The current multiplayer environment punishes people who like more than one game

[Terror-Billy]

Battle Passes are cool and at the same time, they are sort of a pain in the ass. I have to constantly decide if I want to advance the BP on Fortnite or on Modern Warfare. At least Fortnite's is fast to level up. MW's Battle Pass is slow as a river of friggin' poop.

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

The trick is to stop caring, and break the chains. If you miss out then you miss out, who cares?

I was jumping through EA's hoops for Battlefield V to earn a gun, and while it's great for the diehards that's only play Battlefield V - I found it taking me away from games I really wanted to play.

So I dropped it altogether. Play what you want to play. It's your time, not theirs.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

How about just selling the game for $60 and doing some free updates?

Click to shrink...

Ok, another great idea.
Free updates, forever? Or do developers just cut-off the post-launch support in a year or two? What about cosmetics, can they sell skins?

And how many $60 Multiplayer games without post-launch monetization are you playing? There are games on the market that do exactly that.

+ your solution is removing that cosmetic progression. So in the end, now nobody gets their clown costumes.

 

[horkrux]

The trick is to stop caring, and break the chains. If you miss out then you miss out, who cares?

I was jumping through EA's hoops for Battlefield V to earn a gun, and while it's great for the diehards that's only play Battlefield V - I found it taking me away from games I really wanted to play.

So I dropped it altogether. Play what you want to play. It's your time, not theirs.

Click to shrink...

...and then you get the urge to play it again a year or so later and realize you've missed all the cool shit.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

...and then you get the urge to play it again a year or so later and realize you've missed all the cool shit.

Click to shrink...

... what was so precious in BFV chapters/rewards that you are upset about? What is this "cool shit" we are talking about.

 

[horkrux]

... what was so precious in BFV chapters/rewards that you are upset about? What is this "cool shit" we are talking about.

Click to shrink...

Not BFV in particular

 

[Obsonet]

Ok, another great idea.
Free updates, forever? Or do developers just cut-off the post-launch support in a year or two? What about cosmetics, can they sell skins?

And how many $60 Multiplayer games without post-launch monetization are you playing? There are games on the market that do exactly that.

Click to shrink...

No not forever, but 1-2 years seems like enough to me.
To me I think skins are fine, the issue I have is when you can spend an unlimited amount of money in a game, just seems very excessive and hurts the player.
And I don't play multiplayer games with post-launch monetization, and it's a shame. I used to like COD but now it's just something I have no interest in because of all the things they've done with monetization.

 

[M.J.]

Def feels like too much with daily quests and timed rewards. Designed to hook you, and it works, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing!
Only thing "good" about it is *more addicted players -> more money -> more content -> everybody's happy*

 

[Evolution of Metal]

Not BFV in particular

Click to shrink...

Fortnite? Rocket League? Apex? COD? Overwatch?

Looter-shooters don't count. The entire point of that game is the endless threadmill of unlocking new gear to unlock more new gear. The genre has never, and will never, give you everything without thousands of hours of investment. Are those games packing top tier gear into the season timed event?

Just define which game is screwing players who couldn't participate in seasonal events. Lets move away from the vague blanket accusations of developers "exploiting" the audience and pointing to the specific examples.

No not forever, but 1-2 years seems like enough to me.
To me I think skins are fine, the issue I have is when you can spend an unlimited amount of money in a game, just seems very excessive and hurts the player.
And I don't play multiplayer games with post-launch monetization, and it's a shame. I used to like COD but now it's just something I have no interest in because of all the things they've done with monetization.

Click to shrink...

• 1 year of support is fine
• Not playing games with post-launch monetization
• Dislike COD because it has a Battle Pass

Is this a correct summary of your position?

 

[Obsonet]

Fortnite? Rocket League? Apex? COD? Overwatch?

Looter-shooters don't count. The entire point of that game is the endless threadmill of unlocking new gear to unlock more new gear. The genre has never, and will never, give you everything without thousands of hours of investment.

Just define which game is screwing players who couldn't participate in seasonal events. Lets move away from the vague blanket accusations of developers "exploiting" the audience and pointing to the specific examples.



• 1 year of support is fine
• Not playing games with post-launch monetization
• Dislike COD because it has a Battle Pass

Is this a correct summary of your position?

Click to shrink...

Yes what's wrong with any of that?

 

[hephaestus]

...and then you get the urge to play it again a year or so later and realize you've missed all the cool shit.

Click to shrink...

But wouldn`t there be all new cool shit to get?

 

[Deleted member 17402]

Can't say I know the feeling. The only multiplayer series I've kept up with in the last 10 years is Call of Duty. I don't play any other multiplayer games because when it comes to that, I need only one game to get my multiplayer fix. After that I just look for loads of unique or fun single player experiences. Multiplayer will always be dedicated to one series for me. I have no interest in playing other people across different games when I enjoy playing them primarily in one.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

Yes what's wrong with any of that?

Click to shrink...

• The expectation of free updates without monetization is the irrational one, you might aswell ask for free games too.
• People like games being supported for more than one year? Seems like a generally universal bullet point with no drawbacks.
• Purchasing optional cosmetics is... fun for some people? Some people... like dressing their characters in new costumes etc.
• MW de-monetizes maps and shifts towards cosmetic monetization, while even providing regular players with cosmetic progression.
• Lower/Free cost of entry and cosmetic monetization make games more affordable, and removes all the P2W problems.

You preferences are problematic for both developers and the players. It is obvious that you don't play, nor have any interest in the service games, and... generally, with any topic, your input regarding the topic is not grounded in any experience or observation. Your conclusion is based on the gut feeling ideas that the games would be better off with $60 packages with free updates for the year.

 

[Ragnarok Flames]

I love how people were previously complaning about expensive Season Passes locking ALL POST-LAUNCH CONTENT behind a paywall and now with free maps, guns and shit, the grinding to unlock COSMETICS, SKINS is seen as the worst thing ever.

Click to shrink...

paying to miss out on the items you are supposed to be "retained by".

its like people defend microtransactions.

 

[Obsonet]

• The expectation of free updates without monetization is the irrational one, you might aswell ask for free games too.
• People like games being supported for more than one year? Seems like a generally universal bullet point with no drawbacks.
• Purchasing optional cosmetics is... fun for some people? Some people... like dressing their characters in new costumes etc.
• MW de-monetizes maps and shifts towards cosmetic monetization, while even providing regular players with cosmetic progression.
• Lower/Free cost of entry and cosmetic monetization make games more affordable, and removes all the P2W problems.

You preferences are problematic for both developers and the players. It is obvious that you don't play, nor have any interest in the service games, and... generally, with any topic, your input regarding the topic is not grounded in any experience or observation. Your conclusion is based on the gut feeling ideas that the games would be better off with $60 packages with free updates for the year.

Click to shrink...

Your first point makes no sense, I payed $60 for a game and some free updates is impossible? We know it's not because a lot of games do have free updates, like actually free not funded through microtransactions.
That is fair and I can't disagree, but to me 1 year of support is a lot dpending on what is done.
Seriously? it's fun to dress your charcter for sure and developers have taken complete advantage of that by making you pay for it in MP games now.
I much prefered just paying $10 in MW and having everything in the game, rather than needing to spend thousands to do so now.
It solved P2W but then just created a seperate problem where getting cool cosmetic items needs excessive grinding or money.

And I do enjoy service games, like I already said I did in the past and do so now for ones that don't have unlimited spending.

 

[Shahed]

That's why you only play one multiplayer game! FFXIV is the only one I play. The rest of the games I play are single player.

Having said that, I haven't logged into FFXIV since just after 5.1. Won't resub until 5.2...

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

...and then you get the urge to play it again a year or so later and realize you've missed all the cool shit.

Click to shrink...

You really don't because the carrot on the stick never goes away. The shit you missed is now the old shit and you'd be playing for the new cool shit.

 

[cowbanana]

OP seems like a victim of successfully weaponized FOMO.

At some point I think people need to look inwards and figure out if they're really having fun or if the shallow digital in-game goods turn out to be the most important part of the game for them.

 

[-Tetsuo-]

I will state that this is most certainly a thing in Destiny 2. The more you play, the more options you have in multiplayer. This is completely ignoring whatever the battle pass gives you.

 

[Spider-Man]

Hey, this might be an interesting thread. Let's discuss things from a professional point of view as someone with actual industry experience.

Several posts later: predatory, exploitative and stuff. Never mind, maybe the next thread will be more sane. :)

Click to shrink...

Please don't act like we are all naive here. These components of games are designed to keep people addicted and playing the same game. It's so obvious it is laughable.

It all comes from the F2P rush that mobile games had in the last decade and made its way to console and PC games. The funniest part is that it's all stuff taken from those games too. Dailies. Weeklies. Log in rewards etc.

Also you are on the team that created one of the most bastardized examples of F2P and addiction mechanics with Battlefront 2.

Let’s go whaling: Tricks for monetising mobile game players with free-to-play

Speaking at Pocket Gamer Connects Helsinki 2016, Tribeflame CEO Torulf Jernström discusses the tricks of the F2P trade.

youtu.be

This is where that "industry experience" comes from anyways when designing one of these games.

Hey, this might be an interesting thread. Let's discuss things from a professional point of view as someone with actual industry experience.

Several posts later: predatory, exploitative and stuff. Never mind, maybe the next thread will be more sane. :)

Click to shrink...

You sure ignored their post and provided no rebuttal.

So are you saying only people who work in the gaming industry can comment on these exploitative practices stolen from mobile games from the last decade?

 

[ecnal]

Not all of them are, but most that I experienced have been.
Take the HITMAN games: these are single player games, but they add "elusive targets" once every week or two, that unlock items which are not just cosmetic, and cannot be obtained via other means. They even go as far as hiring celebrities to make the events more appealing.
This is designed to pressure people into buying the game as close to launch as possible so they don't miss out on that content, like they would if they bought it on sale later, and to keep influencers coming back to the game and promoting it.
Other games do things like only selling specific items in a limited time window; after that there's no way to get them again - and many don't even let you trade items with other players.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, most of what you've described here is poor design as opposed to being nefarious.

Out of curiosity, would you consider CSGO's Battle Pass exploitative? All of the BP content is sellable on the market and thus attainable — via purchase — after the BP has expired.

 

[Stoney Mason]

If a person feels buying battle-passes at this point is mandatory in whatever game they play, they are going to be wasting a ton of time and money.

Whether its "predatory" or not the decision is up to you to not waste either your time or money. Not sure what to say other than that.

 

[Pargon]

And of course devs want people to purchase the game as close to launch as possible, that's super obvious. They'd rather people purchase it at full retail price, rather than wait weeks or months for a discount. Saying people are "pressured" however is a bit of an exaggeration. It's really not a big deal if you miss out on some optional content.

Click to shrink...

Of course they would prefer that. That's why they designed content to pressure people into buying the game early so they don't feel like they're missing out.
You may not personally care about missing out, but they wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

This entire thread is a cyclical bullshit. Everything can be boiled down to being exploitative […]

Click to shrink...

Creating artificial scarcity for digital content, in order to convince players to buy the game right away, play their game instead of another one, or have the opportunity to buy time-limited items, is exploitative. It's not like the other things you listed.
Multiplayer games existed for years and were hugely successful without any of this.
But developers have realized that they can make a lot more money by preying on people's fears and compulsions.

• The expectation of free updates without monetization is the irrational one, you might aswell ask for free games too.

Click to shrink...

I remember when this was the norm. Cost of doing business to foster an active online community and convince people to buy the game.

Out of curiosity, would you consider CSGO's Battle Pass exploitative? All of the BP content is sellable on the market and thus attainable — via purchase — after the BP has expired.

Click to shrink...

I'm not familiar with it. At the very least, it doesn't sound as bad.

 

[Cokie Bear]

Of course they would prefer that. That's why they designed content to pressure people into buying the game early so they don't feel like they're missing out.
You may not personally care about missing out, but they wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

Click to shrink...

No one is being pressured into anything. Stop using that word.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

Creating artificial scarcity for digital content, in order to convince players to buy the game right away, play their game instead of another one, or have the opportunity to buy time-limited items, is exploitative. It's not like the other things you listed.
Multiplayer games existed for years and were hugely successful without any of this.
But developers have realized that they can make a lot more money by preying on people's fears and compulsions.

Click to shrink...

Are visuals, marketing, updates, not "in order to convince players to buy the game right away, play their game instead of another one"?

Very simple question to see whether this discussion can go anywhere.

 

[Shoes]

I'm 100% sucked into games that have successfully weaponized FOMO. While it's nice to see games supported for so long and to always have a reason to play them, I just need to convince myself to take a break from some of them to get to other games I haven't touched.

 

[Pargon]

Are visuals, marketing, updates, not "in order to convince players to buy the game right away, play their game instead of another one"?
Very simple question to see whether this discussion can go anywhere.

Click to shrink...

"We made the game look appealing" vs "come back/start playing now or you'll miss out on X, Y, and Z" are very different things.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

 

[horkrux]

Just define which game is screwing players who couldn't participate in seasonal events. Lets move away from the vague blanket accusations of developers "exploiting" the audience and pointing to the specific examples.

Click to shrink...

I've already mentioned Gears 5 f.e. in a previous post. They're not only having lots of skins that are only sold for like a week and then "vaulted" for... well might even be forever... but also lots of character skins for you to unlock per season. Some of them permanently available, some - again - vaulted if you miss out.

If the skins in other games all suck and aren't important, fine, but sometimes they DO have cool shit and if you wait too many months to hop in (or don't want to play the game religiously all the time), that's already your loss in content.

I don't see how 'new shit' completely negates the feeling of having missed out. Ofc they always introduce new stuff for as long as the game is supported, but chances are there is older stuff you'll regret not having had the time to unlock/couldn't unlock when it was available.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

"We made the game look appealing" vs "come back/start playing now or you'll miss out on X, Y, and Z" are very different things.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Click to shrink...

You haven't answered the question.

Are visuals, marketing, updates, not "in order to convince players to buy the game right away, play their game instead of another one"?

It is a yes or no question. There is no need to explain the differences between visual communication and FOMO psychologies.

I don't see how 'new shit' completely negates the feeling of having missed out. Ofc they always introduce new stuff for as long as the game is supported, but chances are there is older stuff you'll regret not having had the time to unlock/couldn't unlock when it was available.

Click to shrink...

Don't you feel like the game should not be in the eternal state of everything? Ever since the Runescape, people who participate in Xmas event get their hat/emote/costume, and it is kind of the badge that you did it. I am not exactly familiar with Gears skins, but you are calling it a vault, which implies the cyclical nature, like most games. You will have your season vibe skins (Summer, Halloween, Winter, Esports etc.). I think most progression system do it "right", and only hoard the cosmetics that have symbolical value. The skins themselves can be trash, but they can work as a piece of history: I have played the game since 2010, I have got it on launch, I played in Season One, I supported X charity event, I completed X challenges etc.

I don't think I will ever regret not having some skins in the game I don't even play anymore. Give me a straight answer: would you pay $15 right now just for that vaulted Gears skin?

 

[Pargon]

You haven't answered the question.

Are visuals, marketing, updates, not "in order to convince players to buy the game right away, play their game instead of another one"?

It is a yes or no question. There is no need to explain the differences between visual communication and FOMO psychologies.

Click to shrink...

Yes, of course marketing is there to convince people to buy/play the game.
But if you have to be that reductionist to try and make a point, it's not much of a point you're making.
Locking players out of content if they don't buy/play a game by a certain time is different from marketing it to them or improving the game over time.

 

[horkrux]

Don't you feel like the game should not be in the eternal state of everything? Ever since the Runescape, people who participate in Xmas event get their hat/emote/costume, and it is kind of the badge that you did it. I am not exactly familiar with Gears skins, but you are calling it a vault, which implies the cyclical nature, like most games. You will have your season vibe skins (Summer, Halloween, Winter, Esports etc.). I think most progression system do it "right", and only hoard the cosmetics that have symbolical value. The skins themselves can be trash, but they can work as a piece of history: I have played the game since 2010, I have got it on launch, I played in Season One, I supported X charity event, I completed X challenges etc.

I don't think I will ever regret not having some skins in the game I don't even play anymore. Give me a straight answer: would you pay $15 right now just for that vaulted Gears skin?

Click to shrink...

I'm calling it a vault, but tbh there is nothing to suggest they will release them again at some point rn. The game has amassed like >1000$ worth of cosmetics after all, but I guess that's an issue for another topic.

Christmas skins etc. are a good idea and I don't anything against them, but that stuff shouldn't be a one-time thing and next christmas there is only new stuff and the old stuff is gone forever. I've just crafted myself such a skin in Gears 4 a few weeks ago, because it was still available. I don't see the harm in having this opportunity.
I don't think seasonal cosmetics should serve as something to remind others of what they missed out on. You're mostly just grinding for those anyway, or logged in or whatever. What does that really prove?

If you never play a game again, then sure, you won't regret some skins. But what if you just jumped in late or suddenly DO want to play it again? You just never know.
And no, I wouldn't pay 15 bucks, since that outrageous lmao