/v/ - Video Games

>>16497832

>>16497867

If you told me a decade ago that $60 multiplayer games would turn into grindy barebones F2P Korean mmos instead of large scale conflicts, I would have thought that you were crazy.

>>16497832

I don't even know what a Battlepass is

I just know it started with Fortnite

>>16497885

>2007

>Half of a game

>online pass on all platforms, including steam.

None of this is true at all

And you can blame millenials for being retarded brand loyal corporate whores for most of that shit.

You think Gen Zed faggots used to Battle Royal and Survival games give a shit about Call of Duty or Destiny?

>>16497972

Please tell me there's a version of that first one but with brown skin

>>16498009

I'm surprised you can write so well even though you have zero reading comprehension.

>>16498017

Anon are you smoking crack? I know what I said was germane to the conversation and my grammar and spelling is atrocious. Take your asinine bizzaro world bantz back!

What's a battle pass? Looking that up on searx is giving me nothing but ads for AAAshit. Is it a season pass for existing content? Instead of pay us on a gamble we'll provide future content like in a season pass, it's pay to skip the grind for exitsing unlockable stuff?

>>16498428

It's a second level bar aside from the main one (which itself exists only for the sake of low IQ reward junkies), but most of rewards in it are locked until you pay up. It exists to coerce low IQ subhumans into thinking that they're missing out if they don't unlock their "earned" level up rewards even if they don't need them.

They lack the mental capacity to understand that this is simply another microtransaction which is X dollars that go to the scheming devs instead of staying in their pocket.

>>16498448

This still doesnt make sense.

>>16498428

It means every ingame hour, or after earning certain amount of points, you unlock an item. Items are usually not randomized, and there is a fuckton of them you have to go thru to get to something that is actually good, and it's only up for a limited amount of time, the content on the battle pass will either disappear forever, or be jewed at 15 dollars per item, branded as "Limited Edition" to justify it's price tag, and sold separately afterwards. But don't worry, if you buy our overpriced loot crate bundles or a separate item that's 6 dollars a pop, you can earn your battle pass 5% faster for the remainder of this battle pass!(Resets when the next one starts, stacks up to usually 25%, but you have to spend about 60$ in microtransactions to get this "Bonus")

tl:dr it's a limited time good boy points type list, every hour you unlock another biscuit. biscuits don't come back when battle pass event ends, you get another line of biscuits and your good boy points reset when a new battle pass starts

>>16498462

So it was worse then I imagined? It's not "pay to skip the grind for existing content", but "pay INTO to grind for existing content". With the added cancer of exlusives within this pass, time-exclusivity, and external battle pass purchases to goad people to purchase the pass too.

>>16497832

What the fuck are battlepasses?

>>16498598

Even in F2P shit, you should be able to complete the whole fucking thing without buying it first, otherwise it just feels like playing a game as your second job.

>>16498615

you usually do not need to buy anything, you earn it just by playing, point is that unless you're a shut in neet that does nothing but play this one specific game, you're likely not going to get everything, hence the need to "Buy" it. That means that if you have a job, a social life, or like to play other games, you're likely either skipping out on most of this, or resorting to pay for it, people will still praise it because "Hurr durr, at least I know what I am paying for"

>>16498615

Yeah, the thing with most games putting EXP boosts and shit into the paid version of the passes sucks donkey dick. It's a predatory practice that clearly targets children and teenagers because they're the only ones who can be reasonably expected to get everything from the battle pass with or without the paid pass EXP boosts.

>>16498622

I hate that argument but I love your dubs. Because dipshits know what they're paying for with lootboxes too, they could do the math and find out that if a lootbox has 272 items, then they have a 1/272 chance of getting the item they want and a 271/272 chance of getting dog shit.

>>16498622

>you usually do not need to buy anything, you earn it just by playing

You usually need to complete bullshit, annoying challenges to actually progress at any kind of speed in Battle passes, and unless you buy the pass, you only get the pleb challenges, which don't get you anywhere near to finishing the thing.

>you only need to buy it if you can't get everything

No, there's always a free and paid part of the pass, and the free part is utter shit usually, so you have to buy it to get the good stuff. Again, in most of them, you can't actually progress to the point you want, THEN buy the pass to just get what you want, instead you have to buy the pass, then grind in the time limit, and if you don't complete it, you feel like you're wasting money.

