So wait... free mobile games aren't 100% FREE?!?! Someone call Superman, or... Saul maybe.
Come on. Free to play ALWAYS means speed up progression with money. It's okay if you don't like that. Don't play the game. Stop acting like a genocide has occurred.
Secondly, do you REALLY expect a 100% free game? You think video game developers are just out there making games out of the kindness of their hearts for nothing in return? Of course not! It's a business.
Play it, or don't, but stop acting like it's something out of the ordinary or some evil conspiracy out to end the world. Sheesh.
I think Saul is dealing with the mess in his living room
Really, are ad-hominems about people the only counterargument anyone can ever evoke when anything about poor monetization comes up?
You have to be in a bad financial situation to point out how it can cost thousands on the low end, to be competitive in PvP or endgame gearing for high-tier rifts/bosses?
How can people be this disingenuous and think their argument doesn't come of as absolutely petty personal jabs, rather than anything remotely logical?
It could be deflection. I was reading a post on the Lost Ark sub because one of the whales is pissed about the new "cosmetic" (in quotes because they have stats that matter) gear that costs hundreds of dollars to kit out. They were of course okay with the $400 daily spending limit Amazon imposed to keep the Kraken from overpowering the whales, but apparently this new gear is just a step too far.
Imagine being okay with a $400 daily spending limit in a game. What the actual hell. Lost Ark isn't a mobile title. This problem isn't a mobile issue. It's just crazy town having fallen off the deep end.
Anyway, I think your points have nailed it. It is concerning in both games, even if it is avoidable for the most part if one is a casual.
You'll see more of this as more gamers enter the hobby thinking MTX is just always how games have been monetized, such as younger gamers.
Which, of course, is why folks that dislike it criticize these games and hope they fail. This was explained in the thread @Uwakionna linked, but Eben after this was explained, we had posters asking incredulously why folks don't just "not spend money."
how it can cost thousands on the low end, to be competitive in PvP or endgame gearing for high-tier rifts/bosses?
So far I haven't spent a $0.01 on enjoying this game. Am I enjoying it "wrong" and MUST buy items that "cost thousands on the low end" in order to enjoy it in "correct way" (according to some interwebs financial justice warriors)?
Nice straw man.
It's interesting you cut apart the original statement, and also interesting your counterpoint didn't seem to address that the part you cherrypicked was still about competitive and endgame gearing.
Also seems you missed this statement which reiterates the point;
"If you're just playing for the experience and then moving on, then you can probably avoid feeling the burn on the paywalls, otherwise you're going to eventually realize just how big a difference there is in progression between f2p and uncapped spending."
Thank you for showing how these counterarguments from people like you are so disingenuous.
how it can cost thousands on the low end, to be competitive in PvP or endgame gearing for high-tier rifts/bosses?
So far I haven't spent a $0.01 on enjoying this game. Am I enjoying it "wrong" and MUST buy items that "cost thousands on the low end" in order to enjoy it in "correct way" (according to some interwebs financial justice warriors)?
Well.. do keep in mind that if you really play this game and never spend a cent that you are NOT playing it how the devs would prefer. They did not create a game to giveaway for free. No, nobody "has to" but the game is clearly designed to get you to pay up. As some videos show.. it will take 10 years to play to complete the current content if you do not spend a penny. I assure you that is NOT because of the incredible amount of content.
Everyone has a different tolerance level for pain.. for annoyance.. for everything. If this was just "Generic mobile game XYZ" nobody here would care. But Diablo has a history with PC Gamers that goes back to the mid 1990s... longer than many gamers are even alive. During that time they have voraciously consumed Diablo content.. games, expansions, sequels, novels and even action figures. To tell those people things like: "If you don't like a cash shop why are you playing" is honestly kind of... disrespectful.(not you per say but others have said)
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I read it in the context of halfmystic's (hilariously bad, full of logical fallacies and even more extreme and ad-homey) comment. Action-reaction.
I would question that given who people chose to respond to and the types of comments they made.
Take the comment you tagged as insightful, which was a response to my comment which you quoted.
Was their comment, that was cherry-picking part of a sentence and using that comment about 'enjoying it wrong' as a straw man, actually better than halfmystic?
When they rail against the idea of people policing their choice of play style which was not even a subject in argument, instead of the reality that it was pointing out how and where costs suddenly inflate for users. When I am able to requote the original full statement, or my follow-up statement, and shows how their argument and the feigned indignance about "injustice warriors" is just a demonstration of handwaving and dodging the actual subject.
When that's able to be done, what's good or insightful about that?
And it's worth noting with bringing halfmystic up, the core premise that we should be addressing the topic and detractors that would rather handwave any concerns are directly part of what's normalized the situation, doesn't seem all that fallacious or irrational.
While you can be critical of the way they said things, what would you criticize as being worse? Is one saying some people will get on their knees for a company "even more extreme" than another saying complaints come from people being poor and/or coping with depression?
There's a reason I'm pointing out responses as being rather disingenuous here. As at least with halfmystic, they are talking about a broader issue that can be discussed. That's different than trying to shut any argument down outright by making it about individuals simply being unhappy.
I personally dont like to use cash shops, since it kind of ruins the fun of the game when it comes to getting items, especially items that are more than just cosmetic.
I would rather spend 25$ as a B2P, and let the cash shop be mostly cosmetic.
I think the game is too predatory to have loot boxes as a p2w, or for fast progression. And the reason why I would not enjoy p2w is becuase in most games, the end game is not even that great, so by having fast progression that is paid for as in P2W, the only thing left is the end game.
So I imagine to give these p2w players their moneys worth it will be an End game of people just greifing others. Which is also something I dont like to experience, so it ruins the actual game play for others that could otherwise enjoy the game.
I hope there are more regulations to control this kind of p2w monetization of a game, and the very least the rating should be mature for the game simply due to the p2w aspect, or gambling as others have put it as well.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
1) Take the comment you tagged as insightful with was a response to my comment which you quoted.
Was their comment, cherry-picking part of a sentence and using that comment about 'enjoying it wrong' as a straw man, actually better than halfmystic?
2) And it's worth noting with bringing halfmystic up, the core premise that we should be addressing the topic and detractors that would rather handwave any concerns are directly part of what's normalized the situation, doesn't seem all that fallacious or irrational.
3) While you can be critical of the way they said things, what would you criticize as being worse? Is one saying some people will get on their knees for a company "even more extreme" than another saying complaints come from people being poor and/or coping with depression?
4) There's a reason I'm pointing out responses as being rather disingenuous here. As at least with halfmystic, they are talking about a broader issue that can be discussed. That's different that trying to shut any argument down outright by making it about individuals simply being unhappy.
(numbers by me)
1) I tagged it as insightful because it gives me the perspective of the player who has fun in the game while spending a small amount on it (I am aware the $0.01 could simply be the opposite extreme, as Slapshot pointed out). I do not see it as a straw man, rather as an answer to your argument about spending thousands on the low end.
He did deflect on your fair PvP argument. Regarding that, most players that complain about "competitiveness" are nowhere near being competitive, they just use this as a foothold to complain. In most of these games, the actual competitive players find ways to excel in spite of the monetization. I have seen it in EVE, BDO, Albion. Time will tell whether that's true for this game as well.
2) It is fallacious and irrational because it assumes the conclusion and ignores that most people are simply getting what they pay for (having fun with a game for 0 to "some" amount spent).
3) I find ad homs from both posters to be distasteful and flawed. I do agree with user298's view that people simply like to complain about everything, especially monetization.
4) Two sides of the same coin. Characterizing people that simply play the game and have fun as "weird faction", "flawed", "falling to their kness", "too far gone" is no better, there is no real argument raised.
1) Thousands on the low end, "to be competitive in PvP or endgame gearing for high-tier rifts/bosses". Do try to avoid making the same mistake they did, and not remove and rewrite the context and meaning for the statement.
He answered a made up position about low end relating to something other than was actually stated. This is made worse by the fact I had also stated that early and casual play could still be cheap/free.
That is very much a straw man, which again begs the question of what you find insightful about it.
And your argument that most find a way to excel in spite of monetization is a dubious argument. We could look at the leaderboard of any of those titles and pick apart what the top players use for gear, how long it took them to get it, and how much they've invested.
Gambling odds says the leaderboards are stacked with people that have invested something into the game to gear up and be competitive, and you're looking at most at a small number of players as an exception to the norm there.
This also avoids the point of endgame and high-tier rifts and bosses which lean on players gearing up above 2 star gems, which are gated behind upgrading rifts, which is itself gated behind a cash shop item you get at either a fixed rate, or buy.
Which is where the point of grinding for a decade to unlock awakened and capped resonance gear as a F2P comes from in this case.
2) That is itself an assumption of the conclusion.
3) When we can pick apart the situation and find that it does have some big issues looming in the background for the game which influences the quality of the overall experience, is there not reason to "complain"?
4) Are they characterizing people that simply play the game and have fun as being that, or are they singling out people that feel the need to make the argument , as they put it, "lul they have to make money somehow!" as a dismissal of any concern over a product?
Those aren't the same groups, though I can see how it'd be easy for one to treat them as such to feign offense.
1) Thousands on the low end, "to be competitive in PvP or endgame gearing for high-tier rifts/bosses". Do try to avoid making the same mistake they did, and not remove and rewrite the context and meaning for the statement.
<snip>
That is very much a straw man, which again begs the question of what you find insightful about it.
1a) And your argument that most find a way to excel in spite of monetization is a dubious argument. We could look at the leaderboard of any of those titles and pick apart what the top players use for gear, how long it took them to get it, and how much they've invested.
Gambling odds says the leaderboards are stacked with people that have invested something into the game to gear up and be competitive, and you're looking at most at a small number of players as an exception to the norm there.
<snip>
2) That is itself an assumption of the conclusion.
3) When we can pick apart the situation and find that it does have some big issues looming in the background for the game which influences the quality of the overall experience, is there not reason to "complain"?
4) Are they characterizing people that simply play the game and have fun as being that, or are they singling out people that feel the need to make the argument , as they put it, "lul they have to make money somehow!" as a dismissal of any concern over a product?
Those aren't the same groups, though I can see how it'd be easy for one to treat them as such to feign offense.
1) I read it wrong, you are right that it is a straw man. I did not intend to change the context, you mistake my intentions, no need to be defensive. I still find his perspective of the casual player useful.
1a) Very long discussion, no energy to go down that rabbit hole, sorry. I will agree to disagree.
2) How?
3) The quality of the overall experience is exactly why I am skeptical about those complaining, especially since there are also reports from players who enjoy the game for what it is.
4) The opening in their argument is:
They are the top because there's a weird faction of people who actually support this. They will defend these practices as "lul they have to make money somehow!" - which is a weird way to say "I'm ready to fall to my knees for daddy Blizzard".
Bold by me. They are projecting and going out of that small group or they are using that silly over-dramatic tone to support an otherwise brittle argument. Silly either way.
1) I would ask my question yet again, remembering the context that I already addressed where it's already been agreed that early and casual play can still be enjoyable at least up to endgame without cost.
1a) You can agree to disagree, but part of this point is what are the literal mechanical limitations being imposed. The extrapolation of that is exactly how it impacts play, and in the case of Immortal, how it affects the game over the long run.
Goes right back to the point of how it affects not just PvP, but also PvE endgame. When someone has to play for a literal decade to pull off something they could achieve comparably in D3 in the course of a single season, that's not a subject to agree or disagree with.
You can disagree that it's a strong reason to question the design of the gameplay. You can disagree on the subject of most people high on the leaderboard for your listed games are dominantly played players.
But even on that end, I offered a point where you can make an objective observation for it. We can go see who the top players are. We can go see what their gear is, and can go find out how they accrued their gear.
You can agree to disagree, but there are multiple objective truths to be made there.
2) The assumption itself of what most people are doing equates to getting what they pay for. If you want to get the most pedantic and say they always get what they pay for, that's not going to say that they are getting comparative return on investment. It's simply offering an inverse assumption to the one you called an assumption.
People saying the game is fun for free now? Cool. Given we already know how and where the monetization is, let's see what happens to most of that population and what the churn rate on players over time ends up being when they are rubbing up against that loot and subsequent time gating.
Makes a relevant point associated to 1a there. Becomes even more relevant to compare just how much time/fun one extracts from Immortal vs 3 or even 2. Additional important based on how that can/will affect ROI for Immortal.
4) It is bold, and leans on a few assumptions you're still making.
For one point, there being a group of any size that says that does not directly correlate to them having to go out of that small group.
Which leans on the last point again; "Those aren't the same groups, though I can see how it'd be easy for one to treat them as such to feign offense."
Halfmystic would have to explain their own rationale on that matter, as in counterpoint to your interpretation, it can also be the point that having an opposing and vocal stance that normalizes poor monetization and actively works to dismiss any critical analysis, makes it easier for the average consumer to not have an informed position of a given product, the business practices in question, and subsequently easier to fall victim to common tropes like the sunk cost fallacy.
Again, you can criticize the tone, but that argument itself doesn't seem all that 'silly'.
And to reiterate the point there. This assertion of what halfmystic is stating, beyond what's been actually written without them making further explanation, is seemingly subject to a lot of assumption. My own argument here is not excused from that fact, and is the reason I point out that it was made as example to counterpoint the assumptions made.
2) The assumption itself of what most people are doing equates to getting what they pay for. If you want to get the most pedantic and say they always get what they pay for, that's not going to say that they are getting comparative return on investment. It's simply offering an inverse assumption to the one you called an assumption.
3) <snip> Given we already know how and where the monetization is, let's see what happens to most of that population and what the churn rate on players over time ends up being when they are rubbing up against that loot and subsequent time gating. Makes a relevant point associated to 1a there actually.
4) It is bold, and leans on a few assumptions you're still making.
For one point, there being a group of any size that says that does not directly correlate to them having to go out of that small group.
Which leans on the last point again; "Those aren't the same groups, though I can see how it'd be easy for one to treat them as such to feign offense."
Halfmystic would have to explain their own rationale on that matter, as in counterpoint to your interpretation, it can also be the point that having an opposing and vocal stance that normalizes poor monetization and actively works to dismiss any critical analysis, makes it easier for the average consumer to not have an informed position of a given product, the business practices in question, and subsequently easier to fall victim to common tropes like the sunk cost fallacy.
Again, you can criticize the tone, but that argument itself doesn't seem all that 'silly'.
And to reiterate the point there. This assertion of what halfmystic is stating, beyond what's been actually written without them making further explanation, is seemingly subject to a lot of assumption.
2) They can play the game as much as they want without upfront costs, they can pay as they go if they want to change something in their in-game experience, and they can stop any time. I do not see any "investment". It seems reasonable to me to start with "I get what I paid for".
3) Agree.
4) If I do not assume and take it literally, I'd say that it is naive and baseless to suggest that this particular vocal minority is responsible for the game's success ("they're being at the top because..."). Especially since there are vocal groups on both sides. I simply believe that it was a badly phrased generic attack.
2) At the very least there's always an investment of time. This ties pretty bluntly to 3 and 1a in this regard, as ultimately there is a difference between something being fun because it's something to do, and something being fun because it's engaging you in a way you'll willing return to tomorrow, next week, or months from now.
It's very easy to not get what you paid for, when all things are to be considered there. You can still say that 'they still had fun', but that's then open to discussion of catering to lowest common denominator in what one's even calling entertainment.
4) Point of how a given argument or statement can influence or negate another. Just because there are detractors on both sides, does not mean the message or method is the same.
This is the point I made previously, where at least the statement made by halfmystic is something that can be discussed for what it's root argument is and pick apart the value of that.
The fact we can extract from a comment you call a "badly phrased generic attack, points about detractors who would dismiss effects of monetization on gameplay, the normalization of said monetization strategies, the way that's used to dismiss or combat opposition, or the impact that can have on the average consumer's awareness of a given product. That's meaningful, because it shows that even as broken of a comment as it may be, and as much as you call it a generic attack, it still has a variety of things to be discussed.
Not something that can be said about the use of straw men, nor of direct personal attacks which leave no extended argument to consider.
This feeds back into a counterpoint on your statement here, in that the second type of argument made, explicitly serves to shut down discussion, with no means of extending any sort of rational conversation from it The basic difference there makes an inherent imbalance to 'both sides', and can favor the side that simply denies the ability to hold conversation since it leaves it at a one-sided rebuke, regardless of if there's any real rationale to be had.
Also again why I point out the disingenuous nature of using such argument strategy.
1a) I would reiterate the basic original point on this.
"And your argument that most find a way to excel in spite of monetization is a dubious argument. We could look at the leaderboard of any of those titles and pick apart what the top players use for gear, how long it took them to get it, and how much they've invested."
As to why I'd reiterate it, consider the reason for looking at the leaderboard, rather than dismissing it. The statement about being competitive is thrown into question if you're throwing out ranking. You say 'top spot', but if you want to exclude the best of the best because they are more than likely paying to be that competitive, we run into a problem of logic.
That's excluding data because it doesn't favor the intended results.
Though even if we are to dismiss that, your own examples have gaps in them. Not only are we using anecdote, which can suffer very bluntly from being an exception to the norm as opposed to a reinforcement of it, one example still has them paying even if it's less than an overly aggressive group, taking advantage of a crash. And the other example relies on a select number of players gaming the system in BDO in ways that are not sustainable if the majority followed suit. Gaming the marketplace only goes so far, and only works for a limited few at any time.
What this all goes to say is, relying on methods of success that are heavily reliant on exploiting the community, manipulation of marketplace, and anything else that is not a consistent/stable part of regular play, is not demonstrative of a means of progress that's actually all that functional for the average player. Certainly there is things that can be gleaned from them, but if their success was directly replicable, then it would be the norm.
The fact it isn't is quite telling, and points right back to that problem of an example being an exception to the norm rather than the norm itself.
2) At the very least there's always an investment of time. This ties pretty bluntly to 3 and 1a in this regard, as ultimately there is a difference between something being fun because it's something to do, and something being fun because it's engaging you in a way you'll willing return to tomorrow, next week, or months from now.
<snip>
4) Point of how a given argument or statement can influence or negate another. Just because there are detractors on both sides, does not mean the message or method is the same.
This is the point I made previously, where at least the statement made by halfmystic is something that can be discussed for what it's root argument is and pick apart the value of that.
The fact we can extract from a comment you call a "badly phrased generic attack, points about detractors who would dismiss effects of monetization on gameplay, the normalization of said monetization strategies, the way that's used to dismiss or combat opposition, or the impact that can have on the average consumer's awareness of a given product. That's meaningful, because it shows that even as broken of a comment as it may be, and as much as you call it a generic attack, it still has a variety of things to be discussed.
Not something that can be said about the use of straw men, nor of direct personal attacks which leave no extended argument to consider.
This feeds back into a counterpoint on your statement here, in that the second type of argument made, explicitly serves to shut down discussion, with no means of extending any sort of rational conversation from it The basic difference there makes an inherent imbalance to 'both sides', and can favor the side that simply denies the ability to hold conversation since it leaves it at a one-sided rebuke, regardless of if there's any real rationale to be had.
Also again why I point out the disingenuous nature of using such argument strategy.
2) I'd buy the argument of time more easily for a game that changes monetization in the middle of its lifecycle and makes the decision harder on someone who has already put considerable time in it (for example, WoW, or PoE). Not for a new game, and not when there's alternatives and competition. There is no significant upfront investment.
4) You could say that there is a badly phrased hidden argument about vocal groups trying to misinform in the first post. I see the same in the other post, only this time about a different group of vocal people with knee-jerk reactions finding flaws in everything, even in good and/or successful games.
The way that both posts are phrased is intended to provoke and shut down. There isn't really any difference. I just happen to agree with the second poster's view (sans ad-homs), to put it bluntly.
The "no significant upfront investment" is part of that whole principle. You don't want to scare people away at first sight, you want to increment the cost over time so they think of their ration as acceptable, until they are looking at the end-game. Even then it's not like the scaling is immediately obvious. Buying legendary crests in small batches over and over again, until it accrues. The game is never going to just lay the complete sum in front of you for that.
4) So you think you can extrapolate what was shown to be a straw man of an argument, and an assertion that people who complain are poor and/or depressed, is a line of conversation that can be probed with any meaningful depth?
You want to say an argument that focuses on defining a specific party, is the same as one which opens multiple topics beyond defining a specific party? Or is there a better position you aim to take there?
Because as it is, this is feeling a bit more like apologetics. A "look both parties made mistakes here" after the point was made how one of them rather bluntly stepped in it.
<snip> one example still has them paying even if it's less than an overly aggressive group, taking advantage of a crash. <snip>
And that's one of the basic reasons I wanted to avoid this conversation, because it goes into the other rabbit hole of "how much is too much", which accepts only a "single price for everyone" regime if you want to see things in black and white, dismisses all nuances and denies the right for companies to monetize their product as they wish, and for consumers to decide on the value of that product for them personally. I have argued on that too many times to have the energy and do that again.
What this all goes to say is, relying on methods of success that are heavily reliant on state of the community, manipulation of marketplace, and anything else that is not a consistent/stable part of regular play, is not demonstrative of a means of progress that's actually all that functional for the average player. Certainly there is things that can be gleaned from them, but if their success was directly replicable, then it would be the norm.
