Ey. (Gaming)

by Malagate @, Sea of Tranquility, Friday, January 24, 2020, 09:41 (1549 days ago) @ Cody Miller

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.

I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it. There are flaws in that your logic makes hard determinations based on assumptions. Maybe I want the convenience of having my fun in enjoying the cosmetics now instead of grinding for them. Is that worth a couple bucks in the right circumstances? Absolutely. Does that make me an idiot by your caluculation? I'd have to assume so. But it describes a perfectly reasonable case that I would guarantee happens, or something akin to that happens, on a regular enough basis that MtX remain a viable revenue stream.

There's nothing there that demands that part of the game be unpleasant whatsoever. I don't know if you've spent any professional time creating and executing test cases, but I have. You can TRY to predict human behavior, but as soon as you begin incorporating assumptions like you have, you start to be wrong.

But now you're doing the thing with your tone where you act like your perspective is the only reasonable one to take. Like, either you respect other people and their opinions or you don't; you value being part of the community here or you don't, but I for one don't take kindly to this air you put out like you're some kind of authority and anyone that thinks differently has something wrong with them.

You've done a whole lot of it here for a LONG time. And to date you're still here crowing about your logic in refusing to play a game that the rest of us (for the most part, I won't speak for everyone) enjoy as a pasttime. I've never known someone to be so dogged about hanging out at a party and complaining about the music and thanking themself for not listening to such inauthentic drivel on their own time; when the whole point of the party in the first place was to come together to appreciate it.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread