The real sad part is that its not even really f2p since you have to be on the paid tier of the battle pass to get legendary crests
Actually you don't. The free battle pass rank 20 gives you one and you can get 1 per month with 1600 hilts from the hilt vendor in Westmarch.
I've also recently learned that there's a way of crafting one additional x/5 star legendary gem every 9 days with Fa runes by grinding Elder rifts for Fading Embers which you can use to buy the Fa runes from a vendor near the rift entrance.
So theoretically you can get 2 legendary crests per month for an RNG chance to get x/5 rank gems and craft 3 more x/5 random legendary gems per month as F2P.
(Edited because I was confusing crests and gems for the Fa runes - the runes craft gems directly not crests)
I may be going out on a limb here, but its almost as if the gem system is designed to be to difficult to understand so punters get lured in to spending?
Seriously just like many other gambling games both on and off line, obscurity of the process is precisely what they want.
It kind of is when you think about it because he's saying you'd pretty much get 2 legendary gems a month with a chance of them being max rank. The problem is though that even if you get say a rank 4 gem, you still need other legendary gems to rank up the gem you mainly want. So its either that or toss the game some money for guaranteed gems whenever you feel like it. It wouldn't be so bad if you were just chasing gems and ranks of said gems, but the fact that you're chasing a max rank of a gem you want and then need to power that gem up with even more legendary gems just makes it pretty bad. For some people not understanding why Eternal Legendary Crests are so bad, you essentially buy those crests for real money, can sale the gems you dont want and then just buy the gems you're after if they are on sale.
The real sad part is that its not even really f2p since you have to be on the paid tier of the battle pass to get legendary crests
Actually you don't. The free battle pass rank 20 gives you one and you can get 1 per month with 1600 hilts from the hilt vendor in Westmarch.
I've also recently learned that there's a way of crafting one additional x/5 star legendary gem every 9 days with Fa runes by grinding Elder rifts for Fading Embers which you can use to buy the Fa runes from a vendor near the rift entrance.
So theoretically you can get 2 legendary crests per month for an RNG chance to get x/5 rank gems and craft 3 more x/5 random legendary gems per month as F2P.
(Edited because I was confusing crests and gems for the Fa runes - the runes craft gems directly not crests)
I may be going out on a limb here, but its almost as if the gem system is designed to be to difficult to understand so punters get lured in to spending?
Seriously just like many other gambling games both on and off line, obscurity of the process is precisely what they want.
It's the entire point behind the shop currencies. To put distance between what you're actually spending and what you're getting for that money.
The daily task cap system sounds stupid— but the stupid part is not the existence of the daily cap. My usual mmo has daily caps on the tasks/rewards you can earn. The stupid part is allowing these caps to be removed with real money. Yuucckk.
Yesterday I went to that official Blizzard meeting and I suggested to the business team to turn their old titles (Diablo 1, 2, 3, and resurrected) into F2P model. They are old games after all! And obviously to implement retroactively the monetization systemSSS that makes Diablo Immortal a real success.
Do not thank me. I know, I know, this is exactly what everybody was waiting for. I like to help the community.
Do people think diablo immortal will surpass diablo 3 in terms of sales?
Would be quite interesting how things turn out. I dont' know the answer.
In terms of revenue, it probably already has.
It will, not sure if it has to be honest, Diablo 3 sold a shit ton at launch. But there are already over 10 million downloads and I wouldn’t be surprised to see record breaking concurrent players and revenue soon. Which, ironically, will also be a sign for the developers that the problems being discussed here really aren’t problems at all. Which, depending on your perspective as a player, might even be true. Lets face it, this type of monetization is normal in the world of mobile gaming, and that world is much bigger then that of PC and console players.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Given the job listings that have opened for Diablo 4, solid chance that ship has already set sail.
Yeah I saw that in Rhykker's video. (9:40ish if my link doesn't work properly.)
"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
The real sad part is that its not even really f2p since you have to be on the paid tier of the battle pass to get legendary crests
Actually you don't. The free battle pass rank 20 gives you one and you can get 1 per month with 1600 hilts from the hilt vendor in Westmarch.
