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

 

[WereCatf]

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.

I don't have a habit of playing games with microtransactions, so I only end up reading about the stuff happening in games I don't play and thus forget sooner or later the names of, but didn't e.g. Fallout 76 do just this? I seem to recall them promising the game would only ever have cosmetics and items that do not affect gameplay, but then they went and added backpacks...and then items that repaired your stuff faster and while on-the-go without you having to return to the home base and things like that. If my memory serves, these items didn't even take a long time after launch to be introduced into it.

 

[Pugilistas]

While I respect the Diablos for pretty much jumpstarting the genre, I played D2 just long enough to discover that the devs would happily let you build a character that couldn't possibly advance in the game; and that their response to this was 'start over'. Not to mentiont that the Diablo writing and lore varied from pedestrian to awful. Pretty much any other game in the genre was better. But Blizzard had some long legs back in the day. Whatever their special sauce is though, it doesn't seem to work on me.

Still play PoE and Grim Dawn. Much better writing. I give PoE some money every so often since I still tend to have fun at it. Activision/Blizzard hasn't seen a dollar from me in a long, long time.

 

[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 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.

Fair enough. There all all sorts of games where you pay full pop then have the option to fancy things up if that’s your thing, aren’t there? Like cars in Forza. I guess I just don’t care much about cosmetic items so not having them or locking some of them behind a transaction doesn’t bother me.

 

[Spiral Jumper]

The way the games industry has speedrun capitalism during my lifetime will never not be horrifying.

 

[CircleBreaker]

Honestly, just charge an annual fee. Full price for the box and first year, then half price for each subsequent year.

If you're going to play the game for hundreds of hours a year and it's getting substantial ongoing support and improvements then it's worth it.

 

[aliksy]

Elden ring didn't have any micro transactions and was a huge critical and commercial success. Blizzard should try that. Make a good game, people pay for it.

 

[Rick Rumble]

"Games as a Service are the future of the medium"

"Well, we've got to get money somehow for all the effort we're putting in"

---

The best games I've played in the last 5 years were all standalone products, some of which at most had an expansion pack. Can't say I've played one GaaS game that has been truly memorable to me.

 

[Rick Rumble]

Honestly, just charge an annual fee. Full price for the box and first year, then half price for each subsequent year.

If you're going to play the game for hundreds of hours a year and it's getting substantial ongoing support and improvements then it's worth it.

That's anethema to the yearly/biyearly output of most series, including most GaaS style series.

 

[Darksilanus]

As a Finance guy who enjoys gaming (and Diablo) I would love to see a donation-based model for extra content beyond DLC. The idea is you pay $60 for the full game and the $15-40 per expansion which covers the cost of the development and profit margin for said content.

But then any additional on-going service content is funded like a kickstarter or indegogo. Blizzard says we need x amount for development and (smaller than main content) profit margin % and we donate if we want the content. If we don’t hit the goal, we get our money returned and if they exceed their estimation, they keep the rest as additional profit. A goodwill gesture would be stretch goals.

That way, no paying for micro transaction, cosmetic or otherwise. And we as consumers only get the content we vote for with our wallets. Thoughts?

 

[Nihilus]

Elden ring didn't have any micro transactions and was a huge critical and commercial success. Blizzard should try that. Make a good game, people pay for it.

Elden ring is at ~16m copies sold. Just for the sake of simplicity presuming it ultimately sells twice that (which would be as many sales as the entire dark souls series to date), devs got 100% of the proceeds and every game sold for $50 that's ~$1.6b in revenue.

By comparison the top F2P games make in excess of this every single year... Basically no matter how popular your game is it would have been more profitable as a F2P or with microtransactions.

This is one of those situations where the good ole' invisible hand of the market is definitely not going to magically lead to companies acting in the best interests of consumers and churning out better quality games.

 

[Rick Rumble]

As a Finance guy who enjoys gaming (and Diablo) I would love to see a donation-based model for extra content beyond DLC. The idea is you pay $60 for the full game and the $15-40 per expansion which covers the cost of the development and profit margin for said content.

But then any additional on-going service content is funded like a kickstarter or indegogo. Blizzard says we need x amount for development and (smaller than main content) profit margin % and we donate if we want the content. If we don’t hit the goal, we get our money returned and if they exceed their estimation, they keep the rest as additional profit. A goodwill gesture would be stretch goals.

That way, no paying for micro transaction, cosmetic or otherwise. And we as consumers only get the content we vote for with our wallets. Thoughts?

Probably would work for smaller indie games, I do believe it worked quite well for the black hole that is Dwarf Fortress at that.

 

[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?

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.)

There are many though that wont play a game if it requires sub. Its almost a religion for them.

 

[Nihilus]

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.)

There are many though that wont play a game if it requires sub. Its almost a religion for them.

I can't say I've personally seen that particular argument since the early 00s, and even then games like WoW never had the same kind of kickback from gamers that full price games with microtransactions in are getting now.

I would wager that the number of gamers that religiously avoid games with microtransactions greatly exceeds those who won't buy games with a subscription. Especially if the base game is a complete game in its own right and the sub is solely for additional content.

 

[The Cappy]

Excellent and, I think, even-handed piece. I was thinking about how League of Legends charges for cosmetics, and I thought, "Well that's not so bad, then." But you make some excellent points. Thanks.

 

[sloth_jr]

Personally I don't care about cosmetic appearance. It's all about seeing the mobs melt. Grim Dawn is currently satisfying that itch.

 

[graylshaped]

As a Finance guy who enjoys gaming (and Diablo) I would love to see a donation-based model for extra content beyond DLC. The idea is you pay $60 for the full game and the $15-40 per expansion which covers the cost of the development and profit margin for said content.

But then any additional on-going service content is funded like a kickstarter or indegogo. Blizzard says we need x amount for development and (smaller than main content) profit margin % and we donate if we want the content. If we don’t hit the goal, we get our money returned and if they exceed their estimation, they keep the rest as additional profit. A goodwill gesture would be stretch goals.

That way, no paying for micro transaction, cosmetic or otherwise. And we as consumers only get the content we vote for with our wallets. Thoughts?

I play an FtP game where everything is available just by playing the game. The developer also gives away a ton a codes to allow people to get a leg up, and is active with new content. I have zero problem tossing a few bucks their way every now and then for cosmetic things and QoL improvements.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"We want buying things to feel good—before, during, and after purchase."

No.

Nobody involved in Warcraft 3: Reforged gets to claim that ever again.

 

[sleepneed]

They promise that the microtransactions are cosmetic only now but when the full release comes out I won’t be surprised if it was similar to Immortal’s handling of it due to the c-suite wanting to have a yacht within another yacht like Caligula‘s Nemi ships.

 

[AlexisR200X]

What part of "microtransactions will never be welcome on full price games" does the industry not understand? Diablo 4 is a hard pass for me, the excuse that it's only cosmetic is as asinine as its company's CEO is dishonest.

What part of it's just cosmetics isn't toxic? It literally means the stuff not gated by microtransactions will be intentionally made to look like far lesser versions of the cosmetic stuff for sale. It's not even legally binding so they can pivot to pay to win down the road. Fuck that!

 

[Sneezes Loudly]

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.

There are exceptions to the rule, the article specifically states one of them. Path of Exile has been running for over 8 years and there's still no pay to win transactions, there are a few quality of life and lots of comsetics but the devs continually develop the free to play game.

 

[zoward]

I'm not worried about it at all! If it's a free-to-play game, I'll try it out, possibly even buy a tchockes to help fund the game. If it's a full price single-player game with an in-game RM store, I'm out already.

 

[mneidoni]

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.

Absolutely. I gave them the benefit of the doubt twice:

- Warcraft III Reforged- refunded. EULA, features lost, promises broken, you all know it
- Diablo II Resurrected - refunded. Amazon looking like shit, censoring things, no LAN.

Finally, I didn't even bother to install the Immoral D, why should I?!
Even this is the second coming of JC Himself and the 12 apostles, Judas included, plus every other prophet of every other religion, I'm DEFINITELY not buying into it. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, never touching any CoD, Diablo, etc.
The only chance this company has is the former dev's Stormgate, the RTS, but I'm definitely not excited so far, too cartonish and LoL/DoTA graphics. Ok, maybe just another one, meaning here that Microsoft is buying them and something good would come out of this. But I HONESTLY doubt it..
As long as the selling point are the skins, lack of mods, no LAN and milking away as much as possible, I'm not touching ANY of their games, not mattter how much publicit they pour into it.
Just like inRings of Power's case, if your only selling point is inclusivity and other garbage, yeah, no thanks.

 

[daemonios]

I have learned from experience that developers can always find a way to go back on their word if necessary for the betterment of the bottom line. Take any promise with a grain of salt, especially with regard to monetisation.

 

[itfa]

I decided years ago when I found out people were trading real money for cosmetics in TF2 that I would never ever spend money on anything IN a game. I'm more than happy to purchase a game. You might even convince me to pay a subscription for the right game. But I will never support in game purchases that often times means the game is designed to be worse in order to incorporate that shit.

 

[argamond]

Path of Exile, a true free-to-play ARPG, is often hailed as a game that does microtransactions right. Frankly, I don’t see it.

I disagree with the statement. There are enough unique items where you can compile a unique look for your character.

The only problem with this is that the stats wouldn't be good, and wouldn't allow you to maximise the stats for your build. That is why cosmetic is optional for path of exile - but you seriously can play the game for free without spending a cent.

Even stash tabs, you don't really need them - but you must be willing to drop/sell your loot

 

[greenarcher02]

So it's similar to what the modern Monster Hunter games are doing. Difference is, Capcom is also offering FREE actual gameplay content and the cosmetics are really just that, cosmetics that don't offer much. Even the good ones like the Okami Palamute layered armor was a free update. I can't say the same for Blizzard though considering their track record.

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

What's Diablo? Isn't that some sort of mobile game?

 

[MisterAlex]

I've still been enjoying the occasional D3 season, largely because I already paid for the game and am not putting anything else into the company's coffers. Ever since D2, I've been pleased and impressed that they could support a game long-term without requiring subscriptions or additional purchases (other than major expansions).

But I long ago lost interest in buying D4, and every time someone new is announced, I go deeper into the negative.

And I'll be perfectly honest... If there's a way to just play through the story campaign for free (i.e. borrowing someone's console copy or yes, downloading a cracked copy), then that will be the most it gets of my time. $0.00 is the most it'll get of my money.

 

[khumak50]

Nope. When I buy a game I expect access to everything the game has to offer without spending any additional money. Most of these games with microtransactions would require thousands if not millions of dollars to guarantee you access to everything in the game. No sale.

I'll tolerate cosmetic only microtransactions if it's a free to play game but if anything is ever introduced that costs money and affects gameplay forget it.

DLC is ok as long as it adds a proportional amount of extra play time. If the game costs $50 and takes 100 hours to complete, a $50 DLC should add another 100 hours of play time via quests, new lands to explore, etc. A shiny new sword adds zero play time so it's worth exactly $0.

 

[binarysmurf]

My God. There are a lot of bunched-up panties in this thread.

I've played D3 for over 8 years. I'll be all over D4. If I choose to, it'll be my CHOICE to dip my toe into micro-transactions.



I'll be more than pleased if I can buy DIV QoL-related stuff that takes the pain points out of the game, PoE style - Stash tabs etc.
If I want my rogue to look like a bad-ass ninja and I have $x to blow on an outfit... If I perceive it's a value to me... Why not?

The extra stash tabs were one of the best secondary aspects of the D3 expansion packs. I would still happily spend $10 for a stash tab in D3.
If I could buy a bunch of D3 bounty and raw materials for $10 a bag to take away the grind of gathering crafting materials, I would.

The writing was on the wall for ages regarding monetisation. Build a bridge.

At the end of the day, it's just a fucking game.

 

[ready_load$81]

I don't get these articles nor the comments. "Microtransactions? BURN IN HELL ACTIVISON!!!"

This has been a part of gaming for years. If you don't like it, don't buy it, you crybaby pissant sh&tbirds.

 

[BRZ]

The continued drama about a game that hasn't even released.

First -> the completely unfounded "blizzard will use the same monetization model that they used for a free mobile game for the next full Diablo game despite no evidence of that with 10 years of Diablo 3"

Blizzard then hints, comments and then eventually posts a long statement repeatedly stating "this is not a P2W game, players can't buy power, repeat, repeat, repeat"

Then we have this nonsense, "wah, wah, I want to play a game for 10+ years with online services, 4 seasons a year with new content, changes and improvements for only the initial price and then I want to prevent the developer from receiving any additional revenue for cosmetics because?" If Blizzard gives me a better/longer supported product because some people are happy throwing cash at cosmetics in a game, how is this a bad thing?

Why is this so hard, don't like the game, don't like the business model, don't buy/play it.

 

[WereCatf]

Then we have this nonsense, "wah, wah, I want to play a game for 10+ years with online services, 4 seasons a year with new content, changes and improvements for only the initial price and then I want to prevent the developer from receiving any additional revenue for cosmetics because?"

Do point out where anyone demanded such, I'll wait.

 

[sedrosken]

As far as I'm concerned, Blizzard's dead to me. I haven't actually bought anything from them in a long time.

Wait, scratch that. I bought Diablo II Resurrected so I could play that with some friends, as in preparation for that launch they killed off the Battle.net servers for the original game and setting up private servers is a user-unfriendly process for my non-technically-inclined friends.

Imagine that, I bought a re-release of the game because they broke the original release intentionally, ostensibly to drive sales. You can't tell me they couldn't have left the old Battle.net server infrastructure up.

 

[torkya_titzoff]

You cant play D3 as and when you want without battle.net. Playing alone still requires you to connect to their servers and takes the game away whenever they schedule maintenance on battle.net. I want to know how long after D4 is released before they shut down D3.

 

[LoveIt]

I don't understand why people think this game is going to have problems with buying power. Everyone pretty much knew Diablo Immortal was going to be pay-to-win. That doesn't mean Diablo 4 will be also. They are completely different game types. Diablo Immortal is mainly a mobile game so yeah pay-to-win. Diablo 4 is a PC AAA game not even in the same class of games.

P.S. If Diablo 4 has anything even close to loot boxes it will kill the game for a lot of people.

 

[disarmyouwitha]

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.

Go play Diablo3 -- you wont regret it. =]

 

[amishistheanswer]

There are exceptions to the rule, the article specifically states one of them. Path of Exile has been running for over 8 years and there's still no pay to win transactions, there are a few quality of life and lots of comsetics but the devs continually develop the free to play game.

Too bad most of their "development" the last 2 years has ruined the fun and made it a much worse game.. Ever since the Betrayal crap it's not been a fun game. I would have enjoyed it 50 times more if I could play it offline, and cheat my ass off before they broke it. I gave them way too much money in the past and I wish I could take it back.

 

[aikouka]

I spent around $600 in Overwatch in a little over 18 months and that was the thing that knocked me out of ever paying for microtransactions again. Good on them for taking the cosmetics out of a slot machine, has there been any studies on if a shop makes more than loot boxes for microtransactions or is it just to get away from the child gambling stink?

I'll admit that I can run into a bit of a FOMO problem at times, and I had a similar -- albeit, not as expensive -- experience with Overwatch. For me, the problem was solely with the time-limited seasonal cosmetics as those could only be found in the seasonal loot boxes, which were only attainable during that specific three-week period of the year. For quite a while, there was also no way to purchase seasonal cosmetics via in-game currency (credits), but an option was eventually added to purchase old seasonal cosmetics for 3x the rate. I used to purchase one or two 50-packs of loot boxes each event just to get everything until I realized, "I don't even use this stuff. Why am I doing this?"

Given that I have to be wary of my own FOMO response, I'm not a huge fan of Battle/Season Passes either. They tend to drum up excitement by having the early leveling process be rather short, which is combined with having far more rewards per set of levels. I wouldn't mind them nearly as much if there wasn't a time limit, but that limit is only there to push for a higher engagement frequency (i.e. get them to log in daily).

As a whole, directly purchased cosmetic microtransactions don't usually bother me much, but I think that's as long as the paid vs. free content feels balanced enough, and the cosmetics don't feel out of place in the universe. In other words, don't be like those fantasy MMOs that introduce cars as mounts. One aspect that I think can make DLC hard to deal with is that we don't really know about the machinations behind the scenes. For example, what budget is paying for the DLC's creation? Is the DLC's creation being used to fill in the time for specific groups (i.e. the art team is at a lull)? I don't know.

 

[Jurrasic]

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.

I don't want 'seasons'. I don't want 'microtransactions'. I want a game to goddamn play on launch, that's all.