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.

 Overread wrote:

The problem is self regulation is hard if, say, the random chances with the lootbox start to change. You might be happy with 1 box a week with a decent return on investment in terms of in-game content. But if the developer then puts in a code that after two months lowers your chances that return on investment lowers, pressuring the player to change their buying habit. Those on budget or with more self control or less interest in the game might well pass; others will get hooked.

It's a horrifying expansion of Skinner Box logic.

It's the next logical expansion of the skinner box.

Also ethics don't make money.

I don't want the AAA industry to crash and burn because I respect the fact that many of the tools they create filter down to other smaller companies. Heck how many companies rely heavily on things like the Unreal Engine to produce their games? Sure its not totally free (from what I recall Unreal is free until you ship over a certain threshold of product); but it provides tools that many other smaller companies would never be able to afford (in time and money) to produce in-house on their own.

 Overread wrote:
I don't want the AAA industry to crash and burn because I respect the fact that many of the tools they create filter down to other smaller companies. Heck how many companies rely heavily on things like the Unreal Engine to produce their games? Sure its not totally free (from what I recall Unreal is free until you ship over a certain threshold of product); but it provides tools that many other smaller companies would never be able to afford (in time and money) to produce in-house on their own.

And that matters how?
A new industry will grow.
Just like Video games after the arcade Crash.
One that does not make the same mistakes.

I mean it will, but the 20 odd years it takes to get there will be lovely.

I think what you mean to say is that you want several of the current AAA title companies to close doors rather than all of them (CA and CDProjekt aren't involved in microtransaction gambling, nor is Paradox).

 LunarSol wrote:
I mean it will, but the 20 odd years it takes to get there will be lovely.

Didn't know companies exist like cdPR the indy or the b tier industry.
Don't get me wrong there would be a drought for a year or two but there are enough companies that don't abuse the greyarea of lootboxes.

Well. Its not quite a loot box, but a new surprise mechanic:

Bethesda wants $100 a year (or $13/month) for 'exclusive' fallout 76 features, including:

private servers (you+ 7 person cap)
unlimited storage
survival tent (movable fast travel/utility point)
in-game store 'currency' per month
new outfit
icons/emotes

So a sub fee around about what the remaining full-service MMOs charge, in exchange for... basically the ability to shut the hordes out and play single player/with buddies plus some extra conveniences


Just to add insult to injury, the 'actual NPCs' that were planned are suddenly pushed back to next year... <.<

And Doom Eternal also got pushed back from next month to March.

Bethesda is on a roll!

https://kotaku.com/bethesda-is-now-selling-100-annual-subscriptions-for-e-1839294277

Why?

Why a subscription based model for the worst Fallout game since? Well ever? '?

Because Bethesda has proven time and again that they really don't get actual gamers.


It's like when they tried to make mods in Skyrim a paid service. Taking whole community that had grown around the game over years and trying to force a paid subscription system onto the mods. Whilst at the same time offering no curation or validation of the mods, just straight up going "Oh we can suddenly charge for mods and, er, the community will police itself.



This is just another one of those choices, though its a bit backward. They are basically saying that they don't want to adjust the game to run client side so will basically rent private servers to customers for a 7 person game - without NPC? I mean that just sounds dead boring once you've got past the novelty of dropping nukes on each other.

To be fair, adjusting the game to run client side would be a massive undertaking, and would require rebuilding large parts of the game from scratch, to the point of not really being a feasible option without consumers paying something.

Similarly, private servers (well, instances of the game world, really) will cost them a pretty penny to run over and above their current costs.

Now, I don't think that justifies a $13/month subscription fee, but I don't think they have the willingness to admit they gakked this one up and do better next time.

They took the Fallout/Skyrim with Friends idea in the exact wrong direction, and are trying to backpedal to what people wanted in the first place, and charging for the privilege.

--

Truthfully, I think a paid DLC for a single player version would have gotten less flak. 'It's yours now, have fun' could have been a selling point. Still gakky, but not as predatory as a sub.

Yeah and whilst people find it gakky the whole "stand alone sequel" is a tried and tested means to get reward out of a project that has otherwise failed. Whilst you might never get back what you lost on the title, you can at least recoup some.

It's what Fallen Enchantress did a long while back when the first game utterly utterly failed. Stand Alone sequels both mechanically and marketing wise can help a game break free. It won't fix the first but sometimes you've got to know when to let go.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah and whilst people find it gakky the whole "stand alone sequel" is a tried and tested means to get reward out of a project that has otherwise failed. Whilst you might never get back what you lost on the title, you can at least recoup some.

It's what Fallen Enchantress did a long while back when the first game utterly utterly failed. Stand Alone sequels both mechanically and marketing wise can help a game break free. It won't fix the first but sometimes you've got to know when to let go.

The funny thing is, asset-wise, '76 was largely just a 'stand alone sequel' to FO4. They didn't spend a lot of time or money adding to the art or animation assets at all.

But yeah, truthfully if I were BethSoft I'd feature lock 76 and move on, not try to milk the leftover playerbase.

$100 subscription? Bethesda really thinks that F76 was a massive hit, beloved around the world, don't they?

Voss wrote:
To be fair, adjusting the game to run client side would be a massive undertaking, and would require rebuilding large parts of the game from scratch, to the point of not really being a feasible option without consumers paying something.

They've done that twice already: Fallout 3 and Fallout 4.

There was more game in those as well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
$100 subscription? Bethesda really thinks that F76 was a massive hit, beloved around the world, don't they?

Voss wrote:
To be fair, adjusting the game to run client side would be a massive undertaking, and would require rebuilding large parts of the game from scratch, to the point of not really being a feasible option without consumers paying something.

They've done that twice already: Fallout 3 and Fallout 4.

There was more game in those as well.

It doesn't matter if f76 was bad.
They want to cash in on the whales.
And that way they can do it, what is however more ridicoulus is that private Servers and modsupport are locked behind it due to vastly highering the entry barrier into their market place called game.
So it doesn't even really make monetary sense, which boggels my mind even more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and btw: This happened.




Obviously rigged microtransaction spinning wheel is obviously rigged

Conspiracy time:

Companies are actively trying to create bad-will among older players in order to force them out of the hobby.

The younger generations are much more positive with regard to paid content and will usually go along with such content without much of a fuss.

Remove the old guard, and then set up a purely monetized system of making games, creating a near infinite stream of cash that no one will resist.

Change my mind.

I don't think its a matter of active attempts at removal so much as recognizing the existence of a new demographic being lucrative enough to not care if the old guard sticks around or not. I mean, when cigarette companies realized a lot of their loyal customers were dying of lung cancer, they didn't try to get them to quit, they just focused on people who didn't yet know better.

 LunarSol wrote:
I don't think its a matter of active attempts at removal so much as recognizing the existence of a new demographic being lucrative enough to not care if the old guard sticks around or not. I mean, when cigarette companies realized a lot of their loyal customers were dying of lung cancer, they didn't try to get them to quit, they just focused on people who didn't yet know better.

I think the difference is that game companies are scared of the oldguard. Look at the mess Blizzard is in currently. All of their social media is a shitstorm. It wouldn't take much to tip something like this for any of the other companies. WoTc for example decided to take the opposite stance after seeing how their fellow company has faired.

 Togusa wrote:
Conspiracy time:

Companies are actively trying to create bad-will among older players in order to force them out of the hobby.

The younger generations are much more positive with regard to paid content and will usually go along with such content without much of a fuss.

Remove the old guard, and then set up a purely monetized system of making games, creating a near infinite stream of cash that no one will resist.

Change my mind.

That's definitely a conspiracy theory.

It doesn't at all match up with what I've seen of industry analysis, since a lot of the 'whales' the industry depends on are older folks who find money easier to part with than time.
Creating 'bad-will' doesn't make any sense at all. Being indifferent to demographics that don't pay out does, but not intentional alienation.

 Togusa wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I don't think its a matter of active attempts at removal so much as recognizing the existence of a new demographic being lucrative enough to not care if the old guard sticks around or not. I mean, when cigarette companies realized a lot of their loyal customers were dying of lung cancer, they didn't try to get them to quit, they just focused on people who didn't yet know better.

I think the difference is that game companies are scared of the oldguard. Look at the mess Blizzard is in currently. All of their social media is a shitstorm. It wouldn't take much to tip something like this for any of the other companies. WoTc for example decided to take the opposite stance after seeing how their fellow company has faired.

But the negative social media Blizz is facing seems to be younger people, not the 'old guard.' A lot of the older folks who complained about Blizzard came back for Classic and stopped complaining.
You seem to have things backwards in all regards.

That gotta be a new record even for bugthesda

"I thought my life was a comedy. Now I realise that it's a tragedy!" - Todd Howard (reversing a quote from Joker!).

Meanwhile, the idiot running Ubisoft has once again taken the wrong lessons from Breakpoints abject failure:

1. There isn't enough time between live-game experiences;
2. with Ghost Recon Breakpoint's innovative implementations weren't handled properly;
3. Ghost Recon Breakpoint didn't stand out amongst the competition.

No, gak head. Breakpoint was terrible because it wasn't different to the last game, and you monetised everything, plus a season pass, plus a battle pass, plus multiple editions.

God... "we didn't innovate correctly". That's a Bobby Kotic answer.

So they delayed the Watch Dogs game? That seems a bit excessive. I was vaguely interested in that.
Gods and Monsters has an odd art style, but sounded like it had potential

Why does it matter that generic shooter was generically crap?

Oh, wait, a quote from some Ubi bigwig

Article wrote:Guillemot said of the delays: "We want our teams to have more development time to ensure that their respective innovations are perfectly implemented so as to deliver optimal experiences for players."

Can't tell if this is Corp-Speak for 'they weren't going to be done on time anyway' or just meaningless blather akin to repeating 'realigning our paradigm' over and over again.


----
In other wackiness, the Fallout76 nonsense is basically happening on the eve of the release of the Outer Worlds.

Which is available day 1 on the Xbox Game Pass (for PC as well). which, if you've never signed up before, is... $1 for the first month.

Main reason I'm hesitating is the MS store (well, beyond dealing with the MS Store) mentions (under additional information) that "This app can Access all your files, peripheral devices, apps, programs, and registry."
What?

Isn't outerworlds on PC an apeic exclusive?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Isn't outerworlds on PC an apeic exclusive?

For around a year yes.

And honestly if their store was fully featured and had a better safety track record I've have zero problem with it. Honestly once its updated somewhat and brought into line it should be fine.

 Overread wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Isn't outerworlds on PC an apeic exclusive?

For around a year yes.

And honestly if their store was fully featured and had a better safety track record I've have zero problem with it. Honestly once its updated somewhat and brought into line it should be fine.

Nope, not so long they are exclusive.
Regardless off time.

 Overread wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Isn't outerworlds on PC an apeic exclusive?

For around a year yes.

And honestly if their store was fully featured and had a better safety track record I've have zero problem with it. Honestly once its updated somewhat and brought into line it should be fine.

It's also on the Windows Store, but you gotta be on Win10 for that. I'm still chugging along on Win7. Next year I'll make the upgrade when I build my new PC for Cyberpunk 2077.

I'm still on Win 8.1 as I tend to find being behind the times helps when being a gamer because typically the newest and greatest OS tends to be a nightmare for comparability. Though win 8.1 has been pretty solid, though one suit of games won't work due to some security violation in relation to some anti-copy software bundled with games years back so MS patched out the part of windows it needs. However most are on GOG so can at least be bought and run once again.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Isn't outerworlds on PC an apeic exclusive?

Yup, which is why just as with BL3, I will not be supporting this game, ever.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Isn't outerworlds on PC an apeic exclusive?

For around a year yes.

And honestly if their store was fully featured and had a better safety track record I've have zero problem with it. Honestly once its updated somewhat and brought into line it should be fine.

It's also on the Windows Store, but you gotta be on Win10 for that. I'm still chugging along on Win7. Next year I'll make the upgrade when I build my new PC for Cyberpunk 2077.

Don't forget that all support for Win 7 ends in December 19. After that your system will be highly vulnerable to security breaks.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Isn't outerworlds on PC an apeic exclusive?

For around a year yes.

And honestly if their store was fully featured and had a better safety track record I've have zero problem with it. Honestly once its updated somewhat and brought into line it should be fine.

It's also on the Windows Store, but you gotta be on Win10 for that. I'm still chugging along on Win7. Next year I'll make the upgrade when I build my new PC for Cyberpunk 2077.

Lol: Indy dev asks if he can be on multiple plattforms, get's denyied.
Non indy dev: Sure please do multi plattform.

APEIC: We do it to break the monopoly of steam guys? Guys?

 Overread wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Isn't outerworlds on PC an apeic exclusive?

For around a year yes.

That was the plan, but as the new owners of Obsidian, Microsoft stepped in and insisted it be on the MS store as well.