But what is a decent game? If we want developers to make money the old fashioned way do they also get to make games the old fashioned way? Do developers get to scale back their staff to 1995 levels and produce a game the size and quality of that era?
Yes, at least in terms of the amount of developer effort involved, though I do expect developers to use more modern tools. I play some very low budget indie games.
The biggest issue is now you rent the ability to play a game, you do not buy the game. So when the company turns off the lights the game is gone for good. There is no release of the game for you to keep playing after the publisher pulls the plug on most live service games.
The biggest issue is now you rent the ability to play a game, you do not buy the game. So when the company turns off the lights the game is gone for good. There is no release of the game for you to keep playing after the publisher pulls the plug on most live service games.
I don't know if that's 100% true. But it seems mostly true.
I would say that's always been the case with mmorpg's, you buy access, not the game.
If you buy a game through Good Old Games it's yours. Since it's DRM free that shouldn't affect your ownership. Though, if they go under you might lose the ability to download them again. I believe you can download them and back them up. "hmmm" if I have time maybe I'll start doing that.
I think you license through Steam.
I'll be honest, I miss games on disk. For example, I own my morrowind disks and that's how I install the game. Same with a whole boxload of games.
Post edited by Sovrath on
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think Pooma is conflating several separate things. "Live Service" is a feature of any and all multiplayer games which legitimately need to be online and live since that's what they are. In the early days, and by "early" I mean a lot longer than 10 years ago, you bought the game and then had access to either P2P or servers provided by the game for free. MMOs were the exception in that they have always charged extra for access to the live service.
F2P and their associated microtransactions are a separate thing and over time they have come to dominate the industry. Cash shops in F2P games are a no-brainer and became widely accepted by gamers as an alternate model because they needed to sustain themselves and their live service somehow. But that was just the start. Today cash shops are in all multiplayer games (and some single player games have even tried that but by and large have fallen flat on their face) whether they have an up-front cost, a subscription or not.
It's actually MMOs that are most prone to having every conceivable monetization in there. ESO for example, has an initial cost, an optional subscription with benefits that make any serious player think twice about playing it without a sub, yearly chapters that cost extra and a cash shop with cosmetics, "convenience" and even loot boxes, If I were going to write an article against the evils of over-monetization, I would not set MMOs aside and give them a pass - I would start there and focus on them.
It is what it is in gaming today. Bottom line is that if you want to play multiplayer games and are prone to wanting to "look cool" (which by the way, is much more about looking cool to others than just doing it for yourself) it can get expensive.
The trend in the last 10 years (more like 5 really) that you should spend your rant time on is the attempt to morph single player games into multiplayer ones just to get in on he games as a service gravy train.
Thankfully it seems that for now at least, some of the biggest proponents of "death to single player games." are backing off the gaasification of single player franchises. I saw Bioware's announcement that Dragons Age 4 would not have multiplayer as a very positive sign.
In true multiplayer shooters and MMOs? Embrace the murder hobo look my friend and save yourself a ton of cash because that monetization model is not going anywhere.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Unending games and the whole "live service" thing are major components of what's made me sick of gaming as an entertainment hobby after ~25 years of playing them.
The other part is games shipping unfinished (whether via early access or cutting content for DLC or as a 'live service' or even running out of budget and being forced to launch; hi kickstarter). Having to deal with a buggy game on launch (sup Cyberpunk) and wait months for patches for either bug fixing or added content/features, it's just all terrible.
I want to go back to buying a finished game and playing it to completion like I did when I was younger, not suffer any of this modern game 'design' nightmare.
What the hell did I just read?!?!?! "Death to live services" on a website dedicated to live service games?!?! And then it was all bitching about microtransactions and monetisation with virtually nothing about the real issues of live services?!?!
I have nothing against an article discussing the issues with microtransactions and the predatory monetisation practices of game studios, but really, the context and overall conclusions of the article are all over the place.
As for the issue of live services:
I feel like the main issue is a mis-match between the game design and the business model.
The game's design determines whether it is a live service (multiplayer hosted by the studio) or not. The games design determines whether the game is aiming for short term turnover or long term retention. This then determines the running costs of the game, which then informs the business model required to support the game.
The issue is that we have essentially single player games being forced into a live service format. This results in low levels of retention, so subscriptions aren't justified, therefore leading to predatory monetisation practices.
Just stop that shit. If you've built a single player game, keep it a fucking single player game and sell it as such. Players will pay decent money for a decent single player game, just as they'll happily pay a subscription for a decent live service.
Also, all the issues that the author is talking about with "other" live service games also happens in MMOs. It's why we had the move to Free 2 Play, cash shops etc. The design of the games changed, the focus was on pure themepark, one-hit content with little or no focus on retention and long term engagement. So of course players stopped paying for subscriptions, it just wasn't worth it! So, devs had to change the business model and get predatory.
If devs get the game design right, making something appropriate for single player, multiplayer or live service, then it should be pretty easy to choose the right business model to support that choice.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
What the hell did I just read?!?!?! "Death to live services" on a website dedicated to live service games?!?! And then it was all bitching about microtransactions and monetisation with virtually nothing about the real issues of live services?!?!
Originally, with my first Skim, I thought it was simple enough, That it was dealing with Single Player Online Games, IE: Skyrim, vs MMO's, where with the former, they end up cash shopping you even in a single player game.
Your post made me re-read what was said.. and it seems I was very wrong about their points, and this is really just a rant about a precatory style of monetization system, labeled FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out)
... well that was insightful in all the wrong ways for me.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
If all of you want to pay for skins, so I can play for free... have at it.
I finally convinced my 10 year old nephew, who sunk literally hundreds into Fornite skins, he was paying for barbie dress up. When he moved on to another game... he would have nothing to show for it (lightbulb went off).
Now he's putting some money towards better soccer and baseball gear.
Don't get me started on my niece who wants $1000 Nikes... that she'll outgrow in a year...kids...
....end up cash shopping you even in a single player game.
I didn't know that was a thing until I read this thread. I would have uninstalled and put the studio on my 'pOOp' list.
Not many have done it. The last Deus Ex did it (hence the quote in my sig when CDPR made fun of them) and so do those Battle for Mordor games.
It's a dumb idea since as I said in my previous post, the main reason that people buy skins is to have others see them wearing them and it's skins that are the big cash shop sellers. In single player games no one else sees you.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Live service is fine, if you feel like you need to play it, then that's on you. Like it or not, there is very little difference between a live service game, and a MMO. In fact, they're the same, just smaller lobbies.
I've been saying this exact thing for years around here
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
....end up cash shopping you even in a single player game.
I didn't know that was a thing until I read this thread. I would have uninstalled and put the studio on my 'pOOp' list.
The main point of contention about GaaS (Games as a Service) is that the player never owns the product, this is a way that companies remove consumer protections, especially things like rights of ownership.
Now for Multiplayer Games, this is often not a problem, as we understand that we need to to connect to the network to play the game, as such, our ability to access and enjoy the game depends on our ability to connect to that network.
Even while there was some cases of wording like "Buy" and "Sell" of the product, the game remains a service, this has been dragged before the courts on many occasions, but as time goes on, the Courts have come more in terms to what GaaS is, and what went down a decade ago, about ownership in an MMO, is no longer an issue, you don't own it, and this has been established by the courts, at least here in America.
GaaS also prevents illegal copies of a game existing.
Now, for me, personally, a game like Genshin Impact, really blurs the line between what is a single player game and what is a multi player game, as at it's core, GI is a single player game, so is a game like Fallout 76, it's at it's core a. However, both of these game are GaaS, they have a cash shop, and as far as Genshin goes, uses a very predatory monetization system.
All that aside, This Article, at least, only deals mainly with FOMO monetization system.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
If all of you want to pay for skins, so I can play for free... have at it.
I finally convinced my 10 year old nephew, who sunk literally hundreds into Fornite skins, he was paying for barbie dress up. When he moved on to another game... he would have nothing to show for it (lightbulb went off).
Now he's putting some money towards better soccer and baseball gear.
Don't get me started on my niece who wants $1000 Nikes... that she'll outgrow in a year...kids...
I just blew $120 on a bottle of scotch.. as I looked at that bottle, and then looked at the Cosmetic Armor I bought for my main in DDO, 4 years ago for 10 dollars.. I have to question the soundness of buying things purely for their longevity.. as this scotch.. is not going to last anywhere near as long as that cosmetic skin has already.
Bottoms Up.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
If you buy a game through Good Old Games it's yours. Since it's DRM free that shouldn't affect your ownership. Though, if they go under you might lose the ability to download them again. I believe you can download them and back them up. "hmmm" if I have time maybe I'll start doing that.
Yep, that's how I go, since the beginning.
Have an external drive dedicated to GOG, with the installs, and when I'm in the mood for some oldies (like recently the King's Quest series) just plug it in, install from there, and play.
When they do some updates (you can see that on the profile page) I just refresh the files on the drive. Sure, there's Galaxy but I don't use that
I too miss the discs/boxes, have a nice collection from the good days... the original and more honest "games as games" era, before this whole "games a$$ service" bullshit.
I'm an old player, a 90's PC player, i just want a simple life simulation, fantasy or sci-fi, like UO or Mortal Online. No transactions. no levels, no quests, just percentages. I loved Mortal Online progression, first you read a book then you practice. Simple and perfect. The whole point of MMO is to offer a plausibly realistic life in a fictional world. That's it. Think Star Trek? Star Trek made real in every possible way. Simple
I also believe that if in your online persistant experience you want instead a cute gamey, with all bits and bobs you have in your console junk, with aids like levels, quests, markers that tell you where to go, all bonuses like items and achievements and other shiny buttons that light up like, i don't know how those are called today but wow called em talents and moves, plus all the things you buy with real dollars, then you're not man enough to play a MMO, which is what i said above, a life simulation in a fictional world, big, scary, ugly, darker than all today's shiny, cartoony and cutesey trash you enjoy.
If all of you want to pay for skins, so I can play for free... have at it.
I finally convinced my 10 year old nephew, who sunk literally hundreds into Fornite skins, he was paying for barbie dress up. When he moved on to another game... he would have nothing to show for it (lightbulb went off).
Now he's putting some money towards better soccer and baseball gear.
Don't get me started on my niece who wants $1000 Nikes... that she'll outgrow in a year...kids...
I just blew $120 on a bottle of scotch.. as I looked at that bottle, and then looked at the Cosmetic Armor I bought for my main in DDO, 4 years ago for 10 dollars.. I have to question the soundness of buying things purely for their longevity.. as this scotch.. is not going to last anywhere near as long as that cosmetic skin has already.
Bottoms Up.
I am currently looking at the LEGO Batmobile and thinking about buying it, its only 240 bucks over here. Value is extremely subjective, so much that is pretty hard to have a reasonable discussion about it in the first place
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Whoa boy, this is a big one, I can see where both sides on this topic is coming from. The reality is "Live Service" games have originated out of a few business trends that are not going away.
IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS are now all firmly entrenched in cloud services and essential use MtX to sustain their business model long term so of course-related industries are going to see the potential for profit and mimic the formula.
The other trend is that in the software/game development world it has been encouraged to create what's called a long tail to any game you are making. This will allow developers to have revenue streams from multiple products at once so it reduces the typical peaks and valleys you have in between game releases, that way you can feed yourself and the team. "Live Service" takes this to the extreme where instead of having a long tail you are attempting to create a never-ending profit stream, that ideally varies very little, for one product's life cycle.
On a side note, another method used to combat those peaks and valleys is also retreading your previously released games. In most cases, it is cheaper to do an update/refresh to a game and release it to an existing customer base than creating a completely new product that may or may not sell. Wonder why you are seeing so many rereleases in the last X number of years? It is because they are pretty much guaranteed profit for a reduced development cost.
What it boils down to in my opinion is that I don't think we should be calling for the death of "Live Service" as a business model, there is too much potential for profit and there are many gamers who like this style of games. But as consumers, we should be pushing for the model to evolve. In many cases, up till now, it has been a monetization system built first and wrapped around what barely passes for a "good" game. Whereas in the past the game was created and then C-level staff realized they could monetize further after the fact, all be it in a limited fashion since the games in question at that time were not designed to be monetized over a long period.
At this point for the ongoing health of a company, especially if they are larger and/or publicly-traded stock, "Live Service", or some form of long term monetization planning, does need to be part of the planning stage in case a game gains a popular following or becomes a major success. But the game itself needs to be the CORE of the product, it is the creative endeavor the keeps your players coming back and it needs to have the heart/soul of its creators/developers, not simply elements/game loops hammered in because it needs to be there for monetary purposes, squeezing as much as you can out of your customers. There is a difference between making a healthy sustainable profit and going for the throat.
What you are starting to see is certain companies now beginning to realize that the current practices are not sustainable long term. So thankfully the industry is starting to shift... well except for sports games.
Make a post about live services then rant about cosmetic MTX? Is this a clickbait troll post or something?
Yeah, I thought it was going to be an article about how live service is so hard to get right and many decent games failed by trying to fit into a mold that didn't work for them. Instead I was told that spending 35 bucks for a cosmetic item is wrong.
Funny thing happened the other day. I went to a restaurant and bought a steak. Then they had the nerve to charge me for a soda. They even had the hall to wait until I was almost done with my steak and ask if I wanted to buy desert. Buy desert? Why wasn't it included in the price?
Wait until the OP finds out about houses and cars. It's a scary world out there with all these people expecting to be paid for their work.
Is anyone hear saying gaming developers should not be paid, did the OP say that? No, clearly they do and well in my eyes. Gaming did not need cash shops, live service, loot boxes and all the rest for developers to make their money, but the suits do to make the fiscal report even more glossier. If you treat gaming like a cash cow, expect players to question your priorities.
The OP is against cosmetic MTX and subscription fees. These were around well before publishers were billion-dollar enterprises. I know it's easier to just blame "the suits" each time for financial decisions but it's always been this way with online gaming.
I think that people here are underestimating just how destructive these practices are. I have an enormous range of choices for games, and I completely avoid games with loot boxes or cash shops. Because they warp their game play to encourage me to pay to avoid their deliberately designed grinds.
By contrast, the single player scene has gobs of games with a lot of replay value, or many hours of enjoyment, without cash shops. And there is a thriving scene, anywhere from board games to online ones, that feature multiplayer without cash shops. If we can learn anything from the history of the genre, we know that companies can blindly follow one another down blind alleys very easily!
Just a short answer: It only exists because people buy it. I literally see people think a game is bad because it doesn't have loot boxes, day 1 DLC a battle pass you have to pay for etc.
I don't have a problem with Live Services. I have a problem with loot boxes or companies that charge a sub AND lock stuff behind a cosmetics store. Well that and companies that sell P2W stuff.
If all of you want to pay for skins, so I can play for free... have at it.
I finally convinced my 10 year old nephew, who sunk literally hundreds into Fornite skins, he was paying for barbie dress up. When he Now he's putting some money towards better soccer and baseball gear.
Don't get me started on my niece who wants $1000 Nikes... that she'll outgrow in a year...kids...
I just blew $120 on a bottle of scotch.. as I looked at that bottle, and then looked at the Cosmetic Armor I bought for my main in DDO, 4 years ago for 10 dollars.. I have to question the soundness of buying things purely for their longevity.. as this scotch.. is not going to last anywhere near as long as that cosmetic skin has already.
Bottoms Up.
If you "blew" $120 on scotch... (and you don't know what it is) amateur scotch drinker(on so many references by your post). BTW.. your anology fails... look up high price aged scotch. And if you bought rare scotch, you wouldn't guzzle it... you would preserve it.
I don't want to get sucked into a bad analogy, for kids they will move on to a new game.
Friendly bet, you didn't even probably smoke a cigar with it... just be honest.
(Ps I in general like a bunch of your posts, but when Scotch is involved... just admit your a noob).
Comments
I would say that's always been the case with mmorpg's, you buy access, not the game.
If you buy a game through Good Old Games it's yours. Since it's DRM free that shouldn't affect your ownership. Though, if they go under you might lose the ability to download them again. I believe you can download them and back them up. "hmmm" if I have time maybe I'll start doing that.
I think you license through Steam.
I'll be honest, I miss games on disk. For example, I own my morrowind disks and that's how I install the game. Same with a whole boxload of games.
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
F2P and their associated microtransactions are a separate thing and over time they have come to dominate the industry. Cash shops in F2P games are a no-brainer and became widely accepted by gamers as an alternate model because they needed to sustain themselves and their live service somehow. But that was just the start. Today cash shops are in all multiplayer games (and some single player games have even tried that but by and large have fallen flat on their face) whether they have an up-front cost, a subscription or not.
It's actually MMOs that are most prone to having every conceivable monetization in there. ESO for example, has an initial cost, an optional subscription with benefits that make any serious player think twice about playing it without a sub, yearly chapters that cost extra and a cash shop with cosmetics, "convenience" and even loot boxes, If I were going to write an article against the evils of over-monetization, I would not set MMOs aside and give them a pass - I would start there and focus on them.
It is what it is in gaming today. Bottom line is that if you want to play multiplayer games and are prone to wanting to "look cool" (which by the way, is much more about looking cool to others than just doing it for yourself) it can get expensive.
The trend in the last 10 years (more like 5 really) that you should spend your rant time on is the attempt to morph single player games into multiplayer ones just to get in on he games as a service gravy train.
Thankfully it seems that for now at least, some of the biggest proponents of "death to single player games." are backing off the gaasification of single player franchises. I saw Bioware's announcement that Dragons Age 4 would not have multiplayer as a very positive sign.
In true multiplayer shooters and MMOs? Embrace the murder hobo look my friend and save yourself a ton of cash because that monetization model is not going anywhere.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The other part is games shipping unfinished (whether via early access or cutting content for DLC or as a 'live service' or even running out of budget and being forced to launch; hi kickstarter). Having to deal with a buggy game on launch (sup Cyberpunk) and wait months for patches for either bug fixing or added content/features, it's just all terrible.
I want to go back to buying a finished game and playing it to completion like I did when I was younger, not suffer any of this modern game 'design' nightmare.
Your post made me re-read what was said.. and it seems I was very wrong about their points, and this is really just a rant about a precatory style of monetization system, labeled FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out)
... well that was insightful in all the wrong ways for me.
I finally convinced my 10 year old nephew, who sunk literally hundreds into Fornite skins, he was paying for barbie dress up. When he moved on to another game... he would have nothing to show for it (lightbulb went off).
Now he's putting some money towards better soccer and baseball gear.
Don't get me started on my niece who wants $1000 Nikes... that she'll outgrow in a year...kids...
It's a dumb idea since as I said in my previous post, the main reason that people buy skins is to have others see them wearing them and it's skins that are the big cash shop sellers. In single player games no one else sees you.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Now for Multiplayer Games, this is often not a problem, as we understand that we need to to connect to the network to play the game, as such, our ability to access and enjoy the game depends on our ability to connect to that network.
Even while there was some cases of wording like "Buy" and "Sell" of the product, the game remains a service, this has been dragged before the courts on many occasions, but as time goes on, the Courts have come more in terms to what GaaS is, and what went down a decade ago, about ownership in an MMO, is no longer an issue, you don't own it, and this has been established by the courts, at least here in America.
GaaS also prevents illegal copies of a game existing.
Now, for me, personally, a game like Genshin Impact, really blurs the line between what is a single player game and what is a multi player game, as at it's core, GI is a single player game, so is a game like Fallout 76, it's at it's core a. However, both of these game are GaaS, they have a cash shop, and as far as Genshin goes, uses a very predatory monetization system.
All that aside, This Article, at least, only deals mainly with FOMO monetization system.
Bottoms Up.
I also believe that if in your online persistant experience you want instead a cute gamey, with all bits and bobs you have in your console junk, with aids like levels, quests, markers that tell you where to go, all bonuses like items and achievements and other shiny buttons that light up like, i don't know how those are called today but wow called em talents and moves, plus all the things you buy with real dollars, then you're not man enough to play a MMO, which is what i said above, a life simulation in a fictional world, big, scary, ugly, darker than all today's shiny, cartoony and cutesey trash you enjoy.
In one word, we need more ugly in our MMO's.
the best blog of the net
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS are now all firmly entrenched in cloud services and essential use MtX to sustain their business model long term so of course-related industries are going to see the potential for profit and mimic the formula.
The other trend is that in the software/game development world it has been encouraged to create what's called a long tail to any game you are making. This will allow developers to have revenue streams from multiple products at once so it reduces the typical peaks and valleys you have in between game releases, that way you can feed yourself and the team. "Live Service" takes this to the extreme where instead of having a long tail you are attempting to create a never-ending profit stream, that ideally varies very little, for one product's life cycle.
On a side note, another method used to combat those peaks and valleys is also retreading your previously released games. In most cases, it is cheaper to do an update/refresh to a game and release it to an existing customer base than creating a completely new product that may or may not sell. Wonder why you are seeing so many rereleases in the last X number of years? It is because they are pretty much guaranteed profit for a reduced development cost.
What it boils down to in my opinion is that I don't think we should be calling for the death of "Live Service" as a business model, there is too much potential for profit and there are many gamers who like this style of games. But as consumers, we should be pushing for the model to evolve. In many cases, up till now, it has been a monetization system built first and wrapped around what barely passes for a "good" game. Whereas in the past the game was created and then C-level staff realized they could monetize further after the fact, all be it in a limited fashion since the games in question at that time were not designed to be monetized over a long period.
At this point for the ongoing health of a company, especially if they are larger and/or publicly-traded stock, "Live Service", or some form of long term monetization planning, does need to be part of the planning stage in case a game gains a popular following or becomes a major success. But the game itself needs to be the CORE of the product, it is the creative endeavor the keeps your players coming back and it needs to have the heart/soul of its creators/developers, not simply elements/game loops hammered in because it needs to be there for monetary purposes, squeezing as much as you can out of your customers. There is a difference between making a healthy sustainable profit and going for the throat.
What you are starting to see is certain companies now beginning to realize that the current practices are not sustainable long term. So thankfully the industry is starting to shift... well except for sports games.
The OP is against cosmetic MTX and subscription fees. These were around well before publishers were billion-dollar enterprises. I know it's easier to just blame "the suits" each time for financial decisions but it's always been this way with online gaming.
By contrast, the single player scene has gobs of games with a lot of replay value, or many hours of enjoyment, without cash shops. And there is a thriving scene, anywhere from board games to online ones, that feature multiplayer without cash shops. If we can learn anything from the history of the genre, we know that companies can blindly follow one another down blind alleys very easily!
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
I don't want to get sucked into a bad analogy, for kids they will move on to a new game.
Friendly bet, you didn't even probably smoke a cigar with it... just be honest.
(Ps I in general like a bunch of your posts, but when Scotch is involved... just admit your a noob).