Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")

NickSCFC wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Rax wrote:I had a thought the other day, the 90s to my daughter is the same as the 60s to me. So when she becomes aware of the N64 and stuff, she will view it the same way I would have viewed vinyl or black and white TV, absolutely strawberry floating acient and backward. It blew my mind a little bit.

Scary isn't it!

I was born in 1980, which means my birth was closer in time to the Second World War than it is to today.

I can see what you mean, but I don't think pop culture has changed that much between now and the mid 90s compared to the mid 90s and the mid 70s.

When she looks back at those N64 games, sure the graphics will be rough, but she'll instantly Mario, Link and Donkey Kong, the 3D renderings on the game boxes are nearly identical now. Go back to the mid 70s and all you'll find is a space invader pixel.

I made a thread on it

t:gaming-hasnt-changed-much-since-1998?f=2

I added your thread to Metacritic and it is currently rated at 43. I’ll edit in any further updates on that score as and when they come in.

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Rax wrote:I had a thought the other day, the 90s to my daughter is the same as the 60s to me. So when she becomes aware of the N64 and stuff, she will view it the same way I would have viewed vinyl or black and white TV, absolutely strawberry floating acient and backward. It blew my mind a little bit.

Scary isn't it!

I was born in 1980, which means my birth was closer in time to the Second World War than it is to today.

I can see what you mean, but I don't think pop culture has changed that much between now and the mid 90s compared to the mid 90s and the mid 70s.

When she looks back at those N64 games, sure the graphics will be rough, but she'll instantly Mario, Link and Donkey Kong, the 3D renderings on the game boxes are nearly identical now. Go back to the mid 70s and all you'll find is a space invader pixel.

I made a thread on it

t:gaming-hasnt-changed-much-since-1998?f=2

I added your thread to Metacritic and it is currently rated at 43. I’ll edit in any further updates on that score as and when they come in.

Manwell Pablo wrote:...They should really make some kind of video for parents to watch upon purchasing a games console for a child these days and have everything from safe guarding in regards to online interactions to stopping gooseberry fool like the above...

That'd be a good idea, MP. My sister and her husband are not into video gaming at all; it's the kids who use the consoles and, occasionally, get up to mischief. I setup their consoles and user details*.

*And created their accounts as "adult" ones so that they can play Fortnite and Overwatch online. Part of the problem etc .

Moggy wrote:...I was born in 1980, which means my birth was closer in time to the Second World War than it is to today.

That fact just didn't seem real to me... but I did the calculation and - to paraphrase Shakira - maths don't lie .

In before "jawa, your birth is closer to the Boer War than today" etc.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-09-17-15-european-gambling-regulators-unite-to-tackle-loot-box-threat

Potentially significant development here. Hopefully it leads to more countries re-evaluating their Gambling laws to include this gooseberry fool.

Greedy bastards brought it on themselves.

Loot boxes are "psychologically akin to gambling", according to Australian study

The report suggests that loot boxes could act as a gateway to problem gambling, noting that loot boxes share "important characteristics" with problem gambling. "They may therefore condition gamers to require the excitement associated with gambling , leading to problem gambling." The opposite could be true, too, so says the study: problem gamblers might find themselves attracted to loot boxes.

Among the ECRC's recommendations is that games with loot boxes be restricted to players of legal gambling age (18-years-old, in Australia). Games would also be required to carry warnings about the presence of loot boxes, as well as parental advisories.

EA right now:



Now watch them squirm about "working with authorities" on "interpretations of the law" and how these systems are all "optional" and about "player choice".

Just seen that the Starlink game and peripherals is appearing for pre-order at retailers. To give you an indication of pricing...

You know that little plastic clip that enables you to balance the ship on your controller? You get one in the main pack but if you want a second one for two-player action, it's £16.99.



It's literally a small hunk of plastic for seventeen strawberry-floating quid .

In fairness they probably aren't going to sell many

But yes that's mad

I also agree it's madness but how is it any more stupid than a console stand?

Those are just a hunk of plastic and cost £16.

A point I raised in the current Assassin's Creed Odyssey DLC discussion is that most of the gaming news media rarely mention DlC costs in anything beyond "item x costs y" tones; they don't criticise it because they are wary of biting the hand that feeds them.

PushSquare, the PlayStation-focused website that is part of the Eurogamer network, has delivered an example of this just this morning. They have posted a news item headed "You're Going To Want Resident Evil 2's Deluxe Edition" and they open their commentary with "Just go ahead and call them Capgod: they deserve it the run they’re on". Crumbs! "Capgod"!? I wonder what they have done to earn such praise?

Well, to cut a long story (reasonably) short, they've held back some content from the standard edition of this PS1 remake and are making it available as part of the "Deluxe" version for an extra ten dollars. For this, the PushSquare news outlet thinks that Capcom are "gods". It's the kind of publicity that Capcom would undoubtedly pay money for if they could. Luckily for them, PushSquare are on hand to get the message across.

At the end of their report, PushSquare state "Look, we agree that all of these items would have been included in the base version of the game once upon a time, but we still reckon these costumes are worth the ten bucks.". There you go... mainstream media acceptance. It's on occasions like this where we need someone like Jim Sterling... sure, he'll go "over the top", and some will accuse him of "ranting", but don't we need that when the bigger media outlets are just sitting back and supporting these practices?

"Capgod". Bloody hell .

Relevant:

jawafour wrote:A point I raised in the current Assassin's Creed Odyssey DLC discussion is that most of the gaming news media rarely mention DlC costs in anything beyond "item x costs y" tones; they don't criticise it because they are wary of biting the hand that feeds them.

PushSquare, the PlayStation-focused website that is part of the Eurogamer network, has delivered an example of this just this morning. They have posted a news item headed "You're Going To Want Resident Evil 2's Deluxe Edition" and they open their commentary with "Just go ahead and call them Capgod: they deserve it the run they’re on". Crumbs! "Capgod"!? I wonder what they have done to earn such praise?

Well, to cut a long story (reasonably) short, they've held back some content from the standard edition of this PS1 remake and are making it available as part of the "Deluxe" version for an extra ten dollars. For this, the PushSquare news outlet thinks that Capcom are "gods". It's the kind of publicity that Capcom would undoubtedly pay money for if they could. Luckily for them, PushSquare are on hand to get the message across.

At the end of their report, PushSquare state "Look, we agree that all of these items would have been included in the base version of the game once upon a time, but we still reckon these costumes are worth the ten bucks.". There you go... mainstream media acceptance. It's on occasions like this where we need someone like Jim Sterling... sure, he'll go "over the top", and some will accuse him of "ranting", but don't we need that when the bigger media outlets are just sitting back and supporting these practices?

"Capgod". Bloody hell .

So in short Capcom are purposely holding back content from Resident Evil 2 remake and the gaming press have praised them for it.

Jesus H Christ.

Normally I wouldn't let this kind of horseshit bother me, but this time it has. As such, I will no longer be buying RE 2 Remake.

[Sarcasm]But surely it's just optional content? The "triple A" industry is all about giving "player choice" - the choice to pay extra for stuff that was already in the original game, or to go strawberry float yourself over a rainbow. Think of the sense of pride and accomplishment you'll have knowing you have the complete RE2 experience, simply by giving them more money?[/Sarcasm]

As much as lootboxes etc. bother me, it's the extent to which media outlets support this kind of behaviour, only publishing critical pieces when the tide of public opinion makes saying how bad they are a viable click-generating exercise which perhaps bothers me more.

This is all part of my slight soul-searching post in the thread about growing out of games - I'm retreating to a corner of certain genres and game types as well as retro stuff that feels strangely refereshing without a store or UI trying to get more out of you.

Trelliz wrote:
This is all part of my slight soul-searching post in the thread about growing out of games - I'm retreating to a corner of certain genres and game types as well as retro stuff that feels strangely refereshing without a store or UI trying to get more out of you.

This is pretty much where I'm at with gaming. What broke the camels back for me was when f2p mobile game mechanics began creeping their way into full price titles. Jim is right that there is absolutely no need for MTs to exist in a game like Odyssey and it IS a system based on pure greed on the publishers part and nothing else.

Just to be clear I don't lose any sleep over how MTs are now being introduced into AAA games, it's a first world problem, but at the same time I won't encourage the practice either.

Gemini73 wrote:This is pretty much where I'm at with gaming. What broke the camels back for me was when f2p mobile game mechanics began creeping their way into full price titles. Jim is right that there is absolutely no need for MTs to exist in a game like Odyssey and it IS a system based on pure greed on the publishers part and nothing else.

I'm sure Photek will come and call both of us "actually mental", but all this stuff about the XP throttling being real or not comes down to something Jim has mentioned before: How much of the benefit of the doubt do you give companies like ubi, 2k, activison and EA who beg people to contact their politicians to let them spent money on FIFA, who offer 10 special editions which need a spreadsheet to figure out, who launched battlefront 2 with a flagrant pay to win lootbox system and expected to get away with it, who patent pyramid scheme matchmaking algorithms that prioritise getting you owned by people who paid loads of money to encourage you to do the same to others in turn rather than based on skill rating or anything else?

It's the creeping normalisation that really gets my goat and why, even though Jim can labour a point far longer than necessary, I appreciate that he's still banging the drum in the face of aggressive apathy.

I think Jim deserves a break. Job well done.

jawafour wrote:A point I raised in the current Assassin's Creed Odyssey DLC discussion is that most of the gaming news media rarely mention DlC costs in anything beyond "item x costs y" tones; they don't criticise it because they are wary of biting the hand that feeds them.

PushSquare, the PlayStation-focused website that is part of the Eurogamer network, has delivered an example of this just this morning. They have posted a news item headed "You're Going To Want Resident Evil 2's Deluxe Edition" and they open their commentary with "Just go ahead and call them Capgod: they deserve it the run they’re on". Crumbs! "Capgod"!? I wonder what they have done to earn such praise?

Well, to cut a long story (reasonably) short, they've held back some content from the standard edition of this PS1 remake and are making it available as part of the "Deluxe" version for an extra ten dollars. For this, the PushSquare news outlet thinks that Capcom are "gods". It's the kind of publicity that Capcom would undoubtedly pay money for if they could. Luckily for them, PushSquare are on hand to get the message across.

At the end of their report, PushSquare state "Look, we agree that all of these items would have been included in the base version of the game once upon a time, but we still reckon these costumes are worth the ten bucks.". There you go... mainstream media acceptance. It's on occasions like this where we need someone like Jim Sterling... sure, he'll go "over the top", and some will accuse him of "ranting", but don't we need that when the bigger media outlets are just sitting back and supporting these practices?

"Capgod". Bloody hell .

The other thing I've become aware of is publishers sending modified versions of games to reviewers with content unlocked without MTX. This is completely unacceptable in my opinion as they are basically reviewing a different game and experience. Unless the reviewer spends time to adjust for the disparity in content and unlock methods, the review will be extremely misleading to the consumer.

The thing about the XP Boost that irks me, is what exactly are they selling?

It's not something that has taking man hours to make. It's not something that's been designed by an artist, renderer or created. It's not something that has created an expense in terms of cost or time to the publisher.

Whether you agree with cosmetic outfits as DLC or not - and obviously the loot boxes have inherently unfair lottery mechanics behind them which complicated things - at least that costume has been drawn and planned by an artist. It's been put into the game and there's a human cost to that. If they aren't in loot boxes than at least it's sort of still like buying an extra product for money.

What are you actually buying with an XP boost? What extra are the publishers offering? Or, as I said in the AC thread, are they witholding and charging you for an extra.

I was trying to think of an analogy and thought about how it costs to use toll roads to get somewhere faster. But even then this is unsuitable, as those roads required engineers, planners architects and builders. They cost to maintain.

What is the cost to the publisher in the case of an XP boost. What exactly are you buying?

You are essentially buying something that reverses the crippling of the product the publisher has built in.

Rather than paying to play faster, you're paying to not play slow.