Yeah it's kind of a shame video gaming has become so mainstream and popular. Now there's heaps of people (suckers) willing to buy into crappy micro transactions and loot boxes, I just found recently one guy spent 15k just on Mass Effect Andromeda multiplayer Cards.
Me too, but as long as there are kids, there will always be people buying these anti consumer products, kids like what looks cool, and as bad as they may be sometimes, AAA games look cool. And parents won't care enough to not buy their kids these games.
Games are storefronts now. It's less about making a good game that you can enjoy and remember for decades and more about selling a chopped up platform that they can sell u over time while still making u gamble away your money.
You guys are totally missing the point of this patented system. Especially James. That's not a system that'll allow you to have fun for a long time. It's the same principle as the mobile industry. Its job is to frustrate you to the point where you buy an "upgrade". Then you're "allowed" to have fun for a short while until the algorithm decides that it's time to frustrate you again. So it forces you to buy another upgrade by matching you with bots that have a "better upgrade". GOD If ONLY you had that upgrade, you'd kill those noobs, right??? It's a grind against NPCs for fucks sake. It's a no-win condition gambling. This system is NOT "it makes me get rid of edgy teenagers and play with bots that are created equal to my skill level". Because that won't make you buy upgrades/weapons etc.
D'Arcy that doesn't make it good. Like Lawrence said, it's just our online presence being curated even more. It's an artificial experience that is made to make you feel good for a while and then hit you hard. It's basically the same thing as a casino letting you win and win and win and then lose it all. At the end of the day, it's about getting more of your money.
Eh...if you get suckered in AFTER knowing that the thing is part of a system to shake you down for money, then I can't get mad at Corporation 'X' for implementing it. I'd do the same if I were in charge. Besides, this ain't a new thing - Old stand-up arcade machines did the same thing, they were difficult enough to keep killing you every so often that you'd need to keep plugging quarters. Remember those 'special super moves' in the fighting games that took down YOUR health bar when you used them?
I’m not sure if what Lawrence says it quite right. Often on Facebook, I see that several of my friends like a specific brand or page, and a video from them pops up on my feed. They like the page that posted it, not the specific video that appears. Its been a thing for a while now.
Its definitely a thing cuz a year or two ago my uncle said that he saw some post that said I liked a McDonalds post or the page. I said I didn't and he showed it to me, but I checked my liked & timeline and nothing from Mcdonalds was there.
I think when he says he wants you to have a 50/50 win loss he means that they always want you to go against teams where the skills are equal and the games are close.
So singleplayer's ending. Multiplayer's ending. Co-Op and splitscreen are ending. It's just gonna be lootboxes. That's it. Every game is just gonna be lootboxes.
The look on James' face during hard netting is that of a man wondering what his life has become. He makes that face often. Love y'all! Love the channel!
We told you over and over and over and over, when DLCs started coming out, older gamers warned you that if you let companies be greedy with that shit, they're gonna push as far as they can, and now we're here on the precipice of full priced games selling in game items that make you better in multiplayer.
The only DLC I've really ever considered worth buying was Read Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, cause it's like an entirely new game. Much shorter and simple, but still a new game. It adds more weapons, more mechanics, more mounts, more enemies, and another ending to the game, even though it's not canon. I hope Red Dead Redemption 2 follows the path of it's predecessor, but I really wouldn't get my hopes up. Rockstar has a hit or miss policy with DLCs these days. Metro: Last Light has the Faction DLC too, which were short, self-contained missions that provided some unique gameplay in each one.
you might find this interesting. the British government are going to investigate loot boxes in games as it's technically a form of gambling aimed at minors. Here's a link: uk.ign.com/articles/2017/10/16/uk-government-to-investigate-loot-boxes-following-petition Not sure it's entirely related but still something Lawerence might like to read up on
That's pretty nice to see. My friend and I have been waiting until it gets called out for being a form of gambling. I don't see how it's much different than the CS:GO scandal to be honest.
Bluemanzee But it is a fair amount different, the main problem with CS:GO gambling is that you can trade items to other players. This resulted in big websites being able to a mass a bunch of skins, which in turn they would let people gamble in return for the person betting their own skins or even real money. You could lose a bunch of money and literally not get anything at all. Overwatch is completely different, you can't trade items, everything you get is coming directly from blizzard, loot boxes can be earned simply from playing the game, at a fairly generous rate actually. CS:GO skins (with the exception of the very cheapest ones) have to be paid for. Loot boxes aren't really even gambling, you are going to get a reward 100%, whether the person feels the reward is worth their money can vary of course. