On 23/07/2024 01:50, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

My favorite bit from the article was EA Senior VP Kerry Hopkins
valiantly trying to defend the practice, claiming it was the only way
they could afford to keep deliving new content for the game year after
year. Except... the games only have a one-year lifespan before they
expect you to buy the next edition. MAYBE he'd have an argument if the
base games were free... except the lastest version costs $70USD.
Players are already paying for that new content, jackass!

And, of course, any MTX from the old game don't carry over.

You got to feel sorry for them as they really are living on a pay cheque
to pay cheque existence when a game like Fifa only sells 10 to 20
million copies at $50 to £70 pounds. I mean some of them can't afford to
buy a super yacht but instead have to go with a luxury yacht instead and
the social stigma that entails.

Think of the CEO's!

It reminds me of our recent prime minister, Rushi Sunak, when he was
asked what financial hardships he had suffered in his life and the best
he could give was they didn't have a Sky TV subscription when he was
young. I'm pretty sure that if you're going to a private school where
the fees are now £40,000+ a year you could afford that. Obviously people
where very understanding and didn't create loads of memes about it.

Meanwhile, a (former) executive producer at Bungie tried claiming**
that the entire live service model in fact offered more benefits for
players than traditional 'pay once and you get the whole game' method.
I mean, I'm sure it's better for the publishers, but I've never met
any player who preferred this nickle-and-diming that too many games
force upon us. We endure it, and sometimes enjoy some of the goodies
it gets us, but everyone I've talked to would prefer if games returned
to the sales model of the early 2000s; get a full, complete game with
lots of hidden bonuses that you can only unlock through gameplay. It
rewards the skilled and persistent, and not the ones with deep pockets
and poor impulse control.

They'd have a point if it was a case of you're going to be playing this
game for 10yrs+ and for us to provide new content to maintain your
interest we do need to generate a reasonable ongoing revenue to do that.
The reality is nothing like that though, we'll sell you a full price
game and then try and squeeze every penny out of you even though we
realise that some of this is exploiting those with undesirable traits.
Oh and if it's not generating enough profits we'll just stick the middle
finger up to our customers and close the service down. Trebles all around!

Like you I'd prefer that we returned to the old model of how games make
money and I don't even have a problem with subscription models if they
act reasonable in changes to what you get and prices *coughs* Microsoft Gamepass *coughs*.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/07/2024 18:44, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:58:23 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 23/07/2024 01:50, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Like you I'd prefer that we returned to the old model of how games make
money and I don't even have a problem with subscription models if they
act reasonable in changes to what you get and prices *coughs* Microsoft
Gamepass *coughs*.

Apparently the US goverment is having a bit of an issue with Gamepass.
Who could possibly have guessed that allowing two giant corporations
to merge /wouldn't/ result in lower prices and better products, but
just the opposite?

I wouldn't object to subscription models if it wasn't so obviously
what publishers wants the ENTIRE industry to become. If it were just,
"hey, you can sometimes rent a game, and other times buy it", I'd be
fine. I can actually see the appeal in a subscription as a way to
'demo' games I'm interested in, or play entire games I've some
interest in but not enough to pay full price. It's not a bad idea on
the whole.

But I've no trust in the publishers not to abuse the idea solely for
their own benefit. They've been frog-boiling gamers towards the idea
that the former is the One True Way of modern gaming, and it is so
obvious that once they amass a plurality of gamers they'll stop
selling games entirely.

Very much the same, I rather like the idea of a subscription based model
as it gives another option for how someone play games even though it's certainly not for me. I just don't spend that much on games and I'm not convinced that many of the games I do buy are on it. As you say though,
the problem is the end game is to try and force almost everybody to a subscription based model whether it's suited to them or not. Once they
get that then the real abuse will begin. Oh you want to play the game on
the day it's released, that's fine as it's included in the base package
but if you buy the gold package you get to play them two weeks early.
Erm ... doesn't that mean two weeks earlier is when the game is released
then. I can also see them 'removing' parts of the game and repackaging
them as extras for the expensive subscriptions.

Saying that, if the triple AAA publishers took all their games to a subscription model then I can't really say I'd care as there's very few
of them I play anyway. Where the problem does come is if the starting
getting into the medium and small studios.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/22/2024 5:50 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

It doesn't really say anything new about the topic, but the New York
Times has an article* on how MTX-infested sports video games have
become. Sports in general have become cesspits of gambling these days,
it seems, but video games take it to a new level.

I don't really have anything else to say about the topic. That won't
stop me from going on about it though. I've a reputation to uphold.
;-)

We've discussed it here a lot (even if not specifically about sports
games). It's pretty attrocious, though. I'd forgotten how awful it was
in sports games; it would be bad enough if you had to buy favorite
players to use in your games, but you don't even get that. You gamble
on the chance to win that character... and then you only get a week to
use him before you have to start all over.

It makes MTX in mobile games look tame in comparison.

My favorite bit from the article was EA Senior VP Kerry Hopkins
valiantly trying to defend the practice, claiming it was the only way
they could afford to keep deliving new content for the game year after
year. Except... the games only have a one-year lifespan before they
expect you to buy the next edition. MAYBE he'd have an argument if the
base games were free... except the lastest version costs $70USD.
Players are already paying for that new content, jackass!

And, of course, any MTX from the old game don't carry over.

Meanwhile, a (former) executive producer at Bungie tried claiming**
that the entire live service model in fact offered more benefits for
players than traditional 'pay once and you get the whole game' method.
I mean, I'm sure it's better for the publishers, but I've never met
any player who preferred this nickle-and-diming that too many games
force upon us. We endure it, and sometimes enjoy some of the goodies
it gets us, but everyone I've talked to would prefer if games returned
to the sales model of the early 2000s; get a full, complete game with
lots of hidden bonuses that you can only unlock through gameplay. It
rewards the skilled and persistent, and not the ones with deep pockets
and poor impulse control.

Unfortunately, there isn't likely to be any solution to the problem.
If anything, it's just going to get worse. Almost every goverment has
washed their hands of the problem, and pretty much everyone involved
in the hobby already knows how bad it is. Heck, at this point I think
even people who DON'T game regularly know about the problem.

And people wonder why I wallow in my collection of twenty year old
video games. Sure, they're old but at least they're fun and I get the
whole package.

Now I'm grumpy. I think I'll go eat some ice-cream.

Funny how there's new(ish) great games I get the whole package as well.
Elden Ring (too much package!) Cyerpunk 2077, Witcher 3, Balder's Gate
3. Yes 3 of those have DLCs, but they're real DLCs adding more
gameplay, not just some horse armor.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/07/2024 19:14, Justisaur wrote:

Funny how there's new(ish) great games I get the whole package as well.
Elden Ring (too much package!) Cyerpunk 2077, Witcher 3, Balder's Gate
3.  Yes 3 of those have DLCs, but they're real DLCs adding more
gameplay, not just some horse armor.

I don't have any intrinsic dislike of DLC as long as it's done right. So
you release a game then sometime later you release a few DLC's for
players who just want more. Where it goes wrong is when it feels like,
because it is, taking something out of a base game and then trying to
sell it back to you. I think it was Dragon Age that I was playing and
wondered what the marker was on the screen, oh it gives me an
opportunity to buy a DLC.

Where I'm very supportive of it is with certain strategy games. So you
buy the base game which has enough content but is probably going to be
US vs. Nazis* in Normandy. Then they will release DLC's to cover other
parts of WWI and you can pick and choose which ones take your fancy. So
fancy France 1940, a criminally uncovered period, yep you can get it.

*I understand why this is the big goto but it still irritates me
slightly, mainly because of having to listen to too many people from the
US who think they won WWII single handedly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:44 this Tuesday (GMT):

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:58:23 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 23/07/2024 01:50, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Like you I'd prefer that we returned to the old model of how games make >>money and I don't even have a problem with subscription models if they
act reasonable in changes to what you get and prices *coughs* Microsoft >>Gamepass *coughs*.

Apparently the US goverment is having a bit of an issue with Gamepass.
Who could possibly have guessed that allowing two giant corporations
to merge /wouldn't/ result in lower prices and better products, but
just the opposite?

I wouldn't object to subscription models if it wasn't so obviously
what publishers wants the ENTIRE industry to become. If it were just,
"hey, you can sometimes rent a game, and other times buy it", I'd be
fine. I can actually see the appeal in a subscription as a way to
'demo' games I'm interested in, or play entire games I've some
interest in but not enough to pay full price. It's not a bad idea on
the whole.

But I've no trust in the publishers not to abuse the idea solely for
their own benefit. They've been frog-boiling gamers towards the idea
that the former is the One True Way of modern gaming, and it is so
obvious that once they amass a plurality of gamers they'll stop
selling games entirely.

And I'm sure that hacking will still be rampant and they won't bother to
fix it :D
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)