> at least you can resell your barbie and resell the hat but we don’t have that privilege because Valve determined we are not worthy of it
Isn't valve the only company that lets you resell cosmetics?
I hate what video games have become
411–420 of 690 posts
Re: I hate what video games have become
#412You can play those beautiful single player games that have none of these problems, or play rocketleague for the gameplay instead of trying to play "pimp my car" while playing rocketleague. I think it's good training for life: practice with temptetion with something as cheap as a videogame and stretch your "resistence" now, so that later when your income increases even further, you will avoid spending on way more expe…
> You can play those beautiful single player games that have none of these problems I was never a small studio lover, until all the large studios started really sucking. Tunic, Subnautica, Hollowknight, Outer Wilds are absolutely must plays. Tunic being the latest which has been the closest I’ll ever get to playing A Link To The Past for the first time again.
Exactly.
Well, some indie games are now extremely good, way better than big studios.
FTL: Faster Than Light
Ori and the Blind Forest (doesn't count as indie)
Ori and the Will of the Wisps
Invisible Inc.
Hollow Knight
XCOM
Dyson Sphere Program
Kerbal Space Program (to be fair, this is not really for everyone)
XCOM 2
Assault Android Cactus (great for coop!)
Factorio
Dark Souls 1 and 3 (big studio)
Frostpunk
Hellpoint
Sundered
Starsector
EXAPUNKS
Monster Hunter World: Iceborne (yeah, this is from a big studio)
Re: I hate what video games have become
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair criticism, but one that is only relevant in the first place because of freemium. Prior to that business model, there was no such thing as a company continuing to provide regular, ongoing support to a 7 year old game of the non-subscription variety. I mean, how or why would they? You release something; it makes 90% of its lifetime revenue in year 1; if you continue working on it for 6 more years, you're out of bu…
https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Patches Yep, nothing to see here, no regular, ongoing support to a 20 year old game of the non-subscription variety at all. Warcraft 3 (from 2003) was similarly updated well into 2019. Now, most regular games only get 2 or 3 years of attention. > Along come NFTs, with potential permanent ownership... but gamers despise that idea, too. Oh no, how dare we despise things that anyone can…
I'd love to see the % of games that got the same love as starcraft.
Re: I hate what video games have become
#414I think overwatch is the best fps in the world. I love the game mechanics. Meanwhile, Im realizing blizzard encourage smurfing, meaning have several accounts, to constantly win against lower skilled players in competitive, instead of playing against players of their own skills. You now see entire teams "deranking" meaning losing on purpose, to lose skill rating, so they can climb all over again. It ruins the game. Ot…
Blizzard is fully aware of this. Their matchmaker is perfectly designed to provoke this behavior with their use of hidden ratings and other rubber-banding mechanics.
Why fix it if its not broken? Buying another copy of overwatch is a drop in the bucket for players who have already invested thousands of hours.
Re: I hate what video games have become
#415Re: I hate what video games have become
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
The median spend might be zero $ per year.
Also might be more. And with a game like Lol, where it is literally pay to win, I wouldn't be surprised if it were more.
There are plenty of pay-to-win games, but LoL is not one of them. LoL has cosmetics, and pay-to-progress, but there's nothing you can buy that will give you an advantage in-game over people who play for free.
Unlocking new characters with RMT is not pay-to-win, because all the characters are obtainable for free without requiring unreasonable effort. You're not forced to get them from random lootboxes like Gacha games, and having every character doesn't give you an appreciable advantage except at perhaps the highest level of play.
Re: I hate what video games have become
#417I’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…
Paradox DLC policy is problematic I feel: they gate some of the visual flair and more troublingly some of the soundtrack behind payed DLC. How would it be if a movie charged you extra for listening to its score? Also the large number of DLC makes it difficult to determine what set I may have do give a canonical experience or if it is even viable gameplay wise.
> Also the large number of DLC makes it difficult to determine what set I may have do give a canonical experience or if it is even viable gameplay wise.
I like this about Paradox games. When you buy a DLC, it doesn't merely expand the game, it totally alters it. I can see why people don't like this, but sometimes, a total reimagining of a game is fun. Especially in strategy games.
Re: I hate what video games have become
#418Over the last few years I have gotten hundred of hours of enjoyment from games like League of Legends, Valorant and Halo Infinite and couldn't even tell you how to spend money on those games if I wanted to. I honestly doubt I would have ever picked up any of those games if they were not free and I'm guessing since many other would say the same thing the lobbies would be empty and the games would die. In those case th…
I'm in your camp. I'd posit an additional piece of my thinking.
I feel like gaming, even with microtransactions, is probably one of the most affordable pieces of entertainment you can have.
During covid, the height of my old-man gaming, I was probably playing an hour or two each day and 4 hours each weekend. That's about 700-800 hours a year I play. If I spent 200$ in skins on COD's battlepass, that is still an incredibly cheap amount of fun I've gotten for a whole year when the entire world was closed and I couldn't get out and have fun. I really don't see why people complain so much. Coin-operated arcades were literally a microtransaction model from the 70s and 80s!
I'm paying 25 cents an hour on a game with a lot more labor involved than an old arcade game.
Re: I hate what video games have become
#419I have basically the opposite opinion of this article. I often hold up Rocket League as an example of a great free-to-play game. 1) You 100% can unlock a lot of cosmetic items through free play. 2) The items that you buy have absolutely no impact on gameplay and are just visuals. For the same reason that people wear nice clothes in real life, why are you surprised that some people want to look cool in a video game? A…
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…
> Monetisation strategies like microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. are also part of the game. However, the goal of such parts is not aligned with that of the others. The game is compromised by the introduction of the monetisation strategies.
Yup, I think this gets lost in the "visual-only cosmetics are fine/gameplay-affecting is bad" position. The problem is that in most cases, even if the cosmetic is purely visual, games are now being designed around "how do we incorporate cosmetics" which is constraining the types of experiences that are being made and the mechanics they allow.
Battlefield 2042 is an example of a game that completely upended its traditional mechanics to pull in the concept of "operators" (like R6: Siege) because they knew they could make more money selling operators. And at some level that's gameplay affecting, maybe not the ideal picture of what happens when MTX gets involved, but that's always the temptation - "we'll make it gameplay-affecting, but it'll be fair". Once you bring money into the picture you are reliant on developers to take the high road - not just today, but for as long as the game is active/you're interested.
Its predecessor, BFV, was skin-based and it was still controversial not just that you had random Fortnite-style nazi characters running around the Pacific Theater or Japanese Rambo Lady running around Norway, but because they started to introduce tons of animations so that players could at least see the skins they paid $20 a pop for - and that is a basic game-design thing that affects everyone regardless of whether you yourself pay up or not.
At a more basic level, the single-player RPG is essentially dead because it's the most difficult to introduce MTX mechanics into those genre of games. And sure you can point to Elden Ring but even then they are using "cooperative" or "inter-session" mechanics that fundamentally exist as a way to get an "always-online" server system into the picture as a platform for MTX. You've got forced Denuvo on everything. Etc etc.
And again, even when it's done right, there is still an incentive to make the "free" mechanisms grindy so that players feel the urge to pay IRL money. LOTR: Shadow of War was an example of that where the game could technically be finished without MTX, but at a certain point the game ramped the difficulty so hard that it was virtually impossible, certainly impossible without suddenly turning the game into a second job. Many games similarly force hundreds of hours of grinding or... you can just pay and go play with your friends! You can get bait-and-switched once you are into the game and emotionally attached - and that can even occur after release/after reviews have been written, or even just so far into the game that most reviewers don't reach it in their 5 hours of gameplay on their pre-release copy.
Those MTX mechanism are still shaping gameplay mechanics even if they are "purely cosmetic" - and in many cases they are not, they are definitely gameplay-affecting by design (in major AAA/e-sports titles even, this isn't just random mobile crapware, R6:Siege is one of the most popular e-sports titles, LOTR is a mega-IP, etc). Games being designed around "how do we pump the player for cash most efficiently and with the least ability for them to hack around us" is itself a problem either way though, that's a corrosive mindset for game design as a whole that is enabled and encouraged by allowing MTX at all. Either you keep that camel out nose and all, or as soon as that nose is under the tent it's always going to be an insidious urge, and in many cases an explicit mandate from publishers to the studio.
Also, yes, in anything where you interact with another player, your interactions are shaped by the other player's responses to you, which is determined by your cosmetics. I posted this deeper in the thread but to bring it back here:
> As a medic in team fortress 2, I usually pocket and ubercharge the players with cosmetics. It's an important team resource, and the odds of someone with a "default" skin making good use of it are fairly low. Much like plumage for a bird it's a reliable signal of "virility" - if you're invested enough in the game to own a $200 hat and a coordinated outfit then you've probably played it long enough for me to trust you sight-unseen.
> http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f278/katietiedrich/comic26...
> If you're a pro player with the default skin, you're gonna have a bad fucking time, because you're last priority for heals, you're not getting an ubercharge, etc. That is gameplay-affecting even if the cosmetic itself is not.
Paper that might be enlightening for those who haven't partaken: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:901463/FULLTEXT0...
(I should add that as medic, I had a golden medigun for a while too, and that was an extremely bad time for me, because every single roamer was absolutely gunning for the medic with the $100 item. Sometimes it pays to have some restraint in your plumage when you happen to be a particularly delicious and defenseless target...)
I have such mixed feelings about TF2, because it was such a fantastic game, but it pioneered all these exploitative MTX mechanisms. The game itself was actually one of the better examples of how to do MTX properly (cosmetic only, tradeable by players, etc) but it immediately showed there was a lot more money in MTX than in making games, and opened the door to other actors to exploit much more heavily (compare the Overwatch model and its non-tradeability/gacha mechanics, R6:S with its gameplay-affecting operators, etc). It's also disgusting the way they've just continued to let the game rot without even basic bugfixes, it's been completely overwhelmed by hackers for 4 or 5 years now because they just won't patch their shit. Nor will they let the community patch their shit, like Team Comtress 2...
Re: I hate what video games have become
#420Going to repost something I wrote up earlier on a similar topic, regarding how games are changing their designs to push players to buy things.
“The worst part of this trend to me is how many games sacrifice their identity to fit the mold that is now most profitable, it feels so soulless. This is all from my own experience/memory.
Every game needs live service, seasons, and a battle pass. While I appreciate that it can keep the game fresh and evolving over time, I think a lot of times its harmful. Sometimes a relatively simple game is blown out of proportion over time and id almost rather a stagnant game. Furthermore, gameplay can suffer too. In my opinion R6 siege started really strong, but has gone downhill recently, most obviously in operator design. Real power creep is sometimes an issue as well, somewhat recently I remember there were one or two operators added that felt like almost direct upgrades to base game ones. In its case, both the art style and operator design suffered from being stretched out for so long. Or RDR2, who sells most of the content through their premium currency and whose movement between the single player and online is so drastically different that fights online look like smash bros melee matches with frantic strafing and rolling. Compare this to titanfall 2’s design, which has remained stagnant (because it was killed a long time ago), but incredibly successful maintaining a large player base to this day.
Cod and pubg have sacrificed their art style and aesthetic, MW went from “realistic” tactical characters to jigsaw puppets and neon, out of place outfits. It’s like power creep, but for ridiculousness, skins have to get crazier and crazier because sometimes it keeps people buying them because its funny. It fit in fortnite because it was cartoonish and ridiculous from the beginning, but through MW and CW lifespan you can see the art style gradually decay. These game aren’t really meant to be taken seriously, but it always kinda put me off. Not necessarily making an argument about my taste, but rather how the games stray more and more from their original vision, driven by micro transactions. Battlefield has thrown out their traditional classes for specialists following in r6 and other hero shooters footsteps, part of me always kinda felt like it was to sell skins for each specialist, but I might be wrong here.
This isnt the biggest deal, especially not within the games industry, but frustrating to see innovation slowly be stamped back into the mold. There are many games that hold true to their visions or fill these voids especially in the indie scene but the state of AAA gaming and how it molds to the market is a little disappointing to me.”