pabosher Posted June 6, 2015 Actually, that's something that has bugged me in each of the Beastcast episodes so far -- in each one they get a fact wrong, asserting it as true, and never double-check. The most recent example was saying that MW3 was the CoD game with the dog, when in fact it was Ghosts. It's a little thing, but it's happened in each episode so far and each time it has bugged me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 6, 2015 Idle Thumbs does that all the time, hah. Nobody can get everything right! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabosher Posted June 6, 2015 Idle Thumbs does that all the time, hah. Nobody can get everything right! It's the consistency of it that kills me. And it also bugs me when they do it in Thumbs, but it's usually qualified by a "UH, I think, um, was it that one? I don't know! Let's say..." which makes it better in my mind, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 6, 2015 Well all the cods are the same game anyway! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
clyde Posted June 6, 2015 My difficulties with Alex refusing to listen to the other two hosts in order to double down on trying to assert his own financial evaluations on a piece of purely aesthetic DLC is different to me than getting some factual details wrong. I was embarassed for him because he was basically insulting people who decide they want to buy something that isn't worth $10 to him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reyturner Posted June 6, 2015 The idea that Blizzard is siphoning money out of "whales" with their cosmetics is eye watering. If anything, Blizz's hats are refreshingly forthright as there is no secondary market, no element of chance, no false scarcity and no game impact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jennegatron Posted June 6, 2015 Also almost any time Blizzard introduces a new WoW pet the first month or so, they donate like 50% of proceeds to the red cross or another charity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badfinger Posted June 6, 2015 I dunno, I was pretty on board with what he was saying re: Hearthstone. He was also arguing from a personal standpoint, as opposed to a theoretical one as is often the case for gaming podcasts where everyone is aware of something but might not have a first hand experience to form an opinion with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 6, 2015 I dunno. I find it hard to be upset at someone for having a strong opinion. Maybe because I have thousands of strong opinions (and most of them run counter to the popular opinion), so I can understand and empathize with someone sticking to their guns. If that's how he feels, that's how he feels. I think the bigger problem with that was that no one really seemed to want to argue with the idea that "cosmetic" "micro"-transactions are inherently worth less than actual gameplay content in a free to play game. I feel the complete opposite there. If a game is free to play, all of its paid content should be cosmetic and not actually affect gameplay! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reyturner Posted June 6, 2015 That was the sticking point for me: his biggest problem seemed to be that the cosmetics didn't come with any new abilities and that it was due to Blizzard's laziness. Having an opinion is fine, but I found his reasons for holding that opinion to be unconvincing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tegan Posted June 6, 2015 Actually, that's something that has bugged me in each of the Beastcast episodes so far -- in each one they get a fact wrong, asserting it as true, and never double-check. The most recent example was saying that MW3 was the CoD game with the dog, when in fact it was Ghosts. It's a little thing, but it's happened in each episode so far and each time it has bugged me. Then you'll love the ending segment for this episode! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tberton Posted June 7, 2015 My difficulties with Alex refusing to listen to the other two hosts in order to double down on trying to assert his own financial evaluations on a piece of purely aesthetic DLC is different to me than getting some factual details wrong. I was embarassed for him because he was basically insulting people who decide they want to buy something that isn't worth $10 to him. That wasn't the impression I got from what he was saying at all. All of Alex's comments in that discussion were coming from his own personal feelings - he didn't want to pay $10 for a simple cosmetic change. He never said "nobody should pay for this" - just that he didn't want to. As for the gameplay versus cosmetic discussion, they did bring that up, but I think it's a bit different in something like Hearthstone than, say, DOTA. There is a long tradition of expandable card games that add new abilities and mechanics to the game - Magic, Netrunner, Legend of the Three Kingdoms. Hearthstone is modelled after those games, so it's not unreasonable to expect those types of additions. Adding new abilities to the game, if done well, is not so much a "pay to win" button as it is an expansion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
natellite Posted June 7, 2015 Okay but I think Alex's point is that 10 dollars to change a 2 inch x 2 inch portrait and a half-dozen sound files is crazytown. Nobody is even having a conversation about it if it's 99 cents or $1.99 or whatever but ten god damn dollars is like a not-insignificant amount of money for what amounts, ultimately, to very little. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tberton Posted June 7, 2015 Sorry, not sure if that was addressed to me or not, but in case I was unclear, I absolutely agree with that. I was responding to Twig saying that cosmetic changes should be the only ones you can pay for in Hearthstone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
natellite Posted June 7, 2015 I had a quote in there, I don't know where it went! I was addressing Reyturner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 7, 2015 As for the gameplay versus cosmetic discussion, they did bring that up, but I think it's a bit different in something like Hearthstone than, say, DOTA. There is a long tradition of expandable card games that add new abilities and mechanics to the game - Magic, Netrunner, Legend of the Three Kingdoms. Hearthstone is modelled after those games, so it's not unreasonable to expect those types of additions. Adding new abilities to the game, if done well, is not so much a "pay to win" button as it is an expansion. None of that changes my opinion. Free to play games (very specifically free to play competitive games) that hide game content behind a paywall is dumb! Tradition is never an excuse for bad things to happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Delerat Posted June 7, 2015 None of that changes my opinion. Free to play games (very specifically free to play competitive games) that hide game content behind a paywall is dumb! Tradition is never an excuse for bad things to happen. I think it very much depends on the style of game, and whether you're locking more, equally balanced choices, or if it becomes a pay-to-win situation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tberton Posted June 7, 2015 None of that changes my opinion. Free to play games (very specifically free to play competitive games) that hide game content behind a paywall is dumb! Tradition is never an excuse for bad things to happen. Just to be clear, what about something like Starcraft: Brood War? Do you have a similar problem there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 7, 2015 That's not a free to play game! Also, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't the multiplayer updated regardless of whether or not you had the expansion? Or am I thinking of Starcraft 2? If I'm playing a competitive multiplayer game, and I see that the person I'm playing against has access to content that I can't access without paying extra, that's fucked. That is bad. There is no defending it. It also doesn't matter if it's balanced, because a) nothing in video games is perfectly balanced and I learn by doing, so if I can't use that content to get a feel for how it works, I'm at a disadvantage when I run into someone who is familiar with those mechanics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tberton Posted June 7, 2015 I don't think that's true about Brood War, but it may be of Starcraft 2. What difference does the free-to-play aspect make, though? Does paying for the original content make it okay to pay for more content, while not paying for the original content means no more content should ever be paid for? That seems kind of odd to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reyturner Posted June 7, 2015 Okay but I think Alex's point is that 10 dollars to change a 2 inch x 2 inch portrait and a half-dozen sound files is crazytown. Nobody is even having a conversation about it if it's 99 cents or $1.99 or whatever but ten god damn dollars is like a not-insignificant amount of money for what amounts, ultimately, to very little. Who cares if it's $1000? Nobody is punished for choosing not to buy it. I don't get the anger at Blizz selling a useless status symbol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 7, 2015 I don't think that's true about Brood War, but it may be of Starcraft 2. What difference does the free-to-play aspect make, though? Does paying for the original content make it okay to pay for more content, while not paying for the original content means no more content should ever be paid for? That seems kind of odd to me. Fine, remove the free to play part. Competitive multiplayer. In SC1 I know for damn sure that it never matched you against people who had units that you didn't. Which was my point. In Hearthstone if you can get matched against people who have content in their decks that you don't have access to, that's fucked. I dunno how many other ways I can say it. Oh, here's one. It's not the act of paying for content. It's the act of playing against other people who paid for the content that you can't get without paying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bjorn Posted June 7, 2015 I dunno how many other ways I can say it. Oh, here's one. It's not the act of paying for content. It's the act of playing against other people who paid for the content that you can't get without paying. Isn't this a hallmark of CCGs though? I never got into Magic, but I was under the impression that this was just standard across the entire genre, more or less. Your criticism may still be completely right, but it's not like Hearthstone is doing something different. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 7, 2015 Right, which is why one of the first things I said was tradition wasn't a good defense for bad things! Also there's a reason I don't play CCGs. EDIT: However, Hearthstone is by no means the only example of this happening in video games, so it's kind of a shame that it's the only one people are talking about. It just happens to be the game that triggered the discussion. Plenty of games that aren't CCGs do this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bjorn Posted June 7, 2015 Right, which is why one of the first things I said was tradition wasn't a good defense for bad things! Also there's a reason I don't play CCGs. EDIT: However, Hearthstone is by no means the only example of this happening in video games, so it's kind of a shame that it's the only one people are talking about. It just happens to be the game that triggered the discussion. Plenty of games that aren't CCGs do this. Haha, I should stay out of discussions I'm not closely following, since this point was already made. Nvmd Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
