This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
Why not? Have we accepted that this is a thing that happens and we'll need to suck it up and deal with it?
Yes
Unless you want to deal with third party clients like Uplay and Origin for every single game you buy DLC for, and how often are you really playing the same game on two different consoles?
This generation included? Because everyone's remaking every game.
I know that it's not a guarantee, but aren't they also coming out as "OMG THE BEST" versions that come with the DLC included like The Last Of Us did? Uncharted is a weird collection in that it removed whole modes, but that's not asking you to rebuy DLC (still crappy though).
Yeah that's true. These "remastered" versions contain just about everything that you could have purchased from the previous release. I'm not exactly sure if there's a situation where it didn't come with everything as the list of games that I'd buy a remaster for remains pretty low.
Like, okay, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition, it's a re-release on both current platforms
But there's no DLC for it, because all the DLC's included
And even if it weren't, what is the amount of people that are playing both the One and PS4 versions? That has to be miniscule at best.
That said, some of that money that's going through on the transaction is going to either Sony or Microsoft. Neither one of them is going to pass up their cut of the money while making a download available to you. Microsoft shouldn't be letting me download DLC on their platform when I paid Sony for it.
This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
Why not? Have we accepted that this is a thing that happens and we'll need to suck it up and deal with it?
Yes? Is this a serious question?
You might as well ask why I can't play my Xbox One games in UnbreakableVow's PS4.
Yes that's exactly what I said by mentioning DLC. Don't be a goose.
So... I should be able to play my Xbox One Destiny DLC on Vow's PS4... that's a reasonable assumption, but being able to play the game isn't?
Are you fucking serious?
I'm done talking to you if you're going to be a fucking goose about it.
Or you could maybe actually engage in conversation and explain how those two things are different.
Why is ok to say DLC should be platform agnostic but game purchases shouldn't?
What are you even arguing about here?
My original post was asking a question about DLC and now you're on some tangent about the difference between DLC content and game content? I know you're always looking to argue about something but chill dude. You answered my original question and that's all it was: a question. Not an invitation to argue about dumb stuff.
Like, okay, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition, it's a re-release on both current platforms
But there's no DLC for it, because all the DLC's included
And even if it weren't, what is the amount of people that are playing both the One and PS4 versions? That has to be miniscule at best.
That said, some of that money that's going through on the transaction is going to either Sony or Microsoft. Neither one of them is going to pass up their cut of the money while making a download available to you. Microsoft shouldn't be letting me download DLC on their platform when I paid Sony for it.
Right and I hadn't thought about the cut that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo takes.
It does feel kinda weird that if you buy a song on the PS3 Guitar Hero that it is permanently tied to that console/account rather than letting you download it on other ones. Considering they're just songs. But I don't really play those games so it doesn't bother me the least bit.
This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
Why not? Have we accepted that this is a thing that happens and we'll need to suck it up and deal with it?
Yes? Is this a serious question?
You might as well ask why I can't play my Xbox One games in UnbreakableVow's PS4.
Yes that's exactly what I said by mentioning DLC. Don't be a goose.
So... I should be able to play my Xbox One Destiny DLC on Vow's PS4... that's a reasonable assumption, but being able to play the game isn't?
Are you fucking serious? You're going to call me a goose for that? Literally the harshest insult you can use on the boards for that.
I don't know the name of the argument, but if you've bought a license to play the game (and I admit I haven't read the EULA) instead of the game itself have you only bought a license to play the game on your XB1? Or should you have bought a license for you, personally, to play the game on any device capable of playing it? If you're willing to jump through the hoops (I know Sony emails me receipts when I make a purchase) should your purchase of game be platform-agnostic?
Right now, I'm inclined to say no because (I think) platform holders get a cut of each game sold for their platform. But it's an interesting thought, and it happens sometimes. I own Small World 2 on PC via Steam. Some of my DLC is managed by the publisher (Days of Wonder) so if I already own the game on iOS then that DLC is available to me in both places because I log in to their service when I play the game. I believe Hero Academy works the same way.
And even if it weren't, what is the amount of people that are playing both the One and PS4 versions? That has to be miniscule at best.
Well for me it'd be the PC version and the console versions. I know that when I get an XB1/PS4 that I'll definitely be replaying games that I had already purchased on the PC. But yeah I'm in the severe minority on double dipping.
This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
Why not? Have we accepted that this is a thing that happens and we'll need to suck it up and deal with it?
Yes? Is this a serious question?
You might as well ask why I can't play my Xbox One games in UnbreakableVow's PS4.
Yes that's exactly what I said by mentioning DLC. Don't be a goose.
So... I should be able to play my Xbox One Destiny DLC on Vow's PS4... that's a reasonable assumption, but being able to play the game isn't?
Are you fucking serious?
I'm done talking to you if you're going to be a fucking goose about it.
Or you could maybe actually engage in conversation and explain how those two things are different.
Why is ok to say DLC should be platform agnostic but game purchases shouldn't?
What are you even arguing about here?
My original post was asking a question about DLC and now you're on some tangent about the difference between DLC content and game content? I know you're always looking to argue about something but chill dude. You answered my original question and that's all it was: a question. Not an invitation to argue about dumb stuff.
You original post was a question about DLC being platform agnostic, insinuating that us consumers are "sucking it up and dealing with it" not being platform agnostic.
Is it really a logical leap to say that thought process could be applied to the games themselves? Because that's where the answer to your original question resides. DLC isn't platform agnostic for the same reason games aren't platform agnostic, because the platform holder gets a cut for DLC and games as well as the DLC and games needing to be tested for each platform.
In the topic of transferable console games and DLC, I feel consoles still work as if you were loading a cartridge. Its a specific shape, with a specific code, and you buy the object with X shape, to play in the console with the X shaped slot, and thats it. And I dont think it is good for the consumer, but ignoring the possibilities that new technologies give you is profitable for consoles right now.
A lot of content for PC, you can buy a license, and then download the Windows version, the Linux version, or the iOS version. Like Vow said, this would mean you have to log into Uplay and other abominations such as those.
But the minute one of the big consoles (im thinking xbox is the closest) starts making their catalogue compatible for PC, they will force all others to do the same, and then DLCs will be transferable across platforms. However, the way I personally see it, consoles are becoming obsolete, and having exclusive titles has become the image of each console manufacturer, so I doubt they will give their whole identity and market up, just to please a small portion of users.
Edit: ...and the money they make from sales through their exclusive venues, so I dont see it happening ever, but it could happen, it just wont.
FANTOMAS on
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
What I really want to see more of is the Valve and Player Studio system: cosmetic equipment that's made by community members who get a cut of the profit.
Not only because that's a way for me to make money, but potentially infinite amounts of cosmetic content get me all hot and bothered.
Also, Add-ons is something I havent bought since the late 90s 00s. My first experience with them, was with an RTS, cant recall if it was a C&C or one of those, but ther were three factions, and you could buy a single stand alone faction, wich allowed you to play the campaign for that faction only, and skirmish/multiplayer with any faction, but you had to buy the other CDs to play the different campaigns. And I hated it, they really cut a single game and sold it as 3.
So cutting up a product to make as much profit as possible is not something that came with smartphones. Having your credit card asociated with your smartphone is what is new and problematic (personal opinion, no facts). The pay to win, microtransactions, paywalls, and witholding content for ransom is not going away untill people start taking their business somewhere else. So I only see the issue getting larger, for as long as its profitable. Legislation against fraudulent advertising, scams, etc. is yet to be enforced succesfully on the internet, so I dont see shady game developer practices being in any kind of danger.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
I didn't think they would have any more Guitar Heroes or Rock Bands so I'm happy they are coming back. And I can still play all my DLC stuff on my PS3 so I'm not mad it doesn't switch over. It's not like I expected shit to when it was going from RB1 to RB2.
It's a goddamn miracle we got a Rock Band 4 at all.
And it's an even bigger goddamn miracle that most of the DLC carried over.
I'm not too bummed we didn't get the cross-platform DLC miracle, which would be on par with "everyone on the planet wins third place in the lottery simultaneously."
And I say that as someone who transferred from the 360 to the PS4 and has a shitton of DLC I can't access unless I buy a One.
ME3 was similar, get rich on whales pricing scheme, with a surprising amount of free maps and characters for everybody to have.
ME3 was a bit of a strange spot. The day one DLC annoyed some people, but overall a lot of the complaints stemmed from how good a lot of people felt the character was (if it was some random bullshit it wouldn't be remotely as contentious). The multiplayer did indeed include paid booster packs, but rolling with a quality group earned in game currency quickly enough to get unlocks pretty swiftly as it was. A lot of games claim 'oh you can just get it all by playing', but it legit allowed for it at a fairly reasonable pace (imo, at least). It also caught a lot less flack than it might have simply by being infinitely better than most people had anticipated it being (back when 'oh god, they're adding some shitty multiplayer bullshit' was a common source of complaint and contention).
I definitely tire of the Freemium model of games. I don't mind pitching a developer $5 here and there for aesthetic stuff or mini-expansions to a game, but anything competitive on my phone is generally a pile of steaming bullshit in short order as the couple dozen or hundred people on the server that are willing to put up hundreds or thousands of dollars per month get to the top of the game and destroy anyone they wish. When a player can become literally hundreds of times more powerful than anyone else just by throwing their mortgage at it, we're well past having reasonable disparity in experience. Might as well just have a $1,000 "fuck you I win" add on.
Pay For Convenience I'm growing to dislike as well, based on the general feeling that some devs are using it poorly, with obnoxious time periods or resource requirements in place to drive home how reasonable $5 or $20 for X is and how much more fun I'd surely be having if I snagged their little Gold Packs for more than I'd get a full game on Steam.
I'm reading the "We Own You" article now, and it's interesting that as much as Zynga were lambasted in many places for their monetization schemes, how profitable they were, and how the app industry is stuffed to the gills with smurfberries and gold and gems. Weighing out whether or not I feel like a game is worth tossing a little cash has become foggier, especially with how manipulative many such schemes can feel.
Things like TF2 and DotA2 where the additions are generally just cosmetic (I haven't played TF2 in ages, I hope that still applies) I don't mind. If something seems cool enough, maybe I'll snap it up at a reasonable price off the marketplace, or even splurge a little and get it 'new', but adding a little santa hat or whatever to a character isn't the end of the world. Or something like Killing Floor 1, which had a ton of extra maps and events added for free over the years, and generously participated in Steam Sales regularly, so even if I wasn't interested in paying $5 for a unique skin or weapon pack, buying 4 of them for $5 on a 75% off sale was totally within my budget; I feel like I'm getting a deal, they get a little cash, everyone wins.
Paid DLC that actually brings something to the game I can also get behind. Going back to the Mass Effect series, while not all of them were pure gems, many of them (Lair of the Shadow Broker, Citadel, Leviathan) added considerable content and fleshed out the games well after release. The controversy surrounding From Ashes aside, I generally don't mind Bioware's approach too badly, and often the base game is good enough I don't mind tossing them $5-10 now and then as a mix of tip and purchased content.
Edit: ahahahaha. That "We Own You" article? Flipping between screens, I clicked on some blank space on the page off to the side to select the window (force of habit) and it was actually a link to Clash of Clans.
It's like an onion of bullshit right there.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I feel shitty about having been marketed a thing as a platform and then finding out that it's really a closed sub-platform and that Harmonix (or whoever the fuck owns it now) has no way of tracking that I bought a ton on the 360 and would have no access to that library on the PS4.
That's not a platform. That's a shit-show full of lies.
Let's talk about platforms. iTunes is a platform. So is Xbox Video. If I buy Jurassic World from the iTunes movie store, I can play it on my iphone, my computer with iTunes access, my Apple TV, etc. What I can't do is download a copy from the Xbox Video store. Or the Playstation store. Or etc. That doesn't make it NOT a platform.
You bought songs through the Xbox Rock Band platform. This platform lets you take songs from Rock Band 1 and move them to 2 and 3, and songs from 2 and move them to 3, and nearly everything to Rock Band 4, all on the Xbox. It doesn't crossover to the Sony version of the platform because NOTHING GAME RELATED has ever transferred. I think... in the history of the companies this is the case. If you can think of a counter game example, I'd be interested to hear it. Maybe FFXI? But they shut that down, even if so, so it's not true now even if it once was.
So now you're furiously angry about a definition that isn't accurate, based on an agreement that has NEVER happened? It sounds preventable to be honest.
The problems with DLC/microtransactions are largely a combination of publishers stripping players of traditional conveniences that kept games alive for years (namely, how rare it is to have a game now where players can run the servers), the huge upswing in publisher greed that labels anything short of a massive success as a massive failure, and publishers desperately trying to monetize anything and everything they can get away with. These days, it's uncommon to be able to get all the actual gameplay content of a game at release, because nearly everything paywalls something. And shitpiles like EA deliberately keep older, better versions of their franchises from being kept alive via player servers by simply denying that feature to players in the name of "convenience" for things like matchmaking (which is obviously bullshit).
But I think the result is that PC gaming is gaining momentum again, and people are figuring out that the PC game market isn't nearly so restricted as the console side. I'm hoping simple consumer momentum in that direction will push back enough to get some equilibrium back, instead of the current situation where chunks of games are deliberately withheld to squeeze players. As the tendency to wait for game sales to pick up the game plus the DLC becomes more common, publishers will either go out of business for inability to adjust or finally relax and let all the game content stay with the game.
Also, mobile games are basically Skinner Boxes, often targeted at kids, and absolutely should be regulated. They're even worse than gambling, because at least there's a chance in gambling that you can win money. Somebody mentioned Turtles in Time earlier in the thread and you know what? I can still play that game and enjoy it, because it's a fun game, not something designed entirely to wring money out of parents through their kids. Except for very old arcade games, which were limited by tech more than by greed, most arcade games were definitely beatable.
But these "games" that never really end and encourage kids to get Sprinkle Diamond Crates with their parent's money? Unethical as hell. Parents should be on top of that, obviously, but if gambling has to be regulated because adults can't handle it, then damn right mobile games should be regulated just as much.
No one was beating Turtles in Time or The Simpsons or X-Men on their first time playing it, certainly not if they were going it alone.
A big LOL to you if you think those games were not designed to wrest quarters from the player's pocket. It's why the home versions of so many of them fall flat - when you can just hit select a few times and give yourself credits, you see how shallow the game really is and it loses its appeal quickly. The thrill comes from the idea of being able to get a little bit farther on just one quarter, even though you likely won't
And sure, there are some players out there who can run through a game on one quarter - just like there are people that can beat any level on Candy Crush Saga without funneling any money into it. Just like with those old games, all it takes is the right skill set, and the developers are counting on you not having those skills.
Also I'm sure you'd love to just run back to the "but my games were fun!" but that's just you leaning on subjectivity at that point - regardless of what you feel, plenty of people find mobile games to be fun
EDIT: Unintentional but I just noticed the three games I listed are all Konami games. Seems like they really haven't changed that much at all!
There are extremely substantial differences between energy / timer based contemporary mobile games and old arcade titles.
The arcade titles were tied to skill & memory, for starters, not tied to a formula cooked-up by game theory consultants about how to best exploit the impatience of a victim. Turtles in Time in particular, and the Metal Slug titles, were actually played by play testers to ensure that you could beat the patterns once you understood them and had developed your muscle memory (I'm unsure about other titles, but I assume they had a similar process).
Rest assured there are run throughs of just about any classic game you'd care to name.
It would've taken a few quarters to get there (probably not as many as some people think; I nearly had a deathless run last week on MS: 2, and I've played it fewer than a dozen times), but once you're there, it's not going to be munching your tokens anymore.
And yes, it's still fun, in my opinion - and it certainly isn't shallow.
Energy based games flat-out stop you from progressing unless you pay money, and typically involve a lot of roulette wheel spinning. Rarely is skill involved; pay the money, spin the dial, see whatever happen (note that you never need to spin the wheel in Metal Slug or Turtles in Time; all the patterns are pre-set. They're hard to master, but you can master them).
Arcade games were also limited to the number of quarters a given player had on them; the nature of the experience limits the amount of exploitation. The exposure to kids was also limited, because the cabinets weren't in someone's home - you'd have to be driven to the arcade by your parents or whatever.
Finally, arcade games actually had a substantial amount of content on offer. This was part of what made them challenging - they were an endurance test as much as anything else. Mobile games typically have minimal content tied to a highly repetitious mechanic, which is often the equivalent of pulling a slots handle.
And we don't even know if these games offer reasonable / fair odds, or if these games are simply rigged. Casinos, by contrast, must provide accurate odds on every game they put on the floor (whether electronic or physical), must state the house advantage right up front, must post addiction warnings & (in some jurisdictions) can be held liable if a customer demonstrates an addictive personality and is allowed to continue gambling anyway. Their machines are regularly inspected for any kind of tampering, too. Is mobile game software / servers?
It's a situation that mirrors, in my opinion, the fantasy sports betting situation we currently have, where people think they are playing a reasonably legitimate game and in reality it's all just a big insider trading scam.
I feel shitty about having been marketed a thing as a platform and then finding out that it's really a closed sub-platform and that Harmonix (or whoever the fuck owns it now) has no way of tracking that I bought a ton on the 360 and would have no access to that library on the PS4.
That's not a platform. That's a shit-show full of lies.
Let's talk about platforms. iTunes is a platform. So is Xbox Video. If I buy Jurassic World from the iTunes movie store, I can play it on my iphone, my computer with iTunes access, my Apple TV, etc. What I can't do is download a copy from the Xbox Video store. Or the Playstation store. Or etc. That doesn't make it NOT a platform.
You bought songs through the Xbox Rock Band platform. This platform lets you take songs from Rock Band 1 and move them to 2 and 3, and songs from 2 and move them to 3, and nearly everything to Rock Band 4, all on the Xbox. It doesn't crossover to the Sony version of the platform because NOTHING GAME RELATED has ever transferred. I think... in the history of the companies this is the case. If you can think of a counter game example, I'd be interested to hear it. Maybe FFXI? But they shut that down, even if so, so it's not true now even if it once was.
So now you're furiously angry about a definition that isn't accurate, based on an agreement that has NEVER happened? It sounds preventable to be honest.
I'm not angry. I'm disappointed. And I already copped to expecting more than Harmonix was able to deliver.
Also, I gave 2 examples earlier. Some of my Small World 2 DLC and all of my Hero Academy DLC is available on both PC and iOS.
But like I said - I get it. It's just definitely the thing preventing me from buying Rock Band 4.
Wow! I can only slow clap for Ubisoft. They've invented "Paid Free DLC". The destined to fail Rainbow Six game they're trotting out to the firing squad in December boasts tons of free post launch support. 8 additional characters added to the game, free maps, and such. That's cool of em I guess. But there's also a season pass still for some reason. If you buy that, you will recieve early access to the free maps and characters! The only thing you're actually getting if you pay extra and someone else does not, is some weapon skins... I checked a while ago, because of course you can preorder season passes, and I wanna say that it was $30 but I'm not positive on that. I might be confusing it with Assassins Creed. Anything more than like... $1.99 is pretty insane for that "season pass", though.
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
Nintendo's also embraced free-to-play with something called Badge Arcade, essentially a claw game that rewards you with stickers to customize your 3DS. You can get free plays at certain points, but you're probably going to have to pay. So far it's gotten mixed reactions from the Nintendo faithful.
Wow! I can only slow clap for Ubisoft. They've invented "Paid Free DLC". The destined to fail Rainbow Six game they're trotting out to the firing squad in December boasts tons of free post launch support. 8 additional characters added to the game, free maps, and such. That's cool of em I guess. But there's also a season pass still for some reason. If you buy that, you will recieve early access to the free maps and characters! The only thing you're actually getting if you pay extra and someone else does not, is some weapon skins... I checked a while ago, because of course you can preorder season passes, and I wanna say that it was $30 but I'm not positive on that. I might be confusing it with Assassins Creed. Anything more than like... $1.99 is pretty insane for that "season pass", though.
There's a bit more to it than that (albeit, it's minimal QoL stuff):
Permanent 5% Renown boost to allow you to unlock content quicker
Two extra daily Renown-earning challenges
600 R6 Credits that can be used to purchase additional in-game content
Would that be worth $30? I can only speak for myself, but absolutely not.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Nintendo's also embraced free-to-play with something called Badge Arcade, essentially a claw game that rewards you with stickers to customize your 3DS. You can get free plays at certain points, but you're probably going to have to pay. So far it's gotten mixed reactions from the Nintendo faithful.
Nintendo's also embraced free-to-play with something called Badge Arcade, essentially a claw game that rewards you with stickers to customize your 3DS. You can get free plays at certain points, but you're probably going to have to pay. So far it's gotten mixed reactions from the Nintendo faithful.
Posts
Or you could maybe actually engage in conversation and explain how those two things are different.
Why is ok to say DLC should be platform agnostic but game purchases shouldn't?
Yeah that's true. These "remastered" versions contain just about everything that you could have purchased from the previous release. I'm not exactly sure if there's a situation where it didn't come with everything as the list of games that I'd buy a remaster for remains pretty low.
Like, okay, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition, it's a re-release on both current platforms
But there's no DLC for it, because all the DLC's included
And even if it weren't, what is the amount of people that are playing both the One and PS4 versions? That has to be miniscule at best.
That said, some of that money that's going through on the transaction is going to either Sony or Microsoft. Neither one of them is going to pass up their cut of the money while making a download available to you. Microsoft shouldn't be letting me download DLC on their platform when I paid Sony for it.
What are you even arguing about here?
My original post was asking a question about DLC and now you're on some tangent about the difference between DLC content and game content? I know you're always looking to argue about something but chill dude. You answered my original question and that's all it was: a question. Not an invitation to argue about dumb stuff.
Right and I hadn't thought about the cut that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo takes.
I don't know the name of the argument, but if you've bought a license to play the game (and I admit I haven't read the EULA) instead of the game itself have you only bought a license to play the game on your XB1? Or should you have bought a license for you, personally, to play the game on any device capable of playing it? If you're willing to jump through the hoops (I know Sony emails me receipts when I make a purchase) should your purchase of game be platform-agnostic?
Right now, I'm inclined to say no because (I think) platform holders get a cut of each game sold for their platform. But it's an interesting thought, and it happens sometimes. I own Small World 2 on PC via Steam. Some of my DLC is managed by the publisher (Days of Wonder) so if I already own the game on iOS then that DLC is available to me in both places because I log in to their service when I play the game. I believe Hero Academy works the same way.
Well for me it'd be the PC version and the console versions. I know that when I get an XB1/PS4 that I'll definitely be replaying games that I had already purchased on the PC. But yeah I'm in the severe minority on double dipping.
You original post was a question about DLC being platform agnostic, insinuating that us consumers are "sucking it up and dealing with it" not being platform agnostic.
Is it really a logical leap to say that thought process could be applied to the games themselves? Because that's where the answer to your original question resides. DLC isn't platform agnostic for the same reason games aren't platform agnostic, because the platform holder gets a cut for DLC and games as well as the DLC and games needing to be tested for each platform.
But hey, call me a goose again I guess?
Cool.
To be completely honest it really sucks arguing with you because every single time I feel like Simon Pegg is mad at me.
I found it hard to argue against Shaun
A lot of content for PC, you can buy a license, and then download the Windows version, the Linux version, or the iOS version. Like Vow said, this would mean you have to log into Uplay and other abominations such as those.
But the minute one of the big consoles (im thinking xbox is the closest) starts making their catalogue compatible for PC, they will force all others to do the same, and then DLCs will be transferable across platforms. However, the way I personally see it, consoles are becoming obsolete, and having exclusive titles has become the image of each console manufacturer, so I doubt they will give their whole identity and market up, just to please a small portion of users.
Edit: ...and the money they make from sales through their exclusive venues, so I dont see it happening ever, but it could happen, it just wont.
Not only because that's a way for me to make money, but potentially infinite amounts of cosmetic content get me all hot and bothered.
So cutting up a product to make as much profit as possible is not something that came with smartphones. Having your credit card asociated with your smartphone is what is new and problematic (personal opinion, no facts). The pay to win, microtransactions, paywalls, and witholding content for ransom is not going away untill people start taking their business somewhere else. So I only see the issue getting larger, for as long as its profitable. Legislation against fraudulent advertising, scams, etc. is yet to be enforced succesfully on the internet, so I dont see shady game developer practices being in any kind of danger.
It's a goddamn miracle we got a Rock Band 4 at all.
And it's an even bigger goddamn miracle that most of the DLC carried over.
I'm not too bummed we didn't get the cross-platform DLC miracle, which would be on par with "everyone on the planet wins third place in the lottery simultaneously."
And I say that as someone who transferred from the 360 to the PS4 and has a shitton of DLC I can't access unless I buy a One.
ME3 was a bit of a strange spot. The day one DLC annoyed some people, but overall a lot of the complaints stemmed from how good a lot of people felt the character was (if it was some random bullshit it wouldn't be remotely as contentious). The multiplayer did indeed include paid booster packs, but rolling with a quality group earned in game currency quickly enough to get unlocks pretty swiftly as it was. A lot of games claim 'oh you can just get it all by playing', but it legit allowed for it at a fairly reasonable pace (imo, at least). It also caught a lot less flack than it might have simply by being infinitely better than most people had anticipated it being (back when 'oh god, they're adding some shitty multiplayer bullshit' was a common source of complaint and contention).
I definitely tire of the Freemium model of games. I don't mind pitching a developer $5 here and there for aesthetic stuff or mini-expansions to a game, but anything competitive on my phone is generally a pile of steaming bullshit in short order as the couple dozen or hundred people on the server that are willing to put up hundreds or thousands of dollars per month get to the top of the game and destroy anyone they wish. When a player can become literally hundreds of times more powerful than anyone else just by throwing their mortgage at it, we're well past having reasonable disparity in experience. Might as well just have a $1,000 "fuck you I win" add on.
Pay For Convenience I'm growing to dislike as well, based on the general feeling that some devs are using it poorly, with obnoxious time periods or resource requirements in place to drive home how reasonable $5 or $20 for X is and how much more fun I'd surely be having if I snagged their little Gold Packs for more than I'd get a full game on Steam.
I'm reading the "We Own You" article now, and it's interesting that as much as Zynga were lambasted in many places for their monetization schemes, how profitable they were, and how the app industry is stuffed to the gills with smurfberries and gold and gems. Weighing out whether or not I feel like a game is worth tossing a little cash has become foggier, especially with how manipulative many such schemes can feel.
Things like TF2 and DotA2 where the additions are generally just cosmetic (I haven't played TF2 in ages, I hope that still applies) I don't mind. If something seems cool enough, maybe I'll snap it up at a reasonable price off the marketplace, or even splurge a little and get it 'new', but adding a little santa hat or whatever to a character isn't the end of the world. Or something like Killing Floor 1, which had a ton of extra maps and events added for free over the years, and generously participated in Steam Sales regularly, so even if I wasn't interested in paying $5 for a unique skin or weapon pack, buying 4 of them for $5 on a 75% off sale was totally within my budget; I feel like I'm getting a deal, they get a little cash, everyone wins.
Paid DLC that actually brings something to the game I can also get behind. Going back to the Mass Effect series, while not all of them were pure gems, many of them (Lair of the Shadow Broker, Citadel, Leviathan) added considerable content and fleshed out the games well after release. The controversy surrounding From Ashes aside, I generally don't mind Bioware's approach too badly, and often the base game is good enough I don't mind tossing them $5-10 now and then as a mix of tip and purchased content.
Edit: ahahahaha. That "We Own You" article? Flipping between screens, I clicked on some blank space on the page off to the side to select the window (force of habit) and it was actually a link to Clash of Clans.
It's like an onion of bullshit right there.
Let's talk about platforms. iTunes is a platform. So is Xbox Video. If I buy Jurassic World from the iTunes movie store, I can play it on my iphone, my computer with iTunes access, my Apple TV, etc. What I can't do is download a copy from the Xbox Video store. Or the Playstation store. Or etc. That doesn't make it NOT a platform.
You bought songs through the Xbox Rock Band platform. This platform lets you take songs from Rock Band 1 and move them to 2 and 3, and songs from 2 and move them to 3, and nearly everything to Rock Band 4, all on the Xbox. It doesn't crossover to the Sony version of the platform because NOTHING GAME RELATED has ever transferred. I think... in the history of the companies this is the case. If you can think of a counter game example, I'd be interested to hear it. Maybe FFXI? But they shut that down, even if so, so it's not true now even if it once was.
So now you're furiously angry about a definition that isn't accurate, based on an agreement that has NEVER happened? It sounds preventable to be honest.
There are extremely substantial differences between energy / timer based contemporary mobile games and old arcade titles.
The arcade titles were tied to skill & memory, for starters, not tied to a formula cooked-up by game theory consultants about how to best exploit the impatience of a victim. Turtles in Time in particular, and the Metal Slug titles, were actually played by play testers to ensure that you could beat the patterns once you understood them and had developed your muscle memory (I'm unsure about other titles, but I assume they had a similar process).
Here is someone beating MS: 2 without dying:
Rest assured there are run throughs of just about any classic game you'd care to name.
It would've taken a few quarters to get there (probably not as many as some people think; I nearly had a deathless run last week on MS: 2, and I've played it fewer than a dozen times), but once you're there, it's not going to be munching your tokens anymore.
And yes, it's still fun, in my opinion - and it certainly isn't shallow.
Energy based games flat-out stop you from progressing unless you pay money, and typically involve a lot of roulette wheel spinning. Rarely is skill involved; pay the money, spin the dial, see whatever happen (note that you never need to spin the wheel in Metal Slug or Turtles in Time; all the patterns are pre-set. They're hard to master, but you can master them).
Arcade games were also limited to the number of quarters a given player had on them; the nature of the experience limits the amount of exploitation. The exposure to kids was also limited, because the cabinets weren't in someone's home - you'd have to be driven to the arcade by your parents or whatever.
Finally, arcade games actually had a substantial amount of content on offer. This was part of what made them challenging - they were an endurance test as much as anything else. Mobile games typically have minimal content tied to a highly repetitious mechanic, which is often the equivalent of pulling a slots handle.
And we don't even know if these games offer reasonable / fair odds, or if these games are simply rigged. Casinos, by contrast, must provide accurate odds on every game they put on the floor (whether electronic or physical), must state the house advantage right up front, must post addiction warnings & (in some jurisdictions) can be held liable if a customer demonstrates an addictive personality and is allowed to continue gambling anyway. Their machines are regularly inspected for any kind of tampering, too. Is mobile game software / servers?
It's a situation that mirrors, in my opinion, the fantasy sports betting situation we currently have, where people think they are playing a reasonably legitimate game and in reality it's all just a big insider trading scam.
I'm not angry. I'm disappointed. And I already copped to expecting more than Harmonix was able to deliver.
Also, I gave 2 examples earlier. Some of my Small World 2 DLC and all of my Hero Academy DLC is available on both PC and iOS.
But like I said - I get it. It's just definitely the thing preventing me from buying Rock Band 4.
But leave it to Nintendo to explain the microtransactions in the most Nintendo way possible. (Seriously, you need to see that link.)
There's a bit more to it than that (albeit, it's minimal QoL stuff):
Would that be worth $30? I can only speak for myself, but absolutely not.
Oh goodness. I love this.
I know, right? I gave far too much money to that dog whose wife left him in Rusty's Real Deal Baseball because the haggling bits were so fun/charming.
So that's 200 hours of play, or just over 8 days, of you want them free. That...sucks. And is way more time than I intend to spend with it.