Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wiles]

One thing they mentioned at E3 is that if your friend can craft a cool blueprint they can just craft an item and give it to you (weapons blueprints are one of the things you get from loot llamas).

[The13thRonin]

Looks interesting. Microtransactions aren't intrinsically bad...

Microtransactions are by definition intrinsically bad along with early-access, DLC, freemium games and always online. Microtransactions are an anti-consumer practice intended to nickel and dime players for content which should be included for free, leading the developers to spend an inordinate amount of time creating these gimmicks like hats instead of working on fixing, balancing or improving the game. Heck it is being suggested that getting people off singleplayer and into multiplayer, thereby improving returns on microtransactions are one of the possible reasons that Grand Theft Auto V sent a cease and desist letter to the OpenIV modding team.

Do not support practices which actively harm the games industry.

[Wiles]

Microtransactions are by definition intrinsically bad?

Whose definition? Yours?

It certainly doesn't seem to be the definition of the vast majority of gamers considering many of the most played games out there are free and laden with microtransactions. But hey, feel free to wear your anti-dlc/microtranscation sandwich board and keep preaching while the rest of us enjoy some genuinely fun games.

[The13thRonin]

Microtransactions are by definition intrinsically bad?

Whose definition? Yours?

How about the definition for over 1.8 million websites?

A round Earth? Whose definition? Yours? That logical game is so stupid. It is accepted as a fact that micro-transactions are anti-consumer. Yeah there exist some individuals out there that have somehow convinced themselves that micro-transactions are in-fact a blessing from their hallowed corporate overlords bestowed upon them due to the benevolent hearts of videogame CEOs across the globe... There are also people who believe the Earth is flat and that if we don't wear tin-foil hats the government will mind-control us. In fact it's probable that there's a strong overlap between these groups due to a common failure to accept basic truths.

It certainly doesn't seem to be the definition of the vast majority of gamers considering many of the most played games out there are free and laden with microtransactions. But hey, feel free to wear your anti-dlc/microtranscation sandwich board and keep preaching while the rest of us enjoy some genuinely fun games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtransaction#Impact

The number of people that spend money on in-game items in free-to-play games ranges from 0.5% to 6%

When 94-99.5% of the player-base is shunning micro-transactions that's not indicative of the vast majority of gamers agreeing with a freemium business model.

I apologize I don't have sweeping generalizations that are not backed up by evidence... I only have facts and the facts disagree with you. But hey... Feel free to keep accepting indefensible attacks on consumer interests by large companies that see you as a nothing more than a cash-cow they can milk while 'enjoying' games that are a shallow husk and offer less content, complexity and replayability compared to games that came out 5, 10, sometimes 15 years ago. But I guess I can't blame you really. You're probably just a kid and you've grown up in this generation being force-fed crappy video-games devoid of any actual innovation your whole life until games like this one look like a masterpiece to you. I was going to make a sandwich board related 'quip' in response to yours but then I realized this and I genuinely feel sorry for you now, I wish you had experienced better games.

[Folly]

Microtransactions are by definition intrinsically bad?

Whose definition? Yours?

How about the definition for over 1.8 million websites?

5.7 million websites say that a nudist lifestyle makes you immortal

73 million websites believe unicorns are real

79 million websites believe that vegetables were invented by the government to control peoples minds

103 million websites believe that science is a lie

[The13thRonin]

Microtransactions are by definition intrinsically bad?

Whose definition? Yours?

How about the definition for over 1.8 million websites?

5.7 million websites say that a nudist lifestyle makes you immortal

73 million websites believe unicorns are real

79 million websites believe that vegetables were invented by the government to control peoples minds

103 million websites believe that science is a lie

Heard of the expression he couldn't see the forest for the trees? Your post is a perfect demonstration of this expression.

He made an implication that I was the one person in the world or one of a small number of people who believe that micro-transactions are bad for the consumer ("Whose definition... Yours?"). I showed evidence that a huge number of articles have been written about the negative effect of micro-transactions and that it's a common position to take (note: my point was that it was a common understanding of micro-transactions not a justification of that understanding).

His actual 'point' was a poor logical trap. Had I responded that I was defining micro-transactions as bad for the consumer he would have just said "Well that's just an opinion". If I provided actual evidence to contradict the trap he (or someone else in this case) could just dismiss the evidence with some form of "The amount of people agreeing doesn't make it right."

So although I refuted the point I stated "A round Earth? Whose definition? Yours? That logical game is so stupid." In other words demonstrating my position that it shouldn't matter how many people believe something, that alone doesn't justify it precisely because there are a lot of ill-informed people in the world (which you have now just supported, thank you kindly!) After that I just went along with his line of argumentation anyway to show that even if it did he'd still be wrong.

TLDR:

I rebutted you before you even posted.

26.4 million websites believe that Folly missed the point

If this were a videogame I believe one could describe your post and its effect on Wile's argument as 'friendly-fire'. By trying to discredit me you helped enforce the point I was making. I guess I should thank you? Thanks!

[Folly]

Wow. I bet you get all of those hot debate-club groupies, huh?

[Chiefwaffles]

Ya know, Ronin, Folly was more-so stating that you can't just state subjective things like that as objective truth.
Because your opinion is exactly that - an opinion. Saying it's fact doesn't change that.

The wikipedia article on microtransactions doesn't actually support anything about microtransactions being bad. A high portion of people can choose to not pay microtransactions in a freemium game, but that in no way means that they think microtransactions are bad.
But regardless of whether they do or not, having lots of people sharing your opinion does not make that opinion any more true.

[Folly]

I was stating, apparently with too much subtlety, that volume of google search results is not an effective gauge of how accurate a statement is; and even if it was, 1.8 million is not a particularly impressive number by google search result standards.

[Wiles]

I wrote a long snarky reply, but I realise now that the I only got a snarky reply to my post because my initial response to you was snarky and generally lacking in substance. So I went back deleted what I wrote initially. I will offer some advice though, and it may still sound snarky or patronizing but that's not really my aim. The whole logical argument thing only works in those circles that actively use those terms like in a debate clubs or when speaking with philosophy majors. Outside of that people won't really take you seriously if you tell them they are making a logical fallacy. The real art is taking those principles and applying them without explicitly calling to them. Also if you're going to go down that route it behooves you to try and avoid falling into those same traps yourself. Calling out my age for example really doesn't do anything to further your argument, it's especially silly on the internet when you have no idea who is on the other side of the computer.

I do get where you're coming from regarding microtransactions, there are freemium models and micro transactions that I really don't like. There are also DLC policies that I don't think are fair to the consumer. But I feel that there are some games out there that benefit from these new approaches. I think micro transactions are a big part of why a some free competitive multi-player games have had such long life spans. In your first post that I initially replied to you say that developers are wasting time making hats instead of fixing bugs or balancing gameplay, but I would counter that it's these hats that allow them to fix bugs and continue development on these games. I do see value in games being released 100% whole and complete experiences on release but I also see value in games that are constantly evolving, growing and developing a fan base over a period of many years.

You mention in your second post that games today aren't really as replayable or as complex as games that came before but that has not been my experience at all. There aren't many games that I would go back and play now for any reason other than nostalgia. There are definitely games out there that have stood the test of time but they are outliers. I think the only games over ten years old I currently have installed are Civilization IV (which isn't even my favourite Civ game) and Rise of Nations. Probably one of my favourite games of all time is Baldur's Gate but I'm not keen on playing that again because I would probably not enjoy the cheesy high fantasy story as much as I did when I was a teenager who read Dungeons and Dragons novels. In the past the biggest reason I would replay a game would be because I had limited options. These days I have a plethora of options so I play games that I feel are worth my time, and I have to say there are a lot of great games out there today.

[The13thRonin]

I will write a more detailed reply later when I have time but I just wanted to begin by pointing out that I am highly amused by the fact that any shred of actual critical thinking is considered 'debate club'. If you feel like you're going a round in 'debate club' with another person based off a casual discussion in a forum then that's concerning. For example calling out someone for calling out logical fallacies when that person never mentioned logical fallacies in the first place. Actually none of the terminology I have used has even approached anything that you would hear in a formal debate. It is simply well evidenced, well reasoned critical thought. If it has disturbed you so much it might be time to reevaluate your own position.

More in-depth response coming shortly.

[Immortal-D]

Well this escalated quickly   If anybody wants to team up when the game is released, just drop me a line.

[Ygdrad]

only a small portion of people might spend money on microtransactions, but these same people would've probably never bought the game or paid for a subscription. People on the internet want stuff for free. Free to play with microtransactions seems to more often than not be a must for something to succeed these days not necessarily because of corporate decisions, but because of people's mindset. They may say they don't like microtransactions, but they simply wouldn't have paid for the game in most other cases. It started as bad business practice but now it's a consumer issue, like pre-orders and day 1 dlc's. People aren't going to change the way they consume things just because you tell them it's a bad idea.

[inteuniso]

People wouldn't make microtransaction games if they weren't profitable.

Microtransaction games are profitable.

Someone has to be spending money on them, and I would bet you it's the same people who never minded paying $15/month for MMOs (which, looking back, is insane, but then again so is spending 5 dollars for a drink/10 dollars for an alcoholic drink. $15 isn't too difficult to scrounge up if you have a well-paying job & few commitments)

The majority of people never have to pay, and you'll notice most games that have a decent free-to-play progression tend to do better than those which are pay-to-win: people who don't mind paying for their games DO mind not having a large community to play with.

Yup. Common sense, logic, and rationality win again! I am most likely ranked a dullard by multiversal standards.

[Goron]

Microtransactions are by definition intrinsically bad?

Whose definition? Yours?

How about the definition for over 1.8 million websites?

A round Earth? Whose definition? Yours? That logical game is so stupid.

Microtransactions being bad is a subjective opinion. The earth being round is an objective fact. It is pretty clear that you have no grasp of 'that logical game' and thats why it makes total sense that you would think logic is stupid.

It is accepted as a fact that micro-transactions are anti-consumer. Yeah there exist some individuals out there that have somehow convinced themselves that micro-transactions are in-fact a blessing from their hallowed corporate overlords bestowed upon them due to the benevolent hearts of videogame CEOs across the globe... There are also people who believe the Earth is flat and that if we don't wear tin-foil hats the government will mind-control us. In fact it's probable that there's a strong overlap between these groups due to a common failure to accept basic truths.

Again, subjective opinions and objective facts. I'd suggest googling those terms (I know you know how to google, as you have no issue throwing lmgtfy links around).

It certainly doesn't seem to be the definition of the vast majority of gamers considering many of the most played games out there are free and laden with microtransactions. But hey, feel free to wear your anti-dlc/microtranscation sandwich board and keep preaching while the rest of us enjoy some genuinely fun games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtransaction#Impact

The number of people that spend money on in-game items in free-to-play games ranges from 0.5% to 6%

When 94-99.5% of the player-base is shunning micro-transactions that's not indicative of the vast majority of gamers agreeing with a freemium business model.

Not purchasing a product is not the same as shunning a product. By your logic (or lack thereof) it must be a fact that "Lamborghinis are bad" because a vast majority of the vehicle owner-base 'shun' them. Or Boulder, Colorado is bad because a vast majority of the population of the planet do not live there.

I apologize I don't have sweeping generalizations that are not backed up by evidence...

wait, what? That is quite literally all you have. maybe you should go google those words, too. Actually, don't, since you have already made sweeping generalizations not backed up by facts based on # of google hits for a term. Google might be a little too dangerous for you.

I only have facts and the facts disagree with you. But hey... Feel free to keep accepting indefensible attacks on consumer interests by large companies that see you as a nothing more than a cash-cow they can milk while 'enjoying' games that are a shallow husk and offer less content, complexity and replayability compared to games that came out 5, 10, sometimes 15 years ago. But I guess I can't blame you really. You're probably just a kid and you've grown up in this generation being force-fed crappy video-games devoid of any actual innovation your whole life until games like this one look like a masterpiece to you. I was going to make a sandwich board related 'quip' in response to yours but then I realized this and I genuinely feel sorry for you now, I wish you had experienced better games.

You mentioned facts, still waiting on those.
All you have stated are personal and anecdotal opinions and subjective assessments. I personalyl appreciate microtransactions in many situations. In several situations I'd much rather pay $5 for the limited content I want than be forced to pay $50 for a full bundle of stuff that I only want a small amount of. Likewise I'd much rather pay zero dollars for content that I am content with than be locked out completely by a paywall.

And on the other side, just because I, and many people, choose not to purchase microtransactions does not mean we dislike microtransactions. One could argue it also pushes the idea that microtransactions are GOOD, because it allows me to still enjoy an experience at no cost, and the fact that I choose to play the free part at all shows the system is beneficial, since I might not have been able to or I might not have chosen to to enjoy that experience had it been behind a full product paywall.


I am still on the fence about whether this game will be appropriate for microtransactions or not. Actually, I'm not on the fence, that implies I have all the information needed to make such a determination. I'll just hold judgement until I do.