Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon who doesn't understand modern FPS games:
@onyx said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon who doesn't understand modern FPS games:
Since I really don't want to drag this out here, all I'm going to say is: the industry already proved that slippery slope is not a fallacy in this particular case. And at least a sizable amount of players employing a zero-tolerance policy is the only way these fuckwits can possibly be stopped. I chose to be in that camp in this particular situation.
Not Overwatch. I don't really know how to say it other than 'not Overwatch'. Kaplan is acutely aware of exactly how giant of a flamewar he would incur if he tried anything like that. It's like someone telling you that at any point Gmail might start charging a monthly fee for their services. Like, they are motivated to hell and back by profits, but it's just something this particular company with this particular product would never do. The game design also really doesn't permit it. Part of the vision is that even footing thing I was talking about earlier - there are no loadouts, no items, not even stuff acquired during gameplay. There's just you and your character.
Splitting this up before it drifts even more...
I'm not saying that Activision-Blizzard will fuck with Overwatch specifically, but the wide acceptance of lootboxes in Overwatch basically showed the rest of the publishers people will tolerate not only microtransaction, but lootboxes as well in paid-for games. It really became a thing after that.
Yes, games like CS:GO did it before, but Overwatch was the first really high profile (as in, it's so big non-gamers know about it and it probably has out of game merch out the ass by now) game that did it. And then it all snowballed all the way to Shadow of War and Battlefront 2 bullshit.
I'm not "blaming" Overwatch in any way, it's not a game that's singularly "at fault" for this shit, but since it was the actual example and, coincidentally, an apparent catalyst for the proper outbreak of microtransactions in paid games I decided to focus on that. But I'm also not giving it a pass just because "it's Overwatch and it's fucking amazing!". Probably. I heard great things. My sister plays it and enjoys it, and her tastes in games mostly align with mine, so I guess I'd like it as well.
But no, no pass, I'm a stubborn fuck in this regard. I still choose to play Megaman on an emulator rather than buying the dirt-cheap collection on Steam, because Capcom did enough similar shit to be on my shitlist forever. Not to even mention Konami. Those two I avoid as the plague. Holy trinity of EA - Activision - Ubisoft is also on the shit list, mostly, but since they are still just publishers I will buy some of the games published by them since it's, sadly, the only way to send some money to the actual devs. Bethesda is teetering on the edge of joining the club, but they are still kinda OK. I could complain about them as developers, but that would be a topic for "Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon who doesn't understand modern RPGs"...
-
@onyx said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
But I'm also not giving it a pass just because "it's Overwatch and it's fucking amazing!".
It's not very fun to actually play.
Then again, I didn't enjoy Team Fortress 2 either, and it's basically exactly that but with more characters.
@onyx said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Holy trinity of EA - Activision - Ubisoft is also on the shit list, mostly, but since they are still just publishers I will buy some of the games published by them since it's, sadly, the only way to send some money to the actual devs. Bethesda is teetering on the edge of joining the club, but they are still kinda OK. I could complain about them as developers, but that would be a topic for "Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon who doesn't understand modern RPGs"...
Elder Scrolls Online and Elder Scrolls: Legends (the dumb card games) both have loot boxes. ESO at least isn't only based around loot boxes.
And to be fair to ES: Legends, all games in that genre are loot box powered because it kind of resembles the Magic: The Gathered method of getting new cards, buying random sets of 10 from a 7-11. I'd almost say the collectible card video game is one of the few places loot boxes make sense.
Bethesda's still a "good guy", in that they don't fuck with their developers (nobody forced Prey to have a hacked-in multiplayer mode, for example, or rewrite the ending to be more cheerful). But they're becoming lazier and lazier by the day... everything they've released since Prey has been a rehash of something else. "Skyrim, BUT ON NINTENDO SWITCH!" "Skyrim, BUT IN 3D!" "Skyrim, BUT IN 3D ON A DIFFERENT PLATFORM THAT ALSO DOES 3D!"
I'm guessing Bethesda RPGs would still be good, if they ever bothered to make another one instead of just releasing Skyrim on 36 more platforms and crowing about it as if they revolutionized the genre.
-
@blakeyrat said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
It's not very fun to actually play.
It's the lack of Pip. I'm sure of it.
-
@onyx said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
It's the lack of Pip.
Got to be. (But for the record, I don't play Paladins anymore, either.)
-
@onyx You'll have to take this with a grain of salt because I did end up buying Battlefront 2, but I ignore games that do bad shit directly, not games that inspire them to. Overwatch did it right and will continue to do it right for all eternity; that other games do it wrong is not something that factors into my 'is this game something I should buy' internal debate. I personally would call bullshit on the 'industry as a whole' statements - anyone who has a problem with BF2 should blame nobody but themselves because it was their decision to buy yet another goddamn EA game, and bad games existing does not prevent good games from existing. My game boycotts on moral grounds exist, such as Fortnite over its suing of cheaters including minors, but I don't base them simply on whether other games will get the wrong idea. Microtransactions instead fall under refusing to purchase just because I don't want to play it, which is why I bought BF2 after they decided that all characters are free. It's also not Overwatch that started it; that's been a thing since TF2 (it was not always free to play but it always had those stupid crates).
By the way, I've yet to see these sweeping consequences you talk about. BF2 shit the bed big time on theirs, but it's fuckin' EA. That's practically their calling card. Are there any other paid games with gameplay-affecting loot boxes that you see as being inspired by Overwatch?
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
It's also not Overwatch that started it; that's been a thing since TF2 (it was not always free to play but it always had those stupid crates).
I never said it did, I specifically stated that I don't blame it and that it's just another game that also did it, but it's also the high profile release that seemingly gave the publishers confidence to start pulling that shit in their big releases. Maybe the timing is coincidental. But it sure seems correlated. And don't get me wrong, if not Overwatch there would be another game that would be a catalyst at some point in time, it just so happened that it was this particular one.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Are there any other paid games with gameplay-affecting loot boxes
It's not only loot boxes that I rail against, it's all the microtransaction bullshit altogether. But for loot boxes in particular, Shadow of War. Outside of that:
- FIFA 16 has "FIFA points", used to skip the grind to get better stuff
- NBA has the same shit
- UFC 3 has the same shit, even further than that you can buy boosts to use in multiplayer, as in your fighter actually does more damage etc.
That's just EA, trying this shit on a niche market (sports games), before going prime time to stuff like Battlefront.
Deus Ex Mankind Divided has microtransactions which can be used to buy one time use items. Sure, it's only single player, but what the fuck. According to some alleged insider sources, the only reason that didn't fuck up the game and made it a fucking grind (like Shadow of War apparently is), is that Squeenix didn't tell the devs to put them in until like 2 weeks before release so everything was balanced for normal play already.
-
@onyx If we're talking about microtransactions in general, Mortal Kombat X had 'em, and that was a year before Overwatch. I don't buy this idea that Overwatch was a tide-turner for having them - if anything, they've had a net positive effect because they've shown what happens if you don't let them affect gameplay. The trend in question started with the shittifying of mobile games, and publishers started to adapt mobile game strategies to big-screen games. That's where EA got it from, that's where Ubisoft got it from, that's where Netherrealm got it from, etc. The tide had turned long before Overwatch became this public-eye phenomenon.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
will continue to do it right for all eternity
Srsly?
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
By the way, I've yet to see these sweeping consequences you talk about. BF2 shit the bed big time on theirs, but it's fuckin' EA. That's practically their calling card. Are there any other paid games with gameplay-affecting loot boxes that you see as being inspired by Overwatch?
I named two, and Onyx brought up Paladins.
What does Overwatch pay you to give it all these sloppy blowjobs in random forums? Or are you doing it on a spec basis?
Bow before Overwatch! Overwatch is God and Savior of all gaming!!!!!
Too bad it's not at all, you know, fun.
-
Oh good, @blakeyrat's here.
@blakeyrat said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
will continue to do it right for all eternity
Srsly?
Yes, seriously. As I said earlier: Saying Overwatch could start paywalling characters or gameplay-affecting items is like saying Gmail could start charging a monthly fee. It could happen. It's a thing that other people have done, it's a thing they've done with other services. But it's just not going to happen.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
By the way, I've yet to see these sweeping consequences you talk about. BF2 shit the bed big time on theirs, but it's fuckin' EA. That's practically their calling card. Are there any other paid games with gameplay-affecting loot boxes that you see as being inspired by Overwatch?
I named two, and Onyx brought up Paladins.
Where did you name two? And Paladins isn't paid.
What does Overwatch pay you to give it all these sloppy blowjobs in random forums? Or are you doing it on a spec basis?
They pay me in quality content and gameplay.
Bow before Overwatch! Overwatch is God and Savior of all gaming!!!!!
Too bad it's not at all, you know, fun.
No.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Where did you name two? And Paladins isn't paid.
I didn't realize it had to be paid (for... reasons?)
But ESO is paid and has gameplay affecting loot boxes. Kind of. If you consider double XP boosts gameplay. Which it... kind of it? I guess? Not really in that game?
-
@blakeyrat Well, the reasons are because that was literally the thing I said.
Are there any other paid games with gameplay-affecting loot boxes that you see as being inspired by Overwatch?
In fact it was his original beef.
I won't buy it though, I'm heavily in "fuck microtransactions in paid games" camp and actively boycott any game employing that model
F2P games can do microtransactions if they want to. You're getting content that people sunk time and effort into, for free. They have to make money somehow.
And since that came out two years before Overwatch, do you consider it to be inspired by Overwatch?
-
@pie_flavor you're focusing on the Overwatch angle too much. Ok, I was wrong. Overwatch isn't at fault for encouraging other publishers.
It still has microtransactions (in this case, also lootboxes paid with microtranactions) in a paid game. I don't approve of that. If I were to give Overwatch a pass but rail against other games that do it, I'd feel like a hypocrite. You may not share that opinion, but that's my personal stance.
Conclusion: I still don't want to support the game with my cash, be it because I blame it, or because it's just an innocent victim of shit done by other publishers.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Overwatch did it right and will continue to do it right for all eternity
Overwatch does not do it right. People say it does, but that isn't the same thing. They only do loot boxes, which encourages people to spend several times more money, and probably get nothing they want. Sure, it doesn't affect the game, but it is hugely manipulative on top of being a game that you have to buy in the first place.
Plus, it's boring and the weapons all feel weak.
-
@onyx And thus we're back to the 'what's the problem' question. They would be on my shitlist if (a) you were buying them directly, or (b) they affected gameplay. Neither is true. Again, there are some games that you can tell 'this game was designed around microtransactions', and Overwatch was absolutely not. Hell, I didn't know that you even could buy crates until I saw one of those '100 crate unboxing' videos.
-
@magus said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Overwatch did it right and will continue to do it right for all eternity
Overwatch does not do it right. People say it does, but that isn't the same thing. They only do loot boxes, which encourages people to spend several times more money, and probably get nothing they want. Sure, it doesn't affect the game, but it is hugely manipulative on top of being a game that you have to buy in the first place.
It's not manipulative and it's not trying to encourage people to spend several times more money. They made purchases lootbox only because they wanted people to not feel like the way to get the cosmetic they wanted was to buy it. The goal was to get people to actually play the game for the rewards, and feel good doing it. And the reason there are microtransactions is that they drive the free updates. We've gotten plenty of new content since the game has been released, and they've pledged that all new content will be free forever. When sales peter out because too many people already have the game, microtransactions are what drive the continued updates.
Plus, it's boring and the weapons all feel weak.
That is your opinion. Like I said, it's a change in gameplay style. Some people like it that don't like other FPSes and vice versa. The important thing to remember is that in a game where purchases affect gameplay, it goads you into buying them because otherwise you can't compete with other players, or you feel like there's content you're missing out on. Cosmetic-only purchases are a whole nother ballgame; there's no innate drive to buy them in the first place.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
It's not manipulative and it's not trying to encourage people to spend several times more money.
Yes, it is. That's exactly why companies do that. And it's exactly why they flood the game with more and more microtransactions: so your chances of getting what you want go down, and therefore your need to keep gambling goes up. This is obvious.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
They made purchases lootbox only because they wanted people to not feel like the way to get the cosmetic they wanted was to buy it.
This helps, in a small amount, people who spend nothing. But it's actively hostile to people willing to pay.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
The goal was to get people to actually play the game for the rewards, and feel good doing it. And the reason there
AHAHAHAHAHA
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
And since that came out two years before Overwatch, do you consider it to be inspired by Overwatch?
ESO didn't have loot boxes until after Overwatch was popular.
I'm not telepathic so I don't know exactly what inspired them.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
It's not manipulative
Yes it is, in the same way that a slot machine is. That's always been true.
The question that remains is if that's "ok" as long as the content of the boxes don't impact gameplay.
If you think gambling is evil, then you must by extension think lootboxes are evil (or you're a hypocrite; one or the other).
If you think gambling sure is a vice but most people are ok with it and I don't mind if casinos exist, then the debate becomes one about how the loot boxes affect the game.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Like I said, it's a change in gameplay style.
A change from what? It's exactly like Paladins, except less fun.
-
@magus said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
It's not manipulative and it's not trying to encourage people to spend several times more money.
Yes, it is. That's exactly why companies do that. And it's exactly why they flood the game with more and more microtransactions: so your chances of getting what you want go down, and therefore your need to keep gambling goes up. This is obvious.
Which is not what Overwatch does. A loot box is a loot box (event loot boxes don't cost any more than regular ones do) and there is none of this flooding you are talking about. Your need to keep gambling implies a need to get the content in the first place - it is cosmetic only so that need is not in place. And they have very carefully balanced it so that you can easily fulfill your need to get more boxes just by getting them from playing the game.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
They made purchases lootbox only because they wanted people to not feel like the way to get the cosmetic they wanted was to buy it.
This helps, in a small amount, people who spend nothing. But it's actively hostile to people willing to pay.
The goal, obviously, is to not pay for them. Which everyone except you seems to get. Loot box purchases are pretty rare, and really only spike up from 'rare' to 'low' during events.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
The goal was to get people to actually play the game for the rewards, and feel good doing it. And the reason there
AHAHAHAHAHA
I notice your lack of an argument.
Yes, I know the shit EA pulls.
Yes, I know the shit other companies pull.
Yes, I know what Blizzard has done with other games.
You seem incapable of understanding my Gmail analogy.
-
@blakeyrat I know nothing about ESO so
. But there are plenty of other games that had it before them.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Which is not what Overwatch does. A loot box is a loot box (event loot boxes don't cost any more than regular ones do) and there is none of this flooding you are talking about.
So if 15 new skins have been added in the past 3 days, the chances of getting the 3month old one you want stays exactly the same? No, you are wrong.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Your need to keep gambling implies a need to get the content in the first place - it is cosmetic only so that need is not in place.
People still feel a need to get cosmetic items. You are wrong.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
And they have very carefully balanced it so that you can easily fulfill your need to get more boxes just by getting them from playing the game.
They allow you to get them ingame to make themselves look less scummy. You are wrong.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
The goal, obviously, is to not pay for them. Which everyone except you seems to get. Loot box purchases are pretty rare, and really only spike up from 'rare' to 'low' during events.
I can absolutely guarantee that Blizzard's goal is for you to buy more boxes. Your goal may be to not buy any. But man, that skin you just got killed with sure was cool. Wouldn't you like to look like that? You are wrong.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
I notice your lack of an argument.
Yes, I know the shit EA pulls.
Yes, I know the shit other companies pull.
Yes, I know what Blizzard has done with other games.
You seem incapable of understanding my Gmail analogy.Blizzard is a company. Companies want money. Loot boxes, more than any other thing are predatory by nature. Companies sometimes limit them for the sake of good will, because they don't want to get EAd.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
And thus we're back to the 'what's the problem' question.
Plainly? They are greedy fucks. Like all companies, really, but some of them at least try to not bullshit the customer and suck them dry every step of the way. And for me, microtransactions are a step too far.
Consider, why did the game cost $30 to start with? Why wasn't it free, like their previous release, Hearthstone?
Because they knew they can get away with it. Because they knew people won't pay upfront for a digital card game. But a team based FPS with huge marketing campaign behind it? Fuck yeah you can charge for that!
Ok, now, we want more money... If we do paid DLC we might split the playerbase, so we won't do that (this I agree with btw). So, what to do, what to... oh, right, microtransactions! And because we are Blizzard and we know people will lap anything we make up (I mean fuck, we got away with Diablo 3!), make it lootboxes as well!
But we'll still fuck them for those $30 upfront. Not because we need to, but because WE CAN!
And no, they didn't need the money to cover development cost, they are fucking Blizzard, they can afford it. And yes, they would still be making a killing on those skins regardless.
Let me tell you about a small company. It was formed by a bunch of people who made a popular mod. It was so popular, in fact, they figured hey, we can make our own game out of this! So they released it for free, told everyone here, the thing that you so loved, now build from ground up, just like we wanted! And it's free! We do however have fancy skins, and emotes, and shiny shit. You can get those for a few bucks to support us, and the game, and show off to your friends.
And thus, they folded and faded into obscurity, because a small company with a good idea and a decent business model is just not enough, you need to milk every cent... Oh no wait, they are called Riot games and they are making a FUCKING KILLING. And good on them. Did anyone, ever, complain about LoL's payment model and have a legit complaint? Here's a hint: no. Because it's fair. Because it respects the consumer. And because it's build on top of a game people love (I don't, but fuck it, others do).
But yeah, I guess poor little Blizzard can't compete with such giants...
Edit: build, built, fuck you too, autocorrect
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Your need to keep gambling implies a need to get the content in the first place - it is cosmetic only so that need is not in place.
People claw and grasp and cosmetic-only things all the goddamned time. Internetpointzzz on this forum are cosmetic, people are fucking wailing on those "like" buttons.
The psychological effects of loot boxes are exactly the same as of a slot machine. That's a fact you should probably learn to cope with. (The only reason it didn't get brought up sooner in this thread is that I assumed everybody already knew that.)
-
@onyx said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Did anyone, ever, complain about LoL's payment model and have a legit complaint? Here's a hint: no.
Er, I mean they did let you pay money for stat-modifying rune things, iirc. That always rubbed me the wrong way, even if they did very little.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
You seem incapable of understanding my Gmail analogy.
As far as I can see, everyone understands it; they just don't agree with it.
-
@magus did they? Honestly, I played it for like 4 hours and decided that it's not for me, so I may have missed something...
-
@onyx They typically did things like '+0.01% mana regeneration' or '+2% cooldown speed' iirc, typically numbers so low they didn't even hurt the balance. Still wasn't a fan.
-
@blakeyrat said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Your need to keep gambling implies a need to get the content in the first place - it is cosmetic only so that need is not in place.
People claw and grasp and cosmetic-only things all the goddamned time. Internetpointzzz on this forum are cosmetic, people are fucking wailing on those "like" buttons.
Here, I pushed the downvote one so you can keep it low where you want it.
The psychological effects of loot boxes are exactly the same as of a slot machine. That's a fact you should probably learn to cope with. (The only reason it didn't get brought up sooner in this thread is that I assumed everybody already knew that.)
No, they're not. The enormous difference is (a) it's useless in every way, not just in real life but in the game too, and (b) you can't use the winnings to play more.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
(a) it's useless in every way, not just in real life but in the game too,
You don't care about cosmetic items. Fine. We get it.
You're not in the majority. You're not even in a small minority. The vast majority of people do value cosmetic items. Again, you're just denying reality if you're trying to convince yourself otherwise.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
(b) you can't use the winnings to play more.
That's not true in every game with loot boxes.
-
@blakeyrat said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
You don't care about cosmetic items. Fine. We get it.
FTR, I don't either, I still think it's a shit model. It's also why I personally don't have that many problems with cosmetic lootboxes in F2P games, but if they got outright removed from every game ever for reasons of addictivness I wouldn't cry for then either.
-
@magus said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Which is not what Overwatch does. A loot box is a loot box (event loot boxes don't cost any more than regular ones do) and there is none of this flooding you are talking about.
So if 15 new skins have been added in the past 3 days, the chances of getting the 3month old one you want stays exactly the same? No, you are wrong.
They add good skins. Skins you are likely to want just as much as that 3month old one. I would be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not. And by the way skins are almost never added. A couple of updates ago was the first time since the game's release that they added non-event skins to a hero that wasn't Reinhardt.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Your need to keep gambling implies a need to get the content in the first place - it is cosmetic only so that need is not in place.
People still feel a need to get cosmetic items. You are wrong.
And that need is adequately fed by the rate you can get them by playing the game. It's been very carefully balanced like that. I'd be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
And they have very carefully balanced it so that you can easily fulfill your need to get more boxes just by getting them from playing the game.
They allow you to get them ingame to make themselves look less scummy. You are wrong.
This is just ass-pulling. They talk extensively about their motivations for every decision, and they all make sense. They post videos about it a lot of the time, even. I'd be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
The goal, obviously, is to not pay for them. Which everyone except you seems to get. Loot box purchases are pretty rare, and really only spike up from 'rare' to 'low' during events.
I can absolutely guarantee that Blizzard's goal is for you to buy more boxes. Your goal may be to not buy any. But man, that skin you just got killed with sure was cool. Wouldn't you like to look like that? You are wrong.
I'm failing to follow this one, mostly because you're failing to make your point properly.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
I notice your lack of an argument.
Yes, I know the shit EA pulls.
Yes, I know the shit other companies pull.
Yes, I know what Blizzard has done with other games.
You seem incapable of understanding my Gmail analogy.Blizzard is a company. Companies want money. Loot boxes, more than any other thing are predatory by nature. Companies sometimes limit them for the sake of good will, because they don't want to get EAd.
Loot boxes are not 'predatory by nature'. They have been used in games for a lot longer than they have been abused in games. Buying Overwatch loot boxes is not a common thing. As I said before, it hovers around 'rare' most of the time, and goes up to 'low' during events. What hole EA prefers to fuck you in is not part of the question - I'd be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
They add good skins. Skins you are likely to want just as much as that 3month old one. I would be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not. And by the way skins are almost never added. A couple of updates ago was the first time since the game's release that they added non-event skins to a hero that wasn't Reinhardt.
So, I'm still right, and the pool is still diluted? You're still wrong?
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
And that need is adequately fed by the rate you can get them by playing the game. It's been very carefully balanced like that. I'd be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not.
It's balanced to keep you docile, because otherwise people would stop paying.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
This is just ass-pulling. They talk extensively about their motivations for every decision, and they all make sense. They post videos about it a lot of the time, even. I'd be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not.
They're a business. You watch their PR, but the business drive isn't the people you're watching.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
I'm failing to follow this one, mostly because you're failing to make your point properly.
No, I think it's pretty clear. Companies want money. That is their #1 goal, above all else. Allowing you to get things without paying is a bid for good will. They absolutely do not want everyone to get all the skins that way.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Loot boxes are not 'predatory by nature'.
Incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about. You should focus on glasses in colors other than rose, perhaps.
-
@onyx said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Consider, why did the game cost $30 to start with? Why wasn't it free, like their previous release, Hearthstone?
Because they knew they can get away with it.
I can't tell whether this is supposed to be an obvious truth that you lead into your logic with, or a shocking revelation that's supposed to open my eyes. Either way, what a stupid comparison.
So, what to do, what to... oh, right, microtransactions! And because we are Blizzard and we know people will lap anything we make up (I mean fuck, we got away with Diablo 3!), make it lootboxes as well!
Wrong sequence of events. Loot boxes were around in the beta as gameplay-only items, but a decision was made close to the release date for them to be purchasable as well.
But we'll still fuck them for those $30 upfront. Not because we need to, but because WE CAN!
Or because you don't just F2P a triple-A class game without some serious bullshit tactics.
And no, they didn't need the money to cover development cost, they are fucking Blizzard, they can afford it.
That's not how it works. The game has to sustain itself. They don't just shunt profits from one game to cover a deficiency in another.
Did anyone, ever, complain about LoL's payment model and have a legit complaint? Here's a hint: no. Because it's fair. Because it respects the consumer.
Hi, I hate LoL's payment model. You end up paying far more than you would have just to buy a complete game in the first place, in a fiercely competitive game where every hero has a different playstyle and purpose, and it is more deceptive because you are far more likely to make these transactions that would cost more than a full game would when the game is free. I find it immensely ironic that you talk about profit motivation like it's evil, and then gloat that Riot is making a FUCKING KILLING.
-
@magus said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
They add good skins. Skins you are likely to want just as much as that 3month old one. I would be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not. And by the way skins are almost never added. A couple of updates ago was the first time since the game's release that they added non-event skins to a hero that wasn't Reinhardt.
So, I'm still right, and the pool is still diluted? You're still wrong?
No. You are wrong. Your complaint depends on the pool being diluted rapidly. By the way, they tweaked the drop rates when they added that expansion so that you'd be more likely to get better payouts until you'd accumulated payouts due to the rate change proportional to the pool increase, to address that exact problem. I don't get why you can't fathom that they really do care.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
And that need is adequately fed by the rate you can get them by playing the game. It's been very carefully balanced like that. I'd be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not.
It's balanced to keep you docile, because otherwise people would stop paying.
is your argument here? It keeps us 'docile', as you put it, because there's nothing wrong with it. You start with 'this shit is bad', and then when I say 'but they don't do that' you stick with 'yeah that's just to keep you from being annoyed' and I'm supposed to conclude that they're still doing something bad? If you want to make your arguments from a dogmatic standpoint then that's fine by me but you still have to present them as being backed up by something.@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
This is just ass-pulling. They talk extensively about their motivations for every decision, and they all make sense. They post videos about it a lot of the time, even. I'd be wrong if I were talking about a different game, but I'm not.
They're a business. You watch their PR, but the business drive isn't the people you're watching.
There is a possibility that you would be right. That escalates to a probability with other game studios. But with the level of openness that they've been maintaining - if it's all a façade, then it's beyond what I believe their cover-up ability is. Besides, they aren't EA. You're equating them with horrible companies because of the loot boxes, and equating the loot boxes with evil because horrible companies do it. It's circular.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
I'm failing to follow this one, mostly because you're failing to make your point properly.
No, I think it's pretty clear. Companies want money. That is their #1 goal, above all else. Allowing you to get things without paying is a bid for good will. They absolutely do not want everyone to get all the skins that way.
People have done in-depth analyses of these things. The loot box system is well balanced and there's data to back it up. They don't do anything shady like decreasing odds if you earn a bunch in a row, and while you're not going to get 'every skin' you're going to get a good range of them, and enough duplicates to net you enough currency to get that one you really want.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Loot boxes are not 'predatory by nature'.
Incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about. You should focus on glasses in colors other than rose, perhaps.
There was more to what I said than that single sentence, you know. You should look at it.
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Besides, they aren't EA.
Yeah, I get it. they're Activision. the guys who patented using microtransactions extra harmfully.
-
@magus said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Besides, they aren't EA.
Yeah, I get it. they're Activision. the guys who patented using microtransactions extra harmfully.
No, they're Blizzard, and even with them they're going in a completely new direction with Overwatch. I can't tell if this is a joke I'm supposed to get or if you think Activision made Overwatch.
-
@pie_flavor They're the same company. Following the same executive demands and shareholders.
-
Oh man, if you guys hate lootboxes this much, you're gonna love the P2W hell Korean MMO of a game I'm going to write a review for once I'm done settling into the new house and have a bit more time.
-
@onyx said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Let me tell you about a small company. It was formed by a bunch of people who made a popular mod. It was so popular, in fact, they figured hey, we can make our own game out of this! So they released it for free, told everyone here, the thing that you so loved, now build from ground up, just like we wanted! And it's free! We do however have fancy skins, and emotes, and shiny shit. You can get those for a few bucks to support us, and the game, and show off to your friends.
And thus, they folded and faded into obscurity, because a small company with a good idea and a decent business model is just not enough, you need to milk every cent... Oh no wait, they are called Riot games and they are making a FUCKING KILLING. And good on them. Did anyone, ever, complain about LoL's payment model and have a legit complaint? Here's a hint: no. Because it's fair. Because it respects the consumer. And because it's build on top of a game people love (I don't, but fuck it, others do).
It upsets me that LoL even continues to exist. But hey, if people want to control a single unit using RTS controls and their associated roundtrip latency, where taking a risk by going on an offensive is punished harshly, where people use inscrutable two-letter codes to communicate game state, and where they play the same goddamned map all day, I guess that means any game can be a success, right? Right?
-
@magus said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@onyx They typically did things like '+0.01% mana regeneration' or '+2% cooldown speed' iirc, typically numbers so low they didn't even hurt the balance. Still wasn't a fan.
That reminds me of some of the talent trees in WoW. You spend thirty points and get a skill which makes your next hit have a 100% chance of crit with a five minute cooldown. Dear God! Someone might do the equivalent of one more attack in the span of five minutes! The horror!
-
@groaner It's of slightly more import if people who spend money get 5 and you only get 1, but at least they didn't do much. But I didn't like that game in the first place.
It has the same problem as Overwatch and TF2, despite being a MOBA: Absolutely nothing has impact.
-
@groaner said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
It upsets me that LoL even continues to exist. But hey, if people want to control a single unit using RTS controls and their associated roundtrip latency, where taking a risk by going on an offensive is punished harshly, where people use inscrutable two-letter codes to communicate game state, and where they play the same goddamned map all day, I guess that means any game can be a success, right? Right?
No shit.
Say what you want about SMITE, but at least it has different maps and game modes.
-
@blakeyrat said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Say what you want about SMITE, but at least it has different maps and game modes.
And this is what I hate most about the genre. Any of them that have maps and different game modes get relegated to obscurity and eventual death. Heroes of Newerth had a fun enough 3v3 map, and some other maps too. No one plays it. Demigod had all kinds of maps and game modes. It died FAST. Even LoL had different maps. I doubt anyone plays them now.
Because you get the worst possible mix: Competitive know-it-all elitists tell everyone that different maps means you have to learn entire new maps, and no one wants that anyway. And then it becomes true, and no one ever plays those modes, so you can never find a game there even if you want to.
It's seriously a genre made of pure garbage.
-
@magus They're still run completely differently. It's like comparing Lucasfilm to Pixar.
-
@magus HOTS opinions?
-
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
I can't tell whether this is supposed to be an obvious truth that you lead into your logic with, or a shocking revelation that's supposed to open my eyes. Either way, what a stupid comparison.
It's a game made by the same company, using a microtransaction model of the same kind (though there are expansions on top of the lootboxes as well). Why did they charge for one but not the other? And if the only argument is "it's a bigger game, it took longer", I can point out like 15 F2P MMOs the size of WoW. They didn't charge upfront, for some reason.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Wrong sequence of events. Loot boxes were around in the beta as gameplay-only items, but a decision was made close to the release date for them to be purchasable as well.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
The game has to sustain itself.
So... what you're saying the initial sales should've been enough, but they later decided to add an extra revenue stream that they didn't actually need? Ok.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
They don't just shunt profits from one game to cover a deficiency in another.
No, but you reinvest money from one project into another. You don't liquidate the company and start over for each project, right? So, they had all the funds they initially needed.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Hi, I hate LoL's payment model. You end up paying far more than you would have just to buy a complete game in the first place, in a fiercely competitive game where every hero has a different playstyle and purpose, and it is more deceptive because you are far more likely to make these transactions that would cost more than a full game would when the game is free.
- I know a lot of people who play it completely for free. They give free weeks of trying out like what, three champions each week, so you can see if you even want it. You don't need all 200 anyway.
- The grind for individual champions is not even long (it is if you want ALL of them, yes), and you can directly buy exactly what you want and nothing else.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
I find it immensely ironic that you talk about profit motivation like it's evil, and then gloat that Riot is making a FUCKING KILLING.
I have no problem with people making money. I have a problem with people making money by shoving their cocks up my ass after making me pay for dinner. And they had fucking lobster, too!
-
@pie_flavor It's just as bad.
Here's the thing: You price lootboxes such that, if you were to get what you want the first time, it should be less than half the price. Maybe far less than that, even. Because no one buys just one. Lets say someone feels kind of scummy paying for cosmetics in a game they already paid for, which is fair, but they decide to go cheap so they can get a lootbox or two. You get this nice animation, showing the rarity of the items you got, and WOW, you just pulled a legendary! Awesome! Too bad you hate the character it's for. Well, maybe next time.
Except next time, you get all commons. Well, you have like 33 points left after your last purchase, and so you can't actually buy anything. It's been disappointing. But you have this memory in the back of your head from then on of getting a legendary, and not having been able to use all your points.
What part of that scenario do you think is them not doing something manipulative? No one who buys loot boxes only buys one!
-
@onyx said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
I can't tell whether this is supposed to be an obvious truth that you lead into your logic with, or a shocking revelation that's supposed to open my eyes. Either way, what a stupid comparison.
It's a game made by the same company, using a microtransaction model of the same kind (though there are expansions on top of the lootboxes as well). Why did they charge for one but not the other? And if the only argument is "it's a bigger game, it took longer", I can point out like 15 F2P MMOs the size of WoW. They didn't charge upfront, for some reason.
We are not talking about WoW. We are talking about Overwatch. And I'll bet that most of those MMOs let you get into the story just enough to get hooked and then require you to pay.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Wrong sequence of events. Loot boxes were around in the beta as gameplay-only items, but a decision was made close to the release date for them to be purchasable as well.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
The game has to sustain itself.
So... what you're saying the initial sales should've been enough, but they later decided to add an extra revenue stream that they didn't actually need? Ok.
And? Revenue is revenue, and it doesn't damage anything (in the precarious way that they set it up what with earn balancing and reward chance balancing and etc).
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
They don't just shunt profits from one game to cover a deficiency in another.
No, but you reinvest money from one project into another. You don't liquidate the company and start over for each project, right? So, they had all the funds they initially needed.
Initially, yes. But after it is released it should be able to both sustain itself and pay back that investment. That's why you call it an investment and not a money shredder.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
Hi, I hate LoL's payment model. You end up paying far more than you would have just to buy a complete game in the first place, in a fiercely competitive game where every hero has a different playstyle and purpose, and it is more deceptive because you are far more likely to make these transactions that would cost more than a full game would when the game is free.
- I know a lot of people who play it completely for free. They give free weeks of trying out like what, three champions each week, so you can see if you even want it. You don't need all 200 anyway.
I know a lot of people who play Overwatch for only the sticker price. They give free lootboxes every what, two to four games, so you can get new cosmetics constantly. You don't need all god knows how many anyway.
- The grind for individual champions is not even long (it is if you want ALL of them, yes), and you can directly buy exactly what you want and nothing else.
The grind for individual cosmetics is not even long (it is if you want ALL of them, yes) and you can directly buy exactly what you want and nothing else with gold accumulated from duplicates.
The difference is that one is cosmetic and one is game-changing.
@pie_flavor said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
I find it immensely ironic that you talk about profit motivation like it's evil, and then gloat that Riot is making a FUCKING KILLING.
I have no problem with people making money. I have a problem with people making money by shoving their cocks up my ass after making me pay for dinner. And they had fucking lobster, too!
Except... they haven't. In Overwatch, you've got your full, complete game. No content is being withheld from you behind a paywall. There is a shortcut (note: I do NOT count 'shortcuts' that are the intended route, you are supposed to be getting your loot crates via gameplay) if you want to pay, but it's not a shortcut that means anything. In LoL, the majority of the content is behind a paywall, and it's very important because it has huge effects on how the game is played.
-
@onyx said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
And if the only argument is "it's a bigger game, it took longer", I can point out like 15 F2P MMOs the size of WoW.
(None of those launched as F2P, though. It's impossible to make a game the size of WoW or Guild Wars 2 or Elder Scrolls Online without charging the dough up-front.)
-
@Magus said in Wherein Onyx is an old crumudgeon, microtransaction edition:
@Onyx They typically did things like '+0.01% mana regeneration' or '+2% cooldown speed' iirc, typically numbers so low they didn't even hurt the balance. Still wasn't a fan.
They aren't quite that low. They do have an effect in-game. It's just that the effect isn't all that noticeable until you're fairly proficient. Other things (like skill timing and knowledge of game mechanics) tend to have more effect for most players.
