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.
None of that makes the practice healthy for the industry, or removes the need for consumers to be wary of and criticize such practices if they'd like to see their hobby industry remain healthy for the long-term.
The bit about players doing it in the past is the epitome of "well, we can't realitically stop all murders, so why even try?" vibe.
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.
None of that makes the practice healthy for the industry, or removes the need for consumers to be wary of and criticize such practices if they'd like to see their hobby industry remain healthy for the long-term.
The bit about players doing it in the past is the epitome of "well, we can't realitically stop all murders, so why even try?" vibe.
If this was a studio using child labour in the east should we say its up to them? I do realise that's exaggerating but the principle is the same, this is wrong so speak out against 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.
None of that makes the practice healthy for the industry, or removes the need for consumers to be wary of and criticize such practices if they'd like to see their hobby industry remain healthy for the long-term.
The bit about players doing it in the past is the epitome of "well, we can't realitically stop all murders, so why even try?" vibe.
But you can't stop this. You are not a decision maker, you don't run a game company (do you?)
And you can say that "players can stop this by not buying" but the truth is they are already buying.
Sorry, but at this point it's just complaining for the sake of complaining.
There is already a market for this and people are willing to buy. Not sure what you want to do about it but I'm interested.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If this was a studio using child labour in the east should we say its up to them? I do realise that's exaggerating but the principle is the same, this is wrong so speak out against it.
Except a studio using child labor has a human rights issue.
A studio that has a free to play business model where a person can choose to spend, or not, doesn't.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
None of that makes the practice healthy for the industry, or removes the need for consumers to be wary of and criticize such practices if they'd like to see their hobby industry remain healthy for the long-term.
The bit about players doing it in the past is the epitome of "well, we can't realitically stop all murders, so why even try?" vibe.
But you can't stop this. You are not a decision maker, you don't run a game company (do you?)
And you can say that "players can stop this by not buying" but the truth is they are already buying.
Sorry, but at this point it's just complaining for the sake of complaining.
There is already a market for this and people are willing to buy. Not sure what you want to do about it but I'm interested.
Actually, this very title is showing us that the majority *aren't* buying, but that the industry has perverted its marketing and revenue streams so terribly that it's how they make their money now.
It's not sustainable long-term. It's not healthy. And it's not some kind of magical marketing that has convinced the majority of gamers to fork over their cash. These monetization schemes are not popular with consumers, even if the games they're stapled to are.
As a consumer, sometimes the only thing you can do is continue to highlight these things. And avoid businesses and products that choose to profit off of such practices. Not just refuse to pay: refuse to be the rich man's game cattle. Additionally: ostracize and critique those who would enable these practices- streamer, dev, and gamer alike.
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.
None of that makes the practice healthy for the industry, or removes the need for consumers to be wary of and criticize such practices if they'd like to see their hobby industry remain healthy for the long-term.
The bit about players doing it in the past is the epitome of "well, we can't realitically stop all murders, so why even try?" vibe.
But you can't stop this. You are not a decision maker, you don't run a game company (do you?)
And you can say that "players can stop this by not buying" but the truth is they are already buying.
Sorry, but at this point it's just complaining for the sake of complaining.
There is already a market for this and people are willing to buy. Not sure what you want to do about it but I'm interested.
We should do we always do here in the States when faced with a challenge.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
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.
None of that makes the practice healthy for the industry, or removes the need for consumers to be wary of and criticize such practices if they'd like to see their hobby industry remain healthy for the long-term.
The bit about players doing it in the past is the epitome of "well, we can't realitically stop all murders, so why even try?" vibe.
But you can't stop this. You are not a decision maker, you don't run a game company (do you?)
And you can say that "players can stop this by not buying" but the truth is they are already buying.
Sorry, but at this point it's just complaining for the sake of complaining.
There is already a market for this and people are willing to buy. Not sure what you want to do about it but I'm interested.
Actually, this very title is showing us that the majority *aren't* buying, but that the industry has perverted its marketing and revenue streams so terribly that it's how they make their money now.
It's not sustainable long-term. It's not healthy. And it's not some kind of magical marketing that has convinced the majority of gamers to fork over their cash. These monetization schemes are not popular with consumers, even if the games they're stapled to are.
As a consumer, sometimes the only thing you can do is continue to highlight these things. And avoid businesses and products that choose to profit off of such practices. Not just refuse to pay: refuse to be the rich man's game cattle. Additionally: ostracize and critique those who would enable these practices- streamer, dev, and gamer alike.
But the majority don't need to be buying. Just enough to make their sales projections if not beat them.
Unless you are saying that this title is NOT making enough money. I seemed to remember seeing that they made a lot of money the first week. Is this no longer the case?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
None of that makes the practice healthy for the industry, or removes the need for consumers to be wary of and criticize such practices if they'd like to see their hobby industry remain healthy for the long-term.
The bit about players doing it in the past is the epitome of "well, we can't realitically stop all murders, so why even try?" vibe.
But you can't stop this. You are not a decision maker, you don't run a game company (do you?)
And you can say that "players can stop this by not buying" but the truth is they are already buying.
Sorry, but at this point it's just complaining for the sake of complaining.
There is already a market for this and people are willing to buy. Not sure what you want to do about it but I'm interested.
Actually, this very title is showing us that the majority *aren't* buying, but that the industry has perverted its marketing and revenue streams so terribly that it's how they make their money now.
It's not sustainable long-term. It's not healthy. And it's not some kind of magical marketing that has convinced the majority of gamers to fork over their cash. These monetization schemes are not popular with consumers, even if the games they're stapled to are.
As a consumer, sometimes the only thing you can do is continue to highlight these things. And avoid businesses and products that choose to profit off of such practices. Not just refuse to pay: refuse to be the rich man's game cattle. Additionally: ostracize and critique those who would enable these practices- streamer, dev, and gamer alike.
But the majority don't need to be buying. Just enough to make their sales projections if not beat them.
Unless you are saying that this title is NOT making enough money. I seemed to remember seeing that they made a lot of money the first week. Is this no longer the case?
It's pretty mediocre for a premier mobile release, which has been evidenced by multiple people across multiple threads.
For a bit of a sprinkle on top of that afore-presented evidence, Diablo Immortal couldn't even crack the top 10 grossing apps on the *Google Play Store* for its release month (Play Store isn't even available in China, so none of the apps listed are enjoying the "gigawhale" boost from China):
Additionally, the article mentions that the U.S. mobile market, again, outspent China for June, so don't expect a Chinese release to be the key factor that would propel D:I into the top ten. D:I was released on June 2nd, so you can't point to a mid-month release as a reason for it to be missing, either.
For a bit of a sprinkle on top of that afore-presented evidence, Diablo Immortal couldn't even crack the top 10 grossing apps on the *Google Play Store* for its release month (Play Store isn't even available in China, so none of the apps listed are enjoying the "gigawhale" boost from China):
Additionally, the article mentions that the U.S. mobile market, again, outspent China for June, so don't expect a Chinese release to be the key factor that would propel D:I into the top ten. D:I was released on June 2nd, so you can't point to a mid-month release as a reason for it to be missing, either.
In all fairness, Blizzard isn't exactly a household word in mobile gaming circles.
They mentioned more than half of the DI players were new to A/B, so perhaps over time they will boost sales if not with this title, in a future offering.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's pretty mediocre for a premier mobile release, which has been evidenced by multiple people across multiple threads.
And none of that is even relevant to what I said.
You said this:
"Actually, this very title is showing us that the majority *aren't* buying,"
and that circles back to what I said that a majority don't need to be buying.
You consistently keep "insisting" that a large group of people aren't happy, that this is not good for a "large group of people" and I'm telling you it doesn't matter as long as they market to and can continually sell to, a group of people willing to spend their money.
So you can insist all you want, this isn't your game and it turns out that for some games, their monetization isn't for you.
But it is for some people.
I'm merely pointing that out.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
For a bit of a sprinkle on top of that afore-presented evidence, Diablo Immortal couldn't even crack the top 10 grossing apps on the *Google Play Store* for its release month (Play Store isn't even available in China, so none of the apps listed are enjoying the "gigawhale" boost from China):
Additionally, the article mentions that the U.S. mobile market, again, outspent China for June, so don't expect a Chinese release to be the key factor that would propel D:I into the top ten. D:I was released on June 2nd, so you can't point to a mid-month release as a reason for it to be missing, either.
In all fairness, Blizzard isn't exactly a household word in mobile gaming circles.
They mentioned more than half of the DI players were new to A/B, so perhaps over time they will boost sales if not with this title, in a future offering.
I think that was the folly: Blizzard gave this main stage time at Blizzcon. They really thought their fans would just love to have a mobile version of Diablo.
They were incredibly wrong. A downright mediocre launch performance of one of the most beloved video game IPs ever, in the most lucrative platform ever to hit the industry, is the result. Hell, the game itself isn't even a bad game. It's just sort of lazy.
But none of that will matter because a handful of people with rather strange, esoteric sets of incentives will spend exorbitant amounts on it for a while yet, and it was incredibly cheap to produce.
I really don't get the application of an indifferent, laissez faire attitude to this monetization abomination.
This game should be judged and judged harshly by anyone who cares about their gaming hobby.
I question the bankrupt morality of anyone shrugging this off but then, I'm a judgemental SOB, uncool though that might seem to the "nothing to see here" crowd.
Dare to judge.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I really don't get the application of an indifferent, laissez faire attitude to this monetization abomination.
This game should be judged and judged harshly by anyone who cares about their gaming hobby.
I question the bankrupt morality of anyone shrugging this off but then, I'm a judgemental SOB, uncool though that might seem to the "nothing to see here" crowd.
Dare to judge.
People can rant and rail all they want. Unless they have an actual say in any game development company it's not going to do a thing.
"People" constantly do things that I don't like or approve of. I'm not going to get up in their grill unless it's truly horrific in a human rights sort of way.
As I've said multiple times, I don't consider myself "a gamer." Don't like the word, it's implication or how it's viewed in certain circles. While I most likely am a "gamer" because of the amount of time I spend playing video games among other things, I am thoroughly happy to walk away form the hobby if I find that there is no longer a place for me.
I don't play any mobile games other than a silly chess game I have on my phone. I rarely spend more than a month's worth of subscription price on any microtransaction. I spend what I think a game is worth and that's that.
If a company wants to start charging $100 an hour to access a game then I just know the game is not for me and I'll move on. If all games do this then the hobby is over for me.
Not sure what else needs to be said. I'm not one to rail, whine, scream and yell over a hobby. Life is too short to invest that type of energy. I'd rather do things that I find positive and fulfilling.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I really don't get the application of an indifferent, laissez faire attitude to this monetization abomination.
This game should be judged and judged harshly by anyone who cares about their gaming hobby.
I question the bankrupt morality of anyone shrugging this off but then, I'm a judgemental SOB, uncool though that might seem to the "nothing to see here" crowd.
Dare to judge.
People can rant and rail all they want. Unless they have an actual say in any game development company it's not going to do a thing.
"People" constantly do things that I don't like or approve of. I'm not going to get up in their grill unless it's truly horrific in a human rights sort of way.
As I've said multiple times, I don't consider myself "a gamer." Don't like the word, it's implication or how it's viewed in certain circles. While I most likely am a "gamer" because of the amount of time I spend playing video games among other things, I am thoroughly happy to walk away form the hobby if I find that there is no longer a place for me.
I don't play any mobile games other than a silly chess game I have on my phone. I rarely spend more than a month's worth of subscription price on any microtransaction. I spend what I think a game is worth and that's that.
If a company wants to start charging $100 an hour to access a game then I just know the game is not for me and I'll move on. If all games do this then the hobby is over for me.
Not sure what else needs to be said. I'm not one to rail, whine, scream and yell over a hobby. Life is too short to invest that type of energy. I'd rather do things that I find positive and fulfilling.
It's your life and you can live it however you want even if you believe that the "little people" don't matter and can't affect change.
But I have to ask, why are you in this thread promoting a non judgemental attitude? Aren't you just passive aggressively ranting at the ranters?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I really don't get the application of an indifferent, laissez faire attitude to this monetization abomination.
This game should be judged and judged harshly by anyone who cares about their gaming hobby.
I question the bankrupt morality of anyone shrugging this off but then, I'm a judgemental SOB, uncool though that might seem to the "nothing to see here" crowd.
Dare to judge.
People can rant and rail all they want. Unless they have an actual say in any game development company it's not going to do a thing.
"People" constantly do things that I don't like or approve of. I'm not going to get up in their grill unless it's truly horrific in a human rights sort of way.
As I've said multiple times, I don't consider myself "a gamer." Don't like the word, it's implication or how it's viewed in certain circles. While I most likely am a "gamer" because of the amount of time I spend playing video games among other things, I am thoroughly happy to walk away form the hobby if I find that there is no longer a place for me.
I don't play any mobile games other than a silly chess game I have on my phone. I rarely spend more than a month's worth of subscription price on any microtransaction. I spend what I think a game is worth and that's that.
If a company wants to start charging $100 an hour to access a game then I just know the game is not for me and I'll move on. If all games do this then the hobby is over for me.
Not sure what else needs to be said. I'm not one to rail, whine, scream and yell over a hobby. Life is too short to invest that type of energy. I'd rather do things that I find positive and fulfilling.
It's your life and you can live it however you want even if you believe that the "little people" don't matter and can't affect change.
But I have to ask, why are you in this thread promoting a non judgemental attitude? Aren't you just passive aggressively ranting at the ranters?
No I'm merely pointing out that there is a group of people who, for whatever reason, have no issues with spending large amounts of money on a video game. I'm also pointing out that these companies have the right to charge whatever they want or uncap spending in any way they want as long as it doesn't break any laws.
But "some people" are up in arms because a game company isn't doing what they want that game company to do according to their own beliefs.
Do you really think "people" can make Blizzard or any game company for that matter, stop this type of free to play business model? If so then have at it, can't wait to see what y'all come up with.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Hard to argue with "doesn't break any laws" morally weak though that point may be, other than to point out just who it is that makes the laws that aren't being broken and that in fact it does break the laws of some countries where the game is banned.
But not in America so it doesn't count I guess technically or morally.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I really don't get the application of an indifferent, laissez faire attitude to this monetization abomination.
This game should be judged and judged harshly by anyone who cares about their gaming hobby.
I question the bankrupt morality of anyone shrugging this off but then, I'm a judgemental SOB, uncool though that might seem to the "nothing to see here" crowd.
Dare to judge.
People can rant and rail all they want. Unless they have an actual say in any game development company it's not going to do a thing.
"People" constantly do things that I don't like or approve of. I'm not going to get up in their grill unless it's truly horrific in a human rights sort of way.
As I've said multiple times, I don't consider myself "a gamer." Don't like the word, it's implication or how it's viewed in certain circles. While I most likely am a "gamer" because of the amount of time I spend playing video games among other things, I am thoroughly happy to walk away form the hobby if I find that there is no longer a place for me.
I don't play any mobile games other than a silly chess game I have on my phone. I rarely spend more than a month's worth of subscription price on any microtransaction. I spend what I think a game is worth and that's that.
If a company wants to start charging $100 an hour to access a game then I just know the game is not for me and I'll move on. If all games do this then the hobby is over for me.
Not sure what else needs to be said. I'm not one to rail, whine, scream and yell over a hobby. Life is too short to invest that type of energy. I'd rather do things that I find positive and fulfilling.
It's your life and you can live it however you want even if you believe that the "little people" don't matter and can't affect change.
But I have to ask, why are you in this thread promoting a non judgemental attitude? Aren't you just passive aggressively ranting at the ranters?
No I'm merely pointing out that there is a group of people who, for whatever reason, have no issues with spending large amounts of money on a video game. I'm also pointing out that these companies have the right to charge whatever they want or uncap spending in any way they want as long as it doesn't break any laws.
But "some people" are up in arms because a game company isn't doing what they want that game company to do according to their own beliefs.
Do you really think "people" can make Blizzard or any game company for that matter, stop this type of free to play business model? If so then have at it, can't wait to see what y'all come up with.
I don't think that people cannot do anything about this. In fact I think they can if enough noise is made to the right Senators and House Representatives to pass laws requiring companies to show exact odds and making sure these gambling avenues are kept out of children's hands.
This is where people should take their complaints because these practices are highly predatory in nature and require scrutiny. If the US passes legislation protecting young players this will affect the way these games are monetized. I think it's long overdue.
Just like you said we cannot control these companies but governments can. Slippery slope and all that but I guess this is where it has to go to make them less greedy.
Hard to argue with "doesn't break any laws" morally weak though that point may be, other than to point out just who it is that makes the laws that aren't being broken and that in fact it does break the laws of some countries where the game is banned.
But not in America so it doesn't count I guess technically or morally.
Take it up with our lawmakers. If they are breaking laws in other countries then they should be taken to task.
Morally? you might say game companies have a moral obligation to protect other people and I would argue that to an extent people are responsible for their own lives. At least where it involves video games.
There is an argument to be made about helping people with gambling issues but why can't a person who has gobs of disposable income not be allowed to spend that money as they want?
And then someone else will say that if they have that income they should be using it to help society and others would argue otherwise.
too many people with too many different beliefs all saying that their beliefs are the right beliefs.
All we really can do is find some sort of middle ground that will hopefully suffice.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't think that people cannot do anything about this. In fact I think they can if enough noise is made to the right Senators and House Representatives to pass laws requiring companies to show exact odds and making sure these gambling avenues are kept out of children's hands.
This is where people should take their complaints because these practices are highly predatory in nature and require scrutiny. If the US passes legislation protecting young players this will affect the way these games are monetized. I think it's long overdue.
Just like you said we cannot control these companies but governments can. Slippery slope and all that but I guess this is where it has to go to make them less greedy.
As long as it's proven that it's breaking laws or goes against some common good then sure.
But if people are going to argue that other people shouldn't be spending their money the way another group of people want them to, then that's going to be difficult.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Morally? you might say game companies have a moral obligation to protect other people and I would argue that to an extent people are responsible for their own lives. At least where it involves video games.
I know it's an old fashioned concept but morality in business practices is still a thing and I judge them accordingly.
This goes well above and beyond any "protection of other people." It's intrinsic to the company's values, ethics and yes, morality.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I really don't get the application of an indifferent, laissez faire attitude to this monetization abomination.
This game should be judged and judged harshly by anyone who cares about their gaming hobby.
I question the bankrupt morality of anyone shrugging this off but then, I'm a judgemental SOB, uncool though that might seem to the "nothing to see here" crowd.
Dare to judge.
People can rant and rail all they want. Unless they have an actual say in any game development company it's not going to do a thing.
"People" constantly do things that I don't like or approve of. I'm not going to get up in their grill unless it's truly horrific in a human rights sort of way.
As I've said multiple times, I don't consider myself "a gamer." Don't like the word, it's implication or how it's viewed in certain circles. While I most likely am a "gamer" because of the amount of time I spend playing video games among other things, I am thoroughly happy to walk away form the hobby if I find that there is no longer a place for me.
I don't play any mobile games other than a silly chess game I have on my phone. I rarely spend more than a month's worth of subscription price on any microtransaction. I spend what I think a game is worth and that's that.
If a company wants to start charging $100 an hour to access a game then I just know the game is not for me and I'll move on. If all games do this then the hobby is over for me.
Not sure what else needs to be said. I'm not one to rail, whine, scream and yell over a hobby. Life is too short to invest that type of energy. I'd rather do things that I find positive and fulfilling.
Me too, which is why I like playing the video games I do play and wish to see more made.
That alone is reason enough to ostracize and critique any gamers or businesses that engage in these types of predatory monetization schemes.
Such perverted incentives for producers are not healthy for a consumer market, and this market is not immune to a crash. Take a look around: a fast-ballooning luxury item market (spurred on by global pandemic lockdowns) closely preceding a worldwide recession. You think that revenue growth continues apace if the world tips down that hill? Don't tell me, tell the experts:
What do you think will happen to games and game support if the money spout is all of a sudden constricted? You think studios will back out of predatory monetization, or dive deeper?
Comments
The bit about players doing it in the past is the epitome of "well, we can't realitically stop all murders, so why even try?" vibe.
And you can say that "players can stop this by not buying" but the truth is they are already buying.
Sorry, but at this point it's just complaining for the sake of complaining.
There is already a market for this and people are willing to buy. Not sure what you want to do about it but I'm interested.
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
A studio that has a free to play business model where a person can choose to spend, or not, doesn't.
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
It's not sustainable long-term. It's not healthy. And it's not some kind of magical marketing that has convinced the majority of gamers to fork over their cash. These monetization schemes are not popular with consumers, even if the games they're stapled to are.
As a consumer, sometimes the only thing you can do is continue to highlight these things. And avoid businesses and products that choose to profit off of such practices. Not just refuse to pay: refuse to be the rich man's game cattle. Additionally: ostracize and critique those who would enable these practices- streamer, dev, and gamer alike.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Unless you are saying that this title is NOT making enough money. I seemed to remember seeing that they made a lot of money the first week. Is this no longer the case?
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
Stop the madness.
Sometimes people are just willing to pay for an experience.
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
And none of that is even relevant to what I said.
https://sensortower.com/blog/top-mobile-games-by-worldwide-revenue-june-2022
Additionally, the article mentions that the U.S. mobile market, again, outspent China for June, so don't expect a Chinese release to be the key factor that would propel D:I into the top ten. D:I was released on June 2nd, so you can't point to a mid-month release as a reason for it to be missing, either.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
Fishing in RL since 1992
Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
They mentioned more than half of the DI players were new to A/B, so perhaps over time they will boost sales if not with this title, in a future offering.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"Actually, this very title is showing us that the majority *aren't* buying,"
and that circles back to what I said that a majority don't need to be buying.
You consistently keep "insisting" that a large group of people aren't happy, that this is not good for a "large group of people" and I'm telling you it doesn't matter as long as they market to and can continually sell to, a group of people willing to spend their money.
So you can insist all you want, this isn't your game and it turns out that for some games, their monetization isn't for you.
But it is for some people.
I'm merely pointing that out.
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
They were incredibly wrong. A downright mediocre launch performance of one of the most beloved video game IPs ever, in the most lucrative platform ever to hit the industry, is the result. Hell, the game itself isn't even a bad game. It's just sort of lazy.
But none of that will matter because a handful of people with rather strange, esoteric sets of incentives will spend exorbitant amounts on it for a while yet, and it was incredibly cheap to produce.
This game should be judged and judged harshly by anyone who cares about their gaming hobby.
I question the bankrupt morality of anyone shrugging this off but then, I'm a judgemental SOB, uncool though that might seem to the "nothing to see here" crowd.
Dare to judge.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"People" constantly do things that I don't like or approve of. I'm not going to get up in their grill unless it's truly horrific in a human rights sort of way.
As I've said multiple times, I don't consider myself "a gamer." Don't like the word, it's implication or how it's viewed in certain circles. While I most likely am a "gamer" because of the amount of time I spend playing video games among other things, I am thoroughly happy to walk away form the hobby if I find that there is no longer a place for me.
I don't play any mobile games other than a silly chess game I have on my phone. I rarely spend more than a month's worth of subscription price on any microtransaction. I spend what I think a game is worth and that's that.
If a company wants to start charging $100 an hour to access a game then I just know the game is not for me and I'll move on. If all games do this then the hobby is over for me.
Not sure what else needs to be said. I'm not one to rail, whine, scream and yell over a hobby. Life is too short to invest that type of energy. I'd rather do things that I find positive and fulfilling.
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
But I have to ask, why are you in this thread promoting a non judgemental attitude? Aren't you just passive aggressively ranting at the ranters?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
But "some people" are up in arms because a game company isn't doing what they want that game company to do according to their own beliefs.
Do you really think "people" can make Blizzard or any game company for that matter, stop this type of free to play business model? If so then have at it, can't wait to see what y'all come up with.
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
But not in America so it doesn't count I guess technically or morally.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
This is where people should take their complaints because these practices are highly predatory in nature and require scrutiny. If the US passes legislation protecting young players this will affect the way these games are monetized. I think it's long overdue.
Just like you said we cannot control these companies but governments can. Slippery slope and all that but I guess this is where it has to go to make them less greedy.
Morally? you might say game companies have a moral obligation to protect other people and I would argue that to an extent people are responsible for their own lives. At least where it involves video games.
There is an argument to be made about helping people with gambling issues but why can't a person who has gobs of disposable income not be allowed to spend that money as they want?
And then someone else will say that if they have that income they should be using it to help society and others would argue otherwise.
too many people with too many different beliefs all saying that their beliefs are the right beliefs.
All we really can do is find some sort of middle ground that will hopefully suffice.
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
But if people are going to argue that other people shouldn't be spending their money the way another group of people want them to, then that's going to be difficult.
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
This goes well above and beyond any "protection of other people." It's intrinsic to the company's values, ethics and yes, morality.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
That alone is reason enough to ostracize and critique any gamers or businesses that engage in these types of predatory monetization schemes.
Such perverted incentives for producers are not healthy for a consumer market, and this market is not immune to a crash. Take a look around: a fast-ballooning luxury item market (spurred on by global pandemic lockdowns) closely preceding a worldwide recession. You think that revenue growth continues apace if the world tips down that hill? Don't tell me, tell the experts:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/07/07/video-game-industry-not-recession-proof-sales-set-to-fall-in-2022.html
What do you think will happen to games and game support if the money spout is all of a sudden constricted? You think studios will back out of predatory monetization, or dive deeper?