Page 13 of 28 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
15
23
... LastLast
  1. #241
    Not really. If i pay full price for a game i expect full content for a game. The fact they changed it to pseudo mmo to justify a cash shop to show off your bling means nothing. Just because others did it doesn't make it right. But hey, your money your fun.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic1962 View Post
    Not really. If i pay full price for a game i expect full content for a game.
    And is there any indication you aren't getting a full AAA pay-to-play game's worth of content?

    Or are you saying that for your single one-time purchase you expect a game that's full content on release PLUS has constant free content updates for years to come?

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And is there any indication you aren't getting a full AAA pay-to-play game's worth of content?

    Or are you saying that for your single one-time purchase you expect a game that's full content on release PLUS has constant free content updates for years to come?
    That is exactly what i'm saying. Its interesting how other games, take Cyberpunk for the latest example, can still roll out updated content and not have a cash shop and not charge for the update. Oh however do they do it? How long has No man's sky been box price only with a ton of updates? Took them five years to charge for a DLC. I'm fine with there being paid expansions and whatnot, rest of the monetization is trash. Battle passes? Cmon. Again, if your game is good it will do good. If its shit you need to engage people in different ways, cosmetics, battlepasses etc.

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic1962 View Post
    That is exactly what i'm saying.
    Cool.

    I think that's an unrealistic demand at that quality level, but by all means. You are entirely free to make that demand, and purchase accordingly.

    You'll still GET that content, by the way, without paying unless you want to. Just saying. But you do you.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic1962 View Post
    Not really. If i pay full price for a game i expect full content for a game. The fact they changed it to pseudo mmo to justify a cash shop to show off your bling means nothing. Just because others did it doesn't make it right. But hey, your money your fun.
    But that's just how the game is going to be. And actually, the business model they have chosen is pretty good. Division 2 had the same exact thing going and it was even too much fair (battle pass was cheap, anything gameplay related was free and all seasons were free aswell - you paid only if you wanted extra tints/cosmetics).

    I agree with the general sentiment that companies have become way greedier than before, and many times the games are designed around making you pay more to make it bearable. But for D4 at this point this doesn't seem to be the case - they have made a fully fledged blog post explaining in detail how the business model will be and what is affected by microtransaction (= just cosmetics). Seasons and content will be all free and you can pay for a cosmetic only battle pass if you want to - which is not needed to enjoy your gameplay.

    We're at a point where we can accuse Blizzard of straight out lying and their record is not on their favor, but still we're accusing them with nothing in our hands. So, until the game comes out, we cannot tell much. We also don't have any guarantee about the game starting in a way and getting changed later on.

    The only thing you can do is voting with your wallet. But a) someone who pays a lot of money has its "vote" count much more than yours and b) this business model has been proven really successful otherwise no one would be doing it and it would have died out immediately, like the NFT scam.

    We can complain and even enrage at how the gaming scenario is panning out to be (or already is), but the pint is that it doesn't serve any purpose. If you find you're not getting a product worth your money, don't buy it and don't play it. Asking them to change their behaviour to accomodate your needs is naive and useless. Remeber, mobile games thrive on the fact that less than 1% of the "playerbase" spend insane amounts of money on them. Being many people doesn't matter for shit when the few left have actually all the power.
    Non ti fidar di me se il cuor ti manca.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Aliven View Post

    So maybe lets use D3 real money auction house? Or maybe overwatch rampant lootboxes and now, new and shiny, overwatch 2, mictrotransactions galore!
    We can also look of WoW which puts transmog items with objectively higher quality than anything you can find in game. Same with mounts. You can enjoy recolored mount for a hard archivement in game ooooor you can pay every 6 months for a unique one in the shop.

    Blizzard take good will of the players, shit on it, smeared on the face of consumers and proudly present himself as the good guy.
    D4 won't have RMAH, false comparision (and I enjoyed RMAH in D3, was nice to earn some bucks while playing without spending anything). D4 won't have lootboxes either so again false comparision.
    Can you specify which one transmog in WOW shop have so much better quality than available ingame? Because theres more than 800 mounts ingame which some of them look insane while shop have around 25 and most of them are meh for me at best.
    Or you talk about armor pieces? Because again theres plenty amazing sets ingame, just look some transmog competitions where shop items are not allowed.

    I don't care if you like or not D4 or if you will buy it or not. It's not my business what people do with their money. But it's funny how people that bash Blizzard for everything they do can't accept that other people are still enjoying their games and shiit on them too because you know, people can't enjoy different things and you must be Blizzard shill if you do so.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Naoto View Post
    And not financing gaming companies will only make them better? yes because I'm sure Blizzard will try even harder to make D5 the best game possible if nobody gives them money for D4 because it had cosmetic items you could buy.

    Being a developer must be one of the hardest jobs in the world, people want f2p yet don't want micro-transactions, people want constant end-game content but don't want micro-transactions, people want all the content for free because they paid for the base game. So in other words you want companies to rely 100% on initial game sales to fund it for the next 6 years while not giving them a single penny for items in a game that don't influence the game in any way shape or form?

    Gaming is a give and take type of thing, if you ain't willing to give them money you ain't getting shit in return. People happily pay monthly fees left and right yet spend the same $10 on a game you play and we act like the developers have committed a crime, what's the difference?
    Think the problem is they broke away from the subscription model. People were fine with paying $15 a month to keep the lights on. Every player bared an equal load and Blizz got money to keep the servers up and develop new content.

    BUT then they got greedy observing other game developers. So in WoW you have a monthly sub AND microtransactions. Why on Earth would I need to pay a sub and then still have to dish out money for cosmetics that are otherwise unobtainable and also higher quality than anything in game? That is pure greed.

    Diablo has never had a sub associated with it, but I think players would prefer that over an in-game shop. The upside for blizzard is whales though. They will stick around when player numbers drop, and they can be far more valuable than an evenly spread sub fee.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mamut View Post
    D4 won't have RMAH, false comparision (and I enjoyed RMAH in D3, was nice to earn some bucks while playing without spending anything). D4 won't have lootboxes either so again false comparision.
    Can you specify which one transmog in WOW shop have so much better quality than available ingame? Because theres more than 800 mounts ingame which some of them look insane while shop have around 25 and most of them are meh for me at best.
    Or you talk about armor pieces? Because again theres plenty amazing sets ingame, just look some transmog competitions where shop items are not allowed.

    I don't care if you like or not D4 or if you will buy it or not. It's not my business what people do with their money. But it's funny how people that bash Blizzard for everything they do can't accept that other people are still enjoying their games and shiit on them too because you know, people can't enjoy different things and you must be Blizzard shill if you do so.
    The dude isn't wrong. Whether or not you find the items cool or enticing is purely subjective. But blizz absolutely produces higher quality mogs and mount for the store. With unique skeletons and animations for some of their mounts, and the mounts and armor also use more 3D modelling than just about anything in game to make them stick out and be unique

  8. #248
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic1962 View Post
    Not really. If i pay full price for a game i expect full content for a game.
    Unless a game comes right out and tells you explicitly that a given price point includes 100% of the game's current and future content, there is no such thing as a "full price". If you spend $100 on a game out of the gate, that entitles you to only what that $100 price point is stated to include. If there's a cash shop, that $100 was not "full price" and in no way implies you should have all content.

    That's an idea you made up, based on nothing. It's just unwarranted entitlement speaking.


  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Aliven View Post
    Which ones exactly used game as a service model which enriched player experience with included item shop?
    Item shop? Do you mean in-game items? Or cosmetics? Because if it's the former that's not a long list, and that's also not how D4 is being monetized.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliven View Post
    And each year they try to put as little content as possible without major outrage.
    For WoW - which is a different team at Blizzard FYI - that's not true either. Again, recent expansion is lame by all accounts and they've had their ups and downs, but this is a cynical view that you're not backing with any evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliven View Post
    So, you are saying that it is the same from consumer standpoint that for example Elden Ring, Horizon Zero Dawn and other games without item shop from a consumer standpoint? Are you really gonna argue that it would be better for a game if, lets say, 50% of cosmetics were put into cash shop? Because they would not make additional cosmetic items, at least not when the games released.
    Nope, never made those arguments. You did. That model won't work for every game, nor should it. Games are different. Some games DLC makes more sense. Some games expansions make sense. Some game sequels make sense. Some games there just aren't any plans for additional playable content releases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliven View Post
    Lets use cosmetics - firstly, you have stupid apologist "this is just cosmetic, it isnt power so its fine, those poor little studios", then how do you make people actually spend money on that shop? Because you want it. Thats why you poured resources into making that stupid item shop. How would it be? Limited cosmetics outside of the shop? Maybe in game you can obtain only ugly ones? Maybe ridiculuous ones, like pajama party or something?
    I'll once more point back to the cosmetics Blizzard has shown off for D4 and how, when stripped of their identifiers, folks have struggled to tell the difference between the quality of cash shop vs. in-game cosmetics.

    This is just pearl clutching, and not something that I've even seen any other games do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliven View Post
    Which game experience, from a player and consumer standpoint was better because game was a live service game? Oddyssey? Anthem? Shadow of War?
    This is a very loaded question.

    Again: Some games use the model well, some don't. Shadow of War was never live-service though, just aggressively monetized with a fucky endgame built on grinding and shit. Very good game, too. Nor was AC:Odyssey (I assume?) live-service despite having multiple DLC's - that game was also bloody brilliant IMO. Never much played Anthem, but Anthem's problems have nothing to do with the business model they chose and everything to do with leadership shitting the bed for 6+ years. Go read the Kotaku deep-dive on how they cocked that one up and how their cocking it up had nothing to do with business models.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliven View Post
    Thats a coup out. You know damn well there are mobile games with one time purchase. Even if not then DI was special. It make gacha games look like consumer friendly.
    It's literally not. Mobile games are designed and monetized radically different than PC/console games in general. If you don't want to accept that, fine, you don't have to. But that's the reality the rest of us deal with.

    And yes, D:I has a dogshit business model. Super premium, quality game for a mobile game, but it's dogshit monetization that was expected by anyone following general gaming trends and with any awareness of the mobile gaming space.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic1962 View Post
    That is exactly what i'm saying. Its interesting how other games, take Cyberpunk for the latest example, can still roll out updated content and not have a cash shop and not charge for the update.
    There's a reason for that...the game was destroying their reputation and they had plans to sell DLC for it, so they had to spend a year+ working on getting it into a decent enough state that people would actually buy DLC.

    The free updates weren't out of the goodness of CDPR's heart. It was because they were digging themselves out of a hole they put themselves in. And they probably lost a lot of money in the process, but with the expectation that they'd earn it back on DLC and by rehabbing the studio's rep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic1962 View Post
    How long has No man's sky been box price only with a ton of updates?
    Wildly, radically different circumstances and game.

    Hello Games is a team of around a dozen or two dozen folks IIRC, vs. Blizzard which has hundreds of employees dedicated to full time development on Diablo alone (far less after launch, but still far more than even work at Hello Games).

    Hello games also made an absolute killing off of sales that likely gave them more than enough financial freedom to kinda "do whatever" for a while and still be able to pay rent and give folks their full paychecks (and some nice bonuses).

    They were also, much like CDPR, looking to fix their busted game and dig themselves out of a hole. Which they've done marvelously and should be commended for, and for continuing great free updates for years after.

    But again, very different game, different costs associated with working on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic1962 View Post
    I'm fine with there being paid expansions and whatnot, rest of the monetization is trash.
    I regret to inform you that the expansion model is basically dead. Occasional ones still pop up, but was long ago replaced by DLC - which was cheaper to produce (less risky) while being able to provide equal to/greater returns. Especially with it being downloadable and not needing to even bother with box copies for expansions.

    DLC or battle passes are here for a nice while, for better or worse.

  10. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post


    Wildly, radically different circumstances and game.

    Hello Games is a team of around a dozen or two dozen folks IIRC, vs. Blizzard which has hundreds of employees dedicated to full time development on Diablo alone (far less after launch, but still far more than even work at Hello Games).

    Hello games also made an absolute killing off of sales that likely gave them more than enough financial freedom to kinda "do whatever" for a while and still be able to pay rent and give folks their full paychecks (and some nice bonuses).

    They were also, much like CDPR, looking to fix their busted game and dig themselves out of a hole. Which they've done marvelously and should be commended for, and for continuing great free updates for years after.

    But again, very different game, different costs associated with working on it.
    Also Sony has pumped in millions to support the original and continued development of NMS. So they can easily survive on box sales as daddy Sony is footing the bill for the rest.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by Beefhammer View Post
    Also Sony has pumped in millions to support the original and continued development of NMS. So they can easily survive on box sales as daddy Sony is footing the bill for the rest.
    Continued? I don't think so. I'm not sure if they even funded development, they simply did a huge amount of comarketing for the game. Which provided huge sales for Hello Games that gave them the funding to support the game for years given their operating costs with only a few dozen people.

    Blizzard can't do something similar with D4, their budgets and staffing simply don't allow for it.

  12. #252
    So these studios can do all this amazing stuff, after they get flak, borderline bankrupt, and Blizzard can't with a bigger budget, bigger team, bigger name? Holy moly if they cant bank on name and sales alone to get their dev costs back then what the actual hell are they doing? Sure they spent some name credit on Immortal and WC3 Reforged, but i don't doubt for a second people wont be buying d4 up like hotcakes on name alone.

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Continued? I don't think so. I'm not sure if they even funded development, they simply did a huge amount of comarketing for the game. Which provided huge sales for Hello Games that gave them the funding to support the game for years given their operating costs with only a few dozen people.

    Blizzard can't do something similar with D4, their budgets and staffing simply don't allow for it.
    I thought they helped fund it. I mean Sean Murray said they didn't but then he lied to everyone for a year about NMS before launch, he could have been lying about this as well. If it is true Sony only helped with marketing, I'm sure Gamepass provided a nice cash injection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic1962 View Post
    So these studios can do all this amazing stuff, after they get flak, borderline bankrupt, and Blizzard can't with a bigger budget, bigger team, bigger name? Holy moly if they cant bank on name and sales alone to get their dev costs back then what the actual hell are they doing? Sure they spent some name credit on Immortal and WC3 Reforged, but i don't doubt for a second people wont be buying d4 up like hotcakes on name alone.
    Basically, most of what NMS has done since release has been stuff that was planned from the start or a natural evolution of the game. Puls with procedural generation, most of the stuff is done already, they just need to do a little work relatively. It's also not like NMS is a graphical powerhouse. This means it costs significantly less and can be done a lot faster than the types of games and updates Blizzard makes. An apt comparison would be Blizzard releasing new dungeons for WoW every patch but instead of making new hand crafted dungeons, you got a new one that was procedurally put together from tile-sets of another existing dungeon. Blizzard doesn't have to do anything in regards to the art, just create a set of rules for a new dungeon to be made.

  14. #254
    Orcboi NatePsy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    VIC, Australia
    Posts
    5,361
    What I find most amusing is they're going to have a battle pass, but then want to charge $110AUD for Standard Edition. It's like wanting to have your cake and be able to eat it too. It's even more astounding that they'll get away with it too.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by NatePsy View Post
    What I find most amusing is they're going to have a battle pass, but then want to charge $110AUD for Standard Edition. It's like wanting to have your cake and be able to eat it too. It's even more astounding that they'll get away with it too.
    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.

    What's actually annoying is the 4-day early access being to tied to editions that also force a battle pass, that shit is not okay. Heck it's not okay even if you could buy it separately. Don't do that kind of EA bullshit, Blizzard. What the hell.

  16. #256
    Orcboi NatePsy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    VIC, Australia
    Posts
    5,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.

    What's actually annoying is the 4-day early access being to tied to editions that also force a battle pass, that shit is not okay. Heck it's not okay even if you could buy it separately. Don't do that kind of EA bullshit, Blizzard. What the hell.
    I'm just of the belief that Battle Pass/Cosmetic shops should only ever be tied to games that are truly F2P, it's why I don't really have an issue with PoE doing it because well.. They don't sell access to their game, they have to make their money somehow. In this case, Blizzard is selling access to the game and then trying to make money further by introducing battle passes and cosmetic shops. Like why? Do one or the other, but not both, it just looks bad and smells of greed.

    One can only hope they make good on their word of wanting regular content updates for the game too.

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by NatePsy View Post
    I'm just of the belief that Battle Pass/Cosmetic shops should only ever be tied to games that are truly F2P, it's why I don't really have an issue with PoE doing it because well.. They don't sell access to their game, they have to make their money somehow. In this case, Blizzard is selling access to the game and then trying to make money further by introducing battle passes and cosmetic shops. Like why? Do one or the other, but not both, it just looks bad and smells of greed.

    One can only hope they make good on their word of wanting regular content updates for the game too.
    The direction ARPG's are headed am just happy I don't have to sell my liver to play the game. But yeah it's a bit of a weird topic. Publishers want recurring income and are focused on quarterly reports. So if D4 was just a base box, then it would probably not get greenlighted as a live service game and gets no support. Ofc this viewpoint is based on if Blizzard truly supports D4 for a long time. Now taking that into account, personally am happy that it's not power or convinience they are selling(or so they say). Am sure they will be pushing new cosmetics weekly/monthly into the shop, so people can waste a fortune on the game, but if I don't feel like it, I don't have to fork out for anything than the box and expansions.

    What comes to the increase in price, every publisher is following Sony and increasing their box price to $70 on PS5. There was no real backlash on that so now even PC games see the same price.

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by NatePsy View Post
    I'm just of the belief that Battle Pass/Cosmetic shops should only ever be tied to games that are truly F2P, it's why I don't really have an issue with PoE doing it because well.. They don't sell access to their game, they have to make their money somehow.
    While I understand your position, the idea here is likely that the quality will be that much higher. PoE is still not a AAA game. For all its success, it also is very clearly lacking in certain aspects, and does not have the polish we can expect (and should demand) of a game like D4. That polish comes with a premium price. Whether or not you think it's worth paying extra for polish is a different matter, and a personal decision.

  19. #259
    Pit Lord RH92's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
    Posts
    2,465
    I personally don't understand why people get so upset over this model unless they break their promise and make it you can buy power.

    Nobody is forcing you to buy battlepass and cosmetics. It's just another way of income to support the game you want to play. I hear people complaining they are wasting resources on cosmetics they could have otherwise used for content, that's bullshit. They wouldn't be doing it unless it was profitable and guess what, the extra profit is used to funnel more resources into the actual content.

    And if you are angry you can't have shiny things, well don't be so vain then I guess. I never found items bought with real money prestigious, it doesn't mean shit. Only that you have money. It's the same as people in real life spending insane amounts of money on overpriced designer clothes. Sure I like nice things too, but there is a limit.

    In a way it is you who is leeching on other people spending their money. So why be upset about it? If you don't want to feed the beast, then don't.

  20. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by RH92 View Post
    Nobody is forcing you to buy battlepass and cosmetics.
    Except the game does just that if you want to unlock everything

Posting Permissions

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