Good to see we still got someone calling the tutorial the "base game".
Alright. Cite where Blizzard referred to the base difficulty story mode of DI as the tutorial and I'll happily concede it is so. Player declarations of such do not count as it isn't their place to make that designation.
Great to know your standards are based on what PR damage control tells you to think.
Really can't take this type of rationale seriously.
My standard is simply one of proof. The ball is in your court. Are you going to take a shot or just keep dribbling.
Good to see we still got someone calling the tutorial the "base game".
Alright. Cite where Blizzard referred to the base difficulty story mode of DI as the tutorial and I'll happily concede it is so. Player declarations of such do not count as it isn't their place to make that designation.
Great to know your standards are based on what PR damage control tells you to think.
Really can't take this type of rationale seriously.
My standard is simply one of proof. The ball is in your court. Are you going to take a shot or just keep dribbling.
The link already does that. Couple links even buried in the comments to provide more ample point.
However, you already admitted you don't care about proof. Ignoring "player declarations" just goes to mean you don't care how much of the game can be demonstrated to go against PR claims, because you'll take PR over anything that can be physically demonstrated by the players.
Can't say I'm surprised though.
Next time you try a metaphor, try to aim at the basket before making a throw.
But that's a brilliant, genius idea. Listen to me, everyone:
let's start mmo.
World of Whales.
Everything is simple. One quest - 1 dollar. One new ability - 10 dollars. One new level - 100 dollars (and we will have, say, 299 levels). One region - 100 dollars. Upgrading dps: 1% - 50 dollars. Upgrading defense: 1% - 49 dollars. Insta-defeat selected player: 10 000 dollars. Revive ability: 1000 $. Sending IM: 1$, sending in-game mail: 50$.
And yeah, not to forget: each piece of equipment costs 49$ to equip.
No, our mmo is NOT pay to win, because starter region and 5 pieces of rags, plus free rat mount and Legendary Axe of owning (making 1 damage point per day) are free.
No need to thank me, just send 5% royalty checque...
Good to see we still got someone calling the tutorial the "base game".
Alright. Cite where Blizzard referred to the base difficulty story mode of DI as the tutorial and I'll happily concede it is so. Player declarations of such do not count as it isn't their place to make that designation.
Great to know your standards are based on what PR damage control tells you to think.
Really can't take this type of rationale seriously.
My standard is simply one of proof. The ball is in your court. Are you going to take a shot or just keep dribbling.
However, you already admitted you don't care about proof. Ignoring "player declarations" just goes to mean you don't care how much of the game can be demonstrated to go against PR claims, because you'll take PR over anything that can be physically demonstrated by the players.
Can't say I'm surprised though.
Next time you try a metaphor, try to aim at the basket before making a throw.
I do care about proof. I of course require it to be of the only one whose designation matters. There is no need for it to come from the PR statements they make. Anything that can be legitimately be sourced to them will suffice.
I'll be even more generous than that minimal standard. Cite a reference to any Diablo game that shows Blizzard considers the story mode to be a tutorial. Can you even hop over that bar? It's so low you should be able to casually step over without so much as breaking your stride. Or, are you just going to trip over or walk around it in yet another failure to justify your stance.
But I have good reason to be in my opinion, since life is already pay2win why the fuck is this rearing its ugly head in the gaming industry and actually being allowed to thrive in any compacity is beyond me but since stuff like this is happening, I think I deserve to be able to get some sick twisted pleasure off this.
If life is pay to win how do you explain people changing their lot in it through dedicated, hard work. As to why p2w can exist in gaming, there is a market for it. You can only sell what people are willing or eager to buy, and such was demonstrated long before gaming companies tapped into it.
Good to see we still got someone calling the tutorial the "base game".
Alright. Cite where Blizzard referred to the base difficulty story mode of DI as the tutorial and I'll happily concede it is so. Player declarations of such do not count as it isn't their place to make that designation.
Great to know your standards are based on what PR damage control tells you to think.
Really can't take this type of rationale seriously.
My standard is simply one of proof. The ball is in your court. Are you going to take a shot or just keep dribbling.
However, you already admitted you don't care about proof. Ignoring "player declarations" just goes to mean you don't care how much of the game can be demonstrated to go against PR claims, because you'll take PR over anything that can be physically demonstrated by the players.
Can't say I'm surprised though.
Next time you try a metaphor, try to aim at the basket before making a throw.
I do care about proof. I of course require it to be of the only one whose designation matters. There is no need for it to come from the PR statements they make. Anything that can be legitimately be sourced to them will suffice.
I'll be even more generous than that minimal standard. Cite a reference to any Diablo game that shows Blizzard considers the story mode to be a tutorial. Can you even hop over that bar? It's so low you should be able to casually step over without so much as breaking your stride. Or, are you just going to trip over or walk around it in yet another failure to justify your stance.
See, you're still demanding that any claim to how something works be sourced as a claim, not as physical evidence of the game mechanically in action.
The fact you are actively dismissing physical proof in favor of only claims "sourced to them", proves you don't care about actual proof, nor of the reality of what mechanically actually is done.
This just smacks of "I have a bridge to sell you."
When a company's claims can and are challenged by people publicly testing the game and demonstrating how their claims are demonstrably false, then that company has no authority.
Another relevant quote;
"Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining." Choke down any false publicity you want. Fact is that's not how the game works no matter how much Ybarra or anyone else at Blizz wants to piss on people's heads.
But I have good reason to be in my opinion, since life is already pay2win why the fuck is this rearing its ugly head in the gaming industry and actually being allowed to thrive in any compacity is beyond me but since stuff like this is happening, I think I deserve to be able to get some sick twisted pleasure off this.
If life is pay to win how do you explain people changing their lot in it through dedicated, hard work. As to why p2w can exist in gaming, there is a market for it. You can only sell what people are willing or eager to buy, and such was demonstrated long before gaming companies tapped into it.
false dichotomy
Also it's called Solution Selling, and it's not always done ethically. Though indeed, people have both sold snake oil for a long time and invented problems to sell solutions.
Good to see we still got someone calling the tutorial the "base game".
Alright. Cite where Blizzard referred to the base difficulty story mode of DI as the tutorial and I'll happily concede it is so. Player declarations of such do not count as it isn't their place to make that designation.
Great to know your standards are based on what PR damage control tells you to think.
Really can't take this type of rationale seriously.
My standard is simply one of proof. The ball is in your court. Are you going to take a shot or just keep dribbling.
However, you already admitted you don't care about proof. Ignoring "player declarations" just goes to mean you don't care how much of the game can be demonstrated to go against PR claims, because you'll take PR over anything that can be physically demonstrated by the players.
Can't say I'm surprised though.
Next time you try a metaphor, try to aim at the basket before making a throw.
I do care about proof. I of course require it to be of the only one whose designation matters. There is no need for it to come from the PR statements they make. Anything that can be legitimately be sourced to them will suffice.
I'll be even more generous than that minimal standard. Cite a reference to any Diablo game that shows Blizzard considers the story mode to be a tutorial. Can you even hop over that bar? It's so low you should be able to casually step over without so much as breaking your stride. Or, are you just going to trip over or walk around it in yet another failure to justify your stance.
See, you're still demanding that any claim to how something works be sourced as a claim, not as physical evidence of the game mechanically in action.
The fact you are actively dismissing physical proof in favor of only claims "sourced to them", proves you don't care about actual proof, nor of the reality of what mechanically actually is done.
This just smacks of "I have a bridge to sell you."
When a company's claims can and are challenged by people publicly testing the game and demonstrating how their claims are demonstrably false, then that company has no authority.
Another relevant quote;
"Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining." Choke down any false publicity you want. Fact is that's not how the game works no matter how much Ybarra or anyone else at Blizz wants to piss on people's heads.
Yes, I require proof that Blizzard considers those playing through the stories of their Diablo games are in fact playing a tutorial rather than the game itself.
It is a preposterous claim so requires genuine proof it is so. How some feel it to be isn't proof of anything but their personal impression.
The only relevant quote here is one that demonstrates Blizzard views the game as those other than contend. No judge is going to rule in favour of what people contend to be so but cannot demonstrate.
But I have good reason to be in my opinion, since life is already pay2win why the fuck is this rearing its ugly head in the gaming industry and actually being allowed to thrive in any compacity is beyond me but since stuff like this is happening, I think I deserve to be able to get some sick twisted pleasure off this.
If life is pay to win how do you explain people changing their lot in it through dedicated, hard work. As to why p2w can exist in gaming, there is a market for it. You can only sell what people are willing or eager to buy, and such was demonstrated long before gaming companies tapped into it.
false dichotomy
Also it's called Solution Selling, and it's not always done ethically. Though indeed, people have both sold snake oil for a long time and invented problems to sell solutions.
It was, as I pointed out in my response to it.
The remainder you raise wasn't even brought up in the post I responded to or in my response. So, whatever.
Good to see we still got someone calling the tutorial the "base game".
Alright. Cite where Blizzard referred to the base difficulty story mode of DI as the tutorial and I'll happily concede it is so. Player declarations of such do not count as it isn't their place to make that designation.
Great to know your standards are based on what PR damage control tells you to think.
Really can't take this type of rationale seriously.
My standard is simply one of proof. The ball is in your court. Are you going to take a shot or just keep dribbling.
However, you already admitted you don't care about proof. Ignoring "player declarations" just goes to mean you don't care how much of the game can be demonstrated to go against PR claims, because you'll take PR over anything that can be physically demonstrated by the players.
Can't say I'm surprised though.
Next time you try a metaphor, try to aim at the basket before making a throw.
I do care about proof. I of course require it to be of the only one whose designation matters. There is no need for it to come from the PR statements they make. Anything that can be legitimately be sourced to them will suffice.
I'll be even more generous than that minimal standard. Cite a reference to any Diablo game that shows Blizzard considers the story mode to be a tutorial. Can you even hop over that bar? It's so low you should be able to casually step over without so much as breaking your stride. Or, are you just going to trip over or walk around it in yet another failure to justify your stance.
See, you're still demanding that any claim to how something works be sourced as a claim, not as physical evidence of the game mechanically in action.
The fact you are actively dismissing physical proof in favor of only claims "sourced to them", proves you don't care about actual proof, nor of the reality of what mechanically actually is done.
This just smacks of "I have a bridge to sell you."
When a company's claims can and are challenged by people publicly testing the game and demonstrating how their claims are demonstrably false, then that company has no authority.
Another relevant quote;
"Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining." Choke down any false publicity you want. Fact is that's not how the game works no matter how much Ybarra or anyone else at Blizz wants to piss on people's heads.
Yes, I require proof that Blizzard considers those playing through the stories of their Diablo games are in fact playing a tutorial rather than the game itself.
It is a preposterous claim so requires genuine proof it is so. How some feel it to be isn't proof of anything but their personal impression.
The only relevant quote here is one that demonstrates Blizzard views the game as those other than contend. No judge is going to rule in favour of what people contend to be so but cannot demonstrate.
And you again admit you only don't want actual proof of the issue. Requiring proof that Blizzard says it's one way or another only offers their public image.
It is not a claim, to note demonstration of the mechanics in action that shows how their claims do not align with the reality of how content is parsed out. Your dismissal of that to reduce it to the subject of impression as opposed to collective experience as well as empiric data (some of which I even linked in a video in the shared thread), just shows you want to handwave real proof in favor of public PR.
Which runs entirely in opposition to your last argument. The fact this and so many other issues with Immortal not only can, but has been demonstrated and documented in videos and documents over the last month, is a matter of fact.
Your objection to reality in favor of PR is irrelevant.
But I have good reason to be in my opinion, since life is already pay2win why the fuck is this rearing its ugly head in the gaming industry and actually being allowed to thrive in any compacity is beyond me but since stuff like this is happening, I think I deserve to be able to get some sick twisted pleasure off this.
If life is pay to win how do you explain people changing their lot in it through dedicated, hard work. As to why p2w can exist in gaming, there is a market for it. You can only sell what people are willing or eager to buy, and such was demonstrated long before gaming companies tapped into it.
false dichotomy
Also it's called Solution Selling, and it's not always done ethically. Though indeed, people have both sold snake oil for a long time and invented problems to sell solutions.
It was, as I pointed out in my response to it.
The remainder you raise wasn't even brought up in the post I responded to or in my response. So, whatever.
"You can only sell what people are willing or eager to buy, and such was demonstrated long before gaming companies tapped into it."
If someone wants to lie, it's best to remove the evidence first. Not even sure why you would try to dance about that one any ways.
And it was your counterpoint that was addressed as a false dichotomy. Life generally being "P2W" and people managing to grind their way through it, is not mutually exclusive.
We were told in other threads that money has zero impact on your ability to enjoy the full game.
Battlegrounds... Path of the Immortals...
You mean that there's a massive part of the game not covered in just the free introductory campaign? Who woulda thought that was true...
THAT said...
See this guy can solve his "issue" all on his own. He just needs to give someone else 100k to spend on the game so that he will have someone else to fight! Or maybe just 90k so he remains "the best".
What a mess this game is...
The entire base game can easily be played for free. Beyond not so much. This distinction has been clear since the game released, at least to those that have played it.
His self-created issue with have to be self-resolved.
What? How is a broken matchmaking system a player-created issue?
He bought himself up to to a match making record so high he literally can't get a battle ground, according to his statement at 6:42. That's a self-created issue. I don't see a system that prevents huge mismatches as broken. That sounds more working as intended to me.
I suppose one could argue Blizzard should have anticipated one person would spend himself to such a large gap that no other player would be seen by their system as competitive. How they would be able to correct that and actually have a fair battleground experience I have no idea.
You merely suppose one could argue a development studio should've afforded for the player power they, themselves, decided to include in the game with regards to PvP and their own matchmaking systems?
As opposed to the player being to blame for.... Engaging those systems *exactly* how Blizzard wanted them to?
See, the thing is, Blizzard sees the money differently.
They don't care his relationship with the money. They care that he has it, and they care what *he* wants to continue shoveling it to them.
Of course they do, they are a publicly traded company. Not sure what else needs to be said.
Can be a frame of reference to argue the more troubling sides of F2P and how it biases game optimization towards catering to a relatively finite group.
Granted this particular example is a little eh, because the person outpaced the community through more dedicated play time compared to other high-paying customers.
But is worth noting, he couldn't have outstripped everyone else's MMR if the game didn't allow him to monetarily dominate while simultaneously power gaming.
I have no doubt that there are many companies that would be quite happy to do that as long as they can "look good" while doing it.
And by "look good" I mean to the people who would play their games. Not the people who would rail about them in reviews or forums, etc.
Companies are "about" finding their customers, their audience. Oh sure, they'd like to have a LOT of customers. But there are companies that are more interested in less customers but customers who spend big.
I mean yeah, it's understandable that if you can make as much or more money from targeting a more finite audience then that's a gold mine for a company.
Bit more of a sting when they take a franchise with many fans and then use it to cater to a much more finite audience though. That's mostly just a way to stretch people's goodwill.
It's not *just* that... Uhhh who here thinks catering development to people who are paid to stream videos of your game (as opposed to catering directly to, you know, all the folks playing your game) is actually a coherent or healthy incentive for producers for the market? Hell, who thinks such a situation would be healthy for *any* market?
Who here thinks that's a healthy long-term evolution for the market? Who here thinks we've seen a positive evolution of the market so far based on catering to streamers who drop thousands in microtransactions? Who here thinks the quality of games have shot up because of the rise of F2P microtransactions and paid streamers? Be honest with yourself.
Once more, for those in the back: THESE THINGS DO NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM. Ignoring it merely makes one the proverbial ostrich with their head in the sand. This practice is either receding or growing, and consumer reaction plays no small part in deciding it.
This game crashes often, shop takes your money and doesn't deliver items, Wizards channeling and teleporting get buffered leaving you unable to do any other action until you hit the same skill again....it is pretty bad.
We were told in other threads that money has zero impact on your ability to enjoy the full game.
Battlegrounds... Path of the Immortals...
You mean that there's a massive part of the game not covered in just the free introductory campaign? Who woulda thought that was true...
THAT said...
See this guy can solve his "issue" all on his own. He just needs to give someone else 100k to spend on the game so that he will have someone else to fight! Or maybe just 90k so he remains "the best".
What a mess this game is...
The entire base game can easily be played for free. Beyond not so much. This distinction has been clear since the game released, at least to those that have played it.
His self-created issue with have to be self-resolved.
What? How is a broken matchmaking system a player-created issue?
He bought himself up to to a match making record so high he literally can't get a battle ground, according to his statement at 6:42. That's a self-created issue. I don't see a system that prevents huge mismatches as broken. That sounds more working as intended to me.
I suppose one could argue Blizzard should have anticipated one person would spend himself to such a large gap that no other player would be seen by their system as competitive. How they would be able to correct that and actually have a fair battleground experience I have no idea.
You merely suppose one could argue a development studio should've afforded for the player power they, themselves, decided to include in the game with regards to PvP and their own matchmaking systems?
As opposed to the player being to blame for.... Engaging those systems *exactly* how Blizzard wanted them to?
Not sure why a gear based game like this is using win/loss ratio to match make. Should be resonance more than anything. Sure, there are definitely going to be skilled players that will destroy the competition just going off resonance, but people are usually winning because of the gear more than anything else. Maybe that changes at Legend rank, not sure.
See, the thing is, Blizzard sees the money differently.
They don't care his relationship with the money. They care that he has it, and they care what *he* wants to continue shoveling it to them.
Of course they do, they are a publicly traded company. Not sure what else needs to be said.
Can be a frame of reference to argue the more troubling sides of F2P and how it biases game optimization towards catering to a relatively finite group.
Granted this particular example is a little eh, because the person outpaced the community through more dedicated play time compared to other high-paying customers.
But is worth noting, he couldn't have outstripped everyone else's MMR if the game didn't allow him to monetarily dominate while simultaneously power gaming.
I have no doubt that there are many companies that would be quite happy to do that as long as they can "look good" while doing it.
And by "look good" I mean to the people who would play their games. Not the people who would rail about them in reviews or forums, etc.
Companies are "about" finding their customers, their audience. Oh sure, they'd like to have a LOT of customers. But there are companies that are more interested in less customers but customers who spend big.
I mean yeah, it's understandable that if you can make as much or more money from targeting a more finite audience then that's a gold mine for a company.
Bit more of a sting when they take a franchise with many fans and then use it to cater to a much more finite audience though. That's mostly just a way to stretch people's goodwill.
It's not *just* that... Uhhh who here thinks catering development to people who are paid to stream videos of your game (as opposed to catering directly to, you know, all the folks playing your game) is actually a coherent or healthy incentive for producers for the market? Hell, who thinks such a situation would be healthy for *any* market?
Who here thinks that's a healthy long-term evolution for the market? Who here thinks we've seen a positive evolution of the market so far based on catering to streamers who drop thousands in microtransactions? Who here thinks the quality of games have shot up because of the rise of F2P microtransactions and paid streamers? Be honest with yourself.
Once more, for those in the back: THESE THINGS DO NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM. Ignoring it merely makes one the proverbial ostrich with their head in the sand. This practice is either receding or growing, and consumer reaction plays no small part in deciding it.
Except we're talking about a small group of people not just the smaller group of people paid to stream.
Luxury car makers aren't necessarily making their cars for a huge audience. They have a small audience and they are catering to that audience. If a game developer wants to focus on a very small but lucrative segment of the audience for video games what's the issue other than these games aren't for you?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
See, the thing is, Blizzard sees the money differently.
They don't care his relationship with the money. They care that he has it, and they care what *he* wants to continue shoveling it to them.
Of course they do, they are a publicly traded company. Not sure what else needs to be said.
Can be a frame of reference to argue the more troubling sides of F2P and how it biases game optimization towards catering to a relatively finite group.
Granted this particular example is a little eh, because the person outpaced the community through more dedicated play time compared to other high-paying customers.
But is worth noting, he couldn't have outstripped everyone else's MMR if the game didn't allow him to monetarily dominate while simultaneously power gaming.
I have no doubt that there are many companies that would be quite happy to do that as long as they can "look good" while doing it.
And by "look good" I mean to the people who would play their games. Not the people who would rail about them in reviews or forums, etc.
Companies are "about" finding their customers, their audience. Oh sure, they'd like to have a LOT of customers. But there are companies that are more interested in less customers but customers who spend big.
I mean yeah, it's understandable that if you can make as much or more money from targeting a more finite audience then that's a gold mine for a company.
Bit more of a sting when they take a franchise with many fans and then use it to cater to a much more finite audience though. That's mostly just a way to stretch people's goodwill.
It's not *just* that... Uhhh who here thinks catering development to people who are paid to stream videos of your game (as opposed to catering directly to, you know, all the folks playing your game) is actually a coherent or healthy incentive for producers for the market? Hell, who thinks such a situation would be healthy for *any* market?
Who here thinks that's a healthy long-term evolution for the market? Who here thinks we've seen a positive evolution of the market so far based on catering to streamers who drop thousands in microtransactions? Who here thinks the quality of games have shot up because of the rise of F2P microtransactions and paid streamers? Be honest with yourself.
Once more, for those in the back: THESE THINGS DO NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM. Ignoring it merely makes one the proverbial ostrich with their head in the sand. This practice is either receding or growing, and consumer reaction plays no small part in deciding it.
Except we're talking about a small group of people not just the smaller group of people paid to stream.
Luxury car makers aren't necessarily making their cars for a huge audience. They have a small audience and they are catering to that audience. If a game developer wants to focus on a very small but lucrative segment of the audience for video games what's the issue other than these games aren't for you?
We already see how those streamers have altered studio behavior. This entire thread is an example of Blizzard ignoring the feedback of the many to cater to the needs of the few whales. Ybarra has confirmed as much.
The luxury car comparison doesn't fly. We don't drive luxury cars together. Luxury cars aren't endlessly replicable computer programs. Luxury cars are actually sold and ownership transferred to the consumer. The list goes on and on of relevant, material differences between the two.
Again: that you wish to ignore the evolution doesn't mean you won't be affected by it. As the circle of modern games you can enjoy without dealing with this gets smaller and smaller, and the evolution of things like Windows renders those older games largely unplayable (or, at the very least, one finds the same 18 year old singleplayer RPG stale, for example), you may feel the compulsion to continue acting as if it is not affecting the way you engage with your hobby. But that's just not reality.
See, the thing is, Blizzard sees the money differently.
They don't care his relationship with the money. They care that he has it, and they care what *he* wants to continue shoveling it to them.
Of course they do, they are a publicly traded company. Not sure what else needs to be said.
Can be a frame of reference to argue the more troubling sides of F2P and how it biases game optimization towards catering to a relatively finite group.
Granted this particular example is a little eh, because the person outpaced the community through more dedicated play time compared to other high-paying customers.
But is worth noting, he couldn't have outstripped everyone else's MMR if the game didn't allow him to monetarily dominate while simultaneously power gaming.
I have no doubt that there are many companies that would be quite happy to do that as long as they can "look good" while doing it.
And by "look good" I mean to the people who would play their games. Not the people who would rail about them in reviews or forums, etc.
Companies are "about" finding their customers, their audience. Oh sure, they'd like to have a LOT of customers. But there are companies that are more interested in less customers but customers who spend big.
I mean yeah, it's understandable that if you can make as much or more money from targeting a more finite audience then that's a gold mine for a company.
Bit more of a sting when they take a franchise with many fans and then use it to cater to a much more finite audience though. That's mostly just a way to stretch people's goodwill.
It's not *just* that... Uhhh who here thinks catering development to people who are paid to stream videos of your game (as opposed to catering directly to, you know, all the folks playing your game) is actually a coherent or healthy incentive for producers for the market? Hell, who thinks such a situation would be healthy for *any* market?
Who here thinks that's a healthy long-term evolution for the market? Who here thinks we've seen a positive evolution of the market so far based on catering to streamers who drop thousands in microtransactions? Who here thinks the quality of games have shot up because of the rise of F2P microtransactions and paid streamers? Be honest with yourself.
Once more, for those in the back: THESE THINGS DO NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM. Ignoring it merely makes one the proverbial ostrich with their head in the sand. This practice is either receding or growing, and consumer reaction plays no small part in deciding it.
Except we're talking about a small group of people not just the smaller group of people paid to stream.
Luxury car makers aren't necessarily making their cars for a huge audience. They have a small audience and they are catering to that audience. If a game developer wants to focus on a very small but lucrative segment of the audience for video games what's the issue other than these games aren't for you?
We already see how those streamers have altered studio behavior. This entire thread is an example of Blizzard ignoring the feedback of the many to cater to the needs of the few whales. Ybarra has confirmed as much.
The luxury car comparison doesn't fly. We don't drive luxury cars together. Luxury cars aren't endlessly replicable computer programs. Luxury cars are actually sold and ownership transferred to the consumer. The list goes on and on of relevant, material differences between the two.
Again: that you wish to ignore the evolution doesn't mean you won't be affected by it. As the circle of modern games you can enjoy without dealing with this gets smaller and smaller, and the evolution of things like Windows renders those older games largely unplayable (or, at the very least, one finds the same 18 year old singleplayer RPG stale, for example), you may feel the compulsion to continue acting as if it is not affecting the way you engage with your hobby. But that's just not reality.
The Luxury car example is a perfect example because "so what" if we don't drive luxry cars together? That's not the point. The point is that there is a company that is catering to a small group of people.
If a game developer wants to cater to people who make x dollars per year so what? You're just upset because video games have developed to the point that they now can cater to very specific groups of people and you aren't in one particular group.
I doubt that all video games are going to go this way but it's certainly find that some do. It's their company they can do what they want.
You can't play one of their games? Go find another. If all go this way then go find another hobby.
I know I will.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The Luxury car example is a perfect example because "so what" if we don't drive luxry cars together? That's not the point. The point is that there is a company that is catering to a small group of people.
If a game developer wants to cater to people who make x dollars per year so what? You're just upset because video games have developed to the point that they now can cater to very specific groups of people and you aren't in one particular group.
I doubt that all video games are going to go this way but it's certainly find that some do. It's their company they can do what they want.
You can't play one of their games? Go find another. If all go this way then go find another hobby.
I know I will.
You are misconstruing what this will lead to. Luxury cars do not instigate a trend to to make all cars more expensive and built like they are. Games like DI are already having an effect on all gaming as studios look on and see what they can get away with. Not just in terms of moving all multiplayer to a point where is run by whales, but how much more gambling they can put in an so on.
The idea you can just play another game was what many said about concerns as regards F2P, loot boxes and so on. These new forms of monetarization and gambling do not stay in just a few games. Also I don't have another hobby as good as gaming so it is hardly surprising we are speaking out against this.
Every change in monetarisation made since cash shops started have effected gameplay to a varying extent; this change could be tidal and tie in with NFT's and crypto to change the face of gaming as we know it.
You are misconstruing what this will lead to. Luxury cars do not instigate a trend to to make all cars more expensive and built like they are. Games like DI are already having an effect on all gaming as studios look on and see what they can get away with. Not just in terms of moving all multiplayer to a point where is run by whales, but how much more gambling they can put in an so on.
The idea you can just play another game was what many said about concerns as regards F2P, loot boxes and so on. These new forms of monetarization and gambling do not stay in just a few games. Also I don't have another hobby as good as gaming so it is hardly surprising we are speaking out against this.
Every change in monetarisation made since cash shops started have effected gameplay to a varying extent; this change could be tidal and tie in with NFT's and crypto to change the face of gaming as we know it.
Once again so what?
Sorry I know that seems callous but "so what."
Yes, I fully know that games like this affect other games and that "luxury cars" don't affect other cars to be more expensive. Fully know that.
That's not the point.
The point is that developers/game companies can cater to whatever groups they want. It's their business. It's a shame for sure but "it's their business."
Also we forget that it's because of players that all this nonsense is happening. Some players at least. As soon as players started selling stuff on ebay then the ball started rolling. Developers spent inordinate amounts of money fighting an uphill battle because players were willing to spend a LOT of money in order to buy online goods so they could get ahead in these games.
Players were already spending lots of money so they could beat the rest of the players. Developers just wised up and realized they couldn't win and they were spending money to lose.
They also need more money to make games. But how many people are gonig to spend $100 on a video game per box? $200?
They then see the f2p model work brilliantly and that's their answer. Couple that with the higher ups who need to make sure their companies are not only profitable but "all the profit profitable" and here we are.
Again, I don't see every developer doing this (though I acknowledge that could happen) but I do see that this is the way of the future for a lot of games. Don't like it? Sorry you/we aren't the ones making the decisions. So we can rant and rave about it but unless game companies change their minds this is what it is. That's it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
My standard is simply one of proof. The ball is in your court. Are you going to take a shot or just keep dribbling.
However, you already admitted you don't care about proof. Ignoring "player declarations" just goes to mean you don't care how much of the game can be demonstrated to go against PR claims, because you'll take PR over anything that can be physically demonstrated by the players.
Can't say I'm surprised though.
Next time you try a metaphor, try to aim at the basket before making a throw.
let's start mmo.
World of Whales.
Everything is simple. One quest - 1 dollar. One new ability - 10 dollars. One new level - 100 dollars (and we will have, say, 299 levels). One region - 100 dollars. Upgrading dps: 1% - 50 dollars. Upgrading defense: 1% - 49 dollars. Insta-defeat selected player: 10 000 dollars. Revive ability: 1000 $. Sending IM: 1$, sending in-game mail: 50$.
And yeah, not to forget: each piece of equipment costs 49$ to equip.
No, our mmo is NOT pay to win, because starter region and 5 pieces of rags, plus free rat mount and Legendary Axe of owning (making 1 damage point per day) are free.
No need to thank me, just send 5% royalty checque...
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
I do care about proof. I of course require it to be of the only one whose designation matters. There is no need for it to come from the PR statements they make. Anything that can be legitimately be sourced to them will suffice.
I'll be even more generous than that minimal standard. Cite a reference to any Diablo game that shows Blizzard considers the story mode to be a tutorial. Can you even hop over that bar? It's so low you should be able to casually step over without so much as breaking your stride. Or, are you just going to trip over or walk around it in yet another failure to justify your stance.
If life is pay to win how do you explain people changing their lot in it through dedicated, hard work. As to why p2w can exist in gaming, there is a market for it. You can only sell what people are willing or eager to buy, and such was demonstrated long before gaming companies tapped into it.
The fact you are actively dismissing physical proof in favor of only claims "sourced to them", proves you don't care about actual proof, nor of the reality of what mechanically actually is done.
This just smacks of "I have a bridge to sell you."
When a company's claims can and are challenged by people publicly testing the game and demonstrating how their claims are demonstrably false, then that company has no authority.
Another relevant quote;
"Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining." Choke down any false publicity you want. Fact is that's not how the game works no matter how much Ybarra or anyone else at Blizz wants to piss on people's heads.
