9 ms·

It's almost as if when given the choice people prefer games without microtransactions, even if they're older and have fewer features/powerups etc.

thriftwy 4y ago
I would be just happy to pay for new, interesting and challenging, levels for Angry Birds "the thing" 1.0. But, when the gameplay is so absurdly easy you can beat everything with one finger, all the levels are pointless, and most of screen real estate is dedicated to selling you gems or ability to resume playing level after losing it, it just does not make any sense. You have to seriously be mentally retarded to play it.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I was really upset with Angry Birds 2 introducing a degree of randomness into the levels. Level 6 might appear different for you, just a little bit, every time you load it. Just like that, any appearance of craft that went into the levels was shredded and they just feel AI-generated rather than a natural progression. In which case, because AI-generation is basically infinite, do I really care to beat all the levels? (Angry Birds 1 was a big game - 700 levels. Angry Birds 2? 3,080! But it still feels like they could just increase an integer in the code somewhere and get another 1,000.) I remember playing Angry Birds with friends (not AB Friends) back in ~2012. It was so great when you knew or had figured out the best solution to a level and your friends didn't know how, or vice versa. Also, old Angry Birds was like 10 chapters of ~45 levels each, so if you were stuck in one chapter, you worked on another (and could maybe have the solution for one chapter while your buddy had another), rather than a straight-through "oh, I don't remember how to beat level 308." Randomized levels and the straight-through progression shreds that.
  - artificial 4y ago
    Storing a seed would fix this. Procedural generation was something that made replay great for games like Diablo.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  >But, when the gameplay is so absurdly easy you can beat everything with one finger I haven't played Angry Birds since just after it came out, but couldn't you always beat everything with one finger? The entire control scheme was you dragged a little bird and let go, what would you use the second finger for?
- ralusek 4y ago
  You can play chess and go with one finger...
  - ydlr 4y ago
    Go requires at least two fingers. That is what makes it more challenging than chess.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
I mean, sure, when given the choice, most people prefer "free" to "costs money".
- lsaferite 4y ago
  Just to point out, the game isn't free.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    I really, really wish everyone would stop abusing the word "free" in that way. "Free" means "without cost", but money is only one form of cost -- so not charging money does not automatically make the game "free".
tensor 4y ago
I won't play any iOS game with either ads or with a "free but micro-transaction model." If you look in the pay up front category on the app store, there are very very few games. It's too bad.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I think we should really call out Apple and Google for mismanagement here. Imagine if there was the option to play a game for an hour as a free trial, and then buy the game instead of having to plunk down $4.99 sight-unseen - or having your game in the Free category with the microtransaction shovelware around it. If I'm the developer who wants users to have any semblance of try-before-you-buy, the free category (with an IAP for "Premium") is the only option. Which is a real shame.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Games could still do this (via a single one-time "microtransaction"), and some do this. But standard microtransactions are stupidly profitable, enough to tempt most devs. And, frankly, the gaming industry at large has proven that paying up front does not prevent microtransactions. Even in mobile games.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      But the pool has been poisoned already. If I see that an app uses microtransactions, I won't install that app -- so I'd never even know that the microtransaction was to purchase the game outright.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        I get that. But you can preview what micro transactions are offered prior to purchasing, which is progress.
        JohnFen 4y ago
        Is that an Apple thing? I don't remember seeing anything like that in the android Play Store. That would be useful.
duxup 4y ago
Apple Arcade is great for that reason. No ads, no micro transactions, very high quality games.
- jordemort 4y ago
  I played Star Trek: Legends on Apple Arcade and it was deeply weird. It was a game that was clearly designed for a microtransaction model, with loot boxes, "rare" items, multiple in-game currencies and timers, etc - and in the Apple Arcade edition, exactly zero ways to spend money on any of it. Like a Chuck E Cheese with all the ticket machines set to free play.
  - duxup 4y ago
    There are a couple games like that, they didn’t quite make the transition away from F2P smooth as others. On the other hand, kinda nice too, provides an interesting perspective.
npteljes 4y ago
I mean, that's why they are taking it away, isn't it?
forevergreenyon 4y ago
solution: don't give people that choice... this aligns all corporate-business incentives which are the only ones that matter when considering how to run stores. I'm really worried since it occurred to me that going forwards the only way to really change what any computer device does/can do is through app stores. No more programming languages; specially not 'open ones' for your own computer hygiene (or safety). heck, at this moment I'm worried about a future (I hope it stays a future plan forever) agendas against teaching people to read and write. Now that computers can engage in verbal (oral) communication is just a matter of time.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  You say that now, but you'll love the Speakwrites. You can just talk into them and they'll write for you, with realtime correction of grammar and misinformation.
  - forevergreenyon 4y ago
    what worries me is that it'll realtime correct what I say into what I mean so perfectly that I won't be able to learn to do it on my own. Once our capacity to 'self-correct' (which is the essence of healing) becomes unused we will begin to lose it. I guess in such a world we all talk to our personal 'computers' and they communicate us to other humans translating everything automatically. sounds like we will be so free that we won't have to learn to talk to others, 'our' computers will do that for us, and so on until we don't know whether we are ourselves or our computers are us; perfectly assimilating us into the borg. we will have accomplished a more perfected state of "freedom": we will have become free from having to be alive!!
shp0ngle 4y ago
Yeah but they make more money on the microtransactions in the end.

thriftwy 4y ago

I would be just happy to pay for new, interesting and challenging, levels for Angry Birds "the thing" 1.0. But, when the gameplay is so absurdly easy you can beat everything with one finger, all the levels are pointless, and most of screen real estate is dedicated to selling you gems or ability to resume playing level after losing it, it just does not make any sense. You have to seriously be mentally retarded to play it.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I was really upset with Angry Birds 2 introducing a degree of randomness into the levels. Level 6 might appear different for you, just a little bit, every time you load it. Just like that, any appearance of craft that went into the levels was shredded and they just feel AI-generated rather than a natural progression. In which case, because AI-generation is basically infinite, do I really care to beat all the levels? (Angry Birds 1 was a big game - 700 levels. Angry Birds 2? 3,080! But it still feels like they could just increase an integer in the code somewhere and get another 1,000.) I remember playing Angry Birds with friends (not AB Friends) back in ~2012. It was so great when you knew or had figured out the best solution to a level and your friends didn't know how, or vice versa. Also, old Angry Birds was like 10 chapters of ~45 levels each, so if you were stuck in one chapter, you worked on another (and could maybe have the solution for one chapter while your buddy had another), rather than a straight-through "oh, I don't remember how to beat level 308." Randomized levels and the straight-through progression shreds that.
- artificial 4y ago
  Storing a seed would fix this. Procedural generation was something that made replay great for games like Diablo.
sebzim4500 4y ago
>But, when the gameplay is so absurdly easy you can beat everything with one finger I haven't played Angry Birds since just after it came out, but couldn't you always beat everything with one finger? The entire control scheme was you dragged a little bird and let go, what would you use the second finger for?
ralusek 4y ago
You can play chess and go with one finger...
- ydlr 4y ago
  Go requires at least two fingers. That is what makes it more challenging than chess.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

I mean, sure, when given the choice, most people prefer "free" to "costs money".

lsaferite 4y ago
Just to point out, the game isn't free.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I really, really wish everyone would stop abusing the word "free" in that way. "Free" means "without cost", but money is only one form of cost -- so not charging money does not automatically make the game "free".

tensor 4y ago

I won't play any iOS game with either ads or with a "free but micro-transaction model." If you look in the pay up front category on the app store, there are very very few games. It's too bad.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I think we should really call out Apple and Google for mismanagement here. Imagine if there was the option to play a game for an hour as a free trial, and then buy the game instead of having to plunk down $4.99 sight-unseen - or having your game in the Free category with the microtransaction shovelware around it. If I'm the developer who wants users to have any semblance of try-before-you-buy, the free category (with an IAP for "Premium") is the only option. Which is a real shame.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Games could still do this (via a single one-time "microtransaction"), and some do this. But standard microtransactions are stupidly profitable, enough to tempt most devs. And, frankly, the gaming industry at large has proven that paying up front does not prevent microtransactions. Even in mobile games.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    But the pool has been poisoned already. If I see that an app uses microtransactions, I won't install that app -- so I'd never even know that the microtransaction was to purchase the game outright.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      I get that. But you can preview what micro transactions are offered prior to purchasing, which is progress.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        Is that an Apple thing? I don't remember seeing anything like that in the android Play Store. That would be useful.

duxup 4y ago

Apple Arcade is great for that reason. No ads, no micro transactions, very high quality games.

jordemort 4y ago
I played Star Trek: Legends on Apple Arcade and it was deeply weird. It was a game that was clearly designed for a microtransaction model, with loot boxes, "rare" items, multiple in-game currencies and timers, etc - and in the Apple Arcade edition, exactly zero ways to spend money on any of it. Like a Chuck E Cheese with all the ticket machines set to free play.
- duxup 4y ago
  There are a couple games like that, they didn’t quite make the transition away from F2P smooth as others. On the other hand, kinda nice too, provides an interesting perspective.

npteljes 4y ago

I mean, that's why they are taking it away, isn't it?

forevergreenyon 4y ago

solution: don't give people that choice... this aligns all corporate-business incentives which are the only ones that matter when considering how to run stores. I'm really worried since it occurred to me that going forwards the only way to really change what any computer device does/can do is through app stores. No more programming languages; specially not 'open ones' for your own computer hygiene (or safety). heck, at this moment I'm worried about a future (I hope it stays a future plan forever) agendas against teaching people to read and write. Now that computers can engage in verbal (oral) communication is just a matter of time.

pessimizer 4y ago
You say that now, but you'll love the Speakwrites. You can just talk into them and they'll write for you, with realtime correction of grammar and misinformation.
- forevergreenyon 4y ago
  what worries me is that it'll realtime correct what I say into what I mean so perfectly that I won't be able to learn to do it on my own. Once our capacity to 'self-correct' (which is the essence of healing) becomes unused we will begin to lose it. I guess in such a world we all talk to our personal 'computers' and they communicate us to other humans translating everything automatically. sounds like we will be so free that we won't have to learn to talk to others, 'our' computers will do that for us, and so on until we don't know whether we are ourselves or our computers are us; perfectly assimilating us into the borg. we will have accomplished a more perfected state of "freedom": we will have become free from having to be alive!!

shp0ngle 4y ago

Yeah but they make more money on the microtransactions in the end.