Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

Just because I've used a slippery slope fallacy, does not discredit my argument. Simply shouting "hurr durr slippery slope", is a garbage way of debating someone. Especially when all the evidence is on my side. A slippery slope is only a bad way to argue if you can't provide a correlation between steps - Not exactly hard to do in regards to DLC and predatory business practises.

 

Remember when Horse Armour DLC came out for Oblivion? People said this was bad because DLC like this used to be free mods you could download and it was shitty to charge for such a tiny amount of content? Now we're charged like $5 for a freakin' weapon skin.

 

Remember when people said it was bad to charge for map packs because it segregates communities?

 

Wow, would you look at that... It turns out all these people were correct. I was one of them.

 

Lets see, so far DLC/Micro-transactions have:

 

  • Killed modding communities (Game devs don't want to have to compete with free mods)
  • Killed custom maps (Same as above)
  • Turned games into P2W (See Warzone in Halo 5)
  • Turned kids into gamblers
So this idea that I don't actually have an argument is laughable.

 

Will you always have the ability to buy games? Yeah, sure.

 

Will you always be able to buy EA games? Or Ubisoft games? Or Activision games?

 

Well, perhaps not.

 

It's very possible in the future that people that want to buy games will be buying from other smaller companies while AAA publishers go the subscription route. Perhaps Windows will become a close eco-system and all PC gamers will be pushed to Linux. Microsoft is actually trialling this already with Windows 10 S - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/03/windows-10-s-microsoft-faster-pc-comparison:

 

 

 

Games bought on the Windows Store have their entire folders encrypted to the point where not even an administrator account has access to modify the files inside. This means you're can't even do things like modify a *.ini file to change your settings, etc. Good bye mods, but hey, I'm sure the game developers will make up for those free mods we used to enjoy with a bunch of paid DLC...

 

Obviously some companies are going to maintain their credibility. Publishers like Valve are pushing Linux heavily in order to escape Windows and they've always been great to their modding community.

 

But look at companies that once embraced mods, like ID. Doom and Quake used to have thriving modding communities. Quake Champions has no modding tools and Doom has... Snapmap... Yay.

 

I'm sorry dude, but if you think games as a service taking over the ability to buy games is far fetched you're incredibly naive.. It's almost certain at this point that all major game publishers want to go this route.

 

 

 

This is the CEO of Ubisoft pretty much stating point blank what their intentions are.

 

But yes, please go on and tell me how this is a dumb slippery slope fallacy, lol.

it's only a fallacy if it's a slippery slope. What you're describing is a domino effect. Which is not a fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, but capitalists want as many avenues of revenue open as possible.  If anybody thinks its realistic that Activision, EA, Bethesda, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo etc etc etc will someday not be competitors anymore, all under the same megacorp then sure.  But if that happens we're all fucked so hard that subscription model-only games will be the least of our worries.

 

And yeah, i know that industry wide shit-tier business practices take over like we have with ISPs or pharmaceutical companies but that's only when 1) They aren't competing over the same base of customers like how ISPs are usually the only game in town or 2) the services being offered are non-optional, like pharmaceutical companies charging whatever the fuck they want because they know people are either addicted or need their products to live.

 

You're skirting the issue. How did shitty DRM practices arise if competition was supposed to prevent that kind of thing? How did lootboxes come into the picture at all? How did any of these dirtball practices persist in a world full of choices? 

 

Because 1) people are stupid, and 2) competitors will work together to fuck over their consumers for more money all around. 

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

You're skirting the issue. How did shitty DRM practices arise if competition was supposed to prevent that kind of thing? How did lootboxes come into the picture at all? How did any of these dirtball practices persist in a world full of choices? 

 

Because 1) people are stupid, and 2) competitors will work together to fuck over their consumers for more money all around. 

i didnt realize this was the free market republican thread LOLLLL

 

time and time again this bullshit happens and it gets worse and worse, cosmetic mt's one day become battlefront 2's the next

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like the ultimate gamer would adapt to MTs no matter how shitty and anti consumer they get... 

Share this post


Link to post

Just because I've used a slippery slope fallacy, does not discredit my argument. Simply shouting "hurr durr slippery slope", is a garbage way of debating someone. Especially when all the evidence is on my side. A slippery slope is only a bad way to argue if you can't provide a correlation between steps - Not exactly hard to do in regards to DLC and predatory business practises.

A fallacy is by definition a poor argument. You have absolutely NO evidence to support the idea that the entire concept of ownership will disappear. All you can say with certainty is that other models are gaining popularity.

 

Predatory business practices isn’t some new trend. Companies are always out to increase their bottom line, at the expense of consumers. But there is no proof that completely avoiding the direct sales is the best thing for bottom line... which is why, for example, music is still sold. In fact, it’s pretty clear that the best thing for the bottom line is to offer multiple options.

 

Remember when Horse Armour DLC came out for Oblivion? People said this was bad because DLC like this used to be free mods you could download and it was shitty to charge for such a tiny amount of content? Now we're charged like $5 for a freakin' weapon skin.

Of course I do. But 1) this has nothing to do with eliminating purchasing as a distribution option. 2) DLC hasn’t eliminated modding (there’s more modding on console now than there was then). 3) there are still games that price DLC more fairly, only do free DLC, or don’t do DLC at all. The slippery slope scenario (DLC is going eliminate modding, Oh no!) never game to fruition, and likely never will.

 

We had horse armor. We now have GTA5 with a service based , MT funded GTA Online, along side a massive modding community. It turns out that demand ultimately holds the key to corporate decision making.

 

Remember when people said it was bad to charge for map packs because it segregates communities?

Wow, would you look at that... It turns out all these people were correct. I was one of them.

Yup and again, we still have games that do free map packs. We even have franchise that use to sell map packs, shifting towards free map packs.

 

Again, your PROVING, that the slippery slope fallacy, is just that - a fallacy. The mere existence or even popularity of a new option doesn’t guarantee that it will eventually be the only option.

 

Lets see, so far DLC/Micro-transactions have:

  • Killed modding communities (Game devs don't want to have to compete with free mods)
  • Killed custom maps (Same as above)
  • Turned games into P2W (See Warzone in Halo 5)
  • Turned kids into gamblers
So this idea that I don't actually have an argument is laughable.
I agree, there are plenty of examples of shitty impementation of MTs. IMO skinner boxes should be illegal.

 

There are also examples of less egregious implementation, and even good implementations.

 

But your argument was that we should detest all microtransactions because they represent a shift towards a market where gamers have no option to own games. That’s hyperbolic BS, with 0 supporting evidence.

 

Will you always have the ability to buy games? Yeah, sure.

Will you always be able to buy EA games? Or Ubisoft games? Or Activision games?

Well, perhaps not.

 

It's very possible in the future that people that want to buy games will be buying from other smaller companies while AAA publishers go the subscription route. Perhaps Windows will become a close eco-system and all PC gamers will be pushed to Linux. Microsoft is actually trialling this already with Windows 10 S - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/03/windows-10-s-microsoft-faster-pc-comparison:

 

Who knows? Companies have always been free to distribute games as they see fit. WOW was on a subscription model 14 years ago.

Is it possible that individual companies wont see value in offering games for sale? Yeah sure. Is it likely? I’m sure someone will. Is the entire industry doomed to adopt that model exclusively? Nope. There’s literally NO evidence to support this theory.

 

Games bought on the Windows Store have their entire folders encrypted to the point where not even an administrator account has access to modify the files inside. This means you're can't even do things like modify a *.ini file to change your settings, etc. Good bye mods, but hey, I'm sure the game developers will make up for those free mods we used to enjoy with a bunch of paid DLC...

But the windows store makes up like 1% of PC gaming market share. Most devs don’t even put games on the Windows Store. There is a demand for games that can be purchased without these limitations and that demand is being met, and will continue to be met.

 

Again, your just proving my point that the mere existence of a different model doesn’t signal the elimination of others.

 

Obviously some companies are going to maintain their credibility. Publishers like Valve are pushing Linux heavily in order to escape Windows and they've always been great to their modding community.

 

But look at companies that once embraced mods, like ID. Doom and Quake used to have thriving modding communities. Quake Champions has no modding tools and Doom has... Snapmap... Yay.

Companies can lose their way, with or without the existence of GaaS. For every franchise that now has middling mod support, there’s a million games that are wide open.

 

 

I'm sorry dude, but if you think games as a service taking over the ability to buy games is far fetched you're incredibly naive.. It's almost certain at this point that all major game publishers want to go this route.

 

This is the CEO of Ubisoft pretty much stating point blank what their intentions are.

 

But yes, please go on and tell me how this is a dumb slippery slope fallacy, lol.

Nah I’m not naive. I just base my arguments on actual trends, not perceived ones, and certainly not fallacy. Offering new options isn’t the same as eliminating old ones. To date, there is no tendency - within the entirety of entertainment industry - to eliminate the option to buy. Even Netflix sells their Original Content. So how can you argue it’s the trend? Moreover, how can you argue that MTs are a sign of this trend?

 

There isn’t even a business case to support your argument. There’s a number of reasons why, to date, no one has been able to offer game streaming services at a quality and price that resonates with gamers. And those reasons show no signs of going away anytime soon. You think EA is going to dive into a streaming only model when their biggest market is facing terrible speeds and data caps? And I’m the naive one?

Share this post


Link to post

Mate, if the fucking CEO OF UBISOFT can't convince you, then I'm not really sure what to tell you.

 

You keep saying I have no evidence the industry is heading this way when the most powerful people in the industry are saying this is where we're heading.

 

This isn't some random dick head on a forum telling you that there will be one more generation of consoles, it's the CEO of one of the biggest game publishers.

 

There’s a number of reasons why, to date, no one has been able to offer game streaming services at a quality and price that resonates with gamers. And those reasons show no signs of going away anytime soon. You think EA is going to dive into a streaming only model when their biggest market is facing terrible speeds and data caps? And I’m the naive one?

 

This shit wasn't even possible until very recently due to internet speeds and processing power limitations.

 

We now live in an age where we're rolling out 5G and you can watch 4K Netflix on your phone. Do you REALLY think it's fair to look at the past? FFS, watching videos on tiny hand held devices used to be reserved for SciFi set in year 2150. Hell, even streaming video at all used to be a pain in the ass. Remember trying to download a video and you had to click on a dozen mirrors until you found a link that actually worked? YouTube came into existence 13 years ago. Before then you had to pay massive amounts of money and have a stupid powerful dedicated server and a crazy amount of bandwidth if you wanted to serve video content to a large amount of people.

 

Now you take a 4K video on your phone, hit upload and then share it to a million people without even thinking about it.

 

This is a completely new age.

 

No one has been able to offer game streaming services... Did you watch this years E3?

 

https://www.cnet.com/news/i-saw-a-live-demo-of-eas-new-cloud-gaming-service-and-it-totally-works/
 

It's not like game streaming is brand new. OnLive and Gaikai pioneered the idea, and they were acquired by PlayStation. PlayStation Now, launched in 2014, is Sony's current game streaming service, with around 650 titles. The devices the service works on are limited, though — only the PS4 and some Windows PCs meet the requirements (the now-discontinued PS3, PSVita, and several Smart TVs were compatible, too).

 

Sony isn't alone. Nvidia's GeForce Now lets you play games powered by a cloud server farm. There are around 50 titles accessible on the Nvidia Shield streaming box, and GeForce Now is in beta on the Mac. Like PSNow, the number of supported devices is limited, with just the Shield, some PCs, and now Macs that are compatible.

 

It's already here.

 

And what are you talking about their biggest market has terrible speeds and data caps?

 

These pricks won't even put a full game on a physical disc any more, lol. Halo MCC had a 20GB day one patch or something. Pro tip: They've never given 2 shits about people that lack internet access. That's why they've removed LAN support from pretty much every modern AAA game and put always online DRM into games that didn't need it.

 

Did you miss the whole Sim City fiasco or somehow didn't hear about Diablo 3?

 

And also, internet speeds are evolving rapidly. I can get faster internet on my phone than my fixed line ADSL2 connection. You don't need 50mbps to stream video. The vast majority of people in 1st world countries can already stream video just fine.

 

Obviously they're not going to offer streaming exclusive games unless they can reach 99% of their target audience... But that's not exactly far off into the future.

 

 

To date, there is no tendency - within the entirety of entertainment industry - to eliminate the option to buy

 

But there is in the software industry - which is entwined with the gaming industry.

 

But like I said, don't take my word for it, just ask the people in power.

 

Oh... Also, another reason this is going to happen...

 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-06-15-xbox-one-x-selling-at-a-loss

 

He later elaborated: "I don't want to get into all the numbers, but in aggregate you should think about the hardware part of the console business is not the money-making part of the business. The money-making part is in selling games."

 

Console hardware has commonly been sold at a loss. Why would Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo want to continue this trend of selling you hardware at a loss when they can just charge you a subscription fee instead?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Mate, if the fucking CEO OF UBISOFT can't convince you, then I'm not really sure what to tell you.

 

You keep saying I have no evidence the industry is heading this way when the most powerful people in the industry are saying this is where we're heading.

 

This isn't some random dick head on a forum telling you that there will be one more generation of consoles, it's the CEO of one of the biggest game publishers.

 

 

This shit wasn't even possible until very recently due to internet speeds and processing power limitations.

 

We now live in an age where we're rolling out 5G and you can watch 4K Netflix on your phone. Do you REALLY think it's fair to look at the past? FFS, watching videos on tiny hand held devices used to be reserved for SciFi set in year 2150. Hell, even streaming video at all used to be a pain in the ass. Remember trying to download a video and you had to click on a dozen mirrors until you found a link that actually worked? YouTube came into existence 13 years ago. Before then you had to pay massive amounts of money and have a stupid powerful dedicated server and a crazy amount of bandwidth if you wanted to serve video content to a large amount of people.

 

Now you take a 4K video on your phone, hit upload and then share it to a million people without even thinking about it.

 

This is a completely new age.

 

No one has been able to offer game streaming services... Did you watch this years E3?

 

https://www.cnet.com/news/i-saw-a-live-demo-of-eas-new-cloud-gaming-service-and-it-totally-works/

 

 

It's already here.

 

And what are you talking about their biggest market has terrible speeds and data caps?

 

These pricks won't even put a full game on a physical disc any more, lol. Halo MCC had a 20GB day one patch or something. Pro tip: They've never given 2 shits about people that lack internet access. That's why they've removed LAN support from pretty much every modern AAA game and put always online DRM into games that didn't need it.

 

Did you miss the whole Sim City fiasco or somehow didn't hear about Diablo 3?

 

And also, internet speeds are evolving rapidly. I can get faster internet on my phone than my fixed line ADSL2 connection. You don't need 50mbps to stream video. The vast majority of people in 1st world countries can already stream video just fine.

 

Obviously they're not going to offer streaming exclusive games unless they can reach 99% of their target audience... But that's not exactly far off into the future.

 

 

But there is in the software industry - which is entwined with the gaming industry.

 

But like I said, don't take my word for it, just ask the people in power.

 

Oh... Also, another reason this is going to happen...

 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-06-15-xbox-one-x-selling-at-a-loss

 

 

Console hardware has commonly been sold at a loss. Why would Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo want to continue this trend of selling you hardware at a loss when they can just charge you a subscription fee instead?

Is the CEO of UBIsoft going to boost internet speeds and remove data caps in the US?

 

You need to re-read what I typed. I didn’t say no one can deliver streaming services... I said no one can deliver streaming services at a price and level of quality that resonates with gamers. We’ve been seeing streaming services work, under ideal conditions, for the last 8 years. Lack of decent pricing structure and ideal conditions has prevented demand from rising to the point to even make these ventures profitable. It remains to be seen if we’ll ever reach a point where it upseats traditional distribution let alone gains an equal footing. The mere existence of this method doesn’t signal the total loss of traditional methods.

 

Removing LAN is less about not caring about people without internet and more about realizing that it was becoming a less popular feature and that CPU resources were better utilized for features that consumers are actually demanding. The comparison between not building LAN MP in a game, and not making your game available, AT ALL, to people who don’t have awesome internet is tenuous as hell - it’s really not comparable.

 

Also, MCC can’t fit on a standard DVD. The vast majority of games can, and typically, day 1 DLC is limited to online MP content. Yes i’m Aware of SimCity and Diablo3 fiascos. Are you aware of the thousands of other games that have released w/o those issues? Publishers doing dumb shit with a couple of popular games (and losing sales as a result) doesnt equal the universal abandonment of the option to own.

 

Game streaming isn’t just about streaming video. You need low latency - which is not an issue when it comes to streaming music and movies. You also need to have an internet provider who isn’t going to throttle you or gouge you when gaming starts eating away at your monthly allotment.

 

To answer your last question, there are operating costs associated with any distribution method. Yes streaming would alleviate the costs of developing and shipping hardware. But it would also increase networking costs- which ISPs can manipulate for content providers and for consumers. Do you really think publishers will dive headfirst into being at the mercy of ISPs as the middlemen of their sole distribution method? Have you not been following net neutrality close enough to know how incredibly stupid that would be?

 

But the none of this addresses the your initial argument. The proliferation of microtransactions has nothing to do with a trend towards removal of the option to buy. there are a many different GaaS models (sub only, f2p with MTs, f2p with ads, purchase w/ Paid DLC, purchase w/ free DLC and MTs, Purchase w/ server rentals etc). GaaS coexists with ownership. MTs coexist with ownership. Options to rent coexist with ownership. Streaming Services coexist with ownership - all because the economics for coexistence makes the most sense. Selling things is is still profitable. As long as these statements are true, multiple options will be on the table.

 

Lastly, let’s say after the next gen, console makers succumb to streaming services as Ubi’s CEO suggests - it’s not like the home console is the bastion of game ownership. Just like brick and mortar stores aren’t the bastion of music purchasing. Is demand for Steam downloads going to dry up? Are devs/pubs going to ignore that demand? If consoles leave the living room, PCs will move in. Hell, they’ve already started going so.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

You're skirting the issue. How did shitty DRM practices arise if competition was supposed to prevent that kind of thing? How did lootboxes come into the picture at all? How did any of these dirtball practices persist in a world full of choices? 

 

Because 1) people are stupid, and 2) competitors will work together to fuck over their consumers for more money all around. 

I'm not skirting anything.  DRM was a response to rampant software piracy.  Shitty consumers made companies lose money so they had to implement DRM. Consumers forced them into it. I really don't understand the hate toward DRM.  Companies are protecting their IPs.  Similar thing with lootboxes.  Consumers eat that shit up so they keep implementing them.  Frankly, i don't blame companies at all for adding lootboxes from the perspective of "what the market will bear".  We saw with Battlefront 2 that there is a limit to how shitty the implementation can be before there is enough backlash that they make far less money than if they had just implemented a more consumer friendly Overwatch-style version from the start.

 

Neither DRM nor Lootboxes are inherently "fucking over the consumer". I just don't understand that sentiment. One is IP protection, the other is a perfectly legal way to make more money. And If you've noticed, the P2W implementation of lootboxes is on its way out thanks to consumer behavior.  The games that make more money from microtransactions than any other, Fortnite and Overwatch, have 0 P2W elements.  That's going to drive the model going forward. Beyond that, the blame for lootboxes falls on the consumers and regulatory agencies.

 

There is no reason for games to primarily move to a subscription-only model. Giving consumers more ways to give you money to access the same content is good for them and us.  Yeah, there are a lot of shitty business practices out there no doubt, but at what point did it become ok to start blaming companies for consumers lack of self control? Because thats what most of the arguments i have been reading are really saying.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not skirting anything.  DRM was a response to rampant software piracy.  Shitty consumers made companies lose money so they had to implement DRM. Consumers forced them into it. I really don't understand the hate toward DRM.  Companies are protecting their IPs.  Similar thing with lootboxes.  Consumers eat that shit up so they keep implementing them.  Frankly, i don't blame companies at all for adding lootboxes from the perspective of "what the market will bear".  We saw with Battlefront 2 that there is a limit to how shitty the implementation can be before there is enough backlash that they make far less money than if they had just implemented a more consumer friendly Overwatch-style version from the start.

 

Neither DRM nor Lootboxes are inherently "fucking over the consumer". I just don't understand that sentiment. One is IP protection, the other is a perfectly legal way to make more money. And If you've noticed, the P2W implementation of lootboxes is on its way out thanks to consumer behavior.  The games that make more money from microtransactions than any other, Fortnite and Overwatch, have 0 P2W elements.  That's going to drive the model going forward. Beyond that, the blame for lootboxes falls on the consumers and regulatory agencies.

I mean, have you seen GFWL? Or Origins' DRM which seemingly tanked user performance? Or the recent issue with MGR DRM that ended up making the game legitimately unplayable, despite it being a single player only experience? DRM fucks over everyone with the aim of stopping what could be a minority. And it doesn't mean shit when people crack it, lol. It just changes how much time it will take to crack it, at the cost of a game's integrity and potential longevity. You literally cannot stop piracy by blanket sweep punishing everyone. Especially when the argument of piracy = a lost sale means nothing, lol. Companies could've been losing money over a shit product, or external forces, and just scapegoated piracy since it's a pretty easy target.

 

And lootboxes are inherently predatory in nature. Designed to be too. While I don't fall for them in the least, and get downright perturbed at how they work, it's easy to see how compulsive gamblers can lose thousands to these things. They're designed to entice you into spending through impatience by RNG. Same way mobile games work by giving you wait periods of hours, but have you spend money to bypass it. Shit's terrible. Like, sure, you can blame the consumer all you want, but it makes the fact companies are going for this more all the shittier when the main people eating this up are most likely those suffering from gambling compulsion. They're basically going after a market with psychological fuckery, and that's pretty shady. There should at least be a physical disclaimer for this shit on boxes and advertisements. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I mean, have you seen GFWL? Or Origins' DRM which seemingly tanked user performance? Or the recent issue with MGR DRM that ended up making the game legitimately unplayable, despite it being a single player only experience? DRM fucks over everyone with the aim of stopping what could be a minority. And it doesn't mean shit when people crack it, lol. It just changes how much time it will take to crack it, at the cost of a game's integrity and potential longevity. You literally cannot stop piracy by blanket sweep punishing everyone. Especially when the argument of piracy = a lost sale means nothing, lol. Companies could've been losing money over a shit product, or external forces, and just scapegoated piracy since it's a pretty easy target.

 

And lootboxes are inherently predatory in nature. Designed to be too. While I don't fall for them in the least, and get downright perturbed at how they work, it's easy to see how compulsive gamblers can lose thousands to these things. They're designed to entice you into spending through impatience by RNG. Same way mobile games work by giving you wait periods of hours, but have you spend money to bypass it. Shit's terrible. Like, sure, you can blame the consumer all you want, but it makes the fact companies are going for this more all the shittier when the main people eating this up are most likely those suffering from gambling compulsion. They're basically going after a market with psychological fuckery, and that's pretty shady. There should at least be a physical disclaimer for this shit on boxes and advertisements. 

 

I am not arguing that DRM doesnt have its problems.  But thats kind of the point. Any barrier of entry to  piracy will cut it down precipitously.  The fact is that EVERY game has some sort of DRM implementation, most of which are integrated into the platform you get the game from in the first place (steam, xbox store, etc) and very few tank performance.  Its like anything else, when you strip context you can make anything look bad. The vast majority of the time, DRM is almost invisible.  How does DRM negatively affect a games longevity or integrity at all... Because 10 years from now someone that never actually bought it won't be able to play it?  Companies can either try to prosecute pirates to protect their IP, or implement DRM to accomplish the same thing.  The lost sales argument is oversold by these companies for sure, but its still a legit argument.  If i'm a game company, sure as shit im putting in some sort of DRM.

 

As far as lootboxes are concerned, i only said they aren't fucking over the consumer. Not that they are good because they aren't, but they're not the 8th deadly sin either.  They make sense from the perspective of a for-profit company, are perfectly legal and only subsist because consumers are stupid and regulators are sooo behind.  I personally think the are shitty yeah, but again if i'm a company trying to make a profit im going to put them in my game until im not allowed to.  I argued that microtransactions as a category are not inherently good or bad, its all about the implementation.  Regulators need to step in and fully classify lootboxes as gambling.  

Share this post


Link to post

Loot boxes are gambling as far as I’m concerned (the fact that money can’t flow back to the consumer is the most commonly used defense, but in reality, makes it worse than standard gambling).

 

And there have been some downright draconian DRM practices that have negatively impacted the quality of these game beyond making things annoying for law abiding players.

 

None of that means all DRM and MTs are abusive. Also, support and adoption of these abusive practices aren’t universal. There are devs against it, Publishers against it, Regulatory bodies against it, and consumers against it - and companies have to contend with that reality while trying to maximize their profits within the market. As a result we see a wide spectrum of approaches to monetization- from traditional single purchase to F2P w/ MTs. This is why arguments that single out specific examples of abuse fall flat- because they ignore that countless examples of sound business practices throughout

 

it's only a fallacy if it's a slippery slope. What you're describing is a domino effect. Which is not a fallacy.

No. making a baseless assumption about what will happen in reaction to an occurance is slippery slope. Making an observation about what has happened as a result of an occurance is domino effect.

 

There is no basis to argue that the existence of MTs and subscription models will inevitably lead to a universal no-ownership model, because nothing like that has ever happened.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I am not arguing that DRM doesnt have its problems.  But thats kind of the point. Any barrier of entry to  piracy will cut it down precipitously.  The fact is that EVERY game has some sort of DRM implementation, most of which are integrated into the platform you get the game from in the first place (steam, xbox store, etc) and very few tank performance.  Its like anything else, when you strip context you can make anything look bad. The vast majority of the time, DRM is almost invisible.  How does DRM negatively affect a games longevity or integrity at all... Because 10 years from now someone that never actually bought it won't be able to play it?  Companies can either try to prosecute pirates to protect their IP, or implement DRM to accomplish the same thing.  The lost sales argument is oversold by these companies for sure, but its still a legit argument.  If i'm a game company, sure as shit im putting in some sort of DRM.

 

As far as lootboxes are concerned, i only said they aren't fucking over the consumer. Not that they are good because they aren't, but they're not the 8th deadly sin either.  They make sense from the perspective of a for-profit company, are perfectly legal and only subsist because consumers are stupid and regulators are sooo behind.  I personally think the are shitty yeah, but again if i'm a company trying to make a profit im going to put them in my game until im not allowed to.  I argued that microtransactions as a category are not inherently good or bad, its all about the implementation.  Regulators need to step in and fully classify lootboxes as gambling.  

Yeah, sure it's everywhere. It was "everywhere" with GFWL, too. And with GFWL being spread across so many games, it now actually fucks over using them now that the service is gone. I had to go through six loopholes the play Lost Planet 2 on Steam because the GFWL DRM still exists on it. And it's the same for any game using that code, unless they push out a godly patch to remove that DRM, like Bioshock 2. Which, teehee, makes the game work fine. It literally doesn't stop pirates, because this game is easily pirated, and it only hindered my experience in simply starting the game up, yunno, a legit customer. On a completely different platform than the original intended platform the DRM was designed for.

 

If pirates want a game, they will crack this DRM and distribute game files, ala Denuvo, it's not stopping people. It hasn't slowed down the piracy scene at all. Just look at Origins' DRM. They're using the aforementioned Denuvo, DRM that's easily cracked now. What is the point in using DRM that doesn't work, exactly? If they cared enough about IP theft and piracy, you'd think they'd look into the fact it's something people basically bowl over, now, lol. Why go through the effort for something that doesn't work.

 

Which is ironic, because you could make the argument pirating a DRM-free game as compared to its counterpart would be a better deal because you don't deal with this shit actual DRM-based games provide. Ten bucks says I could find an LP2 torrent that doesn't have GFWL ingrained in it, meaning I can just cleanly install it and play, with identical features, map sets, etc. Without the hassle I went through. Which I wouldn't do or think of if DRM and shit like this didn't exist. Because it wouldn't be an issue, and I wouldn't have an issue buying a game I know isn't stunted or going to give me hell, simply for buying it, lol. I don't really pirate shit in general, but if the main game is hell to work with, the ironic thing is that you could make the argument that DRM would probably drive people to piracy given how invasive or anti-consumer it can be. Which is funny when it's supposed to affect non-consumers. Who aren't affected at all. It doesn't, hasn't, and won't stop shit. Protecting your IP could be done in more effective ways. 

 

Also fun fact, loot boxes are not currently legal in some areas. And we're currently having a battle over legality because of the controversy with them, because they fall in line with online gambling, which is great. Just because you want to make money doesn't mean you abuse and nickle and dime your customers. You can always earn money in a non-shady, completely legal way. It's not like loot boxes are the only way TO get money. And no one's in a financial bottleneck without them. And no one would miss them if you got rid of them. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

https://www.reddit.com/r/halo/comments/9h6v4d/chris_lee_i_can_definitely_say_that_halo_infinite/

 

No real money loot boxes. So should I be expecting halo bucks? A currency I can either earn in game or buy with real money to then obtain said loot boxes?

I’m not gonna hold my breath. If you can purchase the currency needed to obtain loot boxes, then the effects are the same. If not, then you have to question the value of having loot boxes at all. Why not just straight progression.

Share this post


Link to post

I’m not gonna hold my breath. If you can purchase the currency needed to obtain loot boxes, then the effects are the same. If not, then you have to question the value of having loot boxes at all. Why not just straight progression.

 

All that tells me is that they are going to have direct purchases, or packages where you know what is included before  you purchase,  instead of RNG loot boxes.  I would also bet that a version of the RNG rec system will be in place, but maybe you can only purchase those with credits earned from playing?

Share this post


Link to post

Why the fuck can I find people actively defending lootboxes on the internet. What the hell do they have to gain from defending obviously shitty practices? I swear these ballheads clap when they see the confetti and hear the grunt celebrations when they open up req packs. 

 

Since we are going to have MT anyway, why not follow the pre-Chimera Siege model, and sell cosmetics bundles, so its not a gamble, and you know exactly what you are getting? I'm far more likely to spend money on a cool thing that i know I am going to get, the spend money on a chance at the cool thing. 

 

 

REQ Packs are aboslutely returning.  Never forget Frankie's "REQ Packs are un-intrusive and well-liked."

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

The only games that should be able to get away with lootbox crap are F2P phone games. When 343 finally decided to add the emblem I've used since H2 into the game, I had to grind Firefight all the time just to get it. That crap is just gambling but where you "win" something every time. I would not be mad one bit if it starts to get regulated and banned.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Why the fuck can I find people actively defending lootboxes on the internet. What the hell do they have to gain from defending obviously shitty practices? I swear these ballheads clap when they see the confetti and hear the grunt celebrations when they open up req packs.

 

Since we are going to have MT anyway, why not follow the pre-Chimera Siege model, and sell cosmetics bundles, so its not a gamble, and you know exactly what you are getting? I'm far more likely to spend money on a cool thing that i know I am going to get, the spend money on a chance at the cool thing.

 

 

REQ Packs are aboslutely returning. Never forget Frankie's "REQ Packs are un-intrusive and well-liked."

I think much of the support you see for loot boxes is from people who don’t buy them. So they benefit from the reality that the revenues encourage the accountants to push for “free” updates while addicts foot the bill.

 

A person with restraint is going to spend more when they know what they’ll get. But skinner boxes are proven to extract more money from those with addictive tendencies due to the sense of reward brought on by the chance element. It’s much easier to make a whale out of them.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Are the req packs in halo 5 considered loot boxes?

 

I would consider them that, yes.  I don't see how someone could argue otherwise.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Infinite has been Renamed to Halostiny. A game taking 3 Years of poverty Dlc to compile a mediocre story. And you can grind for skins

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is the CEO of UBIsoft going to boost internet speeds and remove data caps in the US?

 

This is completely irrelevant. You seem to think I'm making the argument that this is going to happen overnight. I said 5-10 years.

 

In 2005 Australia launched ADSL2, capable of download speeds of 12Mbps, before that ADSL1 could only reach 1.5Mbps - 10x faster. Now many houses are connected with Fibre and get speeds of up to 100Mbps and that's likely to get upgraded to 1Gbps in the very near future. From ADSL1 to NBN Fibre is almost a 100x's increase in barely over a decade. Yes, a good percentage of the population hasn't caught up to those speeds yet but they will in just a few years.

 

Do you really think 10 years from now a data cap is going to prevent you from doing anything?

 

In the span of 10 years we've gone from 2G cell networks to 4G and Australia will have 5G next year. Want to know how fast that is?

 

5G is the next major evolution in mobile network technology. As with 4G before it, 5G is focused on mobile data. 5G will promise three major improvements:

  • Faster network speeds: 5G networks will be capable of download speeds as fast as 20Gbps. The exact speeds an individual user will get will depend on how the network has been configured, the number of devices on the network, and the device in their hands. The 5G specification states that individual users should see a minimum download speed of 100Mbps. That's the fastest NBN speed as a minimum.
  • Lower latency: In plain terms, latency is perhaps best described as the time it takes information to get from your phone to the wider internet and back again. The typical latency for a 4G network is around 60 milliseconds, whereas 5G could decrease this to as low as 1 millisecond. This massive decrease in latency will be vital for technology such as self-driving cars, where every millisecond could make a difference in preventing a crash.
  • More simultaneous connections: 5G will allow more devices to connect to the network at the same time. While smartphone usage continues to grow, this is especially important because 5G is set to facilitate new developments in autonomous cars, connected machinery, and Internet of Things devices.

 

In just over a decade our cell network speeds are going to be over 100x's faster than they were before the launch of 3G.

 

You need to re-read what I typed. I didn’t say no one can deliver streaming services... I said no one can deliver streaming services at a price and level of quality that resonates with gamers.

 

 

Yet.

 

Removing LAN is less about not caring about people without internet and more about realizing that it was becoming a less popular feature and that CPU resources were better utilized for features that consumers are actually demanding. The comparison between not building LAN MP in a game, and not making your game available, AT ALL, to people who don’t have awesome internet is tenuous as hell - it’s really not comparable.

 

Do you actually believe this? It literally takes no effort to put LAN into a game. Having online multiplayer is 100x's harder to put in the game. Fuck, indie studios with like a dozen devs can put LAN into a game.

 

Stardew Valley is a game made by a single guy and that game has LAN support.

 

CPU resources... what?

 

And if no one was demanding these features it's kinda funny that 343 brought these features back for both Halo 5 and MCC as well as other devs back-flipping on LAN removal. CoD was one series and the GoW devs fought with Microsoft over it and won in the end.

 

LAN removal was done to push Xbox Live subscriptions and as a DRM measure since you could play pirated games over XBC and similar services.

 

Also, MCC can’t fit on a standard DVD. The vast majority of games can, and typically, day 1 DLC is limited to online MP content. Yes i’m Aware of SimCity and Diablo3 fiascos. Are you aware of the thousands of other games that have released w/o those issues? Publishers doing dumb shit with a couple of popular games (and losing sales as a result) doesnt equal the universal abandonment of the option to own.

 

Bro... Really?

 

https://www.vinjatvideogames.com/files/3419/products/9786880/final_fantasy_viii_platinum_01.jpg

 

http://ff7.fr/screen/achat5.png

 

Games have been coming on multiple discs/disks forever. Just off the top of my head Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Unreal Tournament 2004, World of Warcraft, Command & Conquer.

 

Holy shit, back in the early 90's pretty much every single game came on multiple floppy disks.

 

But anyway, I think you're missing my point a bit. I'm not saying ALL games will be subscription only. I expect smaller companies will always let you buy their games. I'm talking about big AAA franchises. Think GTA, Assassin's Creed, Madden, Forza, etc.

 

We'll probably see AA games rise up to take their place as games you can actually own.

 

I'm basically saying microtransactions have led to this. We've constantly seen publishers push this further and further. EA did it with Sim City. They claimed the game needed to be online for calculations to be done in the cloud. They were full of shit and were called out on this. Next time calculations WILL be done in the cloud and then they'll get us used to the idea that the games need to be online always. We won't be able to complain because... Hey, better games, right?

 

Then they will take the next step.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.