71–80 of 145 posts
They're all just garbage, and they all follow the same dark patterns: Incessant ads and prompts to buy in-game items, interspersed with short bits of gameplay here and there.
I agree with him completely. But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There's so much good stuff on Steam, GOG, the Switch eStore, etc. Wonderful games made by people who care, for a fair price, without exploitative monetisation, that I don't feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling. Some examples I've played in recent years are Celeste, Into the…
I think it is largely "casual" gamers and or gamers who can't afford the upfront $50 or $20 for a game and are lured in by the "Free" game and then of course addiction kicks in and they spend $100 or more on it. Sad state of affairs, and something that has only gotten worse with app stores. I don't know if it is causal but they certainly haven't helped stop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why would I need NFTs for that?
Nfts itself aren't the "game changer" the game changer is the combination of nfts and smart contracts, where various attributes are defined for the nfts, and they are not changeable. In the steam marketplace, the developer can change things easily, like changing a super rare card in a collectable card game to a common card.
I agree with him completely. But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There's so much good stuff on Steam, GOG, the Switch eStore, etc. Wonderful games made by people who care, for a fair price, without exploitative monetisation, that I don't feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling. Some examples I've played in recent years are Celeste, Into the…
There's a lot of peer pressure among kids to play certain games. I bought a Nintendo Switch for my kids, and they certainly love the games, but a lot of their friends play games like Clash Royale together. Games like this are full of in-app purchases to be a better player. So obviously, they ask if they can play these kinds of games. For the moment, they're still satisfied playing on their Switch, but once they get t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd separate that into two categories: consensus that "withholding content, breaking games up, or locking devices to stores to artificially create redundant sales" and "abusive monetization design where the game is mostly a flimsy pretext for their real product, a gambling addiction simulator" are reviled industry practices. People like their stores and skins, they just don't want to have to gamble to get them or be…
> People like their stores and skins Two types of people here, too. Those who bought "Horse Armor" and those who thought it was the most ridiculous thing they had ever heard of. Personally I dislike the move towards every game being a live service to justify the presence of a store with skins and emotes and such. I'm getting sick of always online, seasonal event driven live service games where the game balance consta…
There are good reasons why this can be healthy for a game that's constantly evolving with new content and is intended to be live for like a decade+ like Destiny. By sunsetting old content periodically they have a much easier time balancing everything, and making sure the world is consistent. They can also do visual improvements over time without having to polish an ever increasing pile of old content.
See also: leagues in Path of Exile, set rotation in trading card games.
Destiny is an MMO, you should know going in that it's a live, evolving beast. Not something that you can rely on staying the same forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a skin in some of these games is $10 or more. Even as someone who might conceivably be tempted (I've bought stuff for TF2 before), there's a point where it's just an obviously bad use of your money. 20 bucks is a nice dinner out, I'm not spending that on a skin. Maybe I am just stuck in 2012 but $2-3 is about the limit for me for a skin. "Unusual" hats (particle effects) in TF2 are basically the original NFT, they ar…
Star Citizen has taken unit monetization to a whole new level. It's basically art as a service: buy these ships that are unlikely to ever render during gameplay. And now they can't stop. If it stops expanding the whole thing will collapse under its own weight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd separate that into two categories: consensus that "withholding content, breaking games up, or locking devices to stores to artificially create redundant sales" and "abusive monetization design where the game is mostly a flimsy pretext for their real product, a gambling addiction simulator" are reviled industry practices. People like their stores and skins, they just don't want to have to gamble to get them or be…
> People like their stores and skins Two types of people here, too. Those who bought "Horse Armor" and those who thought it was the most ridiculous thing they had ever heard of. Personally I dislike the move towards every game being a live service to justify the presence of a store with skins and emotes and such. I'm getting sick of always online, seasonal event driven live service games where the game balance consta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People like their stores and skins Two types of people here, too. Those who bought "Horse Armor" and those who thought it was the most ridiculous thing they had ever heard of. Personally I dislike the move towards every game being a live service to justify the presence of a store with skins and emotes and such. I'm getting sick of always online, seasonal event driven live service games where the game balance consta…
> Destiny 2 ruined this for me in a big way with how they are not just introducing new content but also removing old content, content I paid for and now can never access again. There are good reasons why this can be healthy for a game that's constantly evolving with new content and is intended to be live for like a decade+ like Destiny. By sunsetting old content periodically they have a much easier time balancing eve…
I agree with the general idea in the article that games should be about fun and great gameplay at its core. What I don't agree with is this simplistic narrative by gamers on how how very evil and greedy game producers are. Because gamers themselves play a significant role in that. As an example, mobile game developers largely switched to in-game purchases not because they want to, instead because it's the only model…
Actually, this makes me more ok with the situation.
I agree with him completely. But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There's so much good stuff on Steam, GOG, the Switch eStore, etc. Wonderful games made by people who care, for a fair price, without exploitative monetisation, that I don't feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling. Some examples I've played in recent years are Celeste, Into the…
There's the problem. A new fickle breed of consumer that do not pay for software.
I know, they fall for the in-game content, but that is optional. A game purchase is money up front.