Popular Post Zenpai Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) I was impelled to write this blog post after EA's closure of Visceral Studios. EA mercilessly destroying studios for no good reason isn't exactly a new thing, but this one resonated particularly with a lot of gamers because of one quote included in the press release: "Our Visceral studio has been developing an action-adventure title set in the Star Wars universe. In its current form, it was shaping up to be a story-based, linear adventure game. Throughout the development process, we have been testing the game concept with players, listening to the feedback about what and how they want to play, and closely tracking fundamental shifts in the marketplace. It has become clear that to deliver an experience that players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time to come, we needed to pivot the design." Just in case you haven't quite been keeping up with your corporate language translation skills, allow me to convert this statement into plain English: The Star Wars game Visceral was designing was directed by Amy Hennig, who also directed the first three Uncharted games. So, as the statement says, it was shaping up to be a story-based, linear adventure game - so far, so good. Problem: clearly EA though they couldn't milk the hell out of us with microtransactions, loot boxes and similar kinds of crap, so they basically just nuked the entire project and gave it to a studio that could turn the idea into something they could nurse off of for years to come, firing hundreds of people in the process. EA also recently made the news - and in a very prominent way - for its disastrous implementation of loot boxes in the recent Star Wars: Battlefront II game. Loot Boxes were already something most people didn't like, just like no one really likes Season Passes, microtransactions and DLC that was clearly content cut from the original game. However, Loot Boxes got a spike in hatred from all of us after the way they were included in Shadow of War and both the ESRB and PEGI declared that the system was not comparable to gambling, comparing them to Trading Card Games, where you don't always know what you're getting, but you always know you're getting something. Shortly thereafter, news came along that even if you bought Battlefront II's Special Edition, the two most important characters in the entirety of the Star Wars franchise, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, were still locked behind the opening of loot boxes - which you would either pay in real world money or hours and hours of grinding. Obviously, this didn't fall well with the people excited to buy the game. At all. So people started demanding some answers from EA. So the EA Community Team took to Reddit to defend the inclusion of microtransactions and the locking of such important characters behind them. And the answer was… well, nothing short of disastrous:"The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes. As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay. We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets. Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can." This post made history by being the most downvoted comment in Reddit's entire history: as of this writing, the post has accumulated 673 000 downvotes, which is quite a leap from Reddit's now second-most downvoted comment (24 333 - a post that literally asked to be downvoted). EA then proceeded to cut the amount of credits needed for the free unlocking of the warded-off characters by 75%... but by then, the damage was done. EA already was a company that wasn't liked by many, but this time, they truly invited the fury of the general gaming community. It got so bad that Disney itself had to get involved, worried about how this whole mess was reflecting on their greatest property. In the end, EA had no choice but to disable the microtransactions entirely... but only temporarily, of course. Until all the noise died down. I will show you an image that shows just how bad it got. For context, this was on Black Friday: And it didn’t stop here. It seems like every day, a new representative for the EA comes along, opens his mouth and consequently puts another nail in the company's coffin. Not satisfied with the massive backlash they received after their AMA on Reddit, afterwards, they had a few choice quotes I would like to present to you: First, when asked about why the loot boxes weren't merely cosmetic instead of tied to player progression, EA's CFO, Blake Jorgensen had this to say: “The one thing we’re very focused on and they’re extremely focused on is not violating the canon of Star Wars. It’s an amazing brand that’s been built over many, many years. So if you did a bunch of cosmetic things, you might start to violate the canon. Darth Vader in white probably doesn’t make sense, versus in black. Not to mention you probably don’t want Darth Vader in pink. No offense to pink, but I don’t think that’s right in the canon.” "I don't think that's right in the canon". Right. Well, Mr. Jorgensen got caught outright lying for their implementation of loot boxes, since data miners found customization options hidden away in the game - none of which involved a pink Darth Vader, mind you. Not to mention... the previous game had cosmetic options included, none of which "violated canon" in any way, it was actually very well done. Sometimes I think EA forgets who they're trying to sell games to. The community can spot bullshit faster than you can say "scam" (not that this particular bullshit wasn't especially easy to call out, mind you). Afterwards, the very same individual, Blake Jorgensen, had this to say regarding why the linear Star Wars game in development at Visceral was canned in favor of a multiplayer experience ripe for microtransactions and Loot Boxes: "(...) we were trying to build a game that really pushed gameplay to the next level, and as we kept reviewing the game, it continued to look like a style of gaming, a much more linear game, that people don’t like as much today as they did five years ago or 10 years ago.” Right. Let's just see the most well-reviewed games of 2017 on Opencritic (keeping in mind that this picture is from before Super Mario Odissey came out - though the point would still stand): (Credit to Jason no Kiseki on Twitter for the picture) Funny, I don't see any multiplayer games in there. At most, you have Cuphead, which has co-op... but still. Since single-player games do not allow for this kind of endless monetization as easily as multiplayer games, EA resorted, once more, to making excuses as for why they don't just want more money, but all the money. To quote Jason: "Single-player games don't fit in today's market? Fuck off". Lastly, one former member of Ragtag (the code name for the Star Wars game in development at Visceral), said some interesting things about the goings-on behind the curtains at the studio: "[Amy Hennig] was giving these massive presentations on the story, themes [and the] EA executives are like, ‘FIFA Ultimate Team makes a billion dollars a year. Where’s your version of that?' " I believe this quote speaks volumes regarding EA's priorities. And Battlefront II is not the only culprit in showcasing the unfathomable depths of EA's greed. UFC 3 is on Beta and guess what it also has: yup, you guessed it (it wasn't that hard, mind you ? ): loot boxes. This time, it's even worse, though: in this case, even fighting moves can be made stronger by unlocking upgrades and boosts in loot boxes. Yes, you heard it right: a fighting game, a game where balance is the single most important thing to have, provides you with the means to be a lot more effective and competitive... as long as you pay up, of course. And let’s not even talk about FIFA or EA Sports' other games, which have had these mechanics for quite some time (and somehow always fell under the radar... until now). Though obviously, EA isn't the only culprit of this free-for-all of bottomless greed. Activision, another company that has a major hand in the current abysmal state of AAA gaming, is also gunning for unlimited money-making. In the company’s Destiny 2, you can get Bright Engrams (the game’s name for loot boxes) by either leveling up after level 20, or, of course, by paying with actual, real money. Well, it was recently found out that the more you grinded, the less experience you got for your efforts, making it all the harder to gain loot boxes without paying with actual cash. They have admitted the error, admitting they weren’t “happy with the results” (more like they got busted and now have no choice) and removed the scaling system. So now that players earn the experience they should, everything should be fine, right?... Not quite, since the amount of experience necessary to level up has also doubled. I swear, the schemes AAA game publishers come up with to get as much of our money as they can are so blatant it would be hilarious if it wasn’t downright revolting. Activision has even turned the mere opening of loot crates into a social event, since there’s an actual mission in Call of Duty: World War II that requires you to just see other people opening loot boxes – therefore pressuring you to also buy them. EA and Activision are merely the most egregious examples out there, but they are far from being the single culprits. Last year, my very first blog post detailed how disappointed I was that the gaming industry was getting worse and worse, with boatloads of unnecessary DLC, Season Passes, Pre-Order bonuses and games shipping bugged or even broken and in need of heavy patching, but boy... I had absolutely no idea what was to come. Not only does even Nintendo (friggin' Nintendo!!) also do Season Passes and DLC for their games now, we also have to put up with microtransactions and their steroid version, loot boxes. (And mind you, I wrote the original blog post only 16 months ago!!) It seems like the era when AAA publishers made sure their games sold well by ensuring that they were... you know, actually good, is over. They looked at the monetization process present in mobile games and though: "I want me somma that". What they forgot to take into account was that unlike the vast majority of mobile games, where that system is present to compensate for the fact that... the game is free, AAA games are, by definition, premium experiences, paid up front. That is one of the main reasons people even indulge in premium games in the first place. They pay everything upfront and can rest easy, knowing that they will not only have a great gaming experience (hopefully) but also have the entirety of the game's content at their disposal from the start. Personally, I think this is a shameful state of affairs. I might not be much of a fan of online, multiplayer games, but I can appreciate their existence and their multiple fans. And it's not like single-player focused games cannot have multiplayer modes - the two certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Fighting and sports games are perfect examples. What I do not appreciate, however, is the inclusion of online modes in every single-player focused game just to cash in on the multiplayer craze, or worse, to use them as a vehicle for microtransactions and loot boxes. If you're going to make a multiplayer-focused game, that’s fine, just don't divert resources from the main experience if there's no real reason for it. And especially just to include gambling in it. Because that's what loot boxes are – gambling. While microtransactions, by themselves, already have no place in a game you already paid full price for, loot boxes are just pure, unfiltered greed. Not content with squeezing more money out of us for games we already paid for, now the big AAA gaming corporations decided to randomize the outcome of your spending just to squeeze even more money out of you. Yes, because they're not content with just having more money. They want ALL the money. Some people usually have a few arguments in defense of microtransactions and loot boxes that I would like to address: Microtransactions are just optional. You can just ignore them if you want to! I have a little trouble believing that after the examples I showed above detailing how developers are making the entire game around microtransactions, not just as an extra, an option or an afterthought. Furthermore, did you know that following the removal of microtransactions from the game, the whole of Battlefront II had to be rebalanced in order not to become a grindy slogfest? If the game functioned perfectly on its own even without the microtransactions, then why would it need to have its progression system tweaked?... If they’re just cosmetic, then microtransactions are fine! In that case, they really are truly optional! While it is true that cosmetic microtransactions are a little less bad than progression-based ones, they can still have quite a negative effect. Despite not providing players with items of value in the real world, loot boxes prey on the same psychological ticks as gambling. They make use of the same visual and audio cues as slot machines to build anticipation and reward players with the same high when they do get the desired outcome. And people with addictive tendencies can fall prey to them in just the same way as actual slot machines, even if the rewards are merely cosmetic. Just look at the young Reddit user that goes by the name of Kensgold, who spent over 10 000 $ in microtransactions over a period of 5 years. The kicker? He was merely 13 years old when his addiction started. Even if there are no progression-based incentives in cosmetic loot boxes, people can still fall prey to them just by seeing other players flaunting their shiny new gear. Actually, developers are counting on it: besides the Call of Duty missions that require you to merely see other people opening loot boxes, Activision has even patented a way to make matchmaking in online matches more likely to make you indulge in microtransactions and loot boxes. So… yeah, if you weren’t quite yet seeing why these monolithic publishers are so shady… I hope you do now. Edit 18/12/2017: Jim Sterling uploaded another fantastic Jimquisition today which is highly relevant for this part of the topic. Loot boxes are the same as trading card games, and those aren’t regulated! You’re always guaranteed to get something, even if it isn’t what you want! This was the excuse used by the ESRB when declaring that loot boxes weren’t equivalent to gambling. This argument has more holes in it than a fishing net, so it’ll be easy to debunk. Whenever you buy a pack of trading cards and you don’t get what you want, you’re still getting a physical item that you can collect or… you know, trade. It’s in the name, it’s a trading card game. However, when you purchase loot boxes and you don’t get what you want… you’re merely getting a bunch of ones and zeros that are permanently tied to your account – meaning any trade is impossible. If you’re getting something that has neither physical form nor any practical use whatsoever… isn’t that the same as getting nothing?... Games just cost so much to make these days and they still never rose beyond 60$! Publishers *need* to do this to break even! This is the most used excuse by both publishers and apologists of microtransactions and loot boxes, so I’m going to dwell on this one a little bit longer. If you believe 60$ is all that games cost these days… boy, have I got another thing coming for you. Have you realized that while games technically haven’t risen in price beyond 60$... you used to get a whole lot more for a 60$ game before? In case you haven’t noticed, publishers have found A LOT of ways to make up for the increased production costs besides microtransactions and loot boxes: · DLC – While expansion-type DLC is perfectly fine, the vast majority of DLC these days does not fit that mold. New game modes, extra characters and costumes, new maps… I’m still old enough to remember when that stuff came in the game as standard from the beginning. So if we used to have them packaged in the base game before and it’s now being sold to us piecemeal… then they’ve already succeeded in getting more from us for the same content. And this kind of DLC is so widespread these days that apparently, it’s become almost mandatory for games to include them. · Season Passes – Widespread needless DLC would be bad enough, but when you have so much of it in any individual game that it requires its own damn pre-order… then it’s official: you’re being taken for a ride. For a perfect example, nothing like resorting once again to our good friend EA: the original Star Wars Battlefront was famous for being extremely barebones. You could get a more complete game… after a hefty 50$ Season Pass. Only then would the experience seem even remotely wholesome. (I would also talk about the cancer that is DLC not included in the Season Pass… but I already did). · Silver, Gold and Deluxe Editions – Publishers have also tried to sell all kinds of different premium editions that included the Season Pass (AKA the full game) and different kinds of merchandise, like figures, artbooks, etc., so there’s another revenue stream right there. · Have you noticed that there are also a lot of sponsorships and product placement in games, especially sports games (which of course needs to be paid to the publishers)? · Have you also noticed how, despite the increase in production costs, the publishers never seem to be particularly strapped for money? And yet, actors and writers never seem to be paid any royalties (unlike what happens in every other entertainment industry); and the developers (you know, the people actually doing all the hard work) never seem to get paid any more than they used to. In fact, they frequently face mass layoffs after the game is done! So, as you can see… these days, 60$ grants you access… but 80$ or more dollars grant you the experience. And with EA even saying on record to its investors that the removal of microtransactions in Battlefront II was not expected to have a material impact… then it’s official: it starts being a lot less about need and a lot more about greed. Furthermore, did you know that publishers’ earnings are frequently found… in tax havens? Oh yes, they will cry and cry that games are just so expensive to make… and yet seal off their profits from contributing to the economy that they suck the living daylights off of all the livelong day. It’s all the more infuriating when it’s always the biggest franchises that pull off this crap – the biggest moneymakers, the guaranteed sales that just cannot help themselves trying to take as much money out of us as humanely possible. Do you see many (paid) indie games with microtransactions, loot boxes and the like? Yeah, I didn’t think so. And they don’t just pull off one or two of these money-making schemes. Oh no, they pull all of them. All at the same time. It’s not enough to just get more money out of you in one or two ways. Oh no, no, no, they have to pull every single one they can possibly think of. And the thing is… did we ever ask for games to be this expensive? Did we ever ask to have… individually animated strands of hair, or horses defecating in real time? I’m pretty sure gamers would much rather have smaller, more humble games if it meant they weren’t being constantly nickel-and-dimed. Hell, with the amount of grindy, repetitive and boring missions these massive games have, smaller projects would probably be tighter! And with games like Minecraft and Undertale selling like hotcakes despite being indie games with extremely low budgets and graphical capabilities… clearly, it’s possible to make a great game that will sell millions and millions without having to rob a fucking bank in 2017. Personally, I find all of this to be revolting. Just as we were making advances to get gaming recognized as a serious art form, like books and movies, now, these greedy publishers come along and try to turn the medium into a perpetual money-making machine without thinking for one second about making an actual experience that they can be proud of. I already buy pretty much no mobile games (I believe the only one I ever downloaded in my entire life was Angry Birds). And the reason is that the vast majority of these games constantly nag you to fork over more and more money. And when the entire game is based around this, obviously, the experience suffers for it. But if they’re free games, at least those have some kind of excuse. But microtransactions, or worse, loot boxes in games I already paid full price for? No. I absolutely refuse to partake in that. If I already paid for the game, then it should have everything included in it. Period. You can shove “games as service” up where the Sun don’t shine. Motion pictures are also extremely expensive to make, and yet, as soon as you pay for the DVD/Blu-Ray, you have access to everything in it. Why should games be any different? And to have to not only pay, but also have the outcome be randomized? I wasn’t aware gaming had merged with the lottery system. Because that’s what loot boxes ultimately are: gambling. Even if the rewards are something that you can only use in-game, if they make you spend real money, if the rewards are randomized and if they even prey on the same psychological ticks, make use of the same visual and audio cues and reward you with the same high when you finally do get what they want… well, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and smells like a duck… And if loot boxes are indeed gambling, then they should be treated – and regulated – as such. It is legal for games to include real gambling in them, mind you, but they do need to have some restrictions, namely, being automatically labeled as “Adults Only” – which will consequently reduce a significant part of its audience. Furthermore, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all refuse to allow “Adults Only” games on their platforms – which would basically confine the games to being PC-exclusives, further restricting their potential audience. Hence why it’s on all the publishers that pull these kinds of things’ best interests that loot boxes never be legally considered as gambling. Fortunately for them and sadly for us, as I stated above, the ESRB has refused to classify loot boxes as gambling, but given that it is an association made up of the biggest gaming publishers that was originally created to keep the government off the back of the gaming industry… yeah, I’m not surprised. But all is not lost. The silver lining in EA’s masterful screw-up with Battlefront II is that loot boxes have now become a toxic subject – that is to say, from now on, if you even dare to include them in your premium game… well, you’d better be prepared for the backlash. The best-case scenario would be for them to all go the way of the Dodo and never come back. Will that happen? Probably not. Even if the concept has to change a bit, if there’s one thing game publishers are good at is getting creative in order to get more money. Personally, even if the worst-case scenario came up (which is for loot boxes and microtransactions to spread throughout the entire industry), I wouldn’t be too bothered. Most first-party franchises have yet to indulge in the system, and the same is true of most premium Japanese games. So even if I have to stick to just indies, first-party titles and Japanese games to get away from this highway robbery free-for-all… I’d be more than just fine. I already have way too many games in my backlog anyway, so having the selection cut down a little would only benefit me. Hell, even if all games became plagued with endless money-making schemes, it’s not like we wouldn’t have a lot of older games just waiting to be discovered! (That is not to say I believe the current situation is even remotely good, mind you – I don’t want the industry to regress just because my backlog is way too big, I’m just trying to see the silver lining, you can put down the torches and pitchforks now ) And to think the stuff I complained about in my very first blog post almost seems quaint by comparison now – almost. One thing is for certain: I am not having any part of this. And much less feeling any kind of sense of “pride and accomplishment” by having to either grind endlessly or being strong-armed by slot machine-type mechanics. Whew. I believe that was it. If you haven’t had enough of this conversation, please check out this Jimquisition and this video by YongYea, which heavily influenced many of the points I make in this post. I saw a lot of information spread throughout the interwebz regarding this subject and thought I’d just lay it all out in one place, along with my own thoughts on the matter. Have a good one and I'll see you next time! Edited April 11, 2020 by Zenpai 76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post K_Groove_NL Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 Kind of sums it up. It's a shame how the gaming industry evolves with these business practices... ? 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terra Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 I have really no reason to buy AAA titles anymore. Your reasons signify the greed and corruption that’s taking over these companies. What were the best games this year? Nothing made by EA or Activision! Sure they made money but il bet you titles like Need For Speed Payback will be Forgotten about next year. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NetEntity Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 As someone who has always been stuck a console generation lower and has an incurable MP allergy, I'm mainly watching this from the sidelines, but this doesn't make this gradual degradation any less terrifying. P.S. this moment when Amy Henning is more known for Uncharted games.... damn, I'm old 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StrickenBiged Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 I'm a big believer in free markets. That having been said up front, I am also a big believer in transparent markets because, without transparency, one or other party to the transaction suffers from a lack of information which inherently restricts the freedom in that market. (Imagine, for example, healthcare. The main reason this market is so hard to get right across the world is that the consumers are not doctors - when you need healthcare, you have no idea what you need and, by the nature of the product, are incentivised to value the product very highly. This distorts the market.) So, I do not think that loot boxes or similar gambling-like mechanics should be regulated so as to be removed from games entirely. A game maker should be free to include these mechanics if they want to. But they should be required to tell the consumer: The odds on different items in the box; whether those odds are adjusted dynamically in response to data about the player (and, if so, how e.g. "we noticed that you buy more boxes after a match-loss, so we made the odds worse after a match loss to encourage you to buy more"); and Whether pricing is similarly dynamic in response to player data. This allows the consumer to know what they are getting into and allows them to evaluate the worth of the game and/or loot box properly. That having been said, I am not a fan of these systems and will abstain in future. Great post. Oh, P.S. Anthem is looking like it's going to be a very pretty dumpster fire of these odious mechanics. 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post AJ_Radio Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 I've been starting to have more interest in games that aren't big budget productions made by western companies. Granted I have plenty of games like Wolfenstein II, Assassins Creed Origins and Middle Earth Shadow of War, but I'm starting to find AAA games incredibly cliche and overly stale in creativity. In the past few months the games I've enjoyed the very most have come from small companies, indie developers who struggle to put their name out there on the market for consumers to take interest in. I found both Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number and Velocity 2X challenging but very enjoyable games. Plenty of creative ideas and concepts at work much like how Shovel Knight was praised when that game was first released. You would never see a company like EA or Activision put a notice of appreciation for you, much less write a meaningful little manual with bonus material like The Witcher 3. When I bought my copy of The Witcher 3 I received stickers, a notice of thanks, a quick start guide, a little manual and a soundtrack of the songs played in the game. I knew right then and there that CD Projekt Red cared for their fans and for their product. So I'll be monitoring their next project when it comes close to release. I also have an appreciation of the classics, which mostly explains why I have a lot of old SEGA games I got off of PSN. The video game industry is too corporate, shareholders have their hands full and when it comes to the needs and wants of these corporate companies, they come first. I refuse to buy any Battlefield game or Star Wars game with the EA label slapped on the cover. They will nickel and dime their fanbase for as long as they want. Despite all the complaints about crap like one of Destiny 2's trophies locked behind a paywall and Need for Speed Payback having forced lootboxes and microtransactions, people still go out and buy those products. By doing so you're only helping these companies, because unless there is a big outcry on these practices they will continue to shove them down our throats. 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
closertim Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 Not a bad read. Quite a simple solution. Don't buy it. EA and Ubisoft I tend to try and stay clear of for this very reason. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Doomsdayman Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 9 minutes ago, closertim said: Not a bad read. Quite a simple solution. Don't buy it. EA and Ubisoft I tend to try and stay clear of for this very reason. 1 man doesn't just change the direction of the industry, we all do. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Radio Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, Doomsdayman said: 1 man doesn't just change the direction of the industry, we all do. Yes. More people have to take part, not just a select few. It's the select few who have their voices heard over a wide area. While most of us are lucky to even have a couple people stop and listen to our feedback. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Bullstomp Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) @jrdemrThat was an amazing read! From the chronology of recent events to anticipated rebuttals and your responses to them, very well done! I also have spent more time with last generation games/indies because of this MTX bullshit. I really hope more people do the same. This nickel and diming will not stop until it affects these publishers bottom line. Edited December 15, 2017 by Bullstomp 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oobedoob S Benubi Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 Became a but TL;DR for me (I'll read on at a later point when I have more time) but I agree with the sentiment. EA's monopoly on my favourite multimedia franchise, ensuring we've had a Star Wars Renaissance for five years now with zero fun Star Wars games, is just one of the major offenders. I think there's AAA gems out there - just this year, Zelda, Mario, South Park... The list of indie games I've enjoyed is much longer than the list of AAA games I've enjoyed though, and I generally believe myself to be someone who has no preference and tries to play whatever comes his way that seems fun. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkrobot_pb Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 If there are loot boxes and microtransactions in the biggest game series of them all, Call of Duty, how can people still barf up the excuse that "games are too expensive to make nowadays" Are they telling me that Activision needs those, to make a profit on COD? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Radio Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 25 minutes ago, Bullstomp said: @jrdemrThat was an amazing read! From the chronology of recent events to anticipated rebuttals and your responses to them, very well done! I also have spent more time with last generation games/indies because of this MTX bullshit. I really hope more people do the same. This nickel and diming will not stop until it affects these publishers bottom line. I'm with both of you on this one. I was against some people on these forums on lootboxes completely ruining Middle Earth: Shadow of War. Granted they didn't turn out to be all that terrible, but I am well aware on how they're going to be implemented in future games. I have nothing against people playing many of the multi million dollar budget games of this generation. But I have definitely noticed creativity has really taken a decline, because nobody can come up with anything new anymore. At least with the past generation you had games like Assassins Creed. I considered the story and concept original, with interesting characters. Today you basically see franchises that are just taking from the past generation and giving their products better graphics, smoother gameplay and faster load times. You see all the remasters we've been getting this generation? Where were they back in 2007 - 2009 or so? Oh that's right, the developers were more interested in creating new IPs like Dead Space, Assassins Creed and Bayonetta. It's easier to implement paywalls and microtransactions than it is to be original. Brian at PS4Trophies was mad about one of Destiny 2's trophies being locked behind a paywall and I don't blame him at all for being angry. Instead of creating a new gameplay mode, a new class or a new concept the developers just decided to force players to pay more in order to obtain the trophy. They have also proven themselves to be full of shit. Therefore I don't see myself supporting them at all, and I refuse to play Destiny 1 and 2 because of that. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xugashi Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 Really great read! I think ultimately in order for us to receive quality games again is to ironically not buy games from this gen so that these corrupt ♥s won't think that we are completely brainless! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YemmytheFerret Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) Good post, good point, and good presentation. Just to show you are right about the state of things my favorite games this year were death of the outsider, a hat in time, steamworld dig 2, shadow of war, hand of fate 2, horizon zero Dawn, and day of infamy. Look at that only 1 multiplayer game. EA doesn't know what it's doing anymore and I'm hesitant to buy any of their games now adays even if the trophy list is easy Edited December 15, 2017 by Muskratateer 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dreakon13 Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) There's no denying the degeneration of the AAA market, even if I'm squarely in the "don't care about MT's because they haven't effected me yet" crowd. I think it starts and ends with the fact that AAA games have shifted in the last 5-10 years to be repetitive grinds... and people are (or were) eating it up because they insisted a game needs to be 100+ hours and/or virtually endless "replayability", to be worth their ~$60... and anything less than 60 hours ($1 per hour; because "bang for your buck") can f*** right off. The tone has changed now that greedier publishers/developers found a way to monetize it (which was inevitable as games got longer, more "replay-able", and selling boosts/speedups/items became feasible), and on principle people are jumping on the "woo single player, take that EA" bandwagon. Not to say it's right for publishers to exploit people's stupidity, and I'm glad people are steering away from the EA's of the world in favor of smaller developers that treat the consumers right, and that the indie scene is thriving. But I feel like much of this could've been avoided by people appreciating (with their wallets) the more finite single player games place in the industry beyond the marquee titles over the years... instead of using that point as an excuse to wait for sales or outright ignore them. Edited December 15, 2017 by Dreakon13 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Radio Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said: There's no denying the degeneration of the AAA market, even if I'm squarely in the "don't care about MT's because they haven't effected me yet" crowd. I think it starts and ends with the fact that AAA games have shifted in the last 5-10 years to be repetitive grinds... and people are (or were) eating it up because they insisted a game needs to be 100+ hours and/or virtually endless "replayability", to be worth their ~$60... and anything less than 60 hours ($1 per hour; because "bang for your buck") can f*** off. The tone has changed now that publishers/developers found a way to monetize it, and on principle people are jumping on the "woo single player, take that EA" bandwagon. Not to say it's right for publishers to exploit people's stupidity, and I'm glad people are steering away from the EA's of the world in favor of smaller developers that treat the consumers right, and that the indie scene is thriving. But I feel like much of this could've been avoided by people appreciating (with their wallets) the more finite single player games place in the industry beyond the marquee titles over the years... instead of using that as an excuse to wait for sales or outright ignore them. There's no question many of the masses are simply sheep who just buy the next Call of Duty or the next Battlefield because their friends did the same thing. I always do my research on a game before I decide to go and buy it. But that's just common sense. A big contributor to the decline of the AAA industry has been mobile games. Since everyone and their brother has a smartphone these days mobile games are being distributed like hotcakes. I don't claim to know much about microtransactions but I feel somewhere down the line someone got the idea that AAA games could have the same paywalls as many mobile games do. I recall a certain Star Trek mobile game released a few years ago that forced you to pay money to make any real progress. Now granted most free to play games have microtransactions just like Star Trek so in this sense it's no different. But I definitely noticed a significant boost in progress when I paid a few dollars to buy up resources. Doing it all legit would take up to 10 - 20 times longer, so it was completely impractical and inefficient to play the game that way. Even just trying to get the famous crew like Captain Kirk, Spock and McCoy cost money. Since then I have avoided every mobile game with forced microtransactions. Two multiplayer games I played the most (World of Warcraft and Runescape) a decade ago began implementing their own microtransactions in the form of XP boosts, cosmetics and even transferring your character to another server. If you want to change servers in World of Warcraft you have to pay Blizzard money, and it's not cheap. Runescape implemented Squeal of Fortune which was a way to buy up XP Lamps and get other prizes that you probably couldn't get as easily if you tried getting them legit. Middle Earth: Shadow of War has lootboxes to help you gain certain items and make the grind shorter. Need for Speed Payback has cards that give you parts for your car, which is EA forcing you to participate in lootboxes. If anything I can just stick to the past generation of games and maybe buy up a few games here and there this generation. But the masses continue to buy these products, and therefore EA and Activision have people by the throat when it comes to these practices. Sad state of affairs for this generation of gaming. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rally-Vincent--- Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 The foot in the door was paid DLC. Paid DLC showed developers that gamers will shell out money for everything. It is the same with Online play requiring PS PLus on the PS4. You upgraded from PS3 to PS4, and as a thank you Sony added a kick to your butt making you pay for what you had for free on PS3. What do I hear? PS Plus is great because you get so many games for free? No, you don't. You get them for paying a monthly fee. Microtransactions are a natural progression, and it will get worse. Why? Because people apparently are voting with their wallet, but not in a way we would endorse. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirPigFace Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) I cant believe people buy FIFA every single year. I bet people waste hundreds of their money on buying player packs then a new game comes out 9 month later and you have to start from scratch all over again and not only that, the game is EXACTLY THE SAME AS LAST YEAR. I think everyone of their sports games has the same buy player pack system as well. EA and the COD franchise are probably the worst 2 companies when it comes to leaching every $$$ they can out of people. More people have stopped buying COD in recent years though, enough to make them change the direction they were taking the game. Its just a shame people don't do the same with FIFA. Edited December 15, 2017 by SirPigFace 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreakon13 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Spaz said: Sad state of affairs for this generation of gaming. Is it though? The best thing to come of this generation has been the growth of the indie scene, and they've released some of the best games since before the internet came around and ultimately drove all this post-release monetary interaction. I wouldn't call that sad... just different. The only thing that changed is corporate greed forcing people to think before they buy things... which should've been the case from the get-go. As angry as thinking and educated purchases seems to make people. Edited December 15, 2017 by Dreakon13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Radio Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 1 minute ago, Dreakon13 said: Is it though? The best thing to come of this generation has been the growth of the indie scene, and they've released some of the best games since before the internet came around and ultimately drove all this post-release monetary interaction. The only thing that changed is corporate greed forcing people to think before they buy things... which should've been the case from the get-go. As angry as thinking and educated purchases seems to make people. We've already seen indie games take a big inspiration from the 8, 16, 34 and 64 bit eras. Shovel Knight clearly took inspiration from Mega Man and Super Mario Bros. There are games that were heavily influenced by the likes of Final Fantasy, Earthbound and Chrono Trigger. I was clearly talking about mainstream AAA games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreakon13 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Spaz said: We've already seen indie games take a big inspiration from the 8, 16, 34 and 64 bit eras. Shovel Knight clearly took inspiration from Mega Man and Super Mario Bros. There are games that were heavily influenced by the likes of Final Fantasy, Earthbound and Chrono Trigger. I was clearly talking about mainstream AAA games. You were, but I don't see why that's "sad" even. If AAA games were all we had, that'd be sad. If anything this generation has been healthy for the industry and everyone involved, as these indiscretions have forced consumers to think more... something that was missing in this growing digital age of impulse sales and one-click purchasing. And in turn, the little guys (indie developers) are stealing a lot of spotlight away with both their innovative games and their pro-consumer leanings. I think that's great. I just wish there were less restrictions barring "the little guy" from physical retail releases... since that's kinda my thing. Edited December 15, 2017 by Dreakon13 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Radio Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 28 minutes ago, Rally-Vincent--- said: The foot in the door was paid DLC. Paid DLC showed developers that gamers will shell out money for everything. It is the same with Online play requiring PS PLus on the PS4. You upgraded from PS3 to PS4, and as a thank you Sony added a kick to your butt making you pay for what you had for free on PS3. What do I hear? PS Plus is great because you get so many games for free? No, you don't. You get them for paying a monthly fee. Microtransactions are a natural progression, and it will get worse. Why? Because people apparently are voting with their wallet, but not in a way we would endorse. People complained about DLC during the past generation. A lot of us already forgot about that since that occurred years ago. I still have plenty of games in my library that have DLC that I am not buying simply because it's too expensive. I recently bought the Fallout 4 Season Pass for half it's normal price. There was no way in hell I was paying $50 for just DLC, I may as well buy a new game with that money or simply get three or four used games for cheap. Paying for online was bound to happen. You have to pay to play online for the Xbox 360 and it's been that way ever since the console came out. I didn't see people complain about that, but that could be because the 360 had a better online experience than the PS3. People are sheep. Advertisers know full well about this so they do their best to market to an audience that is naive enough to pay more money out of their pocket to these companies. Apparently it works. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StrickenBiged Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 There's a lot of hyperbole and hand-wringing around this topic, but some commenters need to relax a little, I think. Gaming isn't dead or dying - the industry has never been bigger (globally, the gaming industry is almost the same size as the sports industry now). For every game that changes its business model to include egregious microtransactions or gamble-ized progression systems, there are a dozen releases which eschew this model and sell a decent game at a fair price. If you are someone who buys just the big releases each year, I'd urge you to branch out into the indie-game scene where there are dozens of titles worthy of your time. Sure, it's really annoying and sometimes even heartbreaking - looking at you ME:3 and Andromeda, oh, hello again EA - to see a beloved franchise decide to debase itself because some suit decided that it needed to make a billion dollars a year like FIFA in order to get made at all. But you've lived this long without a new game to play in that franchise and there will be other games coming that are worth your attention. The lesson, as always, is know what you're buying. Ignore the marketing hype-train, don't pre-order, wait a week after launch for reviews and details of any bugs, and you'll be far less disappointed by buying ducks when you were expecting a swan. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post diskdocx Posted December 15, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2017 21 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said: There's a lot of hyperbole and hand-wringing around this topic, but some commenters need to relax a little, I think. Gaming isn't dead or dying - the industry has never been bigger (globally, the gaming industry is almost the same size as the sports industry now). For every game that changes its business model to include egregious microtransactions or gamble-ized progression systems, there are a dozen releases which eschew this model and sell a decent game at a fair price. If you are someone who buys just the big releases each year, I'd urge you to branch out into the indie-game scene where there are dozens of titles worthy of your time. Sure, it's really annoying and sometimes even heartbreaking - looking at you ME:3 and Andromeda, oh, hello again EA - to see a beloved franchise decide to debase itself because some suit decided that it needed to make a billion dollars a year like FIFA in order to get made at all. But you've lived this long without a new game to play in that franchise and there will be other games coming that are worth your attention. The lesson, as always, is know what you're buying. Ignore the marketing hype-train, don't pre-order, wait a week after launch for reviews and details of any bugs, and you'll be far less disappointed by buying ducks when you were expecting a swan. I think the industry is evolving though. I've been gaming since the Atari 2600, and while I realize I am not the common age demographic, I do believe the industry is headed towards another crash (or rather, and adjustment is coming). I think the majority of gamers are now in their 20-30's. They grew up with consoles in their house, and this was a part of their lives. As they age, their disposable income for gaming, and their available time, will start to change. They will have families, jobs, lives (wives ) and gaming will shift. AAA titles will need to change. You will either have consumers that buy 3-4, 100 hour AAA games a year, or you will have people shifting to games that make more sense for them personally. I no longer have interest in massive titles. I don't want to play them, I don't have any interest in competitive MP, and I don't have interest in 100 hours of repetitive crap. Despite playing and finishing over 100 games this year, my AAA list is small - I went back and cleaned up Borderlands 1&2, I played Gravity Rush 2 (disappointment), and have just started Titanfall 2 (a bit of an outlier, with minimal MP at least in terms of trophies, and a relatively short campaign overall). Otherwise I have a few 'tier 2' games - some Telltale stuff, a couple of older PS3 games I've had kicking around like Spiderman, and the rest is indies. And you know what, I love them. As much as the AAA games have fallen off my radar, this is the golden age for indies. Some of the best games I've played this year are smaller, under the radar games. Yes, there's been a fair amount of crap in there, but I love to find those gems. Gaming will evolve. I look at my kids, and while a couple of them will jump into a co-op game (gonna start Lego Star Wars with my son over the weekend), mostly they don't have much interest in console games. They play on their phones or mobile devices. And that is where I see gaming going for the younger generation. As the peak age of console players age, it will be the AAA titles that will need to evolve or die. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now