RandomStranger wrote on 2023-01-05, 06:58:

ZellSF wrote on 2023-01-04, 21:31:

twiz11 wrote on 2023-01-01, 02:32:

i am not happy with how extremely monetized games are these days, I mean in 20-30 years when we look back and say hey this is classic gaming, how much of it will still exist?

Heavily monetized games are a minority. Only the biggest AAA titles really bother to any significant extent. So I don't think that all that much will be gone based on that.

No. It's that only the biggest AAA titles induce an uproar. Anti-consumer post launch monetization affect every level of gaming, people just don't care as much if the game is cheap or free.

I don't know if there will continue being an uproar for AAA games in the future. For the youngest generation, this is just the norm.

Even if there is, when did that ever stop publishers pushing even more predatory monetization anyway? Maybe they backtrack a little going for something a little less predatory, they hold back a for the next 2 big releases employing only what the market already got used to, but they'll try bringing back the same things, only they'll be smarter about it next time.

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-01-05, 06:58:

ZellSF wrote on 2023-01-04, 21:31:

twiz11 wrote on 2023-01-01, 02:32:

i am not happy with how extremely monetized games are these days, I mean in 20-30 years when we look back and say hey this is classic gaming, how much of it will still exist?

Heavily monetized games are a minority. Only the biggest AAA titles really bother to any significant extent. So I don't think that all that much will be gone based on that.

No. It's that only the biggest AAA titles induce an uproar. Anti-consumer post launch monetization affect every level of gaming, people just don't care as much if the game is cheap or free.

What non-AAA titles have you been playing lately with aggressive monetization?

You have to understand that when you buy strictly online games you don't really own it, you just rent it for full price until the servers and services are working.
Digital games work until you have your account but after that you are pretty much out of luck, not to mention that digital copies are worthless as collector's items. You can't put files on a shelf and show it to your friends. This will encourage more people to just pirate these games because there aren't even physical copies to hold onto.

ZellSF wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:00:

What non-AAA titles have you been playing lately with aggressive monetization?

For example all free2play games.

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:34:

ZellSF wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:00:

What non-AAA titles have you been playing lately with aggressive monetization?

For example all free2play games.

You've been playing ALL free to play games lately? I don't believe you.

ZellSF wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:37:

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:34:

ZellSF wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:00:

What non-AAA titles have you been playing lately with aggressive monetization?

For example all free2play games.

You've been playing ALL free to play games lately? I don't believe you.

I didn't play all free2play games, but all free2play games I've played was like that.

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:44:

ZellSF wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:37:

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:34:

For example all free2play games.

You've been playing ALL free to play games lately? I don't believe you.

I didn't play all free2play games, but all free2play games I've played was like that.

Are they even worth caring about when they're gone, when you're not even fond enough of them to name them?

And is monetization really why they will be gone anyway? Multiplayer games will be gone because the servers will be gone, phone games will be gone because the phones that run the supported OS are are dead.

ZellSF wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:56:

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:44:

ZellSF wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:37:

You've been playing ALL free to play games lately? I don't believe you.

I didn't play all free2play games, but all free2play games I've played was like that.

Are they even worth caring about when they're gone, when you're not even fond enough of them to name them?

And is monetization really why they will be gone anyway? Multiplayer games will be gone because the servers will be gone, phone games will be gone because the phones that run the supported OS are are dead.

It's not that I didn't find enough to name them, it's just that I chose not to name any one or all of them. And I do care about at least some of them being gone, and the community too, since they are working on bringing them back at least for off-line single player against bots. Also, not all f2p games are multiplayer.

And monetization is part of the problem. Even if the game remains playable, they are often designed around monetization and way to grindy without them.

What are the odds multiplayer and phone games will remain playable, say 50 years in the future, without any replacement for the monetization scheme? I would say very slim.

As for non-multiplayer non-phone free to play games, I can't really name one. Can you name a few?

Every single time I see ingame monetization with buyable ingame currencies it just takes you out of the experience of the game. It's not about having fun but considering "how much I'm going to spend on this" or "I am not going to spend on this but others will gain an advantage". Maybe I'm in the minority who just will refuse to play any games like that. Similarly with MMORPG "daily / loyalty" type of catch. These are artificial limits by design to make the game progress slower or create the sense of achievement when there is in reality none.

Best example could be Lord of the Rings Online. It was one of the first with ingame store with noticeable buffs since 2011ish. Thankfully there's private server of the original released game up right now without any store like monetization.

Mandrew wrote on 2023-01-05, 10:28:

You have to understand that when you buy strictly online games you don't really own it, you just rent it for full price until the servers and services are working.
Digital games work until you have your account but after that you are pretty much out of luck, not to mention that digital copies are worthless as collector's items. You can't put files on a shelf and show it to your friends. This will encourage more people to just pirate these games because there aren't even physical copies to hold onto.

I understand what you mean to say.

In simple words, I think, making games ~25 years ago was akin to writing a novel or writing a whole book.

Today, it's akin to making hamburgers in one of these franchise oriented "restaurants".

It's mass production, it has to meet the expectations of a dull audience.
Edit: And it has to make lots of money, of course. Maximum profits, if possible.

The game engines used are off the shelve parts, too.
That's why even for simple games insanely high hardware requirements exist.

Something that once ran on a 486 now needs a hexacore CPU, 32 GB RAM and 8 GB VRAM. 🙄

That's why I had stopped playing new video games for a few years.
It's neither fun nor affordable anymore. It just hurts.

Edit:

Gmlb256 wrote on 2023-01-01, 04:46:

Robin4 wrote on 2023-01-01, 03:46:

Thats why a love the older games like XT and so one.. […]
Show full quote

Thats why a love the older games like XT and so one..

A game doesnt have to be look technically high-end to give you pleasure..
The older games are nicer because are a lot simpler.

Today only graphics seems to have a big role, if a game looks good..

Wolfenstein 3-D, DOOM and Quake (all of them from id Software, PC gaming was seen as a joke by many prior these three games) did look high-end back then when they were introduced to the consumers, making users to upgrade or replace their computers to get a decent experience.

Nothing new, just a perfect example of nostalgia filter.

Um, these games didn't look high-end to me. Back in the 90s, I mean.
Even back then, I found them to be pretty low-res, actually.
I was used to graphically simple games, but they ran in 640x480, at least. On a 286.

Edit: Correction. Some were EGA and ran in 640x350. EGATrek, CD-Man, some more Trek games and flight sims, graphic adventures..

I suppose that's because I was being used to both the Super Nintendo and Windows 3.1x.
The SNES was low-res, too, but it wasn't that noticeable over Composite, I guess.
And Windows games had a 640x400 or higher resolution.

Edit: I was impressed by the SVGA version of Descent, however.
Some other DOS games ran in up to 800x600, I think.

Edit: Hm. I guess I'm talking too much again. I'm sorry. 😅

Edit: Nevermind. I've always beeing kind of strange, always swimming against mainstream.
So my statements have no weight, whatsoever. I just was thinking out loud.

i avoid any live service game as they play on every psychological trick in the book to keep you playing, chief among them being fomo, or fear of missing out. devs want you in the game for as long as possible because it increases the chances of you buying something from the in-game store. in-game currencies are also used to obfuscate how much money you're actually spending. i hate it all. the most depressing thing about it is reading how much money they're actually making, and i realise no matter how much i "vote with my wallet" that it will never make a difference. i suppose i have peace of mind knowing i'm not part of the problem

Jo22 wrote on 2023-01-05, 16:34:

Um, these games didn't look high-end to me. Back in the 90s, I mean.
Even back then, I found them to be pretty low-res, actually.

Many people here on this forum didn't grow playing games from the XT era and this is reflected on their statement regarding DOS games and compatibility. It is also dependent on the demographics.

I was used to graphically simple games, but they ran in 640x480, at least. On a 286. […]
Show full quote

I was used to graphically simple games, but they ran in 640x480, at least. On a 286.

Edit: Correction. Some were EGA and ran in 640x350. EGATrek, CD-Man, some more Trek games and flight sims, graphic adventures..

I suppose that's because I was being used to both the Super Nintendo and Windows 3.1x.
The SNES was low-res, too, but it wasn't that noticeable over Composite, I guess.
And Windows games had a 640x400 or higher resolution.

Edit: I was impressed by the SVGA version of Descent, however.
Some other DOS games ran in up to 800x600, I think.

Sadly, many of these games with SVGA were static animation-wise. 😒

Decent required a very fast CPU to get a playable experience in higher resolutions, which at least it got better with Descent II.

Edit: Hm. I guess I'm talking too much again. I'm sorry. 😅

Edit: Nevermind. I've always beeing kind of strange, always swimming against mainstream.
So my statements have no weight, whatsoever. I just was thinking out loud.

No worries about that. 😉

Just don't buy games with monetization.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-01-05, 16:34:

Edit: And it has to make lots of money, of course. Maximum profits, if possible.

With maximum profits come the need for software companies to prevent transfer of license ownership to other users, that's what the EU torpedoed. In the EU the owner can sell the licence to anybody and it can be used to activate the product again and as many times as the current owner wants. People can buy COA stickers and get legal Windows 11 Pro copies for like $10 or any software with a valid license without subscription. As a result the number of pirated copies fell dramatically.
But!
Companies started circumventing this with microtransactions, DLCs and subscription services that prevent you from using another account with the same license again. In other words you buy a valid license conforming to EU laws but the subscription service will deny you service because the license is permanently bound to the original owner's account. So these games are unsellable after purchase. Since most games are sold digitally (9x%) the market for used but legal games is already dead and good luck finding physical copies of new games in a few years.

The way mobile games are monetized and sold makes it hard for me to find games. I don't want to sit through a bunch of ads, so I usually just sort through the paid games. However, it's hard to sort the games that don't require constant payments. You can look for games without in app purchases, but some games have DLC that is basically an expansion pack. I don't want to exclude those games.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-01-05, 16:34:

Something that once ran on a 486 now needs a hexacore CPU, 32 GB RAM and 8 GB VRAM. 🙄

That's why I had stopped playing new video games for a few years.
It's neither fun nor affordable anymore. It just hurts.

That's it *Exactly*!

When doing something that was once fun and cheap now HURTS to do, that's where the line must be drawn.

25 years ago, that $50 video card enabled you to play LOTS of great games. Your 486 or Pentiun was good enough. DOS and 8mb of RAM were good enough, even exceptional.

I refuse to spend thousands in hardware (Wow! $3000 for video card, Hooray!) and then be nickel and dimed -- by design -- with these modern products which they still have the temerity to call "games". And, you don't own anything, everything's online behind a paywall and once those servers go down, poof!, there goes your game. Absolutely horrible, horrible short-sighted, "pure capitalistic" design. The money's all that matters now with games, the heart, soul and the spirt are long gone.

"The Product" is a now just a cardboard cutout. Shameful.

zyzzle wrote on 2023-01-06, 05:59:

The money's all that matters now with games, the heart, soul and the spirt are long gone.

I'm having the time of my life at the moment with a game released in 2021, and it's free. And no it's not freemium.

I think some of you guys just like making dramatic statements on the internet.

badmojo wrote on 2023-01-06, 07:06:

zyzzle wrote on 2023-01-06, 05:59:

The money's all that matters now with games, the heart, soul and the spirt are long gone.

I'm having the time of my life at the moment with a game released in 2021, and it's free. And no it's not freemium.

I think some of you guys just like making dramatic statements on the internet.

Nah, their points are quite valid.
Anybody can come up with examples of horrible or great games to prove a point, but at the end of the day what really matters is knowing which examples are part of the rule and which ones are part of the exception.
My feeling is that we have to dig through lots of "horrible" to find something "great". Keep in mind there is no freemium category in most storefronts, everything is put under the free category, so it's hard to the average user to distinguish. Most "free" games are a just one storefront on top of another.