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

251–260 of 690 posts

Re: I hate what video games have become

#251

Post by bigDinosaur »

tomatowurst wrote: post #118
mnsc wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... i think CSGO easily is the best ... > ... so it is a bit like gambling ... I hate what video games have become.

I don't mind CSGO's flavor since it doesn't cost you money like poker but I can absolutely see somebody trying to buy multiple keys in hopes of unlocking a really good skin. again this doesn't impact the gameplay at all and I'm happy to earn some money. was able to buy another title on steam with the money accrued

I don't know if you're just naive or not, but you're paying with literally the most valuable currency you have.

That doesn't mean it isn't fun to do so, although there's a very high chance you'll come to regret the number of hours pumped into such games and the way they kept you engaged in their dopamine loop.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#252

Post by zo1 »

yourdeadneopet wrote: post #168

A few years ago, Nintendo made a wonderful game called Super Mario Run. It was simple - Mario automatically runs and you tap to jump - but surprisingly deep. The timing of the jumps and the height of jump was paramount, and there was a ton of replayability in trying to get out-of-reach coins and finding shortcuts. It also captured the aesthetic of the Mario World games with modern graphics. I was VERY skeptical of a…

This story makes me sad. What a sorry state we've let the mobile (phone) gaming market become purely because of ads.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#253

Post by slightwinder »

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…

Hasn't Paradox this sneaky thing going, where they put new mechanics from DLCs into the main game, but only useable by the AI? Thus shifting the balance slowly against the player and forcing them on the long run to buy DLCs to get a fair balanced game again.

Similar to things happening in MMOs with extensions. A new extension usually forces most players to buy it fast, so they can continue to play with the other players, access new raids, skills and gain from the new items on the market.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#254

Post by nopcode »

SentientNo4 wrote: post #236
qwery wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole 'preying on the vulnerable' thing kind of puts me off. But I want to respond to this: > The items that you buy have absolutely no impact on gameplay and are just visuals Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game. Cosmetic items are interactive. They are unlockable, collectable, wearable items. Further, visuals do impact the gameplay. You could argue about the difference b…

> Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game. Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay. Visuals are a huge part of what makes a game, no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.

A better phrasing is whether they offer a competitive advantage.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#255

Post by hutzlibu »

nopcode wrote: post #254
SentientNo4 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game. Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay. Visuals are a huge part of what makes a game, no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.

A better phrasing is whether they offer a competitive advantage.

I think they do, but only if they add to camouflage

Re: I hate what video games have become

#256

Post by nopcode »

automatic6131 wrote: post #231
Lazare wrote: post #201

I dunno. First, there's more non free-to-play games out there than ever before, and some are truly amazing and innovative, so I'm not sure about what "games have become". In the last couple of years my top games by hours spent have probably been... 1) Valheim, a truly lovely indie game with a traditional "buy it upfront" model. Don't regret that purchase at all, great game. 2) Final Fantasy XIV, a traditional MMO mod…

Apex Legends is a game that I've currently got over 1000 hours in, which has been a consistent 1 to 2 hours most days since launch three years ago. I've also spent roughly $1000 dollars in it too to get the "cool" skins. But I don't mind this since I've also subsidized many free players to pay $0 and enjoy it with me and there's no gameplay advantage so I don't feel like it's cheating (and it means there aren't any g…

$1 per hour is a good rate.

I compare it to the cost of other forms entertainment (cinema, theme park, gocarting, sports event, …)

Re: I hate what video games have become

#257

Post by slightwinder »

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's not always gambling. There are also collectors and people who just like to show off. Also, the usually f*ing rich dude who has no understanding on the difference between $2 and $20k. Games today are the new social club, where you go and meet and show off your life. And as there are corners for the average people, there are also corners for the rich and powerful. There are some games which really just exist so rich dudes can casually meet and show off how much money they spend on some stupid skin. Similar, some other games have pay2win, because enough rich people live by the philosophy that money can buy you anything, including an easy win.

The gambling-games are only the most obvious whale-traps, and they usually not even aim for the filthy rich, but the middle class rich. The rich rich-games are less obvious, because the casuals are not rich enough to even get high enough in that game to gain access to the juicy parts.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#258

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

yourdeadneopet wrote: post #168

A few years ago, Nintendo made a wonderful game called Super Mario Run. It was simple - Mario automatically runs and you tap to jump - but surprisingly deep. The timing of the jumps and the height of jump was paramount, and there was a ton of replayability in trying to get out-of-reach coins and finding shortcuts. It also captured the aesthetic of the Mario World games with modern graphics. I was VERY skeptical of a…

To quantify "performed much better":

Super Mario Run: $60 million total by July 2018

Fire Emblem Heroes: $656 million by January 2020

An order of magnitude. Incentives are everything.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#259

Post by iforgotpassword »

SentientNo4 wrote: post #236
qwery wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole 'preying on the vulnerable' thing kind of puts me off. But I want to respond to this: > The items that you buy have absolutely no impact on gameplay and are just visuals Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game. Cosmetic items are interactive. They are unlockable, collectable, wearable items. Further, visuals do impact the gameplay. You could argue about the difference b…

> Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game. Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay. Visuals are a huge part of what makes a game, no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.

> no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.

Not a meaningful comparison. A game without textures would be hardly playable at all. The same can't be said for skins or accessories to your character/vehicle. You don't get eye-cancer with the default skin. If you feel you need that virtual Louis Vuitton bag to fully enjoy the game then well be a sucker and pay for it and pretend the game was just a little more expensive. I've yet to encounter a game where I feel like I'm missing out on anything with the default player model/skin/car.

Re: I hate what video games have become

#260

Post by williamscales »

nopcode wrote: post #254
SentientNo4 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game. Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay. Visuals are a huge part of what makes a game, no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.

A better phrasing is whether they offer a competitive advantage.

Look good, feel good, play good?

It seems to me that it definitely has a psychological impact for some folks (myself included) in both off-line and on-line competition.

Post reply on HN