Diablo 4 [XO, XBSX|S, PC, PS4, PS5, XGP]

[Scott_Arm]

Meh, it's monetization of cosmetics, I honestly couldn't possibly care less. It doesn't affect me, so whatever.

I have lots of complaints about D4, but the monetization isn't one of them. The things that actually affect my gameplay experience are the only things I care about.

Regards,
SB

Yep. I'm 100% supporting of game companies finding ways to monetize their games as long as it doesn't leave people who can't afford, or don't want to, pay at a disadvantage. Game prices have not scaled with the cost of making games, and right now we're seeing huge layoffs in bad economic times. Anything to keep the industry stable is good.

The gameplay on the other hand ... It's just way way way too easy. The skill tree was annoying to navigate, but other than that, the game is fine. It's just not hard enough.

 

[arandomguy]

I feel the issue with cosmetics is more complex, nuanced, and not as clear cut to readily simply dismiss it has not part of game play and not conveying an advantage.

Video games are a visual medium. Multiplayer games (even single player games these days you could say with the changing communication) involve user interaction and social dynamics, and while people might want to preach the idea of being above seemingly petty elements of social dynamics but the reality is they do exist. RPGs have ingrained customization elements and also the idea of acquiring better visual aesthetics.

As such I don't feel it's so simple to completely dismiss gating visual customization behind paywalls as not affecting the game play experience and creating a game play disadvantage. If we want to go along these lines given how say the scaling and world tiers work you could just say higher levels and better gear is just bigger numbers that don't ultimately affect the "core" game play players experience either. One's giving you more "shiny" the other "bigger numbers."

 

[Scott_Arm]

@arandomguy I still don't think paid cosmetics provide an advantage in the same way as gameplay altering items. Like being able to buy better armour would be a vastly different thing. Sure, if you don't buy cosmetics you are missing out on something.

 

[arandomguy]

@arandomguy I still don't think paid cosmetics provide an advantage in the same way as gameplay altering items. Like being able to buy better armour would be a vastly different thing. Sure, if you don't buy cosmetics you are missing out on something.

This where I feel there needs to be a nuanced discussion on this, because we throw out terms of like gameplay, advantage, and etc. and separate those out from cosmetics but is that really the case? With the term gameplay I feel the term is often being used to really mean "combat/fighting" essentially if that is in game, whereas games (and RPGs also historically) involve more than just combat.

I would argue for instance that player customization is a staple part of RPGs. I would also argue that grinding for gear (not just for stats but also aesthetics)/treasure/status is also a staple part of RPGs. As such I don't see why it's not part of the game play just because it's not "combat." And in terms of whether or not an advantage is provided, well the paying player gets more and/or better customization options if it's monetized.

Note that I'm not going into the monetization debate issue itself and whether or not it's fair. I just feel that the go to argument to easily dismiss cosmetic monetization as not part of game play as not that straight forward. It might not affect "combat" basically, which to be fair is the overriding area of importance for a lot of people, but does affect other aspects of the game that others value.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm not sure that's how it works. Diablo 4's level scaling I believe scales to the mobs to every players level? So it's not like a typical MMO in which a high level would actually out level the mobs in the zone a lower level player would be in. Supposedly even if you specifically coop with someone in a dungeon instance the mobs actually scale to each player?

I'm confused by that. How does an event work with a level 7 player and a level 25? Are the monsters half level 7 and half level 25? Or does it scale the health based on the level of the player attacking? At which point what does levelling even mean?? The monsters are uniformly difficult regardless of your level??

Even if the monsters scale, the appearance of a dude with an army of undead totally dominated my battles. At least, as far as could see. It's unclear what the contributions were!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I would argue for instance that player customization is a staple part of RPGs. I would also argue that grinding for gear (not just for stats but also aesthetics)/treasure/status is also a staple part of RPGs. As such I don't see why it's not part of the game play just because it's not "combat."

I'd say that's part of the experience, but not part of the gameplay. Gameplay has to be active play. Football, two teams of kids with jumpers for goalposts, is the same gameplay as Spurs vs the gunners at the Emirates, but a completely different experience - and one is free and not worth the expensive ticket price of the other.

 

[arandomguy]

I'm confused by that. How does an event work with a level 7 player and a level 25? Are the monsters half level 7 and half level 25? Or does it scale the health based on the level of the player attacking? At which point what does levelling even mean?? The monsters are uniformly difficult regardless of your level??

Even if the monsters scale, the appearance of a dude with an army of undead totally dominated my battles. At least, as far as could see. It's unclear what the contributions were!

My understanding is that the mobs are scaled to each players level, at least to some degree? As in the same mob would be lvl 7 to the lvl 7 player and lvl 25 to the lvl 25, and the numbers basically would be scaled for each player based on that. The example I've seen cited is that scaling works the same as Borderlands 3 coop, but I never played that so I'm not clear. Someone else who's delved deeper into this might know more details, I just soloed the beta outside of a few random overworld runins with other players.

With level scaling there would still be some issues especially early as player skill trees aren't developed. As at level 7 for instance you don't have enough skill points to really develop much build synergy stacking yet, while the level 25 would even if the numbers are scaled. Also there is for sure some class (and build) disparity in terms of overall balance and also specifically in areas like crowd clearing. I know with trying say Sorc builds some were for sure easier to mass clear mobs than others.

 

[arandomguy]

I'd say that's part of the experience, but not part of the gameplay. Gameplay has to be active play. Football, two teams of kids with jumpers for goalposts, is the same gameplay as Spurs vs the gunners at the Emirates, but a completely different experience - and one is free and not worth the expensive ticket price of the other.

Active in what sense? People often spend hours just in character creators alone tuning what face they want for example. Is drawing a face not an active activity?

Edit: Just add it's interesting you use a sports analogy. This basically still gives me the feeling that the tendency is somewhat to use gameplay basically interchangeable with "combat," as physical sports is argued to be analogy for combat.

 

[orangpelupa]

Active in what sense? People often spend hours just in character creators alone tuning what face they want for example. Is drawing a face not an active activity?

Edit: Just add it's interesting you use a sports analogy. This basically still gives me the feeling that the tendency is somewhat to use gameplay basically interchangeable with "combat," as physical sports is argued to be analogy for combat.

Fortunately the face / body in Diablo 4 is quite limited.

If it have lots of freedom like black desert online.... Whoa.... Hours (days?) would get burned in character creation

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Active in what sense? People often spend hours just in character creators alone tuning what face they want for example. Is drawing a face not an active activity?

Playing the game. A'game' can consist of multiple elements of entertainment, of which 'play' is only a part of it. Customising your character isn't gameplay, but can still be enjoyable. One person might like chess, the gameplay of chess being to position pieces to win. Another person might like chess, in collecting different sets. This second person may not even play chess; they just like the look of the different pieces. Ergo, someone who finds value in a chess experience without it being at all about the gameplay.

Edit: Just add it's interesting you use a sports analogy. This basically still gives me the feeling that the tendency is somewhat to use gameplay basically interchangeable with "combat," as physical sports is argued to be analogy for combat.

It doesn't have to be combat - plenty of games have no combat. A platformer will have gameplay that's timing and reactions, say. Or Tetris/Bejewled! I also think it's belittling of sports to associate with 'combat'. There are lots of sports spanning a wide range of skills. I just grabbed the first analogy that came to mind based on an incredibly popular game.

In relation to D4, there are people who don't care about the cosmetics because they don't affect how the game is played. These people have no complaint with the monetisation. Then there are other people who value the contribution cosmetics bring to the experience, who have an opinion on their monetisation. Both are valid, but I can't see a logical argument to define gameplay to encompass all the activities and experiences of a game. We don't call the UI and options page 'gameplay', nor do we call listening to the OST on Spotify 'playing the game'.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I'm confused by that. How does an event work with a level 7 player and a level 25? Are the monsters half level 7 and half level 25? Or does it scale the health based on the level of the player attacking? At which point what does levelling even mean?? The monsters are uniformly difficult regardless of your level??

Even if the monsters scale, the appearance of a dude with an army of undead totally dominated my battles. At least, as far as could see. It's unclear what the contributions were!

Mobs at an event in D4 are scaled to the triggering person's level. So if a level 25 triggers (starts) the event then the mobs are level 25 for anyone who joins in. This is how I got one shot at level 13 by a level 26 boss.

It's not like Guild Wars 2 where events are scaled to the level of each participant. IE players do scaling damage and take scaled damaged based on their level. D4 doesn't do that. If a level 10 spawns an event and a level 25 enters, then the enemies are based on the level 10 person and vice versa.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Active in what sense? People often spend hours just in character creators alone tuning what face they want for example. Is drawing a face not an active activity?

Edit: Just add it's interesting you use a sports analogy. This basically still gives me the feeling that the tendency is somewhat to use gameplay basically interchangeable with "combat," as physical sports is argued to be analogy for combat.

You can use any analogy.

If I go to a concert and cannot afford to buy a T-shirt I'll still have the exact same experience as a person who could afford to buy the band's T-shirts and thus wears one while watching the band.

I suppose if there was some kind of prize you could win for being the best dressed cosplayer in the game, then that would affect the game differently based on what you could afford. But there isn't and it doesn't.

It's cosmetics, I still couldn't care less about it. Obviously there are people to whom looks is important, but regardless of whether they've spent 100 dollars on cosmetics and I haven't, we're both functionally exactly the same in the game with the exact same abilities based on what gear has dropped in game.

Regards,
SB

 

[trinibwoy]

I'd say that's part of the experience, but not part of the gameplay.

I agree but it’s getting quite nitpicky. When I read @arandomguy’s post my brain automatically translated “gameplay” to “experience”. Cosmetics are a big part of the experience for lots of RPGs.

Imagine if high powered item drops had big stats but used the same shitty art assets as common trash drops unless you paid extra for the fancy cosmetics. That could severely dull your enjoyment of the game.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

What about buying the collectors box edition. Isn't that an experience? Lol

Pay to win doesn't bother me anyway. Some of us have time and some of us have money. Letting people with time sell stuff to people with money seems totally fine to me.

 

[orangpelupa]

What about buying the collectors box edition. Isn't that an experience? Lol

Pay to win doesn't bother me anyway. Some of us have time and some of us have money. Letting people with time sell stuff to people with money seems totally fine to me.

it became a problem when the poor people experience has been badly designed.
dunno how it will be with D4

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree but it’s getting quite nitpicky.

It's arguing semantics, which is necessary if everyone is to discuss on the same page. I don't think the term is well defined and perhaps it changes based on audience. To discuss it, we ought to be using the same terms, or at least explaining the meaning behind an idea when the word used fails to convey that meaning.

That said, I think there's a very strong argument to refine the meaning. If someone says the gameplay of a game is great, I can't see any sense in them talking about the range of cosmetics! We've traditionally broken a game down into pieces of the experience - art, audio, gameplay, balance, commerce - and been able to discuss them piecemeal. So unless there's a good case for using "gameplay" interchangeably with "experience" and not differentiating, I think we should all aim to use the clearer terms.

 

[trinibwoy]

It's arguing semantics, which is necessary if everyone is to discuss on the same page. I don't think the term is well defined and perhaps it changes based on audience. To discuss it, we ought to be using the same terms, or at least explaining the meaning behind an idea when the word used fails to convey that meaning.

That said, I think there's a very strong argument to refine the meaning. If someone says the gameplay of a game is great, I can't see any sense in them talking about the range of cosmetics! We've traditionally broken a game down into pieces of the experience - art, audio, gameplay, balance, commerce - and been able to discuss them piecemeal. So unless there's a good case for using "gameplay" interchangeably with "experience" and not differentiating, I think we should all aim to use the clearer terms.

Sure but in this case I think we can agree we’re talking about the experience / enjoyment of the game. I’m all for using those words but it doesn’t really change the argument. I suspect for the vast majority of gamers “gameplay” by itself is a meaningless construct.

If we define gameplay as the systems and mechanics that the player manipulates in order to “win” then it often boils down to pushing a button in response to some audible/visible stimuli (skill) or repeating a task until the RNG gods bless you with sweet loot (luck / time). It’s a major part of the experience for sure but a lot of the enjoyment of video games also comes from the audio/visual flair of the medium.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

If we define gameplay as the systems and mechanics that the player manipulates in order to “win” then it often boils down to pushing a button in response to some audible/visible stimuli (skill) or repeating a task until the RNG gods bless you with sweet loot (luck / time). It’s a major part of the experience for sure but a lot of the enjoyment of video games also comes from the audio/visual flair of the medium.

That might be true for some people, hence why they would buy the cosmetics, but isn't true for everyone. As evidenced by many who, again, couldn't care less.

It's obviously not quantifiable to state which is in the majority or if it's relatively evenly split. But when game developers talk about these things in games in which cosmetics are sold, in general, roughly 10% or less of game's player base spends over 90% of the money used on cosmetics. Hence why they are referred to as "whales" because the "mass" or amount of money they spend is so large that they are what microtransactions are targetted at.

IMO, I'd interpret that as meaning that paid cosmetics are fairly inconsequential to the vast majority of people playing games.

Annecdotally, in PoE (Paths of Exile) where the entire revenue stream is based on cosmetics and quality of life purchases (more bank tabs, for example), the people running around in the flashy cosmetics are by far a tiny minority of the player base. Almost all serious players of PoE will buy QOL items off the in game store, very few of them spend any significant amount of money on cosmetics. One tangentially affects gameplay while the other doesn't materially impact it in any way for the vast majority of players.

And considering there's a limit to how many QOL items you need to get in PoE (they don't expire unlike more predatory games), cosmetics are constantly released and what really keeps the game afloat. Yet people spending money on cosmetics are still in the minority. There's just a lot of cosmetics constantly being released which the "whales" consistently buy.

Regards,
SB

 

[Scott_Arm]

Well the way I see it we get a $70 usd game with cosmetics or we get a $90 usd game without cosmetics. I’ll take the former. Yah you miss out on some skins but not even close to being a big deal. The economics of the industry are such that you need multiple avenues for revenue to keep the initial price low. This game will keep people at blizzard employed for the next two to five years

 

[trinibwoy]

That might be true for some people, hence why they would buy the cosmetics, but isn't true for everyone. As evidenced by many who, again, couldn't care less.

We seem to be using the word cosmetics differently The default skins etc in a game are also cosmetic. Most people don’t care about spending money on “extra” cosmetics because the default is good enough. My point is cosmetics matter to people whether out of the box or as an extra download. Saying you “don’t care” about cosmetics is misleading because you certainly would care if the default skins were unimaginative and bland.