How about a general show on Philosophy, specifically metaphysics? When I get all depressed and nihilistic, that's all I can think about. It'd be cool to hear your thoughts on something besides solipsism.
Book Club Suggestion: Ballad of the Whiskey Robber: A True Story of Bank Heists, Ice Hockey, Transylvanian Pelt Smuggling, Moonlighting Detectives and Broken Hearts
You have recently mentioned "play to win," but can you discusss "pay to win," and how ridiculous it seems?
At the risk of sounding like an old man, I hate the free-to-play model and want it to go away as quickly as possible. The only tolerable implementations of if I've found aren't really free-to-play - These are the ones where you're allowed a few "free plays" and then you have to pay for subsequent games (e.g., Triple Town, You Don't Know Jack for Facebook). I don't really agree that this is F2P; it's just a weird implementation of a demo. Still, I'd rather just pay for the game and be done.
Pay to win is obviously dumb. I'm not sure how much more discussion there can be about it? "Which guy is the richest and/or is most willing to spend money on this silly game?" isn't a particularly interesting mechanic.
Free to play is OK as long as it is truly free to play. As in you never have to pay money for anything, and there is no way to pay money for anything. You know, like Dwarf Fortress.
What's wrong with the model where buyable things are truly and 100% cosmetic with no other effects to gameplay than moral boost?
That's effectively the same as the completely free model with the exception that you can tell who the stupid players are because they have funny hats.
Why is it stupid to give money to game developers?
It's not stupid to pay money for a game. It is stupid to pay someone to execute a single database query to give you some in-game item.
But in a capitalist society, the biggest (arguably only) way to endorse a product is by giving them your money. Purchasing cosmetic items isn't necessarily to have that database query be executed, but rather to inform the market that you want more products like this.
What's wrong with the model where buyable things are truly and 100% cosmetic with no other effects to gameplay than moral boost?
That's effectively the same as the completely free model with the exception that you can tell who the stupid players are because they have funny hats.
Why is it stupid to give money to game developers?
It's not stupid to pay money for a game. It is stupid to pay someone to execute a single database query to give you some in-game item.
But in a capitalist society, the biggest (arguably only) way to endorse a product is by giving them your money. Purchasing cosmetic items isn't necessarily to have that database query be executed, but rather to inform the market that you want more products like this.
It's not a charity. I pay for a thing if I want that thing, and that thing is worth money. If I like your game, and you gave me that for $0, I'm going to take it for $0.
What's wrong with the model where buyable things are truly and 100% cosmetic with no other effects to gameplay than moral boost?
That's effectively the same as the completely free model with the exception that you can tell who the stupid players are because they have funny hats.
Why is it stupid to give money to game developers?
It's not stupid to pay money for a game. It is stupid to pay someone to execute a single database query to give you some in-game item.
But in a capitalist society, the biggest (arguably only) way to endorse a product is by giving them your money. Purchasing cosmetic items isn't necessarily to have that database query be executed, but rather to inform the market that you want more products like this.
It's not a charity. I pay for a thing if I want that thing, and that thing is worth money. If I like your game, and you gave me that for $0, I'm going to take it for $0.
I do consider it a charity. I give money to some group that keeps good artists fed and their rent paid. It also incentivises those artists to make more good art. And like a charity, payment is optional.
I don't give money to every free game -- in fact, I have yet to encounter one I like enough to give them money -- but if an indie developer made a game that I was a total fanboy for, I'd give them some money. Obviously it depends on one's personal economy (I have a significant surplus, since I don't have any expenses).
Guys, why are we doing this? We already know the outcomes, either Scott doesn't understand and thinks it's stupid, or he does understand, and still thinks it's stupid. Explaining it isn't going to aid his understanding in this case, if he lacks it, and if he does, he's just going to bristle up because it will make him feel patronized and/or like you don't understand what he's saying.
Just say no, people. Seriously, it's like buying bad drugs, just say no.
Scott wasn't there to berate me when I paid to win Planetside 2. Scott has failed me. I no-longer have faith in Scott.
Now now, don't loose heart. I feel that it's just that Scott has faith in you to know already about your pay to win bullshit, and to know that you're bad and should feel bad without his intervention. He feels that he does not have to baby you, you're a man that can foolishly pay money to stand on his own too feet perfectly well by yourself.
I agree. If you give it to me for free that's how much I'm going to pay. If every humble bundle was free I would just take it even if that is literally charity. I usually pay enough to get the entire package though.
I agree. If you give it to me for free that's how much I'm going to pay. If every humble bundle was free I would just take it even if that is literally charity. I usually pay enough to get the entire package though.
What would be hilarious would be if you could give them nothing, but like the maximum, you pay nothing, you get equivalent value - So, in essence, you click a button that sends you an invoice charging you nothing, in return for No games.
Comments
Board Game Geek 2012 Golden Geek Awards: Android: Netrunner wins best card game AND best two player game.
Edges up to #21 on the all time list.
It must be on your radar by now...
Maybe.
I'm still confident of a 2013 review at some point. It's going to be a popular game. Lot of old skool love for it.
Ballad of the Whiskey Robber: A True Story of Bank Heists, Ice Hockey, Transylvanian Pelt Smuggling, Moonlighting Detectives and Broken Hearts
Pay to win is obviously dumb. I'm not sure how much more discussion there can be about it? "Which guy is the richest and/or is most willing to spend money on this silly game?" isn't a particularly interesting mechanic.
I don't give money to every free game -- in fact, I have yet to encounter one I like enough to give them money -- but if an indie developer made a game that I was a total fanboy for, I'd give them some money. Obviously it depends on one's personal economy (I have a significant surplus, since I don't have any expenses).
Just say no, people. Seriously, it's like buying bad drugs, just say no.