[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52987636]Lootboxes would only work if the drop rate was the same for every item in the box (no 'rare' items), and especially if "duplicates" don't exist.
"Oh look, you got that skin that costs 6000 gems but you have it already! Guess I'll give you 250 gems for it since you don't need a duplicate. :^)"
[editline]18th December 2017[/editline]
Not gambling my ass.[/QUOTE]
If anything is gambling, it's Valve's crates.
2 bucks per spin, win between $0.01 and $900, increase your chances by putting more money into your spins!
[editline]18th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noob4life;52987644]Do you mean they don't and should proceed with post-launch ops base on goodwill?[/QUOTE]
Especially popular multiplayer games, who have to pay thousands [B]daily[/B] to keep their servers up and running. (I.E. From 2011, WoW server cost alone was $136,986 per day)
[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;52987654]If anything is gambling, it's Valve's crates.
2 bucks per spin, win between $0.01 and $900, increase your chances by putting more money into your spins!
[editline]18th December 2017[/editline]
Especially popular multiplayer games, who have to pay thousands [B]daily[/B] to keep their servers up and running. (I.E. From 2011, WoW server cost alone was $136,986 per day)[/QUOTE]
But WoW would be a massive outlier statistically speaking so using that number isn't the most applicable to a wider scale in the industry.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52987666]But WoW would be a massive outlier statistically speaking so using that number isn't the most applicable to a wider scale in the industry.[/QUOTE]
Is there a game you'd prefer as an example?
[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;52987688]Is there a game you'd prefer as an example?[/QUOTE]
Something more representative of the whole of the industry maybe, not a statistical outlier that isn't replicated in many areas.
Why would we use the number of 136,000 dollars a day as a discussion point of the standard when it's going to be an outlier?
yeah using wow's servers costs as any sort of metric is pretty absurd to be honest
not only is it an MMO, but it's an MMO who (at it's height) had more people playing than live in [I]fucking belgium
[/I]it's even funnier if you do some basic napkin maths and identify that they were spending less than 3% of their monthly sub (using that figure) take-in on servers - i think a lot of businesses would sacrifice to the devil to have that sort of margin tbh
[editline]18th December 2017[/editline]
if anything that figure makes the argument even more absurd - blizzard could have been spending three times as much on server upkeep and still be making bank
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52987700]Something more representative of the whole of the industry maybe, not a statistical outlier that isn't replicated in many areas.
Why would we use the number of 136,000 dollars a day as a discussion point of the standard when it's going to be an outlier?[/QUOTE]
Well just think about it. WoW hosts servers for ~25k players being generous at any given time. Rocket League hosts ~80k. CSGO hosts ~500k. PUBG hosts ~800k.
[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;52987739]Well just think about it. WoW hosts servers for ~25k players being generous at any given time. Rocket League hosts ~80k. CSGO hosts ~500k. PUBG hosts ~800k.[/QUOTE]
25 thousand at a time? Are you sure you're not wildly off on that number?
Are WoW's server costs, and server needs the same as Rocket Leagues? Is comparing those two directly even a valid comparison that will yield an interesting discussion?
Yes, server costs are a thing.
None of this goes against what I said previously, a company like Blizzard is paying very little tax, and paying the lion share of it's workers less than they're worth based on crunch and OT numbers and the like, and most of the profits in the Blizzard Activision partnership do go to the top of the company.
You can go ahead and say they need to make money to keep these games going. I never debated that. But this isn't the way, and arguing that it is is just simply accepting absolute corporate dog shit.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52987746]25 thousand at a time? Are you sure you're not wildly off on that number?
Are WoW's server costs, and server needs the same as Rocket Leagues? Is comparing those two directly even a valid comparison that will yield an interesting discussion?
Yes, server costs are a thing.
None of this goes against what I said previously, a company like Blizzard is paying very little tax, and paying the lion share of it's workers less than they're worth based on crunch and OT numbers and the like, and most of the profits in the Blizzard Activision partnership do go to the top of the company.
You can go ahead and say they need to make money to keep these games going. I never debated that. But this isn't the way, and arguing that it is is just simply accepting absolute corporate dog shit.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.warcraftrealms.com/activity.php?serverid=-1[/url]
I'm saying it's a good way to make the base game cheaper, and I've also implied there is a balance to be had, because companies go overboard and use it to just turn a massive profit.
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52987241]Okay, asking this: assuming "just don't monetize your large-scale multiplayer game running for 3+ years straight period" isn't an option, what would you pick instead of paid cosmetics? (That aren't lootboxes, because fuck lootboxes.)[/QUOTE]
Let it rot if the executives and marketing have such a bloated budget and paychecks.
Hold on, his argument is that cosmetics do affect gameplay because people care about the way they look in game? No, that makes no fucking sense. Maybe if a cosmetic makes you run 50% faster, or gives you 50% more damage absorption or some shit then yeah, skins would affect gameplay. But if a cosmetic has effects and abilities attached to it, then it's not just cosmetic because it has a purpose beyond making you look cool.
Am I misunderstanding what point he's trying to make?
[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;52987747][url]http://www.warcraftrealms.com/activity.php?serverid=-1[/url][/QUOTE]
Considering I can't get any stats except for that one site, I'm dubious about their numbers as Blizzard no longer publicly releases them.
Even same, the number of 136,000 was from 2011, one of the peaks of WoWs popularity.
Please, if you're going to say "This is the number we're going to use to base our discussions on", don't be dishonest about that number, where it came from, or how it relates to [B]today.[/B]
25000 person player counts today doesn't relate to a server cost of 136,000 in 2011.
[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;52987654]If anything is gambling, it's Valve's crates.
2 bucks per spin, win between $0.01 and $900, increase your chances by putting more money into your spins!
[editline]18th December 2017[/editline]
Especially popular multiplayer games, who have to pay thousands [B]daily[/B] to keep their servers up and running. (I.E. From 2011, WoW server cost alone was $136,986 per day)[/QUOTE]
Assuming everyone was paying $12.99 a month to play (at least that was the 6 month subscription cost per month in 2014), they were also making revenue of $5,000,000 per day. On top of that, everybody kinda had to pay for the base game as well. To put the server cost into perspective, the revenue from just selling a $60 title to 12m players (ignoring that sales must've surpassed the active playerbase) would pay server costs for 5256 days. Subtract development costs, sure, but it's not like people hadn't already bought two additional expansions at that point.
Then there's the fact that WoW is just an overall atypical game, having a giant playerbase for very, very long. Do you think Battlefront I (you know, the one from last year or the year before) is paying $100k in server costs nowadays?
60$ may not always be [I]plenty[/I], but it sure as hell is a lot.
[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;52987747][URL]http://www.warcraftrealms.com/activity.php?serverid=-1[/URL]
I'm saying it's a good way to make the base game cheaper, and I've also implied there is a balance to be had, because companies go overboard and use it to just turn a profit.[/QUOTE]
are you sure that's not listed in units of 100k rather than 10k
god that website is a train wreck
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52987646]
So are we all forgetting that KF1 had literal paid weapon packs and one of them had a weapon that was basically obligatory until it got nerfed
not saying i'm totally in love with loot crates, i've never touched them and skin packs [I]are [/I]better- but having flare guns and that anti materiel rifle behind paid DLC was mad obnoxious[/QUOTE]
Firstly, none of the weapons were obligatory as you could be the game just fine on the highest difficulty without them (despite the buzzsaw and flare revolvers being incredibly powerful), and you could still obtain those weapons for use in those games, and ultimately KF being a team Co-Op game it does not have the same impression as being killed by an opponent who's 'paid to win', and the M99 Anti Material rifle was not in the DLC that was a free IJC weapon.
That said. I absolutely agree that Tripwire took a wrong turn with the DLC weapons and so does the entire community which had not forgoten, which is why TWI have had to say on record many times now that they won't do that again for KF2, but we'll have to wait and see on that front, I wish they'd fuck the zedeconemy off because that too is equally at fault as Overwatch depite it's crafting and free drops. They still want people to pump money into the box bullshit in the hope of getting something arbitrarily 'rare'.
KF1 eventually fell victim to the same practices that every other game was / is guilty of and KF2 followed suit, but does not change the fact that Tripwire/Killing Floor started out with something that was fine.
[QUOTE=UntouchedShadow;52987757]Hold on, his argument is that cosmetics do affect gameplay because people care about the way they look in game? No, that makes no fucking sense. Maybe if a cosmetic makes you run 50% faster, or gives you 50% more damage absorption or some shit then yeah, skins would affect gameplay. But if a cosmetic has effects and abilities attached to it, then it's not just cosmetic because it has a purpose beyond making you look cool.
Am I misunderstanding what point he's trying to make?[/QUOTE]
He's saying that cosmetic items not affecting gameplay doesn't fucking matter because it still affects your enjoyment of the game. Cosmetics do matter and any claim that cosmetics don't affect the game are bullshit. Cosmetics affect how you experience the game, if they didn't we wouldn't have bothered advancing graphical technology beyond the vector graphics of the 80s.
Why the fuck do people try and say that it doesn't matter because it's cosmetic? It clearly matters or this whole thing wouldn't even exist. They aren't making money hand over fist because these things don't matter. Clearly these things actually matter a great deal which is why people are supposedly willing to pay so much for them.
And it's really annoying when people say it's fine because they got some free things sometimes. Mate these massive corporations are not your friends, they're only giving you some scraps because ultimately it gets them more money. Stop being so naive.
[QUOTE=UntouchedShadow;52987757]Hold on, his argument is that cosmetics do affect gameplay because people care about the way they look in game? No, that makes no fucking sense. Maybe if a cosmetic makes you run 50% faster, or gives you 50% more damage absorption or some shit then yeah, skins would affect gameplay. But if a cosmetic has effects and abilities attached to it, then it's not just cosmetic because it has a purpose beyond making you look cool.
Am I misunderstanding what point he's trying to make?[/QUOTE]
he's saying that just because cosmetic items have no impact in the very, very functionalist sense, doesn't mean they don't have an impact on the game as a whole piece
to be honest, this point is pretty obvious to me. or did the entire games industry just improve graphical fidelity, and continue to market graphical fidelity as a sales point because they didn't matter
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52987771]He's saying that cosmetic items not affecting gameplay doesn't fucking matter because it still affects your enjoyment of the game. Cosmetics do matter and any claim that cosmetics don't affect the game are bullshit. Cosmetics affect how you experience the game, if they didn't we wouldn't have bothered advancing graphical technology beyond the vector graphics of the 80s.[/QUOTE]
there's a difference between paying for a game's graphics and paying for a hat that looks different but you already had a hat in the first place, at the very least we can agree that cosmetic items are objectively less important than anything else in the game
i would really appreciate if people would stop comparing wacky skins designed to be sold to the games overall artstyle because these hats are often sold in spite of and to the detriment of the game's art design
Like, does anyone here honestly think most of Overwatch's skins are better than the defaults? They look fucking ridiculous in the setting and against the other characters. Same with TF2, they make the game look [I]worse [/I]with the tradeoff of allowing a bit more customization.
This is such a dumb argument. Would you rather have an option to buy cosmetics in Overwatch or have to pay for every new character/map that gets released? Cosmetics are a good way cover development costs of things that do affect game play.
[QUOTE=dark soul;52987801]This is such a dumb argument. Would you rather have an option to buy cosmetics in Overwatch or have to pay for every new Character/Map that gets released? Cosmetics are a good way cover development costs of things that do affect game play.[/QUOTE]
This is ultimately a false dichotomy.
Those are not the only two options.
[QUOTE=dark soul;52987801]This is such a dumb argument. Would you rather have an option to buy cosmetics in Overwatch or have to pay for every new Character/Map that gets released? Cosmetics are a good way cover development costs of things that do affect game play.[/QUOTE]
i'll take the unwritten third option of "neither of those", which is incidentally the option that most of gaming was taking until the last 5 years
IMO I'm fine with anything cosmetic being rewarded randomly but if you sell random items then you're obviously just trying to prey on people that obsess over your game which is scummy as fuck. There's no reason Blizzard can't sell specific skins other than knowing people that want them will spend inordinate amounts of money trying to get them.
You can place the blame on the admittedly gullible as all hell people that spend money on this shit but at the end of the day Blizzard is the company that knowingly takes advantage of their audience's gullibility to intentionally fuck them over.
[QUOTE=dark soul;52987801]This is such a dumb argument. Would you rather have an option to buy cosmetics in Overwatch or have to pay for every new Character/Map that gets released? Cosmetics are a good way cover development costs of things that do affect game play.[/QUOTE]
[i]Microstransactions, lootboxes, and DLC as a whole have NOTHING to do with covering the costs of development.[/i] If you made a game and needed all that shit to 'cover the costs of development' guess what? You're fucking bankrupt!
All these games which have lootboxes and shit are making 100% profit from them. Activision made over 1 BILLION dollars in three months [url=http://fortune.com/2017/08/03/activision-blizzards-revenue-and-profit-forecasts-surge-due-to-overwatch/]just from microtransactions.[/url]
No game costs that much.
Would you people stop making excuses for these companies? These are groups who use predatory tactics to make multiple billions of dollars every year, they don't pay taxes and they treat their employees like shit. Why are you defending them when they have you over a barrel? They're not your friends, to them you're just a wallet to be sucked dry.
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52987646]so you didn't even read the post got it
[/quote]
I still really don't get your point about expansions, expansion packs are not microtransactions, they're large amounts of content made after launch rather than bits of the game cut out and sold back to you day one for even more money. Just look at how cosmetics have gone from part of the base game to microtransactions over the past few years.
[quote]
what the heck is the whole "they've made enough money, no micros period" thing about, then? some people on facepunch definitely have. i wouldn't bring up a point if i hadn't seen someone else make it in the past, dude.
[/quote]
Okay, maybe somebody somewhere made that point in the past, I don't see why you brought it up in response to my post though. I'm not saying that no microtransactions are allowed in any context.
[quote]
my only point was "people are way too eager to defend valve's system as fine when crates and unusual hats are literal gambling only with real money at stake to be made in the market afterwards" and i didn't say anything about being able to buy hats with microtransactions, even though we could go into the problems with a F2P system but that's an entirely different thread. The fact that TF2 was such a success with microtransaction items is the [I]reason[/I] valve has stopped developing singleplayer games and a large part of the reason why they and crates are so big right now.
[/quote]
The only real problem with TF2's system is that children are getting wrapped into the gambling of it though. You're trading an upfront asking price for some psychological trickery to get you to buy stuff. I think that's a generally reasonable trade-off.
[quote]
I mean, TF2 on release also had a heckload of bugs and you had an updated version of it on PC you could play instead (eventually for free) so I think that's a little different from simply comparing two games, one with updates and one that doesn't. Look, updates will inflate player count, no doubt there- but I can't stand that a comp game isn't worth shit if it doesn't constantly update. How long has Melee been going? Several of the Street Fighter games? Quake? They aren't played today by the masses, but people who are fans still enjoy those games, and they will forever because they're super well made. I just think the idea that Overwatch's base game wasn't even worth 40$ is kind of the worst.
[/quote]
Two of those are local multiplayer games that don't need a large community for you to be able to play them. You can get the full experience with one other friend on the couch. You can't play Overwatch's competitive mode, the main mode that the game is designed around, without a large community playing it. The game coordinator just can't match people into decent teams unless there's a huge pool to choose from. The game is unplayable with a small community. I would never pay $40 for a competitive game that's not going to have new content keeping people playing it. $40 is a load of money, you could buy like five extremely high-quality games that you can pick back up any time you want for $40. A soon-dead competitive game with no long term support that will be effectively unplayable in a year or two isn't worth five games that I can play whenever I want forever.
And the third game you listed, Quake, is dead, so idk what your point is there. There's Quake Live, but that's only got 600 concurrent players. Those kind of player counts aren't enough to sustain a matchmaking system like Overwatch's competitive mode. I think you're right that there are definitely games that can still be worth playing long term with lower player numbers, but Overwatch is absolutely not one of them.
[quote]
power creep is fucking totally inherent to new content eventually, unless you're only adding new maps. People are going to decide for themselves whether a "sidegrade" is objectively better or worse no matter how hard you try, if you can keep adding meaningful content to a competitive multiplayer game without eventually making something totally imbalanced one way or another you are a [I]golden god[/I] of game balance
[/quote]
That's not what power creep is. Power creep is a specific design problem where you slowly increase the power of old or new items to compete with overpowered weapons. There's no inherent reason why this NEEDS to happen in games where new content is getting added, you can just nerf the overpowered stuff. The problem of overpowered weapons themselves is not a problem inherent to games where content is regularly being added, it's just as much of a problem in games at launch.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52987813]i'll take the unwritten third option of "neither of those", which is incidentally the option that most of gaming was taking until the last 5 years[/QUOTE]
Most MMOs had subscriptions early on which'll add up to a lot more than microtransactions ever could over time, if you play a lot it'll cost hundreds of dollars over the years to merely play the game. Likewise, as the practice of offering official content for multiplayer titles long after release has grown more popular, so has DLC. Expansion packs map/packs for MP games go a lot further back than you might think, back to the days of Halo 2/COD2 before getting really, really popular with COD4.
I'm open to be proven wrong but I'm [I]pretty sure[/I] the fabled days of content always being provided for free with constant huge content updates was never really the norm as much as it was a few games breaking the norm
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52987241]Okay, asking this: assuming "just don't monetize your large-scale multiplayer game running for 3+ years straight period" isn't an option, what would you pick instead of paid cosmetics? (That aren't lootboxes, because fuck lootboxes.)[/QUOTE]
Are you shitting me Valve made millions from Battlepasses
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52987758]Considering I can't get any stats except for that one site, I'm dubious about their numbers as Blizzard no longer publicly releases them.
Even same, the number of 136,000 was from 2011, one of the peaks of WoWs popularity.
Please, if you're going to say "This is the number we're going to use to base our discussions on", don't be dishonest about that number, where it came from, or how it relates to [B]today.[/B]
25000 person player counts today doesn't relate to a server cost of 136,000 in 2011.[/QUOTE]
This is just splitting hairs. Also rude, I'm not being dishonest. There are basically the same amount of active subscribers now as there was in 2011 (it was less last year). If you'll go back to my post before you started drawing your whole attempted strawman argument around this one example, you'll see that I only used it as an example of how servers cost thousands of daily (and WoW spends 100x more).
There's another aspect to this he didn't touch on in the video I don't think but it's how the mere presence of cosmetics can alter the focus of a game, both for the players and the developers.
There's no better example than Overwatch, a game which constantly shoves loot boxes down your throat. The presence of cosmetics alters the focus in a subtle but noticeable way which I think has an impact on the community as a whole. Every time you win you get xp, every time you level up you get a loot box, every time you get a loot box you get skins and let's be honest all anyone gives a half shit about is legendaries.
The XP bar itself goes up very very slowly after a certain point yet always at a rate that makes you feel like just a couple games more and you'll get another loot box. Or, alternatively, play the arcade. If you win 9 times, that's 3 bonus loot boxes a week plus any loot boxes you pick up along the way.
Sounds great, but the problem is that people start playing to get skins rather than to have fun. They constantly feel like they're on the verge of more loot boxes, so why stop now when just ONE more game could get you a loot box? And since you get less XP if you lose, people get [I]very[/I] annoyed when they lose because they just want the fuckin box already. And if this happens multiple times, they get angry, and they start yelling at other players that they feel are holding them back from the next loot box.
It's even worse in the arcade, where the game modes are somewhat intentionally unbalanced. The loot box incentives make people play whether or not they even want to because they only have a week to get those three, yet one can burn several hours just trying to get 9 victories. It's made to feel like it should take 30 minutes and sometimes it does but it could literally take all day if you're unlucky enough. So people are playing the game in general and ESPECIALLY arcade not because they really genuinely want to but because they want more skins. Which gets amplified even more during the holiday events that dominate the game's design. This results in a lot of very grumpy people who don't even want to be there and are ready to lash out at whoever prevents them from getting the next box. And if you think you're immune to this, you might be, but that doesn't mean everyone you're playing with is. I believe the loot box system and how it's pushed on players, EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST COSMETIC, is a big part of why people act so toxic.
Then there's the design, Overwatch's design process is fucking abysmal. You get a new hero or a new maps [I]sometimes[/I] but overall it seems like everything takes a backseat to holiday events. Sure, new game modes get added, but overall the events they're so focused on are mostly just an excuse to dump limited time skins to force people to play to get as many as they can or just pay up. And meanwhile, big parts of the game that need addressing like the god awful design of most maps (especially older ones) are just forgotten about because "we need more cosmetics and events".
Even though it's just cosmetic, even though these don't give you any advantage during gameplay (minus the sitting emotes which are exploitable for a gameplay advantage), it feels like the entire experience is tainted by them anyway, from design to just playing it as a regular person.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52987813]i'll take the unwritten third option of "neither of those", which is incidentally the option that most of gaming was taking until the last 5 years[/QUOTE]
Then the base game would have to be subscription based, or very high price, in order to keep up with today's costs.
[editline]18th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52987854]There's another aspect to this he didn't touch on in the video I don't think but it's how the mere presence of cosmetics can alter the focus of a game, both for the players and the developers.
There's no better example than Overwatch, a game which constantly shoves loot boxes down your throat. The presence of cosmetics alters the focus in a subtle but noticeable way which I think has an impact on the community as a whole. Every time you win you get xp, every time you level up you get a loot box, every time you get a loot box you get skins and let's be honest all anyone gives a half shit about is legendaries.
The XP bar itself goes up very very slowly after a certain point yet always at a rate that makes you feel like just a couple games more and you'll get another loot box. Or, alternatively, play the arcade. If you win 9 times, that's 3 bonus loot boxes a week plus any loot boxes you pick up along the way.
[/QUOTE]
I think you're projecting. I don't play Overwatch for loot boxes. I play for the competitive nature and different playstyles, I doubt I'm all that unique.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52987854]There's another aspect to this he didn't touch on in the video I don't think but it's how the mere presence of cosmetics can alter the focus of a game, both for the players and the developers.
There's no better example than Overwatch, a game which constantly shoves loot boxes down your throat. The presence of cosmetics alters the focus in a subtle but noticeable way which I think has an impact on the community as a whole. Every time you win you get xp, every time you level up you get a loot box, every time you get a loot box you get skins and let's be honest all anyone gives a half shit about is legendaries.
The XP bar itself goes up very very slowly after a certain point yet always at a rate that makes you feel like just a couple games more and you'll get another loot box. Or, alternatively, play the arcade. If you win 9 times, that's 3 bonus loot boxes a week plus any loot boxes you pick up along the way.
Sounds great, but the problem is that people start playing to get skins rather than to have fun. They constantly feel like they're on the verge of more loot boxes, so why stop now when just ONE more game could get you a loot box? And since you get less XP if you lose, people get [I]very[/I] annoyed when they lose because they just want the fuckin box already. And if this happens multiple times, they get angry, and they start yelling at other players that they feel are holding them back from the next loot box.
It's even worse in the arcade, where the game modes are somewhat intentionally unbalanced. The loot box incentives make people play whether or not they even want to because they only have a week to get those three, yet one can burn several hours just trying to get 9 victories. It's made to feel like it should take 30 minutes and sometimes it does but it could literally take all day if you're unlucky enough. So people are playing the game in general and ESPECIALLY arcade not because they really genuinely want to but because they want more skins. Which gets amplified even more during the holiday events that dominate the game's design. This results in a lot of very grumpy people who don't even want to be there and are ready to lash out at whoever prevents them from getting the next box. And if you think you're immune to this, you might be, but that doesn't mean everyone you're playing with is. I believe the loot box system and how it's pushed on players, EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST COSMETIC, is a big part of why people act so toxic.
Then there's the design, Overwatch's design process is fucking abysmal. You get a new hero or a new maps [I]sometimes[/I] but overall it seems like everything takes a backseat to holiday events. Sure, new game modes get added, but overall the events they're so focused on are mostly just an excuse to dump limited time skins to force people to play to get as many as they can or just pay up. And meanwhile, big parts of the game that need addressing like the god awful design of most maps (especially older ones) are just forgotten about because "we need more cosmetics and events".
Even though it's just cosmetic, even though these don't give you any advantage during gameplay (minus the sitting emotes which are exploitable for a gameplay advantage), it feels like the entire experience is tainted by them anyway, from design to just playing it as a regular person.[/QUOTE]
And all of that for that sweet little dopamine reward centre in your head.
Not addictive my ass.
Everyone who ever quit playing Dota2 knows this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
