464
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
464 points (97.9% liked)
Games
15793 readers
825 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People who decide to throw money at games with such shitty practices are part of the problem.
I'd say they are victims of predatory practices.
Like drug addicts. You can't expect drug addicts to take all the blame. Sooner or later you have to realize that the supplier enabling the addiction is part of the problem.
That is a very good point regarding children and mentally challenged people. It does not excuse responsible adults though.
That is not the most fitting comparison in my opinion. I think the solution for the drug problem is legalization of all drugs, free access to rehabilitation combined with thorough education and abuse prevention.
I think the point they're making is that these things (drugs and games) are being designed to be addicting. Game companies literally hire physcologist to design systems that play into addictive personalities. It's unfair to put all the blame on the person given how these companies act.
Agreed. That´s why I´d split the blame between the companies behind such games and their customers and also think selling microtransactions to children and mentally impaired people should be illegal.
To some people, $30 is chump change and they'll gladly part with it for some glitter. The whole microtransaction business relies on those people as "whales" and you can't really ask people to "stop paying so much" if they don't even mind the amount they're paying
FOMO is strong in them.
Yes, they are. The problem is that they are millions.
Yup. I loved Diablo and I've played it since the first one came out. I never bought the last release, though. Fuck Blizzard.
Yes, Diablo 2 was the last good Diablo game. Hate blizzard, love PoE!
I'm trying to stay away from MMOs, which is were all these practices were really born.
No, I love them. They pay so I don't have to.
That may be true if you're into some F2P/gacha stuff, but not in a full-price game. These people just encourage more enshitification. Diablo used to have no microtransactions and was arguably a lot better too.
How does this ruin the game?
They see money coming in, so they add more microtransactions.
Okay and? If they are purely cosmetic...why the fuck even care?
Do skins improve the game? No.
It's 'wasted' effort that could be put into making a better game. It's the concept of opportunity cost but applied to the quality aspect.
For me? Absolutely not. But I see plenty of people who love their skins.
Or, as my experience with the super cell games, it pays the bills and I get more content without paying anything. Seems like a win win to me. If they aren't making any money from it, why are they going to create more content?
How doesn't it? Devs work on this bullshit instead of good content.
Or it pays the bills so they can afford creating new content. This is how it always worked with the super cell games I played.
I'm not saying it doesn't contribute to their bottom line, but it's not the devs who profit off of microtransactions. It's the share holders. Game development has existed since the 70s, microtransactions have not. The primary people benefiting from microtransactions are shareholders. And if anything the work load on developers has gotten significantly worse and the quality of games has not gotten better.
Microtransactions suck.
Games haven't gotten better since the 70s? Lol if you honestly believed that, then micro transactions would be a complete non issue for you because there are countless games out there from before micro transactions, and without them at all, that you could spend a whole life playing.
But let's be honest here, games have gotten better which is why you want to play the news ones.
I've played a lot of super cell games and never paid a dime. Years and years of fun across multiple games, with new content coming out all the time. All funded by micro transactions paid by others.
Now I don't approve of the gambling aspect of some and p2w can be bad if done incorrectly. But cosmetic purchases that take little time to create and can generate tons of money so I don't have to pay? Sign me up every fucking day for that. Please pay so I don't have to.
No, I meant the overall quality of games has not gotten better since the introduction of microtransactions as an industry wide concept.
And that tracks with how I play games. The majority of games I play were released prior to 2015. I don't play competitive games, multi-player games, or any of the kinds of games that are usually full of microtransactions. I never have. The few games I do play from the last few years are ones that lack microtransactions.
I can't follow this. At what point did it become and industry wide concept? You are talking about buying games that don't have them. I have played many new games that don't have micro transactions (unless we're including expansions).
And I have not said that micro transactions have made games better, just that it's better for me because I don't have to pay.
You paid the bills by purchasing the game.
Diablo isnt a f2p, you paid up front.
Youre paying a second time for less game than cheaper games give you.
This isnt poe.
No, someone else is paying. Which is the beauty to me.
But is there anything missing in diablo 4 that you would have gotten in an earlier version of the game for free? I'm not a big fan of the series so I don't have a good comparison.
You pirated diablo 4? Gotta say, thats impressive to do for a server game.
You were referring to the MTX after you purchase the game.
Incorrect. The second payment is the loss of content they dont get because they dont buy.
The guy has already repeatedly stated he doesnt buy microtransactions. The second payment is not the mtx he doesnt buy, its the lost content that the $60 game doesnt give him
Ah, the meaning wasn't clear.
Thats fair, I probs shouldnt have used "paid for" in the metaphorical sense in a discussion about actually buying things lol
They dont bother making full new expansions. They make half an expansion, and spend twice the time and money making in-game store items.
Youre paying full price for less game and some pretty store windows to walk past.
And with every expansion, less game and more store is made. At least the whales get more content, youre getting even less than that.
Can you give some concrete examples? As I've said elsewhere, I played multiple supercell games, for years each, never paying a dime, and was constantly getting new content. It was the whales supporting my play. Maybe they got to hit their peak ranking higher than me, but we were pretty much doing the same thing at different levels.
Unless we're talking about skins. I don't give a shit about skins. Games now a days have way more skins, and I would attribute that at least partially to the expansion of micro transactions.
Examples? How about the game the thread is about? And how dead and devoid its updates have been, with a robust and full shop?
Was the game everyone is talking about for doing this not enough? What about every game that opens a beta, with a fully fleshed out shop but lacking actual finished polished features? Halos recent flops for example?
Do you grasp how poorly your argument looks when youre having to bring up iphone games as your shining example? Games whose active design from menu, to level creation, to difficulty curves, are all built to try and push you towards that shop? Games whose gameplay is directly altered because of the push towards the shop?
This is still pretty vague. Compared to previous diablos pre micro transactions, are there more or fewer updates? Were all of the expansions pay?
I'm sorry but I didn't realize that these massively popular games don't count. Can you give me the criteria for what counts so I don't make the same mistake in the future?
Compared to previous diablos and other current arpgs, with normal expansion and base game content. Or are you saying you havent seen the constant content complaints about this game since its launch?
You have to be joking. You are genuinely surprised that clash of clans, the microtransaction king of store over content isnt a good example? The game series that is the punchline of in game purchases? Maybe try games not known for being the biggest cause of this problem
Lol you think you get a discount because of this.
I know I am because I played 3 super cell games, each for years, and never paid a dime.
They're the reason these shitty practices are profitable in the first place. Don´t forget we are talking about Diablo IV here, which is a full priced game. Off topic you might have a point concerning F2P games though. However, even the F2P games that are not P2W are usually at least to a certain part "pay for functionality/content/convenience" and not just purely "pay for cosmetics". Because of this I think it´s generally better to pay once and get a full game for that.