Roleplayer’s Off Topic Thread #19

[ColonelKillaBee]

16 minutes ago, Celan said:

 

And no, @ColonelKillaBee- I never said all multiplayer games have microtransactions. You're arguing about things I never wrote. I said MT's came out of those games and they did, end of story. Now you can invent arguments I never made and type "you're wrong" a few more times if it suits you.

One thing you're right about, I'm more and more sick of the hobby and where it's going.

Rofl ok whatever. You said they were all a grind, that taking advantage of said grind for profit was intrinsic to their nature. That they are the same as MMORPGs. You all but said exactly that. But Like I said, I said my piece. Not gonna argue over semantics. 

[Celan]

5 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

Rofl ok whatever. You said they were all a grind, that taking advantage of said grind for profit was intrinsic to their nature. That they are the same as MMORPGs. You all but said exactly that. But Like I said, I said my piece. Not gonna argue over semantics. 

And I stand by that- a game that forces you to be online, with social elements, as an ongoing "games as service" model, is more suited to microtransactions. I think that's pretty obvious and shouldn't need a debate. There's a reason MT's came out of those games.

[The Good Doctor]

9 minutes ago, Daddy Solaire said:

Sorry about that I'll go edit it. I am still trying to really understand how to typing works on this forum.

Same as most places. The enter button breaks for paragraphs. 

[ColonelKillaBee]

Just now, Celan said:

And I stand by that- a game that forces you to be online, with social elements, as an ongoing "games as service" model, is more suited to microtransactions. I think that's pretty obvious and shouldn't need a debate. There's a reason MT's came out of those games.

You can stand by what you like but until you actually play some of these games to know what you’re talking about, at least enough to see how different Overwatch is from an mmo.... all you’re doing is basically sharing a theory.

Bethesda has more micro transactions and the like on Fallout 4 and Skyrim than Overwatch does. All they have are currency packs for skins you can earn in game easily just by playing the game.

And then there’s Shadow of War. 

There has been years of these sort of games going without little if any such content like this, and they’ve been advancing on both single player and multiplayer fronts with it. In fact you can sell more content to single player fans because it’s not social. I never felt I needed a bunch of shit for social interaction on halo, we had everything we needed, whereas I was begging for more content for stuff like Oblivion or Star Wars the Force Unleashed, because you’re by yourself and games like that don’t have the same steam as a multiplayer game does.

Only a select few games do like Witcher. 

This idea that single player games don’t have these things is false, you just haven’t played enough of them to know better.

[Celan]

1 hour ago, Daddy Solaire said:

I just want to add and trust me I am not supporting micro transactions I hate them, but games are getting more expensive to produce. Which is the fault of developers and consumers alike. I'm not saying all consumers to do this, but their a lot a large amount that push for more and more features, better graphics, performance, etc. But as they push for this they also stop supporting companies because of small mistakes, or larger ones but act like it is the end of the world. On one hand you have something like what Bethesda just did which they deserve absolutely no support or forgiveness for.

76 is just a big fuck you to every fan. A cash grab, doing nothing but to hinder the growth of the video game business. But then on the other hand you have what happened with Battlefield V. Yes they pulled that bullshit statement of if you don't like it don't buy it, because they added women into the game. Which of course pissed a lot of people off. But just because of the women they immediately say the game is bad, trash, stupid, unrealistic, but the point is the game got a bad rep because of it.

I myself have played the game. It is not buggy like people say, there is content and more is going to be released for FREE, the campaign is there unlike Black Ops 4, and other than it maybe being a little boring to play by yourself as it is a squad based game it is a good Battlefield. Not the best, but most defiantly not the worst. But the point I am trying to make it so many people said screw DICE because of the statement of one EA employee so the lost out of a shit ton of money that could have gone into other DICE games/ content for BFV. 

My point with this is 76 was entirely Bethesda becoming what we hoped they wouldn't but EA is trying to better them selves making dlc and addons free in Battlefront 2, Battlefield, Titanfall, and I would assume more to come. Yes it took them fucking up, but they are trying. But as people continue to pretty much boycott them they lose the money that would be necessary to make the free stuff everyone wants. Just like a lot of people don't seem to realize something when they sit there saying OH THIS IS BULLSHIT I HAVE TO PAY $15 FOR THIS DLC??!?!?! no you are paying $15 for new content that they took their time and effort to make for you, but not only that you are making sure they have the money to continue to update and fix the game.

This is getting way to long, but some things are needed plus video game development is someones job so if people sit there complaining about a dlc pack that adds content get over it. Go ahead and hate on micro transactions that pretty much let you say fuck game play and have level 100 items at level 10, but if it is just a cosmetic who cares? Unless it is Bethesda saying here is the reused asset it is $25 plus interest and half of your income for the rest of the year.

Couple things- I've seen Angry Joe's review of Battlefront V and he doesn't even mention the "women in the game" aspect except to minimize it, yet he had lots of problems with the game. That's one of the most egregious examples of charging full price for an unfinished game that I've seen.

As for "getting over it," I have a job too, and developers don't get my hard earned money for nothing. People who feed that trend can do what they like with their own cash. Value is determined from demand, it's not a constant. If you consistently reward developers for upcharging less and less good content, gamers deserve what they (don't) get.

[ColonelKillaBee]

That’s also why dlc/addons and shit for stuff like Halo with Halo ODST were so big. Before then all we ever got were new maps n shit, single player for the longest time was the only games you expected dlc and weapon packs, etc for.

Loot boxes and super gross mmo esque microtransaction stuff for multiplayer games is a new generation thing, like for my brother and the pub g crowd. 

Shit we played back in the day had absolutely none of this.

[The Good Doctor]

3 minutes ago, Celan said:

Couple things- I've seen Angry Joe's review of Battlefront V and he doesn't even mention the "women in the game" aspect except to minimize it,

The outrage over women being in the game was overblown, partly by EA to try and make themselves the good guys and those “terrible sexist gamers” the bad guys. Because they needed something to grab ahold of with all the bad PR around them.

Their release before BFV was set in WW1 and had a woman as one of the main protagonists. None of those “sexists” gave a shit. The real controversy was the way they handled it all.

[Celan]

Just now, The Good Doctor said:

The outrage over women being in the game was overblown, partly by EA to try and make themselves the good guys and those “terrible sexist gamers” the bad guys. Because they needed something to grab ahold of with all the bad PR around them.

Their release before BFV was set in WW1 and had a woman as one of the main protagonists. None of those “sexists” gave a shit. The real controversy was the way they handled it all.

They did the same thing with DA2, playing up the controversy over teh ghey as if that was all that there was to complain about the game. Classic marketing deflection bullshit.

[The Good Doctor]

1 minute ago, Daddy Solaire said:

But I think we can all agree any kind of micro transaction that provides any kind of gameplay boost/benefit/progression what ever you want to call it is bullshit, but cosmetic stuff is eh

I disagree even here. Cosmetic microtransactions aren’t as bad as pay to win shit, but they’re still stupid. If I pay full price for a game, I shouldn’t be locked out of content unless it was developed later like a true DLC. Many cosmetics aren’t.

[ColonelKillaBee]

@my last post, that’s a good point actually, Bethesda I mean. They had some really cool dlc so I’m not shitting on oblivion but do a head count of how many house dlc and horse armor shit they had. Not much by today’s standards but even compared to mmos back then, they and EA had almost as much as even mmos did....

MMOs contrary to popular belief at first really didn’t have all this shit to buy, they didn’t need it. You had to pay for the subscription, the game and that was it. And Eventually you’d buy addons.

So yea single player games at one point had even more of this shit than multiplayer.

[ColonelKillaBee]

4 minutes ago, Daddy Solaire said:

True. In my overly long statement I was just saying people who complain about a dlc being $15 should realize they are paying for updates, repair, servers, more content, etc. Just like taxes they suck but are necessary. 

That wasn’t to you that was to @Celan and a continuation of my post on the last page

[ColonelKillaBee]

17 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

You can stand by what you like but until you actually play some of these games to know what you’re talking about, at least enough to see how different Overwatch is from an mmo.... all you’re doing is basically sharing a theory.

Bethesda has more micro transactions and the like on Fallout 4 and Skyrim than Overwatch does. All they have are currency packs for skins you can earn in game easily just by playing the game.

And then there’s Shadow of War. 

There has been years of these sort of games going without little if any such content like this, and they’ve been advancing on both single player and multiplayer fronts with it. In fact you can sell more content to single player fans because it’s not social. I never felt I needed a bunch of shit for social interaction on halo, we had everything we needed, whereas I was begging for more content for stuff like Oblivion or Star Wars the Force Unleashed, because you’re by yourself and games like that don’t have the same steam as a multiplayer game does.

Only a select few games do like Witcher. 

This idea that single player games don’t have these things is false, you just haven’t played enough of them to know better.

This in case it was missed

[The Good Doctor]

1 minute ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

They had some really cool dlc so I’m not shitting on oblivion but do a head count of how many house dlc and horse armor shit they had. 

Won’t defend horse armor, but the House DLCs actually added enough content to justify their existence imo. Plus, they were cheaper than your average cosmetic skin in many modern games. Like $3-$5 bucks for new locations, new characters with new voicework, new items and textures, and even some quests and mechanics that weren’t in before.

[ColonelKillaBee]

7 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

I disagree even here. Cosmetic microtransactions aren’t as bad as pay to win shit, but they’re still stupid. If I pay full price for a game, I shouldn’t be locked out of content unless it was developed later like a true DLC. Many cosmetics aren’t.

Agreed. Imagine if Halo made us pay for armor attachments instead of just unlocking them via earning them in game....

Theyre the lesser evil nowadays but they still suck.

2 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

Won’t defend horse armor, but the House DLCs actually added enough content to justify their existence imo. Plus, they were cheaper than your average cosmetic skin in many modern games. Like $3-$5 bucks for new locations, new characters with new voicework, new items and textures, and even some quests and mechanics that weren’t in before.

You certainly got more bang for your buck but the point still stands that it had more extra stuff to buy than any multiplayer game at the time.

[The Good Doctor]

10 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

You certainly got more bang for your buck but the point still stands that it had more extra stuff to buy than any multiplayer game at the time.

Probably, yeah. I don’t really have a problem with DLCs in general, though. It’s just overpriced shit like horse armor, microtransactions, and things that were clearly withheld from the game at launch to sell later that get under my skin.

But if you’re point’s just to say that single player games sold extra stuff too, then yeah, they did. 

[The Good Doctor]

Though it is telling that horse armor caused enough outrage to become a meme among the singleplayer game community. Multiplayer releases tend to not be held as accountable for things like that.

[ColonelKillaBee]

Just now, The Good Doctor said:

Probably, yeah. I don’t really have a problem with DLCs in general, though. It’s just overpriced shit like horse armor, microtransactions, and things that were clearly withheld from the game at launch to sell later that get under my skin.

But if you’re point’s just to say that single player games sold extra stuff too, then yeah, they did. 

Indeed it was, and not all of it was worth it like Oblivion either. Microtransactions, especially from EA existed for a long time.

1 minute ago, The Good Doctor said:

Though it is telling that horse armor caused enough outrage to become a meme among singleplayer games. Multiplayer releases tend to not be held as accountable for things like that.

That’s because multiplayer games weren’t expected to have much if any bonus content, whereas single player games were and everyone knew that whatever content they did add would be limited.

Horse armor sucked for a few reasons but it was also because it was one less good addon they were gonna get before Bethesda moved on, and the slot was wasted on garbage.

[The Good Doctor]

Just now, ColonelKillaBee said:

Horse armor sucked for a few reasons but it was also because it was one less good addon they were gonna get before Bethesda moved on, and the slot was wasted on garbage.

Wasn’t it the first add-on Bethesda did for Oblivion? I don’t think fans at the time even knew that more were coming yet. The concept was so new back in the early-mid 2000s that people still called them plug-ins.

[ColonelKillaBee]

29 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

Wasn’t it the first add-on Bethesda did for Oblivion? I don’t think fans at the time even knew that more were coming yet. The concept was so new back in the early-mid 2000s that people still called them plug-ins.

Bethesda said pretty quick more was coming but yea people were expecting something like Morrowinds addon first because thats what they got from the company but weapon and armor packs weren’t uncommon. In fact before then all multiplayer had was cosmetics like in team fortress because you had to worry about balance unlike in a single player game.

 

Well, not as much in a single player game I should say, balance was much more important in multiplayer. That’s why map packs and stuff came later.

 

Another example, I don’t know how much if any COD you played Doc but maybe u heard about the outrage that broke out because call of duty recently added purchasable care packages, lol.

Before the only thing they had were map packs.

Edited December 26, 2018 by ColonelKillaBee

[ColonelKillaBee]

In other news I have a job interview on the fourth for a permanent position... wish me luck, it’s 20 bucks an hour. Big jump for me.

[The Good Doctor]

23 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

In other news I have a job interview on the fourth for a permanent position... wish me luck, it’s 20 bucks an hour. Big jump for me.

Good luck, buddy. 

[Centurion]

4 hours ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

In other news I have a job interview on the fourth for a permanent position... wish me luck, it’s 20 bucks an hour. Big jump for me.

Hell yeah brother

[ColonelKillaBee]

https://youtu.be/a2mU38oPti4

Best marvel moment

[TheCzarsHussar]

22 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

https://youtu.be/a2mU38oPti4

Best marvel moment

Walt struck you down

Edited December 27, 2018 by TheCzarsHussar

[ColonelKillaBee]

Damn its not like I uploaded the whole movie, shit  Ah well.