I thought this was a joke but it seems like it’s actually legit. WoW, which has a subscription and paid expansions, just added a $90 item to their store. This is Korean MMO levels of absurdity. What do you think of this?...
After playing World of Warcraft for 15 years, I started becoming increasingly bored and disgruntled with the game. The game being grindy and repetitive is no real surprise, I mean it’s an MMO. But the one thing that was really frustrating was paying monthly for a subscription and a huge chunk of cash for an expansion, but...
Just ditch the idea that you need any of those things. You don’t. From a personal gaming perspective, these have been great for me because I get to play all of these games for free because other people are paying for it for me.
I understand the joy comes from playing the game itself, not the loot.
This is a life lesson as well. You don’t need any of the flashy shit. Trying to avoid it is a losing battle, better to just understand it.
Im not a big fan of pay to win, but I see no problem with micro transactions for cosmetic stuff. If people are dumb and want to spend their money on that, more power to them, especially if I benefit from it.
I’m not going to avoid enjoying myself because you say other people can’t control themselves. That’s like telling someone to not drink alcohol because some people suffer from addiction, and alcohol companies advertise.
But people will buy alcohol because they are addicted. It’s a harmful substance, that the producers know is harmful, especially to addicts, and sell the highly addictive substance anyway. It’s profiting from manipulating weaknesses in human psychology, just like the games are. If no one bought it, people would stop producing it. So simply extending your logic, buying alcohol is self-centered and contributing to alcoholism.
As someone who grew up playing games like World of Warcraft and other AAA titles, I’ve seen how the gaming industry has evolved over the years—and not always for the better. One of the most disturbing trends is the rise of gacha games, which are, at their core, thinly veiled gambling systems targeting younger players. And I...
When I was leaving college a quarter of a century ago I briefly considered going into game dev…even back then everyone said it was low paid and gruelling work, so I passed.
Runescape is jacking up their subscription prices next month, going from like 12 bucks to 14 bucks a month. The increases range from 20% to 56% in price depending on currency. Players are PISSED about it especially since the company got bought out by some investment firm earlier this year, and they see it as a shameless cash...
Wait, is this is a joke? While I agree there is a lot of “get gud,” the bulk of the rest of it is dumb memes, and beyond that it’s people whining about every little thing. The whiners far out number any shills.
If you whine about the pay increase, but pay it anyway (or continue to pay it now)…the feedback you’re giving is that it’s actually worth that price to you, and your words are effectively meaningless.
It’s been many years, maybe even decades, since I liked a straight up turn-based single player RPG. I seriously can’t think of one that has sucked me in since FFX. I even tried Divinity Original Sin 2 after so much hype and good reviews from my friends. But I just didn’t like it.
However, Baldur’s Gate 3 sucked me in. According to steam, approaching 100 hours of playtime (although I’m sure there is a good chunk of time where I just walked away with the PC with it “paused.”)
I’m not saying you’ll like the game, I have no idea. But to already be convinced that you won’t like it based on pretty much the nothing we’ve got it terribly presumptuous.
I’m not ordering pizza from a restaurant if I’ve eaten 12 pizzas before and never liked any of them.
I was very intentional with my language, and pointed out that we know pretty much nothing about the game, so claiming you know you won’t like it is h reasonable. This is nothing like having a pizza, not liking it, and then not getting that same pizza again. This is like not liking the pizza at one store, it’s much closer to saying you don’t like the pizza in one store, so you know you won’t like it in another. Still imperfect because it would be closer saying you’ve never had a pizza you like, so you won’t like the pizza in a new store, which is more reasonable because you have a lot of information about that pizza.
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 could agree that it’s overkill, but that doesn’t warrant the outrage we’re seeing here. IMO of course. If this is really offensive to you, just wait for release. Considering it’s FTP so this doesn’t apply as much, but I would recommend even waiting until way after release to buy a game.
I agree that it should just be an NDA to be the most fair. But keep in mind I’m responding to someone who is claiming this is beyond egregious and that there should be laws against this.
It’s just not a big deal. It makes sense for them to say that you can’t disparage the game, because it’s in alpha, but why would they restrict good press? If you find this to be disagreeable, it’s alpha and you can just wait for release.
While I find it disagreeable, I don’t see anything to be outraged over, as avoiding it is as simple as not playing a game in alpha.
Unlike the mcdonald’s example where it is actually a released product.
I haven’t read the entire agreement, so I don’t really know nor do I care to. But I suspect that it would squarely fall under protected speech once the game has gone public and they’ve “purchased” it.
Of course, you could make arguments against the terms being overreaching in court, but not many creators have the resources or desire for a legal fight.
Sure, more reasonable and fair. But this is neither unreasonable nor particularly unfair, as long as it’s restricted to the alpha. If you find it bad, don’t play it, and understand that what opinions come out of alpha are biased by this. I would recommend taking all reviews that come out of any alpha with a huge grain of salt.
I understand exactly why they are doing it; what you say comes as no surprise. It’s 100% part of my point.
Coming from software development, including a small amount of game development, I understand how trash alphas can be, especially if you introduce users/players. So it seems reasonable that if the point of the alpha is to flush these bugs/exploits out, which is the point, then restricting the players who are allowed in from disparaging a far from complete game is not some ridiculous overreach everyone here seems to want it to be.
I agree with you. But this is basically a non-issue, which is my point. If you don’t want to be restricted, don’t play the alpha. Why is this so hard for some people to accept? Again, we aren’t talking about a released product, but some playtesting.
Alpha testing is, by definition, testing on unreleased code. Even though they are offering the testing to some select group of people, it’s still considered un-released.
The only reason you’d make someone sign a legally binding document saying “you’re not allowed to say bad things” is because you know there are bad things to say.
False dichotomy. There is also the possibility that you realize, from experience, that when you start introducing users, unexpected shit happens.
They could do the alpha testing completely internally, or they could give some super fans pre-access with more restrictions on what they are allowed to say. Would I prefer they be able to speak their mind? Of course. But I get why the company would do this and it’s really a complete non-issue.
Sure, they could do an NDA, or they could also get free publicity. It’s reasonable for them to choose the latter, and if you don’t like it, it’s reasonable for you to wait for release.
Preventing people from talking about the bad things won’t magically get rid of the bad things.
Yeah, that’s pretty clearly not the point. They presumably want to fix the bugs without them counting against them in the court of public opinion.
Marvel want free bug testers, and to get the hype train moving - but don’t want to pay for actual testers who work quietly, and want only positive commentary. Marvel want an astroturf campaign to push preorders, not actual genuine discussion or bug testing.
Okay, then the problem is with the people doing the work for free, not with Marvel realizing that people will do it for free.
The issue is that the people who do this work for free are not like you, and want that early access. . .either for strictly personal reasons or because it benefits them financially (such as is the case with streamers).
Your linked to an article literally starts by asking “What kinds of contracts might not hold up in court?” and then goes on to explain this as one of these as “For example, a court will never enforce a contract promoting something already against state or federal law.” Basically proving my point.
And I’m universally downvoted, and you’re universally upvoted. Lemmy users crack me up.
This is a slippery slope fallacy “if they are allowed to do something mild and legal now. . .well, it will just lead to terrible violation of our rights in the future!”
What undermines your point is that if they try to put these illegal restrictions on many people, violating their basic rights, then they are opening themselves up to large class action lawsuits.
I actually looked into the game because I didn’t know anything about it and figured I should inform myself a bit.
What makes this whole overreacting raging we are seeing here even more funny and ridiculous is that the game is going to be FTP. So basically, once released, anyone can go and try it out, for free, to see whether or not it’s worth any investment by them.
So, yeah, if someone is offering you to pre-order this game, I definitely suggest you not buy it because they are trying to scam you.
There’s nothing in this wording that implies anything more than “don’t negatively review us”
It’s says subjective negative reviews. it seems if you say “It kept crashing” or “this feature wasn’t working” or “this feature was super bugged” those aren’t subjective.
es dumb consumers exist, but that isn’t a free pass for corporate exploitation or false advertising.
Except I didn’t see where they advertised that people were going to be able to join the alpha with no restrictions, and I don’t see this as “exploitation” at all. People want to play these games first. I don’t get why, but they do. And they are being given that opportunity.
Are you arguing that alpha testing is not considered in house testing? It’s literally the definition.
The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase of software testing (alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, used as the number 1). In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release.[1][2]
Alpha software is not thoroughly tested by the developer before it is released to customers. Alpha software may contain serious errors, and any resulting instability could cause crashes or data loss.[3] Alpha software may not contain all of the features that are planned for the final version.[4] In general, external availability of alpha software is uncommon for proprietary software, while open source software often has publicly available alpha versions. The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software. At this time, the software is said to be feature-complete. A beta test is carried out following acceptance testing at the supplier’s site (the alpha test) and immediately before the general release of the software as a product.[5]Wikipedia link
I’m sure parts of the game are well polished. I’m sure some only release a small part of the game for advertising reasons. They are doing something different here maybe. I don’t really know. But this is such a non-issue that the outrage over it is laughable. Not surprising, at all, however, considering I’ve been a gamer all my life and I know how unreasonable we can be.
There’s nothing in the definition of review that requires it to be subjective. It’s shocking that you didn’t even stop to look it up to first figure out if this is accurate.
you’ll realise that it is impossible to determine the quality of a video game in a purely objective way.
The only subtle thing here is the subtle change in your wording from simple “review” to “determine the quality.” I agree with you there, as whether you think something is good or bad is subjective.
But it appears you realize Im right, which is why you’re trying to reframe it. Why is it hard for you to admit you were wrong? It’s okay, no one is perfect.
I literally gave you a definition that says a review means to determine quality
“Or” do you really not know what that word means? Do you really not realize that when you cherry pick one part of a definition that it doesn’t mean none of the others apply?
Are.you really such an idiot that you don’t know this? Or is it just that you’re willing to be completely dishonest in defense of your ego?
And of course you don’t address the fact that I called out your reframing. Stupid and dishonest. Lol
Please do tell me how if I wrote the whole definition there of “determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone” instead of shortening it to just “determine quality” it would make my entire point completely invalid.
You see that “or” in the definition? The word I already pointed out to you in the previous post? It does not mean “the one thing from this list that I get to pick because it makes me not wrong” it means “any of these things.” I can’t believe someone insulting me as “not having the reading comprehension of a third grader” needs this explained. It’s honestly hilarious. Although, can we appreciate for a second that you first said it was “subtle” but now are trying to argue that “it so obvious even a third grader would figure it out.” lmao. This is classic. Please keep it up.
Do you see how absurdly idiotic you’re being?
If I’m being absurdly idiotic, god help us because no way in hell we’re going to be able to come up with a term describe your stupidity. You’re not giving us nearly enough space to reach the depths of your stupidity if the fact that I understand what “or” means makes me “absurdly idiotic.” lol
To most of us, this is probably just a summary of events over the past year or so. But, it’s good to know that this sort of news is reaching non-gaming channels.
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.
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.
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.
Ignoring the lack of updates if the game is buggy, games back then were also more focused on quality and make gamers replay the game with unlockable features based on skills, not money. I can’t count the number of times I played Metal Gear Solid games over and over to unlock new features playing the hardest difficulty and with...
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.”
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.
World of Warcraft adds $90 mount to in game store (lemmy.world) angielski
I thought this was a joke but it seems like it’s actually legit. WoW, which has a subscription and paid expansions, just added a $90 item to their store. This is Korean MMO levels of absurdity. What do you think of this?...
My mental health has improved after deleting games that have microtransactions in them angielski
After playing World of Warcraft for 15 years, I started becoming increasingly bored and disgruntled with the game. The game being grindy and repetitive is no real surprise, I mean it’s an MMO. But the one thing that was really frustrating was paying monthly for a subscription and a huge chunk of cash for an expansion, but...
Gacha games are out of control. Gambling shouldn't be so widespread angielski
As someone who grew up playing games like World of Warcraft and other AAA titles, I’ve seen how the gaming industry has evolved over the years—and not always for the better. One of the most disturbing trends is the rise of gacha games, which are, at their core, thinly veiled gambling systems targeting younger players. And I...
Video Game Developers Are Leaving The Industry And Doing Something, Anything Else (aftermath.site) angielski
RuneScape is increasing their membership price by 50%, and Reddit is trying to censor it angielski
Runescape is jacking up their subscription prices next month, going from like 12 bucks to 14 bucks a month. The increases range from 20% to 56% in price depending on currency. Players are PISSED about it especially since the company got bought out by some investment firm earlier this year, and they see it as a shameless cash...
Images leak of Valve's next game, and it's an Overwatch-style hero shooter (www.eurogamer.net) angielski
Though the way the leaker describes it makes it sound more like a 3rd person MOBA than a hero shooter....
Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest (files.catbox.moe) angielski
On today’s episode of “This shouldn’t be legal”…...
How Greed Ruined Gaming (www.youtube.com) angielski
To most of us, this is probably just a summary of events over the past year or so. But, it’s good to know that this sort of news is reaching non-gaming channels.
The Way Forward, an update from the team behind Cities: Skylines (forum.paradoxplaza.com) angielski
TL;DR:...
Gameplay mechanics were also a lot better with more replayability. (lemmy.world) angielski
Ignoring the lack of updates if the game is buggy, games back then were also more focused on quality and make gamers replay the game with unlockable features based on skills, not money. I can’t count the number of times I played Metal Gear Solid games over and over to unlock new features playing the hardest difficulty and with...
Classic Microsoft (lemmy.world)