[HN Gopher] It costs $110k to fully gear up in Diablo Immortal ___________________________________________________________________ It costs $110k to fully gear up in Diablo Immortal Author : ddtaylor Score : 627 points Date : 2022-06-05 07:40 UTC (15 hours ago) (HTM) web link (gamerant.com) (TXT) w3m dump (gamerant.com) | mdavis6890 wrote: | A better way to think about it is that these games are designed | for - and paid for by - exactly the very few people who want to | spend this much on winning a game. Everybody else gets to free- | ride on this, and only pay what they want (mostly zero) | hammock wrote: | An interesting way to think about it for sure. Sub in "jack | daniels" or "bud light" for Diablo and it gets depressing fast | when you consider 80% of liquor is consumed by less than 10% of | drinkers, who each have an average of 20+ drinks a week, every | week (forgive that I cannot source but trust this is based on | seeing real data). | | Still, we must consider that growth is what a company is after, | and that growth happens at the margin, not the core. | Ruthalas wrote: | The problem with this is that games designed to be monetized | this way are going to build their progression, reward-systems, | cosmetic systems, grind balance, etc. around it. | | So the players who are "paying what they want (mostly zero)" | aren't getting a normal but free Diablo game, they are getting | version of that game balanced and prioritized around the whales | that /will/ be spending the money. The actual customers. | | I'd rather pay than "free-ride", because I don't want incessant | popups telling me how how I can skip the grind (that is tuned | to irritate me) by buying a gems with my credit card. | | I'm not as valuable to Blizzard/Activision/NetEase with my one- | time-purchase though, and they know it. | mdavis6890 wrote: | That's why I don't play these games. But other people have | different preferences and that's okay by me. I don't see a | need to judge the company(ies), the users, or the system. Not | saying you are, but it seems to be the flavor of this article | and much of the sentiment in these comments. Why? | Ruthalas wrote: | I think there's a point where it feels like it's gone | beyond simple price discrimination to leveraging hundreds | of employees and millions of dollars to actively manipulate | and exploit a player base that is often substantially | comprised of children. I've watched developer presentations | on how best to implement Skinner boxes and other gambling | mechanics to help condition users and obscure exactly how | much they are spending. That may be fair to judge a company | poorly for. | | For me personally, it represents the fact that the company | is actively working against my best interests, and that | feels bad. Additionally, completely selfishly, it makes me | sad to see games that I would otherwise enjoy be distorted | by this sort of monetization. | ThrustVectoring wrote: | You have to identify and avoid the p2w rails in order to pull | this off. Specifically: | | 1. Put the game down when you get hard time-gated | | 2. Don't do PvP | | 3. Especially with a leaderboard feature | | 4. Especially in grouped content | | I'm sure it's a good game up until the PMs and behavioral | psychologists decide you're invested enough to put up with | time-walls. | MrMan wrote: | swgoh has a multi hundred k cot to max everything | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | As an iOS user, I will be downloading this and giving it one star | and a scathing review. | Traubenfuchs wrote: | Micropayments and ad-games ruined video games. It's depressing. | actually_a_dog wrote: | How can micropayments have ruined anything? Nobody's found a | way to implement micropayments in a way that works, to my | knowledge. | can16358p wrote: | While I definitely don't like pay-to-win monetization style, what | I find even more ridiculous is the laws at Belgium and | Netherlands around loot boxes. | | I mean, no one is forcing anyone to play a game or purchase a | lootbox. Why ban a game mechanics for this? It hurts the | (potential) players, let people decide for themselves FFS. | vhgyu75e6u wrote: | Because the monetization mechanics in this games rely on | predatory practices employed by casinos which we already | regulate? | can16358p wrote: | Predatory? | | Casinos shouldn't be regulated too. If nobody is forcing | anyone to attend into something (like going to a casino or | playing a pay-to-win game) nobody should have the right to | change or regulate the inner dynamics. | | As long as the game doesn't clearly lie (e.g. telling a | lootbox does something that it doesn't) everybody knows what | a lootbox is. Playing the game is a voluntary action taken by | an individual, just like going to a casino. They are | responsible for their own actions, and blocking a certain | demographics' (e.g. people in Netherlands) to access to a | game/mechanics (e.g. Diablo Immortal + lootboxes) is | fundamentally against people's freedom of choosing to play a | game or not. | | It's their money, they can spend $1m if they want to, on | lootboxes. | | Would I? Definitely not. But blocking someone who _does_ want | to from doing it, whereas it doesn 't have negative effects | to society (e.g. Doesn't affect anyone but the person | themselves) is ridiculous. | vkou wrote: | > Casinos shouldn't be regulated too. If nobody is forcing | anyone to attend into something (like going to a casino or | playing a pay-to-win game) nobody should have the right to | change or regulate the inner dynamics. | | In theory, humans are rational, and in theory, spherical | cows are an excellent basis for economics. | | Human brains have bugs, and these industries exploit them. | It's predatory, and utterly reprehensible. | can16358p wrote: | Human brains have bugs, and anyone going into a casino or | a pay-to-win games know what they are going into. (If | they don't that's their problem for not doing their own | research and using common sense before putting their | money) | | Human brains also have a bug around sugar consumption. | I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing | foods/beverages being regulated. | | Human brains also have a bug making many of them social | media addicts. | | Human brains have so many bugs. At the end of the day | regulating these businesses will hurt more people who | voluntarily want to be involved than saving potential | addicts. | | The real solution is never preventing people from doing | things (of course as long as they affect only the person | and not the others' rights), instead, it's educating. | | If those governments placed their efforts into educating | the people about addiction mechanics of those | games/casinos etc. instead of blocking/regulating | altogether, it would be much more beneficial than | blocking people from their own decisions. | less_less wrote: | > Human brains have bugs, and anyone going into a casino | or a pay-to-win games know what they are going into. (If | they don't that's their problem for not doing their own | research and using common sense before putting their | money) | | "It's OK if people's lives are intentionally ruined | purely for corporate profits, so long as it's at least | partly those people's fault. They shouldn't let | themselves be tricked." | | > Human brains also have a bug around sugar consumption. | I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing | foods/beverages being regulated. | | By the way, San Francisco taxes sugary drinks and | requires them to have a warning label. | | > The real solution is never preventing people from doing | things (of course as long as they affect only the person | and not the others' rights), instead, it's educating. | | These approaches are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps it's | best to find a balance between them? | eesmith wrote: | > San Francisco taxes sugary drinks | | And see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax . | | Also, NYC tried to ban some sales of sugary beverages | over 16 oz, thrown out by the courts. | can16358p wrote: | Ruining their lives is a bit exaggeration for playing pay | to win games though. | | I do not support them, I only hate the idea of banning | anything more. | | I believe education is the key but never see that done | enough. (Not only about these topics but pretty much | anything). | | Banning should really, really be the last option. | oneeyedpigeon wrote: | > I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar- | containing foods/beverages being regulated. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax#United_K | ing... | | This might not quite meet your threshold, but it's | probably close. More regulation around sugar is | definitely around the corner. | can16358p wrote: | Okay. That's a step in the right direction. Taxing might | be the middle ground instead of banning something | outright. | libraryatnight wrote: | The last person who made this kind of argument to me was a | gambling addict who had gotten into day trading. | can16358p wrote: | Well sad for them. I'm not involved in either gambling, | daytrading, nor pay-to-win games, or any other addictive | practice. | | Just because they shared a similar view on this doesn't | mean that I'm also an addict too. | | While you didn't explicitly tell such a thing, directly | replying with this example implies that. | michaelmrose wrote: | This is like saying people ought to be free to sell meth | on the corner because you are smart enough to avoid | addiction. Societies have good reason to ban things that | are a net negative to society. | can16358p wrote: | Yup. Exactly. Drugs should be legalized too. | | I don't do them but have respect to one's own opinion | about their own body even if that means poisoning/killing | themselves. | michaelmrose wrote: | There is an argument for decriminalizing drug possession. | The same argument in no way holds for drug dealing. The | price would come down and availability would skyrocket as | would the problems that stem from use. | gspr wrote: | > Casinos shouldn't be regulated too. If nobody is forcing | anyone to attend into something (like going to a casino or | playing a pay-to-win game) nobody should have the right to | change or regulate the inner dynamics. | | This is, of course, a position that is yours to hold. But I | do hope that you recognize that it's quite a small, fringe | one. It's a bit strange to use a fringe opinion about | casino regulation as the stepping stone for an implication | that loot boxes shouldn't be regulated. | can16358p wrote: | I was replying to the argument by parent comment which | gave that specific example of gambling vs. loot boxes. | npteljes wrote: | You emphasize personal responsibility, but most of the | world doesn't have that on the top of their societal | values[0]. And one person's problematic gambling, as any | other addiction, definitely impacts others, similar to how | substance abuse or any other addiction really[1]. | | [0] See it as "individualism" here on the first map: | https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan- | ho... | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling#Signs_an | d_sym... | mfashby wrote: | > Playing the game is a voluntary action taken by an | individual, just like going to a casino. | | The same argument can be made for other regulated | activities like drinking alcohol or smoking (whether you | agree or not, that's how it is in a lot of places today). | Those are voluntary activities too. | | > whereas it doesn't have negative effects to society | | Addiction _does_ have negative effects on society, which is | why these rules get introduced. It looks like this ban [1] | is enforcement of gambling laws, because the loot is | transferrable it's deemed to have value. I'm curious in | this case to know how much of an impact banning these | particular games actually has though. | | [1] https://www.thegamer.com/netherlands-loot-box-ban/ | | edit; haha, lots of people spotted this same argument. | TrackerFF wrote: | You're dealing with addicts, and often times very young and | impressionable addicts. | einrealist wrote: | If Microsoft wouldn't buy ATVI (at a higher price than the | current stock price), I would have sold my shares months ago. I | don't have any hope for ATVI anymore. Instead of providing value | to their customers - the gamers, they squeeze it for | shareholders. I doubt, Diablo 4 will be any different. | stevenjgarner wrote: | I am not a gamer, but I am fascinated by all manner of | monetization. Is Diablo Immortal unique as a free-to-play game | that has a microtransaction model to support continued | development, or do other games do this? It seems the equivalent | of the freemium model with web applications. Does buying the so- | called Legendary Gems enhance "winning" or just game playing? And | can "winning" result in a financial reward (like in League of | Legends, Super Smash Bros., EVO 2022, Mistplay, etc)? I read that | "the 1% of top professional gamers make tens of millions of | dollars per year with a combination of sponsorships, ad revenue, | and subscriber dues". [1] Mind blowing. | | [1] https://thinkcomputers.org/odds-of-gaming-earning-you-money/ | 8note wrote: | At like 50C//subscriber/month, that adds up fast for people | with millions of subscribers. I bet the sponsorships are moreso | about figuring out how to fill the streaming time, rather than | the payment itself | mattnewton wrote: | > Does buying the so-called Legendary Gems enhance "winning" or | just game playing? | | Yes. Look up "gacha games" [0] for the broader category. One | very successful and very rich version of this genre is "genshin | impact" | | > And can "winning" result in a financial reward | | In this case, no, not currently. People tend to structure | competitive scenes around games without these mechanics but it | could be done by the company developing the game. People are | playing for the satisfaction of winning rare items or beating | other people on a leaderboard. | | [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gacha_game | stevenjgarner wrote: | For a programmer, are those gacha "vending machines" | available in code libraries? I would love to experiment with | implementing one in a productivity web application. | mattnewton wrote: | I am not sure I understand what you mean. The core mechanic | is that rewards are randomly distributed - the namesake | "gacha" machines dispense a capsule with a random toy. | Think of it as a slot machine where if it hits you get an | item you wanted / needed for gameplay and if it doesn't it | just took your money and gave you something useless. | stevenjgarner wrote: | Perhaps I need to play to understand, but it sounds like | "gacha" machines behave like in-game vending machines | where the player can purchase "features" to enhance their | avatar etc.? Or do I have that wrong? I just assumed that | those "gacha" machines are code libraries in gaming | engines (Unity, Godot, GameMaker: Studio, etc), and that | maybe a "gacha" machine code library is available open | source or in some other fashion. | mattnewton wrote: | The machine is a metaphor for gameplay mechanics where | you purchase a random chance for a reward. They are not | something I can see related to libraries, but a kind of | gameplay, in the same way that "leveling up" in an rpg | wouldn't really make sense to me as a library. | effingwewt wrote: | No, they are wosrse. | | Gacha games are mostly card-puller games. You pay $X for | X pulls, with more expensive packages giving more pulls | with a supposed higher success rate of 'winning' (getting | a good/rare pull). | | They use hidden weights, as well as max item rolls per | day. This means that to keep items rare via artificial | scarcity they will only allow so many of those cards to | be pulled per X hours/days/whatever but they don't tell | you this anywhere. So if that new hot card that just | dropped is up for grabs, you buy 10 pulls. But you don't | know that it's already been pulled X times by other | people, so you have literally no chance to 'win'. So | those pulls will be wasted. | | The companies always lie about chances to win, the pulls | are insane, you can see streamers do massive pulls, the | numbers are sometimes out there, just community gathered. | | A real life example is one of those light-roulette | machines at arcaded where you slam the button to stop the | spinning light. The only actual chance you have to win is | after $X has been spent on the machine, before that | threshold has been met winning is impossible, stopping | the light at the correct spot won't matter it will simply | roll to the next losing light. Or claw machines are the | same and will only actually close enough to grab a toy | after $X has been spent. | | Gambling is one thing but these skinner boxes | masquerading as games are pure evil as they change the | rules constantly and make winning downright impossible. | countrpt wrote: | There are many gacha games on the market today that do | post their odds and where player-validated data seems to | support it. (Some jurisdictions like China and Japan | require these kinds of disclosures.) But there are also a | lot of markets that don't require these kinds of | disclosures and where there isn't enough player data to | draw a conclusion. So, in that case, how could you have | confidence that they are _not_ doing what you suggest? | Even if they were, would it even be illegal? (If you | never post what the odds are in the first place, is it | fraud to keep changing the rules?) | | This is why I've always been a bit surprised developers | haven't done more to get ahead of these kinds of issues | with responsible disclosures and transparency, because it | seems to be just inviting regulation. I honestly don't | think most F2P games pull the kinds of slimy tricks | you're accusing them of (most just use simple loot tables | and RNG), but there's nothing holding them accountable to | say they can't because everything is opaque. | mattnewton wrote: | Even the disclosure of odds isn't enough imo, because | often it's odds of a "pull" that costs various amounts of | abstracted in game currencies with complicated conversion | rates between each other and to the money you put in. It | becomes a very complicated math problem most people just | ignore. | mywaifuismeta wrote: | The model is extremely standard in mobile games, especially in | Asia, where it has been the norm for almost a decade in gacha | games, and where people are used to paying and gambling. They | all have the same mechanics, or variations of them, Diablo | doesn't really do anything innovative here, but it certainly is | on the aggressive side. | | A lot of the outrage comes from the fact that 1. Diablo is | originally a PC-based IP with a PC gamer fanbase, and PC gamers | are used to different monetization schemes and generally don't | play mobile games. Even without the gambling mechanics, there | already was a huge backlash about Blizzard making a mobile | Diablo game 2. Diablo is a "western" IP where such monetization | schemes are less common and the penetration of PC players is | higher compared to other parts of the world where mobile game | penetration is higher. | | > And can "winning" result in a financial reward | | Generally speaking, no. There are no competitions for these | kind of games. The only way you could cash out would be to sell | your account, which is against the ToS, but commonly done | nonetheless. | BlueTemplar wrote: | Remember also how Diablo 3 was released (in most countries) | with a real money Auction House, which was later removed | because even the devs realized that it hurt the game ? | callahad wrote: | What's interesting is Diablo Immortal's monetization | introduces a level of indirection compared to Diablo 3's | Real Money Auction House (RMAH), and I think it's | sufficiently distinct to avoid the same fate. | | In D3, you could buy equipment directly from the RMAH. This | undermined core gameplay mechanisms since any loot you were | likely to find would be inferior to whatever was available | for pennies in the store. So why bother running the | dungeons at all? | | In DI, you don't buy gear directly with money. Instead, you | buy access to dungeons with guaranteed drops of high level | items which are statistically infeasible to obtain any | other way. But this still lends plausible deniability: | you're not buying your gear, you're just buying a spin at | the (very weighted) wheel. | stevenjgarner wrote: | > The only way you could cash out would be to sell your | account, which is against the ToS, but commonly done | nonetheless. | | Interesting. Why would the publisher have such a ToS? Just so | they monopolize the revenue from in-game sales? Or is it more | altruistic, like preventing new players having an unfair | advantage? I would have thought encouraging a secondary | market in their game would actually attract players. | mywaifuismeta wrote: | I would imagine it's because they want to avoid people | building bots and creating businesses around accounts | creation and selling. Once you have such a secondary market | you get a cheap supply of accounts due to outsourced labor | or bots. This devalues the in-game purchases. Why would I | spent more money in-game if I can just buy a cheap account? | sextus_prop wrote: | This is a culmination of a trend that has been going on for at | least a decade: | | First it was the lootboxes that became widespread: | | ~2010 Steam Team Fortress 2, later Counter Strike | | 2012 EA's Mass Effect 3 | | 2014 Call of Duty and Battlefield | | 2016 Overwatch | | After that it seemed lootboxes were everywhere. In 2017 there was | some backlash for EA's Star Wars game and they removed lootboxes, | but it did not change the situation overall. | | Then in 2020 western gamers were exposed to gacha mechanics with | the release of Genshin Impact, where you "roll" with special | currency for weapons and characters that you can't get otherwise. | And this currency is either bought with real money or VERY slowly | accumulated by playing game. The game is free to play otherwise. | | In february this year there was a western release of Lost Ark - | MMO ARPG(genre similar to Diablo) that involves probabilistic | gear upgrades where you either play weeks to months to fully | upgrade it, or drop hundreds to thousands of dollars on upgrade | materials, game itself is free to play. It was backed by Amazon | and promoted by huge Twitch events. | | Both Genshin Impact and Lost Ark have very impressive amount of | content, beautiful visuals, music - all while being free to play. | Could these games be made and succeed without gambling mechanics? | I don't know. My experience with Genshin has been that I got a | lot more out of it in terms of fun per money spent than out of | most from what I buy on Steam sales - which I play for few hours | and forget. | | I think the regulations about these kinds of games should at the | very least require devs to: - State all the probabilities - | Define a guarantee or a "pity": at which attempt will you succeed | with 100% probability. | | Then for each desired outcome, e.g. fully upgrading weapon, there | should be displayed an expected and maximum "price", preferably | in real currency. This would at least help the adults to moderate | their spending. And as for children, yeah, these games should be | 18+, I don't believe a child can handle the urge to spend in | these games. | pvg wrote: | FIFA is missing from your timeline and it's what really started | EA on this pathway into darkness - the 'success' there is what | inspired lootifying ME3. FIFA remains one of the biggest | lootbox games around. | [deleted] | crazypyro wrote: | There is a large difference in lootboxes that have the ability | to give you more power in the game versus lootboxes that just | drop new cosmetic items with no gameplay affect. | | Some of those games that you mentioned only contained cosmetic | items in the lootboxes. | | Gamers as a community have a much more visceral reaction to | paying for power in the game, compared to paying for cosmetics. | LoveMortuus wrote: | I think these free to play might be more of just 'pick your own | price'. That way they get people that wouldn't pay 60$ for a | mobile game and also people that would pay 1000$ for a game. | | While I personally don't like it, because it feels like I'm | getting an unfinished game if I don't spend a lot, I'm sure that | there are many that enjoy this model and don't mind it at all. | | And at the end of the day, these people that spend more money are | actually the ones that feed the developers~ | RyEgswuCsn wrote: | I think you are right if the game offers mostly single-player | experiences, though the developers of such games often | implement dark patterns that set players up for spending more | than they rationally would. | | As soon as player-vs-player is introduced, f2p players become | part of the "experience" for the whale players. | superkuh wrote: | Another problem with Diablo Immortal is that they gimped the game | to allow for people using mobile devices to play it. It's really | weird to see a Diablo game where inventory management doesn't | play a big role. | remram wrote: | Isn't that a good thing? The fact that there is so much content | that getting the best version of every item cannot happen, even | if you spend some money? | | Is a game fair only if you can acquire the best gear in the game | (for real money)? | Timshel wrote: | Probably depends of your definition of content and tie with the | discussion around Gacha game. | | The part discussed here with the gem system looks more like a | slot machine than anything I would describe as game content. | remram wrote: | Well for sure I don't know much about the game. If it's bad | or uses predatory tactics to get people's money then that is | awful. This specific point though, summed up in the title, | seems kind of weird. | | Like imagine if someone said the same thing about EVE Online, | how much does a "fully geared up" space station cost? How | much is the combined cost of Team Fortress 2's (cosmetic) | items? | zmgsabst wrote: | I think the problem is that having such a high peak implies | you'll have "pay to win" mechanics dominate: | | Players will be stratified by how much of that $110,000 they | can pay -- with no reasonable way out of that class system. | ratonofx wrote: | I see no problem about 110k "end game"... | | 1) If the journey have enough content to sustain a huge grinding | time, it's ok. 2) If you can make it expensive without making | mandatory (to buy), it's ok. 3) If you build a legit character | buying or farming and it can be evaluated at 100k USD, it's | pretty awesome! (Check MIR 4 Top Characters Price) | | But if you play a blizzard game, with no NFT (or Open | marketplace) and being treated as criminal if you sell the | product of your farming/grinding time, it's pretty fucked up. | INGELRII wrote: | Regulation proposal: Set maximum spending limit/time tied to the | purchase price. The limit is tied to account and player | character. | | example: | | 1. free-to-play: $100/year. | | 2. other: 10xpurchase price/year. For a $50 game the maximum | spending is $500 per year. | | This would not set hard limit. It would only mandate up-front | investment related to the amount of in-game spending. A Whale who | spends $10k a year would have to pay $1k to get started. | | I think this would effectively kill addictive impulse for people | who can't afford it. At the same time it allows games to create | expensive games. | [deleted] | elif wrote: | How many accounts you got? | | These are gamers... We've been trained to bypass arbitrary | obstacles in the easiest way since birth. | INGELRII wrote: | Multiple accounts would be allowed since they don't | circumvent the mechanism. | gooses wrote: | This just woundn't work unfortuantly. It's a known fact that | the large majorirty of the player base will not spend any | money. This has the knock-on effect that the whales have to be | squeezed in order for the game to turn a profit. | | People underestmate the UA costs on these games. It can cost | >$10 to get a single player into the game through advertising. | So right off the bat you need to make $10 back per player to | make a profit. Say 95% dont spend anything, so then you need | $200 off each paying player to cover the costs of acquiring | everyone else. Thats why this situation has evolved and why the | games build themselves around the whales. | | Of course games do get some players for free via app store | discovery but predonminatly it's through advertising. | bo1024 wrote: | It sounds like you are saying the regulation _would_ work (as | intended)? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | This is some backwards logic there - its the problem of the | businesses to provide value. | | If some business model provides no value, it is not a viable | businesd model. | | The rest os society shouldn't be taking a hit to make some | business work artificially | skohan wrote: | Yeah exactly - if these games can't afford to exist without | causing social harm then they should not exist. | INGELRII wrote: | Killing UA business model would not be that bad. Protecting | big business should not be the goal in itself. | | We don't know what kind of games would replace these | malevolent business models. We might get new kind of games | and companies. Maybe less flashy, but more fun to play and | better game mechanics. | GekkePrutser wrote: | If it doesn't work then this model would simply disappear. | Not a bad thing either for gaming. | | In the Netherlands there's already laws around this kind of | business model, requiring the company to specify win chances | and other things. The publisher has decided not to release | Diablo immortal there for this reason. | | If more countries follow suit they'll have no option but to | just go back to regular business models. | tsuujin wrote: | Regulation limiting the amount of notifications you can receive | for microtransaction purchases would make a big difference I | think. | | Even though I am refusing to spend money for gems, there is | effectively always a "look at me" notification on the screen | reminding me that the store is open. They're gaming the fact | that we have all been trained through habit to check those | notifications, and it is really effective. | bo1024 wrote: | This is very intriguing. I would love to hear a take based on | research in psychology of addiction and gambling. I think the | reason it would work is forcing people to decide to play with | the analytical part of their brain, ahead of time, rather than | with the addiction part in the moment. | seattle_spring wrote: | What you're not understanding is that this game violates the | players constitutional right to have legendary gems that are as | good as their favorite YouTuber. | | What are they supposed to do? Just pick away at rifts for free | to build up their legendary gem count like secondary citizens? | Are they supposed to ONLY use the crests from the battlepass as | if this is some kind of subscription based game? What if they | want to work tirelessly day and night to grind legendaries to | make their character more powerful but don't have as much money | as the next guy? Shouldn't the government step in? | encrux wrote: | This would pretty much kill the current industry (*as we know | it). | | F2P/mobile games are monetized through Wales, but they're only | willing to spend if there's enough incentive (e.g. prestige). | That's not given if there's no F2P player base, because the | base game would be too expensive. | | IMHO the best way to go about is to vote with your wallet. | There are plenty of worthwhile games where you don't have to be | a whale to be successful. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Well good.. Let's kill it. Who cares if the business model | works. It shouldn't work. | | The idea of such regulation is to stimulate the business to | move back to normal models. | | In the Netherlands this is already working, Diablo immortal | is not available there. It's a small market but once the | whole EU does it they won't have a choice but to come up with | something more reasonable. Win-win. | teawrecks wrote: | I'm not disagreeing, but the money will. | INGELRII wrote: | It was thought that people would use less restaurants and | bars if smoking was forbidden. | | It's more likely that when incentives change, the whole | customer base changes. | | The current system of preying whales to pay for games has | negative externalities for gamer's who don't have addiction. | Playing is cheaper, but people play less games because | addictive spending mechanics is affecting where the game | development money goes. | | Regulation would create incentives to make games that are | expensive because they are so good. | Aerroon wrote: | Regulation would create an incentive to region lock out the | areas that regulate it. Now you have people from the | regulating country use VPNs to play the game in another | region instead. | nabla9 wrote: | Diablo Immortal is not available in Belgium and the | Netherlands. | | It's not about the VPN, it's the payment method and App | store setup that determines if you can install the game. | Regulation does not have to be watertight. It just needs | to work well enough to drastically reduce harm. | cdash wrote: | Yeah sure, but say the EU as a whole or the US regulated | it. You aren't region locking them out. | Aerroon wrote: | But you are though. Lots of games region lock US and EU | out of their game. | | Lost Ark is in the top 3 of all games played on Steam and | has been since it released this February. The game was 3 | years old when it launched in NA/EU though - it had been | out for 3 years in South Korea, 2 years in Russia and | Japan. This is a game that ended up being very popular, | but if nobody had bought the NA/EU publishing rights then | the only way to play it would've been to play on the | Russian, Japanese or Korean servers. | | It's pretty normal for online games that come from Asia | to not cater to the western market. I don't see why they | wouldn't do this even more if we get additional | regulations on games. And even when they do cater to the | western market the priority is going to be North America, | not Europe. Europe's almost always second class in these. | (And when these games are brought over they're often | Americanized/localized.) | | PS Lost Ark is banned in Netherlands and Belgium too. | teawrecks wrote: | Why do you think Wales has so many wealthy mobile gamers in | the first place? | thr0wawayf00 wrote: | > I think this would effectively kill addictive impulse for | people who can't afford it | | It would be nice if simply pricing out poor addicts worked as a | deterrent, but it just doesn't. We see this in sports betting | all the time, young men are committing suicide in England after | getting in too deep on the betting apps. | INGELRII wrote: | My proposal would work equally to everyone because the limit | would be related to purchase price. | Animats wrote: | There are single BAYC NFTs that have sold for more. | theptip wrote: | But you can easily re-sell that NFT, whereas it's against the | T&C to sell a game account for real money, and it seems there | is no "real money cash out" in Immortal. So not really | something you can speculate on or trade as far as I can tell. | mensetmanusman wrote: | I feel sorry for today's gamers. | | When I was a gamer during the Quaje2 era, my "addiction" was in | trying to be the best. | | Immediately after school, I would practice various maps to | understand their jumping kinetics and would spend time studying | and understanding all the weapon shots/kill zones to the pixel | level. | | No money was spent on the 'addiction for excellence'. | | These days, I actually miss this type of addiction, the one where | you want to excel at a skill-based game. (Mostly a matter of not | having time) | wincy wrote: | My introduction to coding was making Quake engine maps for the | Jedi Knight game as a young teenager. It was super fun and I | guess Minecraft or Roblox is similar to this but adding money | to it kind of makes the whole thing icky and exploitative. | djhworld wrote: | Eh, the gaming industry and the amount of games you can play is | so vast these days you can still play games without having to | invest further amounts to progress. | | Yes there are loot box games and so on, but in reality they're | a small subset. Admittedly if you primarily play mobile games | then that subset is quite large. | | Stick with console/PC, be suspicious of free to play and you'll | be fine. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Something about the paradox of choice makes me wonder whether | it's a worse situation because more fragmentation means fewer | shared experiences... | beebeepka wrote: | Oh yeah? Next year it will be 220k. | | For me, Blizzard has always been the WarCraft 1-2 and StarCraft | 1-2 company. Never liked the rest of their output over the years. | | That said, it's a shame the company has been reduced to a | gambling shop. Sign of the times, I guess. The writing was on the | wall 10 years ago but I am no longer scared about my hobby. So | what if the big guys all do lootboxes. Don't buy from them. | | Activision used to have stellar catalogue 15 years ago. Now look | at them. It's all junk | lekevicius wrote: | It's even more frustrating, because the game is _good_. I really | enjoyed playing the first 30 levels or so. Good story, good | controls, very satisfying gameplay. If I could pay $60 and just | have a "classic" Diablo on my phone, I might. But I won't spend | a cent on consumable in-app purchases. | | It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer | works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - | hundreds and thousands of dollars". | rapind wrote: | > It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer | works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - | hundreds and thousands of dollars". | | I think the assumption that another model was even considered | is what people are getting wrong. The game was made explicitly | and intentionally for this p2w / gamble business model. There | was never an attempt to make it anything else. Blizzard lent | their IP to make a cash grab. They're milking their IP while | they can, and monitoring both back lash and revenue, and will | be repeating it. | Timshel wrote: | > It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer | works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - | hundreds and thousands of dollars". | | What I find really sad is that multiple games have proven that | there is a middle ground and that making a f2p while making | enormous amount of money is possible (League of Legend ...) and | using such predatory system that are so prevalent on mobile is | not the only solution. | | There is probably already enough monetisation around skins in | the games that they would have easily turn up a profit. | | The rest is just greed and disregard for players but then when | they don't care that the game is banned in two countries at | launch because it violate gambling laws what else to expect ... | noobermin wrote: | Also, F2P isn't the only option, we could pay (once) for | games like we used to. | jstummbillig wrote: | If you need to reference LoL/Fortnite to make a point, you | are not making a point. | | In fact, there are very few games that have done the f2p walk | successfully, sustainably, and all of them pale in comparison | to the few extraordinary exceptions. | vvanders wrote: | Back when I was in the industry there was very few games | that did better than breaking even. It's the same reason | you don't see a lot of independent large studios any more. | If you need to hit the top 15-20% to make it only | publishers who can afford to spread out the risk are able | to stay afloat. | qrazhan wrote: | There are a _ton_ of successful f2p games with reasonable | monetization models - Valorant, CSGO, Warzone, Dota, Path | of Exile, Lost Ark, Hearthstone, etc. It's just that games | in general are a power law industry - I don't think | monetization model is really what will prevent a game from | being successful. In fact, much of the discourse around | Immortal is that the gameplay itself is in fact top notch. | Blizzard has the dedicated fanbase to make a healthy profit | and more with a reasonable cash shop - they don't _need_ to | resort to these extremely cash-grabby mechanics. | green_on_black wrote: | And how do those compare to the cash-grab market revenue? | (Actual question). Let's include games like Genshin and | FGO. | Plasmoid wrote: | Yatzhee posted a video on how the mobile gaming space is | basically dead because of this - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q30qZSEnI9Q | bckr wrote: | you know, this helped me realize why I rage-quit C&C Rivals. | I was having a lot of fun, thinking I'm good at the game, | going on 40-game win streaks.... then suddenly I am facing | opponents with characters 2 levels above mine, getting | creamed 90% of games and coming nowhere near being able to | upgrade my characters... unless I spend and unknown amount of | money on crates. | | So, I'm not just a quitter, I ran into the trap. | BiteCode_dev wrote: | It works. | | But nowaday, you cannot just be profitable. You gotta make your | investers very happy. | grayfaced wrote: | And no matter how well it does, investors will expect growth. | So what further sliminess does Diablo Immortals 2 do to get | growth? This behavior is unsustainable. | peanut_worm wrote: | Elden Ring was exactly "make good game, sell it" and it sold | very well. | pawelmurias wrote: | Elden Ring shouldn't be even treated as the same sort of | thing as an addiction focused mobile game. | abletonlive wrote: | diablo immortal is going to make A LOT more money than elden | ring, so your example is not a good one. not even in the same | universe. | interroboink wrote: | It seems like a good example to me. It was a sales model | that worked. That's all. It doesn't have to work better | than every other sales model out there. It just has to be | profitable and successful on its own. | anonydsfsfs wrote: | Everything I've reads says the opposite. Elden Ring has | sold at least 13.4 million units so far[1], which is >$800 | million in revenue. The only revenue figure I could find | for Diablo Immortal is $800k [2]. They're not even in the | same ballpark. | | [1] https://www.polygon.com/23070948/elden-ring-sales- | chart-npd-... | | [2] https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/06/03/diablo- | immortal-gen... | ketzo wrote: | Diablo Immortal earned $800k in its _first 24 hours_. | anonydsfsfs wrote: | Elden Ring earned $720m in the first 2 weeks, which | averages ~$51m a day. | PradeetPatel wrote: | We should be mindful of the biggest difference between | Elden Ring and Diablo Immortal - the latter has a | constant revenue stream via its in game microtrasaction | capability. | | Whereas the former, despite being a good game, may not | provide the revenue model desired by its stakeholders. | anonydsfsfs wrote: | Elden Ring isn't going to be a standalone game. The | publisher (Bandai Namco) says it's the start of a | franchise, which fans are almost certain to lap up for a | long time to come. Had Elden Ring included | microtransactions or other questionable features, it's | likely fans would be far less enthusiastic about future | installments, which means revenue from the franchise | would dry up faster. | Hemospectrum wrote: | The "no longer works" comment clearly refers to the business | model, ie. ignoring the quality or popularity of the product | itself and just looking at the balance sheet. The gambling | (microtransaction) model is enormously more profitable than | the classical "just sell a game" model. | | Elden Ring was spectacularly well received and has sold | millions of units, but it's "only" a game. There's no casino | in the back, and therefore no gambling-related revenue | stream. | interroboink wrote: | Maybe I misunderstand you, but if the "no longer works" | comment refers to the business model as you say, then the | person you replied to is saying "no, it can still work as a | business model -- here's an example." | | It may not work _as well_ or _as easily_ , but I don't | think that's the point being made. | Hemospectrum wrote: | The customer might want to buy a product, and the studio | might want to make it, but isn't there someone they | forgot to ask? | | Business models that are lower-risk and higher-return are | systematically preferred by investors. Games are | expensive to make. FromSoft has been successful _enough_ | to stay in business _for now_. They'll always be in | competition with studios that sacrifice product quality | for profitability. Many studios literally cannot afford | to do things their way. | glouwbug wrote: | But the reputation of Elden Ring far outshines the | reputation of Diablo. Activision Blizzard is dying for | reason | jacooper wrote: | Are they though ? All of their numbers are positive | skilled wrote: | Sure, positive from people who are happy to pay their way | towards a victory. Blizzard as a gaming company is dead | and if you never played their games you probably | shouldn't involve yourself in this discussion. | swampthinker wrote: | The cynical response there is "It would've performed even | better if it was a subscription" | encrux wrote: | It does work though. | | "Escape from Tarkov" and "It takes two" are just some of the | more noteworthy ones. There's tons more on steam. | | It's just the mobile market that's screwed entirely. Which I | find odd, because I'm convinced there are opportunities for | games that work especially well on small screens with | touchscreen (like Nintendo demonstrated half a decade before | mainstream smartphones) | Al-Khwarizmi wrote: | Precisely, Nintendo tried a sane sales model with Super Mario | Run back in 2016. You would have access to some levels, then | pay and unlock the rest. No more in-app purchases, IIRC. | | The reaction was a lot of angry comments about the game being | locked and that it should be free-to-play, etc. | | Their next games (like Mario Kart Tour) went back to the | exploitative loot box model. | cehrlich wrote: | Mario Run was also just not a very good game (this is | obviously an opinion, but still...). I wonder how it would | go if Nintendo tried releasing an actual good game for $10 | or some other amount, not an infinite runner with a Mario | skin. | geraldwhen wrote: | It wasn't an infinite runner. It was puzzle levels with | blocks you stopped on and timed jumps. | | Anyone who describes Mario run as an "infinite runner" | didn't play it. | skohan wrote: | Yes it does work. Elden Ring is another example of a hugely | successful product which is solely focused on being an | excellent piece of entertainment. | | It's just more optimal for Profitability to create addictive | garbage like this. Blizzard has chosen to be greedy and | predatory rather than trying to create art of entertainment. | ChildOfChaos wrote: | Whats Elden Ring got to do with it? | | You are comparing a full AAA game for PC and console made | for hardcore gamers versus a mobile game with loot boxes | designed to attract and exploit kids or people that | addicted to this kinda crap and disguise it like a game, | pretty much like slot machine do. | elromulous wrote: | > It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer | works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - | hundreds and thousands of dollars". | | Fwiw, I would be onboard with some kind of model where one pays | a small monthly (or additional fee) for continued updates. For | instance, I play a few multiplayer games (overwatch, hunt | showdown) and I'd be ok paying $1 a month or so to support | continued updates / balancing etc. It seems like companies are | missing the boat on the nominal recurring fees (vs say, the WoW | level subscription of tens of dollars a month). | bentcorner wrote: | I play Overwatch too and I'm kind of worried about what's | going to happen when Overwatch 2 releases. OW 1's | monetization policy is extremely generous, at this point in | the game's lifecycle I have about 1000 hrs of playtime and | have nearly every single cosmetic, and the only money I've | sent Blizzard's way is the CD key and the pink charity skin. | | I worry that the pendulum will swing too far in the other | direction and we'll see P2W elements, particularly in the PvE | mode that eventually releases. | Beltalowda wrote: | > It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer | works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - | hundreds and thousands of dollars". | | What makes you say that? I mostly play single-player games | where I just buy a game and then play it. There are loads of | those out there, with more released every week. Even with my | underpowered Linux laptop I have plenty to choose from. | lekevicius wrote: | I guess I should have added "no longer works on mobile". | PCs/Consoles have plenty of good, paid-upfront games. | Beltalowda wrote: | Ah right, I don't play games on mobile, but I think there | are still mobile games with simple straight-forward pricing | models. For example the Baldur's Gate series got released | on mobile (already a few years ago), and Wadjet Eye Games | releases most of their adventures on mobile too I think. | There are undoubtedly others. | | But I guess they're harder to find/more rare. As others | mentioned, most people spend nothing to little on these | "free" games, so as a no-spend gamer you can choose between | 1) free, or 2) pay $10 (or whatever they charge) to play a | game. Not necessarily a hard choice if the "free" game is | "entertaining enough". | Haegin wrote: | I never got much into mobile gaming, but have recently been | having a lot of fun playing PC or console games on my phone | (using a controller) with streaming services. I've played | with both Geforce Now and Xbox Game Pass and (at home on my | decent cable internet connection) it's working really | nicely. I also have the Nvidia shield, so when I do want to | game on the TV I can pick up where I left off very easily. | | If you're looking for a game to play on your commute it's | probably not going to work, but for at home on the couch | it's great. | tonguez wrote: | " It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer | works." What makes you say that? I mostly play single-player | games" | | it doesn't work for the developers. obviously you can play a | single player video game. | dmix wrote: | Diablo 4 will probably just be a normal PC game too. Those | freemium mobile games are always scammy but that doesn't mean | there aren't endless classic business model games. | jnovek wrote: | Perhaps. | | I still plays Diablo 2 and 3 quite a bit. I don't think I'd | call myself a "hardcore" player -- I'm not very good -- but | I'm definitely in the Diablo 4 launch demographic. | | I've been keeping an eye on Diablo Immortal as sort of a | canary. I can say with absolute confidence that I won't be | buying D4 at launch if Blizzard doesn't fix the DI mess. | | Among longtime players of the franchise, I can't imagine | that I'm alone. | adra wrote: | A publisher that has tasted fast cheap low value entries | has a hard time justifying risky quality entries when the | risk of failure is much higher. We're seeing the reality-tv | moment in video games with mobile freemiums and it's | frightening. I feel like Square-Enix is the perfect nexus | if these market forces. I'm not even sure they'll bother | with AAAs after making so much money off their low effort | mobile cash cows. | mysterydip wrote: | Not only that, but many studios are one bad selling title | away from closing up permanently. They can't afford to | take risks. Check out "Press Reset" by Jason Schreier for | multiple examples. | Al-Khwarizmi wrote: | Indeed. I'm personally not a victim of loot boxes and | exploitative P2W tactics because I just don't buy them. But I | just want to pay some amount once and have a good game in my | Android phone, without ads and without constantly nagging me to | spend more! I'll pay $60 also if the game is good, I just don't | want to be put into a Skinner box constantly trying to milk my | "engagement" and my pockets. Is that so much to ask? | | Mind you, there are _some_ games like that (my usual routine is | to go to Google Play Games, navigate to the bottom, choose "no | ads" and "no in-app purchases"), but it seems that they are | like 1% of the total. | | If you like a specific niche subgenre, a franchise, etc. it's | very likely that all games you find will be of the exploitative | variety. | | It's sad that I have a pocket computer with an awesome screen | in my hand the whole day, and other cool features like | gyroscope, GPS, etc. that can be used for gaming; and I find | myself going back to my good old PC (or lately, the Steam Deck) | when I want to play. | rapind wrote: | It sucks that the model of pay once ($60) or subscription | doesn't gel with the in-app purchase or advertising models. | | For example YouTube premium is a worse product than it could | be because the entire platform has been designed with | advertising and engagement in mind. | MrDresden wrote: | YT Premium is not the product it could be because it only | needs to be better than what it is replacing, or normal YT. | | Say this as someone who just subscribed this month. | wincy wrote: | It's even worse on mobile as the app might forcefully update | you to a new Free to Play version. I spent $8 on Galaxy On | Fire 2 HD which was acquired by another company then suddenly | dropped the price and added ads and in app purchases. Very | frustrating. | eyeownyde wrote: | Similar experience for me. I bought the no ads version of | plants vs zombies- "no ads" was even in the title. A few | years later EA changed the app name and added ads. | georgeecollins wrote: | >> It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer | works. | | That model still works very well, probably as well as it ever | has. But now there are also other models for your phone and | computer. If people rejected them, only the "make good game, | sell it" model would be left. | iaaan wrote: | I feel like we're well past due for some kind of price hike on | AAA video games. Games were $60 when I was a kid, and | inexplicably, they still are, for the most part. | | Unfortunately, since investors have figured out that the | subscription model extracts the most profit possible, I have a | feeling we're going to be seeing more and more of that rather | than a simple price increase. | | Wouldn't surprise me if we even see Steam unveil something like | Xbox Game Pass for their marketplace within the next few years. | Maybe the worst part is the fact that you no longer actually | own anything when all you're paying for is a subscription, but | that's more or less how Steam already works, minus the | recurring payments. | nightski wrote: | The market has been rapidly expanding for a long time, hence | less need to increase prices. That plus if you include | special, gold, ultimate editions, dlc packs, | microtransactions, etc prices have been going up. | wetpaws wrote: | People keep saying games should cost more, and yet games | routinely gross orders of magnitude more than in the past due | to sugnificantly expanded market. | pwthornton wrote: | It's a pretty great Diablo experience on an iPad with a | controller. It is sad that you can't just pay a decent amount | of money to get a classic experience. Maybe people will | discover a path where you could pay a reasonable sum of money | to get a fairly normal grinding experience with Diablo. I'm not | opposed to in-app purchases, but I'm not a gambler, and I don't | support gambling business models. | | I saw some reviews and write-ups saying that it would be more | fun as a $10 game, but I think that's part of the problem. This | is not a $10 game. It should be fully priced. | | For whatever reason, proper up-front never took hold on mobile. | I know Apple really pushed 99-cent apps early on, and maybe | that is part of the genesis of this. It has been even harder to | convince Android users to pay for apps and games. And so here | we are. | | I suspect it would be really hard to convince people to pay $60 | for a mobile game after all these years of cheap and free | games, no matter how good and how expensive it was to make. | It's kind of illogical when you think about it. The latest | iPhones are at least base PS4 in terms of power. The iPad Air | And Pros are well beyond that. | | As others have noted, there are ways to make f2p work well. You | can do season passes and cosmetic stuff. You don't have to go | whale hunting. | | Realistically, we probably need legislation to make this kind | of whale hunting illegal. We also need Apple and Google to step | up and start caring about business models that support great | software. | | It's not just games, we aren't getting great mobile software in | general -- at least not at the rate we saw with desktop | computers. | makecheck wrote: | Proper up-front never occurred because Apple refuses to | implement a simple free-trial-period mechanism. And it is | impossible to filter store searches in a way that tells you | which apps _would_ behave roughly in that way (therefore | anything with IAP I just _assume_ must be a gambling /gem- | bags/garbage model). | sjtindell wrote: | Really no video game lets you do a free trial. To me the | start of all this was Google. Google completely changed the | way we interact with services and technology. It's amazing | and completely "free". | darkwater wrote: | Back when games were distributed as a physical media, | there were demo version you could get with a game | magazine for free, or early downloads via Internet. Plus | Google Play in the beginning let you try any purchased | app for, what? 48 hours? I don't recall exactly now. | hw wrote: | Lots of folks disappointed at Diablo Immortal are comparing it | to a PC game which it isn't. It's a great game that lets you | play and experience Diablo on the go, during your lunch breaks, | and on the porcelain throne. | | Once you adjust your expectations and understand that this is a | filler game before D4 you'll see that it's a great game that | can be enjoyed for the content without paying a cent | wincy wrote: | I mean, you can literally play Diablo Immortal on Battle.Net | on your PC right now. It's even advertised for PC. | matwood wrote: | I've played to around level 30 or so also and it feels just | like any other recent Diablo. So far it seems like I can pay to | speed things up/improve the drop rate, or just keep playing | without just fine. Is there some spot I'm going to hit that I | can't progress without paying? | uberswe wrote: | The article mentions that you can get the best gear for free | but it will take you about 10 years. So I'm sure you can play | it and have fun. If you try PVP however then you would be at | a great advantage if you pay money for upgrades. | skohan wrote: | But these games are explicitly designed to be frustrating | _and not fun_ when played for free. | | The math and game design are expertly crafted to make you | play compulsively. They most certainly have been designed | to cause psychological pain when you don't play it you | don't pay. They are not designed to cause fun or joy. | toxik wrote: | The free aspect is like your heroin dealer going "the | first dose is free". That is exactly what they want you | to do. | oefrha wrote: | It's not like you can get the "best" seasonal gear in D3 | (which is paid upfront) without a ridiculous amount of | grind. Well, not as ridiculous as 10 years, but still. | | Without knowing how money scales in this game it's very | hard to judge the 10 years / 110k figure. In D3 sometimes | you're grinding exponentially for 1% or even 0.1% | improvements at a time, and you don't have to. | hw wrote: | Time is money. Paying for progress or items provides | accessibility to that experience for people who just dont | have the time to grind. | LeoNatan25 wrote: | Don't play the "accessibility" nonsense argument with us | old-time gamers. You know what I could have done in D3 to | skip the grind, if I wanted to? Use cheats or trainers or | a save file from the internets, in a single player game, | for which I paid for. Not this nonsense today, where even | single player games are gated behind "sErViCeS" backend | to prevent cheating, aka DRM for the payed DLC stuff, | that is already on disk downloaded, in a single player | games. Please stop. | oefrha wrote: | D3 is in fact not very single player for all but the most | casual players who stop at finishing the story solo. | hnxs wrote: | How? | noirbot wrote: | Really? I did plenty of pushing into high-tier rifts solo | in D3. It's definitely more stable and reliable with | multiple people, but I did plenty of grinding solo and | have a good time. | matwood wrote: | The article is really quite confusing. Early on it says F2P | can't get the best gear, then later says they can. Then | they say even for paid players it's random so I'm not even | sure how they come up with 100k figure. | | It's just hard for me to get upset about a game that's | always been a pretty skin over a blatant Skinner box. | Ralfp wrote: | The way those games are designed most of time there is a | way to get good gear for free, but its usually behind | hundreds of hours of same monotous gameplay. | | I've played Homeworld mobile recently. The progress is | great for first 15 hours but then game drops at you | timegates. Wanna spaceship strong enough for later | content? You can do god know how many missions hoping you | get ship design, or you can do god knows how many | missions to earn money to buy that from one of factions | for cash. Or you can buy credits for cash. But only on | Android because game is in public beta and Apple forbids | monetization in those. | | And once you get the ship design, you need to mine | resources for it (this is manageable) but then you need | to refine those, which takes around 70h of wait, but if | you have other premium currency named ,,adamantium", you | can cut that wait in half for 100 adamantium, then | another half by another adamantium and half of that. | | And then you need to build ship in shipyard which takes | between 10 to 15 days, but with adamantium you can slice | that time down like for refining. | | Every day you can collect 100 adamantium for free and buy | 1000 extra for $9.99. | foobarian wrote: | I mean, it's been like this since the first Diablo. Even | the sounds and animations when killing major bosses | sounded and looked like a slot machine. It's nice that | people are upset about it as they should, but this is not | a new phenomenon and I'm puzzled why the hate is directed | at DI specifically. At the end of the day a grizzled old- | school gamer could not play multiplayer, ignore all paid | options, and end up with the exact same experience as | Diablo 2. | Ralfp wrote: | DI is high profile release, which is why the uproar is | large enough to reach the mainstream. But its nothing new | and happens in every fandom when favorite brand enters | the mobile gaming. | | It's rumored that EA lost exclusivity on Star Wars games | because of their mishandling of license and time-gating | legendary Star Wars characters behind hours of gameplay | (it took 42h of grind to unlock Darth Vader, but you | could just pay extra on in-game roulette to unlock him | sooner). This also caused uproar that reached mainstream | media and commentary from members of state governments. | wincy wrote: | Yeah I mean the game is intentionally confusing. | | You have these things called eternal crests which cost | 160 "gems" (the real money currency). These let you run a | special dungeon that guarantees a drop of a legendary gem | rated between 1 and 5 stars. In fact if you fail the | dungeon somehow it'll refund the crest and let you try | again. | | Apparently the drop rate for the 5 star gems is 4.5%, so | my napkin math works out to around $50 per 5 star | legendary gem. | | I can't go back and check my math because I uninstalled | the game. | matwood wrote: | > Yeah I mean the game is intentionally confusing. | | I agree there. | | I think my char is ~38 and I have 4 legendary gems mixed | levels 2-3. I haven't and won't pay any money, but so far | the game has been fun. I haven't been limited at all in | my progression, in fact the game has felt too easy. Will | I ever have 5x5star gems? Probably not, but I would have | gotten bored way prior anyway. | | I dislike F2P/micro tx games as much as anyone, but so | far I haven't been limited in any way. When it does (or I | get bored) I'll stop playing. | abxytg wrote: | People are mad as hell for no reason about this one. It's | honestly decent monetization and the free game is great. | margaretdouglas wrote: | The issue is fundamentally that releasing a single game for a | single fee yields linear growth, which is to say the amount | your growing by is stagnant. Stagnant growth, to an investor, | is essentially a signal that your company is currently failing. | So unless you can grow your growth, you fail, and the only way | to continue growing your growth is if new products remain cash | generating indefinitely. | hammock wrote: | Not sure why you're being downvoted. Your insight connects | the software industry to the larger macroeconomic environment | of low interest rates and growth-seeking (rent-seeking?). A | one-off's sales have a ceiling, where a recurring revenue | source is an indefinite fountain of sales. | | The same could be observed of Hollywood. How much of the | derivative sequels, reboots and spin-offs are driven not by a | lack of creativity as is often bemoaned, but rather by a | greater-than-ever desire to develop "fountains of sales" | rather than one-off artistic hits? | [deleted] | greymalik wrote: | What limitations do you run into if you don't pay that stop it | from being fun after the first 30 levels? | hw wrote: | > It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer | works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - | hundreds and thousands of dollars". | | Same can be said for software. Now it's all SaaS where you have | to pay monthly and choose from different pricing tiers or ala | carte feature options to 'win' in a business sense. | csa wrote: | > Now it's all SaaS where you have to pay monthly and choose | from different pricing tiers or ala carte feature options to | 'win' in a business sense. | | While some businesses abuse SaaS pricing (e.g., MS office for | very basic uses, acrobat pro for basic uses, etc.), I think | the SaaS pricing model has aligned the interests of | developers and consumers (esp. smaller devs and smaller | consumers) in a way that has allowed a wider market to have | access to a wider range of affordable software _and ongoing | support /updates_ than would be possible under the previous | system. | | There are definitely folks, often a small niche, who really | just need an old version of a piece of software for one or | two small functions, and maybe those folks should be built in | to the SaaS pricing model somehow, but overall I think that | the merits of SaaS pricing almost always outweigh the | demerits by quite a bit. | Larrikin wrote: | For nearly everything users should be able to pay once and | then pay for updates. The model Jet Brains was forced into | should be the norm and not the abusive model Apple has | normalized and forced onto consumers | localhost wrote: | Office web apps are free with OneDrive and 5GB storage. | $20/yr for 100GB. Office 365 personal is $70/yr. What would | you rather see instead? | | Disclosure: I work for Microsoft. | robertlagrant wrote: | I still don't understand how people sell small SAAS | products with the per-country VAT rules. | cherioo wrote: | By using SAAS payment product that solves that for them! | | Which makes for a reasonable SAAS model given changing | nature of tax system. | cgriswald wrote: | The SaaS pricing model doesn't mean just one thing, so you | should probably define what you mean. | | As commonly practiced, if you stop subscribing, you lose | all access to the software (or get bumped down to the | functionality of some free version). This moves a large | portion of the risk of developing a new version from the | developers to the customers. If the customers don't like | the new version, it's not easy for them to switch; and as | commonly practiced, they often can't continue using the old | version. | | I do agree that the JetBrains model aligns both developer | and consumer interests. JetBrains carries the risk of | developing the new version. If customers don't like it, | they can unsubscribe and continue using their existing | software. | adra wrote: | At the heart of every SAAS offering is the core of the | proposal: It takes money to make money. The same reason why | finance related journals have largely kept alive while | lifestyle magazines have shrivelled. If a thing costs money | but ends up making you more then it's still a win-win. | ksidudwbw wrote: | VR is so fun if you want basic graphics and fun gameplay | Andrex wrote: | > It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer | works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - | hundreds and thousands of dollars". | | It does work, but not at the profit multiples that venture | capitalists and private equity currently demand. Speaking of | gaming overall, not iOS specifically. | wincy wrote: | I spent $7 and just finished the main storyline. Then I joked | to my friends "okay I'm level 60 I'm done now". But then I | thought about it and I uninstalled the game. I beat it, I get | how the game works, I got an authentic Diablo experience. I'm | done now. | matt_s wrote: | That is an outrageous amount of money on a game, the article did | also say it would take 10 years to amass all that, which is still | almost $1k per month. | | If that amount of gear were resellable in a marketplace then some | of the moral arguments are empty. And I bet it wouldn't be an | astronomical amount because there is a random loot | box/gambling/prize factor in acquiring gear in that game. | | It doesn't matter the technology behind a marketplace, SQL+CRUD | and CC payments or blockchain+NFT, it's tracking a receipt of | purchase on digital items. Some would argue that blockchain is a | stupid choice of technology but I would counter that the tech | world has taken tech and bent it into a different purpose than | intended with much success. For example, a documentation | technology and protocol (HTML and HTTP) was intended for | scientists to link documents to each other. We've taken that and | bent it into complete client/server applications. | pfdietz wrote: | P2W is getting a lot of flak, but any game where you have to do | not-fun grinding to get to the "good part" is effectively P2W. | You are trading something of value, your time, not because the | activity is fun, but because it gives you power to then enjoy the | game. It's P2W, just not using currency. | | And this trade is arguably worse overall for society than P2W | using money. In that, you are producing something of value for | society to get that money; in grind-to-win, you are producing | nothing of value for society (and the game company gets no | compensation as a result.) | | The cost of a grindy game can be shockingly high, if you bother | to compute the value of the time you are spending on it. That you | find the grind tolerable doesn't reduce this cost. | Ruthalas wrote: | I think a big part the problem is that of you include a cash | shop of some sort in your game, the incentive immediately | shifts to maximize the grind as much as your players are likely | to tolerate. The more you can successfully push this, the more | money the time-saving items you sell will turn a profit. | | So any game that includes this sort of transactional mechanic | has a strong perverse incentive to waste your time. | ir193 wrote: | mobile games: gambling + porn, but legal | RektBoy wrote: | Game is coded horribly, nearly no server-side checks on gameplay | actions. | | What I found so far.. speedhack, insta-ability spam, | immortality(hehe). | | Looking for force-invite into party and drop exploit. So far | nothing. Pouring more hours into this, let's see on twitch ;-) | sitzkrieg wrote: | lmfao what a garbage game. so much clientside. this should be | the top concern considering it sidesteps all of the above | issues completely but maybe people wont realize till people and | one shot in their games | aliswe wrote: | link? | mrits wrote: | https://www.reddit.com/r/DiabloImmortal/comments/v4n35m/hack. | .. | Dunban4 wrote: | Instead of government, an industry standard: total | microtransaction purchases cannot exceed the full market price of | the game. If the purchase limit is reached, every | microtransaction item is unlocked unconditionally. | | - DLCs are not microtransactions but they must add either new | features or narratives. | maccard wrote: | What's the full market price of a f2p game? | | Why is it ok for narrative content to be considered a DLC but | cosmetic content to be considered microtransactions? | Dunban4 wrote: | > Many non-F2P MMOs have a subscription model instead. The | market price quota would be based on the market price of | subscriptions > Assets such as new models and textures are | the simplest skeletons of a game. A new feature is comparable | to a side game and a narrative could be an entire game on its | own ie: CYOA | | To clarify, the 2 criterions should be 'best practices' and | not hard enforceable rules. However, games that don't adhere | to the best practice should have the stigma associated with | the ratings M or AO. An adult should be capable of judging | the poor value of microtransactions and have the choice to | suffer the consequences of consensual decisions at their own | expense. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I don't really see the problem if someone is dumb enough to pay | or stupid-rich enough for this to be pocket change. | | Interesting to see how ridiculous an amount it is though. | totorovirus wrote: | check out how much money koreans spend on Lineage. 110k? that's | actually pretty affordable | | https://www.mmobomb.com/news/player-spent-3-5-million-lineag... | Shadonototra wrote: | Activision/Blizzard wants to destroy thier IP and reputation to | compete with asian companies | | This shit should have been regulated 10 years ago already | | PC gaming is becoming infected too | | It's very sad | | Yet another company i will boycott | jordan801 wrote: | Here's the problem with this game: | | - Blizzards slew of beloved franchises makes it easy to entrap | nostalgia addicted masses to a number of pay to win clones. Or | slowly implement these types of features into existing games. | | - Half of the assets are from a 10 year old prequel. This game | was cheap to make and will have an insanely high profit margin. | Leading to perpetuation of this model. | | - Scummy mobile pay to win is already accepted as the standard | for mobile. With a desktop port, Blizzard can expand that | complacency to further markets. | | - Pay to Win models incentivize paid content over legitimate, | engaging content. I.e. story, character models and gameplay will | deteriorate overtime in favor of producing content that turns | profit. | | This is inevitable though. | ayngg wrote: | Blizzard is close to being a zombie company, the last game with | true Blizzard pedigree was probably around 15 years ago, their | last decent game was almost 10 years ago, they are milking the | last few drops from the geriatric cash cow that is WoW, they | have completely failed to capitalize on competitive games with | Overwatch, Heroes of the Storm or even WoW arena, and they are | all languishing, Diablo Immortal is a mobile p2w game, while | all they have to look forward to is Overwatch 2 which is a | glorified patch and if Diablo 4 isn't some smash success they | have nothing else. | | Add on top of that the company culture, sexual harassment | scandals, all of the significant employees leaving, the | Blizzard everyone knew is long gone. Gamers have moved past | Blizzard, new gamers don't care about their games, so the only | thing they have left is the IP to milk nostalgia from, which is | why they finally started to make remakes of Warcraft 3 and | Diablo 2. | mmmmmbop wrote: | I don't think it's true that their last decent game was | almost 10 years ago. Overwatch is a really great game and it | came out 6 years ago. | ayngg wrote: | Compared to the kind of games that made Blizzard iconic | like SCBW, TFT, D2, and early WoW which were basically | pillars in the gaming world, the game, while polished, was | a fairly mediocre Team Fortress variant in comparison. It | also had lofty ambitions of sustaining a large e-sports | scene to the point where investors were paying tens of | millions to have the right of owning a team. That never | materialized and the game has basically been stagnant for | years, waiting for Overwatch 2 (which was recently teased | and didn't appear to change much) while other games like | Valorant or Apex have made it largely irrelevant in that | space. | jamespo wrote: | Are you arguing that Overwatch should be F2P like | Valorant / Apex? | mmmmmbop wrote: | All you said is true, but now you're shifting goal posts. | You previously said Blizzard's last 'decent' game was 10 | years ago, not the last game that was 'basically a pillar | in the gaming wold'. | | While Overwatch may not have achieved it's lofty | ambitions, it's still extremely well-regarded [0], had 50 | million players (which is quite impressive given that | it's not free-to-play) and has grossed over $1 billion. | It arguably brought the modern hero shooter genre to | mainstream popularity and caused a flood of similar games | to follow it. You're right, nowadays there are more | popular games in that genre, but at the time it was quite | a novel concept. | | Since you said 10 years since the last 'decent' game from | Blizzard, I assume you referred to Diablo 3. I wonder, by | what metric is Diablo 3 a decent game and Overwatch | isn't? | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_con | sidered... | erulabs wrote: | I don't think its inevitable and I don't think it's a good long | term monetization strategy. It's just short term planning with | complete disregard for the long term health of the company. How | the board of directors doesn't see this is shocking. Maybe they | do and also want to milk it today instead of tomorrow just like | the C-suite. Yes, exploitative mobile gaming is profitable as | hell - but in the current world is alienating your extremely | loyal (and higher earning) fan-base worth it? | | Either way, it's a shame and a waste of a lot of really great | IP that will be buried alive when the coffin that is Blizzard | is lowered into the ground. | mmmmmbop wrote: | > It's just short term planning with complete disregard for | the long term health of the company. How the board of | directors doesn't see this is shocking. | | I wonder if milking the company's reputation like this | perhaps actually _is_ the most optimal strategy for Blizzard. | Innovation requires investment and luck, and it can create a | great reputation for a brand. Once you have that reputation | though, perhaps it 's not rational to try your luck again. | Maybe the expectation value is highest if you just sell out. | | It's not just Blizzard, see e.g. the twelfth installment of | Assassin's Creed or the eighteenth installment of Call of | Duty. For that matter, it's not even just video games. Look | at the tenth Fast & Furious movie or the fifteenth iPhone | that are coming out soon, and will surely sell like crazy, | even though they'll probably not be very innovative. | HWR_14 wrote: | Except MS is buying Blizzard, and they seem to have a healthy | respect for long term recurring revenues by keeping | franchises alive. | VHRanger wrote: | > I don't think it's a good long term monetization strategy | | You can look at plenty of games that have lived for a long | time on this: | | - Supercell games (Clash Royale, Clash of Clans, Hay Day, | etc.) | | - Genshin Impact | | - Heartstone and Magic Arena | | - Rainbow 6 The Division (most profitable Ubisoft game) | erulabs wrote: | Of those listed I've only played Hearthstone and Clash | Royale. I reached top rank in Clash Royale, and I believe I | only spent 5 dollars on it to get a neat looking board to | play on - so I don't think they generate quite the ill-will | that a legendary PC competitive game developer like | Blizzard generates when they produce something _much worse_ | than most existing (at least in the west) mobile free to | play games. | | My point isn't that these sorts of games aren't profitable | - it's that they should have spun up a new studio with a | new name instead of lighting the good will of a 25+ year IP | that's held so dearly on fire. | [deleted] | bitwize wrote: | What? Do you guys not have $110,000? | still_grokking wrote: | In today's world it's hard to tell whether the parent comment | is sarcasm or meant seriously. I'm kind of worried about that. | bootloop wrote: | True, but this in particular is a reference: | https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/do-you-guys-not-have-phones | still_grokking wrote: | Oh, I did not got this reference. Thanks for explaining. | | Than that comment is even more to the point than I thought! | | At least now I'm sure it deserves an up-vote -- as your | helpful comment does. | [deleted] | nanaboo wrote: | Let NFTs take care of it. | | In-game skins are going nowhere, let a government force the | company into creating a package with however many skins they want | (maybe based on prior sales or realistic expectations) per season | (whatever their season looks like) and walk away from it. You | know they won't be able to add more. | | Because what's stopping them now to change the decimal point | however they see fit. | | I suppose the same could be done with progression (where the real | money is). Either make it tradeable somehow and lock it down, or | outright ban it and allow for more expensive but regulated skins | be the only funding capital. | seydor wrote: | Why is that considered a lot? People pay more for e.g sports | memorabilia | EB-Barrington wrote: | I'll go out on a limb and say that spending 110k on a video | game is considered "a lot" by 100% of all humans, rounded to | the closest percent. | donatj wrote: | People put tens of thousands of hours into these sorts of | games though to get equipment. Put that same time into a | minimum wage job and we're approaching the same amount of | money. Seems relatively fair. | gspr wrote: | Those sports memorabilia are at least traded on a market, and | thus hold and retain that "investment". Not that sports | memorabilia make much sense to me either, but at least you get | something of proven value. | Ekaros wrote: | Proven value might be stretch, but at least theoretical | chance to finding bigger fool. And thus recouping some of the | cost. | account-5 wrote: | And another reason I don't play computer games | INTPenis wrote: | This seems like a perfect time to point out how well Diablo 2 | Resurrection works with a gamepad. I hooked my 55" Acer monitor | over DP to my PC, just start Diablo 2 through Proton, move the | window over to the Acer monitor, sit back in my favorite chair | and hack and I slash away til my heart's content. | totetsu wrote: | But this is just the intangible economy at work.. | minimaxir wrote: | Actual lv. 60 player here. (proof: | https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/1533201559776923650 ) | | There's an interesting amount of misinformation regarding MTX in | Diablo Immortal. But the TL;DR is that the significant gameplay | advantages from MTX only really apply at higher Paragon levels, | requiring _hundreds of hours_ to hit. The primary way of | increasing power before that is the same as it was in any Diablo; | get better gear, which can 't be accelerated by MTX at all. | | Hitting lv. 60/completing the main story content is very easy and | does not benefit much even if you did spend money to get 5-star | Legendary Gems (although there are level gates once you hit lv. | 35; daily quests provide the best way to get around those, those | aren't paywalls). That takes about 20 hours, which is good value | for a free game even if you bounce off. | damowangcy wrote: | If I can find more progress than in my real life, 110k is a fair | trade. (joke) | | The flip side is, no matter how the general public criticize or | hate it, it works and at times, more profitable than most | startups nowadays. | | The game was delayed for more than one whole year as they try to | fix things up, 110k is probably an optimized figure. | | That say, the game is enjoyable better than most mobile rpg but | brings nothing new to the table. I would prefer it to be a pay | once and for expansion though. | jiggawatts wrote: | What upsets me is that in exchange for that money you're treated | to a low quality game. You can just feel the disdain for the | user/victim at every step. | | While launching the game for the first time: | | 1) No sound! | | 2) Forced subtitles. | | 3) Visible tearing in the video because of a lack of vsync. | | 4) Two tracking and notification permission prompts, including | one that lies to you: "Your game is better if we can target ads". | | 5) Obnoxious tutorial that takes control away from the player. | (If an adult spoke like this to me in real life I would slap them | for their insolent patronising!) | | 6) Forced updates. | | 7) Etc... | | At this point I deleted then game because I don't want to be | _gamed_ by a mega corp. I'm not a money bag to be tracked and | siphoned. | vhgyu75e6u wrote: | I found most of your complains either false or non issue: | | 1. Ok, maybe a bug. | | 2. Given that is a mobile game and most people will no have the | volume up, it is ok to have subtitles. Not to mention that | games that start with subtitles are more accessible and the | majority of players actually don't mind them and find them | useful. | | 3. Fair, but given that this is a mobile game, V-sync can be a | problem for lower end devices too. | | 4. False? I cleared the first mission and had no prompt for | that and has not requested tracking at all. Android. | | 5. The hell you talking about? When you start you get a small | cut scene and are given full control when they drop you off the | ship. | | 6. The game is mostly online for what I can tell so updates are | a given (and you can download areas separately) | shrimp_emoji wrote: | > _you're treated to a low quality game_ | | You're not only playing a modern Blizzard game, but a _mobile_ | one. This should go without saying. :p | | > _Two tracking and notification permission prompts_ | | Is one of those the face tracking they put in there to satisfy | Chinese government regulations? | xyst wrote: | Gamers of todays generation have been slowly taught to accept | this as the new norm. IAPs, DLCs, "pay to win", and Battle Passes | are just acceptable now. | | Release a half assed game in a few months. Complete the rest of | the game on relaxed timeframe and release them as DLCs. Continue | to milk the consumer for more $$$. | | Honestly the entire concept of IAPs is predatory. Consumer | protection agencies need to regulate these companies. | reggieband wrote: | I know this is a crazy thought and not inline with a lot of the | blizzard hate - but why don't games like this allow more gifting | style mechanics? | | I consider the Twitch gift sub market. And I consider that weird | crypto game Axie Infinity. It seems we are only considering the | purchasing power of whales that want to flex. What about whales | that want to collaborate. Whales that want to demonstrate their | generosity. | | I remember a reddit post about a guy who had a rich friend that | would constantly take him on wild adventures that the poorer | friend couldn't afford. The rich guy didn't care about spending | the money and the poor guy was good company. | | I think an interesting monetization mechanic would be a game | where the pay-to-win aspect was in the recruitment and outfitting | of other players. So as a poor player I could have the | opportunity to earn high-level gear based on the spending of a | whale whose campaign I was joining. | minimaxir wrote: | There are a few F2P games which offer a wishlist/gifting | mechanic. (I know Path of Exile does). | | Unclear how successful it would be. | duskwuff wrote: | Even Path of Exile only allows gifting microtransactions | through explicit interactions with support, and they're | somewhat picky about verifying that you're buying the items | for someone you know personally -- they're going out of their | way to avoid letting players trade in-game equipment for paid | cosmetic items. | shpx wrote: | When I was 11 some guy randomly gave me like 20k gp and | dragonhide in RuneScape and I haven't forgotten that moment in | the mines outside of Varrock since. | TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: | Whoa, very interesting! i'd love to play this game. | | > spending of a whale whose campaign I was joining. | | Also, for me very punishing mechanics with high risk, high | reward games have had an underserved market place. I love pking | on a variety of different MMO's and sometimes when you are | pking in max gear you are risking 10g's IRL. Full Torva on | runescape is 6g's and once you add up the rest of the rings and | amulets, you can easily be risking $15,000.00 IRL money. | | However, there is no benefit to anyone besides yourself. Clans | are 'superficial' as there is no real 'shared loot' system, | clan building requirements outside 'daily's', but being the | biggest clan doesn't give you 'benefits' outside a few dailys | and some xp. | cableshaft wrote: | This was one thing I appreciated about Pokemon Go! when it | first came out and everyone was playing it. It's one of the | only free-to-play games that got me happily buying the in-game | currency to buy items, because I could buy and use the (don't | remember what it was anymore, too long ago, I'm sure someone | else here remembers) item that attracted Pokemon to my area for | a half hour at a time, and all players in the region | benefitted. | | So I was buying and deploying these things over and over again | just so my wife and kids in the area could have more fun. I | specifically remember we attended a wedding at Disney World and | my wife (girlfriend at the time) couldn't move around because | of a recent surgery (I pushed her around Disney World in a | wheelchair the whole time), so me buying those things let her | capture Pokemon from our hotel room, and I could see a bunch of | other people in the area playing as well. I hope I helped | several kids enjoy playing the game more during that time. | | I'd love more games to have something similar. If something | only benefits me in a game I don't feel too motivated to buy | it, as I can usually just deal without and progress slower, of | just play a different game altogether. | | It doesn't have to be specific to your physical region | (although I think that helps, it was cool to think I was | helping people near me), but maybe just where you're at within | a game world, or something. | [deleted] | wbobeirne wrote: | You end up with a huge security incentives problem. If there's | a way to extract the value from one account and give it to | another, you massively increase the incentive to phish users, | set up black markets for buying items off of a hacked account, | or just transfer it to your own. | matthewfcarlson wrote: | Why not steal the idea of Pokemon go? Transfer doesn't go to | a person but to an area or group of people. You could pay to | unlock an area and take a group of people on a quest. Or | perhaps a boost or buff in an area. | snek_case wrote: | You could set up a payment system to buy items that's not a | player account. You buy an item just to give. There's still a | phishing incentive, but is it worse than any of the other | content you can buy online? | Jenk wrote: | Credit Card theft/fraud is why. If it was possible to | "transfer" funds like this then mechanisms for fraudulent | purchases will increase dramatically. Eve Online introduced | purchasing in-game currencies because it was rife on the | "black market" anyway and they also saw a huge number of | fraudulent purchases and/or charge backs. 3rd party grey | "broker" sites popped up with way below market rate prices, | 99% of which are using fraudulent CCs to fund them, and bot | accounts to transfer the in-game stuff. | snek_case wrote: | If you can't gift items, it seems like a huge missed | opportunity because I feel like there's a lot of things people | don't buy for themselves but they might be willing to buy for | other people as a gift. | | For instance I don't think I would ever spend 30 dollars on a | bottle of wine to drink at dinner, but I could pay 50 or 60 to | buy a bottle of wine as a special gift to a friend. | ajnin wrote: | I hope more country follow suit of Belgium and The Netherlands | and classify loot boxes with a random drop element as gambling, | and as such make it heavily regulated and banned to kids. This | kind of practices are evidently predatorial and manipulative and | should be greatly discouraged. | qball wrote: | >classify loot boxes with a random drop element as gambling | | Most people who talk about this tend to have no idea what laws | already cover gambling. | | I think that, in this case, loot boxes should be treated like | slot machines as far as minimum payout goes; in Nevada (for | example) this is minimum 75% by law- meaning that the house | must ultimately return 75% of the value it takes in as winnings | to its gamblers. | | As these systems are effectively slot machines (put coin in, | pull handle, get box), not much more needs to be done other | than applying the law as written. | | It might be tricky to establish a dollar value for the digital | assets paid out, and would add overhead to assets distributed | in this manner (how one would put a price on "asset that | changes the way the game works" is, of course, an open | question), but provided it's done properly should clamp down | significantly on the anti-consumer aspects of these practices- | which is, I suspect, the real reason everyone complains about | this in the first place. | fatbird wrote: | Kids aren't allowed to play real world slot machines either, | are they? | qball wrote: | The last time I went to Dave & Busters, they didn't seem to | have an entrance policy. | | People don't seem to have a problem with this even though a | minority of their games are ultimately slot machines (the | simplest of which is the "time the light" game, but the | coin stackers count as this as well given that they also | appear in real casinos). | callamdelaney wrote: | There is 0 value to things that can be generated with in | games like the 'loot' from lootboxes. Value is based on a | limit in supply, not only demand. The massive possible amount | of supply puts the value at $0. It's worse than gambling. | qball wrote: | >There is 0 value to things that can be generated with in | games like the 'loot' from lootboxes. | | But that's false, on its face in fact- there was | development and artist time involved in every step of the | process, and that time has a value (and an auditable one, | at that). | | So now that we know what the value is, taking into account | that the house can only pay out in those assets, we can in | effect determine a maximum profit per asset (as far as the | house-player transaction is concerned)- casinos close their | doors when the house is no longer able to pay out, and it's | no different here. | IncRnd wrote: | In most cases there is no market for the digital assets from | a loot box, and many game operators aggressively crack-down | on anyone attempting to setup such a market. The digital | assets from these loot boxes have no value. These are not | lotteries or slot machines as these are currently defined in | Nevada, which you quote. | DaveSapien wrote: | There will be, for sure, lives ruined because of this game's | predatory practices. It really sickens me. | | To quote myself from a previous thread: | | "If you could hear the contempt that "some" game devs have for | their customers, you might never buy a game ever again. It really | is quite shocking...and the contempt exists from top to bottom, | its everywhere. That isn't to say there's not a vast number of of | honourable people in the industry, not at all. It's only to say | that we as a whole are allowing the demons run amok. | | I have seen the damage that compulsive behaviour can do to our | most vulnerable in society. Lives ruined, homelessness, suicide, | familial dissolution, the list goes on. Children, people with | mental dysfunctions, suffers of brain injuries, even people with | Parkinson's disease (on l-dopa for example)" | ModernMech wrote: | > There will be, for sure, lives ruined because of this game's | predatory practices. It really sickens me. | | What else is new from Blizzard? | | My roommate in college was addicted to WOW. He'd lock himself | in his room for days, failed his classes, and eventually | dropped out of school. He finished it later, but only after | getting over the WOW addiction. Back then (circa 2005) I | remember reading stories about how Blizzard was hiring | psychologists to make players more addicted _ahem_ I mean | "engaged" to WOW. Really, I guess that was just the start of | it. | | Blizzard has a long and sick history of hijacking human | psychology for profit. Really glad I stopped buying games from | them after Warcraft III. | DaveSapien wrote: | That has been my impression of the company's games, but only | an impression as I don't play their games. | | I might check out this new mobile game for study though. | [deleted] | curiousgal wrote: | arkitaip wrote: | Why? | curiousgal wrote: | Is it really a sickening issue? Like come on. I am not | saying this predatory behavior isn't an issue but it is far | from sickening in the grand scheme of things. | skohan wrote: | It might not be the greatest evil on earth, but knowingly | preying on vulnerable people in society, and causing harm | for your own benefit, to me is sickening and evil. | curiousgal wrote: | That's the thing though, vulnerable people in society | don't have access to $110k. | fsloth wrote: | Sure they do. Not on a one go, maybe, just wait for the | interest to pile up. Shor-term unsecured loans are | notorious for trapping people into financial ruin. Their | legality depends on jurisdiction but the last time I | checked they were present in many first-world economies. | | Easy access to high-interest loans is what makes | deliberate addiction mechanics for mass consumption | entertainment truly insidious. | | Gambling used to be branded as gambling with strict state | controls, and you could expect people to recognize it as | a morally questionable endeavor in which only consenting | adults should dabble. Games that utilize the same | psychological switches as gambling and allow | microtransactions that link to these psychological | switches are similar enough to gambling in my books that | they should be treated as such. | MereInterest wrote: | I think a financial situation needs to be evaluated with | future needs as well as current assets. Due to the US's | general lack of social safety nets, retirement is | primarily funded by savings of the person who is | retiring. The recommended amount of savings to have by | the time of retirement is 10 times your salary [0]. So by | actively cultivating an addiction and leeching away | retirement savings, this could easily be removing the | possibility that somebody will be able to retire at all. | | I might agree with you in countries that have a more | reasonable and less individualistic approach to social | welfare, but not in the US. | | [0] https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/how- | much-do-i... | skohan wrote: | But it's not just harming people who spend $110k. All | sorts of people will end up spending money they shouldn't | because they've been trapped by an addictive product. | kareemm wrote: | We're talking about addiction. Last I checked addiction | doesn't discriminate based on socioeconomic status. | curiousgal wrote: | Okay, would there have been an outrage if it "only" cost | $1000 to full gear-up in the game? | Spoom wrote: | > Okay, would there have been an outrage if it "only" | cost $1000 to full gear-up in the game? | | Yes, since AAA games are typically $60 - $70. The amount | here just highlights that they have no real ceiling to | the amount of money they'll try to extract from someone. | It's the behavior people are complaining about, not the | amount. | MereInterest wrote: | I'm not seeing the connection here, and don't see any mention | of country of origin in the parent's post. Can you explain | further? | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | I suppose it's a bit of a first world problem to be able to | spend 100K on a game. But I'm not sure why this isn't a | legitimate problem for people in "first world" countries. | Why shouldn't be allowing companies to capitalise on | people's addictions. I'm not sure why the existence of | people who have it even worse off should compel us to do | what we can to prevent people from not ruining their lives. | MereInterest wrote: | Thank you, and that was my guess, but I had been hoping | the parent poster had a better reason for it. I get | rather frustrated with the "first-world problem" | argument, as it can be used to dismiss almost any problem | at all. So long as there exists a worse problem | somewhere, every other problem can be dismissed as | irrelevant. What started as a way to dismiss complaints | of minor inconvenience ballooned out into a dismissal of | major systemic problems. | sirtaj wrote: | People in the third world are hardly immune to compulsive | behaviour and the associated risks. | afarrell wrote: | Neither are people who move from the third world hoping to | make money to make a better life for their (now distant) | families. | maccard wrote: | Are "game devs" any different to any other category of product | developers? You can say the same about tech, design, fashion, | really any industry. There's assholes in every industry, you | don't tar an entire industry by its worst offenders. | DaveSapien wrote: | Yes. No, each industry has its special flavour of abhorrent | behaviour. | | I'm not 'taring' the entire industry at all. Indeed I said, | "vast number of honourable people in the industry", what I am | concerned with is just how wide spread the contempt is for | customers that play these games. And what the contempt does | in allowing utterly contemptible business practices. | kybernetyk wrote: | I'm glad I don't have time to play video games. The industry is | getting worse and worse every year. (I thought my WoW addiction | back in the day was bad - but at least the spending was capped at | 13 Eur/month). | [deleted] | Havoc wrote: | This sort of stuff reminds me that I've got 200+ unplayed games | in my steam library. | | Of which presumably at least 10 are excellent, so think I shall | pass on this slot machine game and play something else. | mywaifuismeta wrote: | I regularly play games with gambling (gacha) mechanics and I love | them. The short bursts of fun are exactly what I'm looking for in | my current busy life. I have nothing against this model of | monetization. Gambling is fun. Casinos are fun. I am not a big | spender by any means, but I've probably spent ~$2k on these kind | of games over the past two years or so. I don't regret it, and | for me the fun is in figuring out how to maximize the value of my | spending by doing the math for different types of purchases, | sometimes even coding up simulations. | | The problem starts when it's unregulated and you are tricking | kids, or people who are not educated about probability, into | spending their money in casinos, and use dozens of psychological | tricks to do so and obfuscate purchases. Just like it's easy for | kids to get addicted to social media like Instagram, it's easy | and dangerous to get addicted to gambling (especially when you | see your friends or popular streamers doing it). I believe all of | these games should be 18+, at the very least, and come with a big | warning sign. | michaelmrose wrote: | You can run the same kind of analysis on different game | mechanics and strategies on games not designed to rip you off. | They actually tend to be far more interesting because gambling | games rarely have any meaningful degree of complexity and the | singular strategy you are actually optimizing for is how much | you have to sink into the game to succeed something you can | probably figure out for a given game in about 30 seconds of | analysis. | | Basically you have a bad habit not that far off from smoking | cigarettes that will probably eventually lead to dangerous | overspending the first time you have an economic downturn at | the same time as emotional stress. Despite such games being in | general tasteless and boring you have convinced yourself its | "fun" because you have trained your brain to release dopamine | when you do it and can't tell the difference being joy and | dopamine the same way a crack addict can't tell the difference | between chemical stimulation and actual joy. | Ekaros wrote: | At least with actual gambling I have theoretical chance, at | least momentarily to actually win money... With lootboxes | outside Valve and maybe some others there is no chance to get | it back. | still_grokking wrote: | With $100 a month you can do a lot of things. (And I'm not even | talking about the regions of the world where you could survive | a month with that amount). Just think how may games you could | have bought on Steam for that money! | | Those gambling games are extremely overpriced in comparison! | | But they still make that money. Guess how: By addiction, and | other psychological tricks to make the price seem OKisch, even | it's absolutely not. | | Even the most expensive game productions could make a good | revenue back than just by charging a _one time fee_ of $40 to | $60. | | Now with those gambling games they made $100 a month on you... | Continuously. | | The whole business model is a ripoff, clearly immoral, and | should get banned completely ASAP. | mywaifuismeta wrote: | > Just think how may games you could have bought on Steam for | that money! | | I don't see the difference. Whether I pay a "subscription | fee" of $100 per month or I buy two new games per month, why | does it matter? Why do you think that buying two games a | month is necessarily more fun than paying a subscription fee | for the same 2-3 games? For me it isn't, and there aren't | even enough games I would be interested in buying in the | first place. | scotty79 wrote: | I don't mind existence of those games. But I hate how this | single mechanics floods the market and makes everything else | harder to find. | | I don't mind casinos in Vegas but I would mind if grocery store | around the corner was replaced with small, low quality casino. | BiteCode_dev wrote: | Heroin is fun too, at least at first. | | The problem with gambling is that it taps into the dopamine | system in ways that people are not aware of, even if they know | about probabilities. | | The effect is cumulative, and the more the person gambles, the | more they will gamble, take risks, create unbalance and spend | money. | | Now, just like with anything related to dopamine, many people | will only have a mild effect. E.G: I've played dota for a | while, and never went into full spending mode. | | Like you, I think it's ok to gamble once in a while, to pay for | the game. After all, it's fun, and the game provides | pleasurable moments, but does cost a lot of resources to | develop. It's fair to give money to the company making it: | after all, other games may be paid up to $60, DLC not included, | while free to play are always up to date. | | Yet, it's very difficult to evaluate if the tactics used by the | game for gambling are twisted or not, and if the game target is | going to be abused or not. | | For this reason, I do think they should be heavily regulated, | not just about the age, but about the nature, and intensity, or | the gambling mechanism in place. | erulabs wrote: | How do you stack up this opinion (ban 'immoral' video games) | with the idea that drug prohibition is widely considered a | spectacular failure? | | Banning games like this will only drive the whales into black | markets, which are more expensive, more dangerous, and | benefit criminal enterprises by definition. | | Many of the deaths from heroin, for example, are due to | contamination with fentanyl (which boosts the potency). A | company who was liable to their customers (ie: not a criminal | enterprise) would be much less incentivized to lace their | product, and if they did, there would be someone to prosecute | instead of an entire black market to wag a finger at. | | Anyways, I agree, this is an extremely exploitative design. | What I don't agree on is using legal regulation to shape | society into something moral. Historically, that's only made | things worse. | yuzugit wrote: | I work on video games (not on the design side but | programming) and had to implement some on those systems on | several mobile games. I agree with the comment above that | it's hard to draw the line between gambling addiction and a | faire amount of random that brings fun to a game. Diablo 2 | has already those kinds of random behavior to retain your | attention and trigger dopamine rushes but without trying to | grab cash from you. | | The only solution to me is legal regulation, companies won't | listen as it brings money and most people like to play them. | Features like battle pass for example are pretty moral and a | good balance between making the game profitable, having a | retention and not milk users. | | I hope EU will flag lootboxes based games as casino games | globally and that other big countries will follow (like | Korea, Japan and USA) to stop this trend and force designer | to find better mechanics. | | Also users should also be educated to pay for a game that | they enjoy. Nowadays with all the free services, it's harder | to make users pay for something they can get for << free >> | elsewhere. So it's a complicated issue. | maccard wrote: | > Features like battle pass for example are pretty moral | and a good balance between making the game profitable, | having a retention and not milk users. | | The problem with battle passes is that they rely on you | having a massive player base, and require an incredible | amount of effort to develop and keep running. For a game | like diablo that's clearly not a problem but for anything | that's not a top 10 game on their platform it is | | > I hope EU will flag lootboxes based games as casino games | globally | | I don't think this (specific) categorization is necessarily | the right approach. The problematic part with casino style | games and gambling in general is that cashing out provides | a real money incentive, which is not present here. Calling | these games gambling is kind of like calling piracy theft - | the intention is right but there's an important difference. | We haven't got a category for them yet. | | > Also users should also be educated to pay for a game that | they enjoy. | | On one level yes. On the other, f2p games are popular for a | reason. Excellent games providing a social experience has a | network effect, and if your conversion rate is 2% you don't | succeed as a game by monetising better, you succeed by | increasing your audience. A f2p game could be a profitable | game if the active playerbase all paid $2-3 each but the | _second_ you introduce a barrier there you lose many | players who won't pay, their friends who might pay etc etc. | | > So it's a complicated issue. | | Amen to that. | pezezin wrote: | Japan has pachinko-like machines for kids (and I'm not | kidding, I just saw one today and got extremely pissed | off), I wouldn't count on them. | mywaifuismeta wrote: | I don't think you can compare these mechanics to heroin, | which is physically addictive. A fairer comparison is social | media and timelines/newsfeeds, which use very similar | mechanics, including randomness, to give people their | dopamine rush and make them come back. Hence all this social | media addiction we have. The main difference is that no money | is (directly) involved there, only indirectly through ads. | dumpsterdiver wrote: | I've played a bit, and the reason I don't mind the p2w model is | because I've never tried to compete at that level. Let's be real, | even if it wasn't pay to win there are still people out there who | will be so far ahead of me that it nights as well be. | | When I played D3 I actually played solo most of the time, really | only competing against myself and enjoying the game. One time | someone gave me a weapon that let me one shot everything and it | honestly ruined the game for me. I deleted and started over | because for me the fun is in the journey. | jack_pp wrote: | I've watched a lot of discussions about this from twitch | streamers and I'm not sure where I stand.. On the one hand I'm | amazed at how good this game looks on mobile and if you're just | the type to casually play a game not really caring about being | the best at it you could have fun playing it for free or for very | cheap. On the other hand this game is clearly exploitative and | while other games like Hearthstone or Clash Royale have similar | pay to win mechanics they also have ways for you to enjoy the | game competitively without spending a whole lot of money. | | I know some countries banned games like this but I wonder, if | these games get banned why not ban casinos too? | ImaCake wrote: | The state of Western Australia has banned poker machines. We | have a single casino in the capital which is the only | sanctioned gambling establishment. So our pubs and clubs are a | bit poorer and there are less of them. But they are not ruined | by the horrible rooms full of sad people playing poker machines | that you see in other states. I grew up on the east coast and | whenever I walk into a pub in Perth I am always surprised by | how authentic and nice the place feels compared to those that | have poker machines. | ptilt wrote: | Casinos asks for your ID card, and are regulated to protect | people banned from gambling (at least it is the case in France) | scotty79 wrote: | I had a ton of fun with Clash Royale for many months (even | years at this point) without spending exactly zero money. I | think the way they mix free players with paying players is | absolutely brilliant (from a perspective of free player). | | If I go against a player two levels ahead of me, I can be | pretty much sure that he bought his deck and since he's going | against me not some higher rank I know I have chance of winning | if I can outwit materially stronger opponent. | | When I'm going against someone with lower level then I can be | sure that this guy has very carefully crafted deck and is a | very skilled player. | rightbyte wrote: | Casinos are banned in many places and also banned for kids in | most places. | | Clash royale is sad, becouse it is a extremely good game if it | were not for the pay to win leveling mechanics. I used to play | it alot but it became too frustrating meeting bad players with | low ELO but high level cards that you essentially couldn't win | over unless they messed up bad. | | Edit: To level up all cards in Clash Royale you also have to | spend a silly amount of money. Exponential costs. | Marazan wrote: | Clash Royale is way more generous with free gold to level up | cards these days. | | Far, far, quicker to get cards to tournament standard. | monkey_monkey wrote: | I've played Clash Royale since almost when it was launched, | and I've spent about $10, mainly for a couple of months of | Pass Royale. | | My secondary clash account is staying as Level 1, ie with no | upgraded cards at all, and I regularly beat level 10/11 | players. | Marazan wrote: | Yeah, skill is the dominant factor in Clash Royale right up | into 5000+ | jack_pp wrote: | I just started playing it after a long break. I remember you | used to need to upgrade your cards to challenge level in | order to be competitive in challenges but now they give you | all cards in challenge mode at the standard level, even cards | you haven't found yet | | It costs 10 gems to play a challenge and you can buy 500 gems | for 5$ so that's 50 challenges, say you get at least 7 games | per challenge so 350 games for 5$ where only skill matters. | I'd say that's not exploitative. | | Of course if you care about your rank and having a Big Number | in a silly mobile game then yes you either have to play a lot | or pay a lot of money. | rightbyte wrote: | Oh ok. Sounds like a good play mode. Maybe they themself | realized how silly it was. | solar-ice wrote: | Casinos and machine-based gambling are fairly heavily regulated | in a lot of places, requiring a license with auditing, with | rules on everything you can possibly think of. The mobile | gaming industry has so far avoided this body of law by never | providing anything of value in return. | chii wrote: | > by never providing anything of value in return. | | you could argue they provided entertainment in return. | badkitty wrote: | doix wrote: | Look at this guy [0], he is the rank one monk in PvP and PvE | and spent 0 dollars. | | I played a wee bit and it didn't seem that bad. You can pay to | upgrade your gear, but that seems entirely pointless in an | ARPG. The whole game is a grind to get better gear! Once you | actually have perfect gear, why keep playing? | | My issue with the game is that it lacks depth after having | spent far too much time playing Path of Exile. There aren't | that many possible builds, and the game basically tells you | exactly how to build if you want to do PvP or PvE. As far as I | can tell, those builds are the meta ones, so the designers are | forcing the meta. | | But as a game to run in and kill some monsters without thinking | too much, it seems fine. Which makes sense since it's a mobile | game. | | [0] https://www.twitch.tv/wudijo | jack_pp wrote: | interesting, so if you can be no1 while free to play is every | streamer lying? | | Edit: Or right now since it's early you can out-skill other | people while they're figuring it out and soon the people who | spend more will have both skill and raw power and will | dominate | doix wrote: | I don't understand the comment, sorry. I don't think other | streamers are lying, you can pay to get stronger, easily | verified by opening the shop and looking at what is | available. But it looks like if you play the game as your | job, you can still be competitive. | | Does it suck that you can pay to get stronger and make the | game unfair? Yep, but I'm not convinced it matters if | you're playing casually. None of the pay to win stuff | changes the game play drastically. You're only really | increasing the amount of damage you do, it's not like Path | of Exile where some of the really rare items can enable a | new type of build or trading card games where certain cards | let you build different decks with different playstyles. | | Personally, I see no incentive to buy anything. I can clear | a level 12 challenge rift, grind slowly and slowly clear | higher level ones. Or I could spend a bunch of money and | get to do level 20 challenge rifts or whatever. At which | point you hit the wall and either pay money or keep | grinding. But since the game is all about grinding, why pay | to skip forward and grind more? | jack_pp wrote: | I understand your point but Asmongold and Shroud are | saying it isn't worth playing the game unless you plan to | spend a couple thousand dollars on it so that's where I'm | coming from. | hw wrote: | Do yourself a favor and play the game instead of trusting | the words of streamers. You can get a ton of enjoyment | without paying anything. If you want to be ultra | competitive then it is a different story | [deleted] | throwuxiytayq wrote: | I don't buy the "we have ways to play the game without spending | lots of money" excuse these companies are constantly peddling. | I refuse to accept this new default of "games" explicitly | designed to abuse children and addicts. | jack_pp wrote: | Children don't have access to a credit card unless you give | it to them. If in 2022 you're giving a kid a device where he | can make payments without your input then you're responsible | for it. | | If you're addicted to spending money online irresponsibly I | doubt there is any law that will protect you, there's | millions of ways to spend money to get gratification online. | dtech wrote: | "We shouldn't restrict heroin, if you're prone to addiction | you can get a candybar in any supermarket" | | These games are explicitly designed to prey on people prone | to gambling-like addictions. | jack_pp wrote: | Not quite the same thing as heroin as you can easily | drown your sorrows in any number of cheap video games and | I'm of the belief that if you are prone to addictions the | only way to evolve passed them is to go through them. I | am against putting laws up against these games but I am | for the community warning and talking about this so | people know what they're getting into. | | I'm also for legalizing all drugs but that's another | discussion | AdvicePlz wrote: | I knew someone who worked for EA as a UX researcher. He said that | games like these are primarily targeting whales who will drop | $10k on a game. They are the real money earners. The really sad | part was the he said the most whales aren't super rich, they're | just people with an addiction. | tjpnz wrote: | Time to start regulating these games in the same way we | regulate gambling. | | They shouldn't be sold to children. They're not Kinda eggs nor | LOL Surprise and should never be brushed off as surprise | mechanics. They're glorified slot machines, through and | through. | bsnal wrote: | That's not a problem since children don't have access to | credit cards or any other means to pay for in-game items. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | This is not only morally abhorrent, but also factually | wrong - you can have a proper bank account with card from | 16, and you can have pre-paid cards even earlier | [deleted] | wincy wrote: | My nephew stole my sister's credit card and made $2000 in | Fortnite purchases before he was caught. What's insane is | after the chargeback they DIDN'T revoke the items. He got | to keep them. Then his account got stolen later because | he's a dumb kid but that's a different story. Such a bad | lesson to teach a kid. | saiya-jin wrote: | Until they steal their parents credit card, or somebody | else's. Addicts tend to di desperate moves. Happened to | friends, their son spent half of their montly salary in | some stupid mobile game, took too long for them to find out | bsnal wrote: | Why is that Blizzard's problem? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Why do you go to jail for selling alcohol to kids? | bsnal wrote: | Because you know that they are kids. Blizzard has no way | to know that some players might be kids. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | If you don't ask for ID, you don't know for sure - maybe | they are adults with impaired growth. | enneff wrote: | Except they market their games to kids in myriad ways. | ArmandGrillet wrote: | Diablo Immortal is not available in Belgium and the | Netherlands due to that: https://www.pcgamer.com/diablo- | immortal-wont-be-released-in-... | droopyEyelids wrote: | What allows these countries to stand up for their | population against billion dollar corporations? | xuki wrote: | Apple/Google revenue will see a big decline if those games | are regulated. Most if not all the top grossing games on | mobile follow the same spending pattern, and a big chunk of | app stores' revenue come from those games. | martin-adams wrote: | It does sadden me that Apple/Google are happy to take that | revenue | ajsnigrutin wrote: | Oh no! | | Anyway... | weberer wrote: | The point is that those companies give millions of | dollars to politicians per year, so they're seen as | somewhat "untouchable" | | https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/alphabet- | inc/summary?id=D00... | | https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple- | inc/summary?id=D00002... | caf wrote: | _" Apple and Google are really gambling companies"_ was not | exactly the hot take I expected to see today (I am not | disagreeing!). | realusername wrote: | That's exactly what they don't want you to realise, they | are doing a lot of branding to try to make politicians | forget that they get most of their appstore/playstore | money from glorified gambling. | still_grokking wrote: | And that's exactly the reason almost all mobile game are | utter trash. | | Of course that was caused because the app-"economy" was | broken from day one on: You couldn't and still can't call | out fair prices on mobile software. People weren't and | aren't willing to pay those. So you have to make the | software "free" and sell your user's data, or charge one or | two bucks and use some other immoral scheme to get your | actual costs covered. | | On a broken market there are only broken products... Simple | as that. | ThatPlayer wrote: | My thoughts on the mobile gaming market are similar. | There's great plenty of good ports of games like Slay the | Spire, Civ VI, or even XCOM II. Problem is the majority | of interested parties already have 'better' devices | they'd prefer to play it on, so the prospect of paying | even the discounted price that these ports have is too | much. | | So now you're left with people who haven't tried better | games, and with all the good-enough free ones, how can | even a discounted price full game compete? | wincy wrote: | Absolutely, I own Civ 6 on mobile because it was | discounted on Christmas or something. I got most of the | expansions for cheap on my PC/MacOS hybrid purchase from | Steam. Then I'm expected to pay the full fat $40 for the | "new" (came out in 2019) Civ 6 expansion on mobile. No | way. | xenadu02 wrote: | > You couldn't and still can't call out fair prices on | mobile software. People weren't and aren't willing to pay | those. | | I'm not sure if that is strictly true. Prices did vary a | lot in the beginning. However scale created a race-to- | the-bottom situation for the exact reason you cited: most | people wanted to pay less. The market was flooded with | apps and games at the minimum price which created a | strong expectation among the bulk of buyers. | | Consumable IAP is what really enabled the gambling-like | mechanics. That was discovered not long after the | implementation of IAP and very quickly the game devs that | converted to free + consumable IAP started making all the | money. IIRC it was an open secret in mobile games many | many years ago that the optimal strategy was to make the | early game easy to cast a wide net, then slowly ramp up | the pay-to-win mechanics to milk the whales as much as | possible. You don't really care if everyone else quits - | so long as most people get X% of the way through before | they do. Then you tweak X% to optimize for catching the | most whales. | | The super critical aspect is the deliberate ramp. You | _have_ to get as many people into the early part of the | funnel as possible so some of them will become invested | enough to become whales. This also means you absolutely | must make the game miserable for 90% of your players but | only _after_ they 've made a significant investment. | moomin wrote: | Not being funny, but I won't buy my kids LOL surprise and | they know exactly why. | | Whether or not this choice of mine is useful is hard to tell. | bcrosby95 wrote: | They're not much different than receiving a present. | wincy wrote: | You have to be vigilant as a parent. I didn't realize until | my late 20s that Diablo 2 primed me to love slot machines | and gambling. It's something I have to avoid. | SalmoShalazar wrote: | Funny you say this. I've been playing a bunch of D2:R | lately and it is honestly pretty miserable. It is full | stop gambling. Grinding out mephisto runs over and over | again, hoping for that nice drop, getting a minor rush of | excitement when an unidentified ring drops or whatever. | Just totally mindless nonsense. | lordnacho wrote: | Are there enough of those guys vs people who will spend 10? I | guess you need 1k of those people to make up one whale, but | aren't there more little players by a lot? | | I guess I don't have the data. Also maybe you can get both at | once by targeting the big guy. | Hendrikto wrote: | The vast majority of users do not spent anything. This is no | problem for the game developers, as they can serve as cannon | fodder for the few who do invest money. | [deleted] | [deleted] | seydor wrote: | 10k over a long period is very small compared to what one can | lose in a casino night, and casinos do exist. | | What kind of game was your friend working on? Whales do exist | but they are not the bulk of the revenue | black_puppydog wrote: | > 10k over a long period is very small compared to what one | can lose in a casino night | | that's a very low bar to set... | throw_m239339 wrote: | > 10k over a long period is very small compared to what one | can lose in a casino night, and casinos do exist. | | Casinos are highly regulated. Lootbox are not in most | countries. And I'm pretty sure minors can't enter a casino | even with their parent's credit card... | | Made videogames with paid lootboxes 18+ only, problem solved. | seydor wrote: | is there evidence that any of the whales are kids? i guess | there are exceptions , but most kids have a highly | regulated budget, adults do not | ClumsyPilot wrote: | We are discussing damage to the kids psycology, and if | they spend 100% of theie lunch money on a game thats as | bad as adults spwnding EUR10k | gspr wrote: | > casinos do exist. | | In many jurisdictions they don't. And where they do, they're | often very heavily regulated. | charlieyu1 wrote: | While the stock market is much more accessible, operates in | a less transparent way, and ruins more people for life than | an actual casino. | [deleted] | elif wrote: | The stock market, by inflationary design, rewards >50% of | the time. | | Gambling, by regulated design, rewards 45-49% of the | time. | | Diablo Immortal, by comparison, is designed to reward 0% | of the time. | mafaa wrote: | Under 1% of users for over 50% of your mobile gaming revenue | with a not single purchase model has been a good general | estimate since 2010; I invite you to google an publicly | available data on that. From what I've seen privately 50% is | a vast understatement. And no, most of those users cannot | afford what they spend. | Ekaros wrote: | I wonder what we could do to legally balance this. Out right | banning is bit questionable. But weekly or monthly spending | reports? Some total number shown regularly to players? | doctor_eval wrote: | You could just cap the maximum spend of any one player in any | game (or group of players). Even if it was some stupid high | number like $1,000, it would limit the blast radius. Also, | banning loot boxes of course. Totally can be done. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | I think that the option in appstores to completely hide all | games with in-app purchases would be enough. Like, if you | don't know they exist, you can't get hooked. Probably banning | advertising such games anywhere but on the AppStores, too. | Ekaros wrote: | I'm all for advertisement ban. Or at least limiting periods | allowed. It gets either really funny, sad or scary however | you take it when you see some games like Raid Shadow | Legends advertised for years extremely prominently. At | least when comparing to most other mobile titles... And | then the places it is advertised. Like cooking channels... | wincy wrote: | I uninstalled Diablo Immortal last night as the pull to spend | money was getting greater in my mind. I've been very sick for a | couple weeks and basically bed bound, so this game was mindless | and seemed fun. I got to "max level" (which is nothing of the | sort the game essentially has infinite progression), and Back | when I worked a dead end call center job working 80 hours a | week I spent basically $100 a day on a Japanese free to play | mobile game. It consumed my life and I was super depressed | anyway. I felt that same feeling last night to just spend $100 | "for fun" and realized how bad this game was going to be for | me. These games manage to tickle that hyper competitive part of | my brain that wants to "win at any cost". So I'll spend money I | shouldn't on a game. | jules wrote: | It's not just the money though. Even if you remove pay-to-win | and move to an ad supported model, these games are still | engineered to maximally waste your time. | | In fact, even games that are not designed to maximize your | time spent in the game can be bad. The reward hits you get | from games make you less likely to seek out other types of | reward in your life. And even when you're not playing the | game, your brain will be running a background task | strategising how to maximize your results in the game. | therouwboat wrote: | I used to play a MUD thats been around for 30 years and has | active playerbase of maybe 1-4k people and there were some | players who would pay 20-40k for special wizard made items. It | was run by a non-profit, so all that money went to keep the | game running, but yeah, some people put a lot of money on these | games. | Krasnol wrote: | Star Citizen isn't even a proper game and still works perfectly | living mainly from whales. | | We've passed some really unhealthy point in game development | with this bonus money making... | phpisthebest wrote: | Rich people are rich because they do not spend $10K on a | digital downloads that have no actual value... | | The ONLY people that would do that, are people with an | addiction | [deleted] | thrwyoilarticle wrote: | There are a lot of famous rich addicts. Or were. | concordDance wrote: | Tell that to the oil shiek's family... | baby wrote: | I think it depends, I know a lot of rich people who spend a lot | on skins and others. Like, a lot. | charlieyu1 wrote: | People who will throw massive money in games, won't be happy | about Blizzard. | jiggawatts wrote: | I've seen similar comments by several game devs, but at least | some of them said that they make most of their money from the | kids of the ultra-wealthy. Think of some oil Sheik's son bored | to death at home because it's too hot to go outside. | | But yeah, the "loot boxes" that are mostly gambling have been | banned in many countries because they're targeted at young | children. | spoiler wrote: | > I've seen similar comments by several game devs, but at | least some of them said that they make most of their money | from the kids of the ultra-wealthy. | | This seems like naive speculation to me. Think about the | number/scaling of this. It would give them a few months worth | of income at best? | | The sadder truth is that they're exploiting escapism and | maladaptive coping (addiction, gambling) in people who also | use escapism to cope/relax. Often times, those same people in | desperate need of escapism are there because they struggle in | real life, often financially too. | | So, the little reprieve they get from gaming negative impacts | their physical lives. | | Diablo Immortal is a caricature of the depravity most games | have become. A few games like Overwatch are not P2W, but even | they have lootbox mechanics for cosmetic skins (you get boxes | for leveling up and challenges, as you play, though). | Blizzard _literally_ can 't help themselves. | kuang_eleven wrote: | The interesting thing is that you would think Blizzard | would have known this. Literally the last game in the | _same_ Diablo series launched with a much-hated Real Money | Auction House, which was eventually removed. | j_4 wrote: | To me this "ultra-wealthy" thing has always sounded like a | convenient lie whale-game devs tell themselves to sleep | soundly at night. These dark pattern black holes are made | purely to form an addiction and turn it into profit, they | don't care about who's on the receiving end. | | There's an increasing number of players who expect that | either a) a game will take unlimited money and feed them | dopamines in return, or b) they never have to pay a dime for | anything because they're fully subsidized by the addicts. I | have conflicted feelings about administrative regulation of | this stuff, I just hate that things are this way, especially | as an independent game dev. | | (I'll do the hustle - my first game Pawnbarian is a chess- | flavored puzzle roguelike. On mobile it's an ad-free demo | with a single $7 IAP for the whole thing. Out on Steam and | Android, iOS will follow soon. j4nw.com/pawnbarian) | Karrot_Kream wrote: | It's hard for a person in the throes of addiction to last | as a whale for long. Most long lived whales are likely to | be from wealthy families, or the fun side addiction for a | very wealthy individual. That doesn't change the fact that | there are addicted people who spend a large percentage of | their income on a game. Whales are one thing and addicted | players are another. | cycomanic wrote: | Why do you think the mechanics of nonchemical addiction | are different to chemical addiction? I certainly see | plenty of nonrich people being addicted to drugs and | essentially spend everything they have on drugs (the | proximity to crime is obviously an additional factor) | patrec wrote: | > It's hard for a person in the throes of addiction to | last as a whale for long. | | They don't have to. Repeatedly unearthing cow-clickers | whom you can milk for $10'000 before sending them into | financial ruin sounds like a much more viable business | strategy to me than trying to build a portfolio of people | both rich and dumb enough to sustainably cow-click. | j_4 wrote: | I don't necessarily disagree, but for the purpose of my | argument this is splitting hairs. Both audiences are | functionally the same from the game design standpoint. | jayd16 wrote: | A lot of the whales and leviathans have some kind of online | presence so it's really not hard for a game dev to know | them by name, or even invite them to the studio. | seventytwo wrote: | Totally agree. I'd love to see any hard data for that | claim. | | Does the same pattern hold true for casinos? Or are the | bulk of the profits coming from the poor SOBs who blow | every paycheck there? | aliswe wrote: | > but at least some of them said that they make most of their | money from the kids of the ultra-wealthy. | | sorry, but that's just sickening. | hackernewds wrote: | Reminds me of EA Sports FIFA. The whole Build a team process | is predatory and based on gambling + micro transactions | ekianjo wrote: | > they're just people with an addiction. | | Everyone has an addiction to something. You are lucky if its to | something thats cheap and legal. | xmodem wrote: | It depends on the timeframe obviously, but $10k is hardly | cheap. | chii wrote: | it is cheaper than drugs. If you got to be addicted to | something, i don't think these mobile games are the worst | out there. | | Of course, the best outcome is not to be addicted. | Panoramix wrote: | What a strange logic. You can be addicted to hundreds of | things a the same time, it doesn't justify what these | videogames are doing. | xmodem wrote: | I'm not sure that "this thing isn't as bad as illegal | drugs" is a winning argument. | | (I'm also not sure it's actually true, either - would | depend on what metric you use) | ekianjo wrote: | Where did I mention its cheap, exactly? | charlieyu1 wrote: | 10k a year is hardly a lot... | | As a Japanese gamer says, paying for games is like dining | out. You get nothing useful after a good meal, and paying | for games may as well be more useful. | allarm wrote: | > 10k a year is hardly a lot | | In my country 16k/y is a median salary. It's heavily | influenced by 1 or 2 major cities - the rest of the | country earns much less, 10k/y is considered to be a | decent salary. So no, it is a huge amount of money. | ryl00 wrote: | > You get nothing useful after a good meal | | Uh... the nutrition that your body needs to keep going? | Is this a trick question? | asutekku wrote: | Compared to $10 meal, nutritionally $100 meal is not | worth it. | bloodyplonker22 wrote: | Right, most "super rich" people don't get "super rich" by doing | super stupid things. | lozenge wrote: | The Chinese proverb "rags to rags in three generations" says | that family wealth does not last for three generations. The | first generation makes the money, the second spends it and | the third sees none of the wealth. | bobnamob wrote: | That phenomenon probably has more to do with wealth being | spread increasingly thin across ever-larger generations | usrusr wrote: | Another element is how ambition to have your own | achievement can team up with risk taking. It's usually | not the humble playboy who consumes away the fortune, | it's one who tries to step out of the shadow cart by | inheritance by growing the fortune through a series off | get-richer-quickly schemes. | scoopertrooper wrote: | Probably less so in China given that, until recently, | they had severe restrictions on the number of children | per a family. | | Though your point is valid it's only part of the story. | | I've seen many scions from China attending western | universities in a state of decadence, barely focused on | their course work, all too willing to live off their | parents' past efforts, while driving expensive cars and | walking around in clothes and accessories worth tens of | thousands of dollars. | bbarnett wrote: | Maybe? | | Certainly more offspring was normal, the further back you | go. So wealth division could more easily happen. | | But most cultures had the idea of the "first born", the | official heir... for this very reason! Most of the loot, | holdings, tended to go the eldest. | algorias wrote: | This is no longer legal in many jurisdictions. Family | members often have a minimum allocation of the | inheritance (e.g. 25% must be equally split among all | children) | ntoskrnl wrote: | What jurisdiction is this? | plonk wrote: | France has a floor on the percentage each descendant | gets. | bbarnett wrote: | Interesting, and most places it is culturally | unacceptable regardless. | | Yet the proverb is historical, as all proverbs are, and | my response was intended to refute the dissolution of | wealth, historically, by spreading it too thin. | | Our ancestors didn't do that. | forty wrote: | Most super rich get super rich by having super rich parents. | It doesn't say anything about how they act. | taotau wrote: | True...ish, but i bet a percentage of them get rich by | focussing on what they are good at and neglecting their | families, just making piles of money available. There's | probably enough kids getting 10K a month pocket money to make | GPs stragetgy viable. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > they're just people with an addiction | | Yes. These games are straight up designed to be habit forming | and should be regarded as equivalent to gambling and addictive | drugs. I've been down that rabbit hole myself. | | Daily tasks and rewards offer positive reinforcement. Timers | create a schedule for players, place a cap on their progression | and establish negative reinforcement by punishing days of | inactivity. Player groups reinforce each other's behavior. The | goal is to get them to log in every day and invest in the game. | | People pay money to uncap their progression. This turns these | games into spending competitions: whoever spends the most money | wins the game. The corporation is the only true winner of | course. | | I managed to cure myself of this addiction by... cheating. I | reverse engineered the game and wrote a bot for it. All those | silly tasks were now getting done automatically, my progression | was assured and the game's hold over me was destroyed. The best | part was my bot was statistically indistinguishable from a | sufficiently addicted player due to the game's own design. I'd | like to believe I helped destroy that game. | chii wrote: | so the question becomes whether people should be allowed to | spend money any way they see fit, even if that spending isn't | great for themselves. | | Like someone who's very invested in their hobby, they could | be dropping tens of thousands of dollars into it (depending | on the hobby of course). Why are those not considered the | same as wasting money on mobile games? | hombre_fatal wrote: | Even if you thought that being addicted to gaming or | gambling is no different for the creature than any other | hobby, like kayaking, it might help you to look at the | other side of the question: | | How much should we allow others to enrich themselves off | the addictions/compulsions of others? | | I always thought that was a compelling point even when I | was a libertarian for one year as a uni freshman. That | people should be able to consume what they want doesn't | finish answering the question. | chii wrote: | > How much should we allow others to enrich themselves | off the addictions/compulsions of others? | | the current line is drawn at 18+ and non-chemical | addiction, or light chemical addition like nicotine. It | is worthy of debate, whether psychological addiction | ought to be included. | | My guide would be that if it causes external harm, then | it should be regulated, where external harm is defined as | harm that, while undertaking said activity, would befall | a third, unrelated party. | enneff wrote: | Nicotine is not lightly addictive. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Hey, I love video games. They've given me thousands and | thousands of hours of fun. Awesome games like Subnautica | can bring joy to the world. | | The problem is the one time I tried mobile games I | eventually started waking up at 3 AM because that's when | some timer resets. At some point I started wondering where | my life went so wrong. | | Then I started studying the design of these games and I | realized they are _designed_ to cause this sort of | addiction and harm. They employ the same strategies as | casinos and drug dealers. They straight up subvert the | reward center of people 's brains to the point they harm | themselves and even destroy their own lives. | iancmceachern wrote: | Just like much of social media | matheusmoreira wrote: | Yes. Social media is the exact same brand of brain- | hijacking dopamine dripfeed. They too want their apps to | be habit forming in order to maximize the amount of user | attention they're capturing so they can make more money | on advertising. Every time you see someone talking about | "engagement" this is what it means. | | Software like uBlock Origin is so world changing they | should be built into our operating systems in order to | help destroy the revenue of these abusive corporations. | martinko wrote: | > so the question becomes whether people should be allowed | to spend money any way they see fit | | Cant believe you actually want to debate this. | Termitiono wrote: | Because a normal hobby is not designed to be addictive. | | A hobby like wood working doesn't push you to do | woodworking every day and there are not people behind this | non existing mechanism who design it like it. | | Also normally a hobby costs money due to physical parts of | that hobby. A software engineer as a hobby only needs some | computer, would worker needs a metal saw. | usrusr wrote: | Fitness hobbies also punish you for taking some time off. | But they still just happen to be that way, instead of | being deliberately designed, and that's a distinction | that should very much be allowed to make a difference. | It's not unusual at all for intent to carry legal | significance. | matheusmoreira wrote: | The risk/benefit calculation of fitness activities is | overwhelmingly positive. Their health benefits of | exercise might as well be infinite. Even such a benign | activity can be pathological though: accidents and | lesions during training, anabolic steroid abuse, body | image issues... | | The risk/benefit calculation of predatory gambling video | games is overwhelmingly negative. It's really no big loss | if they were to be outlawed straight up. We have much | better games available for our enjoyment. | viraptor wrote: | There was a leaderboard posted in the local gym. It was | for the most frequently coming members. Some of them | regularly racked up >400 visits a year. I didn't even | realise at the time that it was weird until a doctor | mentioned that these are likely people with addiction or | body image issues. I guess you can overdo anything. | elif wrote: | That's the important part. Not only are these games | "designed for addiction," they are written as if someone | opened up a psychology textbook on manipulation and | implemented every chapter. | | It is human abuse. | donatj wrote: | > A hobby [...] doesn't push you to do [it] every day | | Look at organized sports, if you don't show up enough | times, you don't get to play anymore. | [deleted] | jhrmnn wrote: | Never thought of that, good point. I guess in the end if we | wanted to find the boundary for harmful/tolerable | addiction, we might not be able to find it, it's a | continuous spectrum. I guess in the end _intent_ would need | to decide the ethics--is the product designed to leverage | addiction or is it designed to enable people to have fun, | which might lead to addiction? | donatj wrote: | I think there is a very blurry line between non-chemical | addiction and just liking something very much. Say a | person spends thousands on audiophile equipment where the | layman couldn't hear the difference, and often even a | double blind of audiophiles can't, is that spending an | addiction? Or do they just enjoy chasing that dragon? | viraptor wrote: | Isn't addiction diagnosis usually about "does this | negatively impact your life and relationships"? Basically | on the level of "would you get into risky debt or skip on | necessities for yourself or family by buying more | equipment? " | matheusmoreira wrote: | > Isn't addiction diagnosis usually about "does this | negatively impact your life and relationships"? | | Yes. This is more or less standard criteria for | diagnosing mental disorders. | | A. Persistent and recurrent problematic gambling behavior | leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, | as indicated by the individual exhibiting four (or more) | of the following in a 12-month period: | | 1. Needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in | order to achieve the desired excitement. | | 2. Is restless or irritable when attempting to cut down | or stop gambling. | | 3. Has made repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut | back, or stop gambling. | | 4. Is often preoccupied with gambling (e.g., having | persistent thoughts of reliving past gambling | experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, | thinking of ways to get money with which to gamble). | | 5. Often gambles when feeling distressed (e.g., helpless, | guilty, anxious, depressed). | | 6. After losing money gambling, often returns another day | to get even ("chasing" one's losses). | | 7. Lies to conceal the extent of involvement with | gambling. | | _8. Has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, | job, or educational or career opportunity because of | gambling._ | | 9. Relies on others to provide money to relieve desperate | financial situations caused by gambling. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | There is a very blurry line between chemical addiction | and non-chemical addiction | ZeroGravitas wrote: | This is a good question. | | Golf seems very similar to me. There's the random element. | A friend described it as a feeling of continual frustration | followed by a high when he hits a good shot. | | You similarly can buy your way to 'success' with gadgets | and training or investing more time. | | There's the community of similar addicts that gather | together and provide a social element and re-inforce each | others addiction. People's marriages suffer to the degree | that there is a term "golf widow" for someone who's lost | their partner to the game. | | But I can still see clear differences between golf clubs | and casinos, and there's also similar differences between | different mobile games. I feel it's worth delineating them, | particularly as golf isn't constantly being replaced with a | slightly modified version of golf that takes it 2% closer | to being a Casino and casino's are heavily regulated for | good reasons. | elif wrote: | Wait, what's the random element in golf? I play weekly | and the only random element I can think of are maybe cars | and animals distracting me? | | Golf is a game of 3D localization and mapping, wind | analysis, projectile estimation, and fine-tune physique | control... | | If you are treating those elements as "random" you are | missing large aspects of the game. | sandworm101 wrote: | It is about hitting a very small/light ball very far. It | is about interaction with natural elements in real time | (wind/grass etc). It may be physics but it is physics in | the real non-vacuum world. Even a perfect robot could not | place a golfball in the same spot repeatedly. That is the | unescapable random element. | elif wrote: | i havent seen a robot capable of reading wind patterns | from tree movement as well as humans.. again you are | minimizing the deterministic factors where humans have a | compelling advantage by over-essentializing perception | beyond your personal capability as "random" | sandworm101 wrote: | Look to artillery, where billions are spent on robots | throwing an object through the air as accurately as | possible. Randomness is still there. | elif wrote: | you're just making the same argument with a different | subject... the same "random" argument can be applied to | home runs in baseball if you wanted. hopefully you can | see the ridiculousness of that example... I've researched | your artillery example enough to know that artillery fire | is done with a human wind calculation based upon one | direction of wind... not at all comparable to human eye | perceiving strength of gusts, wind alleys, etc. based | upon personal experience with a certain course... but i'm | not really interested in 1000 red herring discussions. | please stick to golf if you really care about this. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | I'm obviously not a golfer, but here's a write up from | someone who is, that explores the topic in depth: | | http://www.limitlessperformance.ca/blog/the-mental- | patters-o... | | > But the most accurate and refreshing response received | to this day has been... addictive! And if you think about | it clearly, what better one-word description encompasses | all that we know of this exhilarating sport known as | Golf. There is no description more encompassing of a | sport such as golf! | | > And this is best described by a psychological principle | referred to as "intermittent reinforcement". Intermittent | reinforcement is the formula foundation for all forms of | addition. Take gambling with a slot machine as an | example. You lose, lose, lose, lose and suddenly you win! | And yet, despite the guaranteed repetitive loss and the | incidental win, people love to play slot machines for | hours. Why is intermittent reinforcement so powerful? In | its simplest translation, the reinforcement pattern that | blooms into addiction must entail of high levels of | reward and amusement without the predictability factors | which can trigger boredom. It"s the unpredictability of | when the reward arrives that draws and engages people | into the activity. The rewards that are distributed | intermittently trigger and release significantly higher | doses of a pleasure inducing hormone known as dopamine, | than the same rewards distributed on a more consistent | (predictable) basis. | | > Can you think of another activity that features in more | intermittent reinforcement than golf? No matter what | level of golf you are playing, it is guaranteed that you | are going to hit more shots that feel miss-struck than | well-struck. Some may argue that the pros hit the ball | well on almost every shot, but on the contrary the better | you are the higher the standard to what constitutes a | shot that delivers maximum satisfaction and reward. To a | highly skilled golfer, maximum satisfaction is gained | through a perfectly struck and executed shot. While by | the same token, for the double-bogey player, a drive that | is struck decently and stays in the fairway is also a | cause for celebration. | phpisthebest wrote: | The deflection point for me on Regulation is purchases vs | loot boxes | | If the game is implimenting direct purchases, where you buy | Item X for Y price then I feel regulation is unwarranted | even in the context of harmful levels of purchasing | | However if the game is using a loot box system where the | play buy a "chance" to "win" an item they desire, then I | think that should be considered a "game of chance" like a | lottery or slot machine, under which there should be some | regulation to require the disclosure of odds, how many | times their is a payout, etc etc etc | | Diablo seems to use a Loot Box system, not a direct pay | system | algorias wrote: | To be fair, many such games _do_ disclose the odds. | | The difference to older tech like mechanical slot | machines is that the game records everything the player | does, and can then drop a "discounted" special offer at | the right time to maximize the likelihood of keeping the | player hooked. | phpisthebest wrote: | While some games do, the few that do those odds are not | predominantly displayed nor they are externally validated | as being accurate. | | There is also no disclosure as to if the odds are | manipulated on a per player basis, which I believe there | are a few patents related to changing the "drop" rate | based on player behavior, this is similar and can be | combined with your comment about monitoring to drop a | discount at the right time | | In the context of Diablo, I can not find the Odds of | their loot boxes anywhere published. | matheusmoreira wrote: | I wouldn't be surprised if these predatory games lowered | the odds for big spenders in order to trick them into | spending even more. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > so the question becomes whether people should be allowed | to spend money any way they see fit | | You are allowed to be in any number of relashionships with | other people, and some of them can be pretty weired. | | However when someone is manipulating you and pimping you | out, thats different. | | You have the rirgt not to be stabbed, stolen from, or | manipulated. | doctor_eval wrote: | > so the question becomes whether people should be allowed | to spend money any way they see fit, even if that spending | isn't great for themselves. | | This is an incredibly simplistic view of the problem, on | multiple dimensions. | | On one dimension, a question of to what length should we | give companies the right to harm people. Because if | something is knowingly designed to take advantage of the | study of psychology to hurt people then that's what this | is. | | On another dimension, the person spending the money is | typically hurting others (spouse, kids... business | partners) at least as much, but frequently more, than they | hurt themselves. | | Giving companies the freedom to do things like this takes | away our freedom to live without others harming us. Its | really hard to understand why this is even debatable. | mensetmanusman wrote: | I agree with you, but it's interesting that everything | you say applies to the sugar industry, and that industry | has harmed far more people (and our healthcare system). | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Sugar taxes are a thing for this very reason: | | https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of- | sugar-fr... | | It wasn't liked by the right-wing government, even though | they implemented it in the first place. They financed a | report that investigated it's effectiveness, and then | tried to bury it because it showed it worked as intended. | kergonath wrote: | > It wasn't liked by the right-wing government, even | though they implemented it in the first place. | | Quite the conundrum. On one hand, it's a neat tool for | class warfare, an occasion to have a laugh about those | bums who cannot control themselves, and drone on about | Protestant values and work ethic. On the other hand, some | chums would make less money, and we cannot have that. | kergonath wrote: | And it should be regulated as well, for the reasons you | mention. At the very least a tax to partially offset its | effects on public health. | xenator wrote: | When Facebook introduced games on their site I used to play | one game. It was some stupid game with limited energy, but | for me mechanics was pretty new. So I created Selenium bot | that on schedule do some simple tasks. Since I was little | addicted to game I created club and invite people to join it. | | And I shared my bot with them. Reaction was very negative. | People blame me for "hacking" and ruining game. | | So I made my conclusion and never shared my bots | matheusmoreira wrote: | I never shared or published my bot either. Gaming | communities will never understand. They wouldn't even | entertain the notion that anti-cheating software could have | false positives. | makeitdouble wrote: | This picture is too black and white. I have no interest in EA | games so I don't know if it appliesto them, but most "social" | games make the bulk of their revenue from players paying | small amounts every now and then, or ideally on a regular (a | bit every events) shedule. The main target is not the whales, | it's the sustainable long tail (though paying players stay a | small minority, even 4~5% of hundreds of thousands of users | is a big pool). | | This is basically the "recurring revenue" model, it's the | monthly packages sold in Yostar or Mihoyo games. | | Sure, people who get easily caught in competitive schemes | will have a hard time to stop, and will get caught in | nightmarish situations. The same as people who can't stop | drinking and become alchoholic over time. This is a nefarious | effect that we should pay attention to, but a super small | minority becoming alcoholics doesn't mean alcohol industry | itself is a conspiracy to produce them. Moderate people | exist. We should find ways to to protect the vulnerables, but | it also means coming to terms with the nuances of the | situation. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | Do you have any data to support this assertion? It goes | against everything I've ever read about how games like this | make money. | makeitdouble wrote: | I kinda find it surprising to assume a company like | Mihoyo consistently makes record profits from just a few | whales addicted to gambling. It litteraly makes no sense. | | I also don't see these companies disclose their revenue | per user statistics, could you share some of what you | read positing current gatcha games are sustained by | whales ? | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | https://then24.com/2021/09/23/the-whales-from-the-app- | store-... | | https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/report-whales- | gobble-... | | https://www.adweek.com/performance-marketing/infographic- | wha... | makeitdouble wrote: | Thanks! To TLDR my answer, the first link gives | interesting numbers but are very generic, and as the top | gatcha devs won't give breakdown numbers of user spending | patterns, in the end it doesn't tell that much more. | | I should disclaim I do play gatcha games on a somewhat | regular basis (I need to know how they work for various | reasons) and follow the different communities around. | | On the first link: | | > Whale game users: 1% of the players, generate 64% of | the income spending 2,694 dollars per year. > Medium-high | game users: 3% of the total, generate 20% of income | spending 373 dollars a year. > Average game users: 2% of | the total, generate 4% of income and spend $ 104 per | year. | | First, that 1% of "whales" at 2,694$ per year is | interesting, as it puts it around the 2,482$ said to be | spent on entertainment on average in the US [0], which | doesn't seem to be freakish in context. | | Then there's also no breakdown of social games and | "normal" games, like Minecraft which for instance has | monthly subscriptions for online services, and other | games who have season passes or allow to buy in-game | contents like songs, levels etc.). | | Sure social games must have a decent share, but right now | for instance I see in my [edit to US ranking] Roblox, | Apex, Pokemon Go in the free app ranking and they aren't | gatcha. The above number must also including straight | purchaseable games. | | It's interesting numbers, but don't tell us much about | gacha games in particular (though the author has opinions | on the subject, which I mostly agree with). | | The second link is from 2015, that's almost the beginning | of the field, the candy crush days and developpers not | understanding clearly what is ok and what is not. A lot | has changed since. | | I don't have access to the third link, it asks me to pay | to become premium (the irony), and it's also from 6 years | ago... | | [0] | https://www.thesimpledollar.com/banking/savings/a-look- | at-th... | ramshanker wrote: | Same for me. 2015 or so. FarmVille addiction. Once I clicked | 1200 times straight to farm/plaugh/seed, my fingers heart. So | searched for a solution and found click recorders . Not | exactly cheat but once I started using the auto click, I was | out of addiction within a month and left game in Two month. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Awesome. In these cases, bots are not really cheating, | they're legitimate self-defense against shitty repetitive | addictive games. They are addiction prophylaxis and | treatment. | safety1st wrote: | This is really insightful. Things in 2022 are so bad that | the manufacturer of this addictive product is not only | unregulated, but has actually banned the therapy in its | ToS. | | (If you think about that a bit it follows that the | smartest course of action is to break the ToS early and | often!) | matheusmoreira wrote: | Yeah. The thing about these little agreements is they're | all about what's good for the company, never what's good | for us. They are inherently abusive and it's in our best | interests to subvert them as much as possible. | yurishimo wrote: | I think it's okay to label it as cheating and not feel | like you're breaking some moral code. If the game is | rigged, then the only way to win is to "cheat". When the | hero in a story does it, we call them clever. | azeirah wrote: | > I managed to cure myself of this addiction by... cheating. | | Oh yeah that works so incredibly well! I get addicted to | idle/tap/infinite progression types of games every now and | then. | | At one point I got sick of it and I wrote a program that taps | my phone with an axidraw robot. Seeing the progression happen | without my own input totally broke the addictive cycle for | me. | | And I got to play with the axidraw :D | SapporoChris wrote: | I'm sure you know there are other ways. Android phone | emulator on a PC and scripting the mouse is one of the | easiest. However I'm incredibly impressed that you used a | software/hardware solution. | | Thank you for mentioning the hardware, I looked it up and | it looks affordable and interesting. | https://www.axidraw.com/ | nonrandomstring wrote: | > I managed to cure myself of this addiction by... cheating. | I reverse engineered the game and wrote a bot for it. All | those silly tasks were now getting done automatically, my | progression was assured and the game's hold over me was | destroyed. | | This is absolutely fascinating. It's something I kinda missed | from Digital Vegan, thinking that extrication would be a | matter only of self-mastery and access to good information | rather than fighting back. Most people do not have that | capability. | | But _fighting back_ is exactly what you 've done, and it's | worked for you. I wrote earlier that the relationship between | users and developers is increasingly an adversarial one [1]. | Things like "right to repair" have become an open battle | between ecological common-sense and pure greed. Where your | health, wealth and environment is under attack from rampant | greed a legitimate (moral/ethical) response to hostile | technology is obviously hacking back. | | But it's not a universalisable moral principle, unless we | want a descent into chaos and digital "civil war". Therefore | the proper solution is to start recognising what some of | these companies are doing as _crimes_. You need the law on | your side when you act in self-defence. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31626063 | matheusmoreira wrote: | EFF calls this adversarial interoperability: | | https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial- | interopera... | | A digital civil war is preferable to surrendering to the | designs of exploitative corporations. We _should_ fight | back on principle. We _should_ block ads and tracking, | scrape websites, reverse engineer private APIs, violate DRM | technology, replace their proprietary apps with our own | free software that we control, feed them false data to | poison their data sets... We should do _everything_ we | possibly can to defeat any attempt to exploit us. We don 't | need their permission to do it either. | | Turning things into crimes is the corporation's game. | They're the ones with billions of dollars and expensive | lobbyists. We shouldn't be trying to beat them in this | space. We need ubiquitous subversive technology that | neutralizes their exploitation whether the laws allow it or | not. It shouldn't matter whether it's legal or illegal. We | need technology that makes it _impossible_ for them to | exploit us in any way, and _we_ define what is and isn 't | acceptable or exploitative. | geysersam wrote: | That sounds like an arms race that's both wasteful and | difficult to win. Why should we not use the tools | democracy provides to shape society? These corporations | are not out to get us. They maximize profit constrained | by the regulatory environment. We have to guide them, and | channel their capacity for good. | _jal wrote: | > Why should we not use the tools democracy provides to | shape society? | | Turns out that's also a Red Queen's race. And if you look | at the lobbying costs vs. potential rewards, there's a | lot of room for escalation in US politics. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > That sounds like an arms race that's both wasteful and | difficult to win. | | It is. | | > Why should we not use the tools democracy provides to | shape society? | | We should, if we can. I'm just not holding my breath. | | I think copyright should be abolished but the trillion | dollar companies that depend on it will never allow that | to happen. So we're better off _de facto_ abolishing it | by making copyright unenforceable and eliminating | consequences for copyright infringement. | | I think advertising should be illegal but companies like | Google will never let that happen. So I use software like | uBlock Origin to block ads whenever I can. | sbarre wrote: | >I think advertising should be illegal but companies like | Google will never let that happen. So I use software like | uBlock Origin to block ads whenever I can. | | Honest question (and I am not fan of advertising here and | not trying to be an apologist).. | | What business model replaces it, in your mind? | | In the world that exists today, how do companies who | provide free services online (including the creation of | information) pay their staff and their operational costs, | if not through being paid to display ads or sponsorships? | | Do all websites become subscriptions? | wahnfrieden wrote: | The replacement is not another business model | skohan wrote: | I agree regulation is needed. I think these situations are | also partially due to a failure of anti-trust. In many of | these cases, there is insufficient competition for these | companies to be forced to act in the user's best interest. | | Addictive products are another case where the user is | unable to choose in favor of their own self-interest, | because the product is exploiting weak points in human | psychology. | sandworm101 wrote: | It is an alcoholic leaping over the bar to start drinking | directly from the tap. It is a violation of the rules and | will get you banned, but it will not cure a true addiction. | Some gamblers are addicted to the game, but some are | actually addicted to the money they want to win from | gambling. Gaining access to free ingame stuff by cheating | might mitigate some harmful economic effects but it wont | necessarily allow an addict to stop. Making the beer free | might stop kids from thinking it cool. It wont stop someone | actually addicted to beer. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > Gaining access to free ingame stuff by cheating might | mitigate some harmful economic effects but it wont | necessarily allow an addict to stop. | | The free stuff exists to instill an habit in players. | People literally force themselves to log into the game | and do daily tasks because otherwise they're missing out | on daily rewards. | | My bot completely nullified their little scheduled | rewards design. I was now free to play the game whenever | I actually felt like playing. Then I discovered I didn't | actually feel like it, I was just going through the | motions due to negative reinforcement. | | Don't underestimate the power of software. It can | literally liberate us. | | > It is a violation of the rules and will get you banned | | Whatever. No big loss. | q-big wrote: | > Therefore the proper solution is to start recognising | what some of these companies are doing as crimes. You need | the law on your side when you act in self-defence. | | The only difference is _who_ does the _concrete fighting_ : | you by yourself, or let the police and criminal prosecution | do the fighting. | nonrandomstring wrote: | Good question. I'm not sure which would be faster and | fairer. Police and courts have enough to do dealing with | reality, without getting involved in our messy hacker | games. So long as the law is clear, we should want people | to help themselves first and foremost. The key is really | dismantling protectionist laws that enable powerful | aggressors, not arming the people with more protectors. | On what the law cannot speak it should remain silent, and | I do believe that vast tracts of so-called "cyber-law" | are absolute rubbish - utterly unfair, bought by | lobbyists and written by incompetents to defend the | barons' castles. Take this down and let nature run its | course to restore the proper balance. | balaji1 wrote: | It's similar to TAM of a customer's wallet within a game - how | much max value a user is to the company. Like LTV, "max customer | value". | holoduke wrote: | Lootbox games: I don't understand why these kind of games are not | getting banned or heavily restricted. There is absolutely not a | single positive thing about these games. Moral doesn't matter. | snikeris wrote: | If you walk around a low income area in the US, you'll find | loot boxes littered on the ground. We call them scratch off | tickets. Getting the okay from the government to prey on your | fellow citizens has precedent here. | jimbob45 wrote: | It seems like the online discourse stalled out at, "Well | Pokemon cards are legal, aren't lootboxes basically the same | thing?". I have my own opinion on that but I never saw a | consensus rebuttal form against that point. | mywaifuismeta wrote: | Add to that lotteries, or pretty much anything that has | random outcomes. Even if you don't gamble with cash, but | something like Pokemon cards or digital items, there will | always be secondary markets that let you cash out. If you | want to ban these things, you'd have to ban all randomness. | InvOfSmallC wrote: | Yes and no, they're collectibles and there is a market. So | not exactly the same but I see the point in a way. | matwood wrote: | You mean pay for loot box games? I ask because Diablo is one of | the original grind for random drop games. At its core, Diablo | has always been a gambling game even before micro transactions. | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | Diablo was still enjoyable without the best stuff. And they | never forced you to pay for anything to progress. | | Diablo III made it even easier to get all the set gear (I | have several sets on Switch and I only play casually) and it | became about designing builds around gear that could survive | the highest torment difficulties. | | Other games like Borderlands with similar item systems also | don't rely on the player getting the absolute best gear to | progress either. | | These pay-to-play games on the other hand, force you to hand | over cash to progress and the fun often stops if you try to | play for free. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Yes, paying out of game currency for in game rng loot. | | It has always had the gambling element though. While doing | Meph runs I came to the conclusion that I wasn't playing | because I was having fun, I was playing for the thrill of the | loot drop rng. | [deleted] | paradite wrote: | China regulates lootbox games. Here's a Cambridge research | article on the topic: | | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-p... | taurath wrote: | Investors love the monetization model and they get to decide | what is just right and moral in our system of economics. The | "fiduciary duty" to investors means sociopathy is the only way | that businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. | | If you can make money, you MUST make it. | | Someday I hope we find some way as a society to give value to | other things. Its not really working out. | tyrfing wrote: | > The "fiduciary duty" to investors means sociopathy is the | only way that businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. | | Larry Fink disagrees, and companies like Exxon have learned | that not only is it not the only option, it's not an option | at all. In fact, it's to the point that politicians like Mike | Pence are talking about the big bad shareholders terrorizing | companies. | | > If you can make money, you MUST make it. | | This is a common sentiment at all levels. Who wants to do | good if they can make 3 times as much helping big tech sell | ads? | humbleMouse wrote: | diffeomorphism wrote: | > you MUST... | | Common myth but utterly false: | | https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are- | co... | 7sidedmarble wrote: | There's a difference between what the law says they can and | can't do, and what the forces of capital are set up to | encourage them to do. The law may say you can't avoid | costly waste disposal by dumping it into the rainforest, | but the incentive (ie the profit motive) is there to skirt | as close to breaking the law, and often blowing right past | it. | | I mean I don't think I even need to give examples of | corporations breaking the law because they thought they | could get away with it. Corporations, like any group of | people, can fail to see the big picture. Short term profits | for the risk of a big slap on the wrist is a gamble a lot | of companies take. | michaelmrose wrote: | > sociopathy is the only way that businesses are allowed to | conduct themselves. | | It would be great if we could stop spreading this | misunderstanding. Fiduciary duty is a duty not to | deliberately destroy shareholder value. Basically you can't | set it on fire or loot it. It is not and has never been a | duty to do absolutely anything anyone can possibly conceive | of that will enrich the shareholders. Leaders are free | morally and legally free to consider intangible factors that | bear on the long term health and viability of the company and | indeed do so every day. | doctor_eval wrote: | Correct. Actually, the directors and shareholders are both | bound by the company constitution or charter, as well as | the various agreements between them. None of these | documents ever say "make money at any cost", and I suspect | this whole fiduciary duty nonsense was pushed down from | Wall Street, who of course stand to profit from the | concept. | | You just got to look at a company like Boeing and how it | changed over the years. The fiduciary duty of the directors | didn't change; but the directors certainly did. | [deleted] | kybernetyk wrote: | > It is not and has never been a duty to do absolutely | anything anyone can possibly conceive of that will enrich | the shareholders. | | This. Otherwise Apple and Disney would be forced to sell | porn. But they don't because of their moral (one could | argue prude) stance which makes less money for the | investor. | KingMachiavelli wrote: | Both companies target demographics that would oppose | that. | | Also the PR storm of such a reversal would significantly | damage their stock prices. More importantly, stockholders | suing either company to force them to reverse the policy | would be an even bigger story. | | It's not a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money | as possible, it's to maximize value for shareholders | which means stock price rivals revenue. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > PR storm of such a reversal would significantly damage | their stock prices. | | Like the PR storm from searching the customer's device | for evidence of illegal material they could pass on to | the police? | | > stockholders suing either company | | What would be the basis for the lawsuit, prudishness is | not codified in law. | taurath wrote: | So then they exploit workers and customers because they | choose to rather than being forced to, which sorta makes it | worse. | doctor_eval wrote: | Yep, definitely this. | felipelemos wrote: | They do because they enrich themselves, but not because | of any 'duty' whatsoever. | taurath wrote: | End result is you still have a society run by sociopaths | then. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Ye but you dont need to make up excuses for why poor | sociopaths have no choice. | paol wrote: | They are: https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/1/23149771/diablo- | immortal-l... | | More countries need to adopt similar laws. | MrOxiMoron wrote: | it won't be available in the Netherlands or Belgium, because we | have laws against them, now they just don't release the games | here. I hope more of the EU will join us with similar laws so | it will become impactful. | pototo666 wrote: | Not to defend lootbox game. But some positive thing: it makes | some people's life less boring. Lootbox doesn't make games | interesting. But lootbox generates money to hire good designer, | programmer to create interesting games, at least for some | players. | stingraycharles wrote: | A more cynical perspective is that the designer and | programmer are tasked with using all tricks possible to | coerce their players to pay money. While the players spend a | lot of time and money on it, their life is only less boring | akin to an addict's life being less boring when they're on a | high. | pawelmurias wrote: | Actually it's the opposite, the mobiles games are less fun | for playing because they are optimized for addiction rather | than fun. | pototo666 wrote: | Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate addiction and | fun. | | I am addicted to Dota2. Good game. I spent little money on | it. I play for more than 3000 hours. I wish I didn't. | bsnal wrote: | It's your choice whether to install them or not. Let's stop | treating people like children please. | stavros wrote: | If this were true, people wouldn't literally die of | addiction. Addicts aren't reasonable adults, addiction is a | condition. | x3ro wrote: | You mean like... all the actual... children who play these | games? Should we stop treating those like children too? | bsnal wrote: | Children have parents who know what their children are | doing online. In any case, children don't have access to | credit cards or any other means to pay for in-game items. | dymax78 wrote: | There are plenty of children whose online behavior is | oblivious to their parents, or they circumvent | restrictions their parents placed. | bsnal wrote: | That seems like a problem with those parents, not | blizzard or the government. | fizzynut wrote: | It's like selling cigarettes to children using | manipulative marketing specifically aimed at children | like cute characters on the box and blaming the parents. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Every single statement in this post is a lie, its a bit | of an achievement | | 1 - some children have no parents | | 2 - we have data to prove that parents don't know what | their children do online, and never did. This is a | complete fabrication | | 3 - children do have access to creditcards, both legally | from the age of 14 or 16 depending on jurisdiction, and | illegally | | 4 - there are many non-credit-card ways of paying for | ingame items, including crypto | | Anyway, given your views, I presume you are in favour of | legalising cocaine and other drugs? Otherwise this whole | line of argument would be hypocritical. | bsnal wrote: | Yes of course I am. | anon2020dot00 wrote: | "The hope you feel when you are in love is not | necessarily for anything in particular. Love brings | something inside you to life. Perhaps it is just the full | dimensionality of your own capacity to feel that | returns." - Susan Griffin | Ekaros wrote: | True, why have drug restrictions anyway... Or many other | things. Let adults be adults and have whatever they want. | kybernetyk wrote: | Yes, but then we should stop socializing the costs of their | actions. | Fornax96 wrote: | Welcome to Rapture | richardfey wrote: | Are other articles there paid advertorials? Like this one: | | - https://gamerant.com/diablo-immortal-new-players/ "Why Diablo | Immortal Is The Best Franchise Jumping On Point" | seattle_spring wrote: | No? Longtime Diablo franchise fan here. Immortal has been a | blast without spending any money at all. | de6u99er wrote: | [deleted] | narrator wrote: | Sometimes I see ads for mobile games and I get curious about | them. Then I go to youtube and watch the playthrough videos and | realize just how much of my life and money I could waste on what | turns out to be 100s of hours of mostly random button mashing. | The Kim Kardashian video game playthrough is a good one if you | really want to dig deep into the depths of consumerist | nihilism[1]. | | Anyway, doing the playthrough, or watching a video game speed run | is enough to spoil the whole game for me and make me not want to | play it. Problem solved. Also, there's all the free to play | retrogames out there which are great if you just have endless | amounts of free time. I guess I just don't get gambling, | especially when you can't actually win money. | | [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhizrsqMV8A&list=PL9aL0Ok5ss.. | . | [deleted] | elif wrote: | It's like, gaming used to have some gambling flavor elements to | it, but since ~2020 they gave up moderating it and everyone | decided to go all-in on gamba. CSGO skin cases were meme-ably | game-able, and I'm sure some people lost their livelihood, but it | certainly wasn't conditioning EVERY CHILD that played to casually | walk that line deeper and deeper... What we have now is | sickening. | | The stance of NL and belgium of just banning all games that have | gambling elements, is truly the only path forward. There will be | no self-regulation. The studios have to be stopped from selling | to care anymore. | davidweatherall wrote: | Gambling in the gaming world is even more prominent on Twitch | and it's not even pretending to be gaming related anymore. | | An incognito screenshot of Twitch I captured just now | https://i.imgur.com/fgXDAHB.png - The biggest streamer on the | platform is currently streaming real money (crypto) online | Slots gambling to 100k+ viewers, and a second streamer in the | top 5 category is also streaming Slots. | | Supposedly these streamers make millions per month from these | gaming sponsorships to pretend to lose their own money in order | to convince their already primed audience to become addicts to | these same sites. | | Children brought up on gaming have been conditioned into | becoming the perfect audience for unregulated crypto gambling | companies to advertise to and ruin their lives | weberer wrote: | I remember before 2005 or so, the term "gaming" was | exclusively used by casinos. We've come full circle. | balefrost wrote: | Munecat made a pretty good video on this topic: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGfW5U7d8sc | api wrote: | My take on cryptocurrency has become: it's also all gambling, | and for that reason I no longer think there is any chance of | it going to zero. Absent regulation there is a simply massive | market for gambling. It's shameless exploitation but people | will do it (on both ends). | | Most of this stuff is actually worse than casinos. Casinos | have a social component, employ people, and are often at | least a little regulated so that the odds can't be absolutely | 100% toward the house. Also you win actual money not a | virtual game item. | dylan604 wrote: | >My take on cryptocurrency has become: it's also all | gambling | | I have the same feeling towards the stock market. Sure, it | can be well researched information on the stock in | question, but it's all a bet your interpretation of that | stock is right. | Archelaos wrote: | The difference is that the expectation value is positive. | dylan604 wrote: | Which one are saying then that the expectation is not | positive? | jules wrote: | The stock market can be gambling, but if you put money in | an index fund and don't look at it for 30 years, that's | psychologically and financially very different from | gambling. | neogodless wrote: | In other investments, you can pick an asset allocation, | buy index funds of each asset, dollar cost over time, | rebalance, invest over a long time. | | Maybe some of that is available now with crypto? Index | funds? But with how heavily the bigger cryptocurrencies | are price-correlated, I don't think you get good intra- | asset diversification benefits. | | Personally within my asset allocation, crypto is a tiny | fraction of a percent. | api wrote: | If you are doing much other than value investing long | term you are gambling. | skohan wrote: | Long term, Casinos absolutely have odds slanted toward the | house. With the exception of a very few games, like | blackjack, which can be effectively gamed, a gambler will | statistically be guaranteed to go broke as the number of | games approaches infinity. | sokoloff wrote: | That's true of pit and slots games, but there are people | who make a living playing poker in casinos. (It's a | player-vs-player hosted game with the casino taking a | rake or seat charge rather than a player-vs-house game.) | paxys wrote: | Some difference in the mechanics, but the overall concept | is the same. An individual player might be able to win | money in poker (with some combination of luck and skill), | but a group of players will always lose to the house. | GavinMcG wrote: | Poker isn't played as a group. The "overall concept" is | whether an individual player can profit over the long | run, and in poker but not (say) roulette, the answer is | yes. | | Your approach reminded me of a joke: | | Three statisticians go deer hunting with bows and arrows. | They spot a big buck and take aim. One shoots and his | arrow flies off three meters to the right. The second | shoots and his arrow flies off three meters to the left. | The third statistician jumps up and down, yelling "We got | him! We got him!" | lupire wrote: | Why aren't they pretending to _win_ money? Is losing money so | attractive? | [deleted] | [deleted] | RGamma wrote: | I remember when we used to decry the "miniaturisation of addon | content" with the DLC craze (instead of proper expansions) and | then the preorder boni and season passes and what not (oh, the | simple days). | | Turbo capitalistic exploitation of games is festering; and now | it's more important than ever to support the good-spirited | studios. | Aerroon wrote: | > _The stance of NL and belgium of just banning all games that | have gambling elements, is truly the only path forward._ | | It means that you, the user, don't get to play the games _you_ | want to play or it will have no effect. Publishers will figure | out ways around it and you 're never going to stamp it out as | long as there is demand for it. | | I don't like Diablo Immortal's monetization, so I don't play | it. I suggest everyone else should do the exact same thing. If | you're a parent then you should forbid your kid from playing | games like that too. | | Getting lawmakers involved in regular video games is just going | to end in disaster. They're not exactly known for making | sensible laws or even understanding the subject matter. | _ph_ wrote: | Anti-gambling laws are not vidoe-game specific, at best they | just have to be adjusted to cover them correctly. And these | kind of laws are pretty obvious so I don't see why there | shouldn't be sensible working laws. There are several reasons | for such laws. First of all, not everyone is good at self- | control. Then, there is the big problem of this kind of games | making so much money, that the alternatives are dying out. In | my eyes, mobile gaming already is pretty much dead. There is | too much money being made by games which coerce the user into | spending more money. This limits the choices and drives more | people into these games, even if they have some resistance. | DandyDev wrote: | "Going to end in disaster" -> that's hyperbole | | The fact that the Belgian and Dutch governments label these | predatory microtransaction schemes as gambling, shows that | they understand the subject matter perfectly fine. | | Yes, you and I can sensibly choose not to play those games or | spend money on them. But lots of people can't. That's why | laws regulating gambling exist. | | Nobody is saying that you can't play these games. Those | gaming companies just have to accept that their products are | a form of gambling and will be regulated and taxed as such. | Aerroon wrote: | > _Nobody is saying that you can 't play these games._ | | The Dutch and Belgian government quite literally are saying | that you can't though. Of course, in practice it just means | Dutch and Belgian players will pretend they're from another | European country via VPN. | | > _Those gaming companies just have to accept that their | products are a form of gambling and will be regulated and | taxed as such._ | | I'm not sure if you're saying this in bad faith, are | ignorant of gambling laws or truly believe this. If you | were to regulate video games with gambling laws then that | video game ceases to exist. | | Nobody can afford to publish even a remotely complex game | while following gambling regulations, because every single | country makes their own rules on that. You would | essentially be creating a game _for one country only_. And | at that point why bother? Just push out another actual | slotmachine. You cut development costs by multiple orders | of magnitude and increase accessibility of the game. | | Of course, in practice the countries that regulate it would | just be banned. And the players would play the game via | VPN. | | Also, what I'm saying is that when dozens of countries come | up with new rules some of them are going to do something | stupid with them. You're asking for legally mandated region | locks in gaming. | | Just to be clear, I don't like these games either. I _hate_ | that game companies do this. | throwaway17_17 wrote: | I truly do not mean this as a flippant response to your | comment, but there is a very simple solution to the | problem you are envisioning coming from these | regulations. Developers could just make a game with no | micro transactions. The only way your 'issues' exist, is | if these games are only made to make money via the | gambling mechanics that are being regulated. Want your | game available everywhere ... just make a game that | people can pay for and play. | Aerroon wrote: | I understand what you're saying, and I don't think it's a | flippant answer at all, but that's only something the | game developer can do. Ultimately, they're running a | business and will make choices that make them money. If | that means they don't publish their game at all in Europe | or North America then that's what they're going to do. | They won't be poorer for it, it'll be us, Europeans, who | can't play their games (or we get to play some heavily | Americanized version of the game, because that's the | company that ends up publishing the game in Europe with | lots of American changes). | | My problem with this is that ultimately it ends up | limiting _my_ choices _because_ I happen to live in | Europe. I can choose not to play games that I think are | trying to take too much advantage of me (or complain | about ones that try to), but it 's much more difficult to | play a game that isn't permitted to be playable in my | region. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | This is obviously not going to work. You'd have to be | thoroughly conditioned against government intervention to | even briefly entertain the notion that it might. | | "Well, if I just don't buy any drugs, that'll take care of | the problem." | | Obviously, government interventions can have negative impacts | (see drugs parallel again) but the answer is encouraging | sensible regulation, not pretending, against all evidence, | that it can't work. | Aerroon wrote: | What is "all the evidence that it can work"? Drugs are a | perfect example where governments have spent _a century_ | destroying people 's lives with harebrained regulation. And | yet all that it has done is empowered bloodthirsty cartels | in developing countries. It hasn't improved the drug | situation at all, regardless how much money we've poured | into it. | | As far as I can tell, gambling laws don't stop gambling | either. In fact, it's usually the government that's the | biggest provider of gambling services (the lottery). It | seems like it's more about eliminating competition than | anything else. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | gonzo41 wrote: | It's kind of sad really, because the generation that's talking | about this here are the same the people that had the best, and | least adulterated versions of gaming growing up. So the grew up | and ruined games going forward by making them only about money. | dylan604 wrote: | Who did it? The gamers playing those games you just | steamrolled, or the investors in the gaming companies that | mandated to do whatever to make games more profitable? What | generation those investors came from isn't relevant as these | types of investors are in every generation as investors were | not required to be gamers but just "savvy" business types. | gonzo41 wrote: | Truthfully, its on the developers. Developer Talent could | walk, but I suspect golden handcuffs and willful ignorance. | mLuby wrote: | I don't think _game_ developers have golden handcuffs. | Quite the opposite is what I hear, that they 're often | laid off after a game is released. | EricMausler wrote: | Nothing has really improved upon csgo skins either. People | forget that csgo skins were _tradeable for currency_. Not a USD | type currency without breaking terms, sure, but steam bucks | have some liquidity. | | If I got lucky on a csgo case, _I could go buy a different | video game_ | | Now if I get lucky in most of these other models, _I can 't | even use that luck to buy more cases_ | seventytwo wrote: | > There will be no self-regulation. | | The idea of self-regulation is a lie told by corporations who | don't want regulation. | | Corporations will do literally anything to maximize their | profits. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | Maximising profits is literally the entire goal of | corporations. Why would that be surprising? | sicp-enjoyer wrote: | Video games are generally upheld as an example of good self | regulation. In the US the ESRB review system was created | entirely by the industry. It has universal adoption and is | enforced by almost every retailer (despite being a diverse | group). Futhermore the ESRB has much clearer standards than | the equivalent for films. | | Is it impossible to imagine the industry creating a similar | system around online transactions or gambling? | mromanuk wrote: | Goes deeper. Self-regulation is sold by hyper liberals and | libertarians as the pinnacle of freedom in capitalism. From | individuals to corporation, where any form of regulation or | control should be excluded | withinboredom wrote: | Self-regulation lasts for half a generation, at most. Then | people take over who wonder why they are doing the | regulating in the first place and/or see how to game it for | profit. I think it does work, just not for long enough to | matter. | eurasiantiger wrote: | They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which | usually means poorer countries with less educated people. You | can probably see where this is going. | | Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one | appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time. | skohan wrote: | You don't think sparing hundreds of thousands of children | from harm in the Netherlands accomplishes anything? | | Is it useless to ban children from using cocaine and rocket- | propelled grenade launchers in the US just because they're | not banned in Somalia? | paulryanrogers wrote: | The Internet does make a country's regulations of such | services weaker, yet does provide some barrier. Businesses | will weigh the risks of being discovered and banned if they | don't comply. | jakogut wrote: | Rocket propelled grenade launchers are federally legal [0] | in the United States. Furthermore, there are no federal | restrictions on children using legal firearms under adult | supervision. | | I don't think it affects the point you're making, I just | thought it might be interesting to share. | | [0] https://otbfirearms.com/airtronics-llc-rpg-live-dd- | modernize... | zamadatix wrote: | > They will just move on to countries with less regulation | | If there is worthwhile money to be made they'll already be | going to those countries regardless what countries with | regulation do. | leodriesch wrote: | Maybe if it's just two countries right now, but if this ban | would become EU wide gaming companies would have to care. | Aerroon wrote: | Why would they have to care? | | They could just block the EU region and publish to other | countries instead. Plenty of games, especially from Asia, | already block all EU countries from playing. Usually | they're looking to sell a license or don't know how to | enter the market. Nevertheless, they are absolutely willing | to block the EU region. | | I see so many Europeans repeating the line that if Europe | regulates X together, then companies will have to care, | because they can't ignore the European market. This might | be true in other industries, but it's not true in gaming. I | would even say that it's more common for the European | market to be treated as second class than not when it comes | to online games. | synu wrote: | Isn't that mission accomplished from the EU perspective, | though? Whether they don't care very much and left, or | whether they care a lot and left, as long as the level of | caring was sufficient that they were forced to take the | gambling for kids stuff with them that seems like a win. | The alternative is to not care at all and keep selling in | the EU anyway even if it's made illegal, which seems | unlikely at the level of scale it's happening today. | Aerroon wrote: | Because I like playing some of these games. I don't want | to be stuck with the 5 games that are officially EU | approved. Asking for this kind of regulation is basically | asking for legally mandated region-locks for online | games. It's back to being a second class player in | another region, where technically you're not allowed to | play via VPN and you might get randomly banned. | | Also, it's not about the children. Children don't make | their own money - they only have money that parents give | them. Even if these games banned children from playing | them, a lot of the people complaining about it still | wouldn't stop. The problem for them is that _they_ can 't | make their friends stop playing these games, so they want | the government to stop them instead. | | I don't like when games monetize stuff like Diablo | Immortal does. I hate it. But I'm certain that when | legislation does arrive it'll be broad enough that other | stuff gets caught up in it and the people advocating for | it will just shrug their shoulders and go "lol i didn't | care about games anyway". | synu wrote: | If it went like how nicotine and cigarettes stopped being | marketed to kids, I'd be ok with that. Adults did | complain that their right to smoke candy flavored | cigarettes was being taken away, or that kids don't have | money for cigarettes anyway, but I think it was a net | benefit. I do understand the point you're making though | and bad regulation certainly exists. | eurasiantiger wrote: | Did it really stop, or did it just take another form? | mejutoco wrote: | > Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one | appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time | | If the ban is easy to enforce I do not think this is true. | IMO it is when the ban is next to impossible to enforce when | the crime just shifts (drugs, for instance) | swayvil wrote: | It's a good point, but unpopular. | | It's obnoxious how unpopular points get censored around here. | nanna wrote: | > They will just move on to countries with less regulation | | This knee-jerk application of libertarian ideology makes even | less sense in this situation than usual. The gaming industry | is dependent on improving computer hardware hardware, in-game | sales rely on consumers with at least a certain degree of | expendable capital. The core markets will always be countries | that are well off, companies cant 'just go elsewhere' without | significantly sacrificing their potential income. | | Also you do realise that the wealth of a country does not | correlate directly to it's levels of education? | JaimeThompson wrote: | So why don't cars and trucks still use leaded gasoline? | eurasiantiger wrote: | They do in many countries. | | Edit: Not any more. Even Algeria finally got their show | together in 2021. | horsawlarway wrote: | I don't understand this comment at all. | | > They will just move on to countries with less regulation, | which usually means poorer countries with less educated | people. You can probably see where this is going. | | Great - they've moved on from my country because of the ban. | | > Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one | appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time. | | Just above you told me what it was accomplishing. And if it | "just moves one appearance of [capitalism making it so that | businesses have desirable incentives that would make them | willing to literally instill gambling problems in children] | out of sight for a period of time" then also GREAT! That's | what the legislation was FOR. | | If the legislation stops working, we can discuss again then. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | This is a common trope. When you're arguing against | something that is obviously good, there's not many avenues | left, so you hit the same three again and again: | | * According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action | to improve some feature of the political, social, or | economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one | wishes to remedy. | | * The futility thesis holds that attempts at social | transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply | fail to "make a dent." | | * Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the | proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some | previous, precious accomplishment. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction | eurasiantiger wrote: | None of those apply here. | jmuguy wrote: | If you believe that, I have some leaded gasoline to sell you. | hprotagonist wrote: | at the airport? | discardable_dan wrote: | This is, honestly, why I'm focusing my children on Nintendo | products. They do sometimes charge for skins, but by and large | they don't succumb to the same "pay me to play" traps as other | platforms. | eknkc wrote: | I have a Switch (got it when I had a surgery to ease the long | recovery). The Nintendo IP is almost completely bullshit | free. The success of Switch is nice too. | | FromSoftware is another bastion of hope. The popularity of | Elden Ring is no coincidence. | azalemeth wrote: | Honestly, I shamelessly took a switch into hospital and it | was an absolute god-send. I couldn't manage it while on a | fentanyl infusion, but combined with the drugs it was | perfect - episodic gameplay, pick up and put down, and a | wonderful form of escapism. The Witcher and Skyrim come | highly recommended, after BOTW. | Foomf wrote: | Why did you feel the need to justify your Switch purchase? | Do people judge others over that sort of thing? | hprotagonist wrote: | this is gaming we're talking about: yes, of course. | exdsq wrote: | 100%, I'd do the same if I had children and honestly try to | do the same for myself. It's the only console that keeps | gaming simple and fun - no achievements, less cosmetic driven | games, etc... | aclelland wrote: | Amazon Kids+ is also a really good option for younger kids. | Got a large number of games for a few pounds a month. | | All the games are ad free and IAP free. | chucknelson wrote: | Yeah, we tried going to iPad for our kids but it's so full | of free to play junk. | | Even with Amazon Kids, though, the games are still their | free to play selves without purchases, so I still see these | games where dopamine hits (get coins!) are a main mechanic | :( | mwarkentin wrote: | Apple Arcade has a bunch of good games without any of | this junk (there are some "+" versions of some of the f2p | games like Jetpack Joyride but lots of other good stuff). | Spoom wrote: | Just be very careful in the third party realm of the store. | There have been a lot more "free to play" games released | recently on Switch. | michaelbuckbee wrote: | Another really great service is XBox Gamepass - you pay a | monthly fee and just get the games. There's occasionally DLC | for something but not the voracious grubbiness of the free to | play and mobile space. | RicoElectrico wrote: | All you said is true, but they have gotten lazy and | complacent these days. Not sure I would support them. They | have become the Disney of video games. Family friendly, but | at what cost? | pid-1 wrote: | Nintendo also went full cassino with their mobile games. | Pokemon Go, Mario Kart Tour... Huge cash grabs. | latexr wrote: | Nintendo's mobile games aren't developed in-house[1]. Not | that it excuses it[2], but it does create a clear line for | your parent commenter: as long as the focus is on playing | Nintendo games on Nintendo platforms, the plan makes | sense[3]. | | [1]: Niantic for Pokemon Go, DeNA for Mario Kart Tour. | | [2]: Nintendo is bound to have the final say. | | [3]: For now? | vlunkr wrote: | They tried a more traditional payment model with Super | Mario Run and it didn't do well. Sadly I doubt they'll | try again soon. | weberer wrote: | Yes, its unfortunate. But at least its just constrained to | their mobile phone games for now. | paulryanrogers wrote: | Considering they began as a playing card company perhaps | it's not so surprising. | kibwen wrote: | Not just any playing cards, but hanafuda cards, which | fascinatingly evolved alongside government gambling | crackdowns specifically to be resistant to gambling: _" | Though they can still be used for gambling, its structure | and design is less convenient than other decks such as | Kabufuda."_ | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafuda#History | ascar wrote: | This effectively needs at least the same kind of regulation as | Casinos. It's nothing else than gambling, arguably much worse | and predatory in luring you in and making you spend money. | tekbog wrote: | I don't understand why people are still surprised about Blizzard | shenanigans. The golden era was 20 years ago, let it go. | | Every new game from the last five years has been a disaster in | one way or the other. They are even managing to slowly kill their | never-ending holy cow: World of Warcraft. | 29athrowaway wrote: | It is almost as if it was an offseason April's fools joke. | | It needs a review like this: https://youtu.be/GpdoBwezFVA | swarnie wrote: | Anyone who buys from EA/Blizz at this point should know what to | expect and should be punished for their appalling life choices. | | Game company does something shitty > You all still buy it anyway | like good little sheep > Repeat... | | Source: I had to credit card charge back sim city 5 in 2013 and | never dealt with this joke company again. | workingon wrote: | Anyone play WOTV? | | It's a gacha that seems slightly less gacha then a lot of these. | wly_cdgr wrote: | Eh, whatever. It's not like it's an esport. Let the whales | subsidize everyone else if they want | gambiting wrote: | The thing is - is it necessary to have the best gear to enjoy the | game? | | As a different example - I'm sure it would cost tens of thousands | of dollars to max out your characters and gear in Genshin Impact, | but I've played very enjoyable 100h+ and it's perfectly fine even | if you don't have the max ascended characters and gear, I have a | feeling those are there basically for the wales to spend money on | but aren't necessary for gameplay in any way(well maybe for some | crazy hardcore end game content, but as always, that seems to be | something 0.0001% of the playerbase enjoys). | | My point is - the game can still be enjoyable and worth playing | even if you can't get the endgame gear. Is that the case here? I | don't know. | ValentinPearce wrote: | A big part of Diablo (or at least of Diablo 3) once the story | is finished is to go as far as possible in the post game | features. | | Most people I know who have played Diablo would tell me their | rift tier, paragon level (might be a different term in English | but they play in french so that's the term I know). | | So for new players, it might not be that big of a deal, but for | players wanting to play more Diablo the game is telling them to | cough up as much as they can | gambiting wrote: | Well yes, the question is, when is a hardcore player going to | run into this limit? After 20 hours? 50? 200? The further it | is along the line, the fewer people it's going to affect. If | you can have a great experience for the first 100 hours, | that's still pretty good in my book. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | > The thing is - is it necessary to have the best gear to enjoy | the game? | | It maybe not, the same way it's not necessary to own a yacht | IRL to enjoy life, but why should we bring inequality in games | as well? | | Multiplayer games are a meritocratic dream that is probably | unattainable IRL, as only the most skilled (cheaters aside) get | to the top of the scoreboard. | | It kills my fun to know that even this small haven of | meritocracy is changing to become like the real world: the | wealthy have better opportunities than I do, independently from | skills or talent. | gryn wrote: | in this game ? absolutely game progress is limited by it. can't | complete a quest if your combat rating is not high enough and | the only way to improve it is to upgrade your items. | | how do you upgrade your items ? by upgrading their rank and the | rank of the gems they have attached to them. | | so how do you do that ? well either directly pay money, or pay | money for for stuff needed to to challenge elder rift so that | you can drop the resources necessary. or if you really don't | want to do that challenge the rift without the resources and | have a really shitty drop rate of alternative resources that | can be converted into runes that can be used to make said gems. | that would mean that you needs months of repetitive farming. | | oh an the first fixes of the paid drug is handed to you for | free so that you get a taste of how great of a drug it is. then | once you're dry of it they'll keep giving it you at ever | decreasing doses to keep you crazed for you fix until you crack | and give in. | | my experiences with game is that it was enjoyable until lvl 35 | which you hit in 2 days of playing and just hit an impenetrable | wall at lvl 42 where it meant full time grinding or paying in | order for the story to progress at an acceptable pace. | | I'll just remove it from my phone or maybe play with reverse | engineering it to see how hard it is to make a bot. (on the | first day there was already one spamming chat) | nickjj wrote: | > The thing is - is it necessary to have the best gear to enjoy | the game? | | Technically no but Diablo and ARPGs in general are all about | items and for a very large class of players who enjoy this | genre it's all about min / maxing your character, or at the | very least getting improved items / skills / kill speed as you | progress. Tying items into a cash shop in the way it's been | done here feels really dirty, like it's going against the | entire ethos of the genre. | | This is partly why Path of Exile has been wildly successful for | almost 10 years (it's another ARPG). Their cash shop is focused | on cosmetics and quality of life improvements. You can't just | buy items or things that make your character more powerful. | | The only reason I bring up PoE is to demonstrate it's possible | to create a long running profitable ARPG with cosmetic cash | shop items in a free to play game. I do know things like stash | tabs are borderline and debatably a kind of essential item but | I'm ok with that, you can get very far without thinking about | them and you purchase them once and you're good to go for | years. It was also like $15 from what I remember, it's been a | bunch of years since I played so I forgot. I do know I spent | around $40-50 total on that game on various quality of life | things and it felt like money well spent. I was happy to | support GGG. In fact, I ran into a billing situation once and | they gave me free coins to compensate a customer support pain | point (which I didn't ask for) but I didn't want their work to | go unpaid so I ended up purchasing more to match what they gave | me. | | Not nickel and diming your customers and not preying on | weakness goes a long ways for building up a loyal fanbase. I | haven't played PoE in years but I feel like they won me over as | a customer for life. I didn't think it was possible to ruin the | Diablo franchise more than the original release of Diablo III | but I think Diablo Immortal may have won in that department. | lcw wrote: | This take seems off to me specifically in you last paragraph. | Whether it is MTX in the form of cosmetics or p2w mechanics | both are predatory to people with addictions to games and | kids. | | I feel like people are upset about p2w mechanics in the game | but at the same time say "I'm fine with cosmetic mtx" which | makes the whole argument read to me as you are upset that | people want to use money to win and that means they shouldn't | so you will virtue signal like I care about people spending | $10k. If you as an individual don't like p2w that's fine. I | get that, but let's stop acting like we care about the | virtues of it when kids are spending $1k on worthless Marvel | skins in Fortnite or Roblox and there is little uproar about | it... We just don't like going into a game where a rich | person can beat us, which is understandably frustrating. The | other virtue outrageous is just disingenuous imho. | badkitty wrote: | pdimitar wrote: | Your take is even more off since you didn't see the | blindingly obvious difference: having a choice in your game | progression. | | - Cosmetics are a choice. They don't affect your progress | in any way. | | - Bought character power is not a choice. You can happily | play X amount of hours but at one point you'll hit a brick | wall you can't overcome without money. And no don't tell me | that "eventually you will", because elementary psychology | says people get discouraged and quit if their effort isn't | rewarded until a certain time threshold. That time is much | less than what a F2P will allow you. | | I don't know if you deliberately missed the point or you | can't see something that's easy to notice. | lcw wrote: | What point are you making? I'm making a point that you | can spend $100k on cosmetics in Roblox or Fortnite, and | people do spend thousands of dollars over time almost | unknowingly. I assume you would think this is bad right? | | If manipulative psychology is the issue at hand than | quantitatively speaking if you spend 10k on cosmetics or | 10k on p2w through manipulative psychology what is the | ethical difference? | | If you think I'm arguing for a side you are mistaken. I | just don't think people actually care about people who | are victims of this. They just don't like p2w games, and | that's fine. I'm just calling a spade a spade. | | Also I feel like you are going down a rabbit hole of | being gated on a game from being top 10 on a leaderboard, | because the story mode and making it to level 60 seem | completely accessible with no money. This is kind of a | crazy path to walk down especially for PC gamers, who | seem to be the most outraged, where affluence is | definitely an advantage even if the game isn't the one | making the money off it. For instance, the difference | between a refresh rate of 250hz vs 60hz on a competitive | FPS game. Try and tell me there isn't an advantage | between a $800 gaming rig vs a $10k gaming rig... | pdimitar wrote: | > _I assume you would think this is bad right?_ | | Of course I agree with that. I was under the impression | that we're not discussing whether addiction is bad -- | it's widely known that it is. | | I was arguing that "Minecraft and Roblox and millions of | other games feed off the weak minds of virtual cosmetic | addicts" does not at all make the pay-to-win model of | other games okay. Because it did seem like you went off | on a whataboutism road. | | That the world is screwed up doesn't mean we have to give | up. We can try and improve little corners of it. | lcw wrote: | Yeah I feel you. I don't think I was whataboutism-ing. | The parent comment said PoE is fine because it's just | cosmetics in game that you can buy. I guess I should have | said you could spend thousands of dollars on PoE on | cosmetics, but I'm just stating that one isn't better | than the other. The main topic to me is that people are | saying they don't like p2w games, and it feels like a | weak argument if you say you don't like manipulative | psychology in MTX but you actually are fine with it in | regard to cosmetics because it doesn't impact your | experience. | | I just get this vibe that people don't think through | their stance these days. They just want what they want, | and use ethics to support their point when they don't | really have a consistent sense of morality to speak of. | nickjj wrote: | > I just get this vibe that people don't think through | their stance these days. They just want what they want, | and use ethics to support their point when they don't | really have a consistent sense of morality to speak of. | | I thought it through and my stance is I do think there's | a very big difference between p2w and cosmetic only cash | shops from a moral stand point in the context of Diablo | Immortal and PoE. | | I never felt like PoE was trying to push me into buying | something. The purchases I've made (0 cosmetic btw, it's | been all quality of life things) were on my own terms, I | didn't feel manipulated in the slightest. There was no | gambling mechanic, it was a straight "I give them money | and they give me stash tabs" transaction, there's no | catch. I don't need to login every day to keep them, they | exist until PoE decides not to run PoE anymore. | | The above is a lot different than Diablo Immortal trying | its hardest to convince you to buy something because it | directly alters the core mechanics of an ARPG which is to | make your character stronger by trying to get you to | purchase items that make your character stronger. The | whole system is set up to make you constantly evaluate | "well, should I grind this out 8 hours a day for 4 months | or spend $50 to have it in a few days?", and it's | painfully obvious. | | These elements are also pushed into the game's UI so it's | in your face all the time. They also took it 1 step | further and introduced a lot of randomness into your real | money purchases and they self destruct if you stop | logging into the game. I was trying to compare this to a | "real life company" like a casino or car salesman but | somehow even they seem better from a morality standpoint | when compared directly to Diablo Immortal. | | So yes, in my mind there is a big morality difference | between these 2 games in how they operate their cash | shop. One of them feels like inconceivably high pressure | sales tactics designed to maximize profits at no cost | while the other feels like a game that does everything in | its power to kill you with kindness by providing value | through entertainment in the game so you end up making | purchases because you like the game and want to support | the developers, what you get out of that is more like | warm fuzzies and some quality of life enhancements (or | cosmetic things if that's what you like). | pdimitar wrote: | MTX are not inherently evil, for example I fully support | one-time unlocks with MTX. It's a fair business model. | (Although in these cases they might not be called MTX at | all; probably "expansions" or "DLCs".) | | And the thing with cosmetics is that they're opt-in; | whoever decides to never buy will also never be | negatively affected -- which is not true for pay-to-win. | | I guess that's why there's this "evilest, eviler, evil | and less evil" scale of game MTX. | | I personally would prefer all cosmetics be farmable but | I'm okay with having those be also available for buying. | jamespo wrote: | You might not be negatively affected by not having | cosmetics but evidently lots of players are. | kybernetyk wrote: | > The thing is - is it necessary to have the best gear to enjoy | the game? | | Yes, at least in those types of games. Gear improvement is a | big part of the game progression. Before microtransactions that | just meant spending ungodly amounts of time in those games. | Nowadays it means bankrupting yourself. | gambiting wrote: | But it still doesn't answer my question - obviously you have | gear progression without spending any money, just like there | is in Genshin Impact. So at what point do you reach a point | where you literally can't enjoy the game any more without | spending any money? Because if it's 100h+ like for me in | Genshin, then I don't think there's any problem for 99.999% | of players. Yes the option to spend money and get crazy high | gear is there for the wales, but is the game itself enjoyable | even if you don't do this? Because I know as a fact that | Genshin is. Would love to know if the same applies to Diablo. | gryn wrote: | if doing the same exact rift over and over for weeks in | order to unfreeze your game progress is something you find | enjoyable then yes. but realistically I don't think there | exist that much people who would enjoy this. | | oh and every 15 min or so you're spammed with a | notification telling you take this one is lifetime | opportunity to help if only for give them your credit card! | if you don't hurry you'll miss out on this offer forever. | | I've played less than an hour of genshin so I can't compare | it since I don't know much about it. but as someone who | played other games where you might need to farm for better | stuff, this is nothing like that. | matwood wrote: | > if doing the same exact rift over and over for weeks in | order to unfreeze your game progress is something you | find enjoyable then yes. but realistically I don't think | there exist that much people who would enjoy this. | | It's been awhile since I played D3, but hasn't this been | the model for years? | fernandotakai wrote: | i mean, that's d2 gameplay in a nutshell. i mean, cow | farming, baal farming, diablo farming... if you played | any diablo, you had to do the same content non stop to | get better gear. and sometimes that means weeks of | farming for a small upgrade. | BlueTemplar wrote: | I disagree, the most enjoyable experience in Diablo 2 is | probably during lvl 25-40 (/99), roughly corresponding to the | acts 4 and 5 of the story of the first difficulty level and | the 2nd difficulty level (out of 3). | havblue wrote: | I gave up on plants versus zombies 2 quickly when it became | obvious the game was just prompting me to spend money at every | turn. Granted, some people say this was mitigated eventually. | | I think games where you have an option to pay for dlc at the | start screen are fine. It's being constantly pressured that I | consider to be a breach of trust. | grayfaced wrote: | Every game menu feels like a casino now. Even the ones with | no microtransactions put the trapping of P2W in. Cluttered | flashy menus. When you get a drop instead of just giving you | the item, they give you a chest with an unskippable flashy | animation when you open it. P2W Casino is a horrible art- | style, I don't know why conventional games are copying it. | I've refunded games on steam after just seeing the menu. | havblue wrote: | I think we just aren't the intended customer for a lot of | games. I mean, the casino style is used because it works | for casinos as well. I'd rather just drink while watching | sports in the comfortable leather chairs than playing slots | and waiting forever for a drink on the casino floor, | personally. | | Which ones did you return? I think there are a decent | number of single a developer games out there that have good | progression systems. Hades, Dicey Dungeons, Golf Story... | JonathanFly wrote: | >I gave up on plants versus zombies 2 quickly when it became | obvious the game was just prompting me to spend money at | every turn. Granted, some people say this was mitigated | eventually. | | The funny thing is the _unmitigated_ , most pay2win version | of Plants Versus Zombies 2 - the game at launch - was | accidentally one of the most amazing and intense gaming | experiences for people who never spent anything. For people | who just really enjoyed a vastly more challenging version of | PvZ. | | I loved the first game but it was never a challenge, it was | rare to fail a level more than once. But the levels in the | second were passable if you spent zero premium currency (even | not spending any of premium currency they gave you for free | for logging in) - they were just very very challenging. | Passing every single one required novel strategies and slowly | revising, eking out a few more tiny edges each time you try, | combined with absolute precision in execution, until somehow | the level was passable. | | I'm not actually sure every single level was passable by not | even spending the currency they gave you for free, I never | quite finished it, but I got through most of them! When I | logged in to finish the remaining levels later, they had made | them all way easier in an effort to respond to p2w criticism | so I never had a chance. | havblue wrote: | I think that's a testament to how micro transactions can | ruin the balance of a game as you never know who the | difficulty is designed for. With SMTV, Atlus added a dlc to | make it easier to level your characters. So did they | deliberately pad the leveling in order to make you buy this | dlc? Or are you paying for an easy mode? Who knows. | BlueTemplar wrote: | Except they later screwed it up by adding plant and zombie | level ups. And you can't even play the old version any more | ! That's another issue with those "pay not to grind" | games... | luckluckgoosed wrote: | I've played about 12 hours of Diablo Immortal. I haven't spent | any money, but also haven't really looked into why I would want | to do it. The game is already pretty easy, and I feel like | spending for better gear would make it almost non-sense, where | I can just stand around while my minions kill the enemies. If | they wanted to encourage micro-transactions, they should have | made it a lot more challenging, so that you'd actually you | know, die sometimes. | matwood wrote: | I'm wondering the same. D3 was seasonal grinds, and this new | game seems to capture the same season grind. So far at least, | it looks like paying lessens the grind, but rift grinding is | what Diablo has been about for years. | Grollicus wrote: | The worst thing (for me) about this is that whenever I go to the | Apple App store I get bombarded will all these "games" that just | try to make my life actively worse. | | I don't understand why they pollute their brand like that. | Hermel wrote: | That's the key! | | The Play Store and the App Store do not even have a search | filter for games without in-app purchases. I'm sure that is on | purpose. | thebigspacefuck wrote: | Usually paid games don't have in-app purchases. This site is | also helpful: https://nobsgames.stavros.io/ | chii wrote: | it would make sense to scrape the data, and create an | alternative search engine with such filters imho... | voganmother42 wrote: | Apple arcade seems to fulfill this function ( albeit | subscription cost instead of in app purchases ) | snikeris wrote: | The trouble is that sometimes in-app purchases means the game | is a demo, and you use the in app purchase to buy the full | game. There are good games that follow this model that you'll | miss out on if you filter out in app purchases. | toxik wrote: | Perhaps they would stop doing that if such a filter existed | in the first place. | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | Good point. I get upset with Hulu because they won't | distinguish ad-supported titles in their apps. | languageserver wrote: | This is made by the company that gave us Warcraft III reforged. | A money grab that made the game worse and ruined the already | existing game. they have no goodwill. | creakingstairs wrote: | It was very surprising how bad reforged was when brood war | remake was excellent. Even Diablo 2 remake was great. | tomwilson wrote: | It's a huge chunk of their "services revenue". It's their dirty | little secret. | Joeri wrote: | Because of the money. Games account for approximately 70 | percent of the entire App Store's revenue, and 98 percent of | in-app purchase revenue. Apple is not very motivated to stop | these practices because it makes them many billions of dollars. | [deleted] | thejosh wrote: | I really like the concept of | [Playpass](https://play.google.com/intl/en_au/about/play- | pass/), for Android, it gives you a tonne of really good games | that aren't pay to win, have offline support and are fun. I | don't really play many games anymore, especially on mobile, but | I found a few when I went away on holiday and wanted to play a | few games here and there when travelling. | sbagel wrote: | Loot boxes/gacha games are the modern day cigarettes. Harmful, | addictive, marketed to minors and very lucrative. Rest of the | world needs to catch up to Belgium and Netherlands in banning | these. | pototo666 wrote: | As someone used to work for Chinese mobile game companies. $110k | sounds average for a pay-to-win game. But the game is new. | Designers would create other slots to make money. | forgotpwd16 wrote: | >average for a pay-to-win game | | What games are above this average? | wincy wrote: | I played a game called Kingdom Conquest then Kingdom Conquest | 2 that I could see exceeding this. The game reset every few | months and you'd have to spend the money all over again. I | quit after my "kingdom" and all the other English speaking | people got brutally subjugated by our Japanese counterparts. | We just didn't spend nearly as much money as them and totally | lost. | mlindner wrote: | They're incredibly popular in east asia in general. It's | practically taken over the game markets over there. | mlindner wrote: | Why the downvotes? | pototo666 wrote: | Many mobile games made by Chinese, especially Net Ease, who | also makes Diablo Immortal. Net Ease is notoriously good at | sucking money from whales. | phantomathkg wrote: | At the end, it is a NetEase game with Diablo skin. So do expect | it use all the horrible trick from China mobile game company. | uejfiweun wrote: | I put this game in the same category as Anthem, Fallout 76, and | unfortunately many others. No fans wanted it, no developers | wanted to make it, nobody cares about it. The only people excited | about this are the executives who saw how much money other Mobile | / Co-op Multiplayer / Arena shooter / Battle Royale / etc games | were making, and are hopeful they can get a piece of the pie. | This sort of thing never seems to end well for the game companies | that push it. | | Sometimes though, companies seem to learn from their mistakes on | these. EA went from a straight awful company to producing one of | my favorite games, Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order, with no forced | multiplayer, no microtransactions, no DLC, just a great game out | of the box. So although Blizzard franchises are certainly hurting | right now, sometimes the night is darkest just before the dawn, | so to speak. | [deleted] | lithos wrote: | Anthem would have been great if it was finished. Core movement | systems were good, and theming of power armor was great. | coolgoose wrote: | This somehow makes me happy that it's banned in the Netherlands | as gambling. | rvba wrote: | I wonder if there is some board / book where you can find those | psychologists hired to milk money from whales. Nearly all those | predatory companies have those desingers / psychologists who try | to invent varioua tricks to get money from whales. | | Obviously they also need to make the game fun enough so new | players come and are converted to whales. | | Are there any resources that show player churn? | | Blizzard allready has/had Hearthstone that was very expensive | (500 dollars per quarter to have most cards), but Im not sure if | this didnt kill the game for 'average' players. | friendlypeg wrote: | I have been playing and enjoying the game for the past few days. | The P2W gem system can be ignore entirely by most players unless | you want to become the best in leaderboard. Overall the | monetization is on par with other mobile games. The only reason | this gets so much attention is because Blizzard is a easy target | to generate outrages and clicks these days. | devoutsalsa wrote: | Does it get ridiculously hard or monotonous without purchasing | add ons? | heretogetout wrote: | Diablo is the king, or at least a well-placed prince, of | monotonous gameplay. | GekkePrutser wrote: | True, this seems to be Blizzard's thing. I also hated WoW | for this reason, I played along with friends but it took me | 3 years to teach level 60 | BlueTemplar wrote: | WoW is _much_ worse than Diablo on that front... | Skunkleton wrote: | Is it though? Diablo 100% grind after the story (which | can be completed in a few sittings). | BlueTemplar wrote: | Are you saying that "pay not to grind" games should _not_ get | negative attention ? | friendlypeg wrote: | It should, but the negative attention this game is getting is | not proportional to the degree of awfulness of the | monetisation. I am just jaded by the misinformation and | double standard the Internet have these days, when you see | some content creators even proclaiming this game the | greediest game ever made! [0] which is objectively not true. | Will these creators dare to critize other mobile games like | Genshin Impact and Clash of Clans? No, because these games | have ten times bigger fanbase than Diablo Immortal and | Blizzard is a easy target. | | [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6lAfEanRsQ | xmprt wrote: | I think the problem is that you've only been playing for a few | days. Usually these kinds of games are actually fun for the | first few days or weeks. It only gets back once you've already | invested a lot of time and effort into the game and are hooked | onto it. | | Of course you may have the self control to pull out when you | notice it becoming less fun but that's not easy for everyone | which is why this model is quite predatory. | calibas wrote: | > on par with other mobile games | | That bad, eh? | Ruthalas wrote: | Several of the reports I've read indicate some p2w mechanics | don't even unlock until higher levels, and so are not | immediately apparent. How far in are you? | friendlypeg wrote: | Granted I am 15 or so levels away from max level and haven't | touched any endgame activities. Still I am not denying the | game is not P2W. | rng_civ wrote: | If the game's endgame monetization issues are as bad as | I've heard, then this is a classic example of luring | players in and then suddenly smacking them with a paywall. | | Not to bash you in particular, but it always amazes me that | people can judge a game's pacing and monetization without | including the endgame (if it even had a start or middle in | the first place; endgame can be a nebulous concept). As the | game ages, that is what the majority of players will be | doing for the majority of the time and that's where the | game will reveal it's true colors. | | In my most recent memory, this happened with New World and | its lack of endgame content at release. People defended the | game as fun then most apparently quit in the levels 20-30 | range because they realized the game was nothing but the | same anemic game loop. | | Now it's down from 900k peak players to 22k peak players, | which may be a nice number for some games, but it is | already deader than some older MMOs with no signs of player | growth (according to Steam Charts). | dt3ft wrote: | ...aaand this is exactly why I refuse to "play" such "games". | somehnacct3757 wrote: | Honestly that's pretty cheap for a F2P game. The most financially | successful F2P games will have planned for spend to 'go | infinite'. This may be by setting up money fights on a ranked | ladder, or constantly rotating out characters so that spenders | have to reset progress. | | The fact that you can max out in Diablo Immortal, and so cheaply, | shows Blizzard still hasn't learned what F2P is all about. They | are listening too much to their Gamer customers who are a | microscopic piece of their TAM and unlikely to source many | whales. Whales are incredibly wealthy people for whom $110k is | weekend fun money. Gamers are a cohort that like to brag about | fun hours per dollar. They're budget customers. | | Blizzard thinks that you make console & PC games on mobile and | you make mobile money. A lot of game companies from the before- | mobile-times think this is a formula. And their customers egg | them on. But if you build the mobile game those customers want, | you will lose money at worst and leave money on the table at | best. Talking 90% of the money still on the table. | | Blizzard's biggest problem is perhaps that their IP appeals only | to Gamers, who as a culture resist F2P business models (budget | customers.) This article is one such example, meant to stoke | outrage within that group. The people who are going to spend | $110k on Diablo Immortal don't read Gamer media, or even consider | themselves Gamers. They've never been on Twitch and they don't | have Steam accounts. Gamers think they are the center of the | gaming universe but mobile gaming audiences have turned them into | a niche audience in less than a decade. | | I think Blizzard should give up at this point and keep making | games mech-aesthetically tailored for the budget Gamer audience. | Blizzard and Gamers alike think WoW was a huge gaming phenomenon | but on the mobile scale it registers somewhere around Subway | Surfers. Blizzard IP does not splash with mobile audiences. When | a Gamer brand enters the mobile market it's akin to releasing a | video game movie in theaters. Diablo Immortal is a lot closer to | Mario Bros Movie than Sonic Movie in that analogy. | Ruthalas wrote: | This comment makes me sad. | | Primarily because you are correct. | | I think a nice addition at the bottom would be the addendum, | "if the goal is maximise profit at all costs and there is no | regard for their customer-base beyond how effectively they can | be exploited." | friendlypeg wrote: | They also have very tame monetization in their upcoming | Warcraft mobile game when compared to the game it's cloning - | Clash Royale. There are no loot boxes and you can buy character | outright. Still the announcement was met with mixed reactions. | | Maybe Blizzard's reputation has been so tarnished that even | that is not enough and they need to forgo any mechanism that | can be remotely considered giving paying customer advantages. | | The thing is Activision has already successfully brought its | flagship title Call of Duty to the mobile with only cosmetic | store and making banks with it. So I disagree with you that | Blizzard will be leaving money on the table by following that | route. | | It would be interested to see how well Diablo Immortal is going | to do considering how much bad press it gets. Like you said the | mobile gaming population is so much bigger than the PC one, but | I question if the former are really immune to the opinions from | YouTuber, social media and word of mouth from their friends. | calibas wrote: | Being a heroin dealer is such a good business model. Give people | a little bit for free until they get addicted, then you start | gouging them. | | If that sounds appealing to you, but you're scared of getting | arrested, you can just develop "free to play" games instead. | supernes wrote: | Fans have dubbed it "Diablo Immoral" and say that it goes far | beyond what other mobile titles infamous for their monetization | have done. | elif wrote: | Lost Ark was really the "we don't give a shit anymore" moment. | Blizzard is just following up behind them with a bigger bag. | FreezerburnV wrote: | The funny part about that statement, is my understanding of | the international release of Lost Ark is that it's actually a | lot friendlier than the original Korean version. You should | really look into how Asian MMOs (especially Korean ones, and | I think I've heard Chinese ones can be pretty bad too) work | with monetization. This stuff is hardly new, and what we see | internationally is generally tame in comparison. I remember | almost 2 decades ago playing an international version of a | Korean MMO (Dungeon Fighter Online) that had blatant "Buy | this loot box to get cosmetics which give large stat buffs". | elif wrote: | i spent $10k on a kickstarter game as far back as 2013, but | i viewed it as an investment at the time. investing in the | developers of the game being able to continue, as well as | the assets maintained ~60-80% resale value for a time | period. Sure it gave advantages in the game, but the game | wasn't /designed/ around those advantages. | | I think the part that's a relatively recent phenomenon is | that games are designed with "free play" as an afterthought | or even the game designed to push you away from it, instead | of "free play" being the main design focus. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | LA is a PC game, DI is a mobile game | | The standards for the two are quite different. | tuvan wrote: | It really doesnt. Fans are just upset the Diablo name was | stained with this practice. You are looking at this level of | spend required for pretty much any mobile gacha game | jayd16 wrote: | I would have thought so but it does seem to be on the worse | end. Battle passes aren't even account wide. You need to buy | per server. | makeitdouble wrote: | > As of right now, F2P players cannot earn top-rated | Legendary Games, which are only available via some of the | game's monetization options, | | This was true for earlier games that have been burned to the | ground at that point. | | From the arricle: | | > As of right now, F2P players cannot earn top-rated | Legendary Games, which are only available via some of the | game's monetization options | | Which of the current major mobile gacha games does have this | kind of exclusive pay-only items mechanics ? | tuvan wrote: | Thats true. This is extra scummy. I was just talking about | the cost to max out mobile gacha games. | supernes wrote: | It's not just the amount of money they try to get people to | spend, it's some really obnoxious tactics, like NPCs telling | you they "don't run a charity" (i.e. steering you into | spending real money) and _paid_ bonuses that you lose if you | don 't login daily (as opposed to free ones in most other | games). | mynameisvlad wrote: | Neither of those sound unique to Diablo Immortal. Several | games employ the "purchase a daily bonus" mechanic. Diablo | also has several free login bonuses, like the daily kills | and the blue crest (which granted, is a way to push purple | crests, but it's still a daily free item). | [deleted] | eterm wrote: | And it's barely even a new game, an absolute ton of assets are | immediately obvious as very lazily recycled from diablo 3. | throwuxiytayq wrote: | Reminds me of Bethesda's Blades, an even lazier p2w mobile | title which reuses a lot of Skyrim assets. (Don't check it out, | it's not worth your time.) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-05 23:00 UTC)