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

[Unseen Guest]

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?

Facts. It's sad how whiney and cheap most gamers are here.

[Nefastus]

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?

Its a travesty that games that cost up to 60 bucks have microtransactions. No reason at all. Feeding this kind of behavior only makes it worse. I am not giving more money than I already did in the entry price and If I am not getting shit I am not buying at all. Simple as that.

[Naoto]

Its a travesty that games that cost up to 60 bucks have microtransactions. No reason at all. Feeding this kind of behavior only makes it worse. I am not giving more money than I already did in the entry price and If I am not getting shit I am not buying at all. Simple as that.

"I just avoid buying games that are filled with microtransactions."

"I am not giving more money than I already did in the entry price"

So which one is it? do you refuse to buy games with microtransactions or do you refuse to pay for microtransactions?

[Edge-]

Its a travesty that games that cost up to 60 bucks have microtransactions. No reason at all. Feeding this kind of behavior only makes it worse. I am not giving more money than I already did in the entry price and If I am not getting shit I am not buying at all. Simple as that.

Well good news then...you don't have to give them more money! You can just enjoy the game.

Why microtransactions? So they can make free content and support the game over time. That costs money, and their options are either selling DLC/expansions that can carve up the playerbase and are all big risks individually (if one tanks that's a big expense). So they go with the cosmetic/seasonal approach and we get free content updates even if we don't spend a penny.

I'm unlikely to spend much, if anything in D4 whenever I get around to picking it up. I'll just be enjoying all the free content they make that's subsidized by folks that spend.

[Aliven]

Well good news then...you don't have to give them more money! You can just enjoy the game.

Why microtransactions? So they can make free content and support the game over time.

Lol, no. Because they can and because it is easier to cash quick buck. Thinking that those money would go into development is very, very naive.
And be sure the entire game, mechanics, EVERYTHING would be build around microtransactions. Because they are just so lucrative.

[unbound]

Also nowadays 99% of games have a shop, regardless being f2p or p2p.

Honestly it seems to me that whatever excuse is right to blame Blizzard nowadays.

I love how brainwashed we've become as a society to just blindly accept extreme greed just because others do it too.

As long as we are going to be suckers and accept whatever next scam is tossed our way, we will continue to just be good little consumers.

The top executives of large corporations thank you for your continued donations to their personal stock portfolios.

[Biomega]

I love how brainwashed we've become as a society to just blindly accept extreme greed just because others do it too.

We don't know everything about D4 yet, but what we do know I think would be QUITE a stretch to call "extreme greed". It seems very fair for what you're getting. Something has to pay for constant and substantial content updates.

Of course I agree that there's tons of predatory monetization models these days many of which should be outright illegal, but this? This isn't that.

[Nefastus]

"I just avoid buying games that are filled with microtransactions."

"I am not giving more money than I already did in the entry price"

So which one is it? do you refuse to buy games with microtransactions or do you refuse to pay for microtransactions?

Both. Sometimes I am not aware of the microtransactions when I buy a game.

- - - Updated - - -

Well good news then...you don't have to give them more money! You can just enjoy the game.

Why microtransactions? So they can make free content and support the game over time. That costs money, and their options are either selling DLC/expansions that can carve up the playerbase and are all big risks individually (if one tanks that's a big expense). So they go with the cosmetic/seasonal approach and we get free content updates even if we don't spend a penny.

I'm unlikely to spend much, if anything in D4 whenever I get around to picking it up. I'll just be enjoying all the free content they make that's subsidized by folks that spend.

Indeed. I don't give them extra money. But as I know firsthand Diablo 4 will have microtransactions I will just avoid it. Diablo 3 was pure nonsense anyways, no reason to belive this will be any better with the current Bizzard crew.

[Edge-]

Lol, no. Because they can and because it is easier to cash quick buck. Thinking that those money would go into development is very, very naive.

That's literally what it's for, longterm, sustainable revenue they can predict and plan around while building out support. Live-service costs money, and they need to be able to cover development costs while turning a profit.

And be sure the entire game, mechanics, EVERYTHING would be build around microtransactions. Because they are just so lucrative.

Except so far the only thing they're monetizing is cosmetics. Until we see otherwise, this is just being afraid of shadows.

[Aliven]

That's literally what it's for, longterm, sustainable revenue they can predict and plan around while building out support. Live-service costs money, and they need to be able to cover development costs while turning a profit.

Like the Division 2 season pass, cosmetic store, loot boxes all were used to fund new and exciting content for the Division 2 right? Soo much content.
Or like ESO year after year give us even more new and exciting content while doubling down on new and exciting items, sub, pay expansion, paid dlc etc right? Not like newest expansion just gave card game as a new feature? With least amount of actual content right? This cant be possible true!
Or maybe like every other heavy monetized game always translated its ravenue to fund this game right? And not went straight to the shareholders, yachts, funding new project (in case of Blizzard new and exciting overwatch 2 with disabled overwatch 1)?

No wonder those crap is a thing. People are, at best, naive like duck with aneurysm.

Live service games are a thing because it is better way to make money NOT because it is pro consumer in any way, shape or form.

- - - Updated - - -

Except so far the only thing they're monetizing is cosmetics. Until we see otherwise, this is just being afraid of shadows.

Of course, its not like blizzard recently made a heavy monetized game in diablo franchise, while saying everywhere you cant buy power in store. No sir or ma'am! They are pro guys, gamers for gamers.

Sure thing, blizzard in recent years prove to us they have values and are not money grabing frat douches right?

Im sorry, you are right, false flag. My bad.

[Edge-]

Like the Division 2 season pass, cosmetic store, loot boxes all were used to fund new and exciting content for the Division 2 right? Soo much content.

And I can list other games that provide more content than Division 2 with similar models, what about it? Some games that use the model are well supported, others aren't. Simple as that. Division 2 is a bit unique in that it was essentially "done" until Ubi's CEO decided to announce more content was coming to it and they had to bring development teams back. It's never been a super well supported game from the get-go, though.

But all the same, yes. Plenty of free content released outside of the WoNY expansion.

Or like ESO year after year give us even more new and exciting content while doubling down on new and exciting items, sub, pay expansion, paid dlc etc right? Not like newest expansion just gave card game as a new feature? With least amount of actual content right? This cant be possible true!

After multiple very popular, large, successful expansions and DLC's. Sometimes an expansion just isn't as exciting as others, you're treating exceptions as rules.

Or maybe like every other heavy monetized game always translated its ravenue to fund this game right? And not went straight to the shareholders, yachts, funding new project (in case of Blizzard new and exciting overwatch 2 with disabled overwatch 1)?

That happens too, but that happens regardless. Welcome to for-profit businesses operating as for-profit businesses.

Live service games are a thing because it is better way to make money NOT because it is pro consumer in any way, shape or form.

Or, because it can be both. It's not inherently better at generating revenue, and it's also not inherently anti-consumer.

Of course, its not like blizzard recently made a heavy monetized game in diablo franchise, while saying everywhere you cant buy power in store. No sir or ma'am! They are pro guys, gamers for gamers.

Mobile game, my guy. That dogshit monetization was expected, even if Wyatt tried to lawyer his way through the "You can't buy gear!" bullshit. There's zero indication that they're following similar standard mobile monetization for the PC/console game.

Im sorry, you are right, false flag. My bad.

I mean if you're going to misrepresent everything I saw and somehow apparently get into my head to know what I'm thinking, I'm not sure there's anything to discuss.

[Mamut]

Of course, its not like blizzard recently made a heavy monetized game in diablo franchise, while saying everywhere you cant buy power in store. No sir or ma'am! They are pro guys, gamers for gamers.

Sure thing, blizzard in recent years prove to us they have values and are not money grabing frat douches right?

Im sorry, you are right, false flag. My bad.

Oh cmon. Why people still use DI as some sort of argument against D4 shop? Like wtf did you expected from mobile game developed from the start around shop? It was well known before release how the game will look like.

And D4 shop won't be anything like DI. Feel free to come back after D4 release and quote me on that. But for now can we stop with that nonsense?

[Aliven]

And I can list other games that provide more content than Division 2 with similar models, what about it? Some games that use the model are well supported, others aren't. Simple as that. Division 2 is a bit unique in that it was essentially "done" until Ubi's CEO decided to announce more content was coming to it and they had to bring development teams back. It's never been a super well supported game from the get-go, though.

But all the same, yes. Plenty of free content released outside of the WoNY expansion.

Which ones exactly used game as a service model which enriched player experience with included item shop?

- - - Updated - - -

After multiple very popular, large, successful expansions and DLC's. Sometimes an expansion just isn't as exciting as others, you're treating exceptions as rules.

And each year they try to put as little content as possible without major outrage.

- - - Updated - - -

That happens too, but that happens regardless. Welcome to for-profit businesses operating as for-profit businesses.

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.

Look, if you put item shop and microtransactions in a game, regardless if they are cosmetic or not, you need to incentivize people to use them. 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?

If you actually make a cosmetic item shop, and people dont use it you failed in game dev, you wasted resources which could be spend elsewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Or, because it can be both. It's not inherently better at generating revenue, and it's also not inherently anti-consumer.

Which game experience, from a player and consumer standpoint was better because game was a live service game? Oddyssey? Anthem? Shadow of War?

[Orwell7]

...

You are getting paid for this right?
No sane consumer can be as deluded as you.
Or, well, let's see how society collapses because ordinary people accept this type of bullshit everywhere.

It's sad, but I don't need my morning coffee reading this...

[Aliven]

Mobile game, my guy. That dogshit monetization was expected, even if Wyatt tried to lawyer his way through the "You can't buy gear!" bullshit. There's zero indication that they're following similar standard mobile monetization for the PC/console game.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh cmon. Why people still use DI as some sort of argument against D4 shop? Like wtf did you expected from mobile game developed from the start around shop? It was well known before release how the game will look like.

And D4 shop won't be anything like DI. Feel free to come back after D4 release and quote me on that. But for now can we stop with that nonsense?

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.

[Endus]

Which game experience, from a player and consumer standpoint was better because game was a live service game? Oddyssey? Anthem? Shadow of War?

Warframe gets a ton of kudos, even if I've never personally been able to get into it. Path of Exile too. I was enjoying Overwatch for a long time before my internet got shitty enough I stopped playing due to disconnect penalties in ranked play.

Most MMOs can't exist outside a live service framework, too, for that matter.

I'll never understand the staggering entitlement of some gamers who feel they should be the ones who get to set the monetization approach for games. Especially this idea that there's a "full price" for any game with a cash shop that should somehow entitle you to all the content; that's a position that has no basis in reality.

[Aliven]

Warframe gets a ton of kudos, even if I've never personally been able to get into it. Path of Exile too. I was enjoying Overwatch for a long time before my internet got shitty enough I stopped playing due to disconnect penalties in ranked play.

Most MMOs can't exist outside a live service framework, too, for that matter.

Path of Exile is in the "look ugly unless you spend money" category. But this is fair game, it is free to play, same with Warframe. Warframe is grindy as hell to incentivize spending.

About MMO, which is enriched with item shop? In which you can look and say - man, this is great, i hope they put more stuff behind paywall for me to buy, after sub, box price and expansion.

[Endus]

Path of Exile is in the "look ugly unless you spend money" category. But this is fair game, it is free to play, same with Warframe. Warframe is grindy as hell to incentivize spending.

Why is it only "fair game" if it's free to play? You're not making any sense at all. That's the unwarranted entitlement complex I mentioned speaking.

About MMO, which is enriched with item shop? In which you can look and say - man, this is great, i hope they put more stuff behind paywall for me to buy, after sub, box price and expansion.

I don't play MMOs any more, for reasons that have fuck-all to do with monetization. But I'd determine whether stuff in the item shop enriches my experience based on how much it costs and how much I want it, because that's the only metric that actually exists in this matter.

There is no "full price" for these games. You keep acting like there is, and that's a false concept you made up, based on your unwarranted sense of entitlement. If it's too expensive for you, just go play something else; you're not exactly hurting for choice.

[Aliven]

Why is it only "fair game" if it's free to play? You're not making any sense at all. That's the unwarranted entitlement complex I mentioned speaking.

Because of no cost of entry. And still, those games are not made better because of this nor is item shop enriching the experience.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't play MMOs any more, for reasons that have fuck-all to do with monetization. But I'd determine whether stuff in the item shop enriches my experience based on how much it costs and how much I want it, because that's the only metric that actually exists in this matter.

There is no "full price" for these games. You keep acting like there is, and that's a false concept you made up, based on your unwarranted sense of entitlement. If it's too expensive for you, just go play something else; you're not exactly hurting for choice.

It is not expensive, i just dont like being treated as walking money pinata.

I'm not talking about the price even, why are you using strawman? I said no game is made better for the consumer by including item shop. Item shops, live service games are made for the devs, not for players. They are literally designed to spend money.

[Biomega]

I said no game is made better for the consumer by including item shop. Item shops, live service games are made for the devs, not for players. They are literally designed to spend money.

That's just not true.

Players can absolutely benefit from optional, non-P2W monetization - it brings in funds that allow for more content even for people who DON'T spend money. That's part of the model: you lure in people with a steady stream of content at low-to-none barrier to entry, and then cash in on the small percentage of them who also opt to spend on optional monetization. The non-spending majority still get to reap a lot of benefits.

I'm not saying there aren't predatory monetization models or abusive game designs done solely to maximize profits; those absolutely exist. But it's not an unequivocal nor simple truth that "no game is made better" because it has a monetization model like an item shop.

And in this concrete example (D4), everything we've seen so far seems very fair and beneficial even to players who choose not to purchase MTX.