Predatory tactics in gaming are worse than you think
-
Can you go one interaction without the excessively hostile tone?
We started this conversation because you said that the act of selling anything at all in games is predatory.
I literally didn't. I said it's inseparable from this business model, eight hours later. The comment you're replying to explains how it's all one spectrum - including the things you, personally, would call predatory. The only specific examples I've given are skins and skip-the-grind.
What I get in response is 'do you still beat your wife?' over the apparent impossibility of updates that already happened, and repeated misrepresentations of how this thread started. You have quoted me directly and then been wrong in the next comment. I sound aggravated because you've been aggravating.
-
I did. I just didn't give you the clean yes-or-no you're prepared to posture about.
If I ask you a yes-or-no question, and you say 'nuh-uh', you did not answer the question. In fact, you haven't answered a single question I've ever tried to ask you over the course of this conversation.
Do you play competitive fighting games at all? Do you know anything at all of this world?
Do you seriously think having to pay for every edition of SF2 and SF4 separately is somehow better than being able to continue playing against anyone even with the base game?
Should the games I know and love be able to exist in the form that made them the games I know and love?
You forgot your own examples include games that did not have this business model, but still plainly got made, and had major updates, and took a shitload of your money.
No, I gave you an example of a game that broke compatibility and was widely criticized for doing so. It is not a model that we should ever go back to, no one else in the world besides you likes that. The new model is better because it preserves compatibility. Do you understand the point I am making here?
I know you understand charging money for things inside a game can be abusive.
Yes, sometimes some things can be. But you're arguing that everything is, and that is what I disagree with. And I feel that by being so aggressive towards things that are perfectly reasonable, you only end up making it harder to talk about real problems.
Should the games I know and love be able to exist in the form that made them the games I know and love?
Are we still pretending that paying for whole editions doesn't serve the same function? Are we still ignoring subscriptions because they make you feel icky? Are we still not acknowledging games that get updated for years, to keep sales up, and then have sequels?
It is not a model that we should ever go back to
Well there's one question answered, albeit still on the basis of 'ick.' It existed - it was profitable - but we can't do it ever again because that's the same as a whole existing game being banned. Blah blah blah.
I understand that compatibility is preferable. I am telling you it's not worth preserving this business model. This is the gentlest this business model could possibly be, and it has still created a typical 1v1 with a total price that's fucking bonkers.
Compatibility is also possible through the just-update-the-damn-game model. Like how nobody charges five bucks for improved netcode. That also costs money to create, and is surely a key part of improving past the initial version. Funny how it's just taken for granted as part of the game you already bought.
-
I know what you said, and I know we're on the same page because we've been talking about concrete examples where you say the DLC shouldn't be allowed to be sold. I don't know why you're up here trying to play some silly semantics games.
The DLC is content in the video game.
That's why you can see it, even if you haven't paid for it.
Welcome to the conversation.
For the love of god, do not make me rub your nose in this a seventh time.
-
The DLC is content in the video game.
That's why you can see it, even if you haven't paid for it.
Welcome to the conversation.
For the love of god, do not make me rub your nose in this a seventh time.
Yes, I know how DLC works. And I disagree with your blanket opposition to all DLC ever.
-
That is what it means, to sell content. That is what actual expansions are. This song-and-dance where you have the whole game, but you're not allowed to really have the whole game, is inseparable from everything you would call predatory. It's only a matter of degrees.
One of the several alternatives you've repeatedly ignored is that these additions can be added to the game people already bought. Surprisingly, this does not involve slave labor for artists, because games that stay popular keep selling more copies. Do they make as much money? No. But it turns out maximum corporate revenue is not a guideline for ethics.
It is not inseparable from predatory, because it is not predatory to begin with.
The idea that they should just make all DLC free is not a viable alternative.
-
Should the games I know and love be able to exist in the form that made them the games I know and love?
Are we still pretending that paying for whole editions doesn't serve the same function? Are we still ignoring subscriptions because they make you feel icky? Are we still not acknowledging games that get updated for years, to keep sales up, and then have sequels?
It is not a model that we should ever go back to
Well there's one question answered, albeit still on the basis of 'ick.' It existed - it was profitable - but we can't do it ever again because that's the same as a whole existing game being banned. Blah blah blah.
I understand that compatibility is preferable. I am telling you it's not worth preserving this business model. This is the gentlest this business model could possibly be, and it has still created a typical 1v1 with a total price that's fucking bonkers.
Compatibility is also possible through the just-update-the-damn-game model. Like how nobody charges five bucks for improved netcode. That also costs money to create, and is surely a key part of improving past the initial version. Funny how it's just taken for granted as part of the game you already bought.
We can't go back to an objectively worse model because no consumer in the world besides you would be okay with it now that a better model is possible. You cannot be serious trying to say you think we'd ever go backwards.
The current model is updating the game. Everyone gets to play the latest update even if you do not pay for the DLC.
I am also still baffled that you can somehow claim with a straight face that subscriptions are better. Subscriptions are a lock-in model that threaten you with losing everything as soon as you stop paying, so you'll have to keep paying forever to keep your game. If anything in this conversation is predatory, it's subscriptions!
-
Yes, I know how DLC works. And I disagree with your blanket opposition to all DLC ever.
Horse armor was above-board, relative to this.
I keep telling you the precise shape of the problem, and you keep going 'yeah, something else.'
-
It is not inseparable from predatory, because it is not predatory to begin with.
The idea that they should just make all DLC free is not a viable alternative.
'This is the gentle end of a spectrum where the far end is clearly predatory.' 'So this is predatory?'
Fucking aggravating.
-
We can't go back to an objectively worse model because no consumer in the world besides you would be okay with it now that a better model is possible. You cannot be serious trying to say you think we'd ever go backwards.
The current model is updating the game. Everyone gets to play the latest update even if you do not pay for the DLC.
I am also still baffled that you can somehow claim with a straight face that subscriptions are better. Subscriptions are a lock-in model that threaten you with losing everything as soon as you stop paying, so you'll have to keep paying forever to keep your game. If anything in this conversation is predatory, it's subscriptions!
'Stop calling everything predatory, you're killing the word!'
I didn't call everything pr--
'You know what's predatory? Paying for services!'
I'm out.
-
Horse armor was above-board, relative to this.
I keep telling you the precise shape of the problem, and you keep going 'yeah, something else.'
I'm done playing your weird word games. We've been talking about a concrete example, one where you say this example is pReDaToRy simply because it involves DLC, and I take issue with you drawing that line. You can't pretend you're actually saying something else at the same time.
-
'This is the gentle end of a spectrum where the far end is clearly predatory.' 'So this is predatory?'
Fucking aggravating.
Is DBFZ predatory or not?
-
'Stop calling everything predatory, you're killing the word!'
I didn't call everything pr--
'You know what's predatory? Paying for services!'
I'm out.
Please explain to me how a lock-in model that forces you to keep paying forever in order to keep what you already paid for is better than just being able to buy something once and have it.
-
I'm done playing your weird word games. We've been talking about a concrete example, one where you say this example is pReDaToRy simply because it involves DLC, and I take issue with you drawing that line. You can't pretend you're actually saying something else at the same time.
wrote last edited by [email protected]We’ve been talking about a concrete example, one where you say this example is pReDaToRy
I have repeatedly, specifically, and explicitly pointed out this is a lie.
You don't care.
You don't get to sneer about a word choice I've told you over and over that I did not use, in the context you're sneering about.
-
Is DBFZ predatory or not?
Doesn't seem to be.
The business model's still intolerable.
Can you grasp that distinction?
-
Please explain to me how a lock-in model that forces you to keep paying forever in order to keep what you already paid for is better than just being able to buy something once and have it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]The comparison is wrong. If the products you demand require continuing revenue - a subscription model allows rational consumer decisions. That's why most consumers look at it and say 'no thanks.' Real-money charges inside games make more money than subscriptions, not because anyone wants to pay $130 for a video game, but because it obfuscates that price.
The real question is, if FighterZ has now been funded by all those piecemeal sales, and is - in its current state - your favorite game... why the fuck isn't it $60 to buy it all once?
Like, you don't want the Street Fighter IV model where each normally-priced game is a tiny upgrade. But you can buy whatever the last version of SF4 is, at a normal price, and it's the whole goddamn game. If FighterZ doesn't seem to be getting any more updates or content, why is it still priced for excuses about development costs?
-
This is primarily why I don't bother discussing game balance in live service games. They will never balance the game to have a level field between the items and characters. They will always balance the game to keep you playing and spending money on mtx.
Most players thinking of quitting a game, generally are losing often. The game will notice this, and then give you a win. It's always been noticeable, but some games, like The Finals, are super egregious with it because it shows everyone's MMR right off the bat and you will be able to tell if you will win or lose a match right as it starts when you see that your team is 5 times higher ranked than the other 2 teams, or vice versa.
They are also constantly changing game balance. So a game that might have been fair at release can change into a pay2win hellhole
-
I want to shed light on a tactic that involves collecting data as you play, feeding this data into complex algorithms and models that then alter the rules of your game under the hood to optimize spending opportunities.
Well, that's something:
Another developer stated: ‘Well, we ended up with a model that basically targeted members of the Saudi royal family and charged them 100x what regular players would pay for the same microtransaction, and it worked..’
