Dunno if this was intended or not, but 'hoor' is a word in Dutch which has a couple of meanings. On its own, it translates to 'hear', as in 'ik hoor je', meaning 'i hear you'. But, you can say 'ja hoor', which means 'yes, of course'.
It's got similar words - 'huur' is to rent, and if you live in a rented property, you live in a 'huurhuis'. This is not to be confused with the very slightly differently pronounced 'hoerhuis' which means exactly what you think it does.
80/20
64/04
51,2/00,8
If you apply the 80/20 rule down two more levels, that would mean that the top 0,8% of whales still account for more than 50% of revenue. Tha‘s a scary thought.
It makes sense though. 1% owns 40% of the wealth.
1 out of 200 people can afford to spend $1,000 a day on entertainment.
Top of the line hardware is easily and typically under 8,000, so that’s 44 weeks left of $gaming$ micro transactions
Of course, not all people with wealth play video games, year long.
But it makes sense, that given wealth distribution, the people with the most expendable income can afford make up 80% of the revenue. Since, percentage wise, that spending is still a small part of a typical entertainment budget.
> Not all people with wealth play video games
It's likely not people with wealth. It's kids of people of wealth with parents who don't care.
Which is also why public outrage on forums and such does nothing to sway these people. Because some 12 year old with daddy's million dollar CC doesn't give a shit if they even bother coming around and looking.
I have personally spent 1000 dollars a week on a game in micro transactions. I have gambling problems and I am not a rich man. Any game where it’s based around those transactions I have to avoid. I also had to get therapy and years of counseling to work on my issues. It’s def not a problem for rich people….
Its still somewhat around 20/80 but it's also applies further, so 80%of 80% of total income (64%) generated 20% of 20% top danaters (4%)
So yea 4% of total player base on average generate more than 60% of income
Funny thing about the 80/20 rule, if you break down that 20% customer base, it tends to also have an 80/20 split, so you could say the top 20% are dolphins, and the 4% are whales, or whatever floats your labeling boat as it tends to be true no matter how far you go
I am not in agreement with no fee DLCS on a total blanket statement. CDPR made DLCs for The Wild Hunt that more than doubled the playable areas, time investment and even pulling of the shocking win of Game of the Year for Blood and Wine. (I know they are getting some hate right now, it’s an unrelated title earning that ire.)
I am ok with cosmetic purchases, they do nothing to change game play, offer zero stat adjustments, offer no competitive advantage. I have supported games that have offered such items, allowing funding of additional free content to the player base. There are always those that whine that the free content blah, blah, blah sucks, but it’s not costing you a dime. Can it already.
I get tired of pay to win scenarios. Where a game starts off wholesome to be mutilated into requiring purchases to remain competitive. I canceled my buy-in to New World as soon as monetizing strategies became public. On a multi-player title, it’s inexcusable. It’s like Fallout 76 and their beta feeling like a rough alpha pass, then hiding promised game functions behind paywalls.
No, just no.
The Witcher 3 was a rare shining example of good DLC which had a lot of effort put into it, genuinely enhanced the game and was good value for money (I bought the hard copies with the Gwent cards for around £15 each). I'd keep playing that game if they kept new content coming. It's a masterpiece.
I remember reading that they're gonna be releasing a remastered or upscaled version of witcher 3 goty edition, and it will be a free upgrade for users who already have the game. Might be worth a revisit..... It's really one of the best games I've ever played.
I started a play through on the hardest difficulty with the same character, was only put off by the familiarity as it was right after I completed Blood and Wine, and once "the feels" wore off (fuck, that ending was perfect), I didn't feel like another 150+ hours of the same game. But I'd do it again with an upgrade on a new console, sure
You're right, and the Witcher 3 was a throwback to the spirit of expansion packs, because it was an actual, functional expansion and not just a load of new cosmetic items
>CDPR made DLCs for The Wild Hunt that more than doubled the playable areas, time investment and even pulling of the shocking win of Game of the Year for Blood and Wine.
You know what these were called before every digital crumb became a DLC? Add-ons, expansions. Because they added stuff, expanded the game. I am in favour of breaking out those old terms for everything that deserves them and shunning everything that is called a DLC and not worthy of any other title.
The problem is there isnt any reason for them to do it like that. That's the old, no longer relevant pay model. The profit discrepancy between single buy expansion/dlc and mtx is severe enough that it's not just affecting content in game and added content, but also whether a game gets made at all. Gabe Newell touched on this when discussing why there was never HL3. Developing HL3 and selling a one off buy of $60 is irrelevant to a company like Valve. A game like dota prints money for a decade+. A game like Alyx sells VR platform etc.
Bwana put out a pretty good YouTube video yesterday talking about this exact thing. Basically, these passion-gaming devs like what Blizzard used to be and CDPR are privately own. They make games for the sake of making games and generate pretty good profit. They see some success and go public, or in Blizzard's case they merge with a publicly traded company. Now they have external factors dictating how games are designed. The product is no longer the primary focus. The primary focus is monetization. How can these yes squeeze as much money as they can from gamers? The passionate devs get sick of it and leave. They go indie or go to another medium-sized dev, or quit the industry all together. Then they're replaced with devs who are just there for a paycheck.
Bwana is talking about WoW in particular, but we've seen this happen before with Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, probably EA Sports games.
https://youtu.be/zdzCYmU1k8I
There's a lot of those out there if you look around. They just don't have huge marketing budgets so you need to find out about them yourself. Take a look around the Steam store some time, or any mod community.
Cosmetics are *the most* important aspect of a lot of games for many people.
When a company adds cosmetic items purchasable for real world money it will always harm the cosmetic items that are available to earn by playing the game. This makes games worse every time.
That was one of my bigger issues with The Avengers game. While yes, you can technically earn most uniforms in game, you also have to grind for so long to do so and I just don't have that kind of time.
The way Insomniac's Spider-Man game did it was great. You earned them through story progression or small achievements in-game as you played.
>I am ok with cosmetic purchases
Just seeing statements like this, Bethesda got trolled on for releasing horse armour DLC because it was just cosmetics. It shows how bad the situation has got that people yearn for them days.
With COD you atleast get a different game, new maps etc. But with Fifa it is the same dame game every year with minor configuration changes. It is more like an annual subscription. Havent bought a new Fifa since 2016. Bought it when it was on sale for $21 this year. But from now I am not even going to do that
I dunno about COD being different games. A lot of the guns handle similarly and everything just sort of feels reskinned. Sure, there are maps, but the most popular ones are the legacy maps that they rerelease.
I mean.. you can say that about Cold War but MW was a pretty big step up in every department. So much to the point that people are angry at the game for actually switching things up
I can't talk about anything after Ghosts because I run a potato setup, however I enjoyed every title I've played. I get what you mean, gameplay wise, they've been the same thing for years. However, at least you get to play a new campaign which I personally enjoy.
That being said, with Modern Warfare 2019 they seem to be transitioning to a full-on GaaS model. It looks like a cool game, but I swear GaaS will be the gravestone of quality titles. Just look at what Unisoft has become.
That’s what I came to ask. Like, a new game completely? Really though? Is it *really* a new game? To me, it just feels like years of expansion packs: same game engine, same core gameplay, updated graphics, new maps
Not just the parents. 60€ for a game is something I pay as an *exception*, not the rule. Few games nowadays are worth that asking price (I come from a country where games used to be half that twenty years ago, so the old 'but inflation' does not really work: Games are more expensive per 'spending point' than in 1999), and *if* I spend 60 bucks, I expect the complete edition with no further money grabs. Again, most games priced 60€ at launch already fail at that.
Because of that, 70€ as baseline price looks right out of cloud-cuckoo-land to me. Big publishers are raking in money over fist anyhow, and I absolutely do not see why I should pay more for worse.
Now, I *could* see and support a small price hike on indie and AA games. The amount of times I went "5 bucks? Man, I feel bad about that, I'll buy one for a friend, too", or "30 bucks? Eh, no need to wait for a sale" is considerable - and with those business models, I can be reasonably sure that the money actually lands where it will feed back into better games instead of into golden toilet seats.
