Matrix, NY
Last Active
  • FCC killed net neutrality. What does it mean for gamers?

    Kyleran said:
    Yet one more plus for my switch to single player games.

    MMOs are already single player games
  • Is Blizzard's hearthstone the next controversy for cash shop gambling?

    Wizardry said:
    Blizzard's entire operation has been moving more and more to ADDED costs to play games that do NOT warrant the very high costs these demand.

    We are talking 100-300 for a few months,compared to getting 100% of a games content through 15 dollar sub fees,you can easily see how much Blizzard and other tcg's are ripping people off.
    Furthermore ,these are NOT RNG loot boxes they are possibly worse or identical.

    You see to an average person consumer,we EXPECT rng to mean a complete total random outcome but this is NOT the case,especially in Hearthstone and others games as well.The results are weighted so that you get 100% meaningless and worthless cards MORE often,which you only get a grand total of 5 dust per crap card.Even worse you will often get 2x that same crap card in that same pack but you will NEVER see a legend or rare double in the same pack.

    Without explaining the whole ripoff system,i will cut it short,we do NOT control ANY of our purchases meaning we cannot sell those cards,we are stuck under Blizzard's umbrella to do as they see fit with OUR cards.So basically it comers down to not 1 purchase but it takes about 10 -20 packs to have a true rng at 1 legend.
    This is VERY misleading because people believe they have a fair shake at a legendary but they do NOT because true rng is NOT used,instead manipulated algorithm's are.If it was a TRUE and HONEST rng ,then i think most would consider it FAIR but not totally fair unless we control our cards we buy,meaning sell them to other players.
    If that is the case, that is a lot worse. Not even true RNG, but rigged against the player. Is battlefront 2 loot boxes like that?

    At least buying cards in real life in a pack is true RNG. Or just straight up buying the card(s) you want or trading for them.
  • Is Blizzard's hearthstone the next controversy for cash shop gambling?

    Blizzard's hearthstone is almost exactly like EA's loot boxes. In hearthstone, you pay for a pack of cards...and you never know what cards you are going to get. You can't pay for certain cards, and the person who pays the most will have a far superior deck. In fact, its a VERY pay to win game. However, ignoring the pay to win of the game...blizzard's hearthstone is no different than the loot boxes for EA's battlefront 2

    However, there is one difference. Everyone hates EA so it gets dog piled one is upset about blizzard's hearthstone that pretty much does the same thing? You can't even earn cards while you play hearthstone, nothing people pay for can be earned in-game.

    Will Blizzard's hearthstone be next for controversial subject on cash shop gambling? So far blizzard has skated on by avoiding controversy...but in many ways their hearthstone game is far worse than EA's battlefront 2 loot boxes. But both are just as bad, as far as online gambling goes.

    What are your guys's thoughts?
  • Petition rapidly growing for EA to lose Star Wars license passes 110k signers.

    And they say soloers ruined MMO

    But actually...

    Its people in this thread and elsewhere supporting these dirty practices that ruined MMOs.
  • Is "Pay for convenience" the new pay to win?

    As title says. Is pay for convenience the new pay to win? Many MMOs are offering advantages to skipping content, easier leveling, access to endgame year, great items/vehicles/ships/mounts etc.

    In many ways, paying for convenience is worse than blatant pay to win. At least pay to win is very obvious and you know up front that the game is pay to win. In paying for convenience models, its a lot more underhanded, secretive and at first its fine till you reach endgame and find the game is designed around these "products"...the developers make the items VERY hard to get, sell overpowered products or products that...again...would be very hard to attain otherwise. The developers can design gameplay in a way where you almost NEED to buy pets...but pretend you don't really have to buy pets or any of the products because "you can get it all in-game" (which is often far harder and far more time consuming than just paying for it).

    But players think its okay, because "you can get it all in-game". Another reason its worse, because its such an underhanded term that is seen as acceptable to most because all/most/some of the items can be got in-game. But, to name one MMO...I spent days trying to get a pet off the market in black desert online...literally days and so many hours.

    Not once did I get one. Sure RNG...but that is what I mean. The MMO in question is designed to make you buy a pet or waste time getting one. And the MMO is also designed in a way that pets are almost needed...but not quite...all makes it a very shady design decision...and many MMOs are just like that. 

    Now developers know players hate pay to win they moved onto a far more shady and underhanded scheme..."pay for convenience" and design the game in a way that makes it so you "need" the product...but not quite...and make it VERY hard to earn in-game.

    what are your guys's thoughts?