[depricated]

ge∅, 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.

[ge∅]

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 Ok, that was just trolling but I couldn't resist

[depricated]

But this one doesn't have waves

[rgfirefly24]

ge∅, 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.

[modi123_1]

In fun facts - at E3 Nintendo is going to bring back the World Championships (it's been 25 years).

Quote

This time around it's unclear what game(s) will be played in Nintendo's competition; the company plans to host regional tournaments at select Best Buy retail stores across the U.S. on May 30th, and the winners of those tournaments will join other players invited by Nintendo to compete on June 14th in L.A. in a streamed, multi-round event. The winner will be named "Nintendo World Champion" for the year, but whether that title comes with any meaningful perks remains to be seen.

http://www.gamasutra...ampionships.php

[xclite]

I just recently finished Child of Light - took me about 8 hours. I recommend it - it's a simple RPG/platformer, though the platforming parts are pretty basic.

I'm hearing rumors of Bloodborne on PC. Given my love for Dark Souls, that may be the next big thing depending on when that drops (reportedly this year).

[Damage]

so pillars of eternity, around 50 hours in, the last boss fight, literally the last fight in the game and i deleted the game. didn't have anywhere near the connection to my character that i needed to deal with that.

[ge∅]

Speaking about light, Have you "played" this game ? http://gamelab.mit.e...speed-of-light/

I suggest not to watch the video if you intend to play it because the "game" is really short and I think it spoils the experience.

All you need to know is that you have to collect objects and that, each time you do, you slow the speed of light. So it's as if you were approaching the speed of light, but in an environment were you can actually see the effects of moving at the speed of light, because there are things at short distances to look at.

I find the idea very good, even though they simply made the engine (the game itself is really bad), but what is even better is that it's open source, so if you want to use this in one of your projects, you can.

[NeoTifa]

I played Rift all weekend. I have my own little personal dimension (the Warden's Point or whatever the starter one is). So many pillows are made trying to level up my dreamweaver skill.

[depricated]

oh I have a metric your mom of dimension boxes and artifacts you can break for mats if you want. It's the only profession I haven't touched, cause it annoys me. I can't explain why. Probably because artifacts.

I spent most of my weekend LARPing and working on my super secret project. But I did get some time in to play Camperstrike: Source. Even made a new gaming friend! That hardly ever happens. I had an amazing weekend.

[modi123_1]

I may give witcher2 a shake down again.. it was about a year ago I uninstalled it due to annoying lag and screwy mechanics.

[xclite]

I've been playing some Shadows of Mordor. I don't like open world games, so I'm trying to power through the storyline. Pretty fun mechanics so far. Feels mostly like a Lord of the Rings skinned version of Assassin's creed. I am enjoying the flashbacks and tie-ins to the lore of the universe, though.

[ge∅]

I wanted to play The Witcher 2 again in order to choose Iorveth's path but I don't think the replayability of this game is so good. When you already know the beginning of the story, the pace is really too slow during the first hours, and the RPG aspect is not very exciting. Combats can be hard but they are hardly tactical because you can't properly pause the game, have an overview of the situation, etc. It's more a console game while the first episode was really a PC game (despite the weird fighting mechanics but you get used to it).

Speaking about replayability, I really liked this aspect in Dragon Age Origins : the very beginning of the game was really different depending on the race and class you chose, so you could really enjoy the first hour of gameplay when you were starting over (even though you join a common path very soon in the game). I think that more games should do that. You don't need to make dramatic changes in the plot to make it a bit more engaging.

This post has been edited by ge∅: 18 May 2015 - 11:10 AM

[xclite]

Origins had great replayability, I thought. You couldn't pay me to replay DA:I, though.

[ge∅]

Really ? Shit, I've been playing DA2 just for DA:I. I haven't finished though (far from it actually)