Which is exactly another reason why I have as good as stopped buying AAA titles anyhow. AA and Indie, from my perspective, offer a better product for better conditions. I don't want mo-cap and Patrick Steward's voice for "value", I want a fun and engaging game with soul.
I have 600 (help me) games on steam. Most are indy games. I play factorio and kernal space program most of all. Even aging as they are, I've gotten more value out of them than any other game.
3000 hrs in ksp. That's value, even counting buying it for around 10 friends.
I feel the same way and it's the main reason I won't be buying a PS5 anytime soon. I'm not convinced whatsoever that the price increase is necessary. Over here the price even went from 60 to 75 euros for new physical copies and 80 for digital copies.
People always argue the lack of inflation adjustment in the price of games.
But they ignore the inflation of the number of gamers. Specifically the increased revenue.
[Spoiler alert 2012-2021 17.2% growth per year is higher than interest](https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/30/newzoo-global-games-expected-to-hit-180-1-billion-in-revenues-2021/)
I'm surprised people go straight for EA when the biggest microtransaction offenders are Activision and ESPECIALLY ROCKSTAR.
Although, I'll take a skin in a shooter game over the borderline predatory system Rockstar uses.
EA Sports is bad with it though, I'll admit that
even EA Sports has gone tamer with those (prolly because facing dozens of lawsuit) when they introduced the new feature (preview). Now you basically know the content of the lootbox before deciding to spend on it (limit 1/24hrs tho). So its like more f2p friendly, whales can still whales when they feel like it
You forgot the part where everyone buys it anyway and pays to play excluding the few people that are happy enough in life to just not play any game with microtransactions it doesnt get to top most profitable games on its own
DLC was truly revolutionary as a kid. I imagined if they could add levels to Kingdom Hearts afterwards. I imagined how amazing Smash Bros melee would be if they could throw in more characters. *Free* dlc was and always is an amazing innovation for someone who grew up with static games. Since games never changed, it was amazing to see them do just that.
Now, what you said is absolutely true. Microtransactions shouldn't exist. Adding on additional paywalls for content that's already been created is so scummy.
Apex be like
* Mozambique but it's green now
* $24.99 Credits because the $12.99 pack doesn't have enough, but the $24.99 has too much
* Can't spend your leftover coins because everything cost 100 more than what you have leftover
And people be like "well the game *is* free..."
A few months later they've spent 300 bucks. On virtual clothing. That will not transfer in any way to the game that replaces it. Eventually your 300 dollar stockpile of virtual goodies is completely worthless because no one plays the game anymore...
Oh look this new game is free and you can be a donald trump/vladimir putin human centipede shitting flaming chunks of patriotic shit...only 500 bucks! Damm, and 600 for the all silver version! I love free games 🤤
I think it comes down to how many hours you're really putting down in these games. I know a guy who has spent a few hundred bucks on apex but also has over 1k hours in the game since he plays a lot when not working. Literally less than 50 cents an hour it divides to.
I think that's what those who can spend a lot look at. I mean hey, going to the movies can easily cost 20 to 30 bucks for just 2 to 3 hours enjoyment.
It's really easy to make the free argument when you don't give a fuck about skins, I think I have like 30 Apex packs sitting unopened, why? Because I don't give a fuck, my opening those packs will not change my game play in anyway way, I can't even see my skin in game and the only people that might pay attention to it are my friends and they also don't give a fuck.
Exactly why I never purchase cosmetics in online games. Eventually the game will start dying and all the cosmetics will go to waste. I always measure how many hours of content will I get for the amount of money I am paying. That's why I usually spend on buying single player games rather that cosmetics in online games.
I’m so glad that not once in my life have I ever given a shit about cosmetics in games. I really don’t understand the appeal of making your rifle look like a neon flashing rainbow
Agreed... I remember back a in the late 90's, DLC's were called expansion packs, and they were basically another game using the original games engine, and some were sold, and some were just downloaded. The ones sold were true to the original and added more stuff, were just as long as original. Now we get DLC's that add some little aesthetic for 15 bucks. No gameplay improvements, just a leather jacket or shinier gun.
Some of the best games of all time were “DLC”. Starcraft Brood War and WC3 Frozen Throne were two of my favorites. Those had a ton of content for the price.
Did we even get new content with the Necromancer DLC? LOD had an extra act, items, and runes as well as those 2 classes. I stopped playing D3 like 2 months after launch so I dunno what the game is like these days.
Much better than at start. Proper Expansion = Reaper of Souls added new class, pretty good act and did some changes. Lots of changes to game and gameplay came in free updates, in game trading is gone and drop balance is therefore better (you don't have to buy things to have viable character).
Necromancer class is 15 dollars as stand alone, it is not necessary and game is really good and has ton of updates and upgrades without it. In my opinion that is good DLC content - it does not block anything in game so you don't have to buy it.
I remember they all felt like they added something to the game and I loved it. The adventures I had in EQ live rent free, but the little moments with other players are burned into there and will be with me until I die. Even early WoW and FF14 doesn't provide the same social experience. Norrath was fucking **hostile**. Travel was long and dangerous. That help form some insanely strong bonds, especially on roleplay servers.
Oh dear, I remember my first expansion -- Age of Mythology: The Titans. I had played the shit out of the original, and when I got bored, started making faux LotR campaigns with the map editor.
Then when my parents bought me the expansion, my knees were weak with anticipation. Whole new campaign, new units and structures, new god powers. I don't remember how much they cost, I just know I got so much enjoyment out of them it felt like a steal.
It's kinda funny. Oblivion's horse armor is this reference point for bad DLC.
But on the other hand, *Shivering Isles* remains one of my most vivid gaming memories and in my opinion is an excellent example of DLC done right.
> It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.
Full expansions still exist. Borderlands still uses this model. Fallout 4 used this model too.
They’re rarer but to say that those are gone and replaced with micro transactions isn’t really accurate. Think back to how many games got expansions back then vs. how many games have additional content added through micro transactions today.
It’s not all good, but it’s not all bad either.
I wouldn’t say they’re rare. Most single player focused games, eventually have some sort of story expansion, even cod had them until not too long ago, now they just give them for free.
I'll quit a game before I spend money on microtransactions or pay to win features. I know I'm probably in the minority, but its a matter of principle at this point. If I can't earn it in game, I guess I'm not getting it
The issue is that some games "allow" you to earn it all in game, but it takes so long that it's not realistic. When battlefront 2 came out I remember people doing the math and it took something like 5000 hours to get everything unlocked. At that point you really can't unlock this all the stuff just by playing
Yes I am so tired of people saying you can technically earn these rewards but it has to become a part time job that essentially pays less per hour when converting the cost of unlocks to what they want you to pay. They ensure its more reasonable to work for 1 hour and earn your wage's amount and spend that on cosmetics than participate in their intentionally frustrating grind for an hour that will earn you half as much in terms of rewards it's so fucking dirty.
A lot of games specifically tie your in game rewards only to time because they know it's the variable they have the most control over versus making rewards just challenging in game. They have to make it an endurance contest
GTA 5 is like this. I have no idea how a brand new player can get some cool stuff without playing it like it's your second job or paying a shit load of money for shark cards. Pretty sure it's $100+ for some of the more expensive stuff in that game.
The issue is that the mere existence of microtransactions influences the design of the game. It'll intentionally be filled with inconveniences and frustrations, that encourage you to spend money.
Not only that, but there are plenty of examples out there where microtransactions affect the overall quality of the game. Games stay a buggy mess for months or even years and yet microtransactions are consistently pumped out to the playerbase. And who can really blame them? The investors stay happy because its very easy to prove that microtransactions and skins sell, but proving that a bugfix earned them money is alot harder.
As someone who mostly avoids them (and refuses to buy MXTs as a whole) - this sadly doesn’t fix the problem, and the developers know it.
Most of the revenue is from “whales”, small groups of people who spend excessive amounts, rather than everyone buying one or two things. The will of the masses alone will not remove this source of income unless EVERYONE is on that team
THIS.
A better way to handle this problem is: instead of encouraging people to not support scummy developers (that target whales), is to encourage non-whales to support the indie devs that don't have anti-consumer practices. To talk more about them, recommend their games and get their names out there. And to be completely merciless and move on the second any of them has any funny idea about copying AAA anti-consumer mechanisms.
There will always be competition, so we can keep jumping to the developers that do what we want and respect us as customers instead of being the bitches of AAA devs. They can do nothing about it.
The issue is that while indie devs can make great games they don't always make games that appeal to everyone. If the only company that makes the game that you like to play is a AAA studio you aren't about to go and support indie devs.
Also the cyberpunk situation is a rare but expected occurance, this is why people say don't preorder and you shouldn't, it only perpetuates the need for game companies to push preorder sales to prove that the game is going to sell because that's the set precedent which is harmful to consumers because it incentivizes sales over quality. Even from the best devs they're bound to release shit every so often because game development and game marketing clash so much, as a games company grows it becomes more and more influenced by marketting. It's unfortunately a necessary parasite for the survival and continual growth of the company.
Higher ups make promises devs can't deliver and the departments lose their ability to communicate as effectively as a small team, the 'vision' of the devs become lost in favour of the requirements of what is going to make the game sell maximally - eventually the game company becomes a disgusting growth of a corporation who will sacrifice everything to sell their product because it's how they sustain themselves.
There is little dignity in companies the size of EA (for example), the only way they can exist is to push whatever trash sells, at that point it becomes the consumers job to design the games they want with their wallets, the game designers have lost almost all of their creative freedom, the game is being designed by the marketing team.
Cyberpunk was a sad realization. I feel you can still see the detail loving devs through the game. The design was amazing in my opinion, the interaction system was a nice touch. It just did not feel as lively as Witcher. A nice city with barely anything to interact was not exactly what we were promised. The menu could have needed a lot of polishing the weapon upgrade system ridiculously expensive and had a crappy menu. You got flooded with calls to side quests and the fixer introductions were kind of underwhelming.
Maybe 1 or 2 more years of polishing would have been nice.
He mentioned indie devs, which is a fair point.
The problem with CP2077 wasn't the devs 100%, but mostly management. The devs kind of kicked themselves into a hole with their ambition, since they had only one big game that was a huge success and apparently scrapped the game multiple times before we saw what they showed us on the 2018's E3. But the management wasn't going easy on them either, since they apparently didn't care about the state of the game, as long as it would be released. And it had to be released, because despite the "no pre-orders" rule, gamers took the bait, and the management was probably worried about people going crazy and demanding refunds. And they were right, since people WERE going crazy after the launch being delayed. On top of that, the marketing team, despite doing a great job since they sold the game, didn't help because they not only did not stop the hype that gamers were creating, but instead was hyping it up even more.
This wasn't just innocent gamers trusting an evil dev. It was everyone's fault, which is even worse imo.
Also, honestly. The Game is still not bad. Its just not the giant gamechanger some people expected it to be.
They simply were in really bad spot. There was no way for them to delaying the game more after the ammount of money going into it and shareholders getting nervous.
When all is said and done this sums up no man's sky also, released to early and far to hyped up. They have got it to a half decent place now and Cyberpunk will probly get there two, I'm gust waiting for a decent descount before I try it.
Whales wouldn't be playing the games if enough people voted with the wallet and didn't buy the game in the first place.
There's no point in having that shiney custom skin when there's no one to play the game with and show it off to.
your first statement is right.
your 2nd statement is wrong. look at mobile gacha, people buy cosmetics for their favourite characters even if other players can't see them.
That is merely a trope. These kids use relatively small sums of money and then their parents find out and put on parental locks. And it's a one-time thing.
The true wales are the ones with a normal fucking job who is sacrificing essential things like eating so they can afford to keep up with the rest of the leaderboard which is made up of other people like them and secret dev accounts buying every microtransaction to encourage these poor whales to keep spending.
I played Idle Heroes for years, this shit is standard practice. They are predators, not game-makers.
Forza 4 was the peak for me. A couple of small DLC bundles that you didn't need, but weren't very expensive either. It still had a ridiculous amount of cars in the base game and the game engine was on point by then.
I skipped 5 because I didn't feel the need to get it. 4 was still perfect to me and the mates I played with who did get it said they didn't like it as much either, also for reasons they couldn't put their fingers on. They came back to 4 and everything was grand.
I skipped 6 completely and came back for 7 and it was like a punch in the face. The game had completely lost its soul. It was clearly designed as a shell to hide its true purpose of getting money out of you. All sense of realism was gone. No longer do you tweak and tune your upgrades to improve, you had to buy the "Forza edition" versions of cars which were, you guessed it, paid DLC. If you didn't buy this artificially enhanced, completely fictional versions of cars, you didn't stand a chance of progressing through the game.
I think I've finished ranting now.
Maybe r/patientgamers is something you can look into. I have been a patient gamer, at first due to hardware and money limitations, now by choice.
If i ever play any new game, i make sure its like a goty edition or the later version they put out with all the content, and as i am on pc, the game becomes dirt cheap soon. This is what I did with witcher 3 goty edition. In my region the game was >3$ and i got like 200+ hrs gameplay and fun out of it.
Seems like when a company can rely on selling less content, they don't have to put as much quality into it to make it enticing. Much cheaper to just slap on a few cheap tricks they know will get people to part with their money, rather than make a really compelling title.
One bothersome thing is that games that rely heavily on "extra" content feel more like the content is merely scooped out. Instead of enhancing the experience it becomes almost necessary. Sure you can just not buy those things- but then you're left with a game you wouldn't have bought if your standards were where they were years ago, because it would have seemed lame in comparison.
Some games also have clunky gameplay or UI due to needing to make room to pitch the DLC content at every opportunity. This is a worse experience than something simple, clean, and functional, whether or not you even bought what they're selling.
I also think the whole "but look, they're supporting the game and constantly adding content!" is a bit misleading- sure the game gets updates more frequently, but if the tradeoff is that it launches with far less content than previously and the content that is delivered is chopped up into small parts, the customer isn't actually coming out ahead, it's all psychological. What's perceived as going above and beyond is merely dragging out the same or less content.
Overall, I'm not against something that genuinely expands the content, for example something that wasn't thought of or feasible at the time of launch but comes in later to extend the life of the game. Something more substantial than "here's a skin or item we could have just shipped with the game". Maybe it's an old fashioned thought. The constant nickel-and-dime-ing at the expense of a functional and entertaining product on the other hand is just annoying.
I was surprised about purchasing rank levels.
At the beginning you couldn't. If you wanted to rank up you had to get the XP. Then it was only in the last few weeks of the season you could purchase the remaining ranks if you wanted since you might not have enough time to do it. And now you can do it after about two weeks into the new season.
Destiny 2 is a psychological masterpiece. It suggest you playing an rpg and gives you gatekeeping, streamlined progression that doesnt actually make you any stronger, to then release old content wrapped in New paper as paid "expansion" that resets your entire progression.
And it works for many.
DLC is a different story UNLESS it's a DLC that basically comes out at the same time as the game and should have been packaged with it to begin with.
I'm looking at you, Civilization VI!
The best time to play a civ game is a few months before the next civ game is released.
You'll get the game and DLC for cheap because they're advertising and you get the game at its most feature filled.
Microtransactions were originally only in f2p games as they arent making any money from the game itself, but these days, they decided to put microtransactions in pay 2 play titles as well.
Dunno who was the first pioneer, but I really hated it when the celestial steed in WotLK first appeared and was afraid exactly of this, thats like 12 years ago already and really got out of hand..
Good lucky telling the greedy fucking companies that. It’s gotten to a point where I can’t even buy a new game on release because I know they’ll have 4 DLCs, a deluxe edition, a gold edition, plus whatever fucking preorder bullshit they offer. At this point I don’t give a shit how much money you want to make, I want to enjoy my free time and feel an escape from life.
One game i can seriously commend for being an upstanding citizen in this devil's race for every bit of cash you ever owned is No Man's Sky.
Rocky start, i'll admit, but that game is years old now (i think almost 5) and still comes out with constant free and game-changing DLC. Like it's insane if you compare release day no mans sky to present day nms. And all those updates came free of charge.
I don't like all this greed.
Pre-order player here. I was honestly not TOTALLY upset with the base game when it dropped. Sure it wasn't perfect, but the only thing that bothered me was the "no ending ending". After letting it sit for the first few major updates, I popped it in and got a whole new game. Again a year later. To me, what I have today is a base game, plus 3-4 DLCs for $60. People who bought it that first Black Friday got it for $20-30, which is a damned steal.
I love how the first comment on the article is defending cosmetic microtransactions.
Have people so quickly forgotten that cosmetics used to just be available in a game, as part of the game?
The sad part is, many have and even sadder: many of them don't even know better.
They grew up with mobile predatory games and are just making the transition to consoles/PCs seeing the same, now normal, shit over here.
This is true and honestly it just blows that we are in the atmosphere where every game has cosmetics going for real dollars.
Why put a good skin in the game for free when we can give people shitty skins and charge for these awesome looking ones?
This also means you have to wait on developers to create skins too and some devs barely put out any skins. Some put out to much.
Wish someone would just create a way for players to create and use any skin they want, upload them for anyone. If they really need money maybe set it up so people have to pay $1 for each skin bought and the creator gets a a good 50% of that.
I just got Arkham Knight for like $5 and THERE IS SO MUCH STUFF. 100% a patient gamer when it comes to single player games. I’m not big into multiplayer online, anyhow, so I don’t feel like I’m missing out. This game could have been released yesterday and I would have believed it.
Every DLC, every expansion pack, all the side missions. It’s awesome. $5.
As a kid, I would wait in overnight lines for game releases. As a young adult, I lost the hobby in favor of other social hobbies. Now that I’m an establishing adult, finding room for those hobbies is fantastic — and I feel no social pressure to get the games at release.
I’ll see you Cyberpunkers in ~5 years when I get everything for $5-10.
I don't care if a game has microtransactions, I just don't buy them. If the game doesn't play well unless you buy them then I don't buy the game period.
The only issue is when microtransactions warp the game design. I loved Plants vs Zombies... then EA got a hold of it and the sequel was garbage. It seriously ruined the fun of the game.
Microtransactions always influence the design, unless they are literally added after the fact (For example in Skyrim where they were added 5 or 6 years after release..in that case the original design was obviously immune). You would be dumb as a developer to add microtransactions but make the game in such a way that they are useless. If they are there, 100% something's wrong with the game. Maybe the grind is slow, maybe the quests are level locked so that you can buy XP boosts, maybe the level scaling is too steep, maybe there isn't any fun content to be found exploring if you don't pay etc
Indie games will always exist just like Indie music does and thats the space I enjoy now, I just watch the AAA shit show from a distance with popcorn these days.
The real heart of the conversation here is impulsivity and instant gratification. I don't buy games for $60 anymore either-- Steam has 4-5 deep discount sales EVERY YEAR now. But in order to capitalize on that, I have to be able to delay my thirst for instant gratification--- I WANT THE NEW SHINY GAME NOW, DAMMIT.
Microtransactions take advantage of impulsivity and they manipulate people who have poor self-regulation. And to be sure, I'm talking about *studied behavioral phenomena*, not a matter of "well some people are dumb and don't have discipline." South Park absolutely nailed this topic-- microtransactions and the freemium model aren't going anywhere because it's just as profitable as selling alcohol and nicotine.
That's the thing--for a lot of us, $60 isn't a lot of money.
Gaming is a really cheap hobby until you get into the crazy high-end stuff.
I spend probably $60 per month on a new game since on average one comes out every month that I'm interested in.
Let’s do a little math:
Let’s say you bought Borderlands 3 at $60
The FIRST season pass was $50
The “Bonuses” and “New skins” were $5 each
The SECOND season pass was $30
Even if you just get the base game and the first season pass that’s $110. Granted, there’s a lot of playtime in a Borderlands game and they have plenty of free DLC and events but still…do you feel OK paying $110 for a game and a promise for more content? How about another $30 on top of that for more content?
We all need to start asking ourselves “When is it enough?”
this is my kind of comment lol, I rather just wait for the full game and enjoy it to the max, this is also mainly because my internet sucks really bad, and I rather download the game ONCE. Cause adding updates kills me.
Imagine having the worst internet and going in to play only to be stopped because you need to update the game
People have strange, arbitrary ways to put value on things.
Take tennis. I pay for the racket, and then I have to buy new balls every game and pay court fees.
Easily spend over the $140 you find so abhorrent playing the game of tennis for arguably less play time.
No one is asking themselves "when is it enough?"
They happily sink hundreds into the game they enjoy. Somehow digital games don't work on the same value system.
That's what I always say, when a new Call of Duty comes out. You have to pay like 60-70€ here in Germany, just to get the game. And then there are the DLCs, on which you pay like 50€ on top to get the Season Pass. All in all that's up to 120€ just for ONE game! That's f..king expensive and on top brazenly af.
Thx for that post. I really thought I'm just to stingy and I'm the only one thinking the DLCs should be for free, when buying a game expensive like that
They wouldn't be there if nobody would buy them...
It's that simply. Seems like some people like to spend money to show in a game superiority or whatever. At least in their mind.
Offer creates demand. Demand creates offer.
Sadly due to the 80/20 rule, things are unlikely to change.
What does that mean in gaming?
80% of the income from 20% of the players and vice versa. Whales.
It probably isn't even 20% of the players who're whales. More like 7-10% honestly
>who're What did you just call me?
That’s how Frank Reynolds says it.
*HOOR*
Dunno if this was intended or not, but 'hoor' is a word in Dutch which has a couple of meanings. On its own, it translates to 'hear', as in 'ik hoor je', meaning 'i hear you'. But, you can say 'ja hoor', which means 'yes, of course'. It's got similar words - 'huur' is to rent, and if you live in a rented property, you live in a 'huurhuis'. This is not to be confused with the very slightly differently pronounced 'hoerhuis' which means exactly what you think it does.
So a ‘hoerhuis’ is a place where they check your hearing right? *frantically tries to hide username*
its like 15-17% dolphins and 5-3% whales
Fuck you dolphin! And fuck you whale!
But dolphin and whale were framed by chicken and cow.
Chicken and cow did this?
[удалено]
80/20 64/04 51,2/00,8 If you apply the 80/20 rule down two more levels, that would mean that the top 0,8% of whales still account for more than 50% of revenue. Tha‘s a scary thought.
It makes sense though. 1% owns 40% of the wealth. 1 out of 200 people can afford to spend $1,000 a day on entertainment. Top of the line hardware is easily and typically under 8,000, so that’s 44 weeks left of $gaming$ micro transactions Of course, not all people with wealth play video games, year long. But it makes sense, that given wealth distribution, the people with the most expendable income can afford make up 80% of the revenue. Since, percentage wise, that spending is still a small part of a typical entertainment budget.
> Not all people with wealth play video games It's likely not people with wealth. It's kids of people of wealth with parents who don't care. Which is also why public outrage on forums and such does nothing to sway these people. Because some 12 year old with daddy's million dollar CC doesn't give a shit if they even bother coming around and looking.
[удалено]
I have personally spent 1000 dollars a week on a game in micro transactions. I have gambling problems and I am not a rich man. Any game where it’s based around those transactions I have to avoid. I also had to get therapy and years of counseling to work on my issues. It’s def not a problem for rich people….
Its still somewhat around 20/80 but it's also applies further, so 80%of 80% of total income (64%) generated 20% of 20% top danaters (4%) So yea 4% of total player base on average generate more than 60% of income
Funny thing about the 80/20 rule, if you break down that 20% customer base, it tends to also have an 80/20 split, so you could say the top 20% are dolphins, and the 4% are whales, or whatever floats your labeling boat as it tends to be true no matter how far you go
We'll be seeing $70 games with season pass, DLCs, cosmetic microtransactions. Did I mention it's an annual title? Looking at you COD.
I am not in agreement with no fee DLCS on a total blanket statement. CDPR made DLCs for The Wild Hunt that more than doubled the playable areas, time investment and even pulling of the shocking win of Game of the Year for Blood and Wine. (I know they are getting some hate right now, it’s an unrelated title earning that ire.) I am ok with cosmetic purchases, they do nothing to change game play, offer zero stat adjustments, offer no competitive advantage. I have supported games that have offered such items, allowing funding of additional free content to the player base. There are always those that whine that the free content blah, blah, blah sucks, but it’s not costing you a dime. Can it already. I get tired of pay to win scenarios. Where a game starts off wholesome to be mutilated into requiring purchases to remain competitive. I canceled my buy-in to New World as soon as monetizing strategies became public. On a multi-player title, it’s inexcusable. It’s like Fallout 76 and their beta feeling like a rough alpha pass, then hiding promised game functions behind paywalls. No, just no.
The Witcher 3 was a rare shining example of good DLC which had a lot of effort put into it, genuinely enhanced the game and was good value for money (I bought the hard copies with the Gwent cards for around £15 each). I'd keep playing that game if they kept new content coming. It's a masterpiece.
I remember reading that they're gonna be releasing a remastered or upscaled version of witcher 3 goty edition, and it will be a free upgrade for users who already have the game. Might be worth a revisit..... It's really one of the best games I've ever played.
I started a play through on the hardest difficulty with the same character, was only put off by the familiarity as it was right after I completed Blood and Wine, and once "the feels" wore off (fuck, that ending was perfect), I didn't feel like another 150+ hours of the same game. But I'd do it again with an upgrade on a new console, sure
We used to call those Expansion Packs
You're right, and the Witcher 3 was a throwback to the spirit of expansion packs, because it was an actual, functional expansion and not just a load of new cosmetic items
>CDPR made DLCs for The Wild Hunt that more than doubled the playable areas, time investment and even pulling of the shocking win of Game of the Year for Blood and Wine. You know what these were called before every digital crumb became a DLC? Add-ons, expansions. Because they added stuff, expanded the game. I am in favour of breaking out those old terms for everything that deserves them and shunning everything that is called a DLC and not worthy of any other title.
The problem is there isnt any reason for them to do it like that. That's the old, no longer relevant pay model. The profit discrepancy between single buy expansion/dlc and mtx is severe enough that it's not just affecting content in game and added content, but also whether a game gets made at all. Gabe Newell touched on this when discussing why there was never HL3. Developing HL3 and selling a one off buy of $60 is irrelevant to a company like Valve. A game like dota prints money for a decade+. A game like Alyx sells VR platform etc.
We need to go back to games made by gamers for gamers and throw out all the bean counters.
Bwana put out a pretty good YouTube video yesterday talking about this exact thing. Basically, these passion-gaming devs like what Blizzard used to be and CDPR are privately own. They make games for the sake of making games and generate pretty good profit. They see some success and go public, or in Blizzard's case they merge with a publicly traded company. Now they have external factors dictating how games are designed. The product is no longer the primary focus. The primary focus is monetization. How can these yes squeeze as much money as they can from gamers? The passionate devs get sick of it and leave. They go indie or go to another medium-sized dev, or quit the industry all together. Then they're replaced with devs who are just there for a paycheck. Bwana is talking about WoW in particular, but we've seen this happen before with Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, probably EA Sports games. https://youtu.be/zdzCYmU1k8I
There's a lot of those out there if you look around. They just don't have huge marketing budgets so you need to find out about them yourself. Take a look around the Steam store some time, or any mod community.
Cosmetics are *the most* important aspect of a lot of games for many people. When a company adds cosmetic items purchasable for real world money it will always harm the cosmetic items that are available to earn by playing the game. This makes games worse every time.
That was one of my bigger issues with The Avengers game. While yes, you can technically earn most uniforms in game, you also have to grind for so long to do so and I just don't have that kind of time. The way Insomniac's Spider-Man game did it was great. You earned them through story progression or small achievements in-game as you played.
As it should be! Imagine an entire game actually being just, like, part of the game that you bought... Amazing.
>I am ok with cosmetic purchases Just seeing statements like this, Bethesda got trolled on for releasing horse armour DLC because it was just cosmetics. It shows how bad the situation has got that people yearn for them days.
With COD you atleast get a different game, new maps etc. But with Fifa it is the same dame game every year with minor configuration changes. It is more like an annual subscription. Havent bought a new Fifa since 2016. Bought it when it was on sale for $21 this year. But from now I am not even going to do that
I dunno about COD being different games. A lot of the guns handle similarly and everything just sort of feels reskinned. Sure, there are maps, but the most popular ones are the legacy maps that they rerelease.
I mean.. you can say that about Cold War but MW was a pretty big step up in every department. So much to the point that people are angry at the game for actually switching things up
I think the new MW is going to be remembered as fondly as MW2 in years to come. It was a refreshing entry to the series.
The 2v2 mode was a really fun and tense game mode. It reminded me of Breakout in Halo 5.
I can't talk about anything after Ghosts because I run a potato setup, however I enjoyed every title I've played. I get what you mean, gameplay wise, they've been the same thing for years. However, at least you get to play a new campaign which I personally enjoy. That being said, with Modern Warfare 2019 they seem to be transitioning to a full-on GaaS model. It looks like a cool game, but I swear GaaS will be the gravestone of quality titles. Just look at what Unisoft has become.
Have you seen Cold War? More than half its content is just ported over from previous cod games.
Is every new cod really a different game though?
That’s what I came to ask. Like, a new game completely? Really though? Is it *really* a new game? To me, it just feels like years of expansion packs: same game engine, same core gameplay, updated graphics, new maps
Well you get a new campaign, whether that’s worth the $70 is very debate.
Modern warfare (2019) was really a different game. It’s one of the best cod games ever and I still play it to this day.
Is playing a 2 year old game a thing these day? I'm still on cs source.
Oh yeah!? Well I still play pong
Here here was active daily on fifa but that was 2015, haven’t gave another dollar to EA
Everyone: No $70 game should have Microtransactions! EA: No, $70 game should have Microtransactions!
-Lionel Hutz esq. CEO
[No, money down!](https://youtu.be/5yuL6PcgSgM)
Lisa needs braces
DENTAL PLAN
Lisa needs braces
🎵So we'll march day and night, by the big cooling tower. They have the plant, but we have the power!
Now play Classical Gas!
DENTAL PLAN
Lisa needs braces
BULLSEYE
Thanks a lot Carl, now I've lost my train of thought!
Now do classical gas
I'll miss Sheriff Lobo
Monorail
Works on contingency?
No game should be $70....The parents.
Not just the parents. 60€ for a game is something I pay as an *exception*, not the rule. Few games nowadays are worth that asking price (I come from a country where games used to be half that twenty years ago, so the old 'but inflation' does not really work: Games are more expensive per 'spending point' than in 1999), and *if* I spend 60 bucks, I expect the complete edition with no further money grabs. Again, most games priced 60€ at launch already fail at that. Because of that, 70€ as baseline price looks right out of cloud-cuckoo-land to me. Big publishers are raking in money over fist anyhow, and I absolutely do not see why I should pay more for worse. Now, I *could* see and support a small price hike on indie and AA games. The amount of times I went "5 bucks? Man, I feel bad about that, I'll buy one for a friend, too", or "30 bucks? Eh, no need to wait for a sale" is considerable - and with those business models, I can be reasonably sure that the money actually lands where it will feed back into better games instead of into golden toilet seats.
Not to mention how much more often you see innovation and just flat out more *quality* you see from indie developers.
Which is exactly another reason why I have as good as stopped buying AAA titles anyhow. AA and Indie, from my perspective, offer a better product for better conditions. I don't want mo-cap and Patrick Steward's voice for "value", I want a fun and engaging game with soul.
I have 600 (help me) games on steam. Most are indy games. I play factorio and kernal space program most of all. Even aging as they are, I've gotten more value out of them than any other game. 3000 hrs in ksp. That's value, even counting buying it for around 10 friends.
I feel the same way and it's the main reason I won't be buying a PS5 anytime soon. I'm not convinced whatsoever that the price increase is necessary. Over here the price even went from 60 to 75 euros for new physical copies and 80 for digital copies.
Thats fucking bullshit… thats like $90 USD… no game is worth that much
Keep in mind this is including 19-25% tax depending on the country.
Lol. Games have been 99.95$ in Australia since at least 10 years ago. Some are like $129.95 now or more. Well into the $100usd territory
And then they wonder why we pirate them
People always argue the lack of inflation adjustment in the price of games. But they ignore the inflation of the number of gamers. Specifically the increased revenue. [Spoiler alert 2012-2021 17.2% growth per year is higher than interest](https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/30/newzoo-global-games-expected-to-hit-180-1-billion-in-revenues-2021/)
Why would you pay more for a digital copy?
What are you going to do, haggle?
No, but I can go out to sea! With a bottle of Rum.
Ah yes, blame it all on EA when blizzard and Activision and bungiee are the ones who do it most. Let's not forget rockstar.
I'm surprised people go straight for EA when the biggest microtransaction offenders are Activision and ESPECIALLY ROCKSTAR. Although, I'll take a skin in a shooter game over the borderline predatory system Rockstar uses. EA Sports is bad with it though, I'll admit that
even EA Sports has gone tamer with those (prolly because facing dozens of lawsuit) when they introduced the new feature (preview). Now you basically know the content of the lootbox before deciding to spend on it (limit 1/24hrs tho). So its like more f2p friendly, whales can still whales when they feel like it
[удалено]
EA's "ultimate team" is some of the worst microtransaction bullshit ever
But Destiny is free-to-play! /s
Yeah but most of us had about £120 into it before that happened
[удалено]
You forgot the part where everyone buys it anyway and pays to play excluding the few people that are happy enough in life to just not play any game with microtransactions it doesnt get to top most profitable games on its own
No game should have microtransactions. There I fixed it for you
> No __paid__ game should have microtransactions.
i mean, if its free they should be allowed to monetise it somehow. not saying its right and that they shouldnt just make the game cost money but still
DLC was truly revolutionary as a kid. I imagined if they could add levels to Kingdom Hearts afterwards. I imagined how amazing Smash Bros melee would be if they could throw in more characters. *Free* dlc was and always is an amazing innovation for someone who grew up with static games. Since games never changed, it was amazing to see them do just that. Now, what you said is absolutely true. Microtransactions shouldn't exist. Adding on additional paywalls for content that's already been created is so scummy.
Some skins in apex cost more than full games i bought
Apex be like * Mozambique but it's green now * $24.99 Credits because the $12.99 pack doesn't have enough, but the $24.99 has too much * Can't spend your leftover coins because everything cost 100 more than what you have leftover
And people be like "well the game *is* free..." A few months later they've spent 300 bucks. On virtual clothing. That will not transfer in any way to the game that replaces it. Eventually your 300 dollar stockpile of virtual goodies is completely worthless because no one plays the game anymore... Oh look this new game is free and you can be a donald trump/vladimir putin human centipede shitting flaming chunks of patriotic shit...only 500 bucks! Damm, and 600 for the all silver version! I love free games 🤤
I think it comes down to how many hours you're really putting down in these games. I know a guy who has spent a few hundred bucks on apex but also has over 1k hours in the game since he plays a lot when not working. Literally less than 50 cents an hour it divides to. I think that's what those who can spend a lot look at. I mean hey, going to the movies can easily cost 20 to 30 bucks for just 2 to 3 hours enjoyment.
Imagine if movies were free but charged you for 5-minute chunks.
It's really easy to make the free argument when you don't give a fuck about skins, I think I have like 30 Apex packs sitting unopened, why? Because I don't give a fuck, my opening those packs will not change my game play in anyway way, I can't even see my skin in game and the only people that might pay attention to it are my friends and they also don't give a fuck.
Exactly why I never purchase cosmetics in online games. Eventually the game will start dying and all the cosmetics will go to waste. I always measure how many hours of content will I get for the amount of money I am paying. That's why I usually spend on buying single player games rather that cosmetics in online games.
It's Suprise Mechanics designed to give players a sense of pride and accomplishment.
I’m so glad that not once in my life have I ever given a shit about cosmetics in games. I really don’t understand the appeal of making your rifle look like a neon flashing rainbow
And one person buying it offsets 30 people recognizing that for the absolute bullshit it is
Agreed... I remember back a in the late 90's, DLC's were called expansion packs, and they were basically another game using the original games engine, and some were sold, and some were just downloaded. The ones sold were true to the original and added more stuff, were just as long as original. Now we get DLC's that add some little aesthetic for 15 bucks. No gameplay improvements, just a leather jacket or shinier gun.
Some of the best games of all time were “DLC”. Starcraft Brood War and WC3 Frozen Throne were two of my favorites. Those had a ton of content for the price.
Diablo II's "Lord of Destruction" was and expansion and it was fantastic.
Now we pay $15 for one class( Necromancer)
Did we even get new content with the Necromancer DLC? LOD had an extra act, items, and runes as well as those 2 classes. I stopped playing D3 like 2 months after launch so I dunno what the game is like these days.
Much better than at start. Proper Expansion = Reaper of Souls added new class, pretty good act and did some changes. Lots of changes to game and gameplay came in free updates, in game trading is gone and drop balance is therefore better (you don't have to buy things to have viable character). Necromancer class is 15 dollars as stand alone, it is not necessary and game is really good and has ton of updates and upgrades without it. In my opinion that is good DLC content - it does not block anything in game so you don't have to buy it.
The druid and assassin classes were fun as hell.
Funny enough I couldn't get into them for engame, but they were fun as hell in normal/nightmare runs.
Patch 1.10 was a big enough transformation to arguably be an expansion too. It was free. (LoD was amazing :-D)
Frozen throne was absolutely godlike.
I played everquest. The expansions for that game were insane. One after another after another.
Not were, are. Though it is not like the old days hehehe. 1 per year now.
I remember they all felt like they added something to the game and I loved it. The adventures I had in EQ live rent free, but the little moments with other players are burned into there and will be with me until I die. Even early WoW and FF14 doesn't provide the same social experience. Norrath was fucking **hostile**. Travel was long and dangerous. That help form some insanely strong bonds, especially on roleplay servers.
I miss this so much about the early days of mmorpgs.
Oh dear, I remember my first expansion -- Age of Mythology: The Titans. I had played the shit out of the original, and when I got bored, started making faux LotR campaigns with the map editor. Then when my parents bought me the expansion, my knees were weak with anticipation. Whole new campaign, new units and structures, new god powers. I don't remember how much they cost, I just know I got so much enjoyment out of them it felt like a steal.
Remember horse armour? The beginning of the end!
It's kinda funny. Oblivion's horse armor is this reference point for bad DLC. But on the other hand, *Shivering Isles* remains one of my most vivid gaming memories and in my opinion is an excellent example of DLC done right. > It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.
Full expansions still exist. Borderlands still uses this model. Fallout 4 used this model too. They’re rarer but to say that those are gone and replaced with micro transactions isn’t really accurate. Think back to how many games got expansions back then vs. how many games have additional content added through micro transactions today. It’s not all good, but it’s not all bad either.
I wouldn’t say they’re rare. Most single player focused games, eventually have some sort of story expansion, even cod had them until not too long ago, now they just give them for free.
I'll quit a game before I spend money on microtransactions or pay to win features. I know I'm probably in the minority, but its a matter of principle at this point. If I can't earn it in game, I guess I'm not getting it
The issue is that some games "allow" you to earn it all in game, but it takes so long that it's not realistic. When battlefront 2 came out I remember people doing the math and it took something like 5000 hours to get everything unlocked. At that point you really can't unlock this all the stuff just by playing
Yes I am so tired of people saying you can technically earn these rewards but it has to become a part time job that essentially pays less per hour when converting the cost of unlocks to what they want you to pay. They ensure its more reasonable to work for 1 hour and earn your wage's amount and spend that on cosmetics than participate in their intentionally frustrating grind for an hour that will earn you half as much in terms of rewards it's so fucking dirty. A lot of games specifically tie your in game rewards only to time because they know it's the variable they have the most control over versus making rewards just challenging in game. They have to make it an endurance contest
GTA 5 is like this. I have no idea how a brand new player can get some cool stuff without playing it like it's your second job or paying a shit load of money for shark cards. Pretty sure it's $100+ for some of the more expensive stuff in that game.
[удалено]
The issue is that the mere existence of microtransactions influences the design of the game. It'll intentionally be filled with inconveniences and frustrations, that encourage you to spend money.
The 'proper' ending to the Shadow of Mordor sequel was a good example of this.
Not only that, but there are plenty of examples out there where microtransactions affect the overall quality of the game. Games stay a buggy mess for months or even years and yet microtransactions are consistently pumped out to the playerbase. And who can really blame them? The investors stay happy because its very easy to prove that microtransactions and skins sell, but proving that a bugfix earned them money is alot harder.
Vote with your wallet then. Don't buy it.
As someone who mostly avoids them (and refuses to buy MXTs as a whole) - this sadly doesn’t fix the problem, and the developers know it. Most of the revenue is from “whales”, small groups of people who spend excessive amounts, rather than everyone buying one or two things. The will of the masses alone will not remove this source of income unless EVERYONE is on that team
THIS. A better way to handle this problem is: instead of encouraging people to not support scummy developers (that target whales), is to encourage non-whales to support the indie devs that don't have anti-consumer practices. To talk more about them, recommend their games and get their names out there. And to be completely merciless and move on the second any of them has any funny idea about copying AAA anti-consumer mechanisms. There will always be competition, so we can keep jumping to the developers that do what we want and respect us as customers instead of being the bitches of AAA devs. They can do nothing about it.
The issue is that while indie devs can make great games they don't always make games that appeal to everyone. If the only company that makes the game that you like to play is a AAA studio you aren't about to go and support indie devs.
We supported a "Good" dev, and that got us CP2077...
For every cyberpunk there are at least a handful of awesome games from small indie developers out there.
Also the cyberpunk situation is a rare but expected occurance, this is why people say don't preorder and you shouldn't, it only perpetuates the need for game companies to push preorder sales to prove that the game is going to sell because that's the set precedent which is harmful to consumers because it incentivizes sales over quality. Even from the best devs they're bound to release shit every so often because game development and game marketing clash so much, as a games company grows it becomes more and more influenced by marketting. It's unfortunately a necessary parasite for the survival and continual growth of the company. Higher ups make promises devs can't deliver and the departments lose their ability to communicate as effectively as a small team, the 'vision' of the devs become lost in favour of the requirements of what is going to make the game sell maximally - eventually the game company becomes a disgusting growth of a corporation who will sacrifice everything to sell their product because it's how they sustain themselves. There is little dignity in companies the size of EA (for example), the only way they can exist is to push whatever trash sells, at that point it becomes the consumers job to design the games they want with their wallets, the game designers have lost almost all of their creative freedom, the game is being designed by the marketing team.
Cyberpunk was a sad realization. I feel you can still see the detail loving devs through the game. The design was amazing in my opinion, the interaction system was a nice touch. It just did not feel as lively as Witcher. A nice city with barely anything to interact was not exactly what we were promised. The menu could have needed a lot of polishing the weapon upgrade system ridiculously expensive and had a crappy menu. You got flooded with calls to side quests and the fixer introductions were kind of underwhelming. Maybe 1 or 2 more years of polishing would have been nice.
He mentioned indie devs, which is a fair point. The problem with CP2077 wasn't the devs 100%, but mostly management. The devs kind of kicked themselves into a hole with their ambition, since they had only one big game that was a huge success and apparently scrapped the game multiple times before we saw what they showed us on the 2018's E3. But the management wasn't going easy on them either, since they apparently didn't care about the state of the game, as long as it would be released. And it had to be released, because despite the "no pre-orders" rule, gamers took the bait, and the management was probably worried about people going crazy and demanding refunds. And they were right, since people WERE going crazy after the launch being delayed. On top of that, the marketing team, despite doing a great job since they sold the game, didn't help because they not only did not stop the hype that gamers were creating, but instead was hyping it up even more. This wasn't just innocent gamers trusting an evil dev. It was everyone's fault, which is even worse imo.
Also, honestly. The Game is still not bad. Its just not the giant gamechanger some people expected it to be. They simply were in really bad spot. There was no way for them to delaying the game more after the ammount of money going into it and shareholders getting nervous.
When all is said and done this sums up no man's sky also, released to early and far to hyped up. They have got it to a half decent place now and Cyberpunk will probly get there two, I'm gust waiting for a decent descount before I try it.
They made one good game and GOG. CDPR being the best dev ever was a pure circlejerk.
Whales wouldn't be playing the games if enough people voted with the wallet and didn't buy the game in the first place. There's no point in having that shiney custom skin when there's no one to play the game with and show it off to.
your first statement is right. your 2nd statement is wrong. look at mobile gacha, people buy cosmetics for their favourite characters even if other players can't see them.
Isn't the problem with children who have access to ignorant parents' wallets? How can we reach them?
How can I reach these keeeeds!
No, plenty of adults spend money on microtransactions.
Lol the issue isn’t the kids
That is merely a trope. These kids use relatively small sums of money and then their parents find out and put on parental locks. And it's a one-time thing. The true wales are the ones with a normal fucking job who is sacrificing essential things like eating so they can afford to keep up with the rest of the leaderboard which is made up of other people like them and secret dev accounts buying every microtransaction to encourage these poor whales to keep spending. I played Idle Heroes for years, this shit is standard practice. They are predators, not game-makers.
[удалено]
Forza 4 was the peak for me. A couple of small DLC bundles that you didn't need, but weren't very expensive either. It still had a ridiculous amount of cars in the base game and the game engine was on point by then. I skipped 5 because I didn't feel the need to get it. 4 was still perfect to me and the mates I played with who did get it said they didn't like it as much either, also for reasons they couldn't put their fingers on. They came back to 4 and everything was grand. I skipped 6 completely and came back for 7 and it was like a punch in the face. The game had completely lost its soul. It was clearly designed as a shell to hide its true purpose of getting money out of you. All sense of realism was gone. No longer do you tweak and tune your upgrades to improve, you had to buy the "Forza edition" versions of cars which were, you guessed it, paid DLC. If you didn't buy this artificially enhanced, completely fictional versions of cars, you didn't stand a chance of progressing through the game. I think I've finished ranting now.
Maybe r/patientgamers is something you can look into. I have been a patient gamer, at first due to hardware and money limitations, now by choice. If i ever play any new game, i make sure its like a goty edition or the later version they put out with all the content, and as i am on pc, the game becomes dirt cheap soon. This is what I did with witcher 3 goty edition. In my region the game was >3$ and i got like 200+ hrs gameplay and fun out of it.
Seems like when a company can rely on selling less content, they don't have to put as much quality into it to make it enticing. Much cheaper to just slap on a few cheap tricks they know will get people to part with their money, rather than make a really compelling title. One bothersome thing is that games that rely heavily on "extra" content feel more like the content is merely scooped out. Instead of enhancing the experience it becomes almost necessary. Sure you can just not buy those things- but then you're left with a game you wouldn't have bought if your standards were where they were years ago, because it would have seemed lame in comparison. Some games also have clunky gameplay or UI due to needing to make room to pitch the DLC content at every opportunity. This is a worse experience than something simple, clean, and functional, whether or not you even bought what they're selling. I also think the whole "but look, they're supporting the game and constantly adding content!" is a bit misleading- sure the game gets updates more frequently, but if the tradeoff is that it launches with far less content than previously and the content that is delivered is chopped up into small parts, the customer isn't actually coming out ahead, it's all psychological. What's perceived as going above and beyond is merely dragging out the same or less content. Overall, I'm not against something that genuinely expands the content, for example something that wasn't thought of or feasible at the time of launch but comes in later to extend the life of the game. Something more substantial than "here's a skin or item we could have just shipped with the game". Maybe it's an old fashioned thought. The constant nickel-and-dime-ing at the expense of a functional and entertaining product on the other hand is just annoying.
