Gaming News

Skerries

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Congratulations to the 16-year-old who just set himself up for life by being extremely handy at building virtual walls on speed.

ftfy

Mark Hamill

Mickeroo wrote: »

I presume the "money's worth" is more related to not being able to sell the contents for money after the fact rather than not being able to buy them directly in the first place. If you can't convert something to money it doesn't have any monetary value. By that definition any game that lets you sell the contents on the steam marketplace would be gambling though.

That makes sense as what they must mean, but it still doesn't support their argument. If I put up a prize for a slot machine as e.g. a real gold coin, but I have it as a winning condition that that coin cannot ever be sold, then by their presumed meaning of "money's worth" that slot machine is not gambling. Yes, someone could ignore the rule and just sell the coin anyway, but someone could just ignore the terms and conditions on a game and sell their account too (with all of it's lootbox items as selling point).

Also not being able to sell the contents of a loot box is a function of the developer/publisher not wanting you to be able to sell them, it's not inherently impossible. You already mentioned the steam marketplace, there is no reason why there can't be in game market places for all games that have lootboxes.

Saying there has to be a potential for financial profit for something to count as gambling misses the entire point of regulating gambling. It's regulated, not because you might win back a little bit of money, but because you can loose massive amounts of money and it can be as addictive as hard drugs to a lot people. These two issues both equally apply to lootboxes because they are designed to be.



RE Overwatch, I've never played it and was going by points (I clearly misread) made by others in it's defence against being gambling.

Retr0gamer

The problem is all these government watchdog groups and self governing bodies are looking at lootboxes and gacha mechanics in terms of their descriptions for taxation purposes. They really need to be looked at and evaluated for their phycological effects and potential to cause addiction. It might not technically be gambling but it you are using phycological tactics that can potentially cause mental and emotional damage to some one by targeting vulnerable people then it's morally bankrupt and you really should be answerable to someone and regulated the same way gambling and narcotics are regulated.

2Mad2BeMad

pixelburp wrote: »

Teenagers are idiots. We were all that age once, and if we're being totally honest, that version of us was a thundering plonker who knew f*ck all. Unless those reading still ARE teenagers, in which case ... ... uh.

So the idea of teenagers walking away with a million, before they have the emotional maturity to deal with that kind of money, is depressing. Can't be good for development of an adult with rational expectations. Presumably it's going into a trust mind you.

And before someone says it, I absolutely think the same of teenage Premiership footballers and their ilk. Rugby at least tries make its youngsters finish school (and professionals tend to peak later, given the specificity of positions).

Don't be jealous.
( I am jealous)

Still crazy amount of money for a kids game though.
I don't get the hype for it I think it's awful. I much prefer pubg
But I'm obviously in the minority haha

73bc61lyohr0mu

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

Don't be jealous.
( I am jealous)

Still crazy amount of money for a kids game though.
I don't get the hype for it I think it's awful. I much prefer pubg
But I'm obviously in the minority haha

I started playing fortnite when it first came out. Had only a small player count and I was winning a good few games. Once it got crazy popular I was getting slaughtered..

Robert ninja

Robert ninja wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LumpyTheCook/status/1154818088728244229

https://twitter.com/LumpyTheCook/status/1154822252514467840

https://twitter.com/bethesda/status/1155140773215649793

Zero-Cool

New NoClip doc on IO and the downs & ups of Hitman. Haven't watched it all yet but read that hitman 3 is in development and might be going back to episodic release. Looking forward to giving this a proper watch later. I gave up on hitman 2 fairly quick as i was just speeding through. Would have gotten way more use out if it if it was episodic like the one before it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_stW6JvB4SI

Robert ninja

I think the Episodic release was terrible idea and they lost a lot of their legacy fans. Going back to full release kept me on reluctantly and only through deep sales with the entire S1/2 purchased pretty cheaply when they were finished. Their obsession to add DRM and always-online restrictions has been one of the biggest criticisms of the series. Needing internet to calculate the mission score and unlock weapons is insane for anything that's not a free-to-play like Warframe.

SBH does a great vid on it, too. Those who buy episodic or invest early get the worst deal. It pays not to be loyal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqAF2j_X-_c

Retr0gamer

I very much doubt IO were to blame for those choices. Square Enix at the time was pushing for always online DRM and forced it on other projects.

SE also had a hard on for episodic content after surprise success of Life is Strange and I'd say pushed it on to IO and hitman.

Robert ninja

Hitman 2 (trademark) has always-online requirements and launched with Denuvo (now gone). Wasn't that all IO and their new publisher Warner Bros? Although Warner have the same problems as SE. I remember a Valve moderator had to warn one of the Warner steam mods for deleting posts and saying it was against the rules to discuss DRM and online restrictions. That was years ago though and I think Valve would side with Warner these days now that their review bots discount anything that they detect brings up forbidden topics: DRM being one of them.

Retr0gamer

I'd be 99 percent sure that those decisions were entirely mandated by the publisher. There's one simple fact to back me up, warner brothers are enthusiastically challenging the likes of EA, Activision and Zenimax for anti consumer practices and vying for the top position as worst publisher in the business.

Internet mouth pieces love to blame game developers for anti consumer practices but it's publishers and their shareholders that are always to blame.

Robert ninja

I believe it can be both of them. I don't think IO are what they once were. I remember every time the developers post on hitman forums or elsewhere they seemed fully on board the "live service" for Hitman direction with little effort to remove these restrictions or show they were at odds with it. The team embraces it as far as I can tell and they're just another studio obsessed with controlling the player experience to a degree where they'll ban you for attempting to alter it.

Retr0gamer

You never bite the hand that feeds.

Robert ninja

They did: The consumer's.

Retr0gamer

Trust me. No game developer wants to make a bad game or a game that upsets their fan Base. It's the publishers and shareholders that make you make those compromises. I've been there

Azza

Robert ninja wrote: »

I think the Episodic release was terrible idea and they lost a lot of their legacy fans. Going back to full release kept me on reluctantly and only through deep sales with the entire S1/2 purchased pretty cheaply when they were finished. Their obsession to add DRM and always-online restrictions has been one of the biggest criticisms of the series. Needing internet to calculate the mission score and unlock weapons is insane for anything that's not a free-to-play like Warframe.

SBH does a great vid on it, too. Those who buy episodic or invest early get the worst deal. It pays not to be loyal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqAF2j_X-_c

Its fair enough if you want to criticize DRM on a game but I thought the episodic model really suited a game that was designed around playing each level multiple times to find all its secrets and new ways of completing the mission. Put less temptation for you to simply run through the game and leave it at that. I think the internet bandwagon jumped on that aspect of the game unfairly and never gave the episodic model a chance in Hitman.

I reckon the reason unlocks and starting locations are locked behind an online connection is that if they where stored locally it would of been very easy for people to modify the file that controls that and simply unlock everything in one go. Removing one of the reasons to keep replaying the game over and over. I don't agree with them doing that but its likely the reason why. In fairness to IO Interactive, they can't be accused of creating an artificial grind to push you towards buying the unlock-able rewards via micro-transactions because none are in the game.

I can also understand why Elusive Targets require an online connection. The whole idea is you get one shot. If you mess it up that's it, no second chances and as a result those missions should be very tense affairs only to be attempted after you mastered the layout of the levels through repeated play- through of the regular missions. If they where not tied to an online account again I think they would be quickly unlocked by moders for infinite play.

I don't see how investing early into an episodic model game is a worse deal than the regular full version of the game.

With either model if you buy early you get to play the game or part of the game immediately while if you till later you will get the game cheaper and the benefit of bug fixes. You could argue that episodic models have a benefit in that if one episode of the game is crap you could skip it and just pick up the good episodes.

Robert ninja

Azza wrote: »

episodic model really suited a game that was designed around playing each level multiple times to find all its secrets and new ways of completing the mission. Put less temptation for you to simply run through the game and leave it at that

Hitman has always been about playing the level over and over but it never needed to be episodic for it. I'm not a fan of changing it into a wallet bleed release because some people have no self control. Obsession with keeping players hooked is not healthy, either. If the content is good they'll play it over and over they don't need to be starved and made to lick the same salt block. I played a ton of legacy hitman games probably way more than I did the new content style and that was largely offline on a console. I still play Blood Money sometimes but obviously not as much because I got my fill (even happily got xbox achievements for my sister who knew I'd be fast at it. Good times).

Azza wrote: »

I reckon the reason unlocks and starting locations are locked behind an online connection is that if they where stored locally it would of been very easy for people to modify the file that controls that and simply unlock everything in one go.

That's only a problem if they could use it to directly impact other people's experience like a PVP online game. This is what I was talking about with trying to control the user's experience. If someone wants to use cheats or modify the experience, let them. Legacy hitman titles had cheats built into the game for some whacky stuff that the devs thought was fun. Never stopped me from legit collecting all the weapons and SA ranking every mission. I can't imagine someone buying Hitman: Contracts, activating a bunch of cheats and then never playing it again. This just doesn't happen or is at least very uncommon for single player niche titles like Hitman used to be. It wouldn't be the core audience doing that.

It's really bad attitude to think that the only solution to the player POSSIBLY modify the game is to restrict it all to the internet. You could make that argument for any singleplayer offline game. What a nightmare future that would be.

Azza wrote: »

I can also understand why Elusive Targets require an online connection.

There's many criticisms I have about ETs but I won't get into the online aspects. All I'll say is that they're a huge waste of their budget for such a small amount of content that some users get to enjoy once or twice. Money would be better spent on practically anything else in the games, like the rating system: https://youtu.be/a3edO5zHDos

Azza wrote: »

I don't see how investing early into an episodic model game is a worse deal than the regular full version of the game.

Azza wrote: »

later you will get the game cheaper and the benefit of bug fixes.

Answered it yourself. If you bought the episodes as they came out you'd be paying a premium price for drip-fed content with more bugs and worse performance. Right now Hitman (trademark) 2 retails at €90 if you want all the current content. It went on sale for €45 which is when I got access to it. And it's not just waiting for sales like you can any other game. It's genuinely cheaper to to buy them in one go than it is individually as episodes, with no sales. At least it was during Hitman 2016 life-cycle, the only hitman game to be purely episodic and hopefully the last.

Azza wrote: »

If they where not tied to an online account again I think they would be quickly unlocked by moders for infinite play.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Hopefully they will one day or else they'll be lost forever. If someone wants to only play them once then they can do just that or they can tie it into their score system where only the 1st attempt logs a score. Every time after that is played for fun. It's not like I don't understand timed events but not timed content, especially for a retailed product that you've paid for, not some free-to-play.

Azza

While I agree Hitman has always had a fairly high degree of replay-ability the last 2 Hitman games take it to a completely different level.

To be honest whether it was episodic or a regular full project release doesn't bother me. I never felt starved in Hitman (2016) and forced to play the content over and over. I played as much of each episode as I wanted and then went off and played other stuff in between episodes..... no big deal. People have no patience nowadays.

Yes buying all episodes individually is more expensive than buying the game outright. But that's a simply rule of economics in the real world, buying in bulk is cheaper. You could argue you have greater choice with the episodic model, you could skip individual episodes that where not great if you so wished, or you could hold out longer term to get the full game on a sale, but that applies to regular full product releases too.

Personally I got more play time out of Hitman season 1 than all the other Hitman games before that combined, and I've beaten them all.

Also off topic but whats the point of doing achievements for your sister. Does your sister not realize that completely defeats the point of achievements?

We agree on the fact that unlocks should be allowed offline, I'm merely stating the reason I think the developers chose to lock them to an online account.

Regarding ET's. Well that's down to personal opinion, personally I think they are alright. I can see what IO are trying to achieve with them.

Again on your episodic points, I don't see why your bring up bugs as a flaw against episodic content specifically. That's the same for a full retail product at release as well. Games at release are buggy and no they shouldn't be but that's not a specific flaw to episodic gaming.

Its a general rule when it comes to purchasing anything, when you buy in bulk you get the same content for cheaper. You also have the option of buying only the content you want and saving money that way. You still have the option of waiting for a sale down the road either on the episodes or the full content pack. So I don't think episodic gaming is wallet bleeding technique.

I agree with as well with you on the time limited content. It shouldn't be, but as I said the designers obviously felt that it would create a unique high tension situation if you could only play the missions once.

Capra

evolving_doors wrote: »

Where's can you watch the Irish guy playing?

Is it today at 5pm?

Just listened to this young lad on the radio. No personality whatsoever. Not even a hint of an Irish accent either. He could literally be from any corner of the planet and you wouldn't know.

Is this where we are going? Kids with stunted social skills winning obscene amounts of money for spending 16 hours a day playing games? I remember when I used to play games a lot. You become so incredibly bad at interacting with people around you but you don't notice it. Aside from becoming good at video games I see no positive skills to be learned from becoming good at video games.

But maybe that's where we are headed anyway and all the life skills that would benefit people in the past will be irrelevant. It's all a bit sad.

Cordell

Aside from becoming good at video games I see no positive skills to be learned from becoming good at video games

Fast decision making and situational awareness. He will have an edge when the zombies finally invade us. Making ****eloads of money while having fun. What is the downside?

PaddyBomb

Capra wrote: »

Just listened to this young lad on the radio. No personality whatsoever. Not even a hint of an Irish accent either. He could literally be from any corner of the planet and you wouldn't know.

Is this where we are going? Kids with stunted social skills winning obscene amounts of money for spending 16 hours a day playing games? I remember when I used to play games a lot. You become so incredibly bad at interacting with people around you but you don't notice it. Aside from becoming good at video games I see no positive skills to be learned from becoming good at video games.

But maybe that's where we are headed anyway and all the life skills that would benefit people in the past will be irrelevant. It's all a bit sad.

Most of the young lads who are playing Fortnite are playing with their friends online with mics. Which means they could be learning a lot of interpersonal skills at a young age, such as; Teamwork, communication, active listening, patience, etc.

RedRochey

Ah he is only 17, give him a break, first time in the spotlight he's hardly going to be smooth talking

Saw him on the news over the weekend doing a video call and he seemed fine, was able to talk away a bit

johnny_ultimate

If I was interviewed on national radio at age 17 I’d have been a lot less confident and articulate than I’ve heard lolb0om being

As for the Irish accent, perfectly understandable - he has Filipino roots and lives in Ireland, so no surprise he has a mixed accent.

Capra

PaddyBomb wrote: »

Most of the young lads who are playing Fortnite are playing with their friends online with mics. Which means they could be learning a lot of interpersonal skills at a young age, such as; Teamwork, communication, active listening, patience, etc.

I don't see how you can learn any real interpersonal skills when you can't even see the other persons face or body language. That's probably a more important part of communication than words alone. They are also only half concentrating on the conversation as a large part of their focus will obviously be on the game.
The thing about the accent is something I've noticed a lot lately. I was getting food in Supermacs the other day and the two teenagers who served me had zero accent again. Considering this was rural Cork I find it amazing how many teenagers now don't have their local accent.

Back to the topic at hand, obviously the lads making a career out of it are going to benefit from playing games all day but id imagine that is only a tiny proportion. The fact that you are sitting down and getting no exercise and seeing no faces cannot be good. At least with real sports kids are getting exercise at the very least.

I've nothing against the lad and fair play to him but I just dont see this phenomenon of watching and aspiring to play video games as a positive development for humanity.

Retr0gamer

Cordell wrote: »

Fast decision making and situational awareness. He will have an edge when the zombies finally invade us. Making ****eloads of money while having fun. What is the downside?

Not sure about having fun. To get to that level it turns into a job.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Capra wrote: »

I've nothing against the lad and fair play to him but I just dont see this phenomenon of watching and aspiring to play video games as a positive development for humanity.

nonsense, is this not comparable to the countless failed athletes / sports stars / actors around the world who don't achieve megastardom?

Sabre0001

And that's leaving aside artists, writers who would be pursuing solitary ventures.

I will agree though that it's important to strike a balance in life.

Potential-Monke

Yeah, it's no different to some young lad who somehow managed to get a Premier Club in England and concentrates solely on that. When their career is over, their options are limited. This will be the same. If lolb0om doesn't make it in the gaming industry, either via streaming/playing/competitions, his options will be limited. No difference other than one is a physical sport and the other is a mental(ish) one.

Varik

So PS4 cruised past 100m shipped.

Another year or 2 for a PS5, it's probably safe to say the PS4 will beat the PS1 sales numbers ~105m.

Unless they go some route where it's somewhat cross generation, with there being PS5 exclusive games but the likes of COD or Fifa or Fornite are cross buy/play/save. So that the PS4 is viable for a good few more years at a low price point in emerging markets I doubt the PS4 will beat the PS2. The PS2 had a insanely long life that continued even further in emerging markets.

Retr0gamer

PS2 also had incredibly awful build quality so sold a few extra units from that.

Sales have probably slowed down on the PS4 and will continue to so doubt it will hit PS2 numbers as well. Kind of glad it will. Just find the PS4 a really boring console and the PS2 and DS are more worthy of dominating the top 2 spots.