Can’t understand people who spend hundreds of dollars on virtual shit they don’t even own, just a “licence” to rent it. Like how do you spend that much with almost nothing to show for it.
things can only be enjoyed if you trade money for physical objects then?
Cuz my partner has gotten many many hundreds of hours of enjoyment from the few hundred bucks they have ‘wasted’ on things like Fallout76 furniture and stuff. Eventually she will stop playing and ‘lose’ all that stuff.
I personally think the many hundred hours of happy playtime is well worth it. It’s her favorite way to relax after work. Wet don’t have a lot of space for her to build real castles but she spends sooo much of her time enjoying building virtual ones.
How is it any different from enjoying nice food or drinks with friends?
I guess if you are enjoying the act of spending money that’s good? But like I’m not spending any extra for cosmetics, that money could be spent on having real experiences instead of some bits on a PC that you’ll lose access to within a decade. Paying for DLC and extra content is one thing, but to change the look of virtual space for real cash is insane to me! Personally I have more fun when I don’t spend stupid amounts of money, but to each their own. When the game is free to play, or close to it you can have almost the same experience as someone who decides to spend the money.
Preach. So many people are fine, in fact, better than fine, paying money for cosmetics. I think p2w games are scum but at least the player gets something from that, whether it be time saved, better gun, or whatever.
Paying for a skin (which is essentially what this mount is) Nahhhhh. I’ve never spent a dime on either of those, but at least the former has some value imo.
Spending $90 to look cool in a videogame is something people need to get therapy for. But they’re still playing on official WoW servers, so we already knew that. (Shoutouts to Whitemane and TurtleWow. Neither costs a cent monthly and both respect your time)
“Time Saved” is not a real thing though. This would imply there was an unavoidable need to spend that time to begin with, there isn’t.
The game is artificial, if something is time consuming it’s by design. If you’re paying to “save time” in a game, you’re being farmed for money, plain and simple. You ain’t gaining anything, you’re paying to avoid the inconvenience placed there by the people who are selling you a work around for that inconvenience. You’re getting fleeced son.
The grind to get those depends on whether the player is being farmed for money. If it feels good to play, and you unlock content at a reasonable rate, that’s just called progression, not farming. But if the task is repetitive, unfun, and designed to frustrate players into paying, that’s farming.
That’s why people shit on EA for BF2. They did the math of the grind and loot boxes, and it came out so something ridiculous, like multiple hundreds of hours to unlock stuff. I used to play R6 Siege and never spent a penny. After a week or so of playing with my friends, we’d have enough in-game currency to buy a new operator. We’d all unlock new characters and try them out. Week after week, it was fun.
Paying, imo would have ruined that experience because the gameplay is what made it fun. Forcing us to use the ops we chose rather than having a full roster to pick whatever we wanted. Felt almost like deck-building. We were progressing, not farming.
The caveat is that the new ops tended to be OP. I think the devs probably do it intentionally. This is the P2W part. People could pay day 1 and get the operator with the overtuned kit. They paid to save time, because they want to be the first to use the shiny new toy.
But again, like I said. I’ll never spend money on either, but at least that person paying is gaining something, an advantage, time saved, instant gratification, more time learning the op. The person buying a pink gun gets … a digital pink gun?
It seems we disagree on the value of things. For me at least, somebody had to be vaguely creative to create the fucking blue 20$ skin, and the value is not in the non-existent item, but in the very real aesthetic and social experience of owning that skin, a social symbol, like art in your wall. Useless by itself, but it makes you feel things and let’s you say something about yourself to strangers.
To me that is understandable. Like buying AirPods instead of cheapo earbuds just because they look cool and you want to look preppy with your friends. (Notice the extra cost is not about the sound or the function of the thing, but a out the social value, which I’d say is still value)
Monetized grind is the exact opposite. You are working to have the privilege of not paying money for the better experience that is already there. People are getting paid to make things WORSE for you, so that you pay money to avoid-displeasure rather than enjoying something new, even if it’s literally just enjoying fleeting vanity.
Paying to skip is not saving me time. They are giving me a worse quality product and then making me pay to solve the problem that they have a financial incentive to make worse. This is like thinking you’re getting a deal when phone sellers remove the cable from the box. You’re are not, you’re being given a free problem, that you can pay even more to solve.
It just sounds like my partner and you enjoy different ‘real experiences’. I just don’t get the judgment against people who have fun alone playing games for fun with their money vs whatever ‘real experience’ it is that you value.
People buy flowers, nice food and drinks, go to amusement parks. They get nothing but memories. My partner has lots of fond memories from building castles in the game. Why is one set of experiences acceptable to spend money on but not another, to you?
What makes something a “real” experience to you? When people buy cosmetics in the game, they’re not (generally) doing it just to own those “bits on a PC”; they’re doing it for the experience that comes with the cosmetics. Maybe their character looks pretty now and it makes them happy, maybe they can build a cool castle now and it makes them happy.
that money could be spent on having real experiences instead of some bits on a PC that you’ll lose access to within a decade
Paying for DLC and extra content is one thing, but
These two comments are contradictory. The first comment has the same issue with DLC as it does cosmetics. It sounds like you don’t really have any issue with the first comment, rather, your issue is that you don’t consider cosmetic things an experience worth spending money on. Which is fine. But you should realize that many people do find fun and enjoyment (enough that they don’t mind spending money) from things like character customization and building (among other things), which cosmetics let them do. There’s a reason the Sims is so popular.
If you read what I said that way you’d get the impression that I don’t even think its a good idea to buy games at all, but I was trying to point out there is a difference between good DLC that adds to the experience and shit like the $20, 3D audio in Black Ops 6 which is literally a ripoff, or cosmetics upgrades like yay I spent $100 and now my virtual room looks slightly better, just seems like idk pointless to me. I know people eat that shit up, but it makes no sense to me, I don’t even care enough to decorate my real life space so why waste the money on some pretty .png files?
I don’t even care enough to decorate my real life space so why waste the money on some pretty .png files?
Right, that was my entire point though. Different stokes for different folks. Also, I realize you’re being hyperbolic there, but things like that tend to be a lot more than just a png.
$20, 3D audio in Black Ops 6
Also also, no fucking way that’s real. That’s insane lol.
It’s no different than spending thousands on travel or hundreds to watch movies at the theater. You’re paying for the experience and entertainment, not something physical.
Personally, I see a difference between paying for extra content vs paying to access content that is already a part of the game.
The question of whether it’s abusive is then dependent on the pricing of the base game and DLC, and how much content there is in each.
I’m even ok with games that are clearly designed to have DLC or released as multi episodes. As long as the base game is fine without the DLC, priced fairly based on the content, I don’t see a problem with it.
Like Paradox games, I’ve gotten some DLC in bundles and ignored others but still have a lot of hours in each title I’ve played. Though the way they show placeholders for the missing content is a bit iffy. But they’ve also integrated some DLC into the base game once they’ve decided that it’s become too essential (or too difficult to maintain balance through each variant possible).
But if it’s a game where you pay AAA prices for a skeleton of a game that then requires DLC to be purchased otherwise the game sucks, fuck that. Same with early access games that add DLC before the base game is finished (that isn’t just things like soundtracks or art that functions as tip jars without any in game effect). Those are just money grabs and there’s a good chance that they still suck even if you do spend the extra money.
Isn’t that literally everyone who owns digital games? All your shit on Steam is a license to use the software, you don’t actually own any of those games.
I mean, I get the point, cosmetics and such and anything virtual is not tangible in the real world but let’s not pretend we aren’t all doing that with every game we spend money on.
Having said that, the amount of money companies charge for some of this stuff is outrageous. Luckily, nobody is pointing a gun to your head forcing you to buy it!
Steam servers shutting down doesn’t mean you lose everything. You can backup your games and play offline. You still have the things you purchased.
MMOs shutting down and your virtual house and pet disappears, forever. Even if you spin up a instance of that MMO, your account doesn’t belong to you and you’ll have to start/recreate your character from scratch. Granted, you own the server so you could give yourself everything and be god. But then you still paid a lot of money for literally nothing.
Does paying for a ticket to go to an amusement park or the movies or whatever mean that you wasted money on nothing? Just because you don’t permanently own something doesn’t mean you paid for literally nothing. You paid for the experience. The good times you have over the years playing a game you loved.
I mean yeah, I’m sure losing everything when the servers shut down would fucking suck, but that doesn’t invalidate the time you’ve experienced up to that point.
I don’t have the money to throw at games like that, but I do understand it.
Ultimatelly it boils down to whether people have spent the money to have something or to use/enjoy something.
Which is probably why most people who disagree with selling of items, mounts, armor and so on, don’t find it problematic when what is being sold is access to game areas: the former are things (even if virtual) and people tend to treat them as something which they have, whilst the latter is just access to new experiences, like buying a ticket in a carnival to go on a Ferris Wheel, and is thus not something people tend to feel like they own it.
So yeah, the problem is the preying on people’s instincts around ownership versus mere rental - in their stores these things are invariably framed as being a purchase (buy! buy! buy!), not something you are purchasing temporary access to - on things whose mere existence depends on the whims of a company and which can be taken away at any time.
Mind you, in the Age Of Enshittification this kind of scam has extended to even hardware which is powered by software that requires access to 3rd party servers.
I don’t think the issue is the word “buy”, but rather clarity on what you’re buying. Amusement parks use the word buy, but I don’t think anybody is confused that what you’re buying isn’t the whole Ferris Wheel, it’s a ticket that gives you permission to ride the Ferris Wheel. Meanwhile games tell you you’re buying a mount, when what you’re actually buying is a license that gives you access to a mount.
Yeah, the word “buy” in this is just one element of a broader pattern, and whilst per-se it isn’t sufficient to distinguish between acquiring a thing or getting access to a thing, in these cases of mounts, armor and so on being sold in games, the entire framing wording and even store structure around it tends to lead people towards concluding that the meaning of it is for “acquiring a thing” not for “getting access to a thing”, especially because in the absence of domain specific clarification (an absence I believe is entirely purposeful) people who aren’t intellectual property lawyers and fully informed of the subject matter will tend to for virtual goods use the same logic to deduce the full meaning as they would for equivalent goods in other domains, specifically physical goods.
This is why also in the physical world legislation forces some kinds of business transactions with consumers to explicitly use the words “rental” or “lease” in order to make clear the nature of the transaction but might not have any such requirements for business to business transactions because businesses are assumed to have the capability to assess the full contract.
Can’t understand people who spend hundreds of dollars on virtual shit they don’t even own, just a “licence” to rent it. Like how do you spend that much with almost nothing to show for it.
things can only be enjoyed if you trade money for physical objects then?
Cuz my partner has gotten many many hundreds of hours of enjoyment from the few hundred bucks they have ‘wasted’ on things like Fallout76 furniture and stuff. Eventually she will stop playing and ‘lose’ all that stuff.
I personally think the many hundred hours of happy playtime is well worth it. It’s her favorite way to relax after work. Wet don’t have a lot of space for her to build real castles but she spends sooo much of her time enjoying building virtual ones.
How is it any different from enjoying nice food or drinks with friends?
I guess if you are enjoying the act of spending money that’s good? But like I’m not spending any extra for cosmetics, that money could be spent on having real experiences instead of some bits on a PC that you’ll lose access to within a decade. Paying for DLC and extra content is one thing, but to change the look of virtual space for real cash is insane to me! Personally I have more fun when I don’t spend stupid amounts of money, but to each their own. When the game is free to play, or close to it you can have almost the same experience as someone who decides to spend the money.
Preach. So many people are fine, in fact, better than fine, paying money for cosmetics. I think p2w games are scum but at least the player gets something from that, whether it be time saved, better gun, or whatever.
Paying for a skin (which is essentially what this mount is) Nahhhhh. I’ve never spent a dime on either of those, but at least the former has some value imo.
Spending $90 to look cool in a videogame is something people need to get therapy for. But they’re still playing on official WoW servers, so we already knew that. (Shoutouts to Whitemane and TurtleWow. Neither costs a cent monthly and both respect your time)
“Time Saved” is not a real thing though. This would imply there was an unavoidable need to spend that time to begin with, there isn’t.
The game is artificial, if something is time consuming it’s by design. If you’re paying to “save time” in a game, you’re being farmed for money, plain and simple. You ain’t gaining anything, you’re paying to avoid the inconvenience placed there by the people who are selling you a work around for that inconvenience. You’re getting fleeced son.
The grind to get those depends on whether the player is being farmed for money. If it feels good to play, and you unlock content at a reasonable rate, that’s just called progression, not farming. But if the task is repetitive, unfun, and designed to frustrate players into paying, that’s farming.
That’s why people shit on EA for BF2. They did the math of the grind and loot boxes, and it came out so something ridiculous, like multiple hundreds of hours to unlock stuff. I used to play R6 Siege and never spent a penny. After a week or so of playing with my friends, we’d have enough in-game currency to buy a new operator. We’d all unlock new characters and try them out. Week after week, it was fun.
Paying, imo would have ruined that experience because the gameplay is what made it fun. Forcing us to use the ops we chose rather than having a full roster to pick whatever we wanted. Felt almost like deck-building. We were progressing, not farming.
The caveat is that the new ops tended to be OP. I think the devs probably do it intentionally. This is the P2W part. People could pay day 1 and get the operator with the overtuned kit. They paid to save time, because they want to be the first to use the shiny new toy.
But again, like I said. I’ll never spend money on either, but at least that person paying is gaining something, an advantage, time saved, instant gratification, more time learning the op. The person buying a pink gun gets … a digital pink gun?
It seems we disagree on the value of things. For me at least, somebody had to be vaguely creative to create the fucking blue 20$ skin, and the value is not in the non-existent item, but in the very real aesthetic and social experience of owning that skin, a social symbol, like art in your wall. Useless by itself, but it makes you feel things and let’s you say something about yourself to strangers.
To me that is understandable. Like buying AirPods instead of cheapo earbuds just because they look cool and you want to look preppy with your friends. (Notice the extra cost is not about the sound or the function of the thing, but a out the social value, which I’d say is still value)
Monetized grind is the exact opposite. You are working to have the privilege of not paying money for the better experience that is already there. People are getting paid to make things WORSE for you, so that you pay money to avoid-displeasure rather than enjoying something new, even if it’s literally just enjoying fleeting vanity.
Paying to skip is not saving me time. They are giving me a worse quality product and then making me pay to solve the problem that they have a financial incentive to make worse. This is like thinking you’re getting a deal when phone sellers remove the cable from the box. You’re are not, you’re being given a free problem, that you can pay even more to solve.
It just sounds like my partner and you enjoy different ‘real experiences’. I just don’t get the judgment against people who have fun alone playing games for fun with their money vs whatever ‘real experience’ it is that you value.
People buy flowers, nice food and drinks, go to amusement parks. They get nothing but memories. My partner has lots of fond memories from building castles in the game. Why is one set of experiences acceptable to spend money on but not another, to you?
What makes something a “real” experience to you? When people buy cosmetics in the game, they’re not (generally) doing it just to own those “bits on a PC”; they’re doing it for the experience that comes with the cosmetics. Maybe their character looks pretty now and it makes them happy, maybe they can build a cool castle now and it makes them happy.
These two comments are contradictory. The first comment has the same issue with DLC as it does cosmetics. It sounds like you don’t really have any issue with the first comment, rather, your issue is that you don’t consider cosmetic things an experience worth spending money on. Which is fine. But you should realize that many people do find fun and enjoyment (enough that they don’t mind spending money) from things like character customization and building (among other things), which cosmetics let them do. There’s a reason the Sims is so popular.
If you read what I said that way you’d get the impression that I don’t even think its a good idea to buy games at all, but I was trying to point out there is a difference between good DLC that adds to the experience and shit like the $20, 3D audio in Black Ops 6 which is literally a ripoff, or cosmetics upgrades like yay I spent $100 and now my virtual room looks slightly better, just seems like idk pointless to me. I know people eat that shit up, but it makes no sense to me, I don’t even care enough to decorate my real life space so why waste the money on some pretty .png files?
Right, that was my entire point though. Different stokes for different folks. Also, I realize you’re being hyperbolic there, but things like that tend to be a lot more than just a png.
Also also, no fucking way that’s real. That’s insane lol.
It’s no different than spending thousands on travel or hundreds to watch movies at the theater. You’re paying for the experience and entertainment, not something physical.
Me after realizing it’s me with American Truck Simulator, buying all those DLC and truck packs.
Was going say your right how stupid, then dawned on me I have done this…😭
The truck packs maybe but most dlc is map expansions which I don’t see as equivalent
Yeah mostly what I buy when they are released, but with each new release they new job packs. That allows for new delivering.
Personally, I see a difference between paying for extra content vs paying to access content that is already a part of the game.
The question of whether it’s abusive is then dependent on the pricing of the base game and DLC, and how much content there is in each.
I’m even ok with games that are clearly designed to have DLC or released as multi episodes. As long as the base game is fine without the DLC, priced fairly based on the content, I don’t see a problem with it.
Like Paradox games, I’ve gotten some DLC in bundles and ignored others but still have a lot of hours in each title I’ve played. Though the way they show placeholders for the missing content is a bit iffy. But they’ve also integrated some DLC into the base game once they’ve decided that it’s become too essential (or too difficult to maintain balance through each variant possible).
But if it’s a game where you pay AAA prices for a skeleton of a game that then requires DLC to be purchased otherwise the game sucks, fuck that. Same with early access games that add DLC before the base game is finished (that isn’t just things like soundtracks or art that functions as tip jars without any in game effect). Those are just money grabs and there’s a good chance that they still suck even if you do spend the extra money.
Isn’t that literally everyone who owns digital games? All your shit on Steam is a license to use the software, you don’t actually own any of those games.
I mean, I get the point, cosmetics and such and anything virtual is not tangible in the real world but let’s not pretend we aren’t all doing that with every game we spend money on.
Having said that, the amount of money companies charge for some of this stuff is outrageous. Luckily, nobody is pointing a gun to your head forcing you to buy it!
I’m not disagreeing. But there is a difference.
Steam servers shutting down doesn’t mean you lose everything. You can backup your games and play offline. You still have the things you purchased.
MMOs shutting down and your virtual house and pet disappears, forever. Even if you spin up a instance of that MMO, your account doesn’t belong to you and you’ll have to start/recreate your character from scratch. Granted, you own the server so you could give yourself everything and be god. But then you still paid a lot of money for literally nothing.
Does paying for a ticket to go to an amusement park or the movies or whatever mean that you wasted money on nothing? Just because you don’t permanently own something doesn’t mean you paid for literally nothing. You paid for the experience. The good times you have over the years playing a game you loved.
I mean yeah, I’m sure losing everything when the servers shut down would fucking suck, but that doesn’t invalidate the time you’ve experienced up to that point.
I don’t have the money to throw at games like that, but I do understand it.
Ultimatelly it boils down to whether people have spent the money to have something or to use/enjoy something.
Which is probably why most people who disagree with selling of items, mounts, armor and so on, don’t find it problematic when what is being sold is access to game areas: the former are things (even if virtual) and people tend to treat them as something which they have, whilst the latter is just access to new experiences, like buying a ticket in a carnival to go on a Ferris Wheel, and is thus not something people tend to feel like they own it.
So yeah, the problem is the preying on people’s instincts around ownership versus mere rental - in their stores these things are invariably framed as being a purchase (buy! buy! buy!), not something you are purchasing temporary access to - on things whose mere existence depends on the whims of a company and which can be taken away at any time.
Mind you, in the Age Of Enshittification this kind of scam has extended to even hardware which is powered by software that requires access to 3rd party servers.
I don’t think the issue is the word “buy”, but rather clarity on what you’re buying. Amusement parks use the word buy, but I don’t think anybody is confused that what you’re buying isn’t the whole Ferris Wheel, it’s a ticket that gives you permission to ride the Ferris Wheel. Meanwhile games tell you you’re buying a mount, when what you’re actually buying is a license that gives you access to a mount.
Yeah, the word “buy” in this is just one element of a broader pattern, and whilst per-se it isn’t sufficient to distinguish between acquiring a thing or getting access to a thing, in these cases of mounts, armor and so on being sold in games, the entire framing wording and even store structure around it tends to lead people towards concluding that the meaning of it is for “acquiring a thing” not for “getting access to a thing”, especially because in the absence of domain specific clarification (an absence I believe is entirely purposeful) people who aren’t intellectual property lawyers and fully informed of the subject matter will tend to for virtual goods use the same logic to deduce the full meaning as they would for equivalent goods in other domains, specifically physical goods.
This is why also in the physical world legislation forces some kinds of business transactions with consumers to explicitly use the words “rental” or “lease” in order to make clear the nature of the transaction but might not have any such requirements for business to business transactions because businesses are assumed to have the capability to assess the full contract.