|
On August 17 2022 03:41 Manit0u wrote: if the sales go well start developing an expansion that you'll also sell at box price (but now development time and effort is less because core gameplay and assets are already in place). Keep doing that and if you really, really think you need the cash shop then add it later on to add some breath .
massive corps are averse to this kind of on-the-fly decision making.
if you want these kind of development check out indie games like "Risk Of Rain 2". Also, massive corps like ATVI are not satisfied with 10s of millions in revenue. ATVI, EA, etc are looking for BILLIONS. So you'll never get this kind of on-the-fly decision making from ATVI, EA, MS etc.
You might get MS doing on-the-fly decision making for products like Office or MS SQL Server because these are massive products that represent 87 bazillion dollars in current and future revenue. You'll never get MS putting its best software makers on Age Of Empires. They'll be on MS SQL Server ... or some other big revenue generator.
So we know ahead of time what the game of billion dollar revenue game making is all about... govern oneself accordingly.
|
On August 17 2022 23:08 Manit0u wrote:
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO).
I wouldn't call what CA is doing as learning from their mistakes. Almost all Total War new releases are botched releases and I wait roughly a year after release before buying any of their games. Warhammer 3 was really unpolished even by the standards of modern rushed releases. I do spend maybe 80-100 hours per campaign on their games so what DLC I buy, I find it is usually worth it. Civ's non-expansion DLCs are even more expensive than Total War's relative to the content they offer. Civ 6's first expansion didn't add that much either from what I remember. The saving grace is that, unlike CA, they offer bundles. Civ 6 Anthology can be gotten for $30 nowadays when it's on sale and it includes all the DLC from the game.
I really don't mind a cosmetics shop. It helps the developers continue to support the game more and it's money that doesn't come from me. It's pretty standard for any multiplayer games nowadays. If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base.
On August 17 2022 15:14 lestye wrote:
Eh, I’d say D2 was more of a multiplayer game. WIth the drop rates and stuff,you had to trade to get a lot of the items or suffer through awful drop rates. It was a huge part of the game.
D3…..especially with RoS not so much, but you were heavily incentivized to group up given the xp% modifiers.
I believe most of the rare stuff circulating in the D2 online economy is duped or hacked somehow. The drop rates are just too low.
For D3, I don't think it's just the XP% modifiers, pretty sure drop rate is increased in multiplayer games too. And unlike D2, it's not a straight 100% increase in enemy hp for each additional player because of the amounts of leechers and morons online. Blizzard wanted to incentivize grouping and they kept tinkering with the rewards until they achieved it. The last time I played, I believe jumping into a random group of braindead people has better xp gain and drop rate than playing solo.
|
On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2022 23:08 Manit0u wrote:
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO). I wouldn't call what CA is doing as learning from their mistakes. Almost all Total War new releases are botched releases and I wait roughly a year after release before buying any of their games. Warhammer 3 was really unpolished even by the standards of modern rushed releases. I do spend maybe 80-100 hours per campaign on their games so what DLC I buy, I find it is usually worth it. Civ's non-expansion DLCs are even more expensive than Total War's relative to the content they offer. Civ 6's first expansion didn't add that much either from what I remember. The saving grace is that, unlike CA, they offer bundles. Civ 6 Anthology can be gotten for $30 nowadays when it's on sale and it includes all the DLC from the game. I really don't mind a cosmetics shop. It helps the developers continue to support the game more and it's money that doesn't come from me. It's pretty standard for any multiplayer games nowadays. If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. Show nested quote +On August 17 2022 15:14 lestye wrote:
Eh, I’d say D2 was more of a multiplayer game. WIth the drop rates and stuff,you had to trade to get a lot of the items or suffer through awful drop rates. It was a huge part of the game.
D3…..especially with RoS not so much, but you were heavily incentivized to group up given the xp% modifiers. I believe most of the rare stuff circulating in the D2 online economy is duped or hacked somehow. The drop rates are just too low. For D3, I don't think it's just the XP% modifiers, pretty sure drop rate is increased in multiplayer games too. And unlike D2, it's not a straight 100% increase in enemy hp for each additional player because of the amounts of leechers and morons online. Blizzard wanted to incentivize grouping and they kept tinkering with the rewards until they achieved it. The last time I played, I believe jumping into a random group of braindead people has better xp gain and drop rate than playing solo.
Right, its been a few years, I remember a lot of QQ posts on r/diablo about making it more solo friendly, but thats like the one vestige of a drive for community in Diablo 3 so I opposed it.
On August 17 2022 23:08 Manit0u wrote:
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO).
I don't think that's good for a multiplayer game/community anymore. I don't think Paradox/Civilization/Total War is a good example since people play those singleplayer. People want a consistent patch schedule and to not divide the community.
|
On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:
I believe most of the rare stuff circulating in the D2 online economy is duped or hacked somehow. The drop rates are just too low.
No longer the case I think thankfully, seems pretty clean now.
|
On August 18 2022 01:46 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:On August 17 2022 23:08 Manit0u wrote:
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO). I wouldn't call what CA is doing as learning from their mistakes. Almost all Total War new releases are botched releases and I wait roughly a year after release before buying any of their games. Warhammer 3 was really unpolished even by the standards of modern rushed releases. I do spend maybe 80-100 hours per campaign on their games so what DLC I buy, I find it is usually worth it. Civ's non-expansion DLCs are even more expensive than Total War's relative to the content they offer. Civ 6's first expansion didn't add that much either from what I remember. The saving grace is that, unlike CA, they offer bundles. Civ 6 Anthology can be gotten for $30 nowadays when it's on sale and it includes all the DLC from the game. I really don't mind a cosmetics shop. It helps the developers continue to support the game more and it's money that doesn't come from me. It's pretty standard for any multiplayer games nowadays. If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. On August 17 2022 15:14 lestye wrote:
Eh, I’d say D2 was more of a multiplayer game. WIth the drop rates and stuff,you had to trade to get a lot of the items or suffer through awful drop rates. It was a huge part of the game.
D3…..especially with RoS not so much, but you were heavily incentivized to group up given the xp% modifiers. I believe most of the rare stuff circulating in the D2 online economy is duped or hacked somehow. The drop rates are just too low. For D3, I don't think it's just the XP% modifiers, pretty sure drop rate is increased in multiplayer games too. And unlike D2, it's not a straight 100% increase in enemy hp for each additional player because of the amounts of leechers and morons online. Blizzard wanted to incentivize grouping and they kept tinkering with the rewards until they achieved it. The last time I played, I believe jumping into a random group of braindead people has better xp gain and drop rate than playing solo. Right, its been a few years, I remember a lot of QQ posts on r/diablo about making it more solo friendly, but thats like the one vestige of a drive for community in Diablo 3 so I opposed it. Show nested quote +On August 17 2022 23:08 Manit0u wrote:
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO). I don't think that's good for a multiplayer game/community anymore. I don't think Paradox/Civilization/Total War is a good example since people play those singleplayer. People want a consistent patch schedule and to not divide the community.
Well, maybe not civ but TW and some Px games have quite big multiplayer communities. I also don't see a reason why you can't have consistent patches in-between expansions/DLCs.
|
On August 18 2022 02:25 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2022 01:46 lestye wrote:On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:On August 17 2022 23:08 Manit0u wrote:
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO). I wouldn't call what CA is doing as learning from their mistakes. Almost all Total War new releases are botched releases and I wait roughly a year after release before buying any of their games. Warhammer 3 was really unpolished even by the standards of modern rushed releases. I do spend maybe 80-100 hours per campaign on their games so what DLC I buy, I find it is usually worth it. Civ's non-expansion DLCs are even more expensive than Total War's relative to the content they offer. Civ 6's first expansion didn't add that much either from what I remember. The saving grace is that, unlike CA, they offer bundles. Civ 6 Anthology can be gotten for $30 nowadays when it's on sale and it includes all the DLC from the game. I really don't mind a cosmetics shop. It helps the developers continue to support the game more and it's money that doesn't come from me. It's pretty standard for any multiplayer games nowadays. If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. On August 17 2022 15:14 lestye wrote:
Eh, I’d say D2 was more of a multiplayer game. WIth the drop rates and stuff,you had to trade to get a lot of the items or suffer through awful drop rates. It was a huge part of the game.
D3…..especially with RoS not so much, but you were heavily incentivized to group up given the xp% modifiers. I believe most of the rare stuff circulating in the D2 online economy is duped or hacked somehow. The drop rates are just too low. For D3, I don't think it's just the XP% modifiers, pretty sure drop rate is increased in multiplayer games too. And unlike D2, it's not a straight 100% increase in enemy hp for each additional player because of the amounts of leechers and morons online. Blizzard wanted to incentivize grouping and they kept tinkering with the rewards until they achieved it. The last time I played, I believe jumping into a random group of braindead people has better xp gain and drop rate than playing solo. Right, its been a few years, I remember a lot of QQ posts on r/diablo about making it more solo friendly, but thats like the one vestige of a drive for community in Diablo 3 so I opposed it. On August 17 2022 23:08 Manit0u wrote:
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO). I don't think that's good for a multiplayer game/community anymore. I don't think Paradox/Civilization/Total War is a good example since people play those singleplayer. People want a consistent patch schedule and to not divide the community. Well, maybe not civ but TW and some Px games have quite big multiplayer communities. I also don't see a reason why you can't have consistent patches in-between expansions/DLCs.
How big is big? Like is it a few hundred people or hundreds of thousands? I think the single player ppl completely dwarfs them.
And because, there is going to be incentivize to hold back the content to make people buy the expansion/DLC. That's what happened with SC2, they held back all the shiny new features for the expansion pack.
There's not many games that do that for that same reason. It's pretty much just the Sims + Paradox games. Most companies just do 1 year of DLC, and then they move onto the next big project/game, which is what happened with Diablo III.
|
On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:
If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base.
This is so sad...
|
On August 18 2022 03:37 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:
If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. This is so sad...
is that the case really? i've been seeing rather the opposite
|
On August 18 2022 03:57 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2022 03:37 Miragee wrote:On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:
If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. This is so sad... is that the case really? i've been seeing rather the opposite
I have no idea tbh. My response should have been "this would be so sad if true".
|
On August 18 2022 03:28 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2022 02:25 Manit0u wrote:On August 18 2022 01:46 lestye wrote:On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:On August 17 2022 23:08 Manit0u wrote:
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO). I wouldn't call what CA is doing as learning from their mistakes. Almost all Total War new releases are botched releases and I wait roughly a year after release before buying any of their games. Warhammer 3 was really unpolished even by the standards of modern rushed releases. I do spend maybe 80-100 hours per campaign on their games so what DLC I buy, I find it is usually worth it. Civ's non-expansion DLCs are even more expensive than Total War's relative to the content they offer. Civ 6's first expansion didn't add that much either from what I remember. The saving grace is that, unlike CA, they offer bundles. Civ 6 Anthology can be gotten for $30 nowadays when it's on sale and it includes all the DLC from the game. I really don't mind a cosmetics shop. It helps the developers continue to support the game more and it's money that doesn't come from me. It's pretty standard for any multiplayer games nowadays. If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. On August 17 2022 15:14 lestye wrote:
Eh, I’d say D2 was more of a multiplayer game. WIth the drop rates and stuff,you had to trade to get a lot of the items or suffer through awful drop rates. It was a huge part of the game.
D3…..especially with RoS not so much, but you were heavily incentivized to group up given the xp% modifiers. I believe most of the rare stuff circulating in the D2 online economy is duped or hacked somehow. The drop rates are just too low. For D3, I don't think it's just the XP% modifiers, pretty sure drop rate is increased in multiplayer games too. And unlike D2, it's not a straight 100% increase in enemy hp for each additional player because of the amounts of leechers and morons online. Blizzard wanted to incentivize grouping and they kept tinkering with the rewards until they achieved it. The last time I played, I believe jumping into a random group of braindead people has better xp gain and drop rate than playing solo. Right, its been a few years, I remember a lot of QQ posts on r/diablo about making it more solo friendly, but thats like the one vestige of a drive for community in Diablo 3 so I opposed it. On August 17 2022 23:08 Manit0u wrote:
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO). I don't think that's good for a multiplayer game/community anymore. I don't think Paradox/Civilization/Total War is a good example since people play those singleplayer. People want a consistent patch schedule and to not divide the community. Well, maybe not civ but TW and some Px games have quite big multiplayer communities. I also don't see a reason why you can't have consistent patches in-between expansions/DLCs. How big is big? Like is it a few hundred people or hundreds of thousands? I think the single player ppl completely dwarfs them. And because, there is going to be incentivize to hold back the content to make people buy the expansion/DLC. That's what happened with SC2, they held back all the shiny new features for the expansion pack. There's not many games that do that for that same reason. It's pretty much just the Sims + Paradox games. Most companies just do 1 year of DLC, and then they move onto the next big project/game, which is what happened with Diablo III.
I believe that's the business model of a lot of grand strategy games, especially the bigger ones. A single campaign takes a long time to finish. The games don't lend themselves well to multiplayer. Selling new races, factions, civs as DLC is how they can approximate being a live service game while being single player.
On August 18 2022 05:06 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2022 03:57 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On August 18 2022 03:37 Miragee wrote:On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:
If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. This is so sad... is that the case really? i've been seeing rather the opposite I have no idea tbh. My response should have been "this would be so sad if true".
From what I see, they're really leaning towards the live service game with D4. Character customization is a huge part of the MMOs and the Fortnites and whatnot. Everything from hairstyles to dances seem to be on sale. The community expects it from these types of games and the developers are only happy to oblige. People who are able to customize their onscreen avatars are more invested in the game.
|
|
|
Creating new accounts after being banned just to repeat same stuff?
TW games are shit at release but everyone who played them knows they get better over time and provide hundreds of hours of entertainment so no one really fusses about the price. Similar things can be said about Civilization series. Those are games that age like fine wine so high price is no deterrent.
And the question again: What do you have to pay for in Blizzard games all day long?
Judging by Diablo Immortal? Almost everything.
And it was mentioned numerous times in this thread that cosmetics shop is perfectly fine. What's not fine are battle passes, 15 different game versions, FOMO practices, multiple currencies to obfuscate real cost etc.
I guess people are also afraid that the cash shop in D4 will not only have cosmetics but also "convenience" items, which would be a very bad sign for the game.
|
On August 18 2022 03:37 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:
If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. This is so sad...
Why is this a surprise? Take a look at the biggest games in the world and see how they make money?
|
On August 18 2022 09:09 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2022 03:37 Miragee wrote:On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:
If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. This is so sad... Why is this a surprise? Take a look at the biggest games in the world and see how they make money?
Well, Dota 2 is pretty damn big with over 400k daily players. Yet the game is free of charge for all of the content and cosmetics are direct-purchase with real money. There is a bit of a FOMO as you can buy something like a battle pass during big tournaments etc. but all you really get there is just more cosmetics so no biggie (and it is kinda prestigious to show off that you've been checking out the tournament while it was ongoing and contributing to the prize pool). I really don't mind their business model.
|
On August 18 2022 09:50 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2022 09:09 lestye wrote:On August 18 2022 03:37 Miragee wrote:On August 18 2022 00:44 andrewlt wrote:
If it doesn't come with it, you can bet it will be one of the most requested things by the player base. This is so sad... Why is this a surprise? Take a look at the biggest games in the world and see how they make money? Well, Dota 2 is pretty damn big with over 400k daily players. Yet the game is free of charge for all of the content and cosmetics are direct-purchase with real money. There is a bit of a FOMO as you can buy something like a battle pass during big tournaments etc. but all you really get there is just more cosmetics so no biggie (and it is kinda prestigious to show off that you've been checking out the tournament while it was ongoing and contributing to the prize pool). I really don't mind their business model.
Isnt that we're talking about? a cosmetic shop?
|
manitou's point i think is that games like dota and poe are free. its playable content and anything else meaningful to the character is obtainable for zero cost. these types of games having real money cosmetic shops is not the same as a blizzard game where there has already been close to 100 dollars of expenditure just to be able to play the game.
its double dipping on the part of blizzard and although its the sad reality of game development nowadays, it doesnt make it any less despicable
|
On August 18 2022 07:58 Manit0u wrote:Creating new accounts after being banned just to repeat same stuff? TW games are shit at release but everyone who played them knows they get better over time and provide hundreds of hours of entertainment so no one really fusses about the price. Similar things can be said about Civilization series. Those are games that age like fine wine so high price is no deterrent. Show nested quote +
And the question again: What do you have to pay for in Blizzard games all day long?
Judging by Diablo Immortal? Almost everything. And it was mentioned numerous times in this thread that cosmetics shop is perfectly fine. What's not fine are battle passes, 15 different game versions, FOMO practices, multiple currencies to obfuscate real cost etc. I guess people are also afraid that the cash shop in D4 will not only have cosmetics but also "convenience" items, which would be a very bad sign for the game.
I would like to interject that i personally also hate cosmetics shops. I fondly remember the time when you could find or get cool cosmetics through gameplay instead of through your wallet. When a game tries to milk money from me at every turn, i have a hard time feeling relaxed, because i need to constantly be aware of it trying to get cash out of me.
And while cosmetics do not have a direct gameplay impact, they do have an impact on the game. Looking cool in game is also part of the fun.
I can tolerate it in free games. I highly prefer a game that i just buy and have. I have a very strong memory of finding a ship colour in Everspace and being utterly confused that i don't have to pay money for it.
There are few things in gaming that i long for more than companies just forgetting that all of this exploitative microtransaction crap is possible. This is one of the reasons i mostly play indie games at this point. As someone who remembers the times before this, any kind of cash shop is shit. I would even prefer an oldschool WoW style subscription model to a cash shop.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 18 2022 12:35 evilfatsh1t wrote:
manitou's point i think is that games like dota and poe are free. its playable content and anything else meaningful to the character is obtainable for zero cost. these types of games having real money cosmetic shops is not the same as a blizzard game where there has already been close to 100 dollars of expenditure just to be able to play the game.
its double dipping on the part of blizzard and although its the sad reality of game development nowadays, it doesnt make it any less despicable
Them being free is one thing. Another thing is that knowing Blizzard's current tendencies I'm rather skeptical when it comes to believing that D4 shop will be for "cosmetic items only". My suspicion is that they'll also add some other stuff there, labeled as "convenience items" or something like that. The problem with that is if you have to sell people "convenience" it shows a design flaw in the game itself (or, even worse, a deliberate effort to make the game "inconvenient" for people to coerce sales).
I'd like to be proven wrong but almost everything Blizzard did in a decade now does not fill me with optimism.
I'll probably wait 3-6 months after release before I make my mind on whether I should get the game myself or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
