Poll of the Day > Gaming pet peeves?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The dumb take is actually from post #60.

Leading/following NPCs that are achingly slow.

Leading/following NPCs that are achingly slow.

What game?

Some games have data on them, do they not? It's hard to tell tbh cause my console is always connected to the internet anyway so an install and download look a lot like the same thing

They also serve as a license key if nothing else, granted it's not like a digital game can't do that

Leading/following NPCs that are achingly slow.

in asassins creed 4, I failed an escort mission because they fell down a well during freerunning....

Leading/following NPCs that are achingly slow.

The main problem with PC games are nowadays theres so many damn variables when it comes to components and drivers its almost impossible for them to test for them all. And sometimes crap like that make a difference.

People have been saying this for like ten years and it's still a flat out lie ten years later.

Do those monetization practices exist? Yes. Is it happening to every AAA game? Not even remotely.

And there's zero excuse for it for console games, where everyone is on a standardized system.

ps4-ps4 pro

(and pay to win lootboxes were taken out of battlefront at launch.. cosmetic lootboxes don't mean anything)

-Tales of Arise -

Strange that you bring this up when Battlefront wasn't one of my examples.

I also was not aware that money-whoring for cosmetics apparently doesn't count as money-whoring.

And the above aren't even counting the more infamous examples, like EA and their rampant abuse of lootboxes in everything from sports titles to Star Wars. It all gets to be a bit much for me.

And the above aren't even counting the more infamous examples, like EA and their rampant abuse of lootboxes in everything from sports titles to Star Wars. It all gets to be a bit much for me.

And the above aren't even counting the more infamous examples, like EA and their rampant abuse of lootboxes in everything from sports titles to Star Wars. It all gets to be a bit much for me.

I also was not aware that money-whoring for cosmetics apparently doesn't count as money-whoring.

I'm more sympathetic to PC games pulling this, for the reasons you mentioned, but when the game doesn't work well on *anyone's* system because the game itself is still horribly bugged and not in a state where it is ready for mass release (like Cyberpunk 2077, for instance), that's where I get cranky.

And there's zero excuse for it for console games, where everyone is on a standardized system.

I beg to differ. I can't honestly recall the last AAA game I played that didn't have some form of naked profit-mongering going on with blatantly exploitative or money-grubbing transactions. Even Nintendo, who used to be categorically opposed to this sort of thing, have jumped in feet-first in the Switch era.

Just a few examples off the top of my head:

-Super Smash Bros. Ultimate - "Here's the base game for $60, with a roster of 74 fighters and 103 stages. And if you want the complete game, you can buy the DLC, to the tune of $66 ($55 if you use the package deals!), which gets you... 11 new characters and 11 additional stages."

-Tales of Arise - "Try our wonderfully-crafted RPG adventure, for just $60! Then head on over to the DLC page, where you can buy a bunch of costume art assets that we threw together in an afternoon, or item packs that took literally 30 minutes to code! Total price tag for all the DLC options, precisely zero of which add any meaningful content to the game? $175!!". By the way, $130 worth of those DLC packs were available on Day 1, meaning there's zero reason beyond profiteering that they couldn't have been included in the main game.

-Fire Emblem Fates - Probably the most egregious example I can think of, the game had two campaigns ("Birthright" and "Conquest") which, despite using the exact same set of characters and mechanics and being developed as a single project, were released separately as two full priced games (though you could get the "second campaign" at a discount as DLC for whichever first campaign you paid for). The real kicker, however, was that the game's third campaign, which included the game's true ending, was DLC exclusive (unless you shelled out for the Collector's Edition), meaning the total cost for the complete game came out to $100 (and that's including the discount for the second campaign). And as a side note, there's another $40 of DLC packs in addition to that ($25 if you buy them in packs) that consist of the usual fare of standalone maps, EXP/gold boosters, etc.

And the above aren't even counting the more infamous examples, like EA and their rampant abuse of lootboxes in everything from sports titles to Star Wars. It all gets to be a bit much for me.

BotW had a single expansion pass that added a lot of content to the game. I think all of the Mario Odyssey updates were free? I haven't played most of them so I'm not 100% sure, but I feel like the "smaller" games like Kirby and Yoshi might not have DLC at all. As for Smash, I don't feel like you're obligated to get every fighter if they don't interest you, plus most of them were big swings. Of course they gotta charge for a huge licensed character like Sephiroth.

The worst thing Nintendo does with DLC is locking it behind amiibos, but amiibo is practically dead now.

Lots of Sony games that aren't loaded with micro transactions. Maybe a DLC or two. It seems kinda like your complaint is "having any paid add on content is bad" cause it breaks down otherwise

EA/Ubisoft/Activision are bad about this, sure, and they are big, but they aren't the only AAA players in the industry

As for Smash, I don't feel like you're obligated to get every fighter if they don't interest you, plus most of them were big swings. Of course they gotta charge for a huge licensed character like Sephiroth.

-Fire Emblem Fates - Probably the most egregious example I can think of, the game had two campaigns ("Birthright" and "Conquest") which, despite using the exact same set of characters and mechanics and being developed as a single project, were released separately as two full priced games (though you could get the "second campaign" at a discount as DLC for whichever first campaign you paid for). The real kicker, however, was that the game's third campaign, which included the game's true ending, was DLC exclusive (unless you shelled out for the Collector's Edition), meaning the total cost for the complete game came out to $100 (and that's including the discount for the second campaign). And as a side note, there's another $40 of DLC packs in addition to that ($25 if you buy them in packs) that consist of the usual fare of standalone maps, EXP/gold boosters, etc.

BotW had a single expansion pass that added a lot of content to the game. I think all of the Mario Odyssey updates were free?

$100 for three games isn't bad. Again, that's not in any way a required cost, it's just what you have to pay if you want to play all of them. The two games can function just fine as standalone purchases if you only want to buy one.

It's not three games, though - it's one game with three campaigns. The characters, the art assets, the engine, the combat, the enemies, the music and sound, the mechanics, every bit of it is identical across the three "games". The only things that differ are the maps, the story, and the overall difficulty.

Calling Fire Emblem Fates three different games is sort of like calling Pokemon Blue, Red, and Yellow three different games - true in the sense of how they were released, but the differences between them are minimal (and at least with Pokemon you don't need to own all of the releases in a generation to enjoy all of that generation's content, given that trading exists).

Also, saying that the true ending of the game is "optional content" strikes me as missing the mark. Sure, it's not a "required cost"; no DLC or microtransactions ever are. That doesn't mean it isn't patently exploitative money-grubbing. This argument is the same one EA makes in defence of lootboxes: "You don't have to spend a penny on them and can just unlock characters through gameplay!" (unspoken subtext: "...as long as you don't mind spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours to do so").

While many of the characters are the same, there are certain characters that are only playable depending on which game(s) you got.

all chars but two are available in revelations

it was definitely kinda shitty

It's not three games, though - it's one game with three campaigns. The characters, the art assets, the engine, the combat, the enemies, the music and sound, the mechanics, every bit of it is identical across the three "games". The only things that differ are the maps, the story, and the overall difficulty.

Also, saying that the true ending of the game is "optional content" strikes me as missing the mark.

This argument is the same one EA makes in defence of lootboxes: "You don't have to spend a penny on them and can just unlock characters through gameplay!" (unspoken subtext: "...as long as you don't mind spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours to do so").

Now, saying this, I still haven't finished either of Birthright or Conquest, so I haven't played Revelation and I can't speak to how satisfyingly either one ends.

While many of the characters are the same, there are certain characters that are only playable depending on which game(s) you got. Some are not available (to play) in the other Some character are for all the routes, but many are for 2 different routes (one usually being revaluations), and a few for only 1 route for each character And even when they are in multiple games, depending on when you get them can change how the game is played

And they're all long enough to function just fine as standalone games.

Depends entirely how well the base game ends. If the base game is satisfying without buying the DLC, then the DLC is optional content. [...]

Now, saying this, I still haven't finished either of Birthright or Conquest, so I haven't played Revelation and I can't speak to how satisfyingly either one ends.

I don't have an issue with selling an epilogue separately from a story that doesn't actually need an epilogue

You're absolutely right that the market is rife with claims of "it's optional!" when the companies have done everything they can to make it as close to mandatory as possible, but that's not what's happening here.

A purchase being attractive on its own merits (as opposed to being relatively attractive because the alternative has been made deliberately terrible) doesn't mean it's not an optional purchase.

Every single character is available in all iterations of the game; the only difference is whether they are playable or not. Their art assets, their voice clips, so on and so forth - all the things that actually took up development resources and require space in the game files are present in all three games. Any character that isn't playable in a specific version in the game shows up in the single player campaign as an enemy (excepting the child characters) and can pop up in online matches.

In other words, it's all part of the same development effort.

I meant playable Wither way, that doesnt change what I said, though

I understand that, but whether or not they're playable doesn't really factor into the question of that warranting extra payment on behalf of the end-user.

Whether or not the unit is playable in a specific version of Fates is a single variable in the code that could be switched on or off at a whim. It's not like the playable characters from Birthright are completely absent from Conquest or vice versa; the data is all there, because all of the characters were designed together and used - as allies, enemies, or both - in all three versions of the game. Since that data is already in the files, it doesn't seem to be a great justification for asking for more money.

Whether or not the unit is playable in a specific version of Fates is a single variable in the code that could be switched on or off at a whim.

that's stupidly oversimplifying things and also probably from a technical aspect incorrect, unless you can point me towards one variable that makes Anankos playable without immediately breaking the game

So, I dont really see why they wouldnt ask for more money.

I would think it warrant extra payment, tbh Different character has different stats, and play differently. Even just switching the characters on their own would change the game since you would have to play it completely different Just because it could be easily changed doesnt really seem to matter. The fact is they arent playable in all versions. Due to some characters being playable, with others not being playable, it really changes the game quite a bit Especially in a game like Fire Emblem

And while I understand they arent absent, that doesnt really matter. All that really matters is if they are playable So, I dont really see why they wouldnt ask for more money. In the end, they are still completely different games. Just games with the same characters. Thats like say in g you should charge for a sequel because it has the same characters from the first game

Why would they? They didn't do any work to earn it. Again, the characters are all there in the code for all three games. The fact that switching them on changes the game doesn't mean that the developers did any extra work outside of the planned development cycle that I, as the end user, should have to pay for.

If "having this playable changes the game and the user should therefore pay extra" was sound logic, players should have to purchase every single playable character in a fighting game separately, which would be both tremendously greedy on the part of the developers and also really stupid.

How are they completely different games if the story is the same with minor differences because of the characters?

When NPCs speak and you have to be near them, sometimes even facing them, for it to be audible. Which is especially annoying if they're on the move.

I liked how the Borderlands games (and I'm sure other games, as well) did it by having NPCs speak by radio if you're too far away from them.

Except they did do enough work to earn it. The first 6 chapters are the same. After that, the games vary a good amount. The battles are different. And they are different difficulty levels, as well. Conquest is purposely made to be harder. Its harder than both birthright and revelations, apparently Whether you believe it or not, they are different games that have a similar beginning. But the other parts of the story are different To say someone didnt earn the money when they put in the work is asinine And insulting Ans the developers did a lot more than switching the playable characters. The battles are literally different. And harder in one of the game. They are all different difficulties. Which meant making each battle other than the first few battles individually

And each game campaign is about 30 hours (according to the internet).

As for fighting games, many people do end up buying the new fighters they add.

This is like saying that Starcraft is actually three different games because in each campaign you play as a different army, with a different storyline, and the battles are different.

Except, whoops, actually Starcraft was sold as a single game! Which makes sense, given that it was all developed as a single development cycle and each campaign uses the same assets as the others.

Y'know, just like Fire Emblem Fates.

Having played the game myself, 30 hours would be generous for Birthright and Revelation. Conquest, maybe, if only because of the difficulty.

But even if you use that playtime as your benchmark, that gives you a total of 90 hours. Grand. Meanwhile, contemporary games like Skyrim had several times that length in gameplay while retailing for roughly half the price.

And where did I ever suggest they didn't?

People spend money on overpriced stuff all the time. My allegation wasn't that people weren't buying it, it's that it's a ripoff because you wind up having to pay $60 for the base game, then $100 for the remainder of the content that was carved out of the initial product so they could sell it back to you at a ridiculous markup.

• Speedrun trophies. If speedrunning is your thing that's cool but personally I hate being timed and it shouldn't be a trophy requirement
• Collectables in any game that isn't open world. I feel it just ruins the immersion and halts momentum. Perfect example would be The Quarry
• Every other indie dev using "Souls-like" genre as a crutch because they have no other unique ideas. Anytime I'm browsing the store and I see souls-like in the description it's an instant pass from me. So overdone.
• Rockstar and their obsession with trying to be realistic. That pretty much ruined Red Dead 2 for me. The entire game feels like a boring slog to play from the clunky mechanics to the forced riding/walking sections where it feels like your controlling someone walking through five feet of snow. I got bored after a couple of hours and just looked up spoilers

Having to play mini games to unlock/hack/decrypt/whatever.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/5/3/AAQwHjAAD5vp.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/5/4/AAQwHjAAD5vq.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/5/5/AAQwHjAAD5vr.jpg

What I am saying is these games are different games.

Different companies can do whatever they want.

The playtime will change person to person.

The price doesnt really matter as long as its worth that much to the person who bought it.

Having to play mini games to unlock/hack/decrypt/whatever.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/5/3/AAQwHjAAD5vp.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/5/4/AAQwHjAAD5vq.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/5/5/AAQwHjAAD5vr.jpg

They're not, though; they're literally three different parts of the same game. Same engine, same mechanics, same characters, same overarching storyline, same dev cycle, same soundtrack, same graphics... I mean shit, they're even *marketed* under the same "Fates" name.

Case in point, Birthright and Conquest don't even have proper endings; the story is left unresolved at the end of those chapters, with prominent mysteries left unsolved and the main villain left unrevealed, because those are in a different part of the game (that you conveniently have to pay another $20 for).

When did I say otherwise?

Nintendo, Namco, and everyone else who uses nakedly moneygrubbing policies are absolutely free to be greedy, no disagreements there. They're completely within their legal right to use slimy business practices to increase profits. But this topic is about what annoys people, not what companies aren't allowed to do, and companies being miserly penny-pinchers trying to milk more profit out of consumers is something that annoys me.

Then why did you bring it up?

Playtime was your argument, chief, not mine. You're the one who put forward that "30 hours" figure as though it was gospel, which you now are backpedalling on. I already said earlier in the topic that I think playtime is a really stupid metric to measure these things by, because of how wildly it varies from product to product (and from player to player).

Man, EA would love this marketing angle.

"Why are you guys complaining? If people are throwing thousands of dollars into our lootboxes, they clearly think it's worth it, so there's no issue, right?"