (much less seasonal passes), but you asked if we thought it was a better model to not have it and I still stand by that. Yes, I'd rather have something more like D3 which I've still been playing for the past few years. Missing out on cosmetic and QoL stuff doesn't sound great to me either. The only reason I'll play D4 is because I have bnet balance to burn through, but once that's exhausted I'll have no problem moving on from the game.

[Biomega]

Yes, I'd rather have something more like D3 which I've still been playing for the past few years. Missing out on cosmetic and QoL stuff doesn't sound great to me either.

You're ignoring two things here, though.

1. You get free content from other people paying for passes and MTX. Because the revenue model is seasonal, Blizzard has an incentive to actually make people come back - which means they'll have to provide substantial enough updates to keep a large number of people playing (and paying) every new season. This is a direct benefit to people who aren't paying, too, because the actual season content is free, the pass/mtx only covers cosmetics and QoL. This was a major problem in D3, where yes there were seasons, but they were so thin on content a ton of people dropped the game in no time flat. More content is better for everyone.

2. You are assuming that you are "missing out on cosmetic" stuff. That's either a fallacious assumption based in an understanding that somehow you'd be getting those cosmetics for free if this wasn't on a revenue model; which is not how it works since making those costs money and if they're not for sale then that money isn't there to make them. Or you're saying that you're mad other people are getting something you aren't getting because they pay for it, in which case yes that's how life works and if your point is "I'd rather no one got anything special than someone else getting it and me missing out!" then I'm not sure where to go because that's a fundamentally entitled attitude that's more than just a little childish.

[mrgreenthump]

I don't really see a problem. If it's good and fair.. everyone wins. If it's terrible and they end up giving power for money.. we can go back to PoE and Last Epoch.

[Adamas102]

It makes perfect business sense.

Yeah, there's nothing confusing about that, but since I'm a consumer and not a board member of ATVI I don't really give a fuck about them making an additional $100million in profit. As a consumer, I want the company to succeed to the point where they can pay their employees well and be profitable to a certain degree, but the general corporate goal of always making more millions in profit than they did last year is of no concern to me. Nor should it be a concern to you as a consumer as well.

So when a full game can be sold (profitably) for $50-70, I have an issue with then being sold relatively small bits and pieces of content for 1/4-1/2 the cost of a full game. Maybe it's just because I'm now from an older generation that remembers being able to get a full game in the box (with maybe an expansion or two a couple of years down the road). Game developers, Blizzard included, were doing fine under that model back in the day. The fact that they found new ways to make more money off their customers by giving them less in return for each dollar spent isn't something that should be celebrated.

[Endus]

So when a full game can be sold (profitably) for $50-70, I have an issue with then being sold relatively small bits and pieces of content for 1/4-1/2 the cost of a full game.

Price is never set by determining a minimal amount of profit. It's set by how much the market is willing to pay. Literally the "demand" part of "supply and demand".

It doesn't matter how much it cost to produce. That only sets a floor below which it wouldn't be profitable to sell at.

Maybe it's just because I'm now from an older generation that remembers being able to get a full game in the box (with maybe an expansion or two a couple of years down the road). Game developers, Blizzard included, were doing fine under that model back in the day. The fact that they found new ways to make more money off their customers by giving them less in return for each dollar spent isn't something that should be celebrated.

I'm in my mid-40s. I've been buying video games since the '80s. They'd often cost $50, even back then. In 2023 dollars, from 1988 dollars, inflation would put that cost at around $130 in 2023 money. Games have gotten so much cheaper with dollar values remaining stable despite inflation.

I used to be able to go to the movies on a Friday for like $5 a ticket. Now that's like $18. Inflation happens.

Also, those older games never got additional content or patches, and if they shipped with game-breaking bugs, that's just how it was. This isn't a case where you got all the DLC back then for free; there was no DLC at all, and you almost never got stuff like additional cosmetics and if you wanted more game, well, buy the sequel when it comes out at full price.

[Adamas102]

You're ignoring two things here, though.

1. You get free content from other people paying for passes and MTX. Because the revenue model is seasonal, Blizzard has an incentive to actually make people come back - which means they'll have to provide substantial enough updates to keep a large number of people playing (and paying) every new season. This is a direct benefit to people who aren't paying, too, because the actual season content is free, the pass/mtx only covers cosmetics and QoL. This was a major problem in D3, where yes there were seasons, but they were so thin on content a ton of people dropped the game in no time flat. More content is better for everyone.

2. You are assuming that you are "missing out on cosmetic" stuff. That's either a fallacious assumption based in an understanding that somehow you'd be getting those cosmetics for free if this wasn't on a revenue model; which is not how it works since making those costs money and if they're not for sale then that money isn't there to make them. Or you're saying that you're mad other people are getting something you aren't getting because they pay for it, in which case yes that's how life works and if your point is "I'd rather no one got anything special than someone else getting it and me missing out!" then I'm not sure where to go because that's a fundamentally entitled attitude that's more than just a little childish.

1. "More content is better for everyone" is not something I inherently agree with. I don't NEED a single game to be shoveling content at me over the course of years, much less decades. If something like WoW was one of the first games you played as a kid then I can see how your mentality might have been shaped by this idea of constant content, but I went for 20 years before WoW came along where you got the entire game right out of the box and yeah I much prefer that design model to this one which has become so prevalent now. Like I said, I prefer the D3 model (just using it as an example in this case). I know it didn't work for everyone, but it worked for me and I wasn't the only one still popping in to play it 10 years after release.

2. It's not that I want to deprive people of stuff that I don't want to pay for. It's that I want EVERYONE to have the same access to ALL the game content when they pay the box price. That's how it used to be, for decades. I know this is an outdated business model now, but as I noted in my response to mst3kfan I don't agree that the current model is all that great for the general consumer. Great for the business, that's for damn sure, but not always great for the customer.

It also seems a bit disingenuous to pretend that cosmetics aren't really part of the game. If playing dress up wasn't an important facet of the games like this then they wouldn't make any money off cosmetics to begin with. It's why things like transmog became a thing, both in WoW and in D3. So yeah, having cosmetics locked behind additional payment means that paying the box price does NOT get you full access to the game.

[Biomega]

1. "More content is better for everyone" is not something I inherently agree with. I don't NEED a single game to be shoveling content at me over the course of years, much less decades.

That's a category error. You're equating "I don't need this" with "it's not a good thing". Whether or not you NEED or even WANT content doesn't really matter, the fact is that more content is inherently better than less content because if you just ignore that content nothing changes for you. I.e. at worst you have the same you had before. The content is 100% free to you - you don't miss out on anything because of the existence of the season pass, and you wouldn't be getting anything more if the season pass didn't exist.

So your argument is effectively "I don't need it, therefore no one else should get any either". Which is incredibly self-centered and selfish.

2. It's not that I want to deprive people of stuff that I don't want to pay for. It's that I want EVERYONE to have the same access to ALL the game content when they pay the box price.

Which would be LESS content. You're effectively saying you want to take away people's option to pay for more stuff, even though nothing forces you to pay for that stuff in any way.

Again a variation on "I don't want this, therefore no one else should have the choice to get it if they want it".

Nothing changes for you. The season pass not existing doesn't magically create more content for you. That's not how anything works, because making stuff costs money and if you can't sell it then it doesn't get made - they're not sitting on a giant trove of already made content and then decided at some point "hey let's sell this instead of giving it away for free!". That's not how development operates, in any way, shape, or form.

That's how it used to be, for decades. I know this is an outdated business model now, but as I noted in my response to mst3kfan I don't agree that the current model is all that great for the general consumer. Great for the business, that's for damn sure, but not always great for the customer.

You are advocating for people to get less, and to miss out on free content just so people who want to don't get the option to pay for it. How is that better for the consumer, exactly? Do you really think that if there was no additional revenue, we'd somehow be getting the same amount of content? Paid for with what money?

Making games has become a lot more expensive than it used to be decades ago, at this quality level. This is a AAA top-tier game. It has the associated polish and support structure. D2 was a great game and everything, but it's PITIFUL in features and scope compared to modern titles. Making that costs money. Where is that money going to come from? You can't apply 2000 business mechanics to a 2023 product. It's not the same product, not the same market, not the same anything.

It also seems a bit disingenuous to pretend that cosmetics aren't really part of the game.

No one said they weren't part of the game. I'm simply pointing out that there's a practical difference between cosmetic and non-cosmetic content to most players. That's how the vast majority of players think about content, and whether or not you personally agree doesn't really matter. That doesn't mean cosmetics aren't part of the game or aren't content, but they're a different kind of content in the perception of the vast, vast majority of players.

So yeah, having cosmetics locked behind additional payment means that paying the box price does NOT get you full access to the game.

Which is mostly a semantic point, that's easily conceded. Sure, not "full access to the game". Who cares. That was never a point of contention, and you can't really erase the reality that not all content is created equal by trying to hoodwink people with some "full access" overgeneralization.

And it's not like the removal of all forms of additional revenue would magically ADD that content. It wouldn't. You wouldn't be getting that "content" at all if no one was paying for it.

[Adamas102]

Price is never set by determining a minimal amount of profit. It's set by how much the market is willing to pay. Literally the "demand" part of "supply and demand".

It doesn't matter how much it cost to produce. That only sets a floor below which it wouldn't be profitable to sell at.

And that's irrelevant to the point I was making. Obviously the business will price within a range where maximum profit can be delivered but just because game companies found a market that is willing to pay for overpriced product (we call them whales) doesn't mean that it's ALWAYS a good thing for the consumer base overall.

If companies are making and selling games at a loss from the get-go nowadays due to the expectation that profit be made from other revenue streams associated with the game then that changes things.

Also, those older games never got additional content or patches, and if they shipped with game-breaking bugs, that's just how it was. This isn't a case where you got all the DLC back then for free; there was no DLC at all, and you almost never got stuff like additional cosmetics and if you wanted more game, well, buy the sequel when it comes out at full price.

Games almost universally having internet connectivity that allows for bug fixes is great, but as I've already noted several times now the desire to be bombarded with content so that you can stick with a small handful of games over years, sometimes even decades, isn't universal. I'm perfectly fine with a game that has no DLC content. Buy the game, done and done. If it's a good game (like many in my decades old collection) it can still have replay value long after it was purchased. I don't need every book I pick up to be part of a long, drawn out, multiyear series, and that mentality also applies to video games.

- - - Updated - - -

You are advocating for people to get less, and to miss out on free content just so people who want to don't get the option to pay for it. How is that better for the consumer, exactly? Do you really think that if there was no additional revenue, we'd somehow be getting the same amount of content? Paid for with what money?

I'm not advocating for Blizzard to change the game. It is what it is. I'm explaining why not everyone sees this type of business model as a benefit to the entire consumer base since a lot of people have voiced confusion as to why anyone would have an issue with it. Like I said before, I'll play the game as long as it doesn't cost me money, but once that business model has an actual financial impact on me (even though it's not about affordability) I'll move on.

So your argument is effectively "I don't need it, therefore no one else should get any either". Which is incredibly self-centered and selfish.

No, the argument was very clearly "If it's not a positive for me then your statement of 'X is better for everyone' is incorrect".

You can't apply 2000 business mechanics to a 2023 product. It's not the same product, not the same market, not the same anything.

It wasn't THAT long ago that D3 came out, and it definitely wasn't a loss. Even if you and a lot of other people lost interest with it over time, it was still sold well and people still play it.

Which is mostly a semantic point, that's easily conceded. Sure, not "full access to the game". Who cares. That was never a point of contention, and you can't really erase the reality that not all content is created equal by trying to hoodwink people with some "full access" overgeneralization.

And it's not like the removal of all forms of additional revenue would magically ADD that content. It wouldn't. You wouldn't be getting that "content" at all if no one was paying for it.

Well, that kind of IS a point of contention, to bring it to the first line "more content is better for everyone" it obviously isn't true if having some of that content not available in the base box price is a reason for some to steer clear of the game. So you ask "who cares?", well clearly some people do.