LogFAQs > #888356188

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	i don't see 'loot boxes' as gambling either, ok?
adjl 10/13/17 10:34:00 AM #31:	ZiggiStardust posted... gambling sets a president as something you could potentially get your money back several times over and save christmas, the farm, and the orphanage, ok? It's spending money for a chance to get a return. That's pretty much the definition of gambling, especially in cases where trading is an option and that item can have real-world value as a result. It's not going to be as life-destroying as spending days in a casino would be, but it's absolutely preying on the same reward circuits and addictive behaviour that casinos love to profit off of. Far-Queue posted... Developers are shutting down left and right in this make-or-break market, theyre all looking for ways to turn a profit and keep afloat. If microtransactions will keep them in business, I see them as a good thing. The thing is, though, it's not struggling small developers that are doing this. Most developers are happy to just make the best game they can and hope for the best, rather than relying on microtransactions and loot boxes and piles of DLC and other content pricing tricks to squeeze the most money they can out of their investment. It's the big publishers that do it, and even then only with games that they know will be selling like hotcakes regardless of how much they push the envelope and how many people they piss off. EA does not need to nickel and dime its customers to stay afloat. Ubisoft does not need to nickel and dime its customers to stay afloat. Squenix does not need to nickel and dime its customers to stay afloat. WB does not need to say "we can't fix the bugs that make Arkham Knight literally unplayable on PC's because we're too busy developing DLC for it" to stay afloat. But they do. I actually wouldn't be objecting much if it were new, small indie developers doing these things in an effort to gain a foothold in a cutthroat market, because it is indeed hard to make it in this industry. But that's not it at all. This is a combination of unchecked corporate greed and ridiculously bloated AAA budgets, from big publishers that are doing these things not because they need to, but because they know they can get away with it and make a quick buck. Big publishers don't need sympathy or extra support to make up for how hard it is to make it in this market. They can take care of themselves. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:888356188] in i don't se... [t:75868059]...</cite> <quote><cite>ZiggiStardust posted...</cite> <quote>gambling sets a president as something you could potentially get your money back several times over and save christmas, the farm, and the orphanage, ok?</quote> It's spending money for a chance to get a return. That's pretty much the definition of gambling, especially in cases where trading is an option and that item can have real-world value as a result. It's not going to be as life-destroying as spending days in a casino would be, but it's absolutely preying on the same reward circuits and addictive behaviour that casinos love to profit off of. <cite>Far-Queue posted...</cite> <quote>Developers are shutting down left and right in this make-or-break market, theyre all looking for ways to turn a profit and keep afloat. If microtransactions will keep them in business, I see them as a good thing.</quote> The thing is, though, it's not struggling small developers that are doing this. Most developers are happy to just make the best game they can and hope for the best, rather than relying on microtransactions and loot boxes and piles of DLC and other content pricing tricks to squeeze the most money they can out of their investment. It's the big publishers that do it, and even then only with games that they know will be selling like hotcakes regardless of how much they push the envelope and how many people they piss off. EA does not need to nickel and dime its customers to stay afloat. Ubisoft does not need to nickel and dime its customers to stay afloat. Squenix does not need to nickel and dime its customers to stay afloat. WB does not need to say "we can't fix the bugs that make Arkham Knight literally unplayable on PC's because we're too busy developing DLC for it" to stay afloat. But they do. I actually wouldn't be objecting much if it were new, small indie developers doing these things in an effort to gain a foothold in a cutthroat market, because it is indeed hard to make it in this industry. But that's not it at all. This is a combination of unchecked corporate greed and ridiculously bloated AAA budgets, from big publishers that are doing these things not because they need to, but because they know they can get away with it and make a quick buck. Big publishers don't need sympathy or extra support to make up for how hard it is to make it in this market. They can take care of themselves. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1