>>16498531

You're basically paying with time and money for a chance to obtain something.

>>16497884

Multiplayer has always been more susceptible to anti-consumer tactics, since it gives the publisher more control over your experience. Only a retard still buys multiplayer games.

>>16498823

They need to prove inflation has outpaced the development and distribution costs of their operations (protip, it's impossible it did). In reality, developing and distributing a game is now several orders of magnitude cheaper than it ever was. FFS there are FREE, full-featured game engines out there right now, and publishing has never been cheaper/easier (many indie devs just do it themselves for fucks sake, and these are miserably small teams with no HR and marketing departments to siphon money out of their companies).

>>16497889

you are assuming games use passes as supplemental income. todays games use it as a main source of income so they have to give huge incentives to buy it… and developers have to try which they wont do.

>>16497975

I may have gotten the years wrong because I was too lazy to be accurate and was just ballparking but the general practices are true.

>>16498019

Did you forget? It was not part of the Season Pass.

>GOTY version excludes level cap DLC,

>GOTY version has enemies from the UVH DLC that break the level cap x400

>Your (((level capped))) weapons only do 1 hp worth of damage to them and they regen that.

>Don't worry, we have level cap 1 and level cap 2 DLC to fix the problem.

>>16498009

>Anon none of these grifting tactics would work if people didn't buy them.

if it works when people buy them, then why are people so retarded to not see they're robbed?

because the modern world is full of retarded mutts who don't know how to deal with money, that's why.

kill off the bugmen, the mutts and the niggers; you will see gaming hobbies improve by 200%, guranteed.

>>16499476

It's like buying microtransactions or DLC in advance, before they even come out. Usually comes with "exclusive skins" or other stupid bullshit to trick kids into buying it.

>>16499213

Some costs did scale down (e.g. distribution, publishing), but you're missing the point: games make half as much money per sale compared to 30 years ago. So they ship incomplete games, withhold content, and engage in other jewish practices (preoder bonuses, microtransactions) in hopes of getting you to fork out as much as, if not more than, back then for the rest of the game.

>>16499476

see >>16498462 You can look up Fortnite's battle pass for the most prominent example.

I know someone who plays fucking Path of Exile and religiously buys the new fucking supporter pack (battle pass microtransaction bullshit) everytime it comes out. He must have like 8 or something by now. And everytime he plays the same fucking zombie shit game. Click-one shot everything-loot loot looooooot.

Zombie gamer cattle.

>>16499669

per sale is an irrelevant point. Profit is the only thing anybody cares about. Say my per sales profit dipped to 50% of what it was before but suddenly my customer base is 50000000000000% larger, am I making a profit? Considering how vidya has become a normalfag pastime so quickly, just how colossal do you think the sales numbers have gotten compared to what they were before?

But wait, there's more. What if my per sale profit dipped 50% but my costs dipped 500%? Am I better off?

Hint: (((investors))) wouldn't throw more and more money at AAA garbage if they hadn't seen increasing returns in the past.

>>16499730

Added bonus: what if I WANTED to increase my consumer based all along? Would I want to decrease the per sales profit or increase it? Some cellphone companies opt for this strategy, for example.

>>16498823

>games must always cost exactly $60, adjusted for inflation

>games are never allowed to go down in price

That's rather dumb, especially considering they used to be less than $60. Games sell a lot more than they did in the past, along with lower developing/publishing/shipping costs. Even if they are making less per individual sale they can make that up with a greater number of sales.

Also, if they wanted to make more money they should just raise the price up to $100. I think companies know they can't do that though, considering some guy in his home office is pumping out higher quality games than they are for $20. Plus it's not about them now losing money, if it was they might push DLC and expansions but they wouldn't be pushing lootboxes, battle passes, microtransasctions. Those things are all the result of greed.

>>16499730

My point is, to get around inflation, they're shipping off incomplete games is they want to keep making the same money (or more, if you include all the additional jewish tactics) per customer as back then, without increasing the base (i.e. incomplete) game price. The all-bells-and-whistles bundle price usually being the actual price of the game.

>>16499740

>>games must always cost exactly $60, adjusted for inflation

>>games are never allowed to go down in price

I never said that. I was just conjecturing an explanation for incomplete games, season/online/battle passes, and related garbage.

>if they wanted to make more money they should just raise the price up to $100

Most normalcattle feel $60 today is the same as $60 in 1990. If they see the price go up, they're gonna think games have become expensive than decades ago, and will boycott them faster than they did the Fine Brothers when they, in their infinite kikery, tried to 'trademark' reaction 'videos'.

>>16499840

>I never said that.

You implied it with

>What would you do to make up for inflation?

As though it needs to be made up.

How can normalcattle be paying these increased prices, while at the same time they'd be boycotting if the price increase happens? After all it seems the games with these monetary practices in place are games that normalfags buy while niche games will often lack then. Seems contradictory.

>>16499840

Inflation has nothing to do with this mate, all they care about is net profit and market share. The monetization gimmicks are pure (((greed))) that came from video game studios become giant corporations, and thus mingling with (((the usual suspects))), which are quick to embed themselves in the studio and/or introduce it to (((marketing/consulting/auxiliary service companies))) that only exist to bleed money out of everything they touch and increase overhead costs, which feeds into the need for bigger numbers, which pushes leadership, who has no idea what they're doing, to continue to use these (((third party services))) to shove themselves further down the corporate pyramid scheme.

>>16499840

What does inflation have to do with anything? They're probably not paying programmers any more than they did back then, and the cost of the equipment and tools used to make the games has gone down, if anything.

You're just buying into the publisher's bullshit excuses.

>>16498823

>What would you do to make up for inflation?

The fact that at this point distribution costs are basically nil compared to what they were in the disk era (to say nothing of the cartridge era) and that streamers will happily shill your game to death >for free while trannies and bulldykes and the rest of tumblr (and the kosher """gaming press""") will bang your drum if you pander to them in turn. Development has also gotten cheaper because there's a glut of soy-fueled millennials with degrees from Full Sail tripping over themselves to be overworked and underpaid code monkeys and hack artists because VIDYA GAEMS (and crippling debt lmao) and also because licenses/hardware/software/etc. are cheaper than ever. (You) can make a crappy indie game on a laptop in an afternoon and if you make it about a gaynigger from outer space collecting butt plugs to power the cockship that will take him back to the land of watermelon cocktails and diet fried chicken you'll get hailed as a genius.

>>16501628

100% this.

Games are not that expensive to make. And money doesn't translate to quality.

Another good game to add to the pile. Mordhau.

>>16499085

>>16499476

Basically you get a new XP bar to fill, every level of the XP bar you get an item, whether it be something as stupid as a spray tag or weapon skins or actual weapons(I assume). Usually though, you get two tiers of items, free items that you get by leveling up normally, and a paid tier that you can only receive if you pay a small fee for the premium package, which usually includes bonuses to the leveling system.

Look at embed here >>16498598

, the top list of items is the free tier which is just currency, and the bottom tier is the paid list of the items which includes hats and chests(lootboxes basically), premium currency, 'limited' skins and so on.

>>16502249

>However it seems like the industry is no different from the morally-bankrupt, degenerate, greedy jews at Hollyjew gratuitously inflating costs and using (((hollywood accounting-esque))) methods to justify jewry and begging, while desperately trying anything to attract (((investors))) and (((maximize revenue))).

No shit.

>>16498823

in 1990 you got a FULL game for 120$, nowadays you get 1/4 game for 200$+ bucks, I know you are good at math jew.

>>16501628

>COD fans don't even care either. Do you remember anyone clamoring for Kevin Spacey to appear in COD before it happened? I sure as hell fucking don't.

but they did, remember that was on the high of the house of card craze, using the celebrity is as more marketing than anything else (all the other stuff is usually confined to zombies which only cod players give a shit about to begin with)

>>16501675

>The use of third party, out-of-the-box engines such as Unity and UE4 has skyrocketed in the AAA space.

fun fact, most AAA companies go with their own engine which makes licensing costs zero (otoh you need more engine devs, but then >vidya dev wages)

Honestly anyone still paying for games deserves to be treated like this.

>>16497832

One must literally be a retard (brain rotten by soy, for example) to even think about spending any money on the current entertainment industry, be it games, movies or whatever else.

Even if you got the game for free, just by playing it you are part of the player base that the corrupt company will use as numbers to deceive investors into giving more money to their corporate suits.

Stop paying for entertainment.

Stop consuming entertainment that can (directly or indirectly) make money for corrupt companies.

>>16497889

Or you know you can make a game with less grind and no extra pay so people will actually buy your shit in the future