Drivel. Don’t like it don’t play it. If i have to read one more person complaining about micro-transactions I will puke. Ffs go outside.
I hate what video games have become
611–620 of 690 posts
Re: I hate what video games have become
#612This seems like a good time to mention this site DarkPattern.games[0] which lists mobile games that utilize such things as loot boxes, etc. and actually has quite some granularity over the different types of mechanics and how that game rates for those. For example, games which force you to wait some duration of time before being able to proceed, or force you to watch an ad, or other things like that. "A gaming dark p…
Some of these are not specific to computer games, some not specific to games (in general), and some are OK in some circumstances (but they often do it worse). Some are common even in older games, and aren't new. If the game is properly isolated, if you do not have to pay every time, if the documentation could be improved, could improve some things. Many kinds of games should not require an internet connection to work. However, these are not the only problems with computer games. In addition to unskippable advertisements, there are games with unskippable cutscenes, slow animations, etc. FOSS can also usually avoid such thing, fortunately. I make up computer games too and it avoids them.
Re: I hate what video games have become
#613Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortnite's a good example about how your two rules aren't enough, actually. Because of the way the game's designed, it pressures its audience (of primarily children) into purchasing microtransactions, to the point where there's been widespread bulling of kids who don't pay for premium Fortnite skins [1]. For a more detailed exploration of the dark side of Fortnite's monetization model, check out "Manufactured Discont…
Children are going through the entire evolution of a society in the course of a few short years, when they're young and don't have a lot of perspective yet. They've always been jerks to each other. Fortnite didn't start that, and it's extremely unlikely that it has had any effect on it at all. If not that, they'd bully each other about something else. When I was growing up, us kids who played Battletech and had a Nin…
Mm, no. Fortnite makes money by selling good to children. They make more money if they create an environment which stigmatizes not spending money, which is a tactic to which children are especially vulnerable and which necessarily leads to a group of children being stigmatized against by their peers. It's hardly "think of the children" to take issue with a business model which is demonstrably harmful.
Also, "children will bully each other no matter what" is not a rational response to something which exacerbates bullying. That's like saying "accidents happen no matter what, this is no worse than normal" with respect to a defective car with broken airbags.
Re: I hate what video games have become
#614This is just a self-inflicted bubble problem. There are now so many interesting games without any dark patterns on Steam alone that one can spend an entire lifetime playing awesome games without ever encountering a single loot box, just step a bit outside the AAA and mobile bubbles.
Outside the AAA bubble, stuff is native for Linux as a bonus. :D
Re: I hate what video games have become
#615Re: I hate what video games have become
#616I 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…
This arguments premise is flawed. Cosmetics are not nearly that resource intensive to produce, so its not about 'wearing nice clothes' a-la real life, where good materials are more expensive to produce. Attaching a price tag is PURELY for the benefit of the publisher. Attaching real world costs to purchases in games also disproportionately targets neurodivergent and fiscally uneducated people. That seems like a fairl…
There is still the value of creating the model asset, though I agree that it’s a cost that doesn’t scale with how many people buy it (except for maybe some of the song packs, not sure how RL’s royalty package is structured).
Why does attaching real world costs to purchases in-game strike you as “malicious” but not the real world cost of buying the game?
Re: I hate what video games have become
#617I 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…
> Are you surprised when you can’t resell a shirt you wore for a year at the same price as when you bought it? The complaint isn't about depreciation but rather the inability sell the items at all.
There are market places for selling items, both for in game cash and real money. I agree that it’s a legitimate criticism that it’s not in actual game itself, but then you develop weird incentive structures like FIFA’s pack openings taking precedence over actually playing soccer, which also feels bad, and potentially more exploitative (if I just hit this rare car I could turn a profit!!)
Re: I hate what video games have become
#618I 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…
Yeah, cosmetic items are the least bad solution to this problem since they provide zero advantage to players. They're there for people who want to look cool online which is fine. Paying for items that impact the game balance turns them into spending competitions: whoever pays the company the most money wins. Games designed like this are not even worth playing. I fell for one of these money sinks once, never again.
Plus having cosmetic items essentially subsidizes the game for everyone, aka its free because money can be made off those that want to spend on cosmetics.
Re: I hate what video games have become
#619As a (non game) developer, I can say, thay free to play is instantly dead on arrival for me. The moment something is known to become or becomes free to play is the moment I lose all interest. The dishonesty in the system itself is what makes this unbearable for me. Developers need to eat, Managers need to eat, Marketeers need to eat... And sometimes psychologists doing evil mindtricks and supporting gambling addictio…
I don't follow. Tapped out is free to play, and for years was one of the top money earners. I'm pretty sure the developers were eating quite well.
If someone releases their game for free, it is their prerogative. Either they want to give it away for free, it they've figured out another way to monetize it.
Re: I hate what video games have become
#620Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough, it's not a great comment. I don't really know how society should be run, and I shouldn't have offhandedly emphasized a couple things that I think might lead us to a solution. That being said I'll stand by artificial scarcity being bad thing and clarify that while I don't have some master plan on how to create a functioning society where we don't have to impose artificial scarcity on the digital world; I…
> That being said I'll stand by artificial scarcity being bad thing and clarify that while I don't have some master plan on how to create a functioning society where we don't have to impose artificial scarcity on the digital world; I absolutely think that is something we should be dedicating a lot of effort to. I reject the premise that we need to deny some people things that can be copied essentially for free. Again…
> taking away a major monetization strategy (often the only viable one) massively reduces the incentive to create high-quality products and we all end up poorer for those cultural outputs not existing.
Ahahaha, to be quite honest I don't find that argument compelling at all. Profit motives seem to be making software much much worse, not better, compared to what I know is possible. I'm often finding myself reverse engineering/hacking things just to make them usable. From where I'm standing the current system is not doing a very good job. I can often make notable usability improvements in the systems I interact with and IP laws, the main driver of digital artificial scarcity generally prevent me from sharing them. I feel like I'm constantly fighting hostile software that's just trying to extract value from me in some way rather than actually solving my problems.