So much is misunderstood about addiction and its so frustrating that how people will not listen to logic.
An addict can be addicted to TV!!!!! its not the substance that is addictive, its the person
I would recommend starting with someplace like this. https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction If you can make these distinguished medical organizations listen to logic, then maybe they will change their definition of "Addiction" so we can all get this damned misinformation cleared up and move forward.
People really do need to learn what that means... Because they might then understand why they like certain types of games more than others. Blizzard produces the epitome of this psychological angle. Diablo isn't an extremely popular franchise by accident. The entire design is rooted in sensory overload. Every aspect is a constant dopamine release. Eating up your most valuable commodity.. Time....
MMO's have taken that farther by a matter of 10 fold.
This is why slower paced designs are far less popular.
It's a good thing passing time is the entire point of a hobby, then.
Sure, however if we're speaking of perceived negative impact of loot boxes and their psychological influence. The point is very important. Because that's game design essentially. People need to be aware of it. And take care in how they approach it.
Absolutely, but we're not talking about loot boxes leveraging time. It leverages only money. Incompatible with the nature of the point of engaging in the hobby.
I wouldn't disagree, but that's an opinion.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It's a general principle that this system has set up to fool-proof itself against.
Capitalism as a general principle gave us monopolies. Capitalism without restraint or regulation is a trainwreck.
All that is fine and good, but you don't just throw regulation on things because of a vocal crowd.
Who said the entire regulation would be based solely upon the opinion of that crowd?
Unless one has been sticking their heads in the sand, you might've noticed the deceptive steps being taken by the industry this year. Sure, counting out the math on XP for bright engrams is something consumers can do with a little math, but when Activision starts embedding their patented algorithm? When more of those types of algorithms are developed and shared within the industry?
There's no reasonable way for consumers to even understand the deceptive systems contained within the product they're using at that point.
Do any of us really think Activision patented that without the idea of using it?
So much is misunderstood about addiction and its so frustrating that how people will not listen to logic.
An addict can be addicted to TV!!!!! its not the substance that is addictive, its the person
I would recommend starting with someplace like this. https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction If you can make these distinguished medical organizations listen to logic, then maybe they will change their definition of "Addiction" so we can all get this damned misinformation cleared up and move forward.
People really do need to learn what that means... Because they might then understand why they like certain types of games more than others. Blizzard produces the epitome of this psychological angle. Diablo isn't an extremely popular franchise by accident. The entire design is rooted in sensory overload. Every aspect is a constant dopamine release. Eating up your most valuable commodity.. Time....
MMO's have taken that farther by a matter of 10 fold.
This is why slower paced designs are far less popular.
It's a good thing passing time is the entire point of a hobby, then.
Then spending 4k hours to unlock all the stuff in a game should be a much treasured feature. You might like to try out Battle Front 2.
Quite obviously a design to push folks into a payment. We're also talking about a game that's longevity depends on competitive multiplayer.
EA wanted to complain that map packs fragmented the player base... Which is funny, because Battlefield 4 released 4-5 packs, and you could find matches on servers running multiple variations of map packs just fine for a long time after. Hell, I haven't loaded it up on my PS4 in a while, but I'd bet good money I could still use the server browser to find active matches with different map packs rotations. Maybe I'll do that and let you know how it goes. Player-hosted, dedicated servers and a server browser go a long way.
The "fractured player base" of Battlefront was indicative of a deeper issue with the player base and game systems than simply "hey with these map packs now everybody is spread too thin!"
People really do need to learn what that means... Because they might then understand why they like certain types of games more than others. Blizzard produces the epitome of this psychological angle. Diablo isn't an extremely popular franchise by accident. The entire design is rooted in sensory overload. Every aspect is a constant dopamine release. Eating up your most valuable commodity.. Time....
MMO's have taken that farther by a matter of 10 fold.
This is why slower paced designs are far less popular.
It's a good thing passing time is the entire point of a hobby, then.
Sure, however if we're speaking of perceived negative impact of loot boxes and their psychological influence. The point is very important. Because that's game design essentially. People need to be aware of it. And take care in how they approach it.
Absolutely, but we're not talking about loot boxes leveraging time. It leverages only money. Incompatible with the nature of the point of engaging in the hobby.
That's not really for you to decide for other people. People can enjoy a hobby in a variety of ways for many different reasons. Spending a lot of time is one valid way, but it's not the only one.
I'm sure there's just a ton of folks purchasing loot boxes not in the interest of playing the game, but just to try and get collectibles they can display in a case some- oh wait.
People really do need to learn what that means... Because they might then understand why they like certain types of games more than others. Blizzard produces the epitome of this psychological angle. Diablo isn't an extremely popular franchise by accident. The entire design is rooted in sensory overload. Every aspect is a constant dopamine release. Eating up your most valuable commodity.. Time....
MMO's have taken that farther by a matter of 10 fold.
This is why slower paced designs are far less popular.
It's a good thing passing time is the entire point of a hobby, then.
Then spending 4k hours to unlock all the stuff in a game should be a much treasured feature. You might like to try out Battle Front 2.
Quite obviously a design to push folks into a payment. We're also talking about a game that's longevity depends on competitive multiplayer.
So much is misunderstood about addiction and its so frustrating that how people will not listen to logic.
An addict can be addicted to TV!!!!! its not the substance that is addictive, its the person
I would recommend starting with someplace like this. https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction If you can make these distinguished medical organizations listen to logic, then maybe they will change their definition of "Addiction" so we can all get this damned misinformation cleared up and move forward.
People really do need to learn what that means... Because they might then understand why they like certain types of games more than others. Blizzard produces the epitome of this psychological angle. Diablo isn't an extremely popular franchise by accident. The entire design is rooted in sensory overload. Every aspect is a constant dopamine release. Eating up your most valuable commodity.. Time....
MMO's have taken that farther by a matter of 10 fold.
This is why slower paced designs are far less popular.
It's a good thing passing time is the entire point of a hobby, then.
Then spending 4k hours to unlock all the stuff in a game should be a much treasured feature. You might like to try out Battle Front 2.
Game isn't rich enough to justify 4k hours, maybe you say that is just my personal opinion and someone else might find it more than they could ever dream for, yes someone might but doubt if numbers support that. Also BF3 would be released before even the most hardcore no-lifers can unlock everything for free. System is designed to monetize your frustration. For a ridiculous amount of moolah. I wouldn't launch a witch-hunt to burn the people this plan at stake, but I'd say "wow, easy there tiger!" and I bet that has already happened.
EA chose to do this, and public responded. That's the beauty of knowledge and free market. I personally think that was good enough. But that's not good enough for everyone. I see both sides of this argument are taking it to the extreme and taking a huge leap over all the grays in between.
This isn't totally fine. And this certainly isn't like being addicted to opioids.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
We have the NHTSA, a government agency, which has both done some good work and imposed absurd regulations on automobiles. Many of the regulations neither improve safety or reduce accidents. Mostly they just ensure compliance and cost citizens thousands of dollars in taxes and increased purchase costs. Government exists to perpetuate and expand government.
Absurd regulations like the ridiculously unrealistic CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards which contributed to the near bankruptcy of several large auto companies because they had to spend time and money making 'fuel efficient' vehicles that nobody wanted to buy?
Government almost always harms far more than it helps. Just look at Amtrak, social security, green energy, health care, the post office, education, etc. For the life of me I can't think of one thing the U.S. government hasn't screwed up while trying to 'fix' it within the last century or so. History shows quite clearly that most problems with government arise from having too much of it.
I have four hobbies: Vaping, firearms, drone piloting, and video games. Government is already scrutinizing (and partially regulating) two of them and heavily regulating one; I don't want them anywhere near the fourth. Paying a $10 'Children's video game addiction preventative education tax' on every game I buy is the last thing I, or anyone else, needs.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
Self regulation is always better, but the reason Quinlan is talking about this issue is that self regulation has failed. Gaming companies using cash shop and dlc's, pre-orders, kick starter, special editions, early start, selling land, you name it they have pushed the envelope and sold it.
They broke every principle of gaming that we had, and zero new regulation was brought in. They got away with it and so why not next try gambling? They got away with that in specific games so why not in every game?
Gambling and gaming are like chalk and cheese, stop turning our games into casinos.
I don't really agree it failed, I think it's a matter of companies giving a certain segment exactly what they wanted. EA is kinda the exception to the rule. As they took it too far by pissing that segment off. You have to remember it's sales that drive these companies, if they're selling things, they think it works and is acceptable...
You also have to remember EA is just one company, their actions/mistakes don't represent the entire market.
Frenchie has been bringing up something about Activision, and some algorithm they've created, we'll see where that goes. They may just find themselves in EA's shoes with it.
In the end the consumer has the power to stop buying, maybe it's time they start doing that, because "self-regulating" relies heavily on that.
Indeed, a non-gamer mentality was preyed on and allowed to take over game design. This is not all about EA for me, they are just a particularly predative example.
Stopping this by not buying games which have "gambling in gaming" would be the best way. But has a very small chance of catching on. Just to take SWB2, were projected sales down, even after the trouble they got themselves into?
Just because a certain segment want something, does not mean it is actually good for them or the rest of those playing the game. I am not a fan of regulation, but here is a clear case for it.
So much is misunderstood about addiction and its so frustrating that how people will not listen to logic.
An addict can be addicted to TV!!!!! its not the substance that is addictive, its the person
I would recommend starting with someplace like this. https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction If you can make these distinguished medical organizations listen to logic, then maybe they will change their definition of "Addiction" so we can all get this damned misinformation cleared up and move forward.
People really do need to learn what that means... Because they might then understand why they like certain types of games more than others. Blizzard produces the epitome of this psychological angle. Diablo isn't an extremely popular franchise by accident. The entire design is rooted in sensory overload. Every aspect is a constant dopamine release. Eating up your most valuable commodity.. Time....
MMO's have taken that farther by a matter of 10 fold.
This is why slower paced designs are far less popular.
It's a good thing passing time is the entire point of a hobby, then.
Then spending 4k hours to unlock all the stuff in a game should be a much treasured feature. You might like to try out Battle Front 2.
Quite obviously a design to push folks into a payment. We're also talking about a game that's longevity depends on competitive multiplayer.
EA wanted to complain that map packs fragmented the player base... Which is funny, because Battlefield 4 released 4-5 packs, and you could find matches on servers running multiple variations of map packs just fine for a long time after. Hell, I haven't loaded it up on my PS4 in a while, but I'd bet good money I could still use the server browser to find active matches with different map packs rotations. Maybe I'll do that and let you know how it goes. Player-hosted, dedicated servers and a server browser go a long way.
The "fractured player base" of Battlefront was indicative of a deeper issue with the player base and game systems than simply "hey with these map packs now everybody is spread too thin!"
Is it obvious? Since they offer a bypass then it's pushing them into payments? No sir. If the only way you could unlock those heroes were by payment then it would be pushing you into it. Nope, they're offering you an opportunity to play the hobby how it was intended, at no extra charge.
Besides the 4k grinds in subscription locked mmos are intended to keep people subscribing. At least until additional DLC taxes roll around.
Why are 4k hour time sinks in mmos good but 4k hour time sinks in arena shooters need government regulation?
There you go with that grind argument again. We know why grinds are implemented: because content can be consumed much faster than it can be produced. Is it a less than ideal approach to resolving that? Sure. Would it be cool to see more gameplay content being produced? Of course. But creating quality hand-crafted content is not as simple as reskinning a gun or an XP boost in a lootbox. Your underlying argument is that producers monetize the grind via subs to keep people paying without providing additional gameplay content, all to justify the propagation of a monetization system that leads to producers being able to offer even less gameplay content (instead, focusing on the aforementioned reskins, boosts, and other easily replicable items), for what? Some sour grapes over the fact the grind still exists?
I love Starwars, I dont think I even own a shirt that is not Starwars lol including the Christmas sweater my wife made me get. I dont own the new game because I wont buy games with predatory bull shit or loot boxes that effect the game. None of my friends got it for similar reasons. It doesnt matter even a small bit to the company because they will still make shit loads of money off the people that buy loot boxes. The reality is that a very small amount of people with shit loads of money are who they are making these games for, not for all of us anymore because our change doesnt equal their dollars. Micro Transactions will take advantage of a small amount of people who are actually addicted to them and will be taken advantage of by people with disposable income. The free market cant regulate what the consumers want in this situation...
The point Frenchie is trying to make is that most companies don't care about average consumers not buying something because average consumers aren't whales. Loot boxes and much of the monetisation done to F2P titles is both aspects that are made to target people who are willing to throw large sums of money at games regularly. This mindest and design philosophy is bleeding into B2P titles with the implementation of lootboxes and microtransactions in them.
What this means for the consumers is that the rest of the game gets protracted and hurdles put in place as incentives that they will have to endure, because those incentives to pay into the game aren't necessarily for them, but to motivate the whales. So the average consumer suffers while the company still turns a profit.
This wrests control of influencing games with the money from the average consumer. Their wallet basically doesn't matter. What they are is a body count to pad out the presence in the games, giving the whales a reason to stick around.
That is where power as a player exists. You have to physically en-masse just not play the game. Not simply not buy the loot boxes or microtransaction content, because as long as you support the whales in the game by playing it, then whales are then the ones financially supporting the game and the company.
IE, the average consumer no longer has individual buying power, the only thing they have is body count to influence those with buying power.
The point Frenchie is trying to make is that most companies don't care about average consumers not buying something because average consumers aren't whales. Loot boxes and much of the monetisation done to F2P titles is both aspects that are made to target people who are willing to throw large sums of money at games regularly. This mindest and design philosophy is bleeding into B2P titles with the implementation of lootboxes and microtransactions in them.
What this means for the consumers is that the rest of the game gets protracted and hurdles put in place as incentives that they will have to endure, because those incentives to pay into the game aren't necessarily for them, but to motivate the whales. So the average consumer suffers while the company still turns a profit.
This wrests control of influencing games with the money from the average consumer. Their wallet basically doesn't matter. What they are is a body count to pad out the presence in the games, giving the whales a reason to stick around.
That is where power as a player exists. You have to physically en-masse just not play the game. Not simply not buy the loot boxes or microtransaction content, because as long as you support the whales in the game by playing it, then whales are then the ones financially supporting the game and the company.
IE, the average consumer no longer has individual buying power, the only thing they have is body count to influence those with buying power.
WHo said you had to influence them? That only happens in cases like this... However when you buy the box of a game supported by such models, you're supporting the model.
Legislation isn't about giving you your own personal perfect game, it's about making sure many (key word.. you can't save them all) aren't getting hurt.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So much is misunderstood about addiction and its so frustrating that how people will not listen to logic.
An addict can be addicted to TV!!!!! its not the substance that is addictive, its the person
I would recommend starting with someplace like this. https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction If you can make these distinguished medical organizations listen to logic, then maybe they will change their definition of "Addiction" so we can all get this damned misinformation cleared up and move forward.
People really do need to learn what that means... Because they might then understand why they like certain types of games more than others. Blizzard produces the epitome of this psychological angle. Diablo isn't an extremely popular franchise by accident. The entire design is rooted in sensory overload. Every aspect is a constant dopamine release. Eating up your most valuable commodity.. Time....
MMO's have taken that farther by a matter of 10 fold.
This is why slower paced designs are far less popular.
It's a good thing passing time is the entire point of a hobby, then.
Then spending 4k hours to unlock all the stuff in a game should be a much treasured feature. You might like to try out Battle Front 2.
Game isn't rich enough to justify 4k hours, maybe you say that is just my personal opinion and someone else might find it more than they could ever dream for, yes someone might but doubt if numbers support that. Also BF3 would be released before even the most hardcore no-lifers can unlock everything for free. System is designed to monetize your frustration. For a ridiculous amount of moolah. I wouldn't launch a witch-hunt to burn the people this plan at stake, but I'd say "wow, easy there tiger!" and I bet that has already happened.
EA chose to do this, and public responded. That's the beauty of knowledge and free market. I personally think that was good enough. But that's not good enough for everyone. I see both sides of this argument are taking it to the extreme and taking a huge leap over all the grays in between.
This isn't totally fine. And this certainly isn't like being addicted to opioids.
I pretty much agree, but I also assert that applies to most every MMO or other online game as well. Is CS:GO rich enough to justify the millions of person hours dumped into it? How about WoW, EQ, EQ2, or LotRO? Nope. Not rich enough. As mmo players we often swap those concepts based on our interests.
Most online gameplay isn't rich. It's almost always a shallower more streamlined simulacra of the deeper single player experience. The compelling things about online play is the interactivity with others. That's what keeps people playing shallower shells of better games in my opinion.
And monetizing frustration and progression is the foundation of MMOs. Why do popular MMOs sell insta level boosters? Why do they put hundreds of hours of grind behind a subscription + cash shop? Why do the continually reset progress or destroy all your progress (full loot / item destruction)? I know, it's "in the name of gameplay" is a popular counterargument but that's just rationalizing the personal exception.
The problem isn't battlefield loot crates or grind. The problem is that people can't have an honest discussion about the root causes and how they should be addressed. They want to fix a few of the "low hanging fruit" symptoms (like loot crates) while accepting the same designs in their own beloved games.
Saying "4k hours in game x is a waste because the game isn't rich enough" while saying "I love grinding 4k hours in my mmo because it's rich" doesn't cut it. Just because a predatory design in one game is obvious doesn't mean it's okay to ignore the rest of the implementations because it's subjectively given a pass.
You keep equating the grind and paying. I simply reject that comparison. To me it’s like any other game or contest. Why go 500 laps in a race? Why not let cars buy their way past the first hundred? Or more?
It cheapens the game experience.
The purpose of a game is to play it. If you find playing a game tedious then find another game to play. Buying advantages in games is about as lame as it gets.
Sorry... I utterly reject your equivalency.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The point Frenchie is trying to make is that most companies don't care about average consumers not buying something because average consumers aren't whales. Loot boxes and much of the monetisation done to F2P titles is both aspects that are made to target people who are willing to throw large sums of money at games regularly. This mindest and design philosophy is bleeding into B2P titles with the implementation of lootboxes and microtransactions in them.
What this means for the consumers is that the rest of the game gets protracted and hurdles put in place as incentives that they will have to endure, because those incentives to pay into the game aren't necessarily for them, but to motivate the whales. So the average consumer suffers while the company still turns a profit.
This wrests control of influencing games with the money from the average consumer. Their wallet basically doesn't matter. What they are is a body count to pad out the presence in the games, giving the whales a reason to stick around.
That is where power as a player exists. You have to physically en-masse just not play the game. Not simply not buy the loot boxes or microtransaction content, because as long as you support the whales in the game by playing it, then whales are then the ones financially supporting the game and the company.
IE, the average consumer no longer has individual buying power, the only thing they have is body count to influence those with buying power.
WHo said you had to influence them? That only happens in cases like this... However when you buy the box of a game supported by such models, you're supporting the model.
Legislation isn't about giving you your own personal perfect game, it's about making sure many (key word.. you can't save them all) aren't getting hurt.
I'm confused what that has to do with my statement. Legislation there was never the concern, though for bringing that up it can be considered as a protective measure against abusive business strategies. Same reason businesses aren't allowed to create cartels legally.
And as for your question, influencing those with the power to sway how a business or otherwise conducts itself is kind of the fundamental thing here. You don't "have" to influence anything if you don't mind the current trends continuing or possibly getting worse. If you enjoy protracted gameplay where it takes long hours of repetitive content to obtain something, that's fine.
For others that can very well be a problem though. When the only other option provided is to regularly shell out cash then we are pushed to a threshold where you either ok with biting the bullet and grinding out mindless content, shelling out a lot of money, or not playing the title at all.
Refusing to give them more money will not affect the company when you have a design model where the average consumer is irrelevant. That is the present trend because it's more valuable and simple to milk a whale than it is to try and milk a bunch of dolphins and minnows. You tossing $60 at a game is insignificant compared to someone else tossing a few thousand at it. For every forty-plus of them that refuse to buy the box you have to balance that against the value of the one willing to toss money endlessly.
There's no preferences shared of what a "perfect game" is in this matter, only what policies shape the monetisation and subsequent impact that has on the playerbase.
EDIT: And why do you click "awesome" on Torval for having the same fundamental claim as me (He doesn't actually contradict Frenchie much either in his argument, as while Frenchie argued regarding a specific game, he never disagreed on the state of the problem affecting other genres), yet you argue against what I stated?
Can you clearly define what the argument is you're trying to establish here?
So much is misunderstood about addiction and its so frustrating that how people will not listen to logic.
An addict can be addicted to TV!!!!! its not the substance that is addictive, its the person
I would recommend starting with someplace like this. https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction If you can make these distinguished medical organizations listen to logic, then maybe they will change their definition of "Addiction" so we can all get this damned misinformation cleared up and move forward.
People really do need to learn what that means... Because they might then understand why they like certain types of games more than others. Blizzard produces the epitome of this psychological angle. Diablo isn't an extremely popular franchise by accident. The entire design is rooted in sensory overload. Every aspect is a constant dopamine release. Eating up your most valuable commodity.. Time....
MMO's have taken that farther by a matter of 10 fold.
This is why slower paced designs are far less popular.
It's a good thing passing time is the entire point of a hobby, then.
Then spending 4k hours to unlock all the stuff in a game should be a much treasured feature. You might like to try out Battle Front 2.
Game isn't rich enough to justify 4k hours, maybe you say that is just my personal opinion and someone else might find it more than they could ever dream for, yes someone might but doubt if numbers support that. Also BF3 would be released before even the most hardcore no-lifers can unlock everything for free. System is designed to monetize your frustration. For a ridiculous amount of moolah. I wouldn't launch a witch-hunt to burn the people this plan at stake, but I'd say "wow, easy there tiger!" and I bet that has already happened.
EA chose to do this, and public responded. That's the beauty of knowledge and free market. I personally think that was good enough. But that's not good enough for everyone. I see both sides of this argument are taking it to the extreme and taking a huge leap over all the grays in between.
This isn't totally fine. And this certainly isn't like being addicted to opioids.
I pretty much agree, but I also assert that applies to most every MMO or other online game as well. Is CS:GO rich enough to justify the millions of person hours dumped into it? How about WoW, EQ, EQ2, or LotRO? Nope. Not rich enough. As mmo players we often swap those concepts based on our interests.
Most online gameplay isn't rich. It's almost always a shallower more streamlined simulacra of the deeper single player experience. The compelling things about online play is the interactivity with others. That's what keeps people playing shallower shells of better games in my opinion.
And monetizing frustration and progression is the foundation of MMOs. Why do popular MMOs sell insta level boosters? Why do they put hundreds of hours of grind behind a subscription + cash shop? Why do the continually reset progress or destroy all your progress (full loot / item destruction)? I know, it's "in the name of gameplay" is a popular counterargument but that's just rationalizing the personal exception.
The problem isn't battlefield loot crates or grind. The problem is that people can't have an honest discussion about the root causes and how they should be addressed. They want to fix a few of the "low hanging fruit" symptoms (like loot crates) while accepting the same designs in their own beloved games.
Saying "4k hours in game x is a waste because the game isn't rich enough" while saying "I love grinding 4k hours in my mmo because it's rich" doesn't cut it. Just because a predatory design in one game is obvious doesn't mean it's okay to ignore the rest of the implementations because it's subjectively given a pass.
Who said anyone was "giving a pass" to the rest? Just because we don't want to see it evolve to a less consumer friendly system, it doesn't mean we're saying we are completely happy with the status quo.
If you really think loot box monetization is going to fix the underlying problem you're speaking of, I'd be interested in how the hell you figure that.
Again, I'm a realist (cynic). I don't see an easy way to rebalance the scale of content created vs. content consumed. If you have one, I'm all ears. Producers haven't been able to figure it out yet, either. I'd like for them to, sure. But what the hell does that have to do with a move to monetize overly predatory marketing schemes that allow developers to get away with even less unique content?
I pretty much agree, but I also assert that applies to most every MMO or other online game as well. Is CS:GO rich enough to justify the millions of person hours dumped into it? How about WoW, EQ, EQ2, or LotRO? Nope. Not rich enough. As mmo players we often swap those concepts based on our interests.
Most online gameplay isn't rich. It's almost always a shallower more streamlined simulacra of the deeper single player experience. The compelling things about online play is the interactivity with others. That's what keeps people playing shallower shells of better games in my opinion.
And monetizing frustration and progression is the foundation of MMOs. Why do popular MMOs sell insta level boosters? Why do they put hundreds of hours of grind behind a subscription + cash shop? Why do the continually reset progress or destroy all your progress (full loot / item destruction)? I know, it's "in the name of gameplay" is a popular counterargument but that's just rationalizing the personal exception.
The problem isn't battlefield loot crates or grind. The problem is that people can't have an honest discussion about the root causes and how they should be addressed. They want to fix a few of the "low hanging fruit" symptoms (like loot crates) while accepting the same designs in their own beloved games.
Saying "4k hours in game x is a waste because the game isn't rich enough" while saying "I love grinding 4k hours in my mmo because it's rich" doesn't cut it. Just because a predatory design in one game is obvious doesn't mean it's okay to ignore the rest of the implementations because it's subjectively given a pass.
You keep equating the grind and paying. I simply reject that comparison. To me it’s like any other game or contest. Why go 500 laps in a race? Why not let cars buy their way past the first hundred? Or more?
It cheapens the game experience.
The purpose of a game is to play it. If you find playing a game tedious then find another game to play. Buying advantages in games is about as lame as it gets.
Sorry... I utterly reject your equivalency.
Think it mostly has to do with the other statement he made regarding the "richness" of the game. At other times we have referred to that as gameplay depth or quality.
Take the racing game for example. Those 500 laps if, they are on the same course and against the same cars, can be remarkably tedious and superfluous to the point of killing all value to playing the game beyond maybe ten rounds. An endurance race where there is nothing to do for an extended period but to repeat the same motions after the unpredictably is gone rapidly loses entertainment value with most people. The only reason to endure would then be because they perceive the reward to be big enough.
In short, you would kill the game doing something like that. Time spent in a string with a finite variance in activity ("grinding") only sees value for the reward. How much grind there is as compared to what the reward is is a very fine (though also subjective) balance that is hard to pin. However, it's also one that's easy to monetize.
And that's where the equating of the two comes in. While it's not necessarily true or universal across games, it is a heavily used correlation when planning out how to monetize a title.
Take many MMOs which choose to utilize gear upgrade mechanics for example. There is a high frequency for progression in those games to be hinged upon collecting rare resources to then gamble on upgrading an item with. Most of the time there s a risk involved that can negate the effort you just put in, or even regress the item and wiping out previous effort you've put into upgrading it.
At that point, cash shop is introduced as a shortcut on improving that gear. Giving you resource kits, protection against failure, and/or full on upgrade kit options that lets you bypass much of the effort to improving your character.
That has been a staple of the MMO world for a long time, with things like loot boxes being a very nebulous adjacent concern. It's also how grind can be enforced within a game to give players incentive to shell out money and bypass that content.
It's a stacking of several different problems and mechanics, but can fundamentally be wrapped up behind the term of "grinding" and how that mechanic is used to press the value of RMT items.
I'm saying that 4k hours of grind in two different games isn't differentiated by personal appeal to the skinner box mechanism. And moreover that if regulation comes in, it will eventually get to that core issue because complaints won't stop, and it will affect much more than loot-crates, for better or worse. The US is a flawed corrupt democratic repbulic and I expect that at some point those regulations we loved, will be turned into something draconian we despise when some new fat-mouthed baboon weasels their way into office with a particularly nasty agenda. Don't say it can't happen.
Kind of an inverse catch-22 there.
To create a rule is to be burdened by it. But to have no rule is to allow the problem to remain.
As a thing I said prior would be, there's a reason we still make certain things illegal in an otherwise ostensibly "free market" because a truly free market without regulation would see consumers quickly subservient to those they consume from. Supply and demand only goes so far. Hence again the laws against cartels and monopolies.
There is validity to the concern about implementing laws though as you stated. A policy can unfortunately be manipulated quite a lot and used against consumers even if it's intent was originally to protect them. While some laws are more well-defended against this, there are many laws and policies that are not, and our own ongoing problems with net neutrality in the US are directly illustrative of this.
In short, we have no best practice to dealing with such issues. As a people being able to unite in purpose is really the only strong move we have.
Take the racing game for example. Those 500 laps if, they are on the same course and against the same cars, can be remarkably tedious and superfluous to the point of killing all value to playing the game beyond maybe ten rounds. An endurance race where there is nothing to do for an extended period but to repeat the same motions after the unpredictably is gone rapidly loses entertainment value with most people. The only reason to endure would then be because they perceive the reward to be big enough.
NASCAR called... they have a different take as do their millions of fans.
MMORPGs are a type of game where the character journey IS the experience. Just like in NASCAR they are going to go around the very same oval 500 times. It's not for everyone (I don't watch NASCAR), but the idea of buying your way to the 250th lap because it "can be remarkable tedious" is silly. Going around the track 500 times IS the game. If you don;t like that then play another game.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
ok if you want pay for convenience as in you dont have time to grind etc
then as a RULE OF ACTUAL LAW SAID USER CANNOT play said game more then
1-2 hrs per 24 hrs of a day.... (This limits abuse by power hungry
lil snots and wealthy rejects whom oculd not fight on a even playing
field if the universe depended on them....)
THEN you can have
your pay for convenience....ill grind ten hours and catch up...might
even do better as i'll help other non whales ....
otherwise its
just a pay to win scam ....quit trying to soften the gambling aspect too
...kids fnd ways around all those ONLY 18 crap to play and find all
manner to get money and ruin themselves and there lives some times doing
so....
ITS NOT RIGHT and if you dont have time to play PERHAPS
the real thing is for you to play a game that doesn't require
competitive play ...OR find some buds that have time and team up so your
disadvantage is lessened...
being rich and wealthy or having a gambling or addition to loot crates is no excuse.
my
2 cents worth of this ive bought about 10 games in 17 years cause i
HATE DRM....another lovely topic , ths always online CRAP and now for
sinlge player games is a frckin joke....
pretty soon the bottom
will drop out and these publishers know it thats why they all are trying
to cash in now before they get regulated....self regulation is not
gonna happen it will get regulated ....and the sudden proliferaton of
these CARDS IN MY FOOKING GAMES THAT ARE NOT CARD GAMES JUST PROVES
IT....
I F I WANTED TO BLOODY WELL PLAY POKER ID DO SO.....I'D also prolly kick your butts doing it....
Take the racing game for example. Those 500 laps if, they are on the same course and against the same cars, can be remarkably tedious and superfluous to the point of killing all value to playing the game beyond maybe ten rounds. An endurance race where there is nothing to do for an extended period but to repeat the same motions after the unpredictably is gone rapidly loses entertainment value with most people. The only reason to endure would then be because they perceive the reward to be big enough.
NASCAR called... they have a different take as do their millions of fans.
MMORPGs are a type of game where the character journey IS the experience. Just like in NASCAR they are going to go around the very same oval 500 times. It's not for everyone (I don't watch NASCAR), but the idea of buying your way to the 250th lap because it "can be remarkable tedious" is silly. Going around the track 500 times IS the game. If you don;t like that then play another game.
wherw am i watching tv seeing cards popup ??? why are cards part of a CAR GAME?
WHY are they aprt of a star wars game WHY are they part of you want a list of how many games now that use them its like one company is making that lil bit and ALLLLLL OF THEM ARE USING THAT PAY TYPE
if i wanted to frcking play cards ....i would get a deck and play and guess what I DONT HAVE TO EVEN USE REAL MONEY .....imagine if they took your board game and befor eyou can make a move you have ot get on the net , or a phone pay money and then get a card to see how you progress....HAHAHAHAHA no thanks
Self-regulation is a joke. The very people who have a financial stake in the thing being regulated should not be in charge of regulating that thing.
Íf people stopped buying the crap in enough numbers it would work. Of course we might as well wish for world peace.
why would a young kid whom wants it feel all grown up and strong and powerful want to like NOT have an advantage ??? ya thats the rub your giving people not mature enough to make well informed decisions the right to decide and they legally often are not....and its almost impossible to tell....what is required is the regulation to stop this....
pretty good gaming has a nice story about a kid whom was 13 spent 13000 dollars on micro transactions over a few years and showed bank statements etc to prove his story...
DOES THIS GUY THINK SELF REGULATION WILL PREVENT THIS?
This whole thing is like a smoker being surprised when they find out about cancer. People engage in micro-transactions and get surprised when companies keep pushing. Companies wont self-regulate and consumers wont stop buying. Just look at EA. Even now after losing all that money, they're still trying to rationalize why Battlefront II got so much blowback since these things supposedly work so well for them in their sports sector. So yeah, your Battlefront 3 (if Disney lets them keep the license) will include a similar system for sure since they are still 'experimenting' and people will still buy it and QQ. Tears dont work if you still doing the same thing. Sometimes how you reach a point is more important than the point itself.
no its like a guy addicted to gambling wakes up one day to find out hes homeless, has no food , place to live or money.....cause of his addicton...
its also like a drug addict or alcoholic....one day they have nothing and you ask cause an industry self regulating never bothered to stop its predatory nature.
its like EA {enter any publisher with loot boxes or Micro transactions HERE} is a heroin dealer....
Take the racing game for example. Those 500 laps if, they are on the same course and against the same cars, can be remarkably tedious and superfluous to the point of killing all value to playing the game beyond maybe ten rounds. An endurance race where there is nothing to do for an extended period but to repeat the same motions after the unpredictably is gone rapidly loses entertainment value with most people. The only reason to endure would then be because they perceive the reward to be big enough.
NASCAR called... they have a different take as do their millions of fans.
MMORPGs are a type of game where the character journey IS the experience. Just like in NASCAR they are going to go around the very same oval 500 times. It's not for everyone (I don't watch NASCAR), but the idea of buying your way to the 250th lap because it "can be remarkable tedious" is silly. Going around the track 500 times IS the game. If you don;t like that then play another game.
That's incorrect, your NASCAR analogy has a lot of missing components as for one, they don't do 500 laps, they do at most 200 (Daytona 500 is a 500 mile race, not 500 lap). Even then, they break up the laps (where they break up into stages) and the overall scoring is completed at the halfway (250 miles). NASCAR may still be a very tedious sport, but they don't adhere to the same principles you are trying to suggest of them and they do actually take care to make the sport more interesting via a lot of side activity for the fans so they aren't just watching cars drive in a circle.
For the driver it's again broken up quite a lot so that they aren't driving for 200 laps on-end. The break up in laps and stages allows the driver to stop and unwind for a bit before the next stage while their team services the car. They are very intentionally mitigating the tedium and stress on the driver where they can.
The same cannot be said of MMOs, where the tedium is intentionally put in the way of the consumer instead. The "journey" is itself being impeded by obstacles ("you must be X level" "you must complete X side objectives" "your gear score must be X") that often directly impedes players following a game's narrative in a seamless manner. Those obstacles are a very artificial part of the user experience at best, and most of the time not intended to be fun, but to be a reason to invest in the game to get to the fun.
The point Frenchie is trying to make is that most companies don't care about average consumers not buying something because average consumers aren't whales. Loot boxes and much of the monetisation done to F2P titles is both aspects that are made to target people who are willing to throw large sums of money at games regularly. This mindest and design philosophy is bleeding into B2P titles with the implementation of lootboxes and microtransactions in them.
What this means for the consumers is that the rest of the game gets protracted and hurdles put in place as incentives that they will have to endure, because those incentives to pay into the game aren't necessarily for them, but to motivate the whales. So the average consumer suffers while the company still turns a profit.
This wrests control of influencing games with the money from the average consumer. Their wallet basically doesn't matter. What they are is a body count to pad out the presence in the games, giving the whales a reason to stick around.
That is where power as a player exists. You have to physically en-masse just not play the game. Not simply not buy the loot boxes or microtransaction content, because as long as you support the whales in the game by playing it, then whales are then the ones financially supporting the game and the company.
IE, the average consumer no longer has individual buying power, the only thing they have is body count to influence those with buying power.
WHo said you had to influence them? That only happens in cases like this... However when you buy the box of a game supported by such models, you're supporting the model.
Legislation isn't about giving you your own personal perfect game, it's about making sure many (key word.. you can't save them all) aren't getting hurt.
no legislation is required cause sometimes humans need help protecting themselves FROM others and themselves...otherwise we don't need any laws....see how that works for ya
Comments
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Unless one has been sticking their heads in the sand, you might've noticed the deceptive steps being taken by the industry this year. Sure, counting out the math on XP for bright engrams is something consumers can do with a little math, but when Activision starts embedding their patented algorithm? When more of those types of algorithms are developed and shared within the industry?
There's no reasonable way for consumers to even understand the deceptive systems contained within the product they're using at that point.
Do any of us really think Activision patented that without the idea of using it?
EA wanted to complain that map packs fragmented the player base... Which is funny, because Battlefield 4 released 4-5 packs, and you could find matches on servers running multiple variations of map packs just fine for a long time after. Hell, I haven't loaded it up on my PS4 in a while, but I'd bet good money I could still use the server browser to find active matches with different map packs rotations. Maybe I'll do that and let you know how it goes. Player-hosted, dedicated servers and a server browser go a long way.
The "fractured player base" of Battlefront was indicative of a deeper issue with the player base and game systems than simply "hey with these map packs now everybody is spread too thin!"
EA chose to do this, and public responded. That's the beauty of knowledge and free market. I personally think that was good enough. But that's not good enough for everyone. I see both sides of this argument are taking it to the extreme and taking a huge leap over all the grays in between.
This isn't totally fine. And this certainly isn't like being addicted to opioids.
Government almost always harms far more than it helps. Just look at Amtrak, social security, green energy, health care, the post office, education, etc. For the life of me I can't think of one thing the U.S. government hasn't screwed up while trying to 'fix' it within the last century or so. History shows quite clearly that most problems with government arise from having too much of it.
I have four hobbies: Vaping, firearms, drone piloting, and video games. Government is already scrutinizing (and partially regulating) two of them and heavily regulating one; I don't want them anywhere near the fourth. Paying a $10 'Children's video game addiction preventative education tax' on every game I buy is the last thing I, or anyone else, needs.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
Stopping this by not buying games which have "gambling in gaming" would be the best way. But has a very small chance of catching on. Just to take SWB2, were projected sales down, even after the trouble they got themselves into?
Just because a certain segment want something, does not mean it is actually good for them or the rest of those playing the game. I am not a fan of regulation, but here is a clear case for it.
What this means for the consumers is that the rest of the game gets protracted and hurdles put in place as incentives that they will have to endure, because those incentives to pay into the game aren't necessarily for them, but to motivate the whales. So the average consumer suffers while the company still turns a profit.
This wrests control of influencing games with the money from the average consumer. Their wallet basically doesn't matter. What they are is a body count to pad out the presence in the games, giving the whales a reason to stick around.
That is where power as a player exists. You have to physically en-masse just not play the game. Not simply not buy the loot boxes or microtransaction content, because as long as you support the whales in the game by playing it, then whales are then the ones financially supporting the game and the company.
IE, the average consumer no longer has individual buying power, the only thing they have is body count to influence those with buying power.
Legislation isn't about giving you your own personal perfect game, it's about making sure many (key word.. you can't save them all) aren't getting hurt.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It cheapens the game experience.
The purpose of a game is to play it. If you find playing a game tedious then find another game to play. Buying advantages in games is about as lame as it gets.
Sorry... I utterly reject your equivalency.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
And as for your question, influencing those with the power to sway how a business or otherwise conducts itself is kind of the fundamental thing here. You don't "have" to influence anything if you don't mind the current trends continuing or possibly getting worse. If you enjoy protracted gameplay where it takes long hours of repetitive content to obtain something, that's fine.
For others that can very well be a problem though. When the only other option provided is to regularly shell out cash then we are pushed to a threshold where you either ok with biting the bullet and grinding out mindless content, shelling out a lot of money, or not playing the title at all.
Refusing to give them more money will not affect the company when you have a design model where the average consumer is irrelevant. That is the present trend because it's more valuable and simple to milk a whale than it is to try and milk a bunch of dolphins and minnows. You tossing $60 at a game is insignificant compared to someone else tossing a few thousand at it. For every forty-plus of them that refuse to buy the box you have to balance that against the value of the one willing to toss money endlessly.
There's no preferences shared of what a "perfect game" is in this matter, only what policies shape the monetisation and subsequent impact that has on the playerbase.
EDIT: And why do you click "awesome" on Torval for having the same fundamental claim as me (He doesn't actually contradict Frenchie much either in his argument, as while Frenchie argued regarding a specific game, he never disagreed on the state of the problem affecting other genres), yet you argue against what I stated?
Can you clearly define what the argument is you're trying to establish here?
If you really think loot box monetization is going to fix the underlying problem you're speaking of, I'd be interested in how the hell you figure that.
Again, I'm a realist (cynic). I don't see an easy way to rebalance the scale of content created vs. content consumed. If you have one, I'm all ears. Producers haven't been able to figure it out yet, either. I'd like for them to, sure. But what the hell does that have to do with a move to monetize overly predatory marketing schemes that allow developers to get away with even less unique content?
Take the racing game for example. Those 500 laps if, they are on the same course and against the same cars, can be remarkably tedious and superfluous to the point of killing all value to playing the game beyond maybe ten rounds. An endurance race where there is nothing to do for an extended period but to repeat the same motions after the unpredictably is gone rapidly loses entertainment value with most people. The only reason to endure would then be because they perceive the reward to be big enough.
In short, you would kill the game doing something like that. Time spent in a string with a finite variance in activity ("grinding") only sees value for the reward. How much grind there is as compared to what the reward is is a very fine (though also subjective) balance that is hard to pin. However, it's also one that's easy to monetize.
And that's where the equating of the two comes in. While it's not necessarily true or universal across games, it is a heavily used correlation when planning out how to monetize a title.
Take many MMOs which choose to utilize gear upgrade mechanics for example. There is a high frequency for progression in those games to be hinged upon collecting rare resources to then gamble on upgrading an item with. Most of the time there s a risk involved that can negate the effort you just put in, or even regress the item and wiping out previous effort you've put into upgrading it.
At that point, cash shop is introduced as a shortcut on improving that gear. Giving you resource kits, protection against failure, and/or full on upgrade kit options that lets you bypass much of the effort to improving your character.
That has been a staple of the MMO world for a long time, with things like loot boxes being a very nebulous adjacent concern. It's also how grind can be enforced within a game to give players incentive to shell out money and bypass that content.
It's a stacking of several different problems and mechanics, but can fundamentally be wrapped up behind the term of "grinding" and how that mechanic is used to press the value of RMT items.
To create a rule is to be burdened by it. But to have no rule is to allow the problem to remain.
As a thing I said prior would be, there's a reason we still make certain things illegal in an otherwise ostensibly "free market" because a truly free market without regulation would see consumers quickly subservient to those they consume from. Supply and demand only goes so far. Hence again the laws against cartels and monopolies.
There is validity to the concern about implementing laws though as you stated. A policy can unfortunately be manipulated quite a lot and used against consumers even if it's intent was originally to protect them. While some laws are more well-defended against this, there are many laws and policies that are not, and our own ongoing problems with net neutrality in the US are directly illustrative of this.
In short, we have no best practice to dealing with such issues. As a people being able to unite in purpose is really the only strong move we have.
And we're talking about niche entertainment here.
MMORPGs are a type of game where the character journey IS the experience. Just like in NASCAR they are going to go around the very same oval 500 times. It's not for everyone (I don't watch NASCAR), but the idea of buying your way to the 250th lap because it "can be remarkable tedious" is silly. Going around the track 500 times IS the game. If you don;t like that then play another game.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
ok if you want pay for convenience as in you dont have time to grind etc then as a RULE OF ACTUAL LAW SAID USER CANNOT play said game more then 1-2 hrs per 24 hrs of a day....
(This limits abuse by power hungry lil snots and wealthy rejects whom oculd not fight on a even playing field if the universe depended on them....)
THEN you can have your pay for convenience....ill grind ten hours and catch up...might even do better as i'll help other non whales ....
otherwise its just a pay to win scam ....quit trying to soften the gambling aspect too ...kids fnd ways around all those ONLY 18 crap to play and find all manner to get money and ruin themselves and there lives some times doing so....
ITS NOT RIGHT and if you dont have time to play PERHAPS the real thing is for you to play a game that doesn't require competitive play ...OR find some buds that have time and team up so your disadvantage is lessened...
being rich and wealthy or having a gambling or addition to loot crates is no excuse.
my 2 cents worth of this ive bought about 10 games in 17 years cause i HATE DRM....another lovely topic , ths always online CRAP and now for sinlge player games is a frckin joke....
pretty soon the bottom will drop out and these publishers know it thats why they all are trying to cash in now before they get regulated....self regulation is not gonna happen it will get regulated ....and the sudden proliferaton of these CARDS IN MY FOOKING GAMES THAT ARE NOT CARD GAMES JUST PROVES IT....
I F I WANTED TO BLOODY WELL PLAY POKER ID DO SO.....I'D also prolly kick your butts doing it....
WHY are they aprt of a star wars game
WHY are they part of you want a list of how many games now that use them its like one company is making that lil bit and ALLLLLL OF THEM ARE USING THAT PAY TYPE
if i wanted to frcking play cards ....i would get a deck and play and guess what I DONT HAVE TO EVEN USE REAL MONEY .....imagine if they took your board game and befor eyou can make a move you have ot get on the net , or a phone pay money and then get a card to see how you progress....HAHAHAHAHA no thanks
pretty good gaming has a nice story about a kid whom was 13 spent 13000 dollars on micro transactions over a few years and showed bank statements etc to prove his story...
DOES THIS GUY THINK SELF REGULATION WILL PREVENT THIS?
i do not.
its also like a drug addict or alcoholic....one day they have nothing and you ask cause an industry self regulating never bothered to stop its predatory nature.
its like EA {enter any publisher with loot boxes or Micro transactions HERE}
is a heroin dealer....
For the driver it's again broken up quite a lot so that they aren't driving for 200 laps on-end. The break up in laps and stages allows the driver to stop and unwind for a bit before the next stage while their team services the car. They are very intentionally mitigating the tedium and stress on the driver where they can.
The same cannot be said of MMOs, where the tedium is intentionally put in the way of the consumer instead. The "journey" is itself being impeded by obstacles ("you must be X level" "you must complete X side objectives" "your gear score must be X") that often directly impedes players following a game's narrative in a seamless manner. Those obstacles are a very artificial part of the user experience at best, and most of the time not intended to be fun, but to be a reason to invest in the game to get to the fun.