We aren’t talking about something in production, like this app, we are talking about play testing a game in alpha. I would be upset if this was in a released game, or even like the beta test, but if it’s still under serious development it seems incredibly reasonable to me.
I get your point, but I disagree because they need me for the whales, so the game has to also be made for the non whales as well. The payment system is made for extracting money from whales.
But really I was responding to the claim that it was ruined for me. And I find that to be the exact opposite: I care about having fun playing a well polished game, and now can do that for free. It’s like the opposite of being ruined.
I played multiple supercell games (coc, bb, cr, be) for years, each, without paying a dime. They were well polished and fun games, and I got to play them for free.
I also really enjoy foetnite. Again, well polished. I play for free.
Will I ever compete at the highest level? No. And omg I’ll never own all the skins! Lol But I’ve had plenty of fun, because other people will pay the game makers for me. This is fantastic, as far as I’m concerned.
Sure, mtx can be implemented terribly, but I’ve also benefitted from it’s implementation as well.
You’re one of the few. Pretty much everyone else complaining about how modern games are bad and the time you speak of was some magical time for gaming, are at the same time only be playing games from the last decade or so.
Having been a game since the early 80s, I would argue gaming is better now than it has ever been. It has its own set of problems, but nothing better than throwing a game I’m interested in into my wishlist, waiting for it to go on deep sale (which happens long after most of those annoying first bugs have been ironed out), checking the reviews at that point, and then downloading if it still looks good.
Generally speaking, games are so much better looking and have the ability to be far more intricate and interesting. Like I played hundreds of hours of civ I. But if I’m going to play civ now, it will be 5 or 6.
I just recently bought “Populous” on steam for 2$.
It’s funny because I was explicitly thinking of populous at some point when thinking about replayability. What a great game. Although I played it on SNES. Countless hours on that game. Almost as bad as Tetris.
People have become used to better graphics and smoother gameplay. You can’t go back after that. People like having other people to play with too.
This is what it ultimately comes down to for me: the games are better, and they can’t go back. If the games from back then were actually better, then people would be playing them all the time. But the reality is that people seem to pull more enjoyment from modern games, which is why they keep going back to them despite the constant “they suck!” complaints.
Despite all the crap you get with old games, you can tell that so many of them were made to be as much fun as possible. Like, that was the main aim and not “engagement at all costs, even enjoyment.” They were labours of love, warts and all.
And I feel that’s true now, like with the games I mentioned (BG3 and Anno 1800). And back then there were definitely cash grabs, like ET jumps to mind as the most famous example, but almost every NES game that was based on some kind of movie or other pop culture thing. It’s just they are better at grabbing cash now. But there are also plenty of modern games that don’t implement these addictive features, in order to keep siphoning money off of you, they are just fun and people play them infinitely more than going back to the olden days.
And, again, I don’t want people to get me wrong. I definitely agree that there is a lot of shit, especially dirty shit, where they abuse human psychology to keep people playing and siphoning off money. But I feel like it’s ridiculously overstated and people are also ridiculously blind to how much better gaming is now than it was “back in the good old days.”
Agreed. Although that’s not what anyone actually says. Just read the comments in this thread. You would think they rdr2 was completely unplayable shit hole of micro transactions.
But what about rdr2 to link to the past? Removing the “considering the era” part of the equation, just 1 to 1.
Case in point, you can still play all of these old games. If you are willing to pirate, you can get access to thousands of games, most you never even played before, for free. You never have to pay for another game as long as you live and a still be playing new games from this era of “better” games.
I’ve done this myself. Played for like a month, and then for bored. And basically noone does that. I have the Nintendo switch access to old nes games. My kids never touch it. No one can really say because there is no novelty.
You know why? Modern games are way better. This isn’t to say these isn’t some annoying shit that goes along with them. But the old days weren’t some magical time of gaming. It seems magical because it was new, especially to the people living during that time, and simply due to nostalgia.
I know I won’t be popular, but I love modern gaming. I throw a game I’m interested in in my steam wish list. I wait for it to drop to below 20 dollars, and then I buy it.
The most recent games that I’ve put a ton of hours into are bg3 and anno 1800. No micro transactions, unless I missed something.
I also played a ton of supercell games: coc, cr, and bs. Many entertaining hours over years. Never spent a dime. Micro transactions other people paid allowed me to play for free. How is this not amazing?
I’m open to hearing competing ideas, but if you do you disagree with me, expect me to ask why you don’t do the things above, and just answer the question in your post. If that’s ignored, it will just indicate to me that you realize I’m right.
Sure, of course, it’s an idea you want to talk about. This isn’t the same as saying you think whatever you want to talk about has to go one way or another. Even in the thought experiment itself, there were people who dissent, although they don’t play a prominent role in the story at all.
And also let’s keep in mind that this was some blog post by an individual contributor, not some official statement by the wef.
But I present my ideas with an open mind all the time. I’m rarely sold on my first thought, I’ll float the idea, and often will outright dismiss it quickly. The idea that if I promote an idea I want to talk about, even if I’m giving what my initial desire is for it, means I’m sold on that position, seems very foreign to me. It seems so crippling… Like how do you collaborate on anything if any idea you put forward is treated as the be all end all?