4 ms·

The cost of mobile gaming has driven me away, which is sad since it would be nice to sit back and relax rather than being stuck in front of a computer. As the

by II2II 7y ago

The cost of mobile gaming has driven me away, which is sad since it would be nice to sit back and relax rather than being stuck in front of a computer. As the article discusses, there are these pay to win models dominating Android. I recently looked into a Switch where many appealing titles cost CAD$80 and the number of interesting titles below CAD$40 (where I usually draw the line) doesn't justify the cost of the console. I do not think of myself as particularly cheap either, and have spent money on DLC that expand game play. The article also mentions grinding an incentive to pay to win. While this is undoubtedly true, I also suspect that this reflects a general shift in gaming in general. The shift towards open world games and games that offer a creative element, as well as a shift away from reflexes and puzzle solving as being the source of challenge, has made resource gathering an important element to games. Alas, resource gathering is a lot like leveling up in an RPG: it can be tremendous fun in the beginning, yet it transforms into a slog as the game becomes more challenging. I can understand why mobile gamers are willing to pay real cash to get around grinding, even though the cynic in me refuses to understand why they don't see it as manipulative.

beatgammit 7y ago
Stuff like resource gathering stretch gameplay, and things like in app purchases are designed to give you immediate pleasure, so spending money feels good. Do you want to wait a day for X to finish building, or finish it now for $1 and start your war today! Yes, it's absolutely manipulative, but it's also pleasurable, so people accept it. However, I reject it because I don't want to feel like Pavlov's dog. The DLC model isn't that much different. Instead of getting an immediate pleasure reaction at the time of purchase, they extend the pleasure over a bit longer period. Instead of, "I'm glad I sped up that building", it's "I'm glad I bought this DLC, mechanic X is so nice". Both try to get you to spend more, and both try to reward you for doing so. Instead of being Pavlov's simple dog, I'm Pavlov's sophisticated dog. Unfortunately, microtransactions are getting more popular in the form of loot boxes and cosmetics. Fortunately, they seem to separate purchases from gameplay, and hopefully that doesn't change anytime soon. But I'm definitely with you. $40 is usually my upper bound for a quality title, and I'm willing to pay $10 or so per quality DLC if I'm enjoying the base game. I recently got EU4 for $40 (bundled with a few DLC), and I'm likely to buy some DLC when the next sale comes around so they end up in my preferred spending range. Waiting for a sale for a reasonable price is stupid and EU4 walks the line between a reasonable DLC policy and a predatory one, but it's a good game so I give it some slack.
- II2II 7y ago
  > I'm willing to pay $10 or so per quality DLC if I'm enjoying the base game. On the whole, I believe that the ability to buy DLC based upon a player's enjoyment of the game is good for the consumer and developer. Yes, it can be manipulative. On the other hand, game development is risky and businesses that need to turn a profit. Creating a good base game seems like a solid way to assess the market. Expanding it with DLC seems like a good way to entice players to pay for the development of additional content or a more sophisticated game. That being said, there are games that are pretty much guaranteed to succeed in the market. In those cases DLC feels like a way to extract money from consumers for an incomplete title. EU4, and other titles published through Paradox, are special cases. To outsiders the cost of the game and all DLC is absurd, yet a subset of people will play the games for hundreds or thousands of hours.
HeadsUpHigh 7y ago
Open world games and resource gathering shouldn't feel like a grind. There are plenty of ways to make resource gathering more fun than just making tiers of resources. Minecraft is a good example where instead of making the grind slower, it gets faster and with more variety as you progress in the game. That in turns allows you to build and do more stuff than before.

by II2II 7y ago

beatgammit 7y ago

Stuff like resource gathering stretch gameplay, and things like in app purchases are designed to give you immediate pleasure, so spending money feels good. Do you want to wait a day for X to finish building, or finish it now for $1 and start your war today! Yes, it's absolutely manipulative, but it's also pleasurable, so people accept it. However, I reject it because I don't want to feel like Pavlov's dog. The DLC model isn't that much different. Instead of getting an immediate pleasure reaction at the time of purchase, they extend the pleasure over a bit longer period. Instead of, "I'm glad I sped up that building", it's "I'm glad I bought this DLC, mechanic X is so nice". Both try to get you to spend more, and both try to reward you for doing so. Instead of being Pavlov's simple dog, I'm Pavlov's sophisticated dog. Unfortunately, microtransactions are getting more popular in the form of loot boxes and cosmetics. Fortunately, they seem to separate purchases from gameplay, and hopefully that doesn't change anytime soon. But I'm definitely with you. $40 is usually my upper bound for a quality title, and I'm willing to pay $10 or so per quality DLC if I'm enjoying the base game. I recently got EU4 for $40 (bundled with a few DLC), and I'm likely to buy some DLC when the next sale comes around so they end up in my preferred spending range. Waiting for a sale for a reasonable price is stupid and EU4 walks the line between a reasonable DLC policy and a predatory one, but it's a good game so I give it some slack.

II2II 7y ago
> I'm willing to pay $10 or so per quality DLC if I'm enjoying the base game. On the whole, I believe that the ability to buy DLC based upon a player's enjoyment of the game is good for the consumer and developer. Yes, it can be manipulative. On the other hand, game development is risky and businesses that need to turn a profit. Creating a good base game seems like a solid way to assess the market. Expanding it with DLC seems like a good way to entice players to pay for the development of additional content or a more sophisticated game. That being said, there are games that are pretty much guaranteed to succeed in the market. In those cases DLC feels like a way to extract money from consumers for an incomplete title. EU4, and other titles published through Paradox, are special cases. To outsiders the cost of the game and all DLC is absurd, yet a subset of people will play the games for hundreds or thousands of hours.

HeadsUpHigh 7y ago

Open world games and resource gathering shouldn't feel like a grind. There are plenty of ways to make resource gathering more fun than just making tiers of resources. Minecraft is a good example where instead of making the grind slower, it gets faster and with more variety as you progress in the game. That in turns allows you to build and do more stuff than before.