All Things Videogame Related: EXTREME VS!!

[mikeszekely]

1 hour ago, frothymug said:

Is there an example of loot boxes being done right?

I'm not sure if it's a "right" it "wrong" thing, but lot boxes are somewhat accepted as a necessary evil in F2P play games, as long as they're not pay to win. The devs/publisher has to make money somehow, right?

In a $60 AAA game, one that probably has a $20-$40 season pass on top of that initial $60, loot boxes just smack of greed.

[Focslain]

10 minutes ago, mikeszekely said:

I'm not sure if it's a "right" it "wrong" thing, but lot boxes are somewhat accepted as a necessary evil in F2P play games, as long as they're not pay to win. The devs/publisher has to make money somehow, right?

In a $60 AAA game, one that probably has a $20-$40 season pass on top of that initial $60, loot boxes just smack of greed.

Considering the cost of AAA games are close to that of most blockbuster movies... $60 is getting it cheap. Plus you have the cost of running the servers for the multi-player and then topping it with additional costs for continued content. Plus in the case of Battlefront since it's using a licensed property so there is a cut that goes to the IP owner (ie Disney) 

Honestly I blame GTA:O for most of this. They showed the industry that you can make mad money off of micro-transactions. F2P can work with them, but that is their life-blood. GTA did it as an AAA and made Rockstar a lot of dough.

[Chronocidal]

59 minutes ago, Focslain said:

Considering the cost of AAA games are close to that of most blockbuster movies... $60 is getting it cheap. Plus you have the cost of running the servers for the multi-player and then topping it with additional costs for continued content. Plus in the case of Battlefront since it's using a licensed property so there is a cut that goes to the IP owner (ie Disney) 

Server upkeep cost could probably be somewhat mitigated if they'd go back to designing games to be run by third-party game services, or (*gasp*) even let players locally host their own sessions.

Granted, you lose some control over the game that way, and have to just accept that people are going to be modding and tweaking their games into custom versions for their personal servers... but if you're abandoning using cash shop unlockable content, you really have nothing to lose financially.  Also takes care of the problem of developing continued content for the most part, because dedicated enthusiasts can and will rebuild games from the ground up to add new features they want.

Just in my personal experience, opening up games to community contribution would seem to be a huge boost for the game's sales, and prolong its life.  Look at how much is still done with TF2, and other Source-based properties.

Current cash grabby systems make me think of one of those parks with bumper cars, mini golf and batting cages.  Yeah, they can be fun for a bit, but eventually people get bored renting equipment, and go home.  People playing in a wide open sandbox that lets them bring their own toys are going to get inventive, spend a lot more time there, and probably bring friends.

 

[AN/ALQ128]

8 hours ago, anime52k8 said:

No.

There will never be a case of loot boxes or even in game loot in general that was "done right" because somebody will inevitably find a reason to complain no matter how you do it. Such is the nature of video game communities and why all game communities are inherently toxic and shite.

There is every reason to complain about game developers nickel and diming paying consumers, or hooking younger players into virtual gambling. Honestly waiting for a government to finally take notice about how extreme some of this stuff is, and start applying gambling laws to some of these videogames/skinner boxes.

[kajnrig]

8 hours ago, mikeszekely said:

I'm not sure if it's a "right" it "wrong" thing, but lot boxes are somewhat accepted as a necessary evil in F2P play games, as long as they're not pay to win.

They're not even a necessary evil. Loot boxes are, when you get down to their core concept, randomized rewards. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's when you start stipulating on the randomness that things get problematic, and especially so when you start "offering" the "choice" to pay real money to affect that randomness. Moreover, F2P games don't NEED loot boxes to make money; before loot boxes, there was in-game currency, and before that, there was microtransactions, and in all of these cases, the same problems existed: was the game gating off gameplay and gameplay advantages behind hidden paywalls?

The problem has only been exacerbated in the transition from F2P games to "traditional" games, because now devs and publishers are demanding that you pay up front in order to even access these microtransaction-, loot box-, in-game currency-laden systems. It's layers upon layers upon layers of obfuscation to try and hide the fact that they're selling you an addiction.

Overwatch makes you pay $60 up front, so you assume you're getting a full game, but then it locks costumes and other cosmetic items (which would have been unlockable items in a previous game) behind a paywall, but don't worry it's not a real paywall, just an in-game currency paywall, but you need loot boxes in order to get in-game currency, but don't worry you can get loot boxes through gameplay, except you can't get them nearly fast enough through gameplay to make the grind satisfying, but don't worry if you really really REALLY want loot boxes you can just pay a small $2-40 to get anywhere from two to an astounding FIFTY loot boxes, isn't that such a great value???

And that in itself is distasteful enough, but apparently the gaming community is totally fine with the practice because after all, it's only COSMETIC items - never mind that cosmetic items, even a limited number of them, have been included in the $60 purchase price of a game for decades now, so really gamers are saying that they're okay with paying full price for less content... but moving on.

EA's big frakk-up here has apparently been to tie these loot boxes to tangible gameplay benefits. Gamers would apparently be fine with this money-grubbing, nefarious, greedy policy designed to target their most vulnerable and mentally ill members if only it didn't touch the precious precious gameplay.

I'm being a twit about this, I know, but... only just.

8 hours ago, Focslain said:

Considering the cost of AAA games are close to that of most blockbuster movies... $60 is getting it cheap. Plus you have the cost of running the servers for the multi-player and then topping it with additional costs for continued content. Plus in the case of Battlefront since it's using a licensed property so there is a cut that goes to the IP owner (ie Disney) 

And yet they've still been profiting off of just game sales. Even on discounted game sales. Loot boxes, microtransactions, etc., aren't a way to make a profit, they're just there to make more profit.

11 minutes ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

There is every reason to complain about game developers nickel and diming paying consumers, or hooking younger players into virtual gambling. Honestly waiting for a government to finally take notice about how extreme some of this stuff is, and start applying gambling laws to some of these videogames/skinner boxes.

Your wish is my (or, well, the Belgian government's) command.

https://gizmodo.com/belgian-gaming-commission-decides-battlefront-ii-style-1820663366

And apparently Hawaii agrees with the Belgians.

------

In unrelated news, I saw some demo gameplay of this game, Jack and Casie, and while I have some issues with it, I just spent a good two hours playing through it myself. It's really fun. It's already met its Kickstarter goal, but if you want to help it hit some of its stretch goals, that would be cool.

It's basically if you take the attache case from RE4 and built an entire game around real-time managing it. And if you're anything like me, you've spent an inordinate amount of time managing your RE4 attache case. Myself, I'd like to be able to pause or slow down the gameplay from time to time, especially to give me time to read item details and dialogue and the like, but again, all in all, it was really fun.

[JB0]

3 hours ago, kajnrig said:

EA's big frakk-up here has apparently been to tie these loot boxes to tangible gameplay benefits. Gamers would apparently be fine with this money-grubbing, nefarious, greedy policy designed to target their most vulnerable and mentally ill members if only it didn't touch the precious precious gameplay.

They also made it an exceptionally aggressive "technically you can earn rewards through gameplay" system, the tangible gameplay benefits are VERY tangible, they actively advertise those benefits every time you die, their fix to the problem was more or less laughing at people(they reduced costs, but also rewards at the same time so the end result was exactly the same), and the cosmetic benefits included "can play as Darth Vader"... which ties directly into their biggest mistake: pulling this with a mainline Star Wars game.

 

You do this crap with a free-to-play cellphone game or some random downloadable RPG, the mainstream doesn't care.

You do it with Star Wars, and people that don't know what DLC, microtransactions, loot boxes, or B buttons are suddenly have an opinion.  They put everyone's eyes on it, and it generated nuclear amounts of heat.

[TheLoneWolf]

If I were EA, I wouldn't be too worried about fanboys or politicians, but I would be terrified of Disney. Disney is hyper-sensitive about their family-friendly image, so they've got to be absolutely pissed that one of their main franchises is now being tied to child gambling. EA may soon find themselves in the unenviable position of having to choose between appeasing their shareholders or Disney.

[Focslain]

43 minutes ago, TheLoneWolf said:

If I were EA, I wouldn't be too worried about fanboys or politicians, but I would be terrified of Disney. Disney is hyper-sensitive about their family-friendly image, so they've got to be absolutely pissed that one of their main franchises is now being tied to child gambling. EA may soon find themselves in the unenviable position of having to choose between appeasing their shareholders or Disney.

Oh they already bent to Disney's will. Remember that it was shortly after they got a call from Disney that EA suspended the in-game purchases for Battlefront.

[TangledThorns]

Anybody make any Black Friday game purchases yet? I want Hellblade but don't think it's priced low enough just yet.

[mikeszekely]

19 minutes ago, TangledThorns said:

Anybody make any Black Friday game purchases yet? I want Hellblade but don't think it's priced low enough just yet.

I picked up Shadow of War for $35, but that's about it. Most of what I'm really interested in just came out, so there aren't a ton of deals yet.

[kajnrig]

1 hour ago, TangledThorns said:

Anybody make any Black Friday game purchases yet? I want Hellblade but don't think it's priced low enough just yet.

$30 isn't low enough? (Or is it more, I dunno.)

I just bought a whole bunch of smaller games that went on sale on Steam - Enter the Gungeon, Hyper Light Drifter, Undertale, etc. - with the most expensive being Prey at $20, but then I quickly refunded that because Newegg showed its Thanksgiving day sales, which included Prey for $17. Big savings, I know.

Same sale has The Evil Within 2 and Wolfenstein 2 for 25 each. EW2 looks surprisingly good from the LP I've been watching, and the nephew has suddenly gotten into Wolfenstein, so those are going into the cart as well.

...or maybe not, since said nephew is a little crap and doesn't have the patience for cutscenes IN A SINGLE-PLAYER STORY-FOCUSSED FPS WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUU----

No, but I almost assuredly will buy them once I get back from lunch with the in-laws (brother's, not mine).

[mikeszekely]

Hmm, I'll have to pick up Wolfenstein.

Dunno why that $5 difference from the Steam price was the difference between buying and passing for me, but there you go.

Now if I could only find some better deals on South Park: The Fractured But Whole and Assassin's Creed Origins...

[kajnrig]

18 minutes ago, mikeszekely said:

Hmm, I'll have to pick up Wolfenstein.

Dunno why that $5 difference from the Steam price was the difference between buying and passing for me, but there you go.

Now if I could only find some better deals on South Park: The Fractured But Whole and Assassin's Creed Origins...

Use promo code EMCBBCD53 for the $5 off (otherwise it's same as Steam).

EMCBBCD52 for Prey, EMCBBCD54 for TEW2.

[mikeszekely]

42 minutes ago, kajnrig said:

Use promo code EMCBBCD53 for the $5 off (otherwise it's same as Steam).

EMCBBCD52 for Prey, EMCBBCD54 for TEW2.

You don't need a code for Wolfenstein, Amazon is $25 already. Plus Prime shipping, since it's the physical disc.

Edited November 23, 2017 by mikeszekely

[azrael]

Anyone play Wolfenstein: The New Colossus? I see it on sale for $25.

[kajnrig]

2 hours ago, mikeszekely said:

You don't need a code for Wolfenstein, Amazon is $25 already. Plus Prime shipping, since it's the physical disc.

Oh, I didn't know about that. I should clarify the codes are for Newegg. I'm fine with the digital, I don't like the games that much, plus shipping is even faster than Prime!

45 minutes ago, azrael said:

Anyone play Wolfenstein: The New Colossus? I see it on sale for $25.

I just bought it, and so too apparently are some of the others here considering it.

EDIT:

A full list of the games I've bought in the last two days:

- Earth Defense Force (bug-killing 3rd-person shooter)
- Hyper Light Drifter (action RPG?)
- Distraint (psychological horror)
- Undertale (RPG)
- Stories: The Path of Destinies (action RPG?)
- Enter the Gungeon (procedurally-generated? top-down action shooter)
- Shantae: 1/2 Genie Hero DLC - "Pirate Queen's Quest" (love this franchise, you should too)
- Prey
- Wolfenstein 2
- The Evil Within 2

That's about $100 worth of games. I think that, unlike models and toys, should keep me busy for the next half-year or so at the very least.

Edited November 23, 2017 by kajnrig

[mikeszekely]

1 hour ago, azrael said:

Anyone play Wolfenstein: The New Colossus? I see it on sale for $25.

Just bought it, should come Sunday. I liked The New Order. Throwing knives at moon Nazis was good fun.

[azrael]

Oh well, download code it is. How I miss the days of physical discs

[JB0]

1 hour ago, kajnrig said:

Earth Defense Force (bug-killing 3rd-person shooter)

Yeaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! EDF! EDF! EDF!

 

4.1, I assume?

[kajnrig]

What's the order of these new Wolfenstein games? The New Colossus is obviously the latest in the series, but between
- The Old Blood
- The New Order
which is the reboot of the franchise and which is the sequel(? midquel? prequel?) to the reboot of the franchise?

15 minutes ago, JB0 said:

Yeaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! EDF! EDF! EDF!

 

4.1, I assume?

No, just the original. Much as I wanted, I couldn't justify splurging on 4.1 without knowing if I'd like it or not.

[JB0]

4 minutes ago, kajnrig said:

No, just the original. Much as I wanted, I couldn't justify splurging on 4.1 without knowing if I'd like it or not.

2025? That's not bad either. 

I logged like a milion hours on my 360 when 2017 introduced me to the franchise, and I strongly encourage others to experience it as well.

 

[dragonstar1982]

Wolfenstien 2 was really good, beat it last week

 

[mikeszekely]

48 minutes ago, kajnrig said:

What's the order of these new Wolfenstein games? The New Colossus is obviously the latest in the series, but between
- The Old Blood
- The New Order
which is the reboot of the franchise and which is the sequel(? midquel? prequel?) to the reboot of the franchise?

No, just the original. Much as I wanted, I couldn't justify splurging on 4.1 without knowing if I'd like it or not.

The New Order was released first, and it's like the series' reboot.  The Old Blood was released next, but it's a prequel to The New Order.  The New Colossus seems to take place a year after The New Order.

[Roy Focker]

I'm just getting back in playing video games.   Bought a PS4 Pro Star Wars combo before hearing about this pay to play controversy.   Why can't I play online multiple player mode?  I need to join PS Plus?  What?  I'm confused.  I seem to remember being able to play multi player games on PS3 with no additional paid membership.  Last month I think I played GTA 5 online with my PS3 and didn't have pay extra to do so.

Is every PS4 game like this?  I just want to play what I paid for.  I don't think there anything in the description when I bought this PS4 online that said a paid membership was required to play.

[Dio]

I've been keeping busy with Horizon Zero Dawn's DLC expansion, "The Frozen Wilds."

It doesn't seem to add much so far to the (epic) main story, but the new machines are humbling to say the least. Even with my end-of-main-campaign loadout, the new fights force me to carefully consider strategy and equipment choices, which is more of what makes this game so much fun. It's very easy to lose yourself in the thrill of some hunts, combined with the exploration and real-world inspired scenery - one area I explored while my wife looked it up on online maps, and was able to ID a dam in the region with a present-day photo.

The absolutely stunning scenery is further enhanced by some of the best snow effects I've ever seen in a game - after one particularly tough battle on a snowy ridge I downed a Scorcher with a heavy strike that sent it rolling down the hill, and I could follow the trail in the snow all the way down to it.

Character animations supposedly got some tweaks, but there's still a touch of uncanny valley going on with the glazed-over eyes. The new characters also show a little more spunk/snark than the originals, with some good humorous moments thrown in (Aloy facepalm is priceless).

With all the talk of P2W multiplayer drama lately, this game is a rare jewel with a solid single-player experience and DLC that adds some meat to it, and is also going for good prices lately.

[Roy Focker]

Screw this I just learned Best Buy (place I got my Star Wars PS4) at is now selling the regular version for $100 less than what I paid.  I thought buying the combo and saving $10 was okay deal.   First chance I got I'm returning this PS4.  I was waiting for some titles that interested me before I bought a new console.  I can now live without this game.  I could now a buy PS4 pro and 2 new games for what I paid for it.

[Valkyrie Hunter D]

I've been out of the gaming loop lately since I plunged into Witcher 3.  I remember not liking the first one but I did a 180 with the Wild Hunt. And it is just a HUGE game. 

[kajnrig]

58 minutes ago, Roy Focker said:

I'm just getting back in playing video games.   Bought a PS4 Pro Star Wars combo before hearing about this pay to play controversy.   Why can't I play online multiple player mode?  I need to join PS Plus?  What?  I'm confused.  I seem to remember being able to play multi player games on PS3 with no additional paid membership.  Last month I think I played GTA 5 online with my PS3 and didn't have pay extra to do so.

Is every PS4 game like this?  I just want to play what I paid for.  I don't think there anything in the description when I bought this PS4 online that said a paid membership was required to play.

With the PS4, Sony mimicked Microsoft and made online play require a paid subscription. On PS3, online access and online play was entirely free.

It's not tied to the game specifically, but to the console. The controversy with the game has to do with its loot boxes, which are given to you at extremely low rates (think along the lines of 1 loot box every 2 days, or probably worse) but can be acquired en masse at once by paying real money. The loot box "rewards" sometimes contain in-game credits, which can be used to purchase and upgrade Star Cards, which in turn greatly affect gameplay (by, say, reducing a pistol's cooldown time from 4 seconds to 2 seconds).

29 minutes ago, Roy Focker said:

Screw this I just learned Best Buy (place I got my Star Wars PS4) at is now selling the regular version for $100 less than what I paid.  I thought buying the combo and saving $10 was okay deal.   First chance I got I'm returning this PS4.  I was waiting for some titles that interested me before I bought a new console.  I can now live without this game.  I could now a buy PS4 pro and 2 new games for what I paid for it.

You said you got a PS4 Pro? Are you sure they're not selling the original/slim PS4 for that $100 discount?That sounds in line with what I've seen other retailers doing:

- Original PS4 + extras for $199
- PS4 Pro (by itself or + extras) for $349

I believe the base PS4 is $299 retail, and the PS4 Pro is $399 retail.

[JB0]

1 hour ago, Roy Focker said:

I'm just getting back in playing video games.   Bought a PS4 Pro Star Wars combo before hearing about this pay to play controversy.   Why can't I play online multiple player mode?  I need to join PS Plus?  What?  I'm confused.  I seem to remember being able to play multi player games on PS3 with no additional paid membership.  Last month I think I played GTA 5 online with my PS3 and didn't have pay extra to do so.

Is every PS4 game like this?  I just want to play what I paid for.  I don't think there anything in the description when I bought this PS4 online that said a paid membership was required to play.

PS3 didn't charge a ransom to turn off the network port's firewall. PS4 does, because they saw how little effect it had on the XBox 360's sales and how willing people were to pay a subscription fee for a "service" that consists entirely of not disabling functionality that is already present and costs the hardware manufacturer nothing.

Welcome to the next level.

[dizman]

4 hours ago, kajnrig said:

No, just the original. Much as I wanted, I couldn't justify splurging on 4.1 without knowing if I'd like it or not.

 

4 hours ago, JB0 said:

2025? That's not bad either. 

I logged like a milion hours on my 360 when 2017 introduced me to the franchise, and I strongly encourage others to experience it as well.

 

When I played 2025 on the PS3 the frame rate slowdown was terrible, especially with two players splitscreen. If you can swing the extra bucks 4.1 on the PS4 runs great, even in splitscreen (and it's a great game too, though it can get repetitive).

Edited November 24, 2017 by dizman
words.....

[Roy Focker]

3 hours ago, kajnrig said:

You said you got a PS4 Pro? Are you sure they're not selling the original/slim PS4 for that $100 discount?That sounds in line with what I've seen other retailers doing:

- Original PS4 + extras for $199
- PS4 Pro (by itself or + extras) for $349

I believe the base PS4 is $299 retail, and the PS4 Pro is $399 retail.

I bought the Star Wars themed version for $449.

I thought that was a good deal instead buying a Pro for $399 and the game for $60.

If the regular Pro is now $349 I'll save $100 without getting this game.

[kajnrig]

26 minutes ago, Roy Focker said:

I bought the Star Wars themed version for $449.

I thought that was a good deal instead buying a Pro for $399 and the game for $60.

If the regular Pro is now $349 I'll save $100 without getting this game.

Ah, I see. By the by, the $349 deal I only saw at Gamestop and Walmart.

Apparently there's this $399 bundle on Ebay that nets you Battlefront 2 and FF15 as well. I came across it just now confirming the Gamestop/Walmart deals.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Playstation-4-Pro-1TB-Console-Star-War-Battle-Front-2-Final-Fantasy-XV/382277434643

[TangledThorns]

22 hours ago, azrael said:

Oh well, download code it is. How I miss the days of physical discs

I re-bought Crysis so I wouldn't have to deal with the physical discs and finding patches anymore.  It's a game I like to replay after a graphics card upgrade and after ten years it still looks amazing.

[Valkyrie Hunter D]

Got Tekken 7 for cheap this weekend. As fighting games go, it's a solid release that pays much tribute to the whole series.  If it's still on sale out there, be sure to snag a copy.

[Gerli]

It's amazing what these guys are doing with that Cryengine...