Genuine Question: Why do mobile games need to be pay to win?

[Ghost of Cow]

My only question about a lot of the legislation and opinions on these topics is whether or not it's just the same old "internet is scary!" boogeyman stuff, or if they're going to be consistent and ban baseball cards and MtG packs and whatnot.

Hell, if "the children!" is really their argument, then physical card packs have always been more accessible to children. I bought MtG packs like a fiend for years as a teen. We had a really big scene (for the time) in my area and it was just what a lot of us did. Are we talking about banning that today, or is it just scary internet stuff and scary devil video games?

[Cthulhu 2020]

My only question about a lot of the legislation and opinions on these topics is whether or not it's just the same old "internet is scary!" boogeyman stuff, or if they're going to be consistent and ban baseball cards and MtG packs and whatnot.

Hell, if "the children!" is really their argument, then physical card packs have always been more accessible to children. I bought MtG packs like a fiend for years as a teen. We had a really big scene (for the time) in my area and it was just what a lot of us did. Are we talking about banning that today, or is it just scary internet stuff and scary devil video games?

Why am I not surprised you completely misrepresent what's going on here? lmao

But it's pretty obvious the vocabulary used in the report went way way way over your head.



- - - Updated - - -

Bombed ratings mean nothing

Yes clearly there is some kind of mass conspiracy just to make D:I look bad and people's displeasure is faked. I see...

[Ghost of Cow]

Why am I not surprised you completely misrepresent what's going on here? lmao

But it's pretty obvious the vocabulary used in the report went way way way over your head.

That's not really a reply, just another batch of insults from you.

It's a serious question. If FIFA card packs or OverWatch loot boxes are bad, then are baseball card packs and MtG packs? Especially since the latter may contain things of real value?

If you struggle to answer that, then you may need to evaluate your feelings on the issue and see where your bias lies.

[Fencers]

User ratings are of no value or importance in any media. There is no way to know the motive of the user or the context in which the user is reviewing.

There is a lot written about CinemaScore, THE industry standard, in the film industry that is similar to other media user scores. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, and Fandango all based their models of aggregation for user scores on the data of CinemaScore and other aggregation engines.

There is a reason user reviews are separated from professional and scholarly reviews on almost every major platform for all media.

It will never be otherwise and historically, never has.

[owbu]

I think it's just some sort of evolutionary pressure, because there is plenty of reasons to design a cheap cash vampire (you will either make a lot of money or not lose a lot of money). So hundreds of them get released everyday.

But as an indie who wants to make something better, that's your competition. Hundreds of games that are "free" to play. You can take your chances with your cash first game that is actually good, but chances are players will never hear about it or won't buy it because "mobile games are usually shit". And then your studio goes kaputt, because making a good game is actually quite expensive.

And as a dev in a big company you have to convince the higher ups that spending a whole bunch of money on a good mobile game - a market that isn't willing to pay up front according to industry wisdom (which is what the higher ups listen to) - is somehow the better opportunity than making one that makes them a lot more money. So one of these making it, is also a pretty rare event.

And so you have hundreds of terrible games release every day and the occasional good one, that usually doesn't do well. And so players and devs continue to believe that good mobile games are not worth making/paying for.

In order for that to change, there would have to be a big culutural change that makes CEOs believe in the customers interest in good mobile games, customers believe that buying mobile games is worth it and some event that removes the influx of cheap to make goldmine games that just seem like the safer and more lucrative alternative.

So some sort of Goverment regulation or just customers wising up to their tricks and refusing to engage in shady buisness practices. Some companies app store starting to specialize in "good mobile games" as a PR campaign that useres really flock to. Something like that. It won't just happen, because it's the right thing to do and you can maybe make enough money with a good game, too.

[Cthulhu 2020]

User ratings are of no value or importance in any media.

Wrong. Of course there are people who will like things that 99% of people dislike. I've never ever said pay to win mobile games aren't fun for anyone. But think of every game that's gotten review bombed in the last 10 years. They were all absolute shit at launch. D:I is no different. And the worst part is that it was a halfway decent Diablo game in beta.

People who say "reviews don't matter" are always the tiny population of players that actually like said games and just want some excuse. Games can live and die by their review score.

There are entire businesses built around spamming 5 star reviews for you app/business/profile. And most big studios use their services. Huh... now if reviews didn't matter... why are there companies designed to post positive fake reviews? And why do they make SO MUCH MONEY? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

There's a huge portion of the market that wants to know whether or not people see a game as good before they commit to it. To say they have no value or importance is ignorant to an almost hilarious degree, especially for someone in your field. It really really really just sounds like sour grapes coming from you. How different do you think D:I would be doing right now if it was well received and well rated?


FFXIV 1.0
No Man's Sky
Warcraft 3 Refunded
Fallout 76
Star Wars Battlefront 2
WoW classic TBC monetized cash grab BS
Diablo Immoral

Now, I want you to look at that list and think about which studios took the time to make the game better, and which ones just abandoned it after the initial cash grab.




And as an aside from an earlier topic, being disappointed with how many AAA studios have microtransactions, I got curious and I looked up recent AAA game releases that did not have microtransactions. The great majority of the list was nintendo and square enix games. Not to say that those publishers don't have games with microtransactions, but a lot of their games don't.

[Mysterymask]

And as an aside from an earlier topic, being disappointed with how many AAA studios have microtransactions, I got curious and I looked up recent AAA game releases that did not have microtransactions. The great majority of the list was nintendo and square enix games. Not to say that those publishers don't have games with microtransactions, but a lot of their games don't.

...what

Ok Nintendo I'll kinda give you since they are a different beast and smash is like the one time they actually did DLC and fighting game players are a little more accepting of DLC


But square? SQUARE?
Did you not forget all the crap they got for FFXVs DLC
Or 14s giant cash shop
Or ALL the crap the Avengers game got
The episodic life is strange games?
The FF7 remake being split into 3 games?
I mean a lot of the stuff on steam is either "definitive editions" or remakes of old stuff Guardians of the Galaxy being a small exception ONLY cause square was selling the Marvel licence so they can invest in NFTs

[ldev]

User ratings are of no value or importance in any media. There is no way to know the motive of the user or the context in which the user is reviewing.

There is a lot written about CinemaScore, THE industry standard, in the film industry that is similar to other media user scores. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, and Fandango all based their models of aggregation for user scores on the data of CinemaScore and other aggregation engines.

There is a reason user reviews are separated from professional and scholarly reviews on almost every major platform for all media.

It will never be otherwise and historically, never has.

Aye, 0.4 just looks pathetic - bunch of manchildren throwing a hissy fit, meanwhile people are spending thousands and it's popular and talked about. Yea, that 0.4 rating really showed blizzard exdee, D:I brought only $3.5 in revenue, ruined, gamers rise up, etc

[Fencers]

Wrong.

Nah. You don't know what you are talking about. User ratings have no control, editor, no vetting and no professional standard continuation depends on.

If the LAT or NYer publish a lot of BS reviews, they eventually lose business. They have a professional incentive to cultivate excellence in their reviews.

I can hire someone to bot review Top Gun: Maverick or Her Stroy in one phone call right now if I wanted to do so. Again, there is 100% a reason why no platform weights user ratings as professional ratings. Never has, and never will.

[Popastique]

Once again, here is the core question of my OP: Why is something being a mobile game an excuse for it being 1. bad 2. pay to win. Because D:I in alpha and beta before the cash shop sounded like an extremely fun game.

"Well because it needs to make money!"

Mobile games can make money without being pay to win. They make more money if they're pay to win, sure. But they can still make money. So why do players polish Blizzard's knob for what happened with this game? Why are gaming companies conditioning players to think this sort of thing is okay?

Thing is, you are late to the party. As you've mentioned early mobile games didn't have that p2w mentality, but that was many many many many years ago. Yes p2w is nasty, but it has become a norm for many years in a row, people are used to it. You want to change how that works? Welp, you have to make all those people stop spending money to send a signal. Will that happen? Chances are practically zero.
And slamming Blizzard is pointless because every other mobile game company is doing it. Yeah, instead of 100k USD one may spend about 30k or 40k USD to top their character or smthing like that in other games, but does it make that much of a difference? Nope, you are still spending money.

P.S. I don't believe there are any p2p titles below, are there?

[Fencers]

I knew Genshin Impact was gonna be a game-changer when it came out that year opposite CP2077. I think I said as much in the GI thread or somewhere else.

The style, design, presentation, ease of operation, cash shop, and terrific labeling were going to make it a surefire success. It is a "perfect" game in terms of marketability.

[Elim Garak]

I knew Genshin Impact was gonna be a game-changer when it came out that year opposite CP2077. I think I said as much in the GI thread or somewhere else.

The style, design, presentation, ease of operation, cash shop, and terrific labeling were going to make it a surefire success. It is a "perfect" game in terms of marketability.

And those rankings are mobile only. I'm pretty sure Genshin rakes some $$ from PC as well.

[Fencers]

And those rankings are mobile only. I'm pretty sure Genshin rakes some $$ from PC as well.

Good point. You're right.

[Ghost of Cow]

Yeah, Genshin is absurd and is another game that lets you play just fine as a 100% F2P player.

Though I haven't logged on in ages. Just hasn't been in my gaming mood space lately I guess.

[Cthulhu 2020]

...what

Ok Nintendo I'll kinda give you since they are a different beast and smash is like the one time they actually did DLC and fighting game players are a little more accepting of DLC


But square? SQUARE?
Did you not forget all the crap they got for FFXVs DLC
Or 14s giant cash shop
Or ALL the crap the Avengers game got
The episodic life is strange games?
The FF7 remake being split into 3 games?
I mean a lot of the stuff on steam is either "definitive editions" or remakes of old stuff Guardians of the Galaxy being a small exception ONLY cause square was selling the Marvel licence so they can invest in NFTs

Did you... did you not read the post I made?

I said the list of games from AAA studios that didn't have micro transactions is largely nintendo and Square, and I acknowledged that Square has microtransactional games, but a ton of their games also don't, more than most companies except nintendo.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah. You don't know what you are talking about. User ratings have no control, editor, no vetting and no professional standard continuation depends on.

If the LAT or NYer publish a lot of BS reviews, they eventually lose business. They have a professional incentive to cultivate excellence in their reviews.

I can hire someone to bot review Top Gun: Maverick or Her Stroy in one phone call right now if I wanted to do so. Again, there is 100% a reason why no platform weights user ratings as professional ratings. Never has, and never will.

Lack of complete control doesn't make them "useless". Perhaps your point is that they are not tightly controlled, but that does not make themof not value or importance. The metacritic score is one of the most highly cited among journalists covering the game, clocking in tens of millions of views and reads across youtube and popular websites. People see that and it puts an image in their head. It affects how they approach and see the game.

If you'd used proper vocabulary, perhaps I would have agreed with you. Claiming the metacritic score has no controls would have been accurate. But claiming it lacks importance when it's had a massive presence in media about the game? Either sour grapes, or hilariously deaf to everything that's been going on.

[Fencers]

Lack of complete control doesn't make them "useless".

It does make them useless. Aggregate sites and industry polling have no control over user reviews. Only publication thereof- but that is not relevant to the discussion.

You will rarely ever see "users rate this a 78%!" on a piece of media. You will see, "Critic's Choice", "Certified Fresh", etc.

Everything I said was perfectly stated and accurate. As said, you simply do not know what you are talking about at all. You are wrong, absolutely so.

[Ghost of Cow]

It does make them useless. Aggregate sites and industry polling have no control over user reviews. Only publication thereof- but that is not relevant to the discussion.

You will rarely ever see "users rate this a 78%!" on a piece of media. You will see, "Critic's Choice", "Certified Fresh", etc.

Everything I said was perfectly stated and accurate. As said, you simply do not know what you are talking about at all. You are wrong, absolutely so.

You'll never convince them otherwise because they passionately want to believe in that 0.4 score or whatever.

[Fencers]

You'll never convince them otherwise because they passionately want to believe in that 0.4 score or whatever.

Not important to convince them specifically. I am speaking against an incorrect and ignorant notion. This thread will likely be around as long as the web host. Forum posting is speaking to the idea, not the "person".

[Cthulhu 2020]

You will rarely ever see "users rate this a 78%!" on a piece of media.

You've never heard of consumer reports before, have you? Oof... sadge.

You will see, "Critic's Choice", "Certified Fresh", etc.

Let me ask you this, do you actually think D:I is a "good game"? Because beyond the combat, the game is very bland and boring. It has a milquetoast story that doesn't do anything new or bold. The progression system is very very easy until it isn't. The PvP is imbalanced and designed for whale bait. Even without the cash shop, does this game truly deserve anything above a 5/10? Is it anywhere even remotely close to Path of Exile's level of polish? Absolutely not. It's a D3 copy paste with a cash shop. Perhaps the "game" deserves more than a 0.4, but people are rating the entire user experience, not just the gameplay.

"Professional" critics gave it 62/100 and honestly, "Professional critics" are some of the most worthless reviews in video games, as they've often given games extremely high scores when they didn't deserve them at all. Big AAA games that turn out to be shit get 93's while indie games that are beloved and played far more get 50's and 60's from "professionals". Even you should know that professional video game critics are a sham, as the big studios are often just in bed with the reviewers with some generous kickbacks because they KNOW games live and die by their review scores. Gaming companies also front end their gaming experiences with visceral, compelling gameplay that becomes bland after the 10 hour mark because they know reviewers won't get past that point.

Why do you think metacritic user scores have become so universally looked to in the past decade? Because gamers know that "professionals" are full of shit and paid off.

You know nothing, John Snow, and stop trying to pretend otherwise. You think you do because of your work, but gamers don't trust professional reviewers, and would rather hear from each other.

And again, even you admitted, you can pay a company money to either review bomb or rate up a game. Why do you think these rating bot companies exist in such large quantities? If user scores are so "useless" then why are they treated so importantly by gaming studios?

[MrKnubbles]

As someone who makes mobile games, I will say it's because of greed. They know some people will pay. I'm personally not a fan of that. I made sure everything in my games is obtainable as a free-to-play player with enough time. If you enjoy a little bit of grind (nothing crazy of course), you will eventually reach your goals. Since they're solo games, there is no pay-to-win. Any in-app purchases can speed up progression, of course, but you're not competing against anyone, so you're just paying to end the game sooner. 2/3 of my revenue was from ads.