This is an illogical argument. We are talking about gambling with lootboxes where you don't get what you pay for, you get a chance at getting what you pay for. Big difference between paying $15 dollars and getting everything the game has to offer vs paying for a chance to get all it offers. Cash shops should never include anything that hinders progress other than maybe a xpac, etc...they should be for cosmetics only.
Because those willing to pay shouldn't be allowed to progress farther than yourself, I mean how dare they right? Jesus why can't people open their eyes and get a damn self check?! Ya not the only person playing the game, there are thousands that can and will advance ahead of you and if someone wants to use their hard earned money to gain an advantage who are we really to deny them of that? Honestly this kind of stuff is just too selfish and self rightous over whether it should or shouldn't exist. In my opinion paying a F2P game for P2W is no different than someone paying a subscription except for the advantages, although chances are the F2P game rate is lowered to encourage that so no real difference there either really. I actually understand their point of view cus fact is you're paying a monthly fee therefore you shouldn't have to contend with RNG content that may force you into playing longer, maybe even for another month, to obtain! THAT is also a form of gambling! It may not be loot boxes but where does it stop? where do you draw a line? Maybe they should just make all games B2P with no microtransactions but then those who can't afford the damn games will start complainining anyway so there's no way to win this! Someone is always going to whine as long as money is involved!
Wow your reading comprehension is probably the worst I have ever seen to be honest. Nothing I said had anything to do with hindering people from buying anything. I said that cash shops shouldn't hinder people, no walls in the cash shop is what I said but you couldn't understand that so I guess I have to spell it out, again NO WALLS TO HINDER PLAY IN THE CASH SHOP. The point which you so seemingly missed is the fact that for a sub only game with no cash shop you get everything for one price period no hidden fees, just time spent playing, ect... Now take that same game with lootboxes at it's core you do not get everything for your $15 dollar instead you get a chance to get something you wanted, but most likely you will end up spending 10x's the amount to get that item you really needed or wanted. We are talking about the money here not your personal feelings and self righteous attitude that you are bringing with your post. Companies preying on those that have addiction problems and that is the problem. Unfortunately there are people like you think it is ok to prey on sick people because that is what people with addictions are. People with your mentality are the reason the world is in the state it is in now.
No I read you quite clearly, you clearly stated that "they should be for cosmetics only" ergo you believe that all other items should be removed such as exp boosts. You also stated that expac hinders people, i don't see why it even would. You clearly don't approve of items that give a player an advantage which is why I chose to respond with the statement I made. My reading compresnhenion is the worst? You really ought to check your thought pattern before putting it down on screen as your views were pretty damn obvious to me so don't make it out like it wasn't about that. Also, you defend cosmetics as the only option, ok so trying to get oh lets say a nice looking mount out of a loot box that has like 0.1% chance out of gaining isn't gambling too?! Or that it doesn't prey on people knowiing they'll gamble for it?! Neverwinter, Elder Scrolls and Star Wars The old Republic amng a few other games are well known for doing this! Narrowing it to cosmetic only won't change the fact that you'd still gamble for it! Just cus it doesn't have an impact on your game doesn't make it any more right! However, I'm more for cash shop vs sub cus to me I'd rather pay a one off $50 or whatever and just enjoy my game than continous monthly subs, hell some even sub for 5+ and that to me is just crazy, for what, $12 a month?? do the math! People like my mentality? you need to get a rain check on your own good sir!
I am not a fan of gambling, I have many opportunties in my life having been to Vegas twice, and casinos in my states I have lived in but it doesnt appeal to me at all.
That said, I personally am rather disgusted and disturbed that society has determined that murder simulators are fine but gambling is not. (specifics aside just speaking generally).
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Kids are an effective argument you will look like scum arguing against the safety of kids.
Which is exactly why they're being used as a scapegoat.
scape·goat
1.
a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency.
synonyms:
whipping boy; More
So... they're blaming the children? lol.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Gaming is cheaper than ever relative to inflation, and games COST more to make then ever.
DLC, loot boxes... industry does what industry needs to.
Want to see DLC and micro transactions go away? Expect to pay $80-90+ (US) for a now $60 game.
"I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever."
The audience is bigger now and it doesn't cost more to service a larger audience. Games can be distributed infinitely for hardly any cost, we're talking pennies here. Even for online games, the extra cost for server hosting and stability is extremely minor. Even without inflation, they make more from box sales than they ever did before.
The inflation argument doesn't fly with me. It may cost more to develop games now but more people are buying them. More people buying them doesn't increase the development costs.
Funding ongoing development should be supported, but the same thing applies; industry is bigger now. Creating an infinite revenue stream to fund DLC is not required to maintain regular development. They make millions off microtransactions.. and give you something like 3 new maps and a new game mode.. which usually costs you $15 anyway! It did not cost millions to produce that DLC and produce updates.
Look at the profit earnings of gaming companies, they makes loads of money. Microtransactions aren't about supporting the development costs, it's about extreme profit. Extreme. They make people absurdly rich.
Almost all of your points are cringeworthyly wrong.
the cost of running a AAA MMO with 10million players
vs a cost of running a small game is orders of magnitude difference.
I mean this is insane that you would ignore the staff cost alone for a large game - that requires a full operations team, security team, business intelligence team, database team, fraud payment and chargebacks support, platform team etc.... and thats not even taking into accout actual game dev staff and qa.
Hello?
The game market is crazy saturated, most games that are made and released have so few players that they never stand a chance of even breaking even.
More people are buying - but they keep buying big AAA titles they see advertised on TV.
hahahahahaha, make people absurdy rich??????
If this was the case everyone would be a game developer.
CEOs of large companies get absurdly rich, 99.9999% of people working in the video game industey are nowhere near "absurdly rich"
Come on man....
per developer dollar spent indies are CRUSHING AAA titles.
you have some games created by very literally one person selling nearly 1 million copies
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What will probably happen is that games with loot boxes will be rated PG18 because of gambling, even if the content is not Mature, which is a pretty big deal in terms of sales potential, but in the end it won't change the industry that much.
Gaming is cheaper than ever relative to inflation, and games COST more to make then ever.
DLC, loot boxes... industry does what industry needs to.
Want to see DLC and micro transactions go away? Expect to pay $80-90+ (US) for a now $60 game.
"I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever."
The audience is bigger now and it doesn't cost more to service a larger audience. Games can be distributed infinitely for hardly any cost, we're talking pennies here. Even for online games, the extra cost for server hosting and stability is extremely minor. Even without inflation, they make more from box sales than they ever did before.
The inflation argument doesn't fly with me. It may cost more to develop games now but more people are buying them. More people buying them doesn't increase the development costs.
Funding ongoing development should be supported, but the same thing applies; industry is bigger now. Creating an infinite revenue stream to fund DLC is not required to maintain regular development. They make millions off microtransactions.. and give you something like 3 new maps and a new game mode.. which usually costs you $15 anyway! It did not cost millions to produce that DLC and produce updates.
Look at the profit earnings of gaming companies, they makes loads of money. Microtransactions aren't about supporting the development costs, it's about extreme profit. Extreme. They make people absurdly rich.
Almost all of your points are cringeworthyly wrong.
the cost of running a AAA MMO with 10million players
vs a cost of running a small game is orders of magnitude difference.
I mean this is insane that you would ignore the staff cost alone for a large game - that requires a full operations team, security team, business intelligence team, database team, fraud payment and chargebacks support, platform team etc.... and thats not even taking into accout actual game dev staff and qa.
Hello?
The game market is crazy saturated, most games that are made and released have so few players that they never stand a chance of even breaking even.
More people are buying - but they keep buying big AAA titles they see advertised on TV.
hahahahahaha, make people absurdy rich??????
If this was the case everyone would be a game developer.
CEOs of large companies get absurdly rich, 99.9999% of people working in the video game industey are nowhere near "absurdly rich"
Come on man....
If those publishers are paying full salaries to individuals in-house for all those things, I'd say they're doing it wrong from my experience with the corporate world.
There are likely companies created specifically for servicing many of those needs among multiple companies, thereby diffusing the costs of handling those needs across the companies. But that's simply a view from the perspective of working for a "AAA" (so to speak) insurance company.
Additionally, the market saturation has gone beyond what's really useful. I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing to weed out some of the lowest quality or most disposable titles.
Kids are an effective argument you will look like scum arguing against the safety of kids.
Which is exactly why they're being used as a scapegoat.
scape·goat
1.
a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency.
synonyms:
whipping boy; More
So... they're blaming the children? lol.
mmk, I probably missunderstood the definition, I read it as using someone else for a mistake of ones faults, ie those that aren't truly involved or affected. I guess what it really means is directing or pinning the blame on them? So in that case my bad.
What will probably happen is that games with loot boxes will be rated PG18 because of gambling, even if the content is not Mature, which is a pretty big deal in terms of sales potential, but in the end it won't change the industry that much.
The ESRB already uses the Adult designation for gambling except they restrict that to the more industry friendly strict definition of "gambling with real currency."
ADULTS ONLY Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
What will probably happen is that games with loot boxes will be rated PG18 because of gambling, even if the content is not Mature, which is a pretty big deal in terms of sales potential, but in the end it won't change the industry that much.
The ESRB already uses the Adult designation for gambling except they restrict that to the more industry friendly strict definition of "gambling with real currency."
ADULTS ONLY Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
lol...'prolonged scenes of intense violence'
but...'continual non stop scenes of violence' is fine
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Gaming is cheaper than ever relative to inflation, and games COST more to make then ever.
DLC, loot boxes... industry does what industry needs to.
Want to see DLC and micro transactions go away? Expect to pay $80-90+ (US) for a now $60 game.
"I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever."
The audience is bigger now and it doesn't cost more to service a larger audience. Games can be distributed infinitely for hardly any cost, we're talking pennies here. Even for online games, the extra cost for server hosting and stability is extremely minor. Even without inflation, they make more from box sales than they ever did before.
The inflation argument doesn't fly with me. It may cost more to develop games now but more people are buying them. More people buying them doesn't increase the development costs.
Funding ongoing development should be supported, but the same thing applies; industry is bigger now. Creating an infinite revenue stream to fund DLC is not required to maintain regular development. They make millions off microtransactions.. and give you something like 3 new maps and a new game mode.. which usually costs you $15 anyway! It did not cost millions to produce that DLC and produce updates.
Look at the profit earnings of gaming companies, they makes loads of money. Microtransactions aren't about supporting the development costs, it's about extreme profit. Extreme. They make people absurdly rich.
Almost all of your points are cringeworthyly wrong.
the cost of running a AAA MMO with 10million players
vs a cost of running a small game is orders of magnitude difference.
I mean this is insane that you would ignore the staff cost alone for a large game - that requires a full operations team, security team, business intelligence team, database team, fraud payment and chargebacks support, platform team etc.... and thats not even taking into accout actual game dev staff and qa.
Hello?
The game market is crazy saturated, most games that are made and released have so few players that they never stand a chance of even breaking even.
More people are buying - but they keep buying big AAA titles they see advertised on TV.
hahahahahaha, make people absurdy rich??????
If this was the case everyone would be a game developer.
CEOs of large companies get absurdly rich, 99.9999% of people working in the video game industey are nowhere near "absurdly rich"
Come on man....
Nope, got to disagree with you.
The cost per player is the only statistic here that really matters and it works out as pennies per person, per month. Even subscription prices on their own made insane profits. How do you think WoW made so much money?
If a game has so few players that it can't even break even, it's not good enough. It's a competitive market. If it's not selling then that's tough. It's a business industry. You're arguing success vs failure. If something fails then it will fail to make money regardless of the business model. Are you suggesting that prices should be increased and we should all pay more because less people are playing a certain game? Now that is cringeworthy.
Are CEO's not people? I didn't say it makes everyone involved in the development process rich.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Gaming is cheaper than ever relative to inflation, and games COST more to make then ever.
DLC, loot boxes... industry does what industry needs to.
Want to see DLC and micro transactions go away? Expect to pay $80-90+ (US) for a now $60 game.
"I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever."
The audience is bigger now and it doesn't cost more to service a larger audience. Games can be distributed infinitely for hardly any cost, we're talking pennies here. Even for online games, the extra cost for server hosting and stability is extremely minor. Even without inflation, they make more from box sales than they ever did before.
The inflation argument doesn't fly with me. It may cost more to develop games now but more people are buying them. More people buying them doesn't increase the development costs.
Funding ongoing development should be supported, but the same thing applies; industry is bigger now. Creating an infinite revenue stream to fund DLC is not required to maintain regular development. They make millions off microtransactions.. and give you something like 3 new maps and a new game mode.. which usually costs you $15 anyway! It did not cost millions to produce that DLC and produce updates.
Look at the profit earnings of gaming companies, they makes loads of money. Microtransactions aren't about supporting the development costs, it's about extreme profit. Extreme. They make people absurdly rich.
Almost all of your points are cringeworthyly wrong.
the cost of running a AAA MMO with 10million players
vs a cost of running a small game is orders of magnitude difference.
I mean this is insane that you would ignore the staff cost alone for a large game - that requires a full operations team, security team, business intelligence team, database team, fraud payment and chargebacks support, platform team etc.... and thats not even taking into accout actual game dev staff and qa.
Hello?
The game market is crazy saturated, most games that are made and released have so few players that they never stand a chance of even breaking even.
More people are buying - but they keep buying big AAA titles they see advertised on TV.
hahahahahaha, make people absurdy rich??????
If this was the case everyone would be a game developer.
CEOs of large companies get absurdly rich, 99.9999% of people working in the video game industey are nowhere near "absurdly rich"
Come on man....
Nope, got to disagree with you.
The cost per player is the only statistic here that really matters and it works out as pennies per person, per month. Even subscription prices on their own made insane profits. How do you think WoW made so much money?
If a game has so few players that it can't even break even, it's not good enough. It's a competitive market. If it's not selling then that's tough. It's a business industry. You're arguing success vs failure. If something fails then it will fail to make money regardless of the business model. Are you suggesting that prices should be increased and we should all pay more because less people are playing a certain game? Now that is cringeworthy.
Are CEO's not people? I didn't say it makes everyone involved in the development process rich.
GODDAMNIT
Rimworld sold 800,000 copies at $24 each, that is 13.4 million dollars after Steam takes its 30% cut. Rimeworld was created by ONE PERSON.
fuck me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@MaxBaconI highly dissagree dude and the only real reason ya got kids populating CS:GO is cus its easy for em to get into without the need to pester their parents to pay for it, which is often a set back for most minors. Not to mention Star Wars has been a pop culture so to speak since I were a kid so I'm pretty sure most players, like myself, will be on there for the very fact that we still love Star Wars and obviously played Battlefront back in the day when this generation didn't even know WTF it was!!
Just had to comment on this. Aside from the fact that you are disastrously wrong on the demographic that plays this game, that's not what I'm commenting on.
Battlefront.. BACK IN THE DAY!?! HAHAHAHAH!
I might be an older gamer, but that really tickles me. I played the original CS, and it was full of nothing but kids, mind you. I played Ultima Online. Full of kids. Games are more accessible than ever today. Most parents don't even care. They are playing games with their 5 year old kids. Back in the day.. lol.. talk to me when you've played Renegade on DOS.
Gaming is cheaper than ever relative to inflation, and games COST more to make then ever.
DLC, loot boxes... industry does what industry needs to.
Want to see DLC and micro transactions go away? Expect to pay $80-90+ (US) for a now $60 game.
"I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever."
The audience is bigger now and it doesn't cost more to service a larger audience. Games can be distributed infinitely for hardly any cost, we're talking pennies here. Even for online games, the extra cost for server hosting and stability is extremely minor. Even without inflation, they make more from box sales than they ever did before.
The inflation argument doesn't fly with me. It may cost more to develop games now but more people are buying them. More people buying them doesn't increase the development costs.
Funding ongoing development should be supported, but the same thing applies; industry is bigger now. Creating an infinite revenue stream to fund DLC is not required to maintain regular development. They make millions off microtransactions.. and give you something like 3 new maps and a new game mode.. which usually costs you $15 anyway! It did not cost millions to produce that DLC and produce updates.
Look at the profit earnings of gaming companies, they makes loads of money. Microtransactions aren't about supporting the development costs, it's about extreme profit. Extreme. They make people absurdly rich.
Almost all of your points are cringeworthyly wrong.
the cost of running a AAA MMO with 10million players
vs a cost of running a small game is orders of magnitude difference.
I mean this is insane that you would ignore the staff cost alone for a large game - that requires a full operations team, security team, business intelligence team, database team, fraud payment and chargebacks support, platform team etc.... and thats not even taking into accout actual game dev staff and qa.
Hello?
The game market is crazy saturated, most games that are made and released have so few players that they never stand a chance of even breaking even.
More people are buying - but they keep buying big AAA titles they see advertised on TV.
hahahahahaha, make people absurdy rich??????
If this was the case everyone would be a game developer.
CEOs of large companies get absurdly rich, 99.9999% of people working in the video game industey are nowhere near "absurdly rich"
Come on man....
Nope, got to disagree with you.
The cost per player is the only statistic here that really matters and it works out as pennies per person, per month. Even subscription prices on their own made insane profits. How do you think WoW made so much money?
If a game has so few players that it can't even break even, it's not good enough. It's a competitive market. If it's not selling then that's tough. It's a business industry. You're arguing success vs failure. If something fails then it will fail to make money regardless of the business model. Are you suggesting that prices should be increased and we should all pay more because less people are playing a certain game? Now that is cringeworthy.
Are CEO's not people? I didn't say it makes everyone involved in the development process rich.
GODDAMNIT
Rimworld sold 800,000 copies at $24 each, that is 13.4 million dollars after Steam takes its 30% cut. Rimeworld was created by ONE PERSON.
fuck me
Yeh, and that guy is basically the CEO of Rimworld. Chill.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Gaming is cheaper than ever relative to inflation, and games COST more to make then ever.
DLC, loot boxes... industry does what industry needs to.
Want to see DLC and micro transactions go away? Expect to pay $80-90+ (US) for a now $60 game.
"I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever."
The audience is bigger now and it doesn't cost more to service a larger audience. Games can be distributed infinitely for hardly any cost, we're talking pennies here. Even for online games, the extra cost for server hosting and stability is extremely minor. Even without inflation, they make more from box sales than they ever did before.
The inflation argument doesn't fly with me. It may cost more to develop games now but more people are buying them. More people buying them doesn't increase the development costs.
Funding ongoing development should be supported, but the same thing applies; industry is bigger now. Creating an infinite revenue stream to fund DLC is not required to maintain regular development. They make millions off microtransactions.. and give you something like 3 new maps and a new game mode.. which usually costs you $15 anyway! It did not cost millions to produce that DLC and produce updates.
Look at the profit earnings of gaming companies, they makes loads of money. Microtransactions aren't about supporting the development costs, it's about extreme profit. Extreme. They make people absurdly rich.
Almost all of your points are cringeworthyly wrong.
the cost of running a AAA MMO with 10million players
vs a cost of running a small game is orders of magnitude difference.
I mean this is insane that you would ignore the staff cost alone for a large game - that requires a full operations team, security team, business intelligence team, database team, fraud payment and chargebacks support, platform team etc.... and thats not even taking into accout actual game dev staff and qa.
Hello?
The game market is crazy saturated, most games that are made and released have so few players that they never stand a chance of even breaking even.
More people are buying - but they keep buying big AAA titles they see advertised on TV.
hahahahahaha, make people absurdy rich??????
If this was the case everyone would be a game developer.
CEOs of large companies get absurdly rich, 99.9999% of people working in the video game industey are nowhere near "absurdly rich"
Come on man....
Nope, got to disagree with you.
The cost per player is the only statistic here that really matters and it works out as pennies per person, per month. Even subscription prices on their own made insane profits. How do you think WoW made so much money?
If a game has so few players that it can't even break even, it's not good enough. It's a competitive market. If it's not selling then that's tough. It's a business industry. You're arguing success vs failure. If something fails then it will fail to make money regardless of the business model. Are you suggesting that prices should be increased and we should all pay more because less people are playing a certain game? Now that is cringeworthy.
Are CEO's not people? I didn't say it makes everyone involved in the development process rich.
GODDAMNIT
Rimworld sold 800,000 copies at $24 each, that is 13.4 million dollars after Steam takes its 30% cut. Rimeworld was created by ONE PERSON.
fuck me
Yeh, and that guy is basically the CEO of Rimworld. Chill.
there are many similar examples. the indie market per dollar spent is blowing the fuck away of AAA titles...(at least it appears as such)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Gaming is cheaper than ever relative to inflation, and games COST more to make then ever.
DLC, loot boxes... industry does what industry needs to.
Want to see DLC and micro transactions go away? Expect to pay $80-90+ (US) for a now $60 game.
"I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever."
The audience is bigger now and it doesn't cost more to service a larger audience. Games can be distributed infinitely for hardly any cost, we're talking pennies here. Even for online games, the extra cost for server hosting and stability is extremely minor. Even without inflation, they make more from box sales than they ever did before.
The inflation argument doesn't fly with me. It may cost more to develop games now but more people are buying them. More people buying them doesn't increase the development costs.
Funding ongoing development should be supported, but the same thing applies; industry is bigger now. Creating an infinite revenue stream to fund DLC is not required to maintain regular development. They make millions off microtransactions.. and give you something like 3 new maps and a new game mode.. which usually costs you $15 anyway! It did not cost millions to produce that DLC and produce updates.
Look at the profit earnings of gaming companies, they makes loads of money. Microtransactions aren't about supporting the development costs, it's about extreme profit. Extreme. They make people absurdly rich.
Almost all of your points are cringeworthyly wrong.
the cost of running a AAA MMO with 10million players
vs a cost of running a small game is orders of magnitude difference.
I mean this is insane that you would ignore the staff cost alone for a large game - that requires a full operations team, security team, business intelligence team, database team, fraud payment and chargebacks support, platform team etc.... and thats not even taking into accout actual game dev staff and qa.
Hello?
The game market is crazy saturated, most games that are made and released have so few players that they never stand a chance of even breaking even.
More people are buying - but they keep buying big AAA titles they see advertised on TV.
hahahahahaha, make people absurdy rich??????
If this was the case everyone would be a game developer.
CEOs of large companies get absurdly rich, 99.9999% of people working in the video game industey are nowhere near "absurdly rich"
Come on man....
Nope, got to disagree with you.
The cost per player is the only statistic here that really matters and it works out as pennies per person, per month. Even subscription prices on their own made insane profits. How do you think WoW made so much money?
If a game has so few players that it can't even break even, it's not good enough. It's a competitive market. If it's not selling then that's tough. It's a business industry. You're arguing success vs failure. If something fails then it will fail to make money regardless of the business model. Are you suggesting that prices should be increased and we should all pay more because less people are playing a certain game? Now that is cringeworthy.
Are CEO's not people? I didn't say it makes everyone involved in the development process rich.
GODDAMNIT
Rimworld sold 800,000 copies at $24 each, that is 13.4 million dollars after Steam takes its 30% cut. Rimeworld was created by ONE PERSON.
fuck me
Yeh, and that guy is basically the CEO of Rimworld. Chill.
there are many similar examples. the indie market per dollar spent is blowing the fuck away of AAA titles...(at least it appears as such)
Minecraft
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Gaming is cheaper than ever relative to inflation, and games COST more to make then ever.
DLC, loot boxes... industry does what industry needs to.
Want to see DLC and micro transactions go away? Expect to pay $80-90+ (US) for a now $60 game.
"I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever."
The audience is bigger now and it doesn't cost more to service a larger audience. Games can be distributed infinitely for hardly any cost, we're talking pennies here. Even for online games, the extra cost for server hosting and stability is extremely minor. Even without inflation, they make more from box sales than they ever did before.
The inflation argument doesn't fly with me. It may cost more to develop games now but more people are buying them. More people buying them doesn't increase the development costs.
Funding ongoing development should be supported, but the same thing applies; industry is bigger now. Creating an infinite revenue stream to fund DLC is not required to maintain regular development. They make millions off microtransactions.. and give you something like 3 new maps and a new game mode.. which usually costs you $15 anyway! It did not cost millions to produce that DLC and produce updates.
Look at the profit earnings of gaming companies, they makes loads of money. Microtransactions aren't about supporting the development costs, it's about extreme profit. Extreme. They make people absurdly rich.
Almost all of your points are cringeworthyly wrong.
the cost of running a AAA MMO with 10million players
vs a cost of running a small game is orders of magnitude difference.
I mean this is insane that you would ignore the staff cost alone for a large game - that requires a full operations team, security team, business intelligence team, database team, fraud payment and chargebacks support, platform team etc.... and thats not even taking into accout actual game dev staff and qa.
Hello?
The game market is crazy saturated, most games that are made and released have so few players that they never stand a chance of even breaking even.
More people are buying - but they keep buying big AAA titles they see advertised on TV.
hahahahahaha, make people absurdy rich??????
If this was the case everyone would be a game developer.
CEOs of large companies get absurdly rich, 99.9999% of people working in the video game industey are nowhere near "absurdly rich"
Come on man....
If those publishers are paying full salaries to individuals in-house for all those things, I'd say they're doing it wrong from my experience with the corporate world.
There are likely companies created specifically for servicing many of those needs among multiple companies, thereby diffusing the costs of handling those needs across the companies. But that's simply a view from the perspective of working for a "AAA" (so to speak) insurance company.
Additionally, the market saturation has gone beyond what's really useful. I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing to weed out some of the lowest quality or most disposable titles.
For large companies, they run an operations group that covers several games. For small companies, they either do it all themselves, or sell out to a larger company. However, operations is not the big cost for games.... it is development and marketing. The large upfront development cost many indies can deal with, but the marketing cost usually crush them... or no one knows about/buys the game.
This is an illogical argument. We are talking about gambling with lootboxes where you don't get what you pay for, you get a chance at getting what you pay for. Big difference between paying $15 dollars and getting everything the game has to offer vs paying for a chance to get all it offers. Cash shops should never include anything that hinders progress other than maybe a xpac, etc...they should be for cosmetics only.
Because those willing to pay shouldn't be allowed to progress farther than yourself, I mean how dare they right? Jesus why can't people open their eyes and get a damn self check?! Ya not the only person playing the game, there are thousands that can and will advance ahead of you and if someone wants to use their hard earned money to gain an advantage who are we really to deny them of that? Honestly this kind of stuff is just too selfish and self rightous over whether it should or shouldn't exist. In my opinion paying a F2P game for P2W is no different than someone paying a subscription except for the advantages, although chances are the F2P game rate is lowered to encourage that so no real difference there either really. I actually understand their point of view cus fact is you're paying a monthly fee therefore you shouldn't have to contend with RNG content that may force you into playing longer, maybe even for another month, to obtain! THAT is also a form of gambling! It may not be loot boxes but where does it stop? where do you draw a line? Maybe they should just make all games B2P with no microtransactions but then those who can't afford the damn games will start complainining anyway so there's no way to win this! Someone is always going to whine as long as money is involved!
Wow your reading comprehension is probably the worst I have ever seen to be honest. Nothing I said had anything to do with hindering people from buying anything. I said that cash shops shouldn't hinder people, no walls in the cash shop is what I said but you couldn't understand that so I guess I have to spell it out, again NO WALLS TO HINDER PLAY IN THE CASH SHOP. The point which you so seemingly missed is the fact that for a sub only game with no cash shop you get everything for one price period no hidden fees, just time spent playing, ect... Now take that same game with lootboxes at it's core you do not get everything for your $15 dollar instead you get a chance to get something you wanted, but most likely you will end up spending 10x's the amount to get that item you really needed or wanted. We are talking about the money here not your personal feelings and self righteous attitude that you are bringing with your post. Companies preying on those that have addiction problems and that is the problem. Unfortunately there are people like you think it is ok to prey on sick people because that is what people with addictions are. People with your mentality are the reason the world is in the state it is in now.
No I read you quite clearly, you clearly stated that "they should be for cosmetics only" ergo you believe that all other items should be removed such as exp boosts. You also stated that expac hinders people, i don't see why it even would. You clearly don't approve of items that give a player an advantage which is why I chose to respond with the statement I made. My reasding compresnhenion is the worst? You really ought to check your thought pattern before putting it down on screen as your views were pretty damn obvious to me so don't make it out like it wasn't about that. Also, you defend cosmetics as the only option, ok so trying to get oh lets say a nice looking mount out of a loot box that has like 0.1% chance out of gaining isn't gambling too?! Or that it doesn't prey on people knowiing they'll gamble for it?! Neverwinter, Elder Scrolls and Star Wars The old Republic amng a few other games are well known for doing this! Narrowing it to cosmetic only won't change the fact that you'd still gamble for it! Just cus it doesn't have an impact on your game doesn't make it any more right! However, I'm more for cash shop vs sub cus to me I'd rather pay a one off $50 or whatever and just enjoy my game than continous monthly subs, hell some even sub for 5+ and that to me is just crazy, for what, $12 a month?? do the math! People like my mentality? you need to get a rain check on your own good sir!
Kids are an effective argument you will look like scum arguing against the safety of kids.
Which is exactly why they're being used as a scapegoat.
I could give a damn about xp boost ect...because guess what they don't hinder people, which was the point I made. Never said anything about them in particular, but since you want to nit-pick and try and prove you are not on the side of preying on people with addictions when in fact you are I will list out things that are OK in cash shops. XP potions or time savers for gamers who don't have all day to sit in front of a computer, cosmetic items all around to include mount skins which can be purchased flat out with no gambling to get them where you get what you are paying for, I am even ok with skill boost as long as it is something that can also be acquired in the game also by just playing (looking at lotro where you can earn it buy doing deeds but to save time can also buy it), xpacs (they create a wall to content but you are not forced to buy it to play what you already own) which add a good bit of content, or evening small DLC's that add content. Now that I have listed what is acceptable, let me list what isn't exceptable point blank, gambling in hopes of getting any of the above.
No you don't have to gamble to have cosmetic only (sorry let me put that another way all the things I said above only), you put an item into the store with a set price, no gambling needed. That is the problem with lootboxes in general which you don't seem to grasp. A set price vs who the hell knows price.
I also don't care about sub vs free to try as there is not a single game where everything is free in the game. That isn't the point of this post. Just used sub as a jumping off point. You can have a f2p, b2p with a cash shop and still make money without loot boxes. Loot boxes are a bane of the gaming world right now and have been for years.
It isn't my thought pattern that seems to be messed up if it was most of the people on here would be eating me alive also. Guess what, who is the one no one really seems to agree with throughout this post, that's right it is you by the way. Normally when a person is saying everyone else is the problem the problem is themselves. Might want to step back and take a look at yourself because you got some really screwed up beliefs.
Overall you have repeatedly defended predatory practices that target sick people or addicts. So tell me which of us has a sick view of this.
I am also done responding to you about this and nothing either of us says is going to change a thing about how the other see things. Have a good life.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
So you don't like shooting digital people in games and yet here you are at MMORPG.COM, a site that concerns itself almost exclusively with games where you kill digital people... absurd indeed.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
So you don't like shooting digital people in games and yet here you are at MMORPG.COM, a site that concerns itself almost exclusively with games where you kill digital people... absurd indeed.
I adore shooting digital people in games all day long!
but that has nothing to do with my point
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
A game like that can't ever afford stuff as age restrictions like the ones of online casinos so they would be forced to de-monetize the loot boxes.
Which is exactly why they're being used as a scapegoat.
That said, I personally am rather disgusted and disturbed that society has determined that murder simulators are fine but gambling is not. (specifics aside just speaking generally).
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So... they're blaming the children? lol.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
you have some games created by very literally one person selling nearly 1 million copies
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There are likely companies created specifically for servicing many of those needs among multiple companies, thereby diffusing the costs of handling those needs across the companies. But that's simply a view from the perspective of working for a "AAA" (so to speak) insurance company.
Additionally, the market saturation has gone beyond what's really useful. I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing to weed out some of the lowest quality or most disposable titles.
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
but...'continual non stop scenes of violence' is fine
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The cost per player is the only statistic here that really matters and it works out as pennies per person, per month. Even subscription prices on their own made insane profits. How do you think WoW made so much money?
If a game has so few players that it can't even break even, it's not good enough. It's a competitive market. If it's not selling then that's tough. It's a business industry. You're arguing success vs failure. If something fails then it will fail to make money regardless of the business model. Are you suggesting that prices should be increased and we should all pay more because less people are playing a certain game? Now that is cringeworthy.
Are CEO's not people? I didn't say it makes everyone involved in the development process rich.
Rimworld sold 800,000 copies at $24 each, that is 13.4 million dollars after Steam takes its 30% cut. Rimeworld was created by ONE PERSON.
fuck me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Just had to comment on this. Aside from the fact that you are disastrously wrong on the demographic that plays this game, that's not what I'm commenting on.
Battlefront.. BACK IN THE DAY!?! HAHAHAHAH!
I might be an older gamer, but that really tickles me. I played the original CS, and it was full of nothing but kids, mind you. I played Ultima Online. Full of kids. Games are more accessible than ever today. Most parents don't even care. They are playing games with their 5 year old kids. Back in the day.. lol.. talk to me when you've played Renegade on DOS.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
the indie market per dollar spent is blowing the fuck away of AAA titles...(at least it appears as such)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
absurd world I live in
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No you don't have to gamble to have cosmetic only (sorry let me put that another way all the things I said above only), you put an item into the store with a set price, no gambling needed. That is the problem with lootboxes in general which you don't seem to grasp. A set price vs who the hell knows price.
I also don't care about sub vs free to try as there is not a single game where everything is free in the game. That isn't the point of this post. Just used sub as a jumping off point. You can have a f2p, b2p with a cash shop and still make money without loot boxes. Loot boxes are a bane of the gaming world right now and have been for years.
It isn't my thought pattern that seems to be messed up if it was most of the people on here would be eating me alive also. Guess what, who is the one no one really seems to agree with throughout this post, that's right it is you by the way. Normally when a person is saying everyone else is the problem the problem is themselves. Might want to step back and take a look at yourself because you got some really screwed up beliefs.
Overall you have repeatedly defended predatory practices that target sick people or addicts. So tell me which of us has a sick view of this.
I am also done responding to you about this and nothing either of us says is going to change a thing about how the other see things. Have a good life.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
but that has nothing to do with my point
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me