Iselin

About

Username
Iselin
Location
Vancouver, BC
Joined
Visits
8,237
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
7,313
Rank
Legendary
Favorite Role
Support
Currently Playing
ESO
Posts
10,207
Badges
52
  • UPDATE: Belgian Minister Wants EU Ban on Loot Boxes, Speaks Before Committee Ruling

    CrazKanuk said:
    laserit said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    laserit said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    laserit said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    laserit said:
    Phry said:
    laserit said:

    What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
    What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
    What I meant, is that there are reasons for the high rate of violence. Try to figure out what the causes are and make the changes to help improve the situation.

    In Canada we like our guns too.

    Guns don't kill, people do.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime


    I'll pile onto you post here and say that there are differences between Canada and the US. One of these differences is guns like assault rifles. I still haven't heard a great explanation from people in favor of these things. Generally speaking people are correct, people do kill people, but with certain types of weapons, the government helps people be waaaaaay too efficient at doing that. Please! Tell me how you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. I didn't know that the US was in civil war... yet. 
    Did I say that you needed an assault rifle to defend yourself?

    No, so why are they needed? So let's get rid of those. Anything semi-automatic or full-auto should be outlawed and the price for violation is death. So the cost is severe enough to outweigh the benefit of even criminals possessing it. I mean we need to think about the children, right? 
    Your goddamn right we need to think about the children.

    So the sentence for an assault rifle = death

    And the sentence for pedophilia = ?

    I had a conversation with my 19 year old son this morning about loot boxes and Battlefront 2. The first thing that came out of his mouth was the gambling and all the kids that play these games.


    When they make laws where the death penalty is enforced for both assault rifle possession and also pedophilia, then I'll support regulating loot boxes. Right now, though, it's a waste of resources. I know zero children with credit cards, so the problem is limited based on their access to funds to actually have that problem manifest itself. 
    Fact is millions of children play these games. Fact is the business models for many of these games are predatory.

    Can the industry reliably restrict minors from these predatory business practices?

    If the answer is no, say hello to government regulation.


    Fact is I don't think you know what fact means. Unless fact means subjective, which I don't think it does. I do have a problem with BF2, but it's with the progression. This game is viewed as predatory because of ridiculous times for completionists, leaving them with an option to buy their way to complete instead of spending 4000 hours on a game. It's possible that this might be the first time I've heard someone complain about a game taking too long. maybe you aren't meant to own everything. Maybe this will be therapeutic for those who feel they need to collect everything in a game. 
    So is that what this is about? About completionists and 4000 hours? Could have sworn the whole thing was about paying vs. grinding to win. I must have misread all those reviews and reddit posts in the SWBF2 reddit.

    No I think he got his facts right and that you are desperately trying to change the narrative to make it about completionists.

    GdemamiYashaXEponyxDamorRexKushman
  • EA should lose the Star Wars license

    Sovrath said:
    EA should lose every license, stop making games and disappear from the game industry forever.  Who knows how many more great games and gaming memories we'd have today if EA hadn't destroyed some of the greatest game development studios.  They're basically a cancer on the entire industry.
    hmmm, those development studios didn't have to sell to EA.
    My theory is that they all woke up with a horse's head in their bed.
    laserit
  • Hawaiian Legislators Call EA Loot Boxes a 'Predatory Practice' - Star Wars: Battlefront II - MMORPG.

    Distopia said:
    Iselin said:


    Fast forward to 2017, EA, SWBF2 and other publishers. Games as a service is all the rage in genres that were never about that. Do you think that developers are making shooters more MMOish because that's what we want and because MMOs are evolving as some here like to argue? Yeah right. They are shoehorning the "as a service" part simply so they can create an environment where they can use all the tried and true F2P MMO tricks to prey on their consumers.





    I'd argue it's a matter of keeping overhead costs low and cashing in as far as they can on one title, rather than jumping straight into new games with zero return coming from the costs.

     The EA's of the world may differ in that at least to a degree, because they have the overhead to jump right into creating sequels.. Which they do tend to do. Still it's not like it's only the EA's that are moving toward this "as a service model".... Even many indies are.. PUBG, Survival titles, etc... 

     Correct me if I'm behind the times because my impression has always been that only a small percentage partake in extended monetary output in terms of micro transactions (especially in non MMOs). Most still earn their lot within the game... 

    As for your question... I'm a deep game kinda guy so I won't play your typical shooter, so yes I would prefer devs put more MMO/RPGesque replay-value in their games, even shooters. 


    Umm... the whole point of that paragraph you carved out is that games as a service are all about enabling continued F2P MMO style monetization in games that did not traditionally lend themselves to those types of sales.

    I wouldn't expect MMO fans to not like adding never-ending progression to those -- it is one of the main reasons they play MMOs.

    How about the traditional shooter fan that is accustomed to having very little if any progression and playing in even playing fields right from the start? You think they're fans of having additional grind and P2W optional relief from that grind in order to be competitive added to their games?
    Gdemami
  • Hawaiian Legislators Call EA Loot Boxes a 'Predatory Practice' - Star Wars: Battlefront II - MMORPG.

    "Games as a service" is nothing new in the MMORPG world. They have always been that. The original model was based on a very easy to understand and manage system: they provide an online game space and you pay X $s per month to play in that space.

    There was nothing deceitful nor hard to wrap your head around about a subscription. You chose to pay for a month if you felt it was worth your while, otherwise you didn't.

    You could make that decision based on whatever was important to you: Ugly graphics? Bad animations? Can't interact with furniture? Bad combat? Unbalanced classes? Not enough solo options? Not enough group play? Not enough PVP? Too much PVP? Too grindy? Not grindy enough?... whatever.

    The continued development focused squarely on making the game attractive enough so that enough players stayed to keep making a profit.

    The only thing even remotely predatory about that system was the recurring nature of subs that would auto-renew if you didn't cancel. I've always hated that system and I, more than once renewed a game sub I hadn't meant to renew when I was otherwise distracted.

    Even if you have the cynical perspective that those games had inconvenient features by design in order to keep you subbing, that economic predatory practice had an upper limit of X $s per month and there was no sale of instant relief from inconvenience designed into the game.

    It's that instant relief or better yet the instant chance of relief that sets modern MMOs apart and makes their monetization ever-increasingly predatory: most of them have an optional sub but that only provides some benefits, they all sell accelerated character advancement, they all have direct vanity item sales that often could also be earned if RNGesus blesses you, and increasingly they all provide a very slim chance of getting something very valuable within the game for a minimal cash investment via loot crates.

    Worst of all, development focus is no longer exclusively on making the game and game play attractive. They focus their development more and more on where the money is: loot crates. 

    Have MMOs always had desirable rare things that were hard to get and subject to RNG? Of course. But the choice to pursue that rare RNG drop or not at the rate of $12/month was pretty fucking easy and self limiting. Not much need to regulate that when it has a clear upper limit.

    I imagine some out there did it and forced themselves to sub for 5 extra years they didn't want and/or used 10 accounts but come on, comparing that to the ability to instantly buy 1000 crates and get it today and concluding that they are both similarly predatory? Give your head a shake.

    Fast forward to 2017, EA, SWBF2 and other publishers. Games as a service is all the rage in genres that were never about that. Do you think that developers are making shooters more MMOish because that's what we want and because MMOs are evolving as some here like to argue? Yeah right. They are shoehorning the "as a service" part simply so they can create an environment where they can use all the tried and true F2P MMO tricks to prey on their consumers.

    EA's mistake? They pushed the envelope too far on a game rated "T" that also happens to be Star Wars and a Disney IP at a time just before the release of the latest movie installment. Perhaps that was their subconscious cry for help? Were they in fact saying "Please regulate us because we can't help ourselves"? Or was it just one of the most monumentally stupid mistakes in the history of game sales? Time will tell.




    MadFrenchieSlapshot1188RexKushmanlaseritGdemamiimmodium
  • UPDATE: Belgian Minister Wants EU Ban on Loot Boxes, Speaks Before Committee Ruling

    laserit said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    laserit said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    laserit said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    laserit said:
    Phry said:
    laserit said:

    What you guys need to do, is figure out why you all want to kill each other and then make the change.
    What people need to do is accept that gun controls don't work, in so called 'gun free zones' you are more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in those places where there aren't restrictions, this is a fact, gun controls don't affect criminals it only affects those who abide by the law and it takes away peoples ability to defend themselves. And as for the comment about figuring out why people want to kill each other and making a change based on that, well, since most people of colour are shot dead by other people of colour, are you suggesting that people of colour should not be allowed to own guns? but of course, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
    What I meant, is that there are reasons for the high rate of violence. Try to figure out what the causes are and make the changes to help improve the situation.

    In Canada we like our guns too.

    Guns don't kill, people do.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime


    I'll pile onto you post here and say that there are differences between Canada and the US. One of these differences is guns like assault rifles. I still haven't heard a great explanation from people in favor of these things. Generally speaking people are correct, people do kill people, but with certain types of weapons, the government helps people be waaaaaay too efficient at doing that. Please! Tell me how you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. I didn't know that the US was in civil war... yet. 
    Did I say that you needed an assault rifle to defend yourself?

    No, so why are they needed? So let's get rid of those. Anything semi-automatic or full-auto should be outlawed and the price for violation is death. So the cost is severe enough to outweigh the benefit of even criminals possessing it. I mean we need to think about the children, right? 
    Your goddamn right we need to think about the children.

    So the sentence for an assault rifle = death

    And the sentence for pedophilia = ?

    I had a conversation with my 19 year old son this morning about loot boxes and Battlefront 2. The first thing that came out of his mouth was the gambling and all the kids that play these games.


    When they make laws where the death penalty is enforced for both assault rifle possession and also pedophilia, then I'll support regulating loot boxes. Right now, though, it's a waste of resources. I know zero children with credit cards, so the problem is limited based on their access to funds to actually have that problem manifest itself. 
    Fact is millions of children play these games. Fact is the business models for many of these games are predatory.

    Can the industry reliably restrict minors from these predatory business practices?

    If the answer is no, say hello to government regulation.
    The industry has no desire to restrict minors because these models work best on them. Children are not collateral damage of a business practice aimed at adults, they are the target.
    laseritGdemamiYashaX