The first game to offer a trial is Dead Space which uses Denuvo. Game is also published by EA which would be at the tail of my list of consumer friendly publishers.
In a world where the de-facto language is English but most people are not native speakers, it's actually really hard to compose official or neutral sounding messages. I can navigate colloquial conversations in English pretty well, but I find it difficult when I have to reply to business or clerical emails where I need to sound neutrally professional, whether because I lack vocabulary or because my own native language idiosyncrasies slip in and make the message awkward to native speakers, something that an automated AI like this would eliminate. So I would say you just have a very limited view of the world outside your own small universe.
I am a senior software engineer with team leading experience, specialized in designing and developing Java based backend systems and APIs for web, mobile and IoT applications; additionally I have led teams of 3 to 10 people in several projects, being involved in all phases starting with requirements gathering, software design and architecture all throughout implementation, delivery and maintenance. I am looking for freelance contractor work as Java developer or tech lead.
> Cosmetic items are not just visual though. They are real elements in the game.
Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay. Visuals are a huge part of what makes a game, no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.
> no one would be happy if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.
Not a meaningful comparison. A game without textures would be hardly playable at all. The same can't be said for skins or accessories to your character/vehicle. You don't get eye-cancer with the default skin. If you feel you need that virtual Louis Vuitton bag to fully enjoy the game then well be a sucker and pay for it and pretend the game was just a little more expensive. I've yet to encounter a game where I feel like I'm missing out on anything with the default player model/skin/car.
That's fine for you. A lot of these games are social experiences. Kids do get called names and bullied for having a default skin. Peer pressure drives a lot of the purchasing of cosmetics. That's why you'll rarely find paid cosmetics in games that don't also feature social aspects.
Yes but that's the point. That's all external and cannot be blamed on the game, or taken to mean the game is incomplete without. Extending on that, there should then also be a ban on fashion and luxury items in any shape or form IRL, as they do the same things to kids (and adults). And a ban on violence in videogames, as I'm sure there's someone out there who's been pushed over the edge by it and committed a crime they otherwise wouldn't have.
So where do we stop? This is just one more way, in addition to the thousands we already have, in which peer pressure and status symbols manifest.
The Rocket Pass is a pretty sweet deal if you play a fair amount. I think it's 10 bucks and you can earn enough credits to get the next season's Rocket Pass.
I don't really muss with my car too much anymore, instead I just click "Equip Now" every time I can and slowly modify it over time.
> Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay.
I don't disagree that they do add something, but theses ones are not something that I want, nor that I need.
> if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them.
I do have to pay for the textures and shaders... I did pay for them as a matter of fact. I didn't pay for the one not included, as I didn't want them. Some did want them, and did pay for them individually. Just like I didn't pay for Elden Ring but plenty did...
Now, when you bought that game, if you were expecting a specific amount of content, and you didn't get that content without paying more, I agree completely, that would be false advertising and that would be definitely wrong.
False advertising is definitely an issue in video games, there's so much overpromising and under-delivering but IAP isn't the issue there (though it definitely can be the reason for your false advertising). Until that part is handled correctly, the market did alleviate most of the false advertising by having an abundant amount of reviews and to me that's a not so bad way to deal with this.
And just another example. Path of Exile is a game known for its visual clutter when you reach the end game. You have so many mobs and skills flying around it is very difficult to tell what is going on. You can buy cosmetics to make different skill gems appear different when they are cast, including mobs. Often, these alternative skill cosmetics create a greater visual clarity than their default. My point is that if there is a skill that can one-shot kill my character i'd like to see it as clear as day when it is coming. Paying money in Path of Exile gets me that.
The hitboxes are the same, so to any seasoned player the visuals really don't matter gameplay wise, as long as the model isn't too out of scale with it's hitbox.
Unless there have been changes in the game, different cars have different hitboxes so technically in this circumstance you might be wrong. Not that there any absolutely amazing car for hitboxes, but there are differences and they affect gameplay.
I assume you're still talking about Rocket League? All models in that game fall under 1 of 6 hitbox types [1], each of which are attainable without purchase
Back in the days we used mods and texture packs to remove (hardware) expensive textures from the game so we get more FPS. I'm not sure if your argument applies to all games. For many games there is a competitive scene that usually don't give a shit about visuals and would trade most visual features for more frames per second.
Iam not a real gamer anymore but in World Of warships there are serveral crossover skins (like from animes) that some people love and use and others hate them and are able to turn them off completely.
The reality is that they kinda do, people with expensive cosmetics are viewed as being better players by their teammates and opponents. The significance of this can be hard to measure, but in most games it's bigger than a small stat boost that would be immediately seen as p2w
So the less skilled players with expensive cosmetics get their abilities over-estimated while the skilled players in the base skins get their abilities under-estimated. That sounds like a win for the skilled players in the base skins to me. Better to be under-estimated than over-estimated.
While I get the impression that many of those visual bling payables available today seem to give more of a disadvantage than an advantage, back in the days of 1.6 CS I caught myself in real life considering the contrast between what I wore and the environment I was passing through. Not because I was expecting to get shot at (I certainly wasn't), but because at the time it was so much of a routine consideration for me. Yes, visuals can be a competitive factor.
Underlining this comment — Ubisoft games, such as Division or Breakpoint, allow purchase of national camo designs.
If these had no “gameplay” effect or “competitive advantage” based on environment, why do nation states spend money developing them and equip troops differently based on biome?
And why have some games had to patch their PvP to “outline” opposing players with a visibility border in the patches that follow certain “cosmetics”?
A more subtle advantage can arise from hitboxes in both hitscan and projectile games with customizers or cosmetics that change the mesh. There’s a reason some games are predominantly female characters in close fit gear.
Finally, even games that insist no gameplay or competitive advantage, are fully aware of “the meta”.
In Fallout 76, for example, PvP players learned to hotkey the “Nuka-Cola” drinks with special benefits. In a for money store, Bethesda allows you to purchase a robot junk collector that gathers Nuka-Colas for free. Rationale is it is just a QoL (quality of life) benefit, but in reality, it allows stockpiling a combat advantage to last longer in combat than the opponent. Same store also allows you to purchase “repair kits” for weapons and “bubble gum” that suppresses the survival mechanism around eating/drinking for an hour of game play.
Again, Bethesda’s claim is QoL not pay-to-win, but weapons repairable mid-battle away from one’s base certainly affects winning, and level of hunger/thirst affects damage multipliers and action point refresh (aka ‘mana’).
Look “good”? Come on. If not having the Pickle Rick decal for your car makes you play worse it has nothing to do with looking “good”. Perhaps look “like I own this exclusive cosmetic”, which applies to offline as well, don’t you think?
The real problem is that loot boxes are gambling, and are addictive, period. It triggers something in otherwise rational people, especially children, that makes it feel good to spend money on mostly non-gameplay-altering cosmetics.
At some level it probably does. Even in Rocket League, which is more cosmetic than most, if your teammates are passing to you more than they would have with the default skin, then you'll do better.
As a medic in team fortress 2, I usually pocket and ubercharge the players with cosmetics. It's an important team resource, and the odds of someone with a "default" skin making good use of it are fairly low. Much like plumage for a bird it's a reliable signal of "virility" - if you're invested enough in the game to own a $200 hat and a coordinated outfit then you've probably played it long enough for me to trust you sight-unseen.
If you're a pro player with the default skin, you're gonna have a bad fucking time, because you're last priority for heals, you're not getting an ubercharge, etc. That is gameplay-affecting even if the cosmetic itself is not.
This is the first really good example I've seen of cosmetics having a gameplay effect. I hate that it's true, but I really appreciate you mentioning it -- signalling of skill is super valuable, and if cosmetics are a reliable enough signal, that's interesting.
If you make all skins and cosmetics available to everyone then you're back to square 1 and people will use some other heuristic to decide who they should pass to. I think this is actually an argument for paid cosmetics, it would improve gameplay for the people who spend the most time playing the game by allowing them to identify other people who also dedicate a lot of time and money to the game.
Oh I totally agree that the system right now is majorly screwed up. Loot boxes are absolutely gambling (why else would the odds be legally required to be disclosed in some jurisdictions?)
And of course it's a vanity component (at least for me, though other posters have raised other factors). Everyone's different with different preferences and as long as there's not a problematic spending aspect I think it's fine...but this links back to the gambling issue. Personally I only buy cosmetics in a few games I play a lot and that don't use loot box mechanics.
Why? Why is competitive advantage the only thing that matters?
OP is just ranting about people who pay more getting a better experience, making paying such a central part of gaming. They just hate this, which I agree with, although I know others don't.
In a way, getting a better experience just for being able and willing to pay more is a basic feature of our society. Why should we expect videogames, being as expensive and lucrative, to be radically different from the rest of society?
I'll just continue appreciating those games who are, those who actually work more like art. If I ever decide to try a F2P loot-box generator-style game, it generally puts me off quickly.
> Why? Why is competitive advantage the only thing that matters?
Because it determines whether free players can still compete with paying customers.
There's no problem with a paid weapon skin that just looks cool since everyone is still on a level playing field. If that paid skin gives the user double damage then you've created 2 classes of players and one of them is superior. In such cases, the only reason free players even exist is to serve as fodder for your paying customers. They're there to get wrecked.
> Why? Why is competitive advantage the only thing that matters?
Because unlike the real world, we expect games to be inherently fair and meritocratic. In a competitive game, we expect that no matter how somebody looks or what they may say, the only thing that matters is their ability to perform. This is comparable to why people get upset about, say, the speed-enhancing swimwear for the Olympic games but don't have any problem with that swimwear existing.
One of the central functions of games is to level the playing field, or at least to reduce the dimensionality to such a degree that it is possible to be focused on all influencing factors in a game within the confines of that game. A closed-system, when we're usually all stuck playing in an open-system. Since all real-world closed-systems actually exist within an open-system, of course there could be external influences, but gamers generally have an expectation that attempts will be made to make a game as self-contained and closed as is possible. Pay-to-win games break this contract to make those unwilling to pay into unwitting tools for the enjoyment of the paying customer. They are open-systems under the guise of being closed-systems.
Granted, the category referred to as "Games" now includes many different things, including "Experiences" that aren't really games at all. And there are so many games today that it's pretty easy to find games that are actually games at their core. But there's also plenty of games that are marketed as games but turn out to be significantly about art / fashion to such a degree that they can no longer really be classified as games.
I've got call out Roblox for playing the meta-game here in a way that all gamers frustrated by pay-to-win will appreciate. It takes the idea of a closed system being broken into an open system, and makes that (making F2P games) into a closed system that breaks into an open system: you get to pay-to-win at creating pay-to-win games. A beautiful pyramid scheme that even your 11-yo child can enjoy being exploited within!
IMHO when a game centres around competitive play, and said game also allows you to buy competitive advantage for real money, that is a problem. A situation like this is called "pay to win" and is tempting enough for some game companies to ruin their game with.
I see it just as price discrimination and I'm fine with it. I can choose to play with "worse" visuals for a lower price. If I want "better" visuals I can pay for that as well. I'm just happy that I have the chance to play for a low cost (sometimes free). I let others who care more about that stuff fund the cost of development. I'm essentially a free-rider.
That of course assumes that the game isn't sold to me with these "better" visuals as included.
You're strawmanning, they don't ship Rocket League with all the graphics turned off and force you to pay for them. They sell silly hats and skins in addition to the already great graphics that they provide with the base model.
> People also got lazy, why bother hosting your own website when you can just upload to Instagram ?
Why bother changing your car oil when you can take it to the service?
Why bother cooking your own meal when you can just go to the restaurant?
Why bother sewing your own dress when you can just go to the mall?
It's not lazyness, it's convenience. Internet just got mainstream and popular, so people lacking time, interest or skills to create their own websites just use pre-built solutions. It's how everything works in real life.
Yeah, if I'm a writer, is it "lazy" of me to also not want to manually do the formatting, cover, layouts and print work, as opposed to just sending a manuscript to an editor? It's not necessarily a bad thing that the web has evolved to the point that people who want to produce content for it, for the most part, only have to worry about the content and not the infrastructure.
> Internet just got mainstream and popular, so people lacking time, interest or skills to create their own websites just use pre-built solutions.
They don't lack any of time or skills. Take the example of websites of local sport clubs: they all had a proper website with all info and news and stuff. Now they haven't any more, they've changed to a shitty Facebook page with everything mixed together into an incredible mess. (By the way, the traditional website is typically still running fine without maintenance, it just hasn't been updated since around 2015-2017.)
I don't think the people from your small town random sport club, who built and ran the site in the 2000s, had special computers skills or time compared to those of today.
Most local sports leagues (and some clubs) still run their own websites (and have systems that support mobile apps). I find the online presence far richer these days where little league teams collaborate attendance, schedules, practices this way.
I think this “everyone got lazy” is overblown. Yes some folks are lazy, but they were the folks that used Microsoft Frontpage in 1998 :)
I assume they bet on people who want to use the Chromium engine without all the Google stuff and corporate people who use macs but work with MS infrastructure (like Exchange and Sharepoint).
I don't know a single person that uses the mark as spam option to "delete legitimate emails". In fact, almost everybody just leaves those emails in their inbox after reading them. A small fraction of users use the archive function.
I do however know lots of people (me being one of them) who use mark as spam for unsolicited emails. And no, spam is not legitimate, no matter how hard online marketing people are trying to make it so.
You should try working at an abuse desk for an business providing email services at some point. :)
You are, of course, absolutely right re. spam and rightfully so. On the other hand, I regularly get spam reports re. 100% legitimate mails, often in the middle of longer email conversations and so on, and where one side of the conversation marks entire email threads as spam.
We always follow up on spam complaints and the one thing we do get often in cases like that is that the other party only wanted to delete the emails and didn't realise there were other consequences.
Yes, there's a lot of people that knows how to use the "Mark as spam button". I still, however, maintain the position that a lot of other people don't know how to use such features.
In theory, I agree with the parent post and the sibling reply. If I didn't ask for email, then it doesn't belong in my inbox. In practice, I do what you do - unsubscribe and delete. If I get any more mail after that...
When I get the old "you'll be removed from our list within 10 days" message, I generally reply to it with a quick message: "Please remove me immediately or your next message will be marked as spam". Many times the sender has complied with a personal response provided someone saw my message, even for some large companies with "no-reply" emails.
For smaller companies - especially the mom and pop type operations - I'll usually give them a friendlier notice. "Hi, I unsubscribed and I'm still getting emails. Please remove me as I'd really rather not mark your messages as spam". I usually get a friendly personal response with apologies and a removal.
In all cases, after the company has been warned, I don't think twice about sending them to spam.
Simple: it costs them money and resources to go through the process you described, whereas it costs them almost nothing to directly close the account and send an automated message.
The value of that intangible asset is called 'goodwill' and the market gives it a value. Worldcom had to slash around $80 billion dollars in lost 'goodwill'.
In that case, all that is leaked is your email address, which is probably in every email database already. Email addresses are not terribly easy to keep secret anyway.
