Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!




Last Active
Favorite Role
  • Star Wars Battlefront II or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and the Love the Loot Box - Michael Bitt

    This article is a good summary of what's wrong with people's mentality today.

    Games used to be creative experiences with a price tag on them. A team of people would come together and create something fun. Sometimes a publisher would try to cut corners and shift the vision, but in the end, you'd have an experience for a set price nevertheless.

    Movies are still like that. You pay a set price and get a set experience. Some box sets have bonus content, but the core experience is always there - whether it's a DVD, BluRay, TV or going to the movies. People wouldn't tolerate this excessive micro-transaction bullshit there, why do we tolerate it in games?

    When I go watch the new Star Wars movie, they don't pause the movie at the first big battle and say "We will play this battle 50 times. But you could pay $1.99 for a chance to go on with the story". If that was the case, people would walk out the cinema. They would not be writing editorials saying "I like these new movie lootboxes, before, I'd have to wait 2 hours to see the ending. Now there's a 0.01% chance I'll get to it right away! And if I'm unlucky, I can always watch the battle 50 times. Win win right there."

    These days, games are clearly money milking machines first, experiences second. Battlefront 2 is a prime example of this - the core design is literally about buying loot boxes, with a game play moulded around it.
    pantaroNycteliosIselinStjerneoddlaseritAlomarNildenmrputtsXodicSiugand 4 others.
  • DRM in games and angry pirates

    I think it's important to distinguish two types of DRM.

    1. Offline DRM - where you need to "activate" a game, but then can play without any server communication.
    2. Always Online DRM - where your game needs contact with the DRM server.

    In the case of offline DRM, I agree with the OP argument completely. Activating a game once is no hassle what-so-ever.

    In the case of online DRM, it may be a much greyer area. Let's say the game is not generating any new revenue in 3 years time. The developer may simply pull the plug on the DRM server and you'll never be able to play again.

    MMORPG closure is a sad event for all fans - quite frankly, it always sucks. This is something single player games did not have to worry about. Once you bought a game, you could always play it. That is, until the recent emergence of these "online" single player games. A poorly coded DRM adds this unnecessary caveat to single player games.

    Poor online DRMs may also cause disconnections mid-game, inability to play on launch due to heavy traffic and may lead to platform locking games. I recall several game launches, where legal owners of games could not play due to DRM, while pirates were happily enjoying the game with the DRM removed.

    That said, I'm not sure how many players actually realise these flaws with online DRM. From what I've read on Steam forums, many are simply throwing words around, without really caring about the flaws of DRM at all. Gamers, especially those on Steam forums, are quick to find a scapegoat and beat it to death.
  • Will Amazon Game Studios Reveal an MMO on September 29th? - MMORPG.com News

    Forgrimm said:
    Will Amazon Prime members get in-game benefits? ;)
    Expedited cash shop deliveries.
  • Why the outrage...I'll cover everything.

    The market definitely has "evolved". There is no question about it.

    When I was growing up, 20 years ago, most people didn't own a computer and didn't know how to use one. Internet was a luxury that noone had - it was something similar to VR today. Only people passionate about technology had it, because there was no consensus that it will actually be useful. So who do you think the target audience was for MMOs back then? It was a person who is a bit of an outlier in the community, someone who has a PC and internet. These people were often old school sci-fi and fantasy fans. They didn't care something isn't easy to use - they wouldn't have a PC with internet if they did. That was the target audience for MMOs, because there was no other audience out there. 3 people out of 20 in my class had a PC.

    Fast forward to my high school, 10 years ago. 29 people out of 30 in my class had a PC. Out of those, maybe 10 used it for gaming. The one person who didn't have a computer had to go to the school's library every afternoon to do their homework, which needed internet. Today, I am at university. Everyone has a laptop. Compared to my high school, gaming isn't a 30% of people thing. Everyone understands it on some level.

    I still have this thing in my mind where I think you should never mention gaming to others, as it is marginal entertainment. It's simply not true anymore. I was moving houses last year and a girl was helping me move the boxes, she had a car and I didn't. She wasn't nerdy at all, studying a business major, really into management. When she was carrying my console games, she was genuinely interested in them, saying she plays games every now and then herself. That was a big eye opener for me, as I realised the gaming market has changed substantially.

    In terms of MMOs, they reflect this change. They still class as MMOs - if a mass of players share the same virtual space, it's generally called a MMO. They do appeal to different audiences today though! Some games still go after the niche market of tech enthusiasts who want deep non-trivial systems. EVE Online is a great example of this - this is just a guess, but I'd say majority of EVE players are similar to the MMO player 20 years ago. But you also have other MMOs, those that try to capture other player bases. Games like WoW are still MMOs, but they go for the mainstream fantasy fan. This means making the systems easier to understand - after all, the majority of people aren't tech fanatics and won't have the patience to invest days or weeks into understanding one system a game has to offer.

    I'd say a veteran player today has two options. Either accept the market has grown, leave people enjoy their entertainment and find a place for yourself, in this big pie, that you enjoy. There is a huge variety of games today. Saying no MMO has anything to offer is probably not true.
    The alternative is to be bitter about the change, trying to build a stone wall around your idea of what a MMO should and shouldn't be. I personally think this is exhausting and not fun, so I'll do the former.
  • Jobs Posted for Unannounced First-Person Project - MMORPG.com News

    Murloc VR
  • No Importing Characters / Accounts from 'Original' to Steam - Black Desert Online - MMORPG.com

    Alverant said:

    Not that I play BDO due to pvp, but I'm curious as to why? Aren't characters tied to an account? Why not just log into your account when you boot up the game?

    Steam takes a cut from all purchases. This likely applies to microtransactions as well. Around 30% for smaller studios, a little less for large products. I assume the developers want to keep old players paying through their own website, with no steam cut at all.
  • #10MillionStories Campaign Celebrates 10 Million Unique Players - Elder Scrolls Online - MMORPG.com

    And here I was, hoping they're giving 10 million away for logging in.
    You can't count on anything these days anymore.
  • Does Star Citizen REALLY exist?

    There is no game. It's all pre-rendered. Whenever you press a key, the so called game just plays the right movie in the background. A lot like Dragon's Lair really.
    Think about it, why else would you need a 100GB client? It's there to store all the video data.
  • Pro Russian Player Retires After Opining That LoL Isn't Profitable for CiS Teams - League of Legend

    Competitive bans in LoL are quite rare. When I first read about the story last week, I thought the player said something extremely toxic on stream. That's what usually leads to a ban.

    Riot has been notoriously bad about treating the competitive environment fairly. Just last month, it came to light that the shareholders in the new teams (coming in from the NBA) already own shares in other LoL teams. I think there are 4 such cases at the moment, where one person has shares in two teams at once. The people are allowed to remain in the League, with a 12 month period to "figure things out".

    This is in contrast to situations in the past where whole teams were shut down or forced to immediately sell, just because a conflict of interest could potentially happen sometime in the future. In some cases teams were shut down simply based on a narrative by Riot with no factual basis what so ever.

    The broader issue that will stop Esports from becoming a "real sport" is the fact that a private company owns the game, therefore having control over the league. Riot has a monopoly over the game - and the only incentive for them to be fair is to come across positively to their customers. This is in contrast to a traditional sport, where if a league owner messes up really bad, one could in theory go and make their own competing league (as no one owns the rights to football for example). In Esports, the league is always tied to the IP owner.

  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    I heard an interesting argument today, about running cables. I'm not sure how true this is, feel free to englighten me.

    If you want to run a cable through a street, it requires a lot of plans, permissions and ultimately approval. It is not feasible to have every company run their own cable. As such, it is not really a free market, as some companies will be the ones running the cables. The net neutrality law is, therefore, an important aspect. It makes sure the customers' experience is unrestricted in this inherently already regulated system.