Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not Online!!! wrote:




Oooooffffffff.

Virtuel slot machine for 3 year olds
Wp, Wp.
Industry standard just dropped lower somehow.

Somewhat related, but every time I see that big red "EPIC FAIL" letter tag on a video, it comes from one of those Youtoube edgeboy channels. I can't think of his name, but that whiny beared dude who got kicked out of magic uses it all the time when he rants about marvel movies daring to have female characters. I just can't take it seriously anymore.

But yeah, that trailer literally looks like it came straight out of a vegas casino. Holy gak that is incredible.

I don't know whom you talk about, but in general it's a pretty standard klickbait strategy and the only reason i looked the vid was because i respect AJ's critique of games.

Sadly, it's almost a necessity in some cases due to how the YT algorithm works.

 Grimskul wrote:
Sadly, it's almost a necessity in some cases due to how the YT algorithm works.

Tbf now with unskipable adds, the demonitization of history channel or anything slightly with edge, i kinda wait until it Burns down.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Sadly, it's almost a necessity in some cases due to how the YT algorithm works.

Tbf now with unskipable adds, the demonitization of history channel or anything slightly with edge, i kinda wait until it Burns down.

You and me both, this is what happens when one site has a monopoly, I'm just waiting to see what competitors come out in the future so YT actually has real pressure to improve their current system.

Ah yes. "Disingenuously presenting my opponent as an idiot extremist by fake quoting something he never said".
Truly, you are a master debater.
Or something close, anyway.

Children please, we are here to discuss the toxic industry of games not some political lightweights that haven't had any responsibility ever.....

So, as someone who works in the industry, I'd like to call out the darker side of this in terms of development.

Unless you have a game that's simplistic and quick/low cost to create content for, DLC ends up being both a crutch that props up a producer/execs ability to over scope a game.

By this I mean they push for, and get approved, unrealistic levels of content for a game, which results in a lot of developer hours. They set unrealistic dates resulting in overtime and crunch.

They justify the cost of all this thinking they can sell a bunch of gambling style DLCs.

 Vertrucio wrote:
So, as someone who works in the industry, I'd like to call out the darker side of this in terms of development.

Unless you have a game that's simplistic and quick/low cost to create content for, DLC ends up being both a crutch that props up a producer/execs ability to over scope a game.

By this I mean they push for, and get approved, unrealistic levels of content for a game, which results in a lot of developer hours. They set unrealistic dates resulting in overtime and crunch.

They justify the cost of all this thinking they can sell a bunch of gambling style DLCs.

Question, how often do you see a product pitch that also get's carved up into dlc?

As for the crunch in the industry, blame terrible work laws.
But the heavier reliance on crunch shows imo, especially in AAA games.

Or, they could just set realistic time tables for the content they are creating. You know, like every other industry.

The video game industry really needs to mature out of this adolescent bs.

 Lance845 wrote:
Or, they could just set realistic time tables for the content they are creating. You know, like every other industry.

The video game industry really needs to mature out of this adolescent bs.

Well, yes ofcourse but that might make anual release Windows not possible.

Also would let the lazy workers off to easy.
Because only a half burnt out one gives his all.

I would accept the argument that DLC helps content creators avoid crunch IF:

1. Every game that has this type of predatory DLC wasn't just a re-skin of last years games with zero actual content development

2. The content creators were indie devs who would otherwise fail to put out a product without said content, which even still is a gakky argument because it's completely lacking in personal accountability.

If your product fails to meet consumer sales to the extent needed to garner "success", then creating a morally duplicitous standard for DLC isn't the answer, it should be MAKE A BETTER GAME.

A large majority of sports games today are just re-skinned cash grabs by greedy publishers that justify the proverbial rape of their dev teams by threatening to stifle debate or even discussion through locking access or outright banning players/testers. Not even going to mention what happens to reviewers who don't toe the line and pump out those 9/10 reviews.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I would accept the argument that DLC helps content creators avoid crunch IF:

1. Every game that has this type of predatory DLC wasn't just a re-skin of last years games with zero actual content development

2. The content creators were indie devs who would otherwise fail to put out a product without said content, which even still is a gakky argument because it's completely lacking in personal accountability.

If your product fails to meet consumer sales to the extent needed to garner "success", then creating a morally duplicitous standard for DLC isn't the answer, it should be MAKE A BETTER GAME.

A large majority of sports games today are just re-skinned cash grabs by greedy publishers that justify the proverbial rape of their dev teams by threatening to stifle debate or even discussion through locking access or outright banning players/testers. Not even going to mention what happens to reviewers who don't toe the line and pump out those 9/10 reviews.

Not even then, and the latter part about games journalism, i'll be honest, the Game journalists run themselves into a corner with beeing buyable. And don't tell me they weren't considering the ratings of Battlefront etc. Basically EA titles f.e. that miracoulusly were a 7/8 out of 10 even though they were buggyy messes at launch (BF4 comes to mind)

Aren't loot boxes and DLC different things? When I think of DLC, I think of stuff like Paradox games, where the basic game is 20 or 30 bucks, and then you'll want 50 bucks of DLC to make it good, 100 if you want the full experience.

Loot boxes I think of usually very minor content- new emotes, skins, maybe a new character or two. I don't think of them as the same category.

Am I wrong?

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Aren't loot boxes and DLC different things? When I think of DLC, I think of stuff like Paradox games, where the basic game is 20 or 30 bucks, and then you'll want 50 bucks of DLC to make it good, 100 if you want the full experience.

Loot boxes I think of usually very minor content- new emotes, skins, maybe a new character or two. I don't think of them as the same category.

Am I wrong?

Nope. Plus its also important to realise that most DLC is not random in nature - you buy the DLC pack you get it and all its content without a gamble that you get a DLC you've got already or something that you didn't want.
With random loot boxes you're not just getting new digital content; you're getting core game content but paying for it - in addition its a gamble so you've no idea exactly what you will get.

It's also important to realise that games ilke Crusader Kings 2 weren't originally made for"lots of DLC" with content stripped out of the core game ;but more that the core game sold so well that the developers keep adding too it through DLC rather than making a whole new game.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Aren't loot boxes and DLC different things? When I think of DLC, I think of stuff like Paradox games, where the basic game is 20 or 30 bucks, and then you'll want 50 bucks of DLC to make it good, 100 if you want the full experience.

Loot boxes I think of usually very minor content- new emotes, skins, maybe a new character or two. I don't think of them as the same category.

Am I wrong?

"Surprise Mechanics (Loot boxes and other horrible mechanics currently plaguing games) "

this thread is for all of the hallmarks of the industry, think of it as a safety valvet. (Crunch, Epic exclusive bait and switzch, crunchmesslaunches, Toxic DLC looking at you paradox, Microtransactions in a full priced game, Lootboxes, etc)

Also lootboxes and minor content, it seems from the outside of it minor content however considering people throw default as an insult at each other in school yards to bully people with default skins, i find that a bit naive statement.
Also don't forget macrotransactions of Bethesda


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Aren't loot boxes and DLC different things? When I think of DLC, I think of stuff like Paradox games, where the basic game is 20 or 30 bucks, and then you'll want 50 bucks of DLC to make it good, 100 if you want the full experience.

Loot boxes I think of usually very minor content- new emotes, skins, maybe a new character or two. I don't think of them as the same category.

Am I wrong?

Nope. Plus its also important to realise that most DLC is not random in nature - you buy the DLC pack you get it and all its content without a gamble that you get a DLC you've got already or something that you didn't want.
With random loot boxes you're not just getting new digital content; you're getting core game content but paying for it - in addition its a gamble so you've no idea exactly what you will get.

It's also important to realise that games ilke Crusader Kings 2 weren't originally made for"lots of DLC" with content stripped out of the core game ;but more that the core game sold so well that the developers keep adding too it through DLC rather than making a whole new game.

Ofcourse then we have EUIV on the other side, and HOIV.
Which reek of cut content.

I can agree on HoI4, but how on earth does EU4 "reek of cut content"? It's a six year old game and they're still adding new stuff through DLC. There is absolutely zero ways they could've had the current game at launch. It's a phenomenal game and it keeps getting better.

The entry-cost for a new player at this point, on the other hand...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I can agree on HoI4, but how on earth does EU4 "reek of cut content"? It's a six year old game and they're still adding new stuff through DLC. There is absolutely zero ways they could've had the current game at launch. It's a phenomenal game and it keeps getting better.

The entry-cost for a new player at this point, on the other hand...

Go take a look at the base game. Play a round or two.

and then the total price of the DLC.

yeah,

That doesn't mean the game "wasn't finished" or had mechanics "cut" though. Do you need the DLCs to fully enjoy the game today? Mostly yes (not all of them are essential, but still). Did the lack of the stuff the DLCs have covered make the game feel incomplete at the release of the game? Absolutely not. The DLCs have added a metric tonne to the game since release to the point where the base game is much worse than the game with DLCs, but comparing the base game today to the base game at release the game is much better off. It's not that they cut stuff out at release, it's that they've had six years of improvements to the point that the base game has been left behind.

Compare this to HoI4 where naval combat is still fethed over despite having an entire DLC dedicated to fixing it. EU4 wasn't anywhere near as unfinished on release as HoI, nor did the DLCs fix things that should've been in at start.

I don't get why Paradox doesn't reduce the price of the older DLC for EU4 more, but that is a separate point from the one you were arguing.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That doesn't mean the game "wasn't finished" or had mechanics "cut" though. Do you need the DLCs to fully enjoy the game today? Mostly yes (not all of them are essential, but still). Did the lack of the stuff the DLCs have covered make the game feel incomplete at the release of the game? Absolutely not. The DLCs have added a metric tonne to the game since release to the point where the base game is much worse than the game with DLCs, but comparing the base game today to the base game at release the game is much better off. It's not that they cut stuff out at release, it's that they've had six years of improvements to the point that the base game has been left behind.

Compare this to HoI4 where naval combat is still fethed over despite having an entire DLC dedicated to fixing it. EU4 wasn't anywhere near as unfinished on release as HoI, nor did the DLCs fix things that should've been in at start.

I don't get why Paradox doesn't reduce the price of the older DLC for EU4 more, but that is a separate point from the one you were arguing.

yeah sure, tell that All the missing mechanics that should've been in the basegame which were added in the first bunch of DLC


As for HOI4 naval combat.
The genious coming up with it should've been fired.

No, actually: YOU tell us what those mechanics were.

The first really major mechanic added in a DLC was the Religious Leagues in Art of War, the fourth DLC released more than a year after the game itself. Conquest of Paradise, Wealth of Nations, and Res Publica added a bunch of stuff that made the game better but was by no means "required" to play it, so where's the reek coming from again?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, actually: YOU tell us what those mechanics were.

The first really major mechanic added in a DLC was the Religious Leagues in Art of War, the fourth DLC released more than a year after the game itself. Conquest of Paradise, Wealth of Nations, and Res Publica added a bunch of stuff that made the game better but was by no means "required" to play it, so where's the reek coming from again?

I played today without these, it's not complete thank you.

Sincerly someone that did just today suffer through a round without any.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. Of course it's not complete today without six years' worth of content. That doesn't mean content is "cut" like you argued, any more than World of Warcraft has content "cut" just because you're not playing with the latest expansion.

Hearts of Iron had a bunch of stuff that clearly wasn't finished at release; EU4 worked perfectly fine as a game at release and was made better by DLC over time. You can still play older versions of EU4 through rolling back patches, so there's not even the argument that they "took that away".

I'll ask again: what content was not there at release that "should have been"? Whether or not you played a DLC-less version today or not is wholly irrelevant.

The league wars for exemple, Colonial Nations. (altough happy little disadvantages there.)

That are just two.

And consdiering that it is EUROPA universalis and you go through that age the lack of league wars is disgusting.


As for HOI4

considering that spain still lacks a tree. IT is hillarious really.

Guys, take it to a topic of its own please.

Well they done it, they killed their buisness model with their own greed

It was bound to happen - this last year or two its been clear that a good few developers were just chasing the money for as much as they could get out of it. Milking the cow dry before it got closed off.

 Overread wrote:
It was bound to happen - this last year or two its been clear that a good few developers were just chasing the money for as much as they could get out of it. Milking the cow dry before it got closed off.

I do wonder though, what will the shareholders make of this?

I do like that the "surprise mechanics" lady from EA got called out, as you could tell the committee member clearly wanted to scream "oh do fup off" at the time at her pre-programmed inanity

"It is not a kick in the arse and prohibition to enter said house, it's surprise acceleration via movement of foot to backside "

That is what should have happened.