Current Events > Jim Sterling now whining about Sea of Thieves microtransactions

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgAjO3It2fI

Rare has claimed that Sea of Thieves will only have cosmetic DLC that isn't tied to loot boxes. People are happy about this. So of course Jim is throwing a tantrum over that despite it being a Games as Service title that will be supported for a long time and not a standard $60 title.
---

He has a pretty good point tbh.
---

Not giving him another click until he changes his BotW score
---

It's funny because your reaction is exactly what he warns about in the video. Keep acting like sheep, fam
---

Darmik posted...

So of course Jim is throwing a tantrum over that despite it being a Games as Service title that will be supported for a long time and not a standard $60 title.

Doesn't he hate the "Games as Service" model? If so I don't know why you'd expect that to make up for the microtransactions in his view.

OneThatFollows posted...

He has a pretty good point tbh.

Not really. He's saying that he was right about the bar being lowered and he called it.

But this isn't the kind of game they'd release 10 years ago. It's an open world multiplayer adventure game that will be constantly supported by the developer after release. The entire business model is different.

There aren't any lootboxes. There aren't any map packs or large expansions to pay for. Just some cosmetic and pet crap. How is this a step down from anything?
---

Games as a service and microtransactions are terrible concepts and you should feel terrible for defending them.
---

JE19426 posted...

Doesn't he hate the "Games as Service" model? If so I don't know why you'd expect that to make up for the microtransactions in his view.

That's not what he says in the video.

If he hates Games as a Service why does he even bother with these games to begin with?
---

He's right.

I always said that casuals will slaughter the gaming industry and year by year I'm proven right.

They don't even make games anymore, not games like you're used to anyways. They make 'hooks' and hope to catch as many as possible. More care goes into the UI for an in-game shop than it does to compelling narratives, gameplay, and so on. Low effort dogshit.
---

TheCurseX2 posted...

He's right.

I always said that casuals will slaughter the gaming industry and year by year I'm proven right.

They don't even make games anymore, not games like you're used to anyways. They make 'hooks' and hope to catch as many as possible. More care goes into the UI for an in-game shop than it does to compelling narratives, gameplay, and so on. Low effort dogshit.

I guess you didn't enjoy the sea of thieves beta?
---

The guy is a character playing his character for a YouTube channel cause itll give him views. Dont feed him since hes just gonna take the controversial opinion no matter what it is.
---

Darmik posted...

JE19426 posted...

Doesn't he hate the "Games as Service" model? If so I don't know why you'd expect that to make up for the microtransactions in his view.

That's not what he says in the video.

If he hates Games as a Service why does he even bother with these games to begin with?

So that he can make the same video over and over
---

Darmik posted...

I guess you didn't enjoy the sea of thieves beta?

I don't concern myself with low quality games that follow with garbage Twitch streamer trending, shit tier multiplayer gameplay.

If I want to, I'd rather play Sid Meier's Pirates for a proper nautical adventure as a scourge of the seas.
---

slothica posted...

Games as a service and microtransactions are terrible concepts and you should feel terrible for defending them.

This. They're grindy tedious garbage because they want you to play for a long time. And since they can't be bothered to come up with proportionate content, they get you addicted to playing the same few things over and over with cookie cutter skinner box psychological tricks. They're designed to be boring on purpose so you feel those endorphin hits better from those brief moments of excitement you get from a drop. They're designed to be awful on purpose to try and get you to pay to skip the awful parts.
TheCurseX2 posted...

He's right.

I always said that casuals will slaughter the gaming industry and year by year I'm proven right.

They don't even make games anymore, not games like you're used to anyways. They make 'hooks' and hope to catch as many as possible. More care goes into the UI for an in-game shop than it does to compelling narratives, gameplay, and so on. Low effort dogshit.

Yup, gaming is past its prime.

Games as a service is a good business model, especially if updates are free like Overwatch. Dude just whines about everything.
---

If you dislike Games as Service in general why would you care what business model they do?

It's like whining about MMO subscriptions being anti-consumer and then admitting you don't even like MMO's.
---

Darmik posted...

If you dislike Games as Service in general why would you care what business model they do?

It's like whining about MMO subscriptions being anti-consumer and then admitting you don't even like MMO's.

Because their business model is killing this industry. At least the concept behind MMO subscriptions is that you're paying for a persistent, constantly evolving world which pertains to keeping things fresh for the playerbase.

With most games these days that have microtransactions or those cancerous lootboxes, you're paying to fast track your way through the dull portions and get to the very brief 'meat' of the game. It promotes money whales, preys on impatience, and rewards the company for creating a really fundamentally shit game.

The cosmetics in Sea of Thieves should be what they would've been if this game came out in the mid 2000s: unlockables attained by discovery, overcoming a challenge, or something else that makes the player actually engage the game.

Calling it "whining" and denouncing all valid criticism as such goes to show that this industry desperately needs a dramatic shift or a new crash so it can escape this stagnant grip it has been in since the PS3/X360 era got rolling.
---

TheCurseX2 posted...

Because their business model is killing this industry. At least the concept behind MMO subscriptions is that you're paying for a persistent, constantly evolving world which pertains to keeping things fresh for the playerbase.

Wut? That's what these microtransactions are paying for!

TheCurseX2 posted...

With most games these days that have microtransactions or those cancerous lootboxes, you're paying to fast track your way through the dull portions and get to the very brief 'meat' of the game. It promotes money whales, preys on impatience, and rewards the company for creating a really fundamentally s*** game.

Ok? Sea of Thieves is entirely cosmetic though. Other games are bad so Sea of Thieves is bad isn't an argument.

TheCurseX2 posted...

The cosmetics in Sea of Thieves should be what they would've been if this game came out in the mid 2000s: unlockables attained by discovery, overcoming a challenge, or something else that makes the player actually engage the game.

Sea of Thieves isn't a traditional mid 2000's game. It's a Games as a Service title. It's not a game popped out for $60 with some balance patches and nothing else. It's not a game that will have a sequel in two years. It's a game that Rare intends to support with additional content for years.
---

brotrrwinner posted...

It's funny because your reaction is exactly what he warns about in the video. Keep acting like sheep, fam

Darmik posted...

Not really. He's saying that he was right about the bar being lowered and he called it.

Lol so you admit he is right and you're literally doing what he was worried about yet you're still mad at him?

Jesus
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Lol so you admit he is right and you're literally doing what he was worried about yet you're still mad at him?

Darmik posted...

But this isn't the kind of game they'd release 10 years ago. It's an open world multiplayer adventure game that will be constantly supported by the developer after release. The entire business model is different.

There aren't any lootboxes. There aren't any map packs or large expansions to pay for. Just some cosmetic and pet crap. How is this a step down from anything?

Try read the rest of the post next time.
---

So, it'll have cosmetic items that you can choose and buy, not lootboxes? Heck, even if they came in lootboxes I'd be ok with it, as long as they don't affect gameplay and there's a way to earn them by playing the game. No one's forcing you to buy them.
---

Darmik posted...

Wut? That's what these microtransactions are paying for!

Cool, it's a really shitty MMO then is what you're defending.

Darmik posted...

Ok? Sea of Thieves is entirely cosmetic though. Other games are bad so Sea of Thieves is bad isn't an argument.

The whole "it's just cosmetic" argument is fucking trash and people should stop jumping on it as some ethical blessing that has been bestowed upon them. This being multiplayer centric doubles that point home, what is the one thing that will distinguish someone from another in any online game? If you said "how they look" then you're a quick learner. Cosmetics matter a lot, looking good matters a lot, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters a lot. They may not have a direct influence on gameplay but they have a direct influence on the player. If you're going to play Sea of Thieves for any serious amount of time, you want to look 'cooler' or show off that you're not some random. It's the psychology of standing out in these games.

Darmik posted...

Sea of Thieves isn't a traditional mid 2000's game. It's a Games as a Service title. It's not a game popped out for $60 with some balance patches and nothing else. It's not a game that will have a sequel in two years. It's a game that Rare intends to support with additional content for years.

If it was a game that popped out for $60, some balance patches and properly sane ways of unlocking looks through playing it, then that would be a huge step up from the current direction it's going towards.

"Games as a service" is just another way of admitting that it's being backed by a design team that cares little for the game itself and more on how they can get your wallet open. You can support this type of dogshit but hopefully you realize that you're part of the problem on why games today are trash.
---

TheCurseX2 posted...

Cool, it's a really s***ty MMO then is what you're defending.

Again if you're not interested in the game why do you care what model it uses?

TheCurseX2 posted...

The whole "it's just cosmetic" argument is f***ing trash and people should stop jumping on it as some ethical blessing that has been bestowed upon them. This being multiplayer centric doubles that point home, what is the one thing that will distinguish someone from another in any online game? If you said "how they look" then you're a quick learner. Cosmetics matter a lot, looking good matters a lot, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters a lot. They may not have a direct influence on gameplay but they have a direct influence on the player. If you're going to play Sea of Thieves for any serious amount of time, you want to look 'cooler' or show off that you're not some random. It's the psychology of standing out in these games.

And why does this matter? If you want to buy a cosmetic outfit go for it.

TheCurseX2 posted...

If it was a game that popped out for $60, some balance patches and properly sane ways of unlocking looks through playing it, then that would be a huge step up from the current direction it's going towards.

But it isn't. The game wouldn't be the same thing under that model.

TheCurseX2 posted...

"Games as a service" is just another way of admitting that it's being backed by a design team that cares little for the game itself and more on how they can get your wallet open. You can support this type of dogs*** but hopefully you realize that you're part of the problem on why games today are trash.

If it's a good game I'll play it. If it isn't I won't.

It's really not that complicated.

Personally I have no trouble finding modern games that aren't trash. 2017 is one of my favorite years in gaming for a long time.
---

The game is not gonna last longer than 6 months anyways.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

The game is not gonna last longer than 6 months anyways.

Maybe. I wonder if Games Pass will save it. I might use my trial for it and give it a go.
---

Darmik posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

The game is not gonna last longer than 6 months anyways.

Maybe. I wonder if Games Pass will save it. I might use my trial for it and give it a go.

I don't know if anyone is going to pay for Games Pass monthly to continue playing THIS, it'll just still be available because of it.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Darmik posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

The game is not gonna last longer than 6 months anyways.

Maybe. I wonder if Games Pass will save it. I might use my trial for it and give it a go.

I don't know if anyone is going to pay for Games Pass monthly to continue playing THIS, it'll just still be available because of it.

Well it's more that it's one of several games you can keep playing. But I have no idea how many people subscribe to it.
---

Darmik posted...

Again if you're not interested in the game why do you care what model it uses?

Because a shitty model should always be called a shitty model no matter what.

Darmik posted...

And why does this matter? If you want to buy a cosmetic outfit go for it.

Because saying cosmetic outfits are in some way ethical is laughable as I pointed out as to why.

Darmik posted...

But it isn't. The game wouldn't be the same thing under that model.

Because then it'd actually stand a chance at being a somewhat decent game, surprisingly!

Darmik posted...

If it's a good game I'll play it. If it isn't I won't.

You'd rather play a games as a service title than a fully realized, fleshed out, retail game that justifies its price.

I don't think you know what a "good game" is.
---

TheCurseX2 posted...

Because saying cosmetic outfits are in some way ethical is laughable as I pointed out as to why.

It's not ethical or unethical. It's just a thing to buy like any other DLC

TheCurseX2 posted...

Because then it'd actually stand a chance at being a somewhat decent game, surprisingly!

It wouldn't be an open world social pirate game so it's moot point. Not every game is going to be the same thing and use the same model.

TheCurseX2 posted...

You'd rather play a games as a service title than a fully realized, fleshed out, retail game that justifies its price.

Where did I say that
---

Good. If you're going to present your consumers with a free-to-play model, your game should be free-to-play
---

Frolex posted...

Good. If you're going to present your consumers with a free-to-play model, your game should be free-to-play

I don't think a game like Sea of Thieves could be funded entirely by cosmetic microtransactions. Also it's sold in retail.
---

Okay, look, constantly defending a shitty title like Sea of Thieves and denouncing criticism against it in any way as 'whining' kind of gives away your position that you obviously plan to play and throw money into this garbage before moving on to the next thing.

We're talking about business models over talking about the actual game. If that doesn't hit a red flag that you may be interested in a pretty bad game then there's no hope for you. You've taken your integrity and shoved it off a plank long ago.
---

Darmik posted...

Frolex posted...

Good. If you're going to present your consumers with a free-to-play model, your game should be free-to-play

I don't think a game like Sea of Thieves could be funded entirely by cosmetic microtransactions. Also it's sold in retail.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/138382/20160303/ea-makes-1-3-billion-on-microtransactions-and-dlc-per-year.htm

If the microtransactions are as o p t i o n a l as you claim and the player base is as h a p p y about them, why can't it be supported as a free to play title?
---

slothica posted...

Games as a service and microtransactions are terrible concepts and you should feel terrible for defending them.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZqo4OZ0Pqs
---

TheCurseX2 posted...

Okay, look, constantly defending a s***ty title like Sea of Thieves and denouncing criticism against it in any way as 'whining' kind of gives away your position that you obviously plan to play and throw money into this garbage before moving on to the next thing.

I'm gonna use a trial to play it for free for a month.

TheCurseX2 posted...

We're talking about business models over talking about the actual game. If that doesn't hit a red flag that you may be interested in a pretty bad game then there's no hope for you. You've taken your integrity and shoved it off a plank long ago.

This topic is about the game. I never said that all Games as a Service titles are good. But Sea of Thieves specifically seems like a good model.

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

Frolex posted...

Good. If you're going to present your consumers with a free-to-play model, your game should be free-to-play

I don't think a game like Sea of Thieves could be funded entirely by cosmetic microtransactions. Also it's sold in retail.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/138382/20160303/ea-makes-1-3-billion-on-microtransactions-and-dlc-per-year.htm

If the microtransactions are as o p t i o n a l as you claim and the player base is as h a p p y about them, why can't it be supported as a free to play title?

I don't know what this argument is supposed to be. EA make lots of money so that means you should be able to play their games for free?
---

Darmik posted...

I don't know what this argument is supposed to be. EA make lots of money so that means you should be able to play their games for free?

since any claims that microtransactions aren't hugely profitable are objectively demonstrably bullshit, what is the justification for your claim that sea of thieves couldn't be supported as a free to play title
---

People vote with their wallet.

If they are happy with whatever is being put in front of them, they will pay.

And I have no right to tell someone to hate something based on my own ideas of what is "good for the industry".
---

I'm fine with microtransactions and DLC. Loot boxes are different. They straight-up result in completely fucked up game economies for people who don't buy them - in Battlefront II it was basically impossible to advance without them unless you played all day every day.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

People vote with their wallet.

Not when whales exist. Also...

refmon posted...

slothica posted...

Games as a service and microtransactions are terrible concepts and you should feel terrible for defending them.

---

Of course whales exist. The free market is never truly free. Those with more money will spend more to support something they want to support.

Just because people have a bunch of money doesn't mean they will just whilly nilly support ANYTHING.

Some people really like Overwatch, and because they LIKE IT, they will spend a bunch of money buying loot boxes. They don't do it just because they have a lot of money, they have a lot of money and want to support Overwatch.
---

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

I don't know what this argument is supposed to be. EA make lots of money so that means you should be able to play their games for free?

since any claims that microtransactions aren't hugely profitable are objectively demonstrably bullshit, what is the justification for your claim that sea of thieves couldn't be supported as a free to play title

EA making money on DLC doesn't somehow magically mean that Sea of Thieves would be sustainable solely on a cosmetic microtransaction business model.

A model that doesn't even start until 3 months after launch too.
---

Lol @ people complaining about fucking cosmetics. Especially if they're made post release AND all updates are free. Just don't buy the cosmetics, simple as that. I understand complaining about nickel and diming for in game powerups or get gud quick cash, but this is significantly different.
---

Darmik posted...

EA making money on microtransactions doesn't somehow magically mean that Sea of Thieves would be sustainable solely on a cosmetic microtransaction business model.

Give me one good reason. You said yourself their players are happy about them.
---

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

EA making money on microtransactions doesn't somehow magically mean that Sea of Thieves would be sustainable solely on a cosmetic microtransaction business model.

Give me one good reason. You said yourself their players are happy about them.

One good reason for what?

Expecting to be able to play a AAA game for free because you can buy a parrot for $3 isn't reasonable at all.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Of course whales exist. The free market is never truly free. Those with more money will spend more to support something they want to support.

Just because people have a bunch of money doesn't mean they will just whilly nilly support ANYTHING.

Some people really like Overwatch, and because they LIKE IT, they will spend a bunch of money buying loot boxes. They don't do it just because they have a lot of money, they have a lot of money and want to support Overwatch.

Yeah, show your support for that indie studio Blizzard.

Fuckin' agents of decline everywhere.
---

Darmik posted...

Frolex posted...

Darmik posted...

I don't know what this argument is supposed to be. EA make lots of money so that means you should be able to play their games for free?

since any claims that microtransactions aren't hugely profitable are objectively demonstrably bullshit, what is the justification for your claim that sea of thieves couldn't be supported as a free to play title

EA making money on DLC doesn't somehow magically mean that Sea of Thieves would be sustainable solely on a cosmetic microtransaction business model.

A model that doesn't even start until 3 months after launch too.

Microsoft strikes me as the kind of company that would monetize the shit out of SoT. Look at all the microtransactions they have for Halo, Gears and especially Forza.

They have so few first party exclusives; they're going to milk them dry.
---

refmon posted...

slothica posted...

Games as a service and microtransactions are terrible concepts and you should feel terrible for defending them.

---