Fortnite is free, but kids are getting bullied into spending money(polygon.com)
polygon.com
Fortnite is free, but kids are getting bullied into spending money
https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/7/18534431/fortnite-rare-default-skins-bullying-harassment
174 comments
Not to mention that the game 'drops' several cosmetic items and rewards them for 'quests' in-game, so the average person has about a 0% chance of distinguishing between paying and non-paying players
I'm not sure but maybe kids who play it a lot can distinguish a dollar-bought flying monkey from a game-drop weasel with a patch eye (I don't mean to demean the game, it's just very outlandish looking in regards to these cosmetics). And that leads to bullying based on sort or rarity of the item, perhaps? But then I think most would agree the problem is not _caused_ as much as _evidenced_ by the game economics
I'm not sure but maybe kids who play it a lot can distinguish a dollar-bought flying monkey from a game-drop weasel with a patch eye (I don't mean to demean the game, it's just very outlandish looking in regards to these cosmetics). And that leads to bullying based on sort or rarity of the item, perhaps? But then I think most would agree the problem is not _caused_ as much as _evidenced_ by the game economics
I don't play fortnite, but having been involved in other games with cosmetics, some of them quite expensive, most of the players would be able to easily distinguish the rare, expensive cosmetics.
Making the source of your profits be children's value signaling is ... unappealing.
There is a difference between selling a game and giving it away for free so you can sell peer's respect via hats (or whatever). Then your product is children feeling inadequate in a way that can be solved with money which is some sort of sign of the apocalypse.
There is a difference between selling a game and giving it away for free so you can sell peer's respect via hats (or whatever). Then your product is children feeling inadequate in a way that can be solved with money which is some sort of sign of the apocalypse.
You could make this argument about anything that is sold to kids, should we have a "you must be this old to ride the capitalism coaster" rule?
When I was a kid, everyone's parents brought us to the "video arcade" which was free to enter but the games would "bully" us to INSERT 4 TOKENS after dying a few times. Nobody got seriously upset about this.
The analogy is quite wrong, and even then the parent did provide some modicum of supervision (or control the spending in some way), inserting quarter do require slightly more effort than pressing a button to accept the charge on the credit card.
Yeah I remember blowing a lot of money at the video game arcade, but at least felt guilty when looking at my empty wallet.
Yeah I remember blowing a lot of money at the video game arcade, but at least felt guilty when looking at my empty wallet.
If the kid can press a button on their phone to accept a charge on a credit card, the problem is with someone giving the kid a phone and hooking it up to a credit card, not with the game in question.
Game arcades were the original pay2win. Come to think of it, that's probably why I never played them...
Game arcades were the original pay2win. Come to think of it, that's probably why I never played them...
Arcade games do fit some definition of pay2win, but also rarely gives advantages to the one putting the more coins in the machine.
Not that I would defend arcade games, as they are a dying breed, but competitive arcade games were somehow fair.
Not that I would defend arcade games, as they are a dying breed, but competitive arcade games were somehow fair.
> but also rarely gives advantages to the one putting the more coins in the machine.
INSERT COIN TO CONTINUE
You could literally buy extra lives.
INSERT COIN TO CONTINUE
You could literally buy extra lives.
Again, re-framing it to competitive arcade game, giving extra lives might not be the help that is needed by the player (I have yet to encounter a competitive arcade game that is not fair), but where I find some popular competitive game egregious is that they do not only give advantage to people that spend time in the game (via xp style leveling or some kind of in game currency) but also give more competitive advantage to those who pay ( see world of tanks with premium ammunition ).
Your argument is however valid for single/cooperative arcade games, where the design is to gobble as many coin as possible.
Your argument is however valid for single/cooperative arcade games, where the design is to gobble as many coin as possible.
>The only difference is that Fortnite is currently very very popular with quite a young demographic
That's the only difference?
That's the only difference?
I wonder how long till we get the articles about teens using fortnite for sex.
https://xkcd.com/1289/
This is also hardly a phenomenon unique to video games.
> And so “default” quickly became a put-down within the Fortnite community, a signal that you are a lesser player in some way.
I can confirm that my son did not like being a "default" and wanted me to give him vbucks so that he could avoid this shame. I think it's ludicrous, of course, so I didn't. But I think one of his friends might have gifted him some, or he played enough time so that the system granted him some non-default skins. Also as a side effect of buying the "save the world" edition I think he got some skins.
I knew it was a mistake to consider games with lootboxes (the Star Wars one) and play-to-win games, but I'd hoped/assumed Fortnite was not like those. I guess I'll have to keep an eye out for things getting out of hand w/Fortnite.
EDIT: lots of speculation regarding the genesis of this phenomenon among these threads. I should note that my son (and probably his friends) all watch youtubers who play fortnite and some of them seem to refer to 'defaults' with derision. "Did it start there or have they just gotten caught up with the same culture?" I don't know.
I can confirm that my son did not like being a "default" and wanted me to give him vbucks so that he could avoid this shame. I think it's ludicrous, of course, so I didn't. But I think one of his friends might have gifted him some, or he played enough time so that the system granted him some non-default skins. Also as a side effect of buying the "save the world" edition I think he got some skins.
I knew it was a mistake to consider games with lootboxes (the Star Wars one) and play-to-win games, but I'd hoped/assumed Fortnite was not like those. I guess I'll have to keep an eye out for things getting out of hand w/Fortnite.
EDIT: lots of speculation regarding the genesis of this phenomenon among these threads. I should note that my son (and probably his friends) all watch youtubers who play fortnite and some of them seem to refer to 'defaults' with derision. "Did it start there or have they just gotten caught up with the same culture?" I don't know.
I grew up in England in the 80's and the label on one's shirt was a big deal. It seems to me that this behaviour may be a part of the creation of 'self' that adolescents go through, and that this is the same thing across a different medium. It's tribal, it shows implicit approval of one's decisions (namely to spend money on a costume), and I'm prepared to bet it's cross cultural too...
I wonder if anyone suggested regulation of Nike for creating a fashion fetish of Air Jordans, with the same kinds of money being thrown at Fortnite.
The difference is that I still have my 20 year old Nike shirt in my closet but skins and other digital items aren't likely to exist for anywhere near as long.
The durability of the item is sort of a side issue - I guarantee that back in the day (and maybe still a bit today) that kids were bullied for not having the hot brand of shoes, or the right clothes, or listening to the right music.
Your 20 year old Nike shirt was also 20x more expensive...
The digital cosmetics will probably exist longer, and definitely can be "worn" for a much longer time before "wearing out"
You are assuming that there will be people playing Fortnite in its current incarnation in 20 years. I don't think Fortnite is quite at the level of NetHack or even Minecraft yet.
Fortnite will never be NetHack or Minecraft because it's centralized. When Epic goes, Fortnite goes with it.
Or second life! Oh... wait....
Fortnight is a watered-down online-only GTA V Online clone that's bankrupting a generation of kids who aren't smart enough to play better games. There's no way that keeps going for 20 years.
Do you wear that Nike shirt? Might be time to Marie Kondo that shirt
this article is about kids though. how many grown men are still wearing the same fresh pair of nikes they got at age 13? things can be handed down to younger children of course, but with the wear and tear faced by kids' shoes and clothes, I doubt many of them last much longer than the average AAA multiplayer game.
The cost of football replica kit (home and away strips change each year) did start to become an issue as well as kids potentially carrying adverts for Drink and Gambling firms.
My theory is relatively simple: skins/costumes are signals and signals are important. Fortnite has matchmaking, and the majority of players use the matchmaking function in the two-/four-player modes rather than with a premade group. The average player you are matched with will be Fortnite-matchmaking replacement level[1]. If that player doesn't have a skin, they are more likely to underperform, from your perspective, since the pool of "non-skinned" players also includes new players and marginally-invested players (i.e. players who rarely play). I think a lot of comparisons to fashion are trying to solve the symptom, rather than this deeper problem.
Youth sports has a similar phenomenon. If you show up to the first day of practice with "default" athletic gear (running shoes instead of cleats, cargo shorts instead of athletic shorts etc.) you would face a similar type of shunning. The reason why there isn't a push to ban expensive athletic equipment is due to 1) The equipment manufacturers have huge sway over youth sports organizations via sponsorship 2) kids like athletic equipment because its one of the few outlets of individual identity available to them. That's why you are more likely to see displays of individual or group altruism (e.g. what happened to your son) rather than questioning the ethics/fairness of this phenomenon.
That is also why I prefer Apex Legends' freemium model to Fortnite's. Yes, it does include loot boxes (which are intrinsically exploitative), but it also includes ways to signal gaming ability without paying money, such as opt-in game statistics (how many wins with a character, how many kills, etc). More explicit signals of competency make weaker secondary signals (having the right skin/kit/cleats) a lot less relevant, even counterproductive (being labelled a poser).
[1]https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml
Youth sports has a similar phenomenon. If you show up to the first day of practice with "default" athletic gear (running shoes instead of cleats, cargo shorts instead of athletic shorts etc.) you would face a similar type of shunning. The reason why there isn't a push to ban expensive athletic equipment is due to 1) The equipment manufacturers have huge sway over youth sports organizations via sponsorship 2) kids like athletic equipment because its one of the few outlets of individual identity available to them. That's why you are more likely to see displays of individual or group altruism (e.g. what happened to your son) rather than questioning the ethics/fairness of this phenomenon.
That is also why I prefer Apex Legends' freemium model to Fortnite's. Yes, it does include loot boxes (which are intrinsically exploitative), but it also includes ways to signal gaming ability without paying money, such as opt-in game statistics (how many wins with a character, how many kills, etc). More explicit signals of competency make weaker secondary signals (having the right skin/kit/cleats) a lot less relevant, even counterproductive (being labelled a poser).
