5 ms·

I've found people who extole Stanley Parable are not just capital G Gamers but also capital G Gatekeepers. Their game curation aesthetics have all the tact of S

I've found people who extole Stanley Parable are not just capital G Gamers but also capital G Gatekeepers. Their game curation aesthetics have all the tact of Superman's Braniac collecting planets. Celeste is derivative of Donkey Kong Country. I agree that for an author who thinks derivation itself is stinky, using an overly reductive critical framework where every game is derivative of, I don't know, unaliving Donkey Kong at the arcades, it was odd to see Celeste as a counter example. Most of game innovation the past decade has been in the monetization model, moreso than mechanics. The author looks down their nose at microtransactions so they have probably missed all the innovation even as it continues to cross pollinate with every aspect of the games industry. No wonder they think Stanley Parable is still a noteworthy observation in 2022.

alexb_ 4y ago
LOL... If looking down on "innovative monetization models" is gatekeeping, I am the largest gatekeeper there is.
xena 4y ago
Hi, author of the article here. Microtransactions are an active cancer on the gaming world and I abhor their prevalence in modern gaming. The _only_ time I find them okay is for when they are for _cosmetic purchases only_, and even then the games industry has done a terrible job of making sure that is the case. Sometimes I want to play a game to play a game and immerse myself into that game's world. I don't want to have people manipulate money out of my wallet and into their bank account. Then again, I'm also someone who has been suckered into spending over USD$200 on Fortnite skins, so a lot of my rejection of microtransactions is rooted in the fact that I am vulnerable to their temptations and would rather they be anywhere but in the games that I play on a regular basis. Nintendo games are usually good about not trying to fleece you for cash in a game you paid full price for, so I play a lot of those.
- somehnacct3757 4y ago
  Gaming as-you-define-it is surely dying and it took maybe 15 years for microtransactions to do it in. However, more people play video games than ever before and more games are released per year than at any other time in human history. So what died exactly? Certainly not an industry. Only a business model has died. A game's business model has always been inextricably tied to its design, going back to arcades. So designs you like are dying. This is why I classify your behavior as gatekeeping. All those happy gamers must be enjoying games wrong. The designs they like are not valid game designs because they aren't adherent to your design aesthetics. Do you miss paying a fixed price for a fixed amount of content, never to be updated? Nothing about that is incompatible with microtransactions. In the old days we called them expansions. These days they're called battle passes. Do you miss paying for access to a live game server? Those used to be called subscriptions. Now we've found a way to offer free subscriptions to any and all, subsidized by gamers who have the financial freedom to support their favorite games. [edit: for politeness]
  - alexb_ 4y ago
    No I actually miss paying 60 dollars for a product, getting the entire product, using the product, and that being the end of it. The fact that you even begin to equate business success with how happy the games are making people is absolutely abhorrent and a terrible way to think of things. Have you made free to play games? Anyone who has taken even a small look at it obviously KNOWS that it's not people with "financial freedom to support" who are putting money into these things. Stop kidding yourself.
    - xena 4y ago
      You should take a look at Elden Ring. It's a massive open world that you pay $60 for once and then you have the whole game. It's also an amazing game that builds on top of the foundations of Dark Souls to give you a role playing game that has a unique sense of victory when you overcome what feels insurmountable. Highly recommend. I've been planning on writing something up about it once I beat it. It's also notable that Elden Ring has been one of the most successful games of 2022, it managed to trend on gaming twitter for over a month and a half and still comes up on trending every once in a while.
    - somehnacct3757 4y ago
      $60 price point for games spans back nearly 2 decades. In today dollars those games would cost $90. If you would like developers to release games with source engine graphics, and charge $90 for them, then just say that. Back then games had a huge problem with equitable access. You needed the equivalent of $90 disposable income in 2022 just to try a game sight unseen. Gamers were incredibly wealthy and privileged in those days. The industry dealt with rampant piracy from those who wanted game experiences but couldn't afford them. Gamers relied on written reviews by a handful of curators to derisk purchases. All the while the table stakes to develop a game were rising. The nature of the console games industry is a technology reset every decade which undermines economic efficiencies in development tools. Development costs were kept artificially low by poor working conditions for those in the industry. Poor job security and stolen wages. I haven't yet mentioned that gamers' expectations for control schemes, camera behavior, animation fidelity, environmental realism, and much much more have only grown and contributed to table stakes. I think you are putting the momentary happiness of a niche gaming cohort on a pedestal and it blinds you to what the industry has become and just how many it benefits. Lastly your claim that whales are gambling degenerates or people with poor self control is FUD. This claim is itself part of the gatekeeping from capital G Gamers because it assumes people spending money on games in novel ways can't possibly be enjoying those games. Whales are wealthy people with loads of disposable income. The same people who fly private jets or hire famous musicians for private parties. And everything in between. Why should games miss out on monetization models benefiting other entertainment formats? A much simpler explanation is that Gamers who had grown accustomed to being the Alphas in a hobby they self-identity with, are grappling with the economization of their hobby and being priced out of Alpha status. In effect, the games industry has sold out, man. A naive position that overlooks all the economic realities I outlined at the start.
thatguy0900 4y ago
Innovation in micro transactions is such a wild take. Absolutely awful for the games industry.
- beebeepka 4y ago
  Maybe that's what the masses want. Even if there was a massive conspiracy by the industry, it's clear that free to play makes more money when done right I hate it so I just play old and indie games most of the time. Almost anything turns to shit as soon as the masses come.
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    The issue is that all the innovation is is hiring psychologists to mess with people's heads. Ask someone to pay 200$ to play fortnite and they'll balk at the idea, get them to pay 200$ in 5$ increments(not even, what you actually do is sell them 20$ of vbuck fun money to obfuscate and confuse how much things cost and sell them strangely priced things that can't add up to 20$ so you'll have just less money than you need for something at the end) and they'll get there eventually. The masses are up against teams of malevolent people trying to figure out how to rip them off without them realizing, what they want isn't a factor.
corrral 4y ago
> The author looks down their nose at microtransactions so they have probably missed all the innovation even as it continues to cross pollinate with every aspect of the games industry. I've been doing some serious innovation in plumbing lately. Cut the drain pipe of an upstairs toilet so now it just drains into the room under it. If you hadn't been paying attention to letting-toilets-drain-into-occupied-rooms, you might not think there's much innovation going on in plumbing.

alexb_ 4y ago

LOL... If looking down on "innovative monetization models" is gatekeeping, I am the largest gatekeeper there is.

xena 4y ago

Hi, author of the article here. Microtransactions are an active cancer on the gaming world and I abhor their prevalence in modern gaming. The _only_ time I find them okay is for when they are for _cosmetic purchases only_, and even then the games industry has done a terrible job of making sure that is the case. Sometimes I want to play a game to play a game and immerse myself into that game's world. I don't want to have people manipulate money out of my wallet and into their bank account. Then again, I'm also someone who has been suckered into spending over USD$200 on Fortnite skins, so a lot of my rejection of microtransactions is rooted in the fact that I am vulnerable to their temptations and would rather they be anywhere but in the games that I play on a regular basis. Nintendo games are usually good about not trying to fleece you for cash in a game you paid full price for, so I play a lot of those.

somehnacct3757 4y ago
Gaming as-you-define-it is surely dying and it took maybe 15 years for microtransactions to do it in. However, more people play video games than ever before and more games are released per year than at any other time in human history. So what died exactly? Certainly not an industry. Only a business model has died. A game's business model has always been inextricably tied to its design, going back to arcades. So designs you like are dying. This is why I classify your behavior as gatekeeping. All those happy gamers must be enjoying games wrong. The designs they like are not valid game designs because they aren't adherent to your design aesthetics. Do you miss paying a fixed price for a fixed amount of content, never to be updated? Nothing about that is incompatible with microtransactions. In the old days we called them expansions. These days they're called battle passes. Do you miss paying for access to a live game server? Those used to be called subscriptions. Now we've found a way to offer free subscriptions to any and all, subsidized by gamers who have the financial freedom to support their favorite games. [edit: for politeness]
- alexb_ 4y ago
  No I actually miss paying 60 dollars for a product, getting the entire product, using the product, and that being the end of it. The fact that you even begin to equate business success with how happy the games are making people is absolutely abhorrent and a terrible way to think of things. Have you made free to play games? Anyone who has taken even a small look at it obviously KNOWS that it's not people with "financial freedom to support" who are putting money into these things. Stop kidding yourself.
  - xena 4y ago
    You should take a look at Elden Ring. It's a massive open world that you pay $60 for once and then you have the whole game. It's also an amazing game that builds on top of the foundations of Dark Souls to give you a role playing game that has a unique sense of victory when you overcome what feels insurmountable. Highly recommend. I've been planning on writing something up about it once I beat it. It's also notable that Elden Ring has been one of the most successful games of 2022, it managed to trend on gaming twitter for over a month and a half and still comes up on trending every once in a while.
  - somehnacct3757 4y ago
    $60 price point for games spans back nearly 2 decades. In today dollars those games would cost $90. If you would like developers to release games with source engine graphics, and charge $90 for them, then just say that. Back then games had a huge problem with equitable access. You needed the equivalent of $90 disposable income in 2022 just to try a game sight unseen. Gamers were incredibly wealthy and privileged in those days. The industry dealt with rampant piracy from those who wanted game experiences but couldn't afford them. Gamers relied on written reviews by a handful of curators to derisk purchases. All the while the table stakes to develop a game were rising. The nature of the console games industry is a technology reset every decade which undermines economic efficiencies in development tools. Development costs were kept artificially low by poor working conditions for those in the industry. Poor job security and stolen wages. I haven't yet mentioned that gamers' expectations for control schemes, camera behavior, animation fidelity, environmental realism, and much much more have only grown and contributed to table stakes. I think you are putting the momentary happiness of a niche gaming cohort on a pedestal and it blinds you to what the industry has become and just how many it benefits. Lastly your claim that whales are gambling degenerates or people with poor self control is FUD. This claim is itself part of the gatekeeping from capital G Gamers because it assumes people spending money on games in novel ways can't possibly be enjoying those games. Whales are wealthy people with loads of disposable income. The same people who fly private jets or hire famous musicians for private parties. And everything in between. Why should games miss out on monetization models benefiting other entertainment formats? A much simpler explanation is that Gamers who had grown accustomed to being the Alphas in a hobby they self-identity with, are grappling with the economization of their hobby and being priced out of Alpha status. In effect, the games industry has sold out, man. A naive position that overlooks all the economic realities I outlined at the start.

thatguy0900 4y ago

Innovation in micro transactions is such a wild take. Absolutely awful for the games industry.

beebeepka 4y ago
Maybe that's what the masses want. Even if there was a massive conspiracy by the industry, it's clear that free to play makes more money when done right I hate it so I just play old and indie games most of the time. Almost anything turns to shit as soon as the masses come.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  The issue is that all the innovation is is hiring psychologists to mess with people's heads. Ask someone to pay 200$ to play fortnite and they'll balk at the idea, get them to pay 200$ in 5$ increments(not even, what you actually do is sell them 20$ of vbuck fun money to obfuscate and confuse how much things cost and sell them strangely priced things that can't add up to 20$ so you'll have just less money than you need for something at the end) and they'll get there eventually. The masses are up against teams of malevolent people trying to figure out how to rip them off without them realizing, what they want isn't a factor.

corrral 4y ago

> The author looks down their nose at microtransactions so they have probably missed all the innovation even as it continues to cross pollinate with every aspect of the games industry. I've been doing some serious innovation in plumbing lately. Cut the drain pipe of an upstairs toilet so now it just drains into the room under it. If you hadn't been paying attention to letting-toilets-drain-into-occupied-rooms, you might not think there's much innovation going on in plumbing.