|
|
 Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
"Attractive product placement"? Did you read anything in the link?
Yeah, and I needed a full minute to re-calibrate my eyeballs after rolling them so fucking hard. Basically it says "Video games are fun, and loot boxes are part of the game, so we made those fun too". Would you rather the screen flash a warning saying "Strap in fuck-tard, we're charging you money and you aren't gonna like it"
Nah, you explain. You came up with the comparision.
I did. Extensively
Did the kid need that "badass fuckin ninja figure inside!" in order to get something accomplished?
This statement provides some insight into your flawed thinking. Playing video games is not an "accomplishment". You're playing with a toy.
Was the kids progress hampered by lacking that specific item?
Your use of the term "progress" suggests that you take your video games a little too seriously. They're not real Jack. Ok?
Also the word "hampered" implies that there is some verifiable minimum standard of progression speed in video games. There isn't. I've been playing Clash of Clans for 5 fuckin years and I'm still on town-hall level 9. I've spent more than a year just upgrading walls. It's a grind. But if someone spends money to buy gems and get to level 10 before me...so be it. I wouldn't say that my progress has been "hampered" by not spending money. I progressed through the game at a pace and investment total that best suited my needs. If the game didn't offer me that choice, then I would have simply played a different game.
Was the kid manipulated psychologically in order to get that particular item?
Ummm....yeah. I mean, the words "badass ninja figure inside" didn't appear in tiny print under the ingredients list. It's on the front of the box, with vivid coloring, enhanced sizing, attractive posing, and high-impact words usually followed by exclamation points. It's a well known fact grocery stores will put the products they intend to move the most on the shelves closest to eye level. A store can change its top selling products just by changing which shelf those products are on. Prices ending in 99 cents are a psychological manipulation. So are 2 for 1 sales, or anything followed by the phrase "limited time offer".
All human beings really need is food, water, and shelter. A wanting for anything else is really the result of a psychological manipulation. Why did you expect video games to be immune to that?
Yes, the psychological manilation needed to get you to spend more. The unboxing experience of these lootboxes is also quite pico bello.
So they're good salesmen. Bravo to them. Why is it a crime?
No, and I assume no one needed those beanie babies in order to accomplish something else much easier than if they didn't have that specific beanie baby.
Well beanie babies don't actually 'do' anything. They exist to be collected. So in order to accomplish the goal of a complete collection, you did in fact need at least one of every specific beanie baby.
Completing the collection without that specific beanie babie was not just harder...it was impossible!
A friend told me that cheat code. Different.
Well maybe you pirated it by word-of-mouth, but if you follow the chain backward, Konami got paid somehow.
In my experience, this never happened to me. Different.
It's not different. Just because you never patronized those phone lines doesn't mean they didn't make money. People frustrated with the pace or difficulty of the game could spend money to advance more easily.
You can sell that controller to someone else. Or chew on it. Different.
What if you don't sell it to someone else? What if you just keep it forever and use it entirely for your own enjoyment. Does that mean you didn't get your money's worth?
You could buy these in any store at varying prices. Different.
Or you could buy them on amazon for a tenth of the price at stores. Does that mean the stores are evil? Or is it just smart on their part when they sell you a new console and say "you'll need a cable. You can buy one on amazon for 10 bucks, or buy ours for 30. Ours is right here, Amazon will take at least two days. If you wanna play that game you just bought tonight....then you need to put up an extra twen-spot right fuckin now bro!"
Again, you could buy these in any store at varying prices. You could even borrow one if you were a broke ass. Different.
See above. Just because ALL the stores are doing it doesn't mean it's not gouging. Also, a broke ass friend could come over to your house and play your guy on star wars. So it's not different
Sure, as long as you advertise being an online subscription service in advance no one has a problem with it.
Are you saying that video game packaging doesn't explicitly state "subscription required". I just googled some ps4 game box art and it seems that many of them do in fact contain that labeling. If all you're calling for is some consistency in labeling, then I guess I can get behind that. Most mobile games i see say "contains in game purchases". That seems like fair warning enough. If you want something more explicit than that, I'd say you're being a bit of a crybaby.
I was unaware that you paid google $60 to make use of its search features
So your'e saying that you'd be ok with the in-game bilking if your upfront cost was lower? I thought this was all about the kids or something?
The thing is they never advertise these features. I mean, it's kind of obvious why, but I assume I have to mention this anyway. You only get to know this, particularly if you are the casual gamer they prey on, AFTER you already bought the game "because I like Star Wars". Oh, and let's not go into preorders, that one is for a different day.
This is bullshit. It's widely publicized that consoles are sold pretty close to cost, or even at a loss, with the idea that it creates a revenue stream of future purchases in the form of games and accessories. The whole video game industry is built on assuming a long line of repeat purchases from a single customer. I simply don't believe that the video game industry would embrace this if it really pisses off new gamers and sours them on repeat business. Obviously, it's not as big of a problem as you seem to think it is.
LOL, comparing buying tangible things to microtransactions.
LOL at the idea that only 'tangible things' have value.
The only way this would compare was if buying the memory card implied you paying for a black box, which could contain the memory card, but also some broccolli and cheese, a few tic tacs and a literall polished stone. And then out of every 1000 black boxes, only 50 would contain a memory card. Also, of different sizes because why the hell not. The other 950, 600 would contain raw broccoli and cheese, 250 would contain tic tacs, and 100 would contain polished stones.
What does it cost to open the black box? If it's equal to the average of 50 memory cards, 600 broc & cheese, 250 tic tacs, and 100 polished stones. Then it seems pretty fair to me.
Oh, and BTW, River City ransom saves were codes. You had to input a code to get your character back
.
Yeah, and I'll bet there were codes you could put in that would give you a pretty good character, even if you hadn't 'earned' that character through game play. You could enter "JUSTIN BAILEY" on Metroid and start with a loaded Samus. No one knew that unless they read or heard about it from Nintendo Fun Club news, which only existed to bilk a few extra dollars from enthusiastic, impatient, or frustrated gamers.
LOL, those that made the games really did benefit from selling those magazines back in the day.
Dude....we didn't have the internet. Video games were not mainstream enough to be advertised in prime time. If you wanted to know what was up, you needed to read the magazines. The only reason I knew Final Fantasy existed is because of Nintendo Power. It made me want to buy the game. I did end up buying the game. So....yeah, game makers benefited ALOT from that shit.
Cuphead recently launched at $30. No microtransactions, no PVP, no lootboxes, no DLC yet, it's not even a known IP of, shall we say, Star Wars calibre? It's just a solid good game. It sold 1 million copies at full price in 2 weeks.
So?? Also, you know Star Wars caliber IP costs money right?
I don't want slot machines in games aimed at 13 year olds.
Ok, they're aren't. Don't worry.
I also do not want PAY TO WIN mechanics in full priced supposedly AAA titles.
You wouldn't care if you could afford it. And if you can't afford it, then maybe you're spending too much time playing video games.
I think I mentioned these quite a few times in this thread, but I maybe I'm mistaken.
You've said what you don't like. You haven't offered a potential solution. You just want to keep throwing a tantrum until someone bigger and stronger comes along and makes the bad people stop being bad.
No, I don't. I bought every single DLC there was to buy for Mass Effect 2 & 3 for instance. Didn't buy the one DLC 1 had though
Whaaaaaaaaaaat???? You mean you made a purchase decision based on your own needs, preferences, and budget all under your own free will??? How the fuck did you do that with all these greedy corporations controlling your mind!!!???
No, honeybun. This practice has to stop.
Why? Who is getting hurt? You and Oskar keep saying how much money the game will make.....so obviously they have an audience that isn't too offended by what they're doing.
Then you advertise as such. Call it: Star Wars Casino Battlefront 2 for Rich People. Sell the game at $1000. Or whatever you want. Heck, sell the Super Titanium Deluxe Edition for $1000000. And make it 18+ as well.
Honestly, this feels more and more about you not wanting to pay, and less and less about keeping kids away from slot machines.
But don't tell me it's NOT pay to win when it is demonstrably PAY TO WIN just as in those mobile games I don't play because they are PAY TO WIN.
no...it's 'pay to win fast'. Different.
Also, don't tell me it's NOT GAMBLING when it definitely IS GAMBLING.
It's not gambling cuz baseball cards.
Not really, as long as you advertise as being such. Why the deception?
Dude....if you advertised a game as being "1 hour long" and still charged $60 bucks...it wouldn't sell. People would consider it a ripoff. Yet, back in the day, ALL the games were like that. Obviously the definition of "ripoff" has evolved over the years, and now I'm saying you're taking it too far.
Do you remember Crono Trigger? If you wanted to, you could beat it in 30 minutes flat too. Or you could take 30 hours with it. It was all up to you.
Ok....so 'it's all up to you'. Great, we agree. Play fast, play slow, it's all up to you. Some people might choose to play 'the long way', but are also willing to pay extra for a boost. How does that diminish YOUR experience?
Mainly because of the gambling non-gambling element in products marketed squarely at 13 year olds
Stop with this....13 year olds don't have credit cards!!! An adult has to intervene in order for the 13 year old to spend any money. Yes, he can buy gift cards and use them online but he's limited by A) how much cash he has, and B) How often he can get to a store that sells gift cards. He can't go into debt. He can't blow off the mortgage payment to buy more lootboxes. And if he really is in a situation where he's spending "too much" on this stuff, then the overwhelming contributing factor is a lack of parental oversight. While that's sad, it's certainly not the job of the video game industry to sacrifice potential profits just to pick up the slack for a few bad parents.
And of course the whales (read: vulnerables)
Grown people making their own decisions is not a problem for anyone except those specific grown-ups. I simply don't believe that game makers are trying to "lure in" new gamers just to snatch $60 from them and not really care if they get pissed off after the fact over add-on transactions. That would completely undermine structure of profitability that drives the industry in the first place. The whole idea is to encourage repeat business. I flat out don't believe that there is some kind of agenda to simply screw over the unsuspecting noob with a disappointing product, bank whatever you can now, and fuck the future.
If an adult is disappointed with a toy he bought....I'm not shedding any tears for him.
|
Reply With Quote