In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
It isn't about what the gamers want. ....
the gamer is getting what the gamer wants is my point.
more single player games than ever before and no those single player games are not gaming as a service.
people are worried to death about something that when looking at the evidence is less likely now, then it was in the past.
First, let me say thank you for being your usual troll self and ignoring the overwhelming majority of what everyone else is saying. Always a pleasure.
Second, you say looking at the evidence....prove it! Provide that evidence. In the post I have quoted, you have done two things:
1) You have made an assumption that more single player games are being released than ever before.
2) You have implied that this assumption means that games as a service will not happen.
So, your assumption is not backed up by anything. Even if you could provide actual hard facts for the number of games released, it is still completely meaningless. What matters is MONEY. Where are players spending their money? How much money is being spent on single player games compared to multiplayer games and mixed games? If you can show an increased market share for single player games over time then your assumption will be correct.
Then, lets move onto your implication. You have implied that a desire to player single player games has a bearing on the way games are distributed. Care to walk me through that logic? Does buying a game on a disk result in a better gaming experience than downloading via steam? Does a 1 hour round trip to the shops have any bearing on gameplay at all?
I personally cannot see any correlation between the type of game you want to play (single/multi) and the way a game is distributed. Apparently you can, so care to enlighten us.
Finally, looking at the evidence - EA Access, OnLive and other subscription/streaming services - indicates that software as a service is more likely than in the past. I mean, absolutely everything is pointing to it becoming a reality in the near future. Everything. Its already happened with music. Its already happened with films. Its already happened with TV. It has already happened with other types of software. We've already had trials within gaming, and the reasons they failed are already being worked on.
So yeh, show me the evidence that shows it is less likely
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
It isn't about what the gamers want. ....
the gamer is getting what the gamer wants is my point.
more single player games than ever before and no those single player games are not gaming as a service.
people are worried to death about something that when looking at the evidence is less likely now, then it was in the past.
First, let me say thank you for being your usual troll self ...
for the second time I am telling you I stop reading at that point. So I dont know who you want to read your long wall of text but I am not.
two times now I have let you know that. I am not letting you know again
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
It isn't about what the gamers want. ....
the gamer is getting what the gamer wants is my point.
more single player games than ever before and no those single player games are not gaming as a service.
people are worried to death about something that when looking at the evidence is less likely now, then it was in the past.
First, let me say thank you for being your usual troll self ...
for the second time I am telling you I stop reading at that point. So I dont know who you want to read your long wall of text but I am not.
two times now I have let you know that. I am not letting you know again
Ok, [mod edit] I'll keep it simple:
1) Please provide evidence that single player games are improving their market share.
2) Please explain how a desire to play single player games has any bearing on distribution methods.
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
It isn't about what the gamers want. ....
the gamer is getting what the gamer wants is my point.
more single player games than ever before and no those single player games are not gaming as a service.
people are worried to death about something that when looking at the evidence is less likely now, then it was in the past.
First, let me say thank you for being your usual troll self ...
for the second time I am telling you I stop reading at that point. So I dont know who you want to read your long wall of text but I am not.
two times now I have let you know that. I am not letting you know again
Ok, I won't give you a wall of text since you lack the capability to read. I'll keep it simple:
1) Please provide evidence that single player games are improving their market share.
2) Please explain how a desire to play single player games has any bearing on distribution methods.
1. I will look into getting you that information. However, before I invest in the time I would like to know what your response will be if I find out that yes indeed because of Steam the single player game world has increased dramatically. It should be fairly easy for me to get that information but I want to know your response when the numbers come in as I am suggesting.
2. I dont have evidence of that nor do you or anyone else here. But my hunch is that people who play single player games are not going to be interested in subscriptions. DLCs? yes Season Passes? I dont even know how that works so I dont know.
Here is the assertion: ASSERTION: All or most games will become subscription based ME: I dont THINK that its LIKELY (likely means not 100% positive but stastically speaking the chances are low, if you need to you can look up the word) that it will not take over the industry because there is now a shit ton of single player video games and those players dont APPEAR (again look up that word) to me to be the type intrested in subscription
if you leave at the word 'troll' its more likely I will read you text. I should not have to explain that now three times, I thought it was clear the first time
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I do not understand what that image means or how it relates to the subject can you please explain it or stop posting random images?
that would be great
He is telling you that you should never go full retard.
ah I see, ok well can we get back on topic because insults, facts, hyperlinks, logic, basic explanations, context, common sense, and sometimes math do not affect me, everyone should know that by now
Reclaiming my time.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
In 5 years everything will be games as a service. *shrug*
In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years. Everyone might be better served not being so gloom and doom about friggin everything
It's simple economics paired with some easily recognizable trends. I give it 10 years tops.
so for 10 years we are going to cry a river and be worried and frightened even though this era has more single player games then any other era ever.
I dont think single player gamers are going to be intrested in subscription based gaming. DLCs..yes, subscription? I very seriously doubt it
It isn't about what the gamers want. ....
the gamer is getting what the gamer wants is my point.
more single player games than ever before and no those single player games are not gaming as a service.
people are worried to death about something that when looking at the evidence is less likely now, then it was in the past.
First, let me say thank you for being your usual troll self ...
for the second time I am telling you I stop reading at that point. So I dont know who you want to read your long wall of text but I am not.
two times now I have let you know that. I am not letting you know again
Ok, I won't give you a wall of text since you lack the capability to read. I'll keep it simple:
1) Please provide evidence that single player games are improving their market share.
2) Please explain how a desire to play single player games has any bearing on distribution methods.
1. I will look into getting you that information. However, before I invest in the time I would like to know what your response will be if I find out that yes indeed because of Steam the single player game world has increased dramatically. It should be fairly easy for me to get that information but I want to know your response when the numbers come in as I am suggesting.
2. I dont have evidence of that nor do you or anyone else here. But my hunch is that people who play single player games are not going to be interested in subscriptions. DLCs? yes Season Passes? I dont even know how that works so I dont know.
Here is the assertion: ASSERTION: All or most games will become subscription based ME: I dont THINK that its LIKELY (likely means not 100% positive but stastically speaking the chances are low, if you need to you can look up the word) that it will not take over the industry because there is now a shit ton of single player video games and those players dont APPEAR (again look up that word) to me to be the type intrested in subscription
if you leave at the word 'troll' its more likely I will read you text. I should not have to explain that now three times, I thought it was clear the first time
1. If you can provide evidence that single players games are increasing their market share compared to multiplayer games and mixed single/multiplayer games, I will say congratulations and thank you for providing me with tangible evidence that I am wrong. You would provide me with with evidence that runs contrary to my personal experiences which in turn allows me to grow as an individual - I regularly change my views and opinions when presented with evidence that I am wrong. Remember, as previously stated, I am looking for market share, not just number of games.
2. My hunch is that consumers of any variety prefer convenience and value for money. On demand streaming is the current peak of convenience, which is why music, film and tv are already moving rapidly in that direction. With gaming, it is not there yet - there are technical issues with lag as well as business issues with getting a large enough games library together, so at the moment it is not convenient. But, we are still moving that direction.
Also, you seem to have misunderstood the assertion. The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based - we are not saying you would have to subscribe to Kerbal Space Program in order to play it. We are not saying you would have to subscribe to The Witcher 3 to be able to play it.
The assertion is that the games industry will move towards a Netflix model. We, as consumers, would pay a fixed monthly fee (subscription) to a company and in return we would get access to everything in that company's library. For example, pay £50 a month to Valve and get access to every single game in their library.
We are making this assertion because the music industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the film and tv industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the games industry is already moving in this direction, with services like EA Access and OnLive.
What is your opinion on this assertion? Would you pay £50 a month if you got access to everything in Steam? Would you pay £25 a month if that gave you access to every indie title in steam? Or, would you prefer to stick to the existing model of buying games individually?
1. If you can provide evidence that single players games are increasing their market share compared to multiplayer games and mixed single/multiplayer games, I will say congratulations and thank you for providing me with tangible evidence that I am wrong. You would provide me with with evidence that runs contrary to my personal experiences which in turn allows me to grow as an individual - I regularly change my views and opinions when presented with evidence that I am wrong. Remember, as previously stated, I am looking for market share, not just number of games.
2. My hunch is that consumers of any variety prefer convenience and value for money. On demand streaming is the current peak of convenience, which is why music, film and tv are already moving rapidly in that direction. With gaming, it is not there yet - there are technical issues with lag as well as business issues with getting a large enough games library together, so at the moment it is not convenient. But, we are still moving that direction.
Also, you seem to have misunderstood the assertion. The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based - we are not saying you would have to subscribe to Kerbal Space Program in order to play it. We are not saying you would have to subscribe to The Witcher 3 to be able to play it.
The assertion is that the games industry will move towards a Netflix model. We, as consumers, would pay a fixed monthly fee (subscription) to a company and in return we would get access to everything in that company's library. For example, pay £50 a month to Valve and get access to every single game in their library.
We are making this assertion because the music industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the film and tv industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the games industry is already moving in this direction, with services like EA Access and OnLive.
What is your opinion on this assertion? Would you pay £50 a month if you got access to everything in Steam? Would you pay £25 a month if that gave you access to every indie title in steam? Or, would you prefer to stick to the existing model of buying games individually?
1. I never said nor suggested that there are more single player games compared to multiplayer games and that is not the point. All you need for my point is more single player games now then before, other game types do not affect my point at all in the least.
2. you might be correct that single player gamers are ok with subscriptions however i do not. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!....if most gamers will take 'convenience and value for money' then the vote for the gaming community overall would be what? that this is something that they would want, instead of something they would not want.....hmmmmmm
you are incorrect about the assertion. The assertion was NOT 'The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based' it was that all games will be moving to a 'games as a service model' I was just pointing out that in my opinion its unlikely that it would happen with single player games AND that there are now more single player games to participate in then before so there are more options to stay away from games as a service if one desires to.
THATS IT. please dont turn it into a fucking titanic. and really has anyone ever notice how ubeleivably hard people get attacked for suggesting that the world is not so terrible as one states. Its like a religion, a little bit of hope and positivity will not kill you. games overall these days are better, not worse
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."
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."
why would you want to see DLCs go away? I think DLCs are a good thing. I am not a fan of lootboxes but DLCs are a problem? oh hell no
but to your point of the industry today. industry today is far better than it ever has by a long shot. A LOT more options now
I like DLC, for the most part - as long as the content provided is worth the price.
I don't mind loot boxes either, because I never spend money on them outside of maybe $10-15 dollars? I actually can't remember the last time I bought micro-transaction items... Guild Wars 2? Think I bought some gold/gems or whatever once.
I also like pre-ordering big AAA games for bonuses and buying expansion packs and special editions.
Difference of $10-30 or whatever really doesn't matter to me, not one bit.
As long as the game is good - and I like AAA games because the production quality is so, so much higher.
Every game (large or small) has bugs and issues, but is it fun? Is it worth my money?
No one can tell me how to spend it - I'm a responsible adult.
All this concern and worry is, in my opinion, mostly unfounded.
If parents are worried about their kids being hooked on micro-transactions/gambling, don't give them the freak'n credit card! Duh!
If adults have a problem with spending, you know what? Seek help.
These practices are only "predatory" if you are weak minded/weak willed.
Any half-way smart, responsible adult will understand the basics of finance, economics, and will assign their own value to potential purchases and act accordingly.
I mean, I bought a Switch and XBox One X this year and several games and have loved every minute of my time playing them. The value proposition, to me, has been very attractive and very worthwhile.
Do I wish things were cheaper? No, I actually don't. I think gaming these days is a relatively inexpensive hobby and you can get a TON of value out of the many, many, MANY hours of playtime a good game will give you.
Much more than $10 for a 2 hour movie, and much better value than the price I pay for cable TV!
why would you want to see DLCs go away? I think DLCs are a good thing. I am not a fan of lootboxes but DLCs are a problem? oh hell no
but to your point of the industry today. industry today is far better than it ever has by a long shot. A LOT more options now
I like DLC, for the most part - as long as the content provided is worth the price.
I don't mind loot boxes either, because I never spend money on them outside of maybe $10-15 dollars? I actually can't remember the last time I bought micro-transaction items... Guild Wars 2? Think I bought some gold/gems or whatever once.
I also like pre-ordering big AAA games for bonuses and buying expansion packs and special editions.
Difference of $10-30 or whatever really doesn't matter to me, not one bit.
As long as the game is good - and I like AAA games because the production quality is so, so much higher.
Every game (large or small) has bugs and issues, but is it fun? Is it worth my money?
No one can tell me how to spend it - I'm a responsible adult.
All this concern and worry is, in my opinion, mostly unfounded.
If parents are worried about their kids being hooked on micro-transactions/gambling, don't give them the freak'n credit card! Duh!
If adults have a problem with spending, you know what? Seek help.
These practices are only "predatory" if you are weak minded/weak willed.
Any half-way smart, responsible adult will understand the basics of finance, economics, and will assign their own value to potential purchases and act accordingly.
I mean, I bought a Switch and XBox One X this year and several games and have loved every minute of my time playing them. The value proposition, to me, has been very attractive and very worthwhile.
Do I wish things were cheaper? No, I actually don't. I think gaming these days is a relatively inexpensive hobby and you can get a TON of value out of the many, many, MANY hours of playtime a good game will give you.
Much more than $10 for a 2 hour movie, and much better value than the price I pay for cable TV!
agreed. many gamers would be better served if they just focused on having fun and allow themselves to explore outside of the hyper hype marketing games which are only about 4 a year
I might have misunderstood you about dlcs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I personally tend to avoid games with microtransactions.
This requires too much willpower for most people it seems. lol
I have a different theory and it is a theory I will admit I might be completely wrong.
There is a large sector of the gaming community who have bought into the subtle marketing technique that AAA games are the cool kids and if you hang out with the non-cool kids then you are a not cool.
Thus their pool of games they will look at is very small, and because of how AAA focuses so much on marketing and revenue generation they are far more likely to have lootboxes.
So the kids that fell into the hyper hype hype of the latest game just get stuck with lootboxes but what they need is a jolt to their world view so that they can start looking outside the bro hype games
just a theory
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I personally tend to avoid games with microtransactions.
This requires too much willpower for most people it seems. lol
I have a different theory and it is a theory I will admit I might be completely wrong.
There is a large sector of the gaming community who have bought into the subtle marketing technique that AAA games are the cool kids and if you hang out with the non-cool kids then you are a not cool.
Thus their pool of games they will look at is very small, and because of how AAA focuses so much on marketing and revenue generation they are far more likely to have lootboxes.
So the kids that fell into the hyper hype hype of the latest game just get stuck with lootboxes but what they need is a jolt to their world view so that they can start looking outside the bro hype games
just a theory
The reasoning behind why people lose their willpower to not buy something doesn't change it being an issue of willpower. If they fall for hype, peer pressure, or marketing techniques then they lacked the willpower to not buy something before knowing what you're getting into. No different then buying a pizza after seeing an advert for it and someone saying "man, pizza would be awesome right now."
agreed. many gamers would be better served if they just focused on having fun and allow themselves to explore outside of the hyper hype marketing games which are only about 4 a year
I might have misunderstood you about dlcs
Battlefront 2 is a game where I'm actually happy they are not doing paid-for DLC because they are releasing new single player and multiplayer content along with events and holiday activities and play lists etc. as part of the "game as a service" model, which I really support.
To me, I could either be "forced" to spend $30-45 on DLC packs I would NEED to keep playing new content, or pay MAYBE $20-30 on loot crates I really DON'T need to keep playing, but just because I have some cash to burn.
Some people will pay nothing, some will pay a lot more than 30-45... I'm ok with that.
It's not like Battlefront 2 is a highly competitive PvP experience where every kill and every second matters so much in a match that every 1% of advantage is critical...
It's SUCH a more casual multiplayer experience... I don't think it even tracks your "win/loss" % and the game even gives you points for assists almost as much as kills so even contributing to a fight, doing objectives also rather than just kills etc. it's just 100% designed for more casual, "have a good time and if you win, you win" kind of fun.
agreed. many gamers would be better served if they just focused on having fun and allow themselves to explore outside of the hyper hype marketing games which are only about 4 a year
I might have misunderstood you about dlcs
Battlefront 2 is a game where I'm actually happy they are not doing paid-for DLC because they are releasing new single player and multiplayer content along with events and holiday activities and play lists etc. as part of the "game as a service" model, which I really support.
To me, I could either be "forced" to spend $30-45 on DLC packs I would NEED to keep playing new content, or pay MAYBE $20-30 on loot crates I really DON'T need to keep playing, but just because I have some cash to burn.
Some people will pay nothing, some will pay a lot more than 30-45... I'm ok with that.
It's not like Battlefront 2 is a highly competitive PvP experience where every kill and every second matters so much in a match that every 1% of advantage is critical...
It's SUCH a more casual multiplayer experience... I don't think it even tracks your "win/loss" % and the game even gives you points for assists almost as much as kills so even contributing to a fight, doing objectives also rather than just kills etc. it's just 100% designed for more casual, "have a good time and if you win, you win" kind of fun.
I think for both DLCs and for lootboxes the issue depends on HOW they are implemented.
I come from a different universe, I dont play these games that so many others play. I play indie, early access type titles and they dont do this kind of stuff.
So for example Cities Skylines (more of a AAA 'like' game) has DLCs in a manner that one would expect. You dont have to buy it to continue to play the game and you even get some updates to your base game for free even if you dont buy the DLCs. That seems fair
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. If you can provide evidence that single players games are increasing their market share compared to multiplayer games and mixed single/multiplayer games, I will say congratulations and thank you for providing me with tangible evidence that I am wrong. You would provide me with with evidence that runs contrary to my personal experiences which in turn allows me to grow as an individual - I regularly change my views and opinions when presented with evidence that I am wrong. Remember, as previously stated, I am looking for market share, not just number of games.
2. My hunch is that consumers of any variety prefer convenience and value for money. On demand streaming is the current peak of convenience, which is why music, film and tv are already moving rapidly in that direction. With gaming, it is not there yet - there are technical issues with lag as well as business issues with getting a large enough games library together, so at the moment it is not convenient. But, we are still moving that direction.
Also, you seem to have misunderstood the assertion. The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based - we are not saying you would have to subscribe to Kerbal Space Program in order to play it. We are not saying you would have to subscribe to The Witcher 3 to be able to play it.
The assertion is that the games industry will move towards a Netflix model. We, as consumers, would pay a fixed monthly fee (subscription) to a company and in return we would get access to everything in that company's library. For example, pay £50 a month to Valve and get access to every single game in their library.
We are making this assertion because the music industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the film and tv industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the games industry is already moving in this direction, with services like EA Access and OnLive.
What is your opinion on this assertion? Would you pay £50 a month if you got access to everything in Steam? Would you pay £25 a month if that gave you access to every indie title in steam? Or, would you prefer to stick to the existing model of buying games individually?
1. I never said nor suggested that there are more single player games compared to multiplayer games and that is not the point. All you need for my point is more single player games now then before, other game types do not affect my point at all in the least.
2. you might be correct that single player gamers are ok with subscriptions however i do not. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!....if most gamers will take 'convenience and value for money' then the vote for the gaming community overall would be what? that this is something that they would want, instead of something they would not want.....hmmmmmm
you are incorrect about the assertion. The assertion was NOT 'The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based' it was that all games will be moving to a 'games as a service model' I was just pointing out that in my opinion its unlikely that it would happen with single player games AND that there are now more single player games to participate in then before so there are more options to stay away from games as a service if one desires to.
THATS IT. please dont turn it into a fucking titanic. and really has anyone ever notice how ubeleivably hard people get attacked for suggesting that the world is not so terrible as one states. Its like a religion, a little bit of hope and positivity will not kill you. games overall these days are better, not worse
Ok, lets break this down.
1) Someone suggested that over the next 5-10 years, gaming will move towards a "software as a service" model.
2) Your direct response was "In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years."
3) I called bullshit on your response, first by pointing out that a player's preference for type of gameplay (single/multiplayer) has zero correlation with how a game is distributed (box, digital download, SaaS) and second by querying your assertion that the single player market has actually exploded over the past few yeas.
4) I then provided well reasoned arguments as to why moving towards software as a service is likely: it is convenient, it is cost effective, it has been proven to work and be popular in other forms of entertainment.
5) You have ignored my responses, as well as just about everybody elses responses, despite the fact that they directly responded to you and your questions. The only thing you ever do is pick one minor point from a response, blow it out of all proportion, then use that twisted logic to justify yourself. What you are doing is known as the straw man fallacy - it is a very common arguing technique used by people who believe they are right but are incapable of arguing their own side because they are, in fact, wrong.
6) Continual use of straw man fallacies, ignoring other people and insulting other people is toxic behaviour and constitutes trolling. You are a troll.
The only reason I keep replying to you is for the benefit of other forum users. You post a staggering amount of lies and misinformation and you are incapable of improving yourself or of participating in civil debate. Whilst I have no illusions that you will ever change, I want to ensure that other forum users (especially new users who don't know your style) aren't driven away by your toxic behaviour and that well reasoned arguments aren't drowned out by your trolling.
So, when you post utter shit like "software as a service wont happen because there are more single player games" I will continue to press you to back up your ridiculous claims (thereby always giving you the benefit of the doubt just in case you are right) and then debunking the inevitable shite that you post.
1. If you can provide evidence that single players games are increasing their market share compared to multiplayer games and mixed single/multiplayer games, I will say congratulations and thank you for providing me with tangible evidence that I am wrong. You would provide me with with evidence that runs contrary to my personal experiences which in turn allows me to grow as an individual - I regularly change my views and opinions when presented with evidence that I am wrong. Remember, as previously stated, I am looking for market share, not just number of games.
2. My hunch is that consumers of any variety prefer convenience and value for money. On demand streaming is the current peak of convenience, which is why music, film and tv are already moving rapidly in that direction. With gaming, it is not there yet - there are technical issues with lag as well as business issues with getting a large enough games library together, so at the moment it is not convenient. But, we are still moving that direction.
Also, you seem to have misunderstood the assertion. The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based - we are not saying you would have to subscribe to Kerbal Space Program in order to play it. We are not saying you would have to subscribe to The Witcher 3 to be able to play it.
The assertion is that the games industry will move towards a Netflix model. We, as consumers, would pay a fixed monthly fee (subscription) to a company and in return we would get access to everything in that company's library. For example, pay £50 a month to Valve and get access to every single game in their library.
We are making this assertion because the music industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the film and tv industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the games industry is already moving in this direction, with services like EA Access and OnLive.
What is your opinion on this assertion? Would you pay £50 a month if you got access to everything in Steam? Would you pay £25 a month if that gave you access to every indie title in steam? Or, would you prefer to stick to the existing model of buying games individually?
1. I never said nor suggested that there are more single player games compared to multiplayer games and that is not the point. All you need for my point is more single player games now then before, other game types do not affect my point at all in the least.
2. you might be correct that single player gamers are ok with subscriptions however i do not. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!....if most gamers will take 'convenience and value for money' then the vote for the gaming community overall would be what? that this is something that they would want, instead of something they would not want.....hmmmmmm
you are incorrect about the assertion. The assertion was NOT 'The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based' it was that all games will be moving to a 'games as a service model' I was just pointing out that in my opinion its unlikely that it would happen with single player games AND that there are now more single player games to participate in then before so there are more options to stay away from games as a service if one desires to.
THATS IT. please dont turn it into a fucking titanic. and really has anyone ever notice how ubeleivably hard people get attacked for suggesting that the world is not so terrible as one states. Its like a religion, a little bit of hope and positivity will not kill you. games overall these days are better, not worse
Ok, lets break this down.
1) Someone suggested that over the next 5-10 years, gaming will move towards a "software as a service" model.
2) Your direct response was "In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years."
3) I called bullshit on your response, first by pointing out that a player's preference for type of gameplay (single/multiplayer) has zero correlation with how a game is distributed (box, digital download, SaaS) and second by querying your assertion that the single player market has actually exploded over the past few yeas.
4) I then provided well reasoned arguments as to why moving towards software as a service is likely: it is convenient, it is cost effective, it has been proven to work and be popular in other forms of entertainment.
5) You have ignored my responses, as well as just about everybody elses responses, despite the fact that they directly responded to you and your questions. The only thing you ever do is pick one minor point from a response, blow it out of all proportion, then use that twisted logic to justify yourself. What you are doing is known as the straw man fallacy - it is a very common arguing technique used by people who believe they are right but are incapable of arguing their own side because they are, in fact, wrong.
6) Continual use of straw man fallacies, ignoring other people and insulting other people is toxic behaviour and constitutes trolling. You are a troll.
The only reason I keep replying to you is for the benefit of other forum users. You post a staggering amount of lies and misinformation and you are incapable of improving yourself or of participating in civil debate. Whilst I have no illusions that you will ever change, I want to ensure that other forum users (especially new users who don't know your style) aren't driven away by your toxic behaviour and that well reasoned arguments aren't drowned out by your trolling.
So, when you post utter shit like "software as a service wont happen because there are more single player games" I will continue to press you to back up your ridiculous claims (thereby always giving you the benefit of the doubt just in case you are right) and then debunking the inevitable shite that you post.
your number 3 is an opinion just like mine is an opinion of the opposite, neither of us know for sure, I reconigize that I do not know for sure, its a hunch. you have no evidence that your assertion on item 3 is as you see it either, its your opinon just like mine is my opinion.
5. then stop fucking replying to me...peroid.
you are making this into a LOT more than it is. I am just making the observation that in my opinion single player gamers are not intrested and today there are more single player games to select from. Do not turn this into a fucking court case, just take your feeling that the gaming world is coming to an end and stop replying to me I dont care to sit here and argue over how you might want to consider that things are not as desperate as you think
again
PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME
becuase I am not going to concede and say 'your right! all hope is lost all games are moving to a service model quick find me a razor to end it all'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. I never said nor suggested that there are more single player games compared to multiplayer games and that is not the point. All you need for my point is more single player games now then before, other game types do not affect my point at all in the least.
2. you might be correct that single player gamers are ok with subscriptions however i do not. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!....if most gamers will take 'convenience and value for money' then the vote for the gaming community overall would be what? that this is something that they would want, instead of something they would not want.....hmmmmmm
you are incorrect about the assertion. The assertion was NOT 'The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based' it was that all games will be moving to a 'games as a service model' I was just pointing out that in my opinion its unlikely that it would happen with single player games AND that there are now more single player games to participate in then before so there are more options to stay away from games as a service if one desires to.
THATS IT. please dont turn it into a fucking titanic. and really has anyone ever notice how ubeleivably hard people get attacked for suggesting that the world is not so terrible as one states. Its like a religion, a little bit of hope and positivity will not kill you. games overall these days are better, not worse
Ok, lets break this down.
1) Someone suggested that over the next 5-10 years, gaming will move towards a "software as a service" model.
2) Your direct response was "In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years."
3) I called bullshit on your response, first by pointing out that a player's preference for type of gameplay (single/multiplayer) has zero correlation with how a game is distributed (box, digital download, SaaS) and second by querying your assertion that the single player market has actually exploded over the past few yeas.
4) I then provided well reasoned arguments as to why moving towards software as a service is likely: it is convenient, it is cost effective, it has been proven to work and be popular in other forms of entertainment.
5) You have ignored my responses, as well as just about everybody elses responses, despite the fact that they directly responded to you and your questions. The only thing you ever do is pick one minor point from a response, blow it out of all proportion, then use that twisted logic to justify yourself. What you are doing is known as the straw man fallacy - it is a very common arguing technique used by people who believe they are right but are incapable of arguing their own side because they are, in fact, wrong.
6) Continual use of straw man fallacies, ignoring other people and insulting other people is toxic behaviour and constitutes trolling. You are a troll.
The only reason I keep replying to you is for the benefit of other forum users. You post a staggering amount of lies and misinformation and you are incapable of improving yourself or of participating in civil debate. Whilst I have no illusions that you will ever change, I want to ensure that other forum users (especially new users who don't know your style) aren't driven away by your toxic behaviour and that well reasoned arguments aren't drowned out by your trolling.
So, when you post utter shit like "software as a service wont happen because there are more single player games" I will continue to press you to back up your ridiculous claims (thereby always giving you the benefit of the doubt just in case you are right) and then debunking the inevitable shite that you post.
your number 3 is an opinion just like mine is an opinion of the opposite, neither of us know for sure, I reconigize that I do not know for sure, its a hunch. you have no evidence that your assertion on item 3 is as you see it either, its your opinon just like mine is my opinion.
5. then stop fucking replying to me...peroid.
you are making this into a LOT more than it is. I am just making the observation that in my opinion single player gamers are not intrested and today there are more single player games to select from. Do not turn this into a fucking court case, just take your feeling that the gaming world is coming to an end and stop replying to me I dont care to sit here and argue over how you might want to consider that things are not as desperate as you think
again
PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME
becuase I am not going to concede and say 'your right! all hope is lost all games are moving to a service model quick find me a razor to end it all'
But you haven't even explained why moving to software as a service is a bad thing! No-one in this thread is claiming that gaming is coming to an end! That is your straw-man argument! That is you trolling everyone else in this thread!
1. I never said nor suggested that there are more single player games compared to multiplayer games and that is not the point. All you need for my point is more single player games now then before, other game types do not affect my point at all in the least.
2. you might be correct that single player gamers are ok with subscriptions however i do not. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!....if most gamers will take 'convenience and value for money' then the vote for the gaming community overall would be what? that this is something that they would want, instead of something they would not want.....hmmmmmm
you are incorrect about the assertion. The assertion was NOT 'The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based' it was that all games will be moving to a 'games as a service model' I was just pointing out that in my opinion its unlikely that it would happen with single player games AND that there are now more single player games to participate in then before so there are more options to stay away from games as a service if one desires to.
THATS IT. please dont turn it into a fucking titanic. and really has anyone ever notice how ubeleivably hard people get attacked for suggesting that the world is not so terrible as one states. Its like a religion, a little bit of hope and positivity will not kill you. games overall these days are better, not worse
Ok, lets break this down.
1) Someone suggested that over the next 5-10 years, gaming will move towards a "software as a service" model.
2) Your direct response was "In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years."
3) I called bullshit on your response, first by pointing out that a player's preference for type of gameplay (single/multiplayer) has zero correlation with how a game is distributed (box, digital download, SaaS) and second by querying your assertion that the single player market has actually exploded over the past few yeas.
4) I then provided well reasoned arguments as to why moving towards software as a service is likely: it is convenient, it is cost effective, it has been proven to work and be popular in other forms of entertainment.
5) You have ignored my responses, as well as just about everybody elses responses, despite the fact that they directly responded to you and your questions. The only thing you ever do is pick one minor point from a response, blow it out of all proportion, then use that twisted logic to justify yourself. What you are doing is known as the straw man fallacy - it is a very common arguing technique used by people who believe they are right but are incapable of arguing their own side because they are, in fact, wrong.
6) Continual use of straw man fallacies, ignoring other people and insulting other people is toxic behaviour and constitutes trolling. You are a troll.
The only reason I keep replying to you is for the benefit of other forum users. You post a staggering amount of lies and misinformation and you are incapable of improving yourself or of participating in civil debate. Whilst I have no illusions that you will ever change, I want to ensure that other forum users (especially new users who don't know your style) aren't driven away by your toxic behaviour and that well reasoned arguments aren't drowned out by your trolling.
So, when you post utter shit like "software as a service wont happen because there are more single player games" I will continue to press you to back up your ridiculous claims (thereby always giving you the benefit of the doubt just in case you are right) and then debunking the inevitable shite that you post.
your number 3 is an opinion just like mine is an opinion of the opposite, neither of us know for sure, I reconigize that I do not know for sure, its a hunch. you have no evidence that your assertion on item 3 is as you see it either, its your opinon just like mine is my opinion.
5. then stop fucking replying to me...peroid.
you are making this into a LOT more than it is. I am just making the observation that in my opinion single player gamers are not intrested and today there are more single player games to select from. Do not turn this into a fucking court case, just take your feeling that the gaming world is coming to an end and stop replying to me I dont care to sit here and argue over how you might want to consider that things are not as desperate as you think
again
PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME
becuase I am not going to concede and say 'your right! all hope is lost all games are moving to a service model quick find me a razor to end it all'
But you haven't even explained why moving to software as a service is a bad thing! No-one in this thread is claiming that gaming is coming to an end! That is your straw-man argument! That is you trolling everyone else in this thread!
I dont think it is a bad thing, I just also think its not going to take over the market and that there will be plenty of options for everyone more so then before
are you done? because at this point i really dont give a fuck
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. I never said nor suggested that there are more single player games compared to multiplayer games and that is not the point. All you need for my point is more single player games now then before, other game types do not affect my point at all in the least.
2. you might be correct that single player gamers are ok with subscriptions however i do not. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!....if most gamers will take 'convenience and value for money' then the vote for the gaming community overall would be what? that this is something that they would want, instead of something they would not want.....hmmmmmm
you are incorrect about the assertion. The assertion was NOT 'The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based' it was that all games will be moving to a 'games as a service model' I was just pointing out that in my opinion its unlikely that it would happen with single player games AND that there are now more single player games to participate in then before so there are more options to stay away from games as a service if one desires to.
THATS IT. please dont turn it into a fucking titanic. and really has anyone ever notice how ubeleivably hard people get attacked for suggesting that the world is not so terrible as one states. Its like a religion, a little bit of hope and positivity will not kill you. games overall these days are better, not worse
Ok, lets break this down.
1) Someone suggested that over the next 5-10 years, gaming will move towards a "software as a service" model.
2) Your direct response was "In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years."
3) I called bullshit on your response, first by pointing out that a player's preference for type of gameplay (single/multiplayer) has zero correlation with how a game is distributed (box, digital download, SaaS) and second by querying your assertion that the single player market has actually exploded over the past few yeas.
4) I then provided well reasoned arguments as to why moving towards software as a service is likely: it is convenient, it is cost effective, it has been proven to work and be popular in other forms of entertainment.
5) You have ignored my responses, as well as just about everybody elses responses, despite the fact that they directly responded to you and your questions. The only thing you ever do is pick one minor point from a response, blow it out of all proportion, then use that twisted logic to justify yourself. What you are doing is known as the straw man fallacy - it is a very common arguing technique used by people who believe they are right but are incapable of arguing their own side because they are, in fact, wrong.
6) Continual use of straw man fallacies, ignoring other people and insulting other people is toxic behaviour and constitutes trolling. You are a troll.
The only reason I keep replying to you is for the benefit of other forum users. You post a staggering amount of lies and misinformation and you are incapable of improving yourself or of participating in civil debate. Whilst I have no illusions that you will ever change, I want to ensure that other forum users (especially new users who don't know your style) aren't driven away by your toxic behaviour and that well reasoned arguments aren't drowned out by your trolling.
So, when you post utter shit like "software as a service wont happen because there are more single player games" I will continue to press you to back up your ridiculous claims (thereby always giving you the benefit of the doubt just in case you are right) and then debunking the inevitable shite that you post.
your number 3 is an opinion just like mine is an opinion of the opposite, neither of us know for sure, I reconigize that I do not know for sure, its a hunch. you have no evidence that your assertion on item 3 is as you see it either, its your opinon just like mine is my opinion.
5. then stop fucking replying to me...peroid.
you are making this into a LOT more than it is. I am just making the observation that in my opinion single player gamers are not intrested and today there are more single player games to select from. Do not turn this into a fucking court case, just take your feeling that the gaming world is coming to an end and stop replying to me I dont care to sit here and argue over how you might want to consider that things are not as desperate as you think
again
PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME
becuase I am not going to concede and say 'your right! all hope is lost all games are moving to a service model quick find me a razor to end it all'
But you haven't even explained why moving to software as a service is a bad thing! No-one in this thread is claiming that gaming is coming to an end! That is your straw-man argument! That is you trolling everyone else in this thread!
I dont think it is a bad thing, I just also think its not going to take over the market and that there will be plenty of options for everyone more so then before
are you done? because at this point i really dont give a fuck
Then why are you here?
You are vigorously defending your opinion without being able to support your own opinion. You are trolling everyone else who disagrees with you without being able to refute what they're saying. You are just trolling.
If you really don't want people to respond to you, don't post in the first place. If you continue to post unsupported shit, expect people to respond.
Comments
Second, you say looking at the evidence....prove it! Provide that evidence. In the post I have quoted, you have done two things:
1) You have made an assumption that more single player games are being released than ever before.
2) You have implied that this assumption means that games as a service will not happen.
So, your assumption is not backed up by anything. Even if you could provide actual hard facts for the number of games released, it is still completely meaningless. What matters is MONEY. Where are players spending their money? How much money is being spent on single player games compared to multiplayer games and mixed games? If you can show an increased market share for single player games over time then your assumption will be correct.
Then, lets move onto your implication. You have implied that a desire to player single player games has a bearing on the way games are distributed. Care to walk me through that logic? Does buying a game on a disk result in a better gaming experience than downloading via steam? Does a 1 hour round trip to the shops have any bearing on gameplay at all?
I personally cannot see any correlation between the type of game you want to play (single/multi) and the way a game is distributed. Apparently you can, so care to enlighten us.
Finally, looking at the evidence - EA Access, OnLive and other subscription/streaming services - indicates that software as a service is more likely than in the past. I mean, absolutely everything is pointing to it becoming a reality in the near future. Everything. Its already happened with music. Its already happened with films. Its already happened with TV. It has already happened with other types of software. We've already had trials within gaming, and the reasons they failed are already being worked on.
So yeh, show me the evidence that shows it is less likely
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1) Please provide evidence that single player games are improving their market share.
2) Please explain how a desire to play single player games has any bearing on distribution methods.
2. I dont have evidence of that nor do you or anyone else here. But my hunch is that people who play single player games are not going to be interested in subscriptions. DLCs? yes Season Passes? I dont even know how that works so I dont know.
Here is the assertion:
ASSERTION: All or most games will become subscription based
ME: I dont THINK that its LIKELY (likely means not 100% positive but stastically speaking the chances are low, if you need to you can look up the word) that it will not take over the industry because there is now a shit ton of single player video games and those players dont APPEAR (again look up that word) to me to be the type intrested in subscription
if you leave at the word 'troll' its more likely I will read you text. I should not have to explain that now three times, I thought it was clear the first time
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
that would be great
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2. My hunch is that consumers of any variety prefer convenience and value for money. On demand streaming is the current peak of convenience, which is why music, film and tv are already moving rapidly in that direction. With gaming, it is not there yet - there are technical issues with lag as well as business issues with getting a large enough games library together, so at the moment it is not convenient. But, we are still moving that direction.
Also, you seem to have misunderstood the assertion. The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based - we are not saying you would have to subscribe to Kerbal Space Program in order to play it. We are not saying you would have to subscribe to The Witcher 3 to be able to play it.
The assertion is that the games industry will move towards a Netflix model. We, as consumers, would pay a fixed monthly fee (subscription) to a company and in return we would get access to everything in that company's library. For example, pay £50 a month to Valve and get access to every single game in their library.
We are making this assertion because the music industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the film and tv industry has already gone this way with great success. We are making this assertion because the games industry is already moving in this direction, with services like EA Access and OnLive.
What is your opinion on this assertion? Would you pay £50 a month if you got access to everything in Steam? Would you pay £25 a month if that gave you access to every indie title in steam? Or, would you prefer to stick to the existing model of buying games individually?
2. you might be correct that single player gamers are ok with subscriptions however i do not. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!....if most gamers will take 'convenience and value for money' then the vote for the gaming community overall would be what? that this is something that they would want, instead of something they would not want.....hmmmmmm
you are incorrect about the assertion. The assertion was NOT 'The assertion is not that individual games will become subscription based'
it was that all games will be moving to a 'games as a service model' I was just pointing out that in my opinion its unlikely that it would happen with single player games AND that there are now more single player games to participate in then before so there are more options to stay away from games as a service if one desires to.
THATS IT. please dont turn it into a fucking titanic.
and really has anyone ever notice how ubeleivably hard people get attacked for suggesting that the world is not so terrible as one states. Its like a religion, a little bit of hope and positivity will not kill you. games overall these days are better, not worse
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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."
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power
but to your point of the industry today. industry today is far better than it ever has by a long shot. A LOT more options now
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't mind loot boxes either, because I never spend money on them outside of maybe $10-15 dollars? I actually can't remember the last time I bought micro-transaction items... Guild Wars 2? Think I bought some gold/gems or whatever once.
I also like pre-ordering big AAA games for bonuses and buying expansion packs and special editions.
Difference of $10-30 or whatever really doesn't matter to me, not one bit.
As long as the game is good - and I like AAA games because the production quality is so, so much higher.
Every game (large or small) has bugs and issues, but is it fun? Is it worth my money?
No one can tell me how to spend it - I'm a responsible adult.
All this concern and worry is, in my opinion, mostly unfounded.
If parents are worried about their kids being hooked on micro-transactions/gambling, don't give them the freak'n credit card! Duh!
If adults have a problem with spending, you know what? Seek help.
These practices are only "predatory" if you are weak minded/weak willed.
Any half-way smart, responsible adult will understand the basics of finance, economics, and will assign their own value to potential purchases and act accordingly.
I mean, I bought a Switch and XBox One X this year and several games and have loved every minute of my time playing them. The value proposition, to me, has been very attractive and very worthwhile.
Do I wish things were cheaper? No, I actually don't. I think gaming these days is a relatively inexpensive hobby and you can get a TON of value out of the many, many, MANY hours of playtime a good game will give you.
Much more than $10 for a 2 hour movie, and much better value than the price I pay for cable TV!
many gamers would be better served if they just focused on having fun and allow themselves to explore outside of the hyper hype marketing games which are only about 4 a year
I might have misunderstood you about dlcs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There is a large sector of the gaming community who have bought into the subtle marketing technique that AAA games are the cool kids and if you hang out with the non-cool kids then you are a not cool.
Thus their pool of games they will look at is very small, and because of how AAA focuses so much on marketing and revenue generation they are far more likely to have lootboxes.
So the kids that fell into the hyper hype hype of the latest game just get stuck with lootboxes but what they need is a jolt to their world view so that they can start looking outside the bro hype games
just a theory
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
To me, I could either be "forced" to spend $30-45 on DLC packs I would NEED to keep playing new content, or pay MAYBE $20-30 on loot crates I really DON'T need to keep playing, but just because I have some cash to burn.
Some people will pay nothing, some will pay a lot more than 30-45... I'm ok with that.
It's not like Battlefront 2 is a highly competitive PvP experience where every kill and every second matters so much in a match that every 1% of advantage is critical...
It's SUCH a more casual multiplayer experience... I don't think it even tracks your "win/loss" % and the game even gives you points for assists almost as much as kills so even contributing to a fight, doing objectives also rather than just kills etc. it's just 100% designed for more casual, "have a good time and if you win, you win" kind of fun.
I come from a different universe, I dont play these games that so many others play. I play indie, early access type titles and they dont do this kind of stuff.
So for example Cities Skylines (more of a AAA 'like' game) has DLCs in a manner that one would expect. You dont have to buy it to continue to play the game and you even get some updates to your base game for free even if you dont buy the DLCs. That seems fair
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1) Someone suggested that over the next 5-10 years, gaming will move towards a "software as a service" model.
2) Your direct response was "In the PC space I dont think that is true. The single player / private server game style has exploded in numbers over the past few years."
3) I called bullshit on your response, first by pointing out that a player's preference for type of gameplay (single/multiplayer) has zero correlation with how a game is distributed (box, digital download, SaaS) and second by querying your assertion that the single player market has actually exploded over the past few yeas.
4) I then provided well reasoned arguments as to why moving towards software as a service is likely: it is convenient, it is cost effective, it has been proven to work and be popular in other forms of entertainment.
5) You have ignored my responses, as well as just about everybody elses responses, despite the fact that they directly responded to you and your questions. The only thing you ever do is pick one minor point from a response, blow it out of all proportion, then use that twisted logic to justify yourself. What you are doing is known as the straw man fallacy - it is a very common arguing technique used by people who believe they are right but are incapable of arguing their own side because they are, in fact, wrong.
6) Continual use of straw man fallacies, ignoring other people and insulting other people is toxic behaviour and constitutes trolling. You are a troll.
The only reason I keep replying to you is for the benefit of other forum users. You post a staggering amount of lies and misinformation and you are incapable of improving yourself or of participating in civil debate. Whilst I have no illusions that you will ever change, I want to ensure that other forum users (especially new users who don't know your style) aren't driven away by your toxic behaviour and that well reasoned arguments aren't drowned out by your trolling.
So, when you post utter shit like "software as a service wont happen because there are more single player games" I will continue to press you to back up your ridiculous claims (thereby always giving you the benefit of the doubt just in case you are right) and then debunking the inevitable shite that you post.
5. then stop fucking replying to me...peroid.
you are making this into a LOT more than it is. I am just making the observation that in my opinion single player gamers are not intrested and today there are more single player games to select from. Do not turn this into a fucking court case, just take your feeling that the gaming world is coming to an end and stop replying to me I dont care to sit here and argue over how you might want to consider that things are not as desperate as you think
again
PLEASE
STOP
REPLYING
TO
ME
becuase I am not going to concede and say 'your right! all hope is lost all games are moving to a service model quick find me a razor to end it all'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
are you done? because at this point i really dont give a fuck
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You are vigorously defending your opinion without being able to support your own opinion. You are trolling everyone else who disagrees with you without being able to refute what they're saying. You are just trolling.
If you really don't want people to respond to you, don't post in the first place. If you continue to post unsupported shit, expect people to respond.