View Single Post
02-12-2013   #9 (permalink)
RoflKnife's Avatar
ggFTW Star
ElswordDungeon Fighter OnlineDragon Nest
Awards Retired Content StaffEvent WinnerPervert Award
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,987
iTrader: (0)
RoflKnife has disabled reputation

Originally Posted by Firzin
Yes, you don't have to outright tell people to suggest something. But if his intention was to be greedy as you said he was why would he tell the game developers to make fair payments as one of his key points. He even touches on some of the problems of F2P/DLC that we all know too well.
There's nothing wrong with F2P, unless it's actually P2W with cash shop. He touched on it with D3, but pinged it on the fact that you don't "play" the game for it, instead of P2W. Both reasons are no no's for games, but it strikes me very odd he only covered one side of the problem. If the DLC part you're talking about is the pay per ride instead of pay for everything, there's nothing wrong with that type of payment model either if done right. DDO and LOTRO changed to that exact payment model, where they give you a base set of content for free, then you pay for whatever content you choose after a bit. The content could be paid for by playing the game or with real money, granted the amount of time it would take for you to gather enough cash shop points from playing the game could be instead spent on the much more efficient method of just working a job and then paying with real cash. Buy what features I want, buy what content I want, skip what I'm not interested in. What's not to like?

That type of payment model is probably my favourite kind, on par with F2P with cosmetic cash shopping. It raked in more money for the company as well. What he didn't address, was the DLC that actually causes problems. Day 1 DLC, overpriced crap like $15 for 6 maps and a handful of weapons or something. Again, strikes me as odd, but pair it up with the other oddities...

Originally Posted by Firzin
Except all great game series most likely have changed your life in some way, shape or form. Playing a good game can make you fall in love with a new genre of games that you never even though of touching before. It can make you a dedicated fan of a series/developer. An even more basic example is that you played a good game back when you were young and fell in love with gaming because of it.
If they made me a fan of a series or developer, or made me love games because of it, it was because the game in question was good. The game was fun, I enjoyed it, I want to see more of similar games or a continuation of it from this developer! Our points kind of go hand in hand in this one actually. Yes it technically did change my life this way, but it was because the game was good.

Originally Posted by Firzin
The DS and Wii certainly have good games yet a majority of their top selling titles are ones that utilize the new control scheme perfectly. So yes, good games made the consoles sell but the new type of game play by touchscreen and Wii-mote were also a large part of it. It does seem like he has a disapproving view of game pads but that doesn't take away from his main point which is finding new methods to interact with games.
I'd say the fact the games were good was a far bigger part, and the interaction type was the supporting role. Again, look at the PS Move and the Kinect. I haven't heard anything newsworthy about those two mechanics since a month or so after it launched, much less any fun games that used it well. However, for the the NDS and Wii, you hear plenty of great games on them. The World Ends With You, Skyward Sword, Castlevanias, etc. So isolating the differences, which is the quality of the game, the conclusion should be that the control schemes of the NDS/Wii were successful largely in part the games library was good. And because other consoles and games without more interactive controls are also successful like the PS2 and such, the different interaction mechanics is actually completely optional.

He talks a lot about the Utopia analogy, but never does he ever specifically mention the quality of the games, or the actual real problems of low sales and what not. Coupled with the oddities I pointed out and the things he talks about, this leads me to believe he's just using this seemingly nice facade for the subtext. And as a backup flimsy but technically arguable defense in case he's called out.