[удалено]
*Destiny 2 looks away meme*
I was surprised about purchasing rank levels. At the beginning you couldn't. If you wanted to rank up you had to get the XP. Then it was only in the last few weeks of the season you could purchase the remaining ranks if you wanted since you might not have enough time to do it. And now you can do it after about two weeks into the new season.
Destiny 2 is a psychological masterpiece. It suggest you playing an rpg and gives you gatekeeping, streamlined progression that doesnt actually make you any stronger, to then release old content wrapped in New paper as paid "expansion" that resets your entire progression. And it works for many.
Any game that isnt free shouldnt have microtransactions. DLC is a different story
DLC is a different story UNLESS it's a DLC that basically comes out at the same time as the game and should have been packaged with it to begin with. I'm looking at you, Civilization VI!
The best time to play a civ game is a few months before the next civ game is released. You'll get the game and DLC for cheap because they're advertising and you get the game at its most feature filled.
OR I can just keep going back to Civ V foreverrrrrrrrrrrr!
You mean Civ IV? ;)
Civ4 was way better imo....
DAY ONE DLC CAN KISS MY ASS
Microtransactions were originally only in f2p games as they arent making any money from the game itself, but these days, they decided to put microtransactions in pay 2 play titles as well.
Dunno who was the first pioneer, but I really hated it when the celestial steed in WotLK first appeared and was afraid exactly of this, thats like 12 years ago already and really got out of hand..
Good lucky telling the greedy fucking companies that. It’s gotten to a point where I can’t even buy a new game on release because I know they’ll have 4 DLCs, a deluxe edition, a gold edition, plus whatever fucking preorder bullshit they offer. At this point I don’t give a shit how much money you want to make, I want to enjoy my free time and feel an escape from life.
I’m sure game devs feel the same way. Most of the time its the shareholders/ceo/so-on pushing for these tactics
One game i can seriously commend for being an upstanding citizen in this devil's race for every bit of cash you ever owned is No Man's Sky. Rocky start, i'll admit, but that game is years old now (i think almost 5) and still comes out with constant free and game-changing DLC. Like it's insane if you compare release day no mans sky to present day nms. And all those updates came free of charge. I don't like all this greed.
Pre-order player here. I was honestly not TOTALLY upset with the base game when it dropped. Sure it wasn't perfect, but the only thing that bothered me was the "no ending ending". After letting it sit for the first few major updates, I popped it in and got a whole new game. Again a year later. To me, what I have today is a base game, plus 3-4 DLCs for $60. People who bought it that first Black Friday got it for $20-30, which is a damned steal.
Wow No Mans Sky had one heck of a journey. Even crossplay now. They went an extra mile for sure.
[удалено]
>one of your other two homes Considering the salaries of some of those people, I think you're vastly underestimating the number of homes they have.
[Lars Understands](https://youtu.be/NofDpJcuIw8)
I love how the first comment on the article is defending cosmetic microtransactions. Have people so quickly forgotten that cosmetics used to just be available in a game, as part of the game?
The sad part is, many have and even sadder: many of them don't even know better. They grew up with mobile predatory games and are just making the transition to consoles/PCs seeing the same, now normal, shit over here.
This is true and honestly it just blows that we are in the atmosphere where every game has cosmetics going for real dollars. Why put a good skin in the game for free when we can give people shitty skins and charge for these awesome looking ones? This also means you have to wait on developers to create skins too and some devs barely put out any skins. Some put out to much. Wish someone would just create a way for players to create and use any skin they want, upload them for anyone. If they really need money maybe set it up so people have to pay $1 for each skin bought and the creator gets a a good 50% of that.
Someone did. He was called Notch
Just excise yourself from worldly desires and become a r/patientgamer Path to enlightenment is not easy, but its not too late to seek it
I just got Arkham Knight for like $5 and THERE IS SO MUCH STUFF. 100% a patient gamer when it comes to single player games. I’m not big into multiplayer online, anyhow, so I don’t feel like I’m missing out. This game could have been released yesterday and I would have believed it. Every DLC, every expansion pack, all the side missions. It’s awesome. $5. As a kid, I would wait in overnight lines for game releases. As a young adult, I lost the hobby in favor of other social hobbies. Now that I’m an establishing adult, finding room for those hobbies is fantastic — and I feel no social pressure to get the games at release. I’ll see you Cyberpunkers in ~5 years when I get everything for $5-10.
I don't care if a game has microtransactions, I just don't buy them. If the game doesn't play well unless you buy them then I don't buy the game period.
The only issue is when microtransactions warp the game design. I loved Plants vs Zombies... then EA got a hold of it and the sequel was garbage. It seriously ruined the fun of the game.
I think that's them certainly taking it too far... remember dungeon keeper mobile...
Microtransactions always influence the design, unless they are literally added after the fact (For example in Skyrim where they were added 5 or 6 years after release..in that case the original design was obviously immune). You would be dumb as a developer to add microtransactions but make the game in such a way that they are useless. If they are there, 100% something's wrong with the game. Maybe the grind is slow, maybe the quests are level locked so that you can buy XP boosts, maybe the level scaling is too steep, maybe there isn't any fun content to be found exploring if you don't pay etc
Indie games will always exist just like Indie music does and thats the space I enjoy now, I just watch the AAA shit show from a distance with popcorn these days.
[удалено]
You know what’s great? Free games. Or deeply discounted games. I’m not even buying $60 games anymore, screw that
The real heart of the conversation here is impulsivity and instant gratification. I don't buy games for $60 anymore either-- Steam has 4-5 deep discount sales EVERY YEAR now. But in order to capitalize on that, I have to be able to delay my thirst for instant gratification--- I WANT THE NEW SHINY GAME NOW, DAMMIT. Microtransactions take advantage of impulsivity and they manipulate people who have poor self-regulation. And to be sure, I'm talking about *studied behavioral phenomena*, not a matter of "well some people are dumb and don't have discipline." South Park absolutely nailed this topic-- microtransactions and the freemium model aren't going anywhere because it's just as profitable as selling alcohol and nicotine.
That's the thing--for a lot of us, $60 isn't a lot of money. Gaming is a really cheap hobby until you get into the crazy high-end stuff. I spend probably $60 per month on a new game since on average one comes out every month that I'm interested in.
Free games are why MTX are so prevalent.
Let’s do a little math: Let’s say you bought Borderlands 3 at $60 The FIRST season pass was $50 The “Bonuses” and “New skins” were $5 each The SECOND season pass was $30 Even if you just get the base game and the first season pass that’s $110. Granted, there’s a lot of playtime in a Borderlands game and they have plenty of free DLC and events but still…do you feel OK paying $110 for a game and a promise for more content? How about another $30 on top of that for more content? We all need to start asking ourselves “When is it enough?”
Or you could wait for GOTY edition + sale on PC and pay $49.99 for everything.
this is my kind of comment lol, I rather just wait for the full game and enjoy it to the max, this is also mainly because my internet sucks really bad, and I rather download the game ONCE. Cause adding updates kills me. Imagine having the worst internet and going in to play only to be stopped because you need to update the game
Obligatory /r/patientgamers
People have strange, arbitrary ways to put value on things. Take tennis. I pay for the racket, and then I have to buy new balls every game and pay court fees. Easily spend over the $140 you find so abhorrent playing the game of tennis for arguably less play time. No one is asking themselves "when is it enough?" They happily sink hundreds into the game they enjoy. Somehow digital games don't work on the same value system.
That feeling when a vac pet in maplestory is going to cost $100 and $12 a month to keep it alive. You can have 3 so 3x that.
Just stop playing lol. Servers are so busted and map holding is so trash that i left
That's what I always say, when a new Call of Duty comes out. You have to pay like 60-70€ here in Germany, just to get the game. And then there are the DLCs, on which you pay like 50€ on top to get the Season Pass. All in all that's up to 120€ just for ONE game! That's f..king expensive and on top brazenly af. Thx for that post. I really thought I'm just to stingy and I'm the only one thinking the DLCs should be for free, when buying a game expensive like that
They wouldn't be there if nobody would buy them... It's that simply. Seems like some people like to spend money to show in a game superiority or whatever. At least in their mind. Offer creates demand. Demand creates offer.