[1]https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml
This is a thing with Fortnite, but is not a phenomenon with all games that have a similar revenue model. A few years ago I played DotA 2 a lot (like, 10 hours a day every day, while enrolled in school). I did eventually buy some skins to show off, but ultimately it was pointless and everyone knew it. When you saw another player in the game, you didn't think about their skins, aside from maybe ogling at the fancy particle FX for a bit, or maybe some complaining in chat about how it unfairly made hero X look like hero Y, etc. My friends similarly bought skins but ultimately didn't care.
The situation is similar in the MMOFPS Planetside 2. In that game skins are more correlated with skill, and I have gotten a few comments about playing well for someone with no skins. But there is absolutely no negativity.
My younger brother plays Fortnite, and they (he + his friends) have some impressively horrifying obsession with skins. Labeling something or some action as a 'default' is an insult commonly used in real life. I have only played the game a tiny bit, and have no idea why this is the case. Even my college aged friends really care a lot about the skins.
The situation is similar in the MMOFPS Planetside 2. In that game skins are more correlated with skill, and I have gotten a few comments about playing well for someone with no skins. But there is absolutely no negativity.
My younger brother plays Fortnite, and they (he + his friends) have some impressively horrifying obsession with skins. Labeling something or some action as a 'default' is an insult commonly used in real life. I have only played the game a tiny bit, and have no idea why this is the case. Even my college aged friends really care a lot about the skins.
>I did eventually buy some skins to show off, but ultimately it was pointless and everyone knew it.
This was my experience with League of Legends as well. Skins were admired but not considered a mark of skill. I personally didn't play with many skins and was not judged for not having them.
This was my experience with League of Legends as well. Skins were admired but not considered a mark of skill. I personally didn't play with many skins and was not judged for not having them.
I recently had this discussion here regarding CSGO, more regarding loot boxes, but a similar enough conversation.
In CSGO, people really do care about skins. Now, you normally don't get flamed for having default skins, but people look closely at your knife, your AWP, your gloves, etc. If you have good skins, people generally like you more (in a random queue context). You are also expected to generally not suck.
On the flip side, you set yourself up for pressure by having nicer skins, because people then say "all skins, no skill". So oddly enough the skins in CSGO do play into the culture. Especially because the running joke is the better the skins, the better the player.
In CSGO, people really do care about skins. Now, you normally don't get flamed for having default skins, but people look closely at your knife, your AWP, your gloves, etc. If you have good skins, people generally like you more (in a random queue context). You are also expected to generally not suck.
On the flip side, you set yourself up for pressure by having nicer skins, because people then say "all skins, no skill". So oddly enough the skins in CSGO do play into the culture. Especially because the running joke is the better the skins, the better the player.
I played the original CS quite a bit in college, some 20 years ago, when you didn't have any customization. If you were good, people would accuse you of hacking and/or rage quit. The community got so toxic, I stopped playing the game. Wasnt fun anymore.
These days, I rarely play anything online that isn't pure coop. I dont like the toxicity that competition brings out in games online (in the US, in my experience). I'm playing a game to relax after work or on the weekend. I am nearly 40, and don't need or want that negativity in my life.
I remember when it was "gg" after every match, but now it's more likely a racist or sexicist comment, followed by "get guud". Fuck that. Don't want to be screamed at by a little shit spouting racial epithets or questioning someones sexuality.
These days, I rarely play anything online that isn't pure coop. I dont like the toxicity that competition brings out in games online (in the US, in my experience). I'm playing a game to relax after work or on the weekend. I am nearly 40, and don't need or want that negativity in my life.
I remember when it was "gg" after every match, but now it's more likely a racist or sexicist comment, followed by "get guud". Fuck that. Don't want to be screamed at by a little shit spouting racial epithets or questioning someones sexuality.
They removed the end/half time voice chat, so that is no longer an issue. People still call you a hacker, especially if you start the first couple rounds out doing well.
The game is now F2P so the number of hackers is also way up as it is. I still enjoy the game, but I basically mute my team unless they are cool and helpful. I prefer to play on Faceit and with my friends. And I no longer am invested in rank or winning, just trying to improve individually.
You're point is dead on about the game though, I understand why people hate it. Voice chat is full of kids thinking they are edgy by dropping racial slurs or homophobic stuff, people don't work together, and there are hackers in so many games. If there was a better competitive shooter for PC I would probably play it. R6 Siege just doesn't do it for me, and all the other games are king of the hill style games now (Apex, PUBG, Fortnite, even CSGO Danger Zone). COD on PC was never fun for me. Really it's Battlefield but people don't really play that as competitively. If there was another option I would probably play it.
The game is now F2P so the number of hackers is also way up as it is. I still enjoy the game, but I basically mute my team unless they are cool and helpful. I prefer to play on Faceit and with my friends. And I no longer am invested in rank or winning, just trying to improve individually.
You're point is dead on about the game though, I understand why people hate it. Voice chat is full of kids thinking they are edgy by dropping racial slurs or homophobic stuff, people don't work together, and there are hackers in so many games. If there was a better competitive shooter for PC I would probably play it. R6 Siege just doesn't do it for me, and all the other games are king of the hill style games now (Apex, PUBG, Fortnite, even CSGO Danger Zone). COD on PC was never fun for me. Really it's Battlefield but people don't really play that as competitively. If there was another option I would probably play it.
I just don't play competitively anymore. Online co-op can still be lots of fun, and even competitive in some ways (showing off along the lines of, "look what I can do!"), but it takes off the vicious edge that produces all that toxicity. Although you still get griefers.
In Dota2 they just silently think that you know what you're doing if you've got an unusual cosmetic. So they flame you less.
Fortnite doesn't have lootboxes. The Save The World mode did but they recently removed them so you always know what you are buying if you decide to spend money.
I'd say it's not pay-to-win either because most of the skins people buy in the shop are more flashy and easier to spot than the dreaded default skins.
I think this is less about Fortnite and more about people finding another way others are different and using it as a lever to make themselves feel better about their own insecurities.
I'd say it's not pay-to-win either because most of the skins people buy in the shop are more flashy and easier to spot than the dreaded default skins.
I think this is less about Fortnite and more about people finding another way others are different and using it as a lever to make themselves feel better about their own insecurities.
> Fortnite doesn't have lootboxes.
> I think this is less about Fortnite ... make themselves feel better about their own insecurities.
Sure, I got that, I'm just saying that I felt okay letting kids play Fortnite because it didn't have the hallmarks of the well-publicized dangers from other free to play games. But regardless of whether the problem comes from people and culture surrounding the game or the designer of the game, I think I'll restrict my kids' access to it if it starts to look like a hazard.
> I think this is less about Fortnite ... make themselves feel better about their own insecurities.
Sure, I got that, I'm just saying that I felt okay letting kids play Fortnite because it didn't have the hallmarks of the well-publicized dangers from other free to play games. But regardless of whether the problem comes from people and culture surrounding the game or the designer of the game, I think I'll restrict my kids' access to it if it starts to look like a hazard.
Anything that's free to play and requires a credit card is potentially dangerous for kids.
Kids don't actually care about the token (skins, clothing brands, basketball shoes, ...) in question. They just care that the token is scarce enough to differentiate the haves from the have-nots. It's all about status.
Sadly, this is the one thing that people keep forgetting about. This isn't a new phenomena; it's just bullies finding an excuse to be assholes to others.
The Overton window seems to have shifted a lot since That Retarded Horse[0]. :/
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCjuFpQ3EeA
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCjuFpQ3EeA
You can get vbucks by playing Save The World. Simply logging into STW gets you vbucks about every week or so.
The game is engineered not to attract parent's attention (e.g. no visual "extremes") and to attract youngsters and make them spend money - in this context I'm happy not to be a parent right now :)
Respect for your efforts :)
Respect for your efforts :)
I think they're usually called "no skins"
Ironically this makes the default skins the most rare. I've never played Fortnite, but this was true in Overwatch which was kind of interesting. I've never seen anyone get picked on for not having a non-default skin though. It's hard to believe this happens in Fortnite, but I don't interact with people in their teens or younger.
I think the difference with Overwatch is, Overwatch does have proper proxy for skill level, skill rating. You wouldn't deride a grandmaster player for using default skins.
In fortnite, you don't know if your squad member is good or not, but if they don't have any skins, chances are they haven't invested in the game. So even if you are good at the game, there isn't any other way to signal to other players that you are good without skins
In fortnite, you don't know if your squad member is good or not, but if they don't have any skins, chances are they haven't invested in the game. So even if you are good at the game, there isn't any other way to signal to other players that you are good without skins
If you need a skin to signal that you're good then you're not very good
Overwatch also has a proper proxy for how experienced a player is -- the player's account level, which is displayed prominently on the scoreboard. Skins are a lot less visible, the game gives them away pretty liberally, and the default skins aren't radically different in appearance from most of the paid ones.
I guess i'm kind of old now but it's odd because I seem to remember that when I played mmorpgs, especially pvp, it was the reverse. Players who were decked out in fancy armor that they did not directly earn in game were called 'twinkies' and generally derided. When I played guild wars, most of the good pvp people just had default outfits. The pve players with fancy clothes who came into pvp generally were viewed as worse at pvp (and it was often true because their builds did not translate well into pvp).
That's also my view. The metagame of free to play games is to resist all the temptations to spend money on it. People who spend money on it have lost.
Not a free to play game, but I've now "saved up" 104 lootboxes in Overwatch. Most of my friends are baffled that I won't just open them.
Nothing like getting cocky kills against people who dropped $50+ on fortnight while wearing the default skin. Thrive on their rage, let it fuel you.
At some point in my life I realized that some games were worth spending money on, especially given the amount of time spent in them. I can understand your point of view, and I totally agree in the context of children/teens but I try not to play games that heavily incentivize spending, so when I put 100+ hours into a game, I don't consider buying some microtransactions "losing".
I totally agree. You wouldn't want to know how much money I spent on Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings. But I know what I'm buying and why, and it's a conscious decision, not succumbing to pressure or temptation.
I think it's healthy to recognise when a system, game or otherwise, tries to manipulate you into spending money, and I try to teach my son to recognise that. It's fine to spend money, but spend it on something that's worth it, something you want, not something you're pressured into.
I think it's healthy to recognise when a system, game or otherwise, tries to manipulate you into spending money, and I try to teach my son to recognise that. It's fine to spend money, but spend it on something that's worth it, something you want, not something you're pressured into.
F2P games unfortunately fall into the dichotomy where the target market is usually the people with the least amount of money to spend, but also with the least amount of willpower/experience to resist spending it. I'm glad that when I was growing up the closest thing I had to the microtransaction hell that is F2P were MMOs that I couldn't run, and all my games came on CDs.
I've definitely found those games where I've sunk amazing amounts of time into them (Stormworks Search and Rescue is a current one, Path of Exile in the past) and have debated buying a few extra copies just to try and encourage the devs...
I'm with you guys. I'm one of the types who likes to flow against the meta while still kicking ass (sometimes). I am not a fortnite player but nothing is more satisfying then getting into some good PvP action and schooling one of these noobies who thinks they are good because they bought stuff.
I'm sure there is all kinds of cyber bullying, fortnite bullying and stuff. I must have been lucky but as a youth I had a couple real friends. We played halo all the day, i wasnt the best. I usually sucked compared to some buddies. But we still teamed up and had fun playing together.
It might not be easy for a current 8/10 year old boy to do this, but there are a zillion fortnite players. Maybe he can just find some other people to play with. Or if you are 8 years old, maybe you shouldnt be playing online shooting games.
I wasnt able to do the online shootie stuff (halo era) until I could afford my own shit and bought an xbox with my own money. Yeah all of my friends parents bought shit for them and they had xbox live, all of it. Paid runescape account. We were 10/11/12. Sure i was a little bit out of it, no body wanted to come to my house cause I didnt have the online games yet.
I just had a daughter recently and want to get her playing games. Like other parents in this thread, i am not feeding them money to buy in game shit. I'm not going to give her an iphone/ipad at age 4 and be surprised when she spends $1,000+ on in game shit. I've heard this exact story from multiple co-workers. I usually just laugh it off but part of me is like, the fuck is yoru problem giving your kid an ipad and giving them free reign? This co-worker is a c suite guy making a shit ton of money. Likely doesnt have enough time to actually _be_ with his kids so you just get an ipad.
I'm sure there is all kinds of cyber bullying, fortnite bullying and stuff. I must have been lucky but as a youth I had a couple real friends. We played halo all the day, i wasnt the best. I usually sucked compared to some buddies. But we still teamed up and had fun playing together.
It might not be easy for a current 8/10 year old boy to do this, but there are a zillion fortnite players. Maybe he can just find some other people to play with. Or if you are 8 years old, maybe you shouldnt be playing online shooting games.
I wasnt able to do the online shootie stuff (halo era) until I could afford my own shit and bought an xbox with my own money. Yeah all of my friends parents bought shit for them and they had xbox live, all of it. Paid runescape account. We were 10/11/12. Sure i was a little bit out of it, no body wanted to come to my house cause I didnt have the online games yet.
I just had a daughter recently and want to get her playing games. Like other parents in this thread, i am not feeding them money to buy in game shit. I'm not going to give her an iphone/ipad at age 4 and be surprised when she spends $1,000+ on in game shit. I've heard this exact story from multiple co-workers. I usually just laugh it off but part of me is like, the fuck is yoru problem giving your kid an ipad and giving them free reign? This co-worker is a c suite guy making a shit ton of money. Likely doesnt have enough time to actually _be_ with his kids so you just get an ipad.
I bought a switch for my oldest daughter at 4, it's been great and has very good parental controls on an app. Lots of kid friendly games.
My youngest is getting her own too in half a year when she turns 4.
My youngest is getting her own too in half a year when she turns 4.
The difference is because the skins in fortnite/pubg don't do anything. They give you no advantage. So there is no negativity towards them. Also there is no way to get (most) of them without buying them.
Something still changed. League of Legends at its peak wasn't quite as popular as Fortnite, but it was still roughly in the same order of magnitude (at least last I checked), and while people went "oooooh!" at some of the fancier or rarer skins, no one gave a flying duck if you used the defaults.
So something did happen. Could be as simple as a different target demographic, though.
So something did happen. Could be as simple as a different target demographic, though.
I don't think it's just the target demographic. I think this desire for self-expression was always there, but game producers/developers have only recently fully embraced the idea.
I have gamer friends (~30 years old) who joke about "Fashion Destiny" (referring to the video game series) and so on, except that they clearly really do care about the cosmetics because the availability of certain cosmetic pieces will get them to go back into the game and grind out 50 hours of gameplay, or cough up $X for Overwatch loot boxes, or pre-order, or buy the battle pass, etc.
It never gets to the point of bullying because we're 30 years old and we all carry guilt over the frivolity of dumping money into virtual cosmetics. But if you want a bunch of 30 year old men to talk about accessorizing like it's Sex and the City, just throw us into an in-game winter festival with cosmetic loot boxes.
With Fortnite, I think there's a problem where the winner to loser ratio is so small in each round that win/loss and other performance metrics become meaningless, so there isn't some sort of reckoning in the form of the end-game scoreboard. With games I used to play (as opposed to the ones I play now), the shit talking mostly got settled when the other person outplayed you. Or vice versa.
On the one hand I think the Fortnite dynamic helps to keep the game accessible, but on the other hand for lack of a clear direction (getting good at the game) players get a bit more cosmetic.
I have gamer friends (~30 years old) who joke about "Fashion Destiny" (referring to the video game series) and so on, except that they clearly really do care about the cosmetics because the availability of certain cosmetic pieces will get them to go back into the game and grind out 50 hours of gameplay, or cough up $X for Overwatch loot boxes, or pre-order, or buy the battle pass, etc.
It never gets to the point of bullying because we're 30 years old and we all carry guilt over the frivolity of dumping money into virtual cosmetics. But if you want a bunch of 30 year old men to talk about accessorizing like it's Sex and the City, just throw us into an in-game winter festival with cosmetic loot boxes.
With Fortnite, I think there's a problem where the winner to loser ratio is so small in each round that win/loss and other performance metrics become meaningless, so there isn't some sort of reckoning in the form of the end-game scoreboard. With games I used to play (as opposed to the ones I play now), the shit talking mostly got settled when the other person outplayed you. Or vice versa.
On the one hand I think the Fortnite dynamic helps to keep the game accessible, but on the other hand for lack of a clear direction (getting good at the game) players get a bit more cosmetic.
Relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinking
For me, twinking in World of Warcraft was locking my character's level and then finding the absolute best gear for that level. Due to how stat scaling is changed from expansion to expansion, you can find "breakpoints" where the stats from BiS (best-in-slot) gear for a level scale your stats significantly higher than what was supposed to be possible. An example of this was during the MoP expansion, level 80 twinks could use item level 409 gear (with level 80 being designed around ~272 level gear) and would get ludicrous stats, like 50% critical hit chances. This allowed level 80s to actually compete with level 90s, like when someone soloed a 10-man level 90 boss as a level 80: https://www.engadget.com/2013/01/09/level-80-paladin-solos-s...
For me, twinking in World of Warcraft was locking my character's level and then finding the absolute best gear for that level. Due to how stat scaling is changed from expansion to expansion, you can find "breakpoints" where the stats from BiS (best-in-slot) gear for a level scale your stats significantly higher than what was supposed to be possible. An example of this was during the MoP expansion, level 80 twinks could use item level 409 gear (with level 80 being designed around ~272 level gear) and would get ludicrous stats, like 50% critical hit chances. This allowed level 80s to actually compete with level 90s, like when someone soloed a 10-man level 90 boss as a level 80: https://www.engadget.com/2013/01/09/level-80-paladin-solos-s...
> "You can't hop into a Fortnite match as a default without being singled out"
If that's true, then a lot changed in a months since I played it with my son. Admittedly Fortnite culture isn't as strong here, and my son has already lost interest (he's back to Minecraft and Roblox again).
That people would bully someone over not spending money is this, seems really weird to me. Then again, some kids will use anything to bully others, but my impression is those kids are fairly rare.
Could it be that this is different across different cultures? My impression as an outsider is that bullying is far more common and accepted in the US than in Europe (they even elected a bully as president), and I've heard about studies that Americans are more likely to kick down to people below them on the social ladder, whereas in many other places people are more likely to punch up and help people below them.
Also: the importance of hollow status symbols. I don't see kids at my son's school care about about such things. Sure, a cool skin is cool, but not as much as achievements are.
My personal opinion on the purchase of skins is that if you end up paying for a game that's free, you've lost.
If that's true, then a lot changed in a months since I played it with my son. Admittedly Fortnite culture isn't as strong here, and my son has already lost interest (he's back to Minecraft and Roblox again).
That people would bully someone over not spending money is this, seems really weird to me. Then again, some kids will use anything to bully others, but my impression is those kids are fairly rare.
Could it be that this is different across different cultures? My impression as an outsider is that bullying is far more common and accepted in the US than in Europe (they even elected a bully as president), and I've heard about studies that Americans are more likely to kick down to people below them on the social ladder, whereas in many other places people are more likely to punch up and help people below them.
Also: the importance of hollow status symbols. I don't see kids at my son's school care about about such things. Sure, a cool skin is cool, but not as much as achievements are.