I've also recently learned that there's a way of crafting one additional x/5 star legendary gem every 9 days with Fa runes by grinding Elder rifts for Fading Embers which you can use to buy the Fa runes from a vendor near the rift entrance.
So theoretically you can get 2 legendary crests per month for an RNG chance to get x/5 rank gems and craft 3 more x/5 random legendary gems per month as F2P.
(Edited because I was confusing crests and gems for the Fa runes - the runes craft gems directly not crests)
I may be going out on a limb here, but its almost as if the gem system is designed to be to difficult to understand so punters get lured in to spending?
Seriously just like many other gambling games both on and off line, obscurity of the process is precisely what they want.
Other games can be confusing too though. I'm playing through Grim Dawn again and it is very confusing trying to find a way to purchase better drop rates through their cash shop. All the research I've done on the internet seems to indicate I need to play through more challenging content instead. No wonder DI is so popular.
Is this for multiplayer? I never bothered with it, but played the game and all dlcs, loved it.
Someone found yet another anti F2P grinder cap. The battle pass has a weekly cap for advancing it through play.
It hasn't affected me and I have no idea just how much you would need to grind in a week to run into that cap but I do know that the XP rewards for advancing it is the best way to overcome the familiar "you must reach level xx before continuing" roadblocks while leveling through the story.
It can be advanced through the cash shop though at the rate of 150 orbs per battle pass rank advancement (that's ~ $3.00 per rank) and that has no limit.
Hidden mechanics and gambling, they go hand in hand. This has reached the point where if we found somebody at Blizzard could press a foot pedal to stop you getting a legendary on the 'roulette wheel spin' I would not bat an eye.
Well, we know Diablo 4 will have a cash shop that sells cosmetics so for me it's already basically ruined. What I used to loot hunt for in Diablo 3 through loot and boss drops are now going to be in a cash shop. I hate it. What's the point in even playing if you just buy the cool stuff in a cash shop?
Be really funny if DI makes lots of cash so they just bring that cashshop to D4..lol
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Well, we know Diablo 4 will have a cash shop that sells cosmetics so for me it's already basically ruined. What I used to loot hunt for in Diablo 3 through loot and boss drops are now going to be in a cash shop. I hate it. What's the point in even playing if you just buy the cool stuff in a cash shop?
Be really funny if DI makes lots of cash so they just bring that cashshop to D4..lol
Brilliant! I love your sick and twisted sense of humor. There is a perverse irony about it that would be delicious.
DI will be making much more money then D4, and that ain’t no joke. Unless they do indeed bring over more of the monetization tactics used in the former. DI revenue will be (or is even, I don’t know) record shattering for all Blizzard titles.
Well, we know Diablo 4 will have a cash shop that sells cosmetics so for me it's already basically ruined. What I used to loot hunt for in Diablo 3 through loot and boss drops are now going to be in a cash shop. I hate it. What's the point in even playing if you just buy the cool stuff in a cash shop?
Be really funny if DI makes lots of cash so they just bring that cashshop to D4..lol
Brilliant! I love your sick and twisted sense of humor. There is a perverse irony about it that would be delicious.
DI will be making much more money then D4, and that ain’t no joke. Unless they do indeed bring over more of the monetization tactics used in the former. DI revenue will be (or is even, I don’t know) record shattering for all Blizzard titles.
$14.5 million first week for D:I vs. 6.3 million boxes of D3 sold in first week. At $50 a box (average, collector's editions were higher but maybe I'm misremembering standard edition relase box price), that's a lot more than $14.5 million.
Edit: some quick math to show roughly how much ground D:I has to make up still:
To be more conservative, I'll use $40 a box for D3 (complete edition still sells for that today). That puts D3 first week revenue at about $252 million.
Lifetime D3 box sales are over 30 million but no specific number, so we'll again go conservative and say 30 million units lifetime. That's $1.2 billion revenue (maybe more since more than 30 million units sold).
