Example of what is killing modern games

[Chilloutman]

Here is example of human who is killing our games

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/08/11/ubisoft-analyst-criticizes-league-of-legends-monetization-warns-other-studios-not-to-try-it/

 

Such a douchbag

[redneckdevil]

I think its taken outta context. Not as in "omg this is badwrongfun" but maybe more like "other business dont go this route if u want to succeed because this isnt the norm".

I see it as a friendly warning to business if its the second, but if its the first then yeah i totally agree..major douchbag

 

Tbh i think whats really killing modern gaming is gamers getting older and not having the same amount of time to pour into games like they used to due to real life taking its tole and companies are designing with that in mind and the younger generation is getting used to that and so forth and so on.

Edited August 13, 2014 by redneckdevil

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, the modern gaming scene is so bleak.  

[ManifestedISO]

News articles come in two parts, headline, and content. You're supposed to read, and comprehend, both, in advance of constructing a soapbox.  

[Chilloutman]

I have read whole article on different site, but this was in english. He mentioned that if he would be in riot games he would add more paid contend and pay to win concept (heroes which can be bought only trough real money) He stated that he knew that 60% of gamers playing it would stop, but company would gain triple profit. He know well that it would unbalance game but he just dont care as long as he maximize profits

[NWN_babaYaga]

Maximum profit idiots like this one and he is no exception is killing "some" games for me. But due to kickstarter projects and developers who are just dedicated to creating games I think it´s very safe to say there will be plenty of games to come I can enjoy. These wallstreet creeps are everywhere and if you make one out dont support their products but real people. I mean when a company does 3 or 4 games that are exactly the same one should know that there could be something wrong with some very few exceptions. I dont know about the GTA franchise but didnt it become actually better with every title? ...Well

 

just dont buy their damn products is the only thing we can do.

[Amentep]

Well, I think it illustrates why you don't necessarily want an accountant making creative decisions, what he's saying isn't wrong (from his perspective) although, as always, I don't think he's looking at the damage to the brand his money making ideas would create.

[Keyrock]

I wonder is Weidemann has considered that maybe LoL has such a large player base partly due to them not implementing as aggressive a monetization scheme (obviously, the quality of the game has a lot to do with it too)?

[Amentep]

^I've always suspected that there are some business people who see a short lifespan mega gain now as better than a long lifespan good gain over a longer period of time.

 

Its why, I think, there are some business people who seem only interested in getting as much money as they can before running the business in the ground then going to the next business to do the same with.

 

That said, I do agree that LoL has the player base it does now because of how they're doing things now and I think he's optimistic to think his changes wouldn't kill the money stream dead.

[rjshae]

Like it or not, game creation is a business. But it's got to be a healthy balance of business and (gaming) pleasure--each has to rely on the other to succeed in the long term. Otherwise, in the end, a company will have neither.

[NWN_babaYaga]

yes you need money to pay your bills... old excuse that never gets old (it´s not about making a living but becoming rich and famous) ...big difference!

 

An interesting read:

 

http://www.ihatemmorpgs.com/2014/08/real-gamers-dont-game.html#.U-zVaHYYxnI

 

if you dont want to read it just one little quote from the guy:

 

"The road to redemption is long and filled with whiny forum warriors, but the prize is well worth the journey. We need to get back to a time where people made games because they love games, and not to please shareholders".

 

This is the problem, many know it but buy the products of the same clowns again and again!

Edited August 14, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[Monte Carlo]

Yeah because people making money is so, like, wrong.

 

Doofus.

[Chilloutman]

Yeah because people making money is so, like, wrong.

 

Doofus.

Its not like they are not making money now right?

[Monte Carlo]

The guy is perfectly within his rights to comment on a business model that isn't even beginning to leverage the revenue it might be able to.

 

OTOH, the people running LOL are free to flip him the bird and say, "we don't care, our business model suits us."

 

Games are a business. Too many Generation Y entitlement junkies on forums like this think everything should be free and profit is somehow unethical. Even more hilariously, many of these kids are American.

[Chilloutman]

The guy is perfectly within his rights to comment on a business model that isn't even beginning to leverage the revenue it might be able to.

 

OTOH, the people running LOL are free to flip him the bird and say, "we don't care, our business model suits us."

 

Games are a business. Too many Generation Y entitlement junkies on forums like this think everything should be free and profit is somehow unethical. Even more hilariously, many of these kids are American.

Man you

 

a) dont understand where issue is

b) dont want to understand

 

I am completely fine that company should have revenue. But if they implement his suggestions that game would be ruined. Noone would play competetive game where you BUY advantage (or only 5% of paying customers would play it)

[Monte Carlo]

I completely understand the P2W argument. I play RTS games with micro-transactions. The gist of the OPs argument wasn't just about P2W.

[Chilloutman]

I completely understand the P2W argument. I play RTS games with micro-transactions. The gist of the OPs argument wasn't just about P2W.

Uh, you are inconsistent, so you agree with me that this kind of agressive monetary model hurt game business or not?

[Monte Carlo]

I'm completely consistent. Companies are free to leverage profit to the point where customers refuse to pay. There are enough MOBAs to allow for competition. Simply pointing out that LOL's business model defies conventional business theory, and shouldn't be emulated, is hardly 'killing' gaming. I didn't see where the guy suggested P2W in a game like LOL or DOTA where competition is the whole point of the franchise. You could, however, easily introduce tiered subscription and 'games as a service' models, as well as cosmetic improvements that don't impact on fair competition (unless you are one of the vast horde of players who refuse to pay a penny for the hundreds of hours of entertainment they enjoy - and screw them, frankly).

 

Gaming is in a pretty good place right now with multiple platforms, both from a technical and publishing POV. In fact, you could even see that article as a sign that the big players are flustered, struggling to understand philosophies like those behind LOL. I'm not a spokesman for big publishing or the AAA producers. What I don't mind, however, is companies attempting to turn a fair profit.

 

You need to wake up and smell the coffee: content has to cost something. The games fairy doesn't drop stuff under your pillow indefinitely - there gets to a point where someone has to pay the rent. Compared to other media, games remain pretty good value for money if you are even slightly discerning - which is why coughing up slightly more money for a hobby is completely reasonable.

 

The hysterical tone of your initial post needed calling out. Which is what I'm doing. You are simply wrong, on virtually every level.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[Chilloutman]

While I can agree with you on some points I think you are wrong. Gaming companies were making profit long time before DLCs, P2W models and paid 'gold' accounts. Its only greed now.

 

If i go to shop to buy lets say a car, I dont expect them to give me half of the car and sell the rest of it for triple the price by small pieces each month. Thats why I stop buying new games, I just simply have to wait for complete editions to not miss out on content or story. I think its wrong.

 

If I play poker with my friends, I expect that we all play with same cards, not that someone will buy 2 aces before end of the round.

 

Dont understand me wrong, I was ok with lets say datadisk to Diablo 2, it got reasonable amount of content, wasnt expensive as new game, come out 2(not sure) years after original game - I am fine with that even thou I dont like it much.

 

but this is ridiculouse:

 

http://kotaku.com/5888816/buying-all-of-mass-effect-3s-dlc-will-cost-you-870

[Oerwinde]

While I can agree with you on some points I think you are wrong. Gaming companies were making profit long time before DLCs, P2W models and paid 'gold' accounts. Its only greed now.

 

If i go to shop to buy lets say a car, I dont expect them to give me half of the car and sell the rest of it for triple the price by small pieces each month. Thats why I stop buying new games, I just simply have to wait for complete editions to not miss out on content or story. I think its wrong.

 

If I play poker with my friends, I expect that we all play with same cards, not that someone will buy 2 aces before end of the round.

 

Dont understand me wrong, I was ok with lets say datadisk to Diablo 2, it got reasonable amount of content, wasnt expensive as new game, come out 2(not sure) years after original game - I am fine with that even thou I dont like it much.

 

but this is ridiculouse:

 

http://kotaku.com/5888816/buying-all-of-mass-effect-3s-dlc-will-cost-you-870

Am I the only one who noticed that 90% of those dlcs are the Collector Assault rifle? Which I believe comes with the collectors edition. Everything on there pretty much you got for preorderig the collectors edition. So it doesn't cost over $800, it cost $80

 

Although the post release DLC is silly expensive. that's another $45

[Walsingham]

While I can agree with you on some points I think you are wrong. Gaming companies were making profit long time before DLCs, P2W models and paid 'gold' accounts. Its only greed now.

 

If i go to shop to buy lets say a car, I dont expect them to give me half of the car and sell the rest of it for triple the price by small pieces each month.

 

I may be hungover, but isn't that exactly what dealerships do? They upsell you a bunch of widgets, and you pay for them piece by piece on credit. Which ends up costing three times as much.

 

Since Monte already came at you like a fierce wolf I can afford to be more conciliatory:

 

What the hell is wrong with me paying for a basic game, and if I like it I extend that game? Is it that you are afraid the basic game will be crap? And why is that terrifying? I just won't buy the extensions to the game, and the publisher loses credibility with me.

 

Case in point: Ubisoft. After three **** games in a row, all of which had DRM issues, I won't buy their goddamn games.

 

Bottom line is that you can and should tell publishers and studios you don't like the model. Just don't expect them to care unless a lot of people agree. And if a lot of people agree then relax, because it will change.

[Monte Carlo]

Yeah, and you could look at the old Pen & Paper RPG model.

 

TSR, who made D&D, issued a core game with supplements, which were entirely optional. The quality of many of these supplements were good, and many customers bought them. This, boys and girls, was simply the dead-tree iteration of DLC. With three core rulebooks and some imagination you didn't need any of the modules, in much the same way as I can play Company of Heroes 2 without the Mechanised Assault Commander or the Ambush Flecktarn skin for my panzers.

 

Anyhoo, TSR got greedy. They pushed the business model to the max, nickel-and-diming customers to the limit as they tried to leverage more and more out of a dwindling playerbase. Wizards of the Coast continued the trend, kicking the hell out of a dead horse with even MOAR splat-books that you simply had to have.

 

And, verily, the pen and paper gaming customer base were sad, went indie and everything went to rat****e for WotC.

 

Paizo, interestingly, deliberately doesn't splatbook too much with Pathfinder. They know that to do so would be to over-leverage and lose sales. Instead they do less, but more impactive iterations of their products (bigger campaign settings, card games, minis for example). This is a conscious decision. It is quite cleverly finding that elusive balance between leverage and exploitation. And the fans seem to like it and Paizo goes from strength to strength.

 

Back to Wizards of the Coast - D&D5 seems to be copying Paizo. It seems a more generous, inclusive take on the franchise. However, splatbooking is in WotC's DNA, so we'll see how that one goes.

 

I know these are imperfect comparisons, but there are certainly similarities. If any PC game wants to release too much wanky DLC they will eventually reap the whirlwind, either technologically, reputationally or otherwise (hello, WoW, I'm looking at you). The commentator in the OPs initial article was simply stating that LOL isn't, at the moment, exploring that area between profit and customer ennui. So what if he does?

 

I frequent a number of gaming forums - a common theme (and it is with younger gamers) is that asking for you to pay anything for DLC is exploitative. This is a direct consequence of digital entitlement. All companies are seeking the sweet spot Paizo has found, and will continue to do so. To expect anything else is naive.

 

TLDR: PnP gamers have suffered this since the early 1980s, when young Monte splurged all his allowance on AD&D. 'Tis nothing new and the sky won't fall in.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[Walsingham]

Wasn't it more or less the case with Games Workshop a while back?

 

And they realised the error of their ways, went back to nurturing gamers, not sales. 

[Monte Carlo]

Wasn't it more or less the case with Games Workshop a while back?

 

And they realised the error of their ways, went back to nurturing gamers, not sales. 

 

Precisely, GW is a great example Wals. They are currently undergoing a very, very painful restructuring program. Their one-staff-shop model might make it difficult to generate new customers, though.

 

Once upon a time, as I'm sure you remember, GW (and White Dwarf) covered all RPGs, then GW became a games entity unto itself and pushed only its own products. Another example in a non-gaming context is football shirts - English Premiership teams release too many and the kids stop buying them.

[Walsingham]

 

Wasn't it more or less the case with Games Workshop a while back?

 

And they realised the error of their ways, went back to nurturing gamers, not sales. 

 

Precisely, GW is a great example Wals. They are currently undergoing a very, very painful restructuring program. Their one-staff-shop model might make it difficult to generate new customers, though.

 

Once upon a time, as I'm sure you remember, GW (and White Dwarf) covered all RPGs, then GW became a games entity unto itself and pushed only its own products. Another example in a non-gaming context is football shirts - English Premiership teams release too many and the kids stop buying them.

 

 

I do remember the days when GW understood it was part of an ecosystem. It needed to create gamers, not just customers.

 

Speaking of which: http://www.orcsnest.com/