I’m still worried about Diablo IV’s cosmetic-only microtransactions

I want to find—not buy—my cool-looking loot.

Read the whole story

 

[deadman12-4]

I'm sure the "army of devs" will decrease to more of a trickle as soon as blizzard wants to put the manpower elsewhere.

 

[Kaiser Sosei]

We only have ourselves to blame. The gaming community have proven they will spend money on this stuff.

Not you of course.

 

[Lee Vann]

I'm torn. Many full price games have had "microtransactions" or small paid DLC for a very long time. The first I can remember off the top of my head was TES:4 Oblivion. I generally tend to avoid paying for them until I can get a bundle discount.

Yet many games I've enjoyed have also had even more intrusive and game play changing transactions. Path Of Exile and World of Warships are free to play games I've spent a lot on in the past.

But, so long as D4 is fun and the transactions are not game changing I feel that I'm ok with it. Being fun is the primary thing in my unhumble opinion for any game.

 

[jdietz]

Microtransactions? Full-price game? Sorry, I'm out already. Activision has a history of trying to extract as much money out of customers as possible regardless of if the game experience is good or not and I don't want to give them any more of my money.

This. Diablo is my favorite series, and Ive sunk thousands of hours int ARPGs over the years, but D4 is a no buy from me. Blizzard North is dead and gone, theres nothing the new owners of the Diablo IP can do to redeem it at this point. They make games for whales, and I am not one.
Every single gameplay mechanic will be impacted by micro-transaction design, whether they admit it or not. Dialbo 3 was, and even though they removed the RMAH fro the US market, they went deeper into micro-transactions for the Asia market.
Its sad to see a series be abused like Diablo has been, but people need to remember these are companies not people. If some faceless conglomerate bought the rights to "Old Man and Sea 2", it doesnt mean they have the ability to produce another literary masterpiece. Anyone at Blizzard who had the talent to guide proper game design has since left the building. The suits call the shots now. Shes dead Jim.

What you're saying does not appear to be true. Microtransactions are cosmetic only according to the article, and other details I have read online.

I feel like there are quite a few people not actually reading the article and just want to go rage about something.

Have you literally never heard of all the games out there that promised the exact same thing, with a written promise that there will never be anything other than cosmetic microtransactions, only for the game to slowly see an ever-increasing number of XP-boosts, paid-for, larger-than-standard backpacks and whatnot? Some games even went so far as to introduce such things just like 3 months after release.

Promises like that are nothing more than a fart in the wind -- you may notice their presence momentarily, but they're gone the instant there's even the slightest breeze.

Can you name your best example please. I'm sure you're right but I can't think of examples.

A common pattern I can think of is games like D4 launch as premium with MT but then change to f2p with the same MT for cosmetics later on. One notable example is Fall Guys.

 

[Nihilus]

I'm a game dev, though in a genre that doesn't really support these kinds of microtransactions. That said, the reason we see more of them is that they work. People spend on this stuff. So we get more of it. Maybe not the people here, on Ars, but enough people that it's now pretty much a given for any GaaS release.

I don't think anybody disputes this, it's why the resolution likely needs to be a legislative one.

If you kill stuff like using multiple layers of in-game currency to obfuscate spending, variable reward ratios and artificial near-misses to get the gamblers going and sneakier tactics like reward-removal then you can take away a lot of the motivation to design games around fleecing customers.

The problem is the issues are complex. Legislation to tackle it would by necessity be even more complex and since they're "just games" there's little political will to do so, outside of the more obvious cases around lootbox mechanics. It's unfortunate but we're probably going to be stuck with generations of game design being marred by aggressive monetization strategies before it's addressed.

 

[FlynnARS]

They earned $24m in just a couple of weeks, from the mobile game. I'll put down money as a dead cert they will be looking to make D-IV milk every whale they can stick their sickly claws into from the get-go.

Such a shame but they've set a nasty standard now that so many studios will now ramp up their microtransations like crazy. Sickening thing is they're not blatent about it now, D-I was so overly complicated and full of nasty psychological tricks to part you from your money, the yeat video gaming started to die was 2022.

I started gaming in 1980, so we had a few good years of video gaming but greedy Harvard MBAs sunk their claws into gaming companies, they will milk us 'til we bleed liek stuck pigs just to pay the shareholders. Gaming industry is just as diseased and sick as the music industry is now.

I've all but given up on AAA game publishers/developers. I still follow the news stories, on the vanishingly slim hope that one of them will steer back to the love of games again; CDPR anyone? Alas, you are exactly right, these companies are run by MBAs now.

There is hope, fellow gamer, with indie developers. There are plenty of games that are built with heart and inspired from the greats of the past. Reward them with spreading social media love and through the pocketbook. CRPGs are my current jam and the market is bulging with excellent ones.

 

[Humour]

Blizzard was rightfully raked over the coals for Diablo 3's auction house, but with Diablo Immortals' success, I fear they are going to try again to see if they can get away with free to play mechanisms in a full price game.

There have been a couple of games that have reportedly improved significantly after launch. I’m thinking Diablo 3, No Man’s Sky, and Cyberpunk, but there are probably lots of other examples.

The thing I’ve always wondered is - who are the people who go back to a game months after it left an awful taste in your mouth? Diablo 3 basically killed any interest I have in ever playing another Blizzard game again. And yet, apparently it’s good now?

Am I the outlier not remotely interested in giving it a second shot, or do launch failures turn most people off the product forever? Something in between?

I went back to Cyberpunk recently. But that was mainly out of boredom. I was pleasantly surprised.

I can’t get past how bad the driving is. GTA did it better back in Vice City ffs.

 

[TokamakH3]

Am I in the minority in that I really don't care about cosmetics? Like I can't even be bothered to equip the ones I stumble across. I'm not critical of them, I'm honestly curious.

The only time I've spent money on cosmetics was the DLC for Deep Rock Galactic, which was only because I wanted to support Ghost Ship Games. It does help that the cosmetics are both aesthetically pleasing and thematically appropriate, but it was really about providing ongoing support to a developer that doesn't have a massive warchest.

Otherwise, I generally couldn't care less what my avatar looks like.

DRG!! Woo!

 

[FlynnARS]

This was one thing that bummed me out about Guild Wars 2. With the way items work in that game, the aesthetic "fantasy Barbie dress-up" was such a huge part of the game. And if you wanted something that looked cool, you had to hit up the cash shop. I just miss the days of finding something and being like "look at how cool this is!"

Still a great game, not trying to knock it, I know they have to keep the lights on, etc., but man, even these "don't affect gameplay!" microtransactions really do require the game to be designed in a way that takes some fun out of it all.

Especially when a major form of socializing in the game is being excited about the fashion wars. That's amplified if you are in a guild. I played GW2 for 3 years and just got so tired of everybody in my guild(s) being obsessed about getting the perfect look and having to spend money to get it.

Younger players don't see it, but cosmetic MTX really does affect the social aspect of the game. We play these games to be social, and when we don't actively participate in the same trends, we tend to feel left out. And it hurts. That's just simple psychology.

 

[Deathmonkey]

Blizzard was rightfully raked over the coals for Diablo 3's auction house, but with Diablo Immortals' success, I fear they are going to try again to see if they can get away with free to play mechanisms in a full price game.

There have been a couple of games that have reportedly improved significantly after launch. I’m thinking Diablo 3, No Man’s Sky, and Cyberpunk, but there are probably lots of other examples.

The thing I’ve always wondered is - who are the people who go back to a game months after it left an awful taste in your mouth? Diablo 3 basically killed any interest I have in ever playing another Blizzard game again. And yet, apparently it’s good now?

Am I the outlier not remotely interested in giving it a second shot, or do launch failures turn most people off the product forever? Something in between?

I actively avoided Diablo 3 until they fixed it. I played through the game and expansion once and never looked back. Coincidentally, I loved Torchlight 1 and 2 ; but only bothered playing through 3 once. Maybe three is just an unlucky number for action rpgs.

 

[breze]

Cosmetic microtransactions do end up with a sort of silly situation where there's no correlation between how characters look and their power level. But I guess that's the least bad option if we won't pay for subscriptions and we want 10 years of support.

 

[chickenboo]

Microtransactions? Full-price game? Sorry, I'm out already. Activision has a history of trying to extract as much money out of customers as possible regardless of if the game experience is good or not and I don't want to give them any more of my money.

This. Diablo is my favorite series, and Ive sunk thousands of hours int ARPGs over the years, but D4 is a no buy from me. Blizzard North is dead and gone, theres nothing the new owners of the Diablo IP can do to redeem it at this point. They make games for whales, and I am not one.
Every single gameplay mechanic will be impacted by micro-transaction design, whether they admit it or not. Dialbo 3 was, and even though they removed the RMAH fro the US market, they went deeper into micro-transactions for the Asia market.
Its sad to see a series be abused like Diablo has been, but people need to remember these are companies not people. If some faceless conglomerate bought the rights to "Old Man and Sea 2", it doesnt mean they have the ability to produce another literary masterpiece. Anyone at Blizzard who had the talent to guide proper game design has since left the building. The suits call the shots now. Shes dead Jim.

What you're saying does not appear to be true. Microtransactions are cosmetic only according to the article, and other details I have read online.

I feel like there are quite a few people not actually reading the article and just want to go rage about something.

I completely read the article, you didnt read my post. Gamedesign and mechanics can still be impacted by micro-transactions much as it was in Diablo 3, even after the RMAH was scrubbed.
This is also ignoring the fact that selling micro-transaction, even cosmetic only, in a $70 dollar game is itself laughable.

How will cosmetics impact the game design and mechanics?

Don't move the goalposts about what you have said by moving to complain about a full priced game having cosmetic microtransactions.

I agree that cosmetic microtransactions are lame. I have not, nor will ever purchase cosmetics for real money.

Different game, but Sea of Thieves is $40, and has a cosmetic shop. The shop has all the high quality, unique, creative paid costumes, with the bright glowing bits. You can earn a heck of a lot of clothes in-game, and many of them look great - heck I find the paid cosmetics too gaudy to consider buying - but that's a change in game design: place the creative unique flashy and "fresh" clothes in the paid shop.

Mechanically? no change.

 

[TechCrazy]

Best option for Blizzard is to have a Pay 2 Skip the line method.
Allow you to gain armor in game and if you just want the cosmetic skin directly - then you can just pay and get it directly.

Its a Win \ Win for everyone.

 

[MyGaffer]

Diablo IV will be trash and I won't buy any game with micro-transactions.

 

[torp]

The one thing to note about "so and so game has expansion packs" is that they are almost never live service games.

The only two recent(ish) live service games I can think of that relied on an expansion pack model rather than season pass model are Splatoon 2 and Diablo III.

Splatoon 2 is one of the three games that drives NSO subscriptions though (along with MK8 and Smash), so its monetization is indirect.

Diablo III was the game that stood on the transition point between traditional self-contained games wwth xpacs (D2) and full live service (D4), and so didn't quite have the formula set. Also, its monetization scheme was basically proto-NFTs via the Real Money Auction House. That failed miserably.

But pray tell, why do D3 and D4 *need* the live service?

 

[walkthelight]

This comment is more about games as a service than microtransactions, but I think they are related.

I recently joined a Destiny 2 clan after getting back in the game for a couple of years. The goal of any clan is to provide other players to play in the various game modes. You can play Destiny solo, but the game opens up dramatically with cooperative play and reaching higher levels. That type of thing works best if you don’t depend on matchmaking or LFG (and the actual destiny endgame content doesn't have matchmaking and requires communication that is hard to create with strangers.)

So it makes sense that a clan or Blizzard will want to promote steady active play, but how do you ensure that?

This clan has various ways, but the main one requires a certain amount of activity to stay in the clan. That keeps the clan full of “active” players.

The requirements made it kind of look like a job description, with the requisite review and…yes, there is a section describing how to request time off.

But, then again, I’m also part of a chorus, and if you miss X number of rehearsals, you can’t be in the show. Same with my softball team. Probably the same with your D&D group.

This requirement seems reasonable considering my current itch, but Destiny isn’t the kind of game that “ends.” There is no offseason, no big show, then summer, and no final dungeon the DM needs a month to put together. It's in ending.

So, sure. Gaming. Hobbies. Investment. All normal, but stuff like Diablo IV and Destiny tell me that “gaming is not my hobby anymore. Destiny 2 is now my hobby.”

If I want to play a Spider-Man on PC, try the Final Fantasy remake, or figure out what Hades or Elden Ring or Control are like, I have to judge whether I have put in my “Destiny 2” quota this pay period to keep up the gaming environment I need to enjoy “Destiny 2”; otherwise my $50 + $20 season pass is “wasted”; not to mention that when a new dungeon or expansion hits, I won’t be able to jump in with the same crew as last month. I’ll be behind the curve cause I didn’t put in my X hours a week.

And maybe this is cause I just turned 42 years old, but I’m not sure I have the time to have a gaming hobby AND a Destiny hobby. And the comfort of buying the games i mentioned before is that though I’m a bit embarrassed I haven’t played them, I’m not hurt because i bought them last year but haven’t started them yet.

This always-on expectation makes me think of games-as-service as strange cause it doesn’t seem like I’m buying a game so much as signing up for a job that requires my time and money and pays me in purple shiny, and loud dings. But maybe that's why I maxed out all my FF7 characters 20 years ago, but at least I did it on my own schedule.

 

[SaaSaFRaaS]

It's not going to end well for fans of this series. You only need a small percentage of whales to make a game like this more profitable than it would be if it were just an amazing game that was fun for everyone to play.

 

[sword_9mm]

Unless the game is broken or MS gates it behind XBX/PC or doesn't offer crossplay from PS5 to PC then I'll buy it.

I don't care about cosmetics and never have in a game. I put the best stuff on I find and that's that.

This is much different from the mess the AH caused in D3's design. It's not even comparable imo. So I don't get the hat of dicks? I don't care. The AH was breaking the actual drops in D3.

 

[willyu34]

You...worry? As in, you are still clinging to the hope that it won't be a greedy money-grab...?? I can quite literally guarantee that it will be exactly that and you should just abandon that hope you're nurturing -- you'll be far less disappointed!

Me, I was somewhat interested in Diablo IV, since the last Diablo I've played was Diablo II. Alas, the moment I heard Diablo IV is going to be an online-service game with microtransactions, I lost every ounce of my interest. If it was a proper game, I would most likely have given it a try sooner or later, but as things stand, I just do not want to take part in these nickel-and-dime schemes.

The problem with losing credibility... which Blizzard has 0 at this point... is that people would assume the worst at anything not confirmed yet.

At this point I would always assume the worst and see if Blizzard proves me wrong. I admire those who clings onto hope that Blizzard would do better. But that kind of admire is like looking at innocent cute puppies and think "how cute!"

 

[kick_out_the_jams]

Unless the game is broken or MS gates it behind XBX/PC or doesn't offer crossplay from PS5 to PC then I'll buy it.

I don't care about cosmetics and never have in a game. I put the best stuff on I find and that's that.

This is much different from the mess the AH caused in D3's design. It's not even comparable imo. So I don't get the hat of dicks? I don't care. The AH was breaking the actual drops in D3.

I remember they were promising PVP at launch and maybe awhile afterwards?
Diablo 3 was such a mess of a game but it's biggest crime was being boring really.

 

[Fred Duck]

"It's only cosmetic."

Yes, it "only" affects replay value and possibly how you play the entire thing.

 

[kick_out_the_jams]

Microtransactions? Full-price game? Sorry, I'm out already. Activision has a history of trying to extract as much money out of customers as possible regardless of if the game experience is good or not and I don't want to give them any more of my money.

This. Diablo is my favorite series, and Ive sunk thousands of hours int ARPGs over the years, but D4 is a no buy from me. Blizzard North is dead and gone, theres nothing the new owners of the Diablo IP can do to redeem it at this point. They make games for whales, and I am not one.
Every single gameplay mechanic will be impacted by micro-transaction design, whether they admit it or not. Dialbo 3 was, and even though they removed the RMAH fro the US market, they went deeper into micro-transactions for the Asia market.
Its sad to see a series be abused like Diablo has been, but people need to remember these are companies not people. If some faceless conglomerate bought the rights to "Old Man and Sea 2", it doesnt mean they have the ability to produce another literary masterpiece. Anyone at Blizzard who had the talent to guide proper game design has since left the building. The suits call the shots now. Shes dead Jim.

What you're saying does not appear to be true. Microtransactions are cosmetic only according to the article, and other details I have read online.

I feel like there are quite a few people not actually reading the article and just want to go rage about something.

I completely read the article, you didnt read my post. Gamedesign and mechanics can still be impacted by micro-transactions much as it was in Diablo 3, even after the RMAH was scrubbed.
This is also ignoring the fact that selling micro-transaction, even cosmetic only, in a $70 dollar game is itself laughable.

How will cosmetics impact the game design and mechanics?

Don't move the goalposts about what you have said by moving to complain about a full priced game having cosmetic microtransactions.

I agree that cosmetic microtransactions are lame. I have not, nor will ever purchase cosmetics for real money.

Different game, but Sea of Thieves is $40, and has a cosmetic shop. The shop has all the high quality, unique, creative paid costumes, with the bright glowing bits. You can earn a heck of a lot of clothes in-game, and many of them look great - heck I find the paid cosmetics too gaudy to consider buying - but that's a change in game design: place the creative unique flashy and "fresh" clothes in the paid shop.

Mechanically? no change.

My problem with sea of thieves was that most of the cosmetics were just slight recolors/variations of each other.

I'm sure they've added more but I'm so tired of those sorts of cosmetics - I vastly prefer when you can experiment and change colors yourself because you get more mileage of each cosmetic through the actual ability to customize yourself.

 

[defaultluser]

you folks should be used to the required Battle net connection for D3 multiplayer

if you need any idea why diablo 4 is massively monetized, its because you folks have kept feeding the monthly blood installments for a decade-old game

 

[Dr Orgo]

I have a lot of thoughts on Diablo 4 as someone that played Diablo 3 a ton in the post auction house times. This thread does feel like not the place to say more than "Activision bad" though, so oh well.

 

[candyfire]

As always, RIP Blizzard North.

 

[Atrifact]

Excellent article, this really sums up the unease I am feeling with this release. Blizzard has broken all remaining trust over the last couple of years and while this is my favorite gaming franchise I think I am better off not playing it any further. Even knowing there are some runes or unique items of max quality I'll never drop I still love the hunt. This system completely breaks this games completionism appeal. I'll probably stick to an occasional replay of the D1 & D2 because I'm confident they will prove me right with D4.

 

[macduff]

I find it difficult to get upset over cosmetics for sale in any game. It's not keeping you from playing the game, and it's not pay to win.

 

[dacjames]

> Further, of course Blizzard wants "buying things to feel good"!

Actually, they don't. Addiction is not nearly as strong when the rewarding behavior is satisfying. You need to have that fleeting, negative feeling for your monkey brain to kick in and seek the reward again.

 

[DaveSimmons]

You...worry? As in, you are still clinging to the hope that it won't be a greedy money-grab...?? I can quite literally guarantee that it will be exactly that and you should just abandon that hope you're nurturing -- you'll be far less disappointed!

Me, I was somewhat interested in Diablo IV, since the last Diablo I've played was Diablo II. Alas, the moment I heard Diablo IV is going to be an online-service game with microtransactions, I lost every ounce of my interest. If it was a proper game, I would most likely have given it a try sooner or later, but as things stand, I just do not want to take part in these nickel-and-dime schemes.

Exactly. For online with paid cosmetics, Path of Exile is free to play not $70 plus the transactions.

For a game you buy and get all content, there are others like Grim Dawn and Torchlight. No sale for me, Activision-not-really-Blizzard-anymore.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I find it difficult to get upset over cosmetics for sale in any game. It's not keeping you from playing the game, and it's not pay to win.

I'm fine with them in a free to play game, not a $70 one.

 

[Lynchenstein]

As long as the base game allows a full playthrough w/o extra spend, I don't really care about the microtransactions. Diablo3 is still a game I hop in and blast through now and again and I hope D4 is as fun for me.

I'm also fine that if I want to splurge on a sparkly demon with a fancy hat for my character, who's to say that I can't do that if I have the $? As I have a decreasing amount of time to play games, having a shining shiny demon might make it that little bit more fun.

 

[Lynchenstein]

I find it difficult to get upset over cosmetics for sale in any game. It's not keeping you from playing the game, and it's not pay to win.

I'm fine with them in a free to play game, not a $70 one.

So you want to play through a AAA game for free, and only pay for some cosmetics if you want to?

That's sorta like getting a truck for free, and only paying money if you want a roll bar, tinted windows and a vinyl wrap.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I find it difficult to get upset over cosmetics for sale in any game. It's not keeping you from playing the game, and it's not pay to win.

I'm fine with them in a free to play game, not a $70 one.

So you want to play through a AAA game for free, and only pay for some cosmetics if you want to?

That sounds like a lot to ask for.

No, I am fine with either of these:

A free to play game where nothing is pay to win, and it is paid for by cosmetics and reasonable convenience features like extra inventory slots. Path of Exile, Star Trek Online, etc.

A $70 game chock is full of free cosmetics to unlock, not held back from the base game to sell to you in addition to the likely season pass DLC.

 

[Nihilus]

I find it difficult to get upset over cosmetics for sale in any game. It's not keeping you from playing the game, and it's not pay to win.

I'm fine with them in a free to play game, not a $70 one.

So you want to play through a AAA game for free, and only pay for some cosmetics if you want to?

That's sorta like getting a truck for free, and only paying money if you want a roll bar, tinted windows and a vinyl wrap.

No, they are saying they are fine with paying for a AAA game but don't want its design compromised by sketchy monetization strategies designed to further monetize the game they already paid for.

I'm not sure which part of this you got hung up on. Diablo IV is not going to be a free game and they are planning on including microtransactions.

 

[Nihilus]

Best option for Blizzard is to have a Pay 2 Skip the line method.
Allow you to gain armor in game and if you just want the cosmetic skin directly - then you can just pay and get it directly.

Its a Win \ Win for everyone.

That's a fairly weak incentive for people to whip out their credit card so devs would still be incentivised to compromise the design to encourage conversions, likely by making certain items really hard to acquire without paying or making the purchased cosmetics superior in some way (like letting users apply the skins over items with better stats, whilst not having that functionality in the base game).

I don't think there's really a way to include microtransactions without disturbing the design in some way or another, you are literally tearing out part of the game and shoving it behind a pay wall. Fitting that into the gameplay loop and creating nudges and incentives to encourage spending will always influence the design. Usually quite dramatically.

 

[ikith]

I find it difficult to get upset over cosmetics for sale in any game. It's not keeping you from playing the game, and it's not pay to win.

I'm fine with them in a free to play game, not a $70 one.

So you want to play through a AAA game for free, and only pay for some cosmetics if you want to?

That's sorta like getting a truck for free, and only paying money if you want a roll bar, tinted windows and a vinyl wrap.

I wonder if you could fund a triple a title with microtransactions.......

 

[chefboy]

Yeah easy call then, don't play it. Fuck this dev. There are a ton of good ARPGS out there with much better and less money devs. Go play one of them instead.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

I dont see that legislating away microtransactions will work. If a player wants to buy a flaming sword who is to say they may not.

Loot boxes are a different story and should not be conflated into the same discussion.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

I find it difficult to get upset over cosmetics for sale in any game. It's not keeping you from playing the game, and it's not pay to win.

I'm fine with them in a free to play game, not a $70 one.

So you want to play through a AAA game for free, and only pay for some cosmetics if you want to?

That's sorta like getting a truck for free, and only paying money if you want a roll bar, tinted windows and a vinyl wrap.

No, they are saying they are fine with paying for a AAA game but don't want its design compromised by sketchy monetization strategies designed to further monetize the game they already paid for.

I'm not sure which part of this you got hung up on. Diablo IV is not going to be a free game and they are planning on including microtransactions.

IIUC its not a subscription required game, so how do you pay for continuing new content without microtransactions? Would you rather pay for every content release?

 

[Nihilus]

I find it difficult to get upset over cosmetics for sale in any game. It's not keeping you from playing the game, and it's not pay to win.

I'm fine with them in a free to play game, not a $70 one.

So you want to play through a AAA game for free, and only pay for some cosmetics if you want to?

That's sorta like getting a truck for free, and only paying money if you want a roll bar, tinted windows and a vinyl wrap.

No, they are saying they are fine with paying for a AAA game but don't want its design compromised by sketchy monetization strategies designed to further monetize the game they already paid for.

I'm not sure which part of this you got hung up on. Diablo IV is not going to be a free game and they are planning on including microtransactions.

IIUC its not a subscription required game, so how do you pay for continuing new content without microtransactions? Would you rather pay for every content release?

Sure, I'd pay for expansions. I'd even pay for a subscription if they wanted to make it live service so long as they don't remove content from the base game for people who don't buy it.

What I wouldn't do is pay up front for a game that is designed around using petty psychological tricks to goad users into paying out small sums frequently over time.

(Just as an aside it's not me downvoting you, not sure why people feel the need to downvote genuine discussion. Gave you a lil upvote to counter.)