Oh Blizzard, how you have fallen (Diablo Immortal).

[Ghost of Cow]

Qualify "good" here.

Good as in beneficial to players? Good as in beneficial to the overall experience? Or maybe good as in it generates a lot of revenue?

Depends on who you ask, I guess.

"Good" for the overwhelming majority of people who enjoy playing the game and spend no - or little - money? Seems fairly good for them.

"Good" for the minority that enjoys spending money on a game? Seems pretty good for them, too.

"Good" for the people buying stock in Bellular Pitchforks, Inc? Probably not so much, but what can ya do?

[Plutarch78]

Imagine a game where you pay upfront and have access to all its content based on time and effort (with expansion sets costing just a fraction).

Yeah, guess I’m a senior citizen at this point.

[Ghost of Cow]

Imagine a game where you pay upfront and have access to all its content based on time and effort (with expansion sets costing just a fraction).

You have access to all of the content in D:I, too. You can log in right now, play any class, complete the campaign, start on Hell if you want, whatever. You're not barred from any of it.

It's really weird to me hearing people talk about MMOs where you pay a $60 box price, then $15/mo for a sub just to be allowed to log in, and then future $60 expansions as well. AND there's a cash shop. But lose their mind when a game is like, "You can play for free, and there's this box for 99 cents but you don't have to if you don't wanna."

Now don't get me wrong, there are SOME instances where F2P games are built to just be obnoxious and inconvenience you into spending, and I would prefer to just pay a sub than to deal with that. But D:I honestly isn't that bad about this. You're really only going to run into the bad parts of the monetization if you're obsessive about having all the best stuff and in that case you should just avoid MTX altogether.

[Ghost of Cow]

Asbestos was a “good” building material, cigarettes are a “good” relaxation device, Coal is a “good” energy source.

Delusional, absolutely reality-abstaining delusion.

It's funny how a lot of you seem to have a hard time staying on topic and instead constantly bring up heroin, asbestos, housing discrimination, healthcare, pollution, cancer, and so on.

Then you talk about other peoples' issues and "delusion". Perhaps your penchant for connecting a video game to those other topics speaks to your own issues.

[Ghost of Cow]

It’s very on topic, you just struggle to keep up, that’s on you my boy.

If you had an argument, you'd apply it to the topic.

The fact that you need to essentially Godwin the discussion at every turn by bringing up totally unrelated "bad stuff" speaks to your complete lack of one.

Then again, maybe you're just waiting on a "content creator" to give you your daily dose of opinion.

[Blackcoffin]

You are confusing ad hominem with a strawman. Figures.
We are talking monetization system here - not morality. Your moral stance is irrelevant to how good a system is.

Its been a while since I've seen such an oxymoron. The fact that you write something is "good", is a question of moral relevancy. Humor me on why you think the Diablo monetization system is a good one. And remember, I'm not interested in your subjective opinion here.

[Kyanion]

You have access to all of the content in D:I, too. You can log in right now, play any class, complete the campaign, start on Hell if you want, whatever. You're not barred from any of it.

All the content? You sure about that? Familiar with Dawning Echo as it pertains to the awakening portion of rank 10 gems? Cause those are not obtainable as F2P.

- - - Updated - - -

It's really weird to me hearing people talk about MMOs where you pay a $60 box price, then $15/mo for a sub just to be allowed to log in, and then future $60 expansions as well. AND there's a cash shop. But lose their mind when a game is like, "You can play for free, and there's this box for 99 cents but you don't have to if you don't wanna."

Ah yes the 99 cent boxes are why people are unhappy with the micro transactions. Not the 25 dollars a run for getting gems hoping for high rarity gems.

[Plutarch78]

All the content? You sure about that? Familiar with Dawning Echo as it pertains to the awakening portion of rank 10 gems? Cause those are not obtainable as F2P.

- - - Updated - - -



Ah yes the 99 cent boxes are why people are unhappy with the micro transactions. Not the 25 dollars a run for getting gems hoping for high rarity gems.

Thank you

10/char

[Elim Garak]

Imagine a game where you pay upfront and have access to all its content based on time and effort (with expansion sets costing just a fraction).

Yeah, guess I’m a senior citizen at this point.

Why imagine? There's plenty of games like that made even today as we speak. Why don't you go play those?

Its been a while since I've seen such an oxymoron. The fact that you write something is "good", is a question of moral relevancy. Humor me on why you think the Diablo monetization system is a good one. And remember, I'm not interested in your subjective opinion here.

You use those words but I don't think you know what they mean.
Now you are just doubling down on a strawman. Like a cornered beast.

I already explained that we are not talking about morality.
Good is not a question of moral equivalency. Unless you are talking morality but I am not.

I already explain why Diablo monetization system is a good one. It's like you don't read.

[RobertoCarlos]

Why imagine? There's plenty of games like that made even today as we speak. Why don't you go play those?


You use those words but I don't think you know what they mean.
Now you are just doubling down on a strawman. Like a cornered beast.

I already explained that we are not talking about morality.
Good is not a question of moral equivalency. Unless you are talking morality but I am not.

I already explain why Diablo monetization system is a good one. It's like you don't read.

You said its good because it makes money.

Life isnt that black and white though and you cant tie things up in a neat little bow.

Its a rubbish argument because I can point to lots of things that make money that are not good, Like Justin Bieber's music, Or keeping up with the kardasians tv show.

They are popular and make money, Quality is not at the forefront there.

But as you were on day 210 of dying on bobby koticks personal yacht fund collection hill.

[Elim Garak]

It's really baffling how people think that a monetization system just makes money out of thin air. That's every developer's pipe dream!

Also. Just because you don't like something - doesn't mean it's bad. It's just you have different taste. And vice versa. Just because you LIKE something - doesn't mean it's good. Objectively speaking. Your like/dislike is subjective.

[korijenkins]

I think D2 is a terrible game. Stiff controls, confusing skill system, a stupid stamina meter, slowpaced combat, spam potions to live, horrible inventory system (always full cause carrying charms) etc. I think D2 is bad.

I love D3 though, fixed all the problems I saw in D2. And DI is even better than D3, with even better controls, even more fun combat (moving and attacking for instance is freaking amazing).

If you put aside the P2W for a second, you still got an amazing game in DI.

"If you ignore the flaws, it's good" is perhaps the dumbest defense of this piece of trash I've seen yet.

[BeepBoo]

No, it's objective by the data. Bad systems don't survive. Therefore the current systems are creme de la creme. Your opinion of them is subjective though. As is mine.

You cannot say what is objectively good and bad. You can say a monetization system is objectively good at making money, but to say it is good or bad simply because it succeeds or not is silly.

Ounce of developer time for ounce of developer time, successful MTX games make more money, so... while it might be a misnomer to say they're making money out of thin air, they're certainly making money out of far less effort. Considering the profit margins, it might as well be thin air. I wish I could get paid that much for so little.

[Elim Garak]

You cannot say what is objectively good and bad. You can say a monetization system is objectively good at making money, but to say it is good or bad simply because it succeeds or not is silly.

I can, and I did, and I explained how. The monetization system is objectively good for ALL participants. Otherwise they wouldn't participate.
You are just trapped in your subjective attitude towards it, by cognitive dissonance. "How can something I think is bad be good? Nonsense!"

[MoanaLisa]

Qualify "good" here.

Good as in beneficial to players? Good as in beneficial to the overall experience? Or maybe good as in it generates a lot of revenue?

Darwinian good in that the monetization system is doing what it is supposed to do: generate revenue. So, the latter. Theoretically it's bad if it gets in the way of separating money from customers, is confusing or has too many extra steps to conclude a transaction. Before someone gets up and bellows about defending it, I'm not doing that. I'm saying that design outcomes are goal based and a 'good' design does what it is supposed to do. In this case generate revenue. My personal opinion of it (or anyone else's) is not relevant.

[MoanaLisa]

But you are defending it, the same could be said of NFTs, or selling moon property.

There's a very big difference between an explanation and a defense.

EDIT: In my own personal case the monetization system fails in significant ways. I haven't spent anything and do not find store items to be useful or worth buying. That's a fail. There are too many big ticket ($10.00+) items and nowhere near enough attractive and useful things at the level of $.99-$4.99. This is not surprising to me because Blizzard nearly always charges at the top end of what the market will bear and I believe they sacrifice income by having too much stuff that's not worth the money they're charging. It's one reason why I constantly tell people that Blizzard is not your friend and you should never lose sight of your relationship to them as a vendor. The company exists to sell you games, subscriptions and services. To think otherwise is not being a smart consumer.

[RobertoCarlos]

There's a very big difference between an explanation and a defense.

EDIT: In my own personal case the monetization system fails in significant ways. I haven't spent anything and do not find store items to be useful or worth buying. That's a fail. There are too many big ticket ($10.00+) items and nowhere near enough attractive and useful things at the level of $.99-$4.99. This is not surprising to me because Blizzard nearly always charges at the top end of what the market will bear and I believe they sacrifice income by having too much stuff that's not worth the money they're charging. It's one reason why I constantly tell people that Blizzard is not your friend and you should never lose sight of your relationship to them as a vendor. The company exists to sell you games, subscriptions and services. To think otherwise is not being a smart consumer.

You have a good point blizz do overcharge. 800% value though

[Delekii]

Dogshit monetization systems don't survive. If you see such systems in many successful games - they are GOOD systems. The matter of dog shit is just your subjective opinion, which is wrong as proven by reality.

You're right, popularity definitely means quality. Like Britney Spears, Macdonalds, The Kardashians, Puppies from Puppy Mills, Detox Diets, NFTs, Goop by Gwenyth Paltrow, Cigarettes... the list goes on.

There a shitload of stupid people in the world, who participate in activities that are objectively against their own interests. Not all of the above are in that category, but many of them are.

[Elim Garak]

Comparing quality of game systems to quality of physical products, especially fast food - classic.

Britney Spears is objectively a good singer and performer. Kardashians are good entertainment. Gwyneth Paltrow is a good actress.

Your subjective taste is irrelevant to the actual quality of their "product"

Just like you might not like some food - but it's top quality nevertheless. Gourmet quality, just not what you usually order.

Yes, there are a lot of people with different (in your mind - lesser) standards.

Deal with it.

[BeepBoo]

TIL "objectively good" is synonymous with "appeal to popularity."

Idiotic. Just because a lot of people like something and something is successful as a result doesn't mean it's OBJECTIVELY GOOD. The fucking definition of objective. Uninfluenced by opinion or feelings. Meaning if you're deeming something "objectively good" without a qualifier attached like "good at making money", you're just wrong. Here's a hint: if people all of a sudden changed on a whim and started hating things and then the game floundered and died, would it still be good? Objectivity doesn't change just because enough people start feeling differently.