When talking about being competitive/top you are not talking about the norm or the average player. The average player usually is happy as long as there is a reasonable rate of progress for a reasonable cost.
It's quite a deep rabbit hole there, and there is certainly much than can be said and argued about how games are priced, how much is too much, and the merit of a fixed cost, cost ceiling, etc.
Certainly the subject of a consumer having the right to "decide the value of a product" can be discussed, as well as how that directly butts heads with "right for companies to monetize their own product as they wish".
That is quite a deep well of arguments. I can certainly agree to disagree on that subject, but I am also willing as ever to take a deep dive.
As for the second point, that seems to contradict the bringing up of your referenced examples in the first place. It rather reiterates my own point that the examples offered aren't exactly demonstrative of the norm and pose issues for you trying to define the norm.
Also worth reiterating this;
"Goes right back to the point of how it affects not just PvP, but also PvE endgame. When someone has to play for a literal decade to pull off something they could achieve comparably in D3 in the course of a single season, that's not a subject to agree or disagree with."
The short of that being, while you are focusing on "competitive" and have now seemed to drift away from that to argue "average player", I've already addressed that point and brought it up several times. It's been a consistent part of the subject of 1a that it's not just PvP and competitive in question, but how it affects progress in the game and how one can engage with the game broadly in the long term.
You bring up "as long as there is a reasonable rate of progress" to which I can repeat, that, since we've already looked at the rate of progress and noted how getting a single set of awakened gear and capping it's resonance takes roughly a decade for a F2P, do you think that is a reasonable rate of progress? And the fact that to shortcut that progress can take an average of $100k, Do you think that is a reasonable cost?
I brought these points up early and have reiterated them a few times now. Why is there this division between acknowledgement and address?
4) So you think you can extrapolate what was shown to be a straw man of an argument, and an assertion that people who complain are poor and/or depressed, is a line of conversation that can be probed with any meaningful depth?
You want to say an argument that focuses on defining a specific party, is the same as one which opens multiple topics beyond defining a specific party? Or is there a better position you aim to take there?
Because as it is, this is feeling a bit more like apologetics. A "look both parties made mistakes here" after the point was made how one of them rather bluntly stepped in it.
Not at all. I was pretty clear and explicit about it. I disagree with both posters' style and I believe both went for provoking (ad-homs in both sides do that) and not in-depth conversation, but I agree with the second poster's view on people complaining for the sake of complaining.
I would repeat;
"The fact we can extract from a comment you call a "badly phrased generic attack, points about detractors who would dismiss effects of monetization on gameplay, the normalization of said monetization strategies, the way that's used to dismiss or combat opposition, or the impact that can have on the average consumer's awareness of a given product. That's meaningful, because it shows that even as broken of a comment as it may be, and as much as you call it a generic attack, it still has a variety of things to be discussed."
You may agree with the statement of the second, but what extended conversation is there to be had?
You talk of 'complaining for the sake of complaining', but even in the context of this poorly made argument by halfmystic, we can still extract counterpoint to that with "the point that having an opposing and vocal stance that normalizes poor monetization and actively works to dismiss any critical analysis, makes it easier for the average consumer to not have an informed position of a given product".
Calling it simply "complaining for the sake of complaining" is already reductive. It's a similar stance handwaving any deeper or further analysis, and dismisses that there is any potential merit to discussing the subject, even if for the sole purpose of informing others of how a particular title and it's monetization works for the sake of a better informed decision around playing and/or paying.
Take @Lahnmir's comment in the other thread that's been linked a few times now as demonstrative of that. It's not saying he can't or shouldn't make his own decisions as a person and as a consumer, rather that he should have the right to be making well-informed ones. With that comes the need to know how these games monetize themselves and the impact that has on the game experience.
"Well I'm having fun now." Doesn't describe that. It doesn't even guarantee against buyer's remorse down the line. This ties right back to my point of questioning what you were finding so valuable about that previous comment, as this is demonstrative of a relatively common trope of "Well it works for me, so obviously there's no problem."
Not that I want to step into the middle of a fight, but you two do realise that you positions are not exactly polar opposites?
Anyway we have discussed this on the previous thread, though many will not have seen it. It can come as no surprise to any of us that fans are up in arms, my advice is hardly rocket science, don't play it.
Yeah, that's the norm of arguments as far as I've experienced.
I'm not really surprised if we comb back and find a lot of parallels in logic or basic rationale. Already noticed that with the "average player" argument that paralleled something I'd stated and requoted.
Given that it's been an ongoing argument, I've clearly not caught that many of them though.
Yeah, that's the norm of arguments as far as I've experienced.
I'm not really surprised if we comb back and find a lot of parallels in logic or basic rationale. Already noticed that with the "average player" argument that paralleled something I'd stated and requoted.
Given that it's been an ongoing argument, I've clearly not caught that many of them though.
All we can do is put our case as to why the mobile game has gone too far and has sent the PC one down the same route. I am still interested to see if players who think they will just have a F2P experience end up paying. I think some F2P players delude themselves into thinking they will not play, but also I see the small amounts they put in as a rising class of players who don't seem to be recognised as spending when people talk about F2P revenue.
You really can't so easily dismiss this as just a "mobile trash game" as some are doing. The game itself is actually not bad at all as an ARPG and a worthy entry in the Diablo franchise.
The monetization is obviously a piece of shit and there is no maybe to the P2Win, it most definitely is once you understand the details of end game gearing up via legendary gems and awakened gear.
But even the monetization itself can't be dismissed as "mobile trash" because, in case you haven't noticed, the game has an official PC port and will be played on PC only by a large enough number of players that the monetization should be best described as mobile trash monetization brought to the PC by Blizzard, one of the biggest players in the PC gaming market. Don't be surprised if some version of this monetization also makes its way to Diablo IV.
So be afraid... be very afraid if you're an exclusive PC/Console player. They're coming after us too.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
1) The short of that being, while you are focusing on "competitive" and have now seemed to drift away from that to argue "average player", I've already addressed that point and brought it up several times. It's been a consistent part of the subject of 1a that it's not just PvP and competitive in question, but how it affects progress in the game and how one can engage with the game broadly in the long term.
2) You bring up "as long as there is a reasonable rate of progress" to which I can repeat, that, since we've already looked at the rate of progress and noted how getting a single set of awakened gear and capping it's resonance takes roughly a decade for a F2P, do you think that is a reasonable rate of progress? And the fact that to shortcut that progress can take an average of $100k, Do you think that is a reasonable cost?
I brought these points up early and have reiterated them a few times now. Why is there this division between acknowledgement and address?
Because I think we are mixing concerns and keep referencing both (average and competitive player). And we have the oxymoron of the average player complaining about competitiveness and fairness.
- The average player does not care about competitive, as long as there is progress for a reasonable price. If you are right in (2) and they are paywalled to an extreme, they will simply stop finding value and go away (churn). I have no personal experience myself in this game so I am relying on past experiences, which means I could be wrong. Which means that if you are right, Blizz will either adapt the monetization or lose its customers.
- The competitive players will give as much as needed to stay competitive, since that's what they value. The problems with people complaining about monetization and being competitive is that:
a) it goes against the right of the companies to monetize as they see fit ("I want to tell you how you should run your business" as another poster has aptly put it once)
b) it is not absolute and is often overblown since many competitive players find alternative ways
c) average players complaining about "fair" and "being competitive" sounds silly to me. If you really have the intention and chops to be competitive you either pony up, find an alternative smart way or play another game that satisfies your personal conditions.
Can't say I've been overly invested in the competitive player argument personally. It's a given they will 'give as much as needed to stay competitive'. That just goes to the point that an unlimited spending cap brings a lot of risk to what that means.
Given my personal experience, I don't think Blizz is all that concerned about losing low-paying customers as long as they maintain churn at a 'stable' rate. I wouldn't be surprised at promotions around new characters and seasons that help fast-track new players in that regard, knowing they will be there for a very limited time, but still being at a basic level serviceable to give the recurring spenders something to play with.
a) The problem floating there is of course, "players should have the right to decide the value of a product". A company saying their product can or should be valued at an unlimited spending cap is antithetical to that. And you can argue the premise of "Don't like it then don't play/spend.", but the problem becomes the same point that's been made plenty of times before, and one I already made in this comment.
The average person, or even majority choosing not to spend, is hardly relevant to the pricing schema being used. Like many F2P, it appeals to having a more finite community that spends heavily, and will extract what extra it can along the way as a bonus.
Not playing the game does very little as long as that remains the state of things. Ironically, a protest of such monetization would likely make greater impact by actually playing the game and loitering on the servers.
b) This is rather subjective, and relative to much of the argument already made about competitive play, as well as the point I made of the previous examples and their issue of it "is not demonstrative of a means of progress that's actually all that functional for the average player. Certainly there is things that can be gleaned from them, but if their success was directly replicable, then it would be the norm.
The fact it isn't is quite telling, and points right back to that problem of an example being an exception to the norm rather than the norm itself."
c) Iunno, I brought it up as "to be competitive in PvP or endgame gearing for high-tier rifts/bosses". I don't expect average players to be both of those, but the point made was that it impacts both parts of play. It's not just competitive players, nor just average players, but a system that impacts both of them for the same core reasons.
The argument (EDIT: for me) isn't of "the average player complaining about competitive", but of the average player experiencing the same progression cap as PvP players do, and the impact that has on the PvE endgame experience.
Yeah, that's the norm of arguments as far as I've experienced.
I'm not really surprised if we comb back and find a lot of parallels in logic or basic rationale. Already noticed that with the "average player" argument that paralleled something I'd stated and requoted.
Given that it's been an ongoing argument, I've clearly not caught that many of them though.
All we can do is put our case as to why the mobile game has gone too far and has sent the PC one down the same route. I am still interested to see if players who think they will just have a F2P experience end up paying. I think some F2P players delude themselves into thinking they will not play, but also I see the small amounts they put in as a rising class of players who don't seem to be recognised as spending when people talk about F2P revenue.
I did make a point/response regarding that on the other thread.
It will be interesting to me to see how this pans out, since yeah, people are hyping how they are enjoying the game now when the majority of them have only had access for a few days at best. It's a game subject to the same analysis any other title needs.
"How is the game faring a month from now?" "Are the people that claimed to enjoy it still enjoying it?" "Are the people that claimed to dislike it still disliking it?" "Is the game still being discussed in general?" "If the game is being discussed, what topics are being focused on?"
List of questions goes on. Point ultimately being there's a lot of the usual reflexive band wagoning going on because of it now being released to the public, which serves more to muddy a reasonable argument and analysis than anything else. I'll certainly be happy to see what comes of a longer view.
a) The problem floating there is of course, "players should have the right to decide the value of a product". A company saying their product can or should be valued at an unlimited spending cap is antithetical to that. And you can argue the premise of "Don't like it then don't play/spend.", but the problem becomes the same point that's been made plenty of times before, and one I already made in this comment.
The average person, or even majority choosing not to spend, is hardly relevant to the pricing schema being used. Like many F2P, it appeals to having a more finite community that spends heavily, and will extract what extra it can along the way as a bonus.
Not playing the game does very little as long as that remains the state of things. Ironically, a protest of such monetization would likely make greater impact by actually playing the game and loitering on the servers.
<snip>
c) Iunno, I brought it up as "to be competitive in PvP or endgame gearing for high-tier rifts/bosses". I don't expect average players to be both of those, but the point made was that it impacts both parts of play. It's not just competitive players, nor just average players, but a system that impacts both of them for the same core reasons.
The argument isn't of "the average player complaining about competitive", but of the average player experiencing the same progression cap as PvP players do, and the impact that has on the PvE endgame experience.
a) It's always two-way: companies decide on the value, players decide if the companies got it right.
I really do not see anything wrong with a F2P scheme that is supported by a few players. It simply targets two specific audiences: those that like customizing the cost based on their expectations from the game, and those that like to have the F2P option. There's plenty of average players in both.
c) I really cannot see how it impacts average players other than losing a performance metric that is decoupled from real money (I can no longer deterministically say that I did better or worse than player A based on my gear and his). But I think that's an acceptable trade-off, as opposed to forcing a single-level monetization scheme for all games (1) because it denies the right for companies to run their business as they want (2) because not every monetization scheme is optimal for every player.
Re no spending cap, you can argue that it is egregious or scary, but my experiences are that there are diminishing returns at some point and reality is a bit more nuanced. In the worst case, it simply means there is no sense in competing, the game simply is.
I am getting a bit too abstract here and I really do not like it, I wish I knew more about the specific case to say something more intelligent.
a) Where I see things going wrong the what happens between your first sentence there, and the second. It's two-way in that a company "decides on the value", and "a few players" decide if the companies got it right.
The impact of the average player is heavily mitigated in these scenarios, and it becomes more of a data-analytics goal of averaging out the churn rate of free/low-paying players to support a high-paying subgroup.
c) The simple impact is progression. Again the point on getting one set of upgraded gear taking around ten literal years of time playing as a free to play. Every day for ten years, to get one set of upgraded gear, in a game that will likely be rotating sets much more frequently than that. Part of why I compared it previously to D3 and it's seasons.
Even if they reduced that time greatly, they are still easily putting it in a window where you're guaranteed to never have a fully geared endgame set of anything as a F2P, because of rotating seasons and new tiers added over the game's lifespan.
Bit of the problem of perpetually arguing "the right for companies to run their business as they want". Nothing stopping any sufficiently strong company from making the power move of denying the average consumer a voice. Call that statement whatever you want, but that is a very big part and consequence of the naturalization of F2P in general. The optimistic idea of F2P allowing people to buy-in at whatever level has been heavily offset by the reality that most companies, most people, don't just "need to make money", they "want to make more".
And that leads into the issue of uncapped spending. You can say your experiences are different and that they offer diminishing return. I wouldn't deny that generally, yeah, they are designed to be diminishing in value so that there's at least a semblance of a soft-cap to spending. Problem is that said cap can be very high, and can be implemented in ways that mitigates the subject of diminishing returns.
Like the prior mentioned point of rotating seasons and new tiers forcing changes in gearing that perpetually outmodes the already stunted progress of anyone that doesn't pony up above a certain floor in cost. Similarly, they already hard-cap investment into single sets since there is a max you can upgrade them. This doesn't preclude the play of alts, or even the use of multiple sets for different play options on a single class. This mitigates diminishing returns by functionally resetting the return value equation.
That's not even touching competitive/PvP.
I'm trying to generally remain in argument relative to what's known about the game and it's mechanics. Not speculative or abstract in that regard. Just what's actually happening, though with that we can see where some of this has been setup to play out, like above.
It's also where I am willing to make certain more abstract predictions about this game already, and state that it's quite likely that seasons will be slated to rotate fast enough that sets will rarely be completed without dumping at least a couple hundred averaged out (not including actually awakening or capping resonance, just getting all the parts for the sets).
It's similarly quite likely that we'll see a new item tier added to the stars and progression, or otherwise a greater stratification of present tiers (IE, rescaling rift tiers to fill out 3 and 4 star capped gems).
You really can't so easily dismiss this as just a "mobile trash game" as some are doing. The game itself is actually not bad at all as an ARPG and a worthy entry in the Diablo franchise.
The monetization is obviously a piece of shit and there is no maybe to the P2Win, it most definitely is once you understand the details of end game gearing up via legendary gems and awakened gear.
But even the monetization itself can't be dismissed as "mobile trash" because, in case you haven't noticed, the game has an official PC port and will be played on PC only by a large enough number of players that the monetization should be best described as mobile trash monetization brought to the PC by Blizzard, one of the biggest players in the PC gaming market. Don't be surprised if some version of this monetization also makes its way to Diablo IV.
So be afraid... be very afraid if you're an exclusive PC/Console player. They're coming after us too.
I have seen many comments about how well developed it is, the combat, the amount of content as so on, I think if the cash shop had been fair we would all be there, made for mobile first or not. I baulk at the idea of a F2P play through because of the time it will take when I know I won't be investing in the game down the line. But I do see that you can have some fun, not pay and move on, though many will pitch in a small amount.
So... we talking actually predatory or are people being overly dramatic again?
Like, I only touched the game for an hour or so (like.... a wizard and necro at level 11 each), but... where's the predatory mtx?
I saw cosmetics and..... that was it. There was like, something about legendary crests or w/ever but literally that's the only other thing I saw. Then again, I don't exactly tend to go scrutinizing every single pixel looking for something to scream about, to put it bluntly .
Well if you didn't actually look at it properly how would you know that people are looking for things to scream about. You're just oblivious is all and have not even bothered to watch the videos explaining the monetization therefore an uninformed person casting aspersions on those of us who have bothered to watch and learn about it. Good luck in your oblivion, hope it works out for you.
Comments
Which, of course, is why folks that dislike it criticize these games and hope they fail. This was explained in the thread @Uwakionna linked, but Eben after this was explained, we had posters asking incredulously why folks don't just "not spend money."
It's interesting you cut apart the original statement, and also interesting your counterpoint didn't seem to address that the part you cherrypicked was still about competitive and endgame gearing.
Also seems you missed this statement which reiterates the point;
"If you're just playing for the experience and then moving on, then you can probably avoid feeling the burn on the paywalls, otherwise you're going to eventually realize just how big a difference there is in progression between f2p and uncapped spending."
Thank you for showing how these counterarguments from people like you are so disingenuous.
Everyone has a different tolerance level for pain.. for annoyance.. for everything. If this was just "Generic mobile game XYZ" nobody here would care. But Diablo has a history with PC Gamers that goes back to the mid 1990s... longer than many gamers are even alive. During that time they have voraciously consumed Diablo content.. games, expansions, sequels, novels and even action figures. To tell those people things like: "If you don't like a cash shop why are you playing" is honestly kind of... disrespectful.(not you per say but others have said)
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Take the comment you tagged as insightful, which was a response to my comment which you quoted.
Was their comment, that was cherry-picking part of a sentence and using that comment about 'enjoying it wrong' as a straw man, actually better than halfmystic?
When they rail against the idea of people policing their choice of play style which was not even a subject in argument, instead of the reality that it was pointing out how and where costs suddenly inflate for users. When I am able to requote the original full statement, or my follow-up statement, and shows how their argument and the feigned indignance about "injustice warriors" is just a demonstration of handwaving and dodging the actual subject.
When that's able to be done, what's good or insightful about that?
And it's worth noting with bringing halfmystic up, the core premise that we should be addressing the topic and detractors that would rather handwave any concerns are directly part of what's normalized the situation, doesn't seem all that fallacious or irrational.
While you can be critical of the way they said things, what would you criticize as being worse? Is one saying some people will get on their knees for a company "even more extreme" than another saying complaints come from people being poor and/or coping with depression?
There's a reason I'm pointing out responses as being rather disingenuous here. As at least with halfmystic, they are talking about a broader issue that can be discussed. That's different than trying to shut any argument down outright by making it about individuals simply being unhappy.
I would rather spend 25$ as a B2P, and let the cash shop be mostly cosmetic.
I think the game is too predatory to have loot boxes as a p2w, or for fast progression. And the reason why I would not enjoy p2w is becuase in most games, the end game is not even that great, so by having fast progression that is paid for as in P2W, the only thing left is the end game.
So I imagine to give these p2w players their moneys worth it will be an End game of people just greifing others. Which is also something I dont like to experience, so it ruins the actual game play for others that could otherwise enjoy the game.
I hope there are more regulations to control this kind of p2w monetization of a game, and the very least the rating should be mature for the game simply due to the p2w aspect, or gambling as others have put it as well.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
He answered a made up position about low end relating to something other than was actually stated. This is made worse by the fact I had also stated that early and casual play could still be cheap/free.
That is very much a straw man, which again begs the question of what you find insightful about it.
And your argument that most find a way to excel in spite of monetization is a dubious argument. We could look at the leaderboard of any of those titles and pick apart what the top players use for gear, how long it took them to get it, and how much they've invested.
Gambling odds says the leaderboards are stacked with people that have invested something into the game to gear up and be competitive, and you're looking at most at a small number of players as an exception to the norm there.
This also avoids the point of endgame and high-tier rifts and bosses which lean on players gearing up above 2 star gems, which are gated behind upgrading rifts, which is itself gated behind a cash shop item you get at either a fixed rate, or buy.
Which is where the point of grinding for a decade to unlock awakened and capped resonance gear as a F2P comes from in this case.
2) That is itself an assumption of the conclusion.
3) When we can pick apart the situation and find that it does have some big issues looming in the background for the game which influences the quality of the overall experience, is there not reason to "complain"?
4) Are they characterizing people that simply play the game and have fun as being that, or are they singling out people that feel the need to make the argument , as they put it, "lul they have to make money somehow!" as a dismissal of any concern over a product?
Those aren't the same groups, though I can see how it'd be easy for one to treat them as such to feign offense.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
Fishing in RL since 1992
Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
1a) You can agree to disagree, but part of this point is what are the literal mechanical limitations being imposed. The extrapolation of that is exactly how it impacts play, and in the case of Immortal, how it affects the game over the long run.
Goes right back to the point of how it affects not just PvP, but also PvE endgame. When someone has to play for a literal decade to pull off something they could achieve comparably in D3 in the course of a single season, that's not a subject to agree or disagree with.
You can disagree that it's a strong reason to question the design of the gameplay. You can disagree on the subject of most people high on the leaderboard for your listed games are dominantly played players.
But even on that end, I offered a point where you can make an objective observation for it. We can go see who the top players are. We can go see what their gear is, and can go find out how they accrued their gear.
You can agree to disagree, but there are multiple objective truths to be made there.
2) The assumption itself of what most people are doing equates to getting what they pay for. If you want to get the most pedantic and say they always get what they pay for, that's not going to say that they are getting comparative return on investment. It's simply offering an inverse assumption to the one you called an assumption.
3) Enjoying the game based on early play and first impressions, when a lot of the things have been explained in detail and it's even been stated where and how it affects players, makes that a shaky position itself.
People saying the game is fun for free now? Cool. Given we already know how and where the monetization is, let's see what happens to most of that population and what the churn rate on players over time ends up being when they are rubbing up against that loot and subsequent time gating.
Makes a relevant point associated to 1a there. Becomes even more relevant to compare just how much time/fun one extracts from Immortal vs 3 or even 2. Additional important based on how that can/will affect ROI for Immortal.
4) It is bold, and leans on a few assumptions you're still making.
For one point, there being a group of any size that says that does not directly correlate to them having to go out of that small group.
Which leans on the last point again;
"Those aren't the same groups, though I can see how it'd be easy for one to treat them as such to feign offense."
Halfmystic would have to explain their own rationale on that matter, as in counterpoint to your interpretation, it can also be the point that having an opposing and vocal stance that normalizes poor monetization and actively works to dismiss any critical analysis, makes it easier for the average consumer to not have an informed position of a given product, the business practices in question, and subsequently easier to fall victim to common tropes like the sunk cost fallacy.
Again, you can criticize the tone, but that argument itself doesn't seem all that 'silly'.
And to reiterate the point there. This assertion of what halfmystic is stating, beyond what's been actually written without them making further explanation, is seemingly subject to a lot of assumption. My own argument here is not excused from that fact, and is the reason I point out that it was made as example to counterpoint the assumptions made.
It's very easy to not get what you paid for, when all things are to be considered there. You can still say that 'they still had fun', but that's then open to discussion of catering to lowest common denominator in what one's even calling entertainment.
4) Point of how a given argument or statement can influence or negate another. Just because there are detractors on both sides, does not mean the message or method is the same.
This is the point I made previously, where at least the statement made by halfmystic is something that can be discussed for what it's root argument is and pick apart the value of that.
The fact we can extract from a comment you call a "badly phrased generic attack, points about detractors who would dismiss effects of monetization on gameplay, the normalization of said monetization strategies, the way that's used to dismiss or combat opposition, or the impact that can have on the average consumer's awareness of a given product. That's meaningful, because it shows that even as broken of a comment as it may be, and as much as you call it a generic attack, it still has a variety of things to be discussed.
Not something that can be said about the use of straw men, nor of direct personal attacks which leave no extended argument to consider.
This feeds back into a counterpoint on your statement here, in that the second type of argument made, explicitly serves to shut down discussion, with no means of extending any sort of rational conversation from it The basic difference there makes an inherent imbalance to 'both sides', and can favor the side that simply denies the ability to hold conversation since it leaves it at a one-sided rebuke, regardless of if there's any real rationale to be had.
Also again why I point out the disingenuous nature of using such argument strategy.
1a) I would reiterate the basic original point on this.
"And your argument that most find a way to excel in spite of monetization is a dubious argument. We could look at the leaderboard of any of those titles and pick apart what the top players use for gear, how long it took them to get it, and how much they've invested."
As to why I'd reiterate it, consider the reason for looking at the leaderboard, rather than dismissing it. The statement about being competitive is thrown into question if you're throwing out ranking. You say 'top spot', but if you want to exclude the best of the best because they are more than likely paying to be that competitive, we run into a problem of logic.
That's excluding data because it doesn't favor the intended results.
Though even if we are to dismiss that, your own examples have gaps in them. Not only are we using anecdote, which can suffer very bluntly from being an exception to the norm as opposed to a reinforcement of it, one example still has them paying even if it's less than an overly aggressive group, taking advantage of a crash. And the other example relies on a select number of players gaming the system in BDO in ways that are not sustainable if the majority followed suit. Gaming the marketplace only goes so far, and only works for a limited few at any time.
What this all goes to say is, relying on methods of success that are heavily reliant on exploiting the community, manipulation of marketplace, and anything else that is not a consistent/stable part of regular play, is not demonstrative of a means of progress that's actually all that functional for the average player. Certainly there is things that can be gleaned from them, but if their success was directly replicable, then it would be the norm.
The fact it isn't is quite telling, and points right back to that problem of an example being an exception to the norm rather than the norm itself.
"In for a penny, in for a pound." as it were.
The "no significant upfront investment" is part of that whole principle. You don't want to scare people away at first sight, you want to increment the cost over time so they think of their ration as acceptable, until they are looking at the end-game. Even then it's not like the scaling is immediately obvious. Buying legendary crests in small batches over and over again, until it accrues. The game is never going to just lay the complete sum in front of you for that.
4) So you think you can extrapolate what was shown to be a straw man of an argument, and an assertion that people who complain are poor and/or depressed, is a line of conversation that can be probed with any meaningful depth?
You want to say an argument that focuses on defining a specific party, is the same as one which opens multiple topics beyond defining a specific party? Or is there a better position you aim to take there?
Because as it is, this is feeling a bit more like apologetics. A "look both parties made mistakes here" after the point was made how one of them rather bluntly stepped in it.
Certainly the subject of a consumer having the right to "decide the value of a product" can be discussed, as well as how that directly butts heads with "right for companies to monetize their own product as they wish".
That is quite a deep well of arguments. I can certainly agree to disagree on that subject, but I am also willing as ever to take a deep dive.
As for the second point, that seems to contradict the bringing up of your referenced examples in the first place. It rather reiterates my own point that the examples offered aren't exactly demonstrative of the norm and pose issues for you trying to define the norm.
Also worth reiterating this;
"Goes right back to the point of how it affects not just PvP, but also PvE endgame. When someone has to play for a literal decade to pull off something they could achieve comparably in D3 in the course of a single season, that's not a subject to agree or disagree with."
The short of that being, while you are focusing on "competitive" and have now seemed to drift away from that to argue "average player", I've already addressed that point and brought it up several times. It's been a consistent part of the subject of 1a that it's not just PvP and competitive in question, but how it affects progress in the game and how one can engage with the game broadly in the long term.
You bring up "as long as there is a reasonable rate of progress" to which I can repeat, that, since we've already looked at the rate of progress and noted how getting a single set of awakened gear and capping it's resonance takes roughly a decade for a F2P, do you think that is a reasonable rate of progress? And the fact that to shortcut that progress can take an average of $100k, Do you think that is a reasonable cost?
I brought these points up early and have reiterated them a few times now. Why is there this division between acknowledgement and address?
"The fact we can extract from a comment you call a "badly phrased generic attack, points about detractors who would dismiss effects of monetization on gameplay, the normalization of said monetization strategies, the way that's used to dismiss or combat opposition, or the impact that can have on the average consumer's awareness of a given product. That's meaningful, because it shows that even as broken of a comment as it may be, and as much as you call it a generic attack, it still has a variety of things to be discussed."
You may agree with the statement of the second, but what extended conversation is there to be had?
You talk of 'complaining for the sake of complaining', but even in the context of this poorly made argument by halfmystic, we can still extract counterpoint to that with "the point that having an opposing and vocal stance that normalizes poor monetization and actively works to dismiss any critical analysis, makes it easier for the average consumer to not have an informed position of a given product".
Calling it simply "complaining for the sake of complaining" is already reductive. It's a similar stance handwaving any deeper or further analysis, and dismisses that there is any potential merit to discussing the subject, even if for the sole purpose of informing others of how a particular title and it's monetization works for the sake of a better informed decision around playing and/or paying.
Take @Lahnmir's comment in the other thread that's been linked a few times now as demonstrative of that. It's not saying he can't or shouldn't make his own decisions as a person and as a consumer, rather that he should have the right to be making well-informed ones. With that comes the need to know how these games monetize themselves and the impact that has on the game experience.
"Well I'm having fun now." Doesn't describe that. It doesn't even guarantee against buyer's remorse down the line. This ties right back to my point of questioning what you were finding so valuable about that previous comment, as this is demonstrative of a relatively common trope of "Well it works for me, so obviously there's no problem."
Anyway we have discussed this on the previous thread, though many will not have seen it. It can come as no surprise to any of us that fans are up in arms, my advice is hardly rocket science, don't play it.
I'm not really surprised if we comb back and find a lot of parallels in logic or basic rationale. Already noticed that with the "average player" argument that paralleled something I'd stated and requoted.
Given that it's been an ongoing argument, I've clearly not caught that many of them though.
The monetization is obviously a piece of shit and there is no maybe to the P2Win, it most definitely is once you understand the details of end game gearing up via legendary gems and awakened gear.
But even the monetization itself can't be dismissed as "mobile trash" because, in case you haven't noticed, the game has an official PC port and will be played on PC only by a large enough number of players that the monetization should be best described as mobile trash monetization brought to the PC by Blizzard, one of the biggest players in the PC gaming market. Don't be surprised if some version of this monetization also makes its way to Diablo IV.
So be afraid... be very afraid if you're an exclusive PC/Console player. They're coming after us too.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Given my personal experience, I don't think Blizz is all that concerned about losing low-paying customers as long as they maintain churn at a 'stable' rate. I wouldn't be surprised at promotions around new characters and seasons that help fast-track new players in that regard, knowing they will be there for a very limited time, but still being at a basic level serviceable to give the recurring spenders something to play with.
a) The problem floating there is of course, "players should have the right to decide the value of a product". A company saying their product can or should be valued at an unlimited spending cap is antithetical to that. And you can argue the premise of "Don't like it then don't play/spend.", but the problem becomes the same point that's been made plenty of times before, and one I already made in this comment.
The average person, or even majority choosing not to spend, is hardly relevant to the pricing schema being used. Like many F2P, it appeals to having a more finite community that spends heavily, and will extract what extra it can along the way as a bonus.
Not playing the game does very little as long as that remains the state of things. Ironically, a protest of such monetization would likely make greater impact by actually playing the game and loitering on the servers.
b) This is rather subjective, and relative to much of the argument already made about competitive play, as well as the point I made of the previous examples and their issue of it "is not demonstrative of a means of progress that's actually all that functional for the average player. Certainly there is things that can be gleaned from them, but if their success was directly replicable, then it would be the norm.
The fact it isn't is quite telling, and points right back to that problem of an example being an exception to the norm rather than the norm itself."
c) Iunno, I brought it up as "to be competitive in PvP or endgame gearing for high-tier rifts/bosses". I don't expect average players to be both of those, but the point made was that it impacts both parts of play. It's not just competitive players, nor just average players, but a system that impacts both of them for the same core reasons.
The argument (EDIT: for me) isn't of "the average player complaining about competitive", but of the average player experiencing the same progression cap as PvP players do, and the impact that has on the PvE endgame experience.
It will be interesting to me to see how this pans out, since yeah, people are hyping how they are enjoying the game now when the majority of them have only had access for a few days at best. It's a game subject to the same analysis any other title needs.
"How is the game faring a month from now?"
"Are the people that claimed to enjoy it still enjoying it?"
"Are the people that claimed to dislike it still disliking it?"
"Is the game still being discussed in general?"
"If the game is being discussed, what topics are being focused on?"
List of questions goes on. Point ultimately being there's a lot of the usual reflexive band wagoning going on because of it now being released to the public, which serves more to muddy a reasonable argument and analysis than anything else. I'll certainly be happy to see what comes of a longer view.
The impact of the average player is heavily mitigated in these scenarios, and it becomes more of a data-analytics goal of averaging out the churn rate of free/low-paying players to support a high-paying subgroup.
c) The simple impact is progression. Again the point on getting one set of upgraded gear taking around ten literal years of time playing as a free to play. Every day for ten years, to get one set of upgraded gear, in a game that will likely be rotating sets much more frequently than that. Part of why I compared it previously to D3 and it's seasons.
Even if they reduced that time greatly, they are still easily putting it in a window where you're guaranteed to never have a fully geared endgame set of anything as a F2P, because of rotating seasons and new tiers added over the game's lifespan.
Bit of the problem of perpetually arguing "the right for companies to run their business as they want". Nothing stopping any sufficiently strong company from making the power move of denying the average consumer a voice. Call that statement whatever you want, but that is a very big part and consequence of the naturalization of F2P in general. The optimistic idea of F2P allowing people to buy-in at whatever level has been heavily offset by the reality that most companies, most people, don't just "need to make money", they "want to make more".
And that leads into the issue of uncapped spending. You can say your experiences are different and that they offer diminishing return. I wouldn't deny that generally, yeah, they are designed to be diminishing in value so that there's at least a semblance of a soft-cap to spending. Problem is that said cap can be very high, and can be implemented in ways that mitigates the subject of diminishing returns.
Like the prior mentioned point of rotating seasons and new tiers forcing changes in gearing that perpetually outmodes the already stunted progress of anyone that doesn't pony up above a certain floor in cost. Similarly, they already hard-cap investment into single sets since there is a max you can upgrade them. This doesn't preclude the play of alts, or even the use of multiple sets for different play options on a single class. This mitigates diminishing returns by functionally resetting the return value equation.
That's not even touching competitive/PvP.
I'm trying to generally remain in argument relative to what's known about the game and it's mechanics. Not speculative or abstract in that regard. Just what's actually happening, though with that we can see where some of this has been setup to play out, like above.
It's also where I am willing to make certain more abstract predictions about this game already, and state that it's quite likely that seasons will be slated to rotate fast enough that sets will rarely be completed without dumping at least a couple hundred averaged out (not including actually awakening or capping resonance, just getting all the parts for the sets).
It's similarly quite likely that we'll see a new item tier added to the stars and progression, or otherwise a greater stratification of present tiers (IE, rescaling rift tiers to fill out 3 and 4 star capped gems).