I think it's brilliant😎

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

I never said the game was bad.

Really?

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

Seasonal games rely heavily on novelty, fomo. They rely on mechanics and game design aimed at keeping you playing, and playing longer. Often times they try to inconvenience you in a way that you'll be more likely to spend money. Like a MMO offering a super shitty leveling experience, and then giving you a 50$ paid max level boost to bypass it.

I am arguing that it could be better if it wasn't held back by a profit scheme that aims to extract money from players. It could reach more people, the gameplay experience would be better, more consistent.

It sure sounds you're saying the game is bad. While also lumping GGG in with all the worst companies in gaming, just for good measure.

For the record, though...

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

I am arguing that it could be better if it wasn't held back by a profit scheme that aims to extract money from players. It could reach more people, the gameplay experience would be better, more consistent.

This is what I'm disagreeing with. The game is going to get better, of course, if only because GGG are going to deliver the other half of it, but I strongly disagree with your characterization of their process as being "held back by a profit scheme that aims [only] to extract money from players." GGG have consistently delivered a quality experience for their players, paying and otherwise, for a decade now. And, yes, I did add the [only] as an editorial note, but I don't think I'm wrong in reading that into anything you're written here. Your implications have been pretty unmistakable.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 escribió:

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

I never said the game was bad.

I am arguing that it could be better if it wasn't held back by a profit scheme that aims to extract money from players. It could reach more people, the gameplay experience would be better, more consistent.

Then explain HOW they would do it. Tell us how GGG would keep up development and servers with another way to generate an income!?

More players.

When you have MORE players. You don't need to rely on predatory MTX's, and stupid seasonal things and fomo, and gameplay padding to bring players in.

To get MORE players, you need a game that is GOOD.


You could have 15,000 players all spending 1000$ each year.

Or you could have 1 million players, all spending 15$ a year.

Both are the exact same amount of money.

But the issue is. PoE isn't going to get a million players unless they change how they're doing things.


Which is the entire point of what people are saying on the forums. Points that you gloss over, or ignore. People want to play a GOOD game, a FUN game. Not what PoE is, where for the vast majority of players. It's a frustrating, unfun experience full of bloat, and gametime padding. A forced economy with bad loot. A horrible trading system.

There was literally hundreds of people on the forums a few months ago telling you exactly what was wrong with this game. Points you still argue against today. Wake up.


A game does not need MTX and game design to keep players engaged. If you offer a good experience, people will come, people will spend money. Lots of people.







I don't even understand how this is a difficult concept for you. This is how game companies were made back in the day. To sell a game it had to be good.

If you made a bad game, it failed, you lost money. If you made a good game, it thrived, you profited.

Now game companies use Mictrotransactions and predatory design to keep bad/medicore games alive and whales paying money. You know, rather than it just being GOOD. Less effort is put into these games. Their main goal is to profit, and not make a good game.

Hey there, I brought some gas. I am sitting on 800 T15 waystones currently. Give or take 50. Like what, 8 weeks into the game all of a sudden the playerbase screamed for a map stash? Why was that? Oh, there was a map stash in poe all the time? Interesting. It is not like the droprate of these waystones is hardcoded into the game, is it? Naive that I was, I thought, probably I dont even need a map stash. I spent all my money on regular stash tabs already. So, let's see.. 2 days after that thought I was the proud owner of a map stash in poe2. Now I am using still a quad and 3 regular stash tabs in addition because Im a hoarder. Well played, I guess.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

More players.

When you have MORE players. You don't need to rely on predatory MTX's, and stupid seasonal things and fomo, and gameplay padding to bring players in.

To get MORE players, you need a game that is GOOD.

Where are the MTX in PoE "predatory"?

What "stupid seasonal things" are you talking about? That PoE got leagues with economy resets and new content?
You know, the player base actually wants these "leagues" and if YOU don't like it - play standard.

"

You could have 15,000 players all spending 1000$ each month.

Or you could have 1 million players, all spending 15$ a month.

But the issue is. PoE isn't going to get a million players unless they change how they're doing things.

Darling, PoE already has a million players, are you living on the moon!?
More importantly, GGG does NOT want the game to come with a forced price, especially not monthly.
If GGG would follow your genius idea of a monthly price they would lose all the ppl who are not able to pay 15 bucks a month.

So your point of "15k player spending 1k each month" versus "1m player spending 15 bucks each month" is nonsense.
Both versions would have the same financial outcome with 15m bucks made each month, while with the current one, the paying players make it possible for non-paying players to play the game too (for free), but with your system, ONLY ppl who can spend the money monthly could play.

"

Which is the entire point of what people are saying on the forums. Points that you gloss over, or ignore. People want to play a GOOD game, a FUN game. Not what PoE is, where for the vast majority of players. It's a frustrating, unfun experience full of bloat, and gametime padding. A forced economy with bad loot. A horrible trading system.

If you don't like it, don't play it. Nobody is forcing you to play the game and/or to be here.

"

There was literally hundreds of people on the forums a few years ago telling you exactly what was wrong with this game. Points you still argue against today. Wake up.

WHO? CARES?
You find in every single forum/subreddit/whatever ppl who complain about EVERYTHING. Neither GGG nor the community cared about your "problems" for over a decade.
And guess what, the game exceeded expectations, is growing the entire time and is loved by the community who is actually playing it.

"

NicknamesOfGod#1810 escribió:

Really?

Yes, Really.

"

NicknamesOfGod#1810 escribió:

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

Seasonal games rely heavily on novelty, fomo. They rely on mechanics and game design aimed at keeping you playing, and playing longer. Often times they try to inconvenience you in a way that you'll be more likely to spend money. Like a MMO offering a super shitty leveling experience, and then giving you a 50$ paid max level boost to bypass it.

I am arguing that it could be better if it wasn't held back by a profit scheme that aims to extract money from players. It could reach more people, the gameplay experience would be better, more consistent.

It sure sounds you're saying the game is bad. While also lumping GGG in with all the worst companies in gaming, just for good measure.

For the record, though...

This is what's known as False Dilemma fallacy. Aka, Black and white thinking.

Just because I say something a company does is bad, doesn't mean everything they do is bad.

And yes. I do compare GGG to other companies that use poor game design and predatory microtransactions to profit and keep players playing. Why wouldn't I?

GGG is guilty of it afterall.

This is what's knowing as a fallacy of relative privation. Just because somethings 'not as bad as' another something. Doesn't mean that it gets a free pass. Tons of people try using this argument with microtransactions. Doesn't work.

Microtransactions are predatory. They actively remove things from the game, and then sell them to you.

Lots of games are also designed in a way that encourage you to play more, spend more. Also predatory. GGG might not be as bad as EA. At best, it's a grey area for GGG. I still argue that the game can be better without the reliance on these.

"

NicknamesOfGod#1810 escribió:

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

I am arguing that it could be better if it wasn't held back by a profit scheme that aims to extract money from players. It could reach more people, the gameplay experience would be better, more consistent.

This is what I'm disagreeing with. The game is going to get better, of course, if only because GGG are going to deliver the other half of it, but I strongly disagree with your characterization of their process as being "held back by a profit scheme that aims [only] to extract money from players." GGG have consistently delivered a quality experience for their players, paying and otherwise, for a decade now. And, yes, I did add the [only] as an editorial note, but I don't think I'm wrong in reading that into anything you're written here. Your implications have been pretty unmistakable.

[/quote]

Maybe. That's an assumption I'm willing to agree with. The game very well might be better once it's more fleshed out.

But that doesn't mean my argument is invalid, or wrong.

Game quality still suffers when game companies resort to this sort of stuff. You have hundreds of examples of it in the last 10 years. It breeds mediocrity.

My argument that PoE could be better is still entirely correct. There have been a lot of changes made to the game to keep players playing longer, spending more.

Just to have a good experience with the economy/trade system. You need to buy stash tabs. That is just one example of many, as to how something like microtransactions are reducing the quality of the game.




Lets look at another game so that you can understand my point of view better.

MMO's are a good example. Plenty of MMO's have a good leveling experience that people like engaging with.

And then some games don't. But instead of putting the effort into making that experience better. Lots of MMO companies just offer to sell you boosts instead. Buy the boost, skip all the boring tedious content.

That is another example of a microtransaction oriented game, actively being worse, because instead of improving the experience. They just let you buy a skip.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

Just because I say something a company does is bad, doesn't mean everything they do is bad.

And yes. I do compare GGG to other companies that use poor game design and predatory microtransactions to profit and keep players playing. Why wouldn't I?

GGG is guilty of it afterall.

Ten years of not doing any of the things you're claiming they do speak very strongly to your argument being nonsense. GGG is not selling XP boosters, or levelling skips. They are not using FOMO tactics to keep player numbers artificially inflated. Their games have done nothing except grow, league after league, organically, for years. There's nothing predatory happening here.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

This is what's knowing as a fallacy of relative privation. Just because somethings 'not as bad as' another something. Doesn't mean that it gets a free pass. Tons of people try using this argument with microtransactions. Doesn't work.

Nobody is claiming that GGG or PoE are "not as bad" as other games. We're saying that they're actively good. GGG and PoE are frequently cited as examples of how to do this business model ethically; you're just ignoring all of that because you've already made up your mind.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

Microtransactions are predatory.

You keep using that word; I don't it means what you think it means.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

They actively remove things from the game, and then sell them to you.

Not this company, not this game. They have removed nothing to try to sell back in their entire history.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

Lots of games are also designed in a way that encourage you to play more, spend more. Also predatory. GGG might not be as bad as EA. At best, it's a grey area for GGG. I still argue that the game can be better without the reliance on these.

Weren't you citing the game's current low player count as evidence of something or other, a few pages back? I could've sworn that was you, and that you used some hypothetical sales drop at Walmart in the process. Now you're claiming that the game forces players to play more, in spite that not being the way it's designed, or the observed outcome. I'll remind you at this point that SteamDB has years of data available which allow us to observe the outcomes that GGG's approach has historically produced.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

I am arguing that it could be better if it wasn't held back by a profit scheme that aims to extract money from players. It could reach more people, the gameplay experience would be better, more consistent.

The experience is consistent enough, and GGG's decade-long history of steady growth are all the proof anyone should need of that. You just don't want to take that evidence on board.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

The game very well might be better once it's more fleshed out.

But that doesn't mean my argument is invalid, or wrong.

Game quality still suffers when game companies resort to this sort of stuff. You have hundreds of examples of it in the last 10 years. It breeds mediocrity.

Not all games, and not all companies. I'll direct you again to GGG's decade-long history of using am ethical free-to-play business model to fund the development of two of the best ARPGs ever made.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

Just to have a good experience with the economy/trade system.

So play SSF. SSF is better, and not just in this game.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

You need to buy stash tabs. That is just one example of many, as to how something like microtransactions are reducing the quality of the game.

If you've been playing any game long enough, and actively enough, that you're running out of stash space, then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that you'll throw the developers $5 to pay for an extra stash tab.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

Lets look at another game so that you can understand my point of view better.

MMO's are a good example. Plenty of MMO's have a good leveling experience that people like engaging with.

And then some games don't. But instead of putting the effort into making that experience better. Lots of MMO companies just offer to sell you boosts instead. Buy the boost, skip all the boring tedious content.

Again, oranges and billiard balls. You keep trying to compare PoE to things that are utterly unlike PoE as if it's relevant. It is not.

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

That is another example of a microtransaction oriented game, actively being worse, because instead of improving the experience. They just let you buy a skip.

Again with the selling of skipping accusation, a thing PoE does not do.

If you have issues with anything that GGG actually do, then that would be different. Apparently you do not. You keep being challenged on this point in this thread, and you keep ignoring that and just repeating the claim as if that was all it takes. You're not convincing anyone who isn't already convinced.

BTW, apologies to the OP. You were trying, however awkwardly, to inject some positivity into the forums, and we've totally derailed your thread. Sorry about that.

"

NicknamesOfGod#1810 escribió:

You're not convincing anyone who isn't already convinced.

It's amazing to see the effects of the schools, social media, echo chambers. Every day I look at it, and I think "It can't be that bad".

And then I meet someone new who completely blows that out of the water.



Best of luck to you NicknamesOfGod. No further discussion. I'll be seein ya around.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 escribió:

"

Akedomo#3573 escribió:

Still on the forums playing defense for a game that has lost almost 97% of it's playerbase in 3 months eh?

Well, there are worse ways to spend your time.

Still on the forum spreading misinformation about a game you clearly don't like and/or care about, thus trying to make it look worse?!
It's not 97% and not 3 months.

Seems like Akedomo doesn't know how ARPG's work lmao