Looking to try out Disintegration cause it seems like a weird mishmash of genres!? Now you can!

https://www.disintegrationgame.com/beta/

Closed Beta starts on Tuesday, January 28.

Open Beta starts on Friday, January 31.

The tick box to receive spam is NOT checked by default.

I'm REALLY excited about this game but multiplayer isn't for me, sadly. I'll probably check out some gameplay videos to get a better feel for the mechanics.

There will be microtransactions that allow players to customize their grav-cycles

Skip.

There will be microtransactions that allow players to customize their grav-cycles

Skip.

Thank you for your valuable and nuanced contribution, here.

I mean, really. It's the finely-tuned knee-jerk reactions that keep me engaged with your posts.

Microtransactions aren't going anywhere. You're just yelling at clouds at this point. The industry is aware of the toxicity of pay-to-win mechanics, and cosmetics that don't alter gameplay are a safe (if unnecessary, immersion-breaking, and annoying) middle-ground to walk while maintaining some sort of revenue stream between content releases. Yes, there are indies that don't engage in such things that are wildly successful. There are AAA publisher-backed titles that don't engage in such things and are still successful. And then there's everyone else that does. Can you really blame the folks behind Disintegration for launching a new IP, with a unique style of gameplay, for including MtX? Seems like what they're attempting is going to be hard enough already.

I get the philosophical arguments. We should all be so privileged to demand such unwavering purity in the content we consume.

But hey, let's trounce the new project developed by people whose work has argued well in favor of us trusting it before it's even out of the crib. Pffft.

and cosmetics that don't alter gameplay are a safe

The only way cosmetic items do not alter 'gameplay' is if they are ONLY available for purchase. If you can earn them without paying, then the 'gameplay' is necessarily altered.

Can you really blame the folks behind Disintegration for launching a new IP, with a unique style of gameplay, for including MtX?

Yes. At least Highwire did those things without Microstransactions. Even though I'm not a huge fan of VR, I respect them so much more for it, and their next game will instantly interest me. They got my money with Golem, and will get my money on the next one.

If the customizations are exclusively for purchase, and not earnable in game, I might check it out. Not ideal, but at least tolerable.

- No text -

Can you perhaps explain it to me a bit when you say my criticism comes from a place of privilege?

If you mean being able to play games at all Means I am privileged then that is true. But that seems irrelevant given that games are a luxury hobby in the first place and nobody is required to play them. And the criticism is of things that only affect gamers.

If you mean that some people can only afford to play free games supported by micro transactions, then I’m not sure that’s relevant either since AAA games at full price have them too, and many many games can be bought cheap used or on sale that don’t have them. There’s even abandonware.

I don’t understand your argument.

There will be microtransactions that allow players to customize their grav-cycles

Skip.

Counterpoint: New Crews and maps will be free. Also no Loot Boxes.

Un-skip.

If it has microtransactions and its not free, I'm not playing it.

"Its here, it's fear, and its going nowhere" is a garbage argument for apologists and people with no willpower.

#codywasright #ihatewhencodyisright #stopmakingmeagreewithcody

Yes, it might cost me more money, but at least it doesn't cost my integrity.

Yes, it might cost me more money, but at least it doesn't cost my integrity.

What? lol ok.

I appreciate that modern games aren’t splitting player-bases based on DLC purchases. Guess I won’t have to worry about that with you though. Have fun playing... something. I’m sure there are probably some games out there that meet your criteria.

Yes, it might cost me more money, but at least it doesn't cost my integrity.

What? lol ok.

I appreciate that modern games aren’t splitting player-bases based on DLC purchases. Guess I won’t have to worry about that with you though. Have fun playing... something. I’m sure there are probably some games out there that meet your criteria.

First of all, this was figured out ages ago with expansion packs. The fragmentation issue goes away when you drop huge pieces of game changing content all at once instead of a piecemeal DLC.

Second of all, yes there are quite a few games out there that don't stoop to this.

First of all, this was figured out ages ago with expansion packs. The fragmentation issue goes away when you drop huge pieces of game changing content all at once instead of a piecemeal DLC.

No it doesn't. It helps, sure, but still doesn't make it go away. In fact, I'm sure that for some gamers that makes it worse, since bigger drops mean greater cost, which might not figure at all in someone's day-by-day finance.

But what’s making you agree with Cody is a certain perspective created by a combination of the entitlement culture that permeates gaming and the general societal drive to undervalue and underpay for art. Obviously it is a choice not to support what you don’t want to support, but in many regards that is what got us to where we are today.

But what’s making you agree with Cody is a certain perspective created by a combination of the entitlement culture that permeates gaming and the general societal drive to undervalue and underpay for art. Obviously it is a choice not to support what you don’t want to support, but in many regards that is what got us to where we are today.

That's a massive stretch. Not wanting to be inundated with bullshit and games designed around microtransactions is not the same thing as undervaluing art.

The systemic undervaluing of art at all levels is is in no way isolated to just games with design decisions some folk don’t like. The stretch is trying to separate the societal valuation of art from its affected business models.

First of all, this was figured out ages ago with expansion packs. The fragmentation issue goes away when you drop huge pieces of game changing content all at once instead of a piecemeal DLC.

No it doesn't. It helps, sure, but still doesn't make it go away. In fact, I'm sure that for some gamers that makes it worse, since bigger drops mean greater cost, which might not figure at all in someone's day-by-day finance.

A true expansion pack is almost like a new game. So it's no different than if the sequel dropped. We don't complain when Halo 3 fragments the Halo 2 players.

But what’s making you agree with Cody is a certain perspective created by a combination of the entitlement culture that permeates gaming and the general societal drive to undervalue and underpay for art.

It's sad you think that expecting developers to make games in good faith is entitlement.

I have no problem with paying for art. Put it all in the game, and charge 80 bucks for it. Many games I would buy for double or triple the price if they were marked as such.

- No text -

I'd happily pay a higher price, I just don't like microtransactions.

- No text -

I should have been more clear re:integrity.

Given the choice between having to pay for content, or getting freebies because someone else got suckered by manipulative practices, I choose to pay for additional content.

Edit: F2P games are a weird and different animal. I'll pay for content there too (I like the season model in theory) but recognise that microtransactions are unfortunately inseparable.

All of these arguments ignore that if the base price were higher you would have a smaller player base and less folks would have access to the game at all. You value your access the way you you want it over someone else's ability to access it at all.

Yeah, fine. Sorry. I’ll take that trade. I’m not too fussed about the people that wouldn’t be able to afford a video game if the price went up $20 or $40, to be honest. Especially when you consider that those people currently buying games comes at the price of lots of people essentially being conned out of just as much or more money.

All of these arguments ignore that if the base price were higher you would have a smaller player base and less folks would have access to the game at all. You value your access the way you you want it over someone else's ability to access it at all.

This guy gets it.

Can you perhaps explain it to me a bit when you say my criticism comes from a place of privilege?

We should all be so privileged to demand such unwavering purity in the content we consume.

This comment was aimed at your rather high standard of not being willing to touch any title that dared to sully itself with microtransactions, even though cosmetics don't affect gameplay.

But hey, let's trounce the new project developed by people whose work has argued well in favor of us trusting it before it's even out of the crib. Pffft.

This comment was directed towards your lack of trust in developers that we're well aware do good work.

If you mean being able to play games at all Means I am privileged then that is true. But that seems irrelevant given that games are a luxury hobby in the first place and nobody is required to play them. And the criticism is of things that only affect gamers.

But this isn't what I was after. Keep reading.

If you mean that some people can only afford to play free games supported by micro transactions, then I’m not sure that’s relevant either since AAA games at full price have them too, and many many games can be bought cheap used or on sale that don’t have them. There’s even abandonware.

Right, you're just running off a cliff here. Go back and read what I said:

...The industry is aware of the toxicity of pay-to-win mechanics, and cosmetics that don't alter gameplay are a safe (if unnecessary, immersion-breaking, and annoying) middle-ground to walk while maintaining some sort of revenue stream between content releases.

So, right there I'm pointing out that while I find cosmetic MtX to be several kinds of undesirable, I'm willing to accept their existence because...

Can you really blame the folks behind Disintegration for launching a new IP, with a unique style of gameplay, for including MtX? Seems like what they're attempting is going to be hard enough already.

Because, speaking only as an avid consumer with a lot of professional curiosity, the games industry is fucking hard. It's a saturated market with tough working conditions in a lot of places that demands standout creativity, a stable (and balanced) product, and consistent engagement over the life-cycle of a title. You know all of this. Launching a new IP that innovates with a blend of genres that may not hit with the target audience is risky enough. I think allowing for a revenue stream in microtransactions, as long as they don't interfere with gameplay, is merely sound business sense at this point. It's not an industry development that I'm particularly fond of; but it's the reality that we're dealing with at the moment, and if it helps keep titles like Disintegration aloft a bit longer (regardless of whether it turns out to be a great game or not) I'm all for it. I see it as a viable support for innovation.

I don’t understand your argument.

I hope you do now.

~m

Would you say the microtransactions in Destiny affect gameplay?

Because the way they do affect the current design of the game is directly responsible for me no longer playing. Cody is right here—the mere existence of microtransactions necessarily affect gameplay, otherwise they wouldn’t be effective.

I also really hate the argument that cosmetics don’t affect gameplay. Cosmetics are a massive party of enjoyment in games for many people. Just because they don’t matter on a mechanical level doesn’t mean they’re unimportant to gameplay.

Can you perhaps explain it to me a bit when you say my criticism comes from a place of privilege?

We should all be so privileged to demand such unwavering purity in the content we consume.

This comment was aimed at your rather high standard of not being willing to touch any title that dared to sully itself with microtransactions, even though cosmetics don't affect gameplay.

It does effect ‘gameplay’. Your premise is wrong. Unless the only way to get the cosmetic items is to buy them, the game design must necessarily be altered with frictions in order to encourage you to buy instead of simply earn by playing. That is why I have a problem with them. That is why they aren’t benign or innocent. That is why they are in bad faith.

All that about bad conditions is irrelevant. Go read up on Marcus and why he said he left Bungie. V1 is ostensibly set up to eliminate crunch for employees.

All of these arguments ignore that if the base price were higher you would have a smaller player base and less folks would have access to the game at all. You value your access the way you you want it over someone else's ability to access it at all.

This guy gets it.

Yes, because we’ve seen how well making your game as accessible as possible, aka FREE, works out. The logical end point of his argument is freemium, and that’s where this is all the worst.

Would you say the microtransactions in Destiny affect gameplay?

Not in terms of balance in PvP, and not in terms of kill potential in PvE. So, no. Eververse is all cosmetic. Sure, I dislike that there are anachronisms that break my immersion, but that's kind of inevitable in MMO's I think. Plus we're talking about robotic space wizards and machine-gun toting knights chucking flaming hammers, so. Perspective.

Because the way they do affect the current design of the game is directly responsible for me no longer playing. Cody is right here—the mere existence of microtransactions necessarily affect gameplay, otherwise they wouldn’t be effective.

What part of your gameplay experience aside from aesthetics and social interactions is affected by Eververse? How well you play and how effective the game allows you to be aren't influenced by the extra money beyond retail that you spend on Destiny.

I also really hate the argument that cosmetics don’t affect gameplay. Cosmetics are a massive party of enjoyment in games for many people. Just because they don’t matter on a mechanical level doesn’t mean they’re unimportant to gameplay.

Well, show me how they do. Yes, I get enjoyment out of ornaments I've bought, and I use the odd specialty emote. But they don't change the heart of the game. They don't change what's possible. And new cosmetics and emotes that don't require microtransactions come out all the time. You feel the way you feel, and if the way MtX functions in Destiny is enough to get you to quit, that's your decision. All I've got to say about that particular fact is that it makes me a little sad.

Can you perhaps explain it to me a bit when you say my criticism comes from a place of privilege?

We should all be so privileged to demand such unwavering purity in the content we consume.

This comment was aimed at your rather high standard of not being willing to touch any title that dared to sully itself with microtransactions, even though cosmetics don't affect gameplay.

It does effect ‘gameplay’. Your premise is wrong. Unless the only way to get the cosmetic items is to buy them, the game design must necessarily be altered with frictions in order to encourage you to buy instead of simply earn by playing. That is why I have a problem with them. That is why they aren’t benign or innocent. That is why they are in bad faith.

No, it affects your experience. It doesn't affect gameplay. It doesn't make the premise wrong. And it doesn't mean anything is in bad faith.

All that about bad conditions is irrelevant. Go read up on Marcus and why he said he left Bungie. V1 is ostensibly set up to eliminate crunch for employees.

All what about bad conditions? You're doing it again. You're discarding the meat of my argument and cherry-picking specific pieces to respond to. I've responded to your whole post. Tough working conditions was merely one aspect.

Just because V1 aims to eliminate crunch doesn't obviate the rest of what I said. From a business perspective, it's a risk to do what they're doing, and if MtX don't affect the gameplay, it's pretty knee-jerk to say you're not going to even entertain a product by virtue of that; knowing full well what's needed to sustain a game.

Take in the whole argument and let's have an earnest debate about all of it, FFS. Stop all the slice-and-slant stuff. You're better than that.

All of these arguments ignore that if the base price were higher you would have a smaller player base and less folks would have access to the game at all. You value your access the way you you want it over someone else's ability to access it at all.

This guy gets it.

Yes, because we’ve seen how well making your game as accessible as possible, aka FREE, works out. The logical end point of his argument is freemium, and that’s where this is all the worst.

I'm pretty alright with all the New Light Guardians. Nobody gets a leg up by virtue of how much they spend, so.

(PS - you're still doing it. Again. )

What part of your gameplay experience aside from aesthetics and social interactions is affected by Eververse? How well you play and how effective the game allows you to be aren't influenced by the extra money beyond retail that you spend on Destiny.

The entire seasonal XP reward track. It completely changes the way I have to engage with the game to level through it (or, of course, just buy my way through it in the final two weeks). The game is worse for its existence.

I also really hate the argument that cosmetics don’t affect gameplay. Cosmetics are a massive party of enjoyment in games for many people. Just because they don’t matter on a mechanical level doesn’t mean they’re unimportant to gameplay.

Well, show me how they do. Yes, I get enjoyment out of ornaments I've bought, and I use the odd specialty emote. But they don't change the heart of the game. They don't change what's possible. And new cosmetics and emotes that don't require microtransactions come out all the time. You feel the way you feel, and if the way MtX functions in Destiny is enough to get you to quit, that's your decision. All I've got to say about that particular fact is that it makes me a little sad.

It’s like saying that graphics don’t matter. My emotional attachment to my character is just as important to how good it feels to play the game as any of the abilities or weapons are, and the way that character looks is very much connected to that attachment. That may not be true for you, but you can’t just disregard how that affects how it feels to play the game for me (and large numbers of other players). Again, if it actually didn’t matter, selling cosmetics wouldn’t be a thing that’s happening in the first place.

Can you perhaps explain it to me a bit when you say my criticism comes from a place of privilege?

We should all be so privileged to demand such unwavering purity in the content we consume.

This comment was aimed at your rather high standard of not being willing to touch any title that dared to sully itself with microtransactions, even though cosmetics don't affect gameplay.

It does effect ‘gameplay’. Your premise is wrong. Unless the only way to get the cosmetic items is to buy them, the game design must necessarily be altered with frictions in order to encourage you to buy instead of simply earn by playing. That is why I have a problem with them. That is why they aren’t benign or innocent. That is why they are in bad faith.

I ignore Tess 99% of the time. On the rare occasion a cosmetic catches my eye, I buy it. Sometimes it cost "free" currency, sometimes it's actual money. That said, I pay little or no attention to the amount of bright dust currency I have or that I am likely to earn from any activity.

How do microtransactions affect MY gameplay?

An analogy: I think lotteries are evil. I think they're basically an innumeracy tax that can have negative effects, especially on the poor. The people of my state decided that lotteries were a good way to pay for education, so now almost everywhere I buy gas, they sell lotto tix. I could go out of my way to find an outlet for gasoline that doesn't traffic in the scratch offs, or I could accept that that's not really an effective strategy for changing things, acknowledge that the sale of those at any location doesn't affect my experience at the pump, and that the real reason I want to avoid them is to lord my superiority over all the chumps who frequent these stations. I also recognize that profit margins on gas stations are low, and that percentage on those lotto tix might make the difference in some cases as to whether a station exists. Very few consumer choices (or much else in this world) are without some moral calculation. I choose to buy gas at the most convenient station with decent prices (and that isn't Exxon). Plus, this standard allows me to go to that one Shell station with the grill that serves fantastic chicken salad sandwiches.

I'm not attacking your choice. I respect it. I do think you may be throwing many babies out with the bathwater, and I'm mainly taking issue with your global statement that it affects gameplay. It doesn't affect my gameplay or how I play.

What part of your gameplay experience aside from aesthetics and social interactions is affected by Eververse? How well you play and how effective the game allows you to be aren't influenced by the extra money beyond retail that you spend on Destiny.

The entire seasonal XP reward track. It completely changes the way I have to engage with the game to level through it (or, of course, just buy my way through it in the final two weeks). The game is worse for its existence.

I also really hate the argument that cosmetics don’t affect gameplay. Cosmetics are a massive party of enjoyment in games for many people. Just because they don’t matter on a mechanical level doesn’t mean they’re unimportant to gameplay.

Well, show me how they do. Yes, I get enjoyment out of ornaments I've bought, and I use the odd specialty emote. But they don't change the heart of the game. They don't change what's possible. And new cosmetics and emotes that don't require microtransactions come out all the time. You feel the way you feel, and if the way MtX functions in Destiny is enough to get you to quit, that's your decision. All I've got to say about that particular fact is that it makes me a little sad.

It’s like saying that graphics don’t matter. My emotional attachment to my character is just as important to how good it feels to play the game as any of the abilities or weapons are, and the way that character looks is very much connected to that attachment. That may not be true for you, but you can’t just disregard how that affects how it feels to play the game for me (and large numbers of other players). Again, if it actually didn’t matter, selling cosmetics wouldn’t be a thing that’s happening in the first place.

True enough, but let's admit, we're moving a goal post. Gameplay has been traditionally defined as the mechanics of the game, and the path to "winning" the game. The definition is what allows the distinction between "pay-to-win" microtransactions and cosmetic microtransactions. You're broadening the definition of gameplay in order to condemn all microtransactions.

What part of your gameplay experience aside from aesthetics and social interactions is affected by Eververse? How well you play and how effective the game allows you to be aren't influenced by the extra money beyond retail that you spend on Destiny.

The entire seasonal XP reward track. It completely changes the way I have to engage with the game to level through it (or, of course, just buy my way through it in the final two weeks). The game is worse for its existence.

Wait, but that's a criticism of the season pass system, not microtransactions. And I don't really disagree with you, but unlock tracks are not microtransactions.

I also really hate the argument that cosmetics don’t affect gameplay. Cosmetics are a massive party of enjoyment in games for many people. Just because they don’t matter on a mechanical level doesn’t mean they’re unimportant to gameplay.

Well, show me how they do. Yes, I get enjoyment out of ornaments I've bought, and I use the odd specialty emote. But they don't change the heart of the game. They don't change what's possible. And new cosmetics and emotes that don't require microtransactions come out all the time. You feel the way you feel, and if the way MtX functions in Destiny is enough to get you to quit, that's your decision. All I've got to say about that particular fact is that it makes me a little sad.

It’s like saying that graphics don’t matter. My emotional attachment to my character is just as important to how good it feels to play the game as any of the abilities or weapons are, and the way that character looks is very much connected to that attachment. That may not be true for you, but you can’t just disregard how that affects how it feels to play the game for me (and large numbers of other players). Again, if it actually didn’t matter, selling cosmetics wouldn’t be a thing that’s happening in the first place.

No, I'm not disregarding the experience, I'm saying it doesn't change the gameplay. Different things, different motivations for quitting, if that's what you feel you have to do. We can sit down to play chess and you bring a finely-carved, marble set with gold inlay, and I can bring a painted plaster set of dinosaurs, but we're still playing chess, regardless of how ridiculous I look.

And by all means, we're going to feel differently about how that experience goes.

Have we? Since when? I certainly never have. I define gameplay as anything having to do with the act of playing the game. Cosmetics are part of playing the game.

In any case, it is my contention that defining things your way is a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes video games so good on the first place. The two things are not so easily separated.

What part of your gameplay experience aside from aesthetics and social interactions is affected by Eververse? How well you play and how effective the game allows you to be aren't influenced by the extra money beyond retail that you spend on Destiny.

The entire seasonal XP reward track. It completely changes the way I have to engage with the game to level through it (or, of course, just buy my way through it in the final two weeks). The game is worse for its existence.

Wait, but that's a criticism of the season pass system, not microtransactions. And I don't really disagree with you, but unlock tracks are not microtransactions.

I have to pay $10 to even start the season pass track, and I can buy levels in it. They are absolutely microtransactions.

No, I'm not disregarding the experience, I'm saying it doesn't change the gameplay. Different things, different motivations for quitting, if that's what you feel you have to do. We can sit down to play chess and you bring a finely-carved, marble set with gold inlay, and I can bring a painted plaster set of dinosaurs, but we're still playing chess, regardless of how ridiculous I look.

You’re saying Destiny would be just as good of all the enemies were grey blobs, all the environments low-poly colorless masses? The gameplay wouldn’t be any different after all.

Obviously we feel differently. I don’t inherently hater microtransactions. I think they have very clearly and obviously negatively affected the game that Destiny is.

In your example you might not be affected but others are. Lotteries ask the poor to pay for education. That’s not right man. The rich should be the ones paying more of the tax. Just because it doesn’t seem to affect YOU doesn’t mean it’s not a bad system.

Gameplay is everything. Everything affects the experience of playing the game. The graphics. The sound. The controls. Change any of them and the ‘gameplay’ changes. If you just define gameplay as mechanics, then it is a useless word. Just say mechanics.

Wait, but that's a criticism of the season pass system, not microtransactions. And I don't really disagree with you, but unlock tracks are not microtransactions.

I have to pay $10 to even start the season pass track, and I can buy levels in it. They are absolutely microtransactions.

So you're saying that Destiny contains an element of Pay-to-Win? Because the LL system seems designed in part to thwart that.

No, I'm not disregarding the experience, I'm saying it doesn't change the gameplay. Different things, different motivations for quitting, if that's what you feel you have to do. We can sit down to play chess and you bring a finely-carved, marble set with gold inlay, and I can bring a painted plaster set of dinosaurs, but we're still playing chess, regardless of how ridiculous I look.

You’re saying Destiny would be just as good of all the enemies were grey blobs, all the environments low-poly colorless masses? The gameplay wouldn’t be any different after all.

Now, come on. I gave a simplistic example for brevity's sake. You know that's not what I'm saying. If we were talking solely within the context of custom Crucible games, sure. You're not going to care or be affected by the ornaments I've got on my gear.

Obviously we feel differently. I don’t inherently hater microtransactions. I think they have very clearly and obviously negatively affected the game that Destiny is.

Well, I don't agree, but ultimately we're talking about taste here. Circling back to the original point RE:Disintegration; I think it stands to reason that a fledgling IP that's attempting to innovate on gameplay is taking risks that can be reasonably(albeit only partially) mitigated by allowing for a revenue stream in microtransactions without impacting the core gameplay.

All of these arguments ignore that if the base price were higher you would have a smaller player base and less folks would have access to the game at all. You value your access the way you you want it over someone else's ability to access it at all.

This guy gets it.

Yes, because we’ve seen how well making your game as accessible as possible, aka FREE, works out. The logical end point of his argument is freemium, and that’s where this is all the worst.

I'm pretty alright with all the New Light Guardians. Nobody gets a leg up by virtue of how much they spend, so.

(PS - you're still doing it. Again. )

I mean dude, you are continuing to assert that micro transactions don’t effect the game. I thought I’d explained this enough in the past that I wouldn’t have to lay it out again but here we go. If you still don’t believe it or see an error in the reasoning, then DO criticize the argument:

For games where cosmetics are available either by earning by playing or purchasing:

1. Buying a cosmetic is therefore paying to avoid having to play the game.
2. People won’t pay to avoid playing a fun game. The whole reason they bought it in the first place was to play it.
3. Therefore the parts they pay to avoid MUST be unpleasant enough to want to pay to skip. We see this all the time: in game currency is slow to earn, your haul is random, etc
4. Therefore these parts of the game MUST be intentionally designed to be unpleasant.
5. With no micro transactions, there is no incentive to make any part of your game purposefully unpleasant.
6. Therefore micro transactions MUST negatively alter the design of the game.

You are welcome to explain where you think the flaw is, and I will listen!

Can you explain what you mean by ‘core’ gameplay? Perhaps this is why we aren’t getting anywhere: our definitions may be different.

All of these arguments ignore that if the base price were higher you would have a smaller player base and less folks would have access to the game at all. You value your access the way you you want it over someone else's ability to access it at all.

This guy gets it.

Yes, because we’ve seen how well making your game as accessible as possible, aka FREE, works out. The logical end point of his argument is freemium, and that’s where this is all the worst.

I'm pretty alright with all the New Light Guardians. Nobody gets a leg up by virtue of how much they spend, so.

(PS - you're still doing it. Again. )

I mean dude, you are continuing to assert that micro transactions don’t effect the game. I thought I’d explained this enough in the past that I wouldn’t have to lay it out again but here we go. If you still don’t believe it or see an error in the reasoning, then DO criticize the argument:

For games where cosmetics are available either by earning by playing or purchasing:

1. Buying a cosmetic is therefore paying to avoid having to play the game.
2. People won’t pay to avoid playing a fun game. The whole reason they bought it in the first place was to play it.
3. Therefore the parts they pay to avoid MUST be unpleasant enough to want to pay to skip. We see this all the time: in game currency is slow to earn, your haul is random, etc
4. Therefore these parts of the game MUST be intentionally designed to be unpleasant.
5. With no micro transactions, there is no incentive to make any part of your game purposefully unpleasant.
6. Therefore micro transactions MUST negatively alter the design of the game.

You are welcome to explain where you think the flaw is.

I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it. There are flaws in that your logic makes hard determinations based on assumptions. Maybe I want the convenience of having my fun in enjoying the cosmetics now instead of grinding for them. Is that worth a couple bucks in the right circumstances? Absolutely. Does that make me an idiot by your caluculation? I'd have to assume so. But it describes a perfectly reasonable case that I would guarantee happens, or something akin to that happens, on a regular enough basis that MtX remain a viable revenue stream.

There's nothing there that demands that part of the game be unpleasant whatsoever. I don't know if you've spent any professional time creating and executing test cases, but I have. You can TRY to predict human behavior, but as soon as you begin incorporating assumptions like you have, you start to be wrong.

But now you're doing the thing with your tone where you act like your perspective is the only reasonable one to take. Like, either you respect other people and their opinions or you don't; you value being part of the community here or you don't, but I for one don't take kindly to this air you put out like you're some kind of authority and anyone that thinks differently has something wrong with them.

You've done a whole lot of it here for a LONG time. And to date you're still here crowing about your logic in refusing to play a game that the rest of us (for the most part, I won't speak for everyone) enjoy as a pasttime. I've never known someone to be so dogged about hanging out at a party and complaining about the music and thanking themself for not listening to such inauthentic drivel on their own time; when the whole point of the party in the first place was to come together to appreciate it.

Hey, so, you know how those Halo games that one company made have a Single Player, a Multiplayer, and a Forge Mode?

Maybe someone only plays Single Player and nothing else. The game cost them the same even though they're playing less of the game than they paid for.

Imagine if they were to sell the game for less but you were required to put in a certain amount of multiplayer time to continue playing Single Player. Would someone who doesn't like Multiplayer pay to not play multiplayer? Quite possibly. But the lower cost version means more people have access and people who were already going to play both modes don't have any reason to spend more.

You want everyone to pay the same amount to have access to everything a game has to offer, regardless of whether they want it all or not.

I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it. There are flaws in that your logic makes hard determinations based on assumptions. Maybe I want the convenience of having my fun in enjoying the cosmetics now instead of grinding for them. Is that worth a couple bucks in the right circumstances? Absolutely. Does that make me an idiot by your caluculation? I'd have to assume so. But it describes a perfectly reasonable case that I would guarantee happens, or something akin to that happens, on a regular enough basis that MtX remain a viable revenue stream.

Isn't that exactly the point I was making? You want them now instead of grinding for them. Getting them now by paying is more pleasant than going through the intentionally designed grind. You were put in that situation by the designers. They could have just as easily made all the cosmetics selectable from the beginning. Then you could have them now and pay nothing.

There's nothing there that demands that part of the game be unpleasant whatsoever. I don't know if you've spent any professional time creating and executing test cases, but I have. You can TRY to predict human behavior, but as soon as you begin incorporating assumptions like you have, you start to be wrong.

So then why are frictions added to games? I think you can predict human behavior in aggregate. Maybe not a particular individual, but people are in general quite similar. Otherwise user interfaces or physical design choices would not make sense. If playing the game is pleasant, I see no reason why someone would want to pay extra to not have that pleasantness. I believe that holds true in aggregate, and so do designers. I don't think it's reasonable to deny their psychological effectiveness. That's why we are talking about them after all.

But now you're doing the thing with your tone where you act like your perspective is the only reasonable one to take. Like, either you respect other people and their opinions or you don't; you value being part of the community here or you don't, but I for one don't take kindly to this air you put out like you're some kind of authority and anyone that thinks differently has something wrong with them.

That's not what I mean. If you have a reasonable response to any of the points, there's nothing wrong with you.

You've done a whole lot of it here for a LONG time. And to date you're still here crowing about your logic in refusing to play a game that the rest of us (for the most part, I won't speak for everyone) enjoy as a pasttime. I've never known someone to be so dogged about hanging out at a party and complaining about the music and thanking themself for not listening to such inauthentic drivel on their own time; when the whole point of the party in the first place was to come together to appreciate it.

Disintegration isn't out yet dude how is everyone playing it?

You've done a whole lot of it here for a LONG time. And to date you're still here crowing about your logic in refusing to play a game that the rest of us (for the most part, I won't speak for everyone) enjoy as a pasttime. I've never known someone to be so dogged about hanging out at a party and complaining about the music and thanking themself for not listening to such inauthentic drivel on their own time; when the whole point of the party in the first place was to come together to appreciate it.

Disintegration isn't out yet dude how is everyone playing it?

Oh I see. You're one of those people.

Wait, but that's a criticism of the season pass system, not microtransactions. And I don't really disagree with you, but unlock tracks are not microtransactions.

I have to pay $10 to even start the season pass track, and I can buy levels in it. They are absolutely microtransactions.

So you're saying that Destiny contains an element of Pay-to-Win? Because the LL system seems designed in part to thwart that.

I guess it does. There are weapons you can only get through the season pass, correct? I don’t really care about that, though. Most of the season track stuff is cosmetic, and you can just buy your way through those levels. That’s a microtransaction. They want you to spend money if you run out of time, and it’s not exactly trivial to get to 100. They are 100% banking on people running out of time and buying their way through to get whatever stuff they want, and you’ll never convince me the game isn’t at least subtly designed around that. Developers from Bungie could straight up tell me to my face that’s not the case and I would not believe them—actions speak louder than words.

No, I'm not disregarding the experience, I'm saying it doesn't change the gameplay. Different things, different motivations for quitting, if that's what you feel you have to do. We can sit down to play chess and you bring a finely-carved, marble set with gold inlay, and I can bring a painted plaster set of dinosaurs, but we're still playing chess, regardless of how ridiculous I look.

You’re saying Destiny would be just as good of all the enemies were grey blobs, all the environments low-poly colorless masses? The gameplay wouldn’t be any different after all.

Now, come on. I gave a simplistic example for brevity's sake. You know that's not what I'm saying. If we were talking solely within the context of custom Crucible games, sure. You're not going to care or be affected by the ornaments I've got on my gear.

It’s the same thing. You said looks don’t matter. I’m making a very obvious point to show that’s not true. Gameplay can not be separated from graphics, just as it cannot be separated from cosmetics. I absolutely pay attention to what people are wearing in Crucible, if only to laugh at them when the look like mismatched clowns (which is often because their gear has good perks, which is gameplay affecting), or to ogle them because they look cool. It is tied implicitly to how I feel about the game I am playing.

Obviously we feel differently. I don’t inherently hater microtransactions. I think they have very clearly and obviously negatively affected the game that Destiny is.

Well, I don't agree, but ultimately we're talking about taste here. Circling back to the original point RE:Disintegration; I think it stands to reason that a fledgling IP that's attempting to innovate on gameplay is taking risks that can be reasonably(albeit only partially) mitigated by allowing for a revenue stream in microtransactions without impacting the core gameplay.

I don’t think it’s just about taste. Destiny is undeniably a different game than it would be without microtransactions. It may be better or worse, but it is inarguably different. We saw that progression happen over five years. We can chart the differences.

Whereas I hear a game is going to be supported by microtransactions, I immediately wonder how the game might be compromised to make microtransactions enticing to players. The fact of the matter is that cosmetics are important to me in games. When you say I can buy them, it’s an immediate turn off. Does that mean there are no cosmetics options if I don’t pony up more cash? Can I get more without paying but I have to grind far more than reasonable to do so?

Again, it won’t keep me from trying the game, but it is a practice that immediately makes me question the design of the game.

Hey, so, you know how those Halo games that one company made have a Single Player, a Multiplayer, and a Forge Mode?

Maybe someone only plays Single Player and nothing else. The game cost them the same even though they're playing less of the game than they paid for.

Imagine if they were to sell the game for less but you were required to put in a certain amount of multiplayer time to continue playing Single Player. Would someone who doesn't like Multiplayer pay to not play multiplayer? Quite possibly. But the lower cost version means more people have access and people who were already going to play both modes don't have any reason to spend more.

Okay, so this is an interesting point you have brought up.

This is very much actually true with Destiny, at least when I left it. You did in fact have to play a fair bit of single player or gambit to get the most out of multiplayer, given that many good PvP weapons were acquired in other modes. Your option to pay to skip single player would amount to buying guns with money, which is something I don't think anyone wants. So the only sensible thing is to either make the modes totally separate, or to just include both for the price. Halo went one way with this, Destiny the other.

You want everyone to pay the same amount to have access to everything a game has to offer, regardless of whether they want it all or not.

Let's extend this thinking.

For cosmetics to not affect the game, there would have to be a dedicated cosmetics mode. I don't think that would go over too well. Who would go to the trouble of buying or earning cosmetics they couldn't play with in PvP or PvE?

Beyond that, the idea of a 'piecemeal' game would make the whole game suffer I think. If players can buy only the parts they want, then nothing can tie into and build upon anything else to create something greater. In short, I think the whole game would break down. You can't buy a movie and just include the action scenes. Maybe that's all you want to see, but it wouldn't be much of a movie without all the rest of the story.

You've done a whole lot of it here for a LONG time. And to date you're still here crowing about your logic in refusing to play a game that the rest of us (for the most part, I won't speak for everyone) enjoy as a pasttime. I've never known someone to be so dogged about hanging out at a party and complaining about the music and thanking themself for not listening to such inauthentic drivel on their own time; when the whole point of the party in the first place was to come together to appreciate it.

Disintegration isn't out yet dude how is everyone playing it?

Oh I see. You're one of those people.

Hey, so, you know how those Halo games that one company made have a Single Player, a Multiplayer, and a Forge Mode?

Maybe someone only plays Single Player and nothing else. The game cost them the same even though they're playing less of the game than they paid for.

Imagine if they were to sell the game for less but you were required to put in a certain amount of multiplayer time to continue playing Single Player. Would someone who doesn't like Multiplayer pay to not play multiplayer? Quite possibly. But the lower cost version means more people have access and people who were already going to play both modes don't have any reason to spend more.

Okay, so this is an interesting point you have brought up.

This is very much actually true with Destiny, at least when I left it. You did in fact have to play a fair bit of single player or gambit to get the most out of multiplayer, given that many good PvP weapons were acquired in other modes. Your option to pay to skip single player would amount to buying guns with money, which is something I don't think anyone wants. So the only sensible thing is to either make the modes totally separate, or to just include both for the price. Halo went one way with this, Destiny the other.

You want everyone to pay the same amount to have access to everything a game has to offer, regardless of whether they want it all or not.

Let's extend this thinking.

For cosmetics to not affect the game, there would have to be a dedicated cosmetics mode. I don't think that would go over too well. Who would go to the trouble of buying or earning cosmetics they couldn't play with in PvP or PvE?

You could make it so there is no cosmetic variety whatsoever without paying? Cosmetics don't affect the game at all. Giving you the ability to acquire them through gameplay is a plus.

Beyond that, the idea of a 'piecemeal' game would make the whole game suffer I think. If players can buy only the parts they want, then nothing can tie into and build upon anything else to create something greater. In short, I think the whole game would break down. You can't buy a bicycle in piecemeal. You need all the parts for it to work. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a bike.

Halo could be broken into pieces and still function exactly the same. Nothing greater is built by them being in the same package. Guess Halo ain't a bike.

You could make it so there is no cosmetic variety whatsoever without paying? Cosmetics don't affect the game at all. Giving you the ability to acquire them through gameplay is a plus.

It is a plus in my opinion if you can ONLY earn them in game. The minute you can buy them too it becomes a problem, as I outlined in a different post in this thread.

Beyond that, the idea of a 'piecemeal' game would make the whole game suffer I think. If players can buy only the parts they want, then nothing can tie into and build upon anything else to create something greater. In short, I think the whole game would break down. You can't buy a bicycle in piecemeal. You need all the parts for it to work. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a bike.

Halo could be broken into pieces and still function exactly the same. Nothing greater is built by them being in the same package. Guess Halo ain't a bike.

Only as many pieces as there are separate modes. Because they are separate. But I do think something would be lost, because technically things like skills carry over between modes. Expectations. A much more intangible type of thing.

Have we? Since when? I certainly never have. I define gameplay as anything having to do with the act of playing the game. Cosmetics are part of playing the game.

For years the debate about microtransactions has been chiefly about whether those transactions constituted "play to win." What is sold confers advantage. I happen to think much of the ornamental stuff is ugly. Just because you might think it's looks awesome doesn't give you an advantage.

In any case, it is my contention that defining things your way is a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes video games so good on the first place. The two things are not so easily separated.

Oh, totally agree that many things beyond game mechanics affect what makes a game good. I don't count among those things a vendor somewhere who sells things that don't matter to me and don't change the way the game plays in any way.

I have no problem with paying for art. Put it all in the game, and charge 80 bucks for it. Many games I would buy for double or triple the price if they were marked as such.

That's a 33% hike in launch price, if we assume launch price is 60 bucks. That means they could only afford to lose up to a tad below 25% expected sales before the hike (75% * 133% = 99.75%).

Do you honestly think the market is in that position right now? That enough people value your position enough to cover that hole? Personally, I don't blame any publisher that are insecure about that.

I mean, I'm not 100% opposed to your stance, but lots things just aren't fair in the world and expecting actions from the point of view that they are is, in itself, unfair, imho.

You as an individual, yes. I wouldn’t accuse an individual of it without knowing specific details. But the way the market and business models work are based on millions of people, and at that level the undervaluing of art holds a lot of power.

In your example you might not be affected but others are. Lotteries ask the poor to pay for education. That’s not right man. The rich should be the ones paying more of the tax. Just because it doesn’t seem to affect YOU doesn’t mean it’s not a bad system.

I'm not saying it isn't a bad system. Maybe you should argue for a better way but what if you fail to convince anyone, and voters decide the lottery is cool (which is exactly what happened.) If you're school superintendent, do you refuse state funds? I'm saying the world is a complicated place, and there are good and bad consequences to every action. Maybe the station owner shouldn't sell lotto tix, but maybe that money makes a big difference to the comfort of his or her family. All questions are not black and white. You want a purity when it comes to games and that's fine, but in my case when it comes to Destiny what I like outweighs what I don't like. Same goes for you, by the way. You got platinum in Death Stranding. There's someone out there who refused to play it because of its blatant product placement. You might not have liked that, but you made a calculation that you could ignore it. Or maybe it really worked for you, and your refrigerator is full of monster drinks.

I have no problem with paying for art. Put it all in the game, and charge 80 bucks for it. Many games I would buy for double or triple the price if they were marked as such.

That's a 33% hike in launch price, if we assume launch price is 60 bucks. That means they could only afford to lose up to a tad below 25% expected sales before the hike (75% * 133% = 99.75%).

Do you honestly think the market is in that position right now? That enough people value your position enough to cover that hole? Personally, I don't blame any publisher that are insecure about that.

All I know is that games adjusted for inflation were more expensive in the 80s than they are today, and lo and behold look at how many games on this list are from the last millennium. Frogger sold 20 million copies dude. It was comparatively more expensive than a game of today.

If I want to pay more I'm selfish for not thinking of people who are worse off than me.

If I dont want to pay more, I'm undervaluing art.

So the only good way for talented artists to get the money their work deserves is psychologically manipulating their audience?

Or is it just that the artists are underpaid for the work while CEOs get fat? The people siphoning money away from artists have gotten really good at offloading their guilt onto the consumer, and we lap it up.

If you have a better term for “pervasive expectation of getting everything to include product outside the scope of initial purchases for as minimal-to-no investment at all, specifically monetary, in engagement with a business providing a service they purport to support” I will happily use it. This isn’t some personal or individual judgement. It’s structural as part of the gaming community as a whole.

But now you're doing the thing with your tone where you act like your perspective is the only reasonable one to take

You guys on the other side of the fence do a lot of this too. That's how strong opinions usually work, once you get far enough down the rabbithole.

That’s disingenuous. How many copies of Super Mario Bros were sold back then compared to how many copies were bought upon its several releases through Nintendo on new consoles?

I see a lot of new games on that list compared to old ones.

You got platinum in Death Stranding. There's someone out there who refused to play it because of its blatant product placement. You might not have liked that, but you made a calculation that you could ignore it. Or maybe it really worked for you, and your refrigerator is full of monster drinks.

I did not know there would be product placement when I bought the game. I don't care for that, but it at least did not require negative changes to the game itself beyond the mere inclusion of them, and you could argue as Korny did that it actually was an artistic choice (I don't know how much I buy that).

Product placement is itself a completely different topic, and my take is much more nuanced given that brands are themselves, for better or for worse, an integral part of our culture.

But now you're doing the thing with your tone where you act like your perspective is the only reasonable one to take

You guys on the other side of the fence do a lot of this too. That's how strong opinions usually work, once you get far enough down the rabbithole.

What, exactly, is the fence you're talking about?

If you're accusing me of aggresively arguing in favor of context, and of adopting a broader perspective, I'll gladly cop to that.

For a start, as consumers you are entitled to a lot of things.

Freebies? No. But I dont think Ive seen anyone asking/arguing for freebies here. Or in most places where the word the word "entitled" gets thrown around where people don't know the difference between expecting better of someone and expecting more from them.

That’s disingenuous. How many copies of Super Mario Bro’s. we’re stood back then compared to how many copies were bought upon its several releases through Nintendo on new consoles?

I don't know, good question.

I see a lot of new games on that list compared to old ones.

There are a lot of old games too. Which were more expensive adjusting for inflation. People are willing to pay for something good. I simply doubt a modern game with a price hike would not be a hit if it were a quality game.

For a start, as consumers you are entitled to a lot of things.

Freebies? No. But I dont think Ive seen anyone asking/arguing for freebies here. Or in most places where the word the word "entitled" gets thrown around where people don't know the difference between expecting better of someone and expecting more from them.

I actually see a lot of developers as entitled. As in, they feel entitled to wasting my time with grind and loot boxes.

Is this “comparatively more expensive” taking into account actual purchasing power and the real world economic circumstances around that release, or just based on an inflation calculator?

If you're accusing me of aggresively arguing in favor of context, and of adopting a broader perspective, I'll gladly cop to that.

Hardly

Multiplayer games have a much lower chance of success in today's climate. MP requires a player base. Price of entry is a major factor in determining your player base. You can buy microtransactions to support the higher wages of art.

Perhaps they should weigh those variables and make something else . . .

You can buy microtransactions to support the higher wages of art.

It's a miracle we ever got this far without microtransactions. Thank goodness we have them now so that poor, struggling CEOs can give themselves million dollar bonuses while laying off hundred of staff members.

#hailcorporate

Is this “comparatively more expensive” taking into account actual purchasing power and the real world economic circumstances around that release, or just based on an inflation calculator?

Good question.

Isn't purchasing power factored into inflation? That's essentially what it IS right? A way to compare the purchasing power of money then vs now.

Well, show me how they do. Yes, I get enjoyment out of ornaments I've bought, and I use the odd specialty emote. But they don't change the heart of the game. They don't change what's possible. And new cosmetics and emotes that don't require microtransactions come out all the time. You feel the way you feel, and if the way MtX functions in Destiny is enough to get you to quit, that's your decision. All I've got to say about that particular fact is that it makes me a little sad.

iT dOeSnT aFfECt mE sO iTs nOt rEaL

Where is your broader context and perspective now?

and I use the odd specialty emote. But they don't change the heart of the game. They don't change what's possible.

Uh, buying an emote LITERALLY lets you perform and action that is otherwise impossible for you to perform.

Macro scale, not micro scale. Unless someone here is actual in charge of video game market structure across the industry. Then I have some words for them myself. I’m not using entitlement lightly as a word. But across a 152B industry it is endemic to a significant demographic to make is a required business consideration.

As it stands it is the most accurate term regardless of if you are inherently expecting “more quantity” or “more quality” from a developer. Any moral judgements (and assumptions) of where those land regarding expectations of consumers and how that is being decided by developers get dangerously speculative very fast.

- No text -

Y'all need to take a logic course.

AAA Uses Microtransactions != All Microtransactions Bad.
Not All Microtransactions Bad != All Microtransactions Okay.

Why would I not say that to him? Those CEOs are pretty directly responsible for games like Disintegration not getting funding unless they include predatory practices to make money.

If Marcus is currently taking multimillion dollar paychecks while also trying to justify microtransactions for his new IP, I’ll call him a piece of trash to his face.

If you have a point to make I often find making it is more successful than alluding to it.

Im vaguely aware of Marcus but I have no idea what you mean by the remark.

What about wanting/expecting what you were advertised? Or were led to believe in previews/interviews? What about what is reasonable to expect based on past experience? Or the overall climate of the industry, or similar industries? How about other industries outside of entertainment?

Where exactly is the line? And why do you think you know it better than others?

Not sure Ive seen anyome else say those things

Did you pick Marcus under the assumption I'd feel bad because we're such good friends, Effortless?

I dont know him from Adam, nor his policies. Id like to hope he's not one of those types and is in fact a lovely boy. But one exception does not a rule break.

And if he is, fuck him too *shrug*

Just so we’re on the same page: Marcus started V1, the company making Disintegration, the game that started this thread.

Thanks Cheapley.

Hey Marcus, why you putting microtransactions in your game? Its really disappointing.

And also - Hey Marcus, how do you feel about the state of emoyee wages in the games industry? Are you doing anything to fix the "undervaluing of art" Harm likes to harp on about?

Kinda more complicated. It can be used to compare the purchasing power of a currency, but generally will not actually account for the value of an individual unit of currency in any wholistic sense. Inflation doesn’t account for stagnant wages being the clear example. And that’s before digging into metrics used for the specific inflation calculation.

So even if the dollar equivalent is the same, their may not be parity.

If you're accusing me of aggressively arguing in favor of context, and of adopting a broader perspective, I'll gladly cop to that.

Hardly

Well, you haven't described the fence you're talking about. And you haven't done anything to clarify what you mean, so. You're not leaving a lot to go on. I'm taking into account factors outside of personal taste in making my arguments here; and I'm not trying to justify my position as congruent with some objective absolute. So I'm not sure how much more reasonable I can attempt to be here.

Well, show me how they do. Yes, I get enjoyment out of ornaments I've bought, and I use the odd specialty emote. But they don't change the heart of the game. They don't change what's possible. And new cosmetics and emotes that don't require microtransactions come out all the time. You feel the way you feel, and if the way MtX functions in Destiny is enough to get you to quit, that's your decision. All I've got to say about that particular fact is that it makes me a little sad.

iT dOeSnT aFfECt mE sO iTs nOt rEaL

Where is your broader context and perspective now?

What are you even on about, here? You're attributing arguments that haven't even been made. I've been pretty clear about core gameplay versus experience, and if you're determined to read into what I'm saying things that aren't even there, then I can't really help you.

How do you derive from what I've said anywhere in this thread that because I don't share another's opinion, that it's any less valid? You literally just quoted me validating someone else's differing opinion. So...the perspective is...actually right there. Right there, in what you quoted.

"You feel what you feel, but you're wrong and I feel sad for you because you're that wrong"

If you think you're being impartial then I don't know what to say. At best you come off as a so-called Enlightened Centrist. It's complicated so we shouldnt try to make it better or criticise.

Heavy eyerolling intensifies.

You can't claim not to have a side when you also say Cody is wrong. And its fine not to agree wth cody (I often dont), but don't present yourself as some outside prty just looking for everyone to better themselves by broadening their mind. It's pretentious.

"You feel what you feel, but you're wrong and I feel sad for you because you're that wrong"

If you think you're being impartial then I don't know what to say. At best you come off as a so-called Enlightened Centrist. It's complicated so we shouldnt try to make it better or criticise.

Heavy eyerolling intensifies.

Yeah, reading too far into what's being said, again. I guess I shouldn't respond in earnest about the fact that I'm a bit sad that cheapLEY isn't into playing Destiny anymore, huh? Weird.

You can't claim not to have a side when you also say Cody is wrong. And its fine not to agree wth cody (I often dont), but don't present yourself as some outside prty just looking for everyone to better themselves by broadening their mind. It's pretentious.

Or, alternately, I never claimed not to have a side. I asked you to clarify what, exactly, are the sides we're talking about. I even responded that you didn't clarify because I was willing to engage with you. Again, I've been pretty solid in my particular position about the perceived evils of microtransactions, what they affect, and why I begrudgingly accept them. Whatever picture you've put together that has me as some kind of outside party in this argument is wrong-headed. I've said that in the process of forming my position, I'm taking into account factors outside of my personal preferences. Whatever new age guru bullshit you're reading into what I've said is all on you.

If you want to call me pretentious when I'm attempting to debate in earnest, it doesn't seem like you're down for a debate in good faith.

Let me call out my own hypocrisy here (which I’ve done before, and often): I bought stuff from Eververse, I’ll likely do so again. I think the Eververse is a pretty decent way to handle microtransactions, and I have very little issue with the current Eververse. It’s the seasonal reward track that doesn’t sit right with me.

But even that is something I could live with. I just didn’t find the new season to be engaging at all, and it seemed like a good time to play some other things I’ve been putting off and do other things altogether. I don’t hate Destiny, and I’ll be playing again soon enough. Hopefully next season of it looks good, but certainly whenever the next truly substantial update. I did not quit Destiny as a form of protest from some sense of moral outrage.

I do miss playing with you all. Destiny is still a truly incredible game for its diversity of content. It’s just currently leaning a little too far into the chase of shiny things (which is something that I struggle with anyway).

I firmly believe Destiny would be a better game without microtransactions and the battle pass style system, but Destiny is also good enough for me to put up with those things to play it. I will still voice my displeasure with those things when they come up, though.

I mean. Realistically all we’re discussing is whether or not an entitlement is valid at this point, no? It’s just that when it is valid it gets called an “expectation”. I have no generic answers to give you to these questions and no valid judge of myself as more or less qualified than anyone else. I consume a lot of opinions and reporting from many varied sources and have my fair share living in, around, with, and as the most entitled demographic in the US. So if it walks like a duck.

Just pointing out that everyone here can be pretty good at framing their argument like they're the last same man.

And Im British. We invented pessimism.

make me bummed I even said anything. At some point, I hope everyone realizes yelling at your computer at each other isn't going to make this situation better. Sometimes, it's better just to drop it. We're all free to our opinions and if you don't want to play, that's fine. If anyone wants a squadmate on Xbox, hit me up.

The Beta won't have any microtransactions if that makes any of you feel better about trying it out.

#RebootHumanity

I don’t understand the sentiment.

Stuff like this is absolutely worth talking about, and this thread has been mostly respectful.

In any case, I’ll be playing the beta.

I have no problem with paying for art. Put it all in the game, and charge 80 bucks for it. Many games I would buy for double or triple the price if they were marked as such.

That's a 33% hike in launch price, if we assume launch price is 60 bucks. That means they could only afford to lose up to a tad below 25% expected sales before the hike (75% * 133% = 99.75%).

Do you honestly think the market is in that position right now? That enough people value your position enough to cover that hole? Personally, I don't blame any publisher that are insecure about that.

All I know is that games adjusted for inflation were more expensive in the 80s than they are today, and lo and behold look at how many games on this list are from the last millennium. Frogger sold 20 million copies dude. It was comparatively more expensive than a game of today.

Do you think Frogger would have sold 20 million copies if there were the plethora of options that there are today?

(For that matter: would Halo have dominated the scene in 2001 if there had been, say, 10 different decent shooters? They don't even have to be great - they just have to be decent.)

If you're gonna compare market experiences, don't cherry-pick your points - look at the whole environments.

1. Buying a cosmetic is therefore paying to avoid having to play the game.

Let me stop you right there.

Here, let me tell you a Jewish Grandmother joke.

So Hannukah rolls around, and she gives her grandson two sweaters, a blue one and a red one.

He's super-excited, he runs upstairs, he puts on the blue one, he comes back down.

"What's the matter - you didn't like the red one?"

I don’t understand the sentiment.
Stuff like this is absolutely worth talking about, I this thread has been mostly respectful.

I'm not as "argumentative" as many of you. And as someone who struggles with anxiety, I'm bummed that a thread I started brought discourse to our community. ( I know that its not really my fault, but that is just my personality) I've had the amazing opportunity to visit V1, they're a small team working their asses off to make a game of high quality that isn't built to waste your time. It just seems like so many people (not here but in the world at large) are happy to say F*** you to someone making something because of *insert reason here*. Maybe that "thing" isn't for you, I don't believe you have to attack them for making it.

I mean yeah. But it's the same discussion we've had over the past 6ish years right? I just wanted to talk about the game, not economics. (yeah yeah its the internet and all we do is argue what did I expect. lol)

In any case, I’ll be playing the beta.

Cool!

And as someone who struggles with anxiety, I'm bummed that a thread I started brought discourse to our community.

But this is legitimately one of the funniest typos I've seen here. :)

make me bummed I even said anything. At some point, I hope everyone realizes yelling at your computer at each other isn't going to make this situation better. Sometimes, it's better just to drop it. We're all free to our opinions and if you don't want to play, that's fine. If anyone wants a squadmate on Xbox, hit me up.

The Beta won't have any microtransactions if that makes any of you feel better about trying it out.

#RebootHumanity

And try I shall! Did you sign up for the PS4 version?

*I work in communications... So its doubly funny!

It’s my post that started this.

Not for the beta. That said, definitely find some teammates! Co-ordination and combos make this game really click!

Not for the beta. That said, definitely find some teammates! Co-ordination and combos make this game really click!

Is this my chance to play with the DBO PS4 crew again?!

I regularly send clients Liar deliveries instead of Lidar. My fingers have a mind of their own.

- No text -

Those questions are sincere, not-trying-to-make-a-point, non-malicious questions.

Id actually be fascinated to hear from Marcus on both of them (regardless of what type of CEO he may be), unlikely as it is tht he's here reading any of the guff I post on the Internet.

- No text -

- No text -

Gameplay is everything. Everything affects the experience of playing the game. The graphics. The sound. The controls. Change any of them and the ‘gameplay’ changes. If you just define gameplay as mechanics, then it is a useless word. Just say mechanics.

People can disagree, but I'll bet real money that more people define gameplay as I do.

People can disagree, but I'll bet real money that more people define gameplay as I do.

Video game gameplay is distinct from graphics[9][10] and audio elements.[9]

Wow this is actually wrong, even according to their own page.

Gameplay is the pattern defined through the game rules,[2][5] connection between player and the game,[6]

There's no way you can argue that players do not connect with a game through graphics or audio.

- No text -

People can disagree, but I'll bet real money that more people define gameplay as I do.

Video game gameplay is distinct from graphics[9][10] and audio elements.[9]

Wow this is actually wrong, even according to their own page.

Gameplay is the pattern defined through the game rules,[2][5] connection between player and the game,[6]

There's no way you can argue that players do not connect with a game through graphics or audio.

Depends on how you define connect. I don't deny that gameplay can be somewhat vague in that it can be used in different contexts to mean slightly different things. Most would agree that gameplay has to do with how the player interacts with the rules of the game, and most would also understand what is meant by "cosmetic items that don't affect gameplay."

You're a strange one, man. You have extremely precise definitions for words that you insist are the only definitions, even when presented with evidence that reasonable people disagree. For someone who often stretches definitions to serve their argument, I wouldn't casually say "there's no way you can argue..." There's usually a way.

Depends on how you define connect. I don't deny that gameplay can be somewhat vague in that it can be used in different contexts to mean slightly different things. Most would agree that gameplay has to do with how the player interacts with the rules of the game, and most would also understand what is meant by "cosmetic items that don't affect gameplay."

What are the rules?

Gun X does Y damage. Ok.

But what about the rule that says "this animation is played this way if hit by this explosion"? What about the rule that says "Play this sound in the rear surrounds when the player is looking away, and make it louder the closer it gets".

Nevermind the only way players can even interact with the rules is because they are seeing and hearing what's going on.

Where do you draw the line? I say there's no line. It's all the gameplay.

- No text -

Depends on how you define connect. I don't deny that gameplay can be somewhat vague in that it can be used in different contexts to mean slightly different things. Most would agree that gameplay has to do with how the player interacts with the rules of the game, and most would also understand what is meant by "cosmetic items that don't affect gameplay."

What are the rules?

Gun X does Y damage. Ok.

But what about the rule that says "this animation is played this way if hit by this explosion"? What about the rule that says "Play this sound in the rear surrounds when the player is looking away, and make it louder the closer it gets".

Nevermind the only way players can even interact with the rules is because they are seeing and hearing what's going on.

Where do you draw the line? I say there's no line. It's all the gameplay.

To me you're conflating gameplay with game experience. I'm able to affect the gameworld with my actions in a way that lets me progress in the game. When I do that, I call that gameplay. Not you, me, Kermit. That's what I call gameplay. You don't have to call it gameplay. You can call everything under the sun gameplay if you please. But when I say I'm not bothered by cosmetics that don't affect gameplay, I'm talking about my definition of gameplay, not yours.

Had to google that because I had forgotten. Literal? Well, you are the final authority for definitions, so okay. I suspect he just has a horrible sense of humor. Still think the movie is amazing.

- No text -

Looks like the codes are going out today. If you see D_P_Roberts online tonight let's play!

Looks like the codes are going out today. If you see D_P_Roberts online tonight let's play!

I'll be on at 7:30 Pacific.

The implication of the "but" in Cody's subject line has stuck with me like a splinter, and I guess I need to write a little to excise it. You can read Wikipedia and come to your own conclusions about Lars Von Trier—that's your prerogative. I know the popular stance now is to call out the witches, burn them, burn everything they touched, burn down their house, and wipe them from our memory. Cody strikes me as particularly Puritan at times—no food with the slightest taint of sin shall cross his lips. I’m more forgiving I guess (maybe because I'm not as pure as Cody?). Perhaps for selfish reasons I hope there is redemption and forgiveness for everyone who seeks it. I do care a lot that good artistic work gets appreciated. If it’s good, it lives longer than the artist and chances are it's better as art than the artist is as a person. I’m a music fanatic, but there are musicians I’m a fan of who I would not let into my home. I have got a friend who won’t listen to Springsteen because he thinks he’s a commie or something, and I’d say my friend is missing out on some great art.

That brings me to Melancholia, which I think is fantastic. Von Trier might or might not be a horrible human being, but I strongly believe the world is a better place because Melancholia exists. I would not recommend it if a) you don’t like slowly paced arthouse films or b) you are suffering from depression. If, however, you like artistic, meditative movies, and you have been depressed or know someone who suffers from depression, it does have something of value to say—I think it’s one of the best depictions of depression on film. What follows is my description of it (a bit spoilery thematically): The first half of the movie depicts a bride at her wedding, and the contrast between her hopeless, nihilistic state, and the (at least hoped for) happiness of everyone around her is shown in clear relief. In the second half, you see everyone else in the movie try to come to terms with the fact that the world will end in weeks, and in this context, the depressed main character is the one at peace. Reality is conforming to her expectations, but the movie illustrates how extreme circumstances have to be for a depressed person’s expectations to be realistic. Melancholia is really quite something, and shouldn’t be dismissed.

1. Buying a cosmetic is therefore paying to avoid having to play the game.

Let me stop you right there.

Here, let me tell you a Jewish Grandmother joke.

So Hannukah rolls around, and she gives her grandson two sweaters, a blue one and a red one.

He's super-excited, he runs upstairs, he puts on the blue one, he comes back down.

"What's the matter - you didn't like the red one?"

I think that applies to any grandmother :)

1. Buying a cosmetic is therefore paying to avoid having to play the game.

Let me stop you right there.

Here, let me tell you a Jewish Grandmother joke.

So Hannukah rolls around, and she gives her grandson two sweaters, a blue one and a red one.

He's super-excited, he runs upstairs, he puts on the blue one, he comes back down.

"What's the matter - you didn't like the red one?"

I think that applies to any grandmother :)

Okay, fair enough. My point was simply that just because Cody can't conceive of a reason why someone who enjoys playing the game might actually be willing to pay for cosmetics they could earn doesn't mean that those reasons don't exist. Sometimes two seemingly-contradicting facts can live side by side. You can like the red one, and STILL have a reason not to wear it RIGHT NOW. Life is not as binary as he's painting it - that was really the only point of that joke.

The death of the author perspective is valid, but is generally befitting to a coldness in consumption that makes it important to consider what killed the author to merit judging a work entirely without intent or context. A work probably should be allowed to transcend its author. It should probably be allowed to be judged on its own merits. However, a vacuum around a work can also make for a shallow appreciation.

Personally, the middle ground of “context matters, intent is meaningless” holds truer to me than a uniform death. You are right to judge the merits of a work out of context, and while I don’t hold any particular stick in this particular basket, I think you lose a great deal better potential understanding and appreciation when you do it without context. Some works are good in spite of their creator *cough*Harry Potter*cough* and hold great value that is made greater through the teachable moments brought from context. It allows a better critical eye and paints the truth to things that otherwise feel slight as the boils they are.

It not being a binary is underscored by the fact that almost every time someone purchases a cosmetic in a game they usually play the game more to experience that cosmetic.

The death of the author perspective is valid, but is generally befitting to a coldness in consumption that makes it important to consider what killed the author to merit judging a work entirely without intent or context. A work probably should be allowed to transcend its author. It should probably be allowed to be judged on its own merits. However, a vacuum around a work can also make for a shallow appreciation.

Personally, the middle ground of “context matters, intent is meaningless” holds truer to me than a uniform death. You are right to judge the merits of a work out of context, and while I don’t hold any particular stick in this particular basket, I think you lose a great deal better potential understanding and appreciation when you do it without context. Some works are good in spite of their creator *cough*Harry Potter*cough* and hold great value that is made greater through the teachable moments brought from context. It allows a better critical eye and paints the truth to things that otherwise feel slight as the boils they are.

Yes. In general, I don't abide by the death of the author theory--I think it's a balance, too. You experience the work of art on its merits, but having more than a shallow understanding of it requires context. For me context includes intent, but not to the point where the author's intent defines what the work means.

Cody strikes me as particularly Puritan at times—no food with the slightest taint of sin shall cross his lips. I’m more forgiving I guess (maybe because I'm not as pure as Cody?

Oh quite the opposite. You are far more pure than I am.

ANY reason someone would have to want to pay to not play could be addressed for free by changing the game design. The point is not that people don’t have reasons - the point is the best solution never involves a micro transaction (and that often the reasons are themselves created by the micro transactions).

Looks like the codes are going out today. If you see D_P_Roberts online tonight let's play!

I'll be on at 7:30 Pacific.

You can play the tutorial and poke around in the customization menu tonight. But matchmaking won't be active till tomorrow (Tuesday) morning 8:00 AM PT.

- No text -

ANY reason someone would have to want to pay to not play could be addressed for free by changing the game design. The point is not that people don’t have reasons - the point is the best solution never involves a micro transaction (and that often the reasons are themselves created by the micro transactions).

The real problem with that sentence is the word 'best'. Your 'best' is not the same as my 'best' is not the same as Bungie's 'best'.

You know how you want the game to work. You are not unique; there is a group of Destiny players who have roughly the same desires from their gameplay experience. Bungie (or some subset of Bungie that is responsible for some of the higher-level decisions) has almost certainly considered your particular collection of wants and needs, and decided that it they cannot satisfy all of them and still build the game they want to build.

You can accept that they don't want to make the game you want to play. (You don't, or you would have stopped discussing any of this stuff a long time ago.) You can try and convince them that they're making a mistake, and that they should change their strategy. (If that's what you think you're doing, I'd suggest that you have picked a pretty lousy place to do it; I don't think there are any Bungie employees who visit here any more. They can't hear you yelling from way over here.)

What you can't do is tell those of us that are actually okay with the overall development arc that you know what's good for us better than we do. (That is what the quoted sentence above is trying to do.) I disagree with your premise that there is NO way that you can make a good game while offering the same content for free or by in-game play - I LIKE the fact that I have a choice, and I USE that choice occasionally for differing outcomes, depending on my at-the-time-current circumstance. I do NOT consider the frictions you see as odious as a problem; in fact, most of the time I don't even notice them. That they exist at all is acceptable to me, at the level that I perceive them, because they provide me with options when I'm playing the game I enjoy playing.

In short: your viewpoint, while valid for you, is NOT universal, and my viewpoint is not a result of my blindness - it is simply a differing opinion. And it's as valid as yours.

I haven't gotten one (yet).

Cody strikes me as particularly Puritan at times—no food with the slightest taint of sin shall cross his lips. I’m more forgiving I guess (maybe because I'm not as pure as Cody?

Oh quite the opposite. You are far more pure than I am.

Ha.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

What you can't do is tell those of us that are actually okay with the overall development arc that you know what's good for us better than we do. (That is what the quoted sentence above is trying to do.) I disagree with your premise that there is NO way that you can make a good game while offering the same content for free or by in-game play - I LIKE the fact that I have a choice, and I USE that choice occasionally for differing outcomes, depending on my at-the-time-current circumstance.

Take any given game with microtransactions that can be either bought or earned by playing. We make one change:

Every microtransaction now costs $0.00.

Let's leave aside that in such a circumstance frictions would no longer need to exist. Let's just pretend they are still there. In such a scenario, how is everyone not better off, or at least the same?

Those who want to skip playing the game can still 'buy' the item. But it doesn't cost them money. They are better off.
Those who want to 'earn' the items are still free to do so. They are no better or no worse off.
The earners who do it for fun can still do that with no impact to them.
The earners who do it for prestige are still dealing with people who just buy the item. They are in the same situation.

There is literally no downside to this artistically. It is better. Or am I missing something?

Or am I missing something?

Only the reality of making modern video games, especially one as massive as Destiny, for a community as eager for content as the Destiny community is.

I will always think we should take more money from the top of any big organization, and I have no idea what they pay scale at Bungie looks like, but I really doubt there's enough money there to make up for what the Eververse makes (and I could be totally wrong about that). And even if there is, I doubt it's enough money to really keep a studio as large as Bungie going for all that long.

If Bungie says that the Eververse is necessary to continue making content at the pace that they are, I believe them. I certainly would rather see another model with less frequent but more substantial content drops, but that's not what they're doing and doesn't really factor into the discussion such as it is.

Or am I missing something?

Only the reality of making modern video games, especially one as massive as Destiny, for a community as eager for content as the Destiny community is.

You can just charge money upfront and still allow this to happen…

If Bungie says that the Eververse is necessary to continue making content at the pace that they are, I believe them.

Have they actually said this? The funny thing is the 'content' doesn't seem as satisfying or substantial as in expansion drops.

You can just charge money upfront and still allow this to happen…

No. You. Can't.

They've mentioned that they thought about it, and the research showed that the bump in price needed to make up the difference was not palatable to the target audience.

You might pay it, but there aren't enough of you.

They definitely rolled out in waves. Though I got mine around the time Cody got his, lots of people got way before, so maybe there are more waves?

I said as much somewhere else in the thread. Increasing the price will have an unavoidable gatekeeping effect, though Destiny is a tad weird as its now F2P. While it makes sense to increase the price of games when compared to previous decade adjusted for inflation, it doesn't mean that said increase can be afforded by the income distribution or even accepted by those who can afford it.

It's basic Supply and Demand, Econ 101. It is obviously a more complex problem but its easy to understand at a high level.

I do like the joke though.

Edit: Never mind, I read further and apparently it was. And he was so close to having a really good argument

You can just charge money upfront and still allow this to happen…

No. You. Can't.

They've mentioned that they thought about it, and the research showed that the bump in price needed to make up the difference was not palatable to the target audience.

You might pay it, but there aren't enough of you.

If you can remember or provide a link to this Id be quite interested.

And if that’s true, then it just supports my argument that expansion packs rather than f2p are superior! Expansion packs contain more content than equivalent f2p releases. So set theory says they can contain f2p content releases.

Have at thee!

- No text -

- No text -

It's small, but I figure it's fine. A campaign and some more maps might be enough to get me going here.

So far, rocking the samurai-themed crew has gotten me a lot more mileage than the others (healer a close second). Switching guns so they reload while you shoot the other one is neat!

I quite like the season model in theory.

The content provided however is nowhere even remotey close to that of an ExPac. Debatably it's not even really enough to fill out a season but YMMV heavily there.

- No text -

It seems well-made, and I think it's a neat idea. I hope it's successful. I just don't think it's fun, unfortunately. Maybe more time would change that, but it's not likely to get more time from me.

1. The default controls are quite bad. Controller ease is really bad. Turn it off.
2. The aiming doesn’t feel very good. Really strange considering Halo.
3. Can we stop with the tiny text?! WTF is up with this on so many games. Make it readable! Why is this even a problem. The icons in game are completely unreadable.
4. 6 minutes and no matches. Perhaps we have some trouble there to be worked out.

5. The game is… meh? Dunno just wasn't really feeling it. Being able to hover and fly everywhere kind of eliminates cool options for movement. You just kind of go where you want, instead of having to 'earn' it so to speak. Too much health and not enough weapon variety.

I'd like to hear from people here who liked or loved it.