I hate what video games have become(ivanca.tumblr.com)
ivanca.tumblr.com
I hate what video games have become
https://ivanca.tumblr.com/post/679923341152468992/i-hate-what-video-games-have-become
689 comments
Yeah, cosmetic items are the least bad solution to this problem since they provide zero advantage to players. They're there for people who want to look cool online which is fine.
Paying for items that impact the game balance turns them into spending competitions: whoever pays the company the most money wins. Games designed like this are not even worth playing. I fell for one of these money sinks once, never again.
Paying for items that impact the game balance turns them into spending competitions: whoever pays the company the most money wins. Games designed like this are not even worth playing. I fell for one of these money sinks once, never again.
Plus having cosmetic items essentially subsidizes the game for everyone, aka its free because money can be made off those that want to spend on cosmetics.
The whole 'preying on the vulnerable' thing kind of puts me off. But I want to respond to this:
> The items that you buy have absolutely no impact on gameplay and are just visuals
Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game. Cosmetic items are interactive. They are unlockable, collectable, wearable items.
Further, visuals do impact the gameplay. You could argue about the difference between "gameplay" and "visuals" but each supports/influences the other and both are critical elements of almost every videogame. However you divide up the parts of a game, they all affect each other. Generally speaking, having all of the elements working together makes for a better game.
Monetisation strategies like microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. are also part of the game. However, the goal of such parts is not aligned with that of the others. The game is compromised by the introduction of the monetisation strategies.
> why are you surprised that some people want to look cool in a video game?
Nobody is surprised by this.
> The items that you buy have absolutely no impact on gameplay and are just visuals
Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game. Cosmetic items are interactive. They are unlockable, collectable, wearable items.
Further, visuals do impact the gameplay. You could argue about the difference between "gameplay" and "visuals" but each supports/influences the other and both are critical elements of almost every videogame. However you divide up the parts of a game, they all affect each other. Generally speaking, having all of the elements working together makes for a better game.
Monetisation strategies like microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. are also part of the game. However, the goal of such parts is not aligned with that of the others. The game is compromised by the introduction of the monetisation strategies.
> why are you surprised that some people want to look cool in a video game?
Nobody is surprised by this.
> Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game.
Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay. Visuals are a huge part of what makes a game, no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.
Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay. Visuals are a huge part of what makes a game, no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.
> no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.
Not a meaningful comparison. A game without textures would be hardly playable at all. The same can't be said for skins or accessories to your character/vehicle. You don't get eye-cancer with the default skin. If you feel you need that virtual Louis Vuitton bag to fully enjoy the game then well be a sucker and pay for it and pretend the game was just a little more expensive. I've yet to encounter a game where I feel like I'm missing out on anything with the default player model/skin/car.
Not a meaningful comparison. A game without textures would be hardly playable at all. The same can't be said for skins or accessories to your character/vehicle. You don't get eye-cancer with the default skin. If you feel you need that virtual Louis Vuitton bag to fully enjoy the game then well be a sucker and pay for it and pretend the game was just a little more expensive. I've yet to encounter a game where I feel like I'm missing out on anything with the default player model/skin/car.
That's fine for you. A lot of these games are social experiences. Kids do get called names and bullied for having a default skin. Peer pressure drives a lot of the purchasing of cosmetics. That's why you'll rarely find paid cosmetics in games that don't also feature social aspects.
Yes but that's the point. That's all external and cannot be blamed on the game, or taken to mean the game is incomplete without. Extending on that, there should then also be a ban on fashion and luxury items in any shape or form IRL, as they do the same things to kids (and adults). And a ban on violence in videogames, as I'm sure there's someone out there who's been pushed over the edge by it and committed a crime they otherwise wouldn't have.
So where do we stop? This is just one more way, in addition to the thousands we already have, in which peer pressure and status symbols manifest.
So where do we stop? This is just one more way, in addition to the thousands we already have, in which peer pressure and status symbols manifest.
Kids will bully each other for any difference under the Sun & adults will bully each other for them, too. We never truly grow up.
how do you feel about schools imposing uniforms on students?
The Rocket Pass is a pretty sweet deal if you play a fair amount. I think it's 10 bucks and you can earn enough credits to get the next season's Rocket Pass.
I don't really muss with my car too much anymore, instead I just click "Equip Now" every time I can and slowly modify it over time.
I don't really muss with my car too much anymore, instead I just click "Equip Now" every time I can and slowly modify it over time.
> A game without textures would be hardly playable at all.
It'd be fine. No textures doesn't mean everything is gray.
It'd be fine. No textures doesn't mean everything is gray.
> Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay.
I don't disagree that they do add something, but theses ones are not something that I want, nor that I need.
> if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.
I do have to pay for the textures and shaders... I did pay for them as a matter of fact. I didn't pay for the one not included, as I didn't want them. Some did want them, and did pay for them individually. Just like I didn't pay for Elden Ring but plenty did...
Now, when you bought that game, if you were expecting a specific amount of content, and you didn't get that content without paying more, I agree completely, that would be false advertising and that would be definitely wrong.
False advertising is definitely an issue in video games, there's so much overpromising and under-delivering but IAP isn't the issue there (though it definitely can be the reason for your false advertising). Until that part is handled correctly, the market did alleviate most of the false advertising by having an abundant amount of reviews and to me that's a not so bad way to deal with this.
I don't disagree that they do add something, but theses ones are not something that I want, nor that I need.
> if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.
I do have to pay for the textures and shaders... I did pay for them as a matter of fact. I didn't pay for the one not included, as I didn't want them. Some did want them, and did pay for them individually. Just like I didn't pay for Elden Ring but plenty did...
Now, when you bought that game, if you were expecting a specific amount of content, and you didn't get that content without paying more, I agree completely, that would be false advertising and that would be definitely wrong.
False advertising is definitely an issue in video games, there's so much overpromising and under-delivering but IAP isn't the issue there (though it definitely can be the reason for your false advertising). Until that part is handled correctly, the market did alleviate most of the false advertising by having an abundant amount of reviews and to me that's a not so bad way to deal with this.
And just another example. Path of Exile is a game known for its visual clutter when you reach the end game. You have so many mobs and skills flying around it is very difficult to tell what is going on. You can buy cosmetics to make different skill gems appear different when they are cast, including mobs. Often, these alternative skill cosmetics create a greater visual clarity than their default. My point is that if there is a skill that can one-shot kill my character i'd like to see it as clear as day when it is coming. Paying money in Path of Exile gets me that.
The hitboxes are the same, so to any seasoned player the visuals really don't matter gameplay wise, as long as the model isn't too out of scale with it's hitbox.
Unless there have been changes in the game, different cars have different hitboxes so technically in this circumstance you might be wrong. Not that there any absolutely amazing car for hitboxes, but there are differences and they affect gameplay.
I assume you're still talking about Rocket League? All models in that game fall under 1 of 6 hitbox types [1], each of which are attainable without purchase
[1] https://support.rocketleague.com/hc/en-us/articles/360029832...
[1] https://support.rocketleague.com/hc/en-us/articles/360029832...
Gotcha. I didnt know they had a cap on the number of models.
Nope, there's just a few different hit box models, the visual model just gets assigned to one of the existing different hit boxes.
> if games shipped without textures and shaders
Back in the days we used mods and texture packs to remove (hardware) expensive textures from the game so we get more FPS. I'm not sure if your argument applies to all games. For many games there is a competitive scene that usually don't give a shit about visuals and would trade most visual features for more frames per second.
Back in the days we used mods and texture packs to remove (hardware) expensive textures from the game so we get more FPS. I'm not sure if your argument applies to all games. For many games there is a competitive scene that usually don't give a shit about visuals and would trade most visual features for more frames per second.
So how many games provide an option to hide cosmetics that other players are using?
Iam not a real gamer anymore but in World Of warships there are serveral crossover skins (like from animes) that some people love and use and others hate them and are able to turn them off completely.
https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/sales-and-events/arpeggi...
https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/sales-and-events/arpeggi...
A better phrasing is whether they offer a competitive advantage.
The reality is that they kinda do, people with expensive cosmetics are viewed as being better players by their teammates and opponents. The significance of this can be hard to measure, but in most games it's bigger than a small stat boost that would be immediately seen as p2w
So the less skilled players with expensive cosmetics get their abilities over-estimated while the skilled players in the base skins get their abilities under-estimated. That sounds like a win for the skilled players in the base skins to me. Better to be under-estimated than over-estimated.
Not when your teammates refuse to take you seriously, drop you weapons, or back you up in a fight.
While I get the impression that many of those visual bling payables available today seem to give more of a disadvantage than an advantage, back in the days of 1.6 CS I caught myself in real life considering the contrast between what I wore and the environment I was passing through. Not because I was expecting to get shot at (I certainly wasn't), but because at the time it was so much of a routine consideration for me. Yes, visuals can be a competitive factor.
Underlining this comment — Ubisoft games, such as Division or Breakpoint, allow purchase of national camo designs.
If these had no “gameplay” effect or “competitive advantage” based on environment, why do nation states spend money developing them and equip troops differently based on biome?
And why have some games had to patch their PvP to “outline” opposing players with a visibility border in the patches that follow certain “cosmetics”?
A more subtle advantage can arise from hitboxes in both hitscan and projectile games with customizers or cosmetics that change the mesh. There’s a reason some games are predominantly female characters in close fit gear.
Finally, even games that insist no gameplay or competitive advantage, are fully aware of “the meta”.
In Fallout 76, for example, PvP players learned to hotkey the “Nuka-Cola” drinks with special benefits. In a for money store, Bethesda allows you to purchase a robot junk collector that gathers Nuka-Colas for free. Rationale is it is just a QoL (quality of life) benefit, but in reality, it allows stockpiling a combat advantage to last longer in combat than the opponent. Same store also allows you to purchase “repair kits” for weapons and “bubble gum” that suppresses the survival mechanism around eating/drinking for an hour of game play.
Again, Bethesda’s claim is QoL not pay-to-win, but weapons repairable mid-battle away from one’s base certainly affects winning, and level of hunger/thirst affects damage multipliers and action point refresh (aka ‘mana’).
Lines keep moving.
If these had no “gameplay” effect or “competitive advantage” based on environment, why do nation states spend money developing them and equip troops differently based on biome?
And why have some games had to patch their PvP to “outline” opposing players with a visibility border in the patches that follow certain “cosmetics”?
A more subtle advantage can arise from hitboxes in both hitscan and projectile games with customizers or cosmetics that change the mesh. There’s a reason some games are predominantly female characters in close fit gear.
Finally, even games that insist no gameplay or competitive advantage, are fully aware of “the meta”.
In Fallout 76, for example, PvP players learned to hotkey the “Nuka-Cola” drinks with special benefits. In a for money store, Bethesda allows you to purchase a robot junk collector that gathers Nuka-Colas for free. Rationale is it is just a QoL (quality of life) benefit, but in reality, it allows stockpiling a combat advantage to last longer in combat than the opponent. Same store also allows you to purchase “repair kits” for weapons and “bubble gum” that suppresses the survival mechanism around eating/drinking for an hour of game play.
Again, Bethesda’s claim is QoL not pay-to-win, but weapons repairable mid-battle away from one’s base certainly affects winning, and level of hunger/thirst affects damage multipliers and action point refresh (aka ‘mana’).
Lines keep moving.
Look good, feel good, play good?
It seems to me that it definitely has a psychological impact for some folks (myself included) in both off-line and on-line competition.
It seems to me that it definitely has a psychological impact for some folks (myself included) in both off-line and on-line competition.
Look “good”? Come on. If not having the Pickle Rick decal for your car makes you play worse it has nothing to do with looking “good”. Perhaps look “like I own this exclusive cosmetic”, which applies to offline as well, don’t you think?
The real problem is that loot boxes are gambling, and are addictive, period. It triggers something in otherwise rational people, especially children, that makes it feel good to spend money on mostly non-gameplay-altering cosmetics.
The real problem is that loot boxes are gambling, and are addictive, period. It triggers something in otherwise rational people, especially children, that makes it feel good to spend money on mostly non-gameplay-altering cosmetics.
At some level it probably does. Even in Rocket League, which is more cosmetic than most, if your teammates are passing to you more than they would have with the default skin, then you'll do better.
As a medic in team fortress 2, I usually pocket and ubercharge the players with cosmetics. It's an important team resource, and the odds of someone with a "default" skin making good use of it are fairly low. Much like plumage for a bird it's a reliable signal of "virility" - if you're invested enough in the game to own a $200 hat and a coordinated outfit then you've probably played it long enough for me to trust you sight-unseen.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f278/katietiedrich/comic26...
If you're a pro player with the default skin, you're gonna have a bad fucking time, because you're last priority for heals, you're not getting an ubercharge, etc. That is gameplay-affecting even if the cosmetic itself is not.
As a medic in team fortress 2, I usually pocket and ubercharge the players with cosmetics. It's an important team resource, and the odds of someone with a "default" skin making good use of it are fairly low. Much like plumage for a bird it's a reliable signal of "virility" - if you're invested enough in the game to own a $200 hat and a coordinated outfit then you've probably played it long enough for me to trust you sight-unseen.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f278/katietiedrich/comic26...
If you're a pro player with the default skin, you're gonna have a bad fucking time, because you're last priority for heals, you're not getting an ubercharge, etc. That is gameplay-affecting even if the cosmetic itself is not.
This is the first really good example I've seen of cosmetics having a gameplay effect. I hate that it's true, but I really appreciate you mentioning it -- signalling of skill is super valuable, and if cosmetics are a reliable enough signal, that's interesting.
If you make all skins and cosmetics available to everyone then you're back to square 1 and people will use some other heuristic to decide who they should pass to. I think this is actually an argument for paid cosmetics, it would improve gameplay for the people who spend the most time playing the game by allowing them to identify other people who also dedicate a lot of time and money to the game.
Oh I totally agree that the system right now is majorly screwed up. Loot boxes are absolutely gambling (why else would the odds be legally required to be disclosed in some jurisdictions?)
And of course it's a vanity component (at least for me, though other posters have raised other factors). Everyone's different with different preferences and as long as there's not a problematic spending aspect I think it's fine...but this links back to the gambling issue. Personally I only buy cosmetics in a few games I play a lot and that don't use loot box mechanics.
And of course it's a vanity component (at least for me, though other posters have raised other factors). Everyone's different with different preferences and as long as there's not a problematic spending aspect I think it's fine...but this links back to the gambling issue. Personally I only buy cosmetics in a few games I play a lot and that don't use loot box mechanics.
Why? Why is competitive advantage the only thing that matters?
OP is just ranting about people who pay more getting a better experience, making paying such a central part of gaming. They just hate this, which I agree with, although I know others don't.
In a way, getting a better experience just for being able and willing to pay more is a basic feature of our society. Why should we expect videogames, being as expensive and lucrative, to be radically different from the rest of society?
I'll just continue appreciating those games who are, those who actually work more like art. If I ever decide to try a F2P loot-box generator-style game, it generally puts me off quickly.
OP is just ranting about people who pay more getting a better experience, making paying such a central part of gaming. They just hate this, which I agree with, although I know others don't.
In a way, getting a better experience just for being able and willing to pay more is a basic feature of our society. Why should we expect videogames, being as expensive and lucrative, to be radically different from the rest of society?
I'll just continue appreciating those games who are, those who actually work more like art. If I ever decide to try a F2P loot-box generator-style game, it generally puts me off quickly.
> Why? Why is competitive advantage the only thing that matters?
Because it determines whether free players can still compete with paying customers.
There's no problem with a paid weapon skin that just looks cool since everyone is still on a level playing field. If that paid skin gives the user double damage then you've created 2 classes of players and one of them is superior. In such cases, the only reason free players even exist is to serve as fodder for your paying customers. They're there to get wrecked.
Because it determines whether free players can still compete with paying customers.
There's no problem with a paid weapon skin that just looks cool since everyone is still on a level playing field. If that paid skin gives the user double damage then you've created 2 classes of players and one of them is superior. In such cases, the only reason free players even exist is to serve as fodder for your paying customers. They're there to get wrecked.
> Why? Why is competitive advantage the only thing that matters?
Because unlike the real world, we expect games to be inherently fair and meritocratic. In a competitive game, we expect that no matter how somebody looks or what they may say, the only thing that matters is their ability to perform. This is comparable to why people get upset about, say, the speed-enhancing swimwear for the Olympic games but don't have any problem with that swimwear existing.
One of the central functions of games is to level the playing field, or at least to reduce the dimensionality to such a degree that it is possible to be focused on all influencing factors in a game within the confines of that game. A closed-system, when we're usually all stuck playing in an open-system. Since all real-world closed-systems actually exist within an open-system, of course there could be external influences, but gamers generally have an expectation that attempts will be made to make a game as self-contained and closed as is possible. Pay-to-win games break this contract to make those unwilling to pay into unwitting tools for the enjoyment of the paying customer. They are open-systems under the guise of being closed-systems.
Granted, the category referred to as "Games" now includes many different things, including "Experiences" that aren't really games at all. And there are so many games today that it's pretty easy to find games that are actually games at their core. But there's also plenty of games that are marketed as games but turn out to be significantly about art / fashion to such a degree that they can no longer really be classified as games.
I've got call out Roblox for playing the meta-game here in a way that all gamers frustrated by pay-to-win will appreciate. It takes the idea of a closed system being broken into an open system, and makes that (making F2P games) into a closed system that breaks into an open system: you get to pay-to-win at creating pay-to-win games. A beautiful pyramid scheme that even your 11-yo child can enjoy being exploited within!
Because unlike the real world, we expect games to be inherently fair and meritocratic. In a competitive game, we expect that no matter how somebody looks or what they may say, the only thing that matters is their ability to perform. This is comparable to why people get upset about, say, the speed-enhancing swimwear for the Olympic games but don't have any problem with that swimwear existing.
One of the central functions of games is to level the playing field, or at least to reduce the dimensionality to such a degree that it is possible to be focused on all influencing factors in a game within the confines of that game. A closed-system, when we're usually all stuck playing in an open-system. Since all real-world closed-systems actually exist within an open-system, of course there could be external influences, but gamers generally have an expectation that attempts will be made to make a game as self-contained and closed as is possible. Pay-to-win games break this contract to make those unwilling to pay into unwitting tools for the enjoyment of the paying customer. They are open-systems under the guise of being closed-systems.
Granted, the category referred to as "Games" now includes many different things, including "Experiences" that aren't really games at all. And there are so many games today that it's pretty easy to find games that are actually games at their core. But there's also plenty of games that are marketed as games but turn out to be significantly about art / fashion to such a degree that they can no longer really be classified as games.
I've got call out Roblox for playing the meta-game here in a way that all gamers frustrated by pay-to-win will appreciate. It takes the idea of a closed system being broken into an open system, and makes that (making F2P games) into a closed system that breaks into an open system: you get to pay-to-win at creating pay-to-win games. A beautiful pyramid scheme that even your 11-yo child can enjoy being exploited within!
IMHO when a game centres around competitive play, and said game also allows you to buy competitive advantage for real money, that is a problem. A situation like this is called "pay to win" and is tempting enough for some game companies to ruin their game with.
I think they do, but only if they add to camouflage
I think people usually mean there is no competitive advantage with cosmetics.
I see it just as price discrimination and I'm fine with it. I can choose to play with "worse" visuals for a lower price. If I want "better" visuals I can pay for that as well. I'm just happy that I have the chance to play for a low cost (sometimes free). I let others who care more about that stuff fund the cost of development. I'm essentially a free-rider.
That of course assumes that the game isn't sold to me with these "better" visuals as included.
That of course assumes that the game isn't sold to me with these "better" visuals as included.
You're strawmanning, they don't ship Rocket League with all the graphics turned off and force you to pay for them. They sell silly hats and skins in addition to the already great graphics that they provide with the base model.
>people would have to pay to unlock them
see: Halo Infinite
Want to be black? that will be $10 please
see: Halo Infinite
Want to be black? that will be $10 please
>Monetisation strategies like microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. are also part of the game. However, the goal of such parts is not aligned with that of the others. The game is compromised by the introduction of the monetisation strategies.
This is an interesting point. I think it begs the question, what _is_ the goal of a game? 10 years ago I would have said that broadly, the goal of a video game is to create an experience the player will enjoy. Perhaps now it's more simple though, maybe the goal of the vast majority of games today is to create a model in which money is willingly transferred from the player to the publisher.
This is an interesting point. I think it begs the question, what _is_ the goal of a game? 10 years ago I would have said that broadly, the goal of a video game is to create an experience the player will enjoy. Perhaps now it's more simple though, maybe the goal of the vast majority of games today is to create a model in which money is willingly transferred from the player to the publisher.
That has always been true - not just from the days of Pong, but from the days of Pinball and Pachinko. It's not quite true these games are the equivalent of a bar scam - it's possible to genuinely enjoy a game for its own sake - but addictive rewards and behavioural reinforcements have been around a lot longer than computing has.
The reality is that commercial experience games - where the goal is trigger the imagination and guide the player to a rich experience - are much rarer than commercial extraction games, where the goal is to create addictive engagement and spending patterns which can be monetised.
This isn't nearly as true for tangible commercial board games, especially those that promote strategic and imaginative thinking. You can get started in chess with a chess board and a rule book. You do not have to keep spending money on nicer-looking pieces, and your board will not be monetised with pop-up ads. (Chess sites may be, but chess kept developing for hundreds of years without them.)
D&D and more obscure games like Carcassone are similar. You can spend extra on expansion packs, but even if you buy everything the expansion space is small and bounded. The physical costs of board game dev and distribution keep that true.
Electronic games have a virtually infinite potential expansion space, so the economics are drastically different. The temptation to turn every last thing into a monetisation engine is hard to avoid - to the extent that monetisation design has become a meta-game in its own right.
The reality is that commercial experience games - where the goal is trigger the imagination and guide the player to a rich experience - are much rarer than commercial extraction games, where the goal is to create addictive engagement and spending patterns which can be monetised.
This isn't nearly as true for tangible commercial board games, especially those that promote strategic and imaginative thinking. You can get started in chess with a chess board and a rule book. You do not have to keep spending money on nicer-looking pieces, and your board will not be monetised with pop-up ads. (Chess sites may be, but chess kept developing for hundreds of years without them.)
D&D and more obscure games like Carcassone are similar. You can spend extra on expansion packs, but even if you buy everything the expansion space is small and bounded. The physical costs of board game dev and distribution keep that true.
Electronic games have a virtually infinite potential expansion space, so the economics are drastically different. The temptation to turn every last thing into a monetisation engine is hard to avoid - to the extent that monetisation design has become a meta-game in its own right.
> Further, visuals do impact the gameplay.
Not only that, sometimes they can affect the basic mechanics too. For example, some guns in Destiny 2 the range is measured from the end of the weapon model, and some skins extend the model out so the gun is further from the player. This in a one v. one scenario can give you a slight edge on one shot kill distance if you have the skin, so you can shoot earlier than an opponent without it.
Not only that, sometimes they can affect the basic mechanics too. For example, some guns in Destiny 2 the range is measured from the end of the weapon model, and some skins extend the model out so the gun is further from the player. This in a one v. one scenario can give you a slight edge on one shot kill distance if you have the skin, so you can shoot earlier than an opponent without it.
you and everyone else concerned about the preying on vulnerable thing should be aware that we have literally no evidence that such a thing is happening. the absolute worst thing we know off in practice are extreme edge cases (i.e. not applying to 99% of people even within the whale demographic) of above average earners spending their money on waifu shit instead of buying themselves a car they don't need.
the more regularly occuring thing is probably that parent's don't properly set up their kids phones and then they buy a few hundred or worse thousands bucks of something they shouldn't. but again those occurances are rare and don't cause really cause any actual damage, especially since you can get refunds for this stuff if it gets expensive very easily. kids regularly do stuff a lot more expensive than that. in fact kids themselves are a lot more expensive than that as a baseline.
the supposed exploitation of things like loot boxes has literally zero evidence behind it. all you will find are a few genuinely bottom of the barrel studies (as in that australian government study from some years ago, should literally be taken as an example in a book of how not to run a study).
and the constant comparison to gambling is really tiresome, because it's obviously not the same. people play themselves out of all their belongigs regularly with actual gambling, because their goal is to make a profit with gambling and their last gamble will surely turn it around. such a thing isn't possible even in the few online gaming markets remaining where you can resell your items for real money because its a big hazzle to liquidize all your assets.
the more regularly occuring thing is probably that parent's don't properly set up their kids phones and then they buy a few hundred or worse thousands bucks of something they shouldn't. but again those occurances are rare and don't cause really cause any actual damage, especially since you can get refunds for this stuff if it gets expensive very easily. kids regularly do stuff a lot more expensive than that. in fact kids themselves are a lot more expensive than that as a baseline.
the supposed exploitation of things like loot boxes has literally zero evidence behind it. all you will find are a few genuinely bottom of the barrel studies (as in that australian government study from some years ago, should literally be taken as an example in a book of how not to run a study).
and the constant comparison to gambling is really tiresome, because it's obviously not the same. people play themselves out of all their belongigs regularly with actual gambling, because their goal is to make a profit with gambling and their last gamble will surely turn it around. such a thing isn't possible even in the few online gaming markets remaining where you can resell your items for real money because its a big hazzle to liquidize all your assets.
People often contrast loot boxes with Magic the Gathering: "At least you can resell your cards", but this makes it more like gambling, not less! CS:Go has far greater potential for economic harm & fraud--due to resale--than the much hated Star Wars loot boxes.
> Monetisation strategies like microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. are also part of the game. However, the goal of such parts is not aligned with that of the others. The game is compromised by the introduction of the monetisation strategies.
Yup, I think this gets lost in the "visual-only cosmetics are fine/gameplay-affecting is bad" position. The problem is that in most cases, even if the cosmetic is purely visual, games are now being designed around "how do we incorporate cosmetics" which is constraining the types of experiences that are being made and the mechanics they allow.
Battlefield 2042 is an example of a game that completely upended its traditional mechanics to pull in the concept of "operators" (like R6: Siege) because they knew they could make more money selling operators. And at some level that's gameplay affecting, maybe not the ideal picture of what happens when MTX gets involved, but that's always the temptation - "we'll make it gameplay-affecting, but it'll be fair". Once you bring money into the picture you are reliant on developers to take the high road - not just today, but for as long as the game is active/you're interested.
Its predecessor, BFV, was skin-based and it was still controversial not just that you had random Fortnite-style nazi characters running around the Pacific Theater or Japanese Rambo Lady running around Norway, but because they started to introduce tons of animations so that players could at least see the skins they paid $20 a pop for - and that is a basic game-design thing that affects everyone regardless of whether you yourself pay up or not.
At a more basic level, the single-player RPG is essentially dead because it's the most difficult to introduce MTX mechanics into those genre of games. And sure you can point to Elden Ring but even then they are using "cooperative" or "inter-session" mechanics that fundamentally exist as a way to get an "always-online" server system into the picture as a platform for MTX. You've got forced Denuvo on everything. Etc etc.
And again, even when it's done right, there is still an incentive to make the "free" mechanisms grindy so that players feel the urge to pay IRL money. LOTR: Shadow of War was an example of that where the game could technically be finished without MTX, but at a certain point the game ramped the difficulty so hard that it was virtually impossible, certainly impossible without suddenly turning the game into a second job. Many games similarly force hundreds of hours of grinding or... you can just pay and go play with your friends! You can get bait-and-switched once you are into the game and emotionally attached - and that can even occur after release/after reviews have been written, or even just so far into the game that most reviewers don't reach it in their 5 hours of gameplay on their pre-release copy.
Those MTX mechanism are still shaping gameplay mechanics even if they are "purely cosmetic" - and in many cases they are not, they are definitely gameplay-affecting by design (in major AAA/e-sports titles even, this isn't just random mobile crapware, R6:Siege is one of the most popular e-sports titles, LOTR is a mega-IP, etc). Games being designed around "how do we pump the player for cash most efficiently and with the least ability for them to hack around us" is itself a problem either way though, that's a corrosive mindset for game design as a whole that is enabled and encouraged by allowing MTX at all. Either you keep that camel out nose and all, or as soon as that nose is under the tent it's always going to be an insidious urge, and in many cases an explicit mandate from publishers to the studio.
Also, yes, in anything where you interact with another player, your interactions are shaped by the other player's responses to you, which is determined by your cosmetics. I posted this deeper in the thread but to bring it back here:
> As a medic in team fortress 2, I usually pocket and ubercharge the players with cosmetics. It's an important team resource, and the odds of someone with a "default" skin making good use of it are fairly low. Much like plumage for a bird it's a reliable signal of "virility" - if you're invested enough in the game to own a $200 hat and a coordinated outfit then you've probably played it long enough for me to trust you sight-unseen.
> http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f278/katietiedrich/comic26...
> If you're a pro player with the default skin, you're gonna have a bad fucking time, because you're last priority for heals, you're not getting an ubercharge, etc. That is gameplay-affecting even if the cosmetic itself is not.
Paper that might be enlightening for those who haven't partaken: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:901463/FULLTEXT0...
(I should add that as medic, I had a golden medigun for a while too, and that was an extremely bad time for me, because every single roamer was absolutely gunning for the medic with the $100 item. Sometimes it pays to have some restraint in your plumage when you happen to be a particularly delicious and defenseless target...)
I have such mixed feelings about TF2, because it was such a fantastic game, but it pioneered all these exploitative MTX mechanisms. The game itself was actually one of the better examples of how to do MTX properly (cosmetic only, tradeable by players, etc) but it immediately showed there was a lot more money in MTX than in making games, and opened the door to other actors to exploit much more heavily (compare the Overwatch model and its non-tradeability/gacha mechanics, R6:S with its gameplay-affecting operators, etc). It's also disgusting the way they've just continued to let the game rot without even basic bugfixes, it's been completely overwhelmed by hackers for 4 or 5 years now because they just won't patch their shit. Nor will they let the community patch their shit, like Team Comtress 2...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnBDMZ-9-Dw
Yup, I think this gets lost in the "visual-only cosmetics are fine/gameplay-affecting is bad" position. The problem is that in most cases, even if the cosmetic is purely visual, games are now being designed around "how do we incorporate cosmetics" which is constraining the types of experiences that are being made and the mechanics they allow.
Battlefield 2042 is an example of a game that completely upended its traditional mechanics to pull in the concept of "operators" (like R6: Siege) because they knew they could make more money selling operators. And at some level that's gameplay affecting, maybe not the ideal picture of what happens when MTX gets involved, but that's always the temptation - "we'll make it gameplay-affecting, but it'll be fair". Once you bring money into the picture you are reliant on developers to take the high road - not just today, but for as long as the game is active/you're interested.
Its predecessor, BFV, was skin-based and it was still controversial not just that you had random Fortnite-style nazi characters running around the Pacific Theater or Japanese Rambo Lady running around Norway, but because they started to introduce tons of animations so that players could at least see the skins they paid $20 a pop for - and that is a basic game-design thing that affects everyone regardless of whether you yourself pay up or not.
At a more basic level, the single-player RPG is essentially dead because it's the most difficult to introduce MTX mechanics into those genre of games. And sure you can point to Elden Ring but even then they are using "cooperative" or "inter-session" mechanics that fundamentally exist as a way to get an "always-online" server system into the picture as a platform for MTX. You've got forced Denuvo on everything. Etc etc.
And again, even when it's done right, there is still an incentive to make the "free" mechanisms grindy so that players feel the urge to pay IRL money. LOTR: Shadow of War was an example of that where the game could technically be finished without MTX, but at a certain point the game ramped the difficulty so hard that it was virtually impossible, certainly impossible without suddenly turning the game into a second job. Many games similarly force hundreds of hours of grinding or... you can just pay and go play with your friends! You can get bait-and-switched once you are into the game and emotionally attached - and that can even occur after release/after reviews have been written, or even just so far into the game that most reviewers don't reach it in their 5 hours of gameplay on their pre-release copy.
Those MTX mechanism are still shaping gameplay mechanics even if they are "purely cosmetic" - and in many cases they are not, they are definitely gameplay-affecting by design (in major AAA/e-sports titles even, this isn't just random mobile crapware, R6:Siege is one of the most popular e-sports titles, LOTR is a mega-IP, etc). Games being designed around "how do we pump the player for cash most efficiently and with the least ability for them to hack around us" is itself a problem either way though, that's a corrosive mindset for game design as a whole that is enabled and encouraged by allowing MTX at all. Either you keep that camel out nose and all, or as soon as that nose is under the tent it's always going to be an insidious urge, and in many cases an explicit mandate from publishers to the studio.
Also, yes, in anything where you interact with another player, your interactions are shaped by the other player's responses to you, which is determined by your cosmetics. I posted this deeper in the thread but to bring it back here:
> As a medic in team fortress 2, I usually pocket and ubercharge the players with cosmetics. It's an important team resource, and the odds of someone with a "default" skin making good use of it are fairly low. Much like plumage for a bird it's a reliable signal of "virility" - if you're invested enough in the game to own a $200 hat and a coordinated outfit then you've probably played it long enough for me to trust you sight-unseen.
> http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f278/katietiedrich/comic26...
> If you're a pro player with the default skin, you're gonna have a bad fucking time, because you're last priority for heals, you're not getting an ubercharge, etc. That is gameplay-affecting even if the cosmetic itself is not.
Paper that might be enlightening for those who haven't partaken: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:901463/FULLTEXT0...
(I should add that as medic, I had a golden medigun for a while too, and that was an extremely bad time for me, because every single roamer was absolutely gunning for the medic with the $100 item. Sometimes it pays to have some restraint in your plumage when you happen to be a particularly delicious and defenseless target...)
I have such mixed feelings about TF2, because it was such a fantastic game, but it pioneered all these exploitative MTX mechanisms. The game itself was actually one of the better examples of how to do MTX properly (cosmetic only, tradeable by players, etc) but it immediately showed there was a lot more money in MTX than in making games, and opened the door to other actors to exploit much more heavily (compare the Overwatch model and its non-tradeability/gacha mechanics, R6:S with its gameplay-affecting operators, etc). It's also disgusting the way they've just continued to let the game rot without even basic bugfixes, it's been completely overwhelmed by hackers for 4 or 5 years now because they just won't patch their shit. Nor will they let the community patch their shit, like Team Comtress 2...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnBDMZ-9-Dw
> you can point to Elden Ring but even then they are introducing "cooperative" mechanics that fundamentally exist as a way to get an "always-online" server system into the picture as a platform for MTX.
What? Co-op/PvP has been a major part of From Software's souls games going back to Demon's Souls in 2009. They can also be played entirely offline if you wish and have zero microtransactions or Denuvo.
What? Co-op/PvP has been a major part of From Software's souls games going back to Demon's Souls in 2009. They can also be played entirely offline if you wish and have zero microtransactions or Denuvo.
> At a more basic level, the single-player RPG is essentially dead because it's the most difficult to introduce MTX mechanics into those genre of games. And sure you can point to Elden Ring but even then they are using "cooperative" or "inter-session" mechanics that fundamentally exist as a way to get an "always-online" server system into the picture as a platform for MTX. You've got forced Denuvo on everything. Etc etc.
Have you ever heard of thing called fashion souls? A lot of times I wear armour (pick and choose pieces) because it looks cool not because it have bigger numbers.
Have you ever heard of thing called fashion souls? A lot of times I wear armour (pick and choose pieces) because it looks cool not because it have bigger numbers.
If you're at the pro-level, then why does cosmetic choice matter? If it's actually a competitive environment, with people of similar skill levels, then you should be able to have some amount of trust in the skills of other players.
If I were on an actual team of people, I'd expect cosmetics to only matter for at-a-glance identification of a specific player.
If I were on an actual team of people, I'd expect cosmetics to only matter for at-a-glance identification of a specific player.
because tf2 largely isn't centered around the "pro experience" even if the players are at the top of the playerbase. Comp is its own thing with its own rules, and "casual" gameplay is what the game is designed and balanced around. Comp usually bans about half or 2/3rds of the weapons in the game and imposes additional rules (class limits, no weapons pickups, etc). It's a completely different thing that happens to run on the same engine.
Most games you will play with 23 other randoms who you will never see again after a couple hours. And that is actually the problem - on an actual competitive team your entire team would be decent and everyone would be there to play seriously and get stuff done. But in public games you need some kind of fitness signal to figure out which players are going to be a waste of a team's scarcest resource. How do you tell that from a bunch of players jumping around a spawn room like monkeys for a minute during the setup countdown? Cosmetics. Plumage.
(and actually Valve have gone out of their way over the years to remove other potential signals, like sprays and chat...)
Plumage evolved in nature for a reason, it's still functional and important even though it's "cosmetic-only". Games are a social phenomenon and plumage is still important to them too and that still affects your gameplay too.
Most games you will play with 23 other randoms who you will never see again after a couple hours. And that is actually the problem - on an actual competitive team your entire team would be decent and everyone would be there to play seriously and get stuff done. But in public games you need some kind of fitness signal to figure out which players are going to be a waste of a team's scarcest resource. How do you tell that from a bunch of players jumping around a spawn room like monkeys for a minute during the setup countdown? Cosmetics. Plumage.
(and actually Valve have gone out of their way over the years to remove other potential signals, like sprays and chat...)
Plumage evolved in nature for a reason, it's still functional and important even though it's "cosmetic-only". Games are a social phenomenon and plumage is still important to them too and that still affects your gameplay too.
In something like TF2, I'd probably rely more on the player's name than what they were wearing. If I recognize the name (even if only in the context of the one match), and know roughly how good they are, I can have my mental preference of who I prioritize.
I usually play Deep Rock Galactic, which has some non-cosmetic ways to judge people's experience. Promotion(like prestige) of a class is indicated by a border color and number of stars, and indicates someone has played a character for promotion25 levels. Bronze stars are okay, silver stars should be decent.
'Blue Levels' are also present. They serve as an indicator of how many times that player has leveled up any* character. So, someone with blue level 100 and only one promotion star should still be considered experienced in terms of game sense, but not necessarily an expert on their character.
Someone with low 'blue levels' and no stars is just a greenbeard, and should not be expected to be great.
I usually play Deep Rock Galactic, which has some non-cosmetic ways to judge people's experience. Promotion(like prestige) of a class is indicated by a border color and number of stars, and indicates someone has played a character for promotion25 levels. Bronze stars are okay, silver stars should be decent.
'Blue Levels' are also present. They serve as an indicator of how many times that player has leveled up any* character. So, someone with blue level 100 and only one promotion star should still be considered experienced in terms of game sense, but not necessarily an expert on their character.
Someone with low 'blue levels' and no stars is just a greenbeard, and should not be expected to be great.
The TF2 player base is too big to recognize by name outside of smaller community servers (it's still about 100k peak and this is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago at its historical peak). Sometimes you may see one or two repeat players but mostly it's ships passing in the night and that's OK! There is something to be said for games that everyone is competitive for an hour and then everyone goes home.
There is a similar player level mechanism in TF2 but not tied to classes at all, just a blue level type thing. That works in the starter room, but it's not a solution for the "I have two seconds to choose which of these players to uber before that soldier finishes bombing me"/"I need to pick one of these players to pocket to try and stay alive to keep the uber up for the team".
Plumage works, you can instantly make a call that this is a default player and that one has cosmetics, or recognize the cosmetics of a person who has played well previously/who you gave a chance and they did something antisocial/stupid. Trying to identify a player name, finding them on the scoreboard, and then re-syncing with what has happened in the game in the last 5 seconds just isn't practical.
Like, TF2 has been f2p for 10+ years now, random HNers aren't going to come up with the magic solution here, this is how the game plays regardless of whether you think it should be. It's not a problem, and it's actually one of the least-exploitative MTX mechanisms on the market, but you can't eliminate the effects of cosmetics on gameplay in many situations because plumage is such an important social cue.
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:901463/FULLTEXT0...
Visual design is such a core aspect of (good) games to begin with, it's basically impossible to divorce that from the gameplay effects it has.
https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3499&context=...
If you want an example of cosmetics that don't affect anything - Battlefield 1 has a fixed selection of guns and then each gun has some skins. Nobody else can really see the particular skin at range anyway so no real gameplay effect. This was done deliberately to allow the character design to be visually distinctive - a british medic runs around with crutches on their back for example, and the british scout wears a cape. Can't have that with cosmetics unless they're so trivial that nobody can tell they're there (BF1), or you go to great efforts to preserve character silhouettes (TF2). In BFV it's much much more difficult to tell the classes apart - any class can run around with a medic hat on for example! An elite skin can be any class - you have to visually identify what guns and items they're carrying, which is more challenging even if it's "just cosmetic" - a mere cosmetic gives you a tactical advantage, you know what your enemy is carrying and they have to guess about you.
And that's obviously because BFV was much more oriented around MTX sales, while BF1 focused on an "expansion pack" model.
So MTX clearly affects that aspect of game design even if it's "only cosmetic".
There is a similar player level mechanism in TF2 but not tied to classes at all, just a blue level type thing. That works in the starter room, but it's not a solution for the "I have two seconds to choose which of these players to uber before that soldier finishes bombing me"/"I need to pick one of these players to pocket to try and stay alive to keep the uber up for the team".
Plumage works, you can instantly make a call that this is a default player and that one has cosmetics, or recognize the cosmetics of a person who has played well previously/who you gave a chance and they did something antisocial/stupid. Trying to identify a player name, finding them on the scoreboard, and then re-syncing with what has happened in the game in the last 5 seconds just isn't practical.
Like, TF2 has been f2p for 10+ years now, random HNers aren't going to come up with the magic solution here, this is how the game plays regardless of whether you think it should be. It's not a problem, and it's actually one of the least-exploitative MTX mechanisms on the market, but you can't eliminate the effects of cosmetics on gameplay in many situations because plumage is such an important social cue.
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:901463/FULLTEXT0...
Visual design is such a core aspect of (good) games to begin with, it's basically impossible to divorce that from the gameplay effects it has.
https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3499&context=...
If you want an example of cosmetics that don't affect anything - Battlefield 1 has a fixed selection of guns and then each gun has some skins. Nobody else can really see the particular skin at range anyway so no real gameplay effect. This was done deliberately to allow the character design to be visually distinctive - a british medic runs around with crutches on their back for example, and the british scout wears a cape. Can't have that with cosmetics unless they're so trivial that nobody can tell they're there (BF1), or you go to great efforts to preserve character silhouettes (TF2). In BFV it's much much more difficult to tell the classes apart - any class can run around with a medic hat on for example! An elite skin can be any class - you have to visually identify what guns and items they're carrying, which is more challenging even if it's "just cosmetic" - a mere cosmetic gives you a tactical advantage, you know what your enemy is carrying and they have to guess about you.
And that's obviously because BFV was much more oriented around MTX sales, while BF1 focused on an "expansion pack" model.
So MTX clearly affects that aspect of game design even if it's "only cosmetic".
I feel like your arguments on plumage could equally be applied to lower-cost cosmetics, to the point where being able to recognize that someone is 'that specific Heavy', is more important than 'a Heavy with the limited-release Sandvich Holster', and probably easier/faster.
The holster is rare, and maybe you recognize that it's rare, but they could have just gotten it out of a drop and kept it. The Heavy with the funny flip-flops and sunglasses is probable more recognizable at-a-glance, but could have bought a bunch of cheap cosmetics for a few dollars on the market.
And in the case of keeping an uber ready, won't you have to stay pocketed long enough to learn if someone is a good or less-good choice? Even if it's raining hell on your position, you'd have a rough view of the Heavy and a kill feed that highlights the assists you're getting from them. What more is there to look for?
As for the Battlefield games you mention, my biggest issue in 5 was that all of the player models seemed to blend into the background. Most of the time, I wasn't able to spend brainpower trying to figure out who is which type of class, simply because I was too busy trying to figure out if some dull, misshapen blob was part of the map or trying to kill me. Combined with the general feel of the game (poor, imo), I was never motivated to spend enough time on it to get into anything serious. Haven't bought another Battlefield game since, and BF5 was on a steep sale at the time.
The holster is rare, and maybe you recognize that it's rare, but they could have just gotten it out of a drop and kept it. The Heavy with the funny flip-flops and sunglasses is probable more recognizable at-a-glance, but could have bought a bunch of cheap cosmetics for a few dollars on the market.
And in the case of keeping an uber ready, won't you have to stay pocketed long enough to learn if someone is a good or less-good choice? Even if it's raining hell on your position, you'd have a rough view of the Heavy and a kill feed that highlights the assists you're getting from them. What more is there to look for?
As for the Battlefield games you mention, my biggest issue in 5 was that all of the player models seemed to blend into the background. Most of the time, I wasn't able to spend brainpower trying to figure out who is which type of class, simply because I was too busy trying to figure out if some dull, misshapen blob was part of the map or trying to kill me. Combined with the general feel of the game (poor, imo), I was never motivated to spend enough time on it to get into anything serious. Haven't bought another Battlefield game since, and BF5 was on a steep sale at the time.
[deleted]
One complaint I've had with RL recently is that it seems like they've put all their energy into new visuals and cosmetics while leaving the game mostly unchanged.
The standard multi ranked map sometimes feels boring and I've wondered why they don't add different types of maps to the mix; spheres, tubes, different physics, goals in the center, figure 8 map(?), embankments (like map in season 1), etc.
I guess it's simple and works but it'd be cool to see new gameplay related updates.
The standard multi ranked map sometimes feels boring and I've wondered why they don't add different types of maps to the mix; spheres, tubes, different physics, goals in the center, figure 8 map(?), embankments (like map in season 1), etc.
I guess it's simple and works but it'd be cool to see new gameplay related updates.
Fair criticism, but one that is only relevant in the first place because of freemium. Prior to that business model, there was no such thing as a company continuing to provide regular, ongoing support to a 7 year old game of the non-subscription variety.
I mean, how or why would they? You release something; it makes 90% of its lifetime revenue in year 1; if you continue working on it for 6 more years, you're out of business.
As for the ownership or survivability of in-game virtual goods -- I think the author is referring to Valve's hats in Team Fortress 2? -- to me it's nonsensical to complain that you don't own it outside of the game. It only has relevance in the game, and it would be silly to ask the company to develop some external service just for owning your object. The ones that have tried that kind of thing just fail and look silly. But wait! Along come NFTs, with potential permanent ownership... but gamers despise that idea, too.
Gamers are just eternally grumpy and conservative about changes and progress. (I say that as a grumpy gamer, myself.)
I mean, how or why would they? You release something; it makes 90% of its lifetime revenue in year 1; if you continue working on it for 6 more years, you're out of business.
As for the ownership or survivability of in-game virtual goods -- I think the author is referring to Valve's hats in Team Fortress 2? -- to me it's nonsensical to complain that you don't own it outside of the game. It only has relevance in the game, and it would be silly to ask the company to develop some external service just for owning your object. The ones that have tried that kind of thing just fail and look silly. But wait! Along come NFTs, with potential permanent ownership... but gamers despise that idea, too.
Gamers are just eternally grumpy and conservative about changes and progress. (I say that as a grumpy gamer, myself.)
> Along come NFTs, with potential permanent ownership... but gamers despise that idea, too.
Permanent ownership of what? If the game servers shut down or you get banned[1] for some reason your permanent ownership is meaningless. Also how are NFTs different than the existing systems like the Steam marketplace in terms of functionality?
[1] Oh yeah, NFTs require you to have an online account for the game. I would argue my unlocks in SSBM are much more permanent than any game NFT because there's no account for Nintendo to ban that could cause me to lose access to them.
Permanent ownership of what? If the game servers shut down or you get banned[1] for some reason your permanent ownership is meaningless. Also how are NFTs different than the existing systems like the Steam marketplace in terms of functionality?
[1] Oh yeah, NFTs require you to have an online account for the game. I would argue my unlocks in SSBM are much more permanent than any game NFT because there's no account for Nintendo to ban that could cause me to lose access to them.
Thanks for the clarification. I haven't followed the NFT hype much but the one game startup founder I know who talks about it had ideas for permanent ownership in some kind of ... hand-waves metaverse.
Personally I view games as art that's closer to food than a painting: ephemeral, may disappear after being consumed.
Personally I view games as art that's closer to food than a painting: ephemeral, may disappear after being consumed.
https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Patches
Yep, nothing to see here, no regular, ongoing support to a 20 year old game of the non-subscription variety at all. Warcraft 3 (from 2003) was similarly updated well into 2019.
Now, most regular games only get 2 or 3 years of attention.
> Along come NFTs, with potential permanent ownership... but gamers despise that idea, too.
Oh no, how dare we despise things that anyone can see will not work as advertised.
Yep, nothing to see here, no regular, ongoing support to a 20 year old game of the non-subscription variety at all. Warcraft 3 (from 2003) was similarly updated well into 2019.
Now, most regular games only get 2 or 3 years of attention.
> Along come NFTs, with potential permanent ownership... but gamers despise that idea, too.
Oh no, how dare we despise things that anyone can see will not work as advertised.
That's only regular if you ignore the 8 years of no updates between patch 1.16.1 in January 2009 to 1.18 in 2017. The same year they released Remastered to sell people. They've since also added cosmetics in skins and voice announcers: https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/family/starcraft-remastered
Similarly Warcraft 3 had a 5 year gap between 1.26b in 2011 and 1.27a in 2016, which was probably about when they started development for Reforged, announced in 2018.
Similarly Warcraft 3 had a 5 year gap between 1.26b in 2011 and 1.27a in 2016, which was probably about when they started development for Reforged, announced in 2018.
Even ignoring the patches after the gaps, that's still 1998 to 2009 and 2003 to 2011, so both much larger time spans than the parent poster's claim that nobody ever does that.
StarCraft is a bit special with so much e-sports attention. I wouldn't necessary compare other games to it.
Starcraft is the exception rather than the rule. If you take a random sample of 20 year old games I'd wager that in the vast majority of samples none of them will have received updates in the last 15 years.
Adding to that list, most valve games (even half life 1 from 1996) still getting updates today, and indie game terraria released in 2011 which got big content updates over a decade.
If we are going to mention Terraria, we should also talk about Minecraft. I purchased it in 2009 and I'm still getting new content on a regular basis today. It's true that they have a subscription offering through Realms at this point, but it's entirely optional.
I'd love to see the % of games that got the same love as starcraft.
> there was no such thing as a company continuing to provide regular, ongoing support to a 7 year old game of the non-subscription variety.
Minecraft still gets significant updates.
> I mean, how or why would they? You release something; it makes 90% of its lifetime revenue in year 1; if you continue working on it for 6 more years, you're out of business.
I think a lot of these companies have found that it's the opposite—that games make 90% of their revenue in year 1 because nobody continues working on them. If you keep working on it, however, you can continue to get sales, because the more you work on it, the better the game becomes, and so people buy it just to see what everyone else is talking about.
Minecraft still gets significant updates.
> I mean, how or why would they? You release something; it makes 90% of its lifetime revenue in year 1; if you continue working on it for 6 more years, you're out of business.
I think a lot of these companies have found that it's the opposite—that games make 90% of their revenue in year 1 because nobody continues working on them. If you keep working on it, however, you can continue to get sales, because the more you work on it, the better the game becomes, and so people buy it just to see what everyone else is talking about.
Minecraft also has a marketplace, and a "Realms" subscription, and you can purchase it on different platforms if you want to play like that so there's plenty of ways to keep revenue coming
The points of Realms and multiple platforms is true, though the PC version does not have a marketplace.
Minecraft had many years of regular updates before either of those came out.
No Man’s Sky has been getting 6 years of updates purely out of a wounded sense of pride.
Wounded pride and a ton of money for a small company like that. They got enough money to comfortably run the company for at least a couple years if not the entire time since launch until now. The wikipedia page sticks it right along-side other highly successful AAA launches around the same time because it was that "successful" despite being an absolute mess of a game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man%27s_Sky#Sales
I was very critical of No Man's Sky on release, but boy have they knocked it out of the park since. Super impressive piece of work
Obligatory link for discussions on NMS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5BJVO3PDeQ
I don't trust AAA studios, or any game studio for that matter, to implement NFTs in a responsible and ethical manner.
Ubisoft has announced NFT integration via their own platform. However, unlike an actual "I can do what I want with this" token, it may as well be a database entry in the company network: https://quartz.ubisoft.com/welcome/
I don't think there's any way to 'solve' NFTs in games right now: A true NFT can be moved anywhere on an open network (monkey jpeg receipts, etc), but a game-related NFT needs to be constrained to those users who play the game, otherwise it's even more useless.
It doesn't help that most things NFT-related are scams, hype bait, etc.
Ubisoft has announced NFT integration via their own platform. However, unlike an actual "I can do what I want with this" token, it may as well be a database entry in the company network: https://quartz.ubisoft.com/welcome/
I don't think there's any way to 'solve' NFTs in games right now: A true NFT can be moved anywhere on an open network (monkey jpeg receipts, etc), but a game-related NFT needs to be constrained to those users who play the game, otherwise it's even more useless.
It doesn't help that most things NFT-related are scams, hype bait, etc.
They have no real reason to use NFTs right now.
They can create digital scarcity of in-game items using a centralised server. Any NFT linked to an in-game item will be just as worthless when the servers are eventually shut down. And they don't want players buying and selling items, they want to take a cut every time a player buys something.
You're never going to be taking your Fortnite skins into FIFA or your Gran Turismo cars into Mario Kart. Ain't going to happen for a multitude of reasons.
(And if one publisher/developer does something like that as a gimmick, allow importing items into a specific another game, they could do that with a centralised database too)
They can create digital scarcity of in-game items using a centralised server. Any NFT linked to an in-game item will be just as worthless when the servers are eventually shut down. And they don't want players buying and selling items, they want to take a cut every time a player buys something.
You're never going to be taking your Fortnite skins into FIFA or your Gran Turismo cars into Mario Kart. Ain't going to happen for a multitude of reasons.
(And if one publisher/developer does something like that as a gimmick, allow importing items into a specific another game, they could do that with a centralised database too)
> I don't think there's any way to 'solve' NFTs in games right now: A true NFT can be moved anywhere on an open network (monkey jpeg receipts, etc), but a game-related NFT needs to be constrained to those users who play the game, otherwise it's even more useless.
Agree totally. NFTs for games make quite literally no sense. You are buying an asset or whatever from a central authority (the developer/publisher) that only exists or makes any sense within their game/platform/ecosystem. What value could a token bring there? The only value add I could see is that your ability to buy and sell the asset is now out of the hands of the publisher... except it isn't since they still control access to the asset and can therefor constrain your use of it in any way they see fit.
This is really a problem with most of the NFT related ideas floating around. Once a central authority is involved your token ceases being meaningful and just becomes, like you said, an ID in a database somewhere.
Agree totally. NFTs for games make quite literally no sense. You are buying an asset or whatever from a central authority (the developer/publisher) that only exists or makes any sense within their game/platform/ecosystem. What value could a token bring there? The only value add I could see is that your ability to buy and sell the asset is now out of the hands of the publisher... except it isn't since they still control access to the asset and can therefor constrain your use of it in any way they see fit.
This is really a problem with most of the NFT related ideas floating around. Once a central authority is involved your token ceases being meaningful and just becomes, like you said, an ID in a database somewhere.
> Fair criticism, but one that is only relevant in the first place because of freemium. Prior to that business model, there was no such thing as a company continuing to provide regular, ongoing support to a 7 year old game of the non-subscription variety.
Plenty of games get regular patches and updates (Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition being one I recently played) and back in the day, games would release paid expansions. No reason that Rocket League couldn't sell a map pack, for example. Sure, its a similar idea as freemium (pay for more content), but at least the expansions used to be sizable packs with lots of content. Old school expansions, as well as expansions like those of The Witcher 3 or the FROM Software games (which are often lauded as better than the base game), that cost about 1/4 the price of the base game for a decent content boost extend the life of the game, provide the developer with continued income and feel a lot less scammy than fremium games do.
Plenty of games get regular patches and updates (Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition being one I recently played) and back in the day, games would release paid expansions. No reason that Rocket League couldn't sell a map pack, for example. Sure, its a similar idea as freemium (pay for more content), but at least the expansions used to be sizable packs with lots of content. Old school expansions, as well as expansions like those of The Witcher 3 or the FROM Software games (which are often lauded as better than the base game), that cost about 1/4 the price of the base game for a decent content boost extend the life of the game, provide the developer with continued income and feel a lot less scammy than fremium games do.
Multiplayer paid map packs fragment the user base and create smaller lobbies/angry buyers. It was a real problem for older halo titles.
Back then:
Pay for Game when it releases, launch day it mostly works, or the studio is dead.
Now: Pay for game prior to its release, launch day, people will tell you the bugs are actually features, studio milks franchise forever.
Now: Pay for game prior to its release, launch day, people will tell you the bugs are actually features, studio milks franchise forever.
Not that I'm outright opposed to this kind of thing, but often messing with core mechanics in wacky ways is a lot more fun on paper than in practice.
There's a lot of games that have a sort of boring standard (SC2's 1v1 ladder maps are all same-y, nobody competitive plays Smash with items on, etc.) and the fact that you see this pop up repeatedly in unrelated communities should probably tell you something.
IMO, when you have a game with sufficiently deep mechanics, wackiness tends to obscure that depth, resulting in an experience that's less interesting rather than more. Like if you added Mario Kart abilities to football/soccer and suddenly the winning team was getting regularly blue shelled, I don't think it would improve the experience, even if initially it'd be hilarious.
Now maybe it's still worth it to have "party game" modes in some cases, I'm just saying that these modes might not have legs, so to speak, and thus may not be worth the dev effort if hardly anyone plays them.
There's a lot of games that have a sort of boring standard (SC2's 1v1 ladder maps are all same-y, nobody competitive plays Smash with items on, etc.) and the fact that you see this pop up repeatedly in unrelated communities should probably tell you something.
IMO, when you have a game with sufficiently deep mechanics, wackiness tends to obscure that depth, resulting in an experience that's less interesting rather than more. Like if you added Mario Kart abilities to football/soccer and suddenly the winning team was getting regularly blue shelled, I don't think it would improve the experience, even if initially it'd be hilarious.
Now maybe it's still worth it to have "party game" modes in some cases, I'm just saying that these modes might not have legs, so to speak, and thus may not be worth the dev effort if hardly anyone plays them.
Those are pretty bad examples. Mario Kart and Smash are literally some of the top selling games of all time. If their "wacky ways" are played and enjoyed by 10% of players, that's still millions of sales.
They were designed to be party games first and foremost though. I think it's different when you take a more serious game and try to layer wackiness on top. If nothing else, there's a huge difference in player expectations.
Anyway that's why I also used SC2 as an example. Blizzard's attempts to add more wackiness/variety to the 1v1 ladder maps have generally been poorly received.
Now, SC2's co-op mode has a bunch of wackiness and did great, but note that this is very VERY separate from standard ladder/melee games. It's not just "oh we changed a few rules" or "we took the base game and added wacky items" it's a much more fundamental rework than that, it's an entirely new 'vertical' for the game. And yeah, that kind of thing could probably work for a game like Rocket League.
Anyway that's why I also used SC2 as an example. Blizzard's attempts to add more wackiness/variety to the 1v1 ladder maps have generally been poorly received.
Now, SC2's co-op mode has a bunch of wackiness and did great, but note that this is very VERY separate from standard ladder/melee games. It's not just "oh we changed a few rules" or "we took the base game and added wacky items" it's a much more fundamental rework than that, it's an entirely new 'vertical' for the game. And yeah, that kind of thing could probably work for a game like Rocket League.
It's probably more like 99% of players, but I think you're missing the point a little. What that commenter is getting at is that if your target audience are competitive players then it's not in your best interest to introduce "wackier" modes, as it isn't what those sorts of players want and might actually be off putting to them.
If your primary audience is casual, like in the case of Nintendo games, then it makes all the sense in the world.
Obviously you could argue that Psyonix ought to be appealing to a casual audience. That's a separate conversation, and I'd argue that RL is a fundamentally bad fit for that sort of game, but given what they have been going for thus far, not introducing crazier modes makes a lot of sense.
If your primary audience is casual, like in the case of Nintendo games, then it makes all the sense in the world.
Obviously you could argue that Psyonix ought to be appealing to a casual audience. That's a separate conversation, and I'd argue that RL is a fundamentally bad fit for that sort of game, but given what they have been going for thus far, not introducing crazier modes makes a lot of sense.
They did this a long time in the past (See: Rocket League Rocket Labs) and it was near-universally disliked.
The complication when it comes to adding new features is that Rocket League is built on top of a bespoke scripting engine that was discontinued after Unreal Engine 3, so they have to fully recreate RL in UE5. Because of this they don't want to put any additional resources into new features for UE3 since it's wasted effort once the game transitions to the new engine.
The complication when it comes to adding new features is that Rocket League is built on top of a bespoke scripting engine that was discontinued after Unreal Engine 3, so they have to fully recreate RL in UE5. Because of this they don't want to put any additional resources into new features for UE3 since it's wasted effort once the game transitions to the new engine.
I know I was always in the minority, but I loved the Rocket Labs maps and wished for more funky, mind bending ones.
Interesting, have they said much about that or when to expect it?
I did like that game mode where the ball would gravitate towards the goal!
I did like that game mode where the ball would gravitate towards the goal!
They turn those weird modes and maps on occasionally - called Limited Time Modes.
The only genuinely new one they've done for years was the NFL mode, which they presumably got paid for and wasn't very good.
The only genuinely new one they've done for years was the NFL mode, which they presumably got paid for and wasn't very good.
Ball gravitating towards the goal has been available as a Limited Time Mode on a few occasions, it's called Heatseeker IIRC.
That's like saying they should change the rules of football. Rocket League is a seriously competitive game and even the slightest change to the physics would have a big impact. I like that they have kept the core gameplay intact. It's beautiful and pure.
> That's like saying they should change the rules of football.
They do that pretty regularly. Not in major ways, but the rules of football do change over time.
They do that pretty regularly. Not in major ways, but the rules of football do change over time.
The reason is because people absolutely hated that Tokyo map with the embankments, myself included. Rocket League is unique in that the core gameplay is so good, that messing around with it is just a bad idea. It’s like asking why there aren’t new pieces being released for Chess, or why people don’t start adding unconventional elements to a soccer field. It’s because novelties like those take away from what is already a solid experience. They have added some modes to that in non-competitive Rocket League, but RL is a unique game in that it seems like most players play the game in competitive modes, where those novelties are not appreciated, and so putting lots of work into those kinds of alternative arenas just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I personally am glad the developers have realized they have a game like this and haven’t killed their game through adding more for the sake of more.
I personally am glad the developers have realized they have a game like this and haven’t killed their game through adding more for the sake of more.
Interesting. I haven't played Rocket League in years, but I actually liked that Tokyo map... it added variety.
Oh god, I forgot about how awful that Tokyo map was. I enjoyed the wide slightly sloped wasteland though.
It wasn't great, but, it represented something different, and along with the hexagon map it added variety. Feels like there's much more room to get creative in terms of map shapes/obstacles/nuances.
> The standard multi ranked map sometimes feels boring and I've wondered why they don't add different types of maps to the mix; spheres, tubes, different physics, goals in the center, figure 8 map(?), embankments (like map in season 1), etc.
They tried. Wasteland, Neo Tokyo, and Starbase ARC were non-standard maps. Players complained about it, and now they are changed to be standard.
They tried. Wasteland, Neo Tokyo, and Starbase ARC were non-standard maps. Players complained about it, and now they are changed to be standard.
I liked wasteland, any other attempts were irritating.
>The standard multi ranked map sometimes feels boring and I've wondered why they don't add different types of maps to the mix
They tried that with the original wasteland map and there was huge pushback from the community and people demanded the maps be standardized.
They tried that with the original wasteland map and there was huge pushback from the community and people demanded the maps be standardized.
They added those types of arenas years ago and removed them all. In the ranked games these honestly felt to gimmicky and I'm pleased that the differences between arenas are now only cosmetic.
They still keep adding other game modes some of which are only there for a few days.
They still keep adding other game modes some of which are only there for a few days.
I think their dev team is too busy with the UE5 port.
I think a lot of people naively think of moves like this as pure money grabs and don’t appreciate that a lot of these moves are out of survival…especially for games like Rocket League that require a sufficient player base to even be a viable live service game.
Well, Rocket League doesn't need to be a "viable live service game", it could just be a regular multiplayer game that gives you a client and server executable to run your own.
It isn't like not being a live service game killed Quake 3, for example.
It isn't like not being a live service game killed Quake 3, for example.
I don't believe RL or other modern online games could survive with even a tenth of the player base if they didn't have decent matchmaking, and you can't have decent matchmaking if you depend on players finding each other outside the game and one of them running a server and sharing the IP address. It's way too much friction to expect most players to do that.
You can still run a default/master server.
Console games survive perfectly fine without any sort of anticheat/etc, maybe that would be bad for PC gaming but games could sustain their player base without anticheat, and matchmaking is neither necessary (lots of multiplayer games just don't use it at all) nor is it particularly expensive to run if that's all you're doing.
Obviously that would be a problem on the PC but games would remain popular and publishers would get paid without either of those things. Games as a whole wouldn't go anywhere. They just make more money this way.
Obviously that would be a problem on the PC but games would remain popular and publishers would get paid without either of those things. Games as a whole wouldn't go anywhere. They just make more money this way.
I have 2600 hours in Rocket League. It's a fair bit for a "casual" player, but it's got nothing on pros (who are mostly up over 15k hours these days). I have some friends I play fairly regularly with, but we don't usually play against each other we play with each other.
The main reason I still play is to continue improving, and I don't think I could ever do that effectively if I was limited to only playing against people in my local sphere. My rank typically puts me somewhere in the top 1% of players (and honestly, I'm not even that good. The skill ceiling is insanely high), online match making may be frustrating sometimes but it's the easiest way to find opponents who will push those boundaries.
Would a hosted server work well for people who are much lower ranks who are primarily playing to just mess around with friends? Probably. I would quit tomorrow if online matchmaking went away though.
The main reason I still play is to continue improving, and I don't think I could ever do that effectively if I was limited to only playing against people in my local sphere. My rank typically puts me somewhere in the top 1% of players (and honestly, I'm not even that good. The skill ceiling is insanely high), online match making may be frustrating sometimes but it's the easiest way to find opponents who will push those boundaries.
Would a hosted server work well for people who are much lower ranks who are primarily playing to just mess around with friends? Probably. I would quit tomorrow if online matchmaking went away though.
You can still run a default/master server. This isn't really a new problem.
Arguably Rocket League does need to be a viable live service game. Without a sufficient player base, there's not enough for consistent match making...or you get matched to players far outside your skill level. Neither experience is good. Titanfall 2 is a good general example of attempting what you describe. As many have pointed out, that simply doesn't fly anymore. Quake 3 was over twenty years ago.
There are many different attempts at business models in games. Splitgate started with your suggestion and has since gone free to play. Numerous MMOs have tried subscriptions and have gone free to play. It's a sad state of affairs, but for every successful Minecraft, Stardew, or Valheim, there's thousands of failed attempts.
There are many different attempts at business models in games. Splitgate started with your suggestion and has since gone free to play. Numerous MMOs have tried subscriptions and have gone free to play. It's a sad state of affairs, but for every successful Minecraft, Stardew, or Valheim, there's thousands of failed attempts.
You can still run a master/default server (i'm repeating the same reply to everyone because it seems everyone has the assumption that providing a server executable means the game doesn't get to provide one or something).
I'm not sure I understand how providing a means to run your own server solves all these issues. Foremost in my mind is how you ensure competitive integrity when you can no longer trust all the servers. However, that's a bit beside the point.
The point I'm trying to make is that these things have been tried by one game or another, and there's good reasons why the "run your own server" model died for the most popular games. Ignoring that is, I think, discarding a lot of historical evidence and nuance against blanket "why don't they just do X" arguments.
If there's a better way, it won't be a return to the past. It will be something new that no one has thought of yet.
The point I'm trying to make is that these things have been tried by one game or another, and there's good reasons why the "run your own server" model died for the most popular games. Ignoring that is, I think, discarding a lot of historical evidence and nuance against blanket "why don't they just do X" arguments.
If there's a better way, it won't be a return to the past. It will be something new that no one has thought of yet.
Quake 3 is over twenty years old though.
Yes, obviously a big part of it is that every studio is hoping for their game to become the next WoW or Fortnite or Destiny— a franchise that will print money for a decade with not much more investment than a few content drops a year.
But I think the expectations of players have changed too, as far as matchmaking, leaderboards, progression, anti-cheat, anti-abuse, etc. You just can't deliver these things in a consistent way with the distributed client-server model, and companies needed to own the end-to-end experience vs farming out the community management side to faceless volunteer guild/clan/server operators.
Yes, obviously a big part of it is that every studio is hoping for their game to become the next WoW or Fortnite or Destiny— a franchise that will print money for a decade with not much more investment than a few content drops a year.
But I think the expectations of players have changed too, as far as matchmaking, leaderboards, progression, anti-cheat, anti-abuse, etc. You just can't deliver these things in a consistent way with the distributed client-server model, and companies needed to own the end-to-end experience vs farming out the community management side to faceless volunteer guild/clan/server operators.
You can have a master/default server.
I guess it depends what you mean by need. Many multiplayer games (like AoE2) have switched to a hosted server approach because it’s better for performance and matchmaking. I mean, thinking back 15 years, non-LAN multiplayer was not very good at all. Even LAN multiplayer could be hard to set up. Even today, it’s fairly limited (especially since your upload speed is probably severely limited). But hosted servers for everything have been fantastic. Multiplayer FPS games have extremely good performance. Network issues for games like AoE2 aren’t nearly as prevalent.
You can still run a default/master server, providing a server executable doesn't mean it is the only way to play the game. But if the game stops being popular in the future it doesn't kill the entire game.
[deleted]
Yes, Psyonix could drop development of RL and start work on new titles. That's just comparatively risky for them.
> It isn't like not being a live service game killed Quake 3, for example.
Dead to who? It still has players, but it's "financially" dead, which is what the studio cares about when making these choices.
> It isn't like not being a live service game killed Quake 3, for example.
Dead to who? It still has players, but it's "financially" dead, which is what the studio cares about when making these choices.
The game will die financially at some point regardless, the message i replied to wrote that it is about the game surviving. A game does not need to absolutely require everyone use the same server to survive as has been proven by other games also not requiring that.
Keep in mind again that this is about the game surviving not about squeezing all the money possible out of their playerbase - after all the topic was about hating what video games have become.
Keep in mind again that this is about the game surviving not about squeezing all the money possible out of their playerbase - after all the topic was about hating what video games have become.
Rocket League reached something like 50 million players in its first year. They’ve likely earned over a billion dollars so far. This is not about survival, just squeezing your cash cows.
While I agree Rocket League is a good example of a free to play with cosmetics, I think it got worse with the blueprint system. Now you're limited to one item per week (from the blue lootbox). And if you get the blueprint of item you want, you can't pay only for that item, you need to buy a package of credits, that may be more than you actually need.
I can't believe how many people care about the cosmetics, I've been playing RL for years, unlocked heaps of things to wear but never changed the appearance of my car once. All I really care about is playing and trying to win, although sometimes other peoples cars do look cool, I have no desire to update mine.
"It's only cosmetics shop" is a cancer that's killing AAA game industry. Games are designed from ground up not being fun themselves but to be filled with dark patterns, ads, artificial focus on the shop items and so on.
Even with Rocket League microtransactions are a bad idea. It incentivizes the developer to make attaining items through gameplay a slog in order to get you to skip that by paying up. If there was no way to get those items through mtx, they'd make the process of getting them fun.
Also, games are supposed to be a form of escapism, where the gameplay matters, not who you are and how much money your parents make.
You can argue in favor of the game itself being free allowing people to save 10 or 20 bucks. But gameplaywise Microtransactions inevitably make the gameplay experience worse, without exceptions.
Also, games are supposed to be a form of escapism, where the gameplay matters, not who you are and how much money your parents make.
You can argue in favor of the game itself being free allowing people to save 10 or 20 bucks. But gameplaywise Microtransactions inevitably make the gameplay experience worse, without exceptions.
Anectdata: I have over 2000 hours of Rocket League, never once spent any money on it after purchasing it and never one have I felt that my fun was impacted by the available microtransactions.
Nothing that can be purchased in the game affects gameplay, it's all just cosmetics.
Nothing that can be purchased in the game affects gameplay, it's all just cosmetics.
Feel the same at 3k+ hours and 4x GC.
The biggest issue I have with free to play is there's virtually no barrier for smurf accounts.
The biggest issue I have with free to play is there's virtually no barrier for smurf accounts.
you didn't even buy the fennec car?
I'm not sure, why do you ask specifically about the Fennec?
I have bought some items, but only by trading free drops for keys/credits.
I have bought some items, but only by trading free drops for keys/credits.
It seems to be the most common item people buy (because it can actually slightly affect your performance as it better matches the hitbox, and it is the most used competitively). I know a lot of people who never bought a single item, except for the fennec.
The Fennec's hitbox is the same as the Octane: https://twitter.com/RL_Support/status/1144311306415157248
As far as I know all custom cars have the same hitbox as one of the freely available cars.
As far as I know all custom cars have the same hitbox as one of the freely available cars.
> Are you surprised when you can’t resell a shirt you wore for a year at the same price as when you bought it?
The complaint isn't about depreciation but rather the inability sell the items at all.
The complaint isn't about depreciation but rather the inability sell the items at all.
There are market places for selling items, both for in game cash and real money. I agree that it’s a legitimate criticism that it’s not in actual game itself, but then you develop weird incentive structures like FIFA’s pack openings taking precedence over actually playing soccer, which also feels bad, and potentially more exploitative (if I just hit this rare car I could turn a profit!!)
"Are you surprised that people don’t just wear monochrome black shirts in real life?"
No and thats why its silly to say rocket league items have no impact on gameplay, ofcourse its nicer play with hot wheels car that has animated decals than grey corolla.
I would like game to be more like "if you get this good, you get these cool items" instead of something like "if we put paid rewards right next to free rewards, then 15% of our playerbase is going to buy paid tier." :/
I had no problem with dlc cars, it felt like I was supporting the game, now it feels like I'm being manipulated to give money to somebody who owns rocket league.
No and thats why its silly to say rocket league items have no impact on gameplay, ofcourse its nicer play with hot wheels car that has animated decals than grey corolla.
I would like game to be more like "if you get this good, you get these cool items" instead of something like "if we put paid rewards right next to free rewards, then 15% of our playerbase is going to buy paid tier." :/
I had no problem with dlc cars, it felt like I was supporting the game, now it feels like I'm being manipulated to give money to somebody who owns rocket league.
> now it feels like I'm being manipulated to give money to somebody who owns rocket league.
Epic Games. Why are we surprised by this when they saw a cash cow when they bought it, and have done nothing but turn it into another Fortnite?
I think this type of game needs its own genre. Fortnite, RL, GTA Online, Warzone... They all follow the same model of "build a good multiplayer experience and "support it" perpetually by squeezing as much revenue as you can from your users".
I was a huge RL fan in 2015/16. It started going down hill sometime after that and EG has run it into the ground.
Epic Games. Why are we surprised by this when they saw a cash cow when they bought it, and have done nothing but turn it into another Fortnite?
I think this type of game needs its own genre. Fortnite, RL, GTA Online, Warzone... They all follow the same model of "build a good multiplayer experience and "support it" perpetually by squeezing as much revenue as you can from your users".
I was a huge RL fan in 2015/16. It started going down hill sometime after that and EG has run it into the ground.
> I think this type of game needs its own genre. Fortnite, RL, GTA Online, Warzone... They all follow the same model of "build a good multiplayer experience and "support it" perpetually by squeezing as much revenue as you can from your users".
that's called "live service". In theory. A lot of games try to skip the "build a game that's actually fun and reasonably complete" part and just race to dump it on the market as soon as it's barely (or not even) playable and think they'll add content later. That's not live service, that's early access, and it's killed BFV and then BF2042 after it, Anthem, etc. EA is very very bad about this.
But yeah, when you hear a publisher say that a game is going to be a "live service", that's what it means, they want to do the fortnite model and squeeze ongoing revenue from the player base by whatever means. Sometimes it's cosmetic-only, sometimes it's not (R6: Siege), sometimes it starts one way and then becomes gameplay-affecting 6 months or 12 months down the road when they've got a player base who's attached to the game.
Of course, just like changing the game to add P2W elements after the fact, sometimes they won't. Valve basically abandoned TF2 about 5 years ago, they are still raking in money from it (it's still a top-10 game on steam...) but they won't even keep up with anti-cheat let alone continue development. Or even continue live service. No live service, only pay. And nor will they even allow the community to fix the game on their own, like Team Comtress 2...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnBDMZ-9-Dw
that's called "live service". In theory. A lot of games try to skip the "build a game that's actually fun and reasonably complete" part and just race to dump it on the market as soon as it's barely (or not even) playable and think they'll add content later. That's not live service, that's early access, and it's killed BFV and then BF2042 after it, Anthem, etc. EA is very very bad about this.
But yeah, when you hear a publisher say that a game is going to be a "live service", that's what it means, they want to do the fortnite model and squeeze ongoing revenue from the player base by whatever means. Sometimes it's cosmetic-only, sometimes it's not (R6: Siege), sometimes it starts one way and then becomes gameplay-affecting 6 months or 12 months down the road when they've got a player base who's attached to the game.
Of course, just like changing the game to add P2W elements after the fact, sometimes they won't. Valve basically abandoned TF2 about 5 years ago, they are still raking in money from it (it's still a top-10 game on steam...) but they won't even keep up with anti-cheat let alone continue development. Or even continue live service. No live service, only pay. And nor will they even allow the community to fix the game on their own, like Team Comtress 2...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnBDMZ-9-Dw
"Live Service" or "Games as a Service" may be the vocab you're looking for.
The game exists as a monetization engine. Some amount of fresh content is required to keep feeding the machine, but the goal is generally to let the machine run while dropping in bits of content and purchasable junk for the players to consume.
The game exists as a monetization engine. Some amount of fresh content is required to keep feeding the machine, but the goal is generally to let the machine run while dropping in bits of content and purchasable junk for the players to consume.
> They all follow the same model of "build a good multiplayer experience and "support it" perpetually by squeezing as much revenue as you can from your users".
It's a viable business model and it allows players to enjoy the game for many years to come. What bothers me a little is that these revenue extracting schemes are usually very complicated and are probably complicated because it allows them to extract as much money as possible from a small subset of players. Like casino's and mobile games.
It's a viable business model and it allows players to enjoy the game for many years to come. What bothers me a little is that these revenue extracting schemes are usually very complicated and are probably complicated because it allows them to extract as much money as possible from a small subset of players. Like casino's and mobile games.
This arguments premise is flawed.
Cosmetics are not nearly that resource intensive to produce, so its not about 'wearing nice clothes' a-la real life, where good materials are more expensive to produce. Attaching a price tag is PURELY for the benefit of the publisher.
Attaching real world costs to purchases in games also disproportionately targets neurodivergent and fiscally uneducated people. That seems like a fairly malicious business practice.
Microtransaction apologism is not a tractable stance, ever.
Cosmetics are not nearly that resource intensive to produce, so its not about 'wearing nice clothes' a-la real life, where good materials are more expensive to produce. Attaching a price tag is PURELY for the benefit of the publisher.
Attaching real world costs to purchases in games also disproportionately targets neurodivergent and fiscally uneducated people. That seems like a fairly malicious business practice.
Microtransaction apologism is not a tractable stance, ever.
There is a real world equivalent which affects many more people. Wearing nice clothes might mean wearing well-made clothes, or wearing branded clothes. Although there is some correlation, there are definitely examples of moderate quality clothes being sold for insane prices because of a brand.
Not to say that micro transactions are good practice or that they can’t be dealt with independently, but micro transactions are a very similar problem to real world cosmetics.
Sure you could argue that just having some correlation between true quality and perceived value is good enough, but I’d argue that charging for more visually appealing and better designed models ALSO is not zero correlation.
Not to say that micro transactions are good practice or that they can’t be dealt with independently, but micro transactions are a very similar problem to real world cosmetics.
Sure you could argue that just having some correlation between true quality and perceived value is good enough, but I’d argue that charging for more visually appealing and better designed models ALSO is not zero correlation.
There is still the value of creating the model asset, though I agree that it’s a cost that doesn’t scale with how many people buy it (except for maybe some of the song packs, not sure how RL’s royalty package is structured).
Why does attaching real world costs to purchases in-game strike you as “malicious” but not the real world cost of buying the game?
Why does attaching real world costs to purchases in-game strike you as “malicious” but not the real world cost of buying the game?
The issue is twofold.
The first issue is that like I originally mentioned, microtransactions disproportionately affect neurodivergent individuals because of the addictive mechanics used to implement them. The concept of 'whales' is a term used to refer to big spenders in a game economy without fully examining the reason they are spending so much. For example, where you can only buy one copy of Elden Ring, you could easily buy a new copy of Forza every year and buy each car, which may be a compulsion if you have OCD, for example. The same argument could be (and should be) made against tiered subscription services in games. If there is a lootbox mechanic involved, the issue is only compounded further as it is an introduction of gambling mechanics. In some cases, it can be worth examining the presence of envy economics 'Oooh I want was they have! How much is it? Oh I want it more now I know!'.
The second issue is the scale difference is ridiculous. The amount of dev and artist time to produce a game sits at around 1.5 to 4 years and sometimes much more. There is a large number of artistic assets that are used in combination with code when making a game and those assets are paid for using the proceeds from the game sales. When micro transactions are produced, a fraction of those assets are divided out of the main game (or less often, added later) and can be produced on a 6 month cycle to be sold separately. To be explicit, the amount of assets made in a microtransaction is FAR less than those used to make the game, but often the price of the microtransaction does not reflect this (again, refer to Forza and the $200 car dlc for a minimum-$100 game). This means that either the publisher or the developer team (including art team) is receiving that margin, and if you think the developers are receiving a proportionate amount of that margin then I have some bad news for you.
To be clear, I think game monetisation is OK. But that does not mean all forms of monetisation are OK, and it definitely does not mean that diluting a product in a harmful way is OK.
The first issue is that like I originally mentioned, microtransactions disproportionately affect neurodivergent individuals because of the addictive mechanics used to implement them. The concept of 'whales' is a term used to refer to big spenders in a game economy without fully examining the reason they are spending so much. For example, where you can only buy one copy of Elden Ring, you could easily buy a new copy of Forza every year and buy each car, which may be a compulsion if you have OCD, for example. The same argument could be (and should be) made against tiered subscription services in games. If there is a lootbox mechanic involved, the issue is only compounded further as it is an introduction of gambling mechanics. In some cases, it can be worth examining the presence of envy economics 'Oooh I want was they have! How much is it? Oh I want it more now I know!'.
The second issue is the scale difference is ridiculous. The amount of dev and artist time to produce a game sits at around 1.5 to 4 years and sometimes much more. There is a large number of artistic assets that are used in combination with code when making a game and those assets are paid for using the proceeds from the game sales. When micro transactions are produced, a fraction of those assets are divided out of the main game (or less often, added later) and can be produced on a 6 month cycle to be sold separately. To be explicit, the amount of assets made in a microtransaction is FAR less than those used to make the game, but often the price of the microtransaction does not reflect this (again, refer to Forza and the $200 car dlc for a minimum-$100 game). This means that either the publisher or the developer team (including art team) is receiving that margin, and if you think the developers are receiving a proportionate amount of that margin then I have some bad news for you.
To be clear, I think game monetisation is OK. But that does not mean all forms of monetisation are OK, and it definitely does not mean that diluting a product in a harmful way is OK.
Is 1) actually still true? I haven't played recently, but I recall quite a few chests that you have to buy keys for in order to get items out of?
Instead of crates, there are now blueprints. And instead of keys, there's credit to unlock the item of the blueprint. And instead of item drops, there are blueprints. There are still lootboxes, but these can be obtained only in events or challenges.
They got rid of keys a couple years ago. Now they have blueprints instead.
But I paid for a game that wasn't free-to-play
> Are you surprised when you can’t resell a shirt you wore for a year at the same price as when you bought it?
No, because the market for second-hand clothing is extremely oversaturated and clothing, particularly "fast fashion", simply does not last long enough to live a useful second life any more.
A video game skin however does not degrade, it will look the very same (or better) even in two decades.
No, because the market for second-hand clothing is extremely oversaturated and clothing, particularly "fast fashion", simply does not last long enough to live a useful second life any more.
A video game skin however does not degrade, it will look the very same (or better) even in two decades.
This reminds me of an old trick from the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare days. You could edit the player model skins locally if you had the correct Photoshop plugins installed. Players would just spray over the character model skins with blaze orange so you could pick people out from across the map, even if they were hiding in deep vegetation. Eventually the 'pro-mod' developers caught on and implemented some client side hash checking but the public non 'pro-mod' servers were never protected against this afaik
I think it is a problem though when a game's revenue mostly comes from cosmetics, as it shifts the developer incentives away from "developing a game that lots of people want to buy and play" to "making the type of game that lends itself well to lots of cosmetic micro transactions". These are often pretty different types of games and it would be sad if the former were entirely replaced by the latter.
Fundamentally the biggest driver of selling cosmetics is still just the size of your player base. Companies are still really out there trying to make sure people play their games. Exceptions exist (I'm looking at you mobile games), but for the most part I don't see a massive shift in incentives.
IMO the big change is to do with the lifecycle of games. Previously you release a new title, maybe a few DLCs, and then you move on. The game is done, you have to do something else, a sequel, a new IP, whatever. That was true for all games, multiplayer included. Now (for multiplayer) the idea is to try different releases until one sticks, and then try and make that game evergreen. The dream being something like League of Legends, which has been printing money for over a decade.
Whether that's a good or bad thing is up for debate I suppose.
IMO the big change is to do with the lifecycle of games. Previously you release a new title, maybe a few DLCs, and then you move on. The game is done, you have to do something else, a sequel, a new IP, whatever. That was true for all games, multiplayer included. Now (for multiplayer) the idea is to try different releases until one sticks, and then try and make that game evergreen. The dream being something like League of Legends, which has been printing money for over a decade.
Whether that's a good or bad thing is up for debate I suppose.
Yeah but if the game isnt interesting than the cosmetics dont sell.
it's also super hard to build a great f2p and i think CSGO easily is the best. they bootstrapped it for almost 2 decades from a mod made by Minh Le to what it is today and I must say it is the only f2p game I regularly play.
simply because it actually pays to play. I've made about $20 bucks this month from just selling cases given out randomly at the end of each match. It cost me nothing to buy yet the in game items (cosmetic skins that don't influence gameplay) regularly sell for good money.
it also make sense to buy the keys to unlock the cases sometimes simply because you might unlock a skin that fetches far more money. so it is a bit like gambling in that aspect.
i'm just constantly amazed how they were able to pull the economics behind this. clearly the ppl who expect a 10~100x ROI on their keys must outnumber those selling the cases. I mean I can imagine a bunch of people just farming cases day and night. Perhaps even a sophisticated AI could pull it off since the in game drops aren't even correlated with your performance.
even more impressive is how this is all legal since it really is gambling of sorts.
simply because it actually pays to play. I've made about $20 bucks this month from just selling cases given out randomly at the end of each match. It cost me nothing to buy yet the in game items (cosmetic skins that don't influence gameplay) regularly sell for good money.
it also make sense to buy the keys to unlock the cases sometimes simply because you might unlock a skin that fetches far more money. so it is a bit like gambling in that aspect.
i'm just constantly amazed how they were able to pull the economics behind this. clearly the ppl who expect a 10~100x ROI on their keys must outnumber those selling the cases. I mean I can imagine a bunch of people just farming cases day and night. Perhaps even a sophisticated AI could pull it off since the in game drops aren't even correlated with your performance.
even more impressive is how this is all legal since it really is gambling of sorts.
> ... i think CSGO easily is the best ...
> ... so it is a bit like gambling ...
I hate what video games have become.
> ... so it is a bit like gambling ...
I hate what video games have become.
I hate what video games have become.
I think this is more than anything, an app store sickness.
It has spread a little to consoles and desktop, but I can still buy a 100% offline, single player game, which has the main purpose of entertaining me.
It has a story, a point to it, a mystery often, fun things to do which aren't mining or grinding away.
I pay 80 bucks for the privilege, and am quite happy to do so. It is worth it, giving me many hours of entertainment.
Some boast "oh I finished the game first run through in 8 hours" Really? Such players just ignore all the scenery, don't really explore, don't grasp the full mystery, just... fast fast! Gotta get this over with!
I play and take in the scenery, and games like the Last of Us, Horizon Zero Dawn are fun, take 50 to 100 hours to play this way.
Just reading things in-games, clues, discovering how these worlds got this way was 1/2 the fun of the game!
So stop playing on your portable addiction device. Its hold is more devious too, as it is always in your pocket.
Your PC, console, are with you on the bus. At work. In the kitchen.
Return to us, good sir. Return to real gaming.
I think this is more than anything, an app store sickness.
It has spread a little to consoles and desktop, but I can still buy a 100% offline, single player game, which has the main purpose of entertaining me.
It has a story, a point to it, a mystery often, fun things to do which aren't mining or grinding away.
I pay 80 bucks for the privilege, and am quite happy to do so. It is worth it, giving me many hours of entertainment.
Some boast "oh I finished the game first run through in 8 hours" Really? Such players just ignore all the scenery, don't really explore, don't grasp the full mystery, just... fast fast! Gotta get this over with!
I play and take in the scenery, and games like the Last of Us, Horizon Zero Dawn are fun, take 50 to 100 hours to play this way.
Just reading things in-games, clues, discovering how these worlds got this way was 1/2 the fun of the game!
So stop playing on your portable addiction device. Its hold is more devious too, as it is always in your pocket.
Your PC, console, are with you on the bus. At work. In the kitchen.
Return to us, good sir. Return to real gaming.
I have kids now and the last game I prioritized to play this way was BoW during a summer vacation. I just hope these grand single player offline adventures wont go extinct until I will get some solid free time again. But on the other hand, I have such a long backlog of "old games" I want to play so I'm not really worried. It's more my kids that will get caught up in the Fortnites of the future and never experience the world building possible.
If there's a market, it will happen. Even if only in a small amount.
I don't mind CSGO's flavor since it doesn't cost you money like poker but I can absolutely see somebody trying to buy multiple keys in hopes of unlocking a really good skin.
again this doesn't impact the gameplay at all and I'm happy to earn some money. was able to buy another title on steam with the money accrued
again this doesn't impact the gameplay at all and I'm happy to earn some money. was able to buy another title on steam with the money accrued
I don't know if you're just naive or not, but you're paying with literally the most valuable currency you have.
That doesn't mean it isn't fun to do so, although there's a very high chance you'll come to regret the number of hours pumped into such games and the way they kept you engaged in their dopamine loop.
That doesn't mean it isn't fun to do so, although there's a very high chance you'll come to regret the number of hours pumped into such games and the way they kept you engaged in their dopamine loop.
> so it is a bit like gambling in that aspect
It's not a bit like gambling, it's exactly gambling and the predatory nature of it is what I hate about video games.
It's not a bit like gambling, it's exactly gambling and the predatory nature of it is what I hate about video games.
you can still enjoy the game without taking part in it as it is optional and does not change your odds of winning, that is still skill based. if somebody wants to pay for a fancy skin I don't really see an issue.
people bet on soccer too but that shouldn't stop you from getting excitement from it.
people bet on soccer too but that shouldn't stop you from getting excitement from it.
> even more impressive is how this is all legal since it really is gambling of sorts.
In my home country (Belgium) and my neigboring country (Netherlands) a lot of games their lootboxes are not available for us for the reason that the game-creators do not advertise the dropchances like the lottery, casino's and other gambling games are forced to do.
The reasoning is that the items that come out of the lootbox have a monetary value (as you need to pay to unlock a lootbox) so they fall under some of our gambling laws.
In my eyes, good riddance and I hope more countries will follow.
So Valve, EA Games,... just disabled opening lootboxes for us as they seem to be afraid to advertise the "drop chances" (but we can still buy and sell them)
In my home country (Belgium) and my neigboring country (Netherlands) a lot of games their lootboxes are not available for us for the reason that the game-creators do not advertise the dropchances like the lottery, casino's and other gambling games are forced to do.
The reasoning is that the items that come out of the lootbox have a monetary value (as you need to pay to unlock a lootbox) so they fall under some of our gambling laws.
In my eyes, good riddance and I hope more countries will follow.
So Valve, EA Games,... just disabled opening lootboxes for us as they seem to be afraid to advertise the "drop chances" (but we can still buy and sell them)
As someone who once played a lot of counter strike, this comment is baffling. How about the part of the game where you try to shoot the people on the other team? Is that part fun or are you just in it for the casino mechanics?
I've been playing since 1.3, what part of it did you find baffling? you are not rewarded based on game performance, it is completely random to the point I don't even think about it and so I'm always focused on having fun.
it just so happens that I seem to get good cases that I was able to sell for a bit of change but it is not like you can play 20 hours every week and make consistent money.
it just so happens that I seem to get good cases that I was able to sell for a bit of change but it is not like you can play 20 hours every week and make consistent money.
It gets even better.
With CSGO third parties were essentially selling games for actual currency instead of credit with Valve and using skins as currency for gambling on esports matches. A few of them also came up with other gambling games that didn't even involve esports.
It was also a great vehicle for money laundering: https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/oct/30/counter-strike...
Wild times.
With CSGO third parties were essentially selling games for actual currency instead of credit with Valve and using skins as currency for gambling on esports matches. A few of them also came up with other gambling games that didn't even involve esports.
It was also a great vehicle for money laundering: https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/oct/30/counter-strike...
Wild times.
A few years ago, Nintendo made a wonderful game called Super Mario Run. It was simple - Mario automatically runs and you tap to jump - but surprisingly deep. The timing of the jumps and the height of jump was paramount, and there was a ton of replayability in trying to get out-of-reach coins and finding shortcuts. It also captured the aesthetic of the Mario World games with modern graphics. I was VERY skeptical of a mobile Mario game, but was won over by the quality of game design and the clear level of polish.
Nintendo charged $9.99 for this game. The response was absolute evisceration in the ratings. Mobile game players EXPECTED a F2P experience that would waste their time with energy charge ups, loot boxes, etc. and were upset when Nintendo didn't do that. In response, Nintendo switched to this type of experience for their next release, Fire Emblem, which performed much better.
The Wikipedia article for Super Mario Run explains in detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Run#Commercial
A select quote - '[Nintendo President] Kimishima said that "we honestly prefer the Super Mario Run model", though in a June 2017 investor question-and-answer session, he said "in the future we will consider not only a single set price, but other methods that incorporate a wider variety of elements that allow as many consumers as possible to play"'
Nintendo charged $9.99 for this game. The response was absolute evisceration in the ratings. Mobile game players EXPECTED a F2P experience that would waste their time with energy charge ups, loot boxes, etc. and were upset when Nintendo didn't do that. In response, Nintendo switched to this type of experience for their next release, Fire Emblem, which performed much better.
The Wikipedia article for Super Mario Run explains in detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Run#Commercial
A select quote - '[Nintendo President] Kimishima said that "we honestly prefer the Super Mario Run model", though in a June 2017 investor question-and-answer session, he said "in the future we will consider not only a single set price, but other methods that incorporate a wider variety of elements that allow as many consumers as possible to play"'
Super Mario Run, on top of being a great game at a great price is basically single payment f2p.
And most people didn’t get that you could buy it and not worry about needing to buy berries or diamonds for real world money. Not worry about your child spending hundreds of real world dollars when playing on your phone.
People just hated the fact that they had to pay for the cheapest priced Mario game ever.
And most people didn’t get that you could buy it and not worry about needing to buy berries or diamonds for real world money. Not worry about your child spending hundreds of real world dollars when playing on your phone.
People just hated the fact that they had to pay for the cheapest priced Mario game ever.
It's based on the platform. Nobody would've bat an eye at a Switch or PC game for an upfront cost, but asking 10$ for a mobile game was kinda unheard of. I think they misjudged the market response there.
I can't say I'm not biased here, I basically hate 95% of all the mobile games I ever tried, or at least stopped playing after an hour - so a 10$ purchase for me would simply never happen, because I don't like the platform. On the other hand I did do the "paid unlock" after trying it out for a few. (Ignore this if they had a demo, I never tried it, wasn't it iphone only?)
I can't say I'm not biased here, I basically hate 95% of all the mobile games I ever tried, or at least stopped playing after an hour - so a 10$ purchase for me would simply never happen, because I don't like the platform. On the other hand I did do the "paid unlock" after trying it out for a few. (Ignore this if they had a demo, I never tried it, wasn't it iphone only?)
> but asking 10$ for a mobile game was kinda unheard of
Ironically, this used to be the norm when the iPhone's app store came out. For example, Super Monkey Ball was $10 in 2008. Over time, there was a race to the bottom, and then F2P became the norm when Apple introduced IAP.
Ironically, this used to be the norm when the iPhone's app store came out. For example, Super Monkey Ball was $10 in 2008. Over time, there was a race to the bottom, and then F2P became the norm when Apple introduced IAP.
> but asking 10$ for a mobile game was kinda unheard of
Kind of crazy that the whole market was defined by shovelware
Kind of crazy that the whole market was defined by shovelware
> And most people didn’t get that you could buy it and not worry about needing to buy berries or diamonds for real world money. Not worry about your child spending hundreds of real world dollars when playing on your phone.
People already figured how to not allow kids to pay real money in games. They don't worry about that. You just don't attach card to account or require password.
People already figured how to not allow kids to pay real money in games. They don't worry about that. You just don't attach card to account or require password.
> Nintendo charged $9.99 for this game. The response was absolute evisceration in the ratings. Mobile game players EXPECTED a F2P experience...
Just look up "Super Mario Run" on your favorite store and what you will see is "Free", not $10. In fact, I am not sure if the actual price is mentioned anywhere on the store page.
So of course people expected a F2P experience, because that's exactly what's on the store page. If Nintendo was honest, they would have published it as a paid app, with the price clearly visible on the store page. Maybe with a separate free and clearly labeled demo, as it is standard practice for one-time payment apps.
Just look up "Super Mario Run" on your favorite store and what you will see is "Free", not $10. In fact, I am not sure if the actual price is mentioned anywhere on the store page.
So of course people expected a F2P experience, because that's exactly what's on the store page. If Nintendo was honest, they would have published it as a paid app, with the price clearly visible on the store page. Maybe with a separate free and clearly labeled demo, as it is standard practice for one-time payment apps.
This is false and proven false by your link. Super Mario Run was freemium from the start. The app was free in the stores from day one. You could download and play the first few levels and then you were (surprisingly) asked to pay $9.99 to unlock the rest of the game.
Users were annoyed by the bait and switch. Nintendo should have charged $9.99 in the store and been done with it. Instead they tried to straddle some line between freemium, paid, and demo.
In addition, Nintendo added always-on DRM so that even those who fully paid for the game were dealing with silly issues that you would only expect in a freemium game.
“While still using the freemium model, Nintendo eschewed requiring players to keep paying to access more levels, instead offering the game as a free demo with the first three levels unlocked and requiring a one-time payment to unlock the rest of the game.[12] Part of the reason for this pricing scheme was to make it transparent to parents who may be purchasing the game for their children so that they would not incur further costs.[42] Fearing piracy of the game, Nintendo added always-on DRM, which requires that players have a persistent Internet connection to play.”
Users were annoyed by the bait and switch. Nintendo should have charged $9.99 in the store and been done with it. Instead they tried to straddle some line between freemium, paid, and demo.
In addition, Nintendo added always-on DRM so that even those who fully paid for the game were dealing with silly issues that you would only expect in a freemium game.
“While still using the freemium model, Nintendo eschewed requiring players to keep paying to access more levels, instead offering the game as a free demo with the first three levels unlocked and requiring a one-time payment to unlock the rest of the game.[12] Part of the reason for this pricing scheme was to make it transparent to parents who may be purchasing the game for their children so that they would not incur further costs.[42] Fearing piracy of the game, Nintendo added always-on DRM, which requires that players have a persistent Internet connection to play.”
To quantify "performed much better":
Super Mario Run: $60 million total by July 2018
Fire Emblem Heroes: $656 million by January 2020
An order of magnitude. Incentives are everything.
Super Mario Run: $60 million total by July 2018
Fire Emblem Heroes: $656 million by January 2020
An order of magnitude. Incentives are everything.
This story makes me sad. What a sorry state we've let the mobile (phone) gaming market become purely because of ads.
It's not popular to say, but maximizing accessibility (by minimizing up-front cost, in this case) has downsides: mechanics and business models end up needing to be shoehorned into the dominant economic model.
Touch controls and IAP impose serious constraints on the mobile game market still. There are some gems, but it seems like the golden age of gaming is occurring outside of mobile games.
Touch controls and IAP impose serious constraints on the mobile game market still. There are some gems, but it seems like the golden age of gaming is occurring outside of mobile games.
Nintendo did the exact opposite with its subsequent mobile game Mario Kart Tour. It's free to play but has tons of optional paid upgrades plus an optional monthly subscription.
> "in the future we will consider not only a single set price, but other methods that incorporate a wider variety of elements that allow as many consumers as possible to play"'
Iirc, they released a 3DS game with DLC, where you could haggle the price down in-game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty%27s_Real_Deal_Baseball
Iirc, they released a 3DS game with DLC, where you could haggle the price down in-game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty%27s_Real_Deal_Baseball
As a (non game) developer, I can say, thay free to play is instantly dead on arrival for me.
The moment something is known to become or becomes free to play is the moment I lose all interest.
The dishonesty in the system itself is what makes this unbearable for me.
Developers need to eat, Managers need to eat, Marketeers need to eat... And sometimes psychologists doing evil mindtricks and supporting gambling addictions need to eat too... Or buy a lambo, or two.
I don't care whether it's only cosmetic or not, I have and will never support that business model
The moment something is known to become or becomes free to play is the moment I lose all interest.
The dishonesty in the system itself is what makes this unbearable for me.
Developers need to eat, Managers need to eat, Marketeers need to eat... And sometimes psychologists doing evil mindtricks and supporting gambling addictions need to eat too... Or buy a lambo, or two.
I don't care whether it's only cosmetic or not, I have and will never support that business model
> The dishonesty in the system itself is what makes this unbearable for me.
How is it dishonest? F2P does not automatically mean using dark patterns or openly making it Pay2win. Cosmetics are the prime example of an honest F2P, as they have zero impact on the game and still allow the developers to eat.
Do you consider demos also dishonest?
How is it dishonest? F2P does not automatically mean using dark patterns or openly making it Pay2win. Cosmetics are the prime example of an honest F2P, as they have zero impact on the game and still allow the developers to eat.
Do you consider demos also dishonest?
> Cosmetics are the prime example of an honest F2P, as they have zero impact on the game
To have zero impact on the game, they'd have to not be a part of the game. Or have ever existed at all, really.
But if you think they are so meaningless, why do you think people buy them? Also, don't you think convincing someone to buy nothing sounds like something a con artist would do?
> allow the developers to eat
How do microtransactions feed developers? Do you just mean because its their job to build the game? (which necessarily includes the various monetisation systems)
To have zero impact on the game, they'd have to not be a part of the game. Or have ever existed at all, really.
But if you think they are so meaningless, why do you think people buy them? Also, don't you think convincing someone to buy nothing sounds like something a con artist would do?
> allow the developers to eat
How do microtransactions feed developers? Do you just mean because its their job to build the game? (which necessarily includes the various monetisation systems)
> But if you think they are so meaningless, why do you think people buy them?
Because they're fun.
Some people are willing to spend $5 so that their Rocket League car is the Batmobile. It has no effect on the mechanics of the game (Your car's hitbox is still the same, and it has the same speed/acceleration), but makes the game that much more enjoyable for the player.
In Splitgate (F2P FPS), I bought the battle pass for $10 because I wanted my assault rifle to look like it was made of cardboard. The damage and accuracy didn't change. It's a purely cosmetic effect that I thought was amusing.
> How do microtransactions feed developers? Do you just mean because its their job to build the game? (which necessarily includes the various monetisation systems)
Don't act like you think you know what was meant. It's annoying and smells like bad faith.
Because they're fun.
Some people are willing to spend $5 so that their Rocket League car is the Batmobile. It has no effect on the mechanics of the game (Your car's hitbox is still the same, and it has the same speed/acceleration), but makes the game that much more enjoyable for the player.
In Splitgate (F2P FPS), I bought the battle pass for $10 because I wanted my assault rifle to look like it was made of cardboard. The damage and accuracy didn't change. It's a purely cosmetic effect that I thought was amusing.
> How do microtransactions feed developers? Do you just mean because its their job to build the game? (which necessarily includes the various monetisation systems)
Don't act like you think you know what was meant. It's annoying and smells like bad faith.
Splitgate is annoying because some skins look red and blue and you can't tell what team they're on. I haven't played enough to find out how long it takes to get used to that. It's also a poor quality game and precisely the type of thing that comes to mind when I hear F2P (I realize Splitgate may have started out as a fun project more than a microtransaction cow from the outset). I quickly returned to Halo. I prefer playing games that actually feel like real products and are created by people who know what they're doing.
In F2P games you need to spend hundreds of hours to either grind to unlock basic functionality, or even if they don't have grinding, you still need skins or everyone will leave your party because they assume you're a noob. Skins drag down game performance. I've seen literal billion dollar games where it ran perfectly fine until they added waves of skins. Also multiple games where each time someone comes near you with a skin, the game freezes to load the skin (probably a blocking socket call in the middle of the main game client loop, as that's the quality you get in such games). And in most games, emotes and skins allow unintended behavior that gives advantages to their users. This is what happens when you focus all dev work on designing skins and zero thought goes into how they would affect the game.
Now, since you don't want to spend hundreds of hours unlocking the ability to play the game on a level playing field, you will probably want to spend money to unlock these things. This will costs hundreds of dollars, far more than you would pay for an actual real game. Even if you unlock them the free way, there's a high chance your account eventually gets banned. As, once again, the studio has no experience in anything other than skin design, and have no idea how their game actually works and will cave in to every single basic cheating allegation and social crap like "he was in my game therefore he stream sniped me". Again, if you have ever played a game in the last 30 years, you would be well aware that most people in charge do not understand very basics like how you could infer an enemy is near you because you heard him behind the wall, or he triggered something on the map somewhere that tells the other player that trigger was indeed triggered across the map.
> zero impact
Obviously false unless you have never played a game before.
Now, since you don't want to spend hundreds of hours unlocking the ability to play the game on a level playing field, you will probably want to spend money to unlock these things. This will costs hundreds of dollars, far more than you would pay for an actual real game. Even if you unlock them the free way, there's a high chance your account eventually gets banned. As, once again, the studio has no experience in anything other than skin design, and have no idea how their game actually works and will cave in to every single basic cheating allegation and social crap like "he was in my game therefore he stream sniped me". Again, if you have ever played a game in the last 30 years, you would be well aware that most people in charge do not understand very basics like how you could infer an enemy is near you because you heard him behind the wall, or he triggered something on the map somewhere that tells the other player that trigger was indeed triggered across the map.
> zero impact
Obviously false unless you have never played a game before.
This is absurd. So you also don't use any software products which are a) free to use or b) habe a free tier?
Not the GP, but I have a hard pass rule on F2P as well. My reasons for it are two-fold. The biggest one is that I just don't want to deal with it. I spend my entire day "doing business." Games are a place away from all that and I don't want the F2P shop to intrude on my time away from the rat race. The other reason is that in the vast majority of scenarios, F2P creates incentives on the developer to create games that feature things I don't like (grinding and lootboxes being examples).
Back in the 90s shareware was common, you’d get the first level of Duke Nukem, but to get the rest you had to pay
That’s closer to the “free tier” stuff, and a very different model to modern “freenium” games.
That’s closer to the “free tier” stuff, and a very different model to modern “freenium” games.
First level? They gave away Part 1 of the whole game!
The full game included a Part 2 and Part 3.
The full game included a Part 2 and Part 3.
also if you wanted to you could generate your own levels and manipulate the skins for the game. there used to be a big scene for this spanning many games, for free and thats the kind of game i want to pay 50 or 60 bucks for and get a disk or zip. beyond that it seems im not a gamer anymore,specifically because of what contemporary gaming has become.
I dont think an f2p game and your typical "open-source" software have anywhere near the same business model.
I don’t think they meant OSS per-se. I mean, compare Google services with a popular f2p game like Valorant. Google mines your data to target advertisements at you on a psychological level. In Valorant, you can spend money to make your gun look cooler.
I think the latter business model is very respectable because it’s not sneaky and it isn’t manipulating me nearly as much. You can have hardly any money at all, play on a crappy computer, and still have a huge amount of fun in the game. You could even be very competitive. And all for free! Not even at a cost to your privacy! And you can optionally “donate” money to the project if you want to support the game and get a neat cosmetic. How is that not a great business model for me as a consumer?
I think the latter business model is very respectable because it’s not sneaky and it isn’t manipulating me nearly as much. You can have hardly any money at all, play on a crappy computer, and still have a huge amount of fun in the game. You could even be very competitive. And all for free! Not even at a cost to your privacy! And you can optionally “donate” money to the project if you want to support the game and get a neat cosmetic. How is that not a great business model for me as a consumer?
I won’t use either. No Valorant, no Google.
I want to pay once for a game the same way I want to pay once for a car. Elden Ring is a perfect example.
I understand others feel differently. To each their own.
I want to pay once for a game the same way I want to pay once for a car. Elden Ring is a perfect example.
I understand others feel differently. To each their own.
bootloop: have you tried machine zone or other popular FTP "games"?
These "games" are HIGHLY MANIPULATIVE. They use bullying, false cult inclusion, peer pressure, gambling reward ration, false emotional and time investment, and outright slot machine tactics to extract money from players.
They are worse than Las Vegas gambling by a country mile, since at least Las Vegas gambling is open and honest about the fact that the house wins and has established rules.
The social bullying that comes from "fake players" that are paid employees of the company is among the most disturbing aspect of these games. They exists to "shake down" players to upgrade with paid upgrades, to sow conflict, etc.
The rules of these "games", including the value of in-game currencies of dizzying types, is routinely nerfed/devalued at rates similar to the more comical instances of hyperinflation in the real world.
These "games" are at the extreme end of the spectrum for now. What is truly disturbing is that practically every "platform" of gaming drools over the revenue streams they produce. It is a sad dark gravity hole that is sucking the entire industry towards it. It is the depravity of capitalism in action, the almighty dollar destroys any idealism.
Aside from that, the appalling ad and currency extraction tactics used by virtually every "free to play" kids game is perhaps more distrubing, not because of the extreme tactics of the MZ games, but because the target audience is young children with demonstrably biological inability to properly regulate the addiction and investment behaviors involved.
Rather than a 10 second toy ad "hooking" a kid, you have a program that can spend an hour or more "hooking" a kid with tactics that aren't as immediately apparent to regulators in their manipulation.
These "games" are HIGHLY MANIPULATIVE. They use bullying, false cult inclusion, peer pressure, gambling reward ration, false emotional and time investment, and outright slot machine tactics to extract money from players.
They are worse than Las Vegas gambling by a country mile, since at least Las Vegas gambling is open and honest about the fact that the house wins and has established rules.
The social bullying that comes from "fake players" that are paid employees of the company is among the most disturbing aspect of these games. They exists to "shake down" players to upgrade with paid upgrades, to sow conflict, etc.
The rules of these "games", including the value of in-game currencies of dizzying types, is routinely nerfed/devalued at rates similar to the more comical instances of hyperinflation in the real world.
These "games" are at the extreme end of the spectrum for now. What is truly disturbing is that practically every "platform" of gaming drools over the revenue streams they produce. It is a sad dark gravity hole that is sucking the entire industry towards it. It is the depravity of capitalism in action, the almighty dollar destroys any idealism.
Aside from that, the appalling ad and currency extraction tactics used by virtually every "free to play" kids game is perhaps more distrubing, not because of the extreme tactics of the MZ games, but because the target audience is young children with demonstrably biological inability to properly regulate the addiction and investment behaviors involved.
Rather than a 10 second toy ad "hooking" a kid, you have a program that can spend an hour or more "hooking" a kid with tactics that aren't as immediately apparent to regulators in their manipulation.
> Rather than a 10 second toy ad "hooking" a kid, you have a program that can spend an hour or more "hooking" a kid with tactics that aren't as immediately apparent to regulators in their manipulation.
Fun fact, in the US it was not permitted to advertise to children on TV at all between the late ‘40s and early ‘80s. It was only because Reagan reversed these laws that advertising to children because permissible and common on tv.
Many other countries still prohibit or limit advertising to children today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_to_children
Fun fact, in the US it was not permitted to advertise to children on TV at all between the late ‘40s and early ‘80s. It was only because Reagan reversed these laws that advertising to children because permissible and common on tv.
Many other countries still prohibit or limit advertising to children today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_to_children
Counterquestion: Do they entice gambling?
for games I want an immersive experience, any kind of shops, popups, ads, or any other prompt to purchase anything in game disrupts that immersion and is a turn off much the same way ads during a video/movie are. Some accept ads as inevitable but all dislike them for their immersion breaking.
Any kind of store experience inside of an experience is just as annoying as any other kind of popup ad except it usually causes the devs to change the nature of the game to cause people to lean toward using the store, making things grindy like enemies have more hit points or have greater difficulty than they would have otherwise for example in candy crush there are levels that are unbeatable unless you pay for help.
Free software is not the same as a freemium game, they don't make the software more difficult to use, make the responsiveness of it slower and have it riddled with popups in the middle of use, or even fake you out with being unable to complete something until you pay. It would be like photoshop allowing you to design something then not letting you export print or save but only right as you were about to complete it, and this wouldn't happen every time, maybe on like the 5th time you use it, it's that kind of annoyance.
Any kind of store experience inside of an experience is just as annoying as any other kind of popup ad except it usually causes the devs to change the nature of the game to cause people to lean toward using the store, making things grindy like enemies have more hit points or have greater difficulty than they would have otherwise for example in candy crush there are levels that are unbeatable unless you pay for help.
Free software is not the same as a freemium game, they don't make the software more difficult to use, make the responsiveness of it slower and have it riddled with popups in the middle of use, or even fake you out with being unable to complete something until you pay. It would be like photoshop allowing you to design something then not letting you export print or save but only right as you were about to complete it, and this wouldn't happen every time, maybe on like the 5th time you use it, it's that kind of annoyance.
I don't follow. Tapped out is free to play, and for years was one of the top money earners. I'm pretty sure the developers were eating quite well.
If someone releases their game for free, it is their prerogative. Either they want to give it away for free, it they've figured out another way to monetize it.
For me the biggest negative to F2P is in competitive games, so especially Rocket League in this case, because being F2P means that the competitive element and matchmaking system is 100% worthless.
League of Legends is the most popular competitive game in the world, and is free to play. Calling the competitive aspect and matchmaking worthless in f2p games is incredibly naive.
My experience of two games going free to play, PUBG and Rocket League, is that in the former 100% of games now have cheaters in and in the latter ~25-40% games have people playing on fresh accounts to keep their rank artificially low.
Haven't played either, but I can tell you that cheating is exceedingly rare in League and that their ranking system does a good job of figuring out if a new account is from an experienced player or a legitimately fresh face. By the time you've played 10 games you are given a reasonably good matchmaking experience. Perhaps that's why League is so much more popular than PUBG and Rocket League?
Many of the most popular esports are free to play. Is the competitive element and matchmaking system of TF2, DOTA2 or LoL worthless?
Why is it worthless? Aren't for example a lot of chess servers also free to play, and thousands of chess players play there all the time?
Good thing they have whales like me who will spend 100x of what you would have paid. They don't need you when they can milk me.
This is like bragging about being in the demographic that keeps celebrity gossip tabloids afloat. Do you also lose a lot of money on MLM schemes? Are Vegas casinos comping week-long stays for you?
I'm not into MLM schemes (or gambling) but I do love celebrity gossip. Since apparently you get to decide what interests are cool or not, I would love to hear what kind of amazing things you are into!
Mostly telling people on the internet that they are wrong.
This is either the most amazingly self-aware joke I've seen, or a completely tone-deaf unbelievably cynical response. I can't tell.
[deleted]
This is the funniest thing I've seen on HN!
You are implying that F2P is unethical. What Kiro is saying, I believe, is that the person they responded to had an invalid point.
Someone was suggesting that F2P is inherently dishonest because "developers need to eat" and clearly there are unethical moneymaking behaviors happening.
Kiro is saying "No, it isn't inherently unethical, and there are people like me willing to spend the money on cosmetics and lootboxes to cover the development of the game".
You are making the same logical fallacy (or simple opinion) that "There is no way for F2P is ethical".
Someone was suggesting that F2P is inherently dishonest because "developers need to eat" and clearly there are unethical moneymaking behaviors happening.
Kiro is saying "No, it isn't inherently unethical, and there are people like me willing to spend the money on cosmetics and lootboxes to cover the development of the game".
You are making the same logical fallacy (or simple opinion) that "There is no way for F2P is ethical".
Genuine question out of curiosity - what do you get out spending that much on a game? I’ve heard some whales spending 10-20k a week and that’s probably not even the highest. Do you get genuine enjoyment out of it or do you ever feel fleeced at all?
I think those numbers are all relative?
If you're a bored prince with billions of liquid cash and even more billions of yielding assets, do you really care about 10-20k of weekly outlays?
Or reduce the scale, if you have 100k annual salary, do you miss that $3 a day you spend on coffee or $5 a week you spend on mobile gaming? ... or $15.99 a month you spend on Netflix?
Everyone has a thing and a threshold they are comfortable spending on. Some people want 4 wheels that will take them from A to B and other people are willing to spend $500 a month to get a Tesla.
We focus on digital goods because they have a perceived cost of zero to manufacture and are transient (one day the game will no longer work) but fail to spot that the value we heap on many material goods are social and most of us do not buy goods for life (hence why r/BuyItForLife is a subculture rather than conventional wisdom)
If you're a bored prince with billions of liquid cash and even more billions of yielding assets, do you really care about 10-20k of weekly outlays?
Or reduce the scale, if you have 100k annual salary, do you miss that $3 a day you spend on coffee or $5 a week you spend on mobile gaming? ... or $15.99 a month you spend on Netflix?
Everyone has a thing and a threshold they are comfortable spending on. Some people want 4 wheels that will take them from A to B and other people are willing to spend $500 a month to get a Tesla.
We focus on digital goods because they have a perceived cost of zero to manufacture and are transient (one day the game will no longer work) but fail to spot that the value we heap on many material goods are social and most of us do not buy goods for life (hence why r/BuyItForLife is a subculture rather than conventional wisdom)
Just to follow up on what you said, one of the things I've learned after a couple of years in online retail is that a huge proportion of people genuinely enjoy spending money.
They don't consider the opportunity cost or feel the pain of lost potential, but get a rush of "feeling rich" whenever they spend $50 on a T-shirt they'll wear once.
It's cross-cultural, natural psychology, and I doubt it'll go anywhere.
They don't consider the opportunity cost or feel the pain of lost potential, but get a rush of "feeling rich" whenever they spend $50 on a T-shirt they'll wear once.
It's cross-cultural, natural psychology, and I doubt it'll go anywhere.
A lot of people have this; I certainly do: when I buy something new it feels good, for a short time.
I actually live a fairly frugal life, and I think acknowledging this is important: "do I really want or need this or am I just making myself feel better for a few hours?"
I actually live a fairly frugal life, and I think acknowledging this is important: "do I really want or need this or am I just making myself feel better for a few hours?"
Some people have enough money that they don't care about the money. But other people become addicted and end up spending money they don't have.
Just like some people dropping 100k in Vegas in a weekend are paying for the experience and VIP treatment and others just need one more bet to replenish Johnnys college fund.
Just like some people dropping 100k in Vegas in a weekend are paying for the experience and VIP treatment and others just need one more bet to replenish Johnnys college fund.
sincere question - how big of a problem (in terms of #people suffering) is there of people spending beyond their means on online cosmetics?
I could see <18s getting into trouble but are there adults legit bankrupting themselves from paid-for cosmetics?
How common is the pattern for paid-for lootbox cosmetics (as compared to buy-it-now) cosmetics? Wouldn't say I'm particularly deep in either the RL/Fortnite ecosystem..!
I could see <18s getting into trouble but are there adults legit bankrupting themselves from paid-for cosmetics?
How common is the pattern for paid-for lootbox cosmetics (as compared to buy-it-now) cosmetics? Wouldn't say I'm particularly deep in either the RL/Fortnite ecosystem..!
Paid for cosmetics? Not likely to be very many people bankrupting themselves.
But Pay-To-Win games like Clash of Clans? I don't have any research, but if I was a gambling man, I'd bet at least a few thousand.
But Pay-To-Win games like Clash of Clans? I don't have any research, but if I was a gambling man, I'd bet at least a few thousand.
So I haven't played Clash of Clans but know Clash Royale exceptionally well (with a some dedicated training could probably shoot for global 10k league finish)
So speaking from experience: there's probably a finite sum you can spend on Clash Royale. I found the beginning highly addictive and I did spend hundreds when I probably shouldn't have, but the acceleration/frustration and advantage you can buy is very quickly eroded by skill. Once you have a maxed deck, it's pretty hard to buy victories and any new card might buy you some wins but will quickly get nerfed, and players better than you will still beat you (and matchmaking will converge you onto that 49% win rate).
I doubt I'm a typical player but at this stage I've probably extracted more value (by time) from clash than they've extracted from me - even if I spent 2k (a very very generous estimate), amortised over 5-6 years of play, that's not a lot of money (30 a month which is a AAA game every other month, less than a coffee a day) and has definitely given me more than that in enjoyment. And at this point my expenditure has completely plateaued.
Can I see people staying in that honeymoon phase moving from game to game? Yes maybe - I suppose by law of large numbers it's more likely than not Clash Royale peaked at like 100M players so 1k having issues is believable.
I'm all for regulation in this space (it's pretty crazy that it's not that regulated) but without data, my own personal experience feels like this is not nearly as dangerous as gambling or alcohol/drugs. The game milks you of money but doesn't create those boom-bust cycles that the traditional vices do
So speaking from experience: there's probably a finite sum you can spend on Clash Royale. I found the beginning highly addictive and I did spend hundreds when I probably shouldn't have, but the acceleration/frustration and advantage you can buy is very quickly eroded by skill. Once you have a maxed deck, it's pretty hard to buy victories and any new card might buy you some wins but will quickly get nerfed, and players better than you will still beat you (and matchmaking will converge you onto that 49% win rate).
I doubt I'm a typical player but at this stage I've probably extracted more value (by time) from clash than they've extracted from me - even if I spent 2k (a very very generous estimate), amortised over 5-6 years of play, that's not a lot of money (30 a month which is a AAA game every other month, less than a coffee a day) and has definitely given me more than that in enjoyment. And at this point my expenditure has completely plateaued.
Can I see people staying in that honeymoon phase moving from game to game? Yes maybe - I suppose by law of large numbers it's more likely than not Clash Royale peaked at like 100M players so 1k having issues is believable.
I'm all for regulation in this space (it's pretty crazy that it's not that regulated) but without data, my own personal experience feels like this is not nearly as dangerous as gambling or alcohol/drugs. The game milks you of money but doesn't create those boom-bust cycles that the traditional vices do
I only have anecdotes, not stats. But some people do ruin their lives with F2P gaming addictions.
financially? ie they played an f2p got hooked and spent dumped their money into oblivion such that they couldn't financially recover?
Getting addicted to an F2P game and losing your time, while sad, is not within the scope of this discussion
Getting addicted to an F2P game and losing your time, while sad, is not within the scope of this discussion
Financially. I personally know one person who pissed away their rent money on a F2P and got evicted. I also know of several other stories of people (not who I know personally) where they spend a lot of money they don't have, to the point of ruin. (Not being able to financially recover is a very high bar - you can financially recover from a bankruptcy for instance.)
I mean, sometimes they are kids (or the developmentally challenged)[1] but adults [2] too. There are more sad stories. One I recall was a developer who invited their superwhales to a launch of the new beta expansion in person. (All expenses paid) They sent one a plane ticket, but the the player never showed because they couldn't afford to get to the airport. I wish I could find that story online.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48925623
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/03/01/why-its-s...
> losing your time, while sad, is not within the scope of this discussion
I very clearly and explicitly said "money they didn't have" in my first post and was talking about financial costs.
I mean, sometimes they are kids (or the developmentally challenged)[1] but adults [2] too. There are more sad stories. One I recall was a developer who invited their superwhales to a launch of the new beta expansion in person. (All expenses paid) They sent one a plane ticket, but the the player never showed because they couldn't afford to get to the airport. I wish I could find that story online.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48925623
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/03/01/why-its-s...
> losing your time, while sad, is not within the scope of this discussion
I very clearly and explicitly said "money they didn't have" in my first post and was talking about financial costs.
>I very clearly and explicitly said "money they didn't have" in my first post and was talking about financial costs.
fair - I missed that context when reading the immediate response replying to.
Thanks for sharing your anecdata - the industry is definitely in need of regulation something I've long believed. The ubiquity and ease of access is probably the most dangerous bit. It's astounding that mobile games were able to copy/hire all the knowledge acquired in building slot machines to create an industry that doesn't even have to pay out..!
fair - I missed that context when reading the immediate response replying to.
Thanks for sharing your anecdata - the industry is definitely in need of regulation something I've long believed. The ubiquity and ease of access is probably the most dangerous bit. It's astounding that mobile games were able to copy/hire all the knowledge acquired in building slot machines to create an industry that doesn't even have to pay out..!
I think ease of access is unrated as a contributing factor. But even scarier than that is the ubiquity. The ability to get a fix whenever you want (after all, it's easy to open the game and spend money!) makes resisting it a 24/7 chore.
yes - I very often absentmindedly open Clash out of habit even if I wasn't intending to play it.
I don't spend near as much as GP but I found that I am OK spending a comparable number (or a little more) to a classic boxed game such as a console title, so around $50-$100, if I enjoy the game enough. Two examples: Roblox and Genshin Impact.
Me and the kid got into Roblox entirely for free. Beyond all the games she enjoys even without any paid features, we got a dead-simple game creation platform with world-class MMO built in. I thought that was nice enough to warrant buying a few gift cards for her and the peers.
We got into GI for free as well. I was apprehensive at first because I heard from friends that GI is an evil gacha game preying on addict personalities. But once we started it we enjoyed the artwork and the game so much through the hours of main quest lines and beautiful content that I thought it was as good or better than Zelda BOTW so why not kick back at least the BOTW purchase price?
Me and the kid got into Roblox entirely for free. Beyond all the games she enjoys even without any paid features, we got a dead-simple game creation platform with world-class MMO built in. I thought that was nice enough to warrant buying a few gift cards for her and the peers.
We got into GI for free as well. I was apprehensive at first because I heard from friends that GI is an evil gacha game preying on addict personalities. But once we started it we enjoyed the artwork and the game so much through the hours of main quest lines and beautiful content that I thought it was as good or better than Zelda BOTW so why not kick back at least the BOTW purchase price?
It depends on what kind of loot box. For cosmetics it's pretty random. When the game itself feels stale I want a new outfit to make it feel fresh.
For P2W it's a treat after I've been grinding freemium for a while. It's like opening a beer on Friday after work. I don't spend 10-20k a week but I do occasionally spend that amount on one game during its whole lifetime. However, that also means I've gotten thousands of hours of enjoyment out of it.
But yes, while I'm only a 1000x (1000x compared to someone who just pays $20 upfront) there are certainly people who are 1000000x and much bigger whales than me. I can't speak for them.
For P2W it's a treat after I've been grinding freemium for a while. It's like opening a beer on Friday after work. I don't spend 10-20k a week but I do occasionally spend that amount on one game during its whole lifetime. However, that also means I've gotten thousands of hours of enjoyment out of it.
But yes, while I'm only a 1000x (1000x compared to someone who just pays $20 upfront) there are certainly people who are 1000000x and much bigger whales than me. I can't speak for them.
I think that's part of the problem. Because skipping the grind by paying money is seen as a treat, game companies now have the incentive to turn their games into a chore on purpose to convince people to treat themselves.
The beer on Friday metaphor resonates with me (even though I don’t drink beer), that’s how I perceive buying in game items.
Out of curiosity which game(s) did you spend 10-20k on?
[deleted]
I disagree. There are ways to do it in which it's obvious where the business model is, and it isn't too forceful or gambling.
The World of Tanks/Battleships/Warplanes series, are free to play, with progression through experience ( you unlock higher level machines based on xp points you accumulate through playing and success at it), or through paying to go up the ladder faster or unlock special machines. You can play the free version just fine ( a paying user against you doesn't have a serious advantage), and the developers make enough money from the paying users who enjoy the exclusive machines or earning xp faster. Why shouldn't i enjoy a free game i know someone pays for ( and that someone needs me there too, if there aren't adversaries you can't play)?
The World of Tanks/Battleships/Warplanes series, are free to play, with progression through experience ( you unlock higher level machines based on xp points you accumulate through playing and success at it), or through paying to go up the ladder faster or unlock special machines. You can play the free version just fine ( a paying user against you doesn't have a serious advantage), and the developers make enough money from the paying users who enjoy the exclusive machines or earning xp faster. Why shouldn't i enjoy a free game i know someone pays for ( and that someone needs me there too, if there aren't adversaries you can't play)?
The problem I have with these games is they are almost universally tuned to make them very time consuming and grindy if you don't pay.
That is, instead of the game being balanced for what feels good to play, they are balanced so that they feel good when you pay more and otherwise are not so annoying that you quit, but annoying enough to push you to pay.
Its not: here's a good game, but you can buy these things with real money. Its: here's a game that we purposely made a bit too time consuming and annoying, but you can buy these "time savers" to make it be fun all the time instead. Any game that sells real-money "time savers" is by definition a badly balanced game. The solution to a badly balanced game that becomes tedious is not to sell "time savers" (or skips: "buy the tank now and skip the grind for it"), its to rebalance the game to remove or reduce the tedium.
That is, instead of the game being balanced for what feels good to play, they are balanced so that they feel good when you pay more and otherwise are not so annoying that you quit, but annoying enough to push you to pay.
Its not: here's a good game, but you can buy these things with real money. Its: here's a game that we purposely made a bit too time consuming and annoying, but you can buy these "time savers" to make it be fun all the time instead. Any game that sells real-money "time savers" is by definition a badly balanced game. The solution to a badly balanced game that becomes tedious is not to sell "time savers" (or skips: "buy the tank now and skip the grind for it"), its to rebalance the game to remove or reduce the tedium.
That is just certain games that rightfully have a bad reputation, not all F2P games. As others said, in rocket League or Fortnite you don't get advantages from buying things. You can buy levels in Fortnite, but they only unlock cosmetics.
It depends on the game. If cosmetics are the only (or primary) reward a game offers, then I still feel that it matters. If cosmetics are a purely orthogonal thing, then I agree that its not an issue.
Fortnite only has cosmetics as rewards if you buy the battle pass, which costs less than 10$ for a season that usually lasts about 3 months. That is less than for example World of Warcraft used to cost, which was more like 15$/month (iirc).
It is an ongoing massively multiplayer game which also incurs server costs, so I don't think asking for a voluntary subscription is too much.
It is an ongoing massively multiplayer game which also incurs server costs, so I don't think asking for a voluntary subscription is too much.
Without having tried it myself, that does sound pretty reasonable in Fortnite's case.
Isn’t WoT the game where you can pay to get slightly better bullets? Even if that’s just a small bonus, that makes it P2W instantly.
Yes, and they used to be premium, real money shells only. But years ago they made them simply purchaseable with ingame money. But to have any of that spare, you need to play with "premium" time (which is fairly easy to get for free) or be really good at the game.
Ah, I guess that makes it a more complex thing to argue about. I only played it many years ago for a short time and remembered the golden bullets that were real money only.
Those games absolutely nickel and dime you. Get a new tank? Want to use your old, well trained crew? Pay up premium currency. Garage slots cost money, crew quarters cost money, they have that weird experience system that costs money, etc. Not to mention that the grind gets insane at high tiers, you certainly _can_ play exclusively f2p but there are a shit ton of hooks to get you to pay up.
I've been wondering why we have such different reactions to free to play games and free software. I know gaming has different value proposition, but free software and services share a lot of similarities. It's not just feeding the creators. There are tricks and "addictions" too. Do you like the free version but want to scale up, remove that restrictive license, or unlock new features? No problem, just pay up a bit. It's no big deal; look at our landing page where you can see other players - I'm sorry, other businesses - who happily have done that. Some even do cosmetics too (we'll show your logo and remove ours in the UI facing your customers).
Is it dishonest? I don't know. But the tactics are similar.
Is it dishonest? I don't know. But the tactics are similar.
I think the issue is that it doesn't do what it says on the box, or if it does, there are disclaimers in super-tiny print.
I'm not big on games, and even less so on mobile, but I remember that the ones I've tried to kill time during my commute, I could basically play them for 5 minutes if I didn't want to buy gems or whatever.
This, to me, looks much more like the "shareware" / demo versions of old than "free to play". And I think I'd see them in a better light if they were upfront about it.
To compare this with an "open source with paid features" product I'm familiar with, Elasticsearch, they're much more clear about it. At the time, it didn't even support TLS, no authentication, etc. You were of course on your own if you couldn't figure something out. But you'd know this upfront, and you didn't have to reboot the cluster every 10 minutes or 100 searches.
I'm not big on games, and even less so on mobile, but I remember that the ones I've tried to kill time during my commute, I could basically play them for 5 minutes if I didn't want to buy gems or whatever.
This, to me, looks much more like the "shareware" / demo versions of old than "free to play". And I think I'd see them in a better light if they were upfront about it.
To compare this with an "open source with paid features" product I'm familiar with, Elasticsearch, they're much more clear about it. At the time, it didn't even support TLS, no authentication, etc. You were of course on your own if you couldn't figure something out. But you'd know this upfront, and you didn't have to reboot the cluster every 10 minutes or 100 searches.
[deleted]
I hear you! Same goes for me… if a game is free to play for me it’s a NO GO!
I think context matters a lot.
If it's an F2P MMO then it's not a decision on a whim by the studio/publisher - it's been the default for a few years and good luck launching a subscription MMO in the last few years.
If it's an AAA single player title and you have loot boxes then it's just someone being greedy.
If it's a mobile game then it would probably not exist without f2p.
But I get your point, I used to not like this F2P trend but over the years I actually like to not completely stop playing some MMOs because I don't want to pay the sub. With F2P I can login three times per month and play for an hour. This might be different if I was willing to pay 10$ for 3h of play.
If it's an F2P MMO then it's not a decision on a whim by the studio/publisher - it's been the default for a few years and good luck launching a subscription MMO in the last few years.
If it's an AAA single player title and you have loot boxes then it's just someone being greedy.
If it's a mobile game then it would probably not exist without f2p.
But I get your point, I used to not like this F2P trend but over the years I actually like to not completely stop playing some MMOs because I don't want to pay the sub. With F2P I can login three times per month and play for an hour. This might be different if I was willing to pay 10$ for 3h of play.
Call it trial version then. ; )
What for example is dishonest about the "free-to-play" of Rocket League or Fortnite? It literally is free to play.
This is just a self-inflicted bubble problem. There are now so many interesting games without any dark patterns on Steam alone that one can spend an entire lifetime playing awesome games without ever encountering a single loot box, just step a bit outside the AAA and mobile bubbles.
It's a wonderful time to be a gamer. I mainly avoid AAA and have found a lot of joy with things like Outer Wilds, Project Zomboid and Rimworld.
However, seeing my favorite franchises go down the drain when I would have loved to keep immersing myself in those worlds still makes me bitter over the direction the AAA gaming industry is taking. So I get that people complain.
However, seeing my favorite franchises go down the drain when I would have loved to keep immersing myself in those worlds still makes me bitter over the direction the AAA gaming industry is taking. So I get that people complain.
I agree 100%.
Kena Bridge of Spirits and Tony Hawk 1 + 2 HD are amazing games and have no DLC.
It's a very complicated problem to solve, on some level adults have the freedom to be self-destructive. In another business case, dating apps are known to knowingly allow fake profiles to roam to encourage people to subscribe. And even after that, you have various freemium add-ons.
Between this, and a very scary experience, I haven't used an app in years and I actually meet much higher quality people now.
But adults have a right to spend their money whichever way they choose, if you enjoy spending 200$ or $300 a month on free to play games, and chatting with bots, enjoy yourself.
The bigger issue with much of this stuff is there's no clear cap on how much money you can spend, so the bulk of freemium revenue comes from a tiny percentage of consumers.
Like an addict will steal to finance their addiction, you'll have cases where someone will just steal their mom's credit card to buy Fortnite skins or Tinder boosts.
I think a good compromise would be to restrict games with free to play mechanics to adults, as in if you're not at least 18 you're not allowed to play games with loot boxes. Once you're an adult, gambling is fine.
At the same time, I also respect the countries who have just banned this form of gambling outright. As it appears the Netherlands has.
https://screenrant.com/lootbox-gambling-microtransactions-il...
Kena Bridge of Spirits and Tony Hawk 1 + 2 HD are amazing games and have no DLC.
It's a very complicated problem to solve, on some level adults have the freedom to be self-destructive. In another business case, dating apps are known to knowingly allow fake profiles to roam to encourage people to subscribe. And even after that, you have various freemium add-ons.
Between this, and a very scary experience, I haven't used an app in years and I actually meet much higher quality people now.
But adults have a right to spend their money whichever way they choose, if you enjoy spending 200$ or $300 a month on free to play games, and chatting with bots, enjoy yourself.
The bigger issue with much of this stuff is there's no clear cap on how much money you can spend, so the bulk of freemium revenue comes from a tiny percentage of consumers.
Like an addict will steal to finance their addiction, you'll have cases where someone will just steal their mom's credit card to buy Fortnite skins or Tinder boosts.
I think a good compromise would be to restrict games with free to play mechanics to adults, as in if you're not at least 18 you're not allowed to play games with loot boxes. Once you're an adult, gambling is fine.
At the same time, I also respect the countries who have just banned this form of gambling outright. As it appears the Netherlands has.
https://screenrant.com/lootbox-gambling-microtransactions-il...
> I think a good compromise would be to restrict games with free to play mechanics to adults, as in if you're not at least 18 you're not allowed to play games with loot boxes. Once you're an adult, gambling is fine.
Yes. As it stands many of these games are simply an end-run around gambling laws. It would be nice if games with these mechanics were clearly labelled (ESRB is showing its conflict of interest here) and rated 18+.
Yes. As it stands many of these games are simply an end-run around gambling laws. It would be nice if games with these mechanics were clearly labelled (ESRB is showing its conflict of interest here) and rated 18+.
Absolutely, if we all just acknowledge this is gambling I think some progress can be made on allowing adults to gamble.
I personally think the legal age to gamble or drink should be 18, but to comply with state law it's not unreasonable to say restrict boxes to those 21 and over.
I personally think the legal age to gamble or drink should be 18, but to comply with state law it's not unreasonable to say restrict boxes to those 21 and over.
You're right, but only for you. This only works if all you want to do is play arbitrary interesting games, but that's almost never what anyone wants to do. The author liked Rocket League, and paid money for it, then disagreed with its direction. I like WoW. I disagree with a lot of its direction. Would I play anything else? Maybe, but probably not.
Everyone is playing Elden Ring. If I wanted to play it, but disagreed with the same things, I couldn't play other games and get the same experience.
Everyone is playing Elden Ring. If I wanted to play it, but disagreed with the same things, I couldn't play other games and get the same experience.
The author liked Rocket League, and paid money for it, then disagreed with its direction.
If you gets years of enjoyment out of a game you spent $20 on, I think you've come out ahead in all measures. I think that's the most important thing to not lose sight of. Now, I totally get expressing disagreement over the direction of a game, but at the end of the day it's probably unreasonable to expect to enjoy the experience of a particular game (or any single thing, really) forever. Games change, gamers change.
If you gets years of enjoyment out of a game you spent $20 on, I think you've come out ahead in all measures. I think that's the most important thing to not lose sight of. Now, I totally get expressing disagreement over the direction of a game, but at the end of the day it's probably unreasonable to expect to enjoy the experience of a particular game (or any single thing, really) forever. Games change, gamers change.
I believe the author expressed specifically that they did still enjoy the game, but specifically didn't enjoy the fact that their purchase was effectively devalued, and instead you're now nickel and dimed. I don't think you have to believe that you'll enjoy a game forever to be displeased with that, especially if they still enjoy the game part of the game. In fact I'd argue that you can probably experience that right from the start. I used to like Gran Turismo. Idk anything about the new one, but if I tried it, and found out after if after spending $80 on the game, I still had to pay for each individual colour of car or something inane, I sure as hell wouldn't buy it. Same reason I never got into railroad simulator or whatever
Quite right.
If there's a golden age of video gaming, we're living in it now. The sheer quantity of quality, innovative games out there is almost absurd.
If there's a golden age of video gaming, we're living in it now. The sheer quantity of quality, innovative games out there is almost absurd.
I disagree. There are previously popular genres that are either in sharp decline or basically dead (RTS comes to mind). Other genres (MMOs) have been almost completely taken over by games with freemium models and there are few options available if you're not into that. Finally, games on the world's most popular computing/gaming platform in the world (cell phones) are almost all freemium/gacha. This is extremely disappointing.
The indie scene is, indeed, vibrant - but there's a limit to the kinds of games that can come from a small team with a small budget. Meanwhile, extensive monetization is creeping into more and more big franchises and studios. See: the recent Gran Turismo 7 controversy.
The indie scene is, indeed, vibrant - but there's a limit to the kinds of games that can come from a small team with a small budget. Meanwhile, extensive monetization is creeping into more and more big franchises and studios. See: the recent Gran Turismo 7 controversy.
> There are previously popular genres that are either in sharp decline or basically dead (RTS comes to mind).
And other genres that are extremely popular that didn't exist a few years ago. Also, there are good new RTS titles out there, even if there's nothing with the popularity that Starcraft or whatever had back in the day.
> Other genres (MMOs) have been almost completely taken over by games with freemium models and there are few options available if you're not into that.
The most popular MMOs right now is likely FFXIV (not freemium), followed by WoW (not freemium). (Or it might still be the other way around; either way...) There are a lot of freemium model MMOs around, but most of them launched with a subscription model, failed to compete with the dominant subscription model MMOs, and fell back to freemium to try and survive. Taken as a whole, the genre is absolutely dominated by the subscription model; that's where the players and money is. And while no, there aren't a ton of subscription options, that's largely an inevitable consequence of the business model, which has vicious network effects.
There isn't a freemium MMO developer out there that wouldn't trade a kidney in a heartbeat to become the next Everquest/WoW/FFXIV. Conversely, if WoW ever went freemium, it would be universally recognised as a sign of abject failure and a last attempt to try and stabilise the game financially before the servers get shut down.
> there's a limit to the kinds of games that can come from a small team with a small budget
The limit exists, but it seems to be ever receding into the distance. Valheim or Rimworld are both stunning, developed on a shoestring budget by tiny teams.
> Meanwhile, extensive monetization is creeping into more and more big franchises and studios.
You don't have to play games from the big franchises or studios.
And other genres that are extremely popular that didn't exist a few years ago. Also, there are good new RTS titles out there, even if there's nothing with the popularity that Starcraft or whatever had back in the day.
> Other genres (MMOs) have been almost completely taken over by games with freemium models and there are few options available if you're not into that.
The most popular MMOs right now is likely FFXIV (not freemium), followed by WoW (not freemium). (Or it might still be the other way around; either way...) There are a lot of freemium model MMOs around, but most of them launched with a subscription model, failed to compete with the dominant subscription model MMOs, and fell back to freemium to try and survive. Taken as a whole, the genre is absolutely dominated by the subscription model; that's where the players and money is. And while no, there aren't a ton of subscription options, that's largely an inevitable consequence of the business model, which has vicious network effects.
There isn't a freemium MMO developer out there that wouldn't trade a kidney in a heartbeat to become the next Everquest/WoW/FFXIV. Conversely, if WoW ever went freemium, it would be universally recognised as a sign of abject failure and a last attempt to try and stabilise the game financially before the servers get shut down.
> there's a limit to the kinds of games that can come from a small team with a small budget
The limit exists, but it seems to be ever receding into the distance. Valheim or Rimworld are both stunning, developed on a shoestring budget by tiny teams.
> Meanwhile, extensive monetization is creeping into more and more big franchises and studios.
You don't have to play games from the big franchises or studios.
But there have been so many games created that it's possible to spend ages just going through one's Steam backlog without having to bother with modern games. I'm currently playing Fallout: New Vegas and the original F.E.A.R.
Who needs modernity?
Who needs modernity?
I was reminded of this when I ended up on reddit's Unity development subreddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/top/)
The daily amount of creativity, talent and technical ability blows my mind!
The daily amount of creativity, talent and technical ability blows my mind!
There is value in restricting quantity. The N64 being difficult and expensive to develop/publish for had an alluring charm because of how little it had. In the US, 297 titles spanning from September 29,1996 to April 30, 2002. Each game(even made by lesser known studios) was a deep experience that is memorable years later. Sure, this is not for everyone and even Nintendo can't do this model in 2022 but as I was just digging up my old console the other day, I am reminded at how special having so little was compared to today. In fact the amount of software on platforms today has made me think that I am just wasting my precious time and I have essentially given up on video games. I wonder if others feel the same.
I guess the Ouya tried to replicate this but the ease of development hurt the console in my opinion. Too much software mixed with the same 24 hours in a day that everyone has leads to much of it never being experienced.
I guess the Ouya tried to replicate this but the ease of development hurt the console in my opinion. Too much software mixed with the same 24 hours in a day that everyone has leads to much of it never being experienced.
Partly. I stopped playing multiplayer games years ago because I was missing out on so many good single player ones.
But wanting to play an online multiplayer game these days puts you in a very large bubble with very few options. After scanning the top 10 multiplayer games on twitch it seems the majority follow similar principles.
My biggest problem with MP games is that there is little room for casual gamers in these competitive games anymore. It stops being fun when you get dunked on repeatedly and it’s getting harder to find community servers where people are playing for fun and not to win and clip it for twitch/YouTube/tiktok.
Yes. I used to play Counter-Strike (pre 1.6) at a fairly high level. But it was still basically goofing around compared to what is expected of even novice players in Counter-Strike these days. I guess a lot of people want to be the next esports/twitch star and unless you're a god gamer you're ruining their chances.
Outside the AAA bubble, stuff is native for Linux as a bonus. :D
I payed for Rocket League quite a while back, as it had Linux support.
But then they removed it. Ofc. I couldn't get my money back from Steam, and admittedly its not their fault but still.
The author of this article doesn't want to do the work to change their bubble, they want everyone else to change.
I’m glad there is this whole parallel universe of amazing single player (or MP-optional) games with absolutely no dark patterns, loot boxes or any of the shit people who play MP games have to put up with.
I buy a game, and unless I get the DLC(s)/Expanions pack(s), that’s all I’ll ever have to pay. Civilization V: Over 2000 hours. Pathfinder: Kingmaker/Wrath of the righteous: Over 1000 hours each. Stellaris [0]: Almost 1000 hours.
[0]: Some people hate the Paradox DLC style, personally I think it’s amazing. Content DLCs are accompanied by free feature patches, cosmetic/minor DLCs are well, minor. No one forces you to get all of them. And thanks to this DLC policy, Stellaris will soon turn 6 years old while still getting regular updates.
I buy a game, and unless I get the DLC(s)/Expanions pack(s), that’s all I’ll ever have to pay. Civilization V: Over 2000 hours. Pathfinder: Kingmaker/Wrath of the righteous: Over 1000 hours each. Stellaris [0]: Almost 1000 hours.
[0]: Some people hate the Paradox DLC style, personally I think it’s amazing. Content DLCs are accompanied by free feature patches, cosmetic/minor DLCs are well, minor. No one forces you to get all of them. And thanks to this DLC policy, Stellaris will soon turn 6 years old while still getting regular updates.
> Some people hate the Paradox DLC style, personally I think it’s amazing
Yep. Some people might argue that this or that mechanic should be in the base game because it's too important, but in general the Paradox model is great. Games get interesting new content many years after release, which you have to pay for, but it enables Paradox to actually do the work. The latest DLC for Hearts of Iron 4 took more than a year to develop and drastically changed the game ( it added logistics, trains, depos) for the better. If it were not paid, they wouldn't have been able to afford it.
Yep. Some people might argue that this or that mechanic should be in the base game because it's too important, but in general the Paradox model is great. Games get interesting new content many years after release, which you have to pay for, but it enables Paradox to actually do the work. The latest DLC for Hearts of Iron 4 took more than a year to develop and drastically changed the game ( it added logistics, trains, depos) for the better. If it were not paid, they wouldn't have been able to afford it.
It's true that they add more content per DLC, but I question the amount it adds versus the price they include.
In addition, I noticed every new paradox release their base game tends to be broad, but shallow; almost as if it was intentional. They fill in depth with DLCs which one could argue should've been there in the first place. Try playing any of their recent games without DLC.
In addition, I noticed every new paradox release their base game tends to be broad, but shallow; almost as if it was intentional. They fill in depth with DLCs which one could argue should've been there in the first place. Try playing any of their recent games without DLC.
Often, content also does end up in the base game after some time. It happened with Utopia for Stellaris, most of what it initially offered is now included in the base game.
And people who can’t or don’t want to pay still get some benefit as part of the features are always public and not DLC-only.
And people who can’t or don’t want to pay still get some benefit as part of the features are always public and not DLC-only.
And there are promos a few times per year where all the DLCs are available at a huge discount. And now there's a monthly subscription for all the DLCs. So there are multiple options available to get DLCs. All in all, not a bad way of doing things.
From an engineering perspective I wonder how sustainable that is. For every new DLC X you need to test with (X-1)! combinations of previous DLCs. Sure, not all DLCs interact with each other but many will in some limited way.
They have been following this model for years, CK 1-3, EU 1-4, Victoria 1-2, Stellaris. So it seems to be pretty sustainable?
It is a common joke among fans for these games that Paradox Interactive does not have a QA department, given how incredibly buggy their DLCs are at launch.
Hasn't Paradox this sneaky thing going, where they put new mechanics from DLCs into the main game, but only useable by the AI? Thus shifting the balance slowly against the player and forcing them on the long run to buy DLCs to get a fair balanced game again.
Similar to things happening in MMOs with extensions. A new extension usually forces most players to buy it fast, so they can continue to play with the other players, access new raids, skills and gain from the new items on the market.
Similar to things happening in MMOs with extensions. A new extension usually forces most players to buy it fast, so they can continue to play with the other players, access new raids, skills and gain from the new items on the market.
Not for Stellaris, but considering that their games are pretty much about emergent stories, I wouldn’t even complain about it. For MP only the host needs to have the DLCs.
Paradox DLC policy is problematic I feel: they gate some of the visual flair and more troublingly some of the soundtrack behind payed DLC. How would it be if a movie charged you extra for listening to its score?
Also the large number of DLC makes it difficult to determine what set I may have do give a canonical experience or if it is even viable gameplay wise.
Also the large number of DLC makes it difficult to determine what set I may have do give a canonical experience or if it is even viable gameplay wise.
> and more troublingly some of the soundtrack behind payed DLC. How would it be if a movie charged you extra for listening to its score?
Why is it problematic that they include extra music in expansions? They're not leaving out an essential part of the game you bought, just adding more of it when you buy DLC. The base game soundtrack is so good that there are times I just pause the game and listen to the music.
Why is it problematic that they include extra music in expansions? They're not leaving out an essential part of the game you bought, just adding more of it when you buy DLC. The base game soundtrack is so good that there are times I just pause the game and listen to the music.
> Also the large number of DLC makes it difficult to determine what set I may have do give a canonical experience or if it is even viable gameplay wise.
I like this about Paradox games. When you buy a DLC, it doesn't merely expand the game, it totally alters it. I can see why people don't like this, but sometimes, a total reimagining of a game is fun. Especially in strategy games.
I like this about Paradox games. When you buy a DLC, it doesn't merely expand the game, it totally alters it. I can see why people don't like this, but sometimes, a total reimagining of a game is fun. Especially in strategy games.
Civ V is an interesting case, since there's another thread in here somewhere about companies charging to fix design mistakes, and Civilization was really one of the OGs when it comes to that.
I wouldn't say Vanilla Civ V was bad, but it wasn't great. I probably wouldn't recommend it without the two expansions. I guess it's a moot point these days though since it's all sold together.
I wouldn't say Vanilla Civ V was bad, but it wasn't great. I probably wouldn't recommend it without the two expansions. I guess it's a moot point these days though since it's all sold together.
A mod from the early days of Civ V was Communitas [0], it became the Community Balance Patch and is nowadays called Vox Populi [1]. It vastly improves AI, balance and adds a ton of features. There is still regular development, with stable versions being released every 1-2 months.
Without this mod I’d have long stopped playing Civ V, and the lack of such a fix/balance mod (Civ V had an official source release and SDK which is what made the mod possible) is why I can’t get into Civ VI
[0]: https://civmodding.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/balance-units/
[1]: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/community-patch-how-t...
Without this mod I’d have long stopped playing Civ V, and the lack of such a fix/balance mod (Civ V had an official source release and SDK which is what made the mod possible) is why I can’t get into Civ VI
[0]: https://civmodding.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/balance-units/
[1]: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/community-patch-how-t...
Yeah I've been playing the same mod for years now too. It's basically the 3rd expansion as far as I'm concerned haha.
I just remember picking up Civ V when it came out and going back to Civ IV because it got boring after a while. I loved the main changes (more vibrant and realistic graphics style, one unit per tile combat), but the systems didn't seem that fleshed out yet and the games were a bit repetitive. I don't think the game really hit it's stride until the first expansion, so it felt a bit like having to buy the game twice just to get a good product.
I just remember picking up Civ V when it came out and going back to Civ IV because it got boring after a while. I loved the main changes (more vibrant and realistic graphics style, one unit per tile combat), but the systems didn't seem that fleshed out yet and the games were a bit repetitive. I don't think the game really hit it's stride until the first expansion, so it felt a bit like having to buy the game twice just to get a good product.
I honestly can’t remember :D Only about 300 hours were unmodded ;)
Speaking of which EU4 is currently on humble bundle. You can get it and all DLC for £20
https://www.humblebundle.com/games/europa-universalis-iv-com...
https://www.humblebundle.com/games/europa-universalis-iv-com...
Or... you could just buy it all from Steam, where right now it's going for only... $384.89.
Huh.
Huh.
If you're going to pick up EU4, wait until one of the times it goes on sale (it does so frequently). You'll be able to get a bundle with the main game and most of the expansions for ~75% off the bundle price (itself a decent discount over buying everything individually).
The person I was responding to mentioned that it was on sale in a Humble Bundle for $20—I was just amazed at how big the price difference was!
The same is true for most AAA single player games as well. God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Zelda Breath of the Wild, Souls games. None of these have microtransactions.
The milk only seems to sour once there is a significant multiplayer component. GT7 sticks out as a recent example where the presence of multiplayer negatively impacts single player as well.
The milk only seems to sour once there is a significant multiplayer component. GT7 sticks out as a recent example where the presence of multiplayer negatively impacts single player as well.
I wouldn't know, I hate action games and I'm not sure there are other AAA games ;)
Grim Dawn also has a ton of content without any psycho crap built-in. MP is optional but adds fun and has a good community too.
Honestly, these are a lot closer to "Expansion Packs" of the old days than what a lot of people think of as DLC. It's maybe a distinction without a difference, but expansion packs didn't sell you horse armor they sold horse armor+a new campaign+some new player classes or something.
Over the last few years I have gotten hundred of hours of enjoyment from games like League of Legends, Valorant and Halo Infinite and couldn't even tell you how to spend money on those games if I wanted to. I honestly doubt I would have ever picked up any of those games if they were not free and I'm guessing since many other would say the same thing the lobbies would be empty and the games would die. In those case the free model is great and I don't feel like there is any loss for someone not wanting to spend money on them.
I think those cases are different than the mobile app style which makes no sense to me since many of the games are single player so nobody will see the skins or whatever anyway.
I think those cases are different than the mobile app style which makes no sense to me since many of the games are single player so nobody will see the skins or whatever anyway.
I'm in your camp. I'd posit an additional piece of my thinking.
I feel like gaming, even with microtransactions, is probably one of the most affordable pieces of entertainment you can have.
During covid, the height of my old-man gaming, I was probably playing an hour or two each day and 4 hours each weekend. That's about 700-800 hours a year I play. If I spent 200$ in skins on COD's battlepass, that is still an incredibly cheap amount of fun I've gotten for a whole year when the entire world was closed and I couldn't get out and have fun. I really don't see why people complain so much. Coin-operated arcades were literally a microtransaction model from the 70s and 80s!
I'm paying 25 cents an hour on a game with a lot more labor involved than an old arcade game.
I feel like gaming, even with microtransactions, is probably one of the most affordable pieces of entertainment you can have.
During covid, the height of my old-man gaming, I was probably playing an hour or two each day and 4 hours each weekend. That's about 700-800 hours a year I play. If I spent 200$ in skins on COD's battlepass, that is still an incredibly cheap amount of fun I've gotten for a whole year when the entire world was closed and I couldn't get out and have fun. I really don't see why people complain so much. Coin-operated arcades were literally a microtransaction model from the 70s and 80s!
I'm paying 25 cents an hour on a game with a lot more labor involved than an old arcade game.
I think I saw that some of the old arcade games were actually rigged to get harder at certain points to get more quarters/tokens put in them, then there was the countdown timer after you died where you could continue if you put more money in.
Video games are for-profit companies and these days they are in heavy competition with each other and all the other distractions around.
I can easily spend about $40-50 to go to a movie with the family and if the movie sucks it feels like a waste of 2 hours. Same amount of money on a game will get you 10x plus more time of entertainment.
Video games are for-profit companies and these days they are in heavy competition with each other and all the other distractions around.
I can easily spend about $40-50 to go to a movie with the family and if the movie sucks it feels like a waste of 2 hours. Same amount of money on a game will get you 10x plus more time of entertainment.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at. I've wasted way more money on bad movies than games.
My experience lines up with yours, as a looong time Halo veteran who is a bit bummed with the state of Infinite, I'm happy to not pay a cent, despite spending thousands on Halo over the years. I've also spent a decent amount of the previous year playing Valorant, and I almost feel bad that I've paid nothing for it, but the the problem is that apparently the economists Riot employs have figured the sweet spot for selling in game items is $20+ (with many items in the 30-40 range), which is just too much for a single item for me.
The irony is that if gun skins were all $5-10, I'd probably have already spent over $100 on them. Oh well, time to queue up again and contribute nothing back.
The irony is that if gun skins were all $5-10, I'd probably have already spent over $100 on them. Oh well, time to queue up again and contribute nothing back.
Queueing up IS contributing something back - it's a multiplayer game, so every person playing is helping keep queue times low. It also gives Riot a MAU and DAU which they probably track internally to determine how successful a game is (and thus how much to invest in more content for that game).
I completely agree! I feel that way about Hearthstone Battlegrounds cosmetics. I've been playing a lot and thought I might buy a skin pack or two to vary the experience up a bit, but all of the packs were more than $20 a piece! I was totally down for like $5-15, but once you hit $20, it's a like a switch flips in my brain to not worth it...
> despite spending thousands on Halo over the years
But how could you have spent thousands? Original Halos don’t have micro transactions.
But how could you have spent thousands? Original Halos don’t have micro transactions.
Slightly disingenuous to say I spent thousands on Halo specifically, but I used to run LANs/tournaments, so at one point or another I've owned multiple copies of every installation in the series, bought multiple of the same consoles for the sole purpose of those events, combined with controllers, etc.
We still have Halo LAN party with friends every week.
"Laurey LoL statistics indicate players spend an average of $92 a year on the game."
The thing about IAPs in games is that most money comes from whales, people spending thousands of dollars for customizations or pay-to-win items, this rises the average by a lot. It would be nice to see the distribution of payments.
This is the only thing that makes me pause before dismissing the article as ridiculous in cases where it's people choosing to spend money on cosmetics. There might be whales who are addicted to the spending or gambling somehow.
Otherwise as someone noted it's just price discrimination, and in a way that lets people try and play games for free. Really I love what video games have become.
Otherwise as someone noted it's just price discrimination, and in a way that lets people try and play games for free. Really I love what video games have become.
The median spend might be zero $ per year.
Also might be more.
And with a game like Lol, where it is literally pay to win, I wouldn't be surprised if it were more.
And with a game like Lol, where it is literally pay to win, I wouldn't be surprised if it were more.
There are plenty of pay-to-win games, but LoL is not one of them. LoL has cosmetics, and pay-to-progress, but there's nothing you can buy that will give you an advantage in-game over people who play for free.
Unlocking new characters with RMT is not pay-to-win, because all the characters are obtainable for free without requiring unreasonable effort. You're not forced to get them from random lootboxes like Gacha games, and having every character doesn't give you an appreciable advantage except at perhaps the highest level of play.
Unlocking new characters with RMT is not pay-to-win, because all the characters are obtainable for free without requiring unreasonable effort. You're not forced to get them from random lootboxes like Gacha games, and having every character doesn't give you an appreciable advantage except at perhaps the highest level of play.
You and I clearly have a different definition of pay to win. If I start the game on a new account, and don't have access to the same champions as my enemy from game 1 unless I spend money, then the game is pay to win. Period. The fact that I could pay money, in that moment, to win, means the game is pay to win.
Edit: Further, here is an article[1] breaking down how long it would take to unlock all champions without paying money. 9.5 years playing 1 game/day. It's absurd to pretend that isn't "pay to win". By that definition, Clash of Clans isn't pay to win either, because technically you could grind the game for 100 years without paying for anything and get really far.
[1] https://www.dexerto.com/league-of-legends/lol-fan-works-out-...
Edit: Further, here is an article[1] breaking down how long it would take to unlock all champions without paying money. 9.5 years playing 1 game/day. It's absurd to pretend that isn't "pay to win". By that definition, Clash of Clans isn't pay to win either, because technically you could grind the game for 100 years without paying for anything and get really far.
[1] https://www.dexerto.com/league-of-legends/lol-fan-works-out-...
I would heavily disagree. LoL now practically throws champions and skins at you now with some of their currency systems. I think the other thing is that you don't need all the champions unlocked to be good. You would probably do better by choosing a set couple of champs and getting good at those. Yes, meta's change, but that is on top of good mechanics. LoL is a lot of things, but I would strongly argue against pay to win.
LoL is a game that rewards learning deep, not wide. You won't win just because you have access to many champions. You will lose, because you don't know how to play those champions, and will never learn how, because you are always starting over with a new one. Counterpicking and tier lists are lies that scrubs tell themselves to feel better about their lack of basic skills. You need 1 champion you can play perfectly without error, and a couple backups in case you don't get to play that 1 champion.
At 1 game a day, it will take you far longer than 9.5 years to learn to play every champion in the game, so it is irrelevant how long it would take to get all of them. You could play more than 300 hours on a single character before it would benefit you to add a second one.
At 1 game a day, it will take you far longer than 9.5 years to learn to play every champion in the game, so it is irrelevant how long it would take to get all of them. You could play more than 300 hours on a single character before it would benefit you to add a second one.
But you're not paying to win. You're just paying to have a different experience. In fact, when you start your best shot at winning is with the champions they give you, since they're the easiest. League is better described as pay to lose if anything.
Lol is not a pay to win game. Saying otherwise tell me you never played the game.
Best players in the world start new accounts with no champions and are still able to climb to the top of the ladder.
Also, since a few years the game literally give you tons of content such as champion and cosmetics for free.
Best players in the world start new accounts with no champions and are still able to climb to the top of the ladder.
Also, since a few years the game literally give you tons of content such as champion and cosmetics for free.
League doesn't feel pay to win at all to me, yeah you do have to play or pay to unlock champions but they are not necessarily better champions in most cases (for new players at least).
What aspect is pay to win?
You need to pay for champions, they are not unlocked for free.
You do not have to pay for champions, you can unlock them for free using easily-obtainable Blue Essence. Paying to unlock champions is pay-to-progress, because it gets you caught up to everyone else faster, but doesn't give you a competitive advantage.
You say progress, but it’s kind of both an endless treadmill and you’re weaker usually by lack of options;
When I used to play LoL, like 5-7 years ago, I was playing a rate of like 3-4 hours daily, which barely scraped by the amount of essence needed to buy the next releases champion, let alone the runes system they had introduced at the time (don’t know if it’s still around) which had a fairly dramatic impact on the early game especially for specific characters.
That is, while technically the game could be played purely on free tier and eliminate any competitive advantage… it requires a lot of effort to keep up. Not nearly as bad things like FarmVille used to pull, but definitely enough to say that ponying up cash is eventually needed.
And having more options available to you (both characters and runesets or whatever they do now) is definitely an advantage, and a significant one at that
When I used to play LoL, like 5-7 years ago, I was playing a rate of like 3-4 hours daily, which barely scraped by the amount of essence needed to buy the next releases champion, let alone the runes system they had introduced at the time (don’t know if it’s still around) which had a fairly dramatic impact on the early game especially for specific characters.
That is, while technically the game could be played purely on free tier and eliminate any competitive advantage… it requires a lot of effort to keep up. Not nearly as bad things like FarmVille used to pull, but definitely enough to say that ponying up cash is eventually needed.
And having more options available to you (both characters and runesets or whatever they do now) is definitely an advantage, and a significant one at that
You don't need options. It's best to play around 3 champions for your main position, and 1 or 2 for the other 4 positions. That means you want around 11 champions in your pool. More than that is too difficult to improve with. Let's round that up to 16 champions and give a bit more flexibility and experimentation. This is all you really need, and you will get it very quickly. By the time the meta changes, or you've played it enough to consider changing direction, you'll have more champions unlocked.
The best champions for new players are the ones you start with though. By the time you're ready for the other ones you've earned enough in game money to buy them.
You can get some for free. You certainly might be attached to a particular one and want to buy it, but the game is balanced enough that you can easily win with a champion that is easy to get.
I had a lot of luck with Sona, for instance, who I got for free right away.
(Sometimes I think it would be fun to play League again but I can't stand the thought of being tied up for 45 minutes)
I had a lot of luck with Sona, for instance, who I got for free right away.
(Sometimes I think it would be fun to play League again but I can't stand the thought of being tied up for 45 minutes)
Take my advice and stay away, easily the most toxic online gaming community I've ever seen mostly because of the 45 minute time sink.
I may spend 100-200 a year on Valorant. However, I am getting way more per hour value out of it than say, a 50 - 60$ single player game that I quit after a single play through. Or worse, the 50-60$ AAA titles that popup every few years, get a swarm of players in the first few months, then die off as the ADHD Twitch community moves to something else.
It's a great business model for multiplayer games. They live and die on the basis of network effects, and gating access behind a $25-60 upfront payment means most games die from gradual attrition - which is just sad to watch happen when it's an enjoyable but niche game. Subscriptions are dead, with even Blizzard struggling to make it work, and most DLC models just don't work for multiplayer.
Looking at my Steam library, I only regret the $60 AAA titles I've bought and never found interesting enough to play beyond a few hours. $60 for 15 hours of gameplay, or an optional $100 after 150 (or 1500) hours? I know which I prefer.
Looking at my Steam library, I only regret the $60 AAA titles I've bought and never found interesting enough to play beyond a few hours. $60 for 15 hours of gameplay, or an optional $100 after 150 (or 1500) hours? I know which I prefer.
To expand, DLC models for multiplayer either split the community (only people who purchased the DLC can join this lobby) or they inevitably make the game pay-to-win. If I'm going to get shot by a $20 sniper rifle, I'd rather it have the same stats as the one I have access to.
I will say it sucks when the cosmetic item you want is only available via lootbox, but at least for Counter-Strike Global Offensive (another Valve title) you can buy either boxes or the exact item you want. I think Valve is pretty far from the worst offender here.
I will say it sucks when the cosmetic item you want is only available via lootbox, but at least for Counter-Strike Global Offensive (another Valve title) you can buy either boxes or the exact item you want. I think Valve is pretty far from the worst offender here.
The most famous one, fortnite, splits users by being able to express themselves or not.
If you pay, you're a member of the community, if not, you're not
If you pay, you're a member of the community, if not, you're not
I don’t play fortnite and have no interest in it. But this always sounded weird to me. If it’s so extreme to be seen as F2P… can’t you just buy a single cosmetic outfit and call it a day? There’s no way people are keeping track of whether you rotate your wardrobe or care if you happen to like a random skin, right?
It’s like, $1 for an arbitrary skin, no?
It’s like, $1 for an arbitrary skin, no?
Are you referring to emotes? (I don’t play fortnite)
Most likely, almost verbatim, to that video specifically
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0
It's a business model that works off of whales. It's predatory and exploits the same people that gambling does.
I'm a whale and I don't feel exploited. I don't like gambling but I like buying chests. People spending money on trips or cars, things I have no interest in, are also exploited in that case.
But you do like gambling! Buying chests is exactly that! Just like a casino gambler might prefer blackjack over roulette!
No, in most games I know what I'm getting so there's no randomness. I buy a chest of 1000 gems in order to buy X in game. How is that gambling? Sure, some games force the randomness on me through chests with unknown content but that's not what I'm paying for.
"Chest of gems" != Loot box (which is probably what freedom2099 meant when they said "chests")
Not sure why you're telling me that. freedom2099 is the one conflating things. The article is about Rocket League, a game without loot boxes.
Ah good point
So what's the problem? Everybody is getting what they want.
>most DLC models just don't work for multiplayer.
I vastly prefer the freemium model because of this. It's great compared to before when we had sequels, expansion packs or even map packs that was the only way to get new content. But that new content wasn't available to people who didn't buy it, so now the playerbase will be split each time new content is released.
I vastly prefer the freemium model because of this. It's great compared to before when we had sequels, expansion packs or even map packs that was the only way to get new content. But that new content wasn't available to people who didn't buy it, so now the playerbase will be split each time new content is released.
Back when I played games we used to make our own maps, and share them for free on various sites
I'm always the wrong guy to ask as a customer what business model to use to make money, but I remember reading some Call of Duty required people to buy maps or else you couldn't join multiplayer servers with them. There was a lot of predictable complaining that there weren't many players on the servers using the new maps. It honestly sounded exhausting to keep track of as a player to me and like it would server to repeatedly split the player base until the population died out.
I'm not a console user, but ran into this when Modern Warfare 2 brought it to the PC (I think. If not MW2, then one of the early Black Ops titles). I was too young to have my own way to purchase them, but never felt the motivation to pay up, so I'd just get auto-kicked by the system if a lobby started with a map I didn't have access to.
I haven't played Call of Duty in a long time, but when I heard that Modern Warfare Remastered would have some maps locked behind a DLC[0] (along with the rest of the shitshow surrounding its release), I knew that I'd probably never buy another one of those titles again. I think the last I bought was MW2 or BO2.
On PC, in Modern Warfare 1, the maps were made available for free, while they cost extra for consoles. Modern Warfare Remastered 'conveniently' left them out of the base game, but charged a higher-than-original price for the pack, for all platforms. Consider that a remaster is generally supposed to contain all content (i.e. game + DLC), and this was a slap in the face to my younger self.
[0]https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/Variety_Map_Pack
I haven't played Call of Duty in a long time, but when I heard that Modern Warfare Remastered would have some maps locked behind a DLC[0] (along with the rest of the shitshow surrounding its release), I knew that I'd probably never buy another one of those titles again. I think the last I bought was MW2 or BO2.
On PC, in Modern Warfare 1, the maps were made available for free, while they cost extra for consoles. Modern Warfare Remastered 'conveniently' left them out of the base game, but charged a higher-than-original price for the pack, for all platforms. Consider that a remaster is generally supposed to contain all content (i.e. game + DLC), and this was a slap in the face to my younger self.
[0]https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/Variety_Map_Pack
Video games are like this because people pay for it. It didn’t start like this. Back when packaged games (i.e. shrink-wrapped cd/dvd cases) were the way games were delivered we had “online” modes that generally cost a fixed amount (including $0) to access. Then someone would experiment with something like a power up or level up for some tiny cost, or a “bundle” of them, etc. and guess what: the market overwhelmingly went for it. It made more money because it both had higher per-transaction revenue and more people converting to pay it. Then came the whales (things like Saudi princes blowing $10s or $100s of thousands on FIFA cards or whatever) and the industry never looked back.
Video games are what they are for the same reason Marvel Character CGI-fest Sequel/Spinoff X blows away the box office every summer.
Video games are what they are for the same reason Marvel Character CGI-fest Sequel/Spinoff X blows away the box office every summer.
Actually there's a strong power law going on with microtransactions. Most players don't spend any money at all on them; some spend a couple bucks on an item or two. The model becomes profitable because of the top 1% of spenders — "whales," in industry parlance — some of whom have deeply unhealthy relationships to the gambling mechanics and social pressures underlying microtransaction economies.
So it's not exactly true that the public are voting with their wallets here. It's a profitable business model, but the majority of people do not engage with it, and consumers as a whole would be better-off if it died out.
So it's not exactly true that the public are voting with their wallets here. It's a profitable business model, but the majority of people do not engage with it, and consumers as a whole would be better-off if it died out.
It sounds to me like what you are saying is that developers have discovered it is best to offer an amazing free product to the whole world in order to get them involved in the game, and then this attracts rich people, who then go ahead and pay for the whole things themselves. But if you don't attract the little guy with free stuff, you don't get a great game, and so you don't attract the rich people.
Seems like a good system that everyone happy with. If they weren't happy they would go play other games that aren't free.
Seems like a good system that everyone happy with. If they weren't happy they would go play other games that aren't free.
Hardly. The whales are not always rich: often they’re just addict-type personalities who are extremely irresponsible with their money.
It’s not a healthy business model for consumers, but ever since I saw the start of this industry trend I’ve come to view consumers of it (in aggregate) as being of poor judgement if not outright stupid. So they kind of reap what they sew, and the rest of us must work harder to find quality. Just like in everything else really.
It’s not a healthy business model for consumers, but ever since I saw the start of this industry trend I’ve come to view consumers of it (in aggregate) as being of poor judgement if not outright stupid. So they kind of reap what they sew, and the rest of us must work harder to find quality. Just like in everything else really.
They don’t attract rich people, they attract gamblers. And they are incentivized to convert more people into becoming gamblers.
Some games are starting to remove the gambling. The article's author is outdated on Rocket League which has since removed the lootboxes. Valorant never had any.
Gambling addicts are financing these games. Most of them are not rich at all.
Reminds me again of "when you don't have to pay for it, you're the product, not the customer". Here, all the free players are opponents necessary to attract the whales.
But that applies even to paid games. It's very hard to attract players to games if it's mainly multiplayer and there's no one to play against. Both players and developers do want an active playerbase, and free to play significantly lowers the barrier of entry for potential players.
So maybe free-to-play simply has to be the future of multiplayer games?
And yet they put me off because you're constantly confronted with mechanisms designed to make you pay. I don't mind paying for a game, but once I'm playing, I want to focus on the game, not the payment.
And yet they put me off because you're constantly confronted with mechanisms designed to make you pay. I don't mind paying for a game, but once I'm playing, I want to focus on the game, not the payment.
It's not attracting rich people, it's attracting addicts.
In all fairness, Rocket League may be the only "free to play" game that warrants the term "amazing". I'm glad it keeps something like RL around, but let's be real: this game model tends to rake in the cash even with the most generic games.
Frankly I'm torn: people can buy digital stickerbomb skins if they want, but it's obviously a bit of a "cheat code" to a profitable game and probably takes a lot of developers/money away from more interesting parts of the industry.
It'd also be more forgivable if it didn't seem popularity creates nearly immortal games that too often become stagnant and overrun with toxic players despite still being profitable enough to "keep alive", i.e. payday 2, planetside 2
Frankly I'm torn: people can buy digital stickerbomb skins if they want, but it's obviously a bit of a "cheat code" to a profitable game and probably takes a lot of developers/money away from more interesting parts of the industry.
It'd also be more forgivable if it didn't seem popularity creates nearly immortal games that too often become stagnant and overrun with toxic players despite still being profitable enough to "keep alive", i.e. payday 2, planetside 2
The megawhale point is a bit overmade. F2p games have vastly different payer distributions by genre, platform, business model, monetization strategy and other factors.
Addictiveness and addiction are issues with and around gaming, for sure. But the reliance of f2p games on entranced, pixel-charmed addicts is also overstated. A good number of free to play games have lifespans measured in decades, they can function like a highly social, off-and-on hobby. People are willing to spend $20 to go to the movies a few times per year. How’s it different to spend that on a game you get hundreds of hours of entertainment from?
Addictiveness and addiction are issues with and around gaming, for sure. But the reliance of f2p games on entranced, pixel-charmed addicts is also overstated. A good number of free to play games have lifespans measured in decades, they can function like a highly social, off-and-on hobby. People are willing to spend $20 to go to the movies a few times per year. How’s it different to spend that on a game you get hundreds of hours of entertainment from?
They are voting with their wallets. It's just that not every vote has a value of 1; their vote is the number of dollars they spend.
Right, so the market is being disproportionately swayed by gambling addicts and the experiences which appeal to them. This is not a healthy state of affairs.
Perhaps. There are a lot of games that are not like that though, catering to gambling, and I presume even in the future many games will not as well. There is always a group of people who like games without stuff like that in there, and it seems like at least some of these game creators do quite well, such as CDPR with their Witcher and Cyberpunk series.
It is almost like the business models are adjusting to the reality of the world.
With massive inequality, especially in a global market. And an "entitlement" that digital products should be free or dirt cheap.
If you think about it it's sort of a wealth redestribution. One extreme example was that Movie ticket business, that basically paid movie tickets with investor money.
This presumes the whales can afford to spend the way they do. Which isn’t true for gambling addicts either. And that the profits end up in the hands of workers rather than in the pockets of investors.
It's not always gambling. There are also collectors and people who just like to show off. Also, the usually f*ing rich dude who has no understanding on the difference between $2 and $20k. Games today are the new social club, where you go and meet and show off your life. And as there are corners for the average people, there are also corners for the rich and powerful. There are some games which really just exist so rich dudes can casually meet and show off how much money they spend on some stupid skin. Similar, some other games have pay2win, because enough rich people live by the philosophy that money can buy you anything, including an easy win.
The gambling-games are only the most obvious whale-traps, and they usually not even aim for the filthy rich, but the middle class rich. The rich rich-games are less obvious, because the casuals are not rich enough to even get high enough in that game to gain access to the juicy parts.
The gambling-games are only the most obvious whale-traps, and they usually not even aim for the filthy rich, but the middle class rich. The rich rich-games are less obvious, because the casuals are not rich enough to even get high enough in that game to gain access to the juicy parts.
> There are some games which really just exist so rich dudes can casually meet and show off how much money they spend on some stupid skin.
Possibly, but not in the mainstream market. I'm not concerned with some weird niche luxury thing that 8 rich guys are doing. And as far as the mainstream market goes, the "rich guy to whom money means nothing" is not the average whale. Most whales (as I recall) are of fairly average means.
Possibly, but not in the mainstream market. I'm not concerned with some weird niche luxury thing that 8 rich guys are doing. And as far as the mainstream market goes, the "rich guy to whom money means nothing" is not the average whale. Most whales (as I recall) are of fairly average means.
Whales are outsized in many games, but non-whales contribute substantially to this model.
>Video games are like this because people pay for it.
I hate this argument because it implies you have any power in this situation. They don't do this because the majority likes it, they do it because there's a select group of whales that are willing to spend ungodly amounts of money on this crap. They're the ones who dictate how these games operate and no amount of "vote with your wallet" would change it.
I hate this argument because it implies you have any power in this situation. They don't do this because the majority likes it, they do it because there's a select group of whales that are willing to spend ungodly amounts of money on this crap. They're the ones who dictate how these games operate and no amount of "vote with your wallet" would change it.
Yeah no. There are still plenty of games, both indie and non-indie, which millions of players who don't whale can play, containing at most DLC which is effectively an expansion on top of an otherwise complete base game. If you don't want to play these games, there are still plenty of options. Enough developers haven't sold their souls yet, either.
Reality is, the market meets a demand where there is a demand. The developers are not the sole responsible people for choosing to put in gambling gimmicks, incomplete games for 25-60 bucks, DLC which should've been base, P2W, etc. There is just as much of a responsibility on customers to vote with their money, or vote for laws to ban this shit if it becomes evident people can't control themselves as a whole. We haven't reached the critical mass where you don't have other options yet, and it looks like we won't for quite some time.
Meanwhile almost every indie trying to fit in the market and come with their passionate solution is met with a dire reality that selling games takes a tremendous amount of effort for anyone who doesn't have a giant brand behind them.
Reality is, the market meets a demand where there is a demand. The developers are not the sole responsible people for choosing to put in gambling gimmicks, incomplete games for 25-60 bucks, DLC which should've been base, P2W, etc. There is just as much of a responsibility on customers to vote with their money, or vote for laws to ban this shit if it becomes evident people can't control themselves as a whole. We haven't reached the critical mass where you don't have other options yet, and it looks like we won't for quite some time.
Meanwhile almost every indie trying to fit in the market and come with their passionate solution is met with a dire reality that selling games takes a tremendous amount of effort for anyone who doesn't have a giant brand behind them.
> I hate this argument because it implies you have any power in this situation.
Yes you do. While there is little we actually control in our complex world, we are at least in control of our discretionary purchasing decisions. Sure, you as an individual might not make a dent in the company's profits but thats not the point. You are making a decision on principle, thats all that matters.
If we cant get this part right, what hope do we have for more important stuff like voting in actual elections?
Yes you do. While there is little we actually control in our complex world, we are at least in control of our discretionary purchasing decisions. Sure, you as an individual might not make a dent in the company's profits but thats not the point. You are making a decision on principle, thats all that matters.
If we cant get this part right, what hope do we have for more important stuff like voting in actual elections?
I feel like Rocket League is like the smallest offender. What really shocked me when I discovered that like 99% of FIFA streams were about loot pack openings these days, not actually anyone playing/enjoying the game. And when they dare to do so anyway, their live viewer count drops right away. Also in this case it’s pure gambling, as you don’t know what you’ll get with any buy.
Edit: People tried to fight this in court, with basically zero results: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2022-03-09-eas-10m-dutch-...
Edit: People tried to fight this in court, with basically zero results: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2022-03-09-eas-10m-dutch-...
FIFA is one of the worst offenders, because it's not just cosmetic. There's a constant flood of player cards of escalating ability, and you have to either keep grinding for objectives, or drop tons of cash, just to stay competitive. I've quit playing because of it because it just stopped being fun, even as a casual player.
How bad can this really be without ceasing to be a realistic feeling game? Like I would imagine you’ve got just a few stats like speed, endurance, ball handling and kicking accuracy.
What does the game look like with base F2P characters vs top tier characters? Are they just laughably faster on the field?
What does the game look like with base F2P characters vs top tier characters? Are they just laughably faster on the field?
Yeah, speed is one of the key meta aspects, and having a boost in that area is a major advantage if the player is good at other aspects as well. At some point your players just can't keep up. A new version of the game is released end of September every year, and by Christmas it's borderline unplayable unless you keep escalating.
Additionally, there are daily/weekly/monthly challenges that require you to do certain things, like score a goal with a player from the Belgian league in 10 different games. So players will score to achieve their goal and then disconnect, and just waste everybody's time. Or the objective will be "Win 10 games", and the community has decided that if you give up the first goal during one of these challenges, you're expected to just concede immediately. Otherwise the opposing player will take long pauses, perform every goal celebration and replay, anything to annoy you into quitting. It's become really toxic, all because of the rewards that are at stake.
Additionally, there are daily/weekly/monthly challenges that require you to do certain things, like score a goal with a player from the Belgian league in 10 different games. So players will score to achieve their goal and then disconnect, and just waste everybody's time. Or the objective will be "Win 10 games", and the community has decided that if you give up the first goal during one of these challenges, you're expected to just concede immediately. Otherwise the opposing player will take long pauses, perform every goal celebration and replay, anything to annoy you into quitting. It's become really toxic, all because of the rewards that are at stake.
I find that really funny. How much faster are the best units? And these are real players presumably so… are they alts of the same person?
Please tell me they’re doing a gacha Christmas alt of top tier soccer players
Please tell me they’re doing a gacha Christmas alt of top tier soccer players
There's a lot to dislike, but my gripes as a developer who occasionally dabbles in games are more along the lines of "this puzzle game prototype is interesting and may be worth polishing up and tossing on steam, but oh right, it won't even pay for itself unless I turn it into yet another gambling machine."
Then I go back to writing system software.
Then I go back to writing system software.
Yeah, people blame the developers, blame the publishers, but I think the sad truth is, gamers themselves shoulder much of the blame. Somehow the public came to believe that everything should be free. Maybe it was the internet? Maybe it was sites/apps like Facebook?
Regardless, when a great piece of software that happens to have a price tag fails to sell, whose fault is that?
Don't blame developers/publishers for going instead to the only model that pays the bills these days.
Regardless, when a great piece of software that happens to have a price tag fails to sell, whose fault is that?
Don't blame developers/publishers for going instead to the only model that pays the bills these days.
Why blame anyone? Gamers get the content they want in the way they prefer to pay for it, developers and publishers get paid.
The market has pretty clearly spoken and decided that people prefer cosmetic micro transactions with free to play games. Just because it doesn’t match the Hacker News gaming utopia template doesn’t mean anyone is doing anything wrong.
This is especially true for multiplayer games where a lot of children don’t have money to buy the game but their presence on the platform adds value to the people who do have money to spend on it.
The market has pretty clearly spoken and decided that people prefer cosmetic micro transactions with free to play games. Just because it doesn’t match the Hacker News gaming utopia template doesn’t mean anyone is doing anything wrong.
This is especially true for multiplayer games where a lot of children don’t have money to buy the game but their presence on the platform adds value to the people who do have money to spend on it.
I also think “Why blame anyone?”, but not because there’s no problem. Just because it doesn’t make sense to blame individuals for market movements.
Markets are powered by billions of instances of “what someone wants” but that doesn’t mean the resulting market movements are always a good indicator of what everyone wants as an environment. Sometimes aggregate human activity results in a crappy experience for most participants. “The market has spoken” is a glib, ideological phrase that can be used to dismiss any discussion about ways we could steer and improve markets to make them do a better job at facilitating human happiness and flourishing.
Markets are powered by billions of instances of “what someone wants” but that doesn’t mean the resulting market movements are always a good indicator of what everyone wants as an environment. Sometimes aggregate human activity results in a crappy experience for most participants. “The market has spoken” is a glib, ideological phrase that can be used to dismiss any discussion about ways we could steer and improve markets to make them do a better job at facilitating human happiness and flourishing.
Same thing for airlines. I hate the argument "consumers decided they wanted smaller seats, no free food or drinks, etc by buying the cheapest tickets." People just tried to get the best deal possible in the market, they aren't analyzing which airline has the best seats and amenities and making their decision from there.
> The market has pretty clearly spoken and decided that people prefer cosmetic micro transactions with free to play games.
All that the market discovered is that there is a huge number of "whales" that can be exploited. The "fun" will begin once the whales have squandered their money and will either leave entirely or, and that's the scenario I fear, some (or someone's relatives) will raise a sob story in front of their local newspaper or politician... ending in a repeat of the early 2000s with videogames being blamed as a whole for the excesses of a few, and religious and other moral fundamentalists getting ahead.
All that the market discovered is that there is a huge number of "whales" that can be exploited. The "fun" will begin once the whales have squandered their money and will either leave entirely or, and that's the scenario I fear, some (or someone's relatives) will raise a sob story in front of their local newspaper or politician... ending in a repeat of the early 2000s with videogames being blamed as a whole for the excesses of a few, and religious and other moral fundamentalists getting ahead.
> This is especially true for multiplayer games where a lot of children don't have money to buy the game but their presence on the platform adds value
Playing a competitive FPS game casually with all age groups is lot of more fun and attractive to most gamers a la Apex/Warzone/Fortnite/Valorant/CSGO.
By charging up front you remove an enormous player base and create a worse matchmaking experience for all players. Long gone are the days of buy a Call of Duty game for Christmas.
Playing a competitive FPS game casually with all age groups is lot of more fun and attractive to most gamers a la Apex/Warzone/Fortnite/Valorant/CSGO.
By charging up front you remove an enormous player base and create a worse matchmaking experience for all players. Long gone are the days of buy a Call of Duty game for Christmas.
That's not true though. No game lives off the general public buying a few cosmetics. It lives off a few addicted people buying thousands of dollars worth, while the vast majority pay nothing. It's a terrible business model that will hopefully be outlawed in the coming decade.
I had assumed those "few addicted people buying thousands of dollars worth" were instead just people with a lot of disposable income.
You could be right though, and it is addiction. That would in fact be uncool.
My only data-point though is a friend of mine who has spent hundreds of dollars (or more?) on Star Citizen ships and he is the disposable-income kind of gamer.
You could be right though, and it is addiction. That would in fact be uncool.
My only data-point though is a friend of mine who has spent hundreds of dollars (or more?) on Star Citizen ships and he is the disposable-income kind of gamer.
This video by Jim Sterling is a good overview of how knowingly sinister microtransactions truly are, with a couple narrated testimonies of people who fell for them despite not being able to afford them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14
There are combinations of both, for sure. But there was an interview some time ago on Eurogamer about a super spender (thousands of pounds) on Candy Crush who was awarded some airplane tickets to attend a Candy Crush convention, but she couldn't afford tickets to get to the airport...
That's extremely sad.
> The market has pretty clearly spoken and decided that people prefer cosmetic micro transactions with free to play games.
I wonder how many people on HN complaining about this model actually even consider themselves gamers.
I'm a gamer. I spend 30-40 hours/week on PC games. I think the "Free-to-play with paid cosmetics" (Apex Legends, Rocket League, Splitgate, tons of other games that follow this model) is perfectly fine.
I think part of the problem is that it's hard to have a conversation about this model because someone will always make references to games that are pay-to-win (Most mobile games) or gate content behind a paywall (Not sure which games do this today), which are an entirely different beast and not a part of the conversation.
EDIT: Just remembered League of Legends. It gates content (characters to play) behind progression, or you can pay money to unlock them immediately. But paid characters aren't necessarily more powerful, and they're constantly making adjustments to characters to try to keep them balanced. Any experienced player will tell you that paying money for a character perceived as being overpowered is foolish as it's guaranteed they'll eventually get nerfed.
I wonder how many people on HN complaining about this model actually even consider themselves gamers.
I'm a gamer. I spend 30-40 hours/week on PC games. I think the "Free-to-play with paid cosmetics" (Apex Legends, Rocket League, Splitgate, tons of other games that follow this model) is perfectly fine.
I think part of the problem is that it's hard to have a conversation about this model because someone will always make references to games that are pay-to-win (Most mobile games) or gate content behind a paywall (Not sure which games do this today), which are an entirely different beast and not a part of the conversation.
EDIT: Just remembered League of Legends. It gates content (characters to play) behind progression, or you can pay money to unlock them immediately. But paid characters aren't necessarily more powerful, and they're constantly making adjustments to characters to try to keep them balanced. Any experienced player will tell you that paying money for a character perceived as being overpowered is foolish as it's guaranteed they'll eventually get nerfed.
I agree. I too am, reluctantly, in the why-blame-anyone camp. I say reluctantly because I dislike the current state of affairs.
My critique, pushing as much of the blame onto the gamers, was meant to point out that everyone/no one is to blame.
My critique, pushing as much of the blame onto the gamers, was meant to point out that everyone/no one is to blame.
Wrong. The market has not spoken.
The producers leave no alternative so it's do or die for consumers
IMO, it’s the platforms that turn down novel ideas in preference for money making products, resulting in less visibility for the underdog. Apple’s App Store routinely promotes paid for apps over free ones. Steam does the same. Google search is obviously the worst offender.
This is like saying we should blame the smoker, the junkie, or the gambling addict. The latter is an especially accurate comparison because these companies turn their games into gambling machines.
Sure, personal responsibility is important. In the end the only person who can free an addict from the quagmire of addiction is them. But that doesn't stop us from regulating the fuck out of tobacco companies, heroin dealers or casinos to reduce the harm they do to their victims.
The elephant in the room is that we as an industry hold the power to alter people's psychology on a greater scale than any drug. But people stay silent because it delivers the paychecks and the shareholder returns...
Sure, personal responsibility is important. In the end the only person who can free an addict from the quagmire of addiction is them. But that doesn't stop us from regulating the fuck out of tobacco companies, heroin dealers or casinos to reduce the harm they do to their victims.
The elephant in the room is that we as an industry hold the power to alter people's psychology on a greater scale than any drug. But people stay silent because it delivers the paychecks and the shareholder returns...
Artificial scarcity is bad, actually. Things that don't cost money to duplicate should be free, we need UBI and maybe a general shift to patronage-based models, luckily this is starting to happen.
There are also plenty of games that implement a cometic lootboxes that don't impact gameplay model that are totally fine.
There are also plenty of games that implement a cometic lootboxes that don't impact gameplay model that are totally fine.
This would lead to a society where there is no incentive to create any new digital goods.
The patronage "platform" would be the new Apple/Google and would likely be riddled with corruption
The patronage "platform" would be the new Apple/Google and would likely be riddled with corruption
While my original comment is not my best work by any stretch (sorry), I implore you to reconsider the idea that all motivation is monetary (it's absolutely not) and that patronage must happen on a "platform" that will become corrupt in some way. I think discounting the possibility of novel systems that tackle these problems out of hand is not a good way to start.
Lot of assertions here about how society should be run without any actual argumentation.
Fair enough, it's not a great comment. I don't really know how society should be run, and I shouldn't have offhandedly emphasized a couple things that I think might lead us to a solution.
That being said I'll stand by artificial scarcity being bad thing and clarify that while I don't have some master plan on how to create a functioning society where we don't have to impose artificial scarcity on the digital world; I absolutely think that is something we should be dedicating a lot of effort to. I reject the premise that we need to deny some people things that can be copied essentially for free.
That being said I'll stand by artificial scarcity being bad thing and clarify that while I don't have some master plan on how to create a functioning society where we don't have to impose artificial scarcity on the digital world; I absolutely think that is something we should be dedicating a lot of effort to. I reject the premise that we need to deny some people things that can be copied essentially for free.
> That being said I'll stand by artificial scarcity being bad thing and clarify that while I don't have some master plan on how to create a functioning society where we don't have to impose artificial scarcity on the digital world; I absolutely think that is something we should be dedicating a lot of effort to. I reject the premise that we need to deny some people things that can be copied essentially for free.
Again this just sounds like an emotional argument -- you seem convinced on a purely intuitive level that artificial scarcity is bad without actually explaining rationally how the harm it does outweighs the benefits.
There is a _very simple_ argument (which I'm not claiming is _true_ in all cases, but it is at least compelling, so anyone claiming the contrary needs to address it) in favor of artificial scarcity: taking away a major monetization strategy (often the only viable one) massively reduces the incentive to create high-quality products and we all end up poorer for those cultural outputs not existing.
Again this just sounds like an emotional argument -- you seem convinced on a purely intuitive level that artificial scarcity is bad without actually explaining rationally how the harm it does outweighs the benefits.
There is a _very simple_ argument (which I'm not claiming is _true_ in all cases, but it is at least compelling, so anyone claiming the contrary needs to address it) in favor of artificial scarcity: taking away a major monetization strategy (often the only viable one) massively reduces the incentive to create high-quality products and we all end up poorer for those cultural outputs not existing.
> taking away a major monetization strategy (often the only viable one) massively reduces the incentive to create high-quality products and we all end up poorer for those cultural outputs not existing.
Ahahaha, to be quite honest I don't find that argument compelling at all. Profit motives seem to be making software much much worse, not better, compared to what I know is possible. I'm often finding myself reverse engineering/hacking things just to make them usable. From where I'm standing the current system is not doing a very good job. I can often make notable usability improvements in the systems I interact with and IP laws, the main driver of digital artificial scarcity generally prevent me from sharing them. I feel like I'm constantly fighting hostile software that's just trying to extract value from me in some way rather than actually solving my problems.
Ahahaha, to be quite honest I don't find that argument compelling at all. Profit motives seem to be making software much much worse, not better, compared to what I know is possible. I'm often finding myself reverse engineering/hacking things just to make them usable. From where I'm standing the current system is not doing a very good job. I can often make notable usability improvements in the systems I interact with and IP laws, the main driver of digital artificial scarcity generally prevent me from sharing them. I feel like I'm constantly fighting hostile software that's just trying to extract value from me in some way rather than actually solving my problems.
The other option is to apparently blanket your game with advertisements. I spent some time yesterday looking for word games in the iOS store, and it seems like everything was “free”, but had non stop, unskippable ads. One offered to remove ads for a fee, but even after paying they remained in various parts of the game.
Some of that is that Apple's App Store search remains the worst search engine I'm forced to use, but some of it is evaporative cooling from Apple Arcade.
Most of the decent games have migrated there. I barely use it, but I think it works out to two bucks with the other iStuff I'm happy to pay for, and having a few games on my tablet or phone can be nice when I'm traveling.
Most of the decent games have migrated there. I barely use it, but I think it works out to two bucks with the other iStuff I'm happy to pay for, and having a few games on my tablet or phone can be nice when I'm traveling.
Almost all top iOS games are like this now, iPhone App Store is an extremely toxic market for games.
what type of word game were you looking for?
That depends on how good the concept is! Plenty of indie games have succeeded without gambling mechanics, look at something like Baba Is You for instance. I don’t know that the developer became rich off of it but be seems to have done well enough.
This only works if you either already have a brand like Zachatronics or if you have the patience to support/polish these small games for years till the random slot machine of the universe drops you enough reviews that you get critical mass and decent sales… or you pay for PR and you can successfully profit from even a shit game with enough PR money so why bother at that point…
Your right about a good concept winning a lot of good will and making success possible with less polish, but these days it doesn’t subtract the “risk of never being discovered” if you make an iOS app your just one of millions in the App Store if it’s on steam the shovelware isn’t as bad and discovery is better but it still requires market understanding in order to stand out.
Your right about a good concept winning a lot of good will and making success possible with less polish, but these days it doesn’t subtract the “risk of never being discovered” if you make an iOS app your just one of millions in the App Store if it’s on steam the shovelware isn’t as bad and discovery is better but it still requires market understanding in order to stand out.
The reason I referenced Baba Is You is because that concept was so incredibly brilliant, I legitimately believe you could have dropped the game into five parallel universes and it would have gotten attention every single time. Just get the game in front of one journalist for five minutes, and they'll very quickly see how brilliant it is.
Discovering a game concept like that is hard, but it does happen.
Discovering a game concept like that is hard, but it does happen.
[deleted]
What exactly makes you think as someone who "dabbles in games" to be entitled to profit?
AFAIK it costs $100 +30% to publish on Steam. It only takes 260 people to buy your game at 50 cents to break even. If your game can't sell 260 copies at 50 cents then it's just that, worthless.
Why not just release your game for free, for free? Does it have to be on Steam? Does it have to make money?
AFAIK it costs $100 +30% to publish on Steam. It only takes 260 people to buy your game at 50 cents to break even. If your game can't sell 260 copies at 50 cents then it's just that, worthless.
Why not just release your game for free, for free? Does it have to be on Steam? Does it have to make money?
> AFAIK it costs $100 +30% to publish on Steam. It only takes 260 people to buy your game at 50 cents to break even. If your game can't sell 260 copies at 50 cents then it's just that, worthless.
It doesn't take zero time to ship a bespoke finished game, your calculus is asinine.
It doesn't take zero time to ship a bespoke finished game, your calculus is asinine.
Break even on publishing costs. What about the man hours put into development?
The difference between someone who "dabbles in games" and a professional is that the professional polishes up the prototype and sells it on Steam. The commenter above explained why the state of the industry has prevented them from doing that. Your weird tangent asking "why do you feel entitled to make money for your work?" isn't really relevant to the conversation.
Do you have to eat?
Do you have to have a place to sleep?
Seems to me like making a reasonable amount of money to help towards these goals is not an unreasonable thing to hope for. But maybe you can prove me wrong?
Do you have to have a place to sleep?
Seems to me like making a reasonable amount of money to help towards these goals is not an unreasonable thing to hope for. But maybe you can prove me wrong?
I chastised a friend for getting so upset after losing half a dozen travelers checks on vacation. Get a grip — it’s $2 worth of paper. If you can’t afford to replace that you can’t afford to be on vacation.
For me, I think the concern with Travelers Checks is the potential loss of money from your account, if someone is able to forge your signature on them, and how that might potentially be used to tie you to other events or crimes that may have occurred.
It was a joke. Travelers checks aren’t like regular checks — they’re more like cashier’s checks or money orders. Losing them is a very big problem.
Oh, sorry. I guess it's been about twenty or thirty years since I used them.
Thanks for the clarification!
Thanks for the clarification!
Yeah. I dated myself with that reference.
Oh sorry sometimes I forget most people live in wage slavery.
I'm genuinely confused by this. Are you saying that you shouldn't have to worry about eating and living indoors? Or are you saying that you literally forget people have to pay for those things? Can you please explain what you mean?
My society provides free food and housing to everyone. Funny enough I literally forgot that's not universal (yet).
Your society?
The Republic of Finland.
Also free health care, electricity, water, and Internet.
Also free health care, electricity, water, and Internet.
You shouldn’t be selling your game for 50c if you expect to live off it so the calculation is even more off.
How is that break even? Don’t you need to invest time/money to make a game?
Nope. I guess you do.
Weird take to make on a site about entrepreneurship
There are so many new and dufferent games being created at all times, I defy you to even point in a general direction and say "this is what video games are".
Coupled with that is the horrible viewpoint that the money for your game is now "wasted", which assumes that most everything we buy is kept, when in reality, most of what we buy is transient: food, energy, garments.
Coupled with that is the horrible viewpoint that the money for your game is now "wasted", which assumes that most everything we buy is kept, when in reality, most of what we buy is transient: food, energy, garments.
Most people who say this mean "this is what AAA video games are". Rocket League is arguably not AAA but is clearly taking its more recent changes from it.
As you say, many new things are being created, and the solution for the most part is simple: Don't buy AAA. It has almost no appeal to me anymore, and even when I hear about some franchise I like or used to like, I just assume the worst if it's making the leap to AAA, and to be honest, that metric hasn't failed me in a while.
I'm late to the bandwagon and just bought Slay the Spire for $10. No microtransactions, no unlocks, no AAA garbage at all. Just money for fun. That's the solution. Don't play games that are just platforms to deliver psychological manipulation to extract money from you when there are games that will deliver the same basic dopamine hits for defined amounts of money, and for goodness' sake, don't pay money for things that are just platforms to psychologically manipulate you into giving them money. And often, frankly, aren't as good at the dopamine hits anyhow since they have to wrap them around manipulation.
As you say, many new things are being created, and the solution for the most part is simple: Don't buy AAA. It has almost no appeal to me anymore, and even when I hear about some franchise I like or used to like, I just assume the worst if it's making the leap to AAA, and to be honest, that metric hasn't failed me in a while.
I'm late to the bandwagon and just bought Slay the Spire for $10. No microtransactions, no unlocks, no AAA garbage at all. Just money for fun. That's the solution. Don't play games that are just platforms to deliver psychological manipulation to extract money from you when there are games that will deliver the same basic dopamine hits for defined amounts of money, and for goodness' sake, don't pay money for things that are just platforms to psychologically manipulate you into giving them money. And often, frankly, aren't as good at the dopamine hits anyhow since they have to wrap them around manipulation.
I don't think it's necessarily AAA games. I don't game much anymore, but the last five games I played are: Elden Ring, Red Dead Redemption 2, God of War, Super Mario Odyssey and Breath of The Wild. None of them have the problems mentioned.
It seems like it's really easy to avoid microtransactions, etc.
It seems like it's really easy to avoid microtransactions, etc.
I agree. We live in a golden age of gaming. Steam and all the game stores have a practically unlimited catalog (granted there's a lot of shovelware, but still plenty to chew on). Triple A games with budgets that rival and even exceed tentpole Hollywood franchises. New art forms constantly furthering the boundaries of narrative driven entertainment. Hyper realistic graphics pushing the frontiers of CG and even AI research with DLSS and the like. Gaming can be entertainment, a social activity, a creative tool (There's Minecraft of course, but also check out some of the incredible stuff made in Dreams on the Playstation https://youtu.be/AXtNlgjPb80?t=288).
And on top of all that, there's also innovation in the underlying business models. F2P games that are morally dubious and depend on hapless whales that get addicted to your product and subsidize it for the rest of the playerbase? Sure! Single $60 or $70 purchase without DLCs? Contrary to the author's insinuation, there are plenty of games that still follow that model. Expansion packs! Monthly subscriptions! There's just no other kind of media that even comes close -- where else can you spend $50 and potentially get hundreds or even thousands of hours of entertainment?
And on top of all that, there's also innovation in the underlying business models. F2P games that are morally dubious and depend on hapless whales that get addicted to your product and subsidize it for the rest of the playerbase? Sure! Single $60 or $70 purchase without DLCs? Contrary to the author's insinuation, there are plenty of games that still follow that model. Expansion packs! Monthly subscriptions! There's just no other kind of media that even comes close -- where else can you spend $50 and potentially get hundreds or even thousands of hours of entertainment?
I think people play games looking for an escape. So a game that attempts to bring the "transient reality" of everyday life as part of it's core mechanic is severely missing the point.
Then again, Roblox has kids literally "working" for each other. So, what do I know?
Then again, Roblox has kids literally "working" for each other. So, what do I know?
Roblox and kids might not be the best example, given that that doesn't reflect the reality for kids they'd want to escape.
[deleted]
I don't agree.
The industry has begun splintering in the same manner as Hollywood. Disney releases popcorn-entertainment and makes money off merchandise. Indie studios are creating quality movies of a tier that we never used to see before. Lastly, have some quirky bigwigs (wes anderson, Edgar Wright) who reliably create highly-stylized memorable if familiar works.
Epic, EA and Ubisoft are the Disney equivalents. Nintendo, CDPR, Naughty Dog, Kojima, From Software are your quirky stylized studios. Then you have indie studios making games like Hades, CupHead and Hollow Knight that provide excellent & complete experiences at the fraction of the investment. You get to pick which one you want.
Microtransactions are mostly restricted to the big studios. Restricting core gameplay aspects via microtransactions or Pay-2-win setups are pretty scummy. But, MMORPGS had those problems in the late 90s. So, it isn't new by any means. In cases where smaller games have microtransactions, they tend to be limited and exclusively cosmetic. The fact that I have played hundreds of hours of Rocket league and Dota without spending a single dollar, is a testament to how secondary the cosmetics are to the core gameplay loop.
I actually wonder if systems built to exploit whales are unethical. In some sense, the poor get to enjoy polished games because the rich are willing to pay an exponentially greater sum to look pretty in game. I don't think that's entirely bad.
Now, I do dislike 'loot boxes' with a passion. They play with our 'monkey brain', forcing us to buy more before our consciousness is able to intervene. Younger kids are even more susceptible and it serves as a gateway into gambling addictions. This part of dota and rocket league is reprehensible.
The industry has begun splintering in the same manner as Hollywood. Disney releases popcorn-entertainment and makes money off merchandise. Indie studios are creating quality movies of a tier that we never used to see before. Lastly, have some quirky bigwigs (wes anderson, Edgar Wright) who reliably create highly-stylized memorable if familiar works.
Epic, EA and Ubisoft are the Disney equivalents. Nintendo, CDPR, Naughty Dog, Kojima, From Software are your quirky stylized studios. Then you have indie studios making games like Hades, CupHead and Hollow Knight that provide excellent & complete experiences at the fraction of the investment. You get to pick which one you want.
Microtransactions are mostly restricted to the big studios. Restricting core gameplay aspects via microtransactions or Pay-2-win setups are pretty scummy. But, MMORPGS had those problems in the late 90s. So, it isn't new by any means. In cases where smaller games have microtransactions, they tend to be limited and exclusively cosmetic. The fact that I have played hundreds of hours of Rocket league and Dota without spending a single dollar, is a testament to how secondary the cosmetics are to the core gameplay loop.
I actually wonder if systems built to exploit whales are unethical. In some sense, the poor get to enjoy polished games because the rich are willing to pay an exponentially greater sum to look pretty in game. I don't think that's entirely bad.
Now, I do dislike 'loot boxes' with a passion. They play with our 'monkey brain', forcing us to buy more before our consciousness is able to intervene. Younger kids are even more susceptible and it serves as a gateway into gambling addictions. This part of dota and rocket league is reprehensible.
Nintendo is most certainly Disney, not quirky. The Zelda series might be an exception but the rest of Nintendo's IP is very Disney-eqsue.
Nintendo is definitely Disney or Warner Bros. They've been around forever, have lots of family friendly IP, and occasionally break out the lawyers and smack the hell out of groups that aren't even vaguely infringing on their IP. They say "be afraid of the mouse" but also be afraid of Mario.
Penguinz0 has a whole series on youtube as to why they're a terrible company.
You also left out Activision/Blizzard, which is not yet M$ property, and is arguably a Disney, far more than Epic.
Penguinz0 has a whole series on youtube as to why they're a terrible company.
You also left out Activision/Blizzard, which is not yet M$ property, and is arguably a Disney, far more than Epic.
Steam is the best thing to happen to gaming. My library is always updated. I'm able to play most of my catalog of games on Windows, Linux and here soon on Chromebooks. Since I started to use Steam I have amassed a HUGE library that I periodically have dig into and find stuff. It's really is amazing.
Yep, I can't sell old games and yes there's a bunch of freemium games that are focused on addicts but who cares. Yep Rocket League you changed. I still play it but if I decide not to there's a ton of other games for my attention.
I think the number one thing, at least for me, that keeps Steam so competitive is its refund policy. Devs, especially indie devs who make short games, hate it, but I don't know any other platform that has something like it.
For those unfamiliar, you can return and refund any game that you've played less than 2 hours. Now this obviously sucks for any games that are less than 2 hours in their entireity. (Maybe they need to adjust it to less than an hour?)
But for someone like who can't afford to waste money on games that they aren't going to play, this is great. I just bought a game (Phantom Doctrine) on Playstation. It was $6 which is a really good price. I'd been wanting to play it for a very long time. I was very disappointed. It's like X-Com with a spycraft theme but much worse gameplay. Played an hour and knew I'd probably never play again.
I've bought four games on Steam and returned all of them. Most because they just didn't run on my computer. The fourth one, I just didn't like very much after about ten minutes.
One thing that does suck, if you're not aware of it, is Early Access games that just get dropped. I can name half a dozen games off the top of my head that I spent good money for and the dev just dropped development halfway through or released a shitty buggy product. But I think as long as you wait at least a year to buy an Early Access game, you should be fine.
For those unfamiliar, you can return and refund any game that you've played less than 2 hours. Now this obviously sucks for any games that are less than 2 hours in their entireity. (Maybe they need to adjust it to less than an hour?)
But for someone like who can't afford to waste money on games that they aren't going to play, this is great. I just bought a game (Phantom Doctrine) on Playstation. It was $6 which is a really good price. I'd been wanting to play it for a very long time. I was very disappointed. It's like X-Com with a spycraft theme but much worse gameplay. Played an hour and knew I'd probably never play again.
I've bought four games on Steam and returned all of them. Most because they just didn't run on my computer. The fourth one, I just didn't like very much after about ten minutes.
One thing that does suck, if you're not aware of it, is Early Access games that just get dropped. I can name half a dozen games off the top of my head that I spent good money for and the dev just dropped development halfway through or released a shitty buggy product. But I think as long as you wait at least a year to buy an Early Access game, you should be fine.
Yet you can't sell off old games and you can't speak freely about their shortcomings
I hate that this site breaks the back button to keep on people on their site. That’s worse than loot boxes in my mind.
You have a chance to win a functioning back button in a loot box.
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Complaining that games use dark patterns while posting on a site that uses even worse patterns. That's a paddlin'.
I can't imagine this ever being intentional. No one tries to leave a site and goes "Well the button didn't work, guess I'll keep browsing".
It's pretty much always the result of a broken redirect / history api usage. You go back to the page which redirected causing it to redirect again.
It's pretty much always the result of a broken redirect / history api usage. You go back to the page which redirected causing it to redirect again.
At great expense to my carrier I have out and out refused to take part in creating these predatory practices. If you could hear the contempt that "some" game devs have for their customers, you might never buy a game ever again. It really is quite shocking...and the contempt exists from top to bottom, its everywhere. That isn't to say there's not a vast number of of honourable people in the industry, not at all.
It's only to say that we as a whole are allowing the demons run amok.
I have seen the damage that compulsive behaviour can do to our most vulnerable in society. Lives ruined, homelessness, suicide, familial dissolution, the list goes on. Children, people with mental dysfunctions, suffers of brain injuries, even people with Parkinson's disease (on l-dopa).
All the people in our society that can control themselves the least are the target. And these people are precisely the target, specifically these people, the 0.001% of players that make up the majority of their revenue. Some companies find out who they are and continually and specifically court them with free t-shirts, beta access, 'free' in-game gifts, etc. In some companies its a whole department that do this kind of customer management. Developing personal relationships all to keep them hooked.
Now most companies don't do this, its much more automated and in-game that this Catfishing, if I can use a term like that.
At the fundamental level predatory games are not actually games they are variable ratio reinforcement schedule machines. Think Guinea pigs in a lab being rewarded for pushing a button. An ultra advanced slot machine that continually changes it's odd's depending on what the app thinks you will be vulnerable too. And it attacks. Now, if you aren't a vulnerable person you will see the obvious things like the pop-ups asking you to spend money or a timer mechanism. And you might think how stupid people must be to fall for that, but you wont see the game's dynamic balancing, because you are not the target. If you're not the target you will never progress further up the attack protocol. So it will always just look like an innocent game to most people.
Its insidious and immoral. (I'm mostly talking about mobile games...mostly)
I have seen the damage that compulsive behaviour can do to our most vulnerable in society. Lives ruined, homelessness, suicide, familial dissolution, the list goes on. Children, people with mental dysfunctions, suffers of brain injuries, even people with Parkinson's disease (on l-dopa).
All the people in our society that can control themselves the least are the target. And these people are precisely the target, specifically these people, the 0.001% of players that make up the majority of their revenue. Some companies find out who they are and continually and specifically court them with free t-shirts, beta access, 'free' in-game gifts, etc. In some companies its a whole department that do this kind of customer management. Developing personal relationships all to keep them hooked.
Now most companies don't do this, its much more automated and in-game that this Catfishing, if I can use a term like that.
At the fundamental level predatory games are not actually games they are variable ratio reinforcement schedule machines. Think Guinea pigs in a lab being rewarded for pushing a button. An ultra advanced slot machine that continually changes it's odd's depending on what the app thinks you will be vulnerable too. And it attacks. Now, if you aren't a vulnerable person you will see the obvious things like the pop-ups asking you to spend money or a timer mechanism. And you might think how stupid people must be to fall for that, but you wont see the game's dynamic balancing, because you are not the target. If you're not the target you will never progress further up the attack protocol. So it will always just look like an innocent game to most people.
Its insidious and immoral. (I'm mostly talking about mobile games...mostly)
Having worked in the games industry on Facebook and mobile games, I don't think your perspective is representative.
Most f2p games are targeting a % mix of whales, dolphins, flounders, guppies. You might shoot for 0.1% whales, 10% dolphins,40% flounders, 50% guppies.
The whales will have an outsized impact on revenue for their count, and you largely can't plan for them to arrive. They're typically (very) wealthy people for whom spending $10,000 on a game is cheaper than the watch on their arm. Game companies absolutely set up a VIP customer service team for these players, this is the experience they expect everywhere in life. It's the difference between them playing your game for 2 months or 6 with a significant revenue impact.
Dolphins will be upper-middle class big spenders. They might try to collect every premium hat in your game, or regularly spend during special events. Again to them dropping $200/month in a game is not a hardship. In fact it's cheaper than most other hobbies they could do with their affluence like golf or skiing.
Next is the flounders, the goal is just to get them to spend at all. There might be some singular obviously valuable purchase in the game such as a season pass. This is basically game subscription services repackaged for the modern day.
The rest don't pay. You keep guppies around in hopes you can graduate them to flounders at some point down the line. In the meantime, they are cannon fodder for your matchmaking queues.
None of these psychographic groupings aim to exploit easily manipulated people. Rather the pay bands expand to match the disposable income of various economic classes. This is the same thing that has happened in other industries for a very long time. Some people rent skis, some bring their own, others hire personal trainers, and some rent the entire ski club for a private event. Go to a concert and some have nosebleed seats, others are front row, some watch from boxes, others pay to meet & greet the band after the show.
Most f2p games are targeting a % mix of whales, dolphins, flounders, guppies. You might shoot for 0.1% whales, 10% dolphins,40% flounders, 50% guppies.
The whales will have an outsized impact on revenue for their count, and you largely can't plan for them to arrive. They're typically (very) wealthy people for whom spending $10,000 on a game is cheaper than the watch on their arm. Game companies absolutely set up a VIP customer service team for these players, this is the experience they expect everywhere in life. It's the difference between them playing your game for 2 months or 6 with a significant revenue impact.
Dolphins will be upper-middle class big spenders. They might try to collect every premium hat in your game, or regularly spend during special events. Again to them dropping $200/month in a game is not a hardship. In fact it's cheaper than most other hobbies they could do with their affluence like golf or skiing.
Next is the flounders, the goal is just to get them to spend at all. There might be some singular obviously valuable purchase in the game such as a season pass. This is basically game subscription services repackaged for the modern day.
The rest don't pay. You keep guppies around in hopes you can graduate them to flounders at some point down the line. In the meantime, they are cannon fodder for your matchmaking queues.
None of these psychographic groupings aim to exploit easily manipulated people. Rather the pay bands expand to match the disposable income of various economic classes. This is the same thing that has happened in other industries for a very long time. Some people rent skis, some bring their own, others hire personal trainers, and some rent the entire ski club for a private event. Go to a concert and some have nosebleed seats, others are front row, some watch from boxes, others pay to meet & greet the band after the show.
Thank you for confirming what I said.
I know I won't convince you one way or the other. I've seen statements eerily similar to yours before, that I feel that it might be a regurgitation from some article or book somewhere.
Note the use of dehumanising terms, literally calling customers animals and 'cannon fodder'.
This is what this (part of the) industry thinks of the people that play their games, cattle.
I know I won't convince you one way or the other. I've seen statements eerily similar to yours before, that I feel that it might be a regurgitation from some article or book somewhere.
Note the use of dehumanising terms, literally calling customers animals and 'cannon fodder'.
This is what this (part of the) industry thinks of the people that play their games, cattle.
You have to call cohorts something. I know a gaming company that went very publicly out of their way to refer to the cohorts as Big Spenders, Hobbyists, etc. It didn't save their company. What you name your buckets doesn't matter.
SaaS companies call customers Users, talks about Activating and Retaining them, put them in Buckets. If this is your bar for dehumanizing then this must be a very frustrating website for you to visit.
Do you not shop at grocery stores? They put the milk and eggs in the back to psychologically manipulate you into walking past other items. And you're stored in their database as nothing but a phone number! So dehumanizing.
SaaS companies call customers Users, talks about Activating and Retaining them, put them in Buckets. If this is your bar for dehumanizing then this must be a very frustrating website for you to visit.
Do you not shop at grocery stores? They put the milk and eggs in the back to psychologically manipulate you into walking past other items. And you're stored in their database as nothing but a phone number! So dehumanizing.
No grocery store has my personal details...and yes I also have a big problem with grocery stores employing that tactic against children. Its psychological abuse and I will never, have never, taken a child in these places.
Horrible behaviour is not acceptable because other companies do it. What kind of argument is that?
Calling customers a User, is calling them a human being with a certain behaviour attached (using your app/service).
Naming your customers animals is a reflection of attitudes towards these customers. A hostile attitude I have tackled multiple times and every time I have called out, walked out, or changed the company. Its hard, not for everyone and I cant recommend it. I am just too aware of the tragic social impact of these tactics, and I have to try and not make the world a worse place.
Horrible behaviour is not acceptable because other companies do it. What kind of argument is that?
Calling customers a User, is calling them a human being with a certain behaviour attached (using your app/service).
Naming your customers animals is a reflection of attitudes towards these customers. A hostile attitude I have tackled multiple times and every time I have called out, walked out, or changed the company. Its hard, not for everyone and I cant recommend it. I am just too aware of the tragic social impact of these tactics, and I have to try and not make the world a worse place.
Basically, if you see the trap you aren't the target. Wow I never thought of it that way.
One interesting thing I've heard when working for a company that had microtransaction mechanics is, "Non paying players create content". By engaging in the community, even if in isolation they cost the devs money to host, they create the content and also the audience for the whale's behaviour.
I think a lot of us have a vision of a childlike, halcyon "purity" of experience, in the joy of gameplay itself, that we would seek and enjoy with or without other people's presence, with or without money. We want to experience that, we also as programmers (who may have learned to code because we like games) often have a deep desire to create that, to give it to others. It's like the "Beatific Vision" in the life of one who likes games.
We all know there always was a need for money, and passionate creativity exists in its margin. I think the complaint here really is that this margin seems to have less room in the eyes of the complainers, because the pull for money is present in virtually every game loop now, as opposed to being outside of the box...
A question I want to ask is, for newest generation of whales, is there a memory of some great, memorable exploratory rush in the big spend for them, part of a broader set of social interactions that gave them great joy and built them up in their community? Would their experience with the game due to this purchased power inspire them in any way, maybe to make some potentially positive, impactful life decisions? Or is it literally just a borderline scam at every single possible level?
I dislike microtransactions of any kind strongly, but I am at least trying here to be open to the possibility that someone who did them was able to feel something similar in relationship to them somehow.
I think a lot of us have a vision of a childlike, halcyon "purity" of experience, in the joy of gameplay itself, that we would seek and enjoy with or without other people's presence, with or without money. We want to experience that, we also as programmers (who may have learned to code because we like games) often have a deep desire to create that, to give it to others. It's like the "Beatific Vision" in the life of one who likes games.
We all know there always was a need for money, and passionate creativity exists in its margin. I think the complaint here really is that this margin seems to have less room in the eyes of the complainers, because the pull for money is present in virtually every game loop now, as opposed to being outside of the box...
A question I want to ask is, for newest generation of whales, is there a memory of some great, memorable exploratory rush in the big spend for them, part of a broader set of social interactions that gave them great joy and built them up in their community? Would their experience with the game due to this purchased power inspire them in any way, maybe to make some potentially positive, impactful life decisions? Or is it literally just a borderline scam at every single possible level?
I dislike microtransactions of any kind strongly, but I am at least trying here to be open to the possibility that someone who did them was able to feel something similar in relationship to them somehow.
I guess I’m not quite a whale but for a brief period of time I was spending several hundred dollars a week to run contests and pay for ships and game time for an Eve: Echoes (the mobile version, although I did play the original) corporation. We had 100+ people playing, I was their fearless leader, we had a war at one point, lots of fun. I knew once I stopped all the spending a lot of people would just leave and I wanted the party to keep going for a little while longer. I bought an iPad Pro so it’d be easier for me to administer my corporation. It was during COVID and it made me feel important and felt like I had friends. I couldn’t keep it up though, and maybe 75 people evaporated to wherever they came from.
We ended up with about 25 people sticking around, people idolized me and it was fun for awhile. Eventually (after a few months) I got bored and gave the reins over to a much less “fearless leader founder” person and much more “I am an accountant irl and Eve sounds neat” type person, which worked out pretty well, and the corporation thrived. I think back fondly to that and felt like it was worth it.
Alternatively, maybe ten years ago I spent a similar amount of money on this mobile game that was like sim city and Pokémon and time lapse command and conquer all rolled into one. I hate that I played that and hate how they managed to get my addiction loop just right and I was spending most of my paycheck on this stupid game. I had a guild and “friends” there too but it just felt like we were a bunch of addicts justifying each other’s spending habits. We knew what the in app purchase limits were for apple and how to get around them and stuff that just seems insane to me now.
We ended up with about 25 people sticking around, people idolized me and it was fun for awhile. Eventually (after a few months) I got bored and gave the reins over to a much less “fearless leader founder” person and much more “I am an accountant irl and Eve sounds neat” type person, which worked out pretty well, and the corporation thrived. I think back fondly to that and felt like it was worth it.
Alternatively, maybe ten years ago I spent a similar amount of money on this mobile game that was like sim city and Pokémon and time lapse command and conquer all rolled into one. I hate that I played that and hate how they managed to get my addiction loop just right and I was spending most of my paycheck on this stupid game. I had a guild and “friends” there too but it just felt like we were a bunch of addicts justifying each other’s spending habits. We knew what the in app purchase limits were for apple and how to get around them and stuff that just seems insane to me now.
Thank you, this is a very interesting answer.
There are still a ton of solid games that aren't constantly asking for money. TLOU, Elden Ring, RDR2 to name three huge ones. I'm 50/50 on Ubisoft because their games are still great standalone, but do offer IAP that I just ignore.
I'm OK with those offering freemium and such so long as it doesn't kill off the old model. I don't think it will.
I'm OK with those offering freemium and such so long as it doesn't kill off the old model. I don't think it will.
The problem with Ubisoft's model is that it affects game balance. Before when there's a problem with a game, the developers will patch it for free. Now, solutions are sold as IAP. It's even worse when the problems are now intentional.
Game trainers exist, at least on PC and Android. I feel no qualms about using trainers to grant myself unlimited in-game currency rather than buying their IAP ones.
Personally I enjoy games that bring a good challenge with the tools provided. The existence of IAP gates those tools or artificially inflates the challenge e.g. buy level boosts because the game purposely give little experience.
I find giving myself unlimited resources (e.g. with cheat codes in the old days or with credit cards today) greatly diminishes the experience. At that point, why even bother playing? There's other mediums of entertainment that makes colors splash on monitors.
I find giving myself unlimited resources (e.g. with cheat codes in the old days or with credit cards today) greatly diminishes the experience. At that point, why even bother playing? There's other mediums of entertainment that makes colors splash on monitors.
Oh come on... GTA(3, VC, SA) with cheats were great games to play... get all the weapons, be invincible, destroy everything, instead of a baseball bat, use a rocket launcher, instead of a bike, drive a tank.
God mode tends to be fun for an hour or so
It's also fun to go through the missions, without doing the hard part.
Sure, it doesn't have to be unlimited resources, you can give yourself however much you feel would balance the game to your fairness level. I just meant that it's one way to remove IAP gates as you mention.
Wait, what? You have to pay for bugfixes?
You have to pay for fixing poor game design or balance.
I will say that RDR Online pushes you hard towards micro transactions. That said, the single player game is worth $60 on its own, so I don’t mind just skipping the online.
There are countless indie games out there too worth all your time and more. If you like elden ring you need to experience the whole soulsborne series. AAA games are as trash as they've ever been.
Elden Ring is published by Bandai Namco, which makes it an AAA game; Bandai Namco is larger than Ubisoft which is where most of the "AAA = bad" games are from.
Is Elden Ring not a AAA game?
I'm not 50/50 on ubisoft, they sell level boosts and stat upgrades in a singleplayer games (assassins creed) it's hilarious
I've played every Far Cry and AC game. Never did I buy an upgrade or boost, or feel that one was needed to be honest.
I agree re: Ubisoft. I played through Far Cry 6 and never felt like I was missing out by avoiding the micro transactions.
I dunno.
First, there's more non free-to-play games out there than ever before, and some are truly amazing and innovative, so I'm not sure about what "games have become". In the last couple of years my top games by hours spent have probably been...
1) Valheim, a truly lovely indie game with a traditional "buy it upfront" model. Don't regret that purchase at all, great game.
2) Final Fantasy XIV, a traditional MMO model with a mind blowing storyline, often considered to be the best story of all the FF games. Don't regret the monthly fee at all; also a great game.
3) Apex Legends, a F2P game that I've spent uh...exactly $0 dollars on in the last year. (Sometimes the F in F2P really does mean "free"!) It's worth significantly more than I've paid for it. (And the only reason I play Apex is to play with a couple of friends, one of whom is a struggling student who couldn't easily afford to buy the latest COD or whatever. The low barriers to entry to F2P games can have real benefits.)
4) Europa Universalis IV, which has a fairly traditional "buy it upfront" model along with various expansions and DLC, except like most Paradox games, it has a simply absurd number, and they're pretty pricy, which means I've spent a uh.....let's just say a lot money on EUIV. Significantly more than the other three games combined. And I have spent a somewhat ridiculous number of hours on it, and I did enjoy them, but was it worth it? Hard question.
So while it's a great rant about how video games have become nothing but loot boxes, but my personal experience is that the overwhelming majority of games I play are not F2P, the only F2P game I play I've spent $0 on in the last year (and lifetime something like $20?), and the only game I feel a little exploited by has a traditional "pay upfront" business model.
OP asks how you'd feel if you were asked for extra money while watching a movie, but actually, if you go to a movie theatre and the popcorn and sodas are stupidly expensive. But...you don't have to buy them?
First, there's more non free-to-play games out there than ever before, and some are truly amazing and innovative, so I'm not sure about what "games have become". In the last couple of years my top games by hours spent have probably been...
1) Valheim, a truly lovely indie game with a traditional "buy it upfront" model. Don't regret that purchase at all, great game.
2) Final Fantasy XIV, a traditional MMO model with a mind blowing storyline, often considered to be the best story of all the FF games. Don't regret the monthly fee at all; also a great game.
3) Apex Legends, a F2P game that I've spent uh...exactly $0 dollars on in the last year. (Sometimes the F in F2P really does mean "free"!) It's worth significantly more than I've paid for it. (And the only reason I play Apex is to play with a couple of friends, one of whom is a struggling student who couldn't easily afford to buy the latest COD or whatever. The low barriers to entry to F2P games can have real benefits.)
4) Europa Universalis IV, which has a fairly traditional "buy it upfront" model along with various expansions and DLC, except like most Paradox games, it has a simply absurd number, and they're pretty pricy, which means I've spent a uh.....let's just say a lot money on EUIV. Significantly more than the other three games combined. And I have spent a somewhat ridiculous number of hours on it, and I did enjoy them, but was it worth it? Hard question.
So while it's a great rant about how video games have become nothing but loot boxes, but my personal experience is that the overwhelming majority of games I play are not F2P, the only F2P game I play I've spent $0 on in the last year (and lifetime something like $20?), and the only game I feel a little exploited by has a traditional "pay upfront" business model.
OP asks how you'd feel if you were asked for extra money while watching a movie, but actually, if you go to a movie theatre and the popcorn and sodas are stupidly expensive. But...you don't have to buy them?
Apex Legends is a game that I've currently got over 1000 hours in, which has been a consistent 1 to 2 hours most days since launch three years ago.
I've also spent roughly $1000 dollars in it too to get the "cool" skins. But I don't mind this since I've also subsidized many free players to pay $0 and enjoy it with me and there's no gameplay advantage so I don't feel like it's cheating (and it means there aren't any gross practices)
Now, World of Tanks, there's a game full of dark patterns and gross monetization.
I've also spent roughly $1000 dollars in it too to get the "cool" skins. But I don't mind this since I've also subsidized many free players to pay $0 and enjoy it with me and there's no gameplay advantage so I don't feel like it's cheating (and it means there aren't any gross practices)
Now, World of Tanks, there's a game full of dark patterns and gross monetization.
$1 per hour is a good rate.
I compare it to the cost of other forms entertainment (cinema, theme park, gocarting, sports event, …)
I compare it to the cost of other forms entertainment (cinema, theme park, gocarting, sports event, …)
God you're so naive. I wonder if that's intentional or genuine
In the early smartphone era I was extremely bullish on mobile gaming. I expected a creative explosion and a golden age of gaming due to the power, convenience and (inevitable) ubiqutity.
But then in-app purchases happened and we got to see first hand what happens with developers have seamless integration into a payments infrastructure combined with the ability to push updates constantly and easily. This really should've been no surprise because the addiction-loop of Farmville and the like were already established. Even so, I was surprised.
"Gaming" is now about "micro" (they're not that micro) transactions and a highly-A/B-tested loop optimized to get users to log on every day, do some menial task, get th eillusion of a reward and to want tomsething that is in the distance and only a few dollars away.
I can't necessarily blame game developers for this. We as users are really to blame ultimately. But it means that games that are actually games where you just buy the game and play the game without spending additional money are a rarity.
And that is sad.
But then in-app purchases happened and we got to see first hand what happens with developers have seamless integration into a payments infrastructure combined with the ability to push updates constantly and easily. This really should've been no surprise because the addiction-loop of Farmville and the like were already established. Even so, I was surprised.
"Gaming" is now about "micro" (they're not that micro) transactions and a highly-A/B-tested loop optimized to get users to log on every day, do some menial task, get th eillusion of a reward and to want tomsething that is in the distance and only a few dollars away.
I can't necessarily blame game developers for this. We as users are really to blame ultimately. But it means that games that are actually games where you just buy the game and play the game without spending additional money are a rarity.
And that is sad.
> games where you just buy the game and play the game without spending additional money are a rarity.
it might look like a rarity, but it's not imho. The absolute amount of indie games that come out, even if you don't include the free ones (which would only push the numbers higher) is absurd. have a look on itch.io, let a lone steam.
The quality varies, but it's acceptable. The "golden age" of gaming, back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, don't compare to today in terms of quality and amount.
It's only a rarity if you count monetary successes and the ratio of commercial successes vs the number of games. Success is always a rarity, and it's sad that exploitative games tend to be more successful - but they aren't the only ones with success.
And these mobile exploitative games aren't all that different from the arcades of yester-decades. I do agree that the arcades require honed skills, where as today's mobile pay to win games cannot be won via pure skill - the key differentiating factor.
it might look like a rarity, but it's not imho. The absolute amount of indie games that come out, even if you don't include the free ones (which would only push the numbers higher) is absurd. have a look on itch.io, let a lone steam.
The quality varies, but it's acceptable. The "golden age" of gaming, back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, don't compare to today in terms of quality and amount.
It's only a rarity if you count monetary successes and the ratio of commercial successes vs the number of games. Success is always a rarity, and it's sad that exploitative games tend to be more successful - but they aren't the only ones with success.
And these mobile exploitative games aren't all that different from the arcades of yester-decades. I do agree that the arcades require honed skills, where as today's mobile pay to win games cannot be won via pure skill - the key differentiating factor.
Benjamin Richard “Yahtzee” Croshaw (of Zero Punctuation) agree with you:
https://www.escapistmagazine.com/what-the-hell-happened-to-m...
https://www.escapistmagazine.com/what-the-hell-happened-to-m...
I'll be the first person to jump on the hatewagon towards pay2win and lootbox gacha games, but...hear me out. You can just NOT play those games.
The amount of games available on Steam is such that you can play indie games, old classics and anything to your liking for decades, while completely avoiding the types of game the author laments about.
There were plenty of just horrible, bad games back in the day too. Games that would crash all the time, had terrible gameplay, graphics, story, you name it. You just avoided the bad ones.
The amount of games available on Steam is such that you can play indie games, old classics and anything to your liking for decades, while completely avoiding the types of game the author laments about.
There were plenty of just horrible, bad games back in the day too. Games that would crash all the time, had terrible gameplay, graphics, story, you name it. You just avoided the bad ones.
This seems like a good time to mention this site DarkPattern.games[0] which lists mobile games that utilize such things as loot boxes, etc. and actually has quite some granularity over the different types of mechanics and how that game rates for those. For example, games which force you to wait some duration of time before being able to proceed, or force you to watch an ad, or other things like that.
"A gaming dark pattern is something that is deliberately added to a game to cause an unwanted negative experience for the player with a positive outcome for the game developer."
The site also lists games which rank very well in this regard, and _don't_ contain such dark patterns. IMO a great place to find some games which actually show some respect for the person playing the game. :)
[0] https://www.darkpattern.games/
"A gaming dark pattern is something that is deliberately added to a game to cause an unwanted negative experience for the player with a positive outcome for the game developer."
The site also lists games which rank very well in this regard, and _don't_ contain such dark patterns. IMO a great place to find some games which actually show some respect for the person playing the game. :)
[0] https://www.darkpattern.games/
Some of these are not specific to computer games, some not specific to games (in general), and some are OK in some circumstances (but they often do it worse). Some are common even in older games, and aren't new. If the game is properly isolated, if you do not have to pay every time, if the documentation could be improved, could improve some things. Many kinds of games should not require an internet connection to work. However, these are not the only problems with computer games. In addition to unskippable advertisements, there are games with unskippable cutscenes, slow animations, etc. FOSS can also usually avoid such thing, fortunately. I make up computer games too and it avoids them.
I don't like how some of my favorite mechanics (grinding, guilds) are listed as dark patterns.
In another comment you've admitted to spending $10k on some games, so clearly the patterns are doing their job.
These things are specifically made to create a strong addiction and wring the max possible amount of money out of people whether they can afford it or not. If you are in the former camp then you do you, but it doesn't make them not dark.
These things are specifically made to create a strong addiction and wring the max possible amount of money out of people whether they can afford it or not. If you are in the former camp then you do you, but it doesn't make them not dark.
The games I like grinding in (Factorio/Satisfactory, survival games) and with guilds (World of Warcraft) are not the same I spend money in. I feel it's unfair to use another unrelated comment of mine and make assumptions on that.
The rest of the mechanics (especially the ones making me spend money) I have no problem calling dark patterns.
The rest of the mechanics (especially the ones making me spend money) I have no problem calling dark patterns.
Then the site mostly agrees with you on that, and I do as well. These things are only dark patterns because they usually interlock with the money sinks. I'd say they still mostly cater to an addictive personality, but it's a very mild vice when the game's design doesn't follow the incentive to cash in on that.
You like grinding? Never heard anyone say this!
I just wish someone would make the mobile game shown in the ads
Unlike in the days of olde where ads had to look better than the game, the games in the mobile ads look like real games that would be fun to play
Unlike in the days of olde where ads had to look better than the game, the games in the mobile ads look like real games that would be fun to play
Another way of looking at it is that there is a vast, almost infinite quantity of quality games being created by independent studios.
If you don't like one game, there's vast, vast choice.
Go support the little guy by exploring the games on Steam and become happy again with what games have become.
I don't think many of the independent games have microtransactions. They might have ads.
If you don't like one game, there's vast, vast choice.
Go support the little guy by exploring the games on Steam and become happy again with what games have become.
I don't think many of the independent games have microtransactions. They might have ads.
Choice that's full of crap is worse than no choice at all - it completely buries any decent game in a mountain of unplayable garbage that's not even worth the free wifi to download. PC and Console are not at that level yet, but mobile gaming is impossible to access, as for any 1 decent or good game that might exist, there are literally thousands of crap ones that try to waste your time, get you addicted, and make you pay hundreds of dollars (!!!) to survive.
I’m not a fan of loot boxes or “free to play,” but it’s hard to take this complaint about dark patterns seriously on a site with a blocking popup and back-button jankiness.
Yeah I always wonder about the click-through rates of popovers asking users to install a native app. They have to be tiny.
“Like our content? Install our app so we can send you notifications and monetise you better!” - no, I’m not enjoying your content. I haven’t even read any of it yet. Your obnoxious pop up is the only content I’ve seen so far and it makes me want to pour water in your server rack. I’m not going to install your app.
“Like our content? Install our app so we can send you notifications and monetise you better!” - no, I’m not enjoying your content. I haven’t even read any of it yet. Your obnoxious pop up is the only content I’ve seen so far and it makes me want to pour water in your server rack. I’m not going to install your app.
This economic model for games is kind of required at this point, but the author is hitting on something true about the industry: it's not as good as it used to be.
The golden age of gaming ended somewhere in 2005-ish, and now the vast majority of games are derivative and often worse than the originals in terms of gameplay. They sell because people like new content. They are also less about the art, and more about the money. That may have always been the case in some sense, but I know that studios used to be very proud of their achievements and had ambitious visions for their IP.
As far as I'm concerned, the gaming "industry" is basically dead. The few exceptions are games like Dank Souls and Path of Exile, which bring something new to their respective genres. I know Dark Souls is technically a sequel, but that's the version of the game that first went mainstream, and is considered the corner-stone of the franchise. The point is, those are the kinds of games that actually matter to me, everything else is content.
Rocket League is one of the "real" games, and yeah the micro-transactions are annoying but it works well for that specific game. I'm not sure how to improve the monetization to make it feel more fair to consumers, and the developers need money, so what's the alternative? Keep cranking out crappy sequels?
The golden age of gaming ended somewhere in 2005-ish, and now the vast majority of games are derivative and often worse than the originals in terms of gameplay. They sell because people like new content. They are also less about the art, and more about the money. That may have always been the case in some sense, but I know that studios used to be very proud of their achievements and had ambitious visions for their IP.
As far as I'm concerned, the gaming "industry" is basically dead. The few exceptions are games like Dank Souls and Path of Exile, which bring something new to their respective genres. I know Dark Souls is technically a sequel, but that's the version of the game that first went mainstream, and is considered the corner-stone of the franchise. The point is, those are the kinds of games that actually matter to me, everything else is content.
Rocket League is one of the "real" games, and yeah the micro-transactions are annoying but it works well for that specific game. I'm not sure how to improve the monetization to make it feel more fair to consumers, and the developers need money, so what's the alternative? Keep cranking out crappy sequels?
>The golden age of gaming ended somewhere in 2005-ish.
This kind of statement definitely requires a source.
>They are also less about the art, and more about the money.
There have never been more experimental and indie games released than now.
This kind of statement definitely requires a source.
>They are also less about the art, and more about the money.
There have never been more experimental and indie games released than now.
Not sure a source is required when he's simply providing an opinion, albeit assertively.
>The golden age of gaming ended somewhere in 2005-ish, and now the vast majority of games are derivative and often worse than the originals in terms of gameplay.
Major studios produce derivative, uninspired, and stale sequels. Much like the movie and television industries. They're in it to make money. So their products will be interesting enough, and often show the desires of the creative employees. But their decisions are strongly driven by profit, and they have to regularly publish something even if their creatives have writer's block or a desire to totally pivot a project.
Real gems are produced by the middle-sized studios that grew from talented developers and great designers. I've only ever learned of them through word of mouth, and even then I only enjoy half the games I try.
>Path of Exile
Best example of freemium, IMO. Cosmetics are a big source of income, but the developers still put out new game mechanics every couple of months. Bug and quality-of-life patches are frequent. There is a category of real-money purchases that affect gameplay (storage tabs to help organize items you collect), but I don't mind it. Once bought, they're available to all your characters forever. Not having those tabs only became a problem after many (>100) hours in the game. So I saw it as upgrading from the trial version. I've spent less than $100 on it, but have played for almost a decade.
Major studios produce derivative, uninspired, and stale sequels. Much like the movie and television industries. They're in it to make money. So their products will be interesting enough, and often show the desires of the creative employees. But their decisions are strongly driven by profit, and they have to regularly publish something even if their creatives have writer's block or a desire to totally pivot a project.
Real gems are produced by the middle-sized studios that grew from talented developers and great designers. I've only ever learned of them through word of mouth, and even then I only enjoy half the games I try.
>Path of Exile
Best example of freemium, IMO. Cosmetics are a big source of income, but the developers still put out new game mechanics every couple of months. Bug and quality-of-life patches are frequent. There is a category of real-money purchases that affect gameplay (storage tabs to help organize items you collect), but I don't mind it. Once bought, they're available to all your characters forever. Not having those tabs only became a problem after many (>100) hours in the game. So I saw it as upgrading from the trial version. I've spent less than $100 on it, but have played for almost a decade.
RDR2 was released in 2018, it's the best video game in the history of humanity, so your date of the golden age is not correct.
RDR2 was a masterpiece.
I wouldn't call it the best video game in the history of humanity. Certainly the most immersive open world game in the history of humanity with a story and cinematic flair on par with the best films from Hollywood. An achievement by rockstar that has yet to be toppled. No other open world game including their own GTAV even comes close. Not even elden ring beats it.
I wouldn't call it the best video game in the history of humanity. Certainly the most immersive open world game in the history of humanity with a story and cinematic flair on par with the best films from Hollywood. An achievement by rockstar that has yet to be toppled. No other open world game including their own GTAV even comes close. Not even elden ring beats it.
I don't agree. Mobile gaming went to the roof in terms of annoying monatization models. But you still have good games. The Witcher 3, Mass Effect. Minecraft. All pretty good games with no real shortcomings.
If it's purely cosmetic and gives no advantage (outside them style points) then I don't care. As for whether or not you "own" what you're paying for. These things that merely represent physical objects, but are in fact just pixels. Well you've gotta let that one go. Would you complain about how every time you buy a cheeseburger after you eat it your money was wasted because you no longer own a cheeseburger? I doubt it. Perhaps there's a valuable lesson to be learned here. If you think by spending money you will enhance you're experience, then you paid for the experience not the material possession. kaboom.
Just started playing fortnite after resisting cause free to play rules. Its a really fun game, and theres no buying competitive advantage.
I bought a skin to support the devs, just like I did on Among Us.
As a generally “always by the cart” type of person, I think I'm starting to come around to the “pay what you want” model.
I bought a skin to support the devs, just like I did on Among Us.
As a generally “always by the cart” type of person, I think I'm starting to come around to the “pay what you want” model.
There's definitely a tasteful way to do this model. Dota 2, Fortnite, and Brawlhalla are examples of good ways to do this. To me, it comes down to two things:
1. Should not be able to purchase a competitive advantage
2. Should be able to purchase the item you want.
Re the second point, if you want the rare items and that involves gambling random item opaque loot boxes, that's an abusive relationship. If it involves purchasing the item directly, or buying a box where you can see all the items inside of it, that's a respectful relationship. Purchasing the item directly is the most preferred.
Games that do this entire model badly involve Hearthstone and any number of mobile games made by Supercell.
Some people might balk at the idea of purchasing any further items, but personally, I don't see anything particularly wrong with allowing cosmetics to be purchased and applied as a model that enables people to have a great free experience.
1. Should not be able to purchase a competitive advantage
2. Should be able to purchase the item you want.
Re the second point, if you want the rare items and that involves gambling random item opaque loot boxes, that's an abusive relationship. If it involves purchasing the item directly, or buying a box where you can see all the items inside of it, that's a respectful relationship. Purchasing the item directly is the most preferred.
Games that do this entire model badly involve Hearthstone and any number of mobile games made by Supercell.
Some people might balk at the idea of purchasing any further items, but personally, I don't see anything particularly wrong with allowing cosmetics to be purchased and applied as a model that enables people to have a great free experience.
Fortnite's a good example about how your two rules aren't enough, actually. Because of the way the game's designed, it pressures its audience (of primarily children) into purchasing microtransactions, to the point where there's been widespread bulling of kids who don't pay for premium Fortnite skins [1].
For a more detailed exploration of the dark side of Fortnite's monetization model, check out "Manufactured Discontent and Fortnite" [2].
[1]: https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/7/18534431/fortnite-rare-defa... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0
For a more detailed exploration of the dark side of Fortnite's monetization model, check out "Manufactured Discontent and Fortnite" [2].
[1]: https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/7/18534431/fortnite-rare-defa... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0
Children are going through the entire evolution of a society in the course of a few short years, when they're young and don't have a lot of perspective yet. They've always been jerks to each other. Fortnite didn't start that, and it's extremely unlikely that it has had any effect on it at all.
If not that, they'd bully each other about something else. When I was growing up, us kids who played Battletech and had a Nintendo were cool, and the Robotech kids with their Segas were the jerks (of course they'd say the opposite). Kids who weren't into games would pick on each other over other stuff, like having a generic notebook instead of a Trapper Keeper with a cool design.
The idea that Fortnite is pressuring kids to be mean to each other is just as overblown as all the other "think of the children!" claims. From "Rock n Roll is the devil's music!" to the Satanic Panic over Dungeons and Dragons and beyond. People will always claim that something is making the kids bad, but no, that's just how kids are. Old people have just forgotten what kids are like.
You can also find plenty of anecdotes of kids helping each other out in team mode, or building creative mode areas in games where they can cooperate and have fun, giving an escape and some camaraderie to other kids who don't normally have that in their lives.
If not that, they'd bully each other about something else. When I was growing up, us kids who played Battletech and had a Nintendo were cool, and the Robotech kids with their Segas were the jerks (of course they'd say the opposite). Kids who weren't into games would pick on each other over other stuff, like having a generic notebook instead of a Trapper Keeper with a cool design.
The idea that Fortnite is pressuring kids to be mean to each other is just as overblown as all the other "think of the children!" claims. From "Rock n Roll is the devil's music!" to the Satanic Panic over Dungeons and Dragons and beyond. People will always claim that something is making the kids bad, but no, that's just how kids are. Old people have just forgotten what kids are like.
You can also find plenty of anecdotes of kids helping each other out in team mode, or building creative mode areas in games where they can cooperate and have fun, giving an escape and some camaraderie to other kids who don't normally have that in their lives.
Mm, no. Fortnite makes money by selling good to children. They make more money if they create an environment which stigmatizes not spending money, which is a tactic to which children are especially vulnerable and which necessarily leads to a group of children being stigmatized against by their peers. It's hardly "think of the children" to take issue with a business model which is demonstrably harmful.
Also, "children will bully each other no matter what" is not a rational response to something which exacerbates bullying. That's like saying "accidents happen no matter what, this is no worse than normal" with respect to a defective car with broken airbags.
Also, "children will bully each other no matter what" is not a rational response to something which exacerbates bullying. That's like saying "accidents happen no matter what, this is no worse than normal" with respect to a defective car with broken airbags.
[deleted]
I play Fall Guys and Warzone, both of which offer cosmetic modifications that are unlockable both through gameplay and by purchasing them. IMO, the cosmetics are little more than flair that add a little bit of fun and personal expression to the experience. Along with the "Battle Pass" model, where users are rewarded for regular play during content "Seasons", these mini-economies incentivize people to play regularly (which improves multiplayer games on a lot of levels) and incentivize the developers to continually add content. People that get these cosmetics enjoy having a distinctive profile in a social experience they spend a lot of time in and subsidize gamers that enjoy robust free experiences (e.g. kids/teens who provide a lot of excellent competition). It's all a win-win-win-win in my book.
I'm 41 years old and have fond memories of the old days of packaged buy-once games, but the modern battle pass/cosmetic standard seems like a much more realistic way of having a consistently updated experience with strong engagement year-round.
I'm 41 years old and have fond memories of the old days of packaged buy-once games, but the modern battle pass/cosmetic standard seems like a much more realistic way of having a consistently updated experience with strong engagement year-round.
Yeah the Rambo skin was worth $10 and it added to the experience.
I don’t mind paying extra for it.
However Warzone is a prime example of cosmetics affecting the game - remember any of the scandals (DMR-gate of Dec 2020), when the desire to sell weapon blueprints / Battle Pass pushes the designers overpower the new weapons. It’s subtle but very toxic. Or the Roze skin. Even if that one wasn’t intentional they can’t change/remove it now because people paid for it.
However Warzone is a prime example of cosmetics affecting the game - remember any of the scandals (DMR-gate of Dec 2020), when the desire to sell weapon blueprints / Battle Pass pushes the designers overpower the new weapons. It’s subtle but very toxic. Or the Roze skin. Even if that one wasn’t intentional they can’t change/remove it now because people paid for it.
Yeah, there's room to quibble when it comes to Warzone, but it really doesn't add up to much in my view. The most gamebreaking advantages - The Roze skin and the broken Mac-10 blueprint - were basically accidents when it was a fairly young game (< a year old), and almost all of them were freebies included in the basic battle pass (so essentially free for anyone that plays regularly). Statistical anomolies still come around and "break" the game every once in a while, but it's really reached a point where most of the main weapons are well balanced
to the point that I often think I would have been best off sticking with some of the first guns I levelled up.
Most blueprints effectively just make levelling up new weapons a more pleasant experience, maybe saving you 1 - 2 hours for $20.
Most blueprints effectively just make levelling up new weapons a more pleasant experience, maybe saving you 1 - 2 hours for $20.
yeah I kinda hated the idea of the free to play model at first but since getting more into multiplayer games I think free to play model help keep them healthy and populated so it seems like a win-win to me. I'm glad not every game uses that model though.
> Can you imagine if other art mediums where this ridiculous? Like you are watching Avengers End game in Netflix and they ask you if you wanna pay 5 dollars more to watch Captain America use his well known outfit instead of regular clothes? Or you are reading a cooking e-book that asks you for one dollar for each desert decoration recipe you want to unlock?
We don't need to imagine it, this is happening all over the place. Board game kickstarters will have tiers with upgrade components that don't change the gameplay but just upgrade the cosmetics. Movie releases on optical disks have "collector's editions", where the DVD/blueray is bundled with all kinds of useless junk. Limited edition sneakers; foil MTG cards; trade-paperback books; concert tickets with a "band T-shirt" tier.
Yes, those are mostly physical goods that could in theory hold their value and eventually be resold. But in practice they aren't. They're things whose value is entirely bound in you liking that thing, and wanting a fancier version.
We don't need to imagine it, this is happening all over the place. Board game kickstarters will have tiers with upgrade components that don't change the gameplay but just upgrade the cosmetics. Movie releases on optical disks have "collector's editions", where the DVD/blueray is bundled with all kinds of useless junk. Limited edition sneakers; foil MTG cards; trade-paperback books; concert tickets with a "band T-shirt" tier.
Yes, those are mostly physical goods that could in theory hold their value and eventually be resold. But in practice they aren't. They're things whose value is entirely bound in you liking that thing, and wanting a fancier version.
> once you stop playing a game 100% of the money you spend on it disappears, you can’t recover any of it, not 50%, not 20%, just nothing (...) Can you imagine if other art mediums were this ridiculous?
Well, we're getting there. Streaming services, and all subscription offerings, are systems where you don't own anything, and you lose everything the moment you stop paying.
Well, we're getting there. Streaming services, and all subscription offerings, are systems where you don't own anything, and you lose everything the moment you stop paying.
The difference here is that the value proposition of a streaming service is pretty clear up front. Whereas in a context of f2p games, you're given the impression that you're actually acquiring ownership over the digital assets you're buying.
Clearly, that's not the case. You're not buying IP rights of those assets. You only buy a license to consume those assets.
Clearly, that's not the case. You're not buying IP rights of those assets. You only buy a license to consume those assets.
When I go to the movies, 100% of the money I spend disappears. It's ridiculous.
It's the same with concerts and theaters and other live venues as well.
I think you might be on to something with this. "Big Art" is out to make sure I can't own anything. At all.
That's why netflix made sure that you can't go to the store and buy movies anymore.
I think you might be on to something with this. "Big Art" is out to make sure I can't own anything. At all.
That's why netflix made sure that you can't go to the store and buy movies anymore.
Obviously the paying to watch a movie concept is outdated.
I always wondered who pays for a streaming service when you can't watch the movies or series once your subscription expires.
There are games like Elden Ring that are purely addictive and immersive through great game design.
And then there are MMOs and mobile games that are purely addictive through dirty psychological and immoral tricks.
Just don't play the latter. Those games (like modern WoW, HS, gacha games, etc) are garbage that will be looked at in disgust in the future.
And then there are MMOs and mobile games that are purely addictive through dirty psychological and immoral tricks.
Just don't play the latter. Those games (like modern WoW, HS, gacha games, etc) are garbage that will be looked at in disgust in the future.
Rocket League is both at the same time, an absolutely brilliant core game (albeit with extreme QA problems), with manipulative and unethical business practices layered on top, both to keep people playing and to monetize those people.
I use a stocktane and still buy stuff from time to time cos I know that money for the servers has to come from somewhere.
I wonder how much of this is driven simply by the fact that games are often bought by young people.
I remember when I was a kid/teenager I just didn't have much money, so if I wanted a game I either had to save for it or ask my parents. But if a game was free, then no problem, right? Just download and enjoy! And the microtransaction-based content addition is much more allowance-friendly than a monthly subscription or a large (for a kid) upfront cost.
I remember when I was a kid/teenager I just didn't have much money, so if I wanted a game I either had to save for it or ask my parents. But if a game was free, then no problem, right? Just download and enjoy! And the microtransaction-based content addition is much more allowance-friendly than a monthly subscription or a large (for a kid) upfront cost.
You can play those beautiful single player games that have none of these problems, or play rocketleague for the gameplay instead of trying to play "pimp my car" while playing rocketleague.
I think it's good training for life: practice with temptetion with something as cheap as a videogame and stretch your "resistence" now, so that later when your income increases even further, you will avoid spending on way more expensive things.
I'm talking by experience, wasted quite some money in league of legends, but I don't play it anymore
I played yesterday night couch coop rocketleague with my friends (my daughter, me, my wife and 2 friends), we have the basic cars and had a great time with that game.
And yes, bought the game for super cheap long time ago
I played yesterday night couch coop rocketleague with my friends (my daughter, me, my wife and 2 friends), we have the basic cars and had a great time with that game.
And yes, bought the game for super cheap long time ago
> You can play those beautiful single player games that have none of these problems
I was never a small studio lover, until all the large studios started really sucking.
Tunic, Subnautica, Hollowknight, Outer Wilds are absolutely must plays. Tunic being the latest which has been the closest I’ll ever get to playing A Link To The Past for the first time again.
I was never a small studio lover, until all the large studios started really sucking.
Tunic, Subnautica, Hollowknight, Outer Wilds are absolutely must plays. Tunic being the latest which has been the closest I’ll ever get to playing A Link To The Past for the first time again.
Exactly.
Well, some indie games are now extremely good, way better than big studios.
FTL: Faster Than Light
Ori and the Blind Forest (doesn't count as indie)
Ori and the Will of the Wisps
Invisible Inc.
Hollow Knight
XCOM
Dyson Sphere Program
Kerbal Space Program (to be fair, this is not really for everyone)
XCOM 2
Assault Android Cactus (great for coop!)
Factorio
Dark Souls 1 and 3 (big studio)
Frostpunk
Hellpoint
Sundered
Starsector
EXAPUNKS
Monster Hunter World: Iceborne (yeah, this is from a big studio)
The big studios sucking has, for better or worse, reduced the amount of time I spend on games.
They don't survive if they don't do something right. Compare that to the big studios who churn out their yearly releases, and get by because they're still milking a cash cow that dominates the 'gaming' headspace for people who prefer to turn on a console and stay busy.
They don't survive if they don't do something right. Compare that to the big studios who churn out their yearly releases, and get by because they're still milking a cash cow that dominates the 'gaming' headspace for people who prefer to turn on a console and stay busy.
The old ways persist. Good games are easier than ever to find and in great quantity. So what, now you want lawsuits and legislation to destroy the fremium model? I'll just be over hear playing games I want to play, unaffected by the network effect because I don't care what strangers play. I play with my friends and we play games that are old, indie, fun, run on anyone's machine, and can be played in person on a couch if we want. There's free bots for discord poker with friends. There's countless pick up and play fremium online titles to chose from. There's decades' worth of system's libraries available on emulators. What are you complaining about again?
The indie game scene is still pretty great. Tunic just came out last week. It's super fun and basically a single dev.
I wrote my own free open source browser game. https://landgreen.github.io/sidescroller/
"N-gon is a physics-based single player 2-d platformer shooter with hundreds of different power ups. You move with the keyboard and aim with the mouse. The core game is done, but I'm still adding new content.
You can play here for free. It's open source, no ads, no tracking, no data harvesting, no crypto-mining, no DLCs, no freemium, no microtransactions, no gacha."
I wrote my own free open source browser game. https://landgreen.github.io/sidescroller/
"N-gon is a physics-based single player 2-d platformer shooter with hundreds of different power ups. You move with the keyboard and aim with the mouse. The core game is done, but I'm still adding new content.
You can play here for free. It's open source, no ads, no tracking, no data harvesting, no crypto-mining, no DLCs, no freemium, no microtransactions, no gacha."
[deleted](1)
> Like you are watching Avengers End game in Netflix and they ask you if you wanna pay 5 dollars more to watch Captain America use his well known outfit instead of regular clothes?
Jesus Christ don't give those fucks any ideas
Jesus Christ don't give those fucks any ideas
FWIW, that's one reason why I turned away from commercial games and play almost only FOSS games.
Yes, they don't have an income so they are at least 10 years behind on tech and generally have less good assets (textures, shaders, sound) (there are exceptions), yes, the player base is more on the 10,000s at best than on the million (an obvious problem for multiplayer games), but on the bright side their decisions are not tainted by profitability or business model considerations.
For instance, to replace Rocket League, OP could try the soccer mode of SuperTuxKart.
Yes, they don't have an income so they are at least 10 years behind on tech and generally have less good assets (textures, shaders, sound) (there are exceptions), yes, the player base is more on the 10,000s at best than on the million (an obvious problem for multiplayer games), but on the bright side their decisions are not tainted by profitability or business model considerations.
For instance, to replace Rocket League, OP could try the soccer mode of SuperTuxKart.
You talk about not being able to resell the cosmetics because valve doesn't allow, but many games on steam allow that, and it's up to the developer to implement the integration with steam market. It probably also gets harder to implement if the game is available in more than one storefront/platform.
You can't withdraw the money from steam, you can only spend it on other games or the market, but there are some 3rd party sites that you to sell these cosmetics and withdraw the money, but thrusting them is up to you.
You can't withdraw the money from steam, you can only spend it on other games or the market, but there are some 3rd party sites that you to sell these cosmetics and withdraw the money, but thrusting them is up to you.
I think overwatch is the best fps in the world. I love the game mechanics.
Meanwhile, Im realizing blizzard encourage smurfing, meaning have several accounts, to constantly win against lower skilled players in competitive, instead of playing against players of their own skills.
You now see entire teams "deranking" meaning losing on purpose, to lose skill rating, so they can climb all over again. It ruins the game.
Other games add barriers, like sms, or scanning for ip.
Blizzard does make a lot of money that way.
Meanwhile, Im realizing blizzard encourage smurfing, meaning have several accounts, to constantly win against lower skilled players in competitive, instead of playing against players of their own skills.
You now see entire teams "deranking" meaning losing on purpose, to lose skill rating, so they can climb all over again. It ruins the game.
Other games add barriers, like sms, or scanning for ip.
Blizzard does make a lot of money that way.
> best fps in the world
Have you played for very long? I originally got into it several years ago, a little before Moira was announced. After a while, it felt like everything devolved into samey-ness, especially when the maps stagnated.
Not long after the hamster showed up, my whole group of friends had also gotten bored of it.
Have you played for very long? I originally got into it several years ago, a little before Moira was announced. After a while, it felt like everything devolved into samey-ness, especially when the maps stagnated.
Not long after the hamster showed up, my whole group of friends had also gotten bored of it.
I would say it is definitely a contender for the best fps. Especially if you play it in a eSports manner with a dedicated team. Not many games that can compete with what ow is doing. Very excited to see what ow2 brings.
Blizzard is fully aware of this. Their matchmaker is perfectly designed to provoke this behavior with their use of hidden ratings and other rubber-banding mechanics.
Why fix it if its not broken? Buying another copy of overwatch is a drop in the bucket for players who have already invested thousands of hours.
Why fix it if its not broken? Buying another copy of overwatch is a drop in the bucket for players who have already invested thousands of hours.
I agree with this; there are these and other problems. However, not all computer games are designed like this.
My opinion is, the game should be made to be standalone. No internet connection should be required for the game to work (unless you wish to join an official tournament that runs using the internet, perhaps). It should be independent of the time, date, etc. It should be independent of other instances of the same game on the computer.
There are other problems too with some games, such as some are too easy. Some have too many cutscenes. Some take up too much disk space and/or RAM. etc.
Fortunately, there are still some good ones. One case of this is some people will write a computer game for older systems (e.g. NES/Famicom) and then you can run in an emulator of your choice (or on the real hardware if you have it); the emulator may include capabilities such as controls remapping, save states, etc. But there are also games written for native code too, that can also be good.
See comment 30827853 (and its replies) for some comments about dark patterns; I will write a comment there, too (later today, probably).
My opinion is, the game should be made to be standalone. No internet connection should be required for the game to work (unless you wish to join an official tournament that runs using the internet, perhaps). It should be independent of the time, date, etc. It should be independent of other instances of the same game on the computer.
There are other problems too with some games, such as some are too easy. Some have too many cutscenes. Some take up too much disk space and/or RAM. etc.
Fortunately, there are still some good ones. One case of this is some people will write a computer game for older systems (e.g. NES/Famicom) and then you can run in an emulator of your choice (or on the real hardware if you have it); the emulator may include capabilities such as controls remapping, save states, etc. But there are also games written for native code too, that can also be good.
See comment 30827853 (and its replies) for some comments about dark patterns; I will write a comment there, too (later today, probably).
> Can you imagine if other art mediums where this ridiculous? Like you are watching Avengers End game in Netflix and they ask you if you wanna pay 5 dollars more to watch Captain America use his well known outfit instead of regular clothes? Or you are reading a cooking e-book that asks you for one dollar for each desert decoration recipe you want to unlock?
Don't give managers bad ideas.
Don't give managers bad ideas.
I think the idea is already there, they just miss the technical capacity for now to implement it.
Yeah, I just avoid sucky games that do shit like that. You should too. Those "video games have become" apparently the ones you chose to play and not the ones you didn't choose to play...
Right, I've been playing Kirby and the Forgotten Land for the past hour. No microtransactions to speak of.
I have 424 Steam games and not a single one is a freemium game, funny how that works
^ I can’t speak for which 424 games you have in your library, but careful with the terminology—there are (sadly) lots of paid games with microtransactions and dark patterns.
I get that. I detect it and I consciously don't participate in it. If you understand and recognize the dark pattern, you can opt-out.
This is how I feel about "growth" as a business function.
Obviously growth is desirable, but "growth engineers" and "growth" teams, in my experience, tend to create and/or operate within perverse incentive structures, and tend to focus more on gimmicks and trivialities than on core product/user value.
Obviously growth is desirable, but "growth engineers" and "growth" teams, in my experience, tend to create and/or operate within perverse incentive structures, and tend to focus more on gimmicks and trivialities than on core product/user value.
While it is true that there are a ton of great games out there, the reality is that if you enjoy multiplayer, community matters A LOT.
There was an excellent game released recently called Chivalry 2. It was an extremely fun "realistic-ish" sword fighting game with huge servers and excellent implementation.
Last time I checked, nobody was playing. This is true for SO MANY interesting multiplayer games.
So I feel what this person is saying. Popular multiplayer games are not to my taste these days ( I miss Quake III ). And there isn't a huge community for a lot of the games I am interested in. So it goes.
Another thing is: A lot of these games are made for young people. So yes they do dumb dances and are cringe-y but you have to just get over that. I very normal and was really into zombies when I was 11, I'm sure I would be doing the Fortnite dances as well. Though I may have been contrarian and into PUBG...
There was an excellent game released recently called Chivalry 2. It was an extremely fun "realistic-ish" sword fighting game with huge servers and excellent implementation.
Last time I checked, nobody was playing. This is true for SO MANY interesting multiplayer games.
So I feel what this person is saying. Popular multiplayer games are not to my taste these days ( I miss Quake III ). And there isn't a huge community for a lot of the games I am interested in. So it goes.
Another thing is: A lot of these games are made for young people. So yes they do dumb dances and are cringe-y but you have to just get over that. I very normal and was really into zombies when I was 11, I'm sure I would be doing the Fortnite dances as well. Though I may have been contrarian and into PUBG...
For those that want the free games, but don't like the dark patterns, I feel like I need to mention https://f-droid.org/en/categories/games/index.html where you can find a lot of good games. Most are simple and with basic graphic, but for a quick time waster they are great. I've sunk a lot of time on these:
- https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.shatteredpixel.shattered...
- https://f-droid.org/en/packages/dev.lonami.klooni/
- https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.shatteredpixel.shattered...
- https://f-droid.org/en/packages/dev.lonami.klooni/
Games, like many things lost their soul around 2007 with the release of the iPhone. The world has gone in a different direction, the worser timeline perhaps.
IMHO, purely-online or mostly-online games which are not community-run FOSS are fundamentally suspect :-( I'm not saying they are all problematic, but my basic tendency would be to steer away from those.
Also - old-school games, people... by now, there are over 40 years of games if you count old-time stand-alone consoles (Galaxian anyone?) that's probably more than you could play in a lifetime of gaming. Ok, maybe not, but more than you could play in a lifetime of gaming in your spare time if you are actually holding down a job :-P And the best thing is that those games either don't have a way to scam you, and the ones which do (say online games with vanity item monetization) from 10 years ago probably don't work anyway these days.
Also - old-school games, people... by now, there are over 40 years of games if you count old-time stand-alone consoles (Galaxian anyone?) that's probably more than you could play in a lifetime of gaming. Ok, maybe not, but more than you could play in a lifetime of gaming in your spare time if you are actually holding down a job :-P And the best thing is that those games either don't have a way to scam you, and the ones which do (say online games with vanity item monetization) from 10 years ago probably don't work anyway these days.
This is happening to all IP industries and leaking into other ones. You no longer buy a song, movie, ebook, or game and truly own it. You get a non-transferrable license that only last as long as you don't do anything to anger the fickle platform overlords.
You can't lend IP you've purchased to a friend. You can't resell your content to others. Even consumer electronics are becoming increasingly worthless, as they require perpetual internet connection so they can rent seek via subscriptions and ads for a device you already paid for.
The idea of ownership is being destroyed, and consumers' ambivalence to this is extremely disappointing to me.
It should be illegal to have "buy" button when the purchaser doesn't really own anything.
You can't lend IP you've purchased to a friend. You can't resell your content to others. Even consumer electronics are becoming increasingly worthless, as they require perpetual internet connection so they can rent seek via subscriptions and ads for a device you already paid for.
The idea of ownership is being destroyed, and consumers' ambivalence to this is extremely disappointing to me.
It should be illegal to have "buy" button when the purchaser doesn't really own anything.
The new generations are being taught to not have anything but to have access to it, songs, games, movies, ... . They don't know anything else and the ubiquity of access to everything makes them think it will always be there. I see it with my son and friends. And when I try to explain them they look at me like an old man shouting at the clouds (it's almost literal). When I try to explain my son that is better to buy buy, even if it's more expensive, the physical copy of a game instead of the digital copy he understands it but can't see the problem, I guess till he lose something won't realize.
I think most people snap out of it though. The turning point is when they go on Netflix/Prime and type in a TV show, and see the autocomplete, only to be shown a screen saying they don't actually have that show.
I am a game developer. I have been part of the industry for a few years now.
I am working on a product with a new company I formed.
The economics are interesting. I pay, upfront, all capital required to get the product ready for viewing.
Hackers and exploiters can probably destroy the experience for players because an indie studio is going to struggle to have any proactive anticheat.
Lag, poor networking, and poor performance can also kill the experience fir players and result in a negative review.
Delivering a game that covers the bases here well enough to not be turned into a meme or review bombed is a scarey endeavor.
Who knows, maybe the market looks and decides the game just isn't cool enough?
I hope for success on my project. I wont be doing any microtransactions initially because I am too focused on the other considerations.
I am working on a product with a new company I formed.
The economics are interesting. I pay, upfront, all capital required to get the product ready for viewing.
Hackers and exploiters can probably destroy the experience for players because an indie studio is going to struggle to have any proactive anticheat.
Lag, poor networking, and poor performance can also kill the experience fir players and result in a negative review.
Delivering a game that covers the bases here well enough to not be turned into a meme or review bombed is a scarey endeavor.
Who knows, maybe the market looks and decides the game just isn't cool enough?
I hope for success on my project. I wont be doing any microtransactions initially because I am too focused on the other considerations.
It's good that there's plenty of games the author probably hasn't played yet.
I get pressing back against what seems like to be a growing trend of exploiting whales (although that doesn't seem to be the exact point they're trying to make), but on the other hand there are a few Castlevania games I can play on my 3DS that I missed when they first came out. I'd just as soon play one of those than worry about what's on Steam.
And on the other finger, even if you only care for contemporary games, Elden Ring just came out and has a TON of content before having to buy any DLC/whatever.
I get pressing back against what seems like to be a growing trend of exploiting whales (although that doesn't seem to be the exact point they're trying to make), but on the other hand there are a few Castlevania games I can play on my 3DS that I missed when they first came out. I'd just as soon play one of those than worry about what's on Steam.
And on the other finger, even if you only care for contemporary games, Elden Ring just came out and has a TON of content before having to buy any DLC/whatever.
I mostly don't really mind, there is just so many games out there these days, and so many ways to play lots and lots of games for very little money. Mostly the extras are not pay to win, but there are a number that are pay to fast forward. Some are pay to fast forward and no reasonable way to earn the thing in a game in a reasonable time, those ones are a bit evil (GT7 being the latest version of that ). Overall though, for far less $s than in the past, you can play a heck of a lot games if you don't get sucked into paying for loot boxes / upgrades / cosmetics.
> Like you are watching Avengers End game in Netflix and they ask you if you wanna pay 5 dollars more to watch Captain America use his well known outfit instead of regular clothes?
I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's more like offering to have him use a special limited edition outfit rather than his well known outfit. And I don't see what the big deal is. You can get the standard cost experience, or the higher fee, upsell experience. It's not uncommon, and it's not a major problem. Just pay for what you want. (And learn to want less).
I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's more like offering to have him use a special limited edition outfit rather than his well known outfit. And I don't see what the big deal is. You can get the standard cost experience, or the higher fee, upsell experience. It's not uncommon, and it's not a major problem. Just pay for what you want. (And learn to want less).
For me the problem is not so much the direct consequences of paying, but the subtle hidden differences between a game that offers things to buy and one that doesn’t. The amount of money you will pay for something will never be worth the time you’d spend to unlock it for free. Maybe you can pay $1 dollar for something that would take a couple of hours of play time to unlock. Who has a shitty job that pays $0.50 an hour? So, the whole thing loses meaning completely. Why bother? I don’t know. Free to play games are to me simply another type of infinite scroll.
They raise an interesting point I've wondered about, in regards to movies:
> "Like you are watching Avengers End game in Netflix and they ask you if you wanna pay 5 dollars more to watch Captain America use his well known outfit instead of regular clothes?"
While that example is unlikely, we may in the future see paid narrative arcs. The base movie might be free, taking you to a certain point in story where you're presented a fork in road. One path is free with low budget action, the other paid and contains more action, more sex and big budget scenes!
> "Like you are watching Avengers End game in Netflix and they ask you if you wanna pay 5 dollars more to watch Captain America use his well known outfit instead of regular clothes?"
While that example is unlikely, we may in the future see paid narrative arcs. The base movie might be free, taking you to a certain point in story where you're presented a fork in road. One path is free with low budget action, the other paid and contains more action, more sex and big budget scenes!
Not a big surprise that freemium games are a lot more profitable. A single whale provides more revenue than thousands of casual paying members and a smaller target audience is a lot easier to optimize for
I have to admit, I’m not a huge fan of the “it’s fine because it’s just cosmetics, and it doesn’t affect the game” line of reasoning.
Because that’s patently not true. If cosmetics didn’t affect the gaming experience, they wouldn’t be worth anything. Certainly not worth paying above and beyond the purchase price for.
Cosmetics are just the easiest to monetize and normalize, to the point where players will now defend full priced games for offering cosmetic microtransactions. It’s a shame. Likely a windmill-tilting cause, but a shame nonetheless.
Because that’s patently not true. If cosmetics didn’t affect the gaming experience, they wouldn’t be worth anything. Certainly not worth paying above and beyond the purchase price for.
Cosmetics are just the easiest to monetize and normalize, to the point where players will now defend full priced games for offering cosmetic microtransactions. It’s a shame. Likely a windmill-tilting cause, but a shame nonetheless.
As someone who has worked in F2P games: you're quite wrong that cosmetics are "easy to monetize". Good god, it's HARD.
Because the only way it works, at a scale that can support a studio, is if people really, really love the game. Even something that can capture attention for dozens of hours may not be good enough.
As a gamer, you're looking at something like Rocket League and going "oh yeah, it's so easy! They just make a skin and it sells!" But, uh, no. It's the 0.001% elite of all games. And they only have an "easy" time selling cosmetics in the sense that they already did the much harder work of making something amazing. Kinda like it's easy for Google to make money from ads; you need the killer product first.
Because the only way it works, at a scale that can support a studio, is if people really, really love the game. Even something that can capture attention for dozens of hours may not be good enough.
As a gamer, you're looking at something like Rocket League and going "oh yeah, it's so easy! They just make a skin and it sells!" But, uh, no. It's the 0.001% elite of all games. And they only have an "easy" time selling cosmetics in the sense that they already did the much harder work of making something amazing. Kinda like it's easy for Google to make money from ads; you need the killer product first.
They said "easiest to monetize and normalize", not "easy to monetize".
Also, your argument seems irrelevant. Making a successful anything is hard. The fact that you may make money off of a mediocre shrink wrapped clone of a clone of a clone when you hook a few suckers selling time crystals for hundreds of dollars is not an achievement, and not something that anyone should feel entitled to. And yet, it's 99.99% of the mobile "gaming" market...
Also, your argument seems irrelevant. Making a successful anything is hard. The fact that you may make money off of a mediocre shrink wrapped clone of a clone of a clone when you hook a few suckers selling time crystals for hundreds of dollars is not an achievement, and not something that anyone should feel entitled to. And yet, it's 99.99% of the mobile "gaming" market...
Games are many things to many people. Don't play the ones that go against your personal values.
I think that's an overly general view and in my experience you have to decide case by case, but of course you're free to ignore anything you don't like.
Take Guild Wars 2 for example, it used to be Buy To Play with an excessive ingame shop that sells not only cosmetics but also quality of life improvements, but no 'power items'. I love this model, I bought it years ago on a sale and was happy to give them money for expansions and cash shop items because it's a nice game with an MMO scope, I want it to survive.
Star Wars: The Old Republic launched as a subscription game and went F2P but with certain benefits once you had subbed for a month once. Many people were upset about some of the things they locked and you only get the full experience (or the newest expansion) if you subscribe, but over the years I did spend some time in f2p and I think it's fine.
I guess in general I don't have a problem with free games with a big cash shop (unless it's pay to win), but maybe that's because I either play a game for 10h and then not touch it again (so free would be... I don't see the limitations before I stop) or I'm playing it for years (then I pay hundreds in subscription fees or if it was a one-time purchase and I feel bad not giving them money after a while).
Take Guild Wars 2 for example, it used to be Buy To Play with an excessive ingame shop that sells not only cosmetics but also quality of life improvements, but no 'power items'. I love this model, I bought it years ago on a sale and was happy to give them money for expansions and cash shop items because it's a nice game with an MMO scope, I want it to survive.
Star Wars: The Old Republic launched as a subscription game and went F2P but with certain benefits once you had subbed for a month once. Many people were upset about some of the things they locked and you only get the full experience (or the newest expansion) if you subscribe, but over the years I did spend some time in f2p and I think it's fine.
I guess in general I don't have a problem with free games with a big cash shop (unless it's pay to win), but maybe that's because I either play a game for 10h and then not touch it again (so free would be... I don't see the limitations before I stop) or I'm playing it for years (then I pay hundreds in subscription fees or if it was a one-time purchase and I feel bad not giving them money after a while).
I don't play the F2P games on PC. Got one of those on my phone which is a good turd-passing helper (come to think of it, aren't all phone games F2P P2W games?).
I only buy quality games that are worth the money spent. Bought Factorio in Early Access, paid money for Rogue Tower the other day. Come to think of it, maybe games have taken a turn for the worse. I'm spending less on games over time at least.
I only buy quality games that are worth the money spent. Bought Factorio in Early Access, paid money for Rogue Tower the other day. Come to think of it, maybe games have taken a turn for the worse. I'm spending less on games over time at least.
I don't engage with purchasable wearables (or super hero movies) but I do like the Captain America example buried in this post. A more practical offering like the choice to pay a tiny fee to unlock a few supplementary scenes about a character's back story while streaming something seems like an inevitability - unless I'm missing something and it's already been done?
What you do is show a QR code in the theater, make people scan it, and if enough people in that showing do, you get the bonus scene.
Support real independent studios and self-publishing developers, they're the ones with the creativity and freedom to advance the medium.
Before they were bought-out, Psyonix (Rocket League Studio) was a real independent, self-publishing studio. They created something unique that still has no equivalent.
Counter points: literally every indie game, Elden Ring, Tiny Tina's Wonderland, God of War, all of Nintendo (they have other issues though) and the literally hundreds of triple A games that aren't live service. I'm quite sure I'm missing a lot, but these are just top of mind.
They've chosen a very narrow definition of video games to be disappointed over.
They've chosen a very narrow definition of video games to be disappointed over.
Sadly, this curse is nearly inescapable if you want to play modern online multiplayer or PVP games. MOBAs, MMOs, shooters, racing games, etc. are almost all like this now.
I play all of those, I buy cosmetics because I have the cash and realize it’s an optional part of the game. But it’s amazing the quality of game people can play for absolutely free and never spend a dime. My friend for instance has probably gotten at least a couple hundred hours in Apex Legends now without ever spending a cent. On one hand I’m absolutely against micro transactions that give tangible gameplay impact but Im hard pressed to find issues with pure cosmetic purchases other than maybe how sometimes the marketing around them is manipulative and the Skinner box that is the loot box. I think Chivalry II has probably the ideal implementation of this. No loot boxes, just pay cash for the visual you want but it doesn’t effect game play.
[deleted]
I still don't regret buying Factorio for a whopping 1 Cent per hour.
I've played a ridiculous amount of Rocket League. "30 minutes per day were more than enough to get all the wardrobe" is just not true. Keys and locked loot boxes were in the game years ago, it was terrible, it was taken out well before it went FTP. Now, every seasons has free stuff, a few of them are random, and random blueprint drops after matches that can be unlocked with credits, but you know exactly what you're buying. There's a "Rocket Pass" which gets you a lot more stuff including exactly enough credits to buy the next season pass with, but nothing in the Rocket Pass is random and it doesn't get you any more chances at random stuff. You can't buy the random stuff anymore, on purpose.
I buy the pass every season, even though I've been wearing the same things for years, because I can afford it, and would like to see the game (more specifically, the servers) live forever.
I buy the pass every season, even though I've been wearing the same things for years, because I can afford it, and would like to see the game (more specifically, the servers) live forever.
Two Words: Elden Ring.
90+ hours into the game. 100% pure joy.
> a game I spend more than 2000 hours is now a game I hate -and don’t play, of course-.
2000 hours is quite a lot of time to invest in a game. I imagine the longevity for the game is because the developers were updating the game, which was funded by the very things the author is complaining about.
90+ hours into the game. 100% pure joy.
> a game I spend more than 2000 hours is now a game I hate -and don’t play, of course-.
2000 hours is quite a lot of time to invest in a game. I imagine the longevity for the game is because the developers were updating the game, which was funded by the very things the author is complaining about.
1. Most art is like the example given, not just video games. For the avengers, you can watch the movies at the theatre but you need to pay another $10/mo for Disney+ to watch their tv series. Art, NFTs. Etc.
2. There are many games that aren’t loot box-esque. To say “video games have become this” is very unfair.
2. There are many games that aren’t loot box-esque. To say “video games have become this” is very unfair.
This is all due to having a device in your pocket constantly connected to the sum of all human knowledge. This device created an attention economy that forces producers/developers to create ever increasing ways of engaging your attention for as long as possible. Mobile game spend was $80 billion in 2020, PC $37 billion, and consoles $45 billion [1]. There are still games out there that don't go the loot box route, but perhaps they aren't as popular (addictive) as the free loot box ones, specifically due to the reason mentioned in the parentheses.
[1] : https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/27/mobile...
[1] : https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/27/mobile...
I mostly hate what mobile games have become. It feels like there are pretty much zero games that you can play that doesn't have microtransactions or a wait time between stuff. Unless you go into the premium store and then most games require a controller - which I don't want to use.
I personally don't see the big deal in paying $5-$10 for a video game. Yes I realize for people in the third worlds that's a lot of money but if you're struggling w/ food and water spending money on games for your phone is probably just a bad idea overall.
The problem is that most interesting games require a controller. I would gladly pay that amount for good games.
You are missing one big and relevant point, the goal is not to get money for every small change but that now nobody needs to pay $20 to play the game. It is done to grow the game but by drastically increasing its reach. For a competitive multiplayer game that is a very good thing.
Video games and board games have kind of the same dilemma--the medium has matured to the point that further sophistication isn't necessarily an improvement. A good computer game might be an indie game that looks like it could have been made 20 years ago, because the assumption that more tech equals better games doesn't hold anymore. The board-game world is lagging a little behind that; right now the big trend is "legacy games", where you play through a campaign one time and you're done. I think it's a similar idea, though--the art for the sake of art designers in both cases can do their thing, and the big money is in "Sequel II: Let's Do It All Again, Again".
IMHO the video game scene is better than ever. Maybe you don't like what 90% games have become and that is fair. But go to itch.io and you will find a wide array of different games that will for sure suit your tastes. Maybe they are not that popular.
Not sure I agree with such a sweeping opinion about 'what video games have become'. I've been playing video games since the early 90s and quite frankly I've never been happier with my gaming career like I've been in the past 4-5 years. And haven't been paying anything for it (aside from the price of the game). Maybe I'm playing the 'wrong' games? I also don't play any EA games out of principle..
I do agree with the underlying sentiment. But these pay for play schemes are so easy to ignore. I play CS:GO and get a lot of enjoyment out of it without paying for skins or special weapons or whatever.
I do agree with the underlying sentiment. But these pay for play schemes are so easy to ignore. I play CS:GO and get a lot of enjoyment out of it without paying for skins or special weapons or whatever.
I’m in the same boat, I have the self control not to be affected by these tactics, I also don’t want to ban these types of monetisation but I do feel the industry needs a regulatory reality check.
Gambling mechanics (loot boxes) are having a similar psychological effect to regular gambling and “self regulation” means those at risk are unprotected. Is there a way to setup gambling limits on FIFA loot boxes right now? What about children who haven’t the cognitive ability to reason about these things, are they barred like a casino?
Again don’t want to block innovation and alternative monetisation opportunities, but we should do better at protecting the vulnerable.
Gambling mechanics (loot boxes) are having a similar psychological effect to regular gambling and “self regulation” means those at risk are unprotected. Is there a way to setup gambling limits on FIFA loot boxes right now? What about children who haven’t the cognitive ability to reason about these things, are they barred like a casino?
Again don’t want to block innovation and alternative monetisation opportunities, but we should do better at protecting the vulnerable.
Agree 100% with OP.
I feel a visceral repulsion against any game with a buyable virtual currency. It’s such a blatant manipulation tactic. And then there’s loot boxes, which is gambling. Usually targeting teenagers or children. It’s disgusting.
I feel a visceral repulsion against any game with a buyable virtual currency. It’s such a blatant manipulation tactic. And then there’s loot boxes, which is gambling. Usually targeting teenagers or children. It’s disgusting.
This kind of "anti-materialist" manic word salad can seem really deep, but there is absolutely nothing there. I never laughed at anyone who bought a Barbie accessory, because I understand that mocking people and calling them brainwashed for having different tastes than you is poisonous behavior that blinds you to your fellow humans. Yeah yeah, you're smarter and more iconoclastic than everyone who bought a Barbie when they were younger, you were probably too busy listening to some band was popular but not too popular and whining about society, you and every other intellectual.
... so don't play those games?
There's still tons of world class story driven games that don't have loot boxes or similar mechanics. I think I paid $19 for a used copy of horizon zero dawn and enjoyed it immensely.
There's still tons of world class story driven games that don't have loot boxes or similar mechanics. I think I paid $19 for a used copy of horizon zero dawn and enjoyed it immensely.
I recently got my kids playing Trackmania to help their eye hand coordination. It operates on the freemium model but the free version is adequate enough since there are enough tracks every season and enough previous seasons available to keep them engaged during daily video game time. You can also download user created tracks (or create your own!) and addons that keep things interesting. Hopefully ubisoft doesn't switch this to the loot box model, once you start adding incentives and milestones, that's when things start getting addictive.
There are definitely dark patterns, dishonestly, manipulation to drive sales in F2P games. That's not a good thing.
However, most of the people criticizing this did not grow up poor. When I was a kid, there were a ton of video games I would have loved to play, but my family couldn't afford it.
Nowadays, everyone can play. The difference between the haves and have-nots are cosmetics. Better than that: in most games, the best cosmetics can often be unlocked purely (and only) by skill. A poor kid may not have as many skins or whatever, but they can still unlock things.
However, most of the people criticizing this did not grow up poor. When I was a kid, there were a ton of video games I would have loved to play, but my family couldn't afford it.
Nowadays, everyone can play. The difference between the haves and have-nots are cosmetics. Better than that: in most games, the best cosmetics can often be unlocked purely (and only) by skill. A poor kid may not have as many skins or whatever, but they can still unlock things.
There's more great games at our finger tips than ever before imo
I agree AAA big budget games suck, but there's soo many good indie titles that can be much more fun than them.
You don't gotta only eat at mc donalds.
I agree AAA big budget games suck, but there's soo many good indie titles that can be much more fun than them.
You don't gotta only eat at mc donalds.
Going to repost something I wrote up earlier on a similar topic, regarding how games are changing their designs to push players to buy things.
“The worst part of this trend to me is how many games sacrifice their identity to fit the mold that is now most profitable, it feels so soulless. This is all from my own experience/memory.
Every game needs live service, seasons, and a battle pass. While I appreciate that it can keep the game fresh and evolving over time, I think a lot of times its harmful. Sometimes a relatively simple game is blown out of proportion over time and id almost rather a stagnant game. Furthermore, gameplay can suffer too. In my opinion R6 siege started really strong, but has gone downhill recently, most obviously in operator design. Real power creep is sometimes an issue as well, somewhat recently I remember there were one or two operators added that felt like almost direct upgrades to base game ones. In its case, both the art style and operator design suffered from being stretched out for so long. Or RDR2, who sells most of the content through their premium currency and whose movement between the single player and online is so drastically different that fights online look like smash bros melee matches with frantic strafing and rolling. Compare this to titanfall 2’s design, which has remained stagnant (because it was killed a long time ago), but incredibly successful maintaining a large player base to this day.
Cod and pubg have sacrificed their art style and aesthetic, MW went from “realistic” tactical characters to jigsaw puppets and neon, out of place outfits. It’s like power creep, but for ridiculousness, skins have to get crazier and crazier because sometimes it keeps people buying them because its funny. It fit in fortnite because it was cartoonish and ridiculous from the beginning, but through MW and CW lifespan you can see the art style gradually decay. These game aren’t really meant to be taken seriously, but it always kinda put me off. Not necessarily making an argument about my taste, but rather how the games stray more and more from their original vision, driven by micro transactions. Battlefield has thrown out their traditional classes for specialists following in r6 and other hero shooters footsteps, part of me always kinda felt like it was to sell skins for each specialist, but I might be wrong here.
This isnt the biggest deal, especially not within the games industry, but frustrating to see innovation slowly be stamped back into the mold. There are many games that hold true to their visions or fill these voids especially in the indie scene but the state of AAA gaming and how it molds to the market is a little disappointing to me.”
“The worst part of this trend to me is how many games sacrifice their identity to fit the mold that is now most profitable, it feels so soulless. This is all from my own experience/memory.
Every game needs live service, seasons, and a battle pass. While I appreciate that it can keep the game fresh and evolving over time, I think a lot of times its harmful. Sometimes a relatively simple game is blown out of proportion over time and id almost rather a stagnant game. Furthermore, gameplay can suffer too. In my opinion R6 siege started really strong, but has gone downhill recently, most obviously in operator design. Real power creep is sometimes an issue as well, somewhat recently I remember there were one or two operators added that felt like almost direct upgrades to base game ones. In its case, both the art style and operator design suffered from being stretched out for so long. Or RDR2, who sells most of the content through their premium currency and whose movement between the single player and online is so drastically different that fights online look like smash bros melee matches with frantic strafing and rolling. Compare this to titanfall 2’s design, which has remained stagnant (because it was killed a long time ago), but incredibly successful maintaining a large player base to this day.
Cod and pubg have sacrificed their art style and aesthetic, MW went from “realistic” tactical characters to jigsaw puppets and neon, out of place outfits. It’s like power creep, but for ridiculousness, skins have to get crazier and crazier because sometimes it keeps people buying them because its funny. It fit in fortnite because it was cartoonish and ridiculous from the beginning, but through MW and CW lifespan you can see the art style gradually decay. These game aren’t really meant to be taken seriously, but it always kinda put me off. Not necessarily making an argument about my taste, but rather how the games stray more and more from their original vision, driven by micro transactions. Battlefield has thrown out their traditional classes for specialists following in r6 and other hero shooters footsteps, part of me always kinda felt like it was to sell skins for each specialist, but I might be wrong here.
This isnt the biggest deal, especially not within the games industry, but frustrating to see innovation slowly be stamped back into the mold. There are many games that hold true to their visions or fill these voids especially in the indie scene but the state of AAA gaming and how it molds to the market is a little disappointing to me.”
> at least you can resell your barbie and resell the hat but we don’t have that privilege because Valve determined we are not worthy of it
Isn't valve the only company that lets you resell cosmetics?
Isn't valve the only company that lets you resell cosmetics?
I get the sentiment that is being expressed but there are just so many games out there I don’t get the complaint. I play zero games that have loot boxes or pay 2 win functionality. I guess the AAA titles get a lot of press but I’m overwhelmed by how many good games that are out there. I think the complaint may be mostly relegated to online multiplayer games, something that in my age I care very little about. Online Co-op games on the other hand or single player games are my jam.
The thing I found funny about cosmetics is that often the players that are REALLY good (as in very top of the game) end up stripping off all cosmetics and going as bare as possible (or just using one single basic cosmetic). When you get to the point where you already own all the good stuff and have used it for so long theres a novelty in looking vanilla. And of course you could argue a competitive advantage in that people may think you are a much, much worse player than you really are.
This is also why some models dress and look the way they do. Looking at you, balenciaga.
I think the idea of Marvel films asking for extra cash in realtime to watch a "secret" extra scene is something that they just haven't thought of doing yet.
My son is eleven, and he has been so frustrated so many times when he's found what he thought was a good game, only to discover that it's a pay-to-win game.
I've learned in this thread that there are games where most or all of the IAPs are cosmetic, and don't give players significant advantages. My son already plays Rocket League. Can anyone recommend other good games where you don't have to buy your way to competitiveness?
I've learned in this thread that there are games where most or all of the IAPs are cosmetic, and don't give players significant advantages. My son already plays Rocket League. Can anyone recommend other good games where you don't have to buy your way to competitiveness?
> Can anyone recommend other good games where you don't have to buy your way to competitiveness?
Single-player games, and a handful of MMORPGs.
Minecraft and Terraria would both probably be good for an 11-year-old. CS:Go of course if you want an actual competitive game.
And Dota 2, if you're OK with your son becoming an addicted degenerate.
Single-player games, and a handful of MMORPGs.
Minecraft and Terraria would both probably be good for an 11-year-old. CS:Go of course if you want an actual competitive game.
And Dota 2, if you're OK with your son becoming an addicted degenerate.
MOBAs League of Legends and DOTA2 are FTP but the acquisition of a wider variety of characters in LoL is excruciatingly slow without paying. The communities also seem extremely toxic in my limited experience.
Single player games. Stuff made by Larian for Coop DnD.
Deep Rock Galactic for Coop mining fun.
Deep Rock Galactic for Coop mining fun.
On the other side, I'd pay an extra to buy a fully unlocked Gran Turismo because I don't want to spend time to get driving license again for the nth time, money for the nth time, tracks, cars, etc. It's a total waste of time. Let me drive and that's it. So I didn't buy any of the most recent versions of the franchise. A loss for sellers, I can play with what I already have.
Is Apple partially to blame?
Did they purposefully push the loot box model by promoting games that were doing it because they took a cut on every transaction?
Did they purposefully push the loot box model by promoting games that were doing it because they took a cut on every transaction?
Apple is now pushing against it. For legal and marketing reasons. The apple arcade model is the opposite of that: no online required, no IAP. I think the loot boxes model is slowly dying in flavor of subscriptions, battle pass and other mecanisms like that.
I can’t speak to the historical component of this, but I suspect that this came about as a natural evolution of in-app purchases. As soon as players could spend money in game, game companies had an additional revenue stream. I doubt we can blame Apple any more than Microsoft or Sony.
Have you tried reselling clothes? Unless its some hypebeast crap, which isn't even made for wearing, goodwill might not even want it.
I don't play too many games anymore, but as a player I've been able to have more than enough content in the last 15 years of gaming without literally ever encountering a lootbox. This is mainly due to my preference for Nintendo and indie games. But there's enough games out there that you can basically choose your own adventure.
I played apex legends for free for nearly a year before buying any silly cosmetics. Granted, now that i do i am hooked and have overall paid more than if i had paid 60 for apex to begin with, but i think its a good volontary subscription model. And since there isn't any pay to win aspect, i'm totally fine with this business model.
The fact that all consoles charge money for "online play" irks me. I mean the internet is there for a reason.
You should not be required to use the official servers; you might set up your own, which could use LAN if you wanted to do, I should think. However, not all games (and other computer programs) are designed in this way.
Online play typically involves servers to authoritatively host the game. It’s not just “the Internet”.
Which the games themselves provide.
Often no. They’ll be hosted through the online services provided by the console.
chiming in late here, but it looks like a substantial portion of the thread is about monetization of skins, and items.
that seems to be what video games have become.
I remember the days of tombraider and all the skins, and modding kits available. this was grassroots stuff to begin with.
eventually the industry realized that server subscriptions were not enough, and commercialized the elements of the gameplay.
ive never purchased a console, and i think Torchlight [0] is the most recent game i have in the MAME machine.
the last 20 years of gaming is mostly gone in this direction and has little appeal, other than hacking around in a graciously received console from the closet, that was designated as {bookend} .
i think GOG is about as good as it gets now.
[0] https://gog-games.com/search/torchlight
that seems to be what video games have become.
I remember the days of tombraider and all the skins, and modding kits available. this was grassroots stuff to begin with.
eventually the industry realized that server subscriptions were not enough, and commercialized the elements of the gameplay.
ive never purchased a console, and i think Torchlight [0] is the most recent game i have in the MAME machine.
the last 20 years of gaming is mostly gone in this direction and has little appeal, other than hacking around in a graciously received console from the closet, that was designated as {bookend} .
i think GOG is about as good as it gets now.
[0] https://gog-games.com/search/torchlight
[deleted]
The real problem with modern games is they're too focused on making the biggest most important game possible instead of making the game fun. I think development teams and budgets have gotten too large. It's the constraints that really bring out people's creativity.
"here is this fun simple game called Rocket League, its about playing something like soccer but with cars, a few years ago I paid around 20 dollars for it, back then you were able to earn all the garments (hats, wheels, et al) for your cars just by playing the game, 30 minutes per day were more than enough to get all the wardrobe"
Not true. It had crates that dropped and you had to buy keys to unlock them for randomized drops. At least now you know what you're buying if you choose to unlock an item.
"a game I spend more than 2000 hours is now a game I hate -and don’t play, of course-."
This seems ridiculous to me. The game is the same, if you love the game, why would you stop playing because of cosmetics? Just don't buy them, use the free ones they give out. Or, rid yourself of the notion you must have every cosmetic, and kick a game you love that is also a live service a few bucks now and again for something you particularly like.
There's so many terrible free to play games out there with dark patterns and predatory tactics, Rocket League is hardly the enemy here.
Not true. It had crates that dropped and you had to buy keys to unlock them for randomized drops. At least now you know what you're buying if you choose to unlock an item.
"a game I spend more than 2000 hours is now a game I hate -and don’t play, of course-."
This seems ridiculous to me. The game is the same, if you love the game, why would you stop playing because of cosmetics? Just don't buy them, use the free ones they give out. Or, rid yourself of the notion you must have every cosmetic, and kick a game you love that is also a live service a few bucks now and again for something you particularly like.
There's so many terrible free to play games out there with dark patterns and predatory tactics, Rocket League is hardly the enemy here.
I’m confused about the hate towards Valve since they have created the steam marketplace where you can sell and buy in-game items, to literally address one of the main points of this article. The problem is that Rocket League isn’t using this system (I guess, I don’t play it).
Thankfully there are games like the Soulsbourne series! I found Japanese studios are the better ones nowadays for 'genuine' games based on a one-time sale. GTA V is releasing a $5.99 subscription service that basically lets you buy micro transactions at a discount.
> Like you are watching Avengers End game in Netflix and they ask you if you wanna pay 5 dollars more to watch Captain America use his well known outfit instead of regular clothes?
I don't think it would be this exactly, but I can absolutely see this type of thing happening.
I don't think it would be this exactly, but I can absolutely see this type of thing happening.
I believe the term is called “whales” for those vulnerable to predatory monetisation. The sad part being many are escaping other addictions through video games, and that escape now attempts to profit through similar tactics. It’s really disappointing.
"...you are watching Avengers End game in Netflix and they ask you if you wanna pay 5 dollars more to watch Captain America use his well known outfit instead of regular clothes?..."
For the love of whatever-god-or-not-you-believe, don't give them ideas
For the love of whatever-god-or-not-you-believe, don't give them ideas
Any kind of phone/freemium monetization tactic (out of cosmetics ofc) must be barred imho. this just give tools to corporations to pry on their consummers.
And the whole lootbox thingy is... to be honest embarassing, look what they did to Gran Turismo :\
And the whole lootbox thingy is... to be honest embarassing, look what they did to Gran Turismo :\
Around the time they changed monetization I started using the default Octane with the default everything. RL is actually an example of a great game where everything you can buy or unlock is cosmetic and you don't need any of it.
Escape From Tarkov is a most impressive video game. It's challenging, provides a path to success, and there is no pay2win.
There are varying tiers of support of the developer which only provide you with quality of life improvements, such as a larger backpack (stash) for storing items between sessions ('raids'). All of those gains are achievable in-game with no requirement to purchase anything but the base video game.
It's quite an achievement, and very fun. I can say that as someone who's played video games since monitors had two colours. It's not your average video game, but it's base recipe are already being copied out to new games (The Cycle). The idea of persistence of character is quite refreshing in a die-and-respawn-without-consequence state of the FPS world.
Also I just wanted to point out from the article:
> We used to laugh of people buying hats for barbie and now we are bigger fools than them, at least you can resell your barbie and resell the hat but we don’t have that privilege because Valve determined we are not worthy of it, once you stop playing a game 100% of the money you spend on it disappears, you can’t recover any of it, not 50%, not 20%, just nothing, doesn’t matter if you already spend $20 bucks on it or $3000.
That is more or less incorrect to state. Valve may not offer a way to redeem in-game loot back to real dollars, but you can sell in-game loot on the steam marketplace for valvebucks. It's up to the developer to implement. But for example, you can sell your PUBG skins on the marketplace. So while the money is still "gone" from your "real world wallet", it's not locked out of having "value" which restores the value back into the "steam wallet", which can be used in lieu of "real world" money in the future.
I once sold an in-game item for $40 in valvebucks. Not exactly the $1,000 CS:GO knife skins, but hey, it's not nothing.
There are varying tiers of support of the developer which only provide you with quality of life improvements, such as a larger backpack (stash) for storing items between sessions ('raids'). All of those gains are achievable in-game with no requirement to purchase anything but the base video game.
It's quite an achievement, and very fun. I can say that as someone who's played video games since monitors had two colours. It's not your average video game, but it's base recipe are already being copied out to new games (The Cycle). The idea of persistence of character is quite refreshing in a die-and-respawn-without-consequence state of the FPS world.
Also I just wanted to point out from the article:
> We used to laugh of people buying hats for barbie and now we are bigger fools than them, at least you can resell your barbie and resell the hat but we don’t have that privilege because Valve determined we are not worthy of it, once you stop playing a game 100% of the money you spend on it disappears, you can’t recover any of it, not 50%, not 20%, just nothing, doesn’t matter if you already spend $20 bucks on it or $3000.
That is more or less incorrect to state. Valve may not offer a way to redeem in-game loot back to real dollars, but you can sell in-game loot on the steam marketplace for valvebucks. It's up to the developer to implement. But for example, you can sell your PUBG skins on the marketplace. So while the money is still "gone" from your "real world wallet", it's not locked out of having "value" which restores the value back into the "steam wallet", which can be used in lieu of "real world" money in the future.
I once sold an in-game item for $40 in valvebucks. Not exactly the $1,000 CS:GO knife skins, but hey, it's not nothing.
Video game industry was slow at this approach and there was significant push back on all these things. Pay to win vs drm vs gamergate stuff. The industry didn't care at all about any of the push back.
It's actually interesting to see how much the gaming industry doesn't give 2 squats about what online chat says. The gaming industry has dealt with online chat since basically forever. I remember counterstrike 1.5 pre-steam in the early 2000s and learning all kinds of new pejoratives. Gaming industry understood that the 12 year old edgy angsty teens are going to say all kinds of idiotic stuff. I am guilty of this indictment for when I was 12.
This is something a ton of other industries have not learnt yet. These other industries are looking at what is being said online and are responding like they need to take those opinions as truth.
Then again that's also why Elon Musk is mocking Netflix: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1503287788652871680
1 million likes and 150,000 retweets because he's not wrong.
It's actually interesting to see how much the gaming industry doesn't give 2 squats about what online chat says. The gaming industry has dealt with online chat since basically forever. I remember counterstrike 1.5 pre-steam in the early 2000s and learning all kinds of new pejoratives. Gaming industry understood that the 12 year old edgy angsty teens are going to say all kinds of idiotic stuff. I am guilty of this indictment for when I was 12.
This is something a ton of other industries have not learnt yet. These other industries are looking at what is being said online and are responding like they need to take those opinions as truth.
Then again that's also why Elon Musk is mocking Netflix: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1503287788652871680
1 million likes and 150,000 retweets because he's not wrong.
Honest question: I understand the gripes about lootboxes being toxic because gambling systems are generally manipulative, but I don't know how to respond to "Just don't buy them". They don't affect gameplay, they're really just there as whale bait, but if you're invested in the game you don't necessarily have to get invested in cosmetics.
The only two games I play these days both happen to be gacha games, and actually I see a lot less complaints about the toxicity of these luck-based systems in those communities. Maybe it's because they're more used to them, maybe it's because most other gacha games include pity systems, but it seems weird to me that the most vocal complaints are over systems with no bearing on gameplay when gacha games limit free access to new characters and, by extension, progress.
The only two games I play these days both happen to be gacha games, and actually I see a lot less complaints about the toxicity of these luck-based systems in those communities. Maybe it's because they're more used to them, maybe it's because most other gacha games include pity systems, but it seems weird to me that the most vocal complaints are over systems with no bearing on gameplay when gacha games limit free access to new characters and, by extension, progress.
> They don't affect gameplay
This opinion might vary by the person and the game. I was playing some free-to-play game the other day which was like you described - it had a store and some tokens, and a way to slowly gain the premium token as you played.
But I found there to be something deeply gross about it which did impact my gameplay experience. I’m playing a game (rather than doing something else) because I want a curated experience of fun. Tokens like this make the relationship adversarial. In this case, the game has some mechanics which it keeps waving in your face - “quick! Click now to spend 2 whatevers to have a 4 hour boost!” And I have to actively avoid the shiny fun part because it costs real money to do. It makes the experience tiring in the same way shopping is tiring. Is the game trying to be fun or not? Pick a lane.
That said, I enjoyed Dota2 for many years even though it had hat stores and loot boxes full of art. I’m not sure what the difference is - I think I just never really had to resist the pull to pull out my credit card in dota. And I payed way more as a result! I chipped in a few dollars each year for the international prize pool, and that was a blast.
This opinion might vary by the person and the game. I was playing some free-to-play game the other day which was like you described - it had a store and some tokens, and a way to slowly gain the premium token as you played.
But I found there to be something deeply gross about it which did impact my gameplay experience. I’m playing a game (rather than doing something else) because I want a curated experience of fun. Tokens like this make the relationship adversarial. In this case, the game has some mechanics which it keeps waving in your face - “quick! Click now to spend 2 whatevers to have a 4 hour boost!” And I have to actively avoid the shiny fun part because it costs real money to do. It makes the experience tiring in the same way shopping is tiring. Is the game trying to be fun or not? Pick a lane.
That said, I enjoyed Dota2 for many years even though it had hat stores and loot boxes full of art. I’m not sure what the difference is - I think I just never really had to resist the pull to pull out my credit card in dota. And I payed way more as a result! I chipped in a few dollars each year for the international prize pool, and that was a blast.
The difference is that the game was competitive and the cosmetics had 0 impact on the game mechanics itself. Other games like you describe constantly remind you that you don't have enough credits to buy the thing, you're earning them just at a rate too slow to matter. You're always being nudged to think about the mtx system and it's a core aspect of the gameplay and it's exhausting.
For me it makes a game feel like a second job. I'm not wealthy so I'm trying to save and make something for myself but playing these games just feels like experience the same dread and fear i have in reality.
For me it makes a game feel like a second job. I'm not wealthy so I'm trying to save and make something for myself but playing these games just feels like experience the same dread and fear i have in reality.
If you only care about yourself, sure - "just don't buy them" is a good answer. The problem comes when you look at the industry level, at the games that get allowed to be made, and at the people they hurt.
The vast majority of "free to play" games would not be able to make a profit of they didn't find a few players willing to spend huge amounts of money on them. Thousands of dollars, from people who often can't afford to spend thousands of dollars on a hobby.
And not only are these games sustained by such people, they actively seek to find and exploit them, with game mechanics and presentation designed to hook a certain kind of psyche - people with gambling or other mental issues, and children.
The vast majority of "free to play" games would not be able to make a profit of they didn't find a few players willing to spend huge amounts of money on them. Thousands of dollars, from people who often can't afford to spend thousands of dollars on a hobby.
And not only are these games sustained by such people, they actively seek to find and exploit them, with game mechanics and presentation designed to hook a certain kind of psyche - people with gambling or other mental issues, and children.
My response to "just don't buy them":
1) "Whales" keep nearly all of these games going. "Vote with your wallet" is a misnomer because in typical democratic systems a vote is a vote; but capitalism isn't a democracy and a very small portion of the playerbase will actually sustain the game near-singlehandedly. Its not a situation where enough people don't buy it and the game company changes; its a situation where enough people don't buy it, and are missing out on a piece of the game due to not buying it, while the elite 0.1% buy everything.
2) "They don't alter gameplay". That's an interesting argument. Take a game like Animal Crossing; would being able to buy a sweet ass new table for your house "alter gameplay"? Isn't aesthetic the gameplay? I truly and deeply believe that its difficult to draw this line in any game; where the "gameplay" stops and suddenly the "stuff that doesn't matter so sell it" starts; if the product has value, such that people buy it, then it must be an important part of the game. It may not affect the competitive balance, but that isn't the entire game; the developers put time into the visual aesthetic of the game, and to assert that the items are ok to sell simply because they don't affect the gameplay trivializes the items' importance.
Moreover, in a much smaller way; in every game I've played, these items do affect competitive balance. Often in subtle ways. In Valorant, having a cool gun skin can often mean eight year olds on your team asking for you to buy the gun for them, so they can use it (sometimes, promising a re-buy in return, then not doing it lol). In Apex Legends, some hero outfits legitimately camouflage you with the environment than others. In Dead By Daylight, the Feng Ming wearing the bright pink jacket will be tunneled by the killer more than everyone else wearing drab browns and torn jeans. To assert "the way you look doesn't impact the gameplay" is trivially and wholly, if not sometimes subtly, incorrect; games are visual, looking good asserts a socioeconomic power structure which can impact team cooperation, all of this does matter.
But, to clarify; gaming companies need to make money. For online service games, its not enough to just sell the game for $70 and call it good for life; even doing so can be a death sentence for the game, as the barrier to entry is so high no one joins in to even play. Loot boxes are extremely bad, and games which sell them should be held to the same legal standards as gambling (Overwatch, Apex Legends, Rocket League, DOTA2, CS:GO, etc). A cash-for-item storefront is better (Fortnite, Valorant, Warzone, Dead by Daylight, Sea of Thieves, Halo Infinite, etc). Battle Passes are probably one of the best solutions I've seen yet; they're effectively an optional subscription service to the game, with resetting progression (players love progression). Pure subscription services are rare, but also a great solution; CS:GO has one, but WoW was the better example; there was a time when you simply paid to play, and everything cool you could get was bundled into that subscription. Today, things have changed, and they're double-dipping revenue models, like most of the games listed above.
1) "Whales" keep nearly all of these games going. "Vote with your wallet" is a misnomer because in typical democratic systems a vote is a vote; but capitalism isn't a democracy and a very small portion of the playerbase will actually sustain the game near-singlehandedly. Its not a situation where enough people don't buy it and the game company changes; its a situation where enough people don't buy it, and are missing out on a piece of the game due to not buying it, while the elite 0.1% buy everything.
2) "They don't alter gameplay". That's an interesting argument. Take a game like Animal Crossing; would being able to buy a sweet ass new table for your house "alter gameplay"? Isn't aesthetic the gameplay? I truly and deeply believe that its difficult to draw this line in any game; where the "gameplay" stops and suddenly the "stuff that doesn't matter so sell it" starts; if the product has value, such that people buy it, then it must be an important part of the game. It may not affect the competitive balance, but that isn't the entire game; the developers put time into the visual aesthetic of the game, and to assert that the items are ok to sell simply because they don't affect the gameplay trivializes the items' importance.
Moreover, in a much smaller way; in every game I've played, these items do affect competitive balance. Often in subtle ways. In Valorant, having a cool gun skin can often mean eight year olds on your team asking for you to buy the gun for them, so they can use it (sometimes, promising a re-buy in return, then not doing it lol). In Apex Legends, some hero outfits legitimately camouflage you with the environment than others. In Dead By Daylight, the Feng Ming wearing the bright pink jacket will be tunneled by the killer more than everyone else wearing drab browns and torn jeans. To assert "the way you look doesn't impact the gameplay" is trivially and wholly, if not sometimes subtly, incorrect; games are visual, looking good asserts a socioeconomic power structure which can impact team cooperation, all of this does matter.
But, to clarify; gaming companies need to make money. For online service games, its not enough to just sell the game for $70 and call it good for life; even doing so can be a death sentence for the game, as the barrier to entry is so high no one joins in to even play. Loot boxes are extremely bad, and games which sell them should be held to the same legal standards as gambling (Overwatch, Apex Legends, Rocket League, DOTA2, CS:GO, etc). A cash-for-item storefront is better (Fortnite, Valorant, Warzone, Dead by Daylight, Sea of Thieves, Halo Infinite, etc). Battle Passes are probably one of the best solutions I've seen yet; they're effectively an optional subscription service to the game, with resetting progression (players love progression). Pure subscription services are rare, but also a great solution; CS:GO has one, but WoW was the better example; there was a time when you simply paid to play, and everything cool you could get was bundled into that subscription. Today, things have changed, and they're double-dipping revenue models, like most of the games listed above.
I don't think "just don't buy them" is meant as a wallet vote here. It looks more like a prompt to spend your resources on things you enjoy rather than things you don't enjoy. There is as far as I can tell no shortage of PC games that you only have to pay for once. I have hundreds of games on just my Steam account, of which only a handful will ask for change for some hats or whatever; things I deemed irrelevant to my enjoyment when I got them.
I only play Dota and no other game and I think how the game works is extremely fair. It's free to play. For all. Can you believe that? And it only charges you for skins that have no competitive edge. How is that not fair? I mean there's not a single dark ui pattern to trick you into doing it.
I honestly think we've become too entitled.
I honestly think we've become too entitled.
I'm not sure the author is aware that a paragraph can in fact contain _more_ than one sentence.
First paragraph is a 135 word sentence. Two of the other paragraphs are a single meandering sentence. Questions are the only break in the exception.
Come on.
First paragraph is a 135 word sentence. Two of the other paragraphs are a single meandering sentence. Questions are the only break in the exception.
Come on.
Multiplayer games are a very small subset of video games
"video games" have not "become" anything, they're basically the same, unless you choose to play exclusively AAA blockbusters and online free2play.
"video games" have not "become" anything, they're basically the same, unless you choose to play exclusively AAA blockbusters and online free2play.
Modern AAA games are like Opera - marvelous and the pinnacle of human creativity and talent at some moments, and at other times a freakin' slog through boring ceremony gated by overt classism.
Meh, if you don't like FTP and loot boxes avoid those games. There's lots of good more traditional titles out there, indie games, MMOs, and yes FTP games. Choice is better than ever.
Millions of children in the world do not have the money to spend $20 (quoted price for a game in the blog) for one game. Loot boxes subsidize games for these children.
Video games, movies, TV, books, etc have never been better yet all people focus on are the bad examples. There have always been bad examples. Get out of the past.
There are more games than ever before, including DRM-free, host-your-own-server games. Don't like in-app purchases? Play something else.
purchase price of non-indie games have to go up like 3x then (at least), and people have to accept that….
But since gamers are uniquely price sensitive for prices that haven’t changed in 30 years, for an entertainment form that last longer than pretty much all other forms
Then you have micropayments to nickel and dime gamers to reach the same result
But since gamers are uniquely price sensitive for prices that haven’t changed in 30 years, for an entertainment form that last longer than pretty much all other forms
Then you have micropayments to nickel and dime gamers to reach the same result
Meanwhile (probably elsewhere on HN), someone is hating on web3. Which might enable reselling all this junk.
Bought myself a Nintendo Switch Oled just to play Hades. Probably the best game i've played in years
I hate lootboxes that paywall actual gameplay content; however the ones the author is complaining about are PURELY COSMETIC. There isn't a faster, more powerful car that is earnable via lootbox exclusively. The only things Rocket League gives you via lootboxes (as the author also knows and states) are the livery, hats etc. None of these make your car faster, make it more nimble, or give you any advantage over another player.
Also, $20 for 2,000 hours of entertainment is a pretty good deal right? Go to see a movie and that's about $20 for 1.5 - 2.5 hours entertainment.
I suppose after your purchase the company running and developing Rocket League who hire real people to work on the game, who host servers to facilitate the multiplayer experience are expected to run until bankruptcy?
The part about targeting lootboxes towards children (cosmetic only or not) is valid though because (cosmetic or not) that, to a child, helps develop gambling addiction or tendencies. However, for adults cosmetic-only lootboxes are fine and a perfectly reasonable strategy to ensure you can support a game in the long term for people who are entitled enough to think a one-time $20 purchase means someone has to host them a server, and employ a development team for at least 2,000 hours of gameplay.
Also, $20 for 2,000 hours of entertainment is a pretty good deal right? Go to see a movie and that's about $20 for 1.5 - 2.5 hours entertainment.
I suppose after your purchase the company running and developing Rocket League who hire real people to work on the game, who host servers to facilitate the multiplayer experience are expected to run until bankruptcy?
The part about targeting lootboxes towards children (cosmetic only or not) is valid though because (cosmetic or not) that, to a child, helps develop gambling addiction or tendencies. However, for adults cosmetic-only lootboxes are fine and a perfectly reasonable strategy to ensure you can support a game in the long term for people who are entitled enough to think a one-time $20 purchase means someone has to host them a server, and employ a development team for at least 2,000 hours of gameplay.
Elden Ring has given us a new hope.
Cosmetics are a fine business model. I am more worried about the assholes who think it's fine to play a game for dozens or hundreds of hours without buying any. These are the entitled freeloader scumbags who ruin it for everyone else (by forcing gamedevs to use P2W instead of cosmetics to stay in business), not gamedevs
> Can you imagine if other art mediums where this ridiculous? Like you are watching Avengers End game in Netflix and they ask you if you wanna pay 5 dollars more to watch Captain America use his well known outfit instead of regular clothes?
I would happily have this be an option if it meant that Netflix was free. I wouldn’t spend a dime.
I would happily have this be an option if it meant that Netflix was free. I wouldn’t spend a dime.
My son is a fan of
https://krunker.io/
where the "trading items" aspect adds a lot of fun to the game. I am generally skeptical of "the metaverse" but Krunker shows that item trading can be fun, you just don't need a blockchain to do it.
https://krunker.io/
where the "trading items" aspect adds a lot of fun to the game. I am generally skeptical of "the metaverse" but Krunker shows that item trading can be fun, you just don't need a blockchain to do it.
The cosmetics in Rocket League are entirely optional. The game is great and amazing to play even if you completely ignore all of the cosmetics.
The fact that the author is citing the freemium model of Rocket League as their reason for not playing it anymore make me lose all respect for their article.
The fact that the author is citing the freemium model of Rocket League as their reason for not playing it anymore make me lose all respect for their article.
I hope this post doesn't give Netflix ideas. I could easily see an exec reading that and thinking "hey what if we charged extra for the directors cut and other scenes that weren't in the theatrical release". Would be a genius move tbh, and I would hate it.
I play a lot of videogames and never opened loot boxes or bought skins.
Just imagine in game purchasable cosmetic items as a buy-only NFT.
I hate the exhausting run-on sentence this article has become.
> … a game I spend more than 2000 hours is now a game I hate …
Ouch. Who cares about loot boxes when the opportunity cost of playing a silly game like that is equal to a years worth of their wages.
Ouch. Who cares about loot boxes when the opportunity cost of playing a silly game like that is equal to a years worth of their wages.
Drivel. Don’t like it don’t play it. If i have to read one more person complaining about micro-transactions I will puke. Ffs go outside.
Lol whatever, play other games then
You could have played supertuxkart.
You could have played supertuxkart.
cosmetic cash shops is actually the best thing to happen to video games. i remember back when most multiplayer games were pay2win! now that's not a common thing anymore thanks to people paying for cosmetics
when you grow old, you start to hate every new change :)
I think the given example is really bad, Rocket League does free-to-play in one of the best ways possibles. I never spend any money on their IAPs nor do I care about them, I still feel like I have access to more customization/items than I have the time to use.
A "better" example are games that have the goal of progression (e.g. city builders, like Clash of Clans) and then simply lock that progression behind a paywall, giving you the option to either wait for hours or pay a "small" amount to skip waiting.
A "better" example are games that have the goal of progression (e.g. city builders, like Clash of Clans) and then simply lock that progression behind a paywall, giving you the option to either wait for hours or pay a "small" amount to skip waiting.
I play Fortnite which is from the same company as Rocket League (afaik). I think their model is extremely fair. You can play for free, and you can buy outfits that don't give you any advantage in the game.
At first coming with "old gamer mindset" I also thought "who would ever pay for that nonsense". But now I simply see it as supporting a creation I enjoy. I buy the "battle pass" every season (maybe 8$), and every couple of months perhaps a funny skin.
Back in the day, I think a World of Warcraft subscription was 15$ per month, so I still pay far, far less than I would have paid for WoW.
There are other games that annoy me, as they basically push gambling onto my kids. They will literally have a push notification telling them to try a spin on the lucky wheel.
At first coming with "old gamer mindset" I also thought "who would ever pay for that nonsense". But now I simply see it as supporting a creation I enjoy. I buy the "battle pass" every season (maybe 8$), and every couple of months perhaps a funny skin.
Back in the day, I think a World of Warcraft subscription was 15$ per month, so I still pay far, far less than I would have paid for WoW.
There are other games that annoy me, as they basically push gambling onto my kids. They will literally have a push notification telling them to try a spin on the lucky wheel.
If you think the industry is shit right now, you haven't been gaming. Literally OP article didn't even mention Elden Ring the greatest Triple A game that's trending right now.
Elden Ring is the opposite of everything OP mentioned and you can't criticize the industry without bringing up the IT game that is literally the opposite of the entire article.
The golden age of the gaming industry is right now. That goes for triple A games AND indie games.
The whole DLC BS is this annoying side thing among triple A studios but it has nothing to do with overall trend of the industry.
Elden Ring is the opposite of everything OP mentioned and you can't criticize the industry without bringing up the IT game that is literally the opposite of the entire article.
The golden age of the gaming industry is right now. That goes for triple A games AND indie games.
The whole DLC BS is this annoying side thing among triple A studios but it has nothing to do with overall trend of the industry.
Man if a blog post like this makes the 2nd page I wonder what a proper rant would do.
Like I used to write them and always get banned on Steam forums, because criticism = lost revenue and we can't have that. My Steam account was banned so often that the next ban will last 2 years.
And I wasn't even offensive or insulting.
Meanwhile Valve did get a slight grip or maybe I have changed?
Whatever the case it has lead me to not spend money on their platform and in general.
If it's a b2p game I pirate like I always have. Because if you want my money you will not silence my opinion and feedback of your game.
And you will not restrict resale of the games I bought.
Despite court ruling that Steam has to open up and enable resale of licenses, shit all has happened. And they're not the only platform where it's not possible to do so.
So good job game industry - you have lost a paying customer for good.
Valve's Steam is extra predatory and anti consumer. A little story. Back in the day I was very active at the game Meridian 59, the 1st MMORPG. But not on the official side, on the reverse engineering side. Later when it got abandoned by 3do a compiled server exe leaked along with resources and configuration. We learned a lot from that, wrote tools, created new art, etc. My point is I knew a lot about the software, so I posted on Valve Steam's Meridian 59 forum with detailed knowledge about something only someone familiar with the software could know, which lead to a ban, because someone was apparently harassing the moderator there and he thought I was him. So I was unjustly banned because the moderator saw ghosts where none were and I appealed to Valve. The response was "be that as it may there's nothing we will do about it". So the case was clearly in my favor but Valve hands all power to the forum moderators. And the rule like dictators. One especially terrible Dictator is SamBC terror moderating 2k affiliated forums. If you write anything negative about a game of theirs and see all the paid white knights jumping in to defend the company sales and you call them out for what they are you will get banned. Accumulate a few bans and you will get an account ban. But to finish the story, I then contacted the moderator outside the game and the ban was lifted, not by Valve but by him. That didn't change the fact though that it counted as 1 ban point towards an account ban, which eventually lead to a 1 year ban on Steam.
I'm 47 years old now and I will not be silenced or told what to write especially if what I write is not offensive.
I once got a ban for disagreeing with the choice of a female protagonist in the "For Honor" game, because it's so far from historical facts that I cringed every time I tried to play the game. When something is so wrong that it upsets me I have to write about it. And the moderators there didn't like that I returned to the thread and continued to write about how historically inaccurate it was and how unrealistic this was. Nope can't have someone voicing their opinion and literally telling them what a shitshow their produced. That's bad for business and must be banned.
I for one am done with buying games and you can thank your overzealous moderators for that, game industry.
Valve's Steam is extra predatory and anti consumer. A little story. Back in the day I was very active at the game Meridian 59, the 1st MMORPG. But not on the official side, on the reverse engineering side. Later when it got abandoned by 3do a compiled server exe leaked along with resources and configuration. We learned a lot from that, wrote tools, created new art, etc. My point is I knew a lot about the software, so I posted on Valve Steam's Meridian 59 forum with detailed knowledge about something only someone familiar with the software could know, which lead to a ban, because someone was apparently harassing the moderator there and he thought I was him. So I was unjustly banned because the moderator saw ghosts where none were and I appealed to Valve. The response was "be that as it may there's nothing we will do about it". So the case was clearly in my favor but Valve hands all power to the forum moderators. And the rule like dictators. One especially terrible Dictator is SamBC terror moderating 2k affiliated forums. If you write anything negative about a game of theirs and see all the paid white knights jumping in to defend the company sales and you call them out for what they are you will get banned. Accumulate a few bans and you will get an account ban. But to finish the story, I then contacted the moderator outside the game and the ban was lifted, not by Valve but by him. That didn't change the fact though that it counted as 1 ban point towards an account ban, which eventually lead to a 1 year ban on Steam.
I'm 47 years old now and I will not be silenced or told what to write especially if what I write is not offensive.
I once got a ban for disagreeing with the choice of a female protagonist in the "For Honor" game, because it's so far from historical facts that I cringed every time I tried to play the game. When something is so wrong that it upsets me I have to write about it. And the moderators there didn't like that I returned to the thread and continued to write about how historically inaccurate it was and how unrealistic this was. Nope can't have someone voicing their opinion and literally telling them what a shitshow their produced. That's bad for business and must be banned.
I for one am done with buying games and you can thank your overzealous moderators for that, game industry.
Talk about entitled. Freemium exists because of piracy. Why blame the video game industry for something caused by criminals. Developers need to eat too.
> Freemium exists because of piracy.
what horse-shit, let's see the numbers.
my personal take : freemium exists because the video game industry figured out to exploit the gambling bugs in the human psyche to leverage them to gain even further profit.
If piracy killed gaming so badly, how are the market numbers represented from now (when piracy is rampant and distribution is easy) from then (let's say the 80s or early 90s when distribution was near impossible and DRM wasn't needed as physical copying was prohibitive enough?)
Gee, a quick search shows me that the video game industry is bigger than it ever has been, and the growth hasn't ever plateau'd. In fact, if the industry was in danger from piracy destroying all revenue it'd be easy to show me the dip where freemium tactics began to help the recovery -- can you point that dip out to me?
I haven't been able to find that dip.
Hypothesis : the adoption of freemium tactics had nothing to do with loss-of-sales revenue and everything to do with increasing profits.
what horse-shit, let's see the numbers.
my personal take : freemium exists because the video game industry figured out to exploit the gambling bugs in the human psyche to leverage them to gain even further profit.
If piracy killed gaming so badly, how are the market numbers represented from now (when piracy is rampant and distribution is easy) from then (let's say the 80s or early 90s when distribution was near impossible and DRM wasn't needed as physical copying was prohibitive enough?)
Gee, a quick search shows me that the video game industry is bigger than it ever has been, and the growth hasn't ever plateau'd. In fact, if the industry was in danger from piracy destroying all revenue it'd be easy to show me the dip where freemium tactics began to help the recovery -- can you point that dip out to me?
I haven't been able to find that dip.
Hypothesis : the adoption of freemium tactics had nothing to do with loss-of-sales revenue and everything to do with increasing profits.
Wasn't piracy pretty rampant in 80s and 90s? At least on PC and other home computers? Ofc, it was not online, but friend to friend and via some BBS...
Let me correct you: Freemium exists because a bunch of nihilistic dipshits decided that it was OK to charge users not to endure a completely fabricated delay just because they knew they would pay to progress in the game. Also that people realized that things nonessential to game progression such as emotes and outfits were valuable to users in multiplayer games.
Piracy has existed as long as games have and continues to this day, and yet FOR SOME REASON, gaming (not the casino kind) is the most profitable entertainment industry in the world at this time.
Want to know the truth? Only poor people pirate (just like any criminal, you usually have to be poor to be motivated to be a bad actor), so the vast majority are not actually lost sales. As soon as game lovers get some cash, they throw down to get the games they want.
Piracy has existed as long as games have and continues to this day, and yet FOR SOME REASON, gaming (not the casino kind) is the most profitable entertainment industry in the world at this time.
Want to know the truth? Only poor people pirate (just like any criminal, you usually have to be poor to be motivated to be a bad actor), so the vast majority are not actually lost sales. As soon as game lovers get some cash, they throw down to get the games they want.
I tend to not wholly agree. While I have spent insane amounts of money on both computer games and movies, some of us pirate simply to get rid of obnoxious DRM crap. As an example, I find it infuriating that my multimedia setup involves two separate but identical DVD players, just to get around DVD region crap.
I regularly play minecraft together with my daughter on our LAN,
but recently I've had to configure two extra dummy accounts just to be able to continue playing with her, to get around Microsoft now requiring all mojang accounts be 'migrated' to microsoft accounts. Including their dark pattern, where your initial account is locked and flagged for 'suspicious activity' (), so they can try to squeeze your mobile phone number out of you, if you want to play the game you BOUGHT, after 7 days have passed.
() There IS no 'suspicious activity', their activity log indicated 5 logins FROM MY HOME ADDRESS, which by the way reveals that they are continously tracking the lat/lon coordinates of me playing the minecraft game I PAID FOR.
And not only poor people pirate, or commit any crime in general. It works in reverse. Activities by poor people, that rich people don't appreciate, is what our society labels 'crime'. When rich people commit unwanted activities, it is called 'privilege'. There is a reason poor people are incarcerated in prisons, whereas rich people are fined for their transgressions. I have yet to hear of more than a single person (a swiss guy) going to jail for what transpired in 2007 and 2008. If anybody got in prison for that in 2008, it was the victims. I too hate what modern games have become. And I hate that I used to be able to buy movies as perpetual DVDs, but that big business privilege in the intervening 20 years have changed the laws into "you have a right to RENT movies from us".
And not only poor people pirate, or commit any crime in general. It works in reverse. Activities by poor people, that rich people don't appreciate, is what our society labels 'crime'. When rich people commit unwanted activities, it is called 'privilege'. There is a reason poor people are incarcerated in prisons, whereas rich people are fined for their transgressions. I have yet to hear of more than a single person (a swiss guy) going to jail for what transpired in 2007 and 2008. If anybody got in prison for that in 2008, it was the victims. I too hate what modern games have become. And I hate that I used to be able to buy movies as perpetual DVDs, but that big business privilege in the intervening 20 years have changed the laws into "you have a right to RENT movies from us".
Completely wrong. It would exist either way because recurring revenue is better for business.
Citation needed, a lot of the games sell pretty well without using freemium, things like Doom Eternal, Resident Evil 8, et al, plus a lot of games have fremium over already asking for full price, things like Call Of Duty Cold War.
In the end - I don't blame the developers. They are a business and in it for the profits. The game is just a byproduct.
The public votes with their dollars - and judging by the popularity of these "features" - people are more than okay with it.
The public votes with their dollars - and judging by the popularity of these "features" - people are more than okay with it.
Maybe some use case for NFTs after all. Link the stuff you can get through playing a game or buy ingame for cash to a NFT and boom, players really own that stuff and are free to sell it on the secondary market.
You're describing Diablo 3's famously unpopular and disastrous auction house. Adding resale would just make everything worse — especially if you rope NFTs into it for no reason.
On other hand Valve's model doesn't seem too hated. And I got my Steam Deck out of it. I much prefer some chance to get money I invested back, even as only store credit.
For the same reason that people wear nice clothes in real life, why are you surprised that some people want to look cool in a video game? Are you surprised that people don’t just wear monochrome black shirts in real life? Likewise, you can resell RL items, there’s a market for that. Are you surprised when you can’t resell a shirt you wore for a year at the same price as when you bought it?
That’s not to say that games where progression is locked behind time gates where you need to buy 1000 Realm Warp Crystals or whatever just to actually play the game aren’t a toxic hell. But that doesn’t seem to be what the article is pushing against.