Assuming the rate at which D:I made money in its first week, it would take D:I 82 weeks to make $1.2 billion. It would need to maintain that level of revenue for over 17 weeks total to match D3's first week revenue.
I do not think this was the smash hit Blizzard hoped it would be, but it's making its money the way mobile titles do.
Well, we know Diablo 4 will have a cash shop that sells cosmetics so for me it's already basically ruined. What I used to loot hunt for in Diablo 3 through loot and boss drops are now going to be in a cash shop. I hate it. What's the point in even playing if you just buy the cool stuff in a cash shop?
Be really funny if DI makes lots of cash so they just bring that cashshop to D4..lol
Brilliant! I love your sick and twisted sense of humor. There is a perverse irony about it that would be delicious.
DI will be making much more money then D4, and that ain’t no joke. Unless they do indeed bring over more of the monetization tactics used in the former. DI revenue will be (or is even, I don’t know) record shattering for all Blizzard titles.
$14.5 million first week for D:I vs. 6.3 million boxes of D3 sold in first week. At $50 a box (average, collector's editions were higher but maybe I'm misremembering standard edition relase box price), that's a lot more than $14.5 million.
In the long term the mobile will win out. Think about this from a studio preceptive, they will release D4 and in the long term it will make less then DI which cost less to make. Also players in D4 will expect more in terms of graphics, content and so on, I would not like to be the designer putting the business case for that one.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced by excellence of monetarisation.
In the long term the mobile will win out. Think about this from a studio preceptive, they will release D4 and in the long term it will make less then DI which cost less to make. Also players in D4 will expect more in terms of graphics, content and so on, I would not like to be the designer putting the business case for that one.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced be excellence of monetarisation.
It will win out so long as the negative perception doesn't cause the game's population to crater.
But it is not the obvious domination most expected out of the microtransactions model. Remember: D3 wasn't even available on mobile, so the pool of gamers was smaller and revenue per user capped in ways it is not on D:I. I think D:I's release actually shows that there are limits to how magical that predatory microtransaction revenue scheme is, specifically when companies try to inject it into franchises with pre-existing, passionate fanbases.
In the long term the mobile will win out. Think about this from a studio preceptive, they will release D4 and in the long term it will make less then DI which cost less to make. Also players in D4 will expect more in terms of graphics, content and so on, I would not like to be the designer putting the business case for that one.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced be excellence of monetarisation.
It will win out so long as the negative perception doesn't cause the game's population to crater.
But it is not the obvious domination most expected out of the microtransactions model. Remember: D3 wasn't even available on mobile, so the pool of gamers was smaller and revenue per user capped in ways it is not on D:I. I think D:I's release actually shows that there are limits to how magical that predatory microtransaction revenue scheme is, specifically when companies try to inject it into franchises with pre-existing, passionate fanbases.
Diablo 3 is one of the best selling games of all time, their first week/month sales were mindblowing.
The crucial difference however is that D3 required all money at the beginning (box purchase) and dropped of a cliff after that revenue wise. DI however requires zero money at the beginning and requires more and more money the further you get in the game, revenue actually increasing over time. It will be very interesting to see how they compare in, say, a month or six from now. At that point I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge rise in DI revenue generated.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Nor consoles - that came later. I even saw quite a resurgence in interest (judging by D3 reddit activity) a couple of years back when it launched on the Switch.
"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
In the long term the mobile will win out. Think about this from a studio preceptive, they will release D4 and in the long term it will make less then DI which cost less to make. Also players in D4 will expect more in terms of graphics, content and so on, I would not like to be the designer putting the business case for that one.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced be excellence of monetarisation.
It will win out so long as the negative perception doesn't cause the game's population to crater.
But it is not the obvious domination most expected out of the microtransactions model. Remember: D3 wasn't even available on mobile, so the pool of gamers was smaller and revenue per user capped in ways it is not on D:I. I think D:I's release actually shows that there are limits to how magical that predatory microtransaction revenue scheme is, specifically when companies try to inject it into franchises with pre-existing, passionate fanbases.
Diablo 3 is one of the best selling games of all time, their first week/month sales were mindblowing.
The crucial difference however is that D3 required all money at the beginning (box purchase) and dropped of a cliff after that revenue wise. DI however requires zero money at the beginning and requires more and more money the further you get in the game, revenue actually increasing over time. It will be very interesting to see how they compare in, say, a month or six from now. At that point I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge rise in DI revenue generated.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Genshin impact make $245 million in their first month and was ranked no 1, the monetization was pretty harsh on average people spent $3000 on Genshin, but DI monetization is way worse, I would expect DI to create $500-$600 million revenue range the first month and on the year they should be making $3-4 billion at least.
In the long term the mobile will win out. Think about this from a studio preceptive, they will release D4 and in the long term it will make less then DI which cost less to make. Also players in D4 will expect more in terms of graphics, content and so on, I would not like to be the designer putting the business case for that one.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced be excellence of monetarisation.
It will win out so long as the negative perception doesn't cause the game's population to crater.
But it is not the obvious domination most expected out of the microtransactions model. Remember: D3 wasn't even available on mobile, so the pool of gamers was smaller and revenue per user capped in ways it is not on D:I. I think D:I's release actually shows that there are limits to how magical that predatory microtransaction revenue scheme is, specifically when companies try to inject it into franchises with pre-existing, passionate fanbases.
Diablo 3 is one of the best selling games of all time, their first week/month sales were mindblowing.
The crucial difference however is that D3 required all money at the beginning (box purchase) and dropped of a cliff after that revenue wise. DI however requires zero money at the beginning and requires more and more money the further you get in the game, revenue actually increasing over time. It will be very interesting to see how they compare in, say, a month or six from now. At that point I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge rise in DI revenue generated.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Genshin impact make $245 million in their first month and was ranked no 1, the monetization was pretty harsh on average people spent $3000 on Genshin, but DI monetization is way worse, I would expect DI to create $500-$600 million revenue range the first month and on the year they should be making $3-4 billion at least.
Genshin, in its first week, made about 4 times what D:I made.
In the long term the mobile will win out. Think about this from a studio preceptive, they will release D4 and in the long term it will make less then DI which cost less to make. Also players in D4 will expect more in terms of graphics, content and so on, I would not like to be the designer putting the business case for that one.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced be excellence of monetarisation.
It will win out so long as the negative perception doesn't cause the game's population to crater.
But it is not the obvious domination most expected out of the microtransactions model. Remember: D3 wasn't even available on mobile, so the pool of gamers was smaller and revenue per user capped in ways it is not on D:I. I think D:I's release actually shows that there are limits to how magical that predatory microtransaction revenue scheme is, specifically when companies try to inject it into franchises with pre-existing, passionate fanbases.
Diablo 3 is one of the best selling games of all time, their first week/month sales were mindblowing.
The crucial difference however is that D3 required all money at the beginning (box purchase) and dropped of a cliff after that revenue wise. DI however requires zero money at the beginning and requires more and more money the further you get in the game, revenue actually increasing over time. It will be very interesting to see how they compare in, say, a month or six from now. At that point I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge rise in DI revenue generated.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It would have to maintain its current pace for over 17 weeks total to hit D3's first week revenue (roughly).
That would mean over 4 months of revenue at the same level as the first week just to match D3's first week.
This was not a huge success for a AAA mobile title.
In the long term the mobile will win out. Think about this from a studio preceptive, they will release D4 and in the long term it will make less then DI which cost less to make. Also players in D4 will expect more in terms of graphics, content and so on, I would not like to be the designer putting the business case for that one.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced be excellence of monetarisation.
It will win out so long as the negative perception doesn't cause the game's population to crater.
But it is not the obvious domination most expected out of the microtransactions model. Remember: D3 wasn't even available on mobile, so the pool of gamers was smaller and revenue per user capped in ways it is not on D:I. I think D:I's release actually shows that there are limits to how magical that predatory microtransaction revenue scheme is, specifically when companies try to inject it into franchises with pre-existing, passionate fanbases.
Diablo 3 is one of the best selling games of all time, their first week/month sales were mindblowing.
The crucial difference however is that D3 required all money at the beginning (box purchase) and dropped of a cliff after that revenue wise. DI however requires zero money at the beginning and requires more and more money the further you get in the game, revenue actually increasing over time. It will be very interesting to see how they compare in, say, a month or six from now. At that point I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge rise in DI revenue generated.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
What Diablo 3 did that DI did and will not is carry the name and IP for a long time. That allowed Blizzard to build and market DI in the first place and sowed the seeds for a Diablo 4. What DI did was a burn a lot of that collateral. We'll see what Diablo 4 does, but between their perspective on DI and reveal from D4, it's a definite wait and see for me.
By the way, did you notice that Diablo 4 was the only game revealed in that presentation that wasn't advertising coming to GamePass? If there was another it slipped past me.
I got the impression that are not on board with Microsoft's vision and only presented because of the likely impending ownership and, to a lesser extent, because it is coming to consoles on release. I got that same sort of vibe from when they revealed DI with the "don't you have phones" comment in that they were doing everyone a favor even appearing and we, not they, should be thankful for the opportunity. I still see that same Blizzard arrogance that says, "You think you know, but you don't." Maybe that's also a factor in my reaction. I came away thinking, man you guys are still so full of yourselves.
I think one thing people are overlooking (or maybe forgot with D:I's original announcement) was Blizzard admitting in a presser that D:I was meant to target a wider 'demographic' (i.e. China). China is huge in the mobile scene so the revenue stream would still be pretty large even if it doesn't do 'well' in the western market.
In the long term the mobile will win out. Think about this from a studio preceptive, they will release D4 and in the long term it will make less then DI which cost less to make. Also players in D4 will expect more in terms of graphics, content and so on, I would not like to be the designer putting the business case for that one.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced be excellence of monetarisation.
It will win out so long as the negative perception doesn't cause the game's population to crater.
But it is not the obvious domination most expected out of the microtransactions model. Remember: D3 wasn't even available on mobile, so the pool of gamers was smaller and revenue per user capped in ways it is not on D:I. I think D:I's release actually shows that there are limits to how magical that predatory microtransaction revenue scheme is, specifically when companies try to inject it into franchises with pre-existing, passionate fanbases.
Diablo 3 is one of the best selling games of all time, their first week/month sales were mindblowing.
The crucial difference however is that D3 required all money at the beginning (box purchase) and dropped of a cliff after that revenue wise. DI however requires zero money at the beginning and requires more and more money the further you get in the game, revenue actually increasing over time. It will be very interesting to see how they compare in, say, a month or six from now. At that point I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge rise in DI revenue generated.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Genshin impact make $245 million in their first month and was ranked no 1, the monetization was pretty harsh on average people spent $3000 on Genshin, but DI monetization is way worse, I would expect DI to create $500-$600 million revenue range the first month and on the year they should be making $3-4 billion at least.
Genshin, in its first week, made about 4 times what D:I made.
In the long term the mobile will win out. Think about this from a studio preceptive, they will release D4 and in the long term it will make less then DI which cost less to make. Also players in D4 will expect more in terms of graphics, content and so on, I would not like to be the designer putting the business case for that one.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced be excellence of monetarisation.
It will win out so long as the negative perception doesn't cause the game's population to crater.
But it is not the obvious domination most expected out of the microtransactions model. Remember: D3 wasn't even available on mobile, so the pool of gamers was smaller and revenue per user capped in ways it is not on D:I. I think D:I's release actually shows that there are limits to how magical that predatory microtransaction revenue scheme is, specifically when companies try to inject it into franchises with pre-existing, passionate fanbases.
Diablo 3 is one of the best selling games of all time, their first week/month sales were mindblowing.
The crucial difference however is that D3 required all money at the beginning (box purchase) and dropped of a cliff after that revenue wise. DI however requires zero money at the beginning and requires more and more money the further you get in the game, revenue actually increasing over time. It will be very interesting to see how they compare in, say, a month or six from now. At that point I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge rise in DI revenue generated.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It would have to maintain its current pace for over 17 weeks total to hit D3's first week revenue (roughly).
That would mean over 4 months of revenue at the same level as the first week just to match D3's first week.
This was not a huge success for a AAA mobile title.
I actually wouldn’t be surprised to see revenue generated weekly rise well beyond its first week average because of the increase in costs to progress, most of the people are still in the completely F2P part of the game this first week and probably second and third as well. It is after that ‘honeymoon’ period that the spending “has to” happen. But we’ll see, I play DI daily for a couple of hours but am in no way rooting for the above scenario to actually play out.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Comments
It kind of is when you think about it because he's saying you'd pretty much get 2 legendary gems a month with a chance of them being max rank. The problem is though that even if you get say a rank 4 gem, you still need other legendary gems to rank up the gem you mainly want. So its either that or toss the game some money for guaranteed gems whenever you feel like it. It wouldn't be so bad if you were just chasing gems and ranks of said gems, but the fact that you're chasing a max rank of a gem you want and then need to power that gem up with even more legendary gems just makes it pretty bad. For some people not understanding why Eternal Legendary Crests are so bad, you essentially buy those crests for real money, can sale the gems you dont want and then just buy the gems you're after if they are on sale.
Would be quite interesting how things turn out. I dont' know the answer.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Be really funny if DI makes lots of cash so they just bring that cashshop to D4..lol
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
For context, mobile gaming has already won:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/278181/global-gaming-market-revenue-device/
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/06/10/diablo-immortal-generates-14-5-million-on-mobile-in-1-week-blizzard-calls-it-biggest-launch-in-franchise-history
$14.5 million first week for D:I vs. 6.3 million boxes of D3 sold in first week. At $50 a box (average, collector's editions were higher but maybe I'm misremembering standard edition relase box price), that's a lot more than $14.5 million.
Edit: some quick math to show roughly how much ground D:I has to make up still:
To be more conservative, I'll use $40 a box for D3 (complete edition still sells for that today). That puts D3 first week revenue at about $252 million.
Lifetime D3 box sales are over 30 million but no specific number, so we'll again go conservative and say 30 million units lifetime. That's $1.2 billion revenue (maybe more since more than 30 million units sold).
Assuming the rate at which D:I made money in its first week, it would take D:I 82 weeks to make $1.2 billion. It would need to maintain that level of revenue for over 17 weeks total to match D3's first week revenue.
I do not think this was the smash hit Blizzard hoped it would be, but it's making its money the way mobile titles do.
But that's down to how gaming has changed, excellence in product as the primary focus to earn money has been replaced by excellence of monetarisation.
But it is not the obvious domination most expected out of the microtransactions model. Remember: D3 wasn't even available on mobile, so the pool of gamers was smaller and revenue per user capped in ways it is not on D:I. I think D:I's release actually shows that there are limits to how magical that predatory microtransaction revenue scheme is, specifically when companies try to inject it into franchises with pre-existing, passionate fanbases.
The crucial difference however is that D3 required all money at the beginning (box purchase) and dropped of a cliff after that revenue wise. DI however requires zero money at the beginning and requires more and more money the further you get in the game, revenue actually increasing over time. It will be very interesting to see how they compare in, say, a month or six from now. At that point I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge rise in DI revenue generated.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
https://sensortower.com/blog/genshin-impact-first-two-months-revenue
I don't think D:I will actually come close to Genshin.
That would mean over 4 months of revenue at the same level as the first week just to match D3's first week.
This was not a huge success for a AAA mobile title.
I think one thing people are overlooking (or maybe forgot with D:I's original announcement) was Blizzard admitting in a presser that D:I was meant to target a wider 'demographic' (i.e. China). China is huge in the mobile scene so the revenue stream would still be pretty large even if it doesn't do 'well' in the western market.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer