33
Hogwarts Legacy Sequel Seemingly Confirmed By Job Listing
(gamerant.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
33 points (100.0% liked)
Games
16806 readers
791 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can't really disagree tbh. Just fed up with the live service = bad game. It is often the case, because of how the live service or game itself is built, but not a rule.
Yeah so what makes you argue against the average on something we have no knowledge on? If its often the case wouldn't it be most likely you're wrong in defending it?
I'm not judging the game one way or another. I'm arguing about the blind hate when term "live service" gets mentioned. It can be done right and some people like having a game that can be their main game and gets updated regularly. Most live services are bad because the live service element is tacked on to make more money or the developement focused on making a live service, but not a good game.
I reserve my judgment. Most likely this one will not be done in a good way, WB certainly doesn't inspire confidence. But people act as if live service = bad game which is not always true. Lately it is, yes, but it's not a rule set in stone.
I can agree with that, and I have to admit in biased against both jkr and live service games cause I'm a preservationist - but neither of those really define others enjoyment lol
There are good live service games, but the blatant monetization bothers some people.
Take Warframe, one of the most popular live service games. Everything can be earned in game, including the premium currency as long as you're willing to put in time and effort. However, every single UI element offers a way to spend that premium currency with higher presentation priority than the actual in-universe methods of doing whatever that menu is for.
Want a specific gun? Only 500 platinum for a fully kitted out model* (or 25,000 credits for the blueprint you actually want, and it wasn't until fairly recently that they added tooltips showing where to earn things in-game). Building something? Only 20 platinum to rush construction, or you could wait a day. Want to customize your frame? Here's a few dozen color palettes, 99% of which cost platinum.
* Which is such an awful newbie trap. Don't buy weapons or frames off the Market in Warframe, kids. Their Prime variants, which are statistically superior, can be bought off other players for a fraction of what DE charges for the inferior regular versions. The Market is hilariously, blatantly overpriced and has been since the very beginning.
Space Engineers is another offender. It's a block-building game and all of its DLC is cosmetic skins, but even if you don't own the DLCs those skins show up as unique blocks in the block picker with a padlock icon that tells you to buy their associated DLC. It clutters up the UI to the point of worthlessness, but there's no way to turn it off because it acts as an advertisement.
Let's not even get into gacha games, which feed off of addictive impulses to have a small percentage of players pay thousands of dollars to subsidize everyone else who plays for free.
Live Service and Dark Patterns go together. Games as a Service requires a constant revenue stream to fund development, which incentivises predatory design patterns.
Idk, I think the whole "live service" model is fraught with issues. If the profit model is to make a game that can continually produce profit from the same base of users, then there's a huge incentive to use manipulative tactics to keep people engaging with the game. If the profit model is to make a game that keeps selling to new customers, then the incentive is to make current users really happy so they recommend it to others.
That's why I assume live-service games will suck unless proven otherwise. The good news is that my expectations are already quite low, so it's pretty easy to impress me if the game is at least decent.