- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rolling Stone Article: COD files patent to base matchmaking off of microtransactions
Posted on 10/18/17 at 7:01 pm to Freauxzen
Posted on 10/18/17 at 7:01 pm to Freauxzen
the only game I've seen get it right so far was destiny 2. you can buy the random roll for shiny shite or you get one every time you level past 20. nothing that's a must have that can't be purchased elsewhere or anything that gives you advantage in combat.
Posted on 10/18/17 at 8:14 pm to Blitzed
You did.
Here's an interesting question for the Gaming Board since we are all on the topic: Would you pay $80-90-100 for a game nowadays if it meant the Devs didn't leave anything up to microtransactions, updates, DLC.
not talking about DLC 4 months later with new maps. I've talking about when games and their Devs make usually standard included content out and calling it "DLC".
If you think about it: the price of a video game hasn't gone up in 15-20 years. So maybe this forces Devs to take this microtransaction path.
(credit to another backchannel for bringing up this counter)
Here's an interesting question for the Gaming Board since we are all on the topic: Would you pay $80-90-100 for a game nowadays if it meant the Devs didn't leave anything up to microtransactions, updates, DLC.
not talking about DLC 4 months later with new maps. I've talking about when games and their Devs make usually standard included content out and calling it "DLC".
If you think about it: the price of a video game hasn't gone up in 15-20 years. So maybe this forces Devs to take this microtransaction path.
(credit to another backchannel for bringing up this counter)
This post was edited on 10/18/17 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 10/18/17 at 8:45 pm to Klark Kent
Pretty much heard the same discussion on the beastcast.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 12:59 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Trying to "keep up" even ruined Overwatch for me. I felt like if I wasn't playing every day and buying loot boxes, I was losing ground.
This makes no sense for Overwatch. There is nothing you can get from a loot box that gives any type of competitive advantage.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 1:08 am to Klark Kent
quote:
if it meant the Devs didn't leave anything up to microtransactions
Microtransactions are going nowhere.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 6:48 am to Klark Kent
quote:
Would you pay $80-90-100
Nope
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:36 am to Klark Kent
quote:
Here's an interesting question for the Gaming Board since we are all on the topic: Would you pay $80-90-100 for a game nowadays if it meant the Devs didn't leave anything up to microtransactions, updates, DLC.
not talking about DLC 4 months later with new maps. I've talking about when games and their Devs make usually standard included content out and calling it "DLC".
If you think about it: the price of a video game hasn't gone up in 15-20 years. So maybe this forces Devs to take this microtransaction path.
(credit to another backchannel for bringing up this counter)
Well, maybe companies have to rethink how big and how expensive their games need to be. The cost of games is directly related to the relentless pursuit of power over anything else.
Devs aren't "forced" to take the microtransaction path because they aren't "forced" to make games with twice the budget of games from 5 or so years ago. That's a choice that they make.
Maybe if they would have slowed down, they could have reduced burden on development creating more efficient technical systems to handle escalating technical scale.
The price of games haven't gone up because they know they the market won't support $100 games. There is more than one choice, though, in how to proceed.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:38 am to SG_Geaux
quote:
This makes no sense for Overwatch. There is nothing you can get from a loot box that gives any type of competitive advantage.
While true, if you do want ANYTHING, especially during holidays and events, you have to play continuously to get it. I mean, I don't need every Tor skin, but I want more than one. Plus you don't want to be the only person on a team with lame skins, which, I would think is a very similar, although less devious, idea to the one in the OP.
Now, if I could purchase individual things for lower prices whenever I wanted, that's different. But the progression in Overwatch, outside of your own skills, is how you customize the looks and the win screens. And although it doesn't impact gameplay it is important.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News