Diablo 4 rumored release date is in...

[rhorle]

Which you have to pay for after you already paid full price.

Your signature references a game that you have to pay just to access after already paying full price. It is how they monetize the product that matters.

[The Oblivion]

Which you have to pay for after you already paid full price.

yes, how dare they ask that for you to pay for new content outside of the base games original content. INSANITY. LOLOL

BAN ALL NEW CONTENT FROM GAMES IF IT IS NOT FREE /s

[StillMcfuu]

Which you have to pay for after you already paid full price.

I'll say 2 things about this. Diablo might be the first franchise to have seasons, so it isn't a surprise that they are kicking off D4 with a season.

That said, any additional cosmetics it (season 1) may introduce should be apart of the price of the game. Day 1 DLC sort of pisses me off because, well it's Day 1, should be in the game.

[Xilurm]

That's how cosmetic MTX work.

They pay for content updates.

It's the fairest model out there, pretty much. What are you demanding, exactly, that they give you the game, cosmetics, AND constant content updates all for just the box price?

Just wish they wouldn't lock it behind season passes. If you wanna have shops fine, at least it's always there if you don't wanna get it now. And I don't think its fair to call it demanding. It's a full price box. What's that gonna be now? $70? And the season pass is going to be around $10. So that's $80 from the get go, and they know this. Don't forget that on top of all of that there's a cash shop.

Is it really unfair of me to ask this? People are fooled to think "it's extra content". It's not. It's content that could've been in the box price but they chose to take it out because they know people will pay more for it.

One of the worst takes I've heard is for the FFXIV cash shop.

"They pay the people who design these extra."

No they don't. These designers are paid just the same exact wage everyone else doing the same job is. It's just that the companies choose to sell these things outside the box/sub price because they simply can. And the company is the one getting the money in the end, not the people who said cosmetics.

- - - Updated - - -

Your signature references a game that you have to pay just to access after already paying full price. It is how they monetize the product that matters.

MMO sub fee is for access to the servers though.

- - - Updated - - -

yes, how dare they ask that for you to pay for new content outside of the base games original content. INSANITY. LOLOL

BAN ALL NEW CONTENT FROM GAMES IF IT IS NOT FREE /s

CDPR gave 15 DLC's for free after Witcher 3 was released. They also literally just gave away the next gen upgrade for free for everyone who ever owned a copy of the original game.

Yes, very bold of me to ask corpos not to be greedy...

I said it many times but I'll say it again, you go on and keep defending such practices. It's going to get worse and worse, but I assume you couldn't care less.

Same logic as people buying overpriced Iphones year after year even though their old phone still works.

[Biomega]

Is it really unfair of me to ask this? People are fooled to think "it's extra content". It's not. It's content that could've been in the box price but they chose to take it out because they know people will pay more for it.

That's a bad take, though. Making content costs money. To think that they would have just made it and given it away for free is bizarre, and makes zero business sense. We've HAD Diablo games without a revenue stream - they didn't produce substantial content updates. Do you really want another D3, where they put in some half-assed seasons made by a literal 2-person team? Because that's what you get if your game doesn't actually generate new cash years down the line, you get bare-bones, maintenance-mode "content". And you can't even blame them for it, because what business in their right mind WOULD spend all that extra money for no returns?

Your idea is a fantasy with no basis in the realities of business. They're being as fair as it gets, with no content locked behind paywalls, and with all season-pass content being purely cosmetic/QoL. And for all that, the people who DON'T pay for the pass STILL get all the ACTUAL content. For free. That is very, very fair.

As for the FOMO, that is completely standard in both shop-based games and season-pass ones. Limited-time offers, timed exclusives, etc. are all very common in those models. They're not doing anything special or particularly predatory by having certain cosmetics be available only during a season. If your standard is "but I want EVERYTHING!!!" then you're just being a bit of an unreasonable outlier, that's all.

[Xilurm]

That's a bad take, though. Making content costs money. To think that they would have just made it and given it away for free is bizarre, and makes zero business sense. We've HAD Diablo games without a revenue stream - they didn't produce substantial content updates. Do you really want another D3, where they put in some half-assed seasons made by a literal 2-person team? Because that's what you get if your game doesn't actually generate new cash years down the line, you get bare-bones, maintenance-mode "content". And you can't even blame them for it, because what business in their right mind WOULD spend all that extra money for no returns?

Didn't D2 have seasons? And that game was loved to death?

And they CAN generate new cash years down the line by making expansions with tons of content in it. But here's the thing, they already said they are making expansions. So you got expansions, battle pass and a cash shop. It's literally the whole "Live Service" package. If you want to fully enjoy this game you'll end up paying double the box price by the end even before the first expansion rolls out. Let alone have time or money to spend on other games. It's like they are competing which one gets the customer's time the most.

It's like how there's tons of different streaming services, so if you wanna watch all the cool shows you gotta sub to multiple ones. Competition is good yes, but competing to see who's the most greedy isn't.

I understand its business, doesn't mean I can't say it's greedy to be against it. Literally why wouldn't anyone be against this kind of thing? Do you think corporations care? Or that they are in desperate need of your money? That they don't have enough? That they don't just want to squeeze as much as they can from each customer?

Doesn't mean people should be ok with it.

[rhorle]

MMO sub fee is for access to the servers though.

Right. You pay to have access to the box content you bought. You also get a few tiers and patches over the course of two years. A season pass is no different then a subscription. It matters how they implement that pass, how its earned, cost, etc that will make it bad or good. Just as how they implement a subscription and content it gains matters.

[Edge-]

Didn't D2 have seasons? And that game was loved to death?

Before internet monetization was a thing outside of subscriptions for UO/EQ and stuff, yeah. But it also didn't get consistent updates and balance and new content outside of the expansion. Things that D4 will get.

Battle Passes can be super annoying and all, but think of it this way: That content was never going to be created and added to the game without the Battle Pass to begin with.

It's literally the whole "Live Service" package. If you want to fully enjoy this game you'll end up paying double the box price by the end even before the first expansion rolls out.

If you want all the cosmetics, sure. If you don't care that much about them, then you just get a ton of free stuff for free.

[Biomega]

Didn't D2 have seasons? And that game was loved to death?

It had seasons, it didn't have CONTENT. D2 ladder resets were all the same. At best they'd add a few runewords, which happened what, 3 times or so over TWENTY YEARS, and is very low-effort content. D2 never got any new content, and it's loved for its nostalgia most of all - and you ask any halfway competent D2 player, they'll readily admit the game is in desperate need of actual content, as it's been milked dry for actual decades.

Is that what you want? Play the same game for 20 years, with maybe a couple new items thrown in every 5 years or so? It's fine if you do - just most people these days wouldn't want that.

And they CAN generate new cash years down the line by making expansions with tons of content in it.

And look how well that worked for D3. It sputtered out completely. And no wonder, because the expansion price, well, PAYS FOR THE EXPANSION. You're not solving the problem of funding constant content with a solution that's "let's have some content every 3-5 years" (and that's generous considering D3 got ONE expansion in 10 years).

What's even more bizarre: you're effectively arguing FOR season passes here, you just don't realize it. Because what those are, effectively, are mini-expansions you can buy every 3-4 months. And in a way it's even better, because you don't even have to pay for them if you don't want the cosmetics, and get the other stuff for free.

Once again: if you're saying what you want is an expansion every 3-5 years with zero to very few changes to the game in between those expansions, cool beans. You can prefer that - just most people these days wouldn't want that.

If you want to fully enjoy this game you'll end up paying double the box price by the end even before the first expansion rolls out.

That's dishonest arguing, because you're basing it on the premise that "fully enjoying the game" isn't possible UNLESS you buy all the season passes and whatnot. Which is far from evident. You're effectively equating "getting everything in the game" with "fully enjoying the game", but those are not the same thing; in fact, it's likely that the VAST majority of players don't actually care about a lot of the cosmetics offered by the battle pass, and so to them, having those cosmetics wouldn't actually increase their enjoyment of the game to any meaningful degree; while on the contrary the loss of the content they get for free from battle pass simply being a thing WOULD DECREASE their enjoyment of the game substantially.

So what you're doing here is actually argue AGAINST the position you pretend you're defending, because it would decrease the enjoyment of most people significantly if you just took the content they get for free away, or made them pay for it every 3-5 years instead of just giving it to them every 3-4 months.

Literally why wouldn't anyone be against this kind of thing?

Because if done right, these setups are actually very GOOD for consumers. And from all we've seen and heard of D4's system, it IS done right (not that this couldn't change down the line, but that's speculation). People get free content they otherwise would have either not have gotten at all, or would have had to pay for in an expansion. Those who wish to pay for cosmetics/QoL can do so, but gain no competitive advantage over people not spending money - while still generating money to fund further content, which benefits the people who aren't paying. Why WOULD anyone be against a system that gives people who won't/can't spend money free stuff, while only milking those who are willing to spend money on luxuries anyway? That's as fair as it gets.

Do you think corporations care? Or that they are in desperate need of your money? That they don't have enough? That they don't just want to squeeze as much as they can from each customer?

Yes yes, corporations are evil. We all know that. They're also the ones making these games. Don't like them, don't pay for them. That's what any responsible consumer SHOULD do. I also don't support models I think are predatory or unfair, but this simply isn't that. It's very fair, and it's good for the game.

[Xilurm]

It had seasons, it didn't have CONTENT. D2 ladder resets were all the same. At best they'd add a few runewords, which happened what, 3 times or so over TWENTY YEARS, and is very low-effort content. D2 never got any new content, and it's loved for its nostalgia most of all - and you ask any halfway competent D2 player, they'll readily admit the game is in desperate need of actual content, as it's been milked dry for actual decades.

Is that what you want? Play the same game for 20 years, with maybe a couple new items thrown in every 5 years or so? It's fine if you do - just most people these days wouldn't want that.

Ideally I'd want new games entirely.

And look how well that worked for D3. It sputtered out completely. And no wonder, because the expansion price, well, PAYS FOR THE EXPANSION. You're not solving the problem of funding constant content with a solution that's "let's have some content every 3-5 years" (and that's generous considering D3 got ONE expansion in 10 years).

Wasn't D3 criticized from the very beginning?

Also it was never meant to last 10 years though, and why would people NOW say that D2 is in desperate need of content? It's a 20 year old game and it had it's content back when it did. Same with D3.

Why do games need to be these "live service" models instead of just be a game that has a beginning and an end? Why does every game need a long term plan? Just make a new one after a few years...

What's even more bizarre: you're effectively arguing FOR season passes here, you just don't realize it. Because what those are, effectively, are mini-expansions you can buy every 3-4 months. And in a way it's even better, because you don't even have to pay for them if you don't want the cosmetics, and get the other stuff for free.

Once again: if you're saying what you want is an expansion every 3-5 years with zero to very few changes to the game in between those expansions, cool beans. You can prefer that - just most people these days wouldn't want that.

I'm really not. I'd much rather have 0 cosmetics than have them cost extra money because they couldn't put them in the base game. If games can't survive without seasons passes, (which they can) they shouldn't cost more than $5. I bet these are going to be way more than $10.

That's dishonest arguing, because you're basing it on the premise that "fully enjoying the game" isn't possible UNLESS you buy all the season passes and whatnot. Which is far from evident. You're effectively equating "getting everything in the game" with "fully enjoying the game", but those are not the same thing; in fact, it's likely that the VAST majority of players don't actually care about a lot of the cosmetics offered by the battle pass, and so to them, having those cosmetics wouldn't actually increase their enjoyment of the game to any meaningful degree; while on the contrary the loss of the content they get for free from battle pass simply being a thing WOULD DECREASE their enjoyment of the game substantially.

So what you're doing here is actually argue AGAINST the position you pretend you're defending, because it would decrease the enjoyment of most people significantly if you just took the content they get for free away, or made them pay for it every 3-5 years instead of just giving it to them every 3-4 months.

IMO every pixel is part of the experience. There's so many people who argue against this. I'll use FFXIV and WoW as an example again. Being told the cash shop is fine because you DON'T NEED to buy anything from it to enjoy the game.

Ok but, people also don't need to clear the hardest raid to enjoy the game right? Yet they would complain if that was extra paid content. What about the people who just don't do that kind of content anyway and are just casual players interested in other things, which turn out to be extra things that cost more money.

WoW charging for $25 for a mount is ABSURD at best for example.

Because if done right, these setups are actually very GOOD for consumers. And from all we've seen and heard of D4's system, it IS done right (not that this couldn't change down the line, but that's speculation). People get free content they otherwise would have either not have gotten at all, or would have had to pay for in an expansion. Those who wish to pay for cosmetics/QoL can do so, but gain no competitive advantage over people not spending money - while still generating money to fund further content, which benefits the people who aren't paying. Why WOULD anyone be against a system that gives people who won't/can't spend money free stuff, while only milking those who are willing to spend money on luxuries anyway? That's as fair as it gets.


Yes yes, corporations are evil. We all know that. They're also the ones making these games. Don't like them, don't pay for them. That's what any responsible consumer SHOULD do. I also don't support models I think are predatory or unfair, but this simply isn't that. It's very fair, and it's good for the game.

It's not that corpos are evil it's just that people have more money than sense, and no company is going to let that pass by, which is sad. Most companies now are about "making games to make money" instead of "making money to make games". Call it silly if you want, but we could have it better.

I do think CDPR should be a standard to how they deal with DLC and that kinda stuff. Yeah they made a massive blunder with Cyberpunk but they are trying to fix it, and again I'll have to mention how they are giving a free next gen version of their game to everyone who already had a copy.

Also the best "live service" game I've ever played has to be GTA Online. Not because of the gameplay, but the fact that they have been giving their players content for FREE for 10 years straight. The only microtransaction that exists in that game is the ability to buy in-game money, which you don't need mind you because you can get whatever kind of sum you need just by grinding a few days to buy whatever you want. I suppose you could argue that since they sold 170 million units of GTAV and to this day they keep selling a million almost every month and have made 3 times the money the highest grossing movie ever has, that they couldn't care less about monetization.

We'll just have to agree to disagree though...

One thing I'll say is that WoW having a cash shop while also forcing people to pay sub is a worse deal than what D4 is doing. The problem with that is that they can never remove the cash shop because that would be stupid business wise, but if they remove the sub it means the game will be monetized to hell and back.

[Triceron]

You're right. I didn't. But it's a season pass. Doesn't matter if it looks good, there's absolutely 0 reason to trust the devs from now until the end of times as long as they are using that kind of thing in their games.

Well actually, looks like you're wrong.

Cosmetics are considered content now?

I'm really not. I'd much rather have 0 cosmetics than have them cost extra money because they couldn't put them in the base game.

Then you're also advocating for a game that would have less additional content after release than whatever they release at launch.

I mean, we're quite well past the days where they would feasibly support additional content without some sort of system to maintain revenue. Not because they can't, but because there's no incentive for them to do so out of whatever 'good will' you expect of them.

[Xilurm]

Cosmetics are considered content now?

Why not? Seriously. Isn't it as much part of the game as anything else? You have people collecting mogs and stuff, that's doing content.

[Biomega]

I'm really not. I'd much rather have 0 cosmetics than have them cost extra money because they couldn't put them in the base game.

Okay so let me get this straight: you'd rather have 0 cosmetics, than have the option to buy cosmetics, and in the process also get ACTUAL content for free. Just because... you're opposed to MTX on principle, or something?

That's certainly a take you can have. A wild, borderline insane take, but a take for sure.

IMO every pixel is part of the experience.

Which is technically true, but practically irrelevant. For most players, the reality is that there's always content you could remove and it wouldn't impact their own effective experience one bit. Because what's ACTUALLY important isn't the technicalities, but the real experience. And the real experience involves asymmetric investment, where you care a LOT more about certain things than you do about others.

You can certainly ignore the actual gameplay experience in favor of a theoretical technicality. You also should not be surprised that many people would likely consider that a ridiculous position of very little practical value.

Ok but, people also don't need to clear the hardest raid to enjoy the game right? Yet they would complain if that was extra paid content.

But that's NOT what's happening. They're not gating CONTENT behind season passes, only COSMETICS.

You're right that IF THEY DID THAT, then people would complain, BUT THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT.

To the surprise of actually no one the argument changes completely if you completely change the parameters of the argument. So how about, you know, not doing that, and arguing in good faith instead? Cool?

[Edge-]

Why not? Seriously. Isn't it as much part of the game as anything else? You have people collecting mogs and stuff, that's doing content.

What gameplay does a purple suit have? Does it alter how I farm daily or interact with the game in any way? Does it unlock anything new?

In the context of gaming, when discussing "content" people usually are discussing playable content: Things you do like new bosses or new dungeons or a new skill or a new class. Compared to cosmetics, which are a thing that looks cool (maybe) but otherwise has zero impact on the gameplay experience.

You play content to farm for cosmetic stuff if you want, but I'll take this opportunity to remember that these BP/cash shop cosmetics wouldn't exist without the BP/cash shop so you're not "losing" out on anything, simply not getting things that are "extra". Even if you're still getting the free content people spending money on those cosmetics fund.

[Xilurm]

Okay so let me get this straight: you'd rather have 0 cosmetics, than have the option to buy cosmetics, and in the process also get ACTUAL content for free. Just because... you're opposed to MTX on principle, or something?

That's certainly a take you can have. A wild, borderline insane take, but a take for sure.

A lot of people support the same opinion. So I wouldn't say it's insane.

But that's NOT what's happening. They're not gating CONTENT behind season passes, only COSMETICS.

You're right that IF THEY DID THAT, then people would complain, BUT THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT.

To the surprise of actually no one the argument changes completely if you completely change the parameters of the argument. So how about, you know, not doing that, and arguing in good faith instead? Cool?

So because they ain't doing that I can't use this as an argument to provide an example? And that's only because you don't believe that everything is content like I do.

And let me tell you that some devs ARE actually doing that. Bungie for example. They lock so much CONTENT behind season passes. They even locked a dungeon behind the deluxe edition of the expansions. Absolutely insane, and their reasoning? "You can just buy the deluxe edition later if you can't buy it now to unlock the dungeon."

And some people were perfectly fine with that. Same way some people are perfectly fine with Diablo Immortal. To the point they'd rather defend it than want it to get better.

Would it hurt you if cosmetics were free? No, it wouldn't...

- - - Updated - - -

Which is technically true, but practically irrelevant. For most players, the reality is that there's always content you could remove and it wouldn't impact their own effective experience one bit. Because what's ACTUALLY important isn't the technicalities, but the real experience. And the real experience involves asymmetric investment, where you care a LOT more about certain things than you do about others.

What gameplay does a purple suit have? Does it alter how I farm daily or interact with the game in any way? Does it unlock anything new?

In the context of gaming, when discussing "content" people usually are discussing playable content: Things you do like new bosses or new dungeons or a new skill or a new class. Compared to cosmetics, which are a thing that looks cool (maybe) but otherwise has zero impact on the gameplay experience.

You play content to farm for cosmetic stuff if you want, but I'll take this opportunity to remember that these BP/cash shop cosmetics wouldn't exist without the BP/cash shop so you're not "losing" out on anything, simply not getting things that are "extra". Even if you're still getting the free content people spending money on those cosmetics fund.

Does it need to have a gameplay purpose? Games are moving beyond "you have this goal so go do it". They are becoming worlds you immerse yourself in. Take RDR2 for example. Why all the immersive stuff? Why make all these immersive animations about eating soup and grooming your horse and everything else? They serve zero purpose to the actual gameplay which is shooting stuff and riding your horse. Yet there they are.

In FFXIV you have all these emotes and costumes and so many people don't even raid and just use the game as a sort of world where you can hang around with your friends.

You see these big non-gaming companies trying to make stuff like the "metaverse" work when that already exists in the form of WoW/FFXIV/GTAO...

If these games were just about the goal and "log in and kill the boss and log out" it wouldn't be the same. So that's why everything to me is part of the experience, regardless if it adds to the "main goal" or not.

[Triceron]

Why not? Seriously. Isn't it as much part of the game as anything else? You have people collecting mogs and stuff, that's doing content.

Because it's cosmetic. It doesn't affect your gameplay whatsoever unless you're feeling particularly entitled to all cosmetics.

Your definition of cosmetics as content certainly isn't really supporting your complaint here. This reeks of a 'you' problem.

If you can't deal with it, maybe you should just quit altogether.

[Biomega]

A lot of people support the same opinion. So I wouldn't say it's insane.

A lot of people think that 0 cosmetics + 0 new content > optional cosmetic purchases + free new content?

Yeah, pressing X to doubt here.

So because they ain't doing that I can't use this as an argument to provide an example?

No, because there's an entire laundry list of why this is a bad analogy. For an analogy to work as an example, it needs to be ACTUALLY ANALOGOUS to what you're trying to illustrate.

You can't compare completely different things and try to use that to make a point, because your analogy only acquires impact BECAUSE it is NOT the same. That's the opposite of what an analogy should accomplish, and it's actually more of a strawman - you're making an argument that's NOT the initial argument, because it's easier to prove a point that way. But that's arguing in extremely bad faith, because the point you're trying to make disappears when you correct for your error.

And that's just the face value, not even accounting for other factors like how WoW is a sub-based game and not buy-to-play to begin with, which makes your analogy even more insane.

And that's only because you don't believe that everything is content like I do.

If your argument is purely that "literally everything is content" and (by implication) that "all content is equally valuable" (because it would only work if both of those were true) that is an extreme, fringe position that almost no one will ever share.

You're free to hold that position, but it's basically useless in any discussion, because it's way too out there to be seriously debated.

And let me tell you that some devs ARE actually doing that. Bungie for example. They lock so much CONTENT behind season passes.

BUT THIS GAME DOESN'T.

Why are you bringing this up? What are you trying to say? "Maybe this game does it well but I hate it anyway, because other games do it poorly"? What? What kind of reasoning is this?

Can we just PLEASE argue about what's ACTUALLY going on instead of you trying to make it about "but what if WoW sold you raiding?" or "but other games sell you content!" or some other thing THAT JUST ISN'T GOING ON HERE?

Would it hurt you if cosmetics were free? No, it wouldn't...

You're missing the point completely. Those cosmetic MTX are what PAYS FOR THE FREE CONTENT. You don't just get content for free. It's expensive. That money has to come from somewhere.

Would it be cool if we just got all the content those MTX are paying for for free, plus all the cosmetics themselves, too? Sure. But that's not a valid business plan. You want stuff, good stuff, you need to find the money for it somewhere.

If you're GENUINELY just going "man why don't they just give us everything for free?" then that's not a point worth talking about, and quite frankly, we can just drop it right there because you're not trying to have a real debate.

[anon5123]

Didn't D2 have seasons? And that game was loved to death?

It didn't have paid season pass bullshit. You paid one time for the game, and that was it, every single ladder season was free forever.

But it also didn't get consistent updates and balance and new content outside of the expansion

D2 had a whole bunch of patches that were all free. Just, most of them were within 1-2 years of the game's launch.

[Biomega]

It didn't have paid season pass bullshit. You paid one time for the game, and that was it, every single ladder season was free forever.

It was also the same forever. There was no substantial content added to D2 in 20 years. The best we got was Ubers, which is a boss event with reskinned mobs and reused areas. That's it. IN. TWENTY. YEARS.

If that's what you want, cool. You can get that for free, no question.

D2 had a whole bunch of patches that were all free. Just, most of them were within 1-2 years of the game's launch.

Those had almost no changes aside from the usual balance/fixing stuff. The most significant one was the skill-tree synergy change, and that was basically it. If that's all you're looking for in two decades of a game, by all means. Most people these days will want more.

[Xilurm]

BUT THIS GAME DOESN'T.

Why are you bringing this up? What are you trying to say? "Maybe this game does it well but I hate it anyway, because other games do it poorly"? What? What kind of reasoning is this?

Can we just PLEASE argue about what's ACTUALLY going on instead of you trying to make it about "but what if WoW sold you raiding?" or "but other games sell you content!" or some other thing THAT JUST ISN'T GOING ON HERE?

Because one thing leads to another? Jesus. Why are you even arguing like this?

Of course I'm gonna mention the worse case scenario because anything can lead to that. It's how we got to this mess in the first place, it's why so many companies are using predatory practices including Blizzard.