Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ...
6
14
15
16
  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And how do you pay for new content? Magical money printing machine powered by players "just playing the game"?
    By selling the game ?
    No Man's Sky has been in development nonstop for four years now, no microtransaction, no shop, and they don't seem to go bankrupt.
    But hey, defend more billionnaires, they need simps to shield them from valid criticism.

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    By selling the game ?
    No Man's Sky has been in development nonstop for four years now, no microtransaction, no shop, and they don't seem to go bankrupt.
    But hey, defend more billionnaires, they need simps to shield them from valid criticism.
    If you think that a box price can pay for a full, polished AAA game and *also* for several years worth of actual content, I guess you live in a parallel reality where the regular rules of business don't apply.

    But hey, defend your "I deserve stuff for free" attitude by making snide remarks about corporate greed and cloaking it in the pretense of valid criticism.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    If you think that a box price can pay for a full, polished AAA game and *also* for several years worth of actual content, I guess you live in a parallel reality where the regular rules of business don't apply.

    But hey, defend your "I deserve stuff for free" attitude by making snide remarks about corporate greed and cloaking it in the pretense of valid criticism.
    Okay bootlicker.

  4. #304
    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    Okay bootlicker.
    Compelling retort! You got that from your Harvard MBA?

    Why think - just ramble. So much easier, so much more self-congratulatory, so much more satisfying! And none of the risk of, you know, being wrong.

    There's a REASON players WANTED them to put in recurring revenue models. We've been through D3. We've seen what happens to content when there's no incentive to produce updates. Nobody wants a repeat of that. And an optional cosmetic/QoL model that gives free content? That's about as good as it gets.

    I'd ask you what you think works better, but I think we both know it'd be a waste of time.

  5. #305
    Banned Ihavewaffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The spice must flow!
    Posts
    4,876
    I looked at what the Dragonflight collector's edition box cost, €129,99

    But D4 has separated the box from the game, so you have to buy stuff separately
    the box costs €109,66
    the game + in-game goodies - ultimate edition, €99,99

    = €209,65


    Like...holy shit are we being ripped off...how many yachts does Bobby need??

  6. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerph- View Post
    If you think base cost + battle pass + mtx shop + pay more for headstart is not predatory, then there is little to discuss with you.
    I said point out the predatory part. There is nothing in your reply that could be remotely construed as predatory. Unless there are loot boxes in the store?

    Thinking that something is too expensive doesn't make something predatory. It just means that you don't see value in the product and the add-ons. I liked D3. I even bought a little gold from the RMAH. I see the prices and I'm thinking I might buy just the base because I see value in that for me. I think it will be a good game and I will probably be back to it a number of times over the next 5 years. I am making purchasing decisions as an adult. Instead of making unfounded accusations, maybe you should too.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zulggun View Post
    It's predatory because ppl can't control themselves and will spend any money to get another cosmetic wings.
    People can control themselves. They choose not to. There is nothing predatory about that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nizah View Post
    why so mad bro

  7. #307
    Don't buy the stuff if you think it's expensive and predatory man. It doesn't have to be a difficult decision. You'll play the game just fine if you choose to play it.

  8. #308
    So odd that I'm interested in the game, but now I have to research what "Season Battle Pass unlock", "Premium Season Battle pass unlock", and "skip 20 Tiers" mean.

    "Accelerated Seasonal Battle Pass Unlock in Diablo IV (a Premium Seasonal Battle Pass Unlock plus 20 Tier Skips and a cosmetic)"

    Wut??

    How much of a savings is the Battle Pass unlock? How much of a 'grind' am I by-passing with a 20-tier skip???

    And the legalese always makes me cringe: "Minimum Open Beta duration is 2 days."
    I take some solace in the fact that even though my snarky reply to someone's condescending rhetorical question earned me a 1-week ban, my post was not deleted. I was rather proud of that bit of snark, and I am glad it lives on.

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by Yseraboy View Post
    How much of a savings is the Battle Pass unlock? How much of a 'grind' am I by-passing with a 20-tier skip???
    We don't know the details yet. But do keep in mind that the BP is purely cosmetic/convenience based, and locks no actual content. That you just get for free.

    People's expectations are that the BP skip isn't all that relevant to anyone who plays the game like a grinder - as Diablo players are often wont to do. If you are in the habit of playing hours every day during a season, you likely won't need skips. But if you just play every now and then, it might be something that'll help you complete the season goals without having to do dedicated grinding.

    All that is speculation, though. We have no concrete information yet, beyond Blizzard's promise that the BP will only be cosmetic/convenience. For whatever that's worth to you. It's likely we'll see Beta at some point early next year, and probably have a better idea then. I encourage everyone not to prepurchase until they have all the info they need to make a reasoned, informed decision. I'll wait until Beta for sure.

  10. #310
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    If you think that a box price can pay for a full, polished AAA game and *also* for several years worth of actual content, I guess you live in a parallel reality where the regular rules of business don't apply.

    But hey, defend your "I deserve stuff for free" attitude by making snide remarks about corporate greed and cloaking it in the pretense of valid criticism.
    I think it's safe to downgrade Blizzard from AAA to DDD, maybe BBB at best. Corporate culture has stranglehold on the development and profit metrics. Being a corporate entity, they are obligated to remain profitable for shareholders; it's why we see the injection of MTX, FOMO, etc.. into WoW; the numbers must be shored up to secure market value. This issue, conflated with the large teams and overhead, you rub into some serious problems on the creative aspect of development; risk taking is sidelined for methodic development. This can be seen in WoW; the writing, the gameplay, minimal development of new systems. Working under such constraints is taxing on employees, not to mention hours, pay, harassment, and any other problems with office dynamics for such a large team.

    No Man's Sky, by contrast, is privately owned. The team size is under 30. They have the freedom to take more risks and express more creativity throughout the development process. The company is under no obligation to appease stockholders. In a way, the company as it is now resembles early Blizzard; when they made highly popular games by their own merit, i.e. not riding on the coattails of a brand name created well over a decade ago.

    At what point do you stop thinking about money and start thinking about the player experience? As a player OR developer? Nothing is "free" there is a time investment and salaries to be paid. So maybe the question that should be asked is "where is the money going? So many cool things could have been added to WoW over the years; systems upon systems, housing, mini games, etc etc. But the game would have severe development bloat, excessively more than where is stand currently. But the money is there to throw at it to make it happen? Surely it is, but the bloat could reach a breaking point where stockholders are losing value, so the scope of the game must remain limited, profits must be secured through MTX so stockholders aren't losing value. FOMO must be introduced to maintain sub numbers so stockholders aren't losing value. Are you seeing a trend here?

  11. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by cozzri View Post
    I think it's safe to downgrade Blizzard from AAA to DDD, maybe BBB at best.
    That's not how it works. AAA is about the size and scope of publishing behind a title, not the game's quality or the reputation of the publisher. While borrowed from financial rating systems in its origin, the term is not used as a rating system, only as an informal classification of budget and reach. Plenty of AAA games are critically or financially unsuccessful. That doesn't make them DDD games. It just makes them terrible AAA games.

    If your faith in Blizzard has been shattered, fair enough - they certainly haven't done themselves any favors. Express that if you wish, but don't use existing terminology in ways that aren't really widely applicable. It only confuses people. Blizzard is and remains a AAA publisher in the sense that this term is usually employed within gaming, i.e. they are a big-budget, top-of-the-industry, major-league publisher/developer. They make AAA games, whether or not those games are critically or financially successful, and whether or not they have problems in their corporate infrastructure or workplace climate; that term has no direct bearing on those things.

    Quote Originally Posted by cozzri View Post
    Being a corporate entity, they are obligated to remain profitable for shareholders; it's why we see the injection of MTX, FOMO, etc.. into WoW; the numbers must be shored up to secure market value. This issue, conflated with the large teams and overhead, you rub into some serious problems on the creative aspect of development
    You're not wrong, but that's the nature of business. It also means money for grander scales, and projects that smaller, more creatively focused companies could not or would be unlikely to produce. It's somewhat like the motion picture industry - Marvel & Co. are largely creatively bankrupt cash grabs, designed and optimized for revenue above all else. If you want brilliantly written, expertly crafted pieces of cinema, there's independent film makers out there that can give you that; but you can't expect those films to also have a seven-figure special effects budget and deliver a CGI extravaganza.

    If you prefer a different kind of game, you should put your money behind that. Vote with your wallet. Corporations maximize their profits any way they can get away with, so don't let them get away with what you don't support. And if other people DO support it, well, they have that right. You can disagree and try to change their minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by cozzri View Post
    Working under such constraints is taxing on employees, not to mention hours, pay, harassment, and any other problems with office dynamics for such a large team.
    That's a bit of a separate issue as it's an industry-wide problem with deep systemic entanglements that go far beyond the industry. It's part of the larger philosophy of labor and market that's been steering US-based industry in particular (but not exclusively) for many decades. We should all want better working conditions, but the way to get there is mostly through legislation, not consumption. They need unions and other forms of collective bargaining, government oversight, robust labor legislation, and so on. That's a very different fight fought on very different fronts.

    Quote Originally Posted by cozzri View Post
    No Man's Sky, by contrast, is privately owned. The team size is under 30. They have the freedom to take more risks and express more creativity throughout the development process.
    Yes. And they have forever enshrined their place in history as "most disappointing hype bubble of all time". For whatever that's worth. They couldn't deliver on what they promised, and should never have promised as much as they did. The fact that they now promise less and deliver on that is them returning to the baseline, not them suddenly rising to a higher standard. Don't confuse the two. Coke didn't somehow improve after reverting from New Coke.

    Quote Originally Posted by cozzri View Post
    The company is under no obligation to appease stockholders.
    And in return, it has less money to realize their creativity with. It's a world of trade-offs. You have more freedom to do what you want, provided what you want doesn't cost too much money.

    Quote Originally Posted by cozzri View Post
    At what point do you stop thinking about money and start thinking about the player experience?
    At the point where players value that experience enough to back it with their money. The reason all the "bad stuff" you criticize works is that customers let it happen. If people valued, say, engaging, sophisticated, complex writing enough to make it the core of their purchasing decision, companies would be REAL quick in making sure they have that. The reality is, most people don't. They WANT the "Marvel experience" of big boom boom kapow pew pew pew. Or at least, enough of them want enough of it to make that the selling point, rather than something else. That sucks for the people who would perhaps like more than dumb formulas retreading stale stereotypes, but that's majority rule at work. Don't like it, don't buy it - send the right signal, and maybe it'll be heard.

    I'm with you in principle - I want great writing, I want complex, engaging systems, I want fair pay and healthy working conditions. I try to put my money where my mouth is, and in my job, I try to work on the root causes of these trends by providing education and research into various forms of fiction, so hopefully more people come over to the side of being a more sophisticated, more discerning, and more demanding audience.

    ...but all that being said, I STILL think the Diablo monetization model is at its core a fair and reasonable system to provide both players and companies with what they want and need.

  12. #312
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I STILL think the Diablo monetization model is at its core a fair and reasonable system to provide both players and companies with what they want and need.
    I hope they are able to create a balanced gameplay experience with Diablo IV. Paying for cosmetics occasionally is much better than various alternatives.

    Diablo 3 felt like it was heavily developed around the RMAH as a revenue stream. Diablo 3 most likely would have had more development after release if not for the brutal collapse of investment into creating that system. It was open and ripe for abuse for developer and consumer alike; they certainly took a hit shutting it down. They managed to save face and somewhat, and avert financial/legal issues with the system being used for money laundering.

    They bet big and lost hard with the RMT in D3.
    Selling skins in DIV is a safe. Hopefully the team is allocated the funds needed for ongoing development after release.

Posting Permissions

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