Are "Gamers" a culture of idiots?

[Mathias]

So I'll put this out there. I'm what someone would call a gamer. I like videogames as entertainment. I play a few. I like and follow and am a rapid fanboy of certain games and their lore.

All that said, in light of the recent EA Star Wars thing, I must ask, are gamers as a whole a bunch of idiots?

EA is going to make content free (which sort of answers Fade's earlier questions about whole game - obviously this game was not a whole game). But at a later date will implement pay to win protocol as planned. People are now going to purchase the game.

Is it addiction? Is it the culture? I have 0 interest in buying this game now. I still have 0 interest. I know it's a money pit. There are plenty of other great Star Wars games available. Why bother? So I ask, are gamers collectively a bunch of morons? Is it because the age bracket is mostly teens (and teens are stupid).

Please note, I mean no offense to anyone. It just seems that for such a vocal culture, gamers are really, really easy to dupe out of their money.

 

[PatrThom]

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: There are people who really want to play a convincing Star Wars game, especially if it lets them play as their favorite Star Wars character(s). Right now EA has the game that most closely matches these criteria, but it is encumbered by expensive (time or money, take your pick) unlocks. “Eh, close enough,” most of the targeted gamers tell themselves. “I’ll buy this now, play what I can, and let future me worry about the payments for the rest.”

—Patrick

 

[PatrThom]

Hmm.

It’s dastardly clever, actually.
EA is having you pay $2100 to unlock all content.
WoW charges $15/mo, which is $180/yr
$2100 would buy you ~12yrs of WoW at that rate.
WoW has been out for 13 years.
Ergo, EA wants their MMO to reap a reward equivalent to what someone would have paid for a 12yr sub to WoW, BUT they want to offer an option that lets them get it all up front without having to wait 12yrs, maintain servers for 12yrs, etc.

—Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

EA is going to make content free (which sort of answers Fade's earlier questions about whole game - obviously this game was not a whole game). But at a later date will implement pay to win protocol as planned. People are now going to purchase the game.

They're not making it free, they're making it *unbuyable,* which is a little different.

But yes, I'd say most gamers are idiots, because most people are idiots.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Most people are idiots. Anytime a sub group becomes mainstream enough to cover a wide range of people, it is going to then also become mostly idiots.

 

[Mathias]

Most people are idiots. Anytime a sub group becomes mainstream enough to cover a wide range of people, it is going to then also become mostly idiots.

I can buy that.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I can buy that.

Would you pay $1.99 for a chance to buy that?

 

[Dave]

I don't understand why they can't just implement a two-layered kind of server for gameplay. Like one layer is for people who buy their "accelerated content" with real money and the other layer is for people who can buy nothing but cosmetics or items that do not affect gameplay in any way.

Although this would be more expensive to maintain, it would also not alienate EITHER of the player bases, which would guarantee more sales, probably offsetting the additional server costs. Players who don't want to pay real money for advancing their character can do so with full knowledge that anyone they face also did not pay anything to enhance their character. And people who DO pay would be on even footing with others who did the same. The ONLY people that wouldn't like this are the people who pay because they suck and this would take away their credit card crutch.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I don't understand why they can't just implement a two-layered kind of server for gameplay. Like one layer is for people who buy their "accelerated content" with real money and the other layer is for people who can buy nothing but cosmetics or items that do not affect gameplay in any way.

Although this would be more expensive to maintain, it would also not alienate EITHER of the player bases, which would guarantee more sales, probably offsetting the additional server costs. Players who don't want to pay real money for advancing their character can do so with full knowledge that anyone they face also did not pay anything to enhance their character. And people who DO pay would be on even footing with others who did the same. The ONLY people that wouldn't like this are the people who pay because they suck and this would take away their credit card crutch.

Because everything in the game is built to direct you to the store. A mode that keeps you away from the store is anathema to that, and anyone that's not going to buy the game because of that will be replaced with someone that will buy it many times over

 

[PatrThom]

I don't understand why they can't just implement a two-layered kind of server for gameplay. Like one layer is for people who buy their "accelerated content" with real money and the other layer is for people who can buy nothing but cosmetics or items that do not affect gameplay in any way.

Isn’t that what Path of Exile does? I mean the second, not the first.

—Patrick

 

[Dave]

Because everything in the game is built to direct you to the store. A mode that keeps you away from the store is anathema to that, and anyone that's not going to buy the game because of that will be replaced with someone that will buy it many times over

But that's just it. In THAT layer you still have a store, but it's got cosmetic items. These are the kinds of people who would NEVER have bought gameplay items anyway and probably wouldn't even have purchased the game so to even get them to play is a $60 win.[DOUBLEPOST=1510947746,1510947694][/DOUBLEPOST]

Isn’t that what Path of Exile does? I mean the second, not the first.

—Patrick

Exactly. And it's a very successful model. So why can't they have their cake and eat it, too? (You know what I mean even though that's a stupid saying. If you have cake what the fuck else are you going to do with it?)

 

[figmentPez]

The ONLY people that wouldn't like this are the people who pay because they suck and this would take away their credit card crutch.

It would upset the EA executives, because it would remove the incentive for non-paying players to start shelling out. The whole point of waving this content in front of everyone's face is to make it as required as possible, without having it be part of the upfront cost of the game.

 

[Ravenpoe]

But that's just it. In THAT layer you still have a store, but it's got cosmetic items. These are the kinds of people who would NEVER have bought gameplay items anyway and probably wouldn't even have purchased the game so to even get them to play is a $60 win.[DOUBLEPOST=1510947746,1510947694][/DOUBLEPOST]

Exactly. And it's a very successful model. So why can't they have their cake and eat it, too? (You know what I mean even though that's a stupid saying. If you have cake what the fuck else are you going to do with it?)

But that's not the culture they want to build. This isn't about one game, this is about EVERY game. They went so hard on this because they thought star wars was a powerful enough property to be a Trojan horse that makes this the norm. EA, Activision, every big name publisher would like nothing more than if every game was a storefront of unending profit

 

[GasBandit]

I don't understand why they can't just implement a two-layered kind of server for gameplay. Like one layer is for people who buy their "accelerated content" with real money and the other layer is for people who can buy nothing but cosmetics or items that do not affect gameplay in any way.

Although this would be more expensive to maintain, it would also not alienate EITHER of the player bases, which would guarantee more sales, probably offsetting the additional server costs. Players who don't want to pay real money for advancing their character can do so with full knowledge that anyone they face also did not pay anything to enhance their character. And people who DO pay would be on even footing with others who did the same. The ONLY people that wouldn't like this are the people who pay because they suck and this would take away their credit card crutch.

You pretty much got it at the end there. They want people thinking "that guy only beat me because he spent 5 bucks on a gun, you know, I bet I could beat everybody if I spent 5 bucks on a gun." And the slope gets slippery there.

 

[Dave]

But the sales they lose more than offset that! That's shortsighted and stupid. So is it GAMERS who are stupid or game COMPANIES?

 

[GasBandit]

But the sales they lose more than offset that! That's shortsighted and stupid. So is it GAMERS who are stupid or game COMPANIES?

To be fair, nobody's gone broke overestimating gamer stupidity so far... this is the first real backlash we've seen, and even it promises to peter out pretty quick.

 

[figmentPez]

But the sales they lose more than offset that!

That remains to be seen. After all, this is a proven business model in the mobile/Facebook world. Farmville, Clash of Clans, and tons more have made a lot of money off of the keeping up with the Joneses model.

 

[Gruebeard]

Would you pay $1.99 for a chance to buy that?

I'd buy that for a dollar.

 

[Fun Size]

So why can't they have their cake and eat it, too? (You know what I mean even though that's a stupid saying. If you have cake what the fuck else are you going to do with it?)

Dude, if you eat your cake, you don't have it anymore. If you want to keep your cake, you can't eat it. And the real question of the whole this is what's with the cake anyway? Did they not have pie?

 

[Dei]

As a woman who has been gaming her whole life, I would say a majority of gamers are idiots. Just based on my own personal experience. Spending money on dumb shit aside.

 

[Dave]

That remains to be seen. After all, this is a proven business model in the mobile/Facebook world. Farmville, Clash of Clans, and tons more have made a lot of money off of the keeping up with the Joneses model.

I think the population playing those games and the population that plays online FPS or "real gamer" games might have a slight intersection, but I think hey are completely different groups.[DOUBLEPOST=1510950820,1510950763][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, the business model of selling cosmetics is also proven to be a money maker.

 

[figmentPez]

I think the population playing those games and the population that plays online FPS or "real gamer" games might have a slight intersection, but I think hey are completely different groups.[DOUBLEPOST=1510950820,1510950763][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, the business model of selling cosmetics is also proven to be a money maker.

I'm not sure the executives view them as different groups, and I'm honestly worried this case won't prove them wrong. Because there are going to be a lot of people buying this game because it's Star Wars, not because it's Battlefront, and rabid Star Wars fans seem pretty willing to throw their money at anything Star Wars.

 

[Dei]

I think the population playing those games and the population that plays online FPS or "real gamer" games might have a slight intersection, but I think hey are completely different groups.[DOUBLEPOST=1510950820,1510950763][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, the business model of selling cosmetics is also proven to be a money maker.

Have you not seen the loot box nonsense in the new Call of Duty? There are even dailies to WATCH OTHER PEOPLE OPEN LOOT BOXES. So don't be too sure. Different groups doesn't mean the same strategy doesn't work.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm not sure the executives view them as different groups, and I'm honestly worried this case won't prove them wrong. Because there are going to be a lot of people buying this game because it's Star Wars, not because it's Battlefront, and rabid Star Wars fans seem pretty willing to throw their money at anything Star Wars.

As I've often said, you could take a big stinky shit in a box, slap a picture of a Wookiee on the outside, and sell 100 million units.

 

[sixpackshaker]

As I've often said, you could take a big stinky shit in a box, slap a picture of a Wookiee on the outside, and sell 100 million units.

Great, now I am picturing the dingle-berry problem that Chewy must have...

 

[PatrThom]

Great, now I am picturing the dingle-berry problem that Chewy must have...

Explains his mood.

--Patrick

 

[Dave]

He actually speaks perfect English, but every time he moves his ass hair pulls and he bellows in pain.

 

[ScytheRexx]

Personally I am perfectly fine with loot boxes or cosmetics as long as it does not screw with the game play. (ALA LoL, Overwatch, etc.) The issue with Shadow of War and SWBF2 is that they decided to mix in actual game play benefit on top of cosmetics because they felt this would make the boxes more enticing for people to purchase on a whim once they see others overpowering them, and it is biting them in the ass in some markets right now.

I think, for now, we have met the line.

 

[General Specific]

I have had a problem with most big new games coming out anyway because they almost all go for online multiplayer exclusively. What single player modes are available are usually woefully short and stupidly done. I don't have the money to buy the latest games on the newest systems and pay for the online services in order to play a majority of the games coming out, much less spending EVEN MORE on boxes for the chance of getting something shiny.

I have long since realized that big game companies now are run by the same type of greedy assholes that have all but ruined the movie & tv industry. They generate the same content year after year, repeating their biggest hits to try and generate the most income, while not taking any risks because they think that the general public doesn't want to be challenged by new content and interesting storytelling. This is why we get the same sports and war games every year with a few minor enhancements (Madden, Fifa, CoD). The same TV shows year after year (Simpsons, Family Guy, Big Bang Theory). The same movies, name an action movie from the last 10 years, even Marvel/DC and Star Wars have not offered anything significantly different just well or badly made movies.

You have to go to the indie scene to find the innovators. The problem there is quality control. For every Cuphead or Beasts of No Nation, there are a thousand The Rooms or asset flip games on Steam.

So, to draw my point out a bit further, there are major problems all around. Are "gamers" dumb? Some, a lot even, but not all. And the backlash is (hopefully) starting against the predatory business models of the game companies that see customers only as cash-filled pinatas they just have to use the right stick to whack.

 

[strawman]

I have had a problem with most big new games coming out anyway because they almost all go for online multiplayer exclusively. What single player modes are available are usually woefully short and stupidly done.

You don't have to create content if other players are the content.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm reminded of this golden oldie.

The annotations are hilarious though. "Thanks for cleaning up your act, EA!" Hah

 

[PatrThom]

I don't have the money to buy the latest games on the newest systems and pay for the online services in order to play a majority of the games coming out, much less spending EVEN MORE on boxes for the chance of getting something shiny.

THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISS.

--Patrick