It's Just Cosmetic (The Jimquisition) - General

[QUOTE=Killuah;52987842]Are you shitting me Valve made millions from Battlepasses[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question but battlepasses seem to be a sort of season pass that let you earn cosmetics and play a singleplayer co-op campaign (that you can't access anymore for some reason?) ??

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52987838]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] bare in mind that games of the past [I]also[/I] had enormous freedom concerning community content that simply doesn't exist now even if valve dropped TF2 without a single official content patch, the community was able to add value

[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;52987856]I think you're projecting. I don't play Overwatch for loot boxes and I doubt I'm all that unique.[/QUOTE] I'll say this, people saying "all anyone cares about are legendaries" and "all you REALLY play for are boxes" seem to be very common and it's worth considering even if it doesn't mean anything to you. People call voice lines and sprays and emotes and highlight intros pure trash but shit, if I get one I like? I'm happy with it. I don't play Overwatch that often because it's a very competitive game by nature and it can be fairly stressful as a result, but I play the game because I'd like to play Overwatch, not because I'm looking for skinnerboxing and I think I'm fairly susceptible to skinnerboxing. I dunno.

[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;52987856]Then the base game would have to be subscription based, or very high price, in order to keep up with today's costs. [/QUOTE] development costs have not increased (in relation to inflation, sure as an absolute value they have) what was the stat, EA spend 30% less on development costs nowadays than they did 2-3 years ago?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52987866]bare in mind that games of the past [I]also[/I] had enormous freedom concerning community content that simply doesn't exist now even if valve dropped TF2 without a single official content patch, the community was able to add value[/QUOTE] A lack of modding capability in modern games is a pretty genuine and severe complaint, I don't think there's a big excuse for it. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they're scared (like valve was once) of people bypassing paying for their official microtransaction/DLC content by using mods.

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52987865]I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question but battlepasses seem to be a sort of season pass that let you earn cosmetics and play a singleplayer co-op campaign (that you can't access anymore for some reason?) ??[/QUOTE] [quote]what would you pick instead of paid cosmetics?[/quote] Battlepasses pay the World Champion price money, let you view games live ingame and so on and so forth. Yes cosmetics are also a big part of it but it still shows an alternative.

Valve fucked over CSGO custom servers to protect their skin bullshit, so yeah, modding gets screwed when these interests appear.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52987873]development costs have not increased (in relation to inflation, sure as an absolute value they have) what was the stat, EA spend 30% less on development costs nowadays than they did 2-3 years ago?[/QUOTE] EA publishes more than they actually develop these days. They're also a shit company and do anything they can do to minimize costs ethics be damned (like asset recycling, and poorly paid staff).

[QUOTE=Killuah;52987879]Battlepasses pay the World Champion price money, let you view games live ingame and so on and so forth. Yes cosmetics are also a big part of it but it still shows an alternative.[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely sure if I would consider that an alternative, though. You're paying for the ability to get exclusive cosmetics, viewing tournament games in-game (which you should probably be able to do anyway) and playing a unique co-op campaign that you can't even play anymore. It sounds kind of like DLC but worse, frankly. I paid for one of the CS:GO map passes because I thought the custom maps seemed like a nice change of pace and it was a single dollar, and I regretted that pretty quick when I learned you didn't even have the option to [I]try[/I] to play them afterwards, whether or not they would have people on them.

[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;52987882]EA publishes more than they actually develop these days. They're also a shit company and do anything they can do to minimize costs ethics be damned (like asset recycling, and poorly paid staff).[/QUOTE] It's not just EA though.

[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] So you'd rather have no updates for online games then? Maybe you would you rather it be behind an expansion that locks out half the player base like games used to? [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52987821][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] Sorry that I'm not entitled enough to think that ALL post launch content should be be made free. Cosmetics are the best way to pay for development of content that actually matters. I'd rather have developers keep updating their games post launch with balance patches and free content that actually affects game play like new weapons or maps then get nothing at all.

[QUOTE=Zadrave;52987894]It's not just EA though.[/QUOTE] I never said otherwise.

[QUOTE=dark soul;52987897]So you'd rather have no updates for online games then? Maybe you would you rather it be behind an expansion that locks out half the player base like games used to? [/QUOTE] well, considering games used to have community support in the form of custom maps, servers and mods, I think I'd quite happily take that trade off again thanks

[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 would genuinely rather have neither, or even nothing. For one as has already been said this is bullshit fake poverty that the games industry pushes as an excuse. Unless you're either very young or have a short ass memory span then you should easily be able to remember a time when games were supported WITHOUT microtransactions or loot boxes or anything of the sort. Often for free! But why would you selflessly put more content in the game with no financial incentive? Well, there was a financial incentive. More sales. But even supposing that were for some reason impossible by modern standards (it isn't), I would still rather have nothing than have my games be loaded with stupid dumb ass microtransactions. Because too often loot boxes do not bring the promised Bonus Content™ except on the very rare occasion. Instead, the developers put in - [I]more microtransactions.[/I] The things print money ergo why focus on more more maps, better balancing, new characters as your primary thing, when you COULD be focusing on MORE MONEY PRINTERS. And just put that 'more game content' shit on the back burner and only do it [I]sometimes.[/I] It's a very common and false belief that if you give companies more power or more money, that they will reinvest that in to making a better service. That should be how it works but it isn't. Companies take money and power and use that money and power solely in the interest of making more money and getting more power. So in practice, your microtransaction payment will have more to do with lining some CEO's pocket than actually supporting the fucking game. And, hell, why does every multiplayer game need to be supplied with new content anyway? I played Halo 2 for fucking years without a single DLC and not only were the servers maintained (that's another bullshit thing, the idea that these need to exist to pay for servers even though that's bullshit because the right kind of online connection can last forever, Battlefront 2 from fucking 2005 can still be played online) but I had a fucking blast doing it. Eventually I moved on but that's kind of the beauty of things, I'm not actually petrified by the fact that one day I will get bored of Overwatch or it might not receive any more new content. I don't [I]need[/I] my multiplayer games to have decade long support. As long as I got my money's worth and I can still play it through other methods of connection then who cares? Not to mention community made content. If the devs need microtransactions to make more content (they don't), then how about they just build a framework for the community to do that [I]for free.[/I] Which they gladly will! So many great maps and gamemodes have come from just letting people make their own stuff. I can't put a number on how many hours I've spent playing game modes like prop hunt and trouble in terrorist town or ultimate chimera hunt, that valve had [I]no[/I] hand in creating. Probably more than I spent playing the games they were built on in the first place.

Hell, games spawned from mods. DOTA was a mod. CTF, KOTH, as gamemodes were mods. Games that completely lock you out of custom content and tug you by your neck basically saying "play it our way or else" can fuck right off. Overwatch is the perfect example of this. Overwatch would be perfect with custom content if they allowed it instead of their shitty custom game mode maker and horrible rulesets/maps. It's so weird because StarCraft 1 and even 2 is really fucking good for that reason, and it's by the same company. It's this strictness that causes games to die off in a year or two if they don't get new content that you have to throw your wallet at.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52987910]And, hell, why does every multiplayer game need to be supplied with new content anyway? I played Halo 2 for fucking years without a single DLC [/QUOTE] i'm not contesting your entire post but I just had to nitpick this, Halo 2 had a 20$ map pack that would probably be considered absurd by modern standards.

if you need any further evidence other than the litany of it from the last few months, you can look at how over the past half a decade, AAA gaming has wholesale massacred community input into games, so that it can be chopped up and parcelled out in microtransactions it's going to be a sad fucking moment when explaining to younger generations how the greatest games of our time came from community-driven mods for popular games, only for them to go "what's a mod?"

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52987924]if you need any further evidence other than the litany of it from the last few months, you can look at how over the past half a decade, AAA gaming has wholesale massacred community input into games so that it can be chopped up and parcelled out in microtransactions it's going to be a sad fucking moment when explaining to younger generations how the greatest games of our time came from community-driven mods for popular games, only for them to go "what's a mod?"[/QUOTE] to be fair younger generations probably play a fuckload of minecraft where everything is mods all the time i do think it's pretty terrible that most modern shooters don't even allow the possibility of mods considering the game that kickstarted the modern age of micro-transactions started as a mod, mind

snip

[QUOTE=Zadrave;52987928]And that's the reason the game is still well alive. I don't see your point here. You just are proving his point.[/QUOTE] I wasn't making a point, he just said that younger generations may well not even know what a mod is when the single game probably played most by children has an insane amount of mods. I was just pointing that out. :v:

[QUOTE=Zadrave;52987928]And that's the reason the game is still well alive without any micro-transactions other than skins on the console versions, but nobody plays those versions anyway. I don't see your point here. You just are proving his point.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure he's just saying kids aren't just gonna forget about mods.

[QUOTE=Zadrave;52987918]Hell, games spawned from mods. DOTA was a mod. CTF, KOTH, as gamemodes were mods. Games that completely lock you out of custom content and tug you by your neck basically saying "play it our way or else" can fuck right off. Overwatch is the perfect example of this. Overwatch would be perfect with custom content if they allowed it instead of their shitty custom game mode maker and horrible rulesets/maps. It's so weird because StarCraft 1 and even 2 is really fucking good for that reason, and it's by the same company.[/QUOTE] Yet we're honestly seeing the exact opposite approach. Games are now shunting player made content (unless they can charge for it ahemhempaidmods). You can't do jack shit now. Can't make custom game modes, can't make maps, can't put in new player models, can't use player skins. I wonder why? Oh yeah, because that would hurt their whole microtransaction racket. Because why let players have the freedom to reskin models when you can charge them for ones you made? Why let people make game modes if that means they aren't reliant on supporting you so you'll make more yourself? Why let people make maps when you can force them to play yours and support you for more? More than ever it feels like game designers are insisting that [I]they[/I] get to dictate what kind of experience I have, and that's bullshit. They want control over how I'm allowed to enjoy what should be MY game. Like how Valve removed sprays and eventually started selling their own safe bullshit sprays back to us. But I don't want that, because their sprays [I]suck.[/I] Because they're safe, and not risque, and all that bullshit. Sure it means you don't get to control your online environment but devs don't [I]need to be.[/I] I [I]liked[/I] playing a game where people walked around looking like a horrendous 3d model of Sonic the hedgehog and the maps were adorned with spicy meme pictures. I [I]liked[/I] being able to spray furry porn on a wall to annoy everyone in the lobby on purpose for a laugh. Now I only get to have fun on their terms and that's fucking obnoxious.

[QUOTE=dark soul;52987897]Sorry that I'm not entitled enough to think that ALL post launch content should be be made free. Cosmetics are the best way to pay for development of content that actually matters. I'd rather have developers keep updating their games post launch with balance patches and free content that actually affects game play like new weapons or maps then get nothing at all.[/QUOTE] Ah the old gem. "You're just entitled!" Let's praise this catch-all deflection, this impenetrable defence for shady business practices in the games industry. Honestly, personally, I'd rather have nothing. I'd rather a good game be released and left to the whims of the community than bloated with money sucking bullshit. I'd rather a game live for one year with a community that cares about the game than having it dragged out forever while sycophants like you make pathetic excuses for the greed of companies who couldn't give a single shit about you. I remember playing Counter Strike and Day of Defeat for YEARS with no new developer made content, only patches to make sure the game worked. That suited me and the community just fine. Fuck, I'd still be playing CoD4 if there was an active community for it.

I know I sure as shit prefer trouble in terrorist town to cosmetics in overwatch and the benefits they supposedly bring. I prefer fuckin jailbreak servers to fuckin' Ana or Doomfist I can tell you that shit right now

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52987955]I know I sure as shit prefer trouble in terrorist town to cosmetics in overwatch and the benefits they supposedly bring. I prefer fuckin jailbreak servers to fuckin' Ana or Doomfist I can tell you that shit right now[/QUOTE] ok I don't. I'm pretty bored of TTT and Jailbreak. Jailbreak kinda sucks, it's "get bullied and then probably shot" simulator. TTT as a concept is pretty fun, but both are pretty grief-happy and the actual shooter gameplay is loose as hell because you're still playing Garry's Mod, most of their value is in the wacky shit you can do messing with people. frankly it feels a little silly to compare those games. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on literally wanting nothing over optional cosmetics because I had a shitload of fun with Overwatch in the first two weeks with friends

GTA V is also a hilarious example of micro-transactions gone wrong. Everyone just learned to mod the game to give themselves money and do some hilariously fun shit, but Take Two tries their hardest to stop them. I almost guarantee you that the people who play GTA Online the longest are also modders, because the mods make the game actually fun and not a horrid grind-fest that makes you question why you're even bothering trying to play the game in the first place.

[QUOTE=RocketRacer;52987263]I want to say mappacks like Battlefield 3 and 4 did but in the long run it just ruins the playerbase. It divides everyone and when the game's time has passed(BF3 and 4 atm) it makes the situation even worse because some really good DLC maps/gamemodes might still be active but nobody plays on vanilla, and you're missing out unless you buy DLC for an old game player population of which is just remnants of what is used to be.[/QUOTE] battlefield 4 did it pretty well, with them putting premium on sale for like $5 several time over the past few years

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52987981]ok I don't. I'm pretty bored of TTT and Jailbreak. Jailbreak kinda sucks, it's "get bullied and then probably shot" simulator. TTT as a concept is pretty fun, but both are pretty grief-happy and the actual shooter gameplay is loose as hell because you're still playing Garry's Mod, most of their value is in the wacky shit you can do messing with people. frankly it feels a little silly to compare those games. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on literally wanting nothing over optional cosmetics because I had a shitload of fun with Overwatch in the first two weeks with friends[/QUOTE] I think you kind of completely missed my point. It's not about those specific gamemodes it's about fantastic/substantial community made content as opposed to mediocre ass developer made content. I feel as though I have been made to trade for something far worse and I would take an Overwatch where people could mod Junkrat to have titties and make custom maps and crazy game modes that barely even resemble overwatch as it usually is, over, stupid shit mediocre ass characters like Doomfist and Ana, or awful maps like the moonbase.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52987997]I think you kind of completely missed my point. It's not about those specific gamemodes it's about fantastic/substantial community made content as opposed to mediocre ass developer made content. I feel as though I have been made to trade for something far worse and I would take an Overwatch where people could mod Junkrat to have titties and make custom maps and crazy game modes that barely even resemble overwatch as it usually is, over, stupid shit mediocre ass characters like Doomfist and Ana, or awful maps like the moonbase.[/QUOTE] In fact, look at community skin concepts people have. 9 times out of 10 they are better than anything Blizzard shat out.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52987991]battlefield 4 did it pretty well, with them putting premium on sale for like $5 several time over the past few years[/QUOTE] They also slowly released all of the DLC for free a month at a time later in the game's lifespan through origin's on-the-house thing, that's how I got most of the DLCs for it (missed one, though.) honestly slowly releasing games and DLC that people are no longer buying or playing for free, especially multiplayer games would be pretty cool, but maybe that's a little idealistic