True Gaming All of this EA backlash for micro-transactions, but I'm more upset that games are still being released unfinished. |
- All of this EA backlash for micro-transactions, but I'm more upset that games are still being released unfinished.
- Personal experiences with loot box addiction
- Looking for a gaming/ desk chair that will give me back support and that relaxed feeling. please help!?
- Gameplay design questionnaire regarding the role playing games: Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Final Fantasy XIII
- Which Game got the Better TD Maps? WC3 vs SC2
- Is random, loot-based progression an okay thing to have in multiplayer games?
- Which Video Game franchises do you think COULD make a good film?
- Unpopular opinion : Battlefront 2 has a huge disadvantage over the other multiplayer games with microtransactions
- Microtransaction cost
- Lootboxes, pay to win and pay to win lootboxes. Bad, worse and worst. How recent EA backlash made me lose hope rather than gain some in this gaming community.
- The customers are the problem, not the publishers
| Posted: 15 Nov 2017 11:37 AM PST I might not be the right person to start this discussion since I am not one to be the first to own pretty much any game. The only game I've purchased close to the launch date in recent memory is Pokken DX, which was more of a port + DLC than a new release. However, it is no secret that new titles with lots of hype and a (un)healthy amount of pre-orders often enough are released with...problems. Whether it be graphical issues, game-breaking bugs, or balancing issues, it seems that there is a distinct lack of care going into games that are otherwise huge moneymakers. Games that come to mind as examples include Sonic BOOM, Assassin's Creed (pick one), No Man's Sky, the PC port of Arkham Knight... Part of the problem is certainly development studios facing pressure to create and adhere to deadlines, particularly for annual titles like AC or COD. That's an issue on its own, but one that is more understandable as you consider things like budgets, time, and performance pressures. My issue is more about the fact that games are released when they are known by the studios themselves to have issues and their solution is to release the game anyway but patch it later. This is what I'm seeing even now from EA. Their AMA is full of answers that, as u/ElliottAbusesWomen correctly predicted and continuously pointed out, claimed that solutions would come as EA "looks at the data and makes adjustments." While I understand balancing can be a process for multiplayer games that takes time and multiple updates, there are plenty of examples of how it is done in a way that is not just reactionary to public outcry, the most prominent and obvious one being Overwatch, but also games like Rocket League or Street Fighter. The difference is truly one of caring about the product that has been created. Efforts were made upfront to ensure that these games were fair to all players so that everyone could have fun with them and then further efforts were made to enhance the fun by diminishing unintended issues. Contrast that to Battlefront and it is easy to see it as it is: a Battlefield clone re-skinned with Star Wars characters and weapons that has been layered with different systems that prey on addiction. The care isn't there on purpose because it allows the developers to implement the systems and then patch around the issues that their consumers complain about. But the worst of it is that this EA AMA revealed that there is an EXPECTATION that the game will be adjusted as it is played. That wouldn't be much of an issue if this game and the adjustment that are being planned were for the multiplayer, but even the arcade mode is set to be adjusted! Shouldn't a singleplayer campaign/mode be universally agreed to be complete prior to launch??? I'm wondering what other people think. Like I said, I'm not one to purchase a game on launch so I tend not to see these issues other than in the media. By the time I play a game, if at all, it will likely have been patched to a more functional state. But, I feel like my point still stands on its own, which is: TL;DR Patches and updates should be more for actually unforeseen issues and enhancements to gameplay that make it more fair and fun rather than post-publishing fixes for known issues and in reaction to public outcry. There should never be a game released where it is planned that patches will fix it and vanilla releases should be able to stand on their own. Can this be fixed? Is there any hope for more care going into AAA releases prior to launch? [link] [comments]  |
| Personal experiences with loot box addiction Posted: 15 Nov 2017 11:50 AM PST So given that loot boxes are a pretty hot topic right now. I thought it would be interesting to share my experiences as well as hear back from people that have had similar experiences. Also apologies for formatting in advanced as I am on mobile. So when Blackops 3 came out it was a time in my life where I was able to dedicate a significant amount of time in my life to gaming. If you don't know anything about how supply drops work in BO3, basically they start off cosmetic and added the new weapons in later. It started with melee weapons but then moved to the guns and other ranged weapons. So naturally there was a pretty decent backlash against this at first, but then Treyarch gave everyone with a seasons pass a free guaranteed "weapon bribe" and 10 rare supply drops. So everyone forgot. If I was smart I would have stopped there, but I had a $25 visa gift card lying around and decided to throw in $25 of my own money and try to get another gun. I ended up getting a sniper that was a piece of shit at the time. So I stopped there due to disappointment and waited till the next DLC came out, and by that time I think they had added 2-4 ranged weapons in by that time. Since it was the only game that I was playing at the time I justified spending another $50 just to get.....nothing. So because I was pissed I spent another $100 and got something good enough to settle my rage. Over the next few months I spent $200-$300 mostly whenever a flashy sale came out, because the new weapons felt like they were keeping the game fresh for me. Most of the purchases were in small amounts of ~$20 so I didn't notice it as much as I should have. I actually went back through my Amazon history so this is just a rough estimate from what I could find. The thing that finally got me to stop was when my roommate asked why I was spending money on a game that was going to be dead in a year. I'm not sure if the free weapon bribe was meant to be enabling, but it sure felt like what started it for me. For example when Destiny 2 put the shaders in the loot boxes I though of buy like $10 worth just to get a few cool shaders, but I didn't want my spending to snowball like last time so I didn't. Anybody else have a similar experience where you ended up spending more than you realized? TL;DR Bought $25 of loot boxes in Blackops 3 and ended up spending over $500 a year later. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 14 Nov 2017 10:37 PM PST I have been on the PC for about 3 Months now and i'm using a cheap wal-mart chair ($100us). It sucks and has been giving me a stiff back and sore legs. anything better? A lot of pro chairs are all for show I, need something that I can work from and game! Thanks in advance [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 15 Nov 2017 01:34 PM PST The purpose of this study is the examine design choices of role playing games (RPG) as a part of my thesis work at the media technology program of Centria University of Applied Sciences, Finland. Toward that end, I am collecting questionnaire data of gameplay experiences of Final Fantasy XIII and Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. The data will be collected anonymously and analyzed statistically. My analyses will aim at examining how gamers from different countries experience various design decision of the single player RPGs in question. Getting a large number of responses is critical for completing my thesis study so I greatly appreciate your participation. If you wish to participate please fill out this form in english or this form in Japanese [link] [comments]  |
| Which Game got the Better TD Maps? WC3 vs SC2 Posted: 15 Nov 2017 12:42 PM PST Hey Guys... i'm still really really interested in Tower Defense. I were looking for good standalone alternatives, but all i could find was "Legion TD 2" on steam. I mean i will try it out, but i think it won't even get a decent Playerbase. 20$ for a gamemode which almost has no playerbase anyway might scare alot of people. So that why i thought i could give the Old legends another try. Warcraft 3 & Starcraft 2 So my question is: which of the 2 got better TD maps (like still upgrades, balanced and so on) I hope that some ppl might be able to help me out. Thanks alot! [link] [comments]  |
| Is random, loot-based progression an okay thing to have in multiplayer games? Posted: 15 Nov 2017 12:31 PM PST I ask this question in the midst of controversy surrounding several games: Star Wars Battlefront 2 and Destiny 2 in particular. The core gameplay and progression systems of both of these titles are centered around random loot and loot-based progression. Both games handle this concept differently, and both games have launched to a relatively large amount of discontent and community outrage. In Destiny 2, the progression system is basically to play the game, get tokens, exchange the tokens for loot, and eventually you reach max level with a perfect set of gear. The outrage in this game came from the removal of 'RNG loot' which in turn removed much of the end-game incentive to keep playing. In Batlefront 2, the progression system is basically to play the game, get credits which you can exchange for random loot boxes or unlock a specific hero, and eventually get all of the unlocks which directly impact your gameplay. The outage in this game is coming from the fact that you can basically pay to win by unlocking all of the upgrades and heroes with real money, whereas it can take a very long time to unlock them just by playing. In either case, is this kind of progression system okay in a multiplayer game? No matter how the loot is distributed, it will give a huge advantage to players with more time (or more money). It is very difficult to balance this in a way where everyone feels like they are competitive, without drastically simplifying the system and making nothing particularly powerful (which was Destiny 2's approach). What are your thoughts on loot-based progression in multiplayer games? [link] [comments]  |
| Which Video Game franchises do you think COULD make a good film? Posted: 15 Nov 2017 12:30 AM PST Not necessarily would, but could. Ace Attorney - It's basically a visual noveI anyways. I know there's a Japanese one, but a mid-budget hollywood movie that actually involves all the insane plot-twists and gets the characters right could be good. Grand Theft Auto - Could be good if it were a blockbuster drama with a bit of fun like a classic Pitt/Damon/Leo movie like Departed or Oceans Eleven with a hint of Drive. Halo/Mass Effect - These could both be good for the same reasons. Great characters and there is an appetite right now for good space operas. The Sims - A "Truman Show" style movie that could either go the innocent route or the fucked up horror movie route. Could be done in very well tbh. F-Zero - Captain Falcon is a rugged bounty hunter in an aesthetically "Blade Runner" looking future, who's next bounty is on the Black Shadow, the best racer on the planet who is highly guarded. To even get close to him, he has to race brutal death-defying races to work his way up to the championship. His only chance of killing Black Shadow is on the course during the final race before he retreats into safety. Could be done well. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 15 Nov 2017 10:50 AM PST When you look up the major multiplayer games from twitch and look the different games, it starts making sense. All games have their own universe, and most games are cartoon-ish. Nothing stops LoL/Overwatch/RocketLeague/etc from adding a bunch of cosmetic items, because those items aren't going to interfere with an existing lore created by someone else. They have a lot of freedom. In the case of Battlefront 2, they had no other choice but to release their game with a competitive price : that is, around 60$. Most gamers expect games to be sold at that price, +-. The problem is, by selling an AAA title at such a "cheap" price, how can they even compete with the other popular multi-player games that have the ability to offer many cosmetic items ? Battlefront 2 is, obviously, tied with the universe of Star Wars and they are very limited at what they can do. They can't release a bunch of cosmetic items that will create "unique" characters. Darth Vader is Darth Vader. You won't see him with a stupid hat and a pink four-edged lightsaber. Many players will defend the other companies for releasing only cosmetic items that don't affect the gameplay... but EA can't do this with Battlefront. I'm not trying to make them look good, I just state the facts. They are tied with an established universe where they have very little wiggle room to offer microtransactions. "Yeah, but simply sell the game as a whole, then?" Sure, but this is exactly where the problem rises. Players don't want to pay too much for a game, and this is exactly why microtransactions are so popular nowadays. Release the game at 75$ and suddenly all the casual players are going to be pissed off. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 15 Nov 2017 08:04 AM PST This may not create a lot of discussion material, but I wanted to see some other people's opinions. I see a lot of people talking about the amount of time and money you have to spend in Battlefront 2 in order to unlock upgrades/characters/vehicles. I have a strong opinion that it shouldn't take too much time in order to unlock any one thing. 40 hours may be too much time just to unlock one character... But shouldn't the cost (real money) of these upgrades be more expensive rather than inexpensive? The headlines say it cost a couple thousand dollars to unlock everything in Battlefront 2, but isn't that a good thing? Doesn't increasing the monetary cost of even the smallest upgrades prevent more people from purchasing them? If unlocking an upgrade cost $40, aren't more people less likely to purchase that unfair advantage than if it was only $5? Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the main issue people getting unfair advantages early just because they can afford to spend more money, not having to work for them? If things are more expensive, doesn't that decrease the likelyhood that someone will buy it? I'd really like to know if I have this wrong or if I'm not seeing the entire picture. TLDR: Isn't it better to have more expensive microtransactions so less people buy them? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 15 Nov 2017 03:16 AM PST TLDR; This post is about how community is settling for bad when something worse comes out. So EA added pay to win elements to recent SW:BF game and it is not only pay to win it is also served via lootboxes aka gambling. The difference, for clarity, is that those star cards could be sold directly via a store front like how MMORPGs of the old times did and still doing. Pay $5 and get 20% damage boost, simple and straight pay2win. However star cards are not only pay2win they are also not even guaranteed for anyone. They are totally random and chance based. You can spend 50$ and still get nothing useful. Not only it preys on the p2w crowd it is also praying on the gambling tendencies. Then they faced a backlash regarding this p2w elements and grind but as much as I was a bit hyped about the community outrage at first it slowly turned into utter despair. People are now actually asking for loot boxes. Some says they need money (wtf???) to fund further development, some say gambling boxes are ok as long as it is purely cosmetics (it is gambling I remind you) and some people are actually making threads asking for them. At this point I goota make it clear: I am not against cosmetics but instead of simply asking for cosmetics people are asking for cosmetic loot boxes. Why the hell does it have to be lootboxes? Warframe sells cosmetics and they are not in lootboxes, Rocket League has some of the cosmetic items up for sale but not all of them why can't they sell all of them directly instead of involving gambling? Why do we have to go down that shitty road Overwatch did? When we should've stood up against gambling boxes Valve created/nurtured and Blizzard exploded it took until EA to release pay2win gambling boxes so now the most popular shit around this whole drama is "it is just cosmetics in Overwatch". That shit is what led to this whole fucked up thing in the first place. On top of that the companies are controlling the narrative with small adjustments and make the bad things normal. It is not entirely related but it points to a deeper problem I am trying to explain here so I encourage everyone to read this post by /u/feminymphist about the how the narrative is controlled by the companies. Look at how narrative turned from
to
Exactly what u/feminymphist post describes as
After the dust settles we will be left with a world filled with gambling games and people will be totally fine with it. [link] [comments]  |
| The customers are the problem, not the publishers Posted: 15 Nov 2017 02:19 AM PST Why do we even care for shitty busniess practices with loot boxes and P2W in a fully priced game? Why don't people just don't give a damn and don't buy these games? If there's a way to make more money, companies will do it. There's no way they won't do it as long as people are buying their stuff. In my opinion the customers are the problem, not the publishers. Stop pre-ordering games and don't buy a game just because you love Star Wars! It's up to you! [link] [comments]  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from For those who like talking about games as much as playing them.. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Post a Comment