Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I hate what video games have become

ivanca.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 690 posts

Re: I hate what video games have become

#91

Post by holler »

Daneel_ wrote: post #81
holler wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 simp…

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 w…

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!

Re: I hate what video games have become

#92

Post by s-lambert »

brootstrap wrote: post #22
silisili wrote: post #17

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.

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.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#93

Post by trinovantes »

cercatrova wrote: post #68
trinovantes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#94

Post by trinovantes »

catlifeonmars wrote: post #67
trinovantes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wait, what? You have to pay for bugfixes?

You have to pay for fixing poor game design or balance.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#96

Post by cercatrova »

trinovantes wrote: post #93
cercatrova wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#97

Post by zimspy »

pengaru wrote: post #46
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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?

Re: I hate what video games have become

#98

Post by mrjangles »

bccdee wrote: post #43
sidlls wrote: post #25

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…

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 tr…

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.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#99

Post by whynaut »

8note wrote: post #76
the_jeremy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Va…

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

Are you referring to emotes? (I don’t play fortnite)

Re: I hate what video games have become

#100

Post by BigJono »

Semaphor wrote: post #90

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]: Almo…

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.

Post reply on HN