Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ifuckjewishwomen t1_jaeh61n wrote

>old school gamer

>Halo 3

I love this website

13

UFCFan918 t1_jaek433 wrote

Let me break this down.

​

I can reference a game while also referencing that I've been playing games for a long time, Why does your mind instantly assume my first game was halo 3 and that I consider halo 3 an old school gamer game???

I consider halo 3 old but there's 100+ games that are way older, yet your mind thinks I meant halo 3 is a super old game and in your head there's no possible way I can call myself an old gamer if I think halo 3 is old...That logic just baffles my mind....

God forbid I notice what twenty years has done to the online gaming scene and I reference a game that was booming when online gaming was good for the consumer.

I also love this website.

−2

ifuckjewishwomen t1_jaeugap wrote

>wordswordswords

Come on dawg I was joking, you good? When I feel like this I try to unplug for a little while.

2

danielfletcher t1_jaehssk wrote

Old School

Halo 3

Choose one.

Also, there are hundreds if not thousands of games released every year that don't have micro transactions. Vote with your wallet instead of yelling into the sky.

10

UFCFan918 t1_jaeiazb wrote

Bruh 😂

Halo 3 released in 2007...

Almost twenty years ago.

Would you rather me mention the break through online feature the Atari was offering?????? I said Halo 3 because that was when online console gaming was really taking off.

−1

[deleted] OP t1_jaek75m wrote

[deleted]

3

feelin_fine_ t1_jaememn wrote

In rhe music industry, anything over 20 years old is officially old school. I hate it but it's true

1

UFCFan918 t1_jaekvhi wrote

Are we really getting caught up in the definition of "Old School games"?

Again, it's nearly twenty years old, I think my statement is fine.

0

SomaCruzBelmont t1_jaembft wrote

they are 100% old school games now.

You can read my commend above, but Halo 3 comes from a time when you earned cosmetics and the game shipped fully completed minus a map pack or two. That is old school these days. We are past those times and will not be going back. That makes it old school.

So, from someone who did play what you consider "old school" to someone trying too hard to be cool - get rekt. You're wrong.

0

SomaCruzBelmont t1_jaelx69 wrote

1.) Halo 3 is in the class of "old school" now. IE - you bought a product, it shipped ready with everything inside, cosmetics were earned, and the game was fully fleshed out. You get map packs, but that's it and they come with a LOT of maps.

2.) quit gate keeping dude. You aren't cool for playing games before Halo 3. So did I, and like it or not these days Halo 3 is an old school game. It was a different time.

3.) bet money you pay for battlepasses and still typed that last sentence.

−2

danielfletcher t1_jaeqvqd wrote

I've never bought a battle pass. Did buy the DLC expansions for a Lego game and Forza Horizon 5 though.

Who the fuck cares about cosmetics though? Just kids nowadays.

"Gatekeeping" "Dude". LOL Fucking trolls.

2

Crimsonclaw111 t1_jaegu9n wrote

That's a whole lot of text directed at the wrong people

9

UFCFan918 t1_jaegzwt wrote

Is it the publishers causing this issue then?

−7

eddyak t1_jaejhdo wrote

It's publishers, CEOs, shareholders, and probably half a dozen other positions that also do the locust thing pushing this stuff. You can bet your last Haribo that devs as a whole aren't seeing a penny of the battle pass/gacha/EXP booster money- or if they are, it's the scraps left over after the leeches are done, if said leeches are feeling generous.

2

Hanzo_The_Ninja t1_jaeh8w1 wrote

Like it or not, developers and studios answer to shareholders above consumers and everything else.

4

UFCFan918 t1_jaehx6k wrote

It's like the investors know this industry is a gold mine with almost no loss to be had.

​

Step 1. Invest in a popular IP

Step 2. Wait until the release

Step 3. Watch the money pour in

Step 4. Backlash begins.

Step 5. Sell off and invest the profit in the next popular IP

1

StupidestGuyNominee t1_jaej0a0 wrote

>Ideally, the consumer should pay for the product and then spend time playing that product, with no gimmicks or strings attached

Probably 1000 games are going to release this calendar year that do exactly that

3

IMTrick t1_jaejbnk wrote

Something is seriously wrong when the primary focus of running a business is to make money.

/s

3

twonha t1_jaemw6x wrote

OP makes so little sense. Developers create base games and DLC, because people buy it, not the other way around. If you don't want to add DLC to the games you've bought, then don't buy that DLC. If you think a game isn't worth the price tag, don't buy the game.

Do not mistake your personal dislike for paid DLC, for an industrywide dislike for paid DLC. Apparently, lots of people love buying additional stuff for their games. It makes perfect sense that developers answer that desire by offering stuff at a price.

Stop buying the latest COD at full price and then five more skins/guns/whatevers, buy better games at better prices. I promise, you're not missing out on much.

2

cymbalmonke t1_jaej70l wrote

Why would you ever buy one of these games?

I stopped playing anything that's a live service, don't buy games until a year after release so they have most of the QoL fixes applied unless I really trust the devs and want to support the project.

It's almost like there's thousands of games besides the mainstream ones being shoved down the masses' throats that are already fully worth your time, you just gotta look around a bit for them - because they didn't sink a huge portion of their budget into marketing - because they made a good game.

1

Cuddlesthemighy t1_jaek316 wrote

Dear Developers and Studios.... "The gaming community needs to wise up and stop being scammed by the billion dollar gaming industry."

Who are you trying to reach here?

1

UFCFan918 t1_jaekg3t wrote

Idk plenty of people read posts - No clue who may read this.

I just wanted to make a post and voice my opinion, whether it's heard or not doesn't bother me.

1

Cuddlesthemighy t1_jaepy7l wrote

The problem is that any time I spend 50-70 dollars on a game there's another player out there that spent 2k dollars on a battle pass. If I pay 15 dollars a month for an MMO subscription, the player that spent thousands on MTX's or the player that funded 50 bots by buying in game currency, devalues my money to an absurd degree.

I don't see a world in which terrible mobile games, predatory FOMO tactics and gambling exploitation go away from a game maker/seller standpoint. It makes too much money and at the top level of most major sellers, those people don't play games or concern themselves with the integrity of the product outside of $$$.

On the other side there's too many players that simply do not care enough, or in the sad cases of children and gambling addicts, do not have the mental tools to not fall victim to terrible business practices. Or (I'll call myself out here) we buy from a terrible company simply because they own an IP we want to play, and their terrible version of the product is still better than not having it. I don't see the gaming audience stopping these trend any time soon either.

The only outlet I really see a chance for success in is to support devs that do the right thing. It won't make the bad ones go away, but the companies that practice fair sales tactics getting paid can ensure that those practices don't disappear.

1

Freebite t1_jaekmww wrote

Sounds like what you're saying is: You pay for a product, they keep putting resources into it and you get all that content for nothing more than the initial release price. That isn't a balanced system at all.

That'd be like going to a restaurant, paying for one meal, then being mad that the restaurant has the audacity to charge you for every subsequent meal afterward.

A balanced system would be a product that gets continuously paid for, and then continuously developed as well.

Another balanced system is they release a FINISHED product with no plans for extra support aside maybe some bug fixes or something, you pay for that once and you get that product and move on with your day. Dlc is content for a game released after the launch of the game, so an extra charge is up to the developer, think dessert after your meal in the restaurant analogy.

Day one dlc sucks and should not exist. Season passes for non-online games are essentially preorders for dlc content and should also go away.

I'm not saying you don't necessarily have a point, but your point came across really flawed at least.

As for something being a bad game, just don't play it then lol.

1

UFCFan918 t1_jaelg7k wrote

The studios should release DLC with content, that's how they used to make money after the release.

Nowadays, they release battle passes and parts of the game that were sectioned off to be sold off as DLC. We're paying more and getting less.

1

Iffykindofguy t1_jaeky3t wrote

Sorry, capitalism demands growth at all cost once a company goes public. That means short changing the consumer

1

SomaCruzBelmont t1_jaelhy5 wrote

Friendly reminder that every time you buy a cosmetic, every time you buy a battlepass, every time you buy in game currency -

You are the problem. Do not buy them. Not a single one.

Or else nothing will ever change.

1

The_Servant_92 t1_jaem0kx wrote

I'm on board with this. I don't really have a problem with paid DLC as long as it's worth it. However, mechanics of games are shifting towards "Pay to have fun" rather than "Play to have fun".

Saving your post for future reference.

1