My personal opinion on the purchase of skins is that if you end up paying for a game that's free, you've lost.
I'm surprised FIFA never gets scrutinised in this was, it's an £80 game each year and to make any kind of impression you need to buy packs.
I watched my son once where he literally spent what I'd given him on packs, looked at what he'd "won" and sold them all instantly for in game currency. When I asked why he didn't use any of them he said they were no good. He then repeated the same process on the rest of the packs, keeping maybe 1 player.
It reminds me of the behaviour of people addicted to slot machines, literally pumping in coins, recycling their winnings until they have nothing left.
After the Battlefront 2 debacle, EA said they were abandoning loot boxes and wouldn't do pay to win any more. They appear to have avoided it with Battlefield V, but FIFA still stands as the Daddy when it comes to pay to win and it needs to be destroyed.
I watched my son once where he literally spent what I'd given him on packs, looked at what he'd "won" and sold them all instantly for in game currency. When I asked why he didn't use any of them he said they were no good. He then repeated the same process on the rest of the packs, keeping maybe 1 player.
It reminds me of the behaviour of people addicted to slot machines, literally pumping in coins, recycling their winnings until they have nothing left.
After the Battlefront 2 debacle, EA said they were abandoning loot boxes and wouldn't do pay to win any more. They appear to have avoided it with Battlefield V, but FIFA still stands as the Daddy when it comes to pay to win and it needs to be destroyed.
I downloaded FIFA15 on PS3 years ago, and I've only played it a couple of times for this reason. They have completely gimped the out-of-the-box features in terms of what you can do as a single player. Majority of gameplay revolves around Ultimate Team, which requires packs.
Makes me long for the days of FIFA 96-09, where you didn't have to buy a damn thing other than the game itself to play in tournaments with you favourite team.
The "recurring revenue" model has really soured the experience of playing video games.
Makes me long for the days of FIFA 96-09, where you didn't have to buy a damn thing other than the game itself to play in tournaments with you favourite team.
The "recurring revenue" model has really soured the experience of playing video games.
> The "recurring revenue" model has really soured the experience of playing video games.
Yeah, and the worst part is that many video game companies would rather kill decent single-player franchises with low-quality games that nobody likes, in order to get multiplayer capability and loot-boxes baked into everything.
Ten years ago I spent quite a lot of money on video games. Now, I just can't be bothered anymore. Most of the games I bought ten years ago have more replay value than the ones on the market today. At the same time the market for gaming seems to have exploded, so I guess it's working out for them.
Yeah, and the worst part is that many video game companies would rather kill decent single-player franchises with low-quality games that nobody likes, in order to get multiplayer capability and loot-boxes baked into everything.
Ten years ago I spent quite a lot of money on video games. Now, I just can't be bothered anymore. Most of the games I bought ten years ago have more replay value than the ones on the market today. At the same time the market for gaming seems to have exploded, so I guess it's working out for them.
> The "recurring revenue" model has really soured the experience of playing video games.
In fairness, that particular model seems to be mainly attributed to the kind of EA/Ubi/Acti/ annual 'AAA blockbuster' shovelware.
All games I play currently on PC are free of this crap. No game I've bought in the last year has had anything like this either.
That said I mostly play games that are highly moddable.
In fairness, that particular model seems to be mainly attributed to the kind of EA/Ubi/Acti/ annual 'AAA blockbuster' shovelware.
All games I play currently on PC are free of this crap. No game I've bought in the last year has had anything like this either.
That said I mostly play games that are highly moddable.
Most of my friends who are religious about FIFA stopped playing online a couple years ago for the exact reason you described. FIFA is terrible about how they nerf players, if someone has a low stat it's like they are having a stroke when given the ball and half the time they loose control, despite the fact that the player is indeed based on a professional soccer player who can dribble the ball down the field blindfolded. RNG really has no place in competitive video games.
Stories like this make me relieved that I went to a school that mandated uniforms. For the most part, this circumvented an arms race around student fashion where what you wore signified your status.
It wasn't a perfect solution, as kids still jousted for attention via watches, iPods, jewellery, but it was better than nothing.
It wasn't a perfect solution, as kids still jousted for attention via watches, iPods, jewellery, but it was better than nothing.
Even with uniforms at my school, those with the yellow Ralph Lauren shirts looked down on those with the yellow Izod shirts or worse off-brand. It was easy to ignore though, but still amusing. "Insecurity uh finds a way."
I had a different experience with school uniforms.
At my school they made their best effort to strip any individuality out of us. No jewellery, no "extreme" haircuts (basically anything that wasn't a clipper cut or short back and sides), no hair dye (even to another natural colour).
Sure, it may have prevented an arms race around student fashion, but it went so far the other way instead and denied us any right to express ourselves. People still got bullied relentlessly, the existence of a uniform did nothing to stop that.
At my school they made their best effort to strip any individuality out of us. No jewellery, no "extreme" haircuts (basically anything that wasn't a clipper cut or short back and sides), no hair dye (even to another natural colour).
Sure, it may have prevented an arms race around student fashion, but it went so far the other way instead and denied us any right to express ourselves. People still got bullied relentlessly, the existence of a uniform did nothing to stop that.
I'm also a big fan of school uniforms. Ditto for standardized school breakfasts and lunches as well.
My parents told me stories of being bullied because their home made clothes had no tags on them (meaning not bought, although from pictures they looked impressively good on par with regular fashion IMO). I never experienced any sort of wealth based bullying or witnessed it occurring to anyone in my school days.
I can’t relate to what’s being discussed. I would be very confused if someone tried to attack me on the premise of not spending money for pointless visuals.
I can’t relate to what’s being discussed. I would be very confused if someone tried to attack me on the premise of not spending money for pointless visuals.
Do you wear nice clothes to work present day?
I wear decent clothes, but nothing excessively expensive or visibly branded. I prefer clothes without visible brands; I'm not going to pay those companies to advertise for them. If they want me to advertise for them, they should pay me.
Fortunately when I was a kid, my school was also relatively free from this. Maybe not primary school, where at a certain point Cool Cat sweaters became really popular. But in secondary school, clothes were more a way to express your own taste than to buy into some kind of status. Making your own or getting some vintage thrift shop stuff was cooler than a visible brand. But something simple was never wrong either, as far as I know.
But clearly some schools or some countries are very different in this. It's all about how status-driven a culture is, I guess. Dutch culture has never approved of excessive displays of wealth, and reading this, maybe that's for the better.
Fortunately when I was a kid, my school was also relatively free from this. Maybe not primary school, where at a certain point Cool Cat sweaters became really popular. But in secondary school, clothes were more a way to express your own taste than to buy into some kind of status. Making your own or getting some vintage thrift shop stuff was cooler than a visible brand. But something simple was never wrong either, as far as I know.
But clearly some schools or some countries are very different in this. It's all about how status-driven a culture is, I guess. Dutch culture has never approved of excessive displays of wealth, and reading this, maybe that's for the better.
Nowaday IT people seems to crave for stickers on their laptop.
I do, but I work at a nice place with clear standards. Fortnite is garbo and free.
For this analogy to work, I would need to feel like I was being attacked for wearing gym clothes to Arby’s or Taco Bell. Honestly I would be more prone to bullying people who do buy skins probably... you’re not cool if you put on an expensive tie to get your fake cheese Fritos milkshake anathema* for 0.69¢
(*I don’t have any particular reason to believe these exist)
For this analogy to work, I would need to feel like I was being attacked for wearing gym clothes to Arby’s or Taco Bell. Honestly I would be more prone to bullying people who do buy skins probably... you’re not cool if you put on an expensive tie to get your fake cheese Fritos milkshake anathema* for 0.69¢
(*I don’t have any particular reason to believe these exist)
For the analogy to work, you just need to realize that Fortnite is the closest thing kids have to a self-selected, competitive "workplace".
But there are other games. Games that actually cost money.
It seems strange to me that wealth shaming behaviors are appearing in the free game but not the expensive one. I think I would always have thought spending money in a free game would be lame...
It seems strange to me that wealth shaming behaviors are appearing in the free game but not the expensive one. I think I would always have thought spending money in a free game would be lame...
Garish displays of wealth are generally more important to those with less means, to distinguish themselves.
Probably the same here.
Probably the same here.
As a developer no.
I tried the game, and it wasn't my cup of tea--I'm more of a civilization kind of guy. However, reading about how the game is evolving as a social destination is fascinating. Reminds me of MUDs back in the day, except it's way more popular and way more mainstream.
Seems weird that its all happened with a shooter. They've been pretty much there the whole time. Battle Royale as a game mode/genre isn't the most unique idea to ever come along either. The visuals sort of set it apart, though I've seen plenty of cartoony shooters that have come before.
I can't really put my finger on what makes Fortnite work so well with teenagers, other than how the game happened to seize on a fad at just the right time, and then went all-in with teenager-pleasing updates.
The only other game that had this sort of success was Minecraft. Just perfect timing with a game that was highly moddable and became a digital hangout spot for kids.
I can't really put my finger on what makes Fortnite work so well with teenagers, other than how the game happened to seize on a fad at just the right time, and then went all-in with teenager-pleasing updates.
The only other game that had this sort of success was Minecraft. Just perfect timing with a game that was highly moddable and became a digital hangout spot for kids.
Fortnite is one of the few games that is available on all major platforms, including mobile, which allows online cross-play. I believe its accessibility, cost, and scarcity of alternatives is what makes it appealing to younger audiences.
The portability of Unreal Engine 4 places Epic Games in a unique position where they can deliver this kind of experience.
The portability of Unreal Engine 4 places Epic Games in a unique position where they can deliver this kind of experience.
I think what's kind of odd though is that it didn't happen sooner. Nothing technologically-speaking today is much different than, say, 15 years ago. Other than bandwidth and console-maker's willingness to work with each other for the greater good.
I don't know why they did it, to be honest. IIRC microsoft tried halo 2 or 3 briefly play testing xbox vs pc, and pc won everytime due to how much more accurate a mouse is vs a thumbstick. In this gen, microsoft finally allowed cross platform play with fortnight and PC players still win every engagement.
Exactly this- I don't particularly enjoy the game, however it's an easy way for me to stay in touch with friends who live far away and play on different mediums than PC.
> I can't really put my finger on what makes Fortnite work so well with teenagers
Free To Play!
Free To Play!
Exactly, combine it with cross platform play and everyone can squad up and play a round at the drop of the hat. No longer are you locked into buying whatever console your friends play either.
Part of it is the whole battle royal system plays on sunk cost fallacy pretty hard. Depending on how long you last you get pretty invested in a given game, and if you get killed over some bullshit mechanic (and there are a LOT), the first thing you want to do after screaming is jump back into another 5-15 min game, because it will be different this time of course.
In games where you respawn and can keep trying to play well an entire game, if you have a couple bad matches you are probably going to stop playing for the day. I know people who've only won fortnight a couple of times yet still play religiously, chasing that dragon, screaming at the TV when they get eliminated by a single point blank shotgun blast. I tried to get into fortnight but it seemed pretty unhealthy, imo.
In games where you respawn and can keep trying to play well an entire game, if you have a couple bad matches you are probably going to stop playing for the day. I know people who've only won fortnight a couple of times yet still play religiously, chasing that dragon, screaming at the TV when they get eliminated by a single point blank shotgun blast. I tried to get into fortnight but it seemed pretty unhealthy, imo.
I'm pretty mediocre at skill based games in general, and the whole time playing fortnite and games like it, it just felt like my only purpose in the entire game was to be some fodder for a "more important" player to shoot for their entertainment.
Non battle royale games at least give me a chance to have my own moments of "glory" instead of consistently using me to avoid having to build any actual gameplay
Non battle royale games at least give me a chance to have my own moments of "glory" instead of consistently using me to avoid having to build any actual gameplay
One of the popular free-to-play tablet strategy games I tried a few years ago had a different variation on "bullying", and presumably known to the developers. There, you could use small free amounts of the numerous different currencies/resources/boosts (also purchasable with real money), spend hours designing bases in a multiplayer world, and... then pay-to-win griefers would come along and destroy everything you built, and violate whatever you were actively controlling. I imagine there were a lot of angry/frustrated deletions of the game, and also a lot of impulsive spending of money to be able to rebuild and defend what you'd just created.
That’s what Game of War was like. Every tech level was around a 2x improvement than the one before it. So much of the game was high level pay to win players beating up on the low level free players 1v20.
Make no mistake, this is an entirely intentional consequence of Fortnite's design. There's a great video[1] that goes into detail on the psychological manipulation used in Fortnite's monetization model. It saddens me that a hobby that brought me so much joy as a kid/teenager now preys on the same insecurities it once sheltered me from.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0
Heh... Hearthstone has a literal slot machine display as the matchmaking progress bar. Opening packs is animated to look like opening a bag of loot. More expensive cards have nicer effects or animations.
F2P games are Skinner boxes.
F2P games are Skinner boxes.
Fascinating article.
This opens my eyes to why my son gifted his classmate a $10 skin from his own pocket money for no special occasion - there was clearly far more going on than I had realized.
Bullying is one way of handling "defaults" - generosity is another... and Epic Games makes boatloads of money either way.
This opens my eyes to why my son gifted his classmate a $10 skin from his own pocket money for no special occasion - there was clearly far more going on than I had realized.
Bullying is one way of handling "defaults" - generosity is another... and Epic Games makes boatloads of money either way.
You should remind him of the legend of the No Skin Hero, who handily dismantles everyone who payed money on a free video game due to raw skill alone.
Kinda sickening that bullying between kids is apparently a vital part of their monetisation strategy.
Maybe everybody should get assigned a random unique skin, but if you pay you get the skin you want.
Maybe everybody should get assigned a random unique skin, but if you pay you get the skin you want.
I highly doubt this was an intentional outcome. Multiplayer video games have had paid skins for years.
Fortnite has just attracted way way way more young teens, and they're bullying each other because of differences as they always have.
I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't actually any more bullying going on because of Fortnite - it's just more obvious to people outside of the teenagers social sphere because of how wildly popular Fortnite is and how much media attention it's getting.
Fortnite has just attracted way way way more young teens, and they're bullying each other because of differences as they always have.
I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't actually any more bullying going on because of Fortnite - it's just more obvious to people outside of the teenagers social sphere because of how wildly popular Fortnite is and how much media attention it's getting.
The only lesson I can draw from this story is that teenagers have an unparalleled inventiveness to be assholes to each other.
Pretty much. You get made fun of for your looks, your name, your character, or your hobbies, but the one certainty is you will be made fun of. It's not cool, but it's going to happen, and I don't think there's a way to avoid it.
The trick is teaching your kids about that culture and how to look out for it. Fortnite makes it hard. When I was growing up it was trading cards, sneakers, or latest video games. My parents taught me tough turkey on occasion. In-app stores are the new status symbol that parents now need to understand and now educate the next generation.
In my childhood it was the fact that I read on the bus. Sadly, there is no trick to avoiding all bullying.
Indeed.
I was recently reading "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris. Many parents believe they have a large influence on their children's personality (traits like confidence).
However, it seems like the influence of their peers vastly outweighs what parents do (outside of actual abuse, which is of course bad).
I was recently reading "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris. Many parents believe they have a large influence on their children's personality (traits like confidence).
However, it seems like the influence of their peers vastly outweighs what parents do (outside of actual abuse, which is of course bad).
Was their discussion in the book about home schooled kids? I'd be interested in how that changes the dynamic.
I don't recall much discussion of home-schooled kids. Unless the parents are deliberately limiting the children's socialization with peers their own age, I'd expect that it doesn't matter.
The common misconception is that kids emulate their parents to become successful adults. Where in actuality, kids emulate other (sometimes slightly older) kids, in order to become successful kids.
The common misconception is that kids emulate their parents to become successful adults. Where in actuality, kids emulate other (sometimes slightly older) kids, in order to become successful kids.
... and when they grow up to adults, they stay the same assholes as they were as the teenagers, just learn to better hide it to conform to the social norms of their new group.
At least they are honest. Adults just screw each other over while being polite, e.g. car salesmen, but that's one of the most innocent examples.
Also that even 8 and 9 year olds are like this.. :(
Being exposed to adults who "don't give a shit" about what they say online has seriously influenced younger kids. I can understand though - they never asked to be in the same space as an 8 year old in an 15+ game (not specifically on about Fortnite). I don't see a way out of this situation soon without some serious cultural upheaval.
Draw the lesson that Epic Games knew this and has cultivated this culture. As the old saying goes: Follow the money.
Oh please there have been a thousand games selling cosmetics before Fortnite. They just make a great scapegoat right now for being successful.
Interesting to note that in the article, Epic is only mentioned once and for a different reason from what we would expect, for designing nice skins!!!
Nothing is stated about how they’re promoting/pushing their digital offerings to young kids, who are not of age to be able to clearly judge what is good for them and when they’re being tricked by shabby marketing in order to do purchases.
I’ve read that Epic is throttling users who don’t have paid for a battle pass, is not as fast and supportive as it should be with refunds and is dumping a lot of money in sponsorships/prizes so as to attract more young players.
They know what is happenings and I don’t thing this will change :-(
It’s true that society, schools, kids and parents have changed in recent years and that’s why we’re seeing an increase of bullying, which is not helping the situation with how gaming is affecting lives.
IMHO some kind of regulation/stricter rules are needed.
Polygon is free but I just got bullied into getting tracked by their advertising partners :(
There’s also some very rough bullying behavior by teens of younger players (who tend to talk a lot of game and such), which is unfortunate amd inexcusable. Racist, sexist, and bigoted speech is also not uncommon.
However, let’s be frank and acknowledge that this is not at all a new phenomenon—kids have been made fun of for their clothes, shoes, lunches, haircuts, age, ad nauseam. There’s little (white) punks of single digit age dropping the n-word in public parks.
Kids can be straight up cruel. Pointing at video games or music or whatever the scapegoat du jour is mostly unproductive.
However, let’s be frank and acknowledge that this is not at all a new phenomenon—kids have been made fun of for their clothes, shoes, lunches, haircuts, age, ad nauseam. There’s little (white) punks of single digit age dropping the n-word in public parks.
Kids can be straight up cruel. Pointing at video games or music or whatever the scapegoat du jour is mostly unproductive.
Isn't this the same with clothes, phones, etc.?
Indeed it is, and not only for kids. iPhone, BMW, Armani are status symbols that opens doors in many countries.
In my brush with Fortnite and its culture, this was the thing that surprised me the most.
What I wonder is, did Epic deliberately do this? It wouldn't take much to seed the initial culture with this idea.
If they didn't, it is certain that whatever the next "Fortnite" is will deliberately have its corporate creators try to seed the community with the idea that not spending money is socially bad, and you should feel bad about not buying things, and make other people feel bad about not buying things. I can come up with three or four subtle ways of slanting things against the "defaults" even in a nominally free-to-play game that on paper is indeed totally fair just by casually thinking about it for five minutes [1], and goodness only knows what I could come up with if I were in a position to think about this as my day job and run experiments.
I've posted on HN a few times about how I'm keeping my kids away from a lot of the modern ad-based or free-to-play stuff like this, because since I was a kid the market has become wildly more potent at extracting money from children. I often have phrased it in terms of ads being more sophisticated, but this is honestly more what I have in mind. This is so far beyond anything I was subjected to as a child as to be a quantitative difference.
(Let me emphasize that yes, I'm aware that such things existed as a kid. I remember the console wars, Furby, and the general stream of advertising aimed at me. It was not unheard of to have even a bit of spontaneous social pressure show up. But I'd still say this is some next-level stuff. None of that stuff really followed me home unless I let it; this actively shuts people out of full social participation even from their home if they don't give in to the social pressure.)
What prepubescent brain can be expected to stand up to this?
I'm trying to explain this stuff to my kids, but the simple truth is they are cognitively capable of getting hooked by this stuff years before they are cognitively capable of understanding the analysis, and then it's another few years of brain development after that when mere intellectual comprehension of what is being fired at them can be transformed into concrete actions to defend themselves.
[1] For example, suppose you have the player's name above the character, as it often is. Suppose you make one of the things you can get with a skin is the ability to change the fonts on that name. Suppose the default font is much higher visibility, and that when you buy something, the UI automatically changes them away from the "default" font, making their visibility de facto lower, even though it's officially just an "optional" font. You only have to provide a slightly gradient like that, and then let the community iterate it on it for a few months. You can even trivially be sure that your gradient is noticed by seeding the player forum with a couple of accounts pointing this out in week 2 or 3, and a couple dozen other accounts agreeing with it, and then a couple more later swearing up and down that they tried it out and it totally improved their game.
But you could claim with a straight face that the game is still totally fair to people who don't pay... "look, they get all the same weapons, the damage is the same, the win conditions are the same".... it's not even necessarily a bad argument!
I miss when you could be on the Internet and read a message from someone and safely assume it was from an actual person.
What I wonder is, did Epic deliberately do this? It wouldn't take much to seed the initial culture with this idea.
If they didn't, it is certain that whatever the next "Fortnite" is will deliberately have its corporate creators try to seed the community with the idea that not spending money is socially bad, and you should feel bad about not buying things, and make other people feel bad about not buying things. I can come up with three or four subtle ways of slanting things against the "defaults" even in a nominally free-to-play game that on paper is indeed totally fair just by casually thinking about it for five minutes [1], and goodness only knows what I could come up with if I were in a position to think about this as my day job and run experiments.
I've posted on HN a few times about how I'm keeping my kids away from a lot of the modern ad-based or free-to-play stuff like this, because since I was a kid the market has become wildly more potent at extracting money from children. I often have phrased it in terms of ads being more sophisticated, but this is honestly more what I have in mind. This is so far beyond anything I was subjected to as a child as to be a quantitative difference.
(Let me emphasize that yes, I'm aware that such things existed as a kid. I remember the console wars, Furby, and the general stream of advertising aimed at me. It was not unheard of to have even a bit of spontaneous social pressure show up. But I'd still say this is some next-level stuff. None of that stuff really followed me home unless I let it; this actively shuts people out of full social participation even from their home if they don't give in to the social pressure.)
What prepubescent brain can be expected to stand up to this?
I'm trying to explain this stuff to my kids, but the simple truth is they are cognitively capable of getting hooked by this stuff years before they are cognitively capable of understanding the analysis, and then it's another few years of brain development after that when mere intellectual comprehension of what is being fired at them can be transformed into concrete actions to defend themselves.
[1] For example, suppose you have the player's name above the character, as it often is. Suppose you make one of the things you can get with a skin is the ability to change the fonts on that name. Suppose the default font is much higher visibility, and that when you buy something, the UI automatically changes them away from the "default" font, making their visibility de facto lower, even though it's officially just an "optional" font. You only have to provide a slightly gradient like that, and then let the community iterate it on it for a few months. You can even trivially be sure that your gradient is noticed by seeding the player forum with a couple of accounts pointing this out in week 2 or 3, and a couple dozen other accounts agreeing with it, and then a couple more later swearing up and down that they tried it out and it totally improved their game.
But you could claim with a straight face that the game is still totally fair to people who don't pay... "look, they get all the same weapons, the damage is the same, the win conditions are the same".... it's not even necessarily a bad argument!
I miss when you could be on the Internet and read a message from someone and safely assume it was from an actual person.
How is this much different from the culture I grew up where people made fun of you when you didn't have some nice fashion, but wore, say, the same sneakers as your parents?
It's possible you missed it in my edits as I was editing things in, but the answer is, it didn't follow you home. When I got home, I could be broadcasted at by the TV, but I had no peer-interactive media other than voice phone calls, which are structurally unsuitable for this style of peer pressure. The TV could set the parameters of the peer pressure, and then I could be pressured at school, but there was no dynamic, real-time blending of the corporate agenda-setting and my actual peers reinforcing it in a live loop.
And if memory serves, honestly, even that loop was non-linearly weaker than you'd think (or, if you prefer, the aforementioned dynamic loop is non-linearly stronger than you'd think from the parts, since it's iterative). Yeah, some kids were really into that peer game, but it was pretty easy to check out, and the peer pressure was easily lost in the ambient level of general bullying and child unpleasantness. Yeah, I wore the wrong shoes, but it was something I heard about infrequently, and even if I had been wearing the right shoes it was pretty clear it would just have been something else. It wasn't the dominant playground topic, every day.
And if memory serves, honestly, even that loop was non-linearly weaker than you'd think (or, if you prefer, the aforementioned dynamic loop is non-linearly stronger than you'd think from the parts, since it's iterative). Yeah, some kids were really into that peer game, but it was pretty easy to check out, and the peer pressure was easily lost in the ambient level of general bullying and child unpleasantness. Yeah, I wore the wrong shoes, but it was something I heard about infrequently, and even if I had been wearing the right shoes it was pretty clear it would just have been something else. It wasn't the dominant playground topic, every day.
> "How is this much different from the culture I grew up where people made fun of you when you didn't have some nice fashion"
It's not much different. It's the same thing in a different, more pervasive jacket, but both attitudes are wrong and harmful. It's a shame those cultures haven't grown out of it.
It's not much different. It's the same thing in a different, more pervasive jacket, but both attitudes are wrong and harmful. It's a shame those cultures haven't grown out of it.
Interesting point, but I'm not quite sure it's the same. You could call out that other kid and beat them in a footrace and embarrass them in their fancy shoes. Or you could make fun of their whatever. I think online, you can't beat them in the footrace because they paid to win.
> It wouldn't take much to seed the initial culture with this idea.
I don't want to bend over backwards to defend a company that certainly could have done this. But, sadly, this strikes me as plain old "humanity at work." I think many of us have subconscious/instincts to evaluate people on status cues and kids don't yet know enough social conventions not to make that kind of thing explicit. Sadly, some adults may model this bad behavior too.
I don't want to bend over backwards to defend a company that certainly could have done this. But, sadly, this strikes me as plain old "humanity at work." I think many of us have subconscious/instincts to evaluate people on status cues and kids don't yet know enough social conventions not to make that kind of thing explicit. Sadly, some adults may model this bad behavior too.
As you can sort of infer from my post, the only thing preventing me from assuming that Epic did it on purpose is my assessment that the difficulty of manufacturing that from scratch, on purpose, is actually significantly higher than the difficulty of backing into it by accident. A lot of major "marketing discoveries" were clearly backed into by accident, as a result of marketers just throwing everything at the wall over time.
But even if it was an accident this time, it won't be next time.
But even if it was an accident this time, it won't be next time.
IMO, video games have become an addiction-based industry. It's all about the dopamine response. For many kids (and adults), video games are their primary social outlet.
Social media, modern television, are also addiction-based IMO. The magic of the internet and a/b testing to drive increased engagement has made anything that can be exploitative completely exploitative.
Social media, modern television, are also addiction-based IMO. The magic of the internet and a/b testing to drive increased engagement has made anything that can be exploitative completely exploitative.
i'm 100% addicted , in some capacity, to gaming. I enjoy it too much as a hobby to stop. I dont even get into online games though. Honestly i've been playing soulsborne shit and offline action games for the past few years. My satisfaction in gaming comes from overcoming challenges.
In dark souls that means precise melee combat against boss for a good few minutes. One tiny slip up with a dodge/block/attack, and you typically get shreked. You can spend hours learning and practicing against a boss and then you finally kill that mutha fucka and DAMN it feels good. That is the dopamine rush I am chasing
In dark souls that means precise melee combat against boss for a good few minutes. One tiny slip up with a dodge/block/attack, and you typically get shreked. You can spend hours learning and practicing against a boss and then you finally kill that mutha fucka and DAMN it feels good. That is the dopamine rush I am chasing
As a counterpoint to this, I don't get much enjoyment out of games anymore.
You mentioned Dark Souls. A friend suggested I try out Sekiro, a new game by the same studio. There's a mandatory element of stealth, which is a genre I've never found terribly attractive. You die, you learn/memorize a little more, repeat. At then end of it you successfully accomplish something, like defeating a boss. But what did it mean? Were you skilled enough to run through it on your first try? (Probably not.) Is there replay value? Again, probably not - once you've learned the movement and attack patterns there's only so much variation that can happen. So you might've spent quite awhile memorizing something which doesn't improve your experience in the same game, much less other games.
Other factors that have turned me off: heavy randomness, in-app purchases, generic fetch missions.
I find myself more drawn to the rare unicorn that has a good story, or really is revolutionary in terms of gameplay. I can also appreciate online games to some extent - you gain extreme mastery in something, but it's a skill that you need to use in fresh, changing conditions. If you improve far enough, you might start playing against the best players, requiring you to predict multiple moves ahead like chess. In most games, this is impossible for AIs to reach.
You mentioned Dark Souls. A friend suggested I try out Sekiro, a new game by the same studio. There's a mandatory element of stealth, which is a genre I've never found terribly attractive. You die, you learn/memorize a little more, repeat. At then end of it you successfully accomplish something, like defeating a boss. But what did it mean? Were you skilled enough to run through it on your first try? (Probably not.) Is there replay value? Again, probably not - once you've learned the movement and attack patterns there's only so much variation that can happen. So you might've spent quite awhile memorizing something which doesn't improve your experience in the same game, much less other games.
Other factors that have turned me off: heavy randomness, in-app purchases, generic fetch missions.
I find myself more drawn to the rare unicorn that has a good story, or really is revolutionary in terms of gameplay. I can also appreciate online games to some extent - you gain extreme mastery in something, but it's a skill that you need to use in fresh, changing conditions. If you improve far enough, you might start playing against the best players, requiring you to predict multiple moves ahead like chess. In most games, this is impossible for AIs to reach.
You would love Megaman series on the NES, lol. Unforgiving difficulty that requires complete mastery and and a good deal of memorizing to complete the stages.
Yeah, with video games you're always searching for that next high. While most things are fine in moderation, it's the addictive potential that makes people keep coming back, to the detriment of other areas of their lives.
Yeah, with video games you're always searching for that next high. While most things are fine in moderation, it's the addictive potential that makes people keep coming back, to the detriment of other areas of their lives.
This effect existed way before modern advertising, right? Kids have always formed status hierarchies based on the wealth of their parents, which could be signaled with clothes, transportation, and basic stuff like that. I guess it might be important that this is more intrusive (because kids get less respite from it when they go home), but it's not clear to me that's crucially different. I remember spending a lot of time at home worrying about whether I'd have the right clothes to wear to school the next day.
Fortnite is exactly like that, not with the fonts but with the skins. The default skin is larger than many for-pay skins, so your view when fighting is obstructed by your own player taking up more space in your field of vision. (Because it's not a 1st person shooter, but a 3rd person shooter.)
>I'm trying to explain this stuff to my kids, but the simple truth is they are cognitively capable of getting hooked by this stuff years before they are cognitively capable of understanding the analysis, and then it's another few years of brain development after that when mere intellectual comprehension of what is being fired at them can be transformed into concrete actions to defend themselves.
Don't be too hasty to sell the young-uns short. Just the other day my 9yo was remarking about how addictive his youtube feed is and voluntarily declared that he just has to cut it off at some point in order to do things that he needs to do. I was gobsmacked. Maybe when they grow up with this stuff constantly in their faces, they have a better chance at learning how to deal with it in a healthy way.
Don't be too hasty to sell the young-uns short. Just the other day my 9yo was remarking about how addictive his youtube feed is and voluntarily declared that he just has to cut it off at some point in order to do things that he needs to do. I was gobsmacked. Maybe when they grow up with this stuff constantly in their faces, they have a better chance at learning how to deal with it in a healthy way.
Oh, I'm not, which is why I am indeed trying to explain why I'm telling them they can't do this or that.
I should also say that I'm not pursuing an "absolutely not, never ever" policy. I'm trying to walk them into the pool slowly; they've actually purchased a couple of Minecraft skin packs & mods, for instance. And then we've discussed whether it was worth it (sometimes yes, sometimes no), and whether they got their money's worth. (And this is happening in a way that's less klunky and parental than this sounds; one of the things I emphasize is how I have to do this myself for real in my own purchases, with examples, for instance, it's not all a talk-down and sound sanctimonious speech.)
After all, it's obviously also no solution to leave them entirely unexposed to this stuff and then they hit 18 (or whatever) and it's the first time they've seen any of these techniques deployed. That's got way too high a probability of going really poorly.
I'm also trying to use the very system against itself. I think the very abundance of all their options can help desensitize them from some of this stuff, via much the same (I have no word for this) cognitive effect that leads to the phenomenon where one just browses Netflix endlessly but never quite watches anything. They've got Netflix, a fairly decent video game collection that is already paid for, and more options than you can swing a cat at for $5, which is definitely not the position I was in as a kid. A $20 Fortnite skin is several great $5 games on sale, or several movie rentals, or all kinds of other things that if they sit and think about it for a moment are more appealing than 1/3rd a brand-new AAA game on a single skin... or at the very least, it really helps contextualize how big the ask is for them. Skins on Fortnite are absurdly expensive for what they are. (Which is also evidence just how much "social networking effects" are in those prices, IMHO.)
I should also say that I'm not pursuing an "absolutely not, never ever" policy. I'm trying to walk them into the pool slowly; they've actually purchased a couple of Minecraft skin packs & mods, for instance. And then we've discussed whether it was worth it (sometimes yes, sometimes no), and whether they got their money's worth. (And this is happening in a way that's less klunky and parental than this sounds; one of the things I emphasize is how I have to do this myself for real in my own purchases, with examples, for instance, it's not all a talk-down and sound sanctimonious speech.)
After all, it's obviously also no solution to leave them entirely unexposed to this stuff and then they hit 18 (or whatever) and it's the first time they've seen any of these techniques deployed. That's got way too high a probability of going really poorly.
I'm also trying to use the very system against itself. I think the very abundance of all their options can help desensitize them from some of this stuff, via much the same (I have no word for this) cognitive effect that leads to the phenomenon where one just browses Netflix endlessly but never quite watches anything. They've got Netflix, a fairly decent video game collection that is already paid for, and more options than you can swing a cat at for $5, which is definitely not the position I was in as a kid. A $20 Fortnite skin is several great $5 games on sale, or several movie rentals, or all kinds of other things that if they sit and think about it for a moment are more appealing than 1/3rd a brand-new AAA game on a single skin... or at the very least, it really helps contextualize how big the ask is for them. Skins on Fortnite are absurdly expensive for what they are. (Which is also evidence just how much "social networking effects" are in those prices, IMHO.)
Sounds like we need to produce kids that are more bully-resistant. This comment is likely to make some people upset, so let me elaborate: Being able to resist bullying in any format is an extremely useful life skill. I was lucky enough to be taught by the Marine Corps in how to resist it, and it's been instrumental in life, almost every day. People who are easily diverted through bully tactics are easily distracted from their life goals by anyone who is loud enough and mildly persuasive enough. Their opinions end up mirroring the loudest person in the room, quashing their self image and their creativity. This article is about video games, but as video games are, for many kids, a daily form of social interaction, it makes them a prime candidate for learning early on how to resist negative and cynical attitudes being thrown at them.
We had already decided no Fortnite in the house but this really is awful.
My impression is some of this is kids younger than "teenager" too, which is even worse.
Hilarious this game is so toxic when one of the UI designers was featured here on HN last week pontificating about ethics in games.
My impression is some of this is kids younger than "teenager" too, which is even worse.
Hilarious this game is so toxic when one of the UI designers was featured here on HN last week pontificating about ethics in games.
ex-designer I thought
Capitalizing on social insecurity has always been good business. Take a look at fashion. Why should video games be exempt? This is a problem we need to fix in our societies, not by demonizing companies who take advantage of bugs in our brains.
If my kids and their friends are anything to go by then Fortnite is no longer cool. They complain that, despite the seasons, the game is too samey and has got boring.
My kids did experience peer pressure to buy season passes a year or so ago.
My kids did experience peer pressure to buy season passes a year or so ago.
Somehow fortnight got away with having one map for this long
I mean Dota and LoL got away with the same thing. Hell, you can even point at chess as an example of how it's possible for a game to remain engaging despite staying the same.
I’ve played the game at a relatively decent level, and the general idea is “defaults” tend to be easier opponents. Of course, most people and specifically kids don’t want to be looked down upon, which leads to the phenomenon mentioned in the article.
Fortnite is special in that skins are very prominent from the so called “defaults”, thus someone with skins show that they have clearly invested in the game and therefore (on average) are better players. In other games like Apex Legends (another Battle Royals), the skins aren’t as obvious or are much subtler recolors and slight changes from the base model.
Fortnite is special in that skins are very prominent from the so called “defaults”, thus someone with skins show that they have clearly invested in the game and therefore (on average) are better players. In other games like Apex Legends (another Battle Royals), the skins aren’t as obvious or are much subtler recolors and slight changes from the base model.
Wow, I guess I still hadn't grasped how big fortnight was, not having much to do with children and all... I guess minecraft either attracted a younger audience or the lack of competition removed aspects of bullying?
All of Fortnite is crafted and tuned around in-game purchases. It's also a very centralized game. Minecraft online gaming is a very different experience and there are thousands of independent servers.
The in-game purchase (and indirect gambling) problem is very well known, but no one's done anything about it. It's just too tantalizing a prospect for publishers/game companies I guess.
I think TF2[0] might have been the first on the scene with hats in 2009, and other games followed suit once they saw the success... But many of the games I can think of (Counter Strike for one) were aimed at a somewhat older demographic.
[0]: https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Item_timeline
I think TF2[0] might have been the first on the scene with hats in 2009, and other games followed suit once they saw the success... But many of the games I can think of (Counter Strike for one) were aimed at a somewhat older demographic.
[0]: https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Item_timeline
There is no "in-game" gambling in Fortnite. You always know what you are spending your money on:
https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/26/fortnite-pve-eliminates-...
https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/26/fortnite-pve-eliminates-...
Yeah, as of early 2019[0]. I didn't even mean to imply that there was in-game gambling in Fortnite, but you noting it prompted me to look it up (I don't play/follow Fortnite at all, I dismissed the genre basically as a whole when I saw PUBG start to rise).
Gaming's funding model is SUPER broken. I don't know where or when it went so far off the rails, but at some point people shifted from making massive bets on passion projects to doing a little more marketing/advertising/manipulation to make projects more likely to succeed to full on profit-maximization with little regard for the effects. Ethics hasn't kept up, parenting handbooks haven't, and regulation never stood a chance of keeping up.
Whether it's some of us or all of us to blame, the problem is the same. I'm not hopeful enough to count on some sort of moralistic shift in how things are done across the whole human race or even at the country level but something should probably be done about this. For the same reason people generally agree we shouldn't allow children to do some things before a certain age (where they are likely to have developed enough both physically and mentally to process the ramifications and make a choice), we should probably be preventing manipulation of kids at this level. Look at how Juul swept through high schools (and their marketing campaigns, etc). Things are kind of fucked.
[0]: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/loot-unboxing
Gaming's funding model is SUPER broken. I don't know where or when it went so far off the rails, but at some point people shifted from making massive bets on passion projects to doing a little more marketing/advertising/manipulation to make projects more likely to succeed to full on profit-maximization with little regard for the effects. Ethics hasn't kept up, parenting handbooks haven't, and regulation never stood a chance of keeping up.
Whether it's some of us or all of us to blame, the problem is the same. I'm not hopeful enough to count on some sort of moralistic shift in how things are done across the whole human race or even at the country level but something should probably be done about this. For the same reason people generally agree we shouldn't allow children to do some things before a certain age (where they are likely to have developed enough both physically and mentally to process the ramifications and make a choice), we should probably be preventing manipulation of kids at this level. Look at how Juul swept through high schools (and their marketing campaigns, etc). Things are kind of fucked.
[0]: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/loot-unboxing
It's an expected endpoint of purely capitalism and unregulated based mass market entertainment product.
If Hollywood could have turned movies into pretty skinner-boxes they would have done that a decade ago
If Hollywood could have turned movies into pretty skinner-boxes they would have done that a decade ago
I was in a store the other day and was kind of shocked at the amount of Fortnite merchandise they had. Makes me glad I don't have kids that would beg me for it. And it makes me wish that there was that much merch for the games I liked when I was younger!
I'm trying to think if i would have wanted Final Fantasy 1 merch as a kid...
Faxanadu merch for sure..
Faxanadu merch for sure..
For Minecraft, it largely depends on the server and how it's moderated or lack thereof. Some servers have a higher degree of toxic behavior than others. It is called 'griefing' rather than 'bullying' though.
Those are subtly different things.
Griefing is purposefully doing things to ruin someone else's fun, such as blowing up their Minecraft house with explosives or killing them every time they enter a PvP area in WoW. Or quickly killing the enemy that someone needs to complete a quest, over and over before they can. It's not really personal. The "griefer" doesn't have a specific target in mind when they start their run. They just pick someone and do it.
Bullying is more personal. This is someone that has decided they're going to pick on a particular person for some reason. This might be someone they know, or it might be someone doing something they want to stop, like joining a team without knowing what they're doing. Bullying "defaults" is because they don't think the person will know what they're doing and they would rather a teammate that knows the game better. In other games, that might be by player rank/level, attack power, or other means instead of physical appearance.
These 2 things are kind of a hot button for me, obviously.
Griefing is purposefully doing things to ruin someone else's fun, such as blowing up their Minecraft house with explosives or killing them every time they enter a PvP area in WoW. Or quickly killing the enemy that someone needs to complete a quest, over and over before they can. It's not really personal. The "griefer" doesn't have a specific target in mind when they start their run. They just pick someone and do it.
Bullying is more personal. This is someone that has decided they're going to pick on a particular person for some reason. This might be someone they know, or it might be someone doing something they want to stop, like joining a team without knowing what they're doing. Bullying "defaults" is because they don't think the person will know what they're doing and they would rather a teammate that knows the game better. In other games, that might be by player rank/level, attack power, or other means instead of physical appearance.
These 2 things are kind of a hot button for me, obviously.
Hmm, that makes sense. Given that though I would say griefing is a sub-category of bullying then, or a tool used by the bullying party (inheritance vs. composition I guess).
Pretty much anything you could ever want in Minecraft you can get for free (perhaps with the assistance of mods). From what little time I've spent playing Fortnite, it seems much more narrowly-scoped and frankly, pretty boring. I'm not even sure why they're being compared here; they're very different games.
Fortnite is a lot more competitive I would assume, it's basically a FPS right?
That was my understanding. I think it tries to capture some of Minecraft's mechanics like freeform building but it's so distilled it's not really fair to compare them.
The building in Fortnite is not remotely comparable to that in Minecraft. You can build stuff, but it's mostly small fortifications quickly thrown together to hide behind.
[deleted]
I wonder how much of this is due to match making, squads, and the social aspect of the game.
In many other games, if you win a few rounds (or do well at all), you're quickly pitted against semi-professional players and lose horribly. Semi-professional and professional players simply do not care about their costumes or outfits, and often choose the skin that offers the most visual clarity or blends in the most. You specifically _do not_ want to standout in a -competitive- shooter game.
But, in Fortnight, because only 1 player wins, and because of the chaotic and random nature of the game, and because of the social aspect (playing with a group of friends), I wonder if most kids ever experience a user 10x or 20x or 200x their skill level. It's very likely most players never really improve their skill levels over time.
Watching professional StarCraft or Counter-Strike, graphics and details are turned down to the lowest setting, skins and such are not used, etc etc. If you were never aware of the "ladder of skill" in front of you, or your place on it, it seems more reasonable to focus on cosmetics.
What really interests me is that a few years ago games started actively removing "leaderboards" and "ranking positions" UI pieces - specifically to make new players and poorly skilled players feel more comfortable and happy. There is absolutely a balance here. Recently my 7 year old nephew said a game (RayMan) was boring because "we always win", and I had a great conversation with him about difficultly in life - things that are always easy and always fun are dangerous. Games with intense difficulty are rewarding and memorable - it's about the accomplishment, not the reward. This applies to video games, drugs, relationships, food, and just about everything else in life.
I absolutely am glad his mother doesn't allow FortNight, but allows me to play Chess, Rocket League, and StarCraft with him.
In many other games, if you win a few rounds (or do well at all), you're quickly pitted against semi-professional players and lose horribly. Semi-professional and professional players simply do not care about their costumes or outfits, and often choose the skin that offers the most visual clarity or blends in the most. You specifically _do not_ want to standout in a -competitive- shooter game.
But, in Fortnight, because only 1 player wins, and because of the chaotic and random nature of the game, and because of the social aspect (playing with a group of friends), I wonder if most kids ever experience a user 10x or 20x or 200x their skill level. It's very likely most players never really improve their skill levels over time.
Watching professional StarCraft or Counter-Strike, graphics and details are turned down to the lowest setting, skins and such are not used, etc etc. If you were never aware of the "ladder of skill" in front of you, or your place on it, it seems more reasonable to focus on cosmetics.
What really interests me is that a few years ago games started actively removing "leaderboards" and "ranking positions" UI pieces - specifically to make new players and poorly skilled players feel more comfortable and happy. There is absolutely a balance here. Recently my 7 year old nephew said a game (RayMan) was boring because "we always win", and I had a great conversation with him about difficultly in life - things that are always easy and always fun are dangerous. Games with intense difficulty are rewarding and memorable - it's about the accomplishment, not the reward. This applies to video games, drugs, relationships, food, and just about everything else in life.
I absolutely am glad his mother doesn't allow FortNight, but allows me to play Chess, Rocket League, and StarCraft with him.
Relationships with intense difficulty are rewarding and memorable?
There is a reason we have expressions like "Good Time Charlie."
Relationships based solely on shallow, easy and fun experiences tend to be weak relationships that aren't likely to withstand the inevitable storms of life.
On the one hand, you don't want the person to be the primary source of trouble in your life. On the other hand, if there isn't some kind of inherent friction, the odds are good that everything will fall apart at the first strong wind, so to speak.
Strong relationships tend to be relationships where the personal bond is sufficient to withstand some stress. This is very often due in part to inherent friction within the relationship.
People who need to work at it and actually do tend to have stronger relationships than those with so-called chemistry. Relationships that "start with a bang" often soon end with one.
Relationships based solely on shallow, easy and fun experiences tend to be weak relationships that aren't likely to withstand the inevitable storms of life.
On the one hand, you don't want the person to be the primary source of trouble in your life. On the other hand, if there isn't some kind of inherent friction, the odds are good that everything will fall apart at the first strong wind, so to speak.
Strong relationships tend to be relationships where the personal bond is sufficient to withstand some stress. This is very often due in part to inherent friction within the relationship.
People who need to work at it and actually do tend to have stronger relationships than those with so-called chemistry. Relationships that "start with a bang" often soon end with one.
Well, maybe not "Relationships with intense difficulty", but it's a very common and very naive assumption that the perfect person for you will "just work" and there will be no fights and no difficulty. Loving someone is a lot of hard work - and it's extremely rewarding. Teenage relationships where everything "just works" and everyone is in bliss tend to end with a lot of tears.
Anyways, yes, it's not a set-in-stone rule - but typically, anything that's extremely easy also has a disappointing side. The best stuff in life takes work.
Anyways, yes, it's not a set-in-stone rule - but typically, anything that's extremely easy also has a disappointing side. The best stuff in life takes work.
I hadn't heard the term "default" like this before, but I love it -- as a compliment. I'd adopt the term "default" regarding cosmetics in pride. Fuck buying worthless shit.
I think in this particular situation the problem is more with child education than the problem with the game itself.
Fortnite is the new GTA.
True to some degree, at least for GTA you can clearly place the blame on the parent for not scrutinizing the recommended rating for the game they let there kid play.
Fortnite lets you pay some real money for a cosmetic upgrade to your character. That's it. There's not even random loot boxes or anything that actually affects your chance to win. Video games have done this for ages.
The only difference is that Fortnite is currently very very popular with quite a young demographic, and that demographic also consists of emotionally immature kids who bully each other over everything. This bullying is going on regardless, Fortnite being so popular just makes bullying about it more visible/obvious.