# Games-as-a-Service



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

I know there's a lot of people here who are into gaming a fair bit, so I'm curious to hear some thoughts on stuff that's going on in the world of games right now, in regards to how we're moving towards games being a service - that's the micro-transactions, the streaming services, the monthly plans, it's Stadia and Apple Arcade, it's mobile, always-online, massively-multiplayer, lootboxes, etc.- and I really don't like the direction some things are headed.

For context, I work in games (whenever you say "ugh, those lazy devs should have done x, it's so simple", I might be said lazy dev), so I see a lot of discussion about this kind of thing. I get the sense that a lot of people are worried that we're headed the same way the music industry went, with a broken model that doesn't compensate people in a way that makes sense, and that incentivises predatory mechanics, walled gardens, turns single-player or experience-based or experimental games into a niche thing with no real market, etc.

In more detail - here's some random points I've been thinking about lately:

- Streaming services take the point of not-actually-owning your games (like how you only have "licenses" on steam) a step farther. Not only do you not have anything physical to show for the games you "have", but now you might not even have individual licenses anymore. And those files are never on your own machine to be preserved, modded, etc.

- My understanding is that the new Apple platform is planning to pay devs in terms of fractions of cents per time spent with a game. We all know how well that turned out for music. Even if Apple were to pay for the initial development of what goes on their platform, it still sets a precedent for what the monetary value of time spent in a game is. This incentivizes games that want to hook you in for longer. That means more emphasis on those kinds of rewards cycles / feedback loops like random drops and flashy animations that are used for lootboxes. It means more emphasis on community based online stuff, and a move away from short single player experiences. It means it could take you a lifetime to build the greatest game in the world, but if it's playable in a hour, it's only worth a few fractions of a cent. It means the elimination of "I'm buying this because I want to support you", since unit sales are meaningless now.

- I feel like single player games have been getting the shaft, and it's only going to get worse. They're expensive and they aren't cash cows. Nobody wants to take the risk anymore, since it's now established that you can jump on bandwagons and produce cash cows. Indies want to make the next Angry Birds, and AAA wants to make the next Fortnite. Very few people are left in the middle making single-player experiences anymore. And those that are still feel the need to pack in-app purchases, DLC, "season passes" (whatever that every really means anymore) into those products. Most of that stuff comes from indies now - which isn't bad on it's own - but we've lost the AAA support for anything truly narrative driven, anything for a slower paced gamer, adventure gamers, etc.

- Mobile also kind of got the short end of the stick. I'm convinced that mobile _can_ be a great platform for games, if it wasn't for the shape of the industry and platform (as in the stores) around them.

- I think people getting into retro gaming are doing it as a response to how the current industry isn't giving them what they got into gaming for anymore. I went back and played Majora's Mask in January, all the way through - and there's very little like this being made anymore, as far as I know. I think it's one of the best games ever made, and it's sort of like.... it doesn't feel like anyone is really trying to meet or beat that standard anymore. That doesn't mean that there's no good games being made at all, there's definitely good games still being made, but nothing that hits that same standard, to me.

I have more thoughts - always more thoughts - but.... anyway. What are other people's thoughts? Am I just the Old Man yelling at the Cloud?


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 27, 2019)

Don’t know about googles plans. No opinion there. 

Apples plan seems bad. If they get as big as Netflix maybe it will work out. 

There’s really no incentive for mobile devs to develop for that platform.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

I don't know any details, but I would assume the incentive is that Apple is paying them to do it. If someone says "we'll fund the full development for a title if you put it on our platform", I imagine most would do it.


----------



## Anquished (Mar 27, 2019)

You're a game dev? Nice - what sort of stuff have you worked on? 

I don't play games nowhere near as much as I used to due to other commitments. When I do, I don't have much time to play so I usually just play single player games which I can come back to whenever I want and pick up where I left off. 

I actually had a mild problem with addiction with Warframe, from the time-based stuff and the FOMO factor from the mechanics. I started to neglect more important aspects of my life outside of gaming. When I finally noticed how bad it was getting, I quit playing and felt so much better for it. Warfame is probably one of the least predatory "games as a service" types I know as well. 

As a result, I personally stay clear of games in a similar vein and I can only imagine people my age with homes, full-time jobs and other hobbies outside of gaming maybe don't bother with them either. It's a shame that single player games aren't getting as much attention anymore. That being said, there have been some nice releases recently with DMC5 and Sekiro. Also I've seen that V:TM Bloodlines 2 is being worked on for a 2020 release. So not all doom and gloom!


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

I can't really say what I've worked on for the most part cause anything of interest would be under NDA, and the rest are things like kids games and small marketing projects.



Anquished said:


> So not all doom and gloom!


Nah, there's definitely stuff to be excited about still. I still think there's a lot of Nintendo offerings out there that haven't quite made the transition to all this modern stuff I don't like. I still want to play the headliner titles from them. I'm speaking more the trend than the whole. I'm still excited for Psychonauts 2, maybe the System Shock remake. But my excitement is sort of cautious.


----------



## Anquished (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I can't really say what I've worked on for the most part cause anything of interest would be under NDA, and the rest are things like kids games and small marketing projects.



Ah that makes sense - fair enough.



TedEH said:


> Nah, there's definitely stuff to be excited about still. I still think there's a lot of Nintendo offerings out there that haven't quite made the transition to all this modern stuff I don't like. I still want to play the headliner titles from them. I'm speaking more the trend than the whole. I'm still excited for Psychonauts 2, maybe the System Shock remake. But my excitement is sort of cautious.



I forgot about the System Shock remake, add that to the list.

As a whole, I can see the trend shifting that way. Clearly it's working and making them lots of cash but its nice to seem some push-back to the predatory practices such as lootboxes being investigated as gambling. I'm far too out of touch with gaming to make any assumptions or guesses on where it'll go from there. I'm sure it could get much much worse...


----------



## wankerness (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> - Streaming services take the point of not-actually-owning your games (like how you only have "licenses" on steam) a step farther. Not only do you not have anything physical to show for the games you "have", but now you might not even have individual licenses anymore. And those files are never on your own machine to be preserved, modded, etc.


[/QUOTE]

Stadia (and all forms of streaming we've been proposed so far) is BS. It's a complete non-starter in the majority of the US. I have been reading a lot about this Google bs, and their minimum bandwidth requirements are just not available to the majority of the country (regionally). And to those that they are, there are data caps in effects that would be hit after playing a 4K AC Odyssey or whatever in no time. There was also a good article on Kotaku about playing Doom Eternal through it on a very high-powered connection and focusing on response time. It was a very positive article that said "oh, there's lag, but you can mostly learn to compensate for it," which obviously means that it's a complete non-starter for anything multiplayer or requiring precision. SO, basically, it would only really be functional in the handful of cities that Google Fiber was installed in before they dropped that project like a hot potato. Google drops all kinds of projects after getting bored with them, which is another reason people are up in arms about this.

To say nothing of the rights issue you kinda mentioned - you can only play what the hosts want you to play at that moment, if they take stuff off their service, there it goes forever. Many people are probably fine with this, considering so many are fine with being spoon fed a selection of crap on Netflix and dealing with it coming and going at random.



TedEH said:


> - I feel like single player games have been getting the shaft, and it's only going to get worse. They're expensive and they aren't cash cows. Nobody wants to take the risk anymore, since it's now established that you can jump on bandwagons and produce cash cows. Indies want to make the next Angry Birds, and AAA wants to make the next Fortnite. Very few people are left in the middle making single-player experiences anymore. And those that are still feel the need to pack in-app purchases, DLC, "season passes" (whatever that every really means anymore) into those products. Most of that stuff comes from indies now - which isn't bad on it's own - but we've lost the AAA support for anything truly narrative driven, anything for a slower paced gamer, adventure gamers, etc.



I think they may be less "cash cow" than MM games, but there's no shortage of them and I'm not seeing them get any less hype than the multiplayer games when it comes to any news outlets I read. Or mainstream marketing, for that matter. I saw at least as many ads for RDR2 and AC Odyssey as I did for anything multiplayer other than maybe FIFA. When it comes to Twitch streamers or whatever, yeah, of course it's more interesting to see multiplayer strats/skill since they are much, much more dynamic. 

There are PLENTY of great single player games that also have multiplayer modes. RDR2, the last Naughty Dog games, etc. Kind of like...many classic games on N64. 

It seems like you then tried to also disqualify anything with "season passes," which yes, combined with anything that also has a multiplayer mode takes out the vast majority of AAA single player games. This seems like trying to come up with data to support a conclusion instead of vice versa, though. There were expansion packs back in the day, too!

If you look at the top selling games of 2018, I'd consider the list to be half games that have a *very *heavy single player focus. If you throw out "season pass" and games that also have a multiplayer mode, then yeah, you're left with Mario Odyssey and God of War only. Actually, for all I know, Mario Odyssey has DLC, I know the last Zelda game does. 



TedEH said:


> - I think people getting into retro gaming are doing it as a response to how the current industry isn't giving them what they got into gaming for anymore. I went back and played Majora's Mask in January, all the way through - and there's very little like this being made anymore, as far as I know. I think it's one of the best games ever made, and it's sort of like.... it doesn't feel like anyone is really trying to meet or beat that standard anymore. That doesn't mean that there's no good games being made at all, there's definitely good games still being made, but nothing that hits that same standard, to me.



I think you're projecting your opinion onto everyone. Plenty of people that play retro games don't do it because they think all new games suck. I can only work with anecdotal evidence since I don't read about retro gaming beyond emulator updates, but my friends that have classic game collections or even simply bought the SNES Classic or whatever all still have current consoles and keep up with them and put much more playtime in on them. 



TedEH said:


> Am I just the Old Man yelling at the Cloud?



Yes!


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 27, 2019)

Ever since WoW blew up and proved monthly fee games could be popular with more than just DND guys and people realized how profitable that model was, companies have been trying to find a way to emulate subscription gaming. 

They would rather have everyone paying $10/mo = $120/yr than buying games used/only a handful of new games a year. 

COD comes out every single year and has cosmetics, DLC, etc that get very close to or surpass the annual revenue from WOW’s monthly sub. Doesn’t matter how you slice it they are getting their cut. 

That is the way the industry has been moving since the early ‘00’s. 

And “pushing the envelope” is the name of the game. If a developer adds DLC, Times DLC, lootboxes, map packs AND horse armor and people buy it? The loud minority on the internet will be ignored. 

This is a mature blockbuster driven industry. Just like movies there are not that many mid-level tier games being made to be enjoyed by fans of that niche/genre. It’s “too expensive”. Until an indie studio makes a billion $ off a great game and idea.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

wankerness said:


> If you look at the top selling games of 2018, I'd consider the list to be half games that have a *very *heavy single player focus.


I would disagree, given that lots of those are things like CoD, sports titles, etc.. I'd also argue that top-sales-lists don't reflect where focus is in terms of production, in terms of what's being played and discussed, etc. A list of "most played games" would be VERY different. Mostly mobas and battle-royales. I didn't say that they don't exist at all, but they are not a focus anymore.



wankerness said:


> I think you're projecting your opinion onto everyone. Plenty of people that play retro games don't do it because they think all new games suck.


I don't think I'm projecting. Even if I am, it's still one anecdotal experience compared to another. It doesn't change the fact that it's become a big thing that people get into for different reasons. I know I'm not the only one who goes back and plays older games out of a feeling that current releases don't appeal to me as much.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

My biggest sort of complaint is just that the move towards games being services is just not good for anyone. The single player stuff is mostly just me being sad that less of the stuff I'd personally like to see if being made, but my biggest concern is the service thing. The lootboxes and streaming and fractional play time payments, etc.


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 27, 2019)

It’s good for the EA’s and Activisions of the world. That’s about it.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

It's good for _[the company that was, multiple times, voted to be the worst company in America]_ and _[the company that just, despite making record profits, just fired 800 people for no other known reason than to cut costs]_.


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 27, 2019)

Yes.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> My biggest sort of complaint is just that the move towards games being services is just not good for anyone. The single player stuff is mostly just me being sad that less of the stuff I'd personally like to see if being made, but my biggest concern is the service thing. The lootboxes and streaming and fractional play time payments, etc.



99 percent of the time devs are focused on making games that they want to play. Not games that players actually want to play.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> 99 percent of the time devs are focused on making games that they want to play.


I don't believe this is true by a long shot. Again, I AM a dev.

Without breaking any NDAs, I would guess there's a high likelihood you've played something my name is in the credits for.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I don't believe this is true by a long shot. Again, I AM a dev.
> 
> Again, without breaking any NDAs, I would guess there's a high likelihood you've played something my name is in the credits for.



I run studio with over 30 people. 

So ok. Believe whatever the fuck you want.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

There are a lot more than 30 people in the industry. Neither of our anecdotes are enough data to say that the "majority" of devs do anything. I don't believe for a moment that 99% percent of that time is spent where people would like it to be spent. If that's the case in your studio, then props to you, I guess.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> There are a lot more than 30 people in the industry. Neither of our anecdotes are enough data to say that the "majority" of devs do anything. I don't believe for a moment that 99% percent of that time is spent where people would like it to be spent.




I mean ok. Are you rich. Was your studio bought out because you’re pulling a billion in revenue. 

My discord groups and chat groups are filled with small and big indie devs that are making the next innovative game super fun game. 

They are all broke.

If you want to be pedantic then sure. Not 99 percent. But the majority of small studios and self employed devs are doing it completely wrong.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> - I feel like single player games have been getting the shaft, and it's only going to get worse. They're expensive and they aren't cash cows. Nobody wants to take the risk anymore, since it's now established that you can jump on bandwagons and produce cash cows.



I really dislike multiplayer and don't really enjoy FPS games so its getting harder and harder for me to find a game to play. I was thinking about buying Metro but didn't after seeing a bunch of reviews so the next game I might buy is Rage 2, after that The Outer Worlds, Cyberypunk and DOOM Eternal might be the only future games I get. I'd love a streaming service for games since I'd give a lot more games that I'd never buy a try. 

Streaming games has an enormous flaw though and thats mod support so PC gamers are always going to feel inclined to have a game installed where they can run fan patches and various mods. Now that Fallout 4 and Skyrim has mod support on consoles I'd have to buy all future releases on Xbox or PC. I'm not optimistic on the Stadia because internet connections are nowhere near the level to stream games for so many people. A millisecond lag is a death sentence in so many games.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> Are you rich


Nope.



diagrammatiks said:


> Was your studio bought out


Technically, yes.



diagrammatiks said:


> you’re pulling a billion in revenue


Nope.
Actually... I need to google that...
Still nope. Nowhere close to a billion a year in revenue, even at the level of the parent company.



diagrammatiks said:


> My discord groups and chat groups are filled with small and big indie devs that are making the next innovative game super fun game.
> 
> They are all broke.





diagrammatiks said:


> But the majority of small studios and self employed devs are doing it completely wrong.


I don't understand how this relates to what you originally said, and what I was disagreeing with: The idea that the majority of people who work on games are working on something they themselves would want to play. It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think it's even remotely true.

Sure, there are lots of of people who are making the games they would like to see be made. But I can't imagine they are the majority of devs - especially if you're talking only about the people who are doing it professionally (aka, taking hobbyists out of the equation) . What about kids games? What about titles that exist for only marketing purposes? What about sub-contractors and work-for-hire studios who basically work on whatever will pay them? What about the larger AAA titles that have soooo many people involved that it would be ridiculous to assume they're all working towards the kind of games they themselves enjoy? Are we counting the art / audio / marketing people involved in this?

I would love to believe that games are only ever made as passion projects by dedicated, talented and loving teams who have nothing but the best in mind for the product, the industry, the fans of those franchises, etc. But that's not a fair assumption to throw on the majority of the industry.


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 27, 2019)

Game developers gotta pay the bills, and frankly programmers make trash money relative to the rest of the industry. Fuck that noise.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 27, 2019)

I think the market is fracturing in two different directions based off of what I've seen and the general consensus amongst my friends. One is the f2p, lootbox, piecemealing,death by a thousand cuts bullshit that's been infiltrating even paid games from EA/Activision/Ubisoft like Rainbow 6 Siege/SW Battlefront/Battlefield/COD/FIFA/etc. The other is a longing for single player games that eschew that kind of crap (ie hyper light drifter, Guacamelee, Sundered, Mark of the Ninja, Sekiro, Bloodborne, Witcher, Jotun, etc). From what I can tell most people seem to react more favorably towards those types of games as they're better "bang for your buck" and there's no FOMO or fear of the game being shelved if you wait a year or two to play them. I honestly hope the market swings back towards solitary single player or co-op experiences because I'm sick of the other business model.

The constantly mutating always online FPS and MOBAs like LOL, COD, R6 Siege, etc, where they've made them such a grind that the average person has to play multiple hours a day just to achieve certain things (like unlocking all the operators in Siege/getting new weapons/skins in COD) absolutely infuriate me as a relatively casual player. I love siege and the latest COD but I'm not willing to grind for hours a day or spend more money on the games, so it makes getting those goodies nigh impossible. In siege's case that's a huge deal, since a lot of the operators have unique weapons and skills, which add new facets to the game.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Mar 27, 2019)

Like many folks I'm a huge Star Wars fan (not keen on the new movies, but hey) and I'm currently playing Knights Of The Old Republic 2 on Steam AGAIN with a load of mods that make the game more enjoyable. I stopped playing the game as service "The Old Republic" because I don't have time to play on someone else's schedule, I need to be able to pick up where I left off a day later, or a week later or a year later. I certainly don't have time to practise to a level I could even hope to enjoy PVP games.

I'd be much happier to have The Old Republic issued as a single player version, or if I could get rid of all the other players from the server. I'm not interested in forming a guild or what have you, I just want to be a Jedi Knight. I'd happily pay for "game as service" to have constant DLC if I knew that I could progress my character's story on my own terms.

I'm really looking forward to the new Jedi-Fallen Order game which has the same writer as KOTOR2. Hopefully the story is as good.

I've also been playing X-COM 2 with a load of mods - Single player. And the original Deus Ex with a re-texture mod - Single player.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

^ I think that makes sense. Consider though that the split you described is _also_ sort of dividing the indie titles from larger companies.

Also, to be clear, I don't think the whole industry is just garbage, I don't mean to paid a horrible bleak picture of the whole thing. There's lots to like in game dev too.


----------



## wankerness (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I would disagree, given that lots of those are things like CoD, sports titles, etc..



Top 20 of 2018, primarily single player in bold:

*Red Dead Redemption II*
Call of Duty: Black Ops 4^
NBA 2K19
Madden NFL 19^
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate*
*Marvel's Spider-Man
Far Cry 5
God of War 2018*
Monster Hunter: World
*Assassin's Creed: Odyssey
Grand Theft Auto V*
Mario Kart 8*
FIFA 19^
Battlefield V^
*Super Mario Odyssey**
Call of Duty: WWII^
Dragon Ball: Fighterz
*The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild**
Super Mario Party*
*Pokemon: Lets Go Pikachu*
*
So, 9/20, I guess that wasn't quite half. Yes, I know you're probably going to come back and say "GTA V is multiplayer only at this point!!!" But, SO much more development time was put into that game's gigantic, expansive campaign than the terrible online multiplayer that they're making all the money off of - I think if you're a single player only dude you're not going to in any way feel like you got the shaft with that game. It's kinda like RDR2. Only, no one likes RDR2's multiplayer last I heard!

And then the 3 Nintendo multiplayer games have a focus on couch co-op like the good old days (particularly cause their online service is trash, granted). I don't know what Dragon Ball Fighterz is but I assume it's a primarily online fighter game, maybe it isn't. 

Most of those sports games have very in-depth single player modes, btw, I have a few friends that do the career mode junk for hundreds of hours without going online. I'm still counting them as primarily multiplayer but to act as if they're MMOs is disingenuous. Same deal with Monster Hunter World. Can't comment on the military shooters, historically some of them have great campaigns and most of them have like a 3 hour campaign that blows and the focus is definitely multiplayer.



TedEH said:


> I'd also argue that top-sales-lists don't reflect where focus is in terms of production, in terms of what's being played and discussed, etc. A list of "most played games" would be VERY different. Mostly mobas and battle-royales. I didn't say that they don't exist at all, but they are not a focus anymore.



Those goalposts, they are a-movin'!


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 27, 2019)

Also you can solo 100% or any Monster Hunter game. It’s exactly the same as the “online” component. It’s just longer fights.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

I have no interest in arguing about the argument. Yes, single player games still exist. Fine. You win. Units sold doesn't mean that those are where the business is focused though. My point is that there are no major shifts happening (or very few) that really _benefit_ that section of gaming, but there's plenty happening that take away from it. Streaming is not good for single player. Lootboxes and breaking things into DLC are not good for single player experiences. Devs getting paid per play-time is _really bad_ for one-off single player experiences. Forcing online features (random "community" features, or just always-on-DRM) into games is bad for single player. There are a lot of decisions being made that don't look great for people who want more single player stuff. Most of those items on the list are console exclusives, likely to never be accessible outside of their platform, which I'm also not a fan of. Major franchises that are known for being big single-player experiences are being transformed into mobile skinner boxes.

I get it, it's not _literally every game_. And I'm sure there are counter arguments to justify some of those things. But I still don't like them. I don't like the trend.

I'd also argue that those are very "safe" games in that list. They're the sure things. Almost all of those are sequels or iterations on a known value. To me that comes across as a lack of risk or innovation in that area. The same could be said of the multiplayer titles from that list - but if you look at where real movement _is _happening, it's entirely elsewhere.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

Am I willing to admit that on some level I'm just being grouchy......?



Yeh. It is what it is.


----------



## R34CH (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Without breaking any NDAs, I would guess there's a high likelihood you've played something my name is in the credits for.



Completely unrelated to the discussion at hand but I'm interested as to why they make you sign an NDA that prevents you from disclosing games that you've worked on but your name still appears in the credits?

Doesn't make any sense to me, but I'm probably naive and don't understand how anything works.  

Guess I'll go play some more Star Fox 64...


----------



## Demiurge (Mar 27, 2019)

The concept doesn't sit well with me. I like having the hardware, the physical copy... or at least the local copy. My internet connection is very inconsistent despite living in a city. And I am really slow in getting-around to playing games.

Making games into a service puts way too much reliance on the provider of the service. No media service has everything, and likely such would be the case with games. Some games would effectively cease to exist once a provider got tired of hosting it and physical copies weren't possible.

And still- something like Stadia is just such a suspect move when internet connections are an issue and game system hardware is consistently improving. If the opposite were the case, that connections were great but hardware was plateauing- it would make sense, but in reality it just seems like a way to control access to content.


----------



## wankerness (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I have no interest in arguing about the argument. Yes, single player games still exist. Fine. You win. Units sold doesn't mean that those are where the business is focused though. My point is that there are no major shifts happening (or very few) that really _benefit_ that section of gaming, but there's plenty happening that take away from it. Streaming is not good for single player. Lootboxes and breaking things into DLC are not good for single player experiences. Devs getting paid per play-time is _really bad_ for one-off single player experiences. Forcing online features (random "community" features, or just always-on-DRM) into games is bad for single player. There are a lot of decisions being made that don't look great for people who want more single player stuff. Most of those items on the list are console exclusives, likely to never be accessible outside of their platform, which I'm also not a fan of. Major franchises that are known for being big single-player experiences are being transformed into mobile skinner boxes.
> 
> I get it, it's not _literally every game_. And I'm sure there are counter arguments to justify some of those things. But I still don't like them. I don't like the trend.
> 
> I'd also argue that those are very "safe" games in that list. They're the sure things. Almost all of those are sequels or iterations on a known value. To me that comes across as a lack of risk or innovation in that area. The same could be said of the multiplayer titles from that list - but if you look at where real movement _is _happening, it's entirely elsewhere.



I'm just perplexed as to where all this rage is coming from and what exactly your story is beyond "old man yells at cloud," as it seems like every time I respond to something you say that isn't true, your next post is basically "well maybe not but here's some other stuff I hate, so I can maintain my same anger level! Rawr!!" Like, here, after I tried to offer a counter to your first and second posts to say "the world isn't ALL bad, there's still good stuff out there that's popular, the world is not lost," you then made a DIFFERENT series of complaints about said games. That they're "SAFE" (yes) and that you hate console exclusives (huh?). I thought the purpose of this thread was discussion about current game trends, not "Ted's thread where he says everything is terrible and any facts to the contrary are rejected in favor of him listing more things he hates."

There's plenty I think is wrong with the games industry, like I personally have no interest in online multiplayer gaming (I don't think it sucks, I just have no competitive drive), I think lootboxes are the devil and I think that almost everything EA and Activision do is terrible. In particular, their destruction of smaller developers enrages me. But man, I'm nothing compared to you. This has to be tiring!

As outlined in my first posts, I'm also with you that everything about streaming games is bad. I'm a total rights fiend with streaming movies, I get EVERYTHING I care about physically so it's always going to be there. Well, until the disc dies.

Now, I'm back to replaying more GBA/DS castlevania games  See, we have plenty in common!


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

R34CH said:


> why they make you sign an NDA that prevents you from disclosing games that you've worked on but your name still appears in the credits?


Honestly, that's more just me being overly cautious, probably for no realistic reason. If my name is in the credits and it's out there, it's public knowledge already, so there's no real NDA breakage. But give away enough pieces and it makes it easier to piece together things I _might_ know about things that _aren't_ public knowledge.



Demiurge said:


> Stadia


I will say though that I like the _idea_ of Stadia from a "the tech behind it is probably pretty neat" kind of point of view. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea in practice though.



wankerness said:


> Ted's thread where he says everything is terrible and any facts to the contrary are rejected in favor of him listing more things he hates


I don't mean to say that I just hate everything. I don't hate console exclusives, but I don't think they're a good thing for the end user either. They're a thing that only makes sense for the people who own the platform. What is the _benefit_ of an exclusive, to the gamer? Or to the original dev?

And I stand by the idea that current trends are to the detriment of single player experiences. I think that point went off on kind of a tangent, but I originally meant to relate it to the services and trends things. In my opinion, all the worst things in the industry are hitting single player games pretty hard. Multiplayer design benefits from safe iterations - single player is a place where (at least in my opinion) the games stagnate without some risk being taken. There's excitement happening in multiplayer, but single player has.... more Mario. More sequels. More shooty-stubly-men and iterations of sports games. Streaming and subscriptions hurt single player in the sense that something that has no need to be online at all is now suffering from all the same problems that were already inherent to things that needed to be online.

I'm just sad for what has happened to a lot of the single player games I've always liked.... they don't seem to be fairing well. I mean lets look at where some of those franchises are: Deus Ex? Hasn't been one for a while, and as far as I know there's no next one coming. Mass Effect? Andromeda says it all. Diablo? Gone mobile. Elder Scrolls? Gone mobile. Thief? Reboot tried way too hard and now they'll probably never make another one. Old school adventure games? They're more or less dead, outside of indies. There's a new Doom coming... but I mean, it's Doom. That's nothing new.

Consider instead maybe how many new AAA franchises there have been in a while. Every time you hear an announcement of "big new AAA game is happening", you just know it's going to be an online lootbox-filled shooter or something like that. I cannot think of a recent original AAA single player idea. Maybe there are some, but they don't come to mind currently.

Maybe my problem is PC? Maybe I'm focused in the wrong place and really it's PC's that aren't getting any love. Or maybe it's just my own personal tastes that have fallen out of popularity. I'm willing to resign that whole argument to me being grumpy about the stuff I like not going anywhere. I dunno though. "We sold another bajillion copies of Mario and GTA again" doesn't really strike me as single player thriving in a creative sense.


----------



## mongey (Mar 27, 2019)

I actually don't have a problem with streaming or subscription and not actually owning games .I have 2 draws full of 360 and ps4 games, mostly 360, That I played, enjoyed and will never pay again . say you buy a game a month ,which most gamers do at least , if you arnt a big game replayer then the subscription model makes allot of sense 

. on 360,ps3 and ps4 I def preferred online games. Now all my gaming is done on the train commute on the switch so online isn't an option . Id say 50% of my gaming time on switch is with indie titles . they are always single player, they are fairly prices for their content and I find just have freshers ideas at their core 

Much like music the large mainstream companies are going to get stuck in the rut of what sells and makes money .its going to be the indies who can explore new ideas and take risks. 

we all know that fortnite and apex have good games at their core,even a few newish ideas , but I def have issues with their real purpose of collecting "stuff". my 13 year old nephew is huge on fortnite. If I ask him hows it going he doesn't tell me about the awesome game he won, he tells me about the awesome skin he just got. we are already seeing the same game is being remade over and over again but with a new set of collectibles


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

For the sake of the conversation, I'm willing to go the route of "my single playing argument might be dumb", but continue the "streaming + services are still bad" part of the conversation.


----------



## spudmunkey (Mar 27, 2019)

My only ask is that there's SOME sort of "offline" mode. 

My last US-to-UK flight, I couldn't play any of the games on my phone because they all required network connection. That was annoying as shit.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 27, 2019)

I suppose a way to re-frame my yelling at clouds might be that while things aren't all horrible right now, I feel like things are just trending in directions that make me uncomfortable both as a gamer and someone who works in this kind of thing. The biggest things are the pay-for-play and streaming - piled on top of the already problematic online experiences, microtransactions, etc. Whenever something comes out proposing a big change to shake up how gaming works, it seems to be for the worse.

We already know that messing with the perceived value of something cause put a ceiling on how people are willing to spend their money on something. The Apple App Store already put a huge dent in the value of games by setting the standard for mobile games so low. Spotify has set a precedent for not paying for music, and there's a risk of this happening to games too. Think about how a pay-for-time model will inform how games for that platform are designed. As a dev, you would now need a player to stick around as long as possible - that's a huge incentive to incorporate shady/addictive/predatory designs.

Taking games libraries and streaming them to you (assuming it ever takes off) has some benefits - I'll give it that. If you can't afford good hardware, you aren't being left out. It'll potentially be a win for fighting against cheating. There are benefits to having networked clients all in the same place when you're playing a game together. I get it. But it's a tradeoff that I don't think is worth it. If you like your games DRM free, it's a step in the opposite direction. If you _do_ have the means to play games locally, then you're taking a hit in terms of lag on top of what your own hardware is already doing. You will never "own" a copy, it can be taken away at a moments notice, and you have zero opportunity to save it. People already hate always-online games, but imagine it being every game on the platform, regardless of what the game is.


----------



## Leviathus (Mar 27, 2019)

I hate subscription services, just let me buy something and have it. The less amount of shit charging my account the better. 

Also, i'm not sure i understand the whole Apple doing gaming.... what games are you playin' on a Mac?


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 27, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Am I willing to admit that on some level I'm just being grouchy......?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeh. It is what it is.



Man drunk guy was drunk last night. My bad. 

But u also being a bit grumpy. 

1. Industry is changing for sure. But a lot of that is because player tastes are changing. Majority of people don’t mind a looter shooter or a battle royale or even a shitty match 3. Hell people really like shitty match 3s. 

2. Also, you’re looking at the past a little romantically. Are there less single player games? Maybe. But there are absolutely more games overall then there were just a few years ago. A lot of gamers can probably name their top 10 favorite games. But like that many good games came out in the last few years. Easily. 

3. And you are right. Pc gaming is kinda fucked. On console if I had any time to actually play games -
Atlus - still going strong. 
nippon ichi - I’ll never finish all these games in my lifetime
Square Enix - looking dicey for a while and everyone designing the main franchise needs a vacation. The switch games are great. 

Pc.....ehhhhhhhhhhh

4. Lootboxes and stuff. Love them. I love gambling. Long time magic player. But, lootboxes in paid games are dumb. Ea/activision is ruining everything for everybody. 

5. Stadia - let’s not forget that googles track record outside of their main products is like 0 percent. Going to wait on this one. 

6. Apple subscription thing eh. Terrible for devs. Amazon already did this and it was not good. However, if apple is willing to fund the entirety of development then I don’t really care. Getting something out and done is a fantastic goal especially if someone else is paying for it.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 28, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> Lootboxes and stuff. Love them. I love gambling.


I think that's the first time I've heard that one. Most of the talk I hear about this kind of stuff is form the angle that it's an addiction, it's involuntary, and the games implementing this kind of thing are predatory, even if it's in a place you expect it to happen (free-to-play, mobile, etc).



diagrammatiks said:


> But a lot of that is because player tastes are changing.


I don't know that I'm convinced that's the case - I mean, there's always an element of that - but I'm less concerned with "x game type has gone out of style", cause you're always gonna have that current bandwaggony thing that everyone jumps on. I'm more concerned with the structural shifts that make it less about what people want to play and more about how Apple, Google, and maybe Valve/Epic/MS can gouge everyone else.

Lootboxes and free-to-play don't exist because it's what gamers want, it exists to provide a monetization structure in scenarios where people otherwise might not be willing to pay at all. I suspect (and granted I'm mostly talking out of my a** on this point) that it's mostly a response to how app stores destroyed the value of a unit sold. If every sale is only worth 99c, you can't recoup your dev costs with that anymore unless you get really lucky with a ton of sales on something that was cheap to make. Steam sales do the same thing.

App stores and Steam sales and so on make me worry that we're going to destroy the perceived monetary value of games the same way we did with music. There's already a set sentiment that "pre-ording is bad" and "just wait until Steam puts this on sale for like $3" and "mobile games aren't worth any more than 99c", etc. These new models are pushing us farther in that direction, I think. And it's the kind of change that you can't reverse. If it's not complained about _before_ it happens, then it'll just go on unimpeded until it's too late to reverse the effects.



diagrammatiks said:


> you’re looking at the past a little romantically





diagrammatiks said:


> Pc gaming is kinda fucked.


If anything I've said comes down to just changing tastes, it would be these parts, I think. 'Cause yeh, what's currently popular doesn't really line up with my tastes most of the time. At the same time though, I know that I'm not the only person whose tastes aren't being catered to, or who would prefer content that's closer to what we used to have. That was my point about the retro stuff before - not that it's an "everything current is terrible, and that's the reason retro stuff comes back" - just that I think at least some of the resurgence of "retro" tastes stems from a feeling that modern releases just sort of "aren't really for us" anymore. They don't appeal to the tastes of everyone. Not that they should, either. I didn't mean that point to be a complaint so much as an observation or speculation. Maybe it applies to a lot of people. Maybe it applies to just me, and/or a handful of others. I guess it didn't really fit the theme of the rest of the thread, so maybe I should have left it out.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 28, 2019)

I do also want to appreciate for a moment that as I get older, and as things move "into the cloud" in a technical sense, the "old man yelling at cloud" expression takes on a bit of a different meaning.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 28, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I think that's the first time I've heard that one. Most of the talk I hear about this kind of stuff is form the angle that it's an addiction, it's involuntary, and the games implementing this kind of thing are predatory, even if it's in a place you expect it to happen (free-to-play, mobile, etc).
> 
> 
> I don't know that I'm convinced that's the case - I mean, there's always an element of that - but I'm less concerned with "x game type has gone out of style", cause you're always gonna have that current bandwaggony thing that everyone jumps on. I'm more concerned with the structural shifts that make it less about what people want to play and more about how Apple, Google, and maybe Valve/Epic/MS can gouge everyone else.
> ...



Not everyone that plays violent games is a mass shooter. 

Not every gambler is a denegerate. 

If you can’t control yourself gaming that’s not the fault of the game. 

Magic the gathering and other collectible card games have been going strong for over 20 years now. 

There’s a wrong way and a right way to design a randomized system.

The ea/activision way is wrong and it’s wrongfully painting all these things a bad light. 

You don’t charge full price for a game and then gate content behind monetized loot boxes. 

A lot of it also depends on player tastes for sure. Japanese and Korean gamers love randomized draws. It’s been a part of their gaming culture for far longer then digital games have been a thing.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 28, 2019)

I'm not judging the gamer, I'm judging the implementation of those mechanics.

It's cool if you're into gambling, but the mechanics of the game don't discriminate between someone who understands, appreciates, and enjoys the gambling mechanic, and a 12 year old with their parents credit card who is oblivious to how the flashy animations, time gates, etc, are playing to his impulses that he doesn't understand yet, or the person who legitimately has a gambling problem. And the people making these things know this. They're making conscious decisions as to "how evil" they want or need to be with their mechanics.

Gambling is fine, in certain contexts. But not all gamers realize they are gambling. Not all gamers have that self control. And there's nothing keeping it in check, like how there are laws regarding more traditional types of gambling.


----------



## wankerness (Mar 28, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I think that's the first time I've heard that one. Most of the talk I hear about this kind of stuff is form the angle that it's an addiction, it's involuntary, and the games implementing this kind of thing are predatory, even if it's in a place you expect it to happen (free-to-play, mobile, etc).



My brother actually likes them as well, but he has the mental fortitude to NEVER have spent money on them. He enjoys the suspense/reward system of them if you get them through gameplay/mobile app stuff with FIFA. I don't really get it, but hey, whatever makes him happy. I think a substantial minority does NOT have this fortitude and also does not have the funds to be throwing them away on it and that it is absolutely predatory. Just because some people have the self-control to resist it or the disposable income to not be negatively impacted by throwing money at lootboxes doesn't mean it's not a system that should be treated like gambling.



TedEH said:


> I don't know that I'm convinced that's the case - I mean, there's always an element of that - but I'm less concerned with "x game type has gone out of style", cause you're always gonna have that current bandwaggony thing that everyone jumps on. I'm more concerned with the structural shifts that make it less about what people want to play and more about how Apple, Google, and maybe Valve/Epic/MS can gouge everyone else.
> 
> Lootboxes and free-to-play don't exist because it's what gamers want, it exists to provide a monetization structure in scenarios where people otherwise might not be willing to pay at all. I suspect (and granted I'm mostly talking out of my a** on this point) that it's mostly a response to how app stores destroyed the value of a unit sold. If every sale is only worth 99c, you can't recoup your dev costs with that anymore unless you get really lucky with a ton of sales on something that was cheap to make. Steam sales do the same thing.
> 
> App stores and Steam sales and so on make me worry that we're going to destroy the perceived monetary value of games the same way we did with music. There's already a set sentiment that "pre-ording is bad" and "just wait until Steam puts this on sale for like $3" and "mobile games aren't worth any more than 99c", etc. These new models are pushing us farther in that direction, I think. And it's the kind of change that you can't reverse. If it's not complained about _before_ it happens, then it'll just go on unimpeded until it's too late to reverse the effects.



I find it hilarious that you hate Jim Sterling, cause you guys often seem to be practically the same person! Maybe that's part of *why* you dislike him  He says the same stuff you do here and in your first paragraph regularly. In a recent video he outlined this in terms of past trends as well - basically, the monolithic game companies always chase these trends reactively, oversaturate the market, temporarily destroy the genre due to oversaturation, and then do the same thing when another game becomes wildly successful. MMORPGs were one of the main examples, those companies threw all their resources into trying to make WoW-killers and all of them bombed since there were already as many games of that style as the market could handle. Military shooters are another obvious example; after the big bust they've just still been able to sustain themselves in a more muted form through the new model coming out every year or two that everyone jumps to (mainly just COD and Battlefield now). 

He said huge companies/out-of-touch CEOs basically just don't seem to understand that gamers have a finite number of hours in the day. This was all his reaction to the obvious months of big game companies throwing around scads of money trying to just copy Fortnite/Loot shooters (ex Destiny, Borderlands)/Overwatch when people were already perfectly happy continuing to play those games and in no hurry to switch!! Surprisingly, Apex Legends has managed to get a foothold, but many others bombed, most recently and spectacularly Anthem. It's just a looping trend and always has been, big companies not even trying to innovate and instead trying to copy whatever's currently popular and always staying behind the trends. If EA and Activision weren't actively destroying the littler companies that used to make the alternative games/the ones that were becoming popular and starting these trends, then it would be fine as it's just history as usual.



> If anything I've said comes down to just changing tastes, it would be these parts, I think. 'Cause yeh, what's currently popular doesn't really line up with my tastes most of the time. At the same time though, I know that I'm not the only person whose tastes aren't being catered to, or who would prefer content that's closer to what we used to have. That was my point about the retro stuff before - not that it's an "everything current is terrible, and that's the reason retro stuff comes back" - just that I think at least some of the resurgence of "retro" tastes stems from a feeling that modern releases just sort of "aren't really for us" anymore. They don't appeal to the tastes of everyone. Not that they should, either. I didn't mean that point to be a complaint so much as an observation or speculation. Maybe it applies to a lot of people. Maybe it applies to just me, and/or a handful of others. I guess it didn't really fit the theme of the rest of the thread, so maybe I should have left it out.



I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are plenty of diamonds in the rough (and sometimes NOT so obscure, like apart from Nintendo, Nier: Automata and Horizon Zero Dawn and Yakuza 0 and The Last of Us were substantial hits) out there, and it always seems like your sweeping arguments about modern games not being for you operates from a myopic viewpoint of the biggest releases from the biggest companies when there's plenty of quasi-mainstream stuff that you'd probably really like. I don't know your tastes apart from "must be old," but I'm willing to bet that you would like SOMETHING. Unless wonky, illogical controls are part of it.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 28, 2019)

wankerness said:


> I find it hilarious that you hate Jim Sterling, cause you guys often seem to be practically the same person!


To be fair - my criticism of Jim Sterling (if I can remember what that was at the time) was not so much his message, but his delivery. I agree with a lot of what he says, but I don't like the way he delivers it sometimes.



wankerness said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are plenty of diamonds in the rough


Lol I do like _some_ new things. It's hard to escape the "man I liked things the way they were before though" mentality - and I do think a lot of modern single player designs are just plainly not as good as they used to be. The new Prey was good. Hellblade wasn't really my thing, but I think it was well executed. The Doom reboot was really good for what it is. Lots of indies still do cool things - Orwell was interesting, Minit was entertaining, Superhot was alright, Thumper is really cool. Thimbleweed Park was a nice return to oldschool stuff. It's obviously not ALL bad out there. Single player, especially if you're on a PC, I just think has a lot working against it currently.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 28, 2019)

Yikes. I don’t even think the government has any business legislating real gambling. 

Just because some people can’t grt their shit together the government should step in. Hard pass on that guys.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 28, 2019)

So just.... open up casinos to children then? I don't actually know what gambling laws really look like in most places, so no point in me going down that road, cause I wouldn't really know what I'm talking about.

But taking legality out of the question - there's still a problem of lack of transparency. Games don't want to _admit_ that what you're doing is gambling. Nor do they seem to have any interest in discussing how to implement those things responsibly - how to keep those mechanics around without it very clearly also targeting kids and addicts/"whales", etc. I mean that in the sense that I understand their necessity, but at the same time these practices are pretty predatory by design.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 28, 2019)

TedEH said:


> So just.... open up casinos to children then? I don't actually know what gambling laws really look like in most places, so no point in me going down that road, cause I wouldn't really know what I'm talking about.
> 
> But taking legality out of the question - there's still a problem of lack of transparency. Games don't want to _admit_ that what you're doing is gambling. Nor do they seem to have any interest in discussing how to implement those things responsibly - how to keep those mechanics around without it very clearly also targeting kids and addicts/"whales", etc. I mean that in the sense that I understand their necessity, but at the same time these practices are pretty predatory by design.



I don’t see how a child is going to be very good at gambling but sure why not. 

Kids - have parents and aren’t my responsibility. Parents can say no to their kids when walking through toys r us but get flabbergasted at a game. Ya ok. 

Adult addicts - you’re an adult. Not my responsibility. 

Whales - like to spend money. Seriously. Have you ever sat down and talked to one?

The other issue is that you are painting with some very broad strokes here. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this stuff. The implementation matters. Are there a lot of unsavory practices. Sure. But that doesn’t mean concept is wrong. 

People have been gambling for a long time. Just have fun with it.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 28, 2019)

It's very clear that we have very fundamentally different point of view on this.



diagrammatiks said:


> I don’t see how a child is going to be very good at gambling but sure why not.


Exactly. They _aren't_ good at it. They lack the skills to do so responsibly. That's a problem, given that they have access to games that use gambling-style mechanics. Sometimes those things are integrated into games that are targeted at kids. That's not a good thing.



diagrammatiks said:


> Not my responsibility.


I disagree with your implication that if you create a product, you have zero responsibility to consider the ways that ultimately you know it's going to be used. I am not a parent, they're not my kids, but I know very well that if I put a game out there, some number of vulnerable people will be exposed to it. I think that caries some responsibility with it.

Edit: Aren't you the guy who said you run a 30 person dev studio of some kind? Do you feel no responsibility for the way the products you create are used?



diagrammatiks said:


> Whales - like to spend money. Seriously. Have you ever sat down and talked to one?


I haven't personally, but I know there have been interviews with some of those people. I've heard stories of people saying that games addictions have caused them serious problems because of their gambling tendencies. I won't make any specific comment on it, but at some point I think it's worth reading up on it. When I have some time, I'll see if I can find those articles again.



diagrammatiks said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this stuff. The implementation matters. Are there a lot of unsavory practices. Sure. But that doesn’t mean concept is wrong.


I didn't say the concept was wrong. I _was_ saying that the implementation is what matters. So, I agree with you on that point.



diagrammatiks said:


> People have been gambling for a long time. Just have fun with it.


That's not a good argument for anything. People have been murdering eachother for a long time. Just have fun with it.


----------



## wankerness (Mar 28, 2019)

That kind of dystopian libertarian ideal world with no regulation and casinos open to children would result in tons of people with no self control when it comes to gambling starving themselves and their innocent families to death. Just have fun with it, indeed.

A substantial percentage of people are too dumb to look out for themselves, it's made blatantly obvious every day. The libertarian POV is "so what, let em die." Either that, or some kind of weird robot POV where they can't comprehend other people's brains working differently. "THAT WOULDN'T BE LOGICAL! DOES NOT COMPUTE!"


----------



## Demiurge (Mar 28, 2019)

Children casinos is absolutely disgusting. There are enough families dragging screaming brats around Vegas as it is.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 28, 2019)

If a child manages to get access to a phone (which is... pretty much every child now), and access to a payment method (which I'd like to say doesn't happen because all parents are wonderful, but that's clearly not true, lol), then app stores are kind of a child-casino-analog.

Obviously that's intentionally coming at it from a dark angle, but I think it illustrates why there's a need to be responsible about the products we put out there.


----------



## mongey (Mar 28, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> I don’t see how a child is going to be very good at gambling but sure why not.
> 
> Kids - have parents and aren’t my responsibility. Parents can say no to their kids when walking through toys r us but get flabbergasted at a game. Ya ok.
> 
> .



I'm guessing you don't have kids. while , as a parent , I agree totally on the parent thing there still needs to be controls and guidelines on what kids have access to ,even more so in this day and age where everything is accessible.

loot boxes are gambling and they are aiming it at kids .I don't think it should be banned but it should be reflected in the age rating of the game and only sold to adults


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 28, 2019)

mongey said:


> I'm guessing you don't have kids. while , as a parent , I agree totally on the parent thing there still needs to be controls and guidelines on what kids have access to ,even more so in this day and age where everything is accessible.
> 
> loot boxes are gambling and they are aiming it at kids .I don't think it should be banned but it should be reflected in the age rating of the game and only sold to adults



I have 2 kids. 

@TedEH 

No one is forced to buy or download my products. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## mongey (Mar 28, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> I have 2 kids.
> 
> @TedEH
> 
> No one is forced to buy or download my products. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.


fair enoigh 

each their own


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 28, 2019)

Speaking of digital card game that “does FTP well”. I’ve been playing eternal which is basically MTG but with hearthstone production values.

And it’s a phenomenal FTP model because they hand out so much free stuff all the time.

I sort of liked hearthstone but the over-simplicity really killed it compared to MTG. But frankly I’d never pay what MTG costs for fucking cardboard so I “can’t” play it.

Tried Shadowverse but it had too much going on while not feeling great to play. The over-the-top anime “weeb” factor also wasn’t my preference.

I miss MTG’s art though. So so good.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 29, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> No one is forced to buy or download my products. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.


Nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything. The problem is not who is _made_ to do thing, but who is going to be doing those things whether they should or should not be doing it- some of whom might not be well equipped to make that decision on their own. I mean, if your own kids are out doing their thing, do you provide zero safety mechanisms? Do you let them do just whatever they want because hey _I didn't force them to shoplift, so that's their problem_? Would you let your own kids gamble? Do you not want the products that you know your kids are going to get their hands on to have some level of protection against them doing potentially harmful things with it?

I have trouble believing, as good a parent as you might be, that you have 100% control of the content and products your kids interact with, so some amount of that safety net needs to be either baked in the products or the system that provides those products.



Mathemagician said:


> And it’s a phenomenal FTP model because they hand out so much free stuff all the time.


Could it be argued that this is just as much a tactic to keep you invested in the product? Not to say it's not a good model, but nothing is ever truly "free". If they can keep you playing, I would imagine that the bigger time investment makes a person more willing to make a financial investment.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 29, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything. The problem is not who is _made_ to do thing, but who is going to be doing those things whether they should or should not be doing it- some of whom might not be well equipped to make that decision on their own. I mean, if your own kids are out doing their thing, do you provide zero safety mechanisms? Do you let them do just whatever they want because hey _I didn't force them to shoplift, so that's their problem_? Would you let your own kids gamble? Do you not want the products that you know your kids are going to get their hands on to have some level of protection against them doing potentially harmful things with it?
> 
> I have trouble believing, as good a parent as you might be, that you have 100% control of the content and products your kids interact with, so some amount of that safety net needs to be either baked in the products or the system that provides those products.
> 
> ...



I’ve played mtg for years and I played more hands of poker then I can count. It would rather hypocritical of me to tell them not to gamble. 

I don’t understand your example at all. 

I teach my kids the difference between right and wrong. If they do the wrong thing either I or some other authority is going to punish them. 

Shop lifting is not equivalent to buying a lootbox man. Kids get an allowance. It’s their choice what to spend on. If they spend it all that’s it. It doesn’t matter if it’s a physical good or a digital one. 

Kids have parents. They aren’t just sitting there with an credit card and the App Store. 

How the hell does a kid download a game into their personal device which I control without my permission. I’m very confused how you think parenting works.


----------



## MFB (Mar 29, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> I’ve played mtg for years and I played more hands of poker then I can count. It would rather hypocritical of me to tell them not to gamble.
> 
> I don’t understand your example at all.
> 
> ...



Have you not read/listened to any news lately? Because I barely do, and I still manage to hear a story probably once a week (it feels like) where a kid has legitimately taken the parents credit card from their wallet/purse, gone and put the information into the app, and made dozens of purchases that can then rack up into the thousands of dollars. You might have a password on your phone to prevent them using it without your permission, but not everyone does, or maybe their kids know it in case they need to use it in an emergency. There's a million variables to all of these, that the end result has been "kid makes multiple purchases from mobile app, doesn't realize the real world ramifications of this, and no person who made the game will admit that the ability for this to happens is a _bit_ fucked up"

If you're not paying attention to your personal belongings, along with thinking your kid wouldn't do that, and suddenly he does? Well, why weren't you parenting? Parenting only works as well as the parents do/their upbringing has allowed for. This bypasses right and wrong and becomes a compulsion, an addiction, to the game and they'll do anything for it, because at this point they're not thinking with reason or logic, it's all emotion. 

Kids also only get an allowance if you set one up for them and they earn it, I don't know anyone - myself included - who just got FREE money from their parents for simply being their kid, that sounds insane?


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 29, 2019)

MFB said:


> Have you not read/listened to any news lately? Because I barely do, and I still manage to hear a story probably once a week (it feels like) where a kid has legitimately taken the parents credit card from their wallet/purse, gone and put the information into the app, and made dozens of purchases that can then rack up into the thousands of dollars. You might have a password on your phone to prevent them using it without your permission, but not everyone does, or maybe their kids know it in case they need to use it in an emergency. There's a million variables to all of these, that the end result has been "kid makes multiple purchases from mobile app, doesn't realize the real world ramifications of this, and no person who made the game will admit that the ability for this to happens is a _bit_ fucked up"
> 
> If you're not paying attention to your personal belongings, along with thinking your kid wouldn't do that, and suddenly he does? Well, why weren't you parenting? Parenting only works as well as the parents do/their upbringing has allowed for. This bypasses right and wrong and becomes a compulsion, an addiction, to the game and they'll do anything for it, because at this point they're not thinking with reason or logic, it's all emotion.
> 
> Kids also only get an allowance if you set one up for them and they earn it, I don't know anyone - myself included - who just got FREE money from their parents for simply being their kid, that sounds insane?



It’s like there’s no recourse when a kid somehow figures out how to enter your credit card information. Refunds and chargebacks exists to help you out when you can’t handle your own shit. 

A compulsion are you kidding. What do you think a parents job is. It’s my job and secondarily their educators job to teach my kids how to handle their emotions. Just because some people can’t handle their shit we need to regulate things that kids shouldn’t even have access to in the first place. No. Handle your own shit. 

Kids without an allowance don’t have any money and they can’t buy anything anyway. Let’s just assume that an allowance means you earned it somehow.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 29, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> It would rather hypocritical of me to tell them not to gamble.


I'm not going to touch that one.



diagrammatiks said:


> Kids have parents. They aren’t just sitting there with an credit card and the App Store.
> 
> How the hell does a kid download a game into their personal device which I control without my permission. I’m very confused how you think parenting works.


You're assuming all parents function the way you do. If you've got control of your kids like that, then good. You're doing the right thing, I guess.

That being said, the idea that all households work that way is incredibly far from true. A lot of parents are bad parents. A lot of parents are doing the best they can but get overwhelmed or don't have the capacity to police the content their kids are accessing all the time. You also have no control of what they're doing while they're away from you. When they're at school. When they're with friends. When they are under the watch of people who don't share your values.

There _are_ kids just sitting around with phones and credit cards having no idea what they are doing, and aren't having their device usage monitored. That's not me making up a hypothetical, it's fact. Refunding stupid mistakes make by kids happens a lot. I've done it. I've done it with games, I've done it when I worked in customer service for cell phones, etc.

Actually -> Being able to see the nonsense people get on their phone bills in order to provide customer service was a pretty big insight into the volume of dumb thing things people do, or the dumb things that people let their kids do, knowingly or otherwise. 

My point at the end of the day isn't that everyone is a garbage parent -> But that not everyone is good at it either, and we can't just shrug off the responsibility of how the products were make are inevitably going to end up in the hands of people who are incredibly vulnerable.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 29, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> Refunds and chargebacks exists to help you out when you can’t handle your own shit.


Ok, then lets try looking at that from a business perspective then. The framework needed to provide the customer service and accommodate those refunds cost you more money than if you hadn't avoided the mistaken purchases in the first place.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 29, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I'm not going to touch that one.
> 
> 
> You're assuming all parents function the way you do. If you've got control of your kids like that, then good. You're doing the right thing, I guess.
> ...



The point is that there’s a already recourse for things like stolen credit cards and accidental purchases. 

In fact those protections are way better then anything you’d get for a real life cash purchase. Your kid steals 20 bucks to buy some Oreos. Good luck with that. 

The problem is that you think that these systems are inherently evil. But they aren’t. I agree with you that a lot of games that use these mechanics are just crap. But that’s because they are implemented in a way that aren’t fun. That doesn’t mean that the entire system is flawed. They can be designed in a way that is fun for their target audenience. 

Everything outside of that is still not my responsibility.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 29, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> The problem is that you think that these systems are inherently evil. But they aren’t.


They are knowingly exploitative. They are designed to be addictive. Some are more or less than others. Occasionally there are conscious decisions made as to "how exploitative do we want this system to be?" It's not that the idea of all free to play mechanics are evil, but I think it needs to be responsibly implemented, and that we need to be mindful of who we're targeting, and be transparent about that fact that is _is gambling_ in the first place.

Let it be ultimately the responsibility of the end user? Sure. But give them the tools to make that decision. Don't market addictive mechanics to kids. Don't mask the gambling analogy.


----------



## wankerness (Mar 29, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> It’s like there’s no recourse when a kid somehow figures out how to enter your credit card information. Refunds and chargebacks exists to help you out when you can’t handle your own shit.



It's far more of a drain on our system than if they'd been blocked from the damn thing in the first place. That just shoves the waste of time and money to other parties.


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 29, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Could it be argued that this is just as much a tactic to keep you invested in the product? Not to say it's not a good model, but nothing is ever truly "free". If they can keep you playing, I would imagine that the bigger time investment makes a person more willing to make a financial investment.



I mean that’s exactly what it is though. The general point being the “cost” of cards in terms of this game. Have time? Grind until you can build them with in game money or buy packs with in game money. Only have time for like 1 game a day? Here’s a pack for your first win, for your first 3 wins, oh you lose most of the time here’s a pack for playing for a while. 

$10 buys you a “story arc” which unlocks certain cards automatically just for beating it. So if you don’t want the cards you don’t buy the “story set” to unlock it. 

The point being that someone with nothing but time could grind it all and you can buy packs at any time. Just like other digital card games. However they throw in lots of freebies to help you work towards building your collection where in day Hearthstone it honestly feels like you’re punished for not spending enough money fast enough. I’m bad an want to play bad people and Hearthstone throws me against people with decks I’ll never grind for and it’s a game i altogether find more shallow. 

My primary point being “here’s a fun FTP game that if you put money into you wouldn’t feel guilty about”. 

Similar to Warframe. I put 200+ Hours into that game in a matter of months. I happily spent $50 on some prime cosmetics. It was entirely my choice and the game was fucking dope without it. But I’ve spent $50 for a crap movie trip before so bravo to the devs.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 29, 2019)

That sounds reasonable.



Mathemagician said:


> I put 200+ Hours into that game in a matter of months. I happily spent $50 on some prime cosmetics.


In a roundabout way, that sounds like the end result is pretty close to what you'd get for a standard not- ftp kind of game. In my mind that's ideal as far as the end result for every party.

I wonder how much value there would be in bringing back the concept of game demos. One of the arguments in favour of ftp (and piracy, for that matter) is the lack of being able to try something before having the shell out money up front. I know some games have brought out demos recently - and I wonder what the impact of that was. Maybe demos are relevant again.


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 29, 2019)

A demo can work for single player games. But for like Apex or Fortnite it’s better for the gameplaying population to “give it away for free” then charge for things people will pay for - unique skins and the like.

CoD’s Quadruple-dipping sucks, but people still want to play COD so they pay for it. Other games need to find ways to get to that audience without similarly asking for $60 up front. Hence they go FTP to hopefully get inflows $5-10+ at a time.

And yeah Warframe gave me a fun game so I gave them money. Win/Win. Had it been crap I would have uninstalled and moved on. 

Not all FTP games work that way obviously.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 29, 2019)

Mathemagician said:


> CoD’s Quadruple-dipping sucks


I'm not actually super familiar with CoD's model -> I assume this is upfront cost + DLC + in-app purchases + ...?

I'm really not a fan of in-app purchases being tacked onto something you've already paid upfront for. DLC has some ground to stand on, but outside of that I think it becomes much harder to justify.


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 29, 2019)

Up front, season pass, individual purchases, and I believe there was talk of adding lootboxes but that may not have happened as I quit playing.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 5, 2019)

If anyone still cares about my nonsense ramblings about games, this video that came out sort of sums up a bunch of my originally intended thoughts in a better way than I was able to put it:



Edit: 
On a positive note, I read somewhere this morning that Microsoft is backing away from the software as a service thing a little bit with their updates - which isn't games related, per-se, but it's a step in the right direction overall. It's all software at the end of the day.


----------



## wankerness (Apr 5, 2019)

Ah, Movie Bob. I don't get the point of the 8-bit video aesthetics on himself in those.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 5, 2019)

TedEH said:


> If anyone still cares about my nonsense ramblings about games, this video that came out sort of sums up a bunch of my originally intended thoughts in a better way than I was able to put it:
> 
> On a positive note, I read somewhere this morning that Microsoft is backing away from the software as a service thing a little bit with their updates - which isn't games related, per-se, but it's a step in the right direction overall. It's all software at the end of the day.



I care deeply, Ted! I just didn't find this thread until it was already pages long 
That's great news from Microsoft. Actually, MS has been really impressing me in general lately. I think they may have realized their public image was seriously threatened and had some kind of reality check, because the news coming from the M$ camp over the last year or so has been pretty decent. This whole 'as a service' approach needs to disappear in general, though. It's incredibly anti-consumer and a while different level of irritating. 

Such a shame. The original idea behind DLC was so pure and had so much potential; it legitimately depresses me when I think about how it got abused and mutated into this hideous amalgamation that is the current distribution model seen from most publishers.


----------



## Mathemagician (Apr 5, 2019)

-on Microsoft pulling back from SaS somewhat:

I’m not paying $10/mo+ for office. Microsoft can fuck themselves. I need a sale/discount on their $150+ “all in” price. But it’s always a 1yr discount on their subscription service. Sell me excel. I’m not subscribing to it.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 5, 2019)

Lol I'm not buying it either. At this point there are enough free productivity / office tools out there as sticking to MS products for it doesn't make sense to me unless there's a very specific requirement for some reason. And even then....


----------



## Mathemagician (Apr 5, 2019)

I use it for work. At home I use google whatever for simple budgets/etc.


----------



## wankerness (Apr 5, 2019)

Excel's necessary if you do any work with queries from databases. The interface and capability is also very superior to what it seems everyone's switching to, Google Sheets. I also can't deal with using Google Docs over Word, there are way too many inflexibilities with formatting, both page and text-wise. Open Office was nowhere close to as good as Word/Excel the last I used it. I haven't messed around with Pages or Numbers on the Mac too much.

Google's just nice if you want things easily accessible in multiple places without having anything installed and formatting's not very important. I use it for collaboration plenty.

PS - I still love some DLC. Some of my favorite content of all time is DLC. The one that sticks out the most may be the REAL ending of Mass Effect 3, that silly party DLC.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 8, 2019)

Another thing that I don't understand is that...there's already like a half dozen versions of office out there already that you can just buy.
What feature do they hope to add that's going to be good enough that I want to drop the software -that I own- to subscribe to _office_? I mean christ, the 2003 revision is still good enough for 80% of people.



wankerness said:


> PS - I still love some DLC. Some of my favorite content of all time is DLC. The one that sticks out the most may be the REAL ending of Mass Effect 3, that silly party DLC.



DLC -_*as it was originally intended*_- was god's gift to gaming. And the DLC that you see that was built with that kind of mindset really reflects that (Blood & Wine for The Witcher, for example). The problem is when DLC is used to nickel and dime the customer, and when it's planned out right from the gate. Case in point (IMO) was Destiny. The original Destiny beta had major content from the first 2 or 3 expansions _playable. In the *beta*. _So when the game launches and that content isn't there, I assume it's cut. Then when it comes back, but I'm getting billed for it? I'm upset. Just the wrong attitude.

And don't get it twisted, I get that content needs to be play-tested and post-launch support is great- but I have an issue when it's ready at launch and isn't included at launch. DLC always seemed like it should be more of a "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did this?" "Oh yeah that'd be sick. We should do that." then a couple years after release you get this huge DLC update with a hefty price tag that fans of the game would be over the moon for. I'd spent $40 for another NieR Automata storyline DLC in a fraction of a second, you couldn't stop me from throwing my money at the monitor.

Piecemeal DLC is also still great if it's done correctly. Rock Band 2 (and I'm sure the later titles as well) did it perfectly, if you want to play a song that's not in the game, just buy it. It was only like $1.50 per song. Outstanding deal, major value-add to the game. But when it's pay-to-win garbage or circumventing some insane timegate, or when core features of the game (or when you can clearly tell an entire part of the game was designed with DLC in mind) are locked behind "optional DLC," when each piece pushes you into the next piece for more profit while each piece has little substance on it's own, all of that stuff turned me off of gaming so hard that I more or less gave up on a hobby I was heavily invested in for almost 2 decades.

Just bums me out dude. Cause like you said, some of my favorite moments in gaming were from early DLC additions.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 8, 2019)

I think the line between DLC as legit extra stuff vs. a piece of the game strategically chopped out so you can charge for more for it has always been a bit blurry. Consider from the point of view of production, sometimes you need to know what your DLC is going to be before you main game is out in order to do it in a reasonable time, or to have it actually fit with the main game, but that makes it hard to argue that it couldn't have been part of the core game from the beginning.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 8, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I think the line between DLC as legit extra stuff vs. a piece of the game strategically chopped out so you can charge for more for it has always been a bit blurry. Consider from the point of view of production, sometimes you need to know what your DLC is going to be before you main game is out in order to do it in a reasonable time, or to have it actually fit with the main game, *but that makes it hard to argue that it couldn't have been part of the core game from the beginning*.



Exactly.
I mean, some people are always going to have stronger or weaker opinions on certain issues than others, but this is one I fall very firmly on where I think if you're actively thinking about DLC during development time, you're doing it wrong. And god help you if you ship on-disc DLC because your soul is long gone.

That definitely makes it tricky when doubled with the scale the extra piece has to be in order for it to be 'worth it,' for sure. But yeah, I think if we're planning things out in 2014, I pitch Campaign X and everyone is on board, we're in development until 2018, the game launches in 2019, and Campaign X isn't playable until 2020, we fucked up. Fiscally no, we definitely made money- and PR-wise also no, because this stuff is acceptable for some reason- but ethically, I think in that scenario we made a mistake.

I don't know about you guys but I think back on my favorite games and they were all amazingly large and complete for their time (and usually...before DLC / during the first wave of DLC implementation). Final Fantasy X is unchallenged as my favorite game of all time and I sunk over 200 hours into that game before I was confident enough to call it complete. Every system was complete or felt meaningful. Compare to its modern equivalent in Final Fantasy XV, and in my 30-hour playthrough I felt disconnected from the characters (due to their stories not being fleshed out until the DLC dropped), uninterested in the extra systems of the game (since they were either non-impactful, time/reward balance was off, disconnected from the plot, or there was no impetus to do so other than to 'complete them), felt more on-rails than I did in FFX (which is humorous since FFXV is an 'open world' game and one of FFX's most common criticisms was that it was a hallway simulator), and my satisfaction from the ending was less in the resolution of the plot and more in the knowledge that I had finished it. I understand FFXV went through development hell and may be a bad example in the case, but I think the point still stands.

But I'm also that guy that is 100% okay with waiting 8 years for a new installment in a series that I'm a fan of as long as all of that development time is reflected in scale, quality, and honestly price. I'd have no issue paying more for a game that shipped "complete," (I actually bought NieR Automata twice for this reason). The current state of DLC and microtransactions just leaves guys like me feeling like we're viewed less as fans and more as walking wallets. Seriously, I'd rather pay $100 on launch day for a game that took 6 years to develop than $80 spread throughout a year on a game that took 4 years to develop, as would _*literally every other person I know*_. Continuing with Final Fantasy, everyone is joking that the FFVII remake isn't coming out until 2025 and honestly, I'd be fine with Square taking extra years to develop that game as long as the delivered product is quality. Low-key, I _hope _the game isn't out until like 2025 or something like that.

tl;dr I think DLC should have been more along the lines of a gaming 'passion project,' a way to extend the lifespan of a game for it's devoted fans. It'd be ideas some of the devs were really excited about but didn't get included on disc, and likely be released noticeably after the initial 'wave' of players had already finished the game. The people that were serious fans of the game would purchase the content and get the double bonus of being able to enjoy this game that they liked for that much longer, and see new content/storylines. Unfortunately though....this approach doesn't print money.


----------



## wankerness (Apr 8, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Another thing that I don't understand is that...there's already like a half dozen versions of office out there already that you can just buy.
> What feature do they hope to add that's going to be good enough that I want to drop the software -that I own- to subscribe to _office_? I mean christ, the 2003 revision is still good enough for 80% of people.
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, Witcher 3's two expansions are fantastic examples and are relatively new. I'd argue some of the content for the Assassin's Creed games has also been great. Far Cry Blood Dragon, Bioshock Infinite Burial At Sea, HZD - Frozen Wilds, etc.

And yeah, Nier Automata I love so much I bought that moronic arena DLC for it.  It isn't surprising, though, considering how definitive the ending of that game is. I did still get a huge kick out of fighting the CEO or director or whoever those guys were.

I forgot about Rock Band 2 dlc - that was SO great. I bought probably hundreds of dollars' worth. Everything from Meshuggah - Bleed to the entirety of No Doubt's Tragic Kingdom to Dream Theater songs came out for it.

The first DLC I remember hearing about that was laughed at was the infamous "HORSE ARMOR" in Oblivion, but that was just so dumb that no one took it as a dire warning of the future or anything. The actual DLC for that game was quite good, I think I heard. 

The first real controversy with DLC that I remember clearly was Mass Effect 3, which had launch DLC that was an additional character along with long recruitment missions. Everyone said "this was clearly hacked out of the game for additional money-making," which might be true, though the character really has no relevance to the main plot, so who knows. They kind of redeemed themselves with the later DLC being much better. I think ME2's "Shadow Broker" usually gets the most props for Bioware DLC, though. The DA2 and Inquisition stuff was mostly pretty good as well.

But yes, EA and Activision have rightly gotten tons of hate over the year. It's kind of a franchise-by-franchise basis, I think, but amazing events like re-releasing COD4 and then charging for its original DLC the same way it was originally charged for was egregious and I think is the kind of think that sticks in peoples' mind when they think DLC.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 8, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think if you're actively thinking about DLC during development time, you're doing it wrong


I get where this is coming from, but I don't agree at face value. From a production standpoint, it's not practical to push that so far out. I tend to think of it more such that a game should be able to stand on it's own without that extra content - in a sense, if the DLC never happens, the experience shouldn't feel incomplete because of it. It makes sense to be prepared for what the DLC is going to be though - especially if the core of the game needs to be made to support it in some way.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 8, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I get where this is coming from, but I don't agree at face value. From a production standpoint, it's not practical to push that so far out. I tend to think of it more such that a game should be able to stand on it's own without that extra content - *in a sense, if the DLC never happens, the experience shouldn't feel incomplete because of it*. It makes sense to be prepared for what the DLC is going to be though - especially if the core of the game needs to be made to support it in some way.



I'd say this is also a fair summation.
I know lead time for that is insane. There's a ton of work that goes into that that all takes time. I never really got too into working on games, but I did do _some _software development, so I *kind of *understand the development cycle that's working here and how vast it actually is. The bit I dislike is like the example I provided, where the game ships with the DLC already being 95% functional, tested, and...ready. There was no reason for that, that was transparent profiteering. 

That brings me to the bolded line. Not only is this true, but there's an additional bit that I think is also important: *"nor should the game feel cheapened by the existence of the DLC."*
This is gunna be one that's hard to describe but I can kind of hope that you guys just *get *what I mean. Circling back to FFXV, the core game feels cheapened by the existence of all of the other DLC chapters. You could say "_Oh, well just buy the Royal Edition / GOTY / Complete / whatever edition. That comes with everything!" _But I already bought the game. I already bought, _*and played*_, the game. So now, if I want to really see the authentic experience, I _*need*_ to pay. I essentially paid $60 for an ultra-extended demo. 

This isn't limited to just story expansion either, because that can somewhat easily be wrapped up in the 'shouldn't feel incomplete' bit. 
There's instances like _Call of Duty_ or _Halo_, where they launch map packs. Guess what dude, your $60 game is only going to be functionally relevant to the vast majority for the first 3 months following it's release, because after that there's going to be DLC. If you don't want to pay for the DLC after those 3 months are up, have fun waiting 4 times as long for a game. Have fun playing with your other friends that _*did *_buy the DLC, too. Games like Smash did this the best where if you don't want to buy a fighter, your experience isn't lessened from where it was before and you don't feel like you're missing out. You can still play *against *that fighter. You just can't play *as *them. 

Hopefully that makes sense. I think we're actually pretty close on this one.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 8, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> nor should the game feel cheapened by the existence of the DLC.





Ordacleaphobia said:


> Hopefully that makes sense.


I think that really is the core of it. Charging to unlock something on that's already on a disk you own feels like you've been had. A lot of DLC is created/sold in such a way that feels like a way to gouge your existing customers, as opposed to augmenting a product that stands on its own.

Even something like unlocking fighters in a fighting game kind of rubs me the wrong way a bit. Cause those fighters are... kind of the point of the game? At the same time, I'm not sure what else there is in a game like that to monetize outside of the maps and player. I suppose it boils down, again, to whether or not it feels like they were added on vs. stripped out of an otherwise complete product.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 8, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I think that really is the core of it. Charging to unlock something on that's already on a disk you own feels like you've been had. A lot of DLC is created/sold in such a way that feels like a way to gouge your existing customers, as opposed to augmenting a product that stands on its own.
> 
> Even something like unlocking fighters in a fighting game kind of rubs me the wrong way a bit. Cause those fighters are... kind of the point of the game? At the same time, I'm not sure what else there is in a game like that to monetize outside of the maps and player. I suppose it boils down, again, to whether or not it feels like they were added on vs. stripped out of an otherwise complete product.



I think it comes down to the spirit in which it's done, and whether it feels like a way to gouge existing customers, or augmenting a pre-existing product like you say.
Smash gets away with it because the whole game feels like a love letter to the fans, and you can tell that there's a never-ending pile of stuff they want to put into the game that this stuff literally just spilled over and rather than cut it, they want to put it in- but later.

If a different game tries the same model with only say, 12 fighters and 6 stages, it has a different impact. It's touchy. The funny part is that I don't think it'd be anywhere near as touchy if the system wasn't as abused as it is, lol. Even as a mega-cynic, 10 years ago I would have let them get away with a lot more than I would now just because of how sensitive I am to it these days.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 8, 2019)

Maybe to me, Nintendo doing it makes it sort of "feel worse". In my head, Nintendo is where you go for a game being a single one-time purchase for a complete package and that's it. Obviously, that's nostalgia talking, but still. Seeing characters as paid DLC in Smash makes me think "no, Nintendo, not you too. "


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 8, 2019)

Haha well that's fair- tough to argue with that.
At least it seems like people are starting to get fed up with the more predatory practices. I've seen more consumer outcry in this past year than previous, hopefully things change soon. In the meantime, the classics aren't going anywhere. I should play through FFX again. It's been a couple years.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 8, 2019)

As far as Games/software-as-a-service, I think it's a good idea to have it as an option, but I don't like it being the only option. Sometimes I know that I'm only going to get a limited amount of usage out of a game or piece of software, so in those cases I'm perfectly amenable to paying a subscription fee to have limited time access. Other times I know that I'm going to want to be able to use/play it for a long time, and when that's the case, I want to be able to buy it full-stop and be done with it. If I had to choose one over the other though, I would prefer ownership rather than as-a-service.

The main reason why a lot of publishers are going with the service approach is clear: profit. Especially from long-term users, it guarantees a steadier stream of income. The other relevant issue is piracy. If someone only has limited need of a piece of software, they're more likely to simply pay for it if they can license it short-term for $20/month instead of paying $700 for it. I think the company that really started to popularize this model is Adobe, and it's pretty clear why. For years and years, Photoshop was one of the most pirated software titles out there. It didn't matter that Adobe offered lite versions such as Elements for much less money, because people are wired to want the best, and they're not content to pay for a stripped down version simply because that's what they can afford. Now, I'd bet money that even current iterations of Photoshop are still being pirated, because the fact is there are people out there who will _never_ pay for it, mainly people such as teenagers who want to learn how to create Photoshop art but would have a very difficult time coming up with $700+ to spend on the software because a) they have other things they need to spend/save on and b) because they're simply too young and inexperienced to reconcile the cost of the software compared to their head-view of what they think it's worth. However, I'd also bet that the subscription model does capture more revenue that they would have otherwise never received. I don't like it, but Adobe has stuck to this model despite the pushback for years now, so it's not likely to ever go back. I also still have my old copy of Photoshop from when I was in high school (I did some web development for them when I was in grade 12. They actually bought me a full copy for myself. I didn't realize until after I had graduated how incredibly weird that was.). It's ancient, as in version 7, pre-CS, but miraculously it actually still works. While it's missing some current features that have been out for well over a decade at this point (such as snapping text to a line), I don't do nearly as much photo editing or PS art as I once did, so it doesn't bother me all that much.

DLC is really dependent on the value proposition, ultimately. What we call DLC now is simply expanding on the paradigm of the expansion packs of yore. If it's a quality addition to the base game, I have no problem spending money on it. When I have issue with it is when the value is clearly poor, or when it's on-disc DLC that has no justifiable business demanding a surcharge.

There was a point in time where I believed that if a person couldn't handle their addiction to gambling, that person should be left to their own devices. That time has long since passed. Not only because these people oftentimes don't realize that they have a problem, but also because they're not the only ones who suffer for it. This is compounded by the fact that ours are really the first generations that are being "sold" games on an F2P basis, as well as free services from sites like Facebook. In the past, even when people paid for something, it was still treated as a vehicle for them to be advertised to, such as cable television and magazines. Instead of taking our money, now video game publishers and other large tech companies are offering their wares in exchange for our personal information, then effectively double-dip by commanding money for in-game luxuries such as skins. By lowering the barrier for entry and then getting people addicted before they start asking for money, they've come up with a far more insidious and effective way of monetizing our time.

When it comes to things that are marketed to children, this is unacceptable. Say what you want about it being the responsibility of the parent, blah blah blah. The fact is that a) a parent is not the only influence in a child's life, b) even generally good children will disobey good parents, and c) the brains of children are still developing right up until their twenties. It's basically smoking all over again. The minimum age for smoking (in Canada the law is that you can't sell tobacco products to a minor, not necessarily that it's illegal for them to use them, unlike alcohol) has been 18 for over 30 years, and yet teens still smoke. More importantly, tobacco producers managed to skirt around laws making it illegal to market to minors by advertising in ways that made smoking seem cool in general. They realized that they could make their product desirable for a demographic that they weren't legally market to without having to target them directly, and they're not the only ones. Pay day loan companies were pulling exactly the same shit up until even more recently by using colorful, cartoonish mascots, and now video game publishers are doing the same thing with the added benefit that not only is their product not associated with a massive social stigma like smoking, it's actually popular on its own. It's predatory exploitation, plain and simple, of a demographic that not only wouldn't know better, but also shouldn't have to, because, and I can't say this strongly enough, _*they're children*_.

When I was in grade 11, I read a story in the newspaper about how a girl around a year younger than me had recently been recovered from forced prostitution. Then in grade 12, I formed a short-lived band with some friends. As it turned out, the drummer was actually a friend of hers and had actually dated her until shortly before it all happened. As it turned out, she had been lured into a limo by what she thought were college girls who were going to party. The entire thing was a setup. She was kidnapped and driven hundreds of kilometers away and forced to work as a sex worker (now that I think about it, it's actually basically the setup from Taken, but this happened years before that movie was released, and also there was no Liam Neeson). She actually ended up getting really lucky, because a man who solicited her ended up actually taking pity on her, helped her escape her pimp and paid for her to return home. This girl wasn't stupid. She was just a teenager, was specifically targeted, didn't have the experience to recognize the situation for what it was, and was exploited in a horrific way as a result.

If you have a problem with this, but don't have a problem with children being exploited for profit by game publishers who knowingly target them using finely tuned psychological conditioning, then you need to re-evaluate your priorities, because make no mistake, this kind of conditioning can destroy someone's life just as effectively.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 9, 2019)

Xaios said:


> piracy


That's one area where I'll give the as-a-service model its credit - piracy is a tough nut to crack. As I get older, it gets harder and harder to justify any kind of piracy anymore (that, and working in a field that produces things that get pirated frequently). I've reached a point where there isn't personally an excuse anymore. I'm not in a position of lacking the means to spend on entertainment products, and I know a lot of people who _do_ still pirate aren't doing so because they're broke. If it's not worth paying for, then I have no right to it. Obviously, not everyone shares that view - so inevitably it's incredibly difficult to keep products out of the hands of people who have no rights to them. Products like Steam are, IMO, great as anti-piracy measures. If your service is more friendly and convenient than the alternative, that's a step in the right direction in terms of rights management, IMO. I'd personally really like it if there was a Steam for old Nintendo ROMS - but much more complete than what Nintendo already offers. 



Xaios said:


> If someone only has limited need of a piece of software, they're more likely to simply pay for it if they can license it short-term for $20/month instead of paying $700 for it.


Can confirm - whenever I need video editing software, I'll pay for a short time with premier or after effects just cause the free alternatives such so much in comparison. I would never pay $700 for a video editing program though.



Xaios said:


> too young and inexperienced to reconcile the cost of the software compared to their head-view of what they think it's worth


Sometimes it's not just the perception of that worth, but what the value of that software really is in certain contexts. I'm well aware of the cost of creating and maintaining software, but at the same time, I can't justify paying hundreds of dollars for one program. Someone in a professional context might be willing to pay it because it's necessary for them to be able to work, but it's not worth that to the average person, not by a long shot. I'd argue that Adobe's piracy problem was, at least in part, a result of their pricing model. I would still prefer to own a program outright - and I really hate the idea of paying for a program and then _losing_ access to it later, but when you need it you need it. I would pay for the subscription before considering "alternatives". But I would never, as an individual, pay $700 for premier or photoshop or something. If the options are $700 or "...find another way", I'm going to find another way every time.



Xaios said:


> gambling


I can't disagree with anything you said about gambling. The biggest thing that bothers me about it is how self-aware companies are about it. And how much effort goes into masking what is really going on. And the refusal to outright call it gambling when that's what it is.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 10, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Sometimes it's not just the perception of that worth, but what the value of that software really is in certain contexts. I'm well aware of the cost of creating and maintaining software, but at the same time, I can't justify paying hundreds of dollars for one program. Someone in a professional context might be willing to pay it because it's necessary for them to be able to work, but it's not worth that to the average person, not by a long shot. I'd argue that Adobe's piracy problem was, at least in part, a result of their pricing model. I would still prefer to own a program outright - and I really hate the idea of paying for a program and then _losing_ access to it later, but when you need it you need it. I would pay for the subscription before considering "alternatives". But I would never, as an individual, pay $700 for premier or photoshop or something. If the options are $700 or "...find another way", I'm going to find another way every time.



Yeah, pretty much.
I remember when my mother wanted to get into web design in like the early~mid 2000s she straight up paid the ~$2,000 for the Adobe creative suite. I was a kid at the time so I knew it was a crazy amount of money but I didn't really "get" what it was for yet.

By the time I was a teenager and making alternative album covers for records who's art I disliked and stuff I pirated the absolute shit out of Photoshop CS4 though, no regrets. Because my first instinct was to pull up Adobe's site to try and get my mom to buy it for me and imagine my 14 year old shock when I saw that 4 figure price tag 
So that was when she told me about how she bought the suite years ago and it all clicked. The nail in the coffin though was that we couldn't use that software she spent thousands of dollars on. It only had a limited number of activations, so it was just a dead disk.

So I pirated it. With conviction. My logic was that it's that expensive because people make it their careers, and since I'm just using it once every other month or so on a dumb personal project, that didn't apply to me (lmaoooo). Plus we already "bought" it before.

Of course, I didn't know this then, but turns out Adobe was more or less "okay" with that line of thinking at the time.
I have firsthand knowledge that their older pricing model was done specifically to account for piracy, even with the knowledge that the inflated price would lead to more piracy. Because Adobe knows that any professional / enterprise use of it's software HAS TO HAS TO HAS TO be licensed. And since it's designed as enterprise software (that's just really really fun for normal people to screw around with), they knew if they leveraged the license fee properly they could ignore piracy and still turn a reliable profit.

I don't really talk with the people I knew at Adobe anymore, but I would imagine that the pivot to a newer pricing model is because as the web expanded and people in general became more computer-savvy they likely realized that they could make even more money by netting in more casual users as paying customers as well.

This is also likely why stuff like WinRAR lets you get away with ignoring the "For real, you need to buy a license!" prompts (actually, I think WinRAR in particular actually confirmed this too). They know the average user doesn't care and would likely just pirate the program to get around the prompt. But businesses will buy a license 100% of the time.

Software piracy and prevention is honestly fascinating. I love reading about this stuff.



> I can't disagree with anything you said about gambling. The biggest thing that bothers me about it is how self-aware companies are about it. And how much effort goes into masking what is really going on. And the refusal to outright call it gambling when that's what it is.



This...though...is not fascinating. The fact that EA's response to _-a literal country_- flagging their ridiculous lootboxes as gambling and regulating them as such is to publish a statement that is just the CEO equivalent of "nuh-uh" is an embarrassment to the entire industry. Blatant, blatant exploitative profiteering. The fact that they all across the board also straight up *refuse *to publish odds unless it's *literally *a legal requirement in that jurisdiction is also a complete and utter joke. Makes me sick.


----------



## MFB (Apr 12, 2019)

In today's edition of #NotMyGamesAsAService, here comes EA

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...ame-that-well-never-get-to-play/#68d7cff44941



> _Unlike Joplin, this new version of the fourth Dragon Age is planned with a live service component, built for long-term gameplay and revenue._


----------



## TedEH (Apr 12, 2019)

They've had a number of articles on that site lately about the "Potential Dystopian Future of AAA Games", as they've put it, and while it's a bit exaggerated, I can't bring myself to disagree with any of it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...-the-potential-dystopian-future-of-aaa-games/


----------



## wankerness (Apr 12, 2019)

MFB said:


> In today's edition of #NotMyGamesAsAService, here comes EA
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...ame-that-well-never-get-to-play/#68d7cff44941



Here's the actual article instead of a summary on a site that really wants you to pay for a subscription: https://kotaku.com/the-past-and-present-of-dragon-age-4-1833913351

TLDR: DA4 was going to be good and self-contained until EA told them to start over again on a shittier engine and with an emphasis on "live services." I still don't really even get what that MEANS with single player games. Like, what's the difference between a single player game that gets DLC later (ie, all the mass effect games and DA games to date) and a single player game that's a "live service?" Is it purely that there's a calendar for the DLC?


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Apr 12, 2019)

"this new version of the fourth Dragon Age is planned with a live service component, built for long-term gameplay and revenue."



That article was a depressing read. I hate reading about cancelled games that had so much potential.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 12, 2019)

wankerness said:


> Like, what's the difference between a single player game that gets DLC later (ie, all the mass effect games and DA games to date) and a single player game that's a "live service?"


DLC is not really the same as "a live service". DLC is just that... DLC. A live service could mean any number of things - constant content changes, maybe saves that persist in the cloud or something, passes and lootboxes and things to provide an "economy" around the game could be called a live service, etc. Things that take an offline experience and force you to stay connected so that they can monetize your time usually fit into that box.


----------



## wankerness (Apr 12, 2019)

TedEH said:


> DLC is not really the same as "a live service". DLC is just that... DLC. A live service could mean any number of things - constant content changes, maybe saves that persist in the cloud or something, passes and lootboxes and things to provide an "economy" around the game could be called a live service, etc. Things that take an offline experience and force you to stay connected so that they can monetize your time usually fit into that box.



AFAIK cloud saving is tied to platform and can't be linked to a certain game, except I guess cross-platform saving?

What's the difference between season passes and DLC? Just that it's a different way of selling the exact same thing that is more likely to get people to buy it since it tricks them into thinking that it will all be worth getting and thus you'll be saving money upfront? Or is it a "live service" because if you buy it that keeps you following the news? I really just don't get how a single player game described as a "live service" is *necessarily* different from any previous single player games with DLC. Like, this term didn't exist way back when Bioshock Infinite had a "season pass." (that's the oldest game I can recall seeing one for) They just called it DLC! Future DLC.  Is this just an industry buzzword that's been created to describe something that's existed for several years and has a nebulous definition but is used by all the out-of-touch execs to hype things up to shareholders?

Microtransactions on single player games confuse me, too. Like, those are obviously a bad thing and I don't think I've been tricked into buying one since ME3. But, how do they make something a "live service?" Just if they change offerings over time to keep people checking back?

"Things that take an offline experience and force you to stay connected so that they can monetize your time usually fit into that box."

This just...seems so nebulous. Like, how exactly is your time being monetized if you bought a single player game with a season pass and never buy anything further? What was the difference between what you bought and any other game with DLC, other than you bought it all upfront? Ex, I did that with Spider-Man, AC: Odyssey, Bioshock Infinite, and...that might be it. I bought DLC piecemeal or GOTY editions for tons of games over the last decade or more but no one ever told me I was a victim of live services till now.

Diablo 3 forces you to stay online, but has no microtransactions. It has free updates for new "seasons" that I think let you build new characters to get unique gear for a limited window. This sounds like a "live service," but how is time being monetized?

This whole concept confuses me. I'd be curious for some hard examples of things that are "live services" that aren't just the same things as the last 10 years with a new fancy label.

I definitely see how it is with like, EA's big sports franchises cause there's constant pushes for microtransactions that aren't purely cosmetic crap that's useless once you beat the game, as you CAN'T beat the game! But single player RPGs that aren't MMOs?


----------



## TedEH (Apr 12, 2019)

wankerness said:


> AFAIK cloud saving is tied to platform and can't be linked to a certain game, except I guess cross-platform saving?


Not always. Some game _do _implement their own server based saves outside of the platform it's on.



wankerness said:


> What's the difference between season passes and DLC?


Season pass is just a marketing term. It doesn't necessarily mean one thing or another. It might be just DLC. It might not be.



wankerness said:


> This just...seems so nebulous.


On some level, it's supposed to be. In my mind, it's again mostly a marketing term. If you can just keep pumping out DLC and claim that this is "a service" to players, then you can use that term to throw a positive spin on what you're doing. It's not a word on concept that IMO has a firm definition, and it's not supposed to be.



wankerness said:


> Diablo 3 forces you to stay online, but has no microtransactions. It has free updates for new "seasons" that I think let you build new characters to get unique gear for a limited window. This sounds like a "live service," but how is time being monetized?


Most of the examples you gave aren't ones I'd call online services either - but this is a case that I would. If the world of the game is constantly changing to try to keep you engaged, then it's functioning more as a service than a static product. I also didn't say it's always monetized that way, but it often is.

That's, I guess, where I draw the line. If the product is functioning as a static product, it's not a service. If the game/product is more of a client giving you access to something that might not be the same thing 6 months from now, you're looking at a service.

Bioshock Infinite? Not a service in my mind. Diablo 3? A single player game with some "as a service" junk jammed into it. I also put any single player games with microtransactions in that camp. Full on game-as-a-service? Fallout 76 fits that category, and it speaks for itself.


----------



## wankerness (Apr 12, 2019)

It seems so FUTILE for single player shit. Practically everyone I know just beats the last boss/level and goes "cool, I finished that one" and throws it aside. 

I just don't hear of many of these hypothetical players staying in single player games over time just running around after the story's over and maybe the sidequests are done if they're achievement hunters. I guess if the games are built from the ground up as functionally MMOs with content patches (ie, it's not really a game meant to be beaten, the whole point is the endgame)? Diablo 3, Monster Hunter World, Borderlands, etc - coincidentally most of those are designed to be multiplayer! 

With games like, I dunno, Persona 5 or The Witcher 3 or Nier Automata or Horizon Zero Dawn, most people just hit the end and say they're done, except people who loved them enough to fully replay them. And I'd say, same deal with any game that is being referred to as a "live service" game in which the DLC cycle has run its course, ex Assassins Creed Origins or Odyssey - people just boot them up if there's new DLC they want to buy, beat that, and close it again just as any "regular" single player game. It's not like the presence of microtransactions makes them play it for longer!

How is the studio benefiting more from the "live service" category? It seems like they'd actually be LOSING money with them if there aren't microtransactions as with the former category they just could dump out the game and be done with it and put everyone on their next project. 

I guess they're big studios so they just saw the monstrous success of...something, I don't even know what, and are trying to chase it. Like DC with its catastrophic attempt to force the DCEU without understanding anything about why the Marvel one worked. Maybe this "live service" bubble will just pop soon and leave behind a bunch of old games that have some odd features embedded in them.

Hooray for late capitalism!


----------



## TedEH (Apr 12, 2019)

wankerness said:


> How is the studio benefiting more from the "live service" category? It seems like they'd actually be LOSING money with them if there aren't microtransactions


When a studio says "we're moving towards a live service model", they absolutely mean microtransactions or some other form of continuous monetization. That's the whole point of it. They don't mean "we're gonna update the game for free forever for the people who paid once for it".

You're absolutely right about the idea of a lot of people just tossing a game aside when they're done with it. And those are very different experiences than the kinds of games that lend themselves to newer monetization models. I'm worried that good standalone single player games are at a risk of not being made anymore in AAA spaces.


----------



## wankerness (Apr 12, 2019)

TedEH said:


> When a studio says "we're moving towards a live service model", they absolutely mean microtransactions or some other form of continuous monetization. That's the whole point of it. They don't mean "we're gonna update the game for free forever for the people who paid once for it".
> 
> You're absolutely right about the idea of a lot of people just tossing a game aside when they're done with it. And those are very different experiences than the kinds of games that lend themselves to newer monetization models. I'm worried that good standalone single player games are at a risk of not being made anymore in AAA spaces.



I just still find this whole thing a giant question mark. Like, can you explain exactly what *you* think a "live service" version of Dragon Age 4 will look like vs what it would have looked like in the first place? Obviously they're, objectively, being told to restart the project with an emphasis towards live services, but what do you think it is exactly that had to be changed so severely to become "live service"-ready that they couldn't just shoehorn into what they were already doing? I legitimately don't get it at all and can't think of anything. AC: Odyssey, a game I've seen disparaged as "live service," plays just like a damn Bioware RPG with a true beginning, middle, and end in the base game and the microtransactions are things like tons of cosmetics, weapons, and then in-game currency/exp boosts that don't do anything other than let you skip lots of sidequests to get to the end faster. With THAT model, it doesn't seem like there's any conceivable reason a Bioware RPG would have to be razed and rebuilt to allow for that kind of thing. Clearly EA has a different idea than Ubisoft? Or it's primarily an engine thing with their mandating of Frostbite?


----------



## MFB (Apr 12, 2019)

TedEH said:


> When a studio says "we're moving towards a live service model", they absolutely mean microtransactions or some other form of continuous monetization. That's the whole point of it. They don't mean "we're gonna update the game for free forever for the people who paid once for it".
> 
> You're absolutely right about the idea of a lot of people just tossing a game aside when they're done with it. And those are very different experiences than the kinds of games that lend themselves to newer monetization models. I'm worried that good standalone single player games are at a risk of not being made anymore in AAA spaces.



They will be, just by particular studios that excel at them, and not under the EA umbrella that doesn't realize that single player games don't lend themselves to the same simple DLC as a multiplayer game.

So, congrats to all you PS4 owners who _will _get to play them


----------



## TedEH (Apr 12, 2019)

wankerness said:


> can you explain exactly what *you* think a "live service" version of Dragon Age 4 will look like vs what it would have looked like in the first place?


I can only speculate, much like you already have. Those are questions that only someone who was on the inside of the decision would be able to really answer meaningfully. I also don't know the Dragon Age series very well, so I can't speak much to that either. But when I read something that says "we need to start from square one with the game as a service in mind", that signals to me that a live monetization model is now informing the core gameplay loop, because otherwise (as you said) you could probably shoehorn some cosmetics into a game without having to restart everything.



wankerness said:


> AC: Odyssey, a game I've seen disparaged as "live service," plays just like a damn Bioware RPG with a true beginning, middle, and end in the base game and the microtransactions are things like tons of cosmetics, weapons, and then in-game currency/exp boosts that don't do anything other than let you skip lots of sidequests to get to the end faster.


I've also never played that one, but my understanding (based on quick google searches) was that their service-like monetization was based on selling a story in broken up pieces.

From Kotaku, about a month before release:


> _Odyssey_ is set to have months of free and paid content. The main offerings appear to be a staggered set of episodes that’ll alternate between free “Lost Tales of Greece” releases and paid chapters of two three-part “story arcs,” one focusing on the first wielder of the Assassins’ hidden blade weapon and the other on Atlantis. (Yes, as in the lost city of Atlantis.)


They go on to mention things like "premium story arcs" and the like. That, to me, is not a standalone game product, nor is it really the traditional DLC model.


----------



## wankerness (Apr 12, 2019)

Having gotten a platinum trophy in Odyssey and also played through all of the DLC and most of the "weekly updates," all of the DLC is completely peripheral (it doesn't involve a single main character from the plot apart from your character) and there is ~100 hours of real, voice-acted content in the base game that includes an entire main plot and some huge, in-depth side-quests along with the standard tons of smaller ones. Even if you ignore the DLC entirely, it's one of the most generous 1 player games I've ever experienced - it's Skyrim level. Like Skyrim, once you've thoroughly exhausted every written sidequest through the world, it still procedurely generates additional side material (which is marked as such) so it doesn't "end," but the main plot is totally resolved (whatever main characters lived through the ending on good terms with you are part of your ship crew, etc). No one who buys the most "minimal" version available is going to feel like anything's missing.

Which is why I can't comprehend what the hell Bioware was told to do to DA4 that would so negate its status as a standalone 1 player game that it had to be nuked and entirely rebuilt. Clearly it's something radically different to what Ubisoft did here!

I forget what you've played in the whole realm of comparable games to Dragon Age. I'd say the last two games are a combination of an action RPG and a traditional RPG. The character interactions, etc are very comparable to Mass Effect, but the combat's much more party-based - you can switch control between all characters, pause the combat to give commands to all characters in a very micro-managed fashion, etc. All party members have their own associated questlines and "rep levels" with you that affect what abilities they learn, or they can even leave your party if you tick them off too much.

The only thing I can even remotely imagine that would make it a "live service" and might require a game nuke would be if EA demanded that they pull something like a recent shitty fighting game where you barely get any characters in the core game and they cut most of them out as DLC, so the game had to be hacked down and made "modular" with tons of the plot sliced out and the combat totally rebalanced to allow for the fact that not everyone would have the same characters.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 12, 2019)

I don't disagree with you, so much as I think your example of intentionally trying to stretch is exactly what some people are worried about happening:


wankerness said:


> The only thing I can even remotely imagine that would make it a "live service" and might require a game nuke would be if EA demanded that they pull something like a recent shitty fighting game where you barely get any characters in the core game and they cut most of them out as DLC, so the game had to be hacked down and made "modular" with tons of the plot sliced out and the combat totally rebalanced to allow for the fact that not everyone would have the same characters.



I wouldn't put it past any game company at this point to head in that direction. On some level, it's not a matter of "I think that's where we are now" and more of a "I don't it to go that way, but it kinda looks like we're pointed in that direction".


----------



## TedEH (Apr 26, 2019)

So this popped up on youtube yesterday and seems relevant to this thread:


----------



## Mathemagician (Apr 26, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Maybe to me, Nintendo doing it makes it sort of "feel worse". In my head, Nintendo is where you go for a game being a single one-time purchase for a complete package and that's it. Obviously, that's nostalgia talking, but still. Seeing characters as paid DLC in Smash makes me think "no, Nintendo, not you too. "



The alternative is no more characters after launch though. 

And I don’t want that. Piranha plant alone was a super funny but also good character. I want more playable characters in the “too big and dumb a roster to be real” game. And if I have to pay for more than the original 60? So be it. Capcom is considered generous for launching a game with 15-20 fighters and many are not fully realized new characters.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 26, 2019)

Mathemagician said:


> The alternative is no more characters after launch though.


And? That's how basically all older games worked, and it wasn't a problem then. Original Smash Bros gated new characters as "hidden" or "unlockable" instead of making you pay for them. What's wrong with that model? You still don't get 100% content right away, and it serves as a reward for skilled players.


----------



## Mathemagician (Apr 26, 2019)

TedEH said:


> And? That's how basically all older games worked, and it wasn't a problem then. Original Smash Bros gated new characters as "hidden" or "unlockable" instead of making you pay for them. What's wrong with that model? You still don't get 100% content right away, and it serves as a reward for skilled players.



I think you’re misunderstanding me. 

I don’t “care” about unlocking content. I personally want 100% of the content available up front. But a game eventually has to launch. So if they have to submit a final copy and then go live, I want more characters as I don’t want to relearn a whole new game in order to get that. If a Nintendo/whoever game launched with 20 characters, or with 40, it didn’t matter that was all you were getting. 

Nowadays they release more characters which mixes up the field. I’m discussing fighting games specifically there. I typically don’t buy single player DLC unless it’s an enormous chunk of new story content AND I loved the game enough to want more. 

With Smash it’s already a 100% amazing game. No one has to buy squat to feel like they got a great game with tons of attention to detail put into it, etc. 

The DLC characters are for people who like me, want even more characters to play with. 

I’m ambivalent on “the good old days” of Nintendo releasing a game and that being it. I want like 50 new tracks for Mario kart. And I want them today. I don’t want a new Mario kart game where they rehash 20 tracks then add 20 on top and call it 40 total. So i’ll pay $20 if it means I get tons of new content for a game I already like. 

I remember paying full price for a new street fighter just because I wanted the 4-8 or so new characters. I’ll take $10-20 instead. 

But that’s just my opinion on it.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 26, 2019)

Mathemagician said:


> Nowadays they release more characters which mixes up the field.


I get it from a competitive point of view, but outside of that, I don't personally get any value out of "mixing it up" post release. I'm not disagreeing with your angle, cause I get it, but if I had to choose between a single release and that's all you get, vs. new characters but you have to pay for them, I'd rather have the single release because I know realistically I'm not going to spend money on extra characters. I can't justify spending money on DLC in almost any case, so I almost never do it. I can't think of any cases where I did. But then I'm left with an incomplete experience because of not wanting to participate in getting gouged by a monetization strategy.

I'll grant that a competitive game is a space where maybe it can be justified (almost) in terms of keeping the scene fresh, and I'm not against the idea of DLC as a whole if it really is adding something of value that didn't otherwise belong to the core experience. But what's the excuse in something like Breath of the Wild? There's no "field" to mix up in a case like that, it's just bonus stuff that could have been included in the base game to begin with. What would be the tradeoff? That it took a month or two longer to come out? A year longer? Would Ocarina of Time or Majoras Mask have been better if they had DLC?


----------

