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

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Frolex 02/14/18 7:51:06 PM #51:	Darmik posted... . 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. Considering the amount of money those cosmetic microtransactions drive and the fact that, by their own admission, they're intentionally locking away content behind a paywall,seems more than reasonable enough to me. --- http://i.imgur.com/HOLHd4k.gif http://i.imgur.com/six2WTN.gif <cite>Frolex posted [p:896098121] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> . 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.</quote> Considering the amount of money those cosmetic microtransactions drive and the fact that, by their own admission, they're intentionally locking away content behind a paywall,seems more than reasonable enough to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
voldothegr8 02/14/18 7:51:27 PM #52:	Smashingpmkns posted... 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. No it's fucking not significantly different and that's the god damn point he makes. "It's just cosmetics, that's not bad." Defenders where saying that shit over 10 years ago and look what happened, it got worse and worse and continues to get worse. It's shouldn't exist at all. --- Oda break tracker 2018- 1 (1) \| THE Ohio State: 11-2 \| Oakland Raiders: 6-10 Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE <cite>voldothegr8 posted [p:896098152] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> No it's fucking not significantly different and that's the god damn point he makes. "It's just cosmetics, that's not bad." Defenders where saying that shit over 10 years ago and look what happened, it got worse and worse and continues to get worse. It's shouldn't exist at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jeff AKA Snoopy 02/14/18 7:52:27 PM #54:	TheCurseX2 posted... 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. What does the size of a company matter? I like Overwatch, and I have spent money on some loot boxes. I 100% wanted to support them because they made a product that made me WANT to support them. --- https://i.imgtc.com/5AQormY.gif <cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted [p:896098226] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Yeah, show your support for that indie studio Blizzard. Fuckin' agents of decline everywhere.</quote> What does the size of a company matter? I like Overwatch, and I have spent money on some loot boxes. I 100% wanted to support them because they made a product that made me WANT to support them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/14/18 7:54:51 PM #55:	Frolex posted... Darmik posted... . 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. Considering the amount of money those cosmetic microtransactions drive and the fact that, by their own admission, they're intentionally locking away content behind a paywall,seems more than reasonable enough to me. So you think games like Uncharted 4 and GTAV should be free to play? --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896098354] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> . 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.</quote> Considering the amount of money those cosmetic microtransactions drive and the fact that, by their own admission, they're intentionally locking away content behind a paywall,seems more than reasonable enough to me.</quote> So you think games like Uncharted 4 and GTAV should be free to play?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 7:56:13 PM #56:	Jeff AKA Snoopy posted... What does the size of a company matter? I like Overwatch, and I have spent money on some loot boxes. I 100% wanted to support them because they made a product that made me WANT to support them. You paid them money to play their game in the first place, you continue to play their game for a long period of time, there's your "support." Asking them for a way to throw money at them over and over again is fucking virulence. You're why this industry needs a crash. --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896098439] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...</cite> <quote>What does the size of a company matter? I like Overwatch, and I have spent money on some loot boxes. I 100% wanted to support them because they made a product that made me WANT to support them.</quote> You paid them money to play their game in the first place, you continue to play their game for a long period of time, there's your "support." Asking them for a way to throw money at them over and over again is fucking virulence. You're why this industry needs a crash.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 02/14/18 7:56:45 PM #57:	voldothegr8 posted... Smashingpmkns posted... 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. No it's fucking not significantly different and that's the god damn point he makes. "It's just cosmetics, that's not bad." Defenders where saying that shit over 10 years ago and look what happened, it got worse and worse and continues to get worse. It's shouldn't exist at all. It is significantly different. This is additional content that is made for the purpose of making money, not content that is made regardless then tacked on with a dollar amount afterwards. This content wouldn't exist without that price paid, meaning you are 100% against optional added content and would be happier with less options, less optional content. Which is dumb as hell. If you're okay with not having those options then don't buy them. fucking simple. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:896098465] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>voldothegr8 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote> 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.</quote> No it's fucking not significantly different and that's the god damn point he makes. "It's just cosmetics, that's not bad." Defenders where saying that shit over 10 years ago and look what happened, it got worse and worse and continues to get worse. It's shouldn't exist at all.</quote> It is significantly different. This is additional content that is made for the purpose of making money, not content that is made regardless then tacked on with a dollar amount afterwards. This content wouldn't exist without that price paid, meaning you are 100% against optional added content and would be happier with less options, less optional content. Which is dumb as hell. If you're okay with not having those options then don't buy them. fucking simple.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/14/18 7:56:52 PM #58:	voldothegr8 posted... Smashingpmkns posted... 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. No it's fucking not significantly different and that's the god damn point he makes. "It's just cosmetics, that's not bad." Defenders where saying that shit over 10 years ago and look what happened, it got worse and worse and continues to get worse. It's shouldn't exist at all. But you're completely ignoring that these games get post launch support for years now. That's entirely because of DLC purchases. Sometimes it's microtransactions, loot boxes or other DLC. But somebody has gotta pay something to justify it. I guess I don't know why people would have issue with this specific model. It seems to be doing everything right? --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896098474] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>voldothegr8 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Smashingpmkns posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> No it's fucking not significantly different and that's the god damn point he makes. "It's just cosmetics, that's not bad." Defenders where saying that shit over 10 years ago and look what happened, it got worse and worse and continues to get worse. It's shouldn't exist at all.</quote> But you're completely ignoring that these games get post launch support for years now. That's entirely because of DLC purchases. Sometimes it's microtransactions, loot boxes or other DLC. But somebody has gotta pay something to justify it. I guess I don't know why people would have issue with this specific model. It seems to be doing everything right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 02/14/18 7:57:18 PM #59:	Darmik posted... So you think games like Uncharted 4 and GTAV should be free to play? The online modes? Definitely, especially in the case of GTA given how closely they've been following the free to play business model with their most recent updates --- http://i.imgur.com/HOLHd4k.gif http://i.imgur.com/six2WTN.gif <cite>Frolex posted [p:896098501] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>So you think games like Uncharted 4 and GTAV should be free to play?</quote> The online modes? Definitely, especially in the case of GTA given how closely they've been following the free to play business model with their most recent updates</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jeff AKA Snoopy 02/14/18 7:57:55 PM #60:	TheCurseX2 posted... Jeff AKA Snoopy posted... What does the size of a company matter? I like Overwatch, and I have spent money on some loot boxes. I 100% wanted to support them because they made a product that made me WANT to support them. You paid them money to play their game in the first place, you continue to play their game for a long period of time, there's your "support." Asking them for a way to throw money at them over and over again is fucking virulence. You're why this industry needs a crash. The continued to provide content and I wanted to give them a bit of cash to pay for that, and hopefully get some good stuff in the process. Go fucking cry me a river. I'll support whatever the fuck I wanna support and your vitriol almost makes me want more of these ventures to succeed, just to piss you off. --- https://i.imgtc.com/5AQormY.gif <cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted [p:896098530] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...</cite> <quote>What does the size of a company matter? I like Overwatch, and I have spent money on some loot boxes. I 100% wanted to support them because they made a product that made me WANT to support them.</quote> You paid them money to play their game in the first place, you continue to play their game for a long period of time, there's your "support." Asking them for a way to throw money at them over and over again is fucking virulence. You're why this industry needs a crash.</quote> The continued to provide content and I wanted to give them a bit of cash to pay for that, and hopefully get some good stuff in the process. Go fucking cry me a river. I'll support whatever the fuck I wanna support and your vitriol almost makes me want more of these ventures to succeed, just to piss you off.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 8:03:57 PM #61:	Jeff AKA Snoopy posted... TheCurseX2 posted... Jeff AKA Snoopy posted... What does the size of a company matter? I like Overwatch, and I have spent money on some loot boxes. I 100% wanted to support them because they made a product that made me WANT to support them. You paid them money to play their game in the first place, you continue to play their game for a long period of time, there's your "support." Asking them for a way to throw money at them over and over again is fucking virulence. You're why this industry needs a crash. The continued to provide content and I wanted to give them a bit of cash to pay for that, and hopefully get some good stuff in the process. Go fucking cry me a river. I'll support whatever the fuck I wanna support and your vitriol almost makes me want more of these ventures to succeed, just to piss you off. Those ventures have succeeded, hence why every company these days are inserting them into any game they can. Hence also why so many games these days are dogshit money pits meant to appeal to the 80 IQ demographic of the 14-24 gamerbase. --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896098853] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...</cite> <quote>What does the size of a company matter? I like Overwatch, and I have spent money on some loot boxes. I 100% wanted to support them because they made a product that made me WANT to support them.</quote> You paid them money to play their game in the first place, you continue to play their game for a long period of time, there's your "support." Asking them for a way to throw money at them over and over again is fucking virulence. You're why this industry needs a crash.</quote> The continued to provide content and I wanted to give them a bit of cash to pay for that, and hopefully get some good stuff in the process. Go fucking cry me a river. I'll support whatever the fuck I wanna support and your vitriol almost makes me want more of these ventures to succeed, just to piss you off.</quote> Those ventures have succeeded, hence why every company these days are inserting them into any game they can. Hence also why so many games these days are dogshit money pits meant to appeal to the 80 IQ demographic of the 14-24 gamerbase.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Prestoff 02/14/18 8:04:41 PM #62:	Sad it's only an Xbox exclusive, but I had a lot of fun with the beta when i played it at my friends house. I personally don't mind the microtransaction since it's cosmetics only, the only thing that really grinds my gear are loot boxes, especially when only certain cosmetics or items are only available with said loot crate and have no other way to get the cosmetic. I hate having to only rely on RNG and I certainly ain't no whale to spend hundreds of dollars on loot crates. --- It's what all true warriors strive for! <cite>Prestoff posted [p:896098899] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Sad it's only an Xbox exclusive, but I had a lot of fun with the beta when i played it at my friends house. I personally don't mind the microtransaction since it's cosmetics only, the only thing that really grinds my gear are loot boxes, especially when only certain cosmetics or items are only available with said loot crate and have no other way to get the cosmetic. I hate having to only rely on RNG and I certainly ain't no whale to spend hundreds of dollars on loot crates.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jeff AKA Snoopy 02/14/18 8:05:46 PM #63:	Maybe that's part of the reason I only buy games I really want to support. So far, what have I purchased this year? Monster Hunter World (no microtransactions as far as I can tell) Steamworld Dig 2 (nope) Steamworld Heist (nope) Dragon Quest Builders (the Switch tax is on it, but that's about it) --- https://i.imgtc.com/5AQormY.gif <cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted [p:896098960] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Maybe that's part of the reason I only buy games I really want to support. So far, what have I purchased this year? Monster Hunter World (no microtransactions as far as I can tell) Steamworld Dig 2 (nope) Steamworld Heist (nope) Dragon Quest Builders (the Switch tax is on it, but that's about it)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 8:07:18 PM #64:	Jeff AKA Snoopy posted... Maybe that's part of the reason I only buy games I really want to support. So far, what have I purchased this year? Monster Hunter World (no microtransactions as far as I can tell) Steamworld Dig 2 (nope) Steamworld Heist (nope) Dragon Quest Builders (the Switch tax is on it, but that's about it) lol... With taste like this, I'm not surprised you throw your money at billion dollar companies like they give a shit about your meaningless support. Here's a spray and purple costume for your fav Overwatch pornstar though. --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896099051] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...</cite> <quote>Maybe that's part of the reason I only buy games I really want to support. So far, what have I purchased this year? Monster Hunter World (no microtransactions as far as I can tell) Steamworld Dig 2 (nope) Steamworld Heist (nope) Dragon Quest Builders (the Switch tax is on it, but that's about it)</quote> lol... With taste like this, I'm not surprised you throw your money at billion dollar companies like they give a shit about your meaningless support. Here's a spray and purple costume for your fav Overwatch pornstar though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/14/18 8:07:36 PM #65:	Frolex posted... Darmik posted... So you think games like Uncharted 4 and GTAV should be free to play? The online modes? Definitely, especially in the case of GTA given how closely they've been following the free to play business model with their most recent updates But you understand why that's not going to happen right? Like GTA Online was a mess as it is launch. Imagine if people could play GTA for free? That alone would sink a lot of money in their servers. They do make a lot of money from games and microtransactions. That's how Rockstar managed to keep updating the game for 4 years after it originally released. But there's still a lot of people out there who pay for the game and nothing else. These people are the majority. If people could play AAA games for free the F2P mechanics would be even worse. I don't think people seem to realize how much worse it is in the mobile space and that's with games with small budgets. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896099075] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>So you think games like Uncharted 4 and GTAV should be free to play?</quote> The online modes? Definitely, especially in the case of GTA given how closely they've been following the free to play business model with their most recent updates</quote> But you understand why that's not going to happen right? Like GTA Online was a mess as it is launch. Imagine if people could play GTA for free? That alone would sink a lot of money in their servers. They do make a lot of money from games and microtransactions. That's how Rockstar managed to keep updating the game for 4 years after it originally released. But there's still a lot of people out there who pay for the game and nothing else. These people are the majority. If people could play AAA games for free the F2P mechanics would be even worse. I don't think people seem to realize how much worse it is in the mobile space and that's with games with small budgets.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jeff AKA Snoopy 02/14/18 8:08:38 PM #66:	TheCurseX2 posted... Jeff AKA Snoopy posted... Maybe that's part of the reason I only buy games I really want to support. So far, what have I purchased this year? Monster Hunter World (no microtransactions as far as I can tell) Steamworld Dig 2 (nope) Steamworld Heist (nope) Dragon Quest Builders (the Switch tax is on it, but that's about it) lol... With taste like this, I'm not surprised you throw your money at billion dollar companies like they give a shit about your meaningless support. Here's a spray and purple costume for your fav Overwatch pornstar though. I'm intrigued. What have you purchased in the past 12 months? --- https://i.imgtc.com/5AQormY.gif <cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted [p:896099138] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...</cite> <quote>Maybe that's part of the reason I only buy games I really want to support. So far, what have I purchased this year? Monster Hunter World (no microtransactions as far as I can tell) Steamworld Dig 2 (nope) Steamworld Heist (nope) Dragon Quest Builders (the Switch tax is on it, but that's about it)</quote> lol... With taste like this, I'm not surprised you throw your money at billion dollar companies like they give a shit about your meaningless support. Here's a spray and purple costume for your fav Overwatch pornstar though.</quote> I'm intrigued. What have you purchased in the past 12 months?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 8:11:09 PM #67:	Jeff AKA Snoopy posted... TheCurseX2 posted... Jeff AKA Snoopy posted... Maybe that's part of the reason I only buy games I really want to support. So far, what have I purchased this year? Monster Hunter World (no microtransactions as far as I can tell) Steamworld Dig 2 (nope) Steamworld Heist (nope) Dragon Quest Builders (the Switch tax is on it, but that's about it) lol... With taste like this, I'm not surprised you throw your money at billion dollar companies like they give a shit about your meaningless support. Here's a spray and purple costume for your fav Overwatch pornstar though. I'm intrigued. What have you purchased in the past 12 months? Divinity: OS 2 Age of Decadence The Witcher series --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896099278] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...</cite> <quote>Maybe that's part of the reason I only buy games I really want to support. So far, what have I purchased this year? Monster Hunter World (no microtransactions as far as I can tell) Steamworld Dig 2 (nope) Steamworld Heist (nope) Dragon Quest Builders (the Switch tax is on it, but that's about it)</quote> lol... With taste like this, I'm not surprised you throw your money at billion dollar companies like they give a shit about your meaningless support. Here's a spray and purple costume for your fav Overwatch pornstar though.</quote> I'm intrigued. What have you purchased in the past 12 months?</quote> Divinity: OS 2 Age of Decadence The Witcher series</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 02/14/18 8:24:27 PM #68:	Darmik posted... But you understand why that's not going to happen right? Like GTA Online was a mess as it at launch. Imagine if people could play GTA for free? That alone would sink a lot of money in their servers. They do make a lot of money from games and microtransactions. That's how Rockstar managed to keep updating the game for 4 years after it originally released. But there's still a lot of people out there who pay for the game and nothing else. These people are the majority. If people could play AAA games for free the F2P mechanics would be even worse. I don't think people seem to realize how much worse it is in the mobile space and that's with games with small budgets. It's not going to happen while the it's being propped up by small number of whales spending hugely disproportionate amounts on microtransactions, no. but of course, it'll all eventually change when that bubble inevitably bursts (which is why now publishers are trying to see how far they can push games as service when it does). And GTA5 is still $60 and breaking into to the top 10 sales charts every month coming up on 5 years after its release, they would have been just fine supporting the game without railroading their players with a mobile cash grab business model. How much worse could microtransactions in $60 dollar games get when they've already taken just about every cue they possibly could from the F2P/mobile market (locking content behind a series of multiple paywalls, charging for items that are objectively better than others in pvp games, locking content behind ridiculous timers that can be skipped with cash, etc.)? And even if it could get worse, there's aboslutely nothing stopping them from making them worse right now. Selling a game for $60 is still a sustainable business model. Free to play games with microtransactions is still a sustainable business model. The only people actually arguing that publishers have to create Free to play games and then charge sixty bucks for them are fanboys and PR teams --- http://i.imgur.com/HOLHd4k.gif http://i.imgur.com/six2WTN.gif <cite>Frolex posted [p:896100002] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> But you understand why that's not going to happen right? Like GTA Online was a mess as it at launch. Imagine if people could play GTA for free? That alone would sink a lot of money in their servers. They do make a lot of money from games and microtransactions. That's how Rockstar managed to keep updating the game for 4 years after it originally released. But there's still a lot of people out there who pay for the game and nothing else. These people are the majority. If people could play AAA games for free the F2P mechanics would be even worse. I don't think people seem to realize how much worse it is in the mobile space and that's with games with small budgets.</quote> It's not going to happen while the it's being propped up by small number of whales spending hugely disproportionate amounts on microtransactions, no. but of course, it'll all eventually change when that bubble inevitably bursts (which is why now publishers are trying to see how far they can push games as service when it does). And GTA5 is still $60 and breaking into to the top 10 sales charts every month coming up on 5 years after its release, they would have been just fine supporting the game without railroading their players with a mobile cash grab business model. How much worse could microtransactions in $60 dollar games get when they've already taken just about every cue they possibly could from the F2P/mobile market (locking content behind a series of multiple paywalls, charging for items that are objectively better than others in pvp games, locking content behind ridiculous timers that can be skipped with cash, etc.)? And even if it could get worse, there's aboslutely nothing stopping them from making them worse right now. Selling a game for $60 is still a sustainable business model. Free to play games with microtransactions is still a sustainable business model. The only people actually arguing that publishers have to create Free to play games and then charge sixty bucks for them are fanboys and PR teams</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/14/18 8:30:11 PM #69:	Frolex posted... It's not going to happen while the it's being propped up by small number of whales spending hugely disproportionate amounts on microtransactions, no. but of course, it'll all eventually change when that bubble inevitably bursts (which is why now publishers are trying to see how far they can push games as service when it does). People have been waiting for this bubble to burst for like 10 years now. Games as a Service just continues to grow for them. Frolex posted... And GTA5 is still $60 and breaking into to the top 10 sales charts every month coming up on 5 years after its release, they would have been just fine supporting the game without railroading their players with a mobile cash grab business model. How much worse could microtransactions in $60 dollar games get when they've already taken just about every cue they possibly could from the F2P/mobile market (locking content behind a series of multiple paywalls, charging for items that are objectively better than others in pvp games, locking content behind ridiculous timers that can be skipped with cash, etc.)? And even if it could get worse, there's aboslutely nothing stopping them from making them worse right now. You don't think that the constant support for GTA Online is why this game has sold 90 million copies? GTA is a beast on its own and I'm not interested in it. But these companies aren't a charity. They're not gonna support a game for 4 years without some sort of additional revenue after the $60. Microtransactions are proven to be more popular than expansion packs so here we are. Frolex posted... Selling a game for $60 is still a sustainable business model. Free to play games with microtransactions is still a sustainable business model. The only people actually arguing that publishers have to create Free to play games and then charge sixty bucks for them are fanboys and PR teams Show me a list of games that have released for $60 and have been given 2-4 years of extra content with no additional purchases. Show me a list of games that are AAA in scale that have been successful by only selling cosmetic DLC. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896100303] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>It's not going to happen while the it's being propped up by small number of whales spending hugely disproportionate amounts on microtransactions, no. but of course, it'll all eventually change when that bubble inevitably bursts (which is why now publishers are trying to see how far they can push games as service when it does).</quote> People have been waiting for this bubble to burst for like 10 years now. Games as a Service just continues to grow for them. <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote> And GTA5 is still $60 and breaking into to the top 10 sales charts every month coming up on 5 years after its release, they would have been just fine supporting the game without railroading their players with a mobile cash grab business model. How much worse could microtransactions in $60 dollar games get when they've already taken just about every cue they possibly could from the F2P/mobile market (locking content behind a series of multiple paywalls, charging for items that are objectively better than others in pvp games, locking content behind ridiculous timers that can be skipped with cash, etc.)? And even if it could get worse, there's aboslutely nothing stopping them from making them worse right now.</quote> You don't think that the constant support for GTA Online is why this game has sold 90 million copies? GTA is a beast on its own and I'm not interested in it. But these companies aren't a charity. They're not gonna support a game for 4 years without some sort of additional revenue after the $60. Microtransactions are proven to be more popular than expansion packs so here we are. <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>Selling a game for $60 is still a sustainable business model. Free to play games with microtransactions is still a sustainable business model. The only people actually arguing that publishers have to create Free to play games and then charge sixty bucks for them are fanboys and PR teams</quote> Show me a list of games that have released for $60 and have been given 2-4 years of extra content with no additional purchases. Show me a list of games that are AAA in scale that have been successful by only selling cosmetic DLC.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/14/18 9:07:45 PM #70:	TheCurseX2 posted... 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. Wow make sure not to cut yourself on that edge there bro. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896102440] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>I guess you didn't enjoy the sea of thieves beta?</quote> 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.</quote> Wow make sure not to cut yourself on that edge there bro.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 9:59:46 PM #71:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Wow make sure not to cut yourself on that edge there bro. Do you have an active subscription to "Dr. Disrespect?" --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896105115] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Wow make sure not to cut yourself on that edge there bro.</quote> Do you have an active subscription to "Dr. Disrespect?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 02/14/18 10:01:42 PM #72:	Darmik posted... People have been waiting for this bubble to burst for like 10 years now. Games as a Service just continues to grow for them. and people have been "waiting" for bitcoin to crash for just as longDarmik posted... You don't think that the constant support for GTA Online is why this game has sold 90 million copies? almost as if providing post release support for a title can be a major driver for new purchases, crazy Darmik posted... GTA is a beast on its own and I'm not interested in it. But these companies aren't a charity. They're not gonna support a game for 4 years without some sort of additional revenue after the $60. Microtransactions are proven to be more popular than expansion packs so here we are. "Companies are not a charity" has never been an argument for anti-consumer practices, no matter how many people like to believe it is. Darmik posted... Show me a list of games that have released for $60 and have been given 2-4 years of extra content with no additional purchases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_4_Dead_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatoon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crossing:_New_Leaf Darmik posted... Show me a list of games that are AAA in scale that have been successful by only selling cosmetic DLC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smite_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dota_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brawlhalla regardless, I don't have a problem with the concept of post release monetization or even stat-effecting microtransactions in F2P games (the "it's just cosmetics" defense is bullshit anyway) as long as it's done right. But locking away content players already paid $60 for behind additional paywalls is inexcusable --- http://i.imgur.com/HOLHd4k.gif http://i.imgur.com/six2WTN.gif <cite>Frolex posted [p:896105214] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>People have been waiting for this bubble to burst for like 10 years now. Games as a Service just continues to grow for them.</quote> and people have been "waiting" for bitcoin to crash for just as long<cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>You don't think that the constant support for GTA Online is why this game has sold 90 million copies? </quote> almost as if providing post release support for a title can be a major driver for new purchases, crazy <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> GTA is a beast on its own and I'm not interested in it. But these companies aren't a charity. They're not gonna support a game for 4 years without some sort of additional revenue after the $60. Microtransactions are proven to be more popular than expansion packs so here we are. </quote> "Companies are not a charity" has never been an argument for anti-consumer practices, no matter how many people like to believe it is. <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Show me a list of games that have released for $60 and have been given 2-4 years of extra content with no additional purchases.</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_4_Dead_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatoon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crossing:_New_Leaf <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Show me a list of games that are AAA in scale that have been successful by only selling cosmetic DLC.</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smite_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dota_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brawlhalla regardless, I don't have a problem with the concept of post release monetization or even stat-effecting microtransactions in F2P games (the "it's just cosmetics" defense is bullshit anyway) as long as it's done right. But locking away content players already paid $60 for behind additional paywalls is inexcusable</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
apolloooo 02/14/18 10:03:44 PM #73:	Imagine defending shit corporate practices and corporations in general. I have some disagreement with jim, but i am totally behind him in shitty business practices done by these fucking shitheads in suits --- http://i.imgtc.com/iJyp6bF.png http://i.imgtc.com/ZBw36Qh.png Thanks for the peeps that made the pics <3 if i make typos it means i am on phone <cite>apolloooo posted [p:896105317] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Imagine defending shit corporate practices and corporations in general. I have some disagreement with jim, but i am totally behind him in shitty business practices done by these fucking shitheads in suits</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/14/18 10:26:54 PM #74:	Frolex posted... and people have been "waiting" for bitcoin to crash for just as long What kind of argument is this? Frolex posted... almost as if providing post release support for a title can be a major driver for new purchases, crazy Yes. But they can't rely on making DLC so more people buy a game can they? Especially since used games and price drops are a thing. Frolex posted... "Companies are not a charity" has never been an argument for anti-consumer practices, no matter how many people like to believe it is. 'Microtransactions are anti-consumer just because' isn't an argument for them being anti-consumer either As for the list; Left 4 Dead 2 charged the DLC for consoles. It is the closest example but funnily enough I noticed this on the wiki page. The weekend following the game's announcement at the 2009 E3 Convention, some Left 4 Dead players called for a boycott of Left 4 Dead 2 and formed the Steam community group called "L4D2 Boycott (NO-L4D2)" which grew to over 10,000 members by the end of that weekend,[152] and reached more than 37,000 about a month later.[153][154] In addition to a lack of further Left 4 Dead content, they were concerned with the characters, visuals, and music shown in the E3 demonstration video, feeling these were inappropriate to the first game's aesthetics, and that the release of the sequel so soon after the first game would fracture the community. In response to these complaints, Valve marketer Doug Lombardi stated that the announcement of Left 4 Dead 2 at E3 should not be taken to indicate that Valve would no longer support the first game. He asked the community to "trust [them] a little bit," and told them that while their team was eager to get new material to players of Left 4 Dead, they determined that a sequel would be the best option for several reasons: the demand for new campaigns, enemies and weapons could not be met as a simple DLC; both Faliszek and project lead Tom Leonard found that too much of the content relied on each other, making it very difficult to release incremental patches in the same style as Team Fortress 2;the development team liked the idea of rolling up the content into a sequel to be released a year after Left 4 Dead's release. Left 4 Dead 2 being a new game release was a controversial thing to begin with. I'm not familiar with GT6 Splatoon is not a genuine example. They specifically launch that game with less content. The first 3 months or so of the game are just unlocking content already on the disc. Then they add DLC until the first year is up. Then it's Splatfests for another year and that's it. ARMS did the same thing. I'm pretty sure AC also does something similar. It's timing and spreading the content out over a year to keep players engaged. Nintendo also don't drop the prices on their games as well. The games on the other list aren't AAA titles. Don't they also use lootboxes? Frolex posted... But locking away content players already paid $60 for behind additional paywalls is inexcusable They haven't paid for the Sea of Thieves content though. It's all post-release. You pay for the complete game on release along with any future gameplay content. But you consider that a rip-off because you have to buy certain parrots or fancy hats? --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896106585] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>and people have been "waiting" for bitcoin to crash for just as long</quote> What kind of argument is this? <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>almost as if providing post release support for a title can be a major driver for new purchases, crazy</quote> Yes. But they can't rely on making DLC so more people buy a game can they? Especially since used games and price drops are a thing. <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>"Companies are not a charity" has never been an argument for anti-consumer practices, no matter how many people like to believe it is.</quote> 'Microtransactions are anti-consumer just because' isn't an argument for them being anti-consumer either As for the list; Left 4 Dead 2 charged the DLC for consoles. It is the closest example but funnily enough I noticed this on the wiki page. <quote>The weekend following the game's announcement at the 2009 E3 Convention, some Left 4 Dead players called for a boycott of Left 4 Dead 2 and formed the Steam community group called "L4D2 Boycott (NO-L4D2)" which grew to over 10,000 members by the end of that weekend,[152] and reached more than 37,000 about a month later.[153][154] In addition to a lack of further Left 4 Dead content, they were concerned with the characters, visuals, and music shown in the E3 demonstration video, feeling these were inappropriate to the first game's aesthetics, and that the release of the sequel so soon after the first game would fracture the community. In response to these complaints, Valve marketer Doug Lombardi stated that the announcement of Left 4 Dead 2 at E3 should not be taken to indicate that Valve would no longer support the first game. He asked the community to "trust [them] a little bit," and told them that while their team was eager to get new material to players of Left 4 Dead, they determined that a sequel would be the best option for several reasons: the demand for new campaigns, enemies and weapons could not be met as a simple DLC; both Faliszek and project lead Tom Leonard found that too much of the content relied on each other, making it very difficult to release incremental patches in the same style as Team Fortress 2;the development team liked the idea of rolling up the content into a sequel to be released a year after Left 4 Dead's release.</quote> Left 4 Dead 2 being a new game release was a controversial thing to begin with. I'm not familiar with GT6 Splatoon is not a genuine example. They specifically launch that game with less content. The first 3 months or so of the game are just unlocking content already on the disc. Then they add DLC until the first year is up. Then it's Splatfests for another year and that's it. ARMS did the same thing. I'm pretty sure AC also does something similar. It's timing and spreading the content out over a year to keep players engaged. Nintendo also don't drop the prices on their games as well. The games on the other list aren't AAA titles. Don't they also use lootboxes? <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>But locking away content players already paid $60 for behind additional paywalls is inexcusable</quote> They haven't paid for the Sea of Thieves content though. It's all post-release. You pay for the complete game on release along with any future gameplay content. But you consider that a rip-off because you have to buy certain parrots or fancy hats?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReD_ToMaTo 02/14/18 10:28:52 PM #75:	OneThatFollows posted... He has a pretty good point tbh. He pretty much always has a good point, but dumbasses will always defend garbage practices. --- PSN: ReD_ToMaTo <cite>ReD_ToMaTo posted [p:896106693] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>OneThatFollows posted...</cite> <quote>He has a pretty good point tbh.</quote> He pretty much always has a good point, but dumbasses will always defend garbage practices.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/14/18 10:41:20 PM #76:	"Our focus at launch [is] on a great game experience. When we deliver this first major update, that's when we'll turn on the ability for players to spend money optionally. "We thought long and hard about what's right for our game experience, and the key thing we think is that it has to add to the fun, social nature of the game. So anything in this area will not impact power or progression, and you'll always know what you're getting - so that means no loot crates." The first paid content for the game will come in the form of pets. "It'll either be on a shoulder, like a monkey, or like a cat on the ship", explains Neate. "But it'll kind of benefit everyone socially and emotionally. So if I've got a cat, I can pick up it up and look at it, or you can pick it up and run off with it. Obviously when you put it down it'll come back. "I really, really want to allow us to fire cats and other animals out of cannons. It'll land on its feet, it's a cat, it'll be fine!" Beyond that, Rare's looking to include potions that can alter you cosmetically - like a draught that turns your character model old for a certain amount of time. The mission statement is that microtransaction items have "emotional value, not mechanical value." As for why the game has microtransactions at all, Neate puts it down to the increased costs of running a game that will continuously add content beyond launch: "It's always an interesting topic, but ultimately I have to look at the reality of running a game-as-service as a business. My goal and everyone else's goal here is to have as many people as possible working on this, and just keep giving people reasons to return, reasons to have fun. We have to run that like a business, you need revenue coming in." So just to summarize here; - No DLC at launch. The first paid content update will focus on pets and will release later - No loot boxes. If you want something you can get that one thing specifically - The features for stuff like pets aren't even fleshed out or finalized yet. But they promise it won't be tied to progression - Every other content update is completely free. Stuff tied to gameplay mechanics, quests, etc. will not be paid content What do people expect from a game like this? How would they handle a game like Sea of Thieves? Why is any of that stuff anti-consumer? --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896107407] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><quote>"Our focus at launch [is] on a great game experience. When we deliver this first major update, that's when we'll turn on the ability for players to spend money optionally. "We thought long and hard about what's right for our game experience, and the key thing we think is that it has to add to the fun, social nature of the game. So anything in this area will not impact power or progression, and you'll always know what you're getting - so that means no loot crates." The first paid content for the game will come in the form of pets. "It'll either be on a shoulder, like a monkey, or like a cat on the ship", explains Neate. "But it'll kind of benefit everyone socially and emotionally. So if I've got a cat, I can pick up it up and look at it, or you can pick it up and run off with it. Obviously when you put it down it'll come back. "I really, really want to allow us to fire cats and other animals out of cannons. It'll land on its feet, it's a cat, it'll be fine!" Beyond that, Rare's looking to include potions that can alter you cosmetically - like a draught that turns your character model old for a certain amount of time. The mission statement is that microtransaction items have "emotional value, not mechanical value." As for why the game has microtransactions at all, Neate puts it down to the increased costs of running a game that will continuously add content beyond launch: "It's always an interesting topic, but ultimately I have to look at the reality of running a game-as-service as a business. My goal and everyone else's goal here is to have as many people as possible working on this, and just keep giving people reasons to return, reasons to have fun. We have to run that like a business, you need revenue coming in."</quote> So just to summarize here; - No DLC at launch. The first paid content update will focus on pets and will release later - No loot boxes. If you want something you can get that one thing specifically - The features for stuff like pets aren't even fleshed out or finalized yet. But they promise it won't be tied to progression - Every other content update is completely free. Stuff tied to gameplay mechanics, quests, etc. will not be paid content What do people expect from a game like this? How would they handle a game like Sea of Thieves? Why is any of that stuff anti-consumer?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 02/14/18 10:59:42 PM #77:	Darmik posted... What kind of argument is this? about as good an argument as "the bubble hasn't popped yet, therefore it's not a bubble"Darmik posted... Yes. But they can't rely on making DLC so more people buy a game can they? Especially since used games and price drops are a thing. 1.Publishers are almost entirely responsible for when a game gets a price drop. And the distributor instituting a price drop on their end doesn't effect the amount of profit a publisher is making off a sale. 2. Used games have always made up a small portion of the overall market, and it's essentially disappearing entirely in the rise of digital distribution. Used game sales have been raised as a justification for everything from online passes to retailer exclusive pre order bonuses, and it's never been substantiated Darmik posted... 'Microtransactions are anti-consumer just because' isn't an argument for them being anti-consumer either microtransactions deliberately lock off content and compromise player experience in exchange for increasing publisher revenue. and in free to play games, that's fine because it serves as the price of entry. but it's a different story when you're compromising on something consumers have already paid for Darmik posted... Left 4 Dead 2 being a new game release was a controversial thing to begin with. controversial pre release sure, but they actually justified themselves by releasing a robust, long supported sequel Splatoon is not a genuine example. They specifically launch that game with less content. The first 3 months or so of the game are just unlocking content already on the disc. Then they add DLC until the first year is up. Then it's Splatfests for another year and that's it. ARMS did the same thing. I'm pretty sure AC also does something similar. It's timing and spreading the content out over a year to keep players engaged. Nintendo also don't drop the prices on their games as well. Splatoon was certainly more feature complete at launch than a lot of recent AAA games. Titles like Battlefront and Destiny 2 that launched with less content than their predecessors, then play catch up over a period of years by charging players for DLC and micro transactions to fill in the gaps. Their post release support may not have been perfect, but it was certainly better than what other companies are trying to charge for The games on the other list aren't AAA titles. Don't they also use lootboxes? lol, if you're defining "AAA" as release from an overbloated publisher with an even more bloated marketing budget, maybe not. But if you're talking about gameplay, features or quality, then absolutely they are (though given the fact that QA standards for "AAA" games have all but evaporated in recent years,that definition might be questionable). Dota 2 is a straight up big budget game from a major publisher, so there's really no argument there --- http://i.imgur.com/HOLHd4k.gif http://i.imgur.com/six2WTN.gif <cite>Frolex posted [p:896108370] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>What kind of argument is this?</quote> about as good an argument as "the bubble hasn't popped yet, therefore it's not a bubble"<cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Yes. But they can't rely on making DLC so more people buy a game can they? Especially since used games and price drops are a thing.</quote> 1.Publishers are almost entirely responsible for when a game gets a price drop. And the distributor instituting a price drop on their end doesn't effect the amount of profit a publisher is making off a sale. 2. Used games have always made up a small portion of the overall market, and it's essentially disappearing entirely in the rise of digital distribution. Used game sales have been raised as a justification for everything from online passes to retailer exclusive pre order bonuses, and it's never been substantiated <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>'Microtransactions are anti-consumer just because' isn't an argument for them being anti-consumer either</quote> microtransactions deliberately lock off content and compromise player experience in exchange for increasing publisher revenue. and in free to play games, that's fine because it serves as the price of entry. but it's a different story when you're compromising on something consumers have already paid for <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> Left 4 Dead 2 being a new game release was a controversial thing to begin with.</quote> controversial pre release sure, but they actually justified themselves by releasing a robust, long supported sequel <quote>Splatoon is not a genuine example. They specifically launch that game with less content. The first 3 months or so of the game are just unlocking content already on the disc. Then they add DLC until the first year is up. Then it's Splatfests for another year and that's it. ARMS did the same thing. I'm pretty sure AC also does something similar. It's timing and spreading the content out over a year to keep players engaged. Nintendo also don't drop the prices on their games as well.</quote> Splatoon was certainly more feature complete at launch than a lot of recent AAA games. Titles like Battlefront and Destiny 2 that launched with less content than their predecessors, then play catch up over a period of years by charging players for DLC and micro transactions to fill in the gaps. Their post release support may not have been perfect, but it was certainly better than what other companies are trying to charge for <quote>The games on the other list aren't AAA titles. Don't they also use lootboxes?</quote> lol, if you're defining "AAA" as release from an overbloated publisher with an even more bloated marketing budget, maybe not. But if you're talking about gameplay, features or quality, then absolutely they are (though given the fact that QA standards for "AAA" games have all but evaporated in recent years,that definition might be questionable). Dota 2 is a straight up big budget game from a major publisher, so there's really no argument there</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
josifrees 02/14/18 11:07:26 PM #78:	TheCurseX2 posted... 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. This is a bad argument unless you are playing a game with no skill gap. Whats going to distinguish you from other people in an online game is how good or bad you are. Cosmetics matter very little, looking good matters very little, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters very little. If they mattered at all, whales wouldnt be an extremely small percentage of the user base of every game with cosmetic microtransactions. They might matter to you but to pretty much every other player who is playing a game with cosmetic MTs they are a complete luxury and not necessary and the numbers prove this. It also has nothing to do with ethics but it is a blessing. Most gamers simply do not want real life money involved with the playing field and the ones they do are the ones spending the money. If some idiot feels bad when their character looks normal and wants to drop a ton of money on cosmetics that isnt going to affect the gameplay. Unless they are like you and think looking special actually matters. I agree with your general sentiment towards MTs and such but the basis for your arguments simply arent very good. --- Quit Crying <cite>josifrees posted [p:896108779] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Ok? Sea of Thieves is entirely cosmetic though. Other games are bad so Sea of Thieves is bad isn't an argument.</quote> 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. </quote> This is a bad argument unless you are playing a game with no skill gap. Whats going to distinguish you from other people in an online game is how good or bad you are. Cosmetics matter very little, looking good matters very little, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters very little. If they mattered at all, whales wouldnt be an extremely small percentage of the user base of every game with cosmetic microtransactions. They might matter to you but to pretty much every other player who is playing a game with cosmetic MTs they are a complete luxury and not necessary and the numbers prove this. It also has nothing to do with ethics but it is a blessing. Most gamers simply do not want real life money involved with the playing field and the ones they do are the ones spending the money. If some idiot feels bad when their character looks normal and wants to drop a ton of money on cosmetics that isnt going to affect the gameplay. Unless they are like you and think looking special actually matters. I agree with your general sentiment towards MTs and such but the basis for your arguments simply arent very good.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
voldothegr8 02/14/18 11:13:44 PM #79:	josifrees posted... TheCurseX2 posted... 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. This is a bad argument unless you are playing a game with no skill gap. Whats going to distinguish you from other people in an online game is how good or bad you are. Cosmetics matter very little, looking good matters very little, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters very little. If they mattered at all, whales wouldnt be an extremely small percentage of the user base of every game with cosmetic microtransactions. They might matter to you but to pretty much every other player who is playing a game with cosmetic MTs they are a complete luxury and not necessary and the numbers prove this. It also has nothing to do with ethics but it is a blessing. Most gamers simply do not want real life money involved with the playing field and the ones they do are the ones spending the money. If some idiot feels bad when their character looks normal and wants to drop a ton of money on cosmetics that isnt going to affect the gameplay. Unless they are like you and think looking special actually matters. I agree with your general sentiment towards MTs and such but the basis for your arguments simply arent very good. It's a very good argument. Cosmetics might not affect the gameplay directly, but what they do affect is arguably worse which is the psyche of the actual player and the desire to have all the latest and greatest, the need to collect and show off. It's a real thing and why countries are going after such tactics in games on the basis of gambling and addiction. --- Oda break tracker 2018- 1 (1) \| THE Ohio State: 11-2 \| Oakland Raiders: 6-10 Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE <cite>voldothegr8 posted [p:896109079] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>josifrees posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Ok? Sea of Thieves is entirely cosmetic though. Other games are bad so Sea of Thieves is bad isn't an argument.</quote> 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. </quote> This is a bad argument unless you are playing a game with no skill gap. Whats going to distinguish you from other people in an online game is how good or bad you are. Cosmetics matter very little, looking good matters very little, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters very little. If they mattered at all, whales wouldnt be an extremely small percentage of the user base of every game with cosmetic microtransactions. They might matter to you but to pretty much every other player who is playing a game with cosmetic MTs they are a complete luxury and not necessary and the numbers prove this. It also has nothing to do with ethics but it is a blessing. Most gamers simply do not want real life money involved with the playing field and the ones they do are the ones spending the money. If some idiot feels bad when their character looks normal and wants to drop a ton of money on cosmetics that isnt going to affect the gameplay. Unless they are like you and think looking special actually matters. I agree with your general sentiment towards MTs and such but the basis for your arguments simply arent very good.</quote> It's a very good argument. Cosmetics might not affect the gameplay directly, but what they do affect is arguably worse which is the psyche of the actual player and the desire to have all the latest and greatest, the need to collect and show off. It's a real thing and why countries are going after such tactics in games on the basis of gambling and addiction.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 11:19:16 PM #80:	josifrees posted... This is a bad argument unless you are playing a game with no skill gap. Whats going to distinguish you from other people in an online game is how good or bad you are. Cosmetics matter very little, looking good matters very little, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters very little. If they mattered at all, whales wouldnt be an extremely small percentage of the user base of every game with cosmetic microtransactions. They might matter to you but to pretty much every other player who is playing a game with cosmetic MTs they are a complete luxury and not necessary and the numbers prove this. It also has nothing to do with ethics but it is a blessing. Most gamers simply do not want real life money involved with the playing field and the ones they do are the ones spending the money. If some idiot feels bad when their character looks normal and wants to drop a ton of money on cosmetics that isnt going to affect the gameplay. Unless they are like you and think looking special actually matters. I agree with your general sentiment towards MTs and such but the basis for your arguments simply arent very good. The basis is rooted in truth. In an MMO like World of Warcraft you have cosmetic "elite" sets that offer no statistical advantages for PVPers but are there to show some prestige due to the different colour scheme they have for that season. Then there are games with things like titles, colours, outfits, any manner of cosmetic, non gameplay altering or swaying elements that are to show off than anything. Shit, even in a game like Diablo II people would show off extremely rare uniques like Tyrael's Might or The Grandfather. There are better armour/weapons than those but you show them off for bragging rights. That shit matters to gamers because that shit matters to people in reality when it comes to historical collection, fashion, novels, etc. Showing off is something a kid with Yu-Gi-Oh cards will do as a woman with Chanel will do and is something a gamer with cosmetic proof of some perceived grandness will do. Which is why these cosmetics in games should be brought to reflect someone's time devoted or skill in actually playing and not in the money further spent. Having, I don't know, a captain's hat should be something of status via in-game achievement criteria being met and not shelling out $20. Having status and having ways to show off in games, especially multiplayer ones, is a great thing. It's fucking awful when it becomes locked behind a paywall, especially when a decade ago it would've been something you simply unlocked. --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896109367] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>josifrees posted...</cite> <quote>This is a bad argument unless you are playing a game with no skill gap. Whats going to distinguish you from other people in an online game is how good or bad you are. Cosmetics matter very little, looking good matters very little, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters very little. If they mattered at all, whales wouldnt be an extremely small percentage of the user base of every game with cosmetic microtransactions. They might matter to you but to pretty much every other player who is playing a game with cosmetic MTs they are a complete luxury and not necessary and the numbers prove this. It also has nothing to do with ethics but it is a blessing. Most gamers simply do not want real life money involved with the playing field and the ones they do are the ones spending the money. If some idiot feels bad when their character looks normal and wants to drop a ton of money on cosmetics that isnt going to affect the gameplay. Unless they are like you and think looking special actually matters. I agree with your general sentiment towards MTs and such but the basis for your arguments simply arent very good.</quote> The basis is rooted in truth. In an MMO like World of Warcraft you have cosmetic "elite" sets that offer no statistical advantages for PVPers but are there to show some prestige due to the different colour scheme they have for that season. Then there are games with things like titles, colours, outfits, any manner of cosmetic, non gameplay altering or swaying elements that are to show off than anything. Shit, even in a game like Diablo II people would show off extremely rare uniques like Tyrael's Might or The Grandfather. There are better armour/weapons than those but you show them off for bragging rights. That shit matters to gamers because that shit matters to people in reality when it comes to historical collection, fashion, novels, etc. Showing off is something a kid with Yu-Gi-Oh cards will do as a woman with Chanel will do and is something a gamer with cosmetic proof of some perceived grandness will do. Which is why these cosmetics in games should be brought to reflect someone's time devoted or skill in actually playing and not in the money further spent. Having, I don't know, a captain's hat should be something of status via in-game achievement criteria being met and not shelling out $20. Having status and having ways to show off in games, especially multiplayer ones, is a great thing. It's fucking awful when it becomes locked behind a paywall, especially when a decade ago it would've been something you simply unlocked.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/14/18 11:19:34 PM #81:	Either the bubble is about to burse and everyone is going to go bankrupt or they're making an obscene amount of money they should be giving more shit out without people playing money. It can't be both. Yes Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2 are shitty. This is probably why they're selling less than their predecessors. But just because these two companies are shitty every single other one is? Nobody was saying $50 games were a rip-off when EA and Activision pumped out licensed games that often were broken and barely finished. Every single model in gaming can be used and abused. But that doesn't mean every single one is bad. Left 4 Dead 2 is a perfect example of this. Straight away gamers frothed at the mouth because they were expected to pay for a new game instead of some cheaper DLC. They expected a quick buck sequel. Why wouldn't they? Ubisoft and EA were doing this same exact thing! Games as a Service is the exact same thing. If the game does it well then it's a great model. If it doesn't then it sucks and so does the game. Just like always. The argument "Sea of Thieves should be free because it has microtransactions" doesn't hold up if you know a single thing about how they're handling it. You expect gamers to play the game absolutely free for 3 months before they roll out paid content? Nonsense. Getting additional content for free months after launch has never been the standard. Buying some $30 Pets Expansion three months after launch doesn't magically become more pro-consumer because it's not a microtransaction. Buying Sea of Thieves 2 in 2019 isn't somehow more pro-consumer too. Expecting Rare to produce constant, additional content for free years after launch is not a reasonable expectation. It has never been the standard. Even in L4D2's case those expansions were released well after launch and were spread apart. Sea of Thieves is a live game that will get new shit every month. If you don't buy the microtransactions you get it for free because other people are paying for them. If the model isn't intrusive and you get great content for your money there is 0% wrong with this monetization model. From Rare's comments about the game it very much looks like they're trying to avoid the loudest complaints people make about GaaS. Which is lootbox content, day one DLC and having progression tied to purchases. voldothegr8 posted... It's a very good argument. Cosmetics might not affect the gameplay directly, but what they do affect is arguably worse which is the psyche of the actual player and the desire to have all the latest and greatest, the need to collect and show off. It's a real thing and why countries are going after such tactics in games on the basis of gambling and addiction. Considering there's no lootboxes in this game there's nothing to go after. If you love one cosmetic suit you'd never need to buy anything else. You don't have to keep buying lootboxes within a limited time period in the hopes you draw what you want. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896109385] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Either the bubble is about to burse and everyone is going to go bankrupt or they're making an obscene amount of money they should be giving more shit out without people playing money. It can't be both. Yes Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2 are shitty. This is probably why they're selling less than their predecessors. But just because these two companies are shitty every single other one is? Nobody was saying $50 games were a rip-off when EA and Activision pumped out licensed games that often were broken and barely finished. Every single model in gaming can be used and abused. But that doesn't mean every single one is bad. Left 4 Dead 2 is a perfect example of this. Straight away gamers frothed at the mouth because they were expected to pay for a new game instead of some cheaper DLC. They expected a quick buck sequel. Why wouldn't they? Ubisoft and EA were doing this same exact thing! Games as a Service is the exact same thing. If the game does it well then it's a great model. If it doesn't then it sucks and so does the game. Just like always. The argument "Sea of Thieves should be free because it has microtransactions" doesn't hold up if you know a single thing about how they're handling it. You expect gamers to play the game absolutely free for 3 months before they roll out paid content? Nonsense. Getting additional content for free months after launch has never been the standard. Buying some $30 Pets Expansion three months after launch doesn't magically become more pro-consumer because it's not a microtransaction. Buying Sea of Thieves 2 in 2019 isn't somehow more pro-consumer too. Expecting Rare to produce constant, additional content for free years after launch is not a reasonable expectation. It has never been the standard. Even in L4D2's case those expansions were released well after launch and were spread apart. Sea of Thieves is a live game that will get new shit every month. If you don't buy the microtransactions you get it for free because other people are paying for them. If the model isn't intrusive and you get great content for your money there is 0% wrong with this monetization model. From Rare's comments about the game it very much looks like they're trying to avoid the loudest complaints people make about GaaS. Which is lootbox content, day one DLC and having progression tied to purchases. <cite>voldothegr8 posted...</cite> <quote>It's a very good argument. Cosmetics might not affect the gameplay directly, but what they do affect is arguably worse which is the psyche of the actual player and the desire to have all the latest and greatest, the need to collect and show off. It's a real thing and why countries are going after such tactics in games on the basis of gambling and addiction.</quote> Considering there's no lootboxes in this game there's nothing to go after. If you love one cosmetic suit you'd never need to buy anything else. You don't have to keep buying lootboxes within a limited time period in the hopes you draw what you want.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 11:37:22 PM #82:	Explain why a game like Diablo 3 has had numerous free additions supported for the past 7 years and only had one expansion and DLC class throughout? New areas, items, monsters, etc. Hate the game as much as you want, the way they supported it was the best way an AAA company in this previous decade could from a gamer's perspective. Patch upon patch of improvements that actually added to the game in different ways from gameplay balance to environments to cosmetics. You'd hardly believe the same company would shit out Overwatch four years later. There's no excuse other than piggish corporate greed for shitty titles like Sea of Thieves to go down this route. You're going to say "well business' are supposed to make money!" No shit, but here's the reality: I don't work for them, I'm who they want to buy their game. If your game has some seriously dumb practices put in, be assured that no self-respecting consumer is going to give it a glance. The only way your business should worry about making money from the gamer's point of view, is the game being fun and fulfilling of an experience. Until I get a cut of their profit, the shady tactics they try to unload your wallet will always get called out by an outsider. --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896110334] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Explain why a game like Diablo 3 has had numerous free additions supported for the past 7 years and only had one expansion and DLC class throughout? New areas, items, monsters, etc. Hate the game as much as you want, the way they supported it was the best way an AAA company in this previous decade could from a gamer's perspective. Patch upon patch of improvements that actually added to the game in different ways from gameplay balance to environments to cosmetics. You'd hardly believe the same company would shit out Overwatch four years later. There's no excuse other than piggish corporate greed for shitty titles like Sea of Thieves to go down this route. You're going to say "well business' are supposed to make money!" No shit, but here's the reality: I don't work for them, I'm who they want to buy their game. If your game has some seriously dumb practices put in, be assured that no self-respecting consumer is going to give it a glance. The only way your business should worry about making money from the gamer's point of view, is the game being fun and fulfilling of an experience. Until I get a cut of their profit, the shady tactics they try to unload your wallet will always get called out by an outsider.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
josifrees 02/14/18 11:38:01 PM #83:	It's a very good argument. Cosmetics might not affect the gameplay directly, but what they do affect is arguably worse which is the psyche of the actual player and the desire to have all the latest and greatest, the need to collect and show off. It's a real thing and why countries are going after such tactics in games on the basis of gambling and addiction. Again all your doing is stating some buzzword bullshit about psyche when the statistics dont bear out this phenomenon. A small minority of people are consuming these things and while they might care about having the latest and greatest, the vast majority of gamers simply do not care about thatotherwise whales wouldnt exist as a MT/LB concept. Countries arent going after this concept of needing the latest and greatest in a game. They are going after allowing minors to gamble. That is it. Pretty much every country that is investigating LBs has legalized gambling or doesnt prosecute gambling. LBs Allowing minors to gamble is what these countries are interested in. --- Quit Crying <cite>josifrees posted [p:896110378] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><quote>It's a very good argument. Cosmetics might not affect the gameplay directly, but what they do affect is arguably worse which is the psyche of the actual player and the desire to have all the latest and greatest, the need to collect and show off. It's a real thing and why countries are going after such tactics in games on the basis of gambling and addiction.</quote> Again all your doing is stating some buzzword bullshit about psyche when the statistics dont bear out this phenomenon. A small minority of people are consuming these things and while they might care about having the latest and greatest, the vast majority of gamers simply do not care about thatotherwise whales wouldnt exist as a MT/LB concept. Countries arent going after this concept of needing the latest and greatest in a game. They are going after allowing minors to gamble. That is it. Pretty much every country that is investigating LBs has legalized gambling or doesnt prosecute gambling. LBs Allowing minors to gamble is what these countries are interested in.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/14/18 11:41:04 PM #84:	TheCurseX2 posted... Explain why a game like Diablo 3 has had numerous free additions supported for the past 7 years and only had one expansion and DLC class throughout? And an auction house --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896110547] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote>Explain why a game like Diablo 3 has had numerous free additions supported for the past 7 years and only had one expansion and DLC class throughout?</quote> And an auction house</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
josifrees 02/14/18 11:41:17 PM #85:	TheCurseX2 posted... josifrees posted... This is a bad argument unless you are playing a game with no skill gap. Whats going to distinguish you from other people in an online game is how good or bad you are. Cosmetics matter very little, looking good matters very little, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters very little. If they mattered at all, whales wouldnt be an extremely small percentage of the user base of every game with cosmetic microtransactions. They might matter to you but to pretty much every other player who is playing a game with cosmetic MTs they are a complete luxury and not necessary and the numbers prove this. It also has nothing to do with ethics but it is a blessing. Most gamers simply do not want real life money involved with the playing field and the ones they do are the ones spending the money. If some idiot feels bad when their character looks normal and wants to drop a ton of money on cosmetics that isnt going to affect the gameplay. Unless they are like you and think looking special actually matters. I agree with your general sentiment towards MTs and such but the basis for your arguments simply arent very good. The basis is rooted in truth. In an MMO like World of Warcraft you have cosmetic "elite" sets that offer no statistical advantages for PVPers but are there to show some prestige due to the different colour scheme they have for that season. Then there are games with things like titles, colours, outfits, any manner of cosmetic, non gameplay altering or swaying elements that are to show off than anything. Shit, even in a game like Diablo II people would show off extremely rare uniques like Tyrael's Might or The Grandfather. There are better armour/weapons than those but you show them off for bragging rights. That shit matters to gamers because that shit matters to people in reality when it comes to historical collection, fashion, novels, etc. Showing off is something a kid with Yu-Gi-Oh cards will do as a woman with Chanel will do and is something a gamer with cosmetic proof of some perceived grandness will do. Which is why these cosmetics in games should be brought to reflect someone's time devoted or skill in actually playing and not in the money further spent. Having, I don't know, a captain's hat should be something of status via in-game achievement criteria being met and not shelling out $20. Having status and having ways to show off in games, especially multiplayer ones, is a great thing. It's fucking awful when it becomes locked behind a paywall, especially when a decade ago it would've been something you simply unlocked. yes people will show off what they got but gamers have shown time and time again it isnt important enough to them to open up their wallets to do so. I agree completely with your sentiment and the system is a shitty system. I simply disagree with this specific argument --- Quit Crying <cite>josifrees posted [p:896110558] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>josifrees posted...</cite> <quote>This is a bad argument unless you are playing a game with no skill gap. Whats going to distinguish you from other people in an online game is how good or bad you are. Cosmetics matter very little, looking good matters very little, having these cosmetics on how you want to look matters very little. If they mattered at all, whales wouldnt be an extremely small percentage of the user base of every game with cosmetic microtransactions. They might matter to you but to pretty much every other player who is playing a game with cosmetic MTs they are a complete luxury and not necessary and the numbers prove this. It also has nothing to do with ethics but it is a blessing. Most gamers simply do not want real life money involved with the playing field and the ones they do are the ones spending the money. If some idiot feels bad when their character looks normal and wants to drop a ton of money on cosmetics that isnt going to affect the gameplay. Unless they are like you and think looking special actually matters. I agree with your general sentiment towards MTs and such but the basis for your arguments simply arent very good.</quote> The basis is rooted in truth. In an MMO like World of Warcraft you have cosmetic "elite" sets that offer no statistical advantages for PVPers but are there to show some prestige due to the different colour scheme they have for that season. Then there are games with things like titles, colours, outfits, any manner of cosmetic, non gameplay altering or swaying elements that are to show off than anything. Shit, even in a game like Diablo II people would show off extremely rare uniques like Tyrael's Might or The Grandfather. There are better armour/weapons than those but you show them off for bragging rights. That shit matters to gamers because that shit matters to people in reality when it comes to historical collection, fashion, novels, etc. Showing off is something a kid with Yu-Gi-Oh cards will do as a woman with Chanel will do and is something a gamer with cosmetic proof of some perceived grandness will do. Which is why these cosmetics in games should be brought to reflect someone's time devoted or skill in actually playing and not in the money further spent. Having, I don't know, a captain's hat should be something of status via in-game achievement criteria being met and not shelling out $20. Having status and having ways to show off in games, especially multiplayer ones, is a great thing. It's fucking awful when it becomes locked behind a paywall, especially when a decade ago it would've been something you simply unlocked.</quote> yes people will show off what they got but gamers have shown time and time again it isnt important enough to them to open up their wallets to do so. I agree completely with your sentiment and the system is a shitty system. I simply disagree with this specific argument</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/14/18 11:42:35 PM #86:	TheCurseX2 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Wow make sure not to cut yourself on that edge there bro. Do you have an active subscription to "Dr. Disrespect?" Who? --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896110619] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Wow make sure not to cut yourself on that edge there bro.</quote> Do you have an active subscription to "Dr. Disrespect?"</quote> Who?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 11:45:50 PM #87:	And I would honestly despise working in the gaming field as a designer or creative director or programmer. How much of a soul-siphoning venture the process must be. Take a cool concept then proceed to put minimal effort in most of what you're making, put a good sheen on it so it makes the latest PC graphics card look cool, and send it off to the most important part of the team: the ones that will find ways on how to assfuck a gamer out of more money over the months/years. That's where most of the ideas these days go. We went from geeks in apartments and garages trying to figure out how to best translate Dungeons & Dragons into a fulfilling computer game people would enjoy to people that have Candy Crush and Clash of Clans as citations on how they can best produce more money. You don't get games anymore, you get hooks. Then you pair that with the uneducated dipshit Twitchers out there that will happily run these sponsored streams to show it off and play it and influence the even dumber demographic they manage to attract. Video games are fucking awful, lol. Sometimes, though, you do get a Witcher 3 which does restore your faith and then you get buried soon after by the Battlefronts and Destinys of the world. --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896110782] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>And I would honestly despise working in the gaming field as a designer or creative director or programmer. How much of a soul-siphoning venture the process must be. Take a cool concept then proceed to put minimal effort in most of what you're making, put a good sheen on it so it makes the latest PC graphics card look cool, and send it off to the most important part of the team: the ones that will find ways on how to assfuck a gamer out of more money over the months/years. That's where most of the ideas these days go. We went from geeks in apartments and garages trying to figure out how to best translate Dungeons & Dragons into a fulfilling computer game people would enjoy to people that have Candy Crush and Clash of Clans as citations on how they can best produce more money. You don't get games anymore, you get hooks. Then you pair that with the uneducated dipshit Twitchers out there that will happily run these sponsored streams to show it off and play it and influence the even dumber demographic they manage to attract. Video games are fucking awful, lol. Sometimes, though, you do get a Witcher 3 which does restore your faith and then you get buried soon after by the Battlefronts and Destinys of the world.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 11:48:19 PM #88:	josifrees posted... yes people will show off what they got but gamers have shown time and time again it isnt important enough to them to open up their wallets to do so. You've not seen the outrageous prices skins on CS:GO can bring? Some of them don't want you to open your wallet, but your savings account. But how do you get skins in the first place? I'll let you figure it out. --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896110906] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>josifrees posted...</cite> <quote>yes people will show off what they got but gamers have shown time and time again it isnt important enough to them to open up their wallets to do so. </quote> You've not seen the outrageous prices skins on CS:GO can bring? Some of them don't want you to open your wallet, but your savings account. But how do you get skins in the first place? I'll let you figure it out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 11:51:37 PM #89:	Darmik posted... And an auction house https://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/10974978/diablo%C2%AE-iii-auction-house-update-9-17-2013 Stay woke. --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896111087] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>And an auction house</quote> https://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/10974978/diablo%C2%AE-iii-auction-house-update-9-17-2013 Stay woke.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/14/18 11:52:28 PM #90:	Why would you buy an overpriced skin on Counter-Strike though. If some idiot spending $20 on a unicorn helmet means I don't need to pay for any DLC that's a net benefit for me. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896111135] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Why would you buy an overpriced skin on Counter-Strike though. If some idiot spending $20 on a unicorn helmet means I don't need to pay for any DLC that's a net benefit for me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/14/18 11:54:06 PM #91:	Because for every one map you'd get, you end up with 200 cosmetic items for people to moneyshark after. Your net benefit isn't a benefit at all because the focus is going into what's making them money: the microtransactions. --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896111217] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Because for every one map you'd get, you end up with 200 cosmetic items for people to moneyshark after. Your net benefit isn't a benefit at all because the focus is going into what's making them money: the microtransactions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 02/14/18 11:54:51 PM #92:	Darmik posted... Either the bubble is about to burse and everyone is going to go bankrupt or they're making an obscene amount of money they should be giving more shit out without people playing money. It can't be both. They're making an obscene amount of money and it's reached saturation to the point that it's coming under player scrutiny and attracting the attention of the government. Which is why they're trying to shift to their next cash cow Darmik posted... Yes Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2 are shitty. This is probably why they're selling less than their predecessors. But just because these two companies are shitty every single other one is? But it's not just those two games or companies.Nearly every major (and even some minor) publisher has been engaged in a race to the bottom to provide the least amount of content that consumers will pay 60 dollars for. Street fighter 5 launched as a shell of a game. Blazblue has locked half its roster behind a paywall. The Division was rushed out as a buggy unfinished mess. And it's all being used to justify monetization schemes because hey, they're providing more content than they did at launch, right? Darmik posted... Left 4 Dead 2 is a perfect example of this. Straight away gamers frothed at the mouth because they were expected to pay for a new game instead of some cheaper DLC. They expected a quick buck sequel. Why wouldn't they? Ubisoft and EA were doing this same exact thing! So you're saying that microsoft, the publisher that removed basic race options from Forza 7 and locked them behind lootboxes, deserves the benefit of the doubt in saying that they're going to do right by consumers in their new game? Darmik posted... Games as a Service is the exact same thing. If the game does it well then it's a great model. If it doesn't then it sucks and so does the game. Just like always. And if they want to push it as a new pricing model, then they should actually be adapting it as a new model. Not just stacking different monetization methods on top of the $60 business model Darmik posted... The argument "Sea of Thieves should be free because it has microtransactions" doesn't hold up if you know a single thing about how they're handling it. You expect gamers to play the game absolutely free for 3 months before they roll out paid content? Nonsense. Then they could launch the game as a free to play title three months from now. --- http://i.imgur.com/HOLHd4k.gif http://i.imgur.com/six2WTN.gif <cite>Frolex posted [p:896111256] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Either the bubble is about to burse and everyone is going to go bankrupt or they're making an obscene amount of money they should be giving more shit out without people playing money. It can't be both.</quote> They're making an obscene amount of money and it's reached saturation to the point that it's coming under player scrutiny and attracting the attention of the government. Which is why they're trying to shift to their next cash cow <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Yes Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2 are shitty. This is probably why they're selling less than their predecessors. But just because these two companies are shitty every single other one is?</quote> But it's not just those two games or companies.Nearly every major (and even some minor) publisher has been engaged in a race to the bottom to provide the least amount of content that consumers will pay 60 dollars for. Street fighter 5 launched as a shell of a game. Blazblue has locked half its roster behind a paywall. The Division was rushed out as a buggy unfinished mess. And it's all being used to justify monetization schemes because hey, they're providing more content than they did at launch, right? <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> Left 4 Dead 2 is a perfect example of this. Straight away gamers frothed at the mouth because they were expected to pay for a new game instead of some cheaper DLC. They expected a quick buck sequel. Why wouldn't they? Ubisoft and EA were doing this same exact thing! </quote> So you're saying that microsoft, the publisher that removed basic race options from Forza 7 and locked them behind lootboxes, deserves the benefit of the doubt in saying that they're going to do right by consumers in their new game? <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote>Games as a Service is the exact same thing. If the game does it well then it's a great model. If it doesn't then it sucks and so does the game. Just like always. </quote> And if they want to push it as a new pricing model, then they should actually be adapting it as a new model. Not just stacking different monetization methods on top of the $60 business model <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> The argument "Sea of Thieves should be free because it has microtransactions" doesn't hold up if you know a single thing about how they're handling it. You expect gamers to play the game absolutely free for 3 months before they roll out paid content? Nonsense. </quote> Then they could launch the game as a free to play title three months from now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 02/14/18 11:54:57 PM #93:	Darmik posted... Getting additional content for free months after launch has never been the standard. Buying some $30 Pets Expansion three months after launch doesn't magically become more pro-consumer because it's not a microtransaction. Buying Sea of Thieves 2 in 2019 isn't somehow more pro-consumer too. Expecting Rare to produce constant, additional content for free years after launch is not a reasonable expectation. It has never been the standard. Even in L4D2's case those expansions were released well after launch and were spread apart. Sea of Thieves is a live game that will get new shit every month. If you don't buy the microtransactions you get it for free because other people are paying for them. Before a few years ago, releasing free content for a game was certainly more standard practice than slapping a $60 price tag on a free to play game. Paying for a robust game expansion or sequel is certainly a better value proposition for consumers than paying $60 for one game and then paying continuous fees on top of that to access whatever modicum of content they eek out over the course of a year. And can we dispense with the the nonsense about how "microtransactions are free as long as you don't buy them!" even this game's dev team have been uncharacteristically honest about having to pay money to get what you want rather than being disingenuous with the claim the technically the content is free because you can grind an exorbitant amount of hours to maybe have a chance to get an item. Having to put up with that bullshit is the price "free" players are paying --- http://i.imgur.com/HOLHd4k.gif http://i.imgur.com/six2WTN.gif <cite>Frolex posted [p:896111264] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> Getting additional content for free months after launch has never been the standard. Buying some $30 Pets Expansion three months after launch doesn't magically become more pro-consumer because it's not a microtransaction. Buying Sea of Thieves 2 in 2019 isn't somehow more pro-consumer too. Expecting Rare to produce constant, additional content for free years after launch is not a reasonable expectation. It has never been the standard. Even in L4D2's case those expansions were released well after launch and were spread apart. Sea of Thieves is a live game that will get new shit every month. If you don't buy the microtransactions you get it for free because other people are paying for them. </quote> Before a few years ago, releasing free content for a game was certainly more standard practice than slapping a $60 price tag on a free to play game. Paying for a robust game expansion or sequel is certainly a better value proposition for consumers than paying $60 for one game and then paying continuous fees on top of that to access whatever modicum of content they eek out over the course of a year. And can we dispense with the the nonsense about how "microtransactions are free as long as you don't buy them!" even this game's dev team have been uncharacteristically honest about having to pay money to get what you want rather than being disingenuous with the claim the technically the content is free because you can grind an exorbitant amount of hours to maybe have a chance to get an item. Having to put up with that bullshit is the price "free" players are paying</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/14/18 11:57:45 PM #94:	Also, who the fuck cares if some cosmetics are behind a paywall? If you honestly care about that, you're the problem, not the company. All paid cosmetics say is "hey look at me, I have too much money and needed to burn some." Stop bringing up "well back in the old day" because this isn't the old day; this is a different market place with different technologies. Stop with that bullshit. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896111411] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Also, who the fuck cares if some cosmetics are behind a paywall? If you honestly care about that, you're the problem, not the company. All paid cosmetics say is "hey look at me, I have too much money and needed to burn some." Stop bringing up "well back in the old day" because this isn't the old day; this is a different market place with different technologies. Stop with that bullshit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
josifrees 02/14/18 11:58:01 PM #95:	TheCurseX2 posted... josifrees posted... yes people will show off what they got but gamers have shown time and time again it isnt important enough to them to open up their wallets to do so. You've not seen the outrageous prices skins on CS:GO can bring? Some of them don't want you to open your wallet, but your savings account. But how do you get skins in the first place? I'll let you figure it out. And what percentage of players take part in that --- Quit Crying <cite>josifrees posted [p:896111425] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>josifrees posted...</cite> <quote>yes people will show off what they got but gamers have shown time and time again it isnt important enough to them to open up their wallets to do so. </quote> You've not seen the outrageous prices skins on CS:GO can bring? Some of them don't want you to open your wallet, but your savings account. But how do you get skins in the first place? I'll let you figure it out.</quote> And what percentage of players take part in that</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/15/18 12:05:22 AM #96:	Frolex posted... They're making an obscene amount of money and it's reached saturation to the point that it's coming under player scrutiny and attracting the attention of the government. Which is why they're trying to shift to their next cash cow That's lootboxes. Sea of Thieves doesn't have lootboxes. And shifting to their next cow isn't a crash lol. It's adapting to the market demands. If gamers don't like Games as a Service they'll move onto other stuff. Instead the opposite is happing and GaaS keeps increasing every year. Frolex posted... But it's not just those two games or companies.Nearly every major (and even some minor) publisher has been engaged in a race to the bottom to provide the least amount of content that consumers will pay 60 dollars for. Street fighter 5 launched as a shell of a game. Blazblue has locked half its roster behind a paywall. The Division was rushed out as a buggy unfinished mess. And it's all being used to justify monetization schemes because hey, they're providing more content than they did at launch, right? And I didn't buy or play any of those games Frolex posted... So you're saying that microsoft, the publisher that removed basic race options from Forza 7 and locked them behind lootboxes, deserves the benefit of the doubt in saying that they're going to do right by consumers in their new game? I don't think they'd outright lie about a game releasing in two months no. Frolex posted... Then they could launch the game as a free to play title three months from now. Why? Because you personally don't like it? How many games do you even buy these days if you're this extreme about it? At this rate you'd need to be opposed to any paid content released for a $60 game. Frolex posted... Before a few years ago, releasing free content for a game was certainly more standard practice than slapping a $60 price tag on a free to play game. Claiming that Sea of Thieves is a free to play game because it has cosmetic DLC is ridiculous dude. You'd probably piss your pants if you saw how mobile users monetize their userbase. Frolex posted... Paying for a robust game expansion or sequel is certainly a better value proposition for consumers than paying $60 for one game and then paying continuous fees on top of that to access whatever modicum of content they eek out over the course of a year. What continuous fees? Why would you personally need to continuously buy cosmetics to access content? Frolex posted... And can we dispense with the the nonsense about how "microtransactions are free as long as you don't buy them!" even this game's dev team have been uncharacteristically honest about having to pay money to get what you want rather than being disingenuous with the claim the technically the content is free because you can grind an exorbitant amount of hours to maybe have a chance to get an item. Having to put up with that bulls* is the price "free" players are paying What bullshit? Am I really expected to give a shit that I don't get to have a cat on my pirate ship for free when it's added to the game months after launch? Does that seriously bother you down to your core? --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896111805] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>They're making an obscene amount of money and it's reached saturation to the point that it's coming under player scrutiny and attracting the attention of the government. Which is why they're trying to shift to their next cash cow</quote> That's lootboxes. Sea of Thieves doesn't have lootboxes. And shifting to their next cow isn't a crash lol. It's adapting to the market demands. If gamers don't like Games as a Service they'll move onto other stuff. Instead the opposite is happing and GaaS keeps increasing every year. <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>But it's not just those two games or companies.Nearly every major (and even some minor) publisher has been engaged in a race to the bottom to provide the least amount of content that consumers will pay 60 dollars for. Street fighter 5 launched as a shell of a game. Blazblue has locked half its roster behind a paywall. The Division was rushed out as a buggy unfinished mess. And it's all being used to justify monetization schemes because hey, they're providing more content than they did at launch, right?</quote> And I didn't buy or play any of those games <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>So you're saying that microsoft, the publisher that removed basic race options from Forza 7 and locked them behind lootboxes, deserves the benefit of the doubt in saying that they're going to do right by consumers in their new game? </quote> I don't think they'd outright lie about a game releasing in two months no. <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>Then they could launch the game as a free to play title three months from now.</quote> Why? Because you personally don't like it? How many games do you even buy these days if you're this extreme about it? At this rate you'd need to be opposed to any paid content released for a $60 game. <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>Before a few years ago, releasing free content for a game was certainly more standard practice than slapping a $60 price tag on a free to play game. </quote> Claiming that Sea of Thieves is a free to play game because it has cosmetic DLC is ridiculous dude. You'd probably piss your pants if you saw how mobile users monetize their userbase. <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>Paying for a robust game expansion or sequel is certainly a better value proposition for consumers than paying $60 for one game and then paying continuous fees on top of that to access whatever modicum of content they eek out over the course of a year.</quote> What continuous fees? Why would you personally need to continuously buy cosmetics to access content? <cite>Frolex posted...</cite> <quote>And can we dispense with the the nonsense about how "microtransactions are free as long as you don't buy them!" even this game's dev team have been uncharacteristically honest about having to pay money to get what you want rather than being disingenuous with the claim the technically the content is free because you can grind an exorbitant amount of hours to maybe have a chance to get an item. Having to put up with that bulls* is the price "free" players are paying</quote> What bullshit? Am I really expected to give a shit that I don't get to have a cat on my pirate ship for free when it's added to the game months after launch? Does that seriously bother you down to your core?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCurseX2 02/15/18 12:06:47 AM #97:	josifrees posted... And what percentage of players take part in that Google "CS GO skins" and marvel at your results. sktgamer_13dude posted... Stop bringing up "well back in the old day" because this isn't the old day; this is a different market place with different technologies. Stop with that bullshit. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gGdkfZxP_iI/hqdefault.jpg In the year 2000: "Released game." Price? $60. In the year 2018: "Collector's Edition." Price? $100-120. d i f f e r e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s --- As a Level 37 Sage, I expect to be treated with proper respect and acknowledged for my dedication to the GameFAQs Message Board Community as a whole. Thank you. <cite>TheCurseX2 posted [p:896111876] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>josifrees posted...</cite> <quote>And what percentage of players take part in that</quote> Google "CS GO skins" and marvel at your results. <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Stop bringing up "well back in the old day" because this isn't the old day; this is a different market place with different technologies. Stop with that bullshit.</quote> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gGdkfZxP_iI/hqdefault.jpg In the year 2000: "Released game." Price? $60. In the year 2018: "Collector's Edition." Price? $100-120. d i f f e r e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 02/15/18 12:09:16 AM #98:	Baldurs Gate 2 got an expansion pack 9 months after it launched... --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:896111988] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Baldurs Gate 2 got an expansion pack 9 months after it launched...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Monolith1676 02/15/18 12:09:37 AM #99:	Games as Service is old hat. It is all about Live Services now. --- Gears of War 1 Assassination Legend <cite>Monolith1676 posted [p:896112014] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>Games as Service is old hat. It is all about Live Services now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/15/18 12:10:48 AM #100:	TheCurseX2 posted... https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gGdkfZxP_iI/hqdefault.jpg In the year 2000: "Released game." Price? $60. In the year 2018: "Collector's Edition." Price? $100-120. d i f f e r e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s Who the fuck cares though? "Oh no, I didn't have the $40 for the cosmetic shit that has no impact on the actual game. I might kill myself!!!!" It's cosmetic. If the shit had an impact on the game, you have an argument. But not having a monkey doesn't mean that you're worse off than the person who has the monkey. It's just useless shit. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896112067] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCurseX2 posted...</cite> <quote>https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gGdkfZxP_iI/hqdefault.jpg In the year 2000: "Released game." Price? $60. In the year 2018: "Collector's Edition." Price? $100-120. d i f f e r e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s</quote> Who the fuck cares though? "Oh no, I didn't have the $40 for the cosmetic shit that has no impact on the actual game. I might kill myself!!!!" It's cosmetic. If the shit had an impact on the game, you have an argument. But not having a monkey doesn't mean that you're worse off than the person who has the monkey. It's just useless shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
untrustful 02/15/18 12:10:55 AM #101:	It's funny because he doesn't harp on the issue of cosmetic monetization for Warframe, but he does for sea of thieves. --- My Mario Maker Levels https://supermariomakerbookmark.nintendo.net/profile/untrustful?type=posted <cite>untrustful posted [p:896112078] in Jim Sterli... [t:76319459]...</cite> <quote>It's funny because he doesn't harp on the issue of cosmetic monetization for Warframe, but he does for sea of thieves.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Current Events > Jim Sterling now whining about Sea of Thieves microtransactions (+) Yeah! (+)

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