"Pay to Play" Games are Egregious and Need To Go Away

Pilky01

Registered User
Jan 30, 2012
9,867
2,319
GTA
Dumb dumb dumb. Bigger govt, more laws... crap that's not needed but stupid people want to spend money on micro transactions. Now our tax dollar are going to pay for dumb officials that feel a need to get some articles written about them for a little bit of fame because people are stupid and need the govt to tell them what to do and make laws around it. Stupidity all around.

Responsible government has a duty to stop predatory business practices. Especially when they are targeting children.

However I feel almost compelled to push back against the simplicity of "I miss the days when you bought the game once and that was the end of it" because I think online connectivity and the capacity to add on to games that have already been released is undeniably a benefit to consumers and "gamers". The problem becomes obvious though when a company like EA uses the benefit of online connectivity to perpetually manipulate gameplay for the specific purpose of promoting additional and perpetual financial investment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Daisy Jane

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
The only reason government intervenes in these things is because companies are dishonest, and either get lazy or deliberately greedy. Back in the day they would sell a container of meat or dairy, and it would be adulterated or some other completely different product, thus requiring regulation.
Quite a bit different than knowing exactly what you are spending on video games in todays day and age.

Now people won't get sick or die off a mislabeled video game but if people pay x amount for a product (a more or less complete game) they should get the product.
I don't mind DLC if you have a good base experience to work with, but when most of a game is that, it's ridiculous.
It's very cynical that some games are now like casinos, where they know that most people will drop a bit of money and time, but their main targets are the "whales" who will drop a ton of time and money on making the whole thing profitable. A game's plot is made up of stimulus reward, repeat and rinse, but was it ever intended to go on indefinitely?
I miss the days when you'd get a reliable game right out of the box, but that's another discussion. Seeing some games go to launch, and eventually abandoned by their makers without even getting patched properly makes me want to game less and less.
All that small print that nobody reads.
Look, I am not saying that there shouldn't be more regulation. I even suggested in another thread that games that have this form of gambling (because I believe its gambling) should have an age limit. My main point is that the responsibly for being a stupid human and blowing your money away should not always be someone else's fault.

Im with you on the old days of you buy a game, that's what you got. They spent a lot more time testing the game and making sure there were no bugs. There was never planned DLC, loot crates, or releasing a broken game and fixing it all with a "day 1 patch"... Games should ship complete and ready to play. We are really expanding on the topic here.

Responsible government has a duty to stop predatory business practices. Especially when they are targeting children.
No doubt. I didn't make it clear but I do believe loot boxes are gambling and they should have an age limit (like make any game with them an ESRB M or Pegi +18 for you Europe folk). At the same time though, people need to not blame others for them being stupid with their money.
 

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
No doubt. I didn't make it clear but I do believe loot boxes are gambling and they should have an age limit (like make any game with them an ESRB M or Pegi +18 for you Europe folk). At the same time though, people need to not blame others for them being stupid with their money.

Umm... that is exactly what they're talking about here isn't it? Minors are not legally allowed into casino's or to gamble, so if publishers want to add borderline real money gambling to games it needs to be looked at. And the last thing the big publisher are going to want is for lootboxes to bump their T rated games up to M. And especially in this specific case when it's Disney being partnered with EA for a Star Wars game.

With EA it's not just the 'violent' games that may have a high rating anyways that will be in effect, but also all their EA sports titles and a few other games like Need for Speed.
 

YoSoyLalo

me reading HF
Oct 8, 2010
79,323
16,780
www.gofundme.com
Pay to play for a free mobile game is...understandable.

Pay to play for $60 games with a $50 dollar season pass is f***ibg abhorrent. EA themselves said to their stockholders that the removal of MTs from Gamblefront isn't expected to impact profits much. The "games are expensive to make" crock is just that; MTs are there because companies like EA, activision, etc don't just want your $100 you paid for the game - they want ALL of your money, and ALL of your attention. They want you playing their game, and only their game. They want you spending money of their game, and only their game.

I really, really hope Hawaii sets a precedent and makes it illegal for games with these "features" to be owned and played be children.
 

syz

[1, 5, 6, 14]
Jul 13, 2007
28,849
12,239
No doubt. I didn't make it clear but I do believe loot boxes are gambling and they should have an age limit (like make any game with them an ESRB M or Pegi +18 for you Europe folk). At the same time though, people need to not blame others for them being stupid with their money.

[mod]

Calling a gambling addict stupid for gambling is like calling an alcoholic stupid for drinking. The loot box systems that are in place now (outside of some in Asia) do people with those predilections no favours, which is no surprise when you have the companies behind them putting psychologists on their payroll. At the very least they should have to list the odds of everything in the boxes; show people the odds they have of getting that particular Overwatch costume they want before they start spending money. Doesn't solve the problem, but it would at least reduce the number of people who are being exploited.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Emperoreddy

Show Me What You Got!
Apr 13, 2010
129,830
75,219
New Jersey, Exit 16E
This so the industries fault when they decided to basically use a slot machine as a key part of their game that could use real money.

Bogus DLC like horse armor is bullshit but it wasn’t potentially illegal like crates may be
 

Saskatoon

Registered User
Aug 24, 2006
1,948
852
Saskatoon
I don't mind cosmetic stuff costing extra as long as its completely optional and doesn't provide you with an in-game advantage. I get the gambling side of it being an issue but I don't really mind how PUBG does it personally. I'll never spend a dime on cosmetics (and the fancy cosmetics themselves make you easier to see if anything) but I can't imagine the costs to keep their cloud servers running with that many players so it seems like an acceptable evil in my opinion to keep the game going - especially when the game costs less than a AAA to begin with.

Pay-to-win type mechanics are the worst though. I get it to a degree in free games but on something like Battlefront its ridiculous.
 
Sep 19, 2008
372,000
23,890
So much outrage over FUT and MUT and HUT being play to play like you can just go into a bank and buy all these coins and buy a 99 Wayne Gretzky Movember or 98 Sidney Crosby and win games online
 

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
I don't mind cosmetic stuff costing extra as long as its completely optional and doesn't provide you with an in-game advantage. I get the gambling side of it being an issue but I don't really mind how PUBG does it personally. I'll never spend a dime on cosmetics (and the fancy cosmetics themselves make you easier to see if anything) but I can't imagine the costs to keep their cloud servers running with that many players so it seems like an acceptable evil in my opinion to keep the game going - especially when the game costs less than a AAA to begin with.

Pay-to-win type mechanics are the worst though. I get it to a degree in free games but on something like Battlefront its ridiculous.

It's still ridiculous in the sense that now if you actually want to buy the cosmetic item you can't just go to a store page and do so, but rather would have to keep dropping money into a damn slot machine to get what you wanted.

Either way though, while the big publishers are easing these things into games with PR saying 'they're only cosmetic', it was only a matter of time before one of them said screw it and went all pay to win like EA did. The end goal here was always for publishers to make the most money at their customers expense, so it's merely been a cat and mouse game of easing in as much they can one piece at a time with out incurring a big negative PR backlash. I mean just look at how far it's gone from the original Bethesda's horse armour to the full package of Battlefront 2. You could only imagine the response 10 years ago if a game was released with all the add-ons that a Shadow of War has.
 

Saskatoon

Registered User
Aug 24, 2006
1,948
852
Saskatoon
It's still ridiculous in the sense that now if you actually want to buy the cosmetic item you can't just go to a store page and do so, but rather would have to keep dropping money into a damn slot machine to get what you wanted.

Either way though, while the big publishers are easing these things into games with PR saying 'they're only cosmetic', it was only a matter of time before one of them said screw it and went all pay to win like EA did. The end goal here was always for publishers to make the most money at their customers expense, so it's merely been a cat and mouse game of easing in as much they can one piece at a time with out incurring a big negative PR backlash. I mean just look at how far it's gone from the original Bethesda's horse armour to the full package of Battlefront 2. You could only imagine the response 10 years ago if a game was released with all the add-ons that a Shadow of War has.

I agree that its a slippery slope and lots of companies will take it too far. I was just using PUBG as an example where it wasn't so bad. But I imagine it will get worse in other AAA titles.

I also see there is a bit of mismatch in how games are often sold (one time fee, play forever) but the costs to the developer for multiplayer games goes up the longer you play. For the business model to match up you would almost need to switch to a subscription so that your revenue and costs stayed in line. Myself ,I prefer the one-time fee and selling cosmetics in game because I never buy any cosmetics. But to get rid of DLC, cosmetics, etc you almost would need to move to a subscription model which lots of people would hate as well.
 

Do Make Say Think

& Yet & Yet
Jun 26, 2007
51,157
9,903
Subscription would be ideal. Take inspiration from Patreon and Kickstarter.

That being said, I don't do online gaming so I have no skin in that fight. As far as this whole BF2 mess goes, I'm seeing the market properly react to the envelope being pushed too far.

EA is reeling: their shares took a hit and Mickey Mouse just slapped them down in front of everyone.

People didn't want paid DLC and so they went full lootbox. We aren't going to get games that have these kinds of production values (I mean, seriously, BF2 is amazingly well made in terms of graphics and sound) without some kind of catch.

Lots of options for people who don't want to be a part of it. People love to bring up Titanfall 2 as an example of a game that worked without lootboxes and other nonsense. It isn't like lootboxes are ever where even if more publishers are using them (because lots of people like them I might add).

Besides, as I said, everything is working well: the seller over reached and is now paying the price. Also, there is a market for lootboxes, asking businesses to not tap into the market out of the kindness of their heart is preposterous.
 
Last edited:

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
People didn't want paid DLC and so they went full lootbox. We aren't going to get games that have these kinds of production values (I mean, seriously, BF2 is amazingly well made in terms of graphics and sound) without some kind of catch.

That's nonsense:



With how much a game like BF2 is expected they can easily afford full production value without all the addons. Which they do because they're in the business of making money, which is fine, but there's no reason to cry poor about it.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
A dumb thing to say in your already long and storied history of saying dumb things.

Calling a gambling addict stupid for gambling is like calling an alcoholic stupid for drinking. The loot box systems that are in place now (outside of some in Asia) do people with those predilections no favours, which is no surprise when you have the companies behind them putting psychologists on their payroll. At the very least they should have to list the odds of everything in the boxes; show people the odds they have of getting that particular Overwatch costume they want before they start spending money. Doesn't solve the problem, but it would at least reduce the number of people who are being exploited.
WTF is wrong with you? I have never called you out or called you names but for some reason you feel the need to do that to me? Yeah, that makes your opinion so much better. I never said an addict is stupid for doing what they are addicted to.

There is something seriously wrong with you if you feel the need to attack me for no reason. I don't care if you don't agree with me but to just be a jerk straight up for no reason while hiding behind your keyboard doesn't make what you say correct.

Yeah listing odds would make everything better... Hahahaha what a bad idea. You know they list the odds in Vegas right? And people still bet right? In fact, I would say that would just be admitting that it's gambling and make matters even worse. What a horrible suggestion. That makes no sense. Might be one of the worst idea's I have read here. And there's lots of bad ones out there.
 

Commander Clueless

Hiya, hiya. Pleased to meetcha.
Sep 10, 2008
15,237
2,922
People didn't want paid DLC and so they went full lootbox. We aren't going to get games that have these kinds of production values (I mean, seriously, BF2 is amazingly well made in terms of graphics and sound) without some kind of catch.

While there might be an expenses cut or two, I don't think this is quite true.

If microtransactions and the like disappeared overnight, do we expect AAA game production to stop? Or even take much of a hit? I highly doubt it.....



It's all about maximizing profits. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it can seriously bite you if it comes at the expense of product quality...as EA learned the hard way.
 
Last edited:

Saskatoon

Registered User
Aug 24, 2006
1,948
852
Saskatoon
While there might be an expenses cut or two, I don't think this is quite true.

If microtransactions and the like disappeared overnight, do we expect AAA game production to stop? Or even take much of a hit? I highly doubt it.....



It's all about maximizing profits. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it can seriously bite you if it comes at the expense of product quality...as EA learned the hard way.

I think certain games have a justifiable reason to try to keep revenue coming in (ie. ones with significant multiplayer that needs to be maintained by the developer). As someone who works in accounting I can tell you the execs at companies would be itching to cut multiplayer support once the game stops selling as in their view you are just losing money at that point. To them it doesn't matter how much profit they made on game sales - once their costs start getting higher than their revenue they want to shut it down. Don't get me wrong, the mechanics of DLC/cosmetics, loots boxes, etc. can and have been abused but as a gamer you generally want the developer to have incentive to keep the game running and providing updates.

The most "fair' solution may be a subscription service for games as I previously mentioned but plenty of people wouldn't be happy with that either.
 

Commander Clueless

Hiya, hiya. Pleased to meetcha.
Sep 10, 2008
15,237
2,922
I think certain games have a justifiable reason to try to keep revenue coming in (ie. ones with significant multiplayer that needs to be maintained by the developer). As someone who works in accounting I can tell you the execs at companies would be itching to cut multiplayer support once the game stops selling as in their view you are just losing money at that point. To them it doesn't matter how much profit they made on game sales - once their costs start getting higher than their revenue they want to shut it down. Don't get me wrong, the mechanics of DLC/cosmetics, loots boxes, etc. can and have been abused but as a gamer you generally want the developer to have incentive to keep the game running and providing updates.

The most "fair' solution may be a subscription service for games as I previously mentioned but plenty of people wouldn't be happy with that either.

While I understand that from a exec perspective, consumers would be (and are) much more amicable to subscriptions/microtransactions if there's no buy in cost. If you've already paid for something and have to continue paying to use it, it comes across as a pretty poor value proposition...especially on console where you already have a subscription just to have access to multiplayer in the first place.

The most logical way to do it is to sell more actual content, honestly...although that can cause other issues like dividing the community.


To be clear, I'm not trying to say they shouldn't try to earn more money...but the way to earn more money is to deliver a quality product and give customers the ability to consume more of that product. Developers/publishers need to be careful how much they sacrifice for monetization or they just end up with a product nobody wants in the first place. Gutting your own game to try to make more money off of it just gets you nowhere.
 

Saskatoon

Registered User
Aug 24, 2006
1,948
852
Saskatoon
While I understand that from a exec perspective, consumers would be (and are) much more amicable to subscriptions/microtransactions if there's no buy in cost. If you've already paid for something and have to continue paying to use it, it comes across as a pretty poor value proposition...especially on console where you already have a subscription just to have access to multiplayer in the first place.

The most logical way to do it is to sell more actual content, honestly...although that can cause other issues like dividing the community.


To be clear, I'm not trying to say they shouldn't try to earn more money...but the way to earn more money is to deliver a quality product and give customers the ability to consume more of that product. Developers/publishers need to be careful how much they sacrifice for monetization or they just end up with a product nobody wants in the first place. Gutting your own game to try to make more money off of it just gets you nowhere.

For sure, for a subscription to be reasonable in my mind there would be no up front fee. For games you don't like you would end up paying less than normally but for a game you continue to play for a long time you might pay more. I think this makes sense for multiplayer focused games with big server hosting costs - EVE is probably a good example of this model. For games that are more single player driven (like Wolfenstein for example) the one time fee makes more sense.
 

Do Make Say Think

& Yet & Yet
Jun 26, 2007
51,157
9,903
That's nonsense:



With how much a game like BF2 is expected they can easily afford full production value without all the addons. Which they do because they're in the business of making money, which is fine, but there's no reason to cry poor about it.


Who said anything about crying poor?

The businesses who spend millions upon millions on these games want to guarantee a return and will try every trick in the book to do so.

There is a big difference between breaking even and making all the money you can. Lootboxes are way to make all the money they can and that is absolutely fine by me.

There are a lot of ways to do lootboxes or games as a service: epansion packs like Beyond the Dark Portal fit in the games as a service model and there have been some outstanding expansions over the years.

EA ****ed up. Not just a little. But that is how markets grow and evolve. Nothing inherently wrong with what EA sought to do.

The execution was horrible though.

Also Hellblade looks great but you are wrong if you think it is in the same league as something like Battlefront II in terms of production values.
 

syz

[1, 5, 6, 14]
Jul 13, 2007
28,849
12,239
WTF is wrong with you? I have never called you out or called you names but for some reason you feel the need to do that to me? Yeah, that makes your opinion so much better. I never said an addict is stupid for doing what they are addicted to.

There is something seriously wrong with you if you feel the need to attack me for no reason. I don't care if you don't agree with me but to just be a jerk straight up for no reason while hiding behind your keyboard doesn't make what you say correct.

Yeah listing odds would make everything better... Hahahaha what a bad idea. You know they list the odds in Vegas right? And people still bet right? In fact, I would say that would just be admitting that it's gambling and make matters even worse. What a horrible suggestion. That makes no sense. Might be one of the worst idea's I have read here. And there's lots of bad ones out there.

I mean, I explicitly said that it would not make everything better... so I dunno what you're on about there.

This type of legislation (among others) has already proven that it can be beneficial to the consumer in Asia, sooooo... yea. Totally dumb, right? LOLOLLLOLL. Still exploitative (although mercifully at least still relegated to F2P games out there), but it's at least a step towards informed consumers. Unsurprisingly the difference between a banner that says "ROLL NOW FOR AN INCREASED DROP CHANCE" and (post-legislation) "ROLL NOW FOR AN INCREASED DROP CHANCE OF 0.034%" can have an effect for at least a percentage of the population. Information is good and there's a reason that western publishers don't want people to have it.

When even Korean mobile executives are popping up and saying that the US is going to ruin this shit for everybody, you know something's probably off.
 

Commander Clueless

Hiya, hiya. Pleased to meetcha.
Sep 10, 2008
15,237
2,922
For sure, for a subscription to be reasonable in my mind there would be no up front fee. For games you don't like you would end up paying less than normally but for a game you continue to play for a long time you might pay more. I think this makes sense for multiplayer focused games with big server hosting costs - EVE is probably a good example of this model. For games that are more single player driven (like Wolfenstein for example) the one time fee makes more sense.

Of course, there's then more onus on the devs to keep the servers going...unlike BF2 tonight. The lag is INTENSE. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saskatoon

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
Its also a good idea to start a whaling / shark murdering business in Asia too. Maybe the west should consider doing that also.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->