I am actually ok with micro transactions in multiplayer competitive games for cosmetic skins.
I am not saying that most games that do this aren’t extremely toxic in their design but the idea of players of a popular competitive game continually paying small amounts of money to artists to create new riffs on the same player models and weapons that those players can use to express themselves is potentially a wonderful direct connection between 3D modeling artists and players that continually values those 3D modeling artists far after the initial game development is over (and a game company could potentially have no work for a 3D modeler when just maintaining a multiplayer game with small updates).
The problem is that the type of people who are most likely to spend money on loot boxes are exploited heavily, and then shamed by everyone around them into not revealing how much they spent on video game call of duty mobile skins.
None of this even remotely works when you talk about singleplayer games though, basically nobody dresses to the nines to just go for a walk in the woods where nobody can see them… the direct link between 3D modeling artists and players expressing themselves in view of other players is gone. Players may spend hours dressing their singleplayer character and enjoy that part of the game but it just isn’t the same thing as your multiplayer competitive game character you have spent countless hours playing in multiplayer matches interacting with countless people with. It is the difference between taking a freeing walk in the woods and taking a walk in a city in view of a crowd of other artists.
I guess what I am trying to say is that micro transactions are really only okay when they are “micro” because they are a direct interaction between a player and an artist in the way buying a single song from an album might be.
Of course, my entire point is subsumed by the fact that most of the big companies probably treat the 3D modelers making their skins like trash and are probably going to replace literally all of them with AI as quietly but as quickly as possible in the next couple of months.
If they want to sell skins that are purely cosmetic I don’t have an issue with that. Some people have money to drop on stuff like that and it helps fund the game.
Loot boxes on the other hand can absolutely get fucked. It’s gambling, plain and simple. It has no place in games.
Except Bethesda is also one of the few companies that releases full on expansions to their games. Horse armour was the worst (and thus cheapest) of Oblivions addons, but Shivering Isles was an entire new full area and plotline.
Nuance exists. And ignoring it allows a lot of good to get caught in the crossfire
Real good take, I couldn’t agree more. I also sold a dota2 skin that I got randomly for a couple hundred dollars like 8 years ago and it funded my PC purchases for a couple years so I might be biased 😉
In my comment I attempted to point out that yes the profit from micro transactions never really goes to the artists and developers, but if it did in theory I would actually be really supportive of artist run cosmetic stores for multiplayer competitive games.
I want 3D modeling artists to be valued, and competitive multiplayer games providing a canvas in which artists can continually express themselves and create outfits/skins for players and items in game is an incredible opportunity to reaffirm the value of the labor of 3D modeling artists.
The opportunity is currently totally captured and subverted by shitty corporate control, but in theory it is still there.
For singleplayer games, no horse armor crap is lame, I just want developers working on expansion content.
I mean I suppose there are quite a few of those genres being made, but I for one certainly don’t hate it lol. Dead cells is one of my favorite games ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Plus this indie studio working on a prince of Persia game does not stop another studio from also working on a prince of Persia game. I mean we just got a metroidvania game in the series
I know I don’t hate it; I immediately imagined something that is more like Hades with a decent story and art, but even if you do find it unpalatable, with the breadth of indie games out there covering all genres (including brand new ones), there’s something for everyone—even the ol’ gaming curmudgeon. 😉
Why does it have to be more of the same shit that everyone hates now?
If everyone hated it it wouldn’t sell. There’s plenty of other things being made as well, I haven’t played Sands of Time but I would guess the God of War reboot is a similar genre.
There’s plenty of other stuff being made, and I’m pretty sure you either know that and just wanted to complain or somehow didn’t know, in which case it’s your own fault for not even trying to find everything else. There are always trending genres, that’s always been and will always be a thing. You don’t need to be a dick just because you aren’t a fan of the currently trending ones. You have literally all games ever made to play, nothing is forcing you to play only the most recent and popular ones. And a couple of years from now some other genre will be trending, maybe even ones you like. But as said, there’s plenty of good games being released in all genres and formulas, just look for what you like and you’ll find it, it’s really not hard.
It is kinda funny how people have no issue paying for it all together as bundle, but separate it so people can pay for things individually is silly and everyone is suddenly offended?
I would rather have a story for $10 and $1 outfits I can ignore, than to spend $30 on a story and bunch of cosmetics that don’t add to the game.
This is just marketing, nothing more. They make more money forcing you to buy everything than letting you pick what you want.
Eh… It’s more than just paying, but that a lot of the stuff which is now a standard microtransaction used to be integrated into the total experience, so you’d unlock outfits and such for finding secrets or completing challenges. That sort of content was integral to the over all experience, not just an extra to tack on as an afterthought.
That’s also just an affect on the market of people wanting more choice and not wanting to be forced to pay for stuff they don’t want.
Of course it can be swung in a negative light too, because it affects developers bottom lines, and they always want the most money possible. CDPR is no different.
The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion. The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.
Microtransactions is a system designed to prey on completionist whales. Barely anyone only buys a couple of things and doesn’t end up spending more than $30 over time as the content is drip fed and the new hotness comes along to replace the old hotness. Those that don’t spend anything, or just buy one thing before catching on, weren’t going to spend the $30 anyway.
It is false choice that negatively impacts the game experience.
The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion
So if they want the content, they can support the devs so they make more.
The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.
So no lose there, but they could buy an outfit if they liked it and want to support the dev.
…… that’s actually the majority of gamers…… 2% of the player base accounts for most of the purchases, that means the other 98% is still buying stuff, just not everything. So that’s not even remotely close to reality, most people pick and choose the content, which is literally why this because a thing, because the market wanted it….
just like the market wants nothing but superhero movies? This doesn't work anything like a free market. people would buy full games if they where available, devs just figured out they could drip feed the content and make significantly more money at the expense of a good product so you don't get to choose the good product because it doesn't exist. That's not the market choosing crap it's the market makers only providing crap.
They still buy full games though, using old as seats to make new content for an “old” game is a great way to have more income come in. Most would probably prefer to make a new game, but that takes longer as well.
So if it’s a dlc a year at $15 for 4 years, or a game every 4 years for $60… what’s the difference in the end? Other than what you think is going on inside your head? It’s the same content, same price, same everything, you just get content yearly instead of every 4 years. Bonus for everyone since they can than use that money after the first year to maybe make the other better.
I can’t possibly roll my eyes any harder at this statement, with gaming companies practically competing to go under as fast as possible over the past decade.
What…? Most people want more content more often with more options, not everyone wants a release every 4 years that’s the same content and story rehashed.
Unless the entire game is developed by an independent studio and is entirely funded on microtransactions, buying micro transactions is just there for more company profit on top of the regular game sales by stripping content out of a full release. It isn’t supporting the development.
People did have issues paying for it all together, back when they were called “expansion packs.”
I don’t mind paying for more of the game. I do mind paying for fixes to a broken game. I don’t mind optional cosmetic upgrades, but I don’t like pay-to-win, even in single player (looking at you, Nintendo amiibos).
But regardless, people are going to complain, and many of their complaints will be valid.
People had different issues with those, that was because online was a portion of it, and people thought devs were holding content back just to make more money. Obviously some did that, but they started painting every dev with that brush and they needed to adjust to save their bottom line from being affected.
Every change has been a reactionary effort to adjust for the market changes and people suddenly not wanting what they just wanted a few years ago, and using it to their marketing advantage. Of course not everyone is going to be happy, it’s just funny that certain devs get defended for doing what everyone else does since their marketing gets eating up.
I think some people like to know when it ends. Microtransactions can make it seem endless. Once you’ve done that a few times it makes you want to know about as much as you can upfront.
You know, the way you phrase it I’d be fine. Only in your example, instead of 60 for it all, it is now 60 for 80% of the story, another 2x15 for the remainder, and 10 per Outfit.
Oblivion had a LOT of post release paid content, most of which was decent value per $ spent, including a full on expansion. So while horse armour was a warning sign for things to come, Oblivion ALSO showcased the good side of paid post release content
Most recent update took away buddy features on my and my son’s phones. Between that, the lack of content, and no real reason to progress, I think I’ll be giving it up.
And they better sty that way for a while. More acquisitions will bring debt that will probably be gambled on, instead of trying to stabilize their portfolio.
The only ones who won with Embracer buying spree were studio owners and execs with their bonuses.
I played when it first came out, then again around 2018. Felt like a huge waste of potential to me. Unless there’s some legal reason, I absolutely cannot comprehend why a normal pokemon battling system wasn’t included.
Unless doing something besides just reskinning their other game (Ingress?) was too much work.
I’m not surprised that something carrying the Pokémon brand is somehow both extremely lucrative but also unwilling to dedicate the minimal effort necessary to add obvious features
I absolutely cannot comprehend why a normal pokemon battling system wasn’t included.
Because it doesn’t fit the design of the game.
Pokemon Go is meant to be played while walking around outside. This means you can’t have a lot of text because glare from the sun will make it too hard to read. The real battle system also requires more congnitive load than most people can handle while walking and takes too long which will lead to people stopping for extended periods of time at which point you’re no longer playing a pedometer game.
Embracer thinks that by buying studios, it could somehow magically make money. Embracer has no sense of the gaming market or who to sell what games? It has no sense about what projects to greenlight or not. It had already failed once, and it will fail again, most probably.
I liked it when it was first a thing and you’d see huge crowds of people in their early twenties out in parks and things … but I don’t think I ever really liked the game itself.
FUCKING STOP. Pieces of shit gambled with several studios to get themselves bought and it blew in their faces ruining several of said studios losing many many people their jobs.
I’m not a huge gamer anymore, at least not of newer games… aren’t microtransactions a bigger problem in multiplayer games because it gives player willing to spend money an unfair advantage over skilled players?
Sure, not necessarily… but in practice? Again, this is not something I have personal experience, but based on what I’ve read about it, it generally is about giving someone an advantage, isn’t it?
Some of the older COD games had guns you could only get with real money, and they were overpowered. Nowadays it seems even free to play games have mostly cosmetic micro transactions.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne