Diablo 4 could end up having microtransactions

[Delekii]

You made an assumption, and instead of admitting that it was a mistake, you decide to double down.

See? I too can describe what people are doing, it's just my descriptions are actually accurate.

No, they aren't. You made a very clear inference that WoW tokens buy BiS gear, which is definitionally p2w, then went on to decry someone who said you said WoW is p2w. You move the goalposts continuously, or else you have a very different understanding from what a reasonable person would define as pay to win.

[Elim Garak]

No, they aren't. You made a very clear inference that WoW tokens buy BiS gear, which is definitionally p2w,

Inference is something YOU made.
You also assumptionally think that I agree with your definitionallity of p2w.

[Delekii]

Why is it a concern that people are having a fun game to play? Does it really matter if it's p2w if it's fun and people are playing it for free? Looks like the best of both worlds.

People who are playing for free or at a (comparatively) low money investment have a very hard ceiling on advancement and are not competing on an even playing field. The fun of whales and big spenders comes at the expense of game integrity, competition on an even playing field, and any sense of progression further than very short term for average spenders or free players.

[Elim Garak]

People who are playing for free or at a (comparatively) low money investment have a very hard ceiling on advancement and are not competing on an even playing field. The fun of whales and big spenders comes at the expense of game integrity, competition on an even playing field, and any sense of progression further than very short term for average spenders or free players.

That's a nice hypothesis that doesn't agree with the reality.

[Stormwolf64]

It'll be bait and switch. They promise it won't launch with micro transactions. Now the less intellectually gifted will start cheering, but think about their words. Won't launch with microtransactions means it's coming a bit later. I expect the later microtransactions to be cosmetic stuff though this time around, or max level boosts. Both OK with me as long as they don't intentionally design bad gear for free drops and make leveling tedious (which won't happen as it launches free of boosts)

[Delekii]

Inference is something YOU made.
You also assumptionally think that I agree with your definitionallity of p2w.

You're right; I inferred, because you implied. Whether or not you agree with my definition of p2w is irrelevant, arguing semantics of naming regulations over a very clear concept is missing the wood for the trees. In WoW, you can spend real money to increase your player power. This was an argument that was had on like page 3.

[Dhrizzle]

I think we are past the point, where Blizzard is ever gonna make a game again with microtransactions.

For any game to survive the development process at Blizzard, it will have to be a live service or else some other game idea is simply gonna come out as having a higher economic potential.

Its really hard to look forward to any Blizzard game anymore, even if they look alright. You just know that even if the original game is gonna be good, D4 is gonna try to nickle and dime you every step of the way as it goes forward, with cosmetic-lootbox mechanics, season passes, payed unlockable classes and 29.99$+ expansions.

Maybe its just time to leave Blizzard be and find a different game company better deserving of the money in our pockets.

Instead of deciding on brand loyalty maybe you should concentrate on enjoying games on their own merits?

[Delekii]

That's a nice hypothesis that doesn't agree with the reality.

You're lying. I realise that Donald Trump was able to just overtly lie and people cheered him on anyway, but it doesn't just work for anyone.

[Elim Garak]

You're right; I inferred, because you implied.

Nope. You inferred THAT I implied it. That's what the words mean. I don't have to imply anything for you to infer whatever you want.
And you are making the same mistake the previous inferrer made.
You are tripling down, without even asking me what I meant.
The universal pattern of behavior.

Whether or not you agree with my definition of p2w is irrelevant, arguing semantics of naming regulations over a very clear concept is missing the wood for the trees. In WoW, you can spend real money to increase your player power. This was an argument that was had on like page 3.

If what I think is irrelevant, so it's also irrelevant what I imply. The only thing that matters is what you infer. Right? Much I, Very Q.

- - - Updated - - -

You're lying. I realise that Donald Trump was able to just overtly lie and people cheered him on anyway, but it doesn't just work for anyone.

Lying about what? And what Trump has to do with anything here? Is it like the "in case of emergency, pull trump card"?

[Delekii]

Nope. You inferred THAT I implied it. That's what the words mean. I don't have to imply anything for you to infer whatever you want.
And you are making the same mistake the previous inferrer made.
You are tripling down, without even asking me what I meant.
The universal pattern of behavior.

If what I think is irrelevant, so it's also irrelevant what I imply. The only thing that matters is what you infer. Right? Much I, Very Q.

Because words have meaning, the words that you said directly implied regardless of what you meant them to imply.

You could say "this is an apple"; it wouldn't matter if you meant that it was an orange - the only inference that could be taken is that you meant it was an apple.

Because you said words that directly imply "you can spend money to increase player power in WoW", the only reasonable inference is that you meant that WoW is p2w. If you didn't mean that, it's because your definition of p2w is incorrect, or that you are intentionally arguing semantics to avoid the collectively understood meaning.

Lying about what? And what Trump has to do with anything here? Is it like the "in case of emergency, pull trump card"?

Because the argumentative tactic of "lie hard and often until people give up calling you out on it" is a tactic learned from the Trump presidency by hardcore rightwingers like you.

[Elim Garak]

Because words have meaning, the words that you said directly implied regardless of what you meant them to imply.

Going for a record there. Quadrupling Down.
You are going to tell me what I meant, you can literally put word in my mouth. How can one learn such power?

You could say "this is an apple"; it wouldn't matter if you meant that it was an orange - the only inference that could be taken is that you meant it was an apple.

But it's a tomato

Because you said words that directly imply

Direct implication? What's that? Is it like explicitly saying? Or maybe it's like a projection of one's inference?
Words. Don't come easy.

Because the argumentative tactic of "lie hard and often until people give up calling you out on it" is a tactic learned from the Trump presidency by hardcore rightwingers like you.

