• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Video Game Thread - $70 Zelda Expansion!

For context, two of my most played games of all-time are expansion packs... I grew up on Lord of Destruction and The Frozen Throne. I grew up on battle.net. Each of those games were insanely successful. It was Blizzard's entire business model, before WoW subscription costs came into play. I refuse to believe that the videogame market has changed so much as to not make a return to that sort of business model possible. Ironically, Take Two sort of pulled that off with XCOM2, and that's been their Civ business model for the past decade. Maybe there's still hope yet.
 
Damn guys, y'all are having a better back and forth discussion on opposite viewpoints on this thread than I think I've ever seen on the Tunnels.
Kory still subtly trolling me by shoehorning "nuance" in every post tho
 
Damn guys, y'all are having a better back and forth discussion on opposite viewpoints on this thread than I think I've ever seen on the Tunnels.

ha. the tunnels aren't really meant to be deliberative spaces. a lot of typing, but very little consideration.
 
For context, two of my most played games of all-time are expansion packs... I grew up on Lord of Destruction and The Frozen Throne. I grew up on battle.net. Each of those games were insanely successful. It was Blizzard's entire business model, before WoW subscription costs came into play. I refuse to believe that the videogame market has changed so much as to not make a return to that sort of business model possible. Ironically, Take Two sort of pulled that off with XCOM2, and that's been their Civ business model for the past decade. Maybe there's still hope yet.

Yeah. It seems like companies lock themselves into a position along the microtransaction spectrum, then every game adopts their stance on how much microtransactions should influence the game from dev to distribution.

I guess the best thing to look for is when companies deviate from their position - adding more/increasing the influence in new titles - like 2k did to their NBA series. Criticism or praise should depend on those movements.
 
Damn guys, y'all are having a better back and forth discussion on opposite viewpoints on this thread than I think I've ever seen on the Tunnels.

Olds don't play video games.

This is a good discussion. Dealing with this with my kids. I don't do micro transactions. But I've bought a ton of Skylanders stuff over the last few years. At least that has resell value. So far they're fine not buying much new content for Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare 2. I let them buy a $9.99 pack with their own money once but I've shut it down since.
 
Like many others, I feel like DLC/Lootboxes are generally fine unless they are pay to win situations. Even a game like Hearthstone with its card packs doesn't bother me, since I've been able to play that for years without putting a dime into it. I'm not trying to be at the top of the ladder, but I do well enough to enjoy it. Blind boxes can still be okay also, such as with Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, so long as the loop isn't weighted heavily against the player. The seemingly arbitrary nature of Battlefront 2's upgrade loop is particularly egregious at this. I do think that non-cosmetic microtransactions in a full priced major release are almost exclusively bad as well. F2P games are a different story for that, but ultimately I think there is not one system that holds true for every game.
 
RSF, what issue did Rocket League have? Did a buy only car and have a bigger hit radius?

I think it's an ongoing, if ultimately minor, issue.

Psyonix initially released a bunch of different body types through DLC, which wasn't really all that frowned upon. Two of those bodies (Dominus and Batmobile) had hitbox advantages... The Batmobile in particular had the largest hitbox in the game. Obviously, there are compromises here (they both suffer in terms of turn radius), but again, putting them behind $2 DLCs wasn't really a problem. This was (and still is) mostly because the most used car in the game is still the Octane-- the car you start out with. And honestly, the Dominus wasn't all that different from the Breakout, another starting car.

Then came loot crates. For a while, Psyonix insisted that loot crate cars would only be different cosmetic variants of existing bodies in the game, which is how we got the Octane ZSR and Dominus GT, among others. It's also how we got the Mantis (a reskin of the Batmobile)-- I think Psyonix's explanation here was that, if you didn't want to buy the Dominus or Batmobile DLCs, you could get their variants through the loot crates, and if you don't want to pay to open loot crates, the bodies' inclusions in loot crates makes them possible to get thru trading. At the end of the day, since the Dominus and Batmobile were already behind DLC, including reskins in loot crate probably was a good thing in a lot of ways. Morally, there are the same problems that we've been talking about the last couple of days, because you'll likely spend way more money gambling to get the Dominus GT than you would by just buying the Dominus, but at least it was an alternative option.

But I guess they realized nobody gave a fuck about most of those variants, because they walked back their initial insistence, and started including unique bodies in loot crates, like the Endo, Animus, Centio, and Jager. They tried to compensate for those additions by standardizing all bodies across 5 "types" (Octane, Dominus, Plank, Breakout, and Hybrid), minimizing differences in handling/hitboxes for cars within the same type. Two problems with that, though:

1.) "Hybrid" is super undefined as a type, and seems to just be a catchall for things that don't fit in other categories. Two new loot crate cars (Endo + Jager) have already been added to that category.
2.) The key phrase there is "minimizing differences." For example: while the Batmobile, Paladin, and Centio are all in the "plank" category, they all drive super differently, and you aren't going to see many people in competitive play rocking the latter two. Same goes for the Breakout category, containing both the Breakout and Animus GP. As someone who has played with both of those cars for significant time, nah, those aren't even close to the same. The Animus is closer to a tall Octane than it is to the Breakout, IMO.

So, I dunno. It's not really "pay 2 win", because two of the best meta cars are still free starting bodies, and every body comes with its own trade-offs, but I do think there have been times in Rocket League's history where they've deserved criticism for locking certain bodies behind paywalls. I do think most of the problem was with the inclusion of loot crates, even if initially I think their line of thinking was fine. It makes way more sense to ask people to spend $4 for a car than to force them to gamble for one.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, thanks. I have been rocking the van since I started, would probably be hard to switch at this point.
 
One interesting wrinkle with Rocket League (and a way they differ from other microtransaction-happy games like DOTA, CS:GO, and PUBG) is that your items aren't technically part of your Steam inventory, which means that Psyonix is circumventing the Steam Community Marketplace. Basically: you can't directly buy things with "real" money on the Marketplace, but a currency exists in the form of crate keys (which cost $1 each through Psyonix).

So, say you want a fancy crate-only goal explosion, like Popcorn. You could open crates, which I think have something like a 1/50 chance of dropping items that rare, and even then, you might not get the explosion you're looking for. Or! You could go to a third party trading site, find somebody selling the explosion on your platform, and then pay anywhere between 8 and 11 keys for it. Which means that, given the drop rates are what they are, Psyonix is profiting twice from most of these high end items-- once on the front end from the crates being opened to get it, and once on the back end when a second user purchases keys to trade for the item. It's a little wacky.
 
also, switching isn't really that hard. takes a couple of hours to get used to, but if you're currently using a Merc or Road Hog, you'll be so much better basically instantly

I think I went Octane/Breakout -> Dominus -> Endo -> Octane -> Animus -> Octane... I miss the way the Endo looks, and until recently I had more success getting power hits out of it, but really I can't see ever ditching the Octane again. It's just so good. I don't mind the Animus, though. Like I said, it feels like a bigger Octane.
 
Good write-up. I'm glad that we're at a point where we acknowledge that loot crates in all forms are exploitative.
 
I just wonder what the next step in this process is. Because first it was DLC, then microtransactions, now lootboxes. I can't fault the developers/publishers for wanting to get more money out of their games but what is the ideal post release revenue system that developers can set up that players won't have an issue with?
 
thediplomat_2016-03-12_09-01-22-553x360.jpg
 
Dude, we just lost to fucking Ga Southern and Liberty. At home.

I'm fully in "we will never make the Final 4" mode. I'm not entirely certain Wake will ever have another winning season again. I consider myself deep in the hole on Wake bball right now.

So TES10 is also coming out before we make the Final 4. So is Half-Life 3.

#moarscoop
 
Back
Top