Larian taking dubs on dubs with their pro consumer attitudes and emphasis on quality
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
254 points (98.1% liked)
Games
16752 readers
794 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because unlike other execs Sven understands our mindset. Other execs are too blinded by their greed and arrogance to understand it.
Reading through his statement, he also wants all kinds of games to coexist, not just one or the other type. This man is GOAT, honestly.
Because he actually plays and enjoys games.
He's not just another mba "strip mine the user base for money" fucker.
Ain’t that the truth…
I kinda wanna buy the game to support them, even tho it's probably not for me.
I would have bought DOS2 from Ubisoft or EA it's so damn good, but then they had to go be an ethical game developer!
Yeah, fuck the subscription model and all of this "as a service" bullshit.
Personally "as a service" is OK if it's actually sold that way. If I pay a fee per month or in some other way per use and that gives me access to the whole game as long as I play then I'm a happy camper and it gives the developer a steady stream to use towards improvements and keeping the servers online.
When you start double dipping or even triple dipping is when I start getting peeved. You can't do a monthly fee and also lock stuff behind microtransactions, it might be somewhat OK if what you lock away is purely cosmetic and if you can still get them via say an in-game auction house a la SWTOR.
But some games have all of these:
- Pay for the game itself to let you play it
- Pay a monthly fee or have season passes to get access to certain content or very needed "convenience" features
- Have microtransactions that aren't just cosmetics but give power / convenience or unlock features/content
And then it just feel like a money milking machine.
Generally if you do one of those you're most likely OK, two can potentially work if you're really careful. But all three is a no-go.
The Division did two and felt OK to me, the microtransactions on top were only cosmetics but it felt kinda shitty when you had already bought the game and paid for a season pass/expansions.
Destiny also did two and felt OK as well but after I quit I heard they made some really unpopular changes to the cosmetic system and their microtransactions?
League of Legends did one, the last one, and still felt OK from a monetization stand point. Same with Valorant.
Diablo 3 did all three and was brutalized for it to the point of changing it, but that's the only example from the top of my head of someone triple dipping.
Destiny was doing fine until clearly expansion/content gear was put into the mtx store. Then the whole content vaulting happened and everything went down hill.
The content vault was done to reduce storage space requirements by removing the main story and multiple planets. The story put in to replace the base story made little sense and was just badly designed. In effect this meant the base game (previously paid content) and paid expansion content was removed. No refunds or anything as the policy you sign to play says they can remove content at will.
I commented elsewhere recently that Im of an age when Fast and Furious was awesome and wasnt cringe yet, Im a massive car guy so NFS games are my "happy place" I wouldnt pay for a subscription shooter or RPG, I dont like MMOs... but you give me a massive open world online mmo racer with a city that changes on the regular (roadworks, bridges closed, flooded roads, etc) new storylines that change by the month (theres a new police cheif who is tough on racers, a crime boss who steals cars, blizards drastically changing the driving dynamics... you get the idea) and so on and on. I would pay for what would make ME happy. I dont care if you dont want that, I dont see why people buy the new FIFA every year but they do.
I dont think people hate subscriptions, we hate having to subscribe to mediocrity. We hate cash grab bullshit instead of paying for quality, and we REALLY hate this sense that we are being milked for every dollar they can get instead of being asked to pay a fair price for a great experience.
I tend to wonder if subscriptions force a FOMO cycle. To keep you playing and paying, they have to bullet-train players to max level and keep you in a carousel of the latest content at all times. That leaves the rest of the game a hollow shell.
I've been getting back into Guild Wars 2 recently, and one of the draws is the tolerable monetization: a new expansion every few years, that you can buy on your own schedule (i. e. when they go on sale), and the level cap is effectively frozen, so you can go idle between releases without a meaningful loss of place. The game has to service even the non-expansion users, and the game design explicitly benefits this: the difficulty and rewards scale so that almost all areas of the game are still worth exploring once you've hit level cap, and they can put activities across the map rather than cramming it all in the latest zone.
Yeah its a tightrope walk for sure, no progression and people will leave because its boring, too much progression and a month off will put you so far behind the curve you're fucked and wont keep playing.
I don't actually play a lot of games, so it doesn't make sense for me, but honestly for people who do play a wide variety of different games, Microsoft's GamePass is a brilliant deal. A Netflix-like subscription where you pay one amount per month and get access to all the games in their library, including patches and DLC.
At $11/month, just 3 AAA games per year and it's a better deal. Or 7 $20 games per year, which I know a lot of gamers will easily go through.
But a subscription to an individual game? It better be getting quality ongoing support, with content, bug patches, etc. It made sense back in the day for MMOs, but it's a damn tight rope to walk. And it can only work for the types of games that people are gonna sink their lives into, with hours per week over years. It's a very hard sell, and in not sure I'd pay it even for the two games (from the same franchise) that currently get 90% of my gaming time.
I almost never play MP games, but I think a subscription makes a ton of sense for those since it supports server costs.
But for SP games, I would really rather not be on the clock. I've been halfway through a Netflix series when it gets taken off way to often, and I don't want that for games too. I just don't have a ton of time for games, so sometimes a game will game a year, other times I'll get through it in a week.
I also prefer indie games to AAA, and selection on a subscription service would probably be mediocre for the games I like to play.
So no subscriptions for me, thanks.
crazy that they would put something so fourth wall breaking in Ketheric's dialog tree like that
The Tetris world record recently got broken and people will be playing it until forever. No one is going to be playing any subscription based game in a handful of years simply because the servers or company will no longer exist. If I can’t buy it for life, it’s not worth my time.
Vote with your money.
Ah the enshittification proceeds. Content is not king. Revenue is king. Those railing against it will be swept away as the shit tsunami envelopes everything.
I mean BG3 absolutely wiping the competition in every regard kinda goes against that idea
I think what Ubisoft and Microsoft don't get is that SOME users are okay with subscriptions, but that's a small bit compared to people who don't.
Just cater to the niche that do want it and quit thinking you can make the whole market a subscription service.
Least controversial news story of the day.
And he’s right!
As long as it remains an option among others, I don’t see any issue with the subscription model. I play video games for 20+ years, and I can say it’s impossible for me at this point to play once again to most of the games I played in the past. A subscription model is the cheapest way to play most games if you do not play it more than once (which is the case for most games, at least for myself).
Even in the rare case where I would like to play again a game I did not buy at the time, between discounts, remake / remaster (or even emulation), and even if I have to buy it 5 years after its release, it will still be worth it compared to the dozens of games I had not bought.
I am much more concerned about DLCs, season pass, bugged games on release and so on. Releasing incomplete or imperfect games (and this also count for BG3) implies that one day, using a physical copy of nowadays in 20 years will be a subpar experience because you won’t have access to any of this content by legal means (assuming Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo shutting down their online services for old generations, which has already happened and will likely happen again in the future). Retrogaming for games released nowadays is kind doomed if you do not follow the piracy route (which is probably the only secure way to keep track of both DLCs and patches in the long run).