I didn't know Trump invented that. Good to know. Thanks.
Although it's quite funny how a right-winger like me is literally fighting for your right to play the games you want.

[Delekii]

Going for a record there. Quadrupling Down.
You are going to tell me what I meant, you can literally put word in my mouth. How can one learn such power?

You put the words in your own mouth. It's not up to the listener to read your mind; if you don't intend to say something with a specific meaning, it's up to you not to do so.

Direct implication? What's that? Is it like explicitly saying? Or maybe it's like a projection of one's inference?
Words. Don't come easy.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/exa...ct-implication
They come free, if you want to look up a dictionary. The direct implication of your words regarding you being able to buy gear with tokens is that WoW is p2w. Again; if you want to revert to semantics rather than the actual argument at hand it only looks bad for you. Everyone reading what you say clearly understands the context, you don't get brownie points for saying "but its not TECHNICALLY p2w, it's p2advance" or some other crap.

I didn't know Trump invented that. Good to know. Thanks.
Although it's quite funny how a right-winger like me is literally fighting for your right to play the games you want.

No, you're fighting for my right to play the games that you want. Don't pretend for a minute that you have anyone else's interests but your own at heart.

Trump didn't invent it, but he used it relentlessly and it worked for him.

Did you know that you have more than ~310 posts across the 3 or 4 major threads on this topic, for a game that came out what.. 12 days ago? 25 posts a day just on this topic. Say it loud, say it often, eventually people will get bored of rebutting you and you will get the last word! Trumpian to the core.

[Elim Garak]

You put the words in your own mouth. It's not up to the listener to read your mind; if you don't intend to say something with a specific meaning, it's up to you not to do so.

Quintupling Down! WoW.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/exa...ct-implication
They come free, if you want to look up a dictionary. The direct implication of your words regarding you being able to buy gear with tokens is that WoW is p2w. Again; if you want to revert to semantics rather than the actual argument at hand it only looks bad for you. Everyone reading what you say clearly understands the context, you don't get brownie points for saying "but its not TECHNICALLY p2w, it's p2advance" or some other crap.

Your inference reigns supreme! Even with a dictionary to boot!

No, you're fighting for my right to play the games that you want. Don't pretend for a minute that you have anyone else's interests but your own at heart.

I don't want you to play the games I want unless you want to. Another inference on your part?
I do want to play the games I want, even if you don't. Thank you very much.

Trump didn't invent it, but he used it relentlessly and it worked for him.

So does Biden, so did Obama, so did Bush (both and Clinton in between).

[Delekii]

So does Biden, so did Obama, so did Bush (both and Clinton in between).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidma...h=431b0af21a89

Objectively, Trump lied significantly more often. Subjectively, the lies Trump told were of significantly more importance or about more serious things.

"They all do it" is a red herring that implies equivalence where there is none. Trump lied FAR more than any previous (or since).

Oh hey, he lied an average of 21 times a day in public during his presidency! You're up there in competition!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veraci...y_Donald_Trump

[Elim Garak]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidma...h=431b0af21a89

Objectively, Trump lied significantly more often. Subjectively, the lies Trump told were of significantly more importance or about more serious things.

"They all do it" is a red herring that implies equivalence where there is none. Trump lied FAR more than any previous (or since).

This is not a political thread, and there's certainly no competition here, and there's no way to know who lied more, and finally Forbes is not a reliable source.

[Flurryfang]

Instead of deciding on brand loyalty maybe you should concentrate on enjoying games on their own merits?

This would would normally be something i agree with, but there is a surprising amount of people who play Blizzard games solely because of the brand with it. Just saying "just judge the game on its own" does not really work, when peoples primary reason to play is because they expect quality from Blizzard.

Besides this has nothing to do with brand loyalty, but to do with reputation and expectations.

Blizzard is rolling many of their games on their previous reputation and sets high expectations for their games through promotion and spin-talk about what their products actually are.
That is what i was talking about, that maybe if a company does something like that, one should abandon the consumption of products from said company.

[Delekii]

This is not a political thread, and there's certainly no competition here, and there's no way to know who lied more, and finally Forbes is not a reliable source.

Oh, but it definitely is a political thread. You're trying to pretend it isn't, but your stance (and ours), is very much a reflection on political position. Forbes is the first link on google; the numbers are backed up in many, many other sources, which you certainly know but which it is (again) argumentatively expedient for you to pretend is a representation of an unreliable source.

[Eosia]

The RMAH had one big flaw: Blizzard was only taking a percent cut and letting players have all the money.

To make bank, you have to make players buy into your currency (say, platinum) so that that money is locked into their system and can never be cashed out. It's the same with the WoW token. They justify it by saying "Oh you're buying gold from another player, not Blizzard!" But I have one simple question: "Who gets the real money?"

That's all.

The concept of Pay 2 Win doesn't rely on who gets most of the money. It's the fact that players are shelling out money in exchange for power. 99/100 times, yes the software vendor will get the lion's share but sometimes, in the case of the RMAH, they will not because they probably made more via volume than individual transactions. (i.e. You make more money taking $1 from 1,000,000 than taking $10 from 1,000 people).

But WoW Tokens do not give you player power. They do not give you items, achievements, in-game mounts (e.g. the Mythic capital boss ones), PvP Rating, etc. by giving Blizzard money.

[Kumorii]

Lots of statements in this thread... Wonder how many will actually say "Guess I was wrong, huh how about that".

My guess is zero.

[Flurryfang]

Lots of statements in this thread... Wonder how many will actually say "Guess I was wrong, huh how about that".

My guess is zero.

...This is like the entire point of this entire thread xD

One can only make guesses and statements when there is no reliable info to go on. The question is then to judge how plausible the statements are, which is what we should be talking about.