Gaming for 25 years now wising to write music for games. Want some free music written, get in touch. https://www.youtube.com/user/Igneall


Last Active
Favorite Role
  • Questions submitted to UK government about loot boxes and gambling

    CrazKanuk said:
    laxie said:

    I don't have a good solution to it - and I'm not sure it's a legal problem. It's just something that's been on my mind lately, and I'm not too comfortable with the idea of it. If you download my free game and I then use maths to tell the game to treat you in a specific way, making you spend with a high probability, is that ethical?

    Again, based on that last sentence, are you're assuming that developers customize gameplay to me specifically? Again, I think this is creating a massive generalization. In the vast majority of games people CAN feel forced to spend money. However, forced is also a very subjective term. I feel like in most games I am FORCED to spend money on things like bag slots, auction house access, etc. However, in the MAJORITY of games, loot boxes don't impact my ability to perform at the end game. I will acknowledge that I have played games where this is the case, but they are the 1% (not verified but based on what I've played I'd say it's close). Games like ROM where you pretty much have to spend money in order to upgrade your gear to a point where you are viable at the highest level. Like I said, though, that's a HUGE exception to the norm. In fact, in the majority of cases you can get rid of any pay walls simply by subscribing. This would indicate that the publisher would be UBER happy if you were to give them $180 a year. 

    That's the point, too, you say you don't know what the solution is, but we've had the solution all along... subscriptions! Problem is that, again, the vast majority of people DON'T and WON'T pay a subscription, so we get this model. 

    However, to sit there and make assumptions that there are no ethics models in place, or to even sit on a high horse and talk about ethics when retail has been gouging people to the tune of 1000% mark-ups for YEARS is, honestly, hilarious. Why do ethics apply here when we accept less everywhere else? 

    I do feel it may end up a all or nothing moment with this.

    It's like that one person in your class that fucks it for the rest of the class and the teacher keeps everyone in unless that one person owns up to it and fixes their shit, i.e EA, because lets be honest, this has only become much more of an issue because EA decided to take it that step further and be that guy, the dickhead in the class room.
  • Star Wars Battlefront II or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and the Love the Loot Box - Michael Bitt

    Torval said:
    Realizer said:
     Make cool things, and design features that people will want to pay for. If you can't do that, your game doesn't deserve to make money. That's called the free market, welcome to capitalism. 

     If you want to get loads of money from people you need to give them a reason. If it's boring and unrewarding prepare to fail. Simple imo. 

     In other words I don't need to make suggestions, I'm not trying to get any money from anyone.
    They are making things people buy. That's part of the uproar. People buy them. They don't buy what they don't want.

    You should be making suggestions because you don't like how they're selling. Loot crates generate enough revenue that you're being outvoted. If you want something better then maybe suggest something specific, or just play another game like Battlefield 1 if you don't want to deal with it. I'm not suggesting you should keep playing and put up with it if you bothers you. But if you like the game and want to keep playing but want to pay for it another way then pragmatic suggestions make sense.
    They aren't making things people want to buy, they're making things people feel they need to buy.
    That's the uproar, forcing people into a corner.

    Slowing down progression to almost a halt, making them feel they will fall behind or get destroyed by P2W, tapping into people impulsive or addictive buying. " oh ill just buy one more, they're only £1, by the end of month you've spent £50 - £100 already. 

    This is how and why loot boxes work and this is why people dislike them
  • Star Wars Battlefront II or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and the Love the Loot Box - Michael Bitt

    "If you’re still worried about getting stomped on launch day by people who blow absurd amounts of money on crates, I’d suggest taking some reassurance in the fact that most people don't monetize at all. Those who do monetize tend to spend a lot, sure. But the impact of those who do spend a ton will also only narrow over time as players catch up"

    It will require you to open 720 crates, depending on if you get scrapes in every crate before you have enough to make all guns. Star cards (class power ups pretty much) are in the same boat as you require scrapes to upgrade them.

    The game revolves around these loot boxes and it's painstakingly slow to earn coins to gain loot boxes, even playing well doesn't help. A last placed person earns the exact same amount of coins as someone who is in first place after a match.

    If things are implemented as they are now on launch, people will either be sick to death of the grind and lack of progression or sick to death having their ass handed to them constantly before they even catch up.

    We will have to wait an see. but overall there is no need for lootboxes in a B2P game, i'd rather have DLC than P2W
  • Shadow Of War: microtransactions!

    TaishiFox said:
    Iselin said:
    I stopped reading at "lose money" lol. Good one, bud.
    If they took away the "cash shop" or whatever method they are using for this ploy then of course they lose money and they're not going to just change that for a bunch of whiners. And of course you didn't read on cus ya too damn ignorant.
    Yeah they would, but it's wouldn't be loss for them, which i think he was trying to say. It isn't vital part for them to make a profit.

    The problem isn't they're making money, it's the method they're using that isn't appealing. Gambling with irl cash in a video game is wrong whatever way you look at.

    Also not sure why it makes people spoilt children asking for them to keep the game as it was in the previous one and it's not extra content, it's content they took out to sell to those who can't be bothered to play the game, i know you can earn it in game, but we know the in-game content suffers for the sake of it.

    It was a unneeded change, if anything imho, this will effect their profits in a negative way worse so than if they didn't have the loot boxes

  • Star Citizen - Alpha 3.0 out to Evocati player testers

    Excession said:
    Orinori said:
    Excession said:
    Second, since I backed SC, tried it, thought it was a pile of shit, and got a refund, I could not care less what the flight characteristic's of 2.6, or 3.0 are.

    [mod edit]
    It's fine to dislike SC and it's fine post negative, but most of you guys post bring NOTHING to the discussion. 

    As i said in another post, you people complain and complain, but don't take the time to actual look at what you're complaining about, form and actual decent worth while argument and present it. It's equal to calling a football team shit, but never watching football in your life and basing everything on a random video you saw on youtube.

    There's no meaning or substance to most posts by people who aren't fans on this site, they are very rare times when some does and very welcomed.

    Can you sit there and honestly say the majority who've posted negatively added some substance to this thread, moving the discussion forward?

    The reason it seem like constantly defending is we have to put up with BS like
    rodarin's posts constantly, insulting and fling negativity based on nothing