Seasons

I just started watching the stream, so I missed a bunch, but here's a summary from reddit:

Going forward, IB loot(in rotations) will be purchasable with tokens and shards.

In future seasons, there will be new decorations and perks for IB gears.
Ornaments will be progression based, as in "Win 10 IB matches" or "Go flawless in Trials"(for Trials gears).

There will be another batch of some IB weapons, like the energy counterparts of the kinetic weapons so far(for example an energy HC as opposed to the Kinetic one).

Season 2's faction rally will have new gears, but the old ones are still obtainable through packages. The new gears is just the Season 1 gears with different details, and a new default/obtainable shader(FWC has a marble-like blue-white shader).

New activity coming before Season 1 ends: Clarion Calls. Select activities that you do with clanmates and will give out double exp.

Most of the drops inside Bright Engrams will refresh, namely emotes. The exotic ones in particular are season-tied.

Season 2's theme is 'The Dawning', a Winter season. There will be a new exotic ship(with a new model) coming with it. There will also be more new exotic ships and sparrows with new models. New, unique body styles for Ghost.

The current Optimacy armor sets from Bright Engrams will be gone in Season 2. There's a new set coming, but it won't be tied to the Dawning theme.

locked

4145 views

locked

4041 views

Is it just me or does it sound like the emphasis of the seasonal changes is almost entirely to drive people towards the microtransactions?

locked

4006 views

A lot of what they focused on today was. But it sounds like seasons are going to be centered around DLC, which they're just not ready to talk about yet.

locked

3907 views

Could be. Note the number of times they talked about each season revolving the enemies you’d fight that time around. It’s probably too early to say for certain we’ll be getting a new DLC each season, but that would be nice as long as they aren’t super small like House of Wolves.

locked

3964 views

Could be. Note the number of times they talked about each season revolving the enemies you’d fight that time around. It’s probably too early to say for certain we’ll be getting a new DLC each season, but that would be nice as long as they aren’t super small like House of Wolves.

Honestly if we get DLC every 3 months consistently I wouldn't be super upset if they are the size of House of Wolves, considering with D1 we averaged a DLC less than every 6 months.

locked

3953 views

A lot of what they focused on today was. But it sounds like seasons are going to be centered around DLC, which they're just not ready to talk about yet.

I hope that's the case, but I've learned to temper my expectations when it comes to Destiny. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than horribly disappointed.

locked

3975 views

Do you plan to pay for any of the stuff they showed? I don’t So, for me at least, everything was just a preview of stuff I’ll earn for free through Bright Engrams.

locked

3954 views

Do you plan to pay for any of the stuff they showed? I don’t So, for me at least, everything was just a preview of stuff I’ll earn for free through Bright Engrams.

While it's true that you earn Bright Engrams at a healthy pace in D2, that remains the "a taste is free" element of the microtrans addiction pipeline. Savvy players such as you and i may be able to resist, but I suspect that some players who really really really want the "flip out" emote will spend big bucks at the end of the season trying to get it.

locked

4048 views

It is condescending to imply that just because someone pays for microtransactions they are somehow not savvy or understanding of what that purchase is. For most players it is as much a conscious choice to buy microtransactions based on their budget and perceived value to the exact same degree that people don't due to their budget or perceived value.

I understand that you are in squared opposition to many aspects of modern gaming financial staples and I respect that even if I disagree with some of the logic. However, I cannot respect the implication that people with different priorities are a) not savvy consumers b) are being taken advantage of c) derive no benefit from these transactions.

locked

4006 views

- No text -

locked

3915 views

- No text -

locked

3977 views

It is condescending to imply that just because someone pays for microtransactions they are somehow not savvy or understanding of what that purchase is. For most players it is as much a conscious choice to buy microtransactions based on their budget and perceived value to the exact same degree that people don't due to their budget or perceived value.

I apologize if this was insulting as it was not intended to be. I believe that microtransactions, in general, are designed to play on addictive tendencies in players, and that those who are savvy to the tricks are more able to resist those tricks or at least make their purchases with full and complete information. I did not mean to imply that people who were unaware of the predatory abuse of human nature playing out in their video game were somehow less than as a result. Being unwittingly manipulated is not the fault of the victim. Perhaps savvy was not the best term to use, but I'm struggling to think of one that more accurately describes what I was trying to say.

We know, for a fact, that Destiny was intentionally designed to create addictive loops in the gameplay and rewards systems, and was done so scientifically by a professor of behavioral psychology.

People who think "I can afford this" may be right, but they aren't the players I'm particularly concerned about, and most people who just buy one thing are probably totally savvy. It's the 0.15% of game players who account for 50% of microtransaction revenue who concern me. These players likely have a combination of video game addiction and gambling addiction, and there is virtually no support system in place to help them. Gamblers have a hotline. Alcoholics have a hotline. Microtransaction Whales have nowhere to turn and no one looking out for them.

I understand that you are in squared opposition to many aspects of modern gaming financial staples and I respect that even if I disagree with some of the logic. However, I cannot respect the implication that people with different priorities are a) not savvy consumers b) are being taken advantage of c) derive no benefit from these transactions.

Addiction is not a matter of a player simply having "different priorities" as you imply. And intentionally designing your game to prey on addiction is a gross abuse that should not be tolerated.

Again, I apologize if it sounded like I was trying to shame or assign blame to the players here; the fault lies entirely with the developers who seek to take advantage of these players.

locked

3852 views

And intentionally designing your game to prey on addiction is a gross abuse that should not be tolerated.

Understanding why players find games fun and using that knowledge to make your next game more fun is not the same as preying on players. I think the paper itself gave a much better definition of what was going on:

What is being offered here is not a blueprint for perfect games, it is a primer to some of the basic ways people react to different patterns of rewards. Every computer game is implicitly asking its players to react in certain ways. Psychology can offer a framework and a vocabulary for understanding what we are already telling our players.

For 30+ years game designers have been trying to figure out how to make a good, fun game that sells well so they can make more good fun games. That science is being used to help with that is not necessarily a bad thing. And there are games that actually prey on players with things like pay to win and not letting players earn things free.

Yes we need to be wary. Yes, some games are abusive. But you at least need to acknowledge that the vast, overwhelming majority of the decisions that go into a game like Destiny aren’t because the developers want to intentionally prey on addiction, but because they want to make games that players find fun.

I like, no love, that you linked to that article. But, I find your strictly negative tone and viewpoint intensely frustrating. :(

locked

3947 views

Good reply, and thank you for it.

And intentionally designing your game to prey on addiction is a gross abuse that should not be tolerated.

Understanding why players find games fun and using that knowledge to make your next game more fun is not the same as preying on players. I think the paper itself gave a much better definition of what was going on:

What is being offered here is not a blueprint for perfect games, it is a primer to some of the basic ways people react to different patterns of rewards. Every computer game is implicitly asking its players to react in certain ways. Psychology can offer a framework and a vocabulary for understanding what we are already telling our players.

For 30+ years game designers have been trying to figure out how to make a good, fun game that sells well so they can make more good fun games. That science is being used to help with that is not necessarily a bad thing. And there are games that actually prey on players with things like pay to win and not letting players earn things free.

Yes we need to be wary. Yes, some games are abusive. But you at least need to acknowledge that the vast, overwhelming majority of the decisions that go into a game like Destiny aren’t because the developers want to intentionally prey on addiction, but because they want to make games that players find fun.

Point conceded.

I like, no love, that you linked to that article. But, I find your strictly negative tone and viewpoint intensely frustrating. :(

Ahh, I wish I wasn't, too. By and large, I like Destiny 2. I feel like it's a huge step up from D1 and I think it realizes a lot of the promise that the first game made. Integrated patrol mode and missions is wonderful. I'm not sure why I don't feel like gushing reviews of the things I like are as valuable or important as my complaints about the things I don't like. It is definitely a trend in my posts and I'm well aware of it. I think that it has to do with the fact that, for over a decade of my life, my job was to find problems with video games. It seems like a probably cause, at least.

So... I feel like this is a really strong point, and I recognize that the vast majority of game design is to make a fun game (and it works, because damn, I have fun playing the game). Microtransactions, specifically, bother me. Even if they are designed innocently and no ill will is intended, I feel like we have enough evidence that they rely on addictive behavior as a key component (half, literally) of their funding model, that if you truly had good intentions you would take them out of your game. Instead of doing that, we get seasons, cycling through new microtrans items in what appears to be an effort to refresh the pool of desirable items so players who bought all of the current ones will feel the need to buy the new set as well. I can't help but view this negatively.

And listen, I think it's cool that Bungie is adding new stuff each season. I honestly think that if you could not buy bright engrams, but only earn them through exp, I would LOVE this. It's the spectre of those people who cannot help themselves and who are being taken advantage of that ruins it for me. I've seen what addiction does to you. It's horrible. I would not wish it on anyone. And I'm disgusted that abusing addiction is considered acceptable as a business model for video games. For me, at least, it taints the experience in a negative light.

locked

3828 views

I'm not sure why I don't feel like gushing reviews of the things I like are as valuable or important as my complaints about the things I don't like. It is definitely a trend in my posts and I'm well aware of it. I think that it has to do with the fact that, for over a decade of my life, my job was to find problems with video games. It seems like a probably cause, at least.

Coming from a position of knowledge, you should be able to offer better insight into the process. And you do offer some good insights. I’d just like to see the positive sides of game development from you more often. As for complaints being important, please don’t forget the immortal words of Anton Ego:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.

And... eh... mainly I’m putting this line here because when I didn’t have it, it looked like Ego went on to talk about micro transactions :p

Microtransactions, specifically, bother me. Even if they are designed innocently and no ill will is intended, I feel like we have enough evidence that they rely on addictive behavior as a key component (half, literally) of their funding model, that if you truly had good intentions you would take them out of your game

Games and all entertainment, at the end of the day, rely on addictive behavior to sell. It is the fun factor that causes us to buy any type of entertainment product. Honestly, it sounds like your dislike of micro transactions should scale right up to the $7.99 movie ticket, the $19.95 iTunes movie purchase, and the $59.95 video game purchase. All those products, if your break them down enough, are just the same kind of thing on an ever grander scale.

Instead of doing that, we get seasons, cycling through new microtrans items in what appears to be an effort to refresh the pool of desirable items so players who bought all of the current ones will feel the need to buy the new set as well. I can't help but view this negatively.

Well, two things:

1. Some are making the educated guess that Destiny 2’s seasons might be the times that new DLC is released. And that the updated stuff at Eververse will come out at the same time. If anything, it seems that seasons have a whole lot more to do with DLC release schedule and updated Eververse items change at that same time to further emphasize the changes each new DLC will bring.

2. Again, each new DLC is just changing up the content so people who bought the last one feel compelled to buy the new one. I really think you shouldn’t call a developer offering new content in exchange for more money predatory.

And I'm disgusted that abusing addiction is considered acceptable as a business model for video games. For me, at least, it taints the experience in a negative light.

Your definition of what is and isn’t abusive is... for me... extremely out of wack. Games that stop you from playing until your energy, or crystals, or whatever recharges and that strongly push you to buy more of that energy/crystal/whatever to keep playing? I consider those abusive. Or at least much closer to being abuisive. I’m super curious, if Destiny and it’s cosmetic only micro transactions are abusive, what do you call a game that won’t let you play for 5 hours unless you pay up?!

It’s ok to be uncomfortable with micro transactions, and you certainly don’t need to spend money on them, but I think it is W.R.O.N.G. to claim abuse when looking at Destiny’s system of micro transactions. Like, moral outrage level of wrong. Like, you’re insulting good game developers level of wrong.

I challenge you to do this: Reset your scale of what constitutes abuse. Because if you don’t, people are going to stop taking you seriously.

locked

3848 views

I once again cannot stress how much the creation of investment systems and microtransactions is the exact opposite of making your game fun.

For investment systems: if your game is fun you don’t need it! People will be playing your game because they enjoy it. They don’t need to be enticed or manipulated into playing more!

For microtransactions: if your game is fun nobody would buy them. Remember, you are paying to not play the game. The reason you do this is because of ge frictions put in place to make playing for these items unpleasant.

Any time you add microtransactions you can obtain by playing, or when you add an investment system, you are by definition making your game less fun!

locked

3864 views

I once again cannot stress how much the creation of investment systems and microtransactions is the exact opposite of making your game fun.

I wouldn't state it quite so black and white, but I do think there is some truth to what you say.

For investment systems: if your game is fun you don’t need it! People will be playing your game because they enjoy it. They don’t need to be enticed or manipulated into playing more!

I largely agree. I'm old school when it comes to this kind of thing, but I feel very strongly that memorable moments are the best and most pure way to keep people playing a game. The problem is, making a game that creates and allows those moments is a lot harder than slapping on a bunch of casino trappings and skinner boxes. Less profitable, too.

I do think it is possible to add a layer of "investment system" to a game in such a way that it doesn't interfere with the experience. Again, I point to Titanfall 2. You can enjoy that game on a pure moment-to-moment gameplay level, without worrying about ranks or unlocks or microtransactions at all. But those elements are there, for anyone who wants to interact with them. And the balance is brilliantly maintained.

For microtransactions: if your game is fun nobody would buy them. Remember, you are paying to not play the game. The reason you do this is because of ge frictions put in place to make playing for these items unpleasant.

Any time you add microtransactions you can obtain by playing, or when you add an investment system, you are by definition making your game less fun!

You are generalizing a bit here... not all microtransactions are of the "pay to play" variety. Some are purely cosmetic (hello again, Titanfall 2). But speaking to the sort of microtransaction you are talking about, I agree that they suck. That dynamic can also apply to games outside of microtransactions. The Battlefield series has been guilty of this for quite some time. They hide so much of the combat sandbox behind XP levels that you need to sink loads of hours into the game before you can even really play it the way it was meant to be played (ie with a full, diverse sandbox in effect). That's not fun, it is a forced time commitment. I've often voiced the same complaint with Destiny 1. In order to play the activities that I found fun, I had to spend hours and hours grinding through activities that I didn't enjoy. And every single time a new expansion came out, that process would begin all over again. Thankfully, Destiny 2 is far better in that regard.

locked

3866 views

I will be honest here, because in some sense I prefer what we have in Des2ny over Destiny.

The truth is I actually can ignore all the microtransactions so far and not have it impact my experience. I’m still upset that you have to visit Tess to decode bright engrams instead of the cryptarch, but whatever.

I’m not exaggerating when I say I have had to ‘grind’ a grand total of zero times in Des2ny. I’m at 304 and am going to do the Prestige raid when I can find the time. You could not do that at all in Destiny. You had to grind just to do the regular raid!

If given a choice I choose Des2ny, but why can’t we have both?

locked

3768 views

And listen, I think it's cool that Bungie is adding new stuff each season. I honestly think that if you could not buy bright engrams, but only earn them through exp, I would LOVE this. It's the spectre of those people who cannot help themselves and who are being taken advantage of that ruins it for me. I've seen what addiction does to you. It's horrible. I would not wish it on anyone. And I'm disgusted that abusing addiction is considered acceptable as a business model for video games. For me, at least, it taints the experience in a negative light.

I don't know why people are focuses so hard on spending money as addiction when there are just as many addictive qualities with playing to many hours of games getting those bright engrams.

One can argue that it's easier and more pervasive to use money instead of time, which I am inclined to agree with. But it's kind of bothers me that a vast majority of people are just skipping over the the other side of the coin.

locked

3812 views

And listen, I think it's cool that Bungie is adding new stuff each season. I honestly think that if you could not buy bright engrams, but only earn them through exp, I would LOVE this. It's the spectre of those people who cannot help themselves and who are being taken advantage of that ruins it for me. I've seen what addiction does to you. It's horrible. I would not wish it on anyone. And I'm disgusted that abusing addiction is considered acceptable as a business model for video games. For me, at least, it taints the experience in a negative light.

I don't know why people are focuses so hard on spending money as addiction when there are just as many addictive qualities with playing to many hours of games getting those bright engrams.

One can argue that it's easier and more pervasive to use money instead of time, which I am inclined to agree with. But it's kind of bothers me that a vast majority of people are just skipping over the the other side of the coin.

For my part, I'm spending far less time in D2 than I did in D1 and getting more enjoyment out of it. In terms of time investment needed, D2 is far less abusive than D1, with far less grind and far more to do "just for fun." So I don't really have complaints about the nature of the gameplay like I did in D1. I see the argument that power level is essentially meaningless, and I agree with that, but it doesn't bother me because if it were meaningful then you would feel like you *had to grind* until you got max power level. Instead it's just a number that makes you feel better, but doesn't come with that kind of abusive compulsion.

locked

3708 views

One can argue that it's easier and more pervasive to use money instead of time, which I am inclined to agree with. But it's kind of bothers me that a vast majority of people are just skipping over the the other side of the coin.

In my case, it’s because there is no other side of the coin. The Well Rested buff for extra XP for the first three levels honestly lines up with the way I play really well. I’m usually done with the stuff I want to do right around the time I get my third Bright Engram.

locked

3764 views

It sums up a lot of my feelings, but I decided this was a better location to affix my reply. I've only been able to skim the first article, but the one about micro-transactions in Freemium games seems to have a high probability of being used to reinforce an existing bias. I would like a lot more data than just what appears to be a broad aggregate. I'm sure I have to pay to see the actual detailed report because the link doesn't take me straight to a report.

Questions I have right away:
- What games are being considered in this? It specifies mobile games and freemium, but nothing else
- We have no information of socioeconomic backgrounds of those people paying most into them (or any end user data at all)
- It does not detail actual strategies used in those games which lead to the micro-transactions let alone what the majority of the micro-transactions actually purchase (is it more lives or hint items?)
- How does the data actually correlate between large purchases, repeat purchases and relative timing of those purchases (specifically regarding "$1 and $5 represent . . . only 27% of total revenues ... over $50 account for 0.7% of all purchases and contribute 9% of total revenue" and the fact that purchase rates in that blog post don't specific size of purchases)

And I would like to underscore this part from Ragashingo's post because it is very important:

Understanding why players find games fun and using that knowledge to make your next game more fun is not the same as preying on players.

It is pretty much common knowledge that people will more actively part with their money in small portions because the valuation of such a purchases is weighted higher as it is less of an overall budget. This is why I made the point to bring up perceived value. So long as players are receiving what they consider a positive, beneficial exchange it is no different than any other commodity exchange.

What it sounds like to me, on a root level, is that you are not in opposition to micro-transactions but in fact all transactions. As capitalism itself is predatory business practices. What revenue practices consumers accept is the only metric you can judge the ethics of it. Alternately, your issue is with people who have limited self control being perceived as being taken advantage of.

I'll accept that there are people where gambling (in a casino) is a substantial, measurable problem for them, but I would be interested how large that portion is relative to all people who are gambling in casinos. Just as I would be curious how many people are actually having real problems due to mobile game micro-transactions, or buying too much Silver in Destiny or credits in a CoD game or Loot Boxes in Overwatch.

Back to that blog and its nebulous conclusions, if you have 0.15% accounting for 50% of your micro-transaction revenue it sounds a lot worse than 10% accounting for 50%. Numbers don't lie, but they can deceive. Add in streamers/content creators dropping hundreds of dollars in a stream for loot openings and to otherwise support their content and I would be curious how many regular consumers are spending anything that is actually damaging their budget. Micro-transactions actually don't impact my personal budget. I only use secondary income sources to pay for them. I guess you would consider me one of the savvier purchasers, but in some (rare) cases I could easily be in the higher end of cash value. It's actually a really easy thing to not feel bad about because I cut alcohol out entirely which opens my budget to other frivolous purchases.

tl;dr - the actual purpose here is that micro-transactions aren't the problem, because the majority of people who partake in them do so with knowledge of what they are and what they are getting out of them, and that a very small portion of players are spending larger sums on them where we don't have sufficient practical data to make honest judgement of those purchases.

locked

3867 views

Data is important.

But micro transactions and loot boxes are separate (but often connected) issues. The only point of hiding purchases behind randomized loot boxes is to obfuscate and drive up the real cost of those items.

D2 sort of gets around the issue by allowing you to break down those items into currency to purchase the rotating stock, but it’s still a level of obfuscation that leans heavily to the side of predatory, in my opinion.

locked

3865 views

Obfuscating "price" is far from the only reason. I think that dismisses a more unique value of blind box opening that is not held by direct purchases: Surprise. Anticipation. There is a level of entertainment derived from opening something with unknown contents.

I know many people would prefer to be able to make direct purchases and would happily pay more for that option. And this is mostly where we see the most major divide, between those who derive joy from the mystery opening and those who do not. Providing a service to one group (and within D2 the other service to the other group; not even getting into the fact that all contents can be gotten through play, even if it would require a lot) seems a far cry from predatory to me.

locked

3851 views

Obfuscating "price" is far from the only reason. I think that dismisses a more unique value of blind box opening that is not held by direct purchases: Surprise. Anticipation. There is a level of entertainment derived from opening something with unknown contents.

I know many people would prefer to be able to make direct purchases and would happily pay more for that option. And this is mostly where we see the most major divide, between those who derive joy from the mystery opening and those who do not. Providing a service to one group (and within D2 the other service to the other group; not even getting into the fact that all contents can be gotten through play, even if it would require a lot) seems a far cry from predatory to me.

People have fun at casinos, but they are still clearly predatory, or at the very least, manipulative and designed to exploit the customers.

Just like a casino, it is possible to enjoy Des2ny’s microtransactions without feeling taken advantage of. But that doesn’t change the fact that the addictive gambling hooks are very much in place. I find it easy enough to ignore most of the time, but it does feel sleazy every time I notice it. And I think that’s a shame, given that a) these “casino mechanics” were nowhere to be found in Bungie’s previous games, and b) other modern videoganes have found healthy, non-exploitive ways to introduce microtransactions (hello Titanfall 2).

locked

3917 views

What is the state of Titanfall 2’s microtransactions these days? If I remember right, I could not pay real money to unlock things in the past. Is it different now? Personally, I vastly prefer Destiny 2’s system where the micro transactions are cosmetic only. My impression of Titanfall 2 was that it was Play To Win, where everyone else had awesome guns and scopes and player classes and auto turrets killing me from the rooftop. If you can now pay real money to get those things then how has it not moved straight on to Pay To Win?

I don’t want to hear an excuse of “oh the turret isn’t that great” or whatever. If I jumped back into Titanfall 2 today, I’d be stuck a long long way behind you in terms of what guns and abilities I had. Having to climb that latter while being killed because I don’t have those things, or going back to the old Halo 3 / Halo Reach system where a good bulk of the cosmetic items were vastly out of reach at astronomically high levels of hours played, to me, is far worse than Destiny 2’s little store that might give you an emote that will go away at the end of a season.

locked

3896 views

What is the state of Titanfall 2’s microtransactions these days? If I remember right, I could not pay real money to unlock things in the past. Is it different now? Personally, I vastly prefer Destiny 2’s system where the micro transactions are cosmetic only. My impression of Titanfall 2 was that it was Play To Win, where everyone else had awesome guns and scopes and player classes and auto turrets killing me from the rooftop. If you can now pay real money to get those things then how has it not moved straight on to Pay To Win?

All of Titanfall 2's microtransactions are cosmetics. You can buy weapon and armor skins, or unique models of Titans (they look different, but play identically to the standard Titans).

And there's no randomization involved. Want to buy a cosmetic item? You pay a set price for the exact item you want.

New cosmetics are released every month-2 months, along with new maps and game modes which are free for everyone.

I don’t want to hear an excuse of “oh the turret isn’t that great” or whatever. If I jumped back into Titanfall 2 today, I’d be stuck a long long way behind you in terms of what guns and abilities I had. Having to climb that latter while being killed because I don’t have those things, or going back to the old Halo 3 / Halo Reach system where a good bulk of the cosmetic items were vastly out of reach at astronomically high levels of hours played, to me, is far worse than Destiny 2’s little store that might give you an emote that will go away at the end of a season.

IMO, you're misrepresenting what actually happens in Titanfall 2. As you play, you unlock new equipment. But first of all, that new equipment is all unlocked very quickly. As you climb from Rank 1 all the way up to Rank 50 (which doesn't actually take very long at all... maybe a week if you play a little bit every day) you will unlock every weapon and gadget available in the game. These items are unlocked in a set, predictable order (no RNG). Plus, as you play, you earn credits. These credits are an in-game currency. You can use these credits to purchase unlocks of your choosing along the way. So if you see people using one of those turrets, and you want to try one for yourself, you can play 2 or 3 matches and earn enough credits to unlock the turret for yourself, rather than wait until you unlock it through the level climb. Also important to remember that these credits are totally detached from the real money microtransactions (you cannot buy these "credits" with real money, nor can you use real money to purchase the items that are unlocked via credits).

There's 1 other element you are not taking into account. All the gear that you unlock is equipped in place of something else... not in addition to your other gear. This is important because the gear you start with for your very first match is exactly as effective as the gear that you unlock through the normal play progression. So much so that I still use the default starting rifle as my primary weapon, even after all these months. So in order for someone to use that Sentry turret that you're complaining about (;p), they must give up something else that is equally effective. It's not like Destiny where the crucible was plagued by issues like "oh, the entire enemy team is using Thorn, and nobody on my team has got Thorn yet, so I guess we're just screwed".

Gameplay preferences aside, Titanfall 2 handles the entire progression and microtransaction economy so much better than Destiny or Destiny 2, it's not even close. That game should be held up as an example for the rest of the industry to follow, IMO.

locked

4018 views

- No text -

locked

3819 views

- No text -

locked

3765 views

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-23-manveer-heir-bioware-mass-effect-ea-monetisation

”You need to understand the amount of money that's at play with microtransactions. I'm not allowed to say the number but I can tell you that when Mass Effect 3 multiplayer came out, those card packs we were selling, the amount of money we made just off those card packs was so significant that's the reason Dragon Age has multiplayer, that's the reason other EA products started getting multiplayer that hadn't really had them before, because we nailed it and brought in a ton of money. It's repeatable income versus one-time income.

"I've seen people literally spend $15,000 on Mass Effect multiplayer cards."

locked

3837 views

- No text -

locked

3811 views

No regrets, though, that MP was ridiculously fun, and being one of the only folks with a Claymore X (and a Widow X) made me feel like a god on Gold difficulty.

Of course, I wouldn't spend anywhere near as much for anything Microtransaction related these days, but I know at least one guy who buys the $80 Prime Access bundles for Warframe every three months or so, and he's been doing that for years.

Anyone who thinks that boycotting a game because of Microtransactions will make companies think twice about them is a complete fool. The $60 that you're denying the company means nothing when the next guy in line will spend $100 on Microtransactions.

locked

3851 views

No regrets, though, that MP was ridiculously fun, and being one of the only folks with a Claymore X (and a Widow X) made me feel like a god on Gold difficulty.

Of course, I wouldn't spend anywhere near as much for anything Microtransaction related these days, but I know at least one guy who buys the $80 Prime Access bundles for Warframe every three months or so, and he's been doing that for years.

Anyone who thinks that boycotting a game because of Microtransactions will make companies think twice about them is a complete fool. The $60 that you're denying the company means nothing when the next guy in line will spend $100 on Microtransactions.

Mass Effect 3 was a funny situation, too. They released new content at a great pace, the new characters were a blast to play, and literally game-changing (some of the new characters required a completely different approach and playstyle, and mastering those techniques was a blast). The whole thing was so damn good and so damn fun that every time a new batch of content dropped, I was more than happy to spend $5-$10 on a few packs to get some of the new characters right out of the gate. It was still a manipulative system... you couldn't just buy the specific characters you wanted, and there was a "pay to win" element thanks to all the extra upgrades and health kits you'd get from packs. But they also made the economy work perfectly well without ever spending money, so it never ruffled my feathers.

locked

3847 views

Mass Effect 3 was a funny situation, too. They released new content at a great pace, the new characters were a blast to play, and literally game-changing (some of the new characters required a completely different approach and playstyle, and mastering those techniques was a blast). The whole thing was so damn good and so damn fun that every time a new batch of content dropped, I was more than happy to spend $5-$10 on a few packs to get some of the new characters right out of the gate. It was still a manipulative system... you couldn't just buy the specific characters you wanted, and there was a "pay to win" element thanks to all the extra upgrades and health kits you'd get from packs. But they also made the economy work perfectly well without ever spending money, so it never ruffled my feathers.

The crcuial thing about this, though, is that the loot pool shrank after a certain point. Dupes would level up things you already had until those things reached max level, so there was a better chance of you getting what you wanted after every purchase. I never felt cheated, and when I didn't get what I wanted from a purchase, I would just play with what I *did* get, and that caused me to be a better-rounded player in the end.

I mean, assuming people care about things like that.

locked

3789 views

Also, ME3 multiplayer was co-op, not competitive; the "pay to win" aspect of microtransactions grates a lot less when you aren't losing because of someone else dumping money in. (Indeed, some players might start encouraging others who are, er, "headshot-challenged" to dump some money in to address the deficiency...)

-- Steve thinks he spent maybe $10 on ME3 card decks and has huge sales resistance to this kind of thing. Maybe that's why he doesn't see microtransactions (particularly for esthetic items that have no play impact) as a big issue.

PS: yeah, I could see even this being a problem for folks with actual OCD though.

locked

3734 views

Also, ME3 multiplayer was co-op, not competitive; the "pay to win" aspect of microtransactions grates a lot less when you aren't losing because of someone else dumping money in. (Indeed, some players might start encouraging others who are, er, "headshot-challenged" to dump some money in to address the deficiency...)

Isn't that precisely what the patent we were all worried about last week was aimed at?

locked

3731 views

Also, ME3 multiplayer was co-op, not competitive; the "pay to win" aspect of microtransactions grates a lot less when you aren't losing because of someone else dumping money in. (Indeed, some players might start encouraging others who are, er, "headshot-challenged" to dump some money in to address the deficiency...)

Isn't that precisely what the patent we were all worried about last week was aimed at?

Eh, not quite as I understand it. That was regarding PvP matchmaking, where "pay to win" pushes a lot of plains-ape buttons in a way that rarely ends well for anyone in the mid- to long-term. (Specifically, it hits the "envy" button pretty hard.)

-- Steve thinks doing it in PvP would lead to a very toxic player base over time unless managed very well. (Probably easier to pull off in a Free to Play title.) PvE, not so much.

locked

3745 views

ME3 was definitely Pay-to-Win, but since it was exclusively PvE, it didn't hurt at all. It's very unfortunate that the pay-to-win leaked into EA's games henceforth (angrily glares at Battlefront 2).

locked

3744 views

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-23-manveer-heir-bioware-mass-effect-ea-monetisation

”You need to understand the amount of money that's at play with microtransactions. I'm not allowed to say the number but I can tell you that when Mass Effect 3 multiplayer came out, those card packs we were selling, the amount of money we made just off those card packs was so significant that's the reason Dragon Age has multiplayer, that's the reason other EA products started getting multiplayer that hadn't really had them before, because we nailed it and brought in a ton of money. It's repeatable income versus one-time income.

"I've seen people literally spend $15,000 on Mass Effect multiplayer cards."

Yes.

I'm friends with a guy that still works behind the scenes at EA, and worked on the ME:3 project. At launch we were playing some multiplayer and he was very tight-lipped about what he could get into, but in the years since all of this optimism and excitement was more than warranted, in retrospect. PvZ: Garden warfare, RYSE:Son of Rome, and a bunch of others have rolled out economies in the wake of ME3's multiplayer. They remain an RNG-driven style of MT-based economy that never leaves one feeling cheated, or manipulated out of money.

Definitely a watershed moment for EA, if not large chunks of the industry, way I see it.

locked

3741 views

If you can buy “loot boxes” for games, then the game contains gambling. Instant M rating. (Or better yet, AO since that is 18+).

I would love to see this. Makes sense right? Your 16 year old kid can’t pull the slots. So why a loot box? Digital items have real value in many cases (through either auction houses in game or through outside services) so in a sense it is literal gambling.

locked

3725 views

- No text -

locked

3774 views

- No text -

locked

3776 views

Let’s say I am a parent considering buying Des2ny for my child. Before release, there was literally no information regarding the nature and number of microtransactions.

It’s often impossible without waiting for release and seeing it for yourself. Plus, they could get added later like in Destiny.

Which is why real money elements should have a category in the ESRB rating. I don’t think this is unreasonable.

locked

3769 views

Let’s say I am a parent considering buying Des2ny for my child. Before release, there was literally no information regarding the nature and number of microtransactions.

It’s often impossible without waiting for release and seeing it for yourself. Plus, they could get added later like in Destiny.

I'm not saying that ratings are bad, in fact I like the idea. I'm just making the point that you are kind of assuming that a under aged kid has access to a digital payment method by default.

Which in my mind is bad parenting.

locked

3754 views

Let’s say I am a parent considering buying Des2ny for my child. Before release, there was literally no information regarding the nature and number of microtransactions.

It’s often impossible without waiting for release and seeing it for yourself. Plus, they could get added later like in Destiny.

I'm not saying that ratings are bad, in fact I like the idea. I'm just making the point that you are kind of assuming that a under aged kid has access to a digital payment method by default.

Which in my mind is bad parenting.

You can have your own credit card at 16 dude. Granted your parent / guardian needs to sign off on it, but still.

locked

3779 views

Let’s say I am a parent considering buying Des2ny for my child. Before release, there was literally no information regarding the nature and number of microtransactions.

It’s often impossible without waiting for release and seeing it for yourself. Plus, they could get added later like in Destiny.

I'm not saying that ratings are bad, in fact I like the idea. I'm just making the point that you are kind of assuming that a under aged kid has access to a digital payment method by default.

Which in my mind is bad parenting.

You can have your own credit card at 16 dude.

Without your parents written consent? I'm seriously asking because I never got a credit card nearly that early, a bank card yes and my parents had to co-sign.

locked

3800 views

- No text -

locked

3717 views

If you can buy “loot boxes” for games, then the game contains gambling. Instant M rating. (Or better yet, AO since that is 18+).

I would love to see this. Makes sense right? Your 16 year old kid can’t pull the slots. So why a loot box? Digital items have real value in many cases (through either auction houses in game or through outside services) so in a sense it is literal gambling.

100% agree. Loot boxes should be regulated just like gambling and games which contain them should also include the same mandatory "get help" contact info and be subject to the same sorts of laws and regulations which guarantee a "fair roll" and ensure that the devs are putting their fingers on the scale at any point in the process.

locked

3671 views

tl;dr - the actual purpose here is that micro-transactions aren't the problem, because the majority of people who partake in them do so with knowledge of what they are and what they are getting out of them, and that a very small portion of players are spending larger sums on them where we don't have sufficient practical data to make honest judgement of those purchases.

But even someone who has all the knowledge and data, and is doing so willingly is being taken advantage of by the simple fact that the game is designed so that desirable teams are behind frustrating frictions. So yeah, you could be like Speedracer and pay 40 bucks for an ornament. He seems fine with that. But the game is designed for any particular ornament to be frustrating to get. THAT is the problem. The game could easily be made so that obtaining ornaments is not only fun, but you can specifically choose which ones you want to earn.

You ever been to a movie theater? You can’t take in a bottle of water, but must instead buy on from concessions at an inflated price. When I go to the Arclight or something I always buy food willingly. It’s like whatever, it’s not objectively a lot of money, but you are still being ripped off. But you can sneak shit into the movies… with microtransactions you have no recourse.

locked

3815 views

So yeah, you could be like Speedracer and pay 40 bucks for an ornament. He seems fine with that. But the game is designed for any particular ornament to be frustrating to get. THAT is the problem. The game could easily be made so that obtaining ornaments is not only fun, but you can specifically choose which ones you want to earn.

That's the part I find indefensible... I would actually be more likely to buy a few items from the eververse from time to time if I could easily buy the exact one I wanted for a set price. But they had to go and add the layer of RNG into the mix, buying who knows how many engrams until you happen to get the amount of dust that you need to buy the item. It's BS. Is it easy for the player to avoid? Absolutely. But that doesn't make it a good policy. I'm honestly a bit shocked at the mental lengths some people are going to defend Destiny's microtransactions. To be clear, I'm not making a big deal out of Destiny 2's microtransactoins... I'm saying that the way they are implemented is clearly, obviously, designed to wring more money out of players than they would spend if given a straightforward marketplace. It's not the worst example of in-game microtransactions out there, but it is logically impossible to look at the eververse shop as it exists, and argue that it is designed to be a fair and player friendly marketplace. At best, it can be described as being Bungie's attempt to find the point of "as exploitative and manipulative as players will tolerate".

locked

3917 views

So yeah, you could be like Speedracer and pay 40 bucks for an ornament. He seems fine with that. But the game is designed for any particular ornament to be frustrating to get. THAT is the problem. The game could easily be made so that obtaining ornaments is not only fun, but you can specifically choose which ones you want to earn.

That's the part I find indefensible... I would actually be more likely to buy a few items from the eververse from time to time if I could easily buy the exact one I wanted for a set price. But they had to go and add the layer of RNG into the mix, buying who knows how many engrams until you happen to get the amount of dust that you need to buy the item... I'm saying that the way they are implemented is clearly, obviously, designed to wring more money out of players than they would spend if given a straightforward marketplace. It's not the worst example of in-game microtransactions out there, but it is logically impossible to look at the eververse shop as it exists, and argue that it is designed to be a fair and player friendly marketplace.

How is it indefensible? The bright dust is not that difficult to get. Not only do you have a chance at seeing it drop fom a Bright Engram (I've seen it drop 1000 in one engram), but Ships, Sparrows, Legendary Shaders, and IIRC the Optimacy armor and Emotes all give you dust for dismantling them if you got them from a Bright Engram. If there's a specific thing that you really want, then wait for Eververse to sell it for dust.

At best, it can be described as being Bungie's attempt to find the point of "as exploitative and manipulative as players will tolerate".

Isn't that literally all business optimisations, though? In the real world, portions get smaller, prices go up subtly, the product is made with cheaper materials, etc. You act as though you're forced to buy all of these things, and companies should cater to you instead of their own interests. If you don't want to be exploited at all, then don't buy the product. You are not forced to do anything at all. In Destiny's case, they give you several avenues to the item that you want, while still encouraging players to spend money. Unless they start adding exclusive weapons or Mods to the store, I don't see an issue that isn't strictly self-imposed on the side of the player.

locked

3793 views

So yeah, you could be like Speedracer and pay 40 bucks for an ornament. He seems fine with that. But the game is designed for any particular ornament to be frustrating to get. THAT is the problem. The game could easily be made so that obtaining ornaments is not only fun, but you can specifically choose which ones you want to earn.

That's the part I find indefensible... I would actually be more likely to buy a few items from the eververse from time to time if I could easily buy the exact one I wanted for a set price. But they had to go and add the layer of RNG into the mix, buying who knows how many engrams until you happen to get the amount of dust that you need to buy the item... I'm saying that the way they are implemented is clearly, obviously, designed to wring more money out of players than they would spend if given a straightforward marketplace. It's not the worst example of in-game microtransactions out there, but it is logically impossible to look at the eververse shop as it exists, and argue that it is designed to be a fair and player friendly marketplace.

How is it indefensible? The bright dust is not that difficult to get. Not only do you have a chance at seeing it drop fom a Bright Engram (I've seen it drop 1000 in one engram), but Ships, Sparrows, Legendary Shaders, and IIRC the Optimacy armor and Emotes all give you dust for dismantling them if you got them from a Bright Engram. If there's a specific thing that you really want, then wait for Eververse to sell it for dust.

Everything you're saying falls under the category of making it "tolerable" for the player...

There is very clearly a balancing act that Bungie is aiming to maintain. They are trying to make as much money through microtransactions as possible, while pissing off the players as little as possible. But make no mistake, earning money is the driving force, while pissing off the players is the "limit" that they are trying to avoid.
Given that, I'd say they are doing a pretty good job of maintaining that balance. It could be much, much, much worse. But it is naive to try and argue that any of this is done primarily for the benefit of the player.

So to clarify, when I say "indefensible", I'm saying that there is no way to pass off the eververse as "player friendly". Because it is inherently directed in the direction of "player manipulation". The very fact that you can't buy exactly what you want is proof of this. Any store on the planet that tried to operate that way would go out of business instantly, with the exception of businesses that are built on addictive practices (such as casinos). Everything around bright dust and bright engrams and all that stuff is just trying to soften the blow as much as possible. And I do legitimately appreciate it. But this is still one of those "don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining" situations. They are still trying to get people to spend more money than they would otherwise spend by adding an RNG layer to the purchase process.

At best, it can be described as being Bungie's attempt to find the point of "as exploitative and manipulative as players will tolerate".

Isn't that literally all business optimisations, though? In the real world, portions get smaller, prices go up subtly, the product is made with cheaper materials, etc. You act as though you're forced to buy all of these things, and companies should cater to you instead of their own interests. If you don't want to be exploited at all, then don't buy the product. You are not forced to do anything at all. In Destiny's case, they give you several avenues to the item that you want, while still encouraging players to spend money. Unless they start adding exclusive weapons or Mods to the store, I don't see an issue that isn't strictly self-imposed on the side of the player.

I already described how this is different than any other business, with the exception of gambling enterprises. But in addition to that, I already completed my business with Bungie. I bought their game. Now I'm perfectly realistic about the fact that microtransactions are just becoming a fact of modern games (but for the record, "everyone else does it" is never a good defense ;p). All I'm saying is that other companies have done a better job of adding extra revenue streams that weren't based on the exploitative foundation of RNG purchases. For some people (like Cody, I think) the very existence of a real-money "store" in their videogame feels distasteful. I'm not there, but I do totally understand where he's coming from. All I'm saying is that there are different ways to add a store into a game. Respawn did it the way any real-world store would operate: They display the goods, show their asking price, and let the player decide if the goods on display are worth the money. Bungie chose a more manipulative path. They then walked back to try and make it as inoffensive as they could, but they are still working from a manipulative foundation.

Again, I don't want people to think I'm blowing this out of proportion. I barely think about microtransactions in Destiny 2. It hasn't interfered with my gameplay experience. But, as someone who is willing to spend extra money on a game via microtransactions from time to time, the way Bungie has implemented the Eververse actually prevents me from spending real money, because they're pretending to sell items when what they're actually selling is gambling.

locked

3899 views

"I AM NOT MAKING A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS"

-CruelLEGACEY

^This comment is meant to be humorous and should not be confused with legitimate critique. You have good points but it feels a bit like the abstract idea of RNG-based microtransactions is being debated more than the actual context of its implementation. Do you really feel like you haven't been able to get something you want and have had to spend money? I'm not talking about the hypothetical player and the macguffin they NEED, I'm talking about your experience thus far. To me, it feels incredibly fair. Either I've gotten something cool from a bright engram, or I've saved up dust to get it when it comes around. I think the actual practice, rather than the conceptual framework, is fine. I agree that I don't like not being able to purchase something directly (were I to choose that), but... it just doesn't feel unfair as I play.

The other thought I have is along the lines of Kermit's suggestion. Games that are not profitable do not get sequels in Activision's world. It may not be an attempt to mustache-twirl our money away. It may be about funding the game so that margins are enough to generate more game content. Perhaps not as directly as "this purchase funds this content," but it may be negotiating leverage. Were that the case, and this is speculation, this seems to be the most innocuous implementation I've experienced. I actually find this implementation far more friendly than ME3s which made me feel left out by the end.

locked

3778 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

locked

3739 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

locked

3779 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

locked

3677 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

locked

3661 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

locked

3690 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

locked

3730 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

Fair, but... you just got an $80 game for the cost of $60 and you can still get everything in that game without missing any content. Annoying? Perhaps, but hardly something to rail against with the indefatigable mantra that "all microtransactions make games worse." They may just make games exist.

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

I agree with you on the concept, but I just don't see it in Destiny. There is no content I could pay to not play that would make any sense. I suppose I could pay for the six shooter emote, but then I'd go right back and play to show off my cool new emote. I'm not paying to skip gameplay. I'm paying to have fun with the thing during gameplay. Every activity works this way because playing any activity goes towards bright engrams. You get a cool thing for playing the game and then you look cool while doing the cool thing. There's no, "we need the strike population full so we'll make them grind out activities there with the incentive of this bright engram." You can get them playing your favorite activity and the only reason to get them is to use them playing your favorite activities.

locked

3671 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

Fair, but... you just got an $80 game for the cost of $60 and you can still get everything in that game without missing any content. Annoying? Perhaps, but hardly something to rail against with the indefatigable mantra that "all microtransactions make games worse." They may just make games exist.

I wasn’t talking about Destiny in that case, and I don’t believe Cody was either I’m basing that on the fact that Cody has said in this thread that he can happily play Destiny 2 because the microtransactions are easily ignored (a sentiment that echos my own).

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

I agree with you on the concept, but I just don't see it in Destiny. There is no content I could pay to not play that would make any sense. I suppose I could pay for the six shooter emote, but then I'd go right back and play to show off my cool new emote. I'm not paying to skip gameplay. I'm paying to have fun with the thing during gameplay. Every activity works this way because playing any activity goes towards bright engrams. You get a cool thing for playing the game and then you look cool while doing the cool thing. There's no, "we need the strike population full so we'll make them grind out activities there with the incentive of this bright engram." You can get them playing your favorite activity and the only reason to get them is to use them playing your favorite activities.

Agreed :)

locked

3725 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

Fair, but... you just got an $80 game for the cost of $60 and you can still get everything in that game without missing any content. Annoying? Perhaps, but hardly something to rail against with the indefatigable mantra that "all microtransactions make games worse." They may just make games exist.

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

I agree with you on the concept, but I just don't see it in Destiny. There is no content I could pay to not play that would make any sense. I suppose I could pay for the six shooter emote, but then I'd go right back and play to show off my cool new emote. I'm not paying to skip gameplay. I'm paying to have fun with the thing during gameplay. Every activity works this way because playing any activity goes towards bright engrams. You get a cool thing for playing the game and then you look cool while doing the cool thing. There's no, "we need the strike population full so we'll make them grind out activities there with the incentive of this bright engram." You can get them playing your favorite activity and the only reason to get them is to use them playing your favorite activities.

This is really true. I think that, in this thread, there's a degree of conflating my passion against codified in-game gambling for thinking Destiny is the worst offender out there. Destiny is, as far as microtransactions go, not that bad at all. They are strictly cosmetic, you can earn a few rolls for free and with relative ease, and they occasionally let you direct buy some stuff. It's really not a terrible implementation.

That being said, I think this is still codified gambling and comes with the same risks. How do we know they aren't using metrics to see which emotes or ships people are willing to spend spend spend to roll for and then making those even less likely to appear, or so they won't appear at all until you've spent $40 or more? I don't think they're doing that, but I don't know and there is no law regulating Bungie or anyone else from doing that. Microtransactions are a dangerous wild-west frontline of consumerism and I oppose them based on how easily they can be abused, regardless of whether or not that abuse is intentional. Again, destiny seems pretty tame on the microtrans front, and yet it is still an abusable system and we have scientific evidence that in-game microtransactional gambling is addictive and abusive. Destiny isn't AIDS, it isn't Cancer; it's a little sniffle. But even a little sniffle can turn into pneumonia if it is not treated. I'd rather get a system that you can't abuse (see Titanfall 2) where you get what you pay for each and every time.

locked

3679 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

I agree that there is a certain of level of abusing the players by adding friction into a game for Microtransactions. But I also believe that that isn't completely one sided in the "suffering" category. It seems that a lot of people have expectations of what a game should be and if there are "frictions" added, as Cody puts it, that it destroys that game. I would say that yes, that sucks depending on the game. I also hear of a lot of self imposed suffering that goes along with games, and it's very easy to blame RNG and Microtransactions on it's cause. Yes, I generalized that a little because it's way to early to quantify it exactly, but I've heard it in this forum before. Take it as a hunch :)

But I hate hearing this "every Microtransaction is at it's base evil" sort of thing like it's the devil clawing at your back, no matter how good intentioned the developer is that it's going to get you someday. Yes, the whole point of MT's is to make money. But they don't always have to be suffering, even if they are intended that way (I highly doubt any company wants to actually cause their players to suffer).

The best example I have of this is an iPhone game call Marvel Contest of Champions. It is a free game that has horrible amounts of MT's in the game, this includes the classic "energy wall". However these MT's are both an annoyance and a boon to me. I love this game, I love playing it, but if I wasn't actually locked out from unrestricted playing the game, it would probably be unhealthy the amount of time I would spend on it. I personally have spent like 5-10 bucks on the game in the last couple years but I could have spent thousands. I treat the game, without paying money, as the game in its whole and any other payed feature a bonus. Once you see it like that, it's actually a very healthy and fun game to play. However most people don't have that sort of view on games.

locked

3554 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

I agree that there is a certain of level of abusing the players by adding friction into a game for Microtransactions. But I also believe that that isn't completely one sided in the "suffering" category. It seems that a lot of people have expectations of what a game should be and if there are "frictions" added, as Cody puts it, that it destroys that game. I would say that yes, that sucks depending on the game. I also hear of a lot of self imposed suffering that goes along with games, and it's very easy to blame RNG and Microtransactions on it's cause. Yes, I generalized that a little because it's way to early to quantify it exactly, but I've heard it in this forum before. Take it as a hunch :)

But I hate hearing this "every Microtransaction is at it's base evil" sort of thing like it's the devil clawing at your back, no matter how good intentioned the developer is that it's going to get you someday. Yes, the whole point of MT's is to make money. But they don't always have to be suffering, even if they are intended that way (I highly doubt any company wants to actually cause their players to suffer).

The best example I have of this is an iPhone game call Marvel Contest of Champions. It is a free game that has horrible amounts of MT's in the game, this includes the classic "energy wall". However these MT's are both an annoyance and a boon to me. I love this game, I love playing it, but if I wasn't actually locked out from unrestricted playing the game, it would probably be unhealthy the amount of time I would spend on it. I personally have spent like 5-10 bucks on the game in the last couple years but I could have spent thousands. I treat the game, without paying money, as the game in its whole and any other payed feature a bonus. Once you see it like that, it's actually a very healthy and fun game to play. However most people don't have that sort of view on games.

I'd argue that most people *do* actually have a healthy view of games and microtransactions. That's not where the abuse comes in. It's the 0.15% of players who make up 50% of MT revenue that are being abused. They have a disease called addiction and the games industry and our legislatures are both doing nothing to protect them.

locked

3578 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

I agree that there is a certain of level of abusing the players by adding friction into a game for Microtransactions. But I also believe that that isn't completely one sided in the "suffering" category. It seems that a lot of people have expectations of what a game should be and if there are "frictions" added, as Cody puts it, that it destroys that game. I would say that yes, that sucks depending on the game. I also hear of a lot of self imposed suffering that goes along with games, and it's very easy to blame RNG and Microtransactions on it's cause. Yes, I generalized that a little because it's way to early to quantify it exactly, but I've heard it in this forum before. Take it as a hunch :)

But I hate hearing this "every Microtransaction is at it's base evil" sort of thing like it's the devil clawing at your back, no matter how good intentioned the developer is that it's going to get you someday. Yes, the whole point of MT's is to make money. But they don't always have to be suffering, even if they are intended that way (I highly doubt any company wants to actually cause their players to suffer).

The best example I have of this is an iPhone game call Marvel Contest of Champions. It is a free game that has horrible amounts of MT's in the game, this includes the classic "energy wall". However these MT's are both an annoyance and a boon to me. I love this game, I love playing it, but if I wasn't actually locked out from unrestricted playing the game, it would probably be unhealthy the amount of time I would spend on it. I personally have spent like 5-10 bucks on the game in the last couple years but I could have spent thousands. I treat the game, without paying money, as the game in its whole and any other payed feature a bonus. Once you see it like that, it's actually a very healthy and fun game to play. However most people don't have that sort of view on games.

I'd argue that most people *do* actually have a healthy view of games and microtransactions. That's not where the abuse comes in. It's the 0.15% of players who make up 50% of MT revenue that are being abused. They have a disease called addiction and the games industry and our legislatures are both doing nothing to protect them.

I understand that the game industry isn't helping as much as they should. But I get the feeling that it's way to easy to blame the game industry for peoples problems. I I'm not trying to be an ass to people with addiction problems, but people also have to be accountable for themselves. If they are playing games that is only fulling their disability then they are also doing it to themselves. And if they can't help but put themselves in that position, then they need to seek outside help.

Again, I don't want to sound harsh, but I have my own learning disabilities and I have had to deal with that. And although I appreciate that institutions have helped a little with that, I can't blame institutions for not catering to me while 95% of the rest of the population is fine by it. Everyone is accountable to themselves.

Now, I know that ultimately MT's/gambling are a risky (no pun intended) thing, but for some people it's also entertainment and we can't lose sight from that as well. It's also a source of income.

To sum it up, we keep using words like "abuse" which, for me, makes me immediately think that Developers are abusing gamers. I think this goes a little far. The very use of the word would imply that developers are intentionally using MT's to harm gamers. I'm not saying that all MT's are right, but we have to keep an objective head when thinking about this. This is two sided.

1. MT's can be abused
2. MT's can be used to facilitate entertainment
3. MT's is used for income
4. Players can put themselves in a situation to be abused
5. Players have the ability to create the environment they play in

*Edit*
I don't want this to sound like a bash on either side. This hits a cord with me personally and I hate hearing about the helplessness of people with disabilities as if they just have to succumb it. People have willpower and the urge to overcome their disabilities. And I honestly want to hear what other people think on this topic. This is just my view and it's the best way that I can express it :D

locked

3496 views

To sum it up, we keep using words like "abuse" which, for me, makes me immediately think that Developers are abusing gamers. I think this goes a little far. The very use of the word would imply that developers are intentionally using MT's to harm gamers. I'm not saying that all MT's are right, but we have to keep an objective head when thinking about this. This is two sided.

This is where I'm at. Doubly so. Accusing people of "abuse" like this is just going to lead to more discussion about overly harsh language and take away from the actually important topics. We've already strong implications made that Destiny's gameplay itself was made to be abusive, for crying out loud!

That doesn't mean I don't also agree that the industry doesn't need to talk a long hard look at what these loot boxes and micro transactions are doing to people. There probably should be warnings, and help links, and options to disable paid micro transactions. Destiny is rated T for Teen, should 13 year olds really even be subjected to micro transactions??

locked

3543 views

To sum it up, we keep using words like "abuse" which, for me, makes me immediately think that Developers are abusing gamers. I think this goes a little far. The very use of the word would imply that developers are intentionally using MT's to harm gamers. I'm not saying that all MT's are right, but we have to keep an objective head when thinking about this. This is two sided.

This is where I'm at. Doubly so. Accusing people of "abuse" like this is just going to lead to more discussion about overly harsh language and take away from the actually important topics. We've already strong implications made that Destiny's gameplay itself was made to be abusive, for crying out loud!

That doesn't mean I don't also agree that the industry doesn't need to talk a long hard look at what these loot boxes and micro transactions are doing to people. There probably should be warnings, and help links, and options to disable paid micro transactions. Destiny is rated T for Teen, should 13 year olds really even be subjected to micro transactions??

I agree. I just don't want us to get into mob mentality and just blindly blame game companies for Microtransactions. Both sides need to look back at their own actions and move forward from there.

locked

3522 views

To sum it up, we keep using words like "abuse" which, for me, makes me immediately think that Developers are abusing gamers. I think this goes a little far. The very use of the word would imply that developers are intentionally using MT's to harm gamers. I'm not saying that all MT's are right, but we have to keep an objective head when thinking about this. This is two sided.

This is where I'm at. Doubly so. Accusing people of "abuse" like this is just going to lead to more discussion about overly harsh language and take away from the actually important topics. We've already strong implications made that Destiny's gameplay itself was made to be abusive, for crying out loud!

That doesn't mean I don't also agree that the industry doesn't need to talk a long hard look at what these loot boxes and micro transactions are doing to people. There probably should be warnings, and help links, and options to disable paid micro transactions.

Good thoughts

Destiny is rated T for Teen, should 13 year olds really even be subjected to micro transactions??

Worst rite-of-passage ever. You turned 18, welcome to microtransactions! I think Cody would rather have this:

BTW Claude, this is what you skip in Season 2

locked

3600 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

I agree that there is a certain of level of abusing the players by adding friction into a game for Microtransactions. But I also believe that that isn't completely one sided in the "suffering" category. It seems that a lot of people have expectations of what a game should be and if there are "frictions" added, as Cody puts it, that it destroys that game. I would say that yes, that sucks depending on the game. I also hear of a lot of self imposed suffering that goes along with games, and it's very easy to blame RNG and Microtransactions on it's cause. Yes, I generalized that a little because it's way to early to quantify it exactly, but I've heard it in this forum before. Take it as a hunch :)

But I hate hearing this "every Microtransaction is at it's base evil" sort of thing like it's the devil clawing at your back, no matter how good intentioned the developer is that it's going to get you someday. Yes, the whole point of MT's is to make money. But they don't always have to be suffering, even if they are intended that way (I highly doubt any company wants to actually cause their players to suffer).

The best example I have of this is an iPhone game call Marvel Contest of Champions. It is a free game that has horrible amounts of MT's in the game, this includes the classic "energy wall". However these MT's are both an annoyance and a boon to me. I love this game, I love playing it, but if I wasn't actually locked out from unrestricted playing the game, it would probably be unhealthy the amount of time I would spend on it. I personally have spent like 5-10 bucks on the game in the last couple years but I could have spent thousands. I treat the game, without paying money, as the game in its whole and any other payed feature a bonus. Once you see it like that, it's actually a very healthy and fun game to play. However most people don't have that sort of view on games.

I'd argue that most people *do* actually have a healthy view of games and microtransactions. That's not where the abuse comes in. It's the 0.15% of players who make up 50% of MT revenue that are being abused. They have a disease called addiction and the games industry and our legislatures are both doing nothing to protect them.

I understand that the game industry isn't helping as much as they should. But I get the feeling that it's way to easy to blame the game industry for peoples problems. I I'm not trying to be an ass to people with addiction problems, but people also have to be accountable for themselves. If they are playing games that is only fulling their disability then they are also doing it to themselves. And if they can't help but put themselves in that position, then they need to seek outside help.

Again, I don't want to sound harsh, but I have my own learning disabilities and I have had to deal with that. And although I appreciate that institutions have helped a little with that, I can't blame institutions for not catering to me while 95% of the rest of the population is fine by it. Everyone is accountable to themselves.

Now, I know that ultimately MT's/gambling are a risky (no pun intended) thing, but for some people it's also entertainment and we can't lose sight from that as well. It's also a source of income.

To sum it up, we keep using words like "abuse" which, for me, makes me immediately think that Developers are abusing gamers. I think this goes a little far. The very use of the word would imply that developers are intentionally using MT's to harm gamers. I'm not saying that all MT's are right, but we have to keep an objective head when thinking about this. This is two sided.

1. MT's can be abused
2. MT's can be used to facilitate entertainment
3. MT's is used for income
4. Players can put themselves in a situation to be abused
5. Players have the ability to create the environment they play in

*Edit*
I don't want this to sound like a bash on either side. This hits a cord with me personally and I hate hearing about the helplessness of people with disabilities as if they just have to succumb it. People have willpower and the urge to overcome their disabilities. And I honestly want to hear what other people think on this topic. This is just my view and it's the best way that I can express it :D

An unfortunate effect of addiction is that people who suffer from it cannot control themselves. While that may seem similar to your learning disabilities, you are able to recognize that you have them and take actions to counteract them. Addicts can't do that. Often, they completely fail to recognize that any problem exists. Even when they do know something is wrong, they are often helpless to resist it. If you're interested in seeing how bad it can get, check out the TV show Hoarders. These people suffer from a collection addiction (most of them, anyway) and seeing the depth of denial is deeply disturbing. The disability of an addict is defined by their helplessness to act against their addiction.

I don't want to sound like I'm hand-waving your points, because they're well reasoned. It's that addiction is a unique disease in that it erodes one's ability to self-determine, and in light of that fact, I hope you can see how asking an addict to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is a futile effort.

You also seem to be saying "even if 0.15% of people are prone to uncontrollable spending when faced with microtransactions, the other 99.85% of us are totally fine." It's a worthy argument from a Utilitarian standpoint. Not just most, but the *vast majority* of people are totally fine in a MT-dominated gamespace. I understand that. What concerns me is that MT is an unregulated space that is ripe for abuse (I am not saying it is being abused nor am I saying it was designed with malice aforethought) and that, because we know that some small percentage of players is prone to massive spending accounting for 50% of the revenue that MT represents for a game, we should take steps to protect those players.

I'm sorry that you feel like the word "abuse" is being thrown around accusatorily here. As I said above:

I think that, in this thread, there's a degree of conflating my passion against codified in-game gambling for thinking Destiny is the worst offender out there. Destiny is, as far as microtransactions go, not that bad at all. They are strictly cosmetic, you can earn a few rolls for free and with relative ease, and they occasionally let you direct buy some stuff. It's really not a terrible implementation.

That being said, I think this is still codified gambling and comes with the same risks. How do we know they aren't using metrics to see which emotes or ships people are willing to spend spend spend to roll for and then making those even less likely to appear, or so they won't appear at all until you've spent $40 or more? I don't think they're doing that, but I don't know for sure that they aren't and there is no law regulating Bungie or anyone else from doing that. Microtransactions are a dangerous wild-west frontline of consumerism and I oppose them based on how easily they can be abused, regardless of whether or not that abuse is intentional. Again, destiny seems pretty tame on the microtrans front, and yet it is still an abusable system and we have scientific evidence that in-game microtransactional gambling is addictive and abusive. Destiny isn't AIDS, it isn't Cancer; it's a little sniffle. But even a little sniffle can turn into pneumonia if it is not treated. I'd rather get a system that you can't abuse (see Titanfall 2) where you get what you pay for each and every time.

locked

3407 views

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

I agree that there is a certain of level of abusing the players by adding friction into a game for Microtransactions. But I also believe that that isn't completely one sided in the "suffering" category. It seems that a lot of people have expectations of what a game should be and if there are "frictions" added, as Cody puts it, that it destroys that game. I would say that yes, that sucks depending on the game. I also hear of a lot of self imposed suffering that goes along with games, and it's very easy to blame RNG and Microtransactions on it's cause. Yes, I generalized that a little because it's way to early to quantify it exactly, but I've heard it in this forum before. Take it as a hunch :)

But I hate hearing this "every Microtransaction is at it's base evil" sort of thing like it's the devil clawing at your back, no matter how good intentioned the developer is that it's going to get you someday. Yes, the whole point of MT's is to make money. But they don't always have to be suffering, even if they are intended that way (I highly doubt any company wants to actually cause their players to suffer).

The best example I have of this is an iPhone game call Marvel Contest of Champions. It is a free game that has horrible amounts of MT's in the game, this includes the classic "energy wall". However these MT's are both an annoyance and a boon to me. I love this game, I love playing it, but if I wasn't actually locked out from unrestricted playing the game, it would probably be unhealthy the amount of time I would spend on it. I personally have spent like 5-10 bucks on the game in the last couple years but I could have spent thousands. I treat the game, without paying money, as the game in its whole and any other payed feature a bonus. Once you see it like that, it's actually a very healthy and fun game to play. However most people don't have that sort of view on games.

I'd argue that most people *do* actually have a healthy view of games and microtransactions. That's not where the abuse comes in. It's the 0.15% of players who make up 50% of MT revenue that are being abused. They have a disease called addiction and the games industry and our legislatures are both doing nothing to protect them.

I understand that the game industry isn't helping as much as they should. But I get the feeling that it's way to easy to blame the game industry for peoples problems. I I'm not trying to be an ass to people with addiction problems, but people also have to be accountable for themselves. If they are playing games that is only fulling their disability then they are also doing it to themselves. And if they can't help but put themselves in that position, then they need to seek outside help.

Again, I don't want to sound harsh, but I have my own learning disabilities and I have had to deal with that. And although I appreciate that institutions have helped a little with that, I can't blame institutions for not catering to me while 95% of the rest of the population is fine by it. Everyone is accountable to themselves.

Now, I know that ultimately MT's/gambling are a risky (no pun intended) thing, but for some people it's also entertainment and we can't lose sight from that as well. It's also a source of income.

To sum it up, we keep using words like "abuse" which, for me, makes me immediately think that Developers are abusing gamers. I think this goes a little far. The very use of the word would imply that developers are intentionally using MT's to harm gamers. I'm not saying that all MT's are right, but we have to keep an objective head when thinking about this. This is two sided.

1. MT's can be abused
2. MT's can be used to facilitate entertainment
3. MT's is used for income
4. Players can put themselves in a situation to be abused
5. Players have the ability to create the environment they play in

*Edit*
I don't want this to sound like a bash on either side. This hits a cord with me personally and I hate hearing about the helplessness of people with disabilities as if they just have to succumb it. People have willpower and the urge to overcome their disabilities. And I honestly want to hear what other people think on this topic. This is just my view and it's the best way that I can express it :D

So I want to start off by saying that I'm not hardlining MT's and the use of them in games. I'm simply saying it's not black and white. Both sides need to be accountable and that people can have fun with them just as much as they can be affected negatively by them.

1. An unfortunate effect of addiction is that people who suffer from it cannot control themselves. While that may seem similar to your learning disabilities, you are able to recognize that you have them and take actions to counteract them. Addicts can't do that. 2. Often, they completely fail to recognize that any problem exists. Even when they do know something is wrong, they are often helpless to resist it. If you're interested in seeing how bad it can get, check out the TV show Hoarders. These people suffer from a collection addiction (most of them, anyway) and seeing the depth of denial is deeply disturbing. The disability of an addict is defined by their helplessness to act against their addiction.

So I want to say that I do sympathize with addiction. I was just relating to addiction with my own learning disabilities as a problem that you shouldn't let take over your life and assume that others, game companies and regulators, prevent for you. That is not to say that it is a bad thing. I'm mostly looking at the side of gamers in which we must be accountable as well and not solely blame one source.

I don't want to sound like I'm hand-waving your points, because they're well reasoned. It's that addiction is a unique disease in that it erodes one's ability to self-determine, and in light of that fact, I hope you can see how asking an addict to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is a futile effort.

I see three types of addicts.
1. Addicts that cannot see their own addiction
2. Addicts that can see their addiction but don't have the willpower personally to do anything
3. Addicts that can see their addiction but can willfully resist

I personally don't think that someone is behind helping themselves. I think there is always hope mentally. I'm more of an optimist. I do however think that if someone is 1 or 2 above they need help beyond themselves. I however don't think a game company is truly going to be able to help 1 or 2. I think 3 is their avenue of help. 1 and 2 is best helped by trained professionals, family and/or friends.

You also seem to be saying "even if 0.15% of people are prone to uncontrollable spending when faced with microtransactions, the other 99.85% of us are totally fine." It's a worthy argument from a Utilitarian standpoint. Not just most, but the *vast majority* of people are totally fine in a MT-dominated gamespace. I understand that.

Sorry if it came off that way (I'm terrible at making a point sometimes). What I mean is, in our example, the 0.15% are types 1 and 2. And the other percent are types 3 and also a spectrum of people with the ability to resist.

What concerns me is that MT is an unregulated space that is ripe for abuse (I am not saying it is being abused nor am I saying it was designed with malice aforethought) and that, because we know that some small percentage of players is prone to massive spending accounting for 50% of the revenue that MT represents for a game, we should take steps to protect those players.

I totally agree. I fully endorse actions to protect players. I don't want my previous posts to make people think otherwise. My previous posts were more about the fact that we can't think that these regulations are just going to fix the problem. We, as gamers, have to also take accountability for our actions, especially type three, because we have the ability to. I see way to much blame laid on Game companies for horrific MT's and how gamers are being handled as if gamers are just sitting there and taking it. And this is where I relate to addicts. If I had just assume I couldn't do anything about my learning disability and solely relied on the educational institution I probably wouldn't have made it through school.

For those that don't have the ability to help themselves, the regulations might help those need to take care of these individuals. Especially because the caretakers most likely won't know much about games and how MT's are being added into games.

I'm sorry that you feel like the word "abuse" is being thrown around accusatorily here. As I said above:

I think that, in this thread, there's a degree of conflating my passion against codified in-game gambling for thinking Destiny is the worst offender out there. Destiny is, as far as microtransactions go, not that bad at all. They are strictly cosmetic, you can earn a few rolls for free and with relative ease, and they occasionally let you direct buy some stuff. It's really not a terrible implementation.

That being said, I think this is still codified gambling and comes with the same risks. How do we know they aren't using metrics to see which emotes or ships people are willing to spend spend spend to roll for and then making those even less likely to appear, or so they won't appear at all until you've spent $40 or more? I don't think they're doing that, but I don't know for sure that they aren't and there is no law regulating Bungie or anyone else from doing that. Microtransactions are a dangerous wild-west frontline of consumerism and I oppose them based on how easily they can be abused, regardless of whether or not that abuse is intentional. Again, destiny seems pretty tame on the microtrans front, and yet it is still an abusable system and we have scientific evidence that in-game microtransactional gambling is addictive and abusive. Destiny isn't AIDS, it isn't Cancer; it's a little sniffle. But even a little sniffle can turn into pneumonia if it is not treated. I'd rather get a system that you can't abuse (see Titanfall 2) where you get what you pay for each and every time.

As for game developer's purity when it comes to how they implement MT's... well one can hope that there is someone to regulate that too. I just don't want the randomness, risk/reward aspect and Bungie making a fair income to be taken out of Destiny. All these things have parts in MT's and maybe MT's can still be taken out and still retain those things. I just enjoy them even if they are a risk for addiction. I just think there are many things that everyone, gamers and developers, can do to make it safer and a better place to have fun.

Thanks for an honest and open conversation/debate about this. I haven't talked this long about such a topic in a while.

locked

3461 views

Dude, great reply, and thank you, too. I'm not quoting it because these posts are getting silly long, but I really appreciate it.

I would love to see professional help made available to gamers with a micro-gambling-transaction addiction. At casinos in Nevada, they have phone numbers you can call for gambling addiction help and you can reach professionals who specialize in just that. I would love to see games which contain gambles include similar notices. Nevada also has a state gaming commission that oversees all games and ensures that the odds are what the casinos say they are, as well as issues licenses to oversight companies to do the same. No such commission exists for video games, nor do any third party oversight committees.

In the absence of oversight, game devs have both motive and opportunity to bilk players and take advantage of any weaknesses they may suffer from, and since the devs also offer no in-game avenue for support or assistance to players who may be addicted, it is very unlikely that those people will ever get help on their own.

I wish everyone had the gumption and willpower that you have and is able to fight off their own demons. That would make these sorts of things trivial. Unfortunately, I've known too many who have given up on themselves or otherwise lack the strength to break their own destructive cycles. And I, cynically - I admit - believe that the gaming industry is preying on them right now, and will continue to do so until legally regulated. I also don't know if there is any real public support to help addicted gamers. They represent a very small fringe of an already maligned group, and they suffer alone, behind closed doors, where few can even see them. In-game they are gods. In real life, they are invisible. It's easy to see why they continue to spend whatever they have on their virtual avatars.

locked

3441 views

Dude, great reply, and thank you, too. I'm not quoting it because these posts are getting silly long, but I really appreciate it.

I would love to see professional help made available to gamers with a micro-gambling-transaction addiction. At casinos in Nevada, they have phone numbers you can call for gambling addiction help and you can reach professionals who specialize in just that. I would love to see games which contain gambles include similar notices. Nevada also has a state gaming commission that oversees all games and ensures that the odds are what the casinos say they are, as well as issues licenses to oversight companies to do the same. No such commission exists for video games, nor do any third party oversight committees.

In the absence of oversight, game devs have both motive and opportunity to bilk players and take advantage of any weaknesses they may suffer from, and since the devs also offer no in-game avenue for support or assistance to players who may be addicted, it is very unlikely that those people will ever get help on their own.

I wish everyone had the gumption and willpower that you have and is able to fight off their own demons. That would make these sorts of things trivial. Unfortunately, I've known too many who have given up on themselves or otherwise lack the strength to break their own destructive cycles. And I, cynically - I admit - believe that the gaming industry is preying on them right now, and will continue to do so until legally regulated. I also don't know if there is any real public support to help addicted gamers. They represent a very small fringe of an already maligned group, and they suffer alone, behind closed doors, where few can even see them. In-game they are gods. In real life, they are invisible. It's easy to see why they continue to spend whatever they have on their virtual avatars.

I think that your second point directly impacts the first. Public opinion of who and what a gamer is directly affects whether the public wants to do anything about it. Why spend state or federal funds to regulate what the general public doesn't care about? Which seems really odd to me because I would argue (although I don't have statistics) that a majority of the US plays digital games in one form or the other. And I would also bet that a majority of those people play a form that has MT's in them. The reason I beleive this is because of things like iPhone games and Candie crush :D

A lot of people don't understand games and gamers and the social mentality behind that. True story, I had signed up with some of the guys from DBO to do the raid blind when it first came out. I signed up for this weeks before it came out. We started on Tuesday and played every night until Sunday to finish it. Come Friday night, I was asked to go to another local friends birthday party at a pub. I said I can't go because I had already made plans that night, but if there was any way that I might be able to make it I would. My wife did in fact go and she knew exactly what I was doing. I later met up with a bunch of people that went to that party and they asked me what I was doing and I told them I was playing Destiny with a bunch of guys. The expressions on the birthday boys face when I told him that. He couldn't comprehend that
1. I would choose to play games over going out drinking with him
2. I actually had friends "online"
3. I found games to be more important than than hanging out with him

I'm sure lots of people have their own stories. He didn't throw a big fit about it, but I could tell he was confused and wondering what the hell I was doing with my life sort of thing. Some people don't understand. Heck, even the wife has a hard time sometimes, especially when I get frustrated, but she also hears the laughter and the joy I also get from it.

I kinda derailed a little bit... On the note of improving public opinion of gamers and the negative aspects of that, I think that things are indeed improving. One of the things that I think is helping a lot is ESports (mostly Dota 2). We are blessed in Seattle to have both PAX and The Dota 2 International in our city (not trying to brag) as well as being a very liberal place. We understand that there are a ton of different interests and large amounts of people that we didn't know flock to these things.

I think I've written more words in this subthread than I have in the last 6 months.

locked

3407 views

- No text -

locked

3538 views

- No text -

locked

3485 views

It's not a joke. I am not attempting to suggest that there is no predation/abuse/addiction occuring.

However, the article that was previously linked referencing those numbers has no information provided (no demographic information is provided at all) to extrapolate those claims, and the use of 0.15% of players providing 50% of revenue without acknowledging that only 1.5% of players are providing any MT revenue is misleading verbal spin, as "10% of purchasing customers provide 50% of revenue" is the exact same information but sounds substantially less exploitative.

locked

3358 views

It's not a joke. I am not attempting to suggest that there is no predation/abuse/addiction occuring.

However, the article that was previously linked referencing those numbers has no information provided (no demographic information is provided at all) to extrapolate those claims, and the use of 0.15% of players providing 50% of revenue without acknowledging that only 1.5% of players are providing any MT revenue is misleading verbal spin, as "10% of purchasing customers provide 50% of revenue" is the exact same information but sounds substantially less exploitative.

I believed the statistics to be purely for example purposes. Kahzgul would have to explain further.

locked

3401 views

- No text -

locked

3468 views

It's not a joke. I am not attempting to suggest that there is no predation/abuse/addiction occuring.

However, the article that was previously linked referencing those numbers has no information provided (no demographic information is provided at all) to extrapolate those claims, and the use of 0.15% of players providing 50% of revenue without acknowledging that only 1.5% of players are providing any MT revenue is misleading verbal spin, as "10% of purchasing customers provide 50% of revenue" is the exact same information but sounds substantially less exploitative.

I believed the statistics to be purely for example purposes. Kahzgul would have to explain further.

Here's an explanation of the data from recode.net:

https://www.recode.net/2014/2/26/11623998/a-long-tail-of-whales-half-of-mobile-games-money-comes-from-0-15

It deals with both the 0.15% of all players and 10% of paying players, both sets of numbers of which are, in my esteem, pretty damning.

The article also nicely illustrates the hand-waving by devs about whales, complete with a quote from one saying that a small number of people spending huge amounts on a game does not an ethical dilemma make.

So here's an article from ign about the dangers of addiction and intentionally addictive game design:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/04/24/the-troubling-psychology-of-pay-to-loot-systems

It opens with this: “In behavioural psychology, that randomised system of reward is the one that creates the most addiction,” says Emil Hodzic, who runs the Video Game Addiction Treatment Clinic. “That’s the one that causes all the drama.”

So on the one hand we have game devs saying, essentially, it's player choice, we just show them a door, and they choose to walk through it. And on the other hand you have behavior psychologists saying that particular door is addictive. Addicts don't have free will when it comes to their addictions.

Here's a good article about the pitfalls of microtransactional abuse, from staunch F2P advocate Rob Fahey:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-01-fearing-the-micro-transaction-future

I kind of love this op-ed because he's coming at it from what I view is a very pragmatic place. To paraphrase, he's essentially saying: Microtransactions are here to stay, they are the future, and you can't fight them, but some people *will* fight them anyway, and the more we (the games industry) mess up and make them abusive, the more ammunition those naysayers will have, and that ammo is completely valid in today's market.

This is a great summation. There's opportunity to abuse (no regulation) and there's motive (massive profits). The latter is a fact and not a thing that can be (or even should be) changed. Which means regulation is our only option. We need assurances, *legal* assurances that there's no behind the scenes finger on the scale. Every roll of the gambling-microtrans dice is a big question mark... Is there someone who has figured out what item you're after, how much you'll gamble for it, and is maximizing their returns by preventing you from getting it until you've hit your cap? Remember when online poker sites were found to be cheating? For video games, there is not even a gaming commission in existence to ask to license any of the equally non-existent third party gambling oversight committees that are needed to ensure fair play.

One last thing: Do people who buy microtransactional gamble boxes know what they are actually buying? In fact, the FTC says that, no, they don't, because there are no published odds and no protections against malfeasance by the seller. There are not even guarantees that the buyer knows they are buying something or is legally authorized to buy it.

So are my study-based numbers misleading? I don't think so. I trust the findings of these organizations. Should we be concerned about devs possibly abusing (yes, that word, specifically) addicts in order to get more money out of them? It's a possibility we should be open to. And is it doubly concerning that there is absolutely no governing body regulating the microgamblactions to ensure the odds are fair and equal for all players, and that players know the odds before they purchase so that they can make an informed buy? Yes, it is definitely doubly concerning.

If there was nothing wrong with how microtransactions are implemented in video games, there wouldn't be a preponderance of evidence suggesting that something is wrong.

Now back to Destiny: As I've said elsewhere in this thread, Destiny is a mild form of microtransgamblactions. It's purely cosmetic stuff, doesn't impact gameplay, and can be acquired via non-monetary means. Good guy Bungie. But I can't ignore the gambling element which is still in place, is scientifically proven to be addictive, and was designed by someone with a PhD in human behavioral psychology, who definitely should have known about the addictive nature of this feature. Not so good guy, Bungie.

Hency my concerns.

locked

3424 views

I appreciate the points you bring up and your concern for the wellbeing of folks who may be taken advatage of. There is some great reading provided here and some informed opinions on micro-transactions. However, you say the following:

So are my study-based numbers misleading? I don't think so.

And I do draw issue with that. Contextualizing data with assumptions to elicit a response supporting your existing conclusions is dangerous. The first article is being used to provide additional information and contextualize certain aspects of the business practices but provides no additional information to support what portion of people making major purchases, these "whales" as it is being referred to, are being exploited through addiction. Even the example of shifting development to support an individual spending 10k/mo can be considered misleading without sufficient additional information. 10k could literally be a budgetary afterthought. We simply do not know and so cannot treat such a conclusion as factual.

And in the context of 10% of a customer base being 50% of the revenue stream as being just as damning as presenting it as being 0.15% I just cannot agree with. Without broader context you are basically telling me that the numer 1 and the number 67 have no practical distinction. And I am not saying that there aren't folks in that group who are addicted and/or being exploited, just that you cannot present it as a fact that they all are, or (unless I missed a secontion on socioeconomic demographics) that any specific bolume are. It weakens your argument because you are presenting an unsupported claim as fact. And yeah, appealing to emotional responses gets a reaction, but it makes it harder for people to accept other conclusions you reach because there now exists a question of the validity of your conclusion.

That's my issue with your use of those numbers, because your conclusion isn't supported by them - a correct conclusion or not.

locked

3371 views

I appreciate the points you bring up and your concern for the wellbeing of folks who may be taken advatage of. There is some great reading provided here and some informed opinions on micro-transactions. However, you say the following:

So are my study-based numbers misleading? I don't think so.

And I do draw issue with that. Contextualizing data with assumptions to elicit a response supporting your existing conclusions is dangerous. The first article is being used to provide additional information and contextualize certain aspects of the business practices but provides no additional information to support what portion of people making major purchases, these "whales" as it is being referred to, are being exploited through addiction. Even the example of shifting development to support an individual spending 10k/mo can be considered misleading without sufficient additional information. 10k could literally be a budgetary afterthought. We simply do not know and so cannot treat such a conclusion as factual.

And in the context of 10% of a customer base being 50% of the revenue stream as being just as damning as presenting it as being 0.15% I just cannot agree with. Without broader context you are basically telling me that the numer 1 and the number 67 have no practical distinction. And I am not saying that there aren't folks in that group who are addicted and/or being exploited, just that you cannot present it as a fact that they all are, or (unless I missed a secontion on socioeconomic demographics) that any specific bolume are. It weakens your argument because you are presenting an unsupported claim as fact. And yeah, appealing to emotional responses gets a reaction, but it makes it harder for people to accept other conclusions you reach because there now exists a question of the validity of your conclusion.

That's my issue with your use of those numbers, because your conclusion isn't supported by them - a correct conclusion or not.

Thanks for clarifying. It's much easier to provide a nuanced response when I get a nuanced reply :)

I'm not not conflating 10% with 0.15%; they're different percentages and are not at all the same as saying 1 is the same as 67.

0.15% of players is the same as 10% of *paying* players is the same as 50% of microtransactional revenue (I actually found articles claiming as much as 70%, but I didn't find the research as generally applicable as this study - it was usually limited to a single app or family of apps). So we can tell, thanks to these numbers:

98.5% of all players pay nothing at all.
1.5% of players pay *something* Of those, 50% of the payments come from a total of 1.35% of all players.
0.15% of all players pay for the remaining 50% of all purchases, which is the same as saying 10% of all *paying* players cover half of the payments.

To describe this as 10% of the paying players vs. as 0.15% of all players is, I think, just as damning. A significant minority of the players accounts for a disproportionally higher portion of the revenue. That concerns me either way. Maybe it's because I already saw how few actual players ever pay at all, but those two numbers tell me the same information.

locked

3396 views

"I AM NOT MAKING A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS"

-CruelLEGACEY

LOL :)

^This comment is meant to be humorous and should not be confused with legitimate critique. You have good points but it feels a bit like the abstract idea of RNG-based microtransactions is being debated more than the actual context of its implementation. Do you really feel like you haven't been able to get something you want and have had to spend money? I'm not talking about the hypothetical player and the macguffin they NEED, I'm talking about your experience thus far. To me, it feels incredibly fair. Either I've gotten something cool from a bright engram, or I've saved up dust to get it when it comes around. I think the actual practice, rather than the conceptual framework, is fine. I agree that I don't like not being able to purchase something directly (were I to choose that), but... it just doesn't feel unfair as I play.

My own personal experience is that there have been a few items in the Eververse that I would have bought with real money, if I were able to purchase them directly for a fair price. But I don’t want to engage with a system that allows me to spend real money and not get what I want. So instead, I treat Eververse much the way you do.

To your general point, a lot of what I’m talking about is more general or based on the principles of the issue. As I said in one of those posts you linked above, I think Bungie is doing a great job of taking a microtransaction implementation that is fundamentally exploitative, and making it as player friendly as they can, given the point from where they are starting (RNG purchases). I’m just trying to carefully and thoroughly point out why it is ultimately a system designed to exploite customers, even if it is easy for most of us to avoid being exploited.

The other thought I have is along the lines of Kermit's suggestion. Games that are not profitable do not get sequels in Activision's world. It may not be an attempt to mustache-twirl our money away. It may be about funding the game so that margins are enough to generate more game content. Perhaps not as directly as "this purchase funds this content," but it may be negotiating leverage. Were that the case, and this is speculation, this seems to be the most innocuous implementation I've experienced. I actually find this implementation far more friendly than ME3s which made me feel left out by the end.

Yeah, I’m having a tough time figuring out my feelings on ME3. Because it clearly was more “in your face” than Des2ny’s economy, and every bit as based on randomization. And yet, somehow, it didn’t bother me as much. I mean, Destiny’s microtransactions barely bother me at all, but I almost liked ME3’s system, which is so strange.

I’m just thinking out loud here, but I think it has something to do with the fact that I was buying actual gameplay content. The new characters were so integral to the game’s replay value. I had a blast learning how to use new abilities, or new combinations of older abilities. And there was the fact that each batch of characters came along with new maps and challenges and other updates. So every time I bought a pack of new characters, I felt like I was getting my money’s worth in new maps alone.

I do wonder if there’s an element to this that has to do with the underwhelming nature of cosmetic items in Destiny in general. Malagate might be working on a similar idea. Much as most of us seem in favour of microtransactions being restricted to cosmetics, I can’t shake the feeling that cosmetics barely matter in Destiny. How often do we actually get close enough to other guardians in-game to see what their armor really looks like? I was happy to buy different Titan chassis in Titanfall 2, because the Titans are 40 feet tall and you can clearly see them from a mile away. And in ME3, every purchase made a meaningful and enjoyable impact on my gameplay experience. I wonder if part of the general saltiness around the Eververse is due to most of the items feeling so underwhelming? I can see myself being more willing to buy the occasional engram if I didn’t think most of the potential items were completely useless. Am I the only one?

locked

3747 views

I see and feel the same things you do about this, perhaps to a lesser degree, but what would you have them do from this point? They're not going to shutter Eververse because a few people don't like it, and I'm pretty sure Bungie isn't twisting a thin moustache in their spare time trying to find ways to squeeze more cash out of us. It's all cosmetic.

Allow for specific purchases? Ok. But that will result in fewer purchases altogether. Why not find a way to hook these things back into gameplay in a way that either only affects things cosmetically, or relies on purchases to fuel it? I think there's untapped potential in finding ways to fuel player investment and engagement without affecting gameplay in a pay-to-win sense, while securing more frequent microtransactions from players.

Completely off the top; but ingame faction or holiday-themed events (SRL, MOBA matches, some other crazy new gametype) with an entrance fee of ingame currency. So players can play normally to earn tokens to play, or they could buy consumables that increase yield of such, or they could buy in bulk through Eververse. Rewards would be event-specific. Would that make things more palatable, if you were still required some level of effort in gameplay?

Personally, I have less an issue of the current implementation itself than I do with the fact that it doesn't change my experience. I'd happily spend a few bucks a month on a game I'm already invested in if it adds something new to my experience beyond cosmetics.

locked

3752 views

Great points, as always :)

Here’s the thing that jumps out at me the most:

I see and feel the same things you do about this, perhaps to a lesser degree, but what would you have them do from this point? They're not going to shutter Eververse because a few people don't like it, and I'm pretty sure Bungie isn't twisting a thin moustache in their spare time trying to find ways to squeeze more cash out of us. It's all cosmetic.

Allow for specific purchases? Ok. But that will result in fewer purchases altogether.

Precisely. Absolutely this. It would lead to fewer purchases, because the items Bungie is actually selling are not worth the money they are currently making thanks to RNG microtransactions. And that’s the problem I have, in a nutshell.

A store where you can buy what you want for a set price would be better for players. The current system is more profitable for Bungie. As a player, I would prefer they choose the more player-friendly option. Bungie chose the more profitable option. And that’s fine. I’m not offended by that. They’re a business like any other. I just think it’s important to be realistic about these things and call them what they are. I still love Bungie and Destiny, I have ZERO problem with anyone who chooses to buy stuff from eververse. I just wish people weren’t so quick to defend a clearly and obviously exploitative system in order to feel ok about engaging with it. Nobody is claiming that Eververse is ruining their life, lol. It’s just designed in a way to earn more money than the items for sale would earn in a truly fair marketplace.

As far as where Bungie should actually go with it, I’d rather see them make Eververse items directly purchasable, and add more & better items. I’d gladly throw down a few bucks for cool new emotes every month or two, if I could buy the exact ones I want and they were fairly priced. Same with ships and sparrows. But that would take more work than the current system, and might not be any more profitable, so I’m not holding my breath :)

locked

3701 views

Nobody is claiming that Eververse is ruining their life, lol. It’s just designed in a way to earn more money than the items for sale would earn in a truly fair marketplace.

I agree with a lot of your feelings but I'm not sure this is true.

You are thinking of real money being valued at a rate of 1 item from the vault of goodness. Understandable, but what if you were to instead think of it as about 100 bright dust. Each item is worth a minimum of 95 bight dust (I believe) and many are worth considerably more. So, when you pay or play, you get about 100 for each transaction. It just happens to be that you *might* get something much more valuable. You may get the exact thing you want or you may get something worth more than 100 bright dust. But, you're never left with nothing (unlike a casino). Now you know the value of real money/ real time. Sometimes you get lucky, but there is always a path forward if you didn't. The obscured value of those engrams (100 bright dust) is probably the most problematic part, but I don't think it is unfair. I'm pretty sure most people have figured out whether the math is worth it on a gut level even if they haven't quantified it. Under this framing, the products are being fairly priced, but they're just higher than what I think you framed them as.

locked

3785 views

Nobody is claiming that Eververse is ruining their life, lol. It’s just designed in a way to earn more money than the items for sale would earn in a truly fair marketplace.

I agree with a lot of your feelings but I'm not sure this is true.

You are thinking of real money being valued at a rate of 1 item from the vault of goodness. Understandable, but what if you were to instead think of it as about 100 bright dust. Each item is worth a minimum of 95 bight dust (I believe) and many are worth considerably more. So, when you pay or play, you get about 100 for each transaction. It just happens to be that you *might* get something much more valuable. You may get the exact thing you want or you may get something worth more than 100 bright dust. But, you're never left with nothing (unlike a casino). Now you know the value of real money/ real time. Sometimes you get lucky, but there is always a path forward if you didn't. The obscured value of those engrams (100 bright dust) is probably the most problematic part, but I don't think it is unfair. I'm pretty sure most people have figured out whether the math is worth it on a gut level even if they haven't quantified it. Under this framing, the products are being fairly priced, but they're just higher than what I think you framed them as.

I didn’t mean to suggest that items were being unfairly priced by way of conversion. I meant that the RNG nature of buying engrams forces you to spend more money overall than you would spend were you able to simply buy the exact item you want outright (case in point, Speedracer spent $40 to get the Six Shooter emote). You might get the item you want out of your very first engram, but you probably won’t. And you might get bright dust out of an engram, but who knows how much. So just like a casino, there will be the occasional winner that gets what they want right away. But all together, I guarantee Bungie pulls in more money this way than they would it they removed the RNG layer.

locked

3773 views

I didn’t mean to suggest that items were being unfairly priced by way of conversion. I meant that the RNG nature of buying engrams forces you to spend more money overall than you would spend were you able to simply buy the exact item you want outright (case in point, Speedracer spent $40 to get the Six Shooter emote). You might get the item you want out of your very first engram, but you probably won’t. And you might get bright dust out of an engram, but who knows how much. So just like a casino, there will be the occasional winner that gets what they want right away. But all together, I guarantee Bungie pulls in more money this way than they would it they removed the RNG layer.

Yeah, you're right about them raking in more money with RNG/artificial scarcity. I'm sad Speedracer didn't just wait until it sold from the store and this artificial scarcity has the effect of people spending more money.

locked

3724 views

I didn’t mean to suggest that items were being unfairly priced by way of conversion. I meant that the RNG nature of buying engrams forces you to spend more money overall than you would spend were you able to simply buy the exact item you want outright (case in point, Speedracer spent $40 to get the Six Shooter emote). You might get the item you want out of your very first engram, but you probably won’t. And you might get bright dust out of an engram, but who knows how much. So just like a casino, there will be the occasional winner that gets what they want right away. But all together, I guarantee Bungie pulls in more money this way than they would it they removed the RNG layer.

Yeah, you're right about them raking in more money with RNG/artificial scarcity. I'm sad Speedracer didn't just wait until it sold from the store and this artificial scarcity has the effect of people spending more money.

Thing is, they might never sell it that way. Or if they do, he might not have enough bright dust at that time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

locked

3665 views

I didn’t mean to suggest that items were being unfairly priced by way of conversion. I meant that the RNG nature of buying engrams forces you to spend more money overall than you would spend were you able to simply buy the exact item you want outright (case in point, Speedracer spent $40 to get the Six Shooter emote). You might get the item you want out of your very first engram, but you probably won’t. And you might get bright dust out of an engram, but who knows how much. So just like a casino, there will be the occasional winner that gets what they want right away. But all together, I guarantee Bungie pulls in more money this way than they would it they removed the RNG layer.

Yeah, you're right about them raking in more money with RNG/artificial scarcity. I'm sad Speedracer didn't just wait until it sold from the store and this artificial scarcity has the effect of people spending more money.

Thing is, they might never sell it that way. Or if they do, he might not have enough bright dust at that time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Was totally for sale a few weeks ago. I think most, if not all, items will make it through the rotation.

locked

3646 views

I didn’t mean to suggest that items were being unfairly priced by way of conversion. I meant that the RNG nature of buying engrams forces you to spend more money overall than you would spend were you able to simply buy the exact item you want outright (case in point, Speedracer spent $40 to get the Six Shooter emote). You might get the item you want out of your very first engram, but you probably won’t. And you might get bright dust out of an engram, but who knows how much. So just like a casino, there will be the occasional winner that gets what they want right away. But all together, I guarantee Bungie pulls in more money this way than they would it they removed the RNG layer.

Yeah, you're right about them raking in more money with RNG/artificial scarcity. I'm sad Speedracer didn't just wait until it sold from the store and this artificial scarcity has the effect of people spending more money.

Thing is, they might never sell it that way. Or if they do, he might not have enough bright dust at that time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Was totally for sale a few weeks ago. I think most, if not all, items will make it through the rotation.

Yeah, see my response I just posted below.

I actually DID wait until she was selling it! But having 3500 bright dust on hand is another issue. :-)

locked

3743 views

I actually DID wait until she was selling it! But having 3500 bright dust on hand is another issue. :-)

Pro Tip: You can generate Bright Dust on demand by buying Silver with real money and then buying things like Bright Engrams. ;) :p

locked

3678 views

- No text -

locked

3714 views

I didn’t mean to suggest that items were being unfairly priced by way of conversion. I meant that the RNG nature of buying engrams forces you to spend more money overall than you would spend were you able to simply buy the exact item you want outright (case in point, Speedracer spent $40 to get the Six Shooter emote). You might get the item you want out of your very first engram, but you probably won’t. And you might get bright dust out of an engram, but who knows how much. So just like a casino, there will be the occasional winner that gets what they want right away. But all together, I guarantee Bungie pulls in more money this way than they would it they removed the RNG layer.

Yeah, you're right about them raking in more money with RNG/artificial scarcity. I'm sad Speedracer didn't just wait until it sold from the store and this artificial scarcity has the effect of people spending more money.

Thing is, they might never sell it that way. Or if they do, he might not have enough bright dust at that time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Was totally for sale a few weeks ago. I think most, if not all, items will make it through the rotation.

I hope so. That’d definitely be a nice approach.

locked

3685 views

Nobody is claiming that Eververse is ruining their life, lol. It’s just designed in a way to earn more money than the items for sale would earn in a truly fair marketplace.

I agree with a lot of your feelings but I'm not sure this is true.

You are thinking of real money being valued at a rate of 1 item from the vault of goodness. Understandable, but what if you were to instead think of it as about 100 bright dust. Each item is worth a minimum of 95 bight dust (I believe) and many are worth considerably more. So, when you pay or play, you get about 100 for each transaction. It just happens to be that you *might* get something much more valuable. You may get the exact thing you want or you may get something worth more than 100 bright dust. But, you're never left with nothing (unlike a casino). Now you know the value of real money/ real time. Sometimes you get lucky, but there is always a path forward if you didn't. The obscured value of those engrams (100 bright dust) is probably the most problematic part, but I don't think it is unfair. I'm pretty sure most people have figured out whether the math is worth it on a gut level even if they haven't quantified it. Under this framing, the products are being fairly priced, but they're just higher than what I think you framed them as.

I didn’t mean to suggest that items were being unfairly priced by way of conversion. I meant that the RNG nature of buying engrams forces you to spend more money overall than you would spend were you able to simply buy the exact item you want outright (case in point, Speedracer spent $40 to get the Six Shooter emote). You might get the item you want out of your very first engram, but you probably won’t. And you might get bright dust out of an engram, but who knows how much. So just like a casino, there will be the occasional winner that gets what they want right away. But all together, I guarantee Bungie pulls in more money this way than they would it they removed the RNG layer.

Just in the interest of full disclosure and context:

I did indeed spend $40 on Silver this week, mostly because I wanted the Six Shooter (and Confused) emotes... but that was the total amount spent to get it on both PS4 and XB1.

I actually only spent $10 on PSN, and upon opening the final Bright Engram that came from that purchase - I not only got enough bright dust to finally buy it outright for the ~3500 bright dust asking price - but I actually got the Six Shooter emote in that engram (so I didn't actually need to buy it direct from Tess and instead used my bright dust to buy "Confused" for 800 dust, and now have a bit of a supply for the next time she is selling something I want).

On Xbox, however, I was almost completely out of bright dust - so I first dropped $10 or $20, and after dismantling all those engrams I was still just short of the amount needed because I didn't get hardly any straight-up "gifts of bright dust" in those engrams -- just shaders/sparrows/ghosts/emotes I didn't really care about and even after dismantling those, I was still a bit short. (Note that while you can indeed dismantle most purple-tier shaders for bright dust, they only give you about 10 each, and ghosts/sparrows are only a bit more (at 25 each iirc). So, I went ahead and spent a bit more, and now have the two coolest emotes on both platforms.

Clearly, I would love it if we could just buy anything we want from Eververse for a clear, up-front price without RNG being in the equation. I do appreciate, however, that her rotating stock means eventually she will likely be selling something I want so at least it's not completely up to RNG. Indeed, this is why I waited until this week to try to acquire Six Shooter. The amount of RNG involved and money needed to guarantee it was mitigated this week.

At the same time - I vehemently oppose any insinuation that spending the money I did this week makes me any "less savvy" or "suckered" into anything. I have made a very conscious decision to weigh the value of my $40 with the amount of extra gametime that would be required to earn the requisite XP and therefore Bright Engrams that would decrypt into either the items I want or the bright dust needed to direct buy those items.

And as much as Cody will want to point out that I am "paying to not play" -- sure, in a way he is correct -- BUT that still does NOT mean there is necessarily anything wrong with that! These are cosmetic items that have no direct impact on my gameplay, nor on Cody's. The fact that I choose to drop a bit of real money on those items rather than "farm public events" for those bright engrams DOES NOT make me a sucker or any less savvy than someone that is spending more time in the game earning that XP.

Edit: I'm pretty sure Cruel realizes this, but for the benefit of any others: those last two paragraphs are not directed at Cruel at all -- more at the inferences elsewhere in this thread by Kahzgul, Cody (and others?) about people that participate in the microtransaction economy. Also for the record, I think I agree with pretty much everything Cruel has said - especially about how the RNG is involved (even if it could be much worse) and made to get players to spend more than they otherwise would.

locked

3708 views

- No text -

locked

3699 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

locked

3740 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

locked

3706 views

- No text -

locked

3707 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

There’s a cheap theatre in Van Nuys that charges $7.50 on a Friday night. Hot dogs are $1.50. Popcorn is $1.75. Drinks are $2.00. How do they continue to operate without gouging? They’ve been open at least 9 years.

locked

3719 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

There’s a cheap theatre in Van Nuys that charges $7.50 on a Friday night. Hot dogs are $1.50. Popcorn is $1.75. Drinks are $2.00. How do they continue to operate without gouging? They’ve been open at least 9 years.

I'm not saying that this is the case, but I have a buddy who worked at a coffee as a manager and he knew for a fact that the coffee shop was making no profit and the only reason it was still going was because it had a rich owner that kept it alive as a pet project.

Nothing is black and white.

locked

3766 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

There’s a cheap theatre in Van Nuys that charges $7.50 on a Friday night. Hot dogs are $1.50. Popcorn is $1.75. Drinks are $2.00. How do they continue to operate without gouging? They’ve been open at least 9 years.

There are a few different ways I could respond to this...

a) Your anecdote, while an interesting data point, does not at all directly address the question I presented.

b) I don't know... I guess you'd have to ask their owner/accountant. Perhaps they aren't operating in the black like you assume? Perhaps, like many small businesses, they continue to operate at a loss for years before finally losing everything and closing down? By saying they are a "cheap theater" does that mean they are showing older movies (and therefore have much lower licensing fees and overhead)? If so, maybe they've found a sweet spot to make it work still? There are a number of reasons that this particular outlier of a theater has been able to stay in business. That doesn't change the fact that your "average" theater cannot operate without charging "exorbitant" prices for concessions.

c) [Being even more of a "devil's advocate here] Are they actually not gouging? Sure, $2.00 drinks and $1.75 popcorn and $1.50 hot dogs are nowhere near as expensive as the prices I pay at my local 24-screen Cinemark... but those prices you quote are still HUUUUGE markups of what that soda/popcorn costs them. So maybe they are gouging - just not at as big of an extent as the other theaters?

The point is, none of this automatically = shadiness. There are too many real-world considerations that you have to completely ignore to take an absolutist approach to what is "shady" in both movie theater operations and game development/publishing.

locked

3671 views

FYI, I say cheap because the space is small, the seats lame, and the floor is always sticky.

Where the analogy breaks down though, is that the price of food has no bearing on the quality of the film. Except in Israel.

See, in Israel all movies have an intermission. Every single one! Even a 90 minute Rom Com. Whether the film maker wanted it or not. The purpose? To sell more consessions. People buy stuff during not the intermission. But this makes the movie worse. Practically all films today are designed to be seen in one go. An intermission kills the experience unless the film was crafted with one in mind.

Sure you don’t have to go buy food during the intermission, but you’re still sitting around waiting.

That’s more like what Bungie is doing.

locked

3718 views

See, in Israel all movies have an intermission. Every single one! Even a 90 minute Rom Com. Whether the film maker wanted it or not. The purpose? To sell more consessions. People buy stuff during not the intermission. But this makes the movie worse. Practically all films today are designed to be seen in one go. An intermission kills the experience unless the film was crafted with one in mind.

Huh. De-railing a bit because I found this way intriguing. When I went to Germany earlier this year, instead of pushing these mid-movie, the trailer/ad session before the movie (and after the ticket time) was literally 40-minute long, after which a dude with a huge box came into the room and sold ice cream and sweets. It was pretty surreal, but stopping a movie midway sounds even more so.

Anyone ever heard of odd practices like these?

locked

3672 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

There’s a cheap theatre in Van Nuys that charges $7.50 on a Friday night. Hot dogs are $1.50. Popcorn is $1.75. Drinks are $2.00. How do they continue to operate without gouging? They’ve been open at least 9 years.

There are a few different ways I could respond to this...

a) Your anecdote, while an interesting data point, does not at all directly address the question I presented.

b) I don't know... I guess you'd have to ask their owner/accountant. Perhaps they aren't operating in the black like you assume? Perhaps, like many small businesses, they continue to operate at a loss for years before finally losing everything and closing down? By saying they are a "cheap theater" does that mean they are showing older movies (and therefore have much lower licensing fees and overhead)? If so, maybe they've found a sweet spot to make it work still? There are a number of reasons that this particular outlier of a theater has been able to stay in business. That doesn't change the fact that your "average" theater cannot operate without charging "exorbitant" prices for concessions.

c) [Being even more of a "devil's advocate here] Are they actually not gouging? Sure, $2.00 drinks and $1.75 popcorn and $1.50 hot dogs are nowhere near as expensive as the prices I pay at my local 24-screen Cinemark... but those prices you quote are still HUUUUGE markups of what that soda/popcorn costs them. So maybe they are gouging - just not at as big of an extent as the other theaters?

The point is, none of this automatically = shadiness. There are too many real-world considerations that you have to completely ignore to take an absolutist approach to what is "shady" in both movie theater operations and game development/publishing.

Just to pile more into this analogy, there’s also the wrinkle that regardless of the price of the popcorn, you know you are paying a set price for 1 bag of popcorn. Not quite the same as buying the chance to get something you want :)

locked

3637 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

There’s a cheap theatre in Van Nuys that charges $7.50 on a Friday night. Hot dogs are $1.50. Popcorn is $1.75. Drinks are $2.00. How do they continue to operate without gouging? They’ve been open at least 9 years.

There are a few different ways I could respond to this...

a) Your anecdote, while an interesting data point, does not at all directly address the question I presented.

b) I don't know... I guess you'd have to ask their owner/accountant. Perhaps they aren't operating in the black like you assume? Perhaps, like many small businesses, they continue to operate at a loss for years before finally losing everything and closing down? By saying they are a "cheap theater" does that mean they are showing older movies (and therefore have much lower licensing fees and overhead)? If so, maybe they've found a sweet spot to make it work still? There are a number of reasons that this particular outlier of a theater has been able to stay in business. That doesn't change the fact that your "average" theater cannot operate without charging "exorbitant" prices for concessions.

c) [Being even more of a "devil's advocate here] Are they actually not gouging? Sure, $2.00 drinks and $1.75 popcorn and $1.50 hot dogs are nowhere near as expensive as the prices I pay at my local 24-screen Cinemark... but those prices you quote are still HUUUUGE markups of what that soda/popcorn costs them. So maybe they are gouging - just not at as big of an extent as the other theaters?

The point is, none of this automatically = shadiness. There are too many real-world considerations that you have to completely ignore to take an absolutist approach to what is "shady" in both movie theater operations and game development/publishing.

Just to pile more into this analogy, there’s also the wrinkle that regardless of the price of the popcorn, you know you are paying a set price for 1 bag of popcorn. Not quite the same as buying the chance to get something you want :)

Oooh, what if its more like the popcorn is $8, but you have a chance of getting it for $1. But you have to trade in the tootsie rolls they handed you the first 7 times your "chance" didn't work out.

locked

3693 views

- No text -

locked

3673 views

Because popcorn is invaluable or because an ocean of tootsie rolls is so worthless that it couldn't buy a single kernel?

locked

3675 views

Because popcorn is invaluable or because an ocean of tootsie rolls is so worthless that it couldn't buy a single kernel?

Because nobody likes eating what looks like poop.

locked

3739 views

Because popcorn is invaluable or because an ocean of tootsie rolls is so worthless that it couldn't buy a single kernel?

Because nobody likes eating what looks like poop.

Tell that to my dog. :-(

Cats just keep laying treats in the garden for her to discover...

locked

3641 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

It also may not be. Considering that these companies are profit based, how much of the markup ends up as profit, and how much of it covers the operating costs of the theatre, keeping the lights on.

Also how much does this markup figure into declining theatre attendance? Do I go to the theatre less because I have a 4k TV, or is it because it feels absurdly expensive to have a proper night at the theatre? That's a really tough question to say. As ticket sales decline, they need to find other avenues of revenue to keep the lights on, boom, markup concessions...

I probably go to the theatre 1/10th of the times that I would have 5-10 years ago. I doubt it's just the cost of licensing the rights to show the films/overhead(???) that figures into their decision making.

locked

3667 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

It also may not be. Considering that these companies are profit based, how much of the markup ends up as profit, and how much of it covers the operating costs of the theatre, keeping the lights on.

Also how much does this markup figure into declining theatre attendance? Do I go to the theatre less because I have a 4k TV, or is it because it feels absurdly expensive to have a proper night at the theatre? That's a really tough question to say. As ticket sales decline, they need to find other avenues of revenue to keep the lights on, boom, markup concessions...

I probably go to the theatre 1/10th of the times that I would have 5-10 years ago. I doubt it's just the cost of licensing the rights to show the films/overhead(???) that figures into their decision making.

Aren’t you in the Union? I very rarely pay to see a film anymore and just see them at industry screenings. I go way more often; I see pretty much everything.

locked

3656 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

It also may not be. Considering that these companies are profit based, how much of the markup ends up as profit, and how much of it covers the operating costs of the theatre, keeping the lights on.

Also how much does this markup figure into declining theatre attendance? Do I go to the theatre less because I have a 4k TV, or is it because it feels absurdly expensive to have a proper night at the theatre? That's a really tough question to say. As ticket sales decline, they need to find other avenues of revenue to keep the lights on, boom, markup concessions...

I probably go to the theatre 1/10th of the times that I would have 5-10 years ago. I doubt it's just the cost of licensing the rights to show the films/overhead(???) that figures into their decision making.

Aren’t you in the Union? I very rarely pay to see a film anymore and just see them at industry screenings. I go way more often; I see pretty much everything.

I'm a software consultant... I'm not in any union unfortunately.

locked

3692 views

Buying popcorn for 6 bucks at the movie theatre also doesn’t make you a sucker, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady.

Fair point. However, it also doesn't mean it automatically/necessarily IS shady!

In fact, I would argue that this very example you provide is evidence of it not being shady. Movie theaters simply cannot continue to operate on ticket sales alone because of the costs of licensing the rights to show the films, and other overhead costs. Therefore, if the movie theater did not charge you 6 bucks for popcorn, they would not be able to pay their employees and keep the lights on. So, I ask you -- what is so shady about that?

It also may not be. Considering that these companies are profit based, how much of the markup ends up as profit, and how much of it covers the operating costs of the theatre, keeping the lights on.

Also how much does this markup figure into declining theatre attendance? Do I go to the theatre less because I have a 4k TV, or is it because it feels absurdly expensive to have a proper night at the theatre? That's a really tough question to say. As ticket sales decline, they need to find other avenues of revenue to keep the lights on, boom, markup concessions...

I probably go to the theatre 1/10th of the times that I would have 5-10 years ago. I doubt it's just the cost of licensing the rights to show the films/overhead(???) that figures into their decision making.

Aren’t you in the Union? I very rarely pay to see a film anymore and just see them at industry screenings. I go way more often; I see pretty much everything.

I'm a software consultant... I'm not in any union unfortunately.

I’m confusing you with kazghul! Oops!

locked

3672 views

- No text -

locked

3642 views

- No text -

locked

3628 views

I rarely see anything in theaters anymore. Wonder Woman was the last time I went, and Star Wars will be the next time I go.

I’d gladly pay $15-$20 for a streaming rental while it was currently in theaters. I just don’t like going to a theater. It’s almost always a bad experience—I’d much rather watch from the comfort of my home. I usually just wait for Redbox or streaming, but I’d gladly pay a premium to get current movies.

I want to see Blade Runner, just not enough to actually go to a theater to do so.

locked

3678 views

I rarely see anything in theaters anymore. Wonder Woman was the last time I went, and Star Wars will be the next time I go.

I’d gladly pay $15-$20 for a streaming rental while it was currently in theaters. I just don’t like going to a theater. It’s almost always a bad experience—I’d much rather watch from the comfort of my home. I usually just wait for Redbox or streaming, but I’d gladly pay a premium to get current movies.

I want to see Blade Runner, just not enough to actually go to a theater to do so.

Oh I love the theatre. I even try to watch TV shows there (American Gods seems like a waste on a TV screen; it was much better on the big screen).

I’ve only had two times in my life where the theatre experience was miserable, and both were in Detroit. Otherwise it’s a huge improvement in the experience IMO.

Just get that movie pass thing. It’s a crazy deal. I think it’s $15 a month now and you can go once a day.

locked

3674 views

Just get that movie pass thing. It’s a crazy deal. I think it’s $15 a month now and you can go once a day.

It’s not about money. It’s about time, comfort, and convenience.

locked

3720 views

Look me straight in the eyes and tell me sending the player to Tess after every level up was NOT a calculated decision to push more microtransactions. That is pure mustache twirling.

locked

3776 views

Look me straight in the eyes and tell me sending the player to Tess after every level up was NOT a calculated decision to push more microtransactions. That is pure mustache twirling.

What? That's the very thing that made me NOT want to spend real money - I was going to see Tess so regularly that the idea of spending CASH to get her wares seemed... foolish.

Sometimes the way you look at things makes my head hurt.

locked

3782 views

Look me straight in the eyes and tell me sending the player to Tess after every level up was NOT a calculated decision to push more microtransactions. That is pure mustache twirling.

What? That's the very thing that made me NOT want to spend real money - I was going to see Tess so regularly that the idea of spending CASH to get her wares seemed... foolish.

Sometimes the way you look at things makes my head hurt.

Heh, I actually see where both of you are coming from. On the one hand, we get Bright engrams often enough that some of us can easily resist the temptation to ever spend real money. But to Cody’s point, it is a bit like making you walk through the gift shop before you can exit the museum :)

locked

3694 views

Look me straight in the eyes and tell me sending the player to Tess after every level up was NOT a calculated decision to push more microtransactions. That is pure mustache twirling.

What? That's the very thing that made me NOT want to spend real money - I was going to see Tess so regularly that the idea of spending CASH to get her wares seemed... foolish.

Sometimes the way you look at things makes my head hurt.

Heh, I actually see where both of you are coming from. On the one hand, we get Bright engrams often enough that some of us can easily resist the temptation to ever spend real money. But to Cody’s point, it is a bit like making you walk through the gift shop before you can exit the museum :)

Exit Theough the Gift Shop is actually a really good documentary about the commercialization and sign value of modern art. Not sure if it’s relevant to games and microtransactions, but it’s absolutely awesome when you “get it” and the light bulb goes off in your head and you discover the film’s trick and true intent.

locked

3730 views

Pro Tip: Never go to Disney World. Virtually every attraction ends in a gift shop.

locked

3712 views

- No text -

locked

3542 views

Look me straight in the eyes and tell me sending the player to Tess after every level up was NOT a calculated decision to push more microtransactions. That is pure mustache twirling.

It's almost like you have to do this with every high level engram you get! Are you expecting them to hidy hole them away from the game where people can't actually see her wares?

To use your theater analogy, that's like putting the concessions in a separate building as the ticket booth and screens!

locked

3536 views

Look me straight in the eyes and tell me sending the player to Tess after every level up was NOT a calculated decision to push more microtransactions. That is pure mustache twirling.

It's almost like you have to do this with every high level engram you get! Are you expecting them to hidy hole them away from the game where people can't actually see her wares?

To use your theater analogy, that's like putting the concessions in a separate building as the ticket booth and screens!

Just have the cryptarch decode bright engrams… problem solved.

locked

3489 views

Look me straight in the eyes and tell me sending the player to Tess after every level up was NOT a calculated decision to push more microtransactions. That is pure mustache twirling.

It's almost like you have to do this with every high level engram you get! Are you expecting them to hidy hole them away from the game where people can't actually see her wares?

To use your theater analogy, that's like putting the concessions in a separate building as the ticket booth and screens!

Just have the cryptarch decode bright engrams… problem solved.

Except then you are separating a set of loot between two vendors.

I don't know why it's bad to have them in the same place. Great, it send you to the same place where you can buy things. I have to walk past a ton of stuff in a grocery store that I don't need, to get stuff I do need. This doesn't mean that I'm a glutton or an alcoholic because I was to enticed by what I wasn't buying. I've turned in 20+ engrams to her and I'm not even entirely sure how to buy stuff from her.

locked

3512 views

tl;dr - the actual purpose here is that micro-transactions aren't the problem, because the majority of people who partake in them do so with knowledge of what they are and what they are getting out of them, and that a very small portion of players are spending larger sums on them where we don't have sufficient practical data to make honest judgement of those purchases.

But even someone who has all the knowledge and data, and is doing so willingly is being taken advantage of by the simple fact that the game is designed so that desirable teams are behind frustrating frictions. So yeah, you could be like Speedracer and pay 40 bucks for an ornament. He seems fine with that. But the game is designed for any particular ornament to be frustrating to get. THAT is the problem. The game could easily be made so that obtaining ornaments is not only fun, but you can specifically choose which ones you want to earn.

You ever been to a movie theater? You can’t take in a bottle of water, but must instead buy on from concessions at an inflated price. When I go to the Arclight or something I always buy food willingly. It’s like whatever, it’s not objectively a lot of money, but you are still being ripped off. But you can sneak shit into the movies… with microtransactions you have no recourse.

Concessions are overpriced but they are also have become about the only way theaters can make a profit.

So what if, at the $60 price ceiling, microtransactions are the only way you can make a profit and still create a huge, cutting-edge AAA game with a regular supply of new content?

locked

3730 views

So what if, at the $60 price ceiling, microtransactions are the only way you can make a profit and still create a huge, cutting-edge AAA game with a regular supply of new content?

This is the real problem I see with the funding around AAA properties like Destiny. What I would love to see in the way of efforts to address this are modes of play that require MTs to function, but are centered around the community playing with, against, and for each other.

locked

3737 views

I just find the way "Ragashingo's post is super important" has propagated down the line to be amusing as all get out. :p

locked

3705 views

It is condescending to imply that just because someone pays for microtransactions they are somehow not savvy or understanding of what that purchase is. For most players it is as much a conscious choice to buy microtransactions based on their budget and perceived value to the exact same degree that people don't due to their budget or perceived value.

I apologize if this was insulting as it was not intended to be. I believe that microtransactions, in general, are designed to play on addictive tendencies in players, and that those who are savvy to the tricks are more able to resist those tricks or at least make their purchases with full and complete information. I did not mean to imply that people who were unaware of the predatory abuse of human nature playing out in their video game were somehow less than as a result. Being unwittingly manipulated is not the fault of the victim. Perhaps savvy was not the best term to use, but I'm struggling to think of one that more accurately describes what I was trying to say.

Great masses of people seem to have no problem with this kind of thing when it's in the guise of a state lottery, which preys on the innumerate (and often poor) disproportionately. I do, but that's mainly because it's state-sanctioned.

locked

3750 views

Great masses of people seem to have no problem with this kind of thing when it's in the guise of a state lottery, which preys on the innumerate (and often poor) disproportionately. I do, but that's mainly because it's state-sanctioned.

The microtransactions in Destiny aren't really gambling because the stakes are nothing of value - they can't be bought or sold. I feel like this is an important distinction, and that comparing buying a random object of zero value to gambling is disingenuous. For an example of how microtransactions can be implemented in an actually dangerous way, I found this article from earlier this year very interesting: Gambling in Counter-Strike.

locked

3765 views

Great masses of people seem to have no problem with this kind of thing when it's in the guise of a state lottery, which preys on the innumerate (and often poor) disproportionately. I do, but that's mainly because it's state-sanctioned.

The microtransactions in Destiny aren't really gambling because the stakes are nothing of value - they can't be bought or sold. I feel like this is an important distinction, and that comparing buying a random object of zero value to gambling is disingenuous. For an example of how microtransactions can be implemented in an actually dangerous way, I found this article from earlier this year very interesting: Gambling in Counter-Strike.

Is that really part of what makes it gambling?

You would need to make MTG booster packs count as gambling then. After all, you can sell your cards, and the value contained in the pack is random.

locked

3825 views

Is that really part of what makes it gambling?

You would need to make MTG booster packs count as gambling then. After all, you can sell your cards, and the value contained in the pack is random.

I'd say they meet the Wikipedia definition of gambling, although an especially low stakes form since you always win something.

There are a lot of aspects of our society that are basically some form of gambling, but we don't think of them that way. Insurance and investing are two.

locked

3718 views

Is that really part of what makes it gambling?

You would need to make MTG booster packs count as gambling then. After all, you can sell your cards, and the value contained in the pack is random.

I'd say they meet the Wikipedia definition of gambling, although an especially low stakes form since you always win something.

There are a lot of aspects of our society that are basically some form of gambling, but we don't think of them that way. Insurance and investing are two.

My post was focused on the "predatory" aspect that Kahzgul was discussing, but I beg to differ that nothing of value is at stake. There is perceived value or the transaction wouldn't take place.

locked

3726 views

It is condescending to imply that just because someone pays for microtransactions they are somehow not savvy or understanding of what that purchase is. For most players it is as much a conscious choice to buy microtransactions based on their budget and perceived value to the exact same degree that people don't due to their budget or perceived value.

I apologize if this was insulting as it was not intended to be. I believe that microtransactions, in general, are designed to play on addictive tendencies in players, and that those who are savvy to the tricks are more able to resist those tricks or at least make their purchases with full and complete information. I did not mean to imply that people who were unaware of the predatory abuse of human nature playing out in their video game were somehow less than as a result. Being unwittingly manipulated is not the fault of the victim. Perhaps savvy was not the best term to use, but I'm struggling to think of one that more accurately describes what I was trying to say.

Great masses of people seem to have no problem with this kind of thing when it's in the guise of a state lottery, which preys on the innumerate (and often poor) disproportionately. I do, but that's mainly because it's state-sanctioned.

For what it's worth, I do, too. It's government revenue stream which abuses the people most prone to abuse, and that's fucked up. At this point in history it doesn't matter if it was intended to abuse those people or not because we know it DOES abuse them, and that should be reason enough to cancel it and look for alternatives that narrow the wealth gap rather than widen it.

locked

3639 views

- No text -

locked

3596 views

We know, for a fact, that Destiny was intentionally designed to create addictive loops in the gameplay and rewards systems, and was done so scientifically by a professor of behavioral psychology. them.

Just wanted to swing back to this. As a preface, I think you're pretty much on point with regard to micro transaction. Encouraging people to buy loot boxes without any kind of promise that the random stuff inside will be given out fairly seems very much not right.

I do think, however, you should probably stick to that and officially drop the implication that Destiny is worse / less ethical because it was designed with behavioral science in mind. In 2012, John Hopson took a look back at his original article (the one you quoted) and had a bunch of good points, like:

When I wrote that article a decade ago, I was a psychology graduate student and amateur game designer who had never worked in the games industry. Since then, the article has run amok, living an almost completely independent existence in the wilds of the internet.

On the critical side, there have been plenty of claims that reinforcement schedules are too powerful, that they compromise the will of the player. Again, reinforcement schedules are useful and effective, but don't represent the total sum of human psychology or the game experience.

Consider the use of loyalty cards at a coffee-shop. It is a contingency, exactly like the game contingencies covered in the original article. Indeed, it should be more powerful than game contingencies because it provides tangible real world benefits. And yet I don't think anyone would argue that "buy 10 lattes, get 1 free" is manipulative or too powerful for the average person to resist. (The chemical properties of caffeine notwithstanding.)

And specifically on the ethics of it all:

For me, the starting place for this discussion has to be the fact that contingencies always exist and reinforcement learning is always going on. Game designers can be completely ignorant of the psychology involved while still creating mechanics that draw on these principles. People had been making games with random loot drops for years before anyone pointed out that they were creating variable ratio schedules. Contingencies are the essence of games, and those contingencies shape player behavior.

Note that this would be even more true if the critics were correct in thinking that these reward structures are a subversive influence. The more powerful these contingencies are, the more seriously game makers should take our responsibilities to design them well.

In my personal view, contingencies in games are ethical if the designer believes the player will have more fun by fulfilling the contingency than they would otherwise. You have to believe in the fundamental entertainment value of the experience before you can ethically reward players for engaging in that experience.

Now, even this article was written five years ago and micro transactions have exploded since then so this article doesn't really speak to them. But I do think you have been a little too willing to link behavioral science to general gameplay design, to general reward systems, to microtransactions. As John put it in the article:

In a few years, the industry will move on and the topic will be taken for granted, but we will have permanently shifted towards a more empirical approach to game design, and our players will benefit from that.

locked

3421 views

- No text -

locked

3436 views

It is condescending to imply that just because someone pays for microtransactions they are somehow not savvy or understanding of what that purchase is. For most players it is as much a conscious choice to buy microtransactions based on their budget and perceived value to the exact same degree that people don't due to their budget or perceived value.

I understand that you are in squared opposition to many aspects of modern gaming financial staples and I respect that even if I disagree with some of the logic. However, I cannot respect the implication that people with different priorities are a) not savvy consumers b) are being taken advantage of c) derive no benefit from these transactions.

I will also add that time and money are both forms of currency in games. And in most cases, they both can get you what you want. Some people have more of one than the other. Just because they have allowed you to get some items based on one other than the other doesn't mean it's any less right.

I personally have a mix of both. So although I haven't spent money on Destiny for micro-transactions, it doesn't mean I think it's wrong. I personally would just rather use the currency of time to try and get what I want.

locked

3761 views

It is condescending to imply that just because someone pays for microtransactions they are somehow not savvy or understanding of what that purchase is. For most players it is as much a conscious choice to buy microtransactions based on their budget and perceived value to the exact same degree that people don't due to their budget or perceived value.

I understand that you are in squared opposition to many aspects of modern gaming financial staples and I respect that even if I disagree with some of the logic. However, I cannot respect the implication that people with different priorities are a) not savvy consumers b) are being taken advantage of c) derive no benefit from these transactions.

I will also add that time and money are both forms of currency in games. And in most cases, they both can get you what you want. Some people have more of one than the other. Just because they have allowed you to get some items based on one other than the other doesn't mean it's any less right.

I personally have a mix of both. So although I haven't spent money on Destiny for micro-transactions, it doesn't mean I think it's wrong. I personally would just rather use the currency of time to try and get what I want.

Well said. Just to add though, I think the part where this gets sticky for some people is that they've already made a "time vs money" transaction. They paid money to buy a game, with the hope that the time they spend with the game will be fun. So when they start playing the game, and the game says "You know that time with our game that you just paid for? Well you can skip some of it if you give us more money!", that's a red flag for some of us. This is the part that Cody keeps harping on, and I think he is largely correct. If a game developer is making money from selling the ability to skip playing parts of their game, then they are incentivizing themselves to make the skip-able parts of their game less fun to play, or even worse, make them intentionally not fun to play. Because then they'll make more money.

So any time that sort of microtransaction exists in a game, we're now in a situation where we (the players) must hope that the developers are doing their best to resist those money-making incentives. Some developers will do better in that regard than others. From a player's point of view, it would clearly be better if that tension didn't exist in the first place.

locked

3976 views

It is condescending to imply that just because someone pays for microtransactions they are somehow not savvy or understanding of what that purchase is. For most players it is as much a conscious choice to buy microtransactions based on their budget and perceived value to the exact same degree that people don't due to their budget or perceived value.

I understand that you are in squared opposition to many aspects of modern gaming financial staples and I respect that even if I disagree with some of the logic. However, I cannot respect the implication that people with different priorities are a) not savvy consumers b) are being taken advantage of c) derive no benefit from these transactions.

I will also add that time and money are both forms of currency in games. And in most cases, they both can get you what you want. Some people have more of one than the other. Just because they have allowed you to get some items based on one other than the other doesn't mean it's any less right.

I personally have a mix of both. So although I haven't spent money on Destiny for micro-transactions, it doesn't mean I think it's wrong. I personally would just rather use the currency of time to try and get what I want.

Well said. Just to add though, I think the part where this gets sticky for some people is that they've already made a "time vs money" transaction. They paid money to buy a game, with the hope that the time they spend with the game will be fun. So when they start playing the game, and the game says "You know that time with our game that you just paid for? Well you can skip some of it if you give us more money!", that's a red flag for some of us.

So "skipping the game" comes in many, many different flavors. And this in itself is a grand topic. Is it waiting for energy to refill so you can continue playing? Is it doing a task to get a reward? Is it the main story line to finish the game? There are so many ways to consider this that I would argue isn't 100% bad. It also depends on how it affects others and not just yourself. It also depends on how the creators of the game created the game that might make the skipping of the game more enticing. I would love to talk about this, but I would rather not, I only have so much debate in me, also this seems to be the general topic of MT's anyway and so many people have said their piece.

If a game developer is making money from selling the ability to skip playing parts of their game, then they are incentivizing themselves to make the skip-able parts of their game less fun to play, or even worse, make them intentionally not fun to play. Because then they'll make more money.

I would agree with this on a basis that the skip-able parts are game play and that the creators are doing it purely for the sake of money. But this is not all MT's. This in not the case of Destiny IMO.

So any time that sort of microtransaction exists in a game, we're now in a situation where we (the players) must hope that the developers are doing their best to resist those money-making incentives. Some developers will do better in that regard than others.

I agree.

From a player's point of view, it would clearly be better if that tension didn't exist in the first place.

If you mean the tension for developers to do the above type of MT's then yes. However I believe there are MT's that are actually good.

*note*
I'm a very Devil's advocate kind of debater and I also very much have lots of opinions about things, but I'm also a very terrible debater. I also can be terrible at getting my opinions in a form that people understand, so I'm sorry if any of this is not clearly understood.

locked

3756 views

So any time that sort of microtransaction exists in a game, we're now in a situation where we (the players) must hope that the developers are doing their best to resist those money-making incentives. Some developers will do better in that regard than others. From a player's point of view, it would clearly be better if that tension didn't exist in the first place.

This is why at the end of the day I think the least offensive Microtransactions are the ones that are not only purely cosmetic, but also only available by purchase. In this way, the developer doesn’t have to add “frictions” to their game to get you to buy things. I think the idea of everything being available also by playing is something that sounds good, but ultimately isn’t.

I bought the Delixe Edition of Life is Strange before the storm. That includes outfit packs for Chloe. The game actually changes based on your outfit. For example, David will chastise her if you make her hair blue or wear something inappropriate. The game would be better if you just had that choice regardless, but nothing about he game design pushes you toward buying this. There are no “frictions”. So while it sucks that some of the world is unavailable to some, at least the world they get isn’t made worse.

locked

3703 views

So any time that sort of microtransaction exists in a game, we're now in a situation where we (the players) must hope that the developers are doing their best to resist those money-making incentives. Some developers will do better in that regard than others. From a player's point of view, it would clearly be better if that tension didn't exist in the first place.

This is why at the end of the day I think the least offensive Microtransactions are the ones that are not only purely cosmetic, but also only available by purchase.

Ultimately I agree with this, they are the least offensive.

In this way, the developer doesn’t have to add “frictions” to their game to get you to buy things.

The developers don't have to add anything. It being cosmetic just means it's harder to do.

I think the idea of everything being available also by playing is something that sounds good, but ultimately isn’t.

I think it is some that not only sounds good, but is a good idea. It's not that it ultimately isn't. It's like saying I think the idea of people being nice to each other is a something that sounds good but ultimately isn't. Yeah, unfortunately there are jack asses in the world.

locked

3752 views

So any time that sort of microtransaction exists in a game, we're now in a situation where we (the players) must hope that the developers are doing their best to resist those money-making incentives. Some developers will do better in that regard than others. From a player's point of view, it would clearly be better if that tension didn't exist in the first place.

This is why at the end of the day I think the least offensive Microtransactions are the ones that are not only purely cosmetic, but also only available by purchase.

Ultimately I agree with this, they are the least offensive.

In this way, the developer doesn’t have to add “frictions” to their game to get you to buy things.

The developers don't have to add anything. It being cosmetic just means it's harder to do.

I think the idea of everything being available also by playing is something that sounds good, but ultimately isn’t.

I think it is some that not only sounds good, but is a good idea. It's not that it ultimately isn't. It's like saying I think the idea of people being nice to each other is a something that sounds good but ultimately isn't. Yeah, unfortunately there are jack asses in the world.

That’s not the same. If an item is available in game, and if “frictions” aren’t out in place to make its acquisition unpleasant, then you have zero reason to buy it. It’s a bad idea because it does not work unless you make your game worse.

locked

3824 views

So any time that sort of microtransaction exists in a game, we're now in a situation where we (the players) must hope that the developers are doing their best to resist those money-making incentives. Some developers will do better in that regard than others. From a player's point of view, it would clearly be better if that tension didn't exist in the first place.

This is why at the end of the day I think the least offensive Microtransactions are the ones that are not only purely cosmetic, but also only available by purchase.

Ultimately I agree with this, they are the least offensive.

In this way, the developer doesn’t have to add “frictions” to their game to get you to buy things.

The developers don't have to add anything. It being cosmetic just means it's harder to do.

I think the idea of everything being available also by playing is something that sounds good, but ultimately isn’t.

I think it is some that not only sounds good, but is a good idea. It's not that it ultimately isn't. It's like saying I think the idea of people being nice to each other is a something that sounds good but ultimately isn't. Yeah, unfortunately there are jack asses in the world.

That’s not the same. If an item is available in game, and if “frictions” aren’t out in place to make its acquisition unpleasant, then you have zero reason to buy it. It’s a bad idea because it does not work unless you make your game worse.

You have reason to buy said Item if the cost of playing some portion of the game that is required to get the said item you can't "afford". I'm going to purposefully take this completely one sided to make a point:

If I am a businessman who can only spend an hour a day playing games, but I want an item that can either for played for or bought. I don't have time or want to spend 2 hours to get said item, then I would much rather buy it. This is the developer giving an avenue to a player that normally would have to spend time that he doesn't have.

I know you will say that if the developer made content that isn't enjoyable, then the developer did a bad job. But I'm going to say right now that not everyone enjoys everything about games and also, developers aren't perfect.

This logic goes out the window for me if it starts affecting other people who play the game. For example pay to win.

locked

3732 views

So any time that sort of microtransaction exists in a game, we're now in a situation where we (the players) must hope that the developers are doing their best to resist those money-making incentives. Some developers will do better in that regard than others. From a player's point of view, it would clearly be better if that tension didn't exist in the first place.

This is why at the end of the day I think the least offensive Microtransactions are the ones that are not only purely cosmetic, but also only available by purchase.

Ultimately I agree with this, they are the least offensive.

In this way, the developer doesn’t have to add “frictions” to their game to get you to buy things.

The developers don't have to add anything. It being cosmetic just means it's harder to do.

I think the idea of everything being available also by playing is something that sounds good, but ultimately isn’t.

I think it is some that not only sounds good, but is a good idea. It's not that it ultimately isn't. It's like saying I think the idea of people being nice to each other is a something that sounds good but ultimately isn't. Yeah, unfortunately there are jack asses in the world.

That’s not the same. If an item is available in game, and if “frictions” aren’t out in place to make its acquisition unpleasant, then you have zero reason to buy it. It’s a bad idea because it does not work unless you make your game worse.

You have reason to buy said Item if the cost of playing some portion of the game that is required to get the said item you can't "afford". I'm going to purposefully take this completely one sided to make a point:

If I am a businessman who can only spend an hour a day playing games, but I want an item that can either for played for or bought. I don't have time or want to spend 2 hours to get said item, then I would much rather buy it. This is the developer giving an avenue to a player that normally would have to spend time that he doesn't have.

And why do you think it takes two hours to obtain?! That’s a purposely designed friction! And if those two hours are actually fun and just part of the normal game, you’d play it and have a blast. It wouldn’t be a chore. Who cares how many days it takes you to finish a game as long as each hour spent is fun?

I know you will say that if the developer made content that isn't enjoyable, then the developer did a bad job. But I'm going to say right now that not everyone enjoys everything about games and also, developers aren't perfect.

There is a difference between trying your best and failing, and purposely designing parts of your game to suck.

locked

3524 views

And why do you think it takes two hours to obtain?! That’s a purposely designed friction! And if those two hours are actually fun and just part of the normal game, you’d play it and have a blast. It wouldn’t be a chore. Who cares how many days it takes you to finish a game as long as each hour spent is fun?

This is such a narrow worldview, and it amazes me that you still put it forth after so many people have told you of issues with it.

I'd even be willing to go so far as to say that it is objectively wrong.

Read his post again. The guy's got an hour to play. He wants something it takes 2 hours to get to. He doesn't have time for it. And you can't see that some things take 2 hours NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY PADDED, but because that's how long it takes?

Bleh.

locked

3536 views

And why do you think it takes two hours to obtain?! That’s a purposely designed friction! And if those two hours are actually fun and just part of the normal game, you’d play it and have a blast. It wouldn’t be a chore. Who cares how many days it takes you to finish a game as long as each hour spent is fun?

This is such a narrow worldview, and it amazes me that you still put it forth after so many people have told you of issues with it.

I'd even be willing to go so far as to say that it is objectively wrong.

Read his post again. The guy's got an hour to play. He wants something it takes 2 hours to get to. He doesn't have time for it. And you can't see that some things take 2 hours NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY PADDED, but because that's how long it takes?

Bleh.

I might add, you (Cody) are type casting all gamers into either:
1. People who either like all the content because it's well made
2. People who like some but portions of a game but not others because it was poorly made

What boggles my mind is that you can't see a person who likes portions of a game but not others and yet it still be a quality game. People like different things.

I myself like PvE FAR more than PvP. Does that make PvP bad? No. If I was enticed to get PvP items by some other avenue, would I take it? Hell yeah I would. That doesn't mean that PvP needs to be fixed.

locked

3518 views

And why do you think it takes two hours to obtain?! That’s a purposely designed friction! And if those two hours are actually fun and just part of the normal game, you’d play it and have a blast. It wouldn’t be a chore. Who cares how many days it takes you to finish a game as long as each hour spent is fun?

This is such a narrow worldview, and it amazes me that you still put it forth after so many people have told you of issues with it.

I'd even be willing to go so far as to say that it is objectively wrong.

Read his post again. The guy's got an hour to play. He wants something it takes 2 hours to get to. He doesn't have time for it. And you can't see that some things take 2 hours NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY PADDED, but because that's how long it takes?

Bleh.

I might add, you (Cody) are type casting all gamers into either:
1. People who either like all the content because it's well made
2. People who like some but portions of a game but not others because it was poorly made

What boggles my mind is that you can't see a person who likes portions of a game but not others and yet it still be a quality game. People like different things.

I myself like PvE FAR more than PvP. Does that make PvP bad? No. If I was enticed to get PvP items by some other avenue, would I take it? Hell yeah I would. That doesn't mean that PvP needs to be fixed.

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

locked

3579 views

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

You and D1 summed up nicely.

That being said, I don't think you actually understand what he was getting at in his post. He said, there is a really cool state fair and I like 5 of the 10 rides. I don't ride half of them because they're boring or they are too extreme. There are 5 that I really do like though. Me not liking those other 5 doesn't mean it's a bad fair.

locked

3497 views

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

You and D1 summed up nicely.

That being said, I don't think you actually understand what he was getting at in his post. He said, there is a really cool state fair and I like 5 of the 10 rides. I don't ride half of them because they're boring or they are too extreme. There are 5 that I really do like though. Me not liking those other 5 doesn't mean it's a bad fair.

No, because each ride is independent. The levels in a video game campaign are not. They are part of a larger whole. Each one should have a critical place in the experience and not be interchangeable or skippable for maximum effectiveness.

locked

3570 views

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

You and D1 summed up nicely.

That being said, I don't think you actually understand what he was getting at in his post. He said, there is a really cool state fair and I like 5 of the 10 rides. I don't ride half of them because they're boring or they are too extreme. There are 5 that I really do like though. Me not liking those other 5 doesn't mean it's a bad fair.

No, because each ride is independent. The levels in a video game campaign are not. They are part of a larger whole. Each one should have a critical place in the experience and not be interchangeable or skippable for maximum effectiveness.

PvE or PvP. It is possible to talk about these as discrete experiences that have different draws. Right?

locked

3473 views

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

You and D1 summed up nicely.

That being said, I don't think you actually understand what he was getting at in his post. He said, there is a really cool state fair and I like 5 of the 10 rides. I don't ride half of them because they're boring or they are too extreme. There are 5 that I really do like though. Me not liking those other 5 doesn't mean it's a bad fair.

No, because each ride is independent. The levels in a video game campaign are not. They are part of a larger whole. Each one should have a critical place in the experience and not be interchangeable or skippable for maximum effectiveness.

PvE or PvP. It is possible to talk about these as discrete experiences that have different draws. Right?

Also, the raid, trials, competitive PvP, the campaign, public events... the list can go on.

locked

3567 views

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

You and D1 summed up nicely.

That being said, I don't think you actually understand what he was getting at in his post. He said, there is a really cool state fair and I like 5 of the 10 rides. I don't ride half of them because they're boring or they are too extreme. There are 5 that I really do like though. Me not liking those other 5 doesn't mean it's a bad fair.

No, because each ride is independent. The levels in a video game campaign are not. They are part of a larger whole. Each one should have a critical place in the experience and not be interchangeable or skippable for maximum effectiveness.

PvE or PvP. It is possible to talk about these as discrete experiences that have different draws. Right?

Also, the raid, trials, competitive PvP, the campaign, public events... the list can go on.

Not quite. You have to play the rest of PvE to get to the raid for example. There’s no quickplay mode that just loads up the raid and gears you. You have to gear up by playing everything else. That’s what made Destiny so frustrating.

locked

3503 views

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

You and D1 summed up nicely.

That being said, I don't think you actually understand what he was getting at in his post. He said, there is a really cool state fair and I like 5 of the 10 rides. I don't ride half of them because they're boring or they are too extreme. There are 5 that I really do like though. Me not liking those other 5 doesn't mean it's a bad fair.

No, because each ride is independent. The levels in a video game campaign are not. They are part of a larger whole. Each one should have a critical place in the experience and not be interchangeable or skippable for maximum effectiveness.

PvE or PvP. It is possible to talk about these as discrete experiences that have different draws. Right?

Also, the raid, trials, competitive PvP, the campaign, public events... the list can go on.

Not quite. You have to play the rest of PvE to get to the raid for example. There’s no quickplay mode that just loads up the raid and gears you. You have to gear up by playing everything else. That’s what made Destiny so frustrating.

So if you were given the option to skip a lot of destiny so that you could play the raid, would you? You might not if you had to pay $60 for the raid, but one could say that some people would still pay $60 for the raid.

locked

3554 views

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

You and D1 summed up nicely.

That being said, I don't think you actually understand what he was getting at in his post. He said, there is a really cool state fair and I like 5 of the 10 rides. I don't ride half of them because they're boring or they are too extreme. There are 5 that I really do like though. Me not liking those other 5 doesn't mean it's a bad fair.

No, because each ride is independent. The levels in a video game campaign are not. They are part of a larger whole. Each one should have a critical place in the experience and not be interchangeable or skippable for maximum effectiveness.

PvE or PvP. It is possible to talk about these as discrete experiences that have different draws. Right?

Also, the raid, trials, competitive PvP, the campaign, public events... the list can go on.

Not quite. You have to play the rest of PvE to get to the raid for example. There’s no quickplay mode that just loads up the raid and gears you. You have to gear up by playing everything else. That’s what made Destiny so frustrating.

So if you were given the option to skip a lot of destiny so that you could play the raid, would you? You might not if you had to pay $60 for the raid, but one could say that some people would still pay $60 for the raid.

If I could have skipped days 2-6 of Destiny I would have. But the point is that I shouldn’t have to. And vault of glass was easily worth 60 bucks.

locked

3552 views

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

You and D1 summed up nicely.

That being said, I don't think you actually understand what he was getting at in his post. He said, there is a really cool state fair and I like 5 of the 10 rides. I don't ride half of them because they're boring or they are too extreme. There are 5 that I really do like though. Me not liking those other 5 doesn't mean it's a bad fair.

No, because each ride is independent. The levels in a video game campaign are not. They are part of a larger whole. Each one should have a critical place in the experience and not be interchangeable or skippable for maximum effectiveness.

PvE or PvP. It is possible to talk about these as discrete experiences that have different draws. Right?

Also, the raid, trials, competitive PvP, the campaign, public events... the list can go on.

Not quite. You have to play the rest of PvE to get to the raid for example. There’s no quickplay mode that just loads up the raid and gears you. You have to gear up by playing everything else. That’s what made Destiny so frustrating.

So if you were given the option to skip a lot of destiny so that you could play the raid, would you? You might not if you had to pay $60 for the raid, but one could say that some people would still pay $60 for the raid.

If I could have skipped days 2-6 of Destiny I would have. But the point is that I shouldn’t have to. And vault of glass was easily worth 60 bucks.

I understand the reasoning for not having to skip whole sections of the game and I agree. But I also think you can't please everyone with just one solution to get what you want. Thus, Time spent playing portions of the game, or money.

locked

3588 views

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

You and D1 summed up nicely.

That being said, I don't think you actually understand what he was getting at in his post. He said, there is a really cool state fair and I like 5 of the 10 rides. I don't ride half of them because they're boring or they are too extreme. There are 5 that I really do like though. Me not liking those other 5 doesn't mean it's a bad fair.

No, because each ride is independent. The levels in a video game campaign are not. They are part of a larger whole. Each one should have a critical place in the experience and not be interchangeable or skippable for maximum effectiveness.

PvE or PvP. It is possible to talk about these as discrete experiences that have different draws. Right?

Yes absolutely. If you only play PvP for example, the faults of PvE don’t matter.

locked

3586 views

And why do you think it takes two hours to obtain?! That’s a purposely designed friction! And if those two hours are actually fun and just part of the normal game, you’d play it and have a blast. It wouldn’t be a chore. Who cares how many days it takes you to finish a game as long as each hour spent is fun?

This is such a narrow worldview, and it amazes me that you still put it forth after so many people have told you of issues with it.

I'd even be willing to go so far as to say that it is objectively wrong.

Read his post again. The guy's got an hour to play. He wants something it takes 2 hours to get to. He doesn't have time for it. And you can't see that some things take 2 hours NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY PADDED, but because that's how long it takes?

Bleh.

I might add, you (Cody) are type casting all gamers into either:
1. People who either like all the content because it's well made
2. People who like some but portions of a game but not others because it was poorly made

What boggles my mind is that you can't see a person who likes portions of a game but not others and yet it still be a quality game. People like different things.

I myself like PvE FAR more than PvP. Does that make PvP bad? No. If I was enticed to get PvP items by some other avenue, would I take it? Hell yeah I would. That doesn't mean that PvP needs to be fixed.

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game!

So you are saying that I can't like a game for X amount of it? what if X is 10%? am I not allowed to still like the game?

So why are you playing it in the first place!?

Because as I said before, I like playing the game.

This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes (I don't understand this sentence). If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

I agree, but I never said this. I didn't even say that any part of the game was frustrating, I just said I like some parts more than others.

locked

3502 views

And why do you think it takes two hours to obtain?! That’s a purposely designed friction! And if those two hours are actually fun and just part of the normal game, you’d play it and have a blast. It wouldn’t be a chore. Who cares how many days it takes you to finish a game as long as each hour spent is fun?

This is such a narrow worldview, and it amazes me that you still put it forth after so many people have told you of issues with it.

I'd even be willing to go so far as to say that it is objectively wrong.

Read his post again. The guy's got an hour to play. He wants something it takes 2 hours to get to. He doesn't have time for it. And you can't see that some things take 2 hours NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY PADDED, but because that's how long it takes?

Bleh.

I might add, you (Cody) are type casting all gamers into either:
1. People who either like all the content because it's well made
2. People who like some but portions of a game but not others because it was poorly made

What boggles my mind is that you can't see a person who likes portions of a game but not others and yet it still be a quality game. People like different things.

I myself like PvE FAR more than PvP. Does that make PvP bad? No. If I was enticed to get PvP items by some other avenue, would I take it? Hell yeah I would. That doesn't mean that PvP needs to be fixed.

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

This, from the guy who at several points said Destiny was total shit except for the Raid.

locked

3533 views

[image]

locked

3530 views

- No text -

locked

3486 views

And why do you think it takes two hours to obtain?! That’s a purposely designed friction! And if those two hours are actually fun and just part of the normal game, you’d play it and have a blast. It wouldn’t be a chore. Who cares how many days it takes you to finish a game as long as each hour spent is fun?

This is such a narrow worldview, and it amazes me that you still put it forth after so many people have told you of issues with it.

I'd even be willing to go so far as to say that it is objectively wrong.

Read his post again. The guy's got an hour to play. He wants something it takes 2 hours to get to. He doesn't have time for it. And you can't see that some things take 2 hours NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY PADDED, but because that's how long it takes?

Bleh.

I might add, you (Cody) are type casting all gamers into either:
1. People who either like all the content because it's well made
2. People who like some but portions of a game but not others because it was poorly made

What boggles my mind is that you can't see a person who likes portions of a game but not others and yet it still be a quality game. People like different things.

I myself like PvE FAR more than PvP. Does that make PvP bad? No. If I was enticed to get PvP items by some other avenue, would I take it? Hell yeah I would. That doesn't mean that PvP needs to be fixed.

If the game has too many parts that you don’t like… then you don’t like the game! So why are you playing it in the first place!? This excepts pieces that do not interact such as separate modes. If you like PvE but too much of PvE is frustrating… that is your problem for playing that game.

This, from the guy who at several points said Destiny was total shit except for the Raid.

That is true, but it’s also a comment on how cool VoG was the first time.

locked

3498 views

And why do you think it takes two hours to obtain?! That’s a purposely designed friction! And if those two hours are actually fun and just part of the normal game, you’d play it and have a blast. It wouldn’t be a chore. Who cares how many days it takes you to finish a game as long as each hour spent is fun?

This is such a narrow worldview, and it amazes me that you still put it forth after so many people have told you of issues with it.

I'd even be willing to go so far as to say that it is objectively wrong.

Read his post again. The guy's got an hour to play. He wants something it takes 2 hours to get to. He doesn't have time for it. And you can't see that some things take 2 hours NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY PADDED, but because that's how long it takes?

Bleh.

Explain why he doesn’t play an hour, then play an hour the next day to get it. In his example, he can play an hour a day.

locked

3486 views

So he can get the thing, and then play those next two hours with the thing, for even more fun!

locked

3511 views

And why do you think it takes two hours to obtain?! That’s a purposely designed friction! And if those two hours are actually fun and just part of the normal game, you’d play it and have a blast. It wouldn’t be a chore. Who cares how many days it takes you to finish a game as long as each hour spent is fun?

This is such a narrow worldview, and it amazes me that you still put it forth after so many people have told you of issues with it.

I'd even be willing to go so far as to say that it is objectively wrong.

Read his post again. The guy's got an hour to play. He wants something it takes 2 hours to get to. He doesn't have time for it. And you can't see that some things take 2 hours NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY PADDED, but because that's how long it takes?

Bleh.

Explain why he doesn’t play an hour, then play an hour the next day to get it. In his example, he can play an hour a day.

Because (in my totally arbitrary example) there's no save point in this activity. You have to play it all the way through.

(Please, please, PLEASE don't tell me that you could solve this problem by putting save points in, because I really don't want to go back to search for all the cody "arcade games didn't need save points and were better without them" posts. And don't bother with the 'but arcade games could be finished in 15 minutes' argument, either, because we BOTH know plenty of people who could play for hours on a single quarter, and most of them were pissed if they had to leave before they ran out of lives.)

locked

3484 views

Where “big bucks” means “a few dollars” since most of these things should cycle through the direct purchase area of Eververse. It’s possible that some or all the current emotes were made before D2 launched, bu eventually that won’t be true. I don’t have a problem paying for new content. I won’t buy RNG Engrams, but I won’t completely rule out directly buying some future awesome ship or Ghost shell.

locked

3910 views

Where “big bucks” means “a few dollars” since most of these things should cycle through the direct purchase area of Eververse. It’s possible that some or all the current emotes were made before D2 launched, bu eventually that won’t be true. I don’t have a problem paying for new content. I won’t buy RNG Engrams, but I won’t completely rule out directly buying some future awesome ship or Ghost shell.

That's totally fine. I'm concerned for people who suffer from addiction and are being preyed on by the microtransactions within the game. Adding cyclical scarcity only increases the pressure on these people to feed their addiction.

locked

3910 views

Adding cyclical scarcity only increases the pressure on these people to feed their addiction.

This is my concern, too. How many folks will go out and drop $100 on Silver before Season 2 starts in hopes of getting the Six Shooter or Salty emote before they go away?

I sort of like the idea of things going away--I don't like the things that go away being tied to a slot machine in which you can pay money for more pulls of the lever, or the fact that things going away at all seems specifically designed to get people to pay money for more pulls of the lever.

locked

3852 views

Tied to a slot machine?? I just paid a few dollars to directly buy that emote. No slot machine. No RNG. Remember the ghost Ghost? That was a bad decision to lock it behind random boxes. But at this point in D2 I’m pretty sure all of the exotic emotes have cycled through the direct purchase area.

locked

3856 views

Doesn't help as much if they miss out on that week, or join the game later. Not everyone who will care will be a day one always available player.

They might not wait until the last minute to go for broke on the slots, either, and so might spend a bunch of money on random pulls even if it later pops into the rotation.

Personally, I think it should all be directly purchasable, at all times. Maybe excepting shaders, since those will persist season to season? That way there would be a reason to buy the engrams, still, I guess.

locked

3778 views

- No text -

locked

3887 views

Doesn't help as much if they miss out on that week, or join the game later. Not everyone who will care will be a day one always available player.

They might not wait until the last minute to go for broke on the slots, either, and so might spend a bunch of money on random pulls even if it later pops into the rotation.

Personally, I think it should all be directly purchasable, at all times. Maybe excepting shaders, since those will persist season to season? That way there would be a reason to buy the engrams, still, I guess.

If you could directly buy specific items all the time and not need to subject yourself to the slot machine, I think I could support the microtrans, but hooking it into an addictive RNG device ruins it for me.

locked

3768 views

Doesn't help as much if they miss out on that week, or join the game later. Not everyone who will care will be a day one always available player.

They might not wait until the last minute to go for broke on the slots, either, and so might spend a bunch of money on random pulls even if it later pops into the rotation.

Personally, I think it should all be directly purchasable, at all times. Maybe excepting shaders, since those will persist season to season? That way there would be a reason to buy the engrams, still, I guess.

But I actually like the "slot machines" as people have put it. I enjoy randomness and the joy I get when something good drops, or even the hope for next time when I don't get something good. I have never bought anything within Destiny and I don't plan on doing it anytime soon.

I also have never really tried hard to get that one shader, or emote or gun. Maybe that is why I enjoy it. I enjoy the random stuff I get. It is exactly what people have said where it's like opening a present. If it wasn't random it would be nearly as enjoyable to me. It's another reason why I use more stuff. I've flipped to many emotes several times because I've used them before because I randomly got them, if I was able to get an emote from money or in game currency I feel like I would be obligated to always use it.

locked

3582 views

Me too, actually.

I would like to see them all be directly purchasable, in addition to the Bright Engrams. Like it is now, only with more than a handful of things up for dust at once.

I would probably not really make use of that, personally. But if I found out there was something I really wanted, it could be nice to get it for sure, before it goes away; and I'm sure plenty of people feel similarly.

locked

3580 views

Me too, actually.

I would like to see them all be directly purchasable, in addition to the Bright Engrams. Like it is now, only with more than a handful of things up for dust at once.

I would probably not really make use of that, personally. But if I found out there was something I really wanted, it could be nice to get it for sure, before it goes away; and I'm sure plenty of people feel similarly.

Personally, I think what they have is pretty good right now. It could definitely be tweak a little bit. But right now you have a chance to get what you want, but you WILL eventually get it (except for the items that are being phased out) I might be bit a bit expensive, but you will eventually get it. Unlike Destiny 1. They could have things for sale at a decent price but let people try for a random and potentially cheaper solution.

locked

3601 views

...at this point in D2 I’m pretty sure all of the exotic emotes have cycled through the direct purchase area.

Exotics, maybe, but I still haven't seen the "Floss Dance" emote available through anything but Bright Engram RNG.

There's a lot of stuff in Eververse that I'd be tempted to pay real money for, but there's no way I'm paying to play their slot machine.

-Disciple

locked

3874 views

There is no twitch archive of this event? For real?

Fine, we'll turn to the black market then...
Thanks to those in the Reddit comments that posted these. I've extracted them from the salt mines so you don't have to.

FYI, this stream feed will drop out at 38:53-42:50, Sorry!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHFVRy_0ZlA?start=1492

TLDW
Short partial/mini supercut

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V_bgmv5RoM

locked

4250 views

- No text -

locked

3883 views

Not the best of terms to use when referring to a Destiny video…

locked

3884 views

There is no twitch archive of this event? For real?

Fine, we'll turn to the black market then...
Thanks to those in the Reddit comments that posted these. I've extracted them from the salt mines so you don't have to.

FYI, this stream feed will drop out at 38:53-42:50, Sorry!
[vid]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHFVRy_0ZlA?start=1492

TLDW
Short partial/mini supercut
[vid]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V_bgmv5RoM

Not the best of terms to use when referring to a Destiny video

I hear ya, somebody elses language - not mine.
I even tried to pad it with extra descriptors like short, partial, and mini

What is the opposite of Supercut?

locked

3768 views

There is no twitch archive of this event? For real?

Fine, we'll turn to the black market then...
Thanks to those in the Reddit comments that posted these. I've extracted them from the salt mines so you don't have to.

FYI, this stream feed will drop out at 38:53-42:50, Sorry!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHFVRy_0ZlA?start=1492

TLDW
Short partial/mini supercut

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V_bgmv5RoM

Why would Bungie even do this if it's not going to be archived?

I frustrated myself looking for it on Twitch this weekend. Same goes for the "Things They Learnt" vid that was teased for Saturday, but I guess that's different. I didn't realize it was a TV show.

locked

3826 views

Here we are debating microtransactions and business practices, not talking abou machinema, warthog jumping, tricking, story speculation, etc.

locked

3493 views

Well... I have in the works:

- A historical discussion of music and a guess at the identity of Io's Warmind
- An article co-written by multiple DBOers discussing the apparent climates and temperatures of Destiny 2's Destinations
- The next Bite-sized Backstory which will wrap up the Reef Wars.
- And a review of Life Is Strange: Before The Storm Episode 2... eh... Once I play it...

locked

3850 views

Well... I have in the works:

- A historical discussion of music and a guess at the identity of Io's Warmind
- An article co-written by multiple DBOers discussing the apparent climates and temperatures of Destiny 2's Destinations
- The next Bite-sized Backstory which will wrap up the Reef Wars.
- And a review of Life Is Strange: Before The Storm Episode 2... eh... Once I play it...

The Warmind is Rasputin. Didn’t you hear Ikora? “There’s only one Warmind.” Saved you the trouble of making that article.

:-p

locked

3578 views

Haha. Yeah... I'm gonna have to look into that. Might be our first serious story retcon.

Certainly there were subminds like Malahayati, and Colony Ship AI's like Failsafe and the AI of the Exodus Red that we've heard from before. But I think some new things were said about "the" Warmind that I want to really dig in a verify.

locked

3616 views

Haha. Yeah... I'm gonna have to look into that. Might be our first serious story retcon.

Certainly there were subminds like Malahayati, and Colony Ship AI's like Failsafe and the AI of the Exodus Red that we've heard from before. But I think some new things were said about "the" Warmind that I want to really dig in a verify.

I'm pretty sure 'Warmind' is a term that doesn't simply mean 'AI'.

locked

3508 views

What else does it mean then?

locked

3514 views

Haha. Yeah... I'm gonna have to look into that. Might be our first serious story retcon.

Certainly there were subminds like Malahayati, and Colony Ship AI's like Failsafe and the AI of the Exodus Red that we've heard from before. But I think some new things were said about "the" Warmind that I want to really dig in a verify.

I'm pretty sure 'Warmind' is a term that doesn't simply mean 'AI'.

I always felt that a Warmind was a planetary system of "neurally-linked" AIs, and Rasputin was the AI of the Russian branch. What one AI learned, they all learned, and could use their own individual knowledge and systems to instantly come up with separate assessments. It's why the Vex couldn't simulate them:

SUNDARESH: If we're sims, we exist in the pocket of the universe that the Vex specimen is able to simulate with its onboard brainpower. If we're real, we need to get outside that bubble.

ESI: ...we call for help.

SUNDARESH: That's right. We bring in someone smarter than the specimen. Someone too big to simulate and predict. A warmind.

SHIM: In the real world, the warmind will be able to behave in ways the Vex can't simulate. It's too smart. The warmind may be able to get into the Vex and rescue - us.

Until, like Cody says, Ikora seems to retcon it to be "only one Warmind", despite the fact that Rasputin is referred to as "The Last Warmind". Then again, Saladin has stated that the Vanguard have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to Rasputin, so it stands to reason that they've simply made assumptions about Golden Age tech that they don't understand.

"The legendary Warminds stood watch over our Golden Age colonies: vigilant intelligences stretched across thousands of warsats and hardened installations. When the Collapse struck, the great Warminds fought and died."

So yeah, Io may very well have a surviving Warmind AI, with Rasputin simply being a "mutated" patchwork of the different (dead?) AIs rather a conglomerate of them, existing separately from it, but probably still linked to its network...

So Ikora wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but she wouldn't be right, either...

locked

3512 views

Haha. Yeah... I'm gonna have to look into that. Might be our first serious story retcon.

Certainly there were subminds like Malahayati, and Colony Ship AI's like Failsafe and the AI of the Exodus Red that we've heard from before. But I think some new things were said about "the" Warmind that I want to really dig in a verify.

I'm pretty sure 'Warmind' is a term that doesn't simply mean 'AI'.

I always felt that a Warmind was a planetary system of "neurally-linked" AIs, and Rasputin was the AI of the Russian branch. What one AI learned, they all learned, and could use their own individual knowledge and systems to instantly come up with separate assessments. It's why the Vex couldn't simulate them:

SUNDARESH: If we're sims, we exist in the pocket of the universe that the Vex specimen is able to simulate with its onboard brainpower. If we're real, we need to get outside that bubble.

ESI: ...we call for help.

SUNDARESH: That's right. We bring in someone smarter than the specimen. Someone too big to simulate and predict. A warmind.

SHIM: In the real world, the warmind will be able to behave in ways the Vex can't simulate. It's too smart. The warmind may be able to get into the Vex and rescue - us.

Until, like Cody says, Ikora seems to retcon it to be "only one Warmind", despite the fact that Rasputin is referred to as "The Last Warmind". Then again, Saladin has stated that the Vanguard have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to Rasputin, so it stands to reason that they've simply made assumptions about Golden Age tech that they don't understand.

"The legendary Warminds stood watch over our Golden Age colonies: vigilant intelligences stretched across thousands of warsats and hardened installations. When the Collapse struck, the great Warminds fought and died."

So yeah, Io may very well have a surviving Warmind AI, with Rasputin simply being a "mutated" patchwork of the different (dead?) AIs rather a conglomerate of them, existing separately from it, but probably still linked to its network...

So Ikora wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but she wouldn't be right, either...

locked

3572 views

That really triggers me down a whole different road with Ikora that I really don't want to get into (don't forget what happened last time)...

Basically, when the possibility of another Warmind is brought up, she shuts it down in a know-it-all fashion, as though no, there can not possibly be another Warmind, because "there is only one Warmind".

I dunno. I really don't like Ikora, because the way she is written says to me that she may be the least-intellectual Warlock in the franchise, which totally goes against her archetype. I mean, look at the Titan Zavala, he's the righteous leader who is ultimately pretty dumb, but is always eager to fight for others. Cayde is the wisecracking rogue with a heart of gold, and Ikora should have been the calm sage with hidden depth... instead, she's a hopeless crybaby who spouts off crap all matter-of-fact as if simply to pat herself on the back (huh... reminds me of... no wonder I don't like her character :P)...

She should have embraced the possibility of a surviving Warmind AI, with a desire to study it. Instead, she shuts us down so she can get back to whining about mortality. #Notmyvanguard #Osirisfourmoreyears

locked

3565 views

Haha. Yeah... I'm gonna have to look into that. Might be our first serious story retcon.

Certainly there were subminds like Malahayati, and Colony Ship AI's like Failsafe and the AI of the Exodus Red that we've heard from before. But I think some new things were said about "the" Warmind that I want to really dig in a verify.

I'm pretty sure 'Warmind' is a term that doesn't simply mean 'AI'.

I always felt that a Warmind was a planetary system of "neurally-linked" AIs, and Rasputin was the AI of the Russian branch. What one AI learned, they all learned, and could use their own individual knowledge and systems to instantly come up with separate assessments. It's why the Vex couldn't simulate them:

SUNDARESH: If we're sims, we exist in the pocket of the universe that the Vex specimen is able to simulate with its onboard brainpower. If we're real, we need to get outside that bubble.

ESI: ...we call for help.

SUNDARESH: That's right. We bring in someone smarter than the specimen. Someone too big to simulate and predict. A warmind.

SHIM: In the real world, the warmind will be able to behave in ways the Vex can't simulate. It's too smart. The warmind may be able to get into the Vex and rescue - us.

Until, like Cody says, Ikora seems to retcon it to be "only one Warmind", despite the fact that Rasputin is referred to as "The Last Warmind". Then again, Saladin has stated that the Vanguard have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to Rasputin, so it stands to reason that they've simply made assumptions about Golden Age tech that they don't understand.

"The legendary Warminds stood watch over our Golden Age colonies: vigilant intelligences stretched across thousands of warsats and hardened installations. When the Collapse struck, the great Warminds fought and died."

So yeah, Io may very well have a surviving Warmind AI, with Rasputin simply being a "mutated" patchwork of the different (dead?) AIs rather a conglomerate of them, existing separately from it, but probably still linked to its network...

So Ikora wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but she wouldn't be right, either...

I like this approach. I was also under the impression that Rasputin was connected (reconnected?) with the other warminds (or at least their architecture) when we fired up the array in D1. Could it be that Rasputin is the only remaining warmind and he has been spreading through the lifeless systems of dead warminds? This would also make Ikora correct without retcon.

locked

3521 views

In terms of the Epistemology of the situation, saying the Warmind can’t be simulated is non sensical if you are living in a simulation. There is no way to “know” this. You wouldn’t even be able to ask the question, since you’d be unable to conceive of a Warmind.

locked

3599 views

In terms of the Epistemology of the situation, saying the Warmind can’t be simulated is non sensical if you are living in a simulation. There is no way to “know” this.

I get that part. They would have no way of knowing just how powerful a Vex was so would have no way of knowing if it could accurately simulate an entire Warmind.

You wouldn’t even be able to ask the question, since you’d be unable to conceive of a Warmind.

I don't get this. I don't have any really good grasp on how powerful the world's most powerful super computer is or if my small town has anything even remotely comparable, but I can grasp the concept of a extremely powerful supercomputer. Why wouldn't it be the same for the Ishtar scientists, simulated or not?

locked

3506 views

In terms of the Epistemology of the situation, saying the Warmind can’t be simulated is non sensical if you are living in a simulation. There is no way to “know” this.

I get that part. They would have no way of knowing just how powerful a Vex was so would have no way of knowing if it could accurately simulate an entire Warmind.

You wouldn’t even be able to ask the question, since you’d be unable to conceive of a Warmind.

I don't get this. I don't have any really good grasp on how powerful the world's most powerful super computer is or if my small town has anything even remotely comparable, but I can grasp the concept of a extremely powerful supercomputer. Why wouldn't it be the same for the Ishtar scientists, simulated or not?

Let’s say you are in a simulation. I ask you to imagine a tree. The tree you picture is not a “real” tree, but the simulated tree, since that’s the only type of tree you’ve ever experienced. The simulation could be completely wrong about what a “tree” is, and so you would never be able to conceive of a “real” tree.

But let’s say the simulation is off on the color of the leaves. A simulated trees leaves are black. But you can conceive of a tree with leaves of any color, including green. Thus, the simulation is capable of storing a representation of a green leaved tree. It has to; or else it could not be stored in the simulated mind.

This is the key. If something cannot be simulated, it could not be placed inside a simulated mind. So the simulated being could not have any conception of such a thing.

So even if a Warmind is half simulated, a simulated mind literally could not conceive of a full “real” Warmind since the contents of his head are themselves determined by the simulation. And the rules of the simulation completely determine the possibility space within it.

locked

3679 views

In terms of the Epistemology of the situation, saying the Warmind can’t be simulated is non sensical if you are living in a simulation. There is no way to “know” this.

I get that part. They would have no way of knowing just how powerful a Vex was so would have no way of knowing if it could accurately simulate an entire Warmind.

You wouldn’t even be able to ask the question, since you’d be unable to conceive of a Warmind.

I don't get this. I don't have any really good grasp on how powerful the world's most powerful super computer is or if my small town has anything even remotely comparable, but I can grasp the concept of a extremely powerful supercomputer. Why wouldn't it be the same for the Ishtar scientists, simulated or not?

Let’s say you are in a simulation. I ask you to imagine a tree. The tree you picture is not a “real” tree, but the simulated tree, since that’s the only type of tree you’ve ever experienced. The simulation could be completely wrong about what a “tree” is, and so you would never be able to conceive of a “real” tree.

But let’s say the simulation is off on the color of the leaves. A simulated trees leaves are black. But you can conceive of a tree with leaves of any color, including green. Thus, the simulation is capable of storing a representation of a green leaved tree. It has to; or else it could not be stored in the simulated mind.

This is the key. If something cannot be simulated, it could not be placed inside a simulated mind. So the simulated being could not have any conception of such a thing.

Unless by simulating a person they basically created a program that could eventually think for it's self (an AI) which in turn might be able to think outside the simulation.

locked

3516 views

In terms of the Epistemology of the situation, saying the Warmind can’t be simulated is non sensical if you are living in a simulation. There is no way to “know” this.

I get that part. They would have no way of knowing just how powerful a Vex was so would have no way of knowing if it could accurately simulate an entire Warmind.

You wouldn’t even be able to ask the question, since you’d be unable to conceive of a Warmind.

I don't get this. I don't have any really good grasp on how powerful the world's most powerful super computer is or if my small town has anything even remotely comparable, but I can grasp the concept of a extremely powerful supercomputer. Why wouldn't it be the same for the Ishtar scientists, simulated or not?

Let’s say you are in a simulation. I ask you to imagine a tree. The tree you picture is not a “real” tree, but the simulated tree, since that’s the only type of tree you’ve ever experienced. The simulation could be completely wrong about what a “tree” is, and so you would never be able to conceive of a “real” tree.

But let’s say the simulation is off on the color of the leaves. A simulated trees leaves are black. But you can conceive of a tree with leaves of any color, including green. Thus, the simulation is capable of storing a representation of a green leaved tree. It has to; or else it could not be stored in the simulated mind.

This is the key. If something cannot be simulated, it could not be placed inside a simulated mind. So the simulated being could not have any conception of such a thing.

Unless by simulating a person they basically created a program that could eventually think for it's self (an AI) which in turn might be able to think outside the simulation.

Impossible. The rules of the simulation determine the entirety of the possibility space absolutely. There is no thinking “outside” of the simulation by something in it.

locked

3543 views

In terms of the Epistemology of the situation, saying the Warmind can’t be simulated is non sensical if you are living in a simulation. There is no way to “know” this.

I get that part. They would have no way of knowing just how powerful a Vex was so would have no way of knowing if it could accurately simulate an entire Warmind.

You wouldn’t even be able to ask the question, since you’d be unable to conceive of a Warmind.

I don't get this. I don't have any really good grasp on how powerful the world's most powerful super computer is or if my small town has anything even remotely comparable, but I can grasp the concept of a extremely powerful supercomputer. Why wouldn't it be the same for the Ishtar scientists, simulated or not?

Let’s say you are in a simulation. I ask you to imagine a tree. The tree you picture is not a “real” tree, but the simulated tree, since that’s the only type of tree you’ve ever experienced. The simulation could be completely wrong about what a “tree” is, and so you would never be able to conceive of a “real” tree.

But let’s say the simulation is off on the color of the leaves. A simulated trees leaves are black. But you can conceive of a tree with leaves of any color, including green. Thus, the simulation is capable of storing a representation of a green leaved tree. It has to; or else it could not be stored in the simulated mind.

This is the key. If something cannot be simulated, it could not be placed inside a simulated mind. So the simulated being could not have any conception of such a thing.

Unless by simulating a person they basically created a program that could eventually think for it's self (an AI) which in turn might be able to think outside the simulation.

Impossible. The rules of the simulation determine the entirety of the possibility space absolutely. There is no thinking “outside” of the simulation by something in it.

If you are talking about a total possibility simulation tree, what are the limitations/rules? There have to be bounds to the simulation otherwise they WOULD be able to think of something outside of the simulation.

locked

3490 views

In terms of the Epistemology of the situation, saying the Warmind can’t be simulated is non sensical if you are living in a simulation. There is no way to “know” this.

I get that part. They would have no way of knowing just how powerful a Vex was so would have no way of knowing if it could accurately simulate an entire Warmind.

You wouldn’t even be able to ask the question, since you’d be unable to conceive of a Warmind.

I don't get this. I don't have any really good grasp on how powerful the world's most powerful super computer is or if my small town has anything even remotely comparable, but I can grasp the concept of a extremely powerful supercomputer. Why wouldn't it be the same for the Ishtar scientists, simulated or not?

Let’s say you are in a simulation. I ask you to imagine a tree. The tree you picture is not a “real” tree, but the simulated tree, since that’s the only type of tree you’ve ever experienced. The simulation could be completely wrong about what a “tree” is, and so you would never be able to conceive of a “real” tree.

But let’s say the simulation is off on the color of the leaves. A simulated trees leaves are black. But you can conceive of a tree with leaves of any color, including green. Thus, the simulation is capable of storing a representation of a green leaved tree. It has to; or else it could not be stored in the simulated mind.

This is the key. If something cannot be simulated, it could not be placed inside a simulated mind. So the simulated being could not have any conception of such a thing.

Unless by simulating a person they basically created a program that could eventually think for it's self (an AI) which in turn might be able to think outside the simulation.

Impossible. The rules of the simulation determine the entirety of the possibility space absolutely. There is no thinking “outside” of the simulation by something in it.

If you are talking about a total possibility simulation tree, what are the limitations/rules? There have to be bounds to the simulation otherwise they WOULD be able to think of something outside of the simulation.

Assuming the simulation is run on a computer, then the code sets the limitations.

locked

3518 views

If you are talking about a total possibility simulation tree, what are the limitations/rules? There have to be bounds to the simulation otherwise they WOULD be able to think of something outside of the simulation.

Assuming the simulation is run on a computer, then the code sets the limitations.

Here's a simple example:
A computer cannot simulate something greater than itself. It can't simulate a computer with more memory than it has.

locked

3565 views

If you are talking about a total possibility simulation tree, what are the limitations/rules? There have to be bounds to the simulation otherwise they WOULD be able to think of something outside of the simulation.

Assuming the simulation is run on a computer, then the code sets the limitations.

Here's a simple example:
A computer cannot simulate something greater than itself. It can't simulate a computer with more memory than it has.

It cannot simulate it, but can it imagine it?

locked

3503 views

If you are talking about a total possibility simulation tree, what are the limitations/rules? There have to be bounds to the simulation otherwise they WOULD be able to think of something outside of the simulation.

Assuming the simulation is run on a computer, then the code sets the limitations.

Here's a simple example:
A computer cannot simulate something greater than itself. It can't simulate a computer with more memory than it has.

It cannot simulate it, but can it imagine it?

Sure, it can imagine it, but it couldn't truly comprehend it or simulate it. A computer with 2 bits of memory can represent 4 states or numbers (00, 01, 10, 11). So it could imagine a computer exists with up to 4 bits of memory. A 4 bit computer can represent 16 different states/numbers (0000, 0001, 0010, 0011, 0100, 0101 ... 1110, 1111). That 2 bit computer certainly cannot comprehend/represent/simulate all the different states that the 4 bit computer can, but it can imagine a 4 bit computer exists.

locked

3352 views

If you are talking about a total possibility simulation tree, what are the limitations/rules? There have to be bounds to the simulation otherwise they WOULD be able to think of something outside of the simulation.

Assuming the simulation is run on a computer, then the code sets the limitations.

Here's a simple example:
A computer cannot simulate something greater than itself. It can't simulate a computer with more memory than it has.

Someone never used RAMdoubler in the 90s…

locked

3497 views

If you are talking about a total possibility simulation tree, what are the limitations/rules? There have to be bounds to the simulation otherwise they WOULD be able to think of something outside of the simulation.

Assuming the simulation is run on a computer, then the code sets the limitations.

Here's a simple example:
A computer cannot simulate something greater than itself. It can't simulate a computer with more memory than it has.

Someone never used RAMdoubler in the 90s…

Heh, you better bet I did. As a teenager who couldn't afford more ram I was desperate. Only worked so-so.

Lets see, how to explain... ah! This isn't exactly how it works, but it should convey the idea. Compression doesn't allow you to represent a larger number of possible states, it simply throws away the unused states. The computer is still only capable of representing the same number of finite states.

This is a contrived example, but should illustrate:
Imagine text files only could have 20 different characters in them, represented with the two-digit numbers 00-19. You have a text file that only has 10 of the possible 20 characters. You could compress that file by mapping the 10 characters to single-digit numbers 0-9 instead of all possible digits 00-19, thus cutting the filesize in 1/2.

locked

3356 views

One doesn’t have to simulate such a bigger computer to talk about the concept. “What if we had an even more powerful computer” does not imply that computer must pop into existence and all its atoms and quantum states and whatever need to be calculated. If your simulation requires any idea be fully simulated then your simulation will not support things like imagination or fiction.

locked

3559 views

If your simulation requires any idea be fully simulated then your simulation will not support things like imagination or fiction.

Which would be a pretty shitty and worthless tool for whatever the Vex are trying to accomplish.

locked

3480 views

If your simulation requires any idea be fully simulated then your simulation will not support things like imagination or fiction.

Which would be a pretty shitty and worthless tool for whatever the Vex are trying to accomplish.

But it would be no good to the Vex to imagine a larger computer without being able to simulate what it could do. IMHO, the only way a warmind could be incomprehensible to the Vex would be if a/the warmind(s?) could represent a large enough number of possible states that the vex couldn't simulate them. Here's the key: Just as a 2 bit computer can imagine a 4 bit computer exists, it is impossible for the 2 bit computer to comprehend the calculations that the 4 bit computer could do.

Edit: also, a 4 bit computer can only simulate 2 different 2-bit computers.

locked

3375 views

It might be more of a question of a Warmind having enough processing power to overwhelm the Vex. For the Humans, the Vex seemed to have enough information to predict their actions with 100% accuracy. So even if they came up with a clever way of escaping, the Vex could already know that way and counter it.

But a Warmind wasn't one small mind. It was a giant network of intelligences spread across huge bunkers dotting planets all over the system. Maybe it was simply too powerful to simulate. Or, maybe it was too spread out to simulate. Perhaps the Vex could see enough of Venus to accurately simulate the Ishtar Scientists, but maybe it could not see what was happening on Mars, Earth, Io, etc which would allow the Warmind to surprise it.

In the end, I think the idea was that a Warmind would be able to outplay the Vex at its game because for one reason or another the Vex would not be able to predict what the Warmind would do. And heck, maybe the whole point was that a Warmind was powerful enough to perfectly predict the Vex's actions and counter actions!

It's interesting, because the idea that the Vex might simulate a reality around us even comes up in the Pyramidion Strike. Asher and Ikora indicate that by entering the Pyramidion we might have entered into a Vex simulation that we couldn't trust and our only way out was to defeat the Vex mind at its center.

locked

3450 views

Cody, you are imposing rules on this fictional simulation completely unilaterally. And it sucks. And I’m not going to bother replying until you get away from spouting absolutes that were not set up or even implied by the fiction. You’ve effectively killed this interesting conversation for me.

Good day, sir. :(

locked

3521 views

Cody, you are imposing rules on this fictional simulation completely unilaterally. And it sucks. And I’m not going to bother replying until you get away from spouting absolutes that were not set up or even implied by the fiction. You’ve effectively killed this interesting conversation for me.

Good day, sir. :(

Sorry reality isn’t fun for you.

locked

3492 views

Cody, you are imposing rules on this fictional simulation completely unilaterally. And it sucks. And I’m not going to bother replying until you get away from spouting absolutes that were not set up or even implied by the fiction. You’ve effectively killed this interesting conversation for me.

Good day, sir. :(

Sorry reality isn’t fun for you.

I don’t even know how to reply to that. Except with this. By your stubbornness. By your refusal to play along. By your imposing your own rules and not accepting or even considering anyone else’s, you have ruined this conversation for me. I’ve promised to be nice to you and everyone else. And some have advised me privately that sometimes you don’t understand that your actions here have a real effect on people.

Well, your actions here have had a real effect on me. You have saddened me. You have angered me. You’ve kicked me out of a conversation I was enjoying. If you care at all please indicate it. Because it is not obvious to me that you even understand what you are doing. :(

locked

3535 views

Well, your actions here have had a real effect on me. You have saddened me. You have angered me. You’ve kicked me out of a conversation I was enjoying. If you care at all please indicate it. Because it is not obvious to me that you even understand what you are doing. :(

That's on you. Others are enjoying the mini discussion and replying. It's not my fault you don't like the views I present. Nowhere here did I run afoul of decency. Bow out and let the discussion continue then if it so upsets you.

locked

3520 views

That's on you. Others are enjoying the mini discussion and replying. It's not my fault you don't like the views I present. Nowhere here did I run afoul of decency. Bow out and let the discussion continue then if it so upsets you.

Is it? You can't see how asking a question and then getting an obtuse answer without any extrapolation would be frustrating. He's engaging with you in a kind way. And you? Well, you're being Cody.

locked

3457 views

That's on you. Others are enjoying the mini discussion and replying. It's not my fault you don't like the views I present. Nowhere here did I run afoul of decency. Bow out and let the discussion continue then if it so upsets you.

Is it? You can't see how asking a question and then getting an obtuse answer without any extrapolation would be frustrating. He's engaging with you in a kind way. And you? Well, you're being Cody.

What's obtuse about my answer? I felt it was pretty detailed.

locked

3584 views

Fair. Perhaps obtuse was the wrong word. Inflexible is probably better, especially when someone brings up a reasonable point. This was the particular excerpt I was think of:

Unless by simulating a person they basically created a program that could eventually think for it's self (an AI) which in turn might be able to think outside the simulation.

Impossible. The rules of the simulation determine the entirety of the possibility space absolutely. There is no thinking “outside” of the simulation by something in it.

Says who?

I should elaborate. On the face of it, your statement correct. But people are asking about imagining something within the simulation that the simulation cannot simulate. That is different. You give an answer to a question that isn't asked.

locked

3506 views

I should elaborate. On the face of it, your statement is correct. But people are asking about imagining something within the simulation that the simulation cannot simulate. That is different. You give an answer to a question that isn't asked.

Unless by simulating a person they basically created a program that could eventually think for it's self (an AI) which in turn might be able to think outside the simulation.

Impossible. The rules of the simulation determine the entirety of the possibility space absolutely. There is no thinking “outside” of the simulation by something in it.

locked

3495 views

I should elaborate. On the face of it, your statement is correct. But people are asking about imagining something within the simulation that the simulation cannot simulate. That is different. You give an answer to a question that isn't asked.

If something is in the simulation, it's tautological that it can be simulated…

Again, by imagining it, the representation of it in the simulated mind assigns it characteristics and behaviors, which must be references to parts of the simulation which can govern those things. Otherwise it's impossible to assign those characteristics, which means no representation which means no imagining it.

locked

3511 views

I should elaborate. On the face of it, your statement is correct. But people are asking about imagining something within the simulation that the simulation cannot simulate. That is different. You give an answer to a question that isn't asked.

If something is in the simulation, it's tautological that it can be simulated…

Again, by imagining it, the representation of it in the simulated mind assigns it characteristics and behaviors, which must be references to parts of the simulation which can govern those things. Otherwise it's impossible to assign those characteristics, which means no representation which means no imagining it.

There's a parsing error, here, I think. The imagining of the thing is within the simulation, but the thing itself still isn't.

It does not necessarily follow that if you can simulate a mind imagining something, you can simulate that something. I know you know this, but I do want to state that as a fact.

It also does not necessarily follow that if you can simulate a mind imagining something, you can simulate a version of that thing that the mind will (mistakenly) recognize as the actual thing. It theoretically could, but not necessarily in practice. While it takes less processing power to simulate only the parts of a thing that the mind can detect, that still may require more power than the simulation has.

Now, it can in (almost?) all cases 'cheat' simulate such a thing by faking the input to the mind. If you can't simulate a lightbulb, you could just simulate the eyes responding to a light source like there had been one, and the mind can't tell the difference. If I understand you correctly, this is your point?

(Note that, while this could be done in the simulation, it might not necessarily be a thing feasible for those running the simulation to make happen. It requires an ability to interject into the simulation a certain way, and the knowledge of how to do that. I think it's a safe assumption that the Vex can manage it, but it is not necessarily true in all theoretical cases of simulations.)

So it doesn't matter if the Vex mind can actually simulate the Warmind or not-- (and I think that's an important consideration, as a sidenote; it's not about whether the Vex could simulate a Warmind, but just the particular Mind they were dealing with, specifically) because they can trick the simulated people into thinking there's a Warmind. Because it's based on their ideas of a Warmind, it won't contradict those impressions, and if done properly would be impossible for them to realize was not, in fact, a Warmind, even if there was a departure from reality.

However, there are some wrinkles. Assuming each mind in the simulations were experiencing a cohesive narrative with all the others in their instance (and IIRC they had to be, because the outside scientists were witnessing things unfold for their simulated selves, all the way down, and then later all the copies met and hatched a plan to spy on the Vex, or such, right?) it would become more and more complicated to reasonably meet all of their expectations of a Warmind, although still probably doable for the Vex. But it is a little less clear-cut, because of that, especially because of the unknown capabilities of a Warmind. (Which presumably include contacting things further outside of the simulation, which might themselves be more and more complicated to simulate; Asher Mir and Ikora, in at least one variation of the Pyramidion strike, suggest that the Vex could already be simulating their correspondence to you, when you've actually in fact lost contact, but if the Warmind actually was simulated it would presumably be considerably more difficult for the Vex Mind to trick it like that, than it would several humans, or Guardians.

But, more importantly, I think, is that nowhere (that I can recall) does it say that the humans realized a simulated Warmind was an impostor. Saying that couldn't have happened, doesn't mean anything? Putting aside the possibility that the entire series of Grimoire cards, progressively released over several expansions, was a Double Shyamalan, and the researchers didn't get out of the simulation, and they just never got around to revealing the twist, we know what happened. The Warmind got all of the copies out of their simulations. It did not, as far as is mentioned, excavate copies of itself. So their plan, however unfounded, did work, and there is no concrete evidence the Warmind was simulated.

Now, I'm not saying this means you're wrong that they couldn't tell if the Warmind was simulated. In fact, even if you were, that wouldn't explain the resolution! The solution was not 'figuring out which ones are the copies', so this has all been a bunch of dithering about, not the actual crux of the scenario? Perhaps the idea was that, because the Vex Mind could not simulate the Warmind, the Warmind was able to leverage something against the Vex Mind, and know with (greater) certainty that it was really threatening the actual Vex Mind. And, just judging by Rasputin's philosophy, it might have not made the moral call of the scientists, that allowing the copies to come to harm would be terrible; which would deny the Mind's main demonstrated leverage, even if it was simulated. The other possibility is that because the Warmind was probably a larger, more complicated AI than the Vex Mind, it could outsmart it, or do something like that. In all honesty, it feels like it was left unexplained because there wasn't a great idea for exactly what it did, but I think it's safe to say that the tangent about whether people could tell if the Warmind was simulated or not, while interesting, is not actually the maker or breaker of the logic of the scenario.

As a last sidenote, I would like to point out- you're wrong about the trees thing you mention elsewhere. If there was a simulation that cannot produce the wavelengths of light that humans perceive as green, there could still be humans that know trees are green, or remember green trees. If they looked at trees with black leaves, they would be able to tell the difference. You might ask how it's possible for them to imagine a color that can't exist in the simulation, or how that doesn't undermine what I've written above- but it's because the color itself is qualia, a subjective experience, and, if you'll indulge my materialism for a moment, a property arising from the mind's interpretation of its physical brain. It doesn't need there to actually be that specific wavelength of light; it needs a certain electrical impulse from the optic nerve, which can exist without that wavelength. (I'm not that well versed in neuroscience, so I don't know how the memory of qualia relates to direct experience of the qualia; for instance, how imagining something green in your mind's eye relates to recognizing a green thing you see in your actual eyes. I'm getting kind of far afield at this point, though.)

locked

3524 views

To your last paragraph…

Humans are outside the simulation! Of course they can conceive of green. But thebsimulated minds inside the simulation cannot if the simulation has no symbolic representation of “green”.

locked

3376 views

Ah, but, the symbolic representation of green is an emergent consequence of a set of brainstates a human mind can have. By simulating a mind within certain parameters (not colorblind, has memories of green things, etc.) you not only can have a representation of green, but in fact necessarily must. Even if there is no external representation of green.

Green is not an external thing. Not really. Green is a concept, an experience, a quale; green is a symbolic representation invented by a human mind in response to stimuli. It doesn't matter whether or not there is anything simulated to represent the stimuli. Configured such that it has memories of a green thing, a human mind has a concept of green.

If you take that mind and assemble a perfect duplicate bit by bit, the resulting mind will still have a concept of green, even if it's been assembled in a simulation with no programmed parameters for color or light at all!

Our conceptions only necessarily relate to ourselves, not the truth of the world, or platonic ideals. They are probably an attempt to relate to and interpret the truth of the world, by way of our senses, but those are never absolutely reliable.

If you disagree with me, I will point to the fact that you (I presume) know you have a concept of green, and that your consciousness, at least, exists; but you don't actually know with complete justified certainty that there are actual green things in reality. It's just the best inference from your perceptions and experiences.

(If you don't have a concept of green, just replace it with another experience tied to a sense, argument should hold.)

locked

3382 views

If you were to assemble a replica of a human brain as you say, then you have already simulated the concept of green! As you say, green, like pain, are phenomenon of perception.

But if you can simulate the representation of the concept of green in a simulated mind, you’ve de facto simulated green haven’t you? The internal representation nessesarily contains the subjective qualia of that very thing!

locked

3350 views

Yeah.

But that wouldn't necessarily mean you have any external representation of green, like, say, chlorophyll to put on the leaves.

Kinda my bad here, I got away from my point and I don't know that we were ever really disagreeing on this part.

locked

3392 views

In terms of the Epistemology of the situation, saying the Warmind can’t be simulated is non sensical if you are living in a simulation. There is no way to “know” this.

I get that part. They would have no way of knowing just how powerful a Vex was so would have no way of knowing if it could accurately simulate an entire Warmind.

You wouldn’t even be able to ask the question, since you’d be unable to conceive of a Warmind.

I don't get this. I don't have any really good grasp on how powerful the world's most powerful super computer is or if my small town has anything even remotely comparable, but I can grasp the concept of a extremely powerful supercomputer. Why wouldn't it be the same for the Ishtar scientists, simulated or not?

Let’s say you are in a simulation. I ask you to imagine a tree. The tree you picture is not a “real” tree, but the simulated tree, since that’s the only type of tree you’ve ever experienced. The simulation could be completely wrong about what a “tree” is, and so you would never be able to conceive of a “real” tree.

But let’s say the simulation is off on the color of the leaves. A simulated trees leaves are black. But you can conceive of a tree with leaves of any color, including green. Thus, the simulation is capable of storing a representation of a green leaved tree. It has to; or else it could not be stored in the simulated mind.

This is the key. If something cannot be simulated, it could not be placed inside a simulated mind. So the simulated being could not have any conception of such a thing.

So even if a Warmind is half simulated, a simulated mind literally could not conceive of a full “real” Warmind since the contents of his head are themselves determined by the simulation. And the rules of the simulation completely determine the possibility space within it.

The difference is that “conceiving” of a super-intelligent AI like a warming is not the same as “being” one. The Vex don’t have to actually create or understand a warming, they just need to be aware of the concept. No human would be smart enough to look at a vex simulation of a warmind and know that it isn’t the real thing.

locked

3490 views

The difference is that “conceiving” of a super-intelligent AI like a warming is not the same as “being” one. The Vex don’t have to actually create or understand a warming, they just need to be aware of the concept. No human would be smart enough to look at a vex simulation of a warmind and know that it isn’t the real thing.

But within the simulation there presumably exist Warminds, incorrectly simulated or approximated. Otherwise, this discussion would not be happening.

If you are part of the simulation though, you have no way of knowing that the Warmind is functioning 'improperly'. Just like you would have no idea 'real' tree leaves are green.

So there is zero evidence from which to say "Warminds cannot be simulated" since you are yourself part of the simulation.

locked

3463 views

The difference is that “conceiving” of a super-intelligent AI like a warming is not the same as “being” one. The Vex don’t have to actually create or understand a warming, they just need to be aware of the concept. No human would be smart enough to look at a vex simulation of a warmind and know that it isn’t the real thing.

But within the simulation there presumably exist Warminds, incorrectly simulated or approximated. Otherwise, this discussion would not be happening.

If you are part of the simulation though, you have no way of knowing that the Warmind is functioning 'improperly'. Just like you would have no idea 'real' tree leaves are green.

So there is zero evidence from which to say "Warminds cannot be simulated" since you are yourself part of the simulation.

The Vex could have noticed in reality that the Warminds were beyond their ability to simulate accurately. So in their simulation, they have simulated warminds that, while being inferior to real warminds, still defeat the simulated vex. That’s the thing about a simulation... the Vex could even include false defeats just to sell the simulation.

locked

3457 views

The difference is that “conceiving” of a super-intelligent AI like a warming is not the same as “being” one. The Vex don’t have to actually create or understand a warming, they just need to be aware of the concept. No human would be smart enough to look at a vex simulation of a warmind and know that it isn’t the real thing.

But within the simulation there presumably exist Warminds, incorrectly simulated or approximated. Otherwise, this discussion would not be happening.

If you are part of the simulation though, you have no way of knowing that the Warmind is functioning 'improperly'. Just like you would have no idea 'real' tree leaves are green.

So there is zero evidence from which to say "Warminds cannot be simulated" since you are yourself part of the simulation.

The Vex could have noticed in reality that the Warminds were beyond their ability to simulate accurately. So in their simulation, they have simulated warminds that, while being inferior to real warminds, still defeat the simulated vex. That’s the thing about a simulation... the Vex could even include false defeats just to sell the simulation.

That's possible, but the discussion is about whether a simulated being can have sufficient evidence to say 'A Warmind cannot be simulated".

In order for a simulated being to conceive of something, it must store a representation of that thing it the simulated mind. This representation must necessarily reflect characteristics about the object: what it looks like, how it behaves, etc.

But if you have a way to describe how it behaves… you can simulate it. Because you just did by making the symbolic representation. It doesn't matter that you don't simulate atoms… because you can 'cheat'. You use GR to describe the motions of Galaxies even though QM governs how all matter in the universe works. The simple equations of GM could place a simulated galaxy cluster in my telescope, even though tracking each atom with QM is impossible.

So if you can make a representation in a simulated brain, which is itself required for 'understanding', then you can by definition simulate the macro level functions of a thing, which means you can simulate it. The simulation only cares that the outputs are correct. Your simulated being perceives things at the macro level anyway.

locked

3513 views

The answer there is that the simulated beings might be wrong. Perhaps it was reasonable for the scientists to believe that a solar system wide AI network was too big for a single Vex unit to simulate. But at the same time, the scientists had just learned of the simulation minutes or hours ago! The statement about the Warmind might have been made in desperation or as informed speculation. Or it could have been completely wrong because of overconfidence or a lack of facts.

Basically, there are a lot other possibilities than not being able to accurately simulate a Warmind.

locked

3496 views

The difference is that “conceiving” of a super-intelligent AI like a warming is not the same as “being” one. The Vex don’t have to actually create or understand a warming, they just need to be aware of the concept. No human would be smart enough to look at a vex simulation of a warmind and know that it isn’t the real thing.

But within the simulation there presumably exist Warminds, incorrectly simulated or approximated. Otherwise, this discussion would not be happening.

If you are part of the simulation though, you have no way of knowing that the Warmind is functioning 'improperly'. Just like you would have no idea 'real' tree leaves are green.

So there is zero evidence from which to say "Warminds cannot be simulated" since you are yourself part of the simulation.

The Vex could have noticed in reality that the Warminds were beyond their ability to simulate accurately. So in their simulation, they have simulated warminds that, while being inferior to real warminds, still defeat the simulated vex. That’s the thing about a simulation... the Vex could even include false defeats just to sell the simulation.

That's possible, but the discussion is about whether a simulated being can have sufficient evidence to say 'A Warmind cannot be simulated".

In order for a simulated being to conceive of something, it must store a representation of that thing it the simulated mind. This representation must necessarily reflect characteristics about the object: what it looks like, how it behaves, etc.

But if you have a way to describe how it behaves… you can simulate it. Because you just did by making the symbolic representation. It doesn't matter that you don't simulate atoms… because you can 'cheat'. You use GR to describe the motions of Galaxies even though QM governs how all matter in the universe works. The simple equations of GM could place a simulated galaxy cluster in my telescope, even though tracking each atom with QM is impossible.

So if you can make a representation in a simulated brain, which is itself required for 'understanding', then you can by definition simulate the macro level functions of a thing, which means you can simulate it. The simulation only cares that the outputs are correct. Your simulated being perceives things at the macro level anyway.

I still think there is a fundamental gap in your argument.

Looking at Vex simulations from a human perspective:

We must first recognize that humans are not at the top of the intellectual chain. Both the Vex and the Warminds are complex beyond our general understanding (amongst others, but let’s focus on those 2 for now).

Both the Vex and the Warminds are complex beyond our ability to fully grasp their workings. This literally means that we lack the ability to define their boundaries.

So, in a theoretical vex simulation, the Vex don’t need to perfectly replicate a warmind in order to trick us. They just need to simulate our understanding of a warmind. And since humans are well within the Vex’s ability to simulate, they can reproduce our understanding of a warmind perfectly.

So yes, as you argue, the Vex cannot truly simulate a warmind in a way that accurately predicts the behaviours of a real warmind. But what if that isn’t their goal? What if the purpose, the focal point of their simulations, is us? Humanity? The light? If that is the case, then they don’t need to accurately simulate a warmind. They just need to simulate our human concept of a warmind, and watch how we react within the simulation.

It’s like that line in the Matrix; how do we know that the machines got the taste of chicken right? Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. They don’t have to accurately recreate the taste of chicken. They just need to create the taste of *something*, and tell everyone “that is chicken”.

locked

3469 views

But if you have a way to describe how it behaves… you can simulate it. Because you just did by making the symbolic representation. It doesn't matter that you don't simulate atoms… because you can 'cheat'. You use GR to describe the motions of Galaxies even though QM governs how all matter in the universe works. The simple equations of GM could place a simulated galaxy cluster in my telescope, even though tracking each atom with QM is impossible.

Butterfly Effect. That's how simulating something in general breaks down. Given enough time your macro-simulation will deviate from what a true-simulation would calculate. So, eventually predicting the motions of galaxies with General Relativity will result in an incorrect prediction.

locked

3444 views

Assume the simulation can simulate a certain number of particles, and all the laws of physics accurately. Assume they have perfectly simulated a human. Therefore, the human has all their memories, determined by the state of their mind.

Assume the simulation capabilities are less than a star's worth of particles. The simulation cannot simulate a star, not really.

The human still has their memories of looking at the sun, the starry night sky, astronomy classes. From their memories they can infer a concept of a star.

Even if there are no stars in the simulation, the simulation of a preexisting human mind brings the idea in.

That's what this is.

The Vex can't simulate the Warmind, or at least that's their gamble, and apparently successful. (It's an intelligence stretching over so many installations, however many Warminds there are.) The Warmind can thus act with certainty it is not simulated. It thus has leverage over the Vex mind, instead of the Vex mind's leverage over the researchers.

They just need an incomplete idea of a Warmind, which is all even the non-simulated ones could have.

locked

3520 views

Warminds was used throughout the Grimoire. Even Rasputin himself seems to refer to other Warminds with:

I bear an old name. It cannot be killed. They were my brothers and sisters and their names were immortal too but Titanomachy came and now those names live in me alone I think and think is what I do. I AM ALONE. At the end of things when the world goes dim and cold or hot and close or it all tears apart from the atom up I will shout those names defiant and past the end I will endure. I alone.

What might be interesting is seeing if there's a break around the time of The Taken King or Rise of Iron where they stop using Warminds, plural.

locked

3533 views

Well... I have in the works:

- A historical discussion of music and a guess at the identity of Io's Warmind

Destiny - RAS-2 = Rasputin
(CHLM - Charlemagne mentioned in pre-Destiny, also in TtK/RoI Grimoire card?/Mission Item for Sleeper Simulant)
Destiny 2 - JYS-2 = Joyeuse?

locked

3523 views

Joyeuse

Man, I really, really hope you're right about that.

locked

3474 views

- No text -

locked

3447 views

We've had 3-4 megathreads in the last few days and all of them have been super civil.

locked

3618 views

- No text -

locked

3548 views

- No text -

locked

3510 views

- No text -

locked

3541 views

I’ll bring the negativity—that movie sucked. (:

locked

3581 views

- No text -

locked

3513 views

- No text -

locked

3541 views

Naw, Get Out. Seriously.

locked

3560 views

- No text -

locked

3507 views

- No text -

locked

3406 views

In a world where uninspired, money-grab remakes come at us left and right, Beauty and the Beast was an example of a remake done right. They brought the story into live action while preserving and, in some cases, greatly enhancing the things that made the previous film a classic.

Some of the things I loved about this new version:

- They changed Belle from... a strange pretty girl who simply read too much... to a smart, resourceful inventor. If the animated version of Belle was a strong woman character, the new version adds more to that.

- Belle's father was changed from an embarrassing crackpot inventor to a much less goofy loving father who was still saddened by the death of his wife. The old version of Maurice was far too silly of a character to really be sympathetic and I'm glad they changed him.

- They found someone who could fill the shoes of animated Gaston. One of my biggest worries was that trying to reproduce Gaston's over the topness would fail in live action, but it didn't. This version of Gaston also gets some better story moments where we get to see a bit more of how manipulative he is and how he uses his reputation to try and get what he wants. Plus, his version of Kill The Beast is at least as good as the original.

- LeFou got some nice extra story bits as well. Instead of just being a complete idiot yes man, live action LeFou is a smarter character who really begins to see the wrongness of his and Gaston's actions and though he get pulled along into doing bad things he eventually snaps out of it and changes sides. I love his little solo in the new version of Kill The Beast where he sings: "There's a beast running wild, there's no question. But I fear the wrong monster's released."

It's also neat to watch how LeFou was enabling some of Gaston's popularity by basically paying off the towns people to get along and play along with Gaston. In the "Gaston" section of the movie, watch how LeFou multiple times places down coins so that Gaston's friends will continue to engage with him. Sure, Gaston is a war hero and a fairly popular person about town, but some of that is also fueled by the money being handed out to keep him popular!

- I like the small, mostly unstated subplot of Agatha (the enchantress) that is present in this version. She punished the prince and the town for their mean spirited decadence but then instead of just vanishing completely, she stayed with the town and watched over its people for the years that her curse was over all of them. Then, she saves Maurice and later saves the Beast after he finally redeems himself. It's neat to look for Agatha in the various shots, like at the beginning of Kill The Beast where she looks concerned and kinda moves off.

- I love the new version of Be Our Guest. The vocals and music are as good or better than they every were, but more than that, the original animated version very clearly didn't have the budget needed to match the stunning, expansive lyrics. There were far too many blank backgrounds and doubled up animation (like where the plates dance onto the screen in three sets of duplicated rows) and just a lack of grandeur while the music and vocals knocked it out of the park. One of my biggest anticipations for this live action version was seeing what the song should have really looked like with a proper budget. It is as grand and colorful and over the top as I think it always should have been.

- I really enjoyed the new songs. "How Does A Moment Last Forever" and its Paris version were, to me, good small additions to the story. "Day's In The Sun" didn't grab me at first, or maybe I was just missing "Human Again" but it has grown on me and I like the perspectives each of the characters share.

I loved "Evermore". Finally, the Beast got a real song to sing, he sang it really well, and the visuals on screen are excellent with the way the Beast keeps climbing higher to catch a glimpse of Belle as she leaves and the way each shot is framed so you get just a moment's look at her in her bright yellow dress before she exits the camera's view again.

Fortunately, the rest of the world disagrees with DBO. Beauty and the Beast (2017) is the top grossing movie of the year and only Star Wars is likely to top it. And for good reason. At the end, the entire theater around me erupted into a standing ovation each time I went to see this movie. And I completely agree with that. In an age where we get endless sequels and heartless reboots, it was nice to see a new version of a classic get the attention it deserved, a lot of which came from its original creators.

From here Disney seems to be planning to live action things like Aladdin and Mulan neither of which I think will go anywhere near as well. Aladdin because replacing THE Genie feels impossible, and Mulan because the last rumor I saw was that it was not going to have the songs. Losing "Honor To Us All" "Reflection" "I'll Make A Man Out Of You" "and "A Girl Worth Fighting For" will be a travesty!

And if you want a really awful version of Beauty and the Beast, go watch La Belle et la Bete by Jean Cocteau. It's the movie the Disney version of Beauty and the Beast was based on and it is completely awful... even for 1946! I got it for my mom for her birthday as a joke and I think she is now haunted by just how bad it was. :p

locked

3450 views

My wife saw this and absolutely loved it. I was on the fence before it came out and now I think I want to see it.

locked

3422 views

They should have had The Rock play Gaston. He’d have killed it. The Gaston in this film was nowhere near barge sized.

locked

3412 views

- No text -

locked

3506 views

- No text -

locked

3416 views

locked

3532 views

Right. Completely forgot about that.

locked

3376 views

Of course he can. He can do anything better than most people, lol

locked

3451 views

I don’t disagree with any of that. I liked Emma in it, I liked Gaston (I hate the other guy, though), I think the acting and music was all good.

My dislike honestly just boils down to not liking the visual style. I don’t think it made the transition to “live action” well. I don’t like the designs for any characters or most of the sets. It all just looks dumb to me, but that’s probably just the nature of trying to turn a cartoon that features a talking teapot into a live action movie.

locked

3413 views

- No text -

locked

3392 views

- No text -

locked

3489 views

Do we think there will be a Season of Triumph when D2 'ends'?
What I mean by this is Destiny 1 had Age of Triumph when the game was beginning to sunset, where some (some not all) past items lost to time made a return and became available again (RNG). Also certain items that were difficult to acquire without Silver/Dust purchases became more or less available to ALL.

Destiny 2 we have learned has Seasons and at the end of the Seasons certain purchaseable items are going to be 'going away for good'.
Do we suppose that there may be an opportunity later on down the road to acquire/re-acquire these 'locked away' items?

locked

3649 views

Do we think there will be a Season of Triumph when D2 'ends'?
What I mean by this is Destiny 1 had Age of Triumph when the game was beginning to sunset, where some (some not all) past items lost to time made a return and became available again (RNG). Also certain items that were difficult to acquire without Silver/Dust purchases became more or less available to ALL.

Destiny 2 we have learned has Seasons and at the end of the Seasons certain purchaseable items are going to be 'going away for good'.
Do we suppose that there may be an opportunity later on down the road to acquire/re-acquire these 'locked away' items?

I'm gonna guess that the books are going to be a common thing. Bungie has found out that people really like them. And I can see how season can culminate into these books coming out (alongside DLC's)

locked

3444 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

Seasons (Destiny)

Some Images:

Nah

Nah

Nah

Nah

Seasons

Seasons

Seasons

Yeah. This too.

+1

Seasons

Seasons

Seasons

Seasons

Seasons

Seasons

Seasons

Seasons

Seasons

Seasons

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Common Sense

Oversimplifying

Oversimplifying

Oversimplifying

Oversimplifying

Well said

+1

“I've seen people literally spend $15,000 on Mass Effect...”

The $40 I spent suddenly doesn’t look so bad O_o

Sammy and I spent about a couple hundred... Each...

Sammy and I spent about a couple hundred... Each...

Sammy and I spent about a couple hundred... Each...

Sammy and I spent about a couple hundred... Each...

Sammy and I spent about a couple hundred... Each...

Sammy and I spent about a couple hundred... Each...

Shame that its legacy is so bleh

“I've seen people literally spend $15,000 on Mass Effect...”

ESRB has the power to make this go away.

Ban assorted bags of candy!

So do good parents.

So do good parents.

So do good parents.

So do good parents.

So do good parents.

Don't you need to pay credit cards to keep them?

ESRB has the power to make this go away.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super skippable. ;-)

Ragashigo's post is super skippable. ;-)

Ragashigo's post is super skippable. ;-)

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Ragashigo's post is super important.

Everyone has choices.

Everyone has choices.

Everyone has choices.

Cody's Nightmare

Everyone has choices.

Everyone has choices.

Everyone has choices.

Everyone has choices.

Misleading use of statistics with unsupported conclusion.

I don't know if this is a joke or not

I don't know if this is a joke or not

I don't know if this is a joke or not

Why my comment was relating to info provided.

I don't know if this is a joke or not