Ey. (Gaming)

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Friday, January 24, 2020, 09:26 (36 days ago) @ Malagate
edited by Cody Miller, Friday, January 24, 2020, 09:32

All of these arguments ignore that if the base price were higher you would have a smaller player base and less folks would have access to the game at all. You value your access the way you you want it over someone else's ability to access it at all.

This guy gets it.

Yes, because we’ve seen how well making your game as accessible as possible, aka FREE, works out. The logical end point of his argument is freemium, and that’s where this is all the worst.

I'm pretty alright with all the New Light Guardians. Nobody gets a leg up by virtue of how much they spend, so.

(PS - you're still doing it. Again. )

I mean dude, you are continuing to assert that micro transactions don’t effect the game. I thought I’d explained this enough in the past that I wouldn’t have to lay it out again but here we go. If you still don’t believe it or see an error in the reasoning, then DO criticize the argument:

For games where cosmetics are available either by earning by playing or purchasing:

1. Buying a cosmetic is therefore paying to avoid having to play the game.
2. People won’t pay to avoid playing a fun game. The whole reason they bought it in the first place was to play it.
3. Therefore the parts they pay to avoid MUST be unpleasant enough to want to pay to skip. We see this all the time: in game currency is slow to earn, your haul is random, etc
4. Therefore these parts of the game MUST be intentionally designed to be unpleasant.
5. With no micro transactions, there is no incentive to make any part of your game purposefully unpleasant.
6. Therefore micro transactions MUST negatively alter the design of the game.

You are welcome to explain where you think the flaw is, and I will listen!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread