I wish I could say this surprised me, but it was such a predictable
outcome that I can't even pretend shock. Despite massive outcry about
how horrible Activision/Blizzard was for the incredibly predatory
monetization scheme it inserted into "Diablo Immortal", that game
still raked in over $1 million USD per day over the past month.*
That's $49 million in profits, mind you; actual revenue was closer to
$80 million, after you take into account the cut taken from the
various storefronts, like the iOS App store. So, we're talking some
serious cash here.

Now, obviously the bulk of this came from the so-called "whales", the unfortunate players who can't resist pouring hundreds or thousands of
dollars into a video game, but a lot of it came from 'ordinary' gamers
who only invested a few dollars into it just to see what the fuss was
about. And this is of course the really disappointing part, since
those are the very gamers who screamed bloody murder about the scheme
in the first place... and yet, in the end, did little to help Activision/Blizzard see the error in their ways.

No wonder triple-A publishers not only are so gung-ho about this sort
of monetizations, but don't give a damn about what gamers actually
want anymore. They know that - push comes to shove - gamers will buy
their shit no matter how awful it is.

Of course, Activision has given lip-service in an attempt to stifle
some of the clamor about "Diablo: Immortal's" terrible micro-
transactions, although rather than trying to defend the undefendable,
they have since moved on and assured everyone that at least "Diablo
IV" won't be anywhere as bad. Of course, they way they've couched
their language leaves more than enough room for them to weasel out of
any promises they've made... not that they necessarily need to do so.
It's not like it'll hurt their bottom line even if they outright lie.

$49 million profits... for a game that is rated 0% by users on
MetaCritic. You just gotta love this industry.



-------------------------
* source: https://mobilegamer.biz/blizzard-earned-49m-from-diablo-immortals-first-month-with-10m-downloads-to-date/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 18:21:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

No wonder triple-A publishers not only are so gung-ho about this sort
of monetizations, but don't give a damn about what gamers actually
want anymore. They know that - push comes to shove - gamers will buy
their shit no matter how awful it is.

Or maybe most gamers are actually fine with these monetization
schemes. Maybe the ones who aren't are the most vocal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 09:14:36 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 18:21:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

No wonder triple-A publishers not only are so gung-ho about this sort
of monetizations, but don't give a damn about what gamers actually
want anymore. They know that - push comes to shove - gamers will buy
their shit no matter how awful it is.

Or maybe most gamers are actually fine with these monetization
schemes. Maybe the ones who aren't are the most vocal.

As this proves (again), ultimately, most gamers /are/ fine with it,
even if they protest against it.

But , yes, a lot of gamers - especially in the mobilesphere - just
aren't aware that there might be anything /wrong/ with this sort of
predatory moneteization, especially since it is so absolutely endemic
to mobile gaming. It's only because this crossed boundaries into the
PC/console gaming market - because of its IP - that it raised any red
flags. Had the game released as "DevilSlayer" with a few name changes
to disguise its connection to the Diablo franchise, it would have
slipped under the radar uncommented.

But since it was released as "Diablo Immortal" (and pushed by Activision/Blizzard at PC/console gamers; "don't any of you have
phones?") it got noticed and its horrid milking of its playerbase
became the daily outrage... and then was promptly ignored by those
same players who happily gave the company $50 million USD.

And Activision/Blizzard (and all other companies) took note, and
adjusted their plans accordingly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 10:16:03 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

As this proves (again), ultimately, most gamers /are/ fine with it,
even if they protest against it.

This is not what I was trying to say, but if this is true, then gamers
have no one to blame but themselves.

I was thinking that maybe there are plenty of gamers out there who do
not protest against it, because they are simply NOT against it.
Period. Maybe the audience for this kind of monetization model is
larger then some people want to believe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 13:42:23 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 10:16:03 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

As this proves (again), ultimately, most gamers /are/ fine with it,
even if they protest against it.

This is not what I was trying to say, but if this is true, then gamers
have no one to blame but themselves.

Ourselves, but yes; ultimately that's where the blame lies. I mean,
the companies who do this are scum but they're just following the
money. They'd stop if people stopped throwing millions of dollars in
their faces.

I was thinking that maybe there are plenty of gamers out there who do
not protest against it, because they are simply NOT against it.
Period. Maybe the audience for this kind of monetization model is
larger then some people want to believe.

(Oh no, now you've done it: <rant mode engaged> ;-)

And yes, but I think mostly because most people don't really think
about how pernicious it is or aren't aware that there could be an
alternative.

There is a huge section of the 'gamer population' which almost
entirely plays mobile games, and their idea of what and how games
operate is almost entirely formed by the mobile gaming market, most of
which utilizes microtransactions to fund itself. With that as their
basis for comparison, "Diablo Immortal" doesn't seem so extreme. A bit
more expensive, sure, but what isn't these days? And anyway, it's from
a triple-A publisher, which means its automatically more sophisticated
and thus worth more, right? Similarly, the sports-game fanatic - that
segment of the gamer population which almost exclusively plays FIFA,
or Madden, or NHL - are in a similar strait. And its no surprise that
these segments of the market - the ones who don't see that there are alternatives - are the ones towards whom game publishers push their microtransactions most aggressively.

And, short of an some miraculous change (EA suddenly deciding to give
away all the cosmetics etc. they used to charge for) or some legal
remedy, these people are, sadly, something of a hopeless case; they're
never going to push for a change because they aren't aware that change
is possible, and the game publishers will continue to charge
increasingly onerous fees for stuff that could and should be part of
the base game.

So there's a market, certainly. But its not necessarily so hopeless
-especially on the non-mobile front- because there remains an
'educated' audience that is, largely, aware that being
nickled-and-dimed is not the only way to get a good gaming experience.
And yet, despite this knowledge, they continue to allow themselves to
be reamed. If they, as a group, said, "no, we're just not going to
play that game" and actually stuck to their guns, publishers would
change course. They have in the past, before they became fully aware
as to how spineless and complacent their audience really was.
Nowadays, the publishers just make a few placating words and call it a
day. "Oh, we're sorry we were too rapacious with this game. Well,
whaddaya gonna do, the game is done so might as well play this one,
and next time we'll be better." And gamers eat it up, again and again.

And that's why modern gaming experiences - especially from triple-A
publishers - seems to be less and less satisfying, because we as
gamers never stop and say, "this far and no further," instead being
easily distracted with the next shiny. And no, I don't excuse myself
from this, because even though I think I'm slightly better in this
regard than most - there are just some companies I won't do business
with anymore - even I backslide at times.

So, yeah, there's a market. Of COURSE there is a market. You don't get
half of the revenue for triple-A publishers coming from
microtransactions without there being a market. But there doesn't have
to be. I think most gamers would be happier without them. Certainly
when I've pointed friends who played MTX-riddled mobile games to free
(or inexpensive) alternatives, they were grateful for it. The few who
truly love the MTX experience - the gambling addicts, the
hyper-collectors - are the minority. Everyone else is just caught up
in the net and are too lazy or distracted to fight their way free.

<rant mode disengaged>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 15:10:45 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

(Oh no, now you've done it: <rant mode engaged> ;-)

Heh. :)

So, yeah, there's a market. Of COURSE there is a market. You don't get
half of the revenue for triple-A publishers coming from
microtransactions without there being a market. But there doesn't have
to be. I think most gamers would be happier without them.

This is why I responded. I don't disagree with most of your rant, it
is just that I am not personally convinced gamers would be happier
without them based on what I see with the huge profits being made.
Gamers are speaking with their wallets and they seem to be saying
'this is fine by me'. Those gamers are not the gamers that are
complaining....

Or maybe they are complaining and are just buying the games anyway,
you may be right about that, I don't know.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 12:52:02 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

No, I don't have to love this industry.

I love video games but I don't care about the video game industry at
all. I guess that statement can make perfect sense or no sense at all
depending on who reads it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/5/2022 3:21 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

$49 million profits... for a game that is rated 0% by users on
MetaCritic. You just gotta love this industry.

No, I don't have to love this industry.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/6/2022 1:08 PM, Mike S. wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 12:52:02 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

No, I don't have to love this industry.

I love video games but I don't care about the video game industry at
all. I guess that statement can make perfect sense or no sense at all depending on who reads it.

It helps if one remembers that is The Video Game Industry of
multi-billion dollar budget companies with payrolls in the thousands and
there is the video game cottage industry of independents working from
home alone or small groups.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/6/2022 1:05 PM, Mike S. wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 15:10:45 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

(Oh no, now you've done it: <rant mode engaged> ;-)

Heh. :)

So, yeah, there's a market. Of COURSE there is a market. You don't get
half of the revenue for triple-A publishers coming from
microtransactions without there being a market. But there doesn't have
to be. I think most gamers would be happier without them.

This is why I responded. I don't disagree with most of your rant, it
is just that I am not personally convinced gamers would be happier
without them based on what I see with the huge profits being made.
Gamers are speaking with their wallets and they seem to be saying
'this is fine by me'. Those gamers are not the gamers that are complaining....

Or maybe they are complaining and are just buying the games anyway,
you may be right about that, I don't know.

I think we need a definition of "gamer" here. Is the person who plays
for five minutes here and ten minutes there on their phone in between
dealing with RL a "gamer"? Or are only the people who are training for
the Pro Video Gaming Games 16 to 20 hours a day "gamers"? Or somewhere
in between those? Is it only the desktop PC players? PC plus Game
Console players? What about laptops? Why are you still reading this?
Haven't I over made my point yet?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 15:39:15 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

It helps if one remembers that is The Video Game Industry of
multi-billion dollar budget companies with payrolls in the thousands and >there is the video game cottage industry of independents working from
home alone or small groups.

I definitely think of companies like EA, Ubisoft and Activision when I
think of the video game industry but you make a good point here.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 09:14:36 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 18:21:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

No wonder triple-A publishers not only are so gung-ho about this sort
of monetizations, but don't give a damn about what gamers actually
want anymore. They know that - push comes to shove - gamers will buy
their shit no matter how awful it is.

Or maybe most gamers are actually fine with these monetization
schemes. Maybe the ones who aren't are the most vocal.

*--

Not me. I don't play those games although I did buy Chivalry 2. I
will quit playing it if I have to buy stuff to keep up with the
Jone's.

But I only tried the training for a few minutes, not on-line because I
am not ready yet.

-pw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/07/2022 21:05, Mike S. wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 15:10:45 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

(Oh no, now you've done it: <rant mode engaged> ;-)

Heh. :)

So, yeah, there's a market. Of COURSE there is a market. You don't get
half of the revenue for triple-A publishers coming from
microtransactions without there being a market. But there doesn't have
to be. I think most gamers would be happier without them.

This is why I responded. I don't disagree with most of your rant, it
is just that I am not personally convinced gamers would be happier
without them based on what I see with the huge profits being made.
Gamers are speaking with their wallets and they seem to be saying
'this is fine by me'. Those gamers are not the gamers that are complaining....

Tricky to say. If I had to guess (and this is based on what I call PC
gamers) it's that the average gamer begrudgingly accepts that if you
want games as a service then there's on going costs that have to be paid
for. Then you have a smaller section who are more than happy to throw
money at a game (and boy some people will throw a lot) if they think it
will give them an edge. And of course a mention for those who
effectively get duped into spending far more that they thought they would.

I've played WoT since closed beta and getting sucked in is easier to do
than it may appear. In the first year or so I spent probably £120 which considering the amount of hours I played, and enjoyed, seemed perfectly
fine. The crunch time came when starting to do what's known as a stock
grind. When buy a tank then have to grind experience in it to get it
upgraded to something decent. At low and mid tiers it's fine but when it
gets to the higher tiers it becomes painful. The solution is basically
money which I had started using to help else the grind. That's when I
took a step back and though it's not as though each time you do it, it's
a lot of money (up to £5 if that) but instead that once you get into the
habit of it that's what you're going to do again and again and again.

The end result, I choose to get free-yo-play.

Or maybe they are complaining and are just buying the games anyway,
you may be right about that, I don't know.

Anecdotally, from playing WoT, they aren't common but instead more
common than you might expect. There's a noticeable number of players who
pretty much spend their time whining about how bad the game, and WG, are
while at the same time not just continuing to play the game but also
paying for it. I find it difficult to understand how someone gets into
the position of saying they hate a game while at the same time spending
£100+ on lootboxes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:01:06 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

Anecdotally, from playing WoT, they aren't common but instead more
common than you might expect. There's a noticeable number of players who >pretty much spend their time whining about how bad the game, and WG, are >while at the same time not just continuing to play the game but also
paying for it. I find it difficult to understand how someone gets into
the position of saying they hate a game while at the same time spending
£100+ on lootboxes.

You and Spalls are probably right on this. Your use of the phrase
'begrudgingly accepts' is probably very accurate.

When Lord of the Rings Online went the cash shop route instead of the
15 a month sub fee route, their profits tripled according to them. I
see complaints about the pay to win aspects of the cash shop on their
forums from time to time but I am guessing those people still play the
game anyway.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

I wish I could say this surprised me, but it was such a predictable
outcome that I can't even pretend shock. Despite massive outcry about
how horrible Activision/Blizzard was for the incredibly predatory >monetization scheme it inserted into "Diablo Immortal", that game
still raked in over $1 million USD per day over the past month.*
That's $49 million in profits, mind you; actual revenue was closer to
$80 million, after you take into account the cut taken from the
various storefronts, like the iOS App store. So, we're talking some
serious cash here.

This doesn't really say much. If Diablo Immortal was a $60 game released
on the PCs and consoles without a hint of microtransactions, it would've
easily made a lot more "profits" in the same amount of time. For Diablo Immortal to be considered a success, and at this point it probably still
hasn't paid off its developement costs, it's going depend on how much
money it's making a year from now.

But yes, these type of free-to-play games can be very profitable and ones people enjoy playing, like countless other games (eg. Genshin Impact)
have already proven. If Diablo Immortal is going to prove anything, it's
only that you can squeeze even more money out of the whales if you have
an established and incredibly popular game series to base your game on.

No wonder triple-A publishers not only are so gung-ho about this sort
of monetizations, but don't give a damn about what gamers actually
want anymore. They know that - push comes to shove - gamers will buy
their shit no matter how awful it is.

The fact that one group of gamers don't actually want Diablo Immortal,
doesn't mean that there can be another that actually does want Diablo
Immortal. That fact Blizzard didn't give one group of gamers what they
wanted with Diablo Immortal doesn;t mean they won't give that same group
of gamers what they want with Diablo 4. (And it's very likely they will
do just that. Turning Diablo 4 into another microtransaction heavy game
would only cannibalize Diablo Immortal's sales.)

Sure, this is only going to encourage the big name publishers to release
more free-to-play games, but they had already plenty of encouragment.
But it's also not going to stop publishers from making conventional $60
AAA titles. Publishers don't just want to make more money, they want to
make *all* of the money, and you don't do that by ignoring the "pay once"
games that people are still buying.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 17:36:09 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

I wish I could say this surprised me, but it was such a predictable
outcome that I can't even pretend shock. Despite massive outcry about
how horrible Activision/Blizzard was for the incredibly predatory >>monetization scheme it inserted into "Diablo Immortal", that game
still raked in over $1 million USD per day over the past month.*
That's $49 million in profits, mind you; actual revenue was closer to
$80 million, after you take into account the cut taken from the
various storefronts, like the iOS App store. So, we're talking some
serious cash here.

This doesn't really say much. If Diablo Immortal was a $60 game released
on the PCs and consoles without a hint of microtransactions, it would've >easily made a lot more "profits" in the same amount of time. For Diablo >Immortal to be considered a success, and at this point it probably still >hasn't paid off its developement costs, it's going depend on how much
money it's making a year from now.

It should be pointed out the comparison with Diablo III isn't exactly
apt, as the older game was largely sold via traditional retail, which
meant that of the $60USD sale price, only about a 33%-50% actually
made it to the developer (brick-n-mortar costs were so high that
Valve's 30% cut was seen as an incredible IMPROVEMENT, and shipping
and printing costs are fairly high too). It is estimated that 3.5
million copies of D3 were sold "within the first 24 hours", although
it isn't clear if that includes pre-orders (such numbers often do);
that would put initial pre-development revenue for Blizzard at about
$70-105 million USD.

The fact that one group of gamers don't actually want Diablo Immortal, >doesn't mean that there can be another that actually does want Diablo >Immortal. That fact Blizzard didn't give one group of gamers what they >wanted with Diablo Immortal doesn;t mean they won't give that same group
of gamers what they want with Diablo 4. (And it's very likely they will
do just that. Turning Diablo 4 into another microtransaction heavy game >would only cannibalize Diablo Immortal's sales.)

"Diablo Immortal" wasn't intended to be another "Candy Crush"
(Activision's most profitable game ever, btw), aimed solely at
mobile-gamers. It was designed to be attractive to "traditional" PC
gamers as well. Its impressively high uptake indicates that it was
fairly successful at this too; most mobile games do not have such
impressive starts; they tend to be rather slow-burning until they
reach a certain minimum population, after which they take off. "Diablo Immortal" was - based on the limited information available - a hit
almost immediately, indicating it was able to tap into the
pre-existing fanbase of the franchise. Furthermore, while there is -
at the moment - no direct evidence showing how many D:I players are mobile-focused versus "traditional" gamers, anecdotal evidence shows
that many gamers who railed against later indicated that, yes, despite everything, they had gone out and played the game. Gamers are provably
fickle in this regard

(see the always fun example of a list of Call of Duty players who
promised to boycott the game later seen playing the thing: http://www.toptiertactics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/boycottmw2.jpg)

Nor is there any real worry of a micro-transaction laden D4
"cannibalizing" the sales of "D:I", since a) there will always be
players on one platform who don't buy games on the other, so D4 will
be the only way for Activision to get their hands ont PC/console-only
gamers money, b) D4 isn't due out until sometime in 2023, by which
time many gamers will be ready for something 'new', and c) gamers have
shown themselves willing to be reamed by multiple sources all at once.
Plus, its quite possible ActiBlizz will create some 'synergy' between
the two games, where advancement in DI may assist in D4 (perhaps hats
that can be worn in both games!)

"Diablo: Immortal" - a game aimed as much at traditional gamers as the mobile-player - was very much a test bed to see how much monetization
the players of both platforms will accept. It still remains less
acceptable for the former than the latter (and the big money still
comes from the handful of whales), but its inclusion is less a
deal-killer than the uproar made it seem.

And that's why we games are going to be increasingly monetized, either
by the inclusion of lootbox mechanics, or stripping down core game
systems to be purchased separately, or pushing "live service"
mechanics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

It should be pointed out the comparison with Diablo III isn't exactly
apt ...

I didn't compare it to Diablo III.

"Diablo Immortal" wasn't intended to be another "Candy Crush"
(Activision's most profitable game ever, btw), aimed solely at
mobile-gamers.

I didn't suggest it was.

I don't know who or what you think you're responding to, but it wasn't
me or my post.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 01:53:39 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

It should be pointed out the comparison with Diablo III isn't exactly
apt ...

I didn't compare it to Diablo III.

Apologies. I've seen the "didn't make that much money" comparison in
two other forums, and in both cases they directly compared D:I and D3
sales.

The point, however, remains: this was an extremely successful launch
for any game, and a mobile-game in particular (the genre tends to have
a longer tail). The revenue in-take and the marketing from Activision
are both indicative that many 'traditional' gamers were likely amongst
the audience of D:I.

"Diablo Immortal" wasn't intended to be another "Candy Crush"
(Activision's most profitable game ever, btw), aimed solely at >>mobile-gamers.

No, but I mention it as part of the overall thesis of the argument
that D:I was aimed at PC gamers, that they took the bait despite their
previous outcry, and future triple-A games that utilize equally
egregious tactics can only be expected because of they did so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/07/2022 13:19, Mike S. wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:01:06 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

Anecdotally, from playing WoT, they aren't common but instead more
common than you might expect. There's a noticeable number of players who
pretty much spend their time whining about how bad the game, and WG, are
while at the same time not just continuing to play the game but also
paying for it. I find it difficult to understand how someone gets into
the position of saying they hate a game while at the same time spending
£100+ on lootboxes.

You and Spalls are probably right on this. Your use of the phrase 'begrudgingly accepts' is probably very accurate.

When Lord of the Rings Online went the cash shop route instead of the
15 a month sub fee route, their profits tripled according to them. I
see complaints about the pay to win aspects of the cash shop on their
forums from time to time but I am guessing those people still play the
game anyway.

I did read a study from a few years ago about gamer's attitudes towards
paid in-game advantages. One of the conclusions reached was that in
general having those type of mechanisms wasn't in itself but it was when
the difference between the haves and the have nots became too large that
the issues arose.

That certainly ties in with my views of WoT. Original premium (paid for
tanks) were worse than their tech tree (not paid for tanks) so the
advantage was crew training and credit earnings. Over the years this has shifted to if you want to sell someone yet another premium tank then you
need to give them something better than what they already have.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)