What video game are you playing?

[ACamp1900]

Shouldn't you be in Italy?

Not yet, still have a day...

also, I'm sure I'll still be checking in while across the pond... I'm a creature of habit if nothing else.

 

[ACamp1900]

COD WW2 coming out in one month... Zombie mode looks ridiculously over the top but I'm still interested in the campaign.

 

[Meatloaf]

COD WW2 coming out in one month... Zombie mode looks ridiculously over the top but I'm still interested in the campaign.

I refuse to touch a full price game that also charges microtransactions. One of the biggest things that's wrong with the industry right now, especially AAA titles.

 

[wizards8507]

I refuse to touch a full price game that also charges microtransactions. One of the biggest things that's wrong with the industry right now, especially AAA titles.

Microtransactions are way better than paid DLC and map packs. I really like the Overwatch model of cosmetics-only loot boxes. SNES games were $50 to $60 back in the day. $60 for a modern AAA title is too cheap. The reason we have to deal with microtransactions is because poors don't want to pay $100 for games that should be $100.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[greyhammer90]

Microtransactions are way better than paid DLC and map packs. I really like the Overwatch model of cosmetics-only loot boxes. SNES games were $50 to $60 back in the day. $60 for a modern AAA title is too cheap. The reason we have to deal with microtransactions is because poors don't want to pay $100 for games that should be $100.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I'd be much more ok with Overwatch if they eliminated the loot box system in favor of an opportunity to simply pay for the customizable items you want. With limited availability on timed exclusives, they are essentially taxing stupid people, children, or compulsive gamblers who want "that one costume" . This lootbox system a lot of gamemakers are putting in these days are one step below slot machines, and like slot machines they rely on whales. It's not a healthy system.

 

[wizards8507]

I'd be much more ok with Overwatch if they eliminated the loot box system in favor of an opportunity to simply pay for the customizable items you want. With limited availability on timed exclusives, they are essentially taxing stupid people, children, or compulsive gamblers who want "that one costume" . This lootbox system a lot of gamemakers are putting in these days are one step below slot machines, and like slot machines they rely on whales. It's not a healthy system.

The loot boxes, including the free ones you unlock with XP, give you in-game currency that you can use for skins, including the timed exclusives. I've spent about $50 on Overwatch boxes, and I think $110 for 200+ hours of game play is more than fair.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[ACamp1900]

So I saw a rumor that the SNES classic has the game genie on it without even hacking... can anyone confirm??

Such an excellent question kind sir.....

 

[tussin]

SNES Classic is great. Grabbed one last Friday.

 

[ACamp1900]

SNES Classic is great. Grabbed one last Friday.

So, game genie or nah?

 

[greyhammer90]

The loot boxes, including the free ones you unlock with XP, give you in-game currency that you can use for skins, including the timed exclusives. I've spent about $50 on Overwatch boxes, and I think $110 for 200+ hours of game play is more than fair.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I'm aware of how the system works, I've played plenty of Overwatch.
Lootboxes are not designed to create a massive amount of profit from people like you. Lootboxes feed off whales, whales are very frequently not the type of people who can or should spend the amount of money they do on these systems. The use of virtual currency that cannot valued against money because it cannot be directly purchased, limited time items that give weak willed people (or let's be honest here, children) the itch to buy, the design of Lootboxes which play endorphin releasing music and bright colors, the fact that those Lootboxes do not remove items already received from the rotation... These are all hallmarks of psychologically manipulative practices used by extremely unsavory businesses that typically rely on exploiting people who can't help themselves.

As to your statement that they need to do this because of the growing cost of games development, I don't buy it. There are ways to do it without resorting to these practices. Like I said earlier, let people actualy buy what they want using money and it's an easy fix. But they won't, because they want the obsessive compulsive Lucio fan to spend eighty bucks on Lootboxes trying to get a limited time Christmas skin rather than have him pay six bucks for it. (Also, lol at the idea that Blizzard or Activision need the money.)

What they're doing is perfectly legal. Do I think it's moral? No. Not really.

 

[wizards8507]

Lootboxes do not remove items already received from the rotation...

Overwatch made that change and it actually made things worse. The duplicates rate has been drastically cut down. That means it's actually more difficult to get that one skin you're targeting because dupicates were the main way you earn in game currency. Less currency from duplicates means less coin to buy specific skins and more randomness for skins and sprays you don't care about.

Also, I don't buy the whale argument. It's not a mobile game with infinite supply. At about $50 in Overwatch boxes, I have 100% of the skins that I've ever wanted as well as most of the ones I don't. At some fairly low dollar amount, you have everything there is to have.

 

[Meatloaf]

Overwatch made that change and it actually made things worse. The duplicates rate has been drastically cut down. That means it's actually more difficult to get that one skin you're targeting because dupicates were the main way you earn in game currency. Less currency from duplicates means less coin to buy specific skins and more randomness for skins and sprays you don't care about.

Also, I don't buy the whale argument. It's not a mobile game with infinite supply. At about $50 in Overwatch boxes, I have 100% of the skins that I've ever wanted as well as most of the ones I don't. At some fairly low dollar amount, you have everything there is to have.

0.15% of players account for half of free to play mobile games' purchases. Whales are a very real thing and and it's naive to think AAA publishers aren't using similar tactics, regardless of supply of virtual items.

https://www.recode.net/2014/2/26/11...es-half-of-mobile-games-money-comes-from-0-15

 

[wizards8507]

0.15% of players account for half of free to play mobile games' purchases. Whales are a very real thing and and it's naive to think AAA publishers aren't using similar tactics, regardless of supply of virtual items.

I'm not talking about free to play or even AAA games in general. Overwatch is the system I like and that's the only one I'm defending. I have zero problem with for-purchase content that's strictly cosmetic in nature.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[NorthDakota]

I'm aware of how the system works, I've played plenty of Overwatch.
Lootboxes are not designed to create a massive amount of profit from people like you. Lootboxes feed off whales, whales are very frequently not the type of people who can or should spend the amount of money they do on these systems. The use of virtual currency that cannot valued against money because it cannot be directly purchased, limited time items that give weak willed people (or let's be honest here, children) the itch to buy, the design of Lootboxes which play endorphin releasing music and bright colors, the fact that those Lootboxes do not remove items already received from the rotation... These are all hallmarks of psychologically manipulative practices used by extremely unsavory businesses that typically rely on exploiting people who can't help themselves.

As to your statement that they need to do this because of the growing cost of games development, I don't buy it. There are ways to do it without resorting to these practices. Like I said earlier, let people actualy buy what they want using money and it's an easy fix. But they won't, because they want the obsessive compulsive Lucio fan to spend eighty bucks on Lootboxes trying to get a limited time Christmas skin rather than have him pay six bucks for it. (Also, lol at the idea that Blizzard or Activision need the money.)

What they're doing is perfectly legal. Do I think it's moral? No. Not really.

I'm with ya, free market is free, losers will enable this behavior. It's just disappointing for a more casual gamer like myself. I don't play Overwatch, I know better than to try dabbling into a Blizzard game. That stuff is like cocaine for my friends.

Also, I don't buy the whale argument. It's not a mobile game with infinite supply. At about $50 in Overwatch boxes, I have 100% of the skins that I've ever wanted as well as most of the ones I don't. At some fairly low dollar amount, you have everything there is to have.

You mean they snagged an extra $50 bucks from you? Consumers can spend their money how they want, I don't really judge, but I did expect you to be the type that goes base model for life.

 

[wizards8507]

You mean they snagged an extra $50 bucks from you? Consumers can spend their money how they want, I don't really judge, but I did expect you to be the type that goes base model for life.

They support the hell out of the game. Almost every month there's a new hero, map, or event. $50 on cosmetics and no ragrets at all. Contrast that with Battlefront, which had shitty monetization practices, and I didn't spend a dime.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[IrishLion]

They support the hell out of the game. Almost every month there's a new hero, map, or event. $50 on cosmetics and no ragrets at all. Contrast that with Battlefront, which had shitty monetization practices, and I didn't spend a dime.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I stuck with the base edition of Battlefront when I purchased it. The DLC *looked* really pretty, and the thought of flying through trenches on the Death Star almost reeled me in, but I ultimately decided that the gameplay itself would render moar pretty thingz pretty boring after a few days of gameplay.

Thankfully, Battlefront II looks to be meatier in terms of gameplay modes and customization with free DLC. Plus space battles, Poe Dameron's Black One, and Clone Wars Era. Hallelujah.

 

[dublinirish]

have enjoyed playing BF1 since launch, its not a perfect game but it's fun to hop on for a few rounds of conquest now and then.

 

[Meatloaf]

More microtransaction nonsense:

https://www.vg247.com/2017/10/04/forza-7-feels-like-a-free-to-play-game-you-paid-60-to-play/

 

[Whiskeyjack]

A bunch of popular streamers on Twitter have been playing Cuphead:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D-1n15aIgsE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Looks very cool.

 

[IrishLion]

Speaking of Wiz's ideas on price points:

Assassin's Creed: Origins is $100 for the "Gold Edition," which includes deluxe content (two weapons, a shield, an outfit, a badass horse, and extra skill points to start with) and a season pass for all DLC.

That's basically the "$100 for a complete game" thing that Wiz was talking about.

 

[IrishLion]

And as an aside for the other AC nerds out there, the more I read about this game, the more excited I get for the story. I feel like they were sitting on the idea for the Egyptian story line since ACII and Brotherhood.

Obviously they've always had "let's tell the story about the founding of the Brotherhood!" at their disposal for a story, but it puts some of the content in the previous games into perspective. You know ancient Egypt is always a potential connection to conspiracies and objects of mystical, mysterious power, but if you look at the Assassin Tombs from ACII and some of the other "treasure troves" you find in other games, it's clear that it's more than just influence; the tombs seem to be legitimately modeled after Egyptian tombs. That makes sense now, obviously, and shows that the game creators had a general outline for this type of storyline almost from the beginning.

I'm just glad they waited for the new gen of consoles before making it. Would've sucked to get a less-deep, incomplete Egypt game on PS3.

 

[wizards8507]

Speaking of Wiz's ideas on price points:

Assassin's Creed: Origins is $100 for the "Gold Edition," which includes deluxe content (two weapons, a shield, an outfit, a badass horse, and extra skill points to start with) and a season pass for all DLC.

That's basically the "$100 for a complete game" thing that Wiz was talking about.

Yup. It's why I got the Elite Trooper Deluxe Edition of Battlefront II.

 

[nlroma1o]

I'm so excited for AC Origins. I probably wont get it day 1, since I just had a baby, but I will get it sometime this winter for sure.

 

[IrishLion]

I'm so excited for AC Origins. I probably wont get it day 1, since I just had a baby, but I will get it sometime this winter for sure.

I was in wait-and-see mode, and really wasn't itching for it. But I took the time to watch all of the trailers and read a few articles today, and suddenly 10/27 can't come soon enough.

Already put in to have the day off lol.

 

[NorthDakota]

have enjoyed playing BF1 since launch, its not a perfect game but it's fun to hop on for a few rounds of conquest now and then.

Same. I don't play a ton but its fun.

 

[greyhammer90]

Speaking of Wiz's ideas on price points:

Assassin's Creed: Origins is $100 for the "Gold Edition," which includes deluxe content (two weapons, a shield, an outfit, a badass horse, and extra skill points to start with) and a season pass for all DLC.

That's basically the "$100 for a complete game" thing that Wiz was talking about.

Yup. It's why I got the Elite Trooper Deluxe Edition of Battlefront II.

In the alternative camp: There's no denying that video games are cheaper than they have ever been. The cost of making games has gone way up, while the price has remained mostly stagnant (that is to say, gotten cheaper thanks to inflation). This is an issue the games industry is going to have to deal with. It's easy to say that "poors" are keeping the price down, but at the end of the day the market has made it clear that AAA games are generally not worth more than $70 to people. I'd have to say I agree, because I have disposable income, love playing games, and most still aren't worth $70 to me.

Regardless, this leaves games publishers in a pickle. Some are attempting to sell $100 versions of their games, which is just fine but like I said earlier, the market has been pretty clear that it won't buy these. People don't value AAA experiences that much.

Others are trying lootboxes or other "fee to play" practices. I think those are often exploitative on people with addictive personalities and children as I've explained above. I also think that those have a high potential to alienate non-gamers from becoming gamers and will seriously hurt the market in the future. While I was ragging on Overwatch a bit earlier, but I want to be clear that I really like Overwatch (probably my GOTY) and think it is frustrating because I think they could easily cut out the exploitative practices and still make a ton of money. They are really close, and as Wiz said earlier they do deliver an experience in vanilla that is worth $60. Unfortunately, that's not common. Developers are now giving games that aren't worth the original asking price, and asking for more money on top of it. Take, for example, NBA 2k franchise, which at this point is charging people $60 for a $25 product and is then forcing you to spend $100+ just to have the same experience you could have had a few short years ago at the $60. I would guess that if I was a kid, its unlikely that I'd be as much of a gamer as I am now. The main reason for this is that my parents would've never given me money for DLC, and as a result I would have grown up with half-baked games my entire adolescence.

So what is the solution? Well I would play conservative and ask for a little bit of fiscal responsibility from the publishers. Make games that fit the price point that the market demands. Don't spend so much money that selling less than 5 million copies in the release quarter dooms your company. Don't spend so much money that you need to include lootboxes and ship a half-finished game just to recoup your losses. Make games with a reasonable budget that are priced at their real value.

 

[wizards8507]

So what is the solution?

I think the solution is actually pretty straightforward, but Microsoft got flamed when they had tentatively tried it before the Xbone launch. Go digital exclusive, or at least #DiscountDigital. Put GameStop out of business. No more used games, so the devs are getting a cut of every copy sold.

 

[wizards8507]

Anybody have an idea why there's no Red Dead preorder on Amazon?

EDIT: Wow, nevermind. Best Buy gives you 20% off if you're a Gamers Club Unlocked member (same as Amazon Prime), plus a $10 preorder bonus.

EDIT 2: Oh shit, it gave me access to the early Beta. Hype!

EDIT 3: Oh shit, the Beta starts tonight. Double hype!

 

[wizards8507]

Anybody have an idea why there's no Red Dead preorder on Amazon?

EDIT: Wow, nevermind. Best Buy gives you 20% off if you're a Gamers Club Unlocked member (same as Amazon Prime), plus a $10 preorder bonus.

EDIT 2: Oh shit, it gave me access to the early Beta. Hype!

EDIT 3: Oh shit, the Beta starts tonight. Double hype!

Bump. Somebody share my excitement. Lion, are you on Xbox? Did you preorder?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

So after a couple of hours in the beta last night, I cancelled my preorder for Battlefront II. I don't really have a great explanation beyond "I wasn't having fun playing it," which is probably the best reason I can think of to cancel the game. The whole time, I was thinking my free hours would be better spent working through my 100% completion max honor Red Dead play through.