Also it's called Solution Selling, and it's not always done ethically. Though indeed, people have both sold snake oil for a long time and invented problems to sell solutions.
It is a preposterous claim so requires genuine proof it is so. How some feel it to be isn't proof of anything but their personal impression.
The only relevant quote here is one that demonstrates Blizzard views the game as those other than contend. No judge is going to rule in favour of what people contend to be so but cannot demonstrate.
It was, as I pointed out in my response to it.
The remainder you raise wasn't even brought up in the post I responded to or in my response. So, whatever.
It is not a claim, to note demonstration of the mechanics in action that shows how their claims do not align with the reality of how content is parsed out. Your dismissal of that to reduce it to the subject of impression as opposed to collective experience as well as empiric data (some of which I even linked in a video in the shared thread), just shows you want to handwave real proof in favor of public PR.
Which runs entirely in opposition to your last argument. The fact this and so many other issues with Immortal not only can, but has been demonstrated and documented in videos and documents over the last month, is a matter of fact.
Your objection to reality in favor of PR is irrelevant.
If someone wants to lie, it's best to remove the evidence first. Not even sure why you would try to dance about that one any ways.
And it was your counterpoint that was addressed as a false dichotomy. Life generally being "P2W" and people managing to grind their way through it, is not mutually exclusive.
As opposed to the player being to blame for.... Engaging those systems *exactly* how Blizzard wanted them to?
Who here thinks that's a healthy long-term evolution for the market? Who here thinks we've seen a positive evolution of the market so far based on catering to streamers who drop thousands in microtransactions? Who here thinks the quality of games have shot up because of the rise of F2P microtransactions and paid streamers? Be honest with yourself.
Once more, for those in the back: THESE THINGS DO NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM. Ignoring it merely makes one the proverbial ostrich with their head in the sand. This practice is either receding or growing, and consumer reaction plays no small part in deciding it.
Luxury car makers aren't necessarily making their cars for a huge audience. They have a small audience and they are catering to that audience. If a game developer wants to focus on a very small but lucrative segment of the audience for video games what's the issue other than these games aren't for you?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The luxury car comparison doesn't fly. We don't drive luxury cars together. Luxury cars aren't endlessly replicable computer programs. Luxury cars are actually sold and ownership transferred to the consumer. The list goes on and on of relevant, material differences between the two.
Again: that you wish to ignore the evolution doesn't mean you won't be affected by it. As the circle of modern games you can enjoy without dealing with this gets smaller and smaller, and the evolution of things like Windows renders those older games largely unplayable (or, at the very least, one finds the same 18 year old singleplayer RPG stale, for example), you may feel the compulsion to continue acting as if it is not affecting the way you engage with your hobby. But that's just not reality.
If a game developer wants to cater to people who make x dollars per year so what? You're just upset because video games have developed to the point that they now can cater to very specific groups of people and you aren't in one particular group.
I doubt that all video games are going to go this way but it's certainly find that some do. It's their company they can do what they want.
You can't play one of their games? Go find another. If all go this way then go find another hobby.
I know I will.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The idea you can just play another game was what many said about concerns as regards F2P, loot boxes and so on. These new forms of monetarization and gambling do not stay in just a few games. Also I don't have another hobby as good as gaming so it is hardly surprising we are speaking out against this.
Every change in monetarisation made since cash shops started have effected gameplay to a varying extent; this change could be tidal and tie in with NFT's and crypto to change the face of gaming as we know it.
Sorry I know that seems callous but "so what."
Yes, I fully know that games like this affect other games and that "luxury cars" don't affect other cars to be more expensive. Fully know that.
That's not the point.
The point is that developers/game companies can cater to whatever groups they want. It's their business. It's a shame for sure but "it's their business."
Also we forget that it's because of players that all this nonsense is happening. Some players at least. As soon as players started selling stuff on ebay then the ball started rolling. Developers spent inordinate amounts of money fighting an uphill battle because players were willing to spend a LOT of money in order to buy online goods so they could get ahead in these games.
Players were already spending lots of money so they could beat the rest of the players. Developers just wised up and realized they couldn't win and they were spending money to lose.
They also need more money to make games. But how many people are gonig to spend $100 on a video game per box? $200?
They then see the f2p model work brilliantly and that's their answer. Couple that with the higher ups who need to make sure their companies are not only profitable but "all the profit profitable" and here we are.
Again, I don't see every developer doing this (though I acknowledge that could happen) but I do see that this is the way of the future for a lot of games. Don't like it? Sorry you/we aren't the ones making the decisions. So we can rant and rave about it but unless game companies change their minds this is what it is. That's it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo