MMORPG's in some ways predate these effects as the introduction of cash shops showed what could be done to make games huge money spinners, they became the first games as a service. So has gaming benefited or lost out as the money men moved in?
It wasn't cash shops. It was the subscription model that started the 'games as a service' model.
It showed that gamers were happy to pay additional fees to play computer games. And games like EQ were desgined to keep players subbed for as long as possible (slow xp gain, long travel times, corpse runs etc.)
Not really, games used to be one of several "services" provided by Compuserv and Genie, which were pay by the hour for online access and set the earlier precedence.
Low monthly subs were an innovation, no longer side I have to pay $100 for 10 hours of online gaming, unlimited time per month, all at one low fee of $12.99?
A total bargin.
If only earlier devs had realized how badly some people want to spend big bucks on gaming. I'm sure RG, MJ, and many others are still kicking themselves for not realizing it sooner.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
MMORPG's in some ways predate these effects as the introduction of cash shops showed what could be done to make games huge money spinners, they became the first games as a service. So has gaming benefited or lost out as the money men moved in?
It wasn't cash shops. It was the subscription model that started the 'games as a service' model.
It showed that gamers were happy to pay additional fees to play computer games. And games like EQ were desgined to keep players subbed for as long as possible (slow xp gain, long travel times, corpse runs etc.)
Not really, games used to be one of several "services" provided by Compuserv and Genie, which were pay by the hour for online access and set the earlier precedence.
Low monthly subs were an innovation, no longer side I have to pay $100 for 10 hours of online gaming, unlimited time per month, all at one low fee of $12.99?
A total bargin.
If only earlier devs had realized how badly some people want to spend big bucks on gaming. I'm sure RG, MJ, and many others are still kicking themselves for not realizing it sooner.
Depends on your online gaming back ground.
I was primarily playing games such as Doom/Quake and CnC/Warcraft online with no additional fees other than what my ISP was charging per minute.
Paying additional fees on top of a box price to a game company was new to me when I played my first MMO EQ.
MMORPG's in some ways predate these effects as the introduction of cash shops showed what could be done to make games huge money spinners, they became the first games as a service. So has gaming benefited or lost out as the money men moved in?
It wasn't cash shops. It was the subscription model that started the 'games as a service' model.
It showed that gamers were happy to pay additional fees to play computer games. And games like EQ were desgined to keep players subbed for as long as possible (slow xp gain, long travel times, corpse runs etc.)
Not really, games used to be one of several "services" provided by Compuserv and Genie, which were pay by the hour for online access and set the earlier precedence.
Low monthly subs were an innovation, no longer side I have to pay $100 for 10 hours of online gaming, unlimited time per month, all at one low fee of $12.99?
A total bargin.
If only earlier devs had realized how badly some people want to spend big bucks on gaming. I'm sure RG, MJ, and many others are still kicking themselves for not realizing it sooner.
Depends on your online gaming back ground.
I was primarily playing games such as Doom/Quake and CnC/Warcraft online with no additional fees other than what my ISP was charging per minute.
Paying additional fees on top of a box price to a game company was new to me when I played my first MMO EQ.
For me the idea of GAAS starts when you offer extras (i.e. the cash shop), not the subscription itself; after all I don't think all GAAS have subs, but they do have microtransactions. What we have scene is a shift from content and extras to extras with little content.
TBH. The only reason we are seeing a backlash against games as services/cash shops is that they are encoraching into online games that never had additional fees to play online. Multiplayer FPS for example.
IMO cash shops or optional subscription based MMOs are great as they're a lot cheaper for me to play than in the past with no loss of quality in PvE content.
Just play indy games if you don't like corporate games. There are more indy games than ever, but you just need to do a bit of research to find out the ones that are good for you and of good quality. There are plenty of "indy" devs who are after cash grabs as well.
There are great studios out there still like CD Projekt Red, Supergiant, Piranha Bytes, just to name a few. You just have to look.
Just play indy games if you don't like corporate games. There are more indy games than ever, but you just need to do a bit of research to find out the ones that are good for you and of good quality. There are plenty of "indy" devs who are after cash grabs as well.
There are great studios out there still like CD Projekt Red, Supergiant, Piranha Bytes, just to name a few. You just have to look.
Some of the best games I've played recently have been indy and early access. It works for that scope of game.
When it comes to MMOs I leave well alone untill release.
Something I was wondering about that is very subjective, do posters feel games are lasting as long as they used too? It seems to me that AAA or indie they don't have the longevity they once had, but it may just be I had a skewed 2018 in what I played.
Some do, but not many. How far back do you go? 2011 Skyrim released. I still play that on occasion (2000+ hours played) thanks to mods, not the vanilla game. Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Bard's Tale IV have hundreds of hours in them. Most newer games though have 20-30 hours or less with no variation to play again, though.
With games releasing left and right almost daily, publishers don't want long games. They want fast, easy games that will have players buying new and different games quicker. Sound business practice, but awful innovation practice.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
MMORPG's in some ways predate these effects as the introduction of cash shops showed what could be done to make games huge money spinners, they became the first games as a service. So has gaming benefited or lost out as the money men moved in?
It wasn't cash shops. It was the subscription model that started the 'games as a service' model.
It showed that gamers were happy to pay additional fees to play computer games. And games like EQ were desgined to keep players subbed for as long as possible (slow xp gain, long travel times, corpse runs etc.)
And silly ol' me actually had fun in them. I had no qualms about paying for my enjoyment. I did balk at paying for expansions, though, on top of the monthly sub.
The games were not perfect, but there were gates in place so that players only played if they really wanted to, or were so financially sound they thought nothing of paying a box price plus monthly fees to troll others. Short attention span players found no fun, either.
Now, gamers demand free games that take about 15 minutes to play. yay innovation...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Something I was wondering about that is very subjective, do posters feel games are lasting as long as they used too? It seems to me that AAA or indie they don't have the longevity they once had, but it may just be I had a skewed 2018 in what I played.
Some do, but not many. How far back do you go? 2011 Skyrim released. I still play that on occasion (2000+ hours played) thanks to mods, not the vanilla game. Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Bard's Tale IV have hundreds of hours in them. Most newer games though have 20-30 hours or less with no variation to play again, though.
With games releasing left and right almost daily, publishers don't want long games. They want fast, easy games that will have players buying new and different games quicker. Sound business practice, but awful innovation practice.
This is what I have been thinking, make games which take less time to develop and sell them at the same price or more as the older ones.
First I feel the need to say this; no industry is passionate, people working in it are. And it is extremely unfair and equally untrue to claim that the majority of thousands of people working in an industry are no longer passionate about their work.
Then I'm copy/pasting a story here, chacun voit midi à sa porte:
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, "elephant is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
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
Something I was wondering about that is very subjective, do posters feel games are lasting as long as they used too? It seems to me that AAA or indie they don't have the longevity they once had, but it may just be I had a skewed 2018 in what I played.
Some do, but not many. How far back do you go? 2011 Skyrim released. I still play that on occasion (2000+ hours played) thanks to mods, not the vanilla game. Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Bard's Tale IV have hundreds of hours in them. Most newer games though have 20-30 hours or less with no variation to play again, though.
With games releasing left and right almost daily, publishers don't want long games. They want fast, easy games that will have players buying new and different games quicker. Sound business practice, but awful innovation practice.
This is what I have been thinking, make games which take less time to develop and sell them at the same price or more as the older ones.
In general RPG games always had much longer gameplay and FPS and Action/Adventures had much shorter. So gotta compare games within the same genre.
Obviously I can't go through every single ever released, but these are some of the AAA games of 2018 compared to their predecessors. And of course if you look for it, you'd probably can find games that have about the same or a little less contents, but that's certainly not an epidemic among the AAA companies. And the highly scored
Red Dead Redemption (2010) Main Story - 18hr Completionist - 46.5hr
Red Dead Redemption 2 (2018) Main Story - 44hr Completionist - 133hr + free multiplayer - 33hr solo content ------------------------------------------------------
Spider-Man (2000) Main Story - 8hr Completionist - 12.5hr
Spider-Man 3 (2007) Main Story - 9hr Completionist - 15hr
Spider-Man (2018) Main Story - 16hr Completionist - 31hr ------------------------------------------------------
God of War (2005) Main Story - 9hr Completionist - 12.5hr
God of War III (2010) Main Story - 9.5hr Completionist - 16hr
God of War 4 (2018) Main Story - 20hr Completionist - 50hr ------------------------------------------------------
Assassin's Creed (2007) Main Story - 15hr Completionist - 31hr
Assassin's Creed: Syndicate (2013) Main Story - 22.5hr Completionist - 57hr
Assassin's Creed: Odyssey (2018) Main Story - 36hr Completionist - 107hr ------------------------------------------------------
Far Cry (2004) Main Story - 14hr Completionist - 18.5hr
Far Cry 3 (2012) Main Story - 15.5hr Completionist - 38hr
Far Cry 5 (2018) Main Story - 17hr Completionist - 41.5hr
"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
But you notice here we are talking about mediums which entertain. Nobody would say the chemical industry suffers when it is invested in; I only see this as a problem for areas of life that are 'entertainment'. From what you have said I am not sure if you think there is a problem just that it is unavoidable.
Well, everything has its problems. Some are small and can be ignored or tolerated and others need to be addressed.
From where I sit, it goes like this: if a company offers a product or service that I want then I'll pay for it. If I don't like an aspect of that product or service I'll either go elsewhere or just ignore/put up with it.
If I can't go eleswhere then I have to reassess if I really want that product or service.
I just don't believe in whining/complaining because this is "their" product/service and I'm a customer who may or may not give them my business. They can offer it any way they like. It's up to me to decide if I want to pay.
As far as the chemical industry we don't know if there are problems. I can say there are problems with the Pharmaceutical industry where there is investment and people want to make a lot of money for spending a lot of money.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
MMORPG's in some ways predate these effects as the introduction of cash shops showed what could be done to make games huge money spinners, they became the first games as a service. So has gaming benefited or lost out as the money men moved in?
It wasn't cash shops. It was the subscription model that started the 'games as a service' model.
It showed that gamers were happy to pay additional fees to play computer games. And games like EQ were desgined to keep players subbed for as long as possible (slow xp gain, long travel times, corpse runs etc.)
And silly ol' me actually had fun in them. I had no qualms about paying for my enjoyment. I did balk at paying for expansions, though, on top of the monthly sub.
The games were not perfect, but there were gates in place so that players only played if they really wanted to, or were so financially sound they thought nothing of paying a box price plus monthly fees to troll others. Short attention span players found no fun, either.
Now, gamers demand free games that take about 15 minutes to play. yay innovation...
You're both getting milked. Neither of you are willing to pay what the publisher wants to charge for the game and the publisher isn't willing to send you away without trying to get at least a little of your money. So both parties agree to compromise. The player tries to get as much game as they can for as little as they can pay. The publisher tries to get bring in as much revenue as they can while delivering as little production output possible for that revenue. Both are being selfish and greedy.
The only real difference between the "pro sub" people and the froobs who want a free ride is a few dollars. They're both trying to work the same angle. One is holding out for a better deal and the other is willing to bend over for $15/mo. Both feel entitled to get something for less than the product is worth.
Not true, Torval. Subs are take it or leave it as to the state of the game and whether it's worth the access (at least, before the F2P wave made their subs into account boosts, instead). You either chose to pay the money because the access was worth it, or you didn't.
Microtransaction games keeps buttoning weights onto the player all the while dangling the store page in front of them: "Pay us some more and we'll take this weight off of you, so you can better focus on enjoying our game!" Not at all the same as "This is the game, you get access to our servers to play the game for a month for $15 bucks." One deliberately hobbles your fun to try and push you into the shop, the other merely offers a month of access to the game for a standard price that's equal for everyone and includes everything in the game (or, at least, did before it got polluted in the current environment). If you thought the grind was too slow, you only had a binary option: sub, or unsub. There was no bullshit marketing trying to entice you to pay for this or that to make the grind a little less slow, or give you more room to stow away your loot. A straightforward, binary choice to engage the game by paying an access fee or not.
There's stark differences there, and lumping them in together does no service to gamers as an entity; that's the sort of bitching that publishers and gaming journalists will point to to make the case that we'll bitch no matter what they do. Presenting a binary choice of "this is what we have, this is what it costs to gain access to our servers" is nowhere near the level of "this is what you have in our game right now (i.e. slow, trodding player character on foot), this is what you could have (and oh look, someone else JUST bought it, see the popup on your screen?!) if only you'd pay us $30 for a mount."
Nobody pays for an access sub then goes into the game and talks about how ballin' their sub looks.
First I feel the need to say this; no industry is passionate, people working in it are. And it is extremely unfair and equally untrue to claim that the majority of thousands of people working in an industry are no longer passionate about their work.
Then I'm copy/pasting a story here, chacun voit midi à sa porte:
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, "elephant is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
I am not sure why you think that I or any other poster here (unless I missed something) thinks people in the gaming industry are not passionate. But do you think the guys at the top are passionate about gaming? Take a look at the EA directors, only one has had some experience in developing a game at any level. You find a much more passionate team from top to bottom in the indie setups. But you have in this thread had a tendency to misconstrue me and then make statements that no one is going to disagree with, so let me say there are people in top gaming companies that are equally passionate, they just are not running those companies.
Thanks for that breakdown on the length of the games, I did say my feelings on this were rather subjective. I have to say even with the evidence you have put forward I am having trouble believing so many take longer to complete, I would have accepted 'as long' more easily. But your evidence seems solid so I am going with you on this one.
But you notice here we are talking about mediums which entertain. Nobody would say the chemical industry suffers when it is invested in; I only see this as a problem for areas of life that are 'entertainment'. From what you have said I am not sure if you think there is a problem just that it is unavoidable.
Well, everything has its problems. Some are small and can be ignored or tolerated and others need to be addressed.
From where I sit, it goes like this: if a company offers a product or service that I want then I'll pay for it. If I don't like an aspect of that product or service I'll either go elsewhere or just ignore/put up with it.
If I can't go eleswhere then I have to reassess if I really want that product or service.
I just don't believe in whining/complaining because this is "their" product/service and I'm a customer who may or may not give them my business. They can offer it any way they like. It's up to me to decide if I want to pay.
As far as the chemical industry we don't know if there are problems. I can say there are problems with the Pharmaceutical industry where there is investment and people want to make a lot of money for spending a lot of money.
There is always going to be
some changes to sectors of industry that attract big investment. But as yet I
don't know of any pharmaceutical companies giving people a chance of medication
in a loot box. I don’t wish to sound facetious, just to point out
that gambling is being made a key tenant of game design philosophy, so I am not
sure these changes are comparable.
As to your other point, it is up to us if we want to pay, but we part where you say of the product/service is unavailable then you ignore/put up with it. I think gamers did well to put a stop on loot boxes in SWBF and voice our concerns to legislators in our countires.
I was wondering if EA had replaced that gambling system with anything new? If they dont at first succeed, it is try, try again to make it ever more of a game as a service.
But you notice here we are talking about mediums which entertain. Nobody would say the chemical industry suffers when it is invested in; I only see this as a problem for areas of life that are 'entertainment'. From what you have said I am not sure if you think there is a problem just that it is unavoidable.
Well, everything has its problems. Some are small and can be ignored or tolerated and others need to be addressed.
From where I sit, it goes like this: if a company offers a product or service that I want then I'll pay for it. If I don't like an aspect of that product or service I'll either go elsewhere or just ignore/put up with it.
If I can't go eleswhere then I have to reassess if I really want that product or service.
I just don't believe in whining/complaining because this is "their" product/service and I'm a customer who may or may not give them my business. They can offer it any way they like. It's up to me to decide if I want to pay.
As far as the chemical industry we don't know if there are problems. I can say there are problems with the Pharmaceutical industry where there is investment and people want to make a lot of money for spending a lot of money.
That last paragraph kinda violates the entire point you were trying to make prior to that part of your post.
You can apply the same logic to the pharma industry as you did to the general example, technically: either that medicine is worth it to you, or it's not. Only, all of a sudden that attitude seems downright dangerous in that context.
The essence of whether or not something is predatory or not, healthy or not, has nothing to do with the goal of the business. The goal always remains the same: make as much dough with as little effort as possible. It's how they approach it in their interaction with the general public consumer base that makes the difference.
First I feel the need to say this; no industry is passionate, people working in it are. And it is extremely unfair and equally untrue to claim that the majority of thousands of people working in an industry are no longer passionate about their work.
Then I'm copy/pasting a story here, chacun voit midi à sa porte:
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, "elephant is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
I am not sure why you think that I or any other poster here (unless I missed something) thinks people in the gaming industry are not passionate. But do you think the guys at the top are passionate about gaming? Take a look at the EA directors, only one has had some experience in developing a game at any level. You find a much more passionate team from top to bottom in the indie setups. But you have in this thread had a tendency to misconstrue me and then make statements that no one is going to disagree with, so let me say there are people in top gaming companies that are equally passionate, they just are not running those companies.
Thanks for that breakdown on the length of the games, I did say my feelings on this were rather subjective. I have to say even with the evidence you have put forward I am having trouble believing so many take longer to complete, I would have accepted 'as long' more easily. But your evidence seems solid so I am going with you on this one.
I didn't reference anyone in that part of my post because I didn't want to make it a personal comment but a general thought--but since you asked, no, it wasn't aimed at you mate.
All other gaming companies are in a better position when it comes to the public's opinion compared to EA. But let's go with the worst possible example. How do you know they lack passion? I'm really asking.
Cheers mate, no problem about the breakdown.
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
Are there any measurable variables showing evidence a majority of workers in the industry are passionate?
Just because they put up with crunch time or ridiculous productivity expectations, it doesn't mean they're passionate about the work. I can say that from experience working a job where I put up with such unrealistic expectations. The adjutster corps didn't put up with the bullshit because they were passionate; they did so because that was their most marketable skillset and they had to pay their bills. Most of that corps has since moved on to other jobs with other companies in the same or similar industry because, again: marketable skillset.
Are there any measurable variables showing evidence a majority of workers in the industry are passionate?
Just because they put up with crunch time or ridiculous productivity expectations, it doesn't mean they're passionate about the work. I can say that from experience working a job where I put up with such unrealistic expectations. The adjutster corps didn't put up with the bullshit because they were passionate; they did so because that was their most marketable skillset and they had to pay their bills. Most of that corps has since moved on to other jobs with other companies in the same or similar industry because, again: marketable skillset.
What you are saying is correct. Needless to say, you can also be passionate about gaming, but hate your job in the industry, those two don't necessarily correlate.
Regarding the passion on this thread; one of the claims is because people (or the top management) in the industry aren't passionate about making great games hence video games' quality in general are suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's one of the things that I have understood. So again, what you're saying is correct, there are no measurable variables to prove either way. That makes this claim (if it exists) subjective at best.
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
MMORPG's in some ways predate these effects as the introduction of cash shops showed what could be done to make games huge money spinners, they became the first games as a service. So has gaming benefited or lost out as the money men moved in?
It wasn't cash shops. It was the subscription model that started the 'games as a service' model.
It showed that gamers were happy to pay additional fees to play computer games. And games like EQ were desgined to keep players subbed for as long as possible (slow xp gain, long travel times, corpse runs etc.)
Not really, games used to be one of several "services" provided by Compuserv and Genie, which were pay by the hour for online access and set the earlier precedence.
Low monthly subs were an innovation, no longer side I have to pay $100 for 10 hours of online gaming, unlimited time per month, all at one low fee of $12.99?
A total bargin.
If only earlier devs had realized how badly some people want to spend big bucks on gaming. I'm sure RG, MJ, and many others are still kicking themselves for not realizing it sooner.
Depends on your online gaming back ground.
I was primarily playing games such as Doom/Quake and CnC/Warcraft online with no additional fees other than what my ISP was charging per minute.
Paying additional fees on top of a box price to a game company was new to me when I played my first MMO EQ.
That's primarily due to the difference between peer to peer and dedicated servers.
Are there any measurable variables showing evidence a majority of workers in the industry are passionate?
Just because they put up with crunch time or ridiculous productivity expectations, it doesn't mean they're passionate about the work. I can say that from experience working a job where I put up with such unrealistic expectations. The adjutster corps didn't put up with the bullshit because they were passionate; they did so because that was their most marketable skillset and they had to pay their bills. Most of that corps has since moved on to other jobs with other companies in the same or similar industry because, again: marketable skillset.
What you are saying is correct. Needless to say, you can also be passionate about gaming, but hate your job in the industry, those two don't necessarily correlate.
Regarding the passion on this thread; one of the claims is because people (or the top management) in the industry aren't passionate about making great games hence video games' quality in general are suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's one of the things that I have understood. So again, what you're saying is correct, there are no measurable variables to prove either way. That makes this claim (if it exists) subjective at best.
Well I was not saying there is no passion at the top, just that it is a passion for making games that make the maximum amount of return possible. Its not that they don't care about quality, as long as that quality never gets in the way of what they can milk out of gamers.
What do I mean by "at the top", well in most of the large gaming companies it does not seem to me that the creative director is in that category or other "directors" of the game. Like I said look at the listed directors of the company not just EA, all the big boys. I am not saying the board of directors should all be gamers, or game developers but EA only has one who has been involved in the development of games.
The only real difference between the "pro sub" people and the froobs who want a free ride is a few dollars. They're both trying to work the same angle. One is holding out for a better deal and the other is willing to bend over for $15/mo. Both feel entitled to get something for less than the product is worth.
The product's worth, according to whom?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
People may be more polite in modern times, but the focus on money and materialism is far greater than ever before.
In the early days of MMOs we were a pretty relaxed bunch with low aspirations in life for the most part. Having fun with others online was the enjoyment.
Most things are eventually taken over by the money making machine that is the modern world/society.
What amazes me the most is how the rich always manage to manipulate people into playing their game. I've never seen people in America killing themselves more trying to make ends meet and achieve what is the current view of perfection. They also just accept it and move forward without any resistance. Most even seem to embrace it like they are privileged to do so. That is when you know someone has done a great job at manipulating society IMO.
At any rate, I think people think far to much in modern times. This is the same with games. They are just for fun after all. There is way to much of the materialism game in them.
Comments
Low monthly subs were an innovation, no longer side I have to pay $100 for 10 hours of online gaming, unlimited time per month, all at one low fee of $12.99?
A total bargin.
If only earlier devs had realized how badly some people want to spend big bucks on gaming. I'm sure RG, MJ, and many others are still kicking themselves for not realizing it sooner.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There are great studios out there still like CD Projekt Red, Supergiant, Piranha Bytes, just to name a few. You just have to look.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Then I'm copy/pasting a story here, chacun voit midi à sa porte:
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, "elephant is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
Obviously I can't go through every single ever released, but these are some of the AAA games of 2018 compared to their predecessors. And of course if you look for it, you'd probably can find games that have about the same or a little less contents, but that's certainly not an epidemic among the AAA companies. And the highly scored
Red Dead Redemption (2010)
Main Story - 18hr
Completionist - 46.5hr
Red Dead Redemption 2 (2018)
Main Story - 44hr
Completionist - 133hr
+ free multiplayer - 33hr solo content
------------------------------------------------------
Spider-Man (2000)
Main Story - 8hr
Completionist - 12.5hr
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Main Story - 9hr
Completionist - 15hr
Spider-Man (2018)
Main Story - 16hr
Completionist - 31hr
------------------------------------------------------
God of War (2005)
Main Story - 9hr
Completionist - 12.5hr
God of War III (2010)
Main Story - 9.5hr
Completionist - 16hr
God of War 4 (2018)
Main Story - 20hr
Completionist - 50hr
------------------------------------------------------
Assassin's Creed (2007)
Main Story - 15hr
Completionist - 31hr
Assassin's Creed: Syndicate (2013)
Main Story - 22.5hr
Completionist - 57hr
Assassin's Creed: Odyssey (2018)
Main Story - 36hr
Completionist - 107hr
------------------------------------------------------
Far Cry (2004)
Main Story - 14hr
Completionist - 18.5hr
Far Cry 3 (2012)
Main Story - 15.5hr
Completionist - 38hr
Far Cry 5 (2018)
Main Story - 17hr
Completionist - 41.5hr
------------------------------------------------------
[Source: howlongtobeat.com]
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Microtransaction games keeps buttoning weights onto the player all the while dangling the store page in front of them: "Pay us some more and we'll take this weight off of you, so you can better focus on enjoying our game!" Not at all the same as "This is the game, you get access to our servers to play the game for a month for $15 bucks." One deliberately hobbles your fun to try and push you into the shop, the other merely offers a month of access to the game for a standard price that's equal for everyone and includes everything in the game (or, at least, did before it got polluted in the current environment). If you thought the grind was too slow, you only had a binary option: sub, or unsub. There was no bullshit marketing trying to entice you to pay for this or that to make the grind a little less slow, or give you more room to stow away your loot. A straightforward, binary choice to engage the game by paying an access fee or not.
There's stark differences there, and lumping them in together does no service to gamers as an entity; that's the sort of bitching that publishers and gaming journalists will point to to make the case that we'll bitch no matter what they do. Presenting a binary choice of "this is what we have, this is what it costs to gain access to our servers" is nowhere near the level of "this is what you have in our game right now (i.e. slow, trodding player character on foot), this is what you could have (and oh look, someone else JUST bought it, see the popup on your screen?!) if only you'd pay us $30 for a mount."
Nobody pays for an access sub then goes into the game and talks about how ballin' their sub looks.
Thanks for that breakdown on the length of the games, I did say my feelings on this were rather subjective. I have to say even with the evidence you have put forward I am having trouble believing so many take longer to complete, I would have accepted 'as long' more easily. But your evidence seems solid so I am going with you on this one.
There is always going to be some changes to sectors of industry that attract big investment. But as yet I don't know of any pharmaceutical companies giving people a chance of medication in a loot box. I don’t wish to sound facetious, just to point out that gambling is being made a key tenant of game design philosophy, so I am not sure these changes are comparable.
As to your other point, it is up to us if we want to pay, but we part where you say of the product/service is unavailable then you ignore/put up with it. I think gamers did well to put a stop on loot boxes in SWBF and voice our concerns to legislators in our countires.
I was wondering if EA had replaced that gambling system with anything new? If they dont at first succeed, it is try, try again to make it ever more of a game as a service.
You can apply the same logic to the pharma industry as you did to the general example, technically: either that medicine is worth it to you, or it's not. Only, all of a sudden that attitude seems downright dangerous in that context.
The essence of whether or not something is predatory or not, healthy or not, has nothing to do with the goal of the business. The goal always remains the same: make as much dough with as little effort as possible. It's how they approach it in their interaction with the general public consumer base that makes the difference.
@Scot ;
I didn't reference anyone in that part of my post because I didn't want to make it a personal comment but a general thought--but since you asked, no, it wasn't aimed at you mate.
All other gaming companies are in a better position when it comes to the public's opinion compared to EA. But let's go with the worst possible example. How do you know they lack passion? I'm really asking.
Cheers mate, no problem about the breakdown.
Just because they put up with crunch time or ridiculous productivity expectations, it doesn't mean they're passionate about the work. I can say that from experience working a job where I put up with such unrealistic expectations. The adjutster corps didn't put up with the bullshit because they were passionate; they did so because that was their most marketable skillset and they had to pay their bills. Most of that corps has since moved on to other jobs with other companies in the same or similar industry because, again: marketable skillset.
Regarding the passion on this thread; one of the claims is because people (or the top management) in the industry aren't passionate about making great games hence video games' quality in general are suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's one of the things that I have understood. So again, what you're saying is correct, there are no measurable variables to prove either way. That makes this claim (if it exists) subjective at best.
If it makes money do it.
There's literally a bottom feeder reading the above phrase salivating, saying "why not?" having 0 interest in context, standards and baselines.
As long the majority of society accepts that behavior, quality consumerism is going to get flushed.
- Double dip? Why not?
- Create issues, and price gouge? Why not?
- Undercut competitors at the expense of industry? Why not?
- Purposely release faulty product? Why not?
- Bold face lie? Why not?
Hovel dwelling plebs defend this stuff, because they imagine they identify with the corporate entities that do it.It's not going to cease any time soon.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What do I mean by "at the top", well in most of the large gaming companies it does not seem to me that the creative director is in that category or other "directors" of the game. Like I said look at the listed directors of the company not just EA, all the big boys. I am not saying the board of directors should all be gamers, or game developers but EA only has one who has been involved in the development of games.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR