Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
LastLast
  1. #201
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,488
    Quote Originally Posted by crusadernero View Post
    You might cheer gleefully at wow tokens, battlepasses and every other microtransaction out there and thats fine. But to say that it wont evolve to new & maybe worse ways to exploit gamers are outright ignorant.
    You ask what I'm talking about with inventing scenarios then keep talking about your fear of things getting worse. It may. It may not. Diablo 4 is hardly an example of bad monetization. You can't buy power. It is only cosmetics. The horse armor from Obsidian was 17 years ago. Stop holding on to the past so hard. We've even seen games pull back from poorly received monetization.

    The same argument you keep using for "It will get worse" has been said with WoW since the store was added in Wrath of the Lich King. Look at it now with the Trading Post that allows you to earn stuff in-game with in-game activities. All it is is fear mongering. Vote with your wallet if you are afraid that much. Usually though it is a principle that is rarely followed.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Noxina View Post
    How is a seasonal pass with cosmetics fucking the game? I guess LoL is absolutely mega fucked, as it has both seasonal pass AND an MTX store.
    When did people lose the plot this hard? FTP vs BTP, google it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    Nah nah, see... I live by one simple creed: You might catch more flies with honey, but to catch honeys you gotta be fly.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoibert the Bear View Post
    I don't expect you to understand, honestly. But can we at least agree that I'm not telling you what to do with your money? Keep supporting the business practice if you deem it ok. All I'm saying is that to me, you are a turd flinging ape with too much disposable income, that's it. You do you.

    I sure hope the "new content" you get from paying extra... Is free. Or you'd be paying for it twice

    - - - Updated - - -

    P.S. your money is not going to support the game. Sorry. This is where it goes.

    You know who else got yachts?

    People who made your phone, computer, operation system, gaming gadgets, TV, coffee brewer and beans, the bank where you have money and the creditcard you use. The car you are driving and what ever you watch on streaming.

    I thought the european culture and education system, would had provided with more nuance than yacht bashing.
    Last edited by HansOlo; 2023-04-05 at 07:01 PM.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    You ask what I'm talking about with inventing scenarios then keep talking about your fear of things getting worse. It may. It may not. Diablo 4 is hardly an example of bad monetization. You can't buy power. It is only cosmetics. The horse armor from Obsidian was 17 years ago. Stop holding on to the past so hard. We've even seen games pull back from poorly received monetization.

    The same argument you keep using for "It will get worse" has been said with WoW since the store was added in Wrath of the Lich King. Look at it now with the Trading Post that allows you to earn stuff in-game with in-game activities. All it is is fear mongering. Vote with your wallet if you are afraid that much. Usually though it is a principle that is rarely followed.
    When did I say Diablo 4 is the worst example? Yeah, the Obsidian horse was 17 years ago. Thats literally the whole point. If someone releases a horse to buy in a game today, no one cares. They did 17 years ago. Is this concept so difficult to understand? This got nothing to with "holding to the past", whatever that means(?). Its a concrete example.

    And really - why wouldnt this evolve into ever greater ways to churn out money from players? It has worked really good for a decade or so now. Why not keep going and find new ways to do it? Makes no sense at all. Afterall, this is about making money.

    The tradepost is great, sure. No question about it. Smart and good move by Blizzard. Gives an extra reason to stay subbed too. That said - aprils trading post was kinda boring!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by HansOlo View Post
    You know who else got yachts?

    People who made your phone, computer, operation system, gaming gadgets, TV, coffee brewer and beans, the bank where you have money and the creditcard you use. The car you are driving and what ever you watch on streaming.

    I thought the european culture and education system, would had provided with more nuance than yacht bashing.
    Yes, you are correct. Still, people should be able to call out business practices that they find bad/wrong everywhere and at all time, even though they do engage and live in the society with cellphones, TVs and all that. Would be weird otherwise.

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by crusadernero View Post
    When did I say Diablo 4 is the worst example? Yeah, the Obsidian horse was 17 years ago. Thats literally the whole point. If someone releases a horse to buy in a game today, no one cares. They did 17 years ago. Is this concept so difficult to understand? This got nothing to with "holding to the past", whatever that means(?). Its a concrete example.

    And really - why wouldnt this evolve into ever greater ways to churn out money from players? It has worked really good for a decade or so now. Why not keep going and find new ways to do it? Makes no sense at all. Afterall, this is about making money.

    The tradepost is great, sure. No question about it. Smart and good move by Blizzard. Gives an extra reason to stay subbed too. That said - aprils trading post was kinda boring!

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yes, you are correct. Still, people should be able to call out business practices that they find bad/wrong everywhere and at all time, even though they do engage and live in the society with cellphones, TVs and all that. Would be weird otherwise.
    No. It's called business practice when we talk about Blizzard. It's some parasitic influencer statement, that made people numb in thier head.

    Jeff Bezos’ superyacht is so big it needs its own yacht:
    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/10/b...cht/index.html

    Business Practice the hell out of Amazon I guess?
    Last edited by HansOlo; 2023-04-05 at 07:22 PM.

  6. #206
    Immortal jackofwind's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Why not? Value is individual to the person making the purchase.
    Because individual consumers don't set retail prices?

    I'm not talking about how much people value games, I'm talking about how much games sell for.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Because fuck you, that's why.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    If you want a game to be always online, and constantly getting free updates, it is kinda a given they need more income somehow. diablo 4 is doing cosmetics and that's it.
    Wow does subs and cosmetics, ff14 does subs and cosmetics, etc.
    But a lot of us DONT want the game to be always online...

  8. #208
    Immortal jackofwind's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcsaar View Post
    But a lot of us DONT want the game to be always online...
    Then go play some SNES games.

    The future is always online, better get used to it.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Because fuck you, that's why.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcsaar View Post
    But a lot of us DONT want the game to be always online...
    More players are happy with the game being online than not, diablo 3 was online only game also. If it bothers you that much dont play the game at all.
    STAR-J4R9-YYK4 use this for 5000 credits in star citizen

  10. #210
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,488
    Quote Originally Posted by jackofwind View Post
    Because individual consumers don't set retail prices?
    Right. You are talking about games being over/under priced which is all about the value derived by the consumer. The metric to measure that is always subjective because it is based on the individual buying it. You know why I said it varies to much to make a general statement on games as a whole. Individual games have different things that make a price worth it or not worth it.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  11. #211
    Immortal jackofwind's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Right. You are talking about games being over/under priced which is all about the value derived by the consumer. The metric to measure that is always subjective because it is based on the individual buying it. You know why I said it varies to much to make a general statement on games as a whole. Individual games have different things that make a price worth it or not worth it.
    I'm talking about the price of games weighed against the cost of developing them + profit for companies to continue successfully.

    May that doesn't define "value" since that's a subjective metric, but I believe people in this thread are saying "games are overpriced" before they even play them. How can someone possibly assign value to a game they've never played, or only played minimally?

    This is all talking about games bought new of course - secondhand and collector's stuff is a whole different question.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Because fuck you, that's why.

  12. #212
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,488
    Quote Originally Posted by jackofwind View Post
    I'm talking about the price of games weighed against the cost of developing them + profit for companies to continue successfully.
    There isn't one universal cost for development to know if a game is over or under priced based on the cost. That relies on so much more then just the cost like sales, budget restrictions, post-launch content etc. GTA5 has earned $7.68 billion since its launch in 2013. Does that mean it was over priced because its profit was so much higher then its cost? What about Anthem? Was it over or under priced because it failed to a 6 million sales target?

    If they have played the game minimally then its value to the person is low. If they haven't played it and don't want to play it then it has low value to a person. Value is what you get out of something. I'm not sure why how to assign value to something is a question. Have you never done that before in your life?
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  13. #213
    Immortal jackofwind's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    There isn't one universal cost for development to know if a game is over or under priced based on the cost. That relies on so much more then just the cost like sales, budget restrictions, post-launch content etc. GTA5 has earned $7.68 billion since its launch in 2013. Does that mean it was over priced because its profit was so much higher then its cost? What about Anthem? Was it over or under priced because it failed to a 6 million sales target?

    If they have played the game minimally then its value to the person is low. If they haven't played it and don't want to play it then it has low value to a person. Value is what you get out of something. I'm not sure why how to assign value to something is a question. Have you never done that before in your life?
    By that metric though it's literally impossible to say whether games are overpriced or not.

    Is Hollow Knight underpriced because it's fantastic and nearly universally loved, and has always been about $15? I don't think so - its retail cost is based on its development cost and the business model of the developer. It's completely separate from the value that people place on the game.

    To answer your examples: I don't believe GTA5 wasn't overpriced, and neither was Anthem. The retail price of a game isn't tied in my mind whatsoever to whether people end up liking it or not, it's more tied to the perceived development cost. A simple stickman game selling for $25 on mobile is, in my opinion, overpriced. By the same token, a game with a huge development budget is going to cost more to purchase.

    That's why I'm trying to get away from using the word value - because I'm saying that value does not actually impact the cost of new games. It has everything to do with the used game market, but I believe every game developer is going to try to sell their game for the price they think will give them the best return. I doubt they'll be making that decision on the assumption that people will think their game is trash but buy it anyway.

    Anyways, that's just my opinion. I feel like we're talking about two different things, or at least two different facets of the same thing.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Because fuck you, that's why.

  14. #214
    There is nothing you can do for people who want to buy the battlepass. If you're 30+ years old and you want to subscribe to videos games that are designed to milk you for every cent you have... nothing you can say to them. I wish these guys would see how much money Activision (and etc) spend on brainwashing them into being consumers.

    I hope that when you're on your deathbed you can look back at all those hundreds of hours, grinding loot with your cosmetic armor on spraying pretty particle effects, and feel like those were good hours/dollars spent.

  15. #215
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,488
    Quote Originally Posted by jackofwind View Post
    By that metric though it's literally impossible to say whether games are overpriced or not.
    Now your getting it. Even saying perceived development cost is subjective and impossible to say from one person to the next. You aren't getting away from saying value you are just saying the same thing but with a different word. A game of semantics essentially as you said the perception of development costs, as in value, factors into your opinion on if a game is over priced or not.

    $25 for a stickman game is over priced because you aren't getting enough value out of its perceived development.
    Last edited by rhorle; 2023-04-06 at 01:00 AM.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  16. #216
    Merely a Setback FelPlague's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcsaar View Post
    But a lot of us DONT want the game to be always online...
    "A lot of us" who.
    cause I much rather log on and know my effort is worth it, instead of logging in, to see a wizard with an item with 10,000,000 intelligence and a weapon with 10,000,000,000,000 damage, because they "just so happened" to get it while offline, totally legit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    My ideas are objectively good

  17. #217
    Dreadlord sunxsera's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Germany | Blackmoore-EU
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by crusadernero View Post
    Thing is, its a fine line with these battlepasses. The minute we accept and are fine with BP with only cosmetics, there might very well be something else on the next BP. XP boosts, potions, gems, proff materials - whatever, sky is the limit.

    We are probably at the point were cosmetics on BP is fine enough for most players. As such, we should expect this to rapidly get worse.

    Is what it is.
    I absolutely agree with you here, that is generally my position as well. That beeing said, if they can finance addons, new patches & server infrastructure with it, i'm fine. I also fear a complete escalation of the battle pass though - was never a fan of FOMO mechanics.

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by oplawlz View Post
    When did people lose the plot this hard? FTP vs BTP, google it.
    My point still stands, having a seasonal pass with freaking cosmetics wont ruin anything for anyone except maybe collectors. And you CAN get literally everything in WoW by farming gold and buying tokens.
    Quote Originally Posted by atenime45 View Post
    The 10% reward. It's was unspoken rule that you DONT attack other faction so everyone could enjoy the 10% reward. But now no one cares about that anymore

  19. #219
    First of all, I don't want this to look like a sting aimed at the D4 devs, their friends and families. So please to not get triggered.

    Last year I saw an interview with some high tier dev (could be CDproject person, not sure now) saying that it takes around 200 000 000 dollars to create a triple A game.

    Assuming that D4 development costed 200mil, it would take:

    200 000 000 : 70 dollars basic price ~ 2,9 mil digital copies sold

    2,9 million copies sold to cover production costs.

    Ok, so if D4 development took like ~4 years, do you think that if D4 will sell 5,8 million copies, the devs involved will get a bonus equal to their 4 years work involvement at the game development?

    Obviously not. That goes to company owners, shareholders if company is publicly traded.

    But if D4 will sell 8,7 million digital copies, do you think the devs involved will get a bonus?



    What if D4 will sell 29 million digital copies in the next 3 years. It is a realistic scenario.

    29mil * 70dol ~ 2billion

    Do you think D4 devs will get a bonus equal to their 4 year involvement in development of the game?

    I'm curious if it is working like that, since so many posters here are repeating this "more copies sold, more money for the game devs" narrative.

  20. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Primohastat View Post
    First of all, I don't want this to look like a sting aimed at the D4 devs, their friends and families. So please to not get triggered.

    Last year I saw an interview with some high tier dev (could be CDproject person, not sure now) saying that it takes around 200 000 000 dollars to create a triple A game.

    Assuming that D4 development costed 200mil, it would take:

    200 000 000 : 70 dollars basic price ~ 2,9 mil digital copies sold

    2,9 million copies sold to cover production costs.

    Ok, so if D4 development took like ~4 years, do you think that if D4 will sell 5,8 million copies, the devs involved will get a bonus equal to their 4 years work involvement at the game development?

    Obviously not. That goes to company owners, shareholders if company is publicly traded.

    But if D4 will sell 8,7 million digital copies, do you think the devs involved will get a bonus?



    What if D4 will sell 29 million digital copies in the next 3 years. It is a realistic scenario.

    29mil * 70dol ~ 2billion

    Do you think D4 devs will get a bonus equal to their 4 year involvement in development of the game?

    I'm curious if it is working like that, since so many posters here are repeating this "more copies sold, more money for the game devs" narrative.
    They dont, they get basic salary (pretty bad looking what is reporting for working at blizz) and execs will congratulate themselves.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •