551–560 of 769 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Casinos and machine-based gambling are fairly heavily regulated in a lot of places, requiring a license with auditing, with rules on everything you can possibly think of. The mobile gaming industry has so far avoided this body of law by never providing anything of value in return.
> by never providing anything of value in return. you could argue they provided entertainment in return.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure I understand what you mean. The core mechanic is that rewards are randomly distributed - the namesake “gacha” machines dispense a capsule with a random toy. Think of it as a slot machine where if it hits you get an item you wanted / needed for gameplay and if it doesn’t it just took your money and gave you something useless.
Perhaps I need to play to understand, but it sounds like “gacha” machines behave like in-game vending machines where the player can purchase "features" to enhance their avatar etc.? Or do I have that wrong? I just assumed that those “gacha” machines are code libraries in gaming engines (Unity, Godot, GameMaker: Studio, etc), and that maybe a “gacha” machine code library is available open source or in some other fashi…
Gacha games are mostly card-puller games. You pay $X for X pulls, with more expensive packages giving more pulls with a supposed higher success rate of 'winning' (getting a good/rare pull).
They use hidden weights, as well as max item rolls per day. This means that to keep items rare via artificial scarcity they will only allow so many of those cards to be pulled per X hours/days/whatever but they don't tell you this anywhere. So if that new hot card that just dropped is up for grabs, you buy 10 pulls. But you don't know that it's already been pulled X times by other people, so you have literally no chance to 'win'. So those pulls will be wasted.
The companies always lie about chances to win, the pulls are insane, you can see streamers do massive pulls, the numbers are sometimes out there, just community gathered.
A real life example is one of those light-roulette machines at arcaded where you slam the button to stop the spinning light. The only actual chance you have to win is after $X has been spent on the machine, before that threshold has been met winning is impossible, stopping the light at the correct spot won't matter it will simply roll to the next losing light. Or claw machines are the same and will only actually close enough to grab a toy after $X has been spent.
Gambling is one thing but these skinner boxes masquerading as games are pure evil as they change the rules constantly and make winning downright impossible.
It's even more frustrating, because the game is good . I really enjoyed playing the first 30 levels or so. Good story, good controls, very satisfying gameplay. If I could pay $60 and just have a "classic" Diablo on my phone, I might. But I won't spend a cent on consumable in-app purchases. It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - hundreds…
The issue is fundamentally that releasing a single game for a single fee yields linear growth, which is to say the amount your growing by is stagnant. Stagnant growth, to an investor, is essentially a signal that your company is currently failing. So unless you can grow your growth, you fail, and the only way to continue growing your growth is if new products remain cash generating indefinitely.
The same could be observed of Hollywood. How much of the derivative sequels, reboots and spin-offs are driven not by a lack of creativity as is often bemoaned, but rather by a greater-than-ever desire to develop “fountains of sales” rather than one-off artistic hits?
It's even more frustrating, because the game is good . I really enjoyed playing the first 30 levels or so. Good story, good controls, very satisfying gameplay. If I could pay $60 and just have a "classic" Diablo on my phone, I might. But I won't spend a cent on consumable in-app purchases. It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - hundreds…
Lots of folks disappointed at Diablo Immortal are comparing it to a PC game which it isn’t. It’s a great game that lets you play and experience Diablo on the go, during your lunch breaks, and on the porcelain throne. Once you adjust your expectations and understand that this is a filler game before D4 you’ll see that it’s a great game that can be enjoyed for the content without paying a cent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nintendo also went full cassino with their mobile games. Pokémon Go, Mario Kart Tour... Huge cash grabs.
Nintendo’s mobile games aren’t developed in-house[1]. Not that it excuses it[2], but it does create a clear line for your parent commenter: as long as the focus is on playing Nintendo games on Nintendo platforms, the plan makes sense[3]. [1]: Niantic for Pokémon Go, DeNA for Mario Kart Tour. [2]: Nintendo is bound to have the final say. [3]: For now?
Here's the problem with this game: - Blizzards slew of beloved franchises makes it easy to entrap nostalgia addicted masses to a number of pay to win clones. Or slowly implement these types of features into existing games. - Half of the assets are from a 10 year old prequel. This game was cheap to make and will have an insanely high profit margin. Leading to perpetuation of this model. - Scummy mobile pay to win is a…
I don't think its inevitable and I don't think it's a good long term monetization strategy. It's just short term planning with complete disregard for the long term health of the company. How the board of directors doesn't see this is shocking. Maybe they do and also want to milk it today instead of tomorrow just like the C-suite. Yes, exploitative mobile gaming is profitable as hell - but in the current world is alie…
I wonder if milking the company's reputation like this perhaps actually is the most optimal strategy for Blizzard. Innovation requires investment and luck, and it can create a great reputation for a brand. Once you have that reputation though, perhaps it's not rational to try your luck again. Maybe the expectation value is highest if you just sell out.
It's not just Blizzard, see e.g. the twelfth installment of Assassin's Creed or the eighteenth installment of Call of Duty. For that matter, it's not even just video games. Look at the tenth Fast & Furious movie or the fifteenth iPhone that are coming out soon, and will surely sell like crazy, even though they'll probably not be very innovative.
This is a culmination of a trend that has been going on for at least a decade: First it was the lootboxes that became widespread: ~2010 Steam Team Fortress 2, later Counter Strike 2012 EA's Mass Effect 3 2014 Call of Duty and Battlefield 2016 Overwatch After that it seemed lootboxes were everywhere. In 2017 there was some backlash for EA's Star Wars game and they removed lootboxes, but it did not change the situation…
I put this game in the same category as Anthem, Fallout 76, and unfortunately many others. No fans wanted it, no developers wanted to make it, nobody cares about it. The only people excited about this are the executives who saw how much money other Mobile / Co-op Multiplayer / Arena shooter / Battle Royale / etc games were making, and are hopeful they can get a piece of the pie. This sort of thing never seems to end…
It's even more frustrating, because the game is good . I really enjoyed playing the first 30 levels or so. Good story, good controls, very satisfying gameplay. If I could pay $60 and just have a "classic" Diablo on my phone, I might. But I won't spend a cent on consumable in-app purchases. It is so sad that "make good game, sell it" model no longer works. It's all a wonky curve of "free - couple of dollars - hundreds…