SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Gaming was like breathing. It was the biggest part of my life as a teenager, one of my priorities as a college student, and eventually one of my most expensive “hobbies” as a young professional.
Then all of a sudden, after thousands of hours spent playing across genres and platforms, boredom hit me hard for the very first time in my early thirties. Some of my favorite games soon gave me the impression of being terribly long. I couldn’t help but notice all the repeating tropes and similarities in game design between franchises.
I figured it was just a matter of time before I found the right game to stimulate my interest again, but time continued to go by and nothing changed.
Is it that games have failed to innovate, or that real life is ultimately more engaging?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Freeman on Monday January 07 2019, @10:44PM (13 children)
The problem, is that publishers found they can use gimmicks to rake in the cash, so they do it.
Just a small list of games to avoid:
Diablo 3
Overwatch
Fortnite
PUBG (Player Unknown's Battlegrounds)
() Insert Random Free-to-Play game. (Please note, you are the product.)
(Any game in the iTunes store.) I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say only 95% of the junk there is horrible.
(Any game in the Google Play store.) No pass, I've seen it, 99.99%+ of the junk is horrible.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Disagree) by mobydisk on Monday January 07 2019, @11:47PM (6 children)
I completely disagree with your list. Some of those games are great games: you don't have to buy the loot boxes.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @06:53AM
if (game.hasLootBox() === true) garbage.put(game)
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 08 2019, @03:36PM (4 children)
You can debate on how good Overwatch is or isn't, but the loot box thing is just less awful than the competition. Seriously though, what is a game that's $20 - $30 on sale doing with loot boxes in it? Oh, that's right, cash grab.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Hyper on Wednesday January 09 2019, @09:44PM (1 child)
I've never played a game with these "loot box" problems. Is it really that bad?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday January 10 2019, @05:06PM
Some, limit the "loot boxes" to cosmetic only items, but most don't. It's like removing the classic treasure/loot boxes in games and replacing them with boxes/crates/barrels that you have to purchase instead. Some even give you the crate/loot box, but require a key to be purchased in order to open them. The free-to-play games that limit the gimmick to cosmetic only items, aren't so bad. The problem is they will always have the temptation to introduce cool stuff for the paying only customers and could very easily turn it into a pay-2-win scenario.
The worst offenders in my book are the games like Overwatch that you pay a normal price for, yet they still have microtransactions. Including microtransactions in your game, moves the focus from just great game play to how best to monetize your "customer." I say "customers," because I would argue that you're turning them into "marks" instead of customers at that point. At least when you walk into a Casino, you know they're trying to fleece you. That same mentality shouldn't be in a computer game, unless it's clearly marked as a gambling game. In which case it should be regulated as a gambling game.
Here's a listing of articles on loot boxes. Generally, a lot of places are cracking down on them and even the FTC is getting involved.
https://www.pcgamer.com/loot-boxes/ [pcgamer.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:14PM (1 child)
So long as the loot boxes are cosmetic, and they can be earned in-game, I see no problem with them also selling those loot boxes for real currency too. I just choose not to buy them. For my main in Overwatch, I have every single skin just from playing that character enough.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:29PM
The problem, is the focus is shifted towards monetizing the customer. There's a definite difference in the addition of "more grind" to entice players to spend more money on "loot" that should be free. Overwatch is one of the least offensive loot box styles, but it's even more offensive due to the fact that it's not a free to play game. There should not be real money loot boxes in a AAA title that commands a AAA price. You want mobile game style monetization, then make it mobile game monetization, at least then it will be easy to spot the cash grab games. Overwatch may not be so much of a cash grab game, but it's still tainted by the real money loot boxes.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:57PM
I'd put in an appeal for Transmission [sciencemuseum.org.uk], a node-linking game made by the UK Science Museum.
No ads, no social media tie-ins, no microtransactions, no payments. Just nice puzzle solving.
(It's also in Apple's store, btw.)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Pino P on Wednesday January 09 2019, @02:37AM (4 children)
If all games in Apple's App Store and Google Play Store should be avoided, then on which store should a new studio offer its first game? Is Itch.io the best way?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday January 09 2019, @05:36PM (3 children)
A new studio will likely be looking to make as much money as possible and should put their game up on all platforms possible. To win over those of us that don't like being treated as marks. I would suggest not including in-app purchases or advertisements. Though, that seems to be where most mobile games make their money. It's not going to be an easy thing to fix. People like getting a free game. The big issue here, is that it's not a free game they're getting. It's like a dealer offering a potential drug user the first hit for free. How do you get from using an addictive model to something different? In the case of drugs, it usually takes an intervention or a serious wake up call for the person to stop. I would say the current mobile game market is the same. In this instance though, it's the developers who are addicted to the model as they are raking in the dough for very little work.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday January 10 2019, @08:26PM (2 children)
Then let me rephrase: Which platforms ought to be possible for a studio's debut game?
With the demise of the PlayStation Vita, the closest replacement for iOS games and Android games is Nintendo 3DS or Nintendo Switch games. But a release on consoles, which are more tightly curated than smartphones, might prove impractical until a studio has built up enough capital. If a simultaneous debut across all platforms is not possible with the capital available to a studio, what steps would one take to determine which platforms ought to be first?
I agree with you about repeatable in-app purchases. But if even a handful of one-time in-app purchases are forbidden, that would make providing a demo less practical. I can envision three approaches to providing a demo: free app with one-time IAP upgrade to full version, free demo and paid full version as separate apps, or no demo at all. For example, Nintendo offers three levels of Super Mario Run without charge, with a one-time IAP to unlock everything. A different company like Bethesda could offer (say) a Doom app without charge containing only the "Knee Deep in the Dead" episode, with additional mission packs (Ultimate Doom, Doom II, and Final Doom) available for one-time purchase the way one might buy a movie or an album. Making each mission pack its own app would incur substantial friction related to device storage and Internet caps, as would not providing a demo at all.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday January 10 2019, @11:32PM (1 child)
What you've described is what I would call a pretty decent system. What Google Play and the iTunes Store have is a hive of Scum and Villainy, so to speak. With Apple's offering being slightly less scummy. I have purchased a game or two on mobile that were reasonable, 1 time purchases. Android / iOS, etc, gaming is a semi-passable affair in general. Nintendo's handheld is designed for gaming. It's not overly priced, has lots of fun games, and you won't be terribly upset when your nephew tosses it on the ground. It's also, one of the last kid friendly ecosystems. Kids don't need to be able to run up a $500 bill on a game. It's illegal for a 5 year old kid to walk into a Casino and play a game. Loot boxes, virtual money for virtual items, etc, should be treated exactly the same. Much the same addictive traits as gambling, but without the extremely tiny possibility of a pay-out. Which actually makes letting your 5 year old kid gamble, the more responsible thing to do.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pino P on Friday January 11 2019, @04:54AM
Having "lots of fun games" doesn't help when the particular indie game that a friend recommended isn't ported quite yet because the developer is prioritizing its resources, and you instead see this on the buy page.
Send us a message