Video Games Currently Working On

  • (117 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117

1743 Replies - 57999 Views - Last Post: 04 May 2015 - 01:32 PM

#1741 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Conversion Software Version 7.0

Reputation: 1112
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,544
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Video Games Currently Working On

Posted 04 May 2015 - 06:53 AM

View Postge∅, on 04 May 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

I don't understand what is fallacious in this argument. pay to win games speak for themselves.

Your approach.

You present the stance that if one tolerates it they clearly not only endorse it but also would rather use a microtransaction model in favor of a traditional model. I believe you know better, so I was pointing out that the way you're presenting is problematic.

Cause you're preaching to the choir. I don't do microtransactions. I'll play games which include them - like Rift, Path of Exile, Planetside 2. I'll even enjoy them. If there's a subscription option, like with Rift, I may subscribe.

That doesn't mean it's my preferred model. The overwhelming majority of games I play are single player or player hosted and don't have any sort of microtransaction. But their presence is rarely enough to drive me away. Because there are two approaches to cash stores. The first is a store which makes the game easier - an example here is Rift, where you can buy the previous tier raid gear for ridiculous amounts of money (something like $350 to fully outfit I think), but you're still behind the curve. Honestly, my time is worth enough money that I could see justification in spending a little bit (certainly not that much) to avoid hours of tedium, if having the gear were what I enjoyed. But what I enjoy is the journey to get the gear - the actual raiding - so that's beside the point.

The other method is the one that's damnable. That's the paywalled content(WOW) or truly pay-to-win method(MWO). A good example here is Mech Warrior Online. MWO could have been an amazing game - the gameplay is excellent, the design is spot-on, even the LAF of the game is wonderful. But last year I think, they released the Clan Mechs. For $500. Now MWO always had the option to buy mechs with cash, but like PS2 you could easily get the exact same equipment by spending some time mastering the weaker variants first. But not these mechs. The only way to get a clan mech is with cash, or was (I walked away from the game and haven't looked back since, I really don't care as I have no intention of returning to it). Now just like the BattleTech Universe, the Clan Mechs are significantly better than standard mechs. There's a reason the Clans ran roughshod over non-clan Mechs during the Clan Invasion. This means that in order to actually stand a chance against the other team, you either pay out or hope no one on the other team has a clan mech. But the damnable thing here is that there is no way to complete without forking over the cash.

In short - if someone wants to buy their way to progress that I can get to without paying, then that's their prerogative. Making that option available isn't even a bad thing. I'm also not adverse to methods for buying in-game currency - like how Rift and Eve sell cash store items that can be sold for plat/isk. Again, time:reward. I did the math the other night (cause I was mocking someone, go figure) and concluded that, in terms of work:reward, my time is worth over 3000 plat per hour. So if I were to drop $10 on one of those items and convert it to 1200 plat, I would save myself hours of grinding for the money, and can focus on doing what I enjoy in the game. But I don't need money in game to enjoy the game - I'm in a raiding guild that's happy to provide raid consumables and has people who do spend lots of time farming and grinding so I don't have to.

I've never been opposed to supporting the game I'm playing. But I think online games, MMOs, MUDs, even Counterstrike (I donate $5/mo to help maintain a server I play on frequently - it's just player supported) have an understandable need for either a subscription service or a cash shop. Offline games, like Skyrim or Wasteland 2, have no business with subscriptions or cash shops. I hate DLC with the fiery passion of a thousand suns, and think it's a shining example of what's wrong with gaming. But cash shops aren't the problem.

So yea, there's a lot to go on - but for the most part, I agree with you except for one thing: I don't think anyone here has said they prefer pay to win, or free to play, over subscription or one-time-purchased single player games. I certainly prefer games I pay for once and enjoy indefinitely. But if there's an online component that isn't player hosted, expect for some method to exist to maintain that. Dedicated servers aren't free, or cheap.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#1742 ge∅  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict

Reputation: 110
  • View blog
  • Posts: 744
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Re: Video Games Currently Working On

Posted 04 May 2015 - 11:33 AM

I should have quoted rgfirefly24 (just bellow) because it's his post that inspired my comment, but, anyway, the argument turned pretty good according to my standards.

Quote

I really didn't want to pay for a game where I was forced into Multi-player in order to play the game, but if they are offering it free then I'll give it a go


All I'm saying is that if someone has to pay, the straightforward way is the way you want to go as a consumer (this, nobody would contest I think). But if we're surrounded by ads, trackers, abusive free to play mechanics, etc. it's because somewhere in the marketing department of an editor, someone wrote that very quote on a board and said "OK, we want to control our product and kill the used market, so we put the game online, but people will not want to pay for this so what do we do?", and another guy to stand up and reply with a flash of genius "we make it free to play(1) (1)Only one part of it. Not the good part. The part that sucks. The part that we're going to spoil on purpose. Hahaha. Evil. You touch my tralala!".

This route is quite young in gaming compared to advertising in newspaper, TV, Internet, etc. and I really don't understand how people can let the market rot like this, knowing what is going to happen already happening to gaming.

Concerning Fable Legends specifically, it seems like Microsoft wants to do it correctly, but other free to play forgot their "commitments" fairly quickly and what generally happens is that the game is tedious to play when you don't pay, so you pay, but you have the feeling you're kind of cheating and it completely ruins the experience.

So because some people don't want to pay for a game that will force them into multi-player, other people who would have paid for the game will be forced into free to play (AND multi-player). What you wanted from the beginning was a single-player game. How did that behaviour help? I think that people should boycott those games. I personally do it.

Quote

Honestly, my time is worth enough money that I could see justification in spending a little bit (certainly not that much) to avoid hours of tedium


So you don't want to pay for playing the game but you are ready to pay for not playing the game :stuart: Ok, that was just trolling but I couldn't resist
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#1743 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Conversion Software Version 7.0

Reputation: 1112
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,544
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Video Games Currently Working On

Posted 04 May 2015 - 12:09 PM

But this one doesn't have waves
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#1744 rgfirefly24  Icon User is online

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon


Reputation: 347
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,740
  • Joined: 07-April 08

Re: Video Games Currently Working On

Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:32 PM

View Postge∅, on 04 May 2015 - 01:33 PM, said:

Concerning Fable Legends specifically, it seems like Microsoft wants to do it correctly, but other free to play forgot their "commitments" fairly quickly and what generally happens is that the game is tedious to play when you don't pay, so you pay, but you have the feeling you're kind of cheating and it completely ruins the experience.

So because some people don't want to pay for a game that will force them into multi-player, other people who would have paid for the game will be forced into free to play (AND multi-player). What you wanted from the beginning was a single-player game. How did that behaviour help? I think that people should boycott those games. I personally do it.


I completely agree with you here. Microsoft has good intentions, but history shows that something will happen that will put the micro transaction market into a pay to win scenario. I do not like the fact that Fable legends is Online Multi-player only. I get that the entire premise of the game was built around co-op, but I hate that aspect of most games.

As far as the Boycotting those type of games, I would agree with the ones that out right say it's pay to win. I give EQ2 as an example. They didn't even try and cover it up. They came out and said that they are making the game free to play, but if you wanted to raid or do anything in the end game you had to pay. They took it entirely too far and made you pay per piece of equipment if you wanted to wear something.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (117 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117