- 0 Posts
- 325 Comments
I’ll just say it because you want me to.
You are very confused. My point is very simple and understandable, yet you will purposefully misinterpret everything I say, just to fit your agenda for the sake of argument.
I already said, if you want to buy skins, go for it. It’s your money. You dont need to get so defensive over that. It’s okay.
Because you are so hellbent on going in circles as an argument strategy, I wont discuss further. Good luck out there.
It’s bland. That’s my opinion. If you don’t think so that’s fine, but that is literally what an opinion is. The style is very similar to their old Frostbite games. You can see the EA Star Wars Battlefront in it.
The drones just being physics based isnt all that impressive that it makes the game for me, it’s not exactly revolutionary, similar things have existed before anyway. The gameplay is like you see in a lot of other games, that’s why I think it’s bland. It’s your run-of-the-mill 3rd person shooter, with some basic extraction shooter elements added.
If you enjoy it, fantastic go have fun, doesn’t mean I have to like it and you don’t have to defend the game or your position at all.
I said the situation is crazy, not a specific person. I dont blame any individual, the strategies used over the years by these companies to sell skins and make consumers complacent are all very manipulative and effective. The people designing the systems and the ones doing the marketing have done a very, very good job.
You seem stuck on artists all being freelance, getting paid on some sort of commission. They are almost always salaried employees like anyone else at the development company.
Weird analogy, paying for a game, something usually worked on for years, is a lot different than paying for a cosmetic change to something. It’s like going to the movies and paying the price of the ticket again to sit in a green chair instead of a red one and being told that’s completely normal and something you should do.
I agree, if skins were sold for $0.50, $1.00, max $5, then I would have less issue with them. I’d still have issue with the predatory practices used to sell them though. Some people are more susceptible to this than others, so I would rather it didnt exist at all.
You buy a game once, have all the content and are not pressured again to spend anything, that’s the ideal scenario, why would I compromise on that?
Games should be a sustainable art form, not gross corporate projects to extract as much money as possible from consumers.
No need to start throwing insults. It takes away from your argument. If you want to pay for cosmetics, sure go for it, but that’s how we got in this mess.
Artists get paid either way, they are not paid on commission of skin sales. Any extra profit goes to the executives anyway, not to the artists. So that entire point is null.
Games existed before with no paid cosmetics, they would exist again without them. This used to be the free-to-play model, but now they realise they can charge you for the game and then again and again for skins. These types of games are designed to extract as much money from you as possible, that’s their entire purpose. They are not giving you extra skins to be nice and then paying the artists more from it. A skin is made one time and sold a potentially infinite amount of times for ridiculous prices.
As I said:
It’s so ingrained it’s actually crazy.
Why would you ever want to advocate for a worse experience? It blows my mind, but that’s the situation we got ourselves into.
AAA is just cash grab, they haven’t been good or innovative games for a long, long time now. They are very good at marketing to the masses though and they have the pricing tiers laid out perfectly to extract as much money from people as they can.
They start off with their massive price tag like $70-80, plus the deluxe editions for $100-120 for any suckers who want a fucking extra skin. Then after a couple months when sales slow down, they put it on sale for like 20% off, then a couple months more, its like 40% off and so on. DLC has kind of fallen off, as they get people stuck in the battle pass and cosmetic buying loop instead (people are crazy).
If a AAA game looks interesting to you at all, you are literally best just waiting a few months or more, it’s a win-win, you either buy it it’s actual value or you get the reviews that its a disgusting broken mess or was completely over-hyped (it’s these last two 99% of the time).
Steam sales are for getting them older games a bit cheaper, good indie games are worth their price tag multiple times over honestly so unless you are tight on money, I’d support the developer regardless of sales.
It’s handheld, which is already a major difference to the other consoles, along with the little Wii style control options.
They aren’t selling it because of processing power, or necessarily the gimmick aspect, but on portability and “affordability”. That makes it a more compelling product than gimped PCs that cost twice as much.
But the Steam Deck has started to carve into that market, with many other lower quality ‘PC’ handhelds appearing too.
I think Nintendo will survive the longest, the Switch is a handheld with gimmicky features which appeals to kids and families. They have strong IPs, people will buy literally anything that says Pokemon on it. They are very anti-consumer, but that doesn’t matter to most unfortunately.
Xbox and PlayStation are essentially just heavily restricted PCs, so they don’t really hold the same value as a Switch might.
Fair enough. Seems like my hope for them is slim, I was expecting similar corporate practices anyway, but seems they have bigger problems with development decision making.