It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I do feel it may end up a all or nothing moment with this.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?
They aren't making things people want to buy, they're making things people feel they need to buy.Torval said:They are making things people buy. That's part of the uproar. People buy them. They don't buy what they don't want.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.
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.
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.TaishiFox said: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.Iselin said:I stopped reading at "lose money" lol. Good one, bud.
It's fine to dislike SC and it's fine post negative, but most of you guys post bring NOTHING to the discussion.Excession said: