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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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!
‘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.
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?