The whole con industry depends on it. Support your local con man!
"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
So any hope the community would punish the monetization scheme has been buried in a mound of cash?
The "community" has spoken: it's fine with the monetization scheme, as evidenced by the cash it's voluntarily throwing at the game.
Perhaps the problem is with a few malcontents?
I'm not sure where you picked up the 'malcontents' vibe. I don't see disagreement with a monetization scheme to be much of a big deal.
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you weren't around here when Blizzard announced Diablo Immortal and disclosed its monetization. But I can assure you, the reaction on MMORPG.com at least was quite negative.
I'm sure I was quite negative about the monetization scheme (I don't like it); however, it would be a stretch to claim it would impact sales. Despite my tastes, it is obvious that winning via credit card is actually very popular.
This shouldn't be a surprise as that is the way people win in the rest of life. People buy a bigger car, bigger boat, bigger whatever and 'win', somehow.
So I guess I don't equate "don't like it" with "market failure".
Never claimed that people predicted Immortal would be a "failure". I said that its success shows its critics were wrong; there are legions of players who are fine with its monetization model. Remember that the next time someone decries "greedy P2W game devs".
I'm not really sure that proves critics wrong, as most critics would point at the "legions of players who are fine with its monetization model" as part of the thing they are criticizing.
Rather, that is reaffirming their criticisms.
If critics point to a monetization model's success as affirming their criticisms, that's even more a reason to ignore them.
The financial success of a system does not stop the potential criticism of the system itself being anti-consumer or flawed in other ways.
Sure, critics gonna criticize no matter what, but it's difficult to argue that a model is anti-consumer or flawed in other ways when it's successful in the marketplace of consumers.
In a time where good consumers, especially in the gaming industry, are as rare as an unicorn, I'm not sure if that proves anything. Remember that this is the same consumer base that still preorders games blindly, later crying when there are issues at launch (or worse, defending the company, something that is NOT the role of a consumer), yet doing it again the next time and perpetuating the "we'll fix it later (if ever)" mentality that the vast majority of AAA studios have nowadays, which they then proceed to complain about again... to still preorder. This ad infinitum. And this consumer culture is only getting worse and worse as the years pass, perpetuating this cicle of studios/publishers becoming even more scummy.
So, yes. The other person is right. These people have proven that they are idiots by the very definition of the word. And no, a large quantity of people doing something stupid doesn't magically make them right by default, and we have plenty of examples of this during human history.
I do find it odd some of these younger generations are just fine paying wads of cash over items 20 years ago we used to get for free. Only thing we used to pay for was new content and new stories.
Story of my life. Everything is extra these days. I used to just be able to go to a counter and buy a sandwich and they used to just give me a sandwich.
Now I go to a counter and buy a sandwich and they want us to tip them for handing the sandwich to me.
"Oh thank you kind sir, for moving your arms in a circular motion to provide my sustenance, a feat which deserves an extra 10% of my sandwich price."
It's like that but now with games.
"These 10 extra skins you created that would have been end game items are now 20 bucks each, oh jeepers instead of playing the game more to get them I get to spend the money instead for instant gratification and stop playing the game sooner, yippeee"
i mean tbh these extra skins never would have existed in the first place, and you would have gotten like one expansion and no between expansion content updates. It's a totally different landscape than it used to be, because ongoing content creation requires ongoing revenue, and ongoing revenue is going to dictate the volume and quality of said content. It's not a 1 for 1 of "back in my day you would have gotten these cosmetics for free" no you wouldn't have. lol
Current generation has gown up with instant gratification. Nothing gonna change. But everyone can be coke a cola and hold the top spot. So companies will always trying to be Pepsi. Being number 2 does not suck. ESO does a good job of catering to both markets. Our only saving grace.
We have to remember that this forum is an echo chamber. The overwhelming opinion on this site is negative, so that's what most people talk about. The problem with echo chambers is that you think that the world thinks as you do, because people here agree. In reality, this small sampling isn't enough to make an accurate test of whether a game is good or not.
We have to remember that this forum is an echo chamber. The overwhelming opinion on this site is negative, so that's what most people talk about. The problem with echo chambers is that you think that the world thinks as you do, because people here agree. In reality, this small sampling isn't enough to make an accurate test of whether a game is good or not.
Kind of remember D:I getting a decent amount of praise on this site in spite of it's monetization issues...
The whole con industry depends on it. Support your local con man!
In my much younger days I worked in an cafeteria dishwashing line with a con man who was out on parole or probation. I remember his words vividly:
"The best tool of a professional con man is a good suit."
He told us stories about his tricks, while we did all the work, so yeah, he had a little con going on us. But the stories and info were well worth doing his percentage of the dishes.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Maybe this has already happened, but it would be nice to see a game company create a MMORPG where you've pay-2-win servers and regular servers. Maybe a company could build that from the ground up, milk the whales dry, while providing the rest of us with a decent product.
Maybe this has already happened, but it would be nice to see a game company create a MMORPG where you've pay-2-win servers and regular servers. Maybe a company could build that from the ground up, milk the whales dry, while providing the rest of us with a decent product.
The problem is that isn't what whales want. Whales want to use their wealth to stomp those who can't pay, and literally no one who isn't a p2w player will voluntarily pick the p2w server (unless maybe we're talking one f2p server and one subscription server). Whales don't want to fight other whales.
It's the same issue that FFA PvP MMOs deal with. Wolves need sheep. Sheep want nothing to do with wolves.
Maybe this has already happened, but it would be nice to see a game company create a MMORPG where you've pay-2-win servers and regular servers. Maybe a company could build that from the ground up, milk the whales dry, while providing the rest of us with a decent product.
The problem is that isn't what whales want. Whales want to use their wealth to stomp those who can't pay, and literally no one who isn't a p2w player will voluntarily pick the p2w server (unless maybe we're talking one f2p server and one subscription server). Whales don't want to fight other whales.
It's the same issue that FFA PvP MMOs deal with. Wolves need sheep. Sheep want nothing to do with wolves.
I don't like painting whales as bad people. There is nothing wrong with throwing some benjamins at a hobby.
Some people enjoy throwing money into a virtual world and I think they should have an opportunity to do exactly that. They're not all predators and sociopaths.
Maybe this has already happened, but it would be nice to see a game company create a MMORPG where you've pay-2-win servers and regular servers. Maybe a company could build that from the ground up, milk the whales dry, while providing the rest of us with a decent product.
The problem is that isn't what whales want. Whales want to use their wealth to stomp those who can't pay, and literally no one who isn't a p2w player will voluntarily pick the p2w server (unless maybe we're talking one f2p server and one subscription server). Whales don't want to fight other whales.
It's the same issue that FFA PvP MMOs deal with. Wolves need sheep. Sheep want nothing to do with wolves.
I don't like painting whales as bad people. There is nothing wrong with throwing some benjamins at a hobby.
Some people enjoy throwing money into a virtual world and I think they should have an opportunity to do exactly that. They're not all predators and sociopaths.
You are uh, grossly exaggerating my point.
A PKer in a PvP game gets their fun from bullying PvE players. That doesn't make them a predator or sociopath IRL. It's just how they get their power fantasy.
Maybe this has already happened, but it would be nice to see a game company create a MMORPG where you've pay-2-win servers and regular servers. Maybe a company could build that from the ground up, milk the whales dry, while providing the rest of us with a decent product.
The problem is that isn't what whales want. Whales want to use their wealth to stomp those who can't pay, and literally no one who isn't a p2w player will voluntarily pick the p2w server (unless maybe we're talking one f2p server and one subscription server). Whales don't want to fight other whales.
It's the same issue that FFA PvP MMOs deal with. Wolves need sheep. Sheep want nothing to do with wolves.
I don't like painting whales as bad people. There is nothing wrong with throwing some benjamins at a hobby.
Some people enjoy throwing money into a virtual world and I think they should have an opportunity to do exactly that. They're not all predators and sociopaths.
You are uh, grossly exaggerating my point.
A PKer in a PvP game gets their fun from bullying PvE players. That doesn't make them a predator or sociopath IRL. It's just how they get their power fantasy.
Maybe this has already happened, but it would be nice to see a game company create a MMORPG where you've pay-2-win servers and regular servers. Maybe a company could build that from the ground up, milk the whales dry, while providing the rest of us with a decent product.
The problem is that isn't what whales want. Whales want to use their wealth to stomp those who can't pay, and literally no one who isn't a p2w player will voluntarily pick the p2w server (unless maybe we're talking one f2p server and one subscription server). Whales don't want to fight other whales.
It's the same issue that FFA PvP MMOs deal with. Wolves need sheep. Sheep want nothing to do with wolves.
I don't like painting whales as bad people. There is nothing wrong with throwing some benjamins at a hobby.
Some people enjoy throwing money into a virtual world and I think they should have an opportunity to do exactly that. They're not all predators and sociopaths.
You are uh, grossly exaggerating my point.
A PKer in a PvP game gets their fun from bullying PvE players. That doesn't make them a predator or sociopath IRL. It's just how they get their power fantasy.
Do you even read what you write?
Yes. I do. Thanks for getting smarmy for no reason. That question doesn't even warrant a response but I'll give you one anyway.
I am telling you an objective fact - that pay to win games intentionally utilize low/no spenders as content for high rolling players. This is how freemium and mobile games work. They rely on ladders and competitive content to make their high spenders look and feel better by comparison, and games do not survive long after the "dolphins and minnows" leave, and the whales are left to fight people on their level.
And you responded with feelings. "I think whales are people too." Sure. They are. There's just nothing of substance to that argument.
A PKer in a PvP game gets their fun from bullying PvE players. That doesn't make them a predator or sociopath IRL. It's just how they get their power fantasy.
There is so much wrong with this statement it is hard to know where to begin.
"A PKer in a PvP game": Let's stop right there. So a guy goes out and buys a PvP game and somehow, by participating in PvP he's doing something wrong? How is that even possible?
"Gets their fun from bullying PvE players": The word "bullying" is a judgement term and it indicates the player is violating the rules or breaking the intend of the game somehow. So you are labeling these players as bullies - for playing the game as designed.
"bullying PvE players": You mean, in the aforementioned PvP title?
"That doesn't make them a pedator or sociopath IRL": I think bullying people is part of the definition of a sociopath or predator. So a person who bullies for a "power fantasy" isn't a sociopath? Yeah, they kind of are that.
In that one sentence alone there are at least 4 huge problems.
I'm not a PvP player (I'm bad at it), but I do tire of PvP players getting called bullies when their only crime was to read the box before buying the game. People who want to PvE have several titles available - if they're being bullied they didn't read the box or are just silly.
A PKer in a PvP game gets their fun from bullying PvE players. That doesn't make them a predator or sociopath IRL. It's just how they get their power fantasy.
There is so much wrong with this statement it is hard to know where to begin.
"A PKer in a PvP game": Let's stop right there. So a guy goes out and buys a PvP game and somehow, by participating in PvP he's doing something wrong? How is that even possible?
"Gets their fun from bullying PvE players": The word "bullying" is a judgement term and it indicates the player is violating the rules or breaking the intend of the game somehow. So you are labeling these players as bullies - for playing the game as designed.
"bullying PvE players": You mean, in the aforementioned PvP title?
"That doesn't make them a pedator or sociopath IRL": I think bullying people is part of the definition of a sociopath or predator. So a person who bullies for a "power fantasy" isn't a sociopath? Yeah, they kind of are that.
In that one sentence alone there are at least 4 huge problems.
I'm not a PvP player (I'm bad at it), but I do tire of PvP players getting called bullies when their only crime was to read the box before buying the game. People who want to PvE have several titles available - if they're being bullied they didn't read the box or are just silly.
You are incapable of distinguishing between ingame behavior and moral behavior. I am not the one with understanding issues.
You are incapable of distinguishing between ingame behavior and moral behavior. I am not the one with understanding issues.
I can be immoral in game and steal a car in GTA and remain perfectly moral in real life; however, if I use a hack to steal the car in game then I'm being immoral in game and immoral in real life.
I'm thinking my distinctions are pretty well defined.
You are incapable of distinguishing between ingame behavior and moral behavior. I am not the one with understanding issues.
I can be immoral in game and steal a car in GTA and remain perfectly moral in real life; however, if I use a hack to steal the car in game then I'm being immoral in game and immoral in real life.
I'm thinking my distinctions are pretty well defined.
Fair. But you seem to be arguing with me over whether spending big dollars on a p2w game constitutes a hack/cheat code or not. I think it does, and they're just selling you the cheat. The nature of the game as "you spent money, and that results in others having a worse experience" is immutable, and you haven't addressed why any non-p2w player would willingly subject themselves to that ecosystem, or why p2w players would be happy without non-p2w players. Let's not grasp at straws over whether something is "sociopathic" or moral. If there is no distinction that the money spent is giving you a better experience than someone else, why spend at all? How does one pay to win if they aren't winning?
You are incapable of distinguishing between ingame behavior and moral behavior. I am not the one with understanding issues.
I can be immoral in game and steal a car in GTA and remain perfectly moral in real life; however, if I use a hack to steal the car in game then I'm being immoral in game and immoral in real life.
I'm thinking my distinctions are pretty well defined.
Fair. But you seem to be arguing with me over whether spending big dollars on a p2w game constitutes a hack/cheat code or not. I think it does, and they're just selling you the cheat. The nature of the game as "you spent money, and that results in others having a worse experience" is immutable, and you haven't addressed why any non-p2w player would willingly subject themselves to that ecosystem, or why p2w players would be happy without non-p2w players. Let's not grasp at straws over whether something is "sociopathic" or moral. If there is no distinction that the money spent is giving you a better experience than someone else, why spend at all? How does one pay to win if they aren't winning?
Ah okay, thanks for the clarification.
I would wholeheartedly agree with you that pay to win is undesirable, but I wouldn't call it cheating because it muddies the waters between a hack/exploit (not intentional) and pay-2-win (intentional).
Here is the importance difference in my mind: A hack/exploit isn't something you can read about on the box; therefore, if I buy the game and my experience is ruined by that, well there wasn't any way for me to avoid it. However, pay-2-win is advertised on the box in which case I can avoid the title altogether.
In the end, people who expose themselves to pay-2-win get what they pay for (or get what they don't pay for...lulz).
As with most thing in life the punishment is built in. People who buy into a game for battling credit cards have their reward.
Not sure how often P2W is "advertised on the box", save for perhaps by the more obvious nature of certain models like gacha. Part of the point is often luring/coaxing people into consumption, and you don't want to be too overt with that or you may turn people off with the prospect of the investment required, especially for competitive success.
Point in case, nowhere for Diablo Immortal does it mention that to get into the top ladder you'll be spending upwards of a million dollars on your character, but that's what already been happening for Immortal's PvP since shortly after launch.
Immortal similarly hid it's gacha-style mechanics both pre-launch, and buried in the progression system, so that it's something players confront only after they've already invested some time into play too.
Not sure how often P2W is "advertised on the box", save for perhaps by the more obvious nature of certain models like gacha. Part of the point is often luring/coaxing people into consumption, and you don't want to be too overt with that or you may turn people off with the prospect of the investment required, especially for competitive success.
Point in case, nowhere for Diablo Immortal does it mention that to get into the top ladder you'll be spending upwards of a million dollars on your character, but that's what already been happening for Immortal's PvP since shortly after launch.
Immortal similarly hid it's gacha-style mechanics both pre-launch, and buried in the progression system, so that it's something players confront only after they've already invested some time into play too.
Thanks for this - good information.
Yeah, I'm okay with just about anything in a game as long as the developer makes what I'm buying very clear. Perhaps a class action against the developer would be a good route to go here.
Maybe this has already happened, but it would be nice to see a game company create a MMORPG where you've pay-2-win servers and regular servers. Maybe a company could build that from the ground up, milk the whales dry, while providing the rest of us with a decent product.
The problem is that isn't what whales want. Whales want to use their wealth to stomp those who can't pay, and literally no one who isn't a p2w player will voluntarily pick the p2w server (unless maybe we're talking one f2p server and one subscription server). Whales don't want to fight other whales.
It's the same issue that FFA PvP MMOs deal with. Wolves need sheep. Sheep want nothing to do with wolves.
I don't like painting whales as bad people. There is nothing wrong with throwing some benjamins at a hobby.
Some people enjoy throwing money into a virtual world and I think they should have an opportunity to do exactly that. They're not all predators and sociopaths.
No but they are the cause the game industry going this way.
Why make a good B2P game, when you can just make a Gatcha game for a fraction of the cost, with the help of psychologists to rake in millions from these whales with minimum effort. Worse is that they also purposely target people with addiction problems. If it happens to be one with a big wallet, the better!
It's pure immoral corporate greed. That's what it is.
Luckily there are still some good game studios left in this world that have a moral compass and don't feel the need to swim in a large pool of blood money.
No but they are the cause the game industry going this way.
Why make a good B2P game, when you can just make a Gatcha game for a fraction of the cost, with the help of psychologists to rake in millions from these whales with minimum effort. Worse is that they also purposely target people with addiction problems. If it happens to be one with a big wallet, the better!
It's pure immoral corporate greed. That's what it is.
Luckily there are still some good game studios left in this world that have a moral compass and don't feel the need to swim in a large pool of blood money.
So just avoid those products.
One reason I don't begrudge different games (monetization/PVP/etc) any more is because I want to play games with people who like a game for the same reasons I like a game.
If some psychotic nutjob likes to grief other players then I'd hand him a copy of Mortal Online and not have his dumb @$$ in the game I'm playing. Likewise, for all the knights who like to torment those kinds of players - go get 'em.
Same with the whales who want to spend 100K on a game. I don't care to be in the same room with that person - its fine they do that, but we've nothing in common. We play a game for different reasons - so have at it in Diablo Immoral.
All these poorly designed games (IMHO) do a nice job of siphoning off people I don't want to be around - so they're doing me a favor by removing them from my title.
No but they are the cause the game industry going this way.
Why make a good B2P game, when you can just make a Gatcha game for a fraction of the cost, with the help of psychologists to rake in millions from these whales with minimum effort. Worse is that they also purposely target people with addiction problems. If it happens to be one with a big wallet, the better!
It's pure immoral corporate greed. That's what it is.
Luckily there are still some good game studios left in this world that have a moral compass and don't feel the need to swim in a large pool of blood money.
So just avoid those products.
One reason I don't begrudge different games (monetization/PVP/etc) any more is because I want to play games with people who like a game for the same reasons I like a game.
If some psychotic nutjob likes to grief other players then I'd hand him a copy of Mortal Online and not have his dumb @$$ in the game I'm playing. Likewise, for all the knights who like to torment those kinds of players - go get 'em.
Same with the whales who want to spend 100K on a game. I don't care to be in the same room with that person - its fine they do that, but we've nothing in common. We play a game for different reasons - so have at it in Diablo Immoral.
All these poorly designed games (IMHO) do a nice job of siphoning off people I don't want to be around - so they're doing me a favor by removing them from my title.
The problem is, that these games do affect the overall industry whether we ignore them or not. It's not democratic. It's not about making the right choices. And these games do not have to be popular. They make more money off of fewer players, and that inherently makes them resistant to consumer action.
Comments
The whole con industry depends on it. Support your local con man!
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
In a time where good consumers, especially in the gaming industry, are as rare as an unicorn, I'm not sure if that proves anything. Remember that this is the same consumer base that still preorders games blindly, later crying when there are issues at launch (or worse, defending the company, something that is NOT the role of a consumer), yet doing it again the next time and perpetuating the "we'll fix it later (if ever)" mentality that the vast majority of AAA studios have nowadays, which they then proceed to complain about again... to still preorder. This ad infinitum. And this consumer culture is only getting worse and worse as the years pass, perpetuating this cicle of studios/publishers becoming even more scummy.
So, yes. The other person is right. These people have proven that they are idiots by the very definition of the word. And no, a large quantity of people doing something stupid doesn't magically make them right by default, and we have plenty of examples of this during human history.
i mean tbh these extra skins never would have existed in the first place, and you would have gotten like one expansion and no between expansion content updates. It's a totally different landscape than it used to be, because ongoing content creation requires ongoing revenue, and ongoing revenue is going to dictate the volume and quality of said content. It's not a 1 for 1 of "back in my day you would have gotten these cosmetics for free" no you wouldn't have. lol
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
It's the same issue that FFA PvP MMOs deal with. Wolves need sheep. Sheep want nothing to do with wolves.
There is nothing wrong with throwing some benjamins at a hobby.
Some people enjoy throwing money into a virtual world and I think they should have an opportunity to do exactly that. They're not all predators and sociopaths.
A PKer in a PvP game gets their fun from bullying PvE players. That doesn't make them a predator or sociopath IRL. It's just how they get their power fantasy.
I am telling you an objective fact - that pay to win games intentionally utilize low/no spenders as content for high rolling players. This is how freemium and mobile games work. They rely on ladders and competitive content to make their high spenders look and feel better by comparison, and games do not survive long after the "dolphins and minnows" leave, and the whales are left to fight people on their level.
And you responded with feelings. "I think whales are people too." Sure. They are. There's just nothing of substance to that argument.
Fine.
Let's look at what you wrote:
There is so much wrong with this statement it is hard to know where to begin.
In that one sentence alone there are at least 4 huge problems.
I'm not a PvP player (I'm bad at it), but I do tire of PvP players getting called bullies when their only crime was to read the box before buying the game. People who want to PvE have several titles available - if they're being bullied they didn't read the box or are just silly.
I can be immoral in game and steal a car in GTA and remain perfectly moral in real life; however, if I use a hack to steal the car in game then I'm being immoral in game and immoral in real life.
I'm thinking my distinctions are pretty well defined.
I would wholeheartedly agree with you that pay to win is undesirable, but I wouldn't call it cheating because it muddies the waters between a hack/exploit (not intentional) and pay-2-win (intentional).
Here is the importance difference in my mind: A hack/exploit isn't something you can read about on the box; therefore, if I buy the game and my experience is ruined by that, well there wasn't any way for me to avoid it. However, pay-2-win is advertised on the box in which case I can avoid the title altogether.
In the end, people who expose themselves to pay-2-win get what they pay for (or get what they don't pay for...lulz).
As with most thing in life the punishment is built in. People who buy into a game for battling credit cards have their reward.
Point in case, nowhere for Diablo Immortal does it mention that to get into the top ladder you'll be spending upwards of a million dollars on your character, but that's what already been happening for Immortal's PvP since shortly after launch.
Immortal similarly hid it's gacha-style mechanics both pre-launch, and buried in the progression system, so that it's something players confront only after they've already invested some time into play too.
Yeah, I'm okay with just about anything in a game as long as the developer makes what I'm buying very clear. Perhaps a class action against the developer would be a good route to go here.
Why make a good B2P game, when you can just make a Gatcha game for a fraction of the cost, with the help of psychologists to rake in millions from these whales with minimum effort.
Worse is that they also purposely target people with addiction problems. If it happens to be one with a big wallet, the better!
It's pure immoral corporate greed. That's what it is.
Luckily there are still some good game studios left in this world that have a moral compass and don't feel the need to swim in a large pool of blood money.
So just avoid those products.
One reason I don't begrudge different games (monetization/PVP/etc) any more is because I want to play games with people who like a game for the same reasons I like a game.
If some psychotic nutjob likes to grief other players then I'd hand him a copy of Mortal Online and not have his dumb @$$ in the game I'm playing. Likewise, for all the knights who like to torment those kinds of players - go get 'em.
Same with the whales who want to spend 100K on a game. I don't care to be in the same room with that person - its fine they do that, but we've nothing in common. We play a game for different reasons - so have at it in Diablo Immoral.
All these poorly designed games (IMHO) do a nice job of siphoning off people I don't want to be around - so they're doing me a favor by removing them from my title.