Looty & "Keep"? - The Bear and Badger

FranticPea

Matthew Corbett once wanked me off with a puppet and my willy was black afterwards. It was sooty.

trippy

I'm sorry. I'm tired and emotional and I've had too much coffee.

JonB

trippy wrote:

Thankfully. Did you get inside Matthew Corbetts niece's loot box, Dante? Fnarr fnarr.

He never got the premium items.

Kow

It was probably a microtransaction anyway.

afgavinstan

Me returning to my creation here

Paul the sparky

Diluted Dante

trippy wrote:

Thankfully. Did you get inside Matthew Corbetts niece's loot box, Dante? Fnarr fnarr.

Ahaha, yes I did.

She was my girlfriend about 11/12 years ago. I can neither confirm, nor deny the involvement of puppets, however, I can confirm Matthew was not present.

Yossarian

Check the work thread, D.

Diluted Dante

Yossarian wrote:

Check the work thread, D.

A X-rated Sooty show seemingly has an audience.

mistercrayon

The way I see the cost of these things is that they can cost 1 pound but you’re made to feel like a stupid idiot because you get way more shite for spending way more.

There’s a final fantasy ad that’s creeping around which says you get 75 pounds of stuff extra if you spend 50 pounds (or vice Versa). The upshot is if you spend 25 now and maybe 25 later (say, it you envisage ever putting fifty in) you’d be leaving free shit (pngs or jpgs) on the table if you don’t put the full 50 in now.

Of course once that fifty is in the toilet the process starts again.

Djornson

afgavinstan wrote:

Me returning to my creation here

LOL

Escape

One potential evil is the baked-in ability for publishers to identify highlooters for bait-and-switch buys. Panini cards could only restrict their foot-to-ball men so far, because they'd lose future trade if none of your mates ever got any top players. Word got around.

But with games, you only need to supply enough good stuff to maintain the appearance of legitimacy, because unlike prepacked cards, you can now serve on a per-customer basis. So it might be 1:10 for your first purchase, creating lots of happy customers, but then rise to 1:50 for those who've fallen in.

This is how free bets from bookies work, hence matched betting.

nick_md

Escape wrote:

One potential evil is the baked-in ability for publishers to identify highlooters for bait-and-switch buys. Panini cards could only restrict their foot-to-ball men so far, because they'd lose future trade if none of your mates ever got any top players. Word got around.

But with games, you only need to supply enough good stuff to maintain the appearance of legitimacy, because unlike prepacked cards, you can now serve on a per-customer basis. So it might be 1:10 for your first purchase, creating lots of happy customers, but then rise to 1:50 for those who've fallen in.

This is how free bets from bookies work, hence matched betting.

This is a pretty cynical view and not something I've ever seen opted for. The people who make the games you play, in my experience at least, generally hold the same opinions as you re. fairness and quality for players, and have the same desire as yourself to not perpetuate the kind of cuntery you're alluding to.

nick_md

M0stly harm13ss wrote:

@nick thanks that's really interesting stuff. To be clear I brought up £40 to £50, but I was specifically referring to AAA games, and the amount you'd spend on the season pass plus a couple of boxes or card packs.

Also, for the record, I'm fully on board with the gatcha for F2P games. Income has to come from somewhere, and if I have enjoyed a game I will happily drop some money on it via IAPs or suchlike to support the dev. My concern is the way in which this is being implemented in mainstream AAA titles that you already pay for up front and with this some frameworks or protections that should be put in place.

Yeah it's a really interesting topic, and for sure I think that's the important distinction: F2P vs traditional, paid-up-front content.

I'm not sure how it'll play out tbh, but I know that gacha is unlikely to go away, and also that we all enjoy the excitement of a lucky dip, so long as it's fair.

Yossarian

nick_md wrote:

Escape wrote:

One potential evil is the baked-in ability for publishers to identify highlooters for bait-and-switch buys. Panini cards could only restrict their foot-to-ball men so far, because they'd lose future trade if none of your mates ever got any top players. Word got around.

But with games, you only need to supply enough good stuff to maintain the appearance of legitimacy, because unlike prepacked cards, you can now serve on a per-customer basis. So it might be 1:10 for your first purchase, creating lots of happy customers, but then rise to 1:50 for those who've fallen in.

This is how free bets from bookies work, hence matched betting.

This is a pretty cynical view and not something I've ever seen opted for. The people who make the games you play, in my experience at least, generally hold the same opinions as you re. fairness and quality for players, and have the same desire as yourself to not perpetuate the kind of cuntery you're alluding to.

FWIW: my opinion in this and most other threads is that most people aren’t cunts and that those things which are usually attributed to cuntishness can usually be explained by non-cunty impulses.

Honds.

mistercrayon

nick_md wrote:

Escape wrote:

One potential evil is the baked-in ability for publishers to identify highlooters for bait-and-switch buys. Panini cards could only restrict their foot-to-ball men so far, because they'd lose future trade if none of your mates ever got any top players. Word got around.

But with games, you only need to supply enough good stuff to maintain the appearance of legitimacy, because unlike prepacked cards, you can now serve on a per-customer basis. So it might be 1:10 for your first purchase, creating lots of happy customers, but then rise to 1:50 for those who've fallen in.

This is how free bets from bookies work, hence matched betting.

This is a pretty cynical view and not something I've ever seen opted for. The people who make the games you play, in my experience at least, generally hold the same opinions as you re. fairness and quality for players, and have the same desire as yourself to not perpetuate the kind of cuntery you're alluding to.

Perhaps. But I think when publishers are explicitly publishing concepts which try to make paid for dlc desirable by mis matching players on skill levels then it’s impossible to argue there isn’t some rank practice going on.

bad_hair_day

Never mind about all this Yoss, I missed your musings on FNF.

nick_md

mistercrayon wrote:

nick_md wrote:

Escape wrote:

One potential evil is the baked-in ability for publishers to identify highlooters for bait-and-switch buys. Panini cards could only restrict their foot-to-ball men so far, because they'd lose future trade if none of your mates ever got any top players. Word got around.

But with games, you only need to supply enough good stuff to maintain the appearance of legitimacy, because unlike prepacked cards, you can now serve on a per-customer basis. So it might be 1:10 for your first purchase, creating lots of happy customers, but then rise to 1:50 for those who've fallen in.

This is how free bets from bookies work, hence matched betting.

This is a pretty cynical view and not something I've ever seen opted for. The people who make the games you play, in my experience at least, generally hold the same opinions as you re. fairness and quality for players, and have the same desire as yourself to not perpetuate the kind of cuntery you're alluding to.

Perhaps. But I think when publishers are explicitly publishing concepts which try to make paid for dlc desirable by mis matching players on skill levels then it’s impossible to argue there isn’t some rank practice going on.

For sure, I'm only speaking of my own experience. Rank practice is rank practice, I've never argued there aren't unsavoury systems in play, my argument is against the blanket all or nothing vitriol. It ain't going away.. maybe let's try to make it work?

Vela

nick_md wrote:

Vela wrote:

Because the digital keys sold in loot boxes have no monetary value and people cannot sell or trade unwanted or duplicate keys, they are just even more obviously exploitative.

As mentioned before, a *good* gacha system should, imo, provide a dusting / crafting feature whereby any unwanted items gained can be spent towards something you *do* actually want. I believe Hearthstone does this. By having a dusting system every item has worth and is useful to the player.

I will accept this is a reasonable compromise.

Vela wrote:

Without this option the loot box mechanic is shown for what it is: a cynical exercise in getting money for nothing. Fuck any game that has it.

A gacha system in a F2P game is hardly asking for money for nothing, it's seeking a way to gain some financial reward for the free content it delivers. Distinctions need to be made: F2P/Retail; Mobile/Console; Fair/Unfair; P2W/F2P, + others. [/quote]

You're right, and sorry to cut the rest of your reply out but I dont have a problem with F2P gatchas since its clear thats how the game is sold. The only thing necessary imo there is a spending limit on the account the user can define.

However when it comes to retail games there's a difference.

I think Overwatch or at least TF2 have loot boxes and free content updates/maps. Everyone gets the new maps and characters, funded by everyone who buys the cosmetic gatcha stuff. That's cool if it is up front and everyone knows the deal. I'd probably even buy some if that was the model in a game I played. It's more attractive to a player than having a split community when half their friends dont by the new map pack.

Where I most strongly disagree with it is in retail games with season passes, pay to win mechanics (ie buy stronger armour/weapons), where map packs are still sold and not free/funded by loot boxes.

Yossarian

bad_hair_day wrote:

Never mind about all this Yoss, I missed your musings on FNF.

I’ve just made it home. You guys still on?

Escape

nick_md wrote:

I've never argued there aren't unsavoury systems in play

I don't believe that what I suggested is happening, but while Yoss is placing the burden of proof on us, I'm deflecting it at EA to prove that they'll never use such an algorithm. It's wide open for sharks.

Yossarian

I have no idea what you’re talking about with EA and algorithms, but I’m simply asking for proof of the harm which is apparently so clearly evident to so many of you.

Yossarian

Is the above coherent? If so, how?

Escape

You're asking us to prove that kids aren't at risk. We're asking you to prove that looting won't be misused to entice them into purchases.

We should just agree that looting sucks.

Yossarian

I’m asking you to prove your (not personally) assertion that kids are at risk, that’s all.

Yossarian

I mean, how the fuck is the burden of proof on me? I never brought kids into this conversation.

Escape

To prove that kids won't be targeted if this thing's allowed to breathe.

Yossarian

That completely ignores my ‘why?’.

Escape

Ask your mother.

Yossarian

Honestly, the arguments against this have been about as strong as those that ADKM rightly called you lot out about in regards to the Twitter thing. The truth is that you lot don't like it, but many of you are scrabbling around for some greater justification than that which you have fuck all evidence for.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories