Faith restored. For now, anyway, until we see what they mean by this in practice. Either way, my intention to pre-order is back on.
It's worth banning (or regulating) without making it about "just think of the children." I wish they'd emphasized more that it IS gambling, and adult "choice" against exploitative practices, etc. But I recognize that doesn't get people out like "just think of the children" does. The YouTube guy has the right focuses, but the Hawaii people don't IMO, at least not morally. Politically/pragmatically they may be right on.
Good guy destiny banned me so I would refund the game.I still have to complete my intro mission.
--Patrick
You know, a certain point comes along where caveat emptor applies, and people who buy a thing from a company widely known to fuck their customers shouldn't be surprised at getting fucked.So, Bungie has turned off the xp scaling in Destiny 2, just like they said they would, but then quietly doubled the amount of xp needed. In-game still shows that 80k xp is required for a level after max level, but in-game testing has shown that 160k is actually needed to fill the bar.
Destiny 1 was good. But I fell into the trap of believing that Bungie would not be the greedy asshats that Activision requires all their developers to be.[DOUBLEPOST=1511815962,1511815597][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, don't think I'm not looking at my beloved Blizzard and just dreading the day I know is to come. Three of the 5 games that blizzard currently has active have loot boxes in them now. And of those, at least two of them are free. Overwatch really is patient zero of the loot box epidemic, because while they're not the first game to use them (I remember thinking they were bullshit way back in the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer) they're the first big game to make a bajillion dollars out of them.You know, a certain point comes along where caveat emptor applies, and people who buy a thing from a company widely known to fuck their customers shouldn't be surprised at getting fucked.
Like you said, you dodged a bullet by getting banned, but that wasn't exactly by your design, now, was it?
Well, I'm not exactly without sin here. I paid for Overwatch after all (though I never bought any lootboxes). But I think that was the one that cured me. I've pretty much sworn off all the big publishers. I've been playing small time/indie/second string games for over a year and have been having a blast.Destiny 1 was good. But I fell into the trap of believing that Bungie would not be the greedy asshats that Activision requires all their developers to be.
Play Night in the Woods!Well, I'm not exactly without sin here. I paid for Overwatch after all (though I never bought any lootboxes). But I think that was the one that cured me. I've pretty much sworn off all the big publishers. I've been playing small time/indie/second string games for over a year and have been having a blast.
PS: Destiny 1 was shooting at a hole in the ground until loot fell out
That there was a real money option for a tacked on multiplayer (that was better than the game itself) was still bullshit, and a sign of things to come.The loot boxes in ME3MP weren't that bad though. You could earn a gold one in less than an hour of play even with mediocre skills like mine.
When you boil a frog, you do it slow.The loot boxes in ME3MP weren't that bad though. You could earn a gold one in less than an hour of play even with mediocre skills like mine.
I mean, sure, they're putting poison in the water supply, but only a little.When you boil a frog, you do it slow.
They did, but the game is also free to play. And the stuff you get or can unlock doesn't really unbalance the game as far as I know.Didn't Team Fortress 2 introduce their crates a long time ago? The ones you need to pay real money for keys to unlock them?
Oh yeah, that's true. It's been so long since I fired up TF2 I forgot it's F2P.They did, but the game is also free to play. And the stuff you get or can unlock doesn't really unbalance the game as far as I know.
I think that's largely been the biggest problems with these microtransactions and loot boxes. It's not just that they're in the game. It's that they're with a full-priced game. Then that full-priced game has season passes, pre-order bonuses, gold editions, etc. There'd be a LOT less complaining if they were free to play. Far as I know, no one complains about TF2 or DOTA2 being guilty of the same microtransaction/loot box stuff and I imagine it's because they're both F2P.[DOUBLEPOST=1511838348,1511838296][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh yeah, that's true. It's been so long since I fired up TF2 I forgot it's F2P.
Yep. Jim Sterling praised the game itself and openly said he would've listed it in his best games of that year. But couldn't because of all that malarky.The reason Overwatch is called ground zero is because you had to buy the game, AND it had lottery microtransactions. They might have gotten less flak if you could flat out buy the things you wanted instead of gambling for it, but there you go.
This is why I'm a bit more okay with the crates in say... SMITE than Overwatch.The reason Overwatch is called ground zero is because you had to buy the game, AND it had lottery microtransactions. They might have gotten less flak if you could flat out buy the things you wanted instead of gambling for it, but there you go.
I’m only speaking for myself, but spending $100 on a game with everything included is far better than spending $40 on a game that needs another “optional” $200 in loot boxes, season passes, and day 1 DLC to get all the content. I’d like to think that guaranteed $100 would be a better revenue model than having “whales” spend too much while the rest of your customers get pissed off at the paywalls.I'll be honest... I can see the devs' sides in this argument. No one wants to pay more for video games, but they don't want to pay for new pricing models either. I still don't necessarily buy the player camp's definitions of "whole game" either. Games were about $50 in 1985, unadjusted for inflation. The average price of a AAA title on Steam is still $40-60. I imagine some production costs have decreased, but a lot of them have increased. Music, acting, license fees for third party (programming) libraries, etc are not cheap.
As I said in another thread:I'll be honest... I can see the devs' sides in this argument. No one wants to pay more for video games, but they don't want to pay for new pricing models either. I still don't necessarily buy the player camp's definitions of "whole game" either. Games were about $50 in 1985, unadjusted for inflation. The average price of a AAA title on Steam is still $40-60. I imagine some production costs have decreased, but a lot of them have increased. Music, acting, license fees for third party (programming) libraries, etc are not cheap.
On the other hand, they no longer have to manufacture cartridges, so really their costs are the same whether they "ship" 100 units or 100,000,000, and there are DEFINITELY WAY MORE people buying games now than there were in 1985. Hell, in 1997 the VG industry's revenue was only $5.1 billion, today it's over $90 billion. That's an 18-fold increase with a complete elimination of distribution costs. If the game's good enough, more people will buy it, which incurs no extra logistical cost and is all pure profit.I'll be honest... I can see the devs' sides in this argument. No one wants to pay more for video games, but they don't want to pay for new pricing models either. I still don't necessarily buy the player camp's definitions of "whole game" either. Games were about $50 in 1985, unadjusted for inflation. The average price of a AAA title on Steam is still $40-60. I imagine some production costs have decreased, but a lot of them have increased. Music, acting, license fees for third party (programming) libraries, etc are not cheap.
It's not the same industry, though. That change in revenue isn't all going to the same companies who are spending on the same number of games at the same amount of cost. First of all, half of it is mobile revenue, and a very significant chunk of the remainder is from Chinese F2P PC games. Then development costs of AAA PC/console titles have gone from $2-$10M in 1997 to $50-$100M before marketing costs today. And that's not accounting for crazy outliers like Destiny and GTA V, which each supposedly cost ~$140M before marketing, and SWTOR, which supposedly cost ~$200M. The Witcher 3 "only" cost $81M because WBIE picked up most of the marketing tab and most of the developers live in Warsaw.\Hell, in 1997 the VG industry's revenue was only $5.1 billion, today it's over $90 billion. That's an 18-fold increase with a complete elimination of distribution costs.
I wasn't saying nothing else has changed, I was saying that since manufacturing and distribution costs have decreased to near-zero, the profit curve vs units sold is exponentially higher than it was. Super Mario 3 sold 7 million copies in the US and was the highest selling unbundled NES game ever. Now Eidos considers 5 million copies of Tomb Raider to be a failure. Probably because of the ridiculous budgets you describe.It's not the same industry, though. That change in revenue isn't all going to the same companies who are spending on the same number of games at the same amount of cost. First of all, half of it is mobile revenue, and a very significant chunk of the remainder is from Chinese F2P PC games. Then development costs of AAA PC/console titles have gone from $2-$10M in 1997 to $50-$100M before marketing costs today. And that's not accounting for crazy outliers like Destiny and GTA V, which each supposedly cost ~$140M before marketing, and SWTOR, which supposedly cost ~$200M. The Witcher 3 "only" cost $81M because WBIE picked up most of the marketing tab and most of the developers live in Warsaw.
Furthermore, with prices staying nearly the same, you would need to see a sufficient uptick in unit sales to make up for that massive increase in cost. Going digital has helped, but things like technology licensing fees, salaries, and growing team size (and all the equipment capital that comes with that) eats that particular windfall up.
Should game developers be focusing on smaller teams/projects? Probably. Real wages have remained stagnant, at least in the US, so raising sticker prices as a rule really won't work very well, so getting lean and efficient is the answer if you can't drive revenue in some other way.
Does this mean that gamers need to factor in company financial situations when they make purchase decisions? No, of course not, that's just stupid, it is the companies making the development decisions they do that should be taking the risk. But looking at the global gaming revenue and acting like nothing else has changed is silly.