This game is sure getting alot of coverage here lol
Why shouldn't it? It's a self-identified MMO, one of very few in development so fits right in.
For real, what the hell is a "self-identified MMO"?
Everyone around here has their own thoughts about what belongs on this site and are never afraid to voice those opinions, including in threads about Destiny's Sword last week. However, we are operating under the guidance of the developers themselves who call it an MMO, hence "self-identified".
But do you check with every member's feelings before publishing your articles?
I don't think they need to, I don't agree its a MMO, we posters never always agree. To me its a game, that's all this site needs to cover it, they even do gaming tech.
We know they get it wrong, they know they have it right. I can live with that, lets move on to what the games like.
That bit about "Fun Pain", using a stick on players who don't pay. Now I am all for new content and so on being paid for, but putting mechanisms in that push players into thinking they must pay is just not what gaming is about. Or should I say was not what gaming was about?
For what it's worth, my comment wasn't aimed at you. I also don't agree with the staff's (new) definition of MMO. And we can criticize that till the end of time. But to be pissed about what games they cover and how frequent they cover them is just silly.
In my humble opinion, developing video games has always been about making money, like any other profession, craft, or industry. Of course different people and different companies do have their own methods and ways of doing so. But that doesn't change the story.
Remember Arcades? That's how video games got mainstreamed in the first place, and talk putting mechanisms to push players into thinking they must pay. And that was in the 70s.
Yes there was a time when we paid the box price and that was it. But there was no internet back then, or it was less common. So today's methods of monetization were just impossible before. Internet opened up new ways of charging the consumers, not corporate greed or the change of video games values or anything. If internet was just as common as it is today upon video games' inception, I bet we would have seen lootboxes and DLCs right from the get go.
I didn't think it was Constantine, I just picked your post as it caught my eye. You are certainly right that the way games have got their revenue has changed according to the platform they are played on. Some of the earliest practices in arcades were not as good as what came later, so in fact they got better. Then we went to the internet and it was not long before they got worse, players were even saying "we won't have launch issues now." The idea being that updates were going to be so easy, but that of course led to them to releasing games in a too early state. The latest incarnation of that being early access, proof that bad practice ideas only lead to worse practice.
It is not that they want to make money and lots of it that concerns me it is how they do it. Also I would say that in the early days of MMOs and indeed gaming we had far more small companies with a less corporate attitude which helped the mix. If it was not for the rise of indie gaming would be one big franchise.
Removing anonymity in games will likely only have one real outcome, and that is 'Doxing'. Frankly games should not open you up to abuse and bullying which is what this would create, incredibly short sighted imo, but not too surprising given where it is coming from.
I really want this game to be good. However, I'm not overly filled with confidence by what I've seen/read. I hope that this is a truly different experience and not a cash grab.
Removing anonymity in games will likely only have one real outcome, and that is 'Doxing'. Frankly games should not open you up to abuse and bullying which is what this would create, incredibly short sighted imo, but not too surprising given where it is coming from.
You can do some things in this line though, such as having an account name for all avatars on the server. As a role-player I am in two minds about these, but if they put the account name after the avatar name it would not be so bad.
Removing anonymity in games will likely only have one real outcome, and that is 'Doxing'. Frankly games should not open you up to abuse and bullying which is what this would create, incredibly short sighted imo, but not too surprising given where it is coming from.
You can do some things in this line though, such as having an account name for all avatars on the server. As a role-player I am in two minds about these, but if they put the account name after the avatar name it would not be so bad.
The implication was they were talking about in game characters being linked to your RL identity, if that is not the case then they really need to make this clear.
Removing anonymity in games will likely only have one real outcome, and that is 'Doxing'. Frankly games should not open you up to abuse and bullying which is what this would create, incredibly short sighted imo, but not too surprising given where it is coming from.
You can do some things in this line though, such as having an account name for all avatars on the server. As a role-player I am in two minds about these, but if they put the account name after the avatar name it would not be so bad.
The implication was they were talking about in game characters being linked to your RL identity, if that is not the case then they really need to make this clear.
You are quite right, that's what they were talking about, I just looked for something that could help with anonymity without going too far.
That Blizzard idea, I remember it coming in, was rightly dropped when they realised what a double edged sword they were creating. I think that was both in game account and forum account were going to get the name of the credit card? I would be against in game account name being the same as forum account name as that could be another source of griefing.
Internet anonymity is certainly a cause for many of the toxic behaviors. But if you don't provide anonymity, you'd lose members. Even people who aren't toxic, them more than the others. I don't believe this is the solution. I do have a solution. I've been working on it for some time. You'll learn about it someday!
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Internet anonymity is certainly a cause for many of the toxic behaviors. But if you don't provide anonymity, you'd lose members. Even people who aren't toxic, them more than the others. I don't believe this is the solution. I do have a solution. I've been working on it for some time. You'll learn about it someday!
If you can come up with something that can't be used to SWAT people, then i am sure many companies would be interested.
Internet anonymity is certainly a cause for many of the toxic behaviors. But if you don't provide anonymity, you'd lose members. Even people who aren't toxic, them more than the others. I don't believe this is the solution. I do have a solution. I've been working on it for some time. You'll learn about it someday!
If you can come up with something that can't be used to SWAT people, then i am sure many companies would be interested.
If people still have anonymity shielding their real identity, but value their virtual identity then many of the toxic behaviors due to anonymity would vanish. Virtual identity also needs to be universal, same as your real identity.
Of course it is not that simple. You gotta wait a few months for the details.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Internet anonymity is certainly a cause for many of the toxic behaviors. But if you don't provide anonymity, you'd lose members. Even people who aren't toxic, them more than the others. I don't believe this is the solution. I do have a solution. I've been working on it for some time. You'll learn about it someday!
If anonymity is a cause of some toxic behaviors, then a lack of anonymity is a cause of plenty more--and more dangerous ones. Trolling through someone's post history to find some pretext to gin up a digital lynch mob and try to get someone fired or otherwise destroy his life is far more toxic than anything enabled by anonymity. And unless society comes to accept a rather strict statute of limitations on how long it's reasonable to go after someone for having said something stupid, it's only going to get a lot easier and a lot more common.
Putting stuff out there forever with your real-life identity attached to it is very unwise unless either it's your real-life job or it's sufficiently polished and professional that you wouldn't mind having people hostile to you pore over it 20 years from now. Neither of those describe most people's involvement in online games, nor for that matter, forums like this one.
@quizzical true. That's why I said I don't believe this is a solution. I myself would never join a game or a community if they don't provide anonymity.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I hope the developers are aware of the differences between "encouraging" and "forcing" positive social interaction. This is a distinction Square Enix seems to have mastered, while Blizzard failed.
This game is sure getting alot of coverage here lol
Why shouldn't it? It's a self-identified MMO, one of very few in development so fits right in.
For real, what the hell is a "self-identified MMO"?
Everyone around here has their own thoughts about what belongs on this site and are never afraid to voice those opinions, including in threads about Destiny's Sword last week. However, we are operating under the guidance of the developers themselves who call it an MMO, hence "self-identified".
But do you check with every member's feelings before publishing your articles?
I don't think they need to, I don't agree its a MMO, we posters never always agree. To me its a game, that's all this site needs to cover it, they even do gaming tech.
We know they get it wrong, they know they have it right. I can live with that, lets move on to what the games like.
That bit about "Fun Pain", using a stick on players who don't pay. Now I am all for new content and so on being paid for, but putting mechanisms in that push players into thinking they must pay is just not what gaming is about. Or should I say was not what gaming was about?
For what it's worth, my comment wasn't aimed at you. I also don't agree with the staff's (new) definition of MMO. And we can criticize that till the end of time. But to be pissed about what games they cover and how frequent they cover them is just silly.
In my humble opinion, developing video games has always been about making money, like any other profession, craft, or industry. Of course different people and different companies do have their own methods and ways of doing so. But that doesn't change the story.
Remember Arcades? That's how video games got mainstreamed in the first place, and talk putting mechanisms to push players into thinking they must pay. And that was in the 70s.
Yes there was a time when we paid the box price and that was it. But there was no internet back then, or it was less common. So today's methods of monetization were just impossible before. Internet opened up new ways of charging the consumers, not corporate greed or the change of video games values or anything. If internet was just as common as it is today upon video games' inception, I bet we would have seen lootboxes and DLCs right from the get go.
Maybe so. We'll never know. But I highly doubt that I would have been playing video games for the past 40 years if they had had lootboxes and DLC from the get go.
I'm a game consumer and I have no confusion about what I am. I play games that I enjoy and if the developers make a huge profit because they've made a game a lot of us enjoy that's great for them but my interest in their profit margin begins and ends with whether they use some of that to make an even better game. If they don't, no biggie - someone else always has made another game that interested me and always will.
But manipulative practices in the gaming industry that have become so much a part of it just rub me the wrong way and is enough of a reason for me to stay away from some games that may otherwise look interesting... or not. If I can work around it as I do with sports games I only play in off-line mode and never give them a dime beyond the box price, I will also do that sometimes. I mean being anti-corporate greed in gaming is not a religion with me. I'll work around it if I can and if not, they can go fuck themselves.
From what I'm reading here and a few other places I go to read about games I'm not alone in feeling that way. The fact that developers themselves (and not just the small new ones trying to make a name for themselves - see the quote from CDPR in my sig aimed squarely at the last Deus Ex game) are coming out with statements against the insidious manipulative monetization in AAA gaming tells me that they also know which way the wind is blowing. Even if they are just pandering to us for PR purposes because they are aware of the growing backlash against manipulative monetization, that is still a relative new thing for developers to do and indicative of just how much momentum that backlash has at the moment.
"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 miss the old days when i could tell someone to go fuck themselves with no repercussions over a game of chess on AOL and then slander their country of origin after they whoop me and lower my rating.
What you call manipulative practices, I'd call business or marketing strategies. And we are talking about the same thing. This is my main problem; over-dramatizing and demonizing every case without a proper discussion. Let's go with your example, Deus Ex:Mankind Divided.
You called it "insidious manipulative monetization". And referred to a statement by CDPR. Well, CDPR did a PR move, nothing more, nothing less. They did it to sell their own game. They don't care more, or less, about you, or anyone else, compared to other companies. They care about selling their game.
Let's talk about Deus Ex. Yes, there are lootboxes in Deus Ex cash-shop; you can buy booster items to unlock certain levels a bit faster in the silly completely stand-alone online mode. And you can buy any weapon for the single-player campaign directly from the shop. So what? Which part of that is "insidious manipulative" exactly?
I played Deux Ex. I went for the Platinum trophy. I didn't need to buy any (I can't emphasize that enough) item from the cash-shop to finish the game on the hardest difficulty available. And for the Platinum trophy I had to finish that silly online mode too, yet I didn't need to buy any item for that neither and I finished the mode in half a day. I achieved %100 on that game, without spending a single dime (besides the box price).
Also, why a single-player can't have lootboxes? I mean, what's the freaking difference between a multi-player and a single-player regarding the ethics and morality of that? This statement alone, without discussing games case by case, is completely meaningless, and as I said, is just a PR move. And it's a good one, more power to them. But let's not make it more than what it is.
Hey I'm not saying there aren't horrible game designs forcing people to pay more to able to enjoy the game. I, personally, haven't been forced in my life, ever. And I play a lot of games, a hell lot more even compared to a nerds living in basements.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Internet anonymity is certainly a cause for many of the toxic behaviors. But if you don't provide anonymity, you'd lose members. Even people who aren't toxic, them more than the others. I don't believe this is the solution. I do have a solution. I've been working on it for some time. You'll learn about it someday!
If you can come up with something that can't be used to SWAT people, then i am sure many companies would be interested.
If people still have anonymity shielding their real identity, but value their virtual identity then many of the toxic behaviors due to anonymity would vanish. Virtual identity also needs to be universal, same as your real identity.
Of course it is not that simple. You gotta wait a few months for the details.
Making your "virtual identity" universal means all I have to do is exploit the sloppiest secured medium you use one time and then I have you everywhere you are.
Yeah I didn't make myself clear because I don't want to talk about mechanisms now. So we are not talking about the same thing.
Imagine you have an avatar online. A nickname, and a profile. Attached to it is your own corner in this virtual community. You don't have any personal information whatsoever linked to that avatar. There are no data behind any security walls or anything. It is what it is, and people can see it inside out.
But you care about that, and the way you behave in other communities would reflect on that avatar, you'd have a reputation, and your behavior can influence it, may it be positively or negatively. And through incentives and punishments, you'd want to behave well, and you would want to be part of that community. I know I haven't explained much, but I can't do more right now. I will in near future. We've been working on it for a couple of years alongside a few world renowned psychologists and behavioral experts. We might completely fail in practice, that I am aware of, but let's hope it would turn into something good. Because I think it would benefit us all, well, me more than you guys!
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
You're a lot more willing to rationalize any monetization scheme in gaming as just "business being business" than I am
I also played Deus Ex - bought it cheap on a Steam sale - and didn't feel the need to spend an extra dime either. Like I said, I work around this shit if it can be worked around.
What's wrong with a cash shop for single player games? In the simplest terms there is no ongoing "service" from the publisher so they can't really justify it on the basis that online games with frequent updates can and they certainly don't get the pass that F2P games with no up front cost get. But worse... THERE IS A FUCKING STORE WITH A VIRTUAL BILLBOARD IN MY FUCKING FACE IN A SINGLE PLAYER GAME.
Maybe you're the kind of person that enjoys the obligatory ads in cinemas these days that play for a good 15 minutes after the advertised start time of the movie and maybe 48 minutes of show and 12 minutes of ads in network TV is something you also enjoy... I don't.
I also feel no obligation to see it from the company's "just-trying-to-make-a-buck" perspective. I see it from the annoyed "get these ads out of my fucking game" consumer perspective.
"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
Well my point about Deus Ex wasn't rationalizing it, neither it required to work around the cash-shop. Its existence did not matter at all.
Who says there has to be an ongoing service to justify the cash-shop? When there's ongoing service the cash-shop might be more frequented by the players. When it is not an ongoing service, then players are probably going to buy less items from it. That's the only difference. Cash-shop brings more revenue, that's the only justification requires.
Now how much of the game content or fun would be affected by the cash-shop is another discussion. I don't understand criticizing it for the sake of it. You can judge a game model horrible because of how it is gatekeeping fun or content behind cash-shop. But anything besides that, doesn't make much sense to be honest. So in Deus Ex example; you are annoyed because someone else prefers to drop more cash to have all the weapons in a single-player game right from the beginning? Why? Or that requires some sort of a justification? I really don't understand why and I am being sincere.
You are right about the virtual billboards. Yes, that can be annoying I can imagine. I'm not sure I have ever played a game with that sort of design.
I don't know where you got the idea that I might be the kinda person who enjoy ads. Because my points were about optional stuff which can be easily avoided, mandatory ads aren't like that at all. But then again if I visit this site I won't be using an adblocker on a personal device. Yes ads annoy me, but I do understand their business model. Cinemas are different. If ads are keeping the ticket prices from rising up then masses probably prefer it that way. My personal choice would be to pay more for an ad free experience. If someone offers that (which some of the Premium screens do) I would be happy, I won't label them as greedy or insidious!
It ain't about obligations. It's about having a right perspective on how the world works. Ours happen to be vastly different.
Anyways, I think I am derailing a quite bit here. If you want to continue this debate, maybe we should create another thread for it? Cheerio.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Comments
It is not that they want to make money and lots of it that concerns me it is how they do it. Also I would say that in the early days of MMOs and indeed gaming we had far more small companies with a less corporate attitude which helped the mix. If it was not for the rise of indie gaming would be one big franchise.
That Blizzard idea, I remember it coming in, was rightly dropped when they realised what a double edged sword they were creating. I think that was both in game account and forum account were going to get the name of the credit card? I would be against in game account name being the same as forum account name as that could be another source of griefing.
Of course it is not that simple. You gotta wait a few months for the details.
mmorpg junkie since 1999
Putting stuff out there forever with your real-life identity attached to it is very unwise unless either it's your real-life job or it's sufficiently polished and professional that you wouldn't mind having people hostile to you pore over it 20 years from now. Neither of those describe most people's involvement in online games, nor for that matter, forums like this one.
I'm a game consumer and I have no confusion about what I am. I play games that I enjoy and if the developers make a huge profit because they've made a game a lot of us enjoy that's great for them but my interest in their profit margin begins and ends with whether they use some of that to make an even better game. If they don't, no biggie - someone else always has made another game that interested me and always will.
But manipulative practices in the gaming industry that have become so much a part of it just rub me the wrong way and is enough of a reason for me to stay away from some games that may otherwise look interesting... or not. If I can work around it as I do with sports games I only play in off-line mode and never give them a dime beyond the box price, I will also do that sometimes. I mean being anti-corporate greed in gaming is not a religion with me. I'll work around it if I can and if not, they can go fuck themselves.
From what I'm reading here and a few other places I go to read about games I'm not alone in feeling that way. The fact that developers themselves (and not just the small new ones trying to make a name for themselves - see the quote from CDPR in my sig aimed squarely at the last Deus Ex game) are coming out with statements against the insidious manipulative monetization in AAA gaming tells me that they also know which way the wind is blowing. Even if they are just pandering to us for PR purposes because they are aware of the growing backlash against manipulative monetization, that is still a relative new thing for developers to do and indicative of just how much momentum that backlash has at the moment.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Aloha Mr Hand !
What you call manipulative practices, I'd call business or marketing strategies. And we are talking about the same thing. This is my main problem; over-dramatizing and demonizing every case without a proper discussion. Let's go with your example, Deus Ex:Mankind Divided.
You called it "insidious manipulative monetization". And referred to a statement by CDPR. Well, CDPR did a PR move, nothing more, nothing less. They did it to sell their own game. They don't care more, or less, about you, or anyone else, compared to other companies. They care about selling their game.
Let's talk about Deus Ex. Yes, there are lootboxes in Deus Ex cash-shop; you can buy booster items to unlock certain levels a bit faster in the silly completely stand-alone online mode. And you can buy any weapon for the single-player campaign directly from the shop. So what? Which part of that is "insidious manipulative" exactly?
I played Deux Ex. I went for the Platinum trophy. I didn't need to buy any (I can't emphasize that enough) item from the cash-shop to finish the game on the hardest difficulty available. And for the Platinum trophy I had to finish that silly online mode too, yet I didn't need to buy any item for that neither and I finished the mode in half a day. I achieved %100 on that game, without spending a single dime (besides the box price).
Also, why a single-player can't have lootboxes? I mean, what's the freaking difference between a multi-player and a single-player regarding the ethics and morality of that? This statement alone, without discussing games case by case, is completely meaningless, and as I said, is just a PR move. And it's a good one, more power to them. But let's not make it more than what it is.
Hey I'm not saying there aren't horrible game designs forcing people to pay more to able to enjoy the game. I, personally, haven't been forced in my life, ever. And I play a lot of games, a hell lot more even compared to a nerds living in basements.
Imagine you have an avatar online. A nickname, and a profile. Attached to it is your own corner in this virtual community. You don't have any personal information whatsoever linked to that avatar. There are no data behind any security walls or anything. It is what it is, and people can see it inside out.
But you care about that, and the way you behave in other communities would reflect on that avatar, you'd have a reputation, and your behavior can influence it, may it be positively or negatively. And through incentives and punishments, you'd want to behave well, and you would want to be part of that community. I know I haven't explained much, but I can't do more right now. I will in near future. We've been working on it for a couple of years alongside a few world renowned psychologists and behavioral experts. We might completely fail in practice, that I am aware of, but let's hope it would turn into something good. Because I think it would benefit us all, well, me more than you guys!
You're a lot more willing to rationalize any monetization scheme in gaming as just "business being business" than I am
I also played Deus Ex - bought it cheap on a Steam sale - and didn't feel the need to spend an extra dime either. Like I said, I work around this shit if it can be worked around.
What's wrong with a cash shop for single player games? In the simplest terms there is no ongoing "service" from the publisher so they can't really justify it on the basis that online games with frequent updates can and they certainly don't get the pass that F2P games with no up front cost get. But worse... THERE IS A FUCKING STORE WITH A VIRTUAL BILLBOARD IN MY FUCKING FACE IN A SINGLE PLAYER GAME.
Maybe you're the kind of person that enjoys the obligatory ads in cinemas these days that play for a good 15 minutes after the advertised start time of the movie and maybe 48 minutes of show and 12 minutes of ads in network TV is something you also enjoy... I don't.
I also feel no obligation to see it from the company's "just-trying-to-make-a-buck" perspective. I see it from the annoyed "get these ads out of my fucking game" consumer perspective.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Well my point about Deus Ex wasn't rationalizing it, neither it required to work around the cash-shop. Its existence did not matter at all.
Who says there has to be an ongoing service to justify the cash-shop? When there's ongoing service the cash-shop might be more frequented by the players. When it is not an ongoing service, then players are probably going to buy less items from it. That's the only difference. Cash-shop brings more revenue, that's the only justification requires.
Now how much of the game content or fun would be affected by the cash-shop is another discussion. I don't understand criticizing it for the sake of it. You can judge a game model horrible because of how it is gatekeeping fun or content behind cash-shop. But anything besides that, doesn't make much sense to be honest. So in Deus Ex example; you are annoyed because someone else prefers to drop more cash to have all the weapons in a single-player game right from the beginning? Why? Or that requires some sort of a justification? I really don't understand why and I am being sincere.
You are right about the virtual billboards. Yes, that can be annoying I can imagine. I'm not sure I have ever played a game with that sort of design.
I don't know where you got the idea that I might be the kinda person who enjoy ads. Because my points were about optional stuff which can be easily avoided, mandatory ads aren't like that at all. But then again if I visit this site I won't be using an adblocker on a personal device. Yes ads annoy me, but I do understand their business model. Cinemas are different. If ads are keeping the ticket prices from rising up then masses probably prefer it that way. My personal choice would be to pay more for an ad free experience. If someone offers that (which some of the Premium screens do) I would be happy, I won't label them as greedy or insidious!
It ain't about obligations. It's about having a right perspective on how the world works. Ours happen to be vastly different.
Anyways, I think I am derailing a quite bit here. If you want to continue this debate, maybe we should create another thread for it? Cheerio.