Random video game news... Games are the most elevated form of investigation

[LadyCrimson]

^ Speaking only for myself, but DLC that costs $100/as much or more as the base game is not DLC.

If that's not a large multiple dlc/season-pass type of thing and it's only for a bit of end game map content like a couple boss runs/collectables/1 new skill + stacks of game currency+some costume type package "DLC" or some crap like that, I rofl at them.

[Azdeus]

3 hours ago, LadyCrimson said:

^ Speaking only for myself, but DLC that costs $100/as much or more as the base game is not DLC.

If that's not a large multiple dlc/season-pass type of thing and it's only for a bit of end game map content like a couple boss runs/collectables/1 new skill + stacks of game currency+some costume type package "DLC" or some crap like that, I rofl at them.

It's pay to win though, especially if they were to implement looting companions or "early access" to certain weapons/items

Not a lick surprised though, they've been milking their customers for years and gamers deserve this for buying the **** from the start, gamers deserve the giant pecker heading for their rectum.

[kanisatha]

2 hours ago, Azdeus said:

they've been milking their customers for years and gamers deserve this

Customers are like cows. They *need* to be milked. It's symbiotic!

[LadyCrimson]

I'm "afraid" any Borderlands 4 will go the same direction. I remember they wanted to do more MT/online stuff with BL3 and the audience rebelled so they pulled back - but a BL4 may not. Of course, I've lost most interest in that series to begin with, but that's not the point.

At any rate, glad I didn't buy D4. You could see that writing on the Activision wall a long time ago. If I ever want more ARPG pewpew at some point I'll probably go for POE2. They look like they've made their own version of D2's Demon Hunter but dialed up to 50 - or, "how can we get guns into the game, but it isn't a gun?" - looks like silly fun.

 

[Azdeus]

8 hours ago, kanisatha said:

Customers are like cows. They *need* to be milked. It's symbiotic!

I'd say that it's more like; they're sheep being fleeced

[Malcador]

Well, if they're having fun, guess it's nothing too bad.

[LadyCrimson]

4 hours ago, Malcador said:

Well, if they're having fun, guess it's nothing too bad.

Sure, it's all perspective in that sense. Ppl are free to do with their hard earned money whatever they want. It's tiresome re: game marketing at this point is all. Not simply the greed aspect but also for potential game design/creativity re: such games, when the main purpose is to create a game that funnels/motivates ppl right towards the cash shop. Bah. I'm too old and inflexible now maybe.

[Hawke64]

6 hours ago, Malcador said:

Well, if they're having fun, guess it's nothing too bad.

The people targeted by MTX and lootboxes are slightly more vulnerable to addictive gambling*. The monetisation also destroys the design and quality of the original work, like can be seen with Middle-Earth: Shadow of War (currently available on GOG with 85% discount). Granted, most "games" that use those are trash with or without MTX.
*https://www.ign.com/articles/heres-how-loot-box-addiction-destroys-lives Not the best example, as does not cite statistical research numbers, but suitable enough.

Quote

Luke Clark, the head of the University of British Columbia's Gaming Research arm, tells me that there is plenty of evidence in behavioral neuroscience that leads researchers to believe that dopamine responses tend to react strongly to "uncertain reward" -- which is the dynamic that the blind-box gambit preys upon.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/please-stop-huffing-your-steam-deck-vent-fumes-valve-plead-as-players-obsess-over-new-deck-smell

Quote

Steam support wrote back, offering a perhaps unsurprising response in saying that, no, you probably shouldn’t get hooked on the fumes of an electronic device.

“As with all electronics, it is generally not recommended you inhale the exhaust fumes on your device,” they wrote.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-does-time-dilation-set-exodus-apart-from-mass-effect-it-supersizes-all-of-the-choices-that-you-make

Quote

Ohlen has said a bit more to Polygon on the subject. "[Time dilation] essentially supersizes all of the choices that you make," he said. "Instead of seeing the consequences of a choice you make in conversation or in gameplay, you know, days later, or weeks or months later, years or even decades later, you'll see the impact. The choice you made with, say, bringing a remnant technology back with you, or how you decided to use that tech. You're going to have all sorts of twists and turns, and family dynamics that just get really weird. You have some children, and you go off, and it's been a month for you, but 30 years for them. And they're like, 'What the ****, dad?'"

Curious if they will be able to make it work.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/prince-of-persia-the-lost-crown-has-a-big-brewing-frenemy-battle-on-its-hands-and-it-cant-come-soon-enough

Quote

The circumstances under which Sargon attains his bow-****-chakram are similarly shrouded in mystery. After defeating The Lost Crown's BIG PIG boss (TM), Sargon spies the bow on the ground next to the fallen body of… himself? But the bow actually belongs to his mate Menalios, and there's no way Menalios would be without his bow unless something terrible had also happened to him in the process. Assuming the worst, Sargon rescues it and returns to the obstacle he went to fetch Menalios to solve in the first place, but lo and behold, minutes later Sargon runs into Menalios alive and well and still with his own bow in hand. Some of the other Immortals Sargon runs into during his travels also seem to have been trapped here for days and weeks when they meet again, too, and the change in their demeanour, not to mention the rate at which they're all clearly unravelling, makes for some potent storytelling to keep you barrelling forward.

 

[HoonDing]

"Well, if they're having fun, guess it's nothing too bad."

It is important to make ppl aware they're not really liking what they're liking when it's something we dislike.

[Azdeus]

8 hours ago, Malcador said:

Well, if they're having fun, guess it's nothing too bad.

Except it's exploitative as Hawke pointed out, and when it effects everyone else having their enjoyment ruined because someone decided to pay 2 games worth of money for an advantage it's not much fun. People buying gold in WoW used to be annoying but fairly uncommon, but now Blizzard has monetized that aswell, why spend weeks grinding gold for something when you can just chuck Bobby 25$?

I remember how much fun it was in Planetside 2 at release when people immediately bought flyers weeks before tanks could grind out AA-guns effectively making them completely defenceless sitting ducks if that was your prefered playstyle, preventing them from getting even a chance at grinding for defences.

So no, it's ****ing bad.

Games are escapism, to have the rich people of the world get their advantages taken into escapism is ****ing awful.

[xzar_monty]

35 minutes ago, Azdeus said:

Games are escapism, to have the rich people of the world get their advantages taken into escapism is ****ing awful.

To a certain extent, you do have a point. However, there are other aspects to the question.

For instance, if games are escapism to you, I'd strongly suggest that you find something better and more constructive to do (and yes, I know this sounds patronizing).

Also, what you wrote made me think of a character in Ocean Vuong's debut novel On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous. A couple of guys debate about whether it's better to buy Coca-Cola or Sprite, and one of them is a strong supporter of Sprite. The other, later on, finds out that the Coca-Cola Company actually owns both brands and so no matter which one they bought and buy, Coca-Cola will win out in the end, which he finds incredibly sad. I found myself unable to empathize with this, although that was clearly what I was meant to do, because it seems to me that buying either Coca-Cola or Sprite is stupid in the first place (they are designed to exploit your weaknesses and they are quite likely to contribute to you becoming sick and fat) and that the simplest way to deal with these soft drinks is to ignore them both. So,  as cynical as the game situation appears to be, I don't think there's any real reason to expect that the industry would work in any other way, and so I would simply ignore all games that contain the kind of stuff / options that you oppose.

[Azdeus]

46 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

To a certain extent, you do have a point. However, there are other aspects to the question.

For instance, if games are escapism to you, I'd strongly suggest that you find something better and more constructive to do (and yes, I know this sounds patronizing).

 So,  as cynical as the game situation appears to be, I don't think there's any real reason to expect that the industry would work in any other way, and so I would simply ignore all games that contain the kind of stuff / options that you oppose.

The whole point of escapism is to get away from being constructive, I have enough of that.

I do generally ignore games like that, but when you start to play the games way before they introduce pay to win mechanics you are still effected. For instance, I started WoW in 2005 and didn't entirely stop until they started to dip into pay to win with Cataclysm in iirc 2010 with that store mount /spit. Planetside 2 I was a beta tester for, and it didn't become clearly apparent until release how pay to win it was. I think I lasted two evenings or something before I lost it.

[xzar_monty]

2 minutes ago, Azdeus said:

The whole point of escapism is to get away from being constructive, I have enough of that.

I would suggest that you're probably using the wrong term here, i.e. instead of escapism you could or perhaps should be talking about simply having fun. Escapism as a phenomenon is not particularly healthy, while there's nothing wrong with having fun playing a game, even if it's an alternative to the constructive things in your life.

As for your second point, fair enough: there is something decidedly unappealing about other people going for a wee in your cup of tea while you're drinking it. So I agree with you there.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Azdeus said:

, I started WoW in 2005 and didn't entirely stop until they started to dip into pay to win with Cataclysm in iirc 2010 with that store mount /spit

Don't really see WoW as pay to win even now, you can buy cosmetics which isn't really winning especially with the transmog system.

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

I would suggest that you're probably using the wrong term here, i.e. instead of escapism you could or perhaps should be talking about simply having fun. Escapism as a phenomenon is not particularly healthy, while there's nothing wrong with having fun playing a game, even if it's an alternative to the constructive things in your life.

As for your second point, fair enough: there is something decidedly unappealing about other people going for a wee in your cup of tea while you're drinking it. So I agree with you there.

I feel like you are the one using the term wrong. Escapism isn't usually considered unhealthy unless you are neglecting the real world while doing it. Most games are about constructing a new reality over the one you live in. It's a literal escape. Books and movies do the same thing. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm not going to wade into escapism or the polysemic nature of language, but I can relate to what @Azdeus is saying and what @Hawke64 mentioned about pay to win (aside from exploiting gambling addictions, which is bad on its own terms). It would be very bad for players who regularly play a big multi-player game to have to deal with pay to win screwing everything up by shifting the meta towards paying for stuff (beyond the normal price or subscription) or get ****ed. It's bad design for the long term because it makes needing to pay for stuff having a much larger part of the game than skill and you'll end up with a shrinking base of players until you're only left with those dedicated enough to consistently pay for stuff or enjoy suffering.

Thankfully I don't play much besides single-player and don't run into too much of it, but if I did play multi-player stuff I'd jump ship the second they introduced pay to win horse****.

[Hurlshort]

Conan Exiles is a good example for me of how to do microtransactions without making it pay to win. All of their store stuff is cosmetic. But they are so cool looking, everyone wants them. They don't affect the stats in any way. You can even play single player or your own server and cheese the system to get a bunch of the stuff unlocked. It doesn't matter that you are exploiting the system because it is just cosmetic stuff. It doesn't break the multiplayer side of the game.

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, Hurlshort said:

I feel like you are the one using the term wrong. Escapism isn't usually considered unhealthy unless you are neglecting the real world while doing it. Most games are about constructing a new reality over the one you live in. It's a literal escape. Books and movies do the same thing. 

You may want to check this out, for instance: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/escapism

There are, of course, other definitions. As for what you say about it being a "literal escape", this is an extremely good example of how the word literally tends to be used wrong. It's becoming increasingly common, and while it can be extremely funny, it's a bit silly, too. An escape is "an act of breaking free from confinement or control", so unless you happen to live in some kind of confinement or under some kind of exterior control, games are not a literal escape, please. A figurative one, sure, but not literal, no way. (Another way of being unintentionally funny is by saying that something is "very unique", which is a phrase that always merits a huge facepalm.)

Anyway, as this is getting off topic, I'll finish now.

... but here's one Mr. Pinker being funny on the figurative use of the word "literal":

 

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

You may want to check this out, for instance: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/escapism

There are, of course, other definitions. As for what you say about it being a "literal escape", this is an extremely good example of how the word literally tends to be used wrong. It's becoming increasingly common, and while it can be extremely funny, it's a bit silly, too. An escape is "an act of breaking free from confinement or control", so unless you happen to live in some kind of confinement or under some kind of exterior control, games are not a literal escape, please. A figurative one, sure, but not literal, no way. (Another way of being unintentionally funny is by saying that something is "very unique", which is a phrase that always merits a huge facepalm.)

Anyway, as this is getting off topic, I'll finish now.

... but here's one Mr. Pinker being funny on the figurative use of the word "literal":

But we do live under confinement. The cambridge definition you posted states:

Quote

a way of avoiding an unpleasant or boring life, especially by thinking, reading, etc. about more exciting but impossible activities

Games allows us to do impossible activities regularly. I don't figuratively cast spells in a game. I'm literally a wizard who can throw a fireball. That is the fictional setting that we are escaping into.

I didn't start this nitpicky conversation. You went after Azdeus' use of the term escapism. Don't worry about being off topic, it's a random video game news thread. Words are interesting and layered, and I thought your definition of escapism was too limited. I can't say I love the Cambridge definition. This is the American Dictionary version:

Quote

the activity of avoiding reality by imagining exciting but impossible activities

That feels like a clearer, simplified version. It removes the 'unpleasant or boring life' part which comes across as hard to judge. The vast majority of people enjoy escaping reality on occasion, no matter how grand their reality may be.

edit: I'm completely willing to meet you halfway on the literal-figurative argument, now that I think about it. Sure, we are not literally becoming wizards when we play a game. I'm still not sure that the word figuratively fits here though. The game is allowing us to do impossible things, but it is limited only to that construct. I guess I will have to wait for the lethal VR headsets to become more common to use the term literally.  

Edited December 14, 2023 by Hurlshort

[MrBrown]

7 hours ago, Malcador said:

Don't really see WoW as pay to win even now, you can buy cosmetics which isn't really winning especially with the transmog system.

Isn't this kind of pay-to-win? https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/product/world-of-warcraft-service-character-boost

Don't play WoW myself, but I heard there's lots of talk about that.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, MrBrown said:

Isn't this kind of pay-to-win? https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/product/world-of-warcraft-service-character-boost

Don't play WoW myself, but I heard there's lots of talk about that.

Not sure that's winning, though, at that ilvl you can queue up for LFR for the current raid, no idea if you can be useful in Normal or higher levels of the raids.  For comparison,  I have 438 and I barely grind for gear. 

WoW's always been an endgame focused game - of late people have found problems with that - but definitely is a market for people who left (funnily enough they may have quit at a higher level than max) and just want to catch up.  Not money well spent mind you, is very easy these days.

[Azdeus]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Not sure that's winning, though, at that ilvl you can queue up for LFR for the current raid, no idea if you can be useful in Normal or higher levels of the raids.  For comparison,  I have 438 and I barely grind for gear. 

WoW's always been an endgame focused game - of late people have found problems with that - but definitely is a market for people who left (funnily enough they may have quit at a higher level than max) and just want to catch up.  Not money well spent mind you, is very easy these days.

In endgame you can literally buy gear, there are guilds willing to take you through raids for wow tokens. I don't feel like combing through actman or asmongolds 1h+ videos for the tweet right now, but even Blizzard staff were doing it with their guilds.

Is it not pay to win If I tomorrow reactivate my account, boost my character and use wow-tokens to surpass your item level in a week or two?

Does it even come close to being fair and right to you and the time (I assume ) and effort you put into the game? If we were to fight in an open world or arena pvp situation and inevitably win, is that satisfactory outcome for you?

Edit; Found an decent article

Edited December 15, 2023 by Azdeus

[Gorth]

The closest I think Guild Wars 2 came to 'pay to win' (imho) is a recent introduction to the cash shop where you can buy "hero points". You could argue it's just a time saver, but I do think it's very borderline paying your way out of playing the game to achieve something. Mind you, it's still my favourite game and I play it almost daily. A mix of no subscription and no gear grind per se (once you got best in slot gear, it remains best in slot, even 10 years later). You can take a break for 6 months and you wont lose out (other than practicing your hand/eye coordination)

 

[Malcador]

12 hours ago, Azdeus said:

In endgame you can literally buy gear, there are guilds willing to take you through raids for wow tokens. I don't feel like combing through actman or asmongolds 1h+ videos for the tweet right now, but even Blizzard staff were doing it with their guilds.

Is it not pay to win If I tomorrow reactivate my account, boost my character and use wow-tokens to surpass your item level in a week or two?

Does it even come close to being fair and right to you and the time (I assume ) and effort you put into the game? If we were to fight in an open world or arena pvp situation and inevitably win, is that satisfactory outcome for you?

Edit; Found an decent article

Oh good act man, I am sure he will soil himself ranting about how it was all due to woke.

Don't really have a problem with the boosting, seems incredibly wasteful of the cash especially with how easy things are. Even in a PvP setting, would be surprised if someone getting boosted heavily would do that well, skill is still somewhat an issue (addons do the rest!).  

 

[Azdeus]

10 hours ago, Gorth said:

The closest I think Guild Wars 2 came to 'pay to win' (imho) is a recent introduction to the cash shop where you can buy "hero points". You could argue it's just a time saver, but I do think it's very borderline paying your way out of playing the game to achieve something. Mind you, it's still my favourite game and I play it almost daily. A mix of no subscription and no gear grind per se (once you got best in slot gear, it remains best in slot, even 10 years later). You can take a break for 6 months and you wont lose out (other than practicing your hand/eye coordination)

 

Timesavers are quite firmly in the pay to win pocket. If two people people have 10 hours each to play, and one player can pay for a timesaver that saves him 2 hours doing boring tedious stuff like grinding for resources for raids they will have an advantage over the player that can't pay his way out of it in that he can spend that time raiding for more gear.

Not to mention the fact that once games start taking money for "timesavers" you run into situations like some Assassins Creed that was tedious as all hell if you didn't pay for xp boosters.

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

Oh good act man, I am sure he will soil himself ranting about how it was all due to woke.

Don't really have a problem with the boosting, seems incredibly wasteful of the cash especially with how easy things are. Even in a PvP setting, would be surprised if someone getting boosted heavily would do that well, skill is still somewhat an issue (addons do the rest!). 

Not the impressions I've had of him, but ok

Easy or not, it's still an advantage that people with money spent has over those without money, to the point it'd feel insurmountable. And PvP carries are fairly common too I reckon, me and some friends used to carry other friends in PvP. People tend to learn relatively fast on how to play. Or they'll just buy a bot. WotLK 2200+ arenas were kinda nuts from what I recall.