Fortnite: First, your $10 buy-in to the battle pass also nets you ~$12 worth of in-game currency (assuming you play the battle pass to completion, which should take me another 3 weeks for a total of 5), and you can use that in-game currency to buy the next season's battle pass, so your initial $10 buy-in basically buys you battle passes forever.

Anyway, I love how fortnite is monetized. It's a 100 player pvp game, so you NEED a large base of players in order to make games happen, period. That means free gets you a dedicated and available base of players. Then there's an attached (and great) pve game that comes with a pricetag, which I purchased just to support my love of the pvp game. Crazy. And then there's a rotating store for the pvp game which contains zero loot boxes and shows you what you're going to be buying up front. I should also mention that the rewards from the battle pass and the items you can buy from the store are all 100% purely cosmetic. Most of the emotes actually make noise, which gives away your position in the game, so they're actually *detrimental* to use. hilarious. Of note: If any of the elements of the for-pay store or battle pass resulted in advantages in the game, I would be 100% against it. But since everything is cosmetic and fun, I'm all-in. My 400+ hours played and more than 60 wins back up my passion for this game.

Candy Crush: I'm 100% with you on this. Don't pay money for this crap. The game has some interesting and depth-ful puzzles to beat, but good god is the pricing structure abusive as hell.

Dest2ny: You didn't mention the in-game store, which is my major gripe with 2Des2ny. In addition to your up front costs, there's an unlimited loot box purchase potential that is being grossly abused. Most of the new items in the last expansion were behind loot box rewards, which should be unacceptable to everyone who plays games. Many other decisions in the game are based around limiting your access to loot in order to drive you to buy stuff (either through exp capping or token collection limitations or simply by putting crappy looking gear in the game world and all of the good looking stuff behind a paywall) - it's totally lame and a big part of why I don't play the game anymore. Games with up-front purchases should not contain real money stores in my opinion, period. Once you pay for the game you should get the whole game. If they want to include a loot box that's only purchasable with in-game currency that cannot be collected or influenced via the expenditure of real money, I'm okay with that. But once real money comes in, I feel like I paid for the opportunity to pay more money, and that's bullshit.

Additionally, you cannot claim with true veracity that all aspects of a movie, piece of music, etc. exist solely as the currated design of your nebulous definition of “artist” because improvisation and random variables impacting productions exist. All of the content in a game was produced by a human (even procedural generation is done by humans) so to claim that it having expected and/or unanticipated somehow degrades it while every other work is not degraded by the same is just ??????

Some consumers say "screw you" to manufacturers and everyone else around them in the marketplace by actively trying to cheat at every turn, taking advantage and constantly trying to "game the system", or committing rip offs.
Cody's Modus Operandi

Lol. They ripped me off first by not actually repairing it. And technically I did nothing illegal.

Yes. But you are making the argument originally from the point of the “art” and identifying inclusively forms of content. Especially in reference to other art (movies have Director’s Cuts and Special Editions; Albums have varied international releases or alternate versions of songs/cuts based on format [vinyl v. CD]; books have different edits based on release date/format/publisher, etc.) that somehow video games are uniquely experienced while other forms are uniformly experienced which is entirely untrue.

I don’t agree that you can have it both ways because that is how it suits you. A fair judgement requires consideration and often many parts of the end package are not inherently part of the core experience or artistic expression. So unless you can identify a rational clear line, I think you are just being arbitrary so long as it supports your point.

Each variation of a film or a song is a separate work of art. This makes sense for say, two versions of a film, where one lifts the impositions from a studio for example. Moreover, and this is the key part, each one is carefully curated.

A movie may be cut for television, but even in that case you have an editor working for the network who is making the decisions, thus the curation is intact.

The insanely huge number of permutations that microtransactions create do not fall under this, because a human did not personally curate each one. If there are ten items / modes / whatever for sale, then there are 2^10 combinations, and thus 1024 different works of art. Moreover, it is not the creator that chooses this: it is the viewer.

I think I did the math right?

Given this, it is quite correct to say that games are more uniquely experienced than other art.

Both Nintendo and Microsoft offer free replacement discs for products bought in the last 90 days, if they're not working with your system. (Nintendo says this doesn't apply if you damaged your disc, only if it failed for manufacturing reasons.)

Every manufacturer gets to set their own rules on this, and most say "screw you" to the consumer. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you've licensed, not bought, the actual CONTENT on the disc.

(I don't claim myself to be perfect by any means)

This may sort of be a which came first, Chicken or Egg, argument.
I'm not taking a side here with the manufacturer or the consumer.

Some consumers say "screw you" to manufacturers and everyone else around them in the marketplace by actively trying to cheat at every turn, taking advantage and constantly trying to "game the system", or committing rip offs.
Cody's Modus Operandi

I don’t agree that you can have it both ways because that is how it suits you. A fair judgement requires consideration and often many parts of the end package are not inherently part of the core experience or artistic expression. So unless you can identify a rational clear line, I think you are just being arbitrary so long as it supports your point.

tl;dr - no artistic experience is the same across receivers of said art. Video games aren’t special in that regard.

Something you can do within the game does not imply it is itself a game activity. Additionally, if a photo mode has no completion state then it does not fall within my specified parlance.

Sim City has no completion state either. Does that mean it's not a game activity? Many games have no completion state! Further many games have several differing completion states, which some activities actually prevent you from seeing!

I just disagree I guess. "Something you can do within the game" is the very definition of a game activity to me.

Every manufacturer gets to set their own rules on this, and most say "screw you" to the consumer. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you've licensed, not bought, the actual CONTENT on the disc.

Personally I'd love to see all games come on 50GB SSDs that slide into your PS5 or Xbox Two. Fast loads, no installs, and space for saves. Then they could charge you whatever they wanted for a replacement and I wouldn't complain :-p

...plus whatever cost the manufacturer feels like adding to discourage you from ordering replacements. I've had to buy $20 bits of plastic for my refridgerator - pieces that I can now have made for me in a 3D printer for a buck (and THAT allows for a profit margin), but for which there were no alternatives 20 years ago. That's not a 'replacement value', that's a 'we don't feel like dealing with your shit' value.

I don't think that would fly if you had just paid thousands of dollars for AutoCAD. Maybe people just think 60 bucks is not enough to worry about then? Clearly it is since nobody seems to want to pay more for games.

Even so, physical replacement parts for machinery is very different… the Disc is only for transport of the data, not for a functioning use in the contraption.

These guys offer replacement disks for $10 for most of their games:

https://www.herinteractive.com/2016/12/replacement-game-discs/

Both Nintendo and Microsoft offer free replacement discs for products bought in the last 90 days, if they're not working with your system. (Nintendo says this doesn't apply if you damaged your disc, only if it failed for manufacturing reasons.)

Every manufacturer gets to set their own rules on this, and most say "screw you" to the consumer. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you've licensed, not bought, the actual CONTENT on the disc.

...plus whatever cost the manufacturer feels like adding to discourage you from ordering replacements. I've had to buy $20 bits of plastic for my refridgerator - pieces that I can now have made for me in a 3D printer for a buck (and THAT allows for a profit margin), but for which there were no alternatives 20 years ago. That's not a 'replacement value', that's a 'we don't feel like dealing with your shit' value.

I don't think that would fly if you had just paid thousands of dollars for AutoCAD. Maybe people just think 60 bucks is not enough to worry about then? Clearly it is since nobody seems to want to pay more for games.

Even so, physical replacement parts for machinery is very different… the Disc is only for transport of the data, not for a functioning use in the contraption.

That model never really existed. You can have the one-time physical media purchase, but the actual game content is still only available to you as a license.

I keep hearing this but it simply is not true, or it as least not treated as true. If it were, you could break your game disc, and request a low cost replacement since you already paid for the license. Never have I heard of anyone being able to do that.

Why would the developer need to provide you with a low-cost replacement disc if you broke yours? You might THINK that's a reasonable attitude, but there are no rules that require that, and no benefit to the developer to act that way; lots of replacement parts are super-expensive not because they cost the manufacturer a lot, but because the manufacturer wants to discourage the ordering of said parts.

I guess i don't see how the license agreement obligates the developer to act in a specific way vis-a-vis the actual medium.

(And with downloadable content, you DO see a free replacement if the physical media is damaged; both Xbox and Playstation allow a new download if you get a new console, bolstering the 'only-licensed' argument.)

We were talking about physical sales, not digital. Of course digital lets you re-download.

If you already have a license, the cost of a replacement media disc should not include another license cost, but rather only the cost of manufacture of the new disc.

...plus whatever cost the manufacturer feels like adding to discourage you from ordering replacements. I've had to buy $20 bits of plastic for my refridgerator - pieces that I can now have made for me in a 3D printer for a buck (and THAT allows for a profit margin), but for which there were no alternatives 20 years ago. That's not a 'replacement value', that's a 'we don't feel like dealing with your shit' value.

Theater Mode in the Halos was a great, standout feature. But I would classify it a secondary, distinct feature to Halo’s gameplay.

That model never really existed. You can have the one-time physical media purchase, but the actual game content is still only available to you as a license.

I keep hearing this but it simply is not true, or it as least not treated as true. If it were, you could break your game disc, and request a low cost replacement since you already paid for the license. Never have I heard of anyone being able to do that.

Why would the developer need to provide you with a low-cost replacement disc if you broke yours? You might THINK that's a reasonable attitude, but there are no rules that require that, and no benefit to the developer to act that way; lots of replacement parts are super-expensive not because they cost the manufacturer a lot, but because the manufacturer wants to discourage the ordering of said parts.

I guess i don't see how the license agreement obligates the developer to act in a specific way vis-a-vis the actual medium.

(And with downloadable content, you DO see a free replacement if the physical media is damaged; both Xbox and Playstation allow a new download if you get a new console, bolstering the 'only-licensed' argument.)

We were talking about physical sales, not digital. Of course digital lets you re-download.

If you already have a license, the cost of a replacement media disc should not include another license cost, but rather only the cost of manufacture of the new disc. If $60 is "license + physical distribution costs", a replacement disc should only be "physical distribution costs".

Buy an expensive piece of software ($1000+), and see if you can request another disc for cheap. You pretty much always can, because you've already paid for the license. You're paying for the key basically.

That model never really existed. You can have the one-time physical media purchase, but the actual game content is still only available to you as a license.

I keep hearing this but it simply is not true, or it as least not treated as true. If it were, you could break your game disc, and request a low cost replacement since you already paid for the license. Never have I heard of anyone being able to do that.

Why would the developer need to provide you with a low-cost replacement disc if you broke yours? You might THINK that's a reasonable attitude, but there are no rules that require that, and no benefit to the developer to act that way; lots of replacement parts are super-expensive not because they cost the manufacturer a lot, but because the manufacturer wants to discourage the ordering of said parts.

I guess i don't see how the license agreement obligates the developer to act in a specific way vis-a-vis the actual medium.

(And with downloadable content, you DO see a free replacement if the physical media is damaged; both Xbox and Playstation allow a new download if you get a new console, bolstering the 'only-licensed' argument.)

That model never really existed. You can have the one-time physical media purchase, but the actual game content is still only available to you as a license.

I keep hearing this but it simply is not true, or it as least not treated as true. If it were, you could break your game disc, and request a low cost replacement since you already paid for the license. Never have I heard of anyone being able to do that.

Is the photo mode structurally important to the completion of game activities? If “no” then at what point is the line between supplimentary and core content delineated?

Pokemon Snap and Bioshock answer “yes” to the first question. HZD answers “no.” I am interested in your consideration of the distinctions between the two and if your implication is solely based on their functional inclusion in the game’s interface.

To use your parlance, Photo mode is itself a game activity. So the answer is yes.

In the context of a one-time-purchase is “best for consumers” I find all of those assessments pretty much unprovable. Valuation between individuals and benefits of different models have always been a thing, they are just broader now. Has everyone forgot about renting games as part of these equations? Sure, in some distant crystal towered utopia everyone could get the whole product in one go, but that itsef would have to be economically reasonable to the major consumer base. But the reluctance to charge 70-100 for the base version of a game is met with violent push back.

I think the market has moved past individual purchases, and in many cases more consumers experience real benefit from additional monetization even if they aren’t personally spending that money.