Just saw the price of that d3 remake.. called d4.. 69 EURO fkn standart edition??

GGG and fanboys are ever more entrenched in their own mentality that any answers are just twisted, so why bother?

This thread is pretty much proof of that, sticking the finger in the nose of other games and getting offended when done the same against "their" game.

"

Z3RoNightMare wrote:

GGG and fanboys are ever more entrenched in their own mentality that any answers are just twisted, so why bother?

This thread is pretty much proof of that, sticking the finger in the nose of other games and getting offended when done the same against "their" game.

I mean, we are on a forum for the game they are trying to defend, people defending their game makes sense. The blind loyalty on the other hand does not though.

some people, tzzzz

poe is totally playable into the very very endgame with like 30 bucks investment.
currency, essence, maps, div cards, 4* trade tab and some random vanilla ones as hoarder/selfuse stash room or for fossils/oils and whatever, nn the special stash tabs, but if you want them m<y god 5 bucks more for your favorite elague mechanic stash tab, npnp...

The 4*4 is nice but totally not needed, imo. At some point later in the league i would suggest to vendor most rare unqiue items under ~25 c anyway.

If right clicking and pricing each item individually is not convenient enough for you and you need 20 trade tabs then god help you irl outside of using a computer.

€: buying everything you want and more as long as you don't spend your rent money on it is obv fine, i just want to point out that the game is playable without.

my take is that AAA game companys can actually afford to bring the game price down

heres some reasons: recyclable assets, pre existing engines, experienced workers

also, i honestly believe that besides "normie magazines" game company's dont really need to advertise.

gamers are hungry. just call for press to come over then boom. you have publicity.

its 2023 i cant recall ever seeing a single POE advert.

similarly back when deadspace released i hadnt seen a single dead space advert.

they should actually make their game free.

I'm at the point in my life the monetary cost of a new experience is so far down the list of cons, I could care less if its 200 bucks. I'm gonna buy it.

Utterly irrelevant in the discussion. All I care about is having fun for a few months.

"

Destructodave wrote:

I'm at the point in my life the monetary cost of a new experience is so far down the list of cons, I could care less if its 200 bucks. I'm gonna buy it.

Utterly irrelevant in the discussion. All I care about is having fun for a few months.

I can see cost being irrelevant to you. It's not relevant for me either. But I guess it wouldn't matter for me; D4 could be F2P like Diablo Immortal (big * on that release of course) and I still wouldn't try it. But it is a relevant point to people who can't afford the game.

There isn't an option to play the game without paying, and the upfront cost will eliminate some people from being able to try it. For that section, it is relevant. I'm not saying the upfront cost is predatory; I prefer that cost model. I'm just saying that it is certainly relevant to some people and therefore relevant to the discussion since that's what the thread was originally about.

I also think that is what games cost nowadays, so the price point shouldn't be that shocking to OP.

The cost isn't really relevant for me either. I buy what I want to buy. I also don't use games as a political platform either, and would buy both the Potter game and Atomic Heart is I found them interesting.

That said, the cost of a game is always interesting to discuss, when people are trying to compare apples to oranges - without even trying to be objective.

"

Phrazz wrote:

The cost isn't really relevant for me either. I buy what I want to buy. I also don't use games as a political platform either, and would buy both the Potter game and Atomic Heart is I found them interesting.

That said, the cost of a game is always interesting to discuss, when people are trying to compare apples to oranges - without even trying to be objective.

I guess a game needs to be more than just interesting for me. There are a ton of interesting games out there. Time is the limiting factor, more so than the availability of interesting games.

I'm old enough that a game needs to really pull me in or be associated with something that pulled me in the past. If I were to really nail down what irritated me with D3, it was that I went there expecting apples, and got oranges - sorry if I completely mangled your apples and oranges comment. There is nothing wrong with an orange, but I wanted a f'ing apple.

If I could put aside that feeling of being lured by the appeal of the supposed D2 successor, D3 was an interesting enough game to play for a short period. But I just can't get beyond how it felt like a money grab that used the Diablo name to pull those purchases. I guess giving away copies of the game with a WoW subscription should have been a big red flag at the time. Nostalgia sucked me in though, and I got fooled. So being interesting alone just isn't enough anymore. Job, kids, etc. make it so that I have to be a little pickier than just simply whether it is interesting or not.

"

Destructodave wrote:

I'm at the point in my life the monetary cost of a new experience is so far down the list of cons, I could care less if its 200 bucks. I'm gonna buy it.

Utterly irrelevant in the discussion. All I care about is having fun for a few months.

How do you know it will be fun for a few months?

This is the one thing I dislike about the buy-to-play model - my most common experience with a new game is that I play it for 30 minutes, and quit because it's bad.

That's a lot easier in a f2p game than if I had to pay 60E+ per attempt.

Also, if a game wants to lock cosmetics behind a battle pass and a cash shop, I'm a whole lot more comfortable with that in a f2p game than in a p2p one.