Blizz made $1 billion microtransactions/DLC

General Discussion
1 2 3 5 Next
https://www.resetera.com/threads/activision-blizzard-made-1-billion-in-in-game-revenue-microtransactions-dlc-last-quarter.40312/ Yesterday at 4:58 AM

So is it the future for D3 or D4 ?
05/05/2018 06:27 PMPosted by PardalBR
So is it the future for D3 or D4 ?


If D3 gets any more content it will be through DLC's.
If D4 is in production, it will not be released without some kind of secondary income.

Business A can sell 10 million copies of a game. Business B can sell 10 million copies of a game and sell cosmetics, add-ons, char packs. Business B will make considerably more money over time compared to A. Is there really a question of which way they are going to go?
The franchise is not geared toward micros. DLCs will be the way to go. The model may change, however, based on other like games. We shall see.
05/05/2018 06:27 PMPosted by PardalBR


So is it the future for D3 or D4 ?


Silly question. We don't know.

Is it the future for D3? It looks like nothing is the future for D3.

Is it the future for a D4? The hell would I know? D4 hasn't even been announced yet.
05/05/2018 06:27 PMPosted by PardalBR
https://www.resetera.com/threads/activision-blizzard-made-1-billion-in-in-game-revenue-microtransactions-dlc-last-quarter.40312/ Yesterday at 4:58 AM

So is it the future for D3 or D4 ?

Almost certainly.

This is a business at the end of the day. Why wouldn't you decide to take the most profitable route while also trying to deliver the best product within that space?

SC2 is loaded with microtransactions and multiple expansions.

D3 already has a microtransaction and an expasion.

All other current Blizzard products are big on the live service big time earning models. so yeah, expect D4 to follow suit.

Besides, Path of Exile has proven that you can profit well off of microtransactions in a Diablo style game. This isn't even unproven ground.

As a consumer it goes without saying that I want Diablo 4 and any game for that matter to the get NES era console treatment. That is to say the game is released 100% complete for a single price point and that's it. No DLC, microtransactions, season passes or expansions ever. Live service patches and updates post launch are fine in order to improve the game and keep people talking/engaged but its all free forever.
05/05/2018 07:58 PMPosted by babinro

As a consumer it goes without saying that I want Diablo 4 and any game for that matter to the get NES era console treatment. That is to say the game is released 100% complete for a single price point and that's it. No DLC, microtransactions, season passes or expansions ever. Live service patches and updates post launch are fine in order to improve the game and keep people talking/engaged but its all free forever.


NES games weren't free forever. You paid for them up front.
As a consumer, I want D3 expansion with a Skovos Isles. As a realist, I'm expecting a mobile D4, Diablo card game or pay-to-win D4.
05/05/2018 06:52 PMPosted by DiabloVern
The franchise is not geared toward micros. DLCs will be the way to go. The model may change, however, based on other like games. We shall see.

It's perfectly compatible with cosmetics, just like PoE is. Any game with an online component is bound to see this kind of haves and have nots type of system nowadays. It would be a matter of how they decide to implement them. With their precious lootboxes consistently identified as the manipulative profiteering GAMBLING garbage they truly are, I really hope they opt for a more honest, direct purchase approach instead of trying to weasel out of regulations like they've done thus far with Overwatch in China.

There's a reason why games like Warframe and PoE are regarded as paragons in terms of monetization, despite having a relatively menial use of lootboxes which I'd expect to be revamped given the looming threat of regulation over those damn greed-driven things. The gaming community at large has been pretty vocal about hating them, especially since the Battlefront 2 fiasco courtesy of EA. Both PoE and Warframe happen to also be F2P titles and making a hefty, yet healthy profit to maintain and enhance the projects over time, so there's quite literally no reason why a massively recognizable brand like Diablo couldn't go the same way and join these two on that pedestal.

It would also go a long way towards restoring a lot of the lingering crappy PR Blizzard received after trying to abuse RNG for profit with the RMAH. I don't expect a DLC only deal in this day and age, but I think it would be wise for Blizzard to adopt a more pro-consumer strategy, even more so considering Overwatch itself may have much of it's money-printing potential stripped away after all the lootbox controversy we've seen since last year if more countries follow Belgium's example of tagging them as gambling, rightfully so.
Put me in the camp that wants a 100% game sold at launch with no (near-)complete features cut for paid DLC. Anything and everything should be acquired or unlocked through game play and not found in lootboxes, paid cosmetics, or some sort of vendor/item-specific sale. Post-launch bugfixes and tweaks are fine, but ideally things should not be a buggy mess. No "director's cut" or "remastered" versions sold later without previous buyers being grandfathered in, either.

That said, I'm 100% fine with paid expansions later on down the line. However, their price needs to also adequately reflect the amount and type of content found within. For a game like this, I'd expect more story, stages, classes, skills, gear, monsters, and activities related to combat in some way at $30-40 price if enough of that criteria is met.

Anyone thinking dropping $10 for more stash space, especially if inventory is deliberately shorted, is just outing themselves as a sucker as opposed to a discerning consumer. Sure, micro-transactions may feed the greed monster more readily, but that doesn't automatically mean it's better for your game. Especially since there's no regulation out there that mandates a specific amount of harvested revenue goes back into the product. Either way, no mix-and-matching. Go F2P with fair deals or B2P with no micro-transactions.
05/05/2018 06:52 PMPosted by DiabloVern
The franchise is not geared toward micros.


You do know that in china D3 feature microtransactions right? You can buy wings, stash space, xp boosters, pennants, portraits and pets.

https://imgur.com/a/8MH2G

https://imgur.com/a/LuSgU

https://imgur.com/a/sO82p

So it has been in the game since 2015
There's 20-30 stash tab dollars sitting in my bank account with Blizzard's name to it, and I guess now I know why they dont need it...
05/06/2018 12:13 AMPosted by SancticuS
05/05/2018 06:52 PMPosted by DiabloVern
The franchise is not geared toward micros.


You do know that in china D3 feature microtransactions right? You can buy wings, stash space, xp boosters, pennants, portraits and pets.

https://imgur.com/a/8MH2G

https://imgur.com/a/LuSgU

https://imgur.com/a/sO82p

So it has been in the game since 2015


I liked the Diablo 2 portrait. I thought i will never buy nothing like this but this portrait i would buy . Bring it on to west Blizz :D
05/05/2018 06:52 PMPosted by DiabloVern
The franchise is not geared toward micros. DLCs will be the way to go. The model may change, however, based on other like games. We shall see.


They need a quality expansion to the game (Increase level cap, but not to be able to level too quickly) with a DLC model in place (characters etc) to keep this going. It shouldn't be too unreasonable to do something like this and would bring new life to the franchise.
Iam certain they reinvest the 1 billion into diablo development ! *coughhh :D
05/06/2018 12:13 AMPosted by SancticuS
05/05/2018 06:52 PMPosted by DiabloVern
The franchise is not geared toward micros.


You do know that in china D3 feature microtransactions right? You can buy wings, stash space, xp boosters, pennants, portraits and pets.

https://imgur.com/a/8MH2G

https://imgur.com/a/LuSgU

https://imgur.com/a/sO82p

So it has been in the game since 2015


If i remember correctly, she is talking about microtransactions in f2p games and D3 is f2p in china. The model D2P is more popular in China. Tencent have a lot of f2p games in China.

I don't see any problem with microtransactions in games, but sell stash space for example will create an incentive to limit more the stash space. I don't agree with her, but understood his point.
05/06/2018 07:51 AMPosted by NINEGRAVES
Iam certain they reinvest the 1 billion into diablo development ! *coughhh :D


They would if they could turn the 1B into 2B. This is why games with subscriptions and microtransactions do well, because they invest heavily in them to make even more money. In D3 if they invest at the moment what do they get, they have collected all the money they can get from me with their current model? If I stop playing D3 what do they lose, nothing. Under a subscription model if they can't keep me interested they lose their revenue stream, this gives them motivation.

I think the game would be better if it was subscription.
05/06/2018 07:22 PMPosted by Jamie
I think the game would be better if it was subscription.

Subs are a sucker's game.

Essentially, what it entails is handing over something like $12-15 a month hoping they put out new content you like, with the realistic release schedule of most MMOs translating to something like $36-45 per major patch cycle. Given many game expansions cost this much or less, it can be argued you're getting less value for your dollar.

Further, subs encourage stringing players along. This is why you see time gating with dailies/weeklies because if everyone could do whatever they wanted without restriction, they wouldn't be forced to play 2-3 months to completely get everything from a raid. Instead, a dedicated player could probably do it in a single month, shorting the provider of that extra $24-30 as that person may go on to play other games for a bit.

And as I pointed out in my last post, there is no guarantee that any post-launch revenue a game generates will go back to it. Look over at the Trion Worlds company, which started with Rift as their MMO moneymaker. Eventually they started siphoning money from that into other projects like Defiance, Trove, Archeage, and so on, and Rift wound up suffering in consequence as their dev team shrank and content release slowed to a trickle and released at questionable quality. They've only recently gone back to a pseudo-classic server model with subs and that's further divided their user base with resources being split between that and Live.

In the end, it's better to keep devs hungry. When they're guaranteed gobs of cash per month because of concepts like loyalty or personal investment mire down their users, they don't have to go that extra mile to win you over. You're already hooked. On the other hand, when you're going solely off box sales, they really need to get it right or make sure they fix things ASAP, otherwise there will be no repeat buys with an expansion or two. A fate some would say applied handily to D3 and its poor launch.

It's easy to succumb to the logic that more money will translate to a better game, but again, we have nothing that requires devs to dedicate a significant percentage of subs/micro-transaction money back into their host product. With recent lootbox/gacha regulations being more of a thing around the world, I'm somewhat perplexed this problem with gaming also isn't being addressed since it also heavily affects the consumer's experience.
05/05/2018 06:27 PMPosted by PardalBR
https://www.resetera.com/threads/activision-blizzard-made-1-billion-in-in-game-revenue-microtransactions-dlc-last-quarter.40312/ Yesterday at 4:58 AM

So is it the future for D3 or D4 ?


You do realize this has nothing to do with D3 or Diablo don't you?

D3 is an old game that is in maintenance mode. (the fact we debate this fact shows how much we love this game and don't know how to accept it.) : (
05/06/2018 10:41 PMPosted by Saidosha
05/06/2018 07:22 PMPosted by Jamie
I think the game would be better if it was subscription.

Subs are a sucker's game.


Just about every point you make against subscription can be turned against your own argument. Companies generally like to invest in products that make them money and it would be foolish for a company to do otherwise.

Also floating a number like $12-15 a month is good for your argument but say is was $24 a year?
05/06/2018 10:41 PMPosted by Saidosha
05/06/2018 07:22 PMPosted by Jamie
I think the game would be better if it was subscription.

Subs are a sucker's game.

Essentially, what it entails is handing over something like $12-15 a month hoping they put out new content you like, with the realistic release schedule of most MMOs translating to something like $36-45 per major patch cycle. Given many game expansions cost this much or less, it can be argued you're getting less value for your dollar.

Further, subs encourage stringing players along. This is why you see time gating with dailies/weeklies because if everyone could do whatever they wanted without restriction, they wouldn't be forced to play 2-3 months to completely get everything from a raid. Instead, a dedicated player could probably do it in a single month, shorting the provider of that extra $24-30 as that person may go on to play other games for a bit.

And as I pointed out in my last post, there is no guarantee that any post-launch revenue a game generates will go back to it. Look over at the Trion Worlds company, which started with Rift as their MMO moneymaker. Eventually they started siphoning money from that into other projects like Defiance, Trove, Archeage, and so on, and Rift wound up suffering in consequence as their dev team shrank and content release slowed to a trickle and released at questionable quality. They've only recently gone back to a pseudo-classic server model with subs and that's further divided their user base with resources being split between that and Live.

In the end, it's better to keep devs hungry. When they're guaranteed gobs of cash per month because of concepts like loyalty or personal investment mire down their users, they don't have to go that extra mile to win you over. You're already hooked. On the other hand, when you're going solely off box sales, they really need to get it right or make sure they fix things ASAP, otherwise there will be no repeat buys with an expansion or two. A fate some would say applied handily to D3 and its poor launch.

It's easy to succumb to the logic that more money will translate to a better game, but again, we have nothing that requires devs to dedicate a significant percentage of subs/micro-transaction money back into their host product. With recent lootbox/gacha regulations being more of a thing around the world, I'm somewhat perplexed this problem with gaming also isn't being addressed since it also heavily affects the consumer's experience.


Well said. Let's suppose that someone played WoW since 2004 to the beginning of Cataclysm and payed $10/month. That means $120/y, wow was launched in 2004 and catacysm on 2010. So 6 * 120 = $720.

Considering how WoW lost subs after cataclysm and how many people play since 2004/2005, say that millions of players spent $500 on WoW is not unrealistic.

This in one game. Sure, is a good game, but it should worth 8 $60 AAA games to compensate the cost.

About micro transactions, you don't need lootbox. Sell the item, not the chance of getting the item. More space is not a bad think, some cosmetic items(not all) is not bad too.

You don't need lootbox in order to have a profitable game around microtransactions. Look to PoE for example.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum