|
I just wanted to hear some people's thoughts on this. It's definitely made me buy less games and spend less money overall, it also bums me out sometimes because I only have time to participate in one "big event" (for example around Halloween I didn't have time to enjoy all the Halloween content in all my games). Anyway these kind of games can particularly incentivize either grinding or spending real money, so I want to hear what you think about them. Have your habits changed? Are you happy with them, or would you rather go back to the older model of Big Release + all content basically unlocked + DLC followed by sequel a few years down the line? Are you sticking with indie titles? Or something else?
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
games as live services proved to me that without a doubt, video games are bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
I think this directly ties into monetization. All that evolving content is fine depending on how you're being asked to pay for it. Battlefront obviously pulled back after waltzing over the edge of what people will tolerate. I don't mind the way Overwatch does it because the maps are essentially free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
I just want to see loot boxes go away. That goes for both pay to win, and cosmetic loot boxes. I can't tolerate even what Overwatch does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
i think in a lot of ways the games as a service bullshit has removed a lot of things that are fun and if you had two video game teams working on the same game concept one with a games as a service goal and one with a fun game goal the fun game goal team would end up better because games as services limit things in ways that are loving stupid and dedicate dev time and energy to figuring out ways to monetize stupid poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I just want to see loot boxes go away. That goes for both pay to win, and cosmetic loot boxes. I can't tolerate even what Overwatch does. While I'd love to return to the "Epic Games just makes more maps for Unreal Tournament for no charge, expects nothing" model; I can sort of deal with what Overwatch does because the actual gameplay content is free and they're funding it with dressing. I'd rather that than Call of Duty ELITE or whatever. Lootboxes particularly should only exist for one reason: Because a game has loads and loads of characters of varied designs. Lootboxes in a sense uphold a balance of design, because if everybody could just buy the skin with real money, it would incentivize making nothing but exploiting horny nerds for the most 'waifu' of characters. You'd have a 20:1 ratio for D.Va skins over Roadhog skins. This sort of thing goes back to fighting games in the 90s, nerds prioritize sexy women.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
My alternative is to not ask Blizzard to just make free content, but do what Forza Motorsport 4 did, where you bought premium currency to unlock the exact cars you want. I want to see that in Overwatch. I am completely against lootboxes because you have zero control over what you receive. I just want a premium currency that allows me to purchase exactly what I want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
The entire existence of Live Services is to find ways to extract as much money from the player as possible. It is rarely, if ever, achieved by offering up additional quality added content, but rather adding hoops through the games, usually long wait times or huge nerfs to the characters, that participating in the service is mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:The entire existence of Live Services is to find ways to extract as much money from the player as possible. It is rarely, if ever, achieved by offering up additional quality added content, but rather adding hoops through the games, usually long wait times or huge nerfs to the characters, that participating in the service is mandatory. I don't see this so much with PC games, but it's absolutely a thing with pretty much all mobile games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:My alternative is to not ask Blizzard to just make free content, but do what Forza Motorsport 4 did, where you bought premium currency to unlock the exact cars you want. I want to see that in Overwatch. I am completely against lootboxes because you have zero control over what you receive. I just want a premium currency that allows me to purchase exactly what I want. What about the Valve system of just buying what people get from the boxes in an auction house? Again the gist of lootboxing is to encourage works for less popular characters. If everything is simply bought directly then it'll be "The Market Has Spoken, we must make more revealing clothes for tiny-waisted women". Capitalism and artistic expression butting heads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:The entire existence of Live Services is to find ways to extract as much money from the player as possible. It is rarely, if ever, achieved by offering up additional quality added content, but rather adding hoops through the games, usually long wait times or huge nerfs to the characters, that participating in the service is mandatory. I mean you say that but Warframe exists and, while it has its own set of problems, it's definitely not because it's greedy.* *I have put $0 into Warframe and have made enough premium currency to spend wantonly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
depends on the game and how they're funding it In games like Destiny where you pay in advance for a drip feed of content over the course of the year*, it's dogshit and I hate it, but in other games it doesn't necessarily bother me. Warframe pushes hard on getting you to buy stuff, but the actual content is free, so I guess I'm okay with that style? idk. maybe I'm just kinda  for the old days when you paid your money, you got your game (and maybe the odd patch), and the rest was for sequels*(edit: talking about the Annual Pass here. I'm ok with the Forsaken expansion being a paid product, but that's not really what we're on about here)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Mordja posted:I mean you say that but Warframe exists and, while it has its own set of problems, it's definitely not because it's greedy.* There will obviously be exceptions to the rule. There are almost always are. But the vast majority of GaS models are designed as such.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:There will obviously be exceptions to the rule. There are almost always are. But the vast majority of GaS models are designed as such. "Games as a service" is a vague, meaningless buzzword though. Does that include all DLC, paid or otherwise, after launch? Does it just mean nothing but microtransactions and lootboxes? Or are you railing against live events?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Anyway, to answer OP's question, my gaming habits haven't changed. I'll buy the game, play it, never once in my life purchase a cosmetic with my own money, and occasionally do an event, but even then, I usually just ignore the peripherals unless they're actually interesting. If it's, like, a multiplayer game then cool, it's being kept updated, guess I'll keep playing until I'm bored and move on. If a game doesn't interest me or it sounds like a chore, I won't buy it. Case-by-case basis is what I'm saying, broad strokes are for suckers. Mordja fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
wish you'd GaS this thread, op! GaS has always been a negative to me on paper, although in practice it's never been that horrible in my experiences. If anything, there's usually a lower barrier of entry $ wise. Like, about once a year I'll pop into World of Tanks, spend $10 for a 2 week sub, burn out and repeat the cycle next year. Usually the game is a little better due to updates. Same thing happens with Maplestory. I'm happy with the cost. On the other hand, GaS felt weird in Metal Gear Solid 5. Online is probably dead now, and while it was active, all the negatives of that poured right into the singleplayer experience. (The way to fix slow menus in singleplayer was to unplug your ethernet). During the short time I played Overwatch, I didn't mind dropping money on the game and getting free content without spending a single dime. Though I'm not really a person who likes cosmetics in multiplayer games, so I think I came out "on top" compared to a gamer who has the impulse to collect every single Zarya skin. Like the other poster above me said, though, I think we need a better defintion of the term. At any rate, I think online integration/persistent services in singleplayer games should be minimal. The Sims 4 did a great job of letting you seamlessly download player-made houses from the community library without ever leaving the player lot. On the other hand, the literal hundreds you can spend on DLC is pretty despicable for a game that's soley about doing things the way you want them. e: I think my fear about video game market shifting has been relaxed a lot when I see a plethora of good "pay once and play" games still coming out. I think there's still a large market for these types of traditional games. The AAA studios that go heavy with monetization are generally the same folks making cookie cutter games I've played countless times before with different coats of paint. I basically line up with the "indifferent" poll option. buglord fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Dec 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
I just mentioned it in another thread, but I rarely seem to come across kiddies in online games anymore and I wonder if it's due to the fact that I mostly play paid games over free to play/games as a service games. It's probably easier for 12 year olds to access Fortnite for free than to nag mum for her credit card to play Battlefield/CoD etc. So maybe this scheme has improved my online gaming experience by focusing most of the toxic adolescent crowd somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
You only have to deal with the toxic adults now!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Speaking of kids, it's painful to see the kids in my extended family ask for roblox money, or worse, gems for the phone games they have on their tables. I get that me having mom and dad buy me Pokemon cards when I was 7 is basically the same thing, but don't those kids know that there's real, better games out there that don't end when you stop paying?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
buglord posted:Speaking of kids, it's painful to see the kids in my extended family ask for roblox money, or worse, gems for the phone games they have on their tables. I get that me having mom and dad buy me Pokemon cards when I was 7 is basically the same thing, but don't those kids know that there's real, better games out there that don't end when you stop paying? Back in the old country, my mom would beat me with a live eel whenever I asked for Pokemon cards. We were a Yu Gi Oh household.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
honestly it seems like a pretty hard thing to enjoy or defend as a consumer, unless you really enjoy a specific set of games that benefit from it. it might be harder to make a fortnite or pubg or league of legends without constant monetization through loot boxes and skins, for instance. as someone who has (probably even tens of) thousands of hours in LoL who hasnt spent any money on it at all, im well aware that im like an absurd outlier in that regard. i wouldnt have my personal experiences without 'games as services' as a concept - though my own enjoyment/gain here probably doesnt outweigh what i might have lost in enjoyment out of better game development if it hadnt been dreamed up
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
I voted Better and I still believe it. We haven't gotten it here, but what they're doing with streaming switch games in Japan is amazing. AC: Oddysey and RE 7, completely playable and portable, with better graphics than the switch could ever be capable of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Monster Hunter World is an interesting game because it has a lot of online features like events, daily logins, timed missions and so forth but none of it is monetized. The MonHu brand is currently so strong though that they dont really need microtransactions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
If Pokemon was made by any other company in the world that wasn't Nintendo, it would be monetized to hell and back. Imagine: "Ubisoft presents: Pokemon".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
WaltherFeng posted:Monster Hunter World is an interesting game because it has a lot of online features like events, daily logins, timed missions and so forth but none of it is monetized. Yeah games as service is bad, except for monster hunter world, where it's good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
I feel worse about games becoming "games as service". I get cautious about playing certain games - Shadow of War, and Ubisoft games in general comes to mind. I didn't play it because I was worried the devs would purposely drive up the grind to encourage buying booster packs. Those are my thoughts. Namaste, friends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:If Pokemon was made by any other company in the world that wasn't Nintendo, it would be monetized to hell and back. 10% off XP booster packs!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
Its most likely unsustainable gamble that could hurt maybe whatever smaller devs are tied to bigger publishers betting the little guy's farms on this model. It didn't really fly when it was MMO subscriptions outside of WoW and maybe one of the online Final Fantasies, I don't see it working for anyone that isn't Overwatch or Fortnite. And that's not even getting into the possibility of governments wising up to lootboxes being gambling aimed at kids. This could end in a big legal battle, at least with the EU, that these companies will most likely lose. Either in paying taxes or losing markets in countries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Its most likely unsustainable gamble that could hurt maybe whatever smaller devs are tied to bigger publishers betting the little guy's farms on this model. It didn't really fly when it was MMO subscriptions outside of WoW and maybe one of the online Final Fantasies, I don't see it working for anyone that isn't Overwatch or Fortnite. Unlike the MMO craze, it isn't just two or three juggernauts who are finding success. That said, I do agree that it is a matter of time before the bubbke bursts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:If Pokemon was made by any other company in the world that wasn't Nintendo, it would be monetized to hell and back. Pokemon isn't made by Nintendo. They own about 30% of the Pokemon IP, but technically speaking Pokemon Company is its own separate entity that could part ways from Nintendo and take Pokemon with them at any time if they wanted. Splatoon 2 is a better example. One of its core features is cosmetic items, yet there are no lootboxes or ways to pay real money to obtain these cosmetics. New maps and cosmetics are added all the time, entirely for free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Why doesn't Game Freak just move Pokemon away from Nintendo then to Port the games everywhere?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Probably because Nintendo is deathly afraid of that scenario and gives them a lion's share of power that other companies in the Nintendo family don't have. Pokemon is the biggest thing next to Mario and they don't want to let that phenomenon escape to leave a giant loving money void for their consoles. Even if there are still some pokemon likes being made such as Yo-Kai Watch, Game Freak is the King of legitimizing remakes, different version sales, newer different version sales, stupid overpriced peripherals gating content of a single mon, and the franchise with the perfect compulsion abusing tag line of "Gotta catch em all". Because Red and Blue existed before the microtransaction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:And that's not even getting into the possibility of governments wising up to lootboxes being gambling aimed at kids. This could end in a big legal battle, at least with the EU, that these companies will most likely lose. Either in paying taxes or losing markets in countries. This is probably the next battle I see looming and it's going to end up being another 90s violent game rating situation where a government (The US or otherwise, I'm definitely going with EU first) basically tells the industry to clean up its poo poo or they're going to step in and do it for them and they probably won't like the results. I'd put money on having governments step in though since there's a lot more money to make before the bottom inevitably falls out. As for the original question, I dislike loot boxes and gacha crap and it's definitely a massive turn off game wise. I don't like feeling obligated to log in to play a video game even if it's optional skins or the like, just make all the poo poo available all the time if you're going to fund things with skins or new maps or whatever. If you aren't going to take away my halloween skin or whatever after halloween is over why can't I buy it off season? All it amounts to is 'neener neener' poo poo later when they make new skins which I'd be lying if I said I didn't do in other games that do it but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if someone could buy halloween skin 2017, it doesn't impact me in the least. I miss the days of actually owning games and buying expansion packs but times change for better or worse I suppose. Now I just buy physical when I can and hope most of the content is actually on the disc/cart instead of popping it in and having to wait another 15 minutes for it to update/install.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Probably because Nintendo is deathly afraid of that scenario and gives them a lion's share of power that other companies in the Nintendo family don't have. Pokemon is the biggest thing next to Mario and they don't want to let that phenomenon escape to leave a giant loving money void for their consoles. Pokemon is the most profitable IP in human history. Stanos posted:This is probably the next battle I see looming and it's going to end up being another 90s violent game rating situation where a government (The US or otherwise, I'm definitely going with EU first) basically tells the industry to clean up its poo poo or they're going to step in and do it for them and they probably won't like the results. This is literally already happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Ah, I remember Belgium or maybe the Netherlands making complaints about it right around the star wars battlefront stink but I didn't keep up on it. Good for them, I always did think it was kind of greasy and it's a big reason I'm really leery of any mobile game announcements from big companies. I spent 5 bucks or so on Neko Atsume and that was all I ever really bought mobile wise that wasn't a full game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Nintendo is actually the sole owner of the Pokemon trademark despite sharing ownership of The Pokemon Company with Game Freak and Creatures Inc. (Which Nintendo owns a percentage of, effectively increasing its 1/3rd stake in TPC). Walking away would be nearly impossible. There is zero danger to Nintendo there. As far as GaS, its a bubble waiting to collapse. Shareholders in AAA publishers want to see ever-increasing sales numbers and its a diminishing-returns situation. There's only so much money available in the consumer base. ComposerGuy fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
ComposerGuy posted:Nintendo is actually the sole owner of the Pokemon trademark despite sharing ownership of The Pokemon Company with Game Freak and Creatures Inc. (Which Nintendo owns a percentage of, effectively increasing its 1/3rd stake in TPC). Didn't Nintendo own 49% of Rare before they left for Microsoft?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
I think that "live service" as a concept is preferable to preorder-gated content, "season passes," and loot box mechanics where the loot boxes can be purchased with real or virtual currency. But publishers will find ways to make "live services" into something ever more terrible. I know this in advance. Actually, at my age, I'm really just too old and tired to keep up with all of the nonsense that goes along with the hobby of playing video games. But at the same time I am happy to see the game playing consumer base really start calling bullshit on publisher antics. I remember a time when publishers had $5.00/minute "tip lines" that you could call to get cheat codes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Didn't Nintendo own 49% of Rare before they left for Microsoft? EDIT: Nintendo sold those shares after Microsoft bought out the remaining 51%. But even then, they retained a lot of IP that Rare developed (basically anything that was vaguely Nintendo related.) Gamefreak also does make third part games on the side, such as Tembo the Badass Elephant and something called Gigawrecker. It's more the Pokemon IP can't walk away. OneMoreTime fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Dec 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
I can see the government regulating the worst excesses (e.g. banning loot boxes) but short of a socialist revolution GaaS is here to stay. Corporations will always seek rent because it's free money. There won't be an industry collapse: profits have been going up while development costs have been going down. Growth might slow as competition increases (a slower, less pronounced version of what happened to the indie market) and individual companies might file bankruptcy in the never-ending shell game but the only thing that will stop hundred million dollar marketing budgets from being effective is marketing as a whole becoming ineffective. An economic recession might even increase total consumption as people are driven out of other recreational activities that require regular time or money commitments, community spaces, or social networks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 20:00
|
|
