LogFAQs > #965831268

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Even then I'd argue you better be one of the best games ever made (and not just an addiction-fueled Skinner Box) and would have to run for at least 15 uninterrupted years of constant content updates before I'd accept the argument.

(And even then, the fact that games like Kingdom of Loathing - which has been running for 20 years for essentially "free" - exist kind of undercuts the idea that games "need" to operate that way. There are ways to create and maintain self-supporting games that don't involve reaping your audience for maximum profits - publishers just refuse to make games that way.)

Eh, I'm always hesitant to accept the "cheaper games exist so this shouldn't be so expensive" philosophy of value assessment. Hours of entertainment per dollar is the closest thing that exists to an objective metric of value for games (or any entertainment medium, really), but leaning too heavily on that leads to developers and (especially) publishers padding games to artificially increase their length and perceived value, often to the detriment of the overall experience. It also makes it very difficult for shorter experiences that can't be cheaper to gain a foothold, and that's just not a healthy environment for entertainment as a whole.

It's something that certainly can be considered and should be brought out whenever some greedy publisher insists that they have to keep charging a ton of money for further content in a game that really doesn't cost that much to keep running, but the reality of the matter is that there's a significant difference between periodically adding content to a solo developer's passion project browser game and periodically adding content to a game that takes 100+ full-time staff to maintain. The latter needs to cost more, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

Hypothetically, if I'd kept up with WoW for ~4 months per expansion, to date, I would have spent somewhere in the realm of $880 ($60 base, $40*8 expansions, $15*4 months*(8+1)). That would have been over the course of 17 years, and that kind of time investment would be about what's involved in just working through each expansion's quest and story content, without getting deep into raiding or other stuff that's really gated by random chance and grinding to lengthen the game (so avoiding the "addiction-fuelled Skinner box" issue). On paper, I don't consider that unreasonable. In practice, I quit when I did because I got bored and I'm not tremendously interested in picking the game back up again, so it's not a purchase I'd seriously consider, but that kind of long-term content delivery (which arguably boils down to paying $100 for a new 2-300-hour game every two years, rather than paying $800 for a single game) can work and be quite reasonable.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Worse, these days most "game-as-service" games will never keep the servers running that long. Once they've exploited the initial cash-in period (when the majority of players will pay for microtransactions or new content), they'll shut down in favor of the inevitable sequel (and next batch of having to buy everything in-game all over again). At which point you can't even play the game you've sunk so much money into.

This, however, is indeed the reality of most of these things. Most publishers aren't looking for a long-term commitment to steady income, they're looking to cash in on early spending, then abandon the project to chase the next big payday. That's why, if I'm going to even consider spending $1000 on a single game, it's going to have to be a long, gradual process. Anyone that wants me to invest $1000 up-front with the promise of decades of content is going to be disappointed.

funkyfritter posted...

What concerns me about Diablo 4 is how easily they can adjust the mtx system over time. It would be all too easy for them to make the offers tame at launch, then once the general playbase has decided they like the game start monetizing more aggressively and introducing stuff that affects gameplay.

See: Fallout 76. "There will never be any pay-to-win microtransactions!" followed by the introduction of pay-to-win microtransactions a few months later. This is not an industry that can be trusted to keep their word when it comes to promises not to exploit players whenever possible, and ABK in particular has not earned that trust. We've seen what "you won't be able to buy gear" turned into; they're going to include every form of monetization they think they can get away with.

Yellow posted...

You can play a ftp game without paying. It's like watching a great movie and to see the last 1/3, you gotta pay about $3000.

If you're a posting on the internet you have no excuse. This shit is meant to trick the Facebookers. You traded your soul for a brain though, you know better.

Except for the part where these games are specifically designed to prey on neurodivergent people who have innate difficulty resisting the urge to spend. Autism and especially ADHD are characterized by poor impulse control, those that struggle with addictions basically have to cut themselves off completely (which is especially troubling for recovering gambling addicts who had turned to games as a healthier outlet for their addictive tendencies, only to have those same games infested with gambling mechanics to again threaten them with bankruptcy), actual children with their heightened sense of FOMO and diminished ability to recognize in-game currencies as proxies for real money (not neurodivergence per se, but still something these games prey on)...

It's easy to look at these as a (mostly) neurotypical person and say "I won't spend money on that" and solve the problem at a personal level, but the problem is much bigger than that. These practices are deeply predatory and should not be allowed exist any more than unregulated casinos should exist. The only reason they're not globally beholden to the same regulations that face casinos is that most governments are comprised primarily of people too old to name a video game newer than Pac-Man and therefore understand nothing about the situation beyond what corporate mouthpieces say in defending the practices.