That’s nice to hear. I supposed the seasonal pass because DI implements it and maybe could be a way. Making multiple expansions could solve, but how frenquently and how much would add could become complicated (the design for WoW and hearthstone aren’t that amazing, at least on my point of view), diablo having a more “spaced” timeframe like 1 year to 2 years could be a decent timeframe for expansions(also helping to build bundles and at least one sale between expansions), to keep the game fresh and have a nice revenue. The gap between the expansions it’s what I would consider worrying if they need to lean to 2 year range, if they focus on less than a 1 year range would have several content that could generate a “burn in” or “too fast pace” if you consider that they could keep the game fresh with seasons like they done on d3.
So base game price, a decent interval between expansions but with expansions with a nice content and the cosmetic thing could be great approach. If they keep the game fresh enough and the expansions have enough content they could sell well to keep “nice cashflow” at least for a year, the rest could solved with costume. That’s why I even considered some stuff they do on asia on d3 or just consider the battle pass like DI, we could see if the DI would work out the battle pass without generating power.
My point of view DI would be a nice way they gauge about monetization and new ways to “get it”.
What you wrote is the perfect indication of everything that is wrong with the videogame industry. That being said, however, I do applaud marketing people for doing a great job. They’ve managed to achieve their main goal: Made people believe that a videogame is not just a finished product, that you sell once for a fixed price. I just don’t have the desire to go point by point and debunk everything you wrote there, because its been done over9000 times by now. And all of it is on the internet.
TL:DR: Making a pure cashgrab (D:I) or injecting MTX in a B2P product, like DIV is total bs and exactly what is wrong with the videogame industry.
Right, which is total bs. Marketing bs. I just don’t understand, how you, people, even believe stuff like that. What the actual heck. MTX are not optional. MTX = something was removed from a finished product on purpose and sold separately. That is all there is to it.
One could draw an infinite amount of parallels with any RL product/item, that isn’t a cashgrab. You know what a real cosmetic option would be? You can have this item EASILY and for free OR you could buy it, if you want to give us some extra support. That would be an option. Those “options” aren’t optional. And they ruin the game industry, by chopping the games up and selling everything separately. End of story.
Do you remember the reveal of D3? I, mean, the gameplay. The barb in sort of a dark dungeon. I do.
No, they’ll pocket the money and be done with it.
All of them? Because they have to make all of the money? Because shareholders, not the CEO? There will be no money left. There isn’t such a thing as “leftover” money in an investement business. Anything extra is instantly pocketed.
Well, tbh I know the feeling. But the way that folks “consume” content changed also. Earlier days most of us didn’t had internet availability and the market was really small comparated with other markets. Games left the area were “immutable” products either good or bad, to become something like a “service” or at least some kind of “mix of game, social and competition” with more aims towards newer experiences and group experiences. If you consider that kind of trend got more popular with MMORPG, then later got more popular on MOBA and recently got “revamped” with the “popularization” of “battle royale” based games.
Those games needed several updates and content to keep fresh because their “purpose” were really “simple” and didn’t had much appealing for “replayability”. Also those “genres” didn’t had anything new. Games from 80’s and 90’s had those stuff with smaller scales or using IA instead of players.
I agree that today’s industry standard it’s reduce the quality to produce a ton of products. Very few games are really polished enough to be considered a “polished games” at their release. That’s a great problem that started with “Flash games era” and got more popular with “mobile games”. If you consider also the number of programmers on the market and how much knowledge they have, most of the languages these days makes the produtivity go really high with the price of really poor programing methodology, most of programmers that uses some kind of “garbage collector language” by example will think they don’t need to dispose/release memory because the garbage collector will, most of the times, solve the issue. That’s a bad thing if you want achieve performance, stability and optimization but could save several hours of programing(because would make the logic behind it really more simple). Making money in the market it’s the most common thing, so if you can save time and get some money in the pocket, maybe later you could solve the problems or just ignore them til you get a point that you couldn’t.
It’s the way that world works, not only on game or tech, but in everything.
I used the example of garbage collector because I saw several doctors saying that their students didn’t needed to take that in mind on most of the scenarios, most of them didn’t cared about explain why would be important to use things like “dispose/free” memory. Most of their students didn’t had any proper knowledge where the garbage collector would work and where wouldn’t, small programs with some memory leaks in about 4 hours in loop could eat like 16gb easily, which their original code would need like 50-150mb. I saw that kind of stuff a lot as graduate student and working on IT for several years.
Most of the small things get “forgotten” for the sake of “produtivity” where most of the time the issue would be solved with like 1-2 code lines on earlier stages and about 10-300 code lines on later stages, but the time spent to identify and know why put those lines would make the software spend at least a month-year without release. That’s the problem, today standards it’s more about “new stuff” with really “fast pace”. That’s why I think they should make newer content(like expansions) with less “frequent” pace but those content really worth to wait. So in the space between they would need something to keep the “cash flow”.
Tbh, the older way to do stuff wouldn’t work these days. The competition and the dynamic of the market it’s too “competitive” that forced those changes. That’s why the last years indies got really nice movement on the market. Take the smarphone production, in less than a year most of the devices wouldn’t be “groundbreaking” tech. Same happened in several sectors of technology. Today’s “industry” it’s really fast paced, but eventually would need to “slow down”. That’s why most of the softwares producers wouldn’t mind to make anything really “optimized” because will appear more robust hardware down the road to solve the issue, while they could optimize later after the launch.
It’s really bad scenario, but there are too many consumers out there that will consume that content in this pace or at least some would get the new product as part their “own” recycle cycle. Always will be somebody who would buy that stuff because, someone would need the tech. The market self-sustain but doesn’t mean that the same players will be always on top.
It’s a nice point of view, that’s why I said the battle pass (reduce amount of time or increase the odds, not guarantee anything, just a small buff to compensate players who couldn’t play much each day). About cosmetic they could do that too, make limited event(age of empires 3 de have that right now, you can unlock the new US civ or buy it if you don’t want spend like 17-19 days to it for a limited time). There are several ways to reach that kind of stuff. There are several tools to keep something fresh, seasons are one of those. Some games use a system like “daily/weekly” events that could give you rewards, those events could provide the same benefit from those battle passes by example. Maybe battle pass provide you like 7 items of x% more xp and y% more drop rate, while those daily/weekly quests could provide the same amount but would take some time each day/week being optional.
My goal it’s if they plan expansions, at least make those expansions a “solid” content and for that they would need at least a year for it. Considering they plan to keep the support for several years. So the time between those expansions could be “compensated” by battle passes and cosmetic items that could be bought by money or spending some time in the game doing activities. I wouldn’t bother having something behind a paywall if that thing doesn’t give you power, because several games and IRL things do that, like cars and things that have different prices if you pick a different color by example.
MTX =/= DLC. DLC can be part of mtx, but not every mtx is a DLC.
There are some companies that indeed do what you said (release unfinished product, sell the rest as DLC), but at least regarding Blizz cosmetic mtx, that is rarely ever the case.
Cosmetic MTX is optional when people don’t buy it. D4 isn’t going to force you to buy an armor skin or a mount skin or whatever they have etc - for those that need to preen like a peacock with the latest skins and the purposefully-bland default skins don’t do it for them, then they can buy that cosmetic stuff. Again, of course it’s optional because I probably won’t be buying it.
On top of that, this will be Diablo’s first cosmetic mtx in NA and EU regions with China the only region having them prior. We obviously have no idea what they will do in NA and EU until they do it. Some games do cosmetic mtx right. Some don’t. Stating that you think D4 will get it wrong is fine but there’s no factual basis for that position given this will be the first mtx in Diablo NA and EU regions etc.
On visuals, there is a ton of footage and gameplay out there on D4 now. With that and the “Return to Darkness” theme it’s very clear messaging to D2 and POE that they’re taking a serious gritty visual tack rather than D3’s highly-stylized look. The art director also comments about the style in this article - it’s obvious from the theme they are countering the long-running POE marketing blitz of “We will never be cartoony like D3”. They are taking that arrow from POE’s quiver.
On recurring revenue models - there is a direct correlation between Blizzard games with strong recurring revenue and more frequent content. It’s that simple. If the game has no recurring revenue model like D3 in the last 6 years, no major content, If it has recurring revenue like HS card expansions, or WoW subs, etc then yes, lots of new content. It’s an A-to-B relation for many Blizz games.
You’re also missing the point about business in some ways - by going into maintenance mode like they did with D3 for 6 years, they lose community to POE etc and this is harder to come back from with D4. By making more expansions through either a seasonal pass with 3 DLCs in D4 (something I haven’t seen mentioned) or by doing expansions one at a time (something they have mentioned) every few years they keep a much stronger playerbase with more numbers up through the time of the next major Diablo version. They also lose a ton of revenue, well into the 100s of millions by not releasing expansions or having recurring revenue for popular franchises - it’s just bad business (unless they’re struggling with quality content).
Without a recurring revenue model, a game is just going to go into maintenance mode that much quicker. So labeling certain models as “total bs” is kind of self-contradictory for people that want substantial content following release. (The Kotick yacht mention was saracastic humor btw.)
You, players, as videogame players are beyond any redemption now. I can only applaud the marketing for the amazing brainshwashing skills.
Here is an example of a game for you: Chess. No cosmetics needed, no dlc, no new content needed or wanted by the players. Not even the balance changes. No changes for the sake of making a change. Or just because some devs came up with a “brilliant” idea. Thousands of years old, has a dedicated playerbase. Don’t like chess?
Here is another example of what a game, including a digital version (videogame too), is: Draughts. I could go on, the list of games is really long.
What “aaa” videogame industry, and even lots of indie companies, are trying to offer you, are money milking machines disguised as videogames. Sad.
P.S.: Yes, yes, there are lots of videogames, that are actual videogames. Old or older good games are the legenedary titles by now. Diablo I and II are among them.
You may be susceptible to it. I’m not. I didn’t hear nor read anything regarding these marketing. I came up with my opinion all by my own.
And how often do you play it? How often do other people play it compare to video games? How much does it cost to maintain its server, dev team, etc? Oright. It doesn’t have any.
You should get on with the times. If you want to act all moral superiority over some opinion difference, I’m sure I have more cards up my sleeves, that you’re simply entitled and want everything given to you (note, not talking about DLC contents, which, as it came up, can be part of unfinished product. talking about cosmetic mtx here), that you’re naive, or lack self control.
I rather Activision-Blizz not pull the plug, cut support, abandon D4 after some years.
I’m not susceptible to all of it either, obviously. I see it for what it is. You can’t argue, that the marketing doesn’t use any possible known trick, using psychology, to try and force the player to buy something in a videogame. I mean, all the “discounts” on purely digital items lmao or “limited time offer”. Its so disgusting, that it is funny. Nothing exclusive, limited, whatsoever, as stated above, in a couple of lines of a code, database entries or even a 3d model. Worse, if they decide to make the grind unimaginable, unless you’ll pay money.
I prefer games like Stratego tbh. But, that is beside the point. Point is, I am playing games a lot. Different games.
More than you’d think. If the rules, as in balance, patch notes, content, whatever else isn’t changing, you can say, that the game is probably skill based over time. And highly competitive. And there are plenty of very highly competitive games. So, the community spreads, or divides into lots of smaller communities. And people are playing those games a lot. More than anybody can imagine. Esp games like Poker for example.
The server maintenance is a self inflicted cost by the industry. Nobody needs the game to be online only, forever, and with incredible servers. There are LAN and TCP/IP games. There are other ways to play games through a network, without having a dedicated server, like letting one of the players host the game, using just an internet connection. Or let the players create their own dedicated servers. Centralized servers are not a must, period. Unless, you want them, as a developer and you design your game to exclusively be that way.
Dev team… Are you naive? The major part of the cost of a “aaa” videogame aren’t the devs.
On top of that, if a game is really good as a game, it needs no further changes and no more content. No patches. Its a finished product. It will have endless replayability. Like legendary videogames do.
I am.
I just want a good product. A videogame, that is an actually good game.
Ah, it will happen whether you like/want it or not. DIV won’t make so much money, that it’ll stay on top for a long time. I predict, more or less, something like the DIII scenario (maybe not as fast and catastrophic), regardless of how good or bad the service will be. Plus, even, if it will, it will become bad, because a panda expansion will come into it sooner or later.
What I’m saying, we have WoW as an example of a game, that is alive since 2004. It doesn’t look good, it doesn’t look promising. Regardless of little details, personal opinions, etc. It is the objective reality as it is. People won’t stay in WoW or DIV forever, no matter what content, dlc, cosmetics, whatsoever you’ll offer them. And the biggest indication of the fact, that people don’t really want lots of changes in their own “good game”, that they actually enjoy, are the WoW Legacy Servers now. Just look at all the hype around them and how many people actually played/tried Classic out. No, constant changes and content updates even every 2 years is not something people want in the games. History (of WoW) shows it quite clearly.
I never considered DI as part of the factor. I just looked at each game separately. But DI could be like the WoW of the mid 2000s allowing Blizzard to funnel funds to other games where needed.
I stated back at the 2019 reveal that I believe the D4 team has some assurances for future expansions built it. Partly due to how they alluded to Diablo not even being in the main game and possibly being pushed of to an expansion. Citing how bad it feels to beat the biggest bad only to have an expansion release and we fight some other chump.
I believed from those comments and the reveal of the whole world map of Sanctuary, with D4 only taking place in 1/3-1/4 of it, that they have at least a main game and 2 expansions guaranteed. This thread brought up some forgotten points about RoS and how well it did, and how Blizz pulled the plug before seeing the reception, along with the possibility of DI helping fund all Diablo related products, firmly cements my belief that D4 will see at minimum 2 expansions, and quite possibly could be seeing content for a decade. By content, I mean expansions.
Of course. And it’s on each person to decide whether they think the shinies are worth the cost or not. If they think they’re obliged to buy it or feel the urge to get them all, that’s on them.
So does all gamers, fans. Cosmetic mtx has little to do with it though.
Not that I keep every track of WoW expansion popularity, sub numbers and all that, but I doubt MoP was as bad as some people think. Was more a knee jerk reaction because of that KungFu Panda, still is now, I would say. Blizz just wanted to expand to China~ (this was before this whole China fiasco started so).
Yes, recently, at least from what I heard from hearsay, not when MoP came out and the other WoW-is-dying.
I beg to differ. Players who can play the same content over and over again are a minority. Majority of players want some tweaks here and there from time to time. WoW classic was more about nostalgia, and players wanting a change of pace/content from the retail version. They’re asking for tBC now, and will ask for WotLK as well (as in, they do want changes, and will move on once their nostalgia is satiated).
When the devs focus on mtx n stuff, instead of the game itself, it influences the game a lot.
Yeah, it depends on mtx, some would say. But when game is designed from the ground up, with the mtx in mind, it just won’t be as enjoyable. Because it’ll be too grindy, or restricitve, or whatever. The extreme case of killing everything a game is, just for the sake of mtx, are ofc some mobile titles. Not even the DI, no. Haven’t even looked at DI yet, but we all know what the industry can do. (ea).
WoW won’t ever die. Just like any good game, or at least a game, that people/players percieve as a good one. Chess is case in point, once a game exists and has its audience - it isn’t going to die. For the “digital” ip, unless the devs, or more like, the holders of the rights want to kill it off, (for awhile too, cause what was it with the rights? 40-60-80 years or smth?) it will also exist forever. Remakes and reworks are the examples of that (Blackthorn hehe). Even, if the company, as a creator, doesn’t exist anymore, there are enthusiats, who’ll code the game to support all the modern platforms, etc and make it open source. Which is the case with pretty much all the good games I remember since my childhood.
I’d say its the other way around. Blizzard became aware of all the pirate servers of the olders expansion with tens of millions of accounts across them. Even, if an average player has 10 accounts, those are still millions of players, who love their particular version of WoW. Be it TBC, WoTLK, Cata or whatever else. And, yes, people are playing the season 8 in WoTLK (or analogue) for years. Just like people love and play CS1.6 or any other popular multiplayer shooters. Quakers? Anybody? hehe. So, yeah, those are and will be played forever.
One of the weird things that warps all these discussions is the arguments about whether it’s millions of a few hundred thousands playing these servers. It’s millions and it’s still chump change. Blizzard doesn’t concern itself with a few million players. The gaming market has grown much bigger than that and I’m not sure gamers have fully understood that. You’re quite right. If people wouldn’t play the same content over and over Electronic Arts would have quit making sports games with almost no changes except rosters.
It was maybe 500k-1M at best estimates. But all meaningless since they were playing for free. I have my doubts that all of them would have paid to play and that was proven by WoW classic. Sure it launched big, but it’s practically dead these days. So much for 10s of millions.
Agreed.
We dont really need endless content in some Games as a Service scheme.
Just deliver a good game.
That said, I am not against new content. Some expansions and DLCs are completely fine.
It is just also completely fine that the game is “finished” after a while and dont get more new content.
Then take all those devs, and put them to work on a new game.
Yeah.
I dont mind cosmetic MTX in theory. But sadly, the existence of MTX in a game usually changes the game. For the worse.
Marketing? I said what I hope for, because I’m realistic not utopic. Check where D1 and D2 are right now, D2 become life support for several years and D1 it’s on GoG. Even after several years they didn’t pleased every one and if the game was perfect as “complete game” folks wouldn’t do “mods” on it to solve bugs or offer a newer/different experience, because even if the game it’s great becomes boring after some years and folks want changes to improve it, if there is no money. The mod community will try to keep it alive or the game will stay static and never change til the company try again. I not saying the game was bad but the “overall” improvement post launch becomes with a price of being financially viable to maintain, when the money wasn’t sufficient they kept on life support or goes to oblivion. Several “3rd party” d2 servers were created and had monetization systems behind “donate”, it’s nothing new that to keep things working there is a price to be paid(money, time, skills or/and other stuff).
D3 suffered the same fate, they still provide updates for the game, but their support become really smaller and slower because the team behind in it reduced, because surprisingly the money it’s elsewhere. I wouldn’t even begin to argue about the D2R deal with D3, because it’s a “bundle” to sell cosmetics and give away d3 pratically free. Several folks bought it, because they care about the cosmetics. Just check each blizzard franchise and you see the pattern on “selling” cosmetic add-ons. That’s being realistic not daydreaming about things that were in the past as if they were perfect to begin with.
Chess has several variations and “customized” editions that folks pay premium price for the same experience, like glass pieces and thematic pieces. So yeah, the example of the car colors still holds true. Change the colors or make fancier folks will pay for it, others will not. So the “Cosmetic thing” it’s a thing even on chess, some pay some not, who pays gets it.
You tried to put all 3 on the same “argument” of yours, but you mistaken about what each one of us said to “satisfy” your point of view.
I never said was a good thing, I just said that’s a pattern “industry” as whole. It’s not a “new thing”, it’s like RGB on PC doesn’t provide anything(except fps - pun intended) and folks would pay more for that. Another example? Any kind of clothing has brands some would charge premium some not, even if the both products are entirely same and made by the same machine or folk. That’s it, market works that way if you don’t like it, well you could not buy but doesn’t mean someone wouldn’t. That’s the whole point, it’s not to defense of company X, it’s just a “rash” reality that I accepted that happens in the industry at it’s core. You can try use any kind example you like, but each one of them I can get a example of the same/similar product doing the same like:
Checkers Premium
Draughts Pro
Draughts
Checkers Puzzles - Free Draughts Task
Checkers Free
Checkers Land Online
Most of the changes between them are:
Sound effects, appearance and pricing/monetization.
So even with your own “arguments” I proved that you’re wrong about Draughts example by just searching about a 3 minutes on a popular mobile store. At least against my arguments.
It is, but what makes the company run it’s money. Nobody works for free in this world, because everybody wants something from it’s work. Modding community isn’t exception either, most of them works on them to get more experience and improve their skills while doing something they enjoy, some even put donate area to get some money from it, some even give you something in return to keep more folks doing it (being less a donate and more like a real money trade).
There are several great games and more new great games will be released in the future. Some games will live short lives while others will live for several years, what would make that difference will be “quality”, “support”, “improvements” and “new content”. Take any game if they have 1 one of those they will live a bit, if they have 2 will live a bit more, if they have 3 most likely will be success, if they have 4 they will live to became a great game.
Diablo 2 had all those 4, until the money wasn’t enough to keep the last 2-3. That’s why Draugh and chess have a ton of games in several plataforms, because some will offer more or less of those things. But in the end most of those games will die because they wouldn’t have enough money to maintain.
That’s why I said:
Expansions improves sales but if there is nothing to keep the game selling, the game will become like D2 and D3. Having Cosmetic and something that don’t provide power could keep the cashflow to keep the game fresh(quality, support and improvement) while they preparing a expansion(new content).
If D2 Vanilla wasn’t received expansion, most likely half or more of their playerbase wouldn’t play. Like folks these days wouldn’t play if mods wouldn’t be allowed. Why the expasion happened? Because they made a ton of money. Why mods become a thing? Because the game lacked of improvements and new content.
I really get your point, but the problem it’s your point it’s to “naive” and “utopic”. The world doesn’t work that way, it’s better to accept that what runs the world it’s money. If you want something to stay “longer periods of time” you need money to keep it fresh. Sadly it’s the reality in this world. There is no such thing of “perfect product” or “perfect way to get money” there are some “aggressive” ways and more “acceptable” ways. I said options that could “make things more acceptable” to reach what I wanted “long support, improvements, quality and new content”.
I think they trying several design and monetization strategies to see what makes most of the folks “happier” without hurting the longevity of the game. Also testing things that were good on previous games. If some things get good on DI most likely will be implemented on D4 either on release or afterwards. They pick things that are great from previous games and try to improve it and add newer experiences. That’s why their argument “not selling power” maybe it’s the way to do, maybe it’s not. Either way they need to change their monetization system, because RMAH wasn’t great and the D2 didn’t had great system either to keep the cash flow. If there is no cash there is no service to keep things fresh.
If they take their time to do the right stuff (expansions and maybe DLC) and get some cash between those releases without imposing it for everybody, being optional (like cosmetic and maybe some kind of battle pass or some kind of non-aggressive monetization) I wouldn’t mind because would mean they wouldn’t rush the new content to get some money to end it in a proper way. That’s my whole argument about “future” monetization system possibilities, I think they done a smart move to try it out on DI and see what will happen.
First, at the start of RoS the game sold pathetically low. While Vanilla D3 sold over 14 million over the first year, RoS sold merely 2.7 on release, and I’d say there are various reasons for that.
Later down the line RoS sold more, despite being in a rather poor state (major exploits every freaking season, cheaters, botters and whatnot)…
So around 14.5 million bought the Vanilla + the expansion pack, some banned users bought the game again… whoopty doo…
So you’re comparing the number of active WoW subscribers, that pay monthly to D3 copies sold… why in the world would you do that, it’s nonsensical beyond belief.
RoS was everything but solid. It’s just, that people who got tricked into buying Vanilla D3, based on Blizzard’s reputation and based on all manner of lies and false advertisement… they later hoped, that RoS will help them get their money’s worth, as Vanilla D3 was completely gutted and there’s nothing to do in it, so you might as well buy RoS and have a game.
Interestingly enough, I’d say RoS is a solid game nowadays (especially due to the decline of so many games and franchises, as well as to some major improvements to RoS over the years), but I wouldn’t say RoS was solid back when it came out.
Why does a Diablo game need constant updates and features? A good Diablo game, D2 being the best example, can function perfectly fine without major updates, as long as it’s… well, good game.
As to RoS, I don’t understand why someone would want more updates and features. I’d like to see some balance patches and for the game to settle in a similar fashion as to how D2 settled since the content patches stopped.
Also, I absolutely blame the D3 developers and the so called creative staff for wasting resources on Trials, Set Dungeons, Challenge Rifts and other completely braindead and useless features and activities in D3, as I’m sure those resources could have been dedicated to better itemization, skill system and overall progression structure.
Can’t be, objectively. There is no way to please everyone with anything. It will never happen.
Most of them are bad tho. As usual, 99% of all the mods are just bad.
Correct, some folks want. Most do not, because there are other games to play and have fun with. There is only so much time a human being has to play the games. The upper limit is 24hours in a day. And nobody has to exclusively play the same game forever, without even trying out other games. If a person chooses to only play one game - its on them.
Well, for one it is somewhat irrelevant, if anything, just shows, that the game is good enough, so that people play it. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure it’s illegal. Pretty sure a person is not allowed to make any money with somebody’s else intellectual property. Unless they have a special license or some other sort of an agreement with Blizzard. Which is, ofc, not the case. So, we won’t discuss or take criminals seriously.
D3 is playable and good enough as it is. Same with D2. If somebody wants to buy cosmetics, again, that is on them. It doesn’t make it good or right for the industry to milk the customers.
Yes, this is why I said “needed” there. And, that money won’t go into any futher development, balance or content patches for the chess as a game. Same with videogames. That mtx money, largery, doesn’t go to the devs and it doesn’t help to keep the game alive, whatsoever. Are you aware of that?
Yeah and none of that money is going to be reinvested into any of those games as games. You won’t get any additional content, whatsoever there. Which is the point. You said it yourself, above, its just industry making money. So why do you even argue with me at this point?
Ofc, just largely not the overpriced mtx money, from mtx that ruin the game for the players.
Yes, usually satisfaction and the creative process in the videogame industry. Those poor devs, however, don’t see the money from mtx and don’t get rich off it. Shareholders do.
Also, if you want to discuss this huge topic, we’d have to go into psychology and stuff. Suffice to say, that not all the people are working just to make money. Some unlucky folks, who don’t really have a choice do. They’re usually stuck at a dead end job with a miserable salary at the start of their careers. But it doesn’t apply to the videogame industry. Because milking games makes insane amounts of money. And that money doesn’t go to pay the devs when they’re creating the game, whatsoever. Because the game doesn’t even exist yet, so ofc it doesn’t make any money. And those people are paid by the investors, to create something, that mostly the invenstors think, will make them a lot of money. This isn’t about videogames as videogames tho. Investors see it as a product, that will milk you, so a good opportunity to invest the money. Actual devs, usually, aren’t even really satisfied.
And they’re not overpaid for sure. lmao.
This isn’t true at the core. What drives people is the motivation and desire to make the world a better place. Doesn’t mean, that there aren’t systems in place to exploit that. And exploit people for money. It also isn’t a guarantee, that any system can’t become corrupt and destroy itself.
So what all the text above was about? You contradict yourself with some specific points. Ah, whatever. Not all the people want new content. Anyway, point is, the mtx money, most of it anyway, will never be used and go towards the
And the major point is: No, the industry doesn’t need mtx to make money. That is a lie. To support and improve on their games. That is marketing bs. mtx, that milk customers just make the shareholders richer and that is all. Devs don’t get extra bonuses or higher salary, because of mtx. They don’t get a % of the sales either. No royalties.
You invest to make a good videogame, you make a good videogame, you sale a lot of copies and make money off that. Money, that will go towards the shareholders, the improvements, the patches, the new content. If they would choose to reinvest. They usually don’t. Making and supporting videogames is not actually as expensive as people claim it is. Worst case mtx make a company billions. Those billions will never be reinvested into the game itself. Its a scam, not a videogame. Deal with it.
We could discuss mtx in a purely f2p game. That’d be something different. But not in B2P or even B2P + sub payments, like WoW.
My comment about it, it’s some charge behind donate stuff to keep the work up for most folks. The same comment happens to suit the illegal servers also. Most of the modded are related to that kind of thing.
I agree, but still expansions made both D2 and D3 way better, so those new content also created improvements. Earlier posts I said about season and some things keep the game fresh to get newer content like expansions. D3 had plans for 2 expansions ended being 1 expansion and one dlc.
I agree.
Most doesn’t go to devs, but can make the company to keep investing in it. If something keeps providing money often they will keep investing in it. That’s why I said about those optional pricing to keep some revenue to make them keep their eyes on the game
Sometimes are, in infrastructure and some kind of feature that gets some refinement after some cash in. Like servers better matchmaking and stuff that could translate better overall performance/stability. Could also motivate to create events like leagues/tournaments.
Almost aways, but doesn’t mean that if there are cash they couldn’t it’s better having a chance to have than not the resources when needed. Doesn’t mean that I agree with abusive pricing and p2w(power). I think it’s fine sell “costume” or “provide more casual friendly deals” if the structure of the game permits a “healthy” system around it. Other than that leaves the “gray zone” for “abusive zone”.
The “free” part was about some “reward” either money or any other kind of compensation. I know that most of the money will go to hands of folks who doesn’t even know what the product does. I know that, but making huge amount of money could guarantee that those devs and other folks related to the project could stay working in the project after the release of the product. Because if make money in their pockets they will try to keep the “milk” going until the cow depletes. So, often means that product would receive more attention because it’s a “good” product for their pockets.
On industry it is, sadly it is. Because even if a person spend 5 years in their “off-work time” to create a game, if sells well can open doors for them to keep working more in the project. If not their product will be forgotten in a few months. Most of the plataforms have some kind of “exploitative” structure to demotivate those kind of projects and even if they reach something often will need to lift some barriers to get to the customers. That’s why most of indie developers get funds for their projects from several sources
In this point, was about most of the games are released with one to four those features (quality, support, improvements and new content). After some time those features become obsolete or not optimal for the game.
Quality: means how polished the game is and how well design it is
Support: it’s how well they solve issues and provide support for their customers, Improvements: are part from support, better quality of life for the game and/or some optimization like reduction of filesizes, better loadings, hotkeys, more flexibility of gameplay, game balance, better learning curve.
New content: expansion, dlc, some region, some class, raise level cap, some feature, some event.
I agree when the product lives like 1-3 years, after that there is no game in the world that sells well without anything that improves it, either expansion, dlc, or newer content. I talking about long living products. Not something that will go discarded in 1-3 years. I’m talking about a thing that lives at least 5-10 years.
Energy, servers, folks to solve problems, folks to deal with customers, folks to create something new, all of those cost “monthly”/“year” for the company. If the revenue it’s not enough or good enough to keep the cash flow to make that effort better than create something new, sadly that project get forgotten and they will start the next project. Expansions and DLC are projects that could increase the life of that product that has a nice revenue. Other than that it’s better to go and make a new product without any kind of “strings” with it.
There are several MTX forms, most of them are bad. I didn’t focused in that kind of thing, none of my posts did. Battle pass and cosmetic can happen outside that spectrum. Like the game provide a battle pass that helps folks who couldn’t play much to keep the same pace as everyone, not on powers but with improved odds like 5-10% improvements on xp ratio or gold ratio or mf ratio for X minutes and those things could be obtained doing some stuff in the game. That or just sell shiny cosmetic stuff in game that could bought with some credits obtainable also in the game or by purchase by money. Those things and also stuff they already does like “deluxe” “premium” “collection” things if they only gives you as “cosmetic” not power.
Those are acceptable forms of get money, but doesn’t mean they should. I would gladly accept if they do that to keep games running between new releases or expansion/dlc. If the expansion take like 2 years. If the expansion doesn’t get enough money from it, having any kind of system that makes money between the next expansion could make them give a shot to another add-in content either another expansion or dlc. At least on blizzard’s case, because most of their games are “kept” supported for at least 5-10 years.
Neither D2 and D3 had great revenue after 1-2 years their expansions were released. After that their sales kept decreasing and their costs kept the same or increased. Most kept the same because they didn’t wanted to reinvest on infrastructure for it.
Again, I not in favor of any kind of “abusive” marketing. But I hope the game keeps being supported for several years. That or at least they don’t make us wait more 10 years for another interaction on the franchise. So my goal it’s to think about viable options to keep the game alive after 3-4th year, where most of their games goes to life support stage and we don’t get another new game for 6-7 years.
Before the March 2014 ROS release, Diablo 3 total sales are ~ 15 million at start of 2014. https://diablo.somepage.com/news/1785-diablo-iii-sales-break-15-million
After the ROS release, numbers for August 2014: Diablo 3 and ROS have combined sales of 20 million copies. 5 million additional copies sold in just first half of 2014. https://gamingbolt.com/diablo-3-sells-20-million-units-activision-blizzard-revenue-at-658-million-for-past-quarter
Further post-ROS numbers for June 30, 2015: Diablo III and Reaper of Souls have combined sales of 30 million copies. This is 10 million more than the previous year and ~15 million additional copies sold since start of 2014, roughly doubling the overall D3 numbers after ROS release. https://www.diabloii.net/blog/comments/diablo-iii-30-million-copies-sold
Numbers Summary:
D3V launch through start of 2014: 15 million.
Post-ROS: 15 million additional for total 30 million by mid-2015.
So thanks for posting something so inaccurate that it motivated me to update the main OP Also, the WoW numbers aren’t for comparison to D3 on uniques or subs - those games have totally different revenue models. They are there for year-on-year numbers within that franchise to compare that to D3’s franchise YOY numbers. And that’s where the insights are, in addition to D3 ROS being the headliner of that particular year’s report.
And again, after ROS sales blew the lid off of expectations, this success had many in gaming media expecting another expansion, ex:
“With these kinds of numbers, another expansion or two is almost guaranteed” https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/08/05/believe-it-or-not-diablo-3-is-now-the-10th-best-selling-video-game-of-all-time
The biggest takeaway is that senior management decided in late 2013 early 2014, before ROS released, to cancel the 2nd expansion and pull the plug. They did this without even waiting for ROS to release to see the numbers. https://www.kotaku.com.au/2019/11/the-past-present-and-future-of-diablo/
But as we now know, canceling this 2nd expansion was a colossal blunder. Post-ROS literally doubled the overall D3 platform sales in 18 months. The 2nd expansion would have sold well based on those numbers. In other posts, I’ve already talked at length about Josh M and crew turning the game around with ROS - it’s likely they would have continued this momentum with the next expansion but they were never given the chance.
Also, the WoW numbers aren’t for comparison to D3 on uniques or subs - those games have totally different revenue models. They are there for year-on-year numbers within that franchise to compare that to D3’s franchise YOY numbers. And that’s where the insights are, in addition to D3 ROS being the headliner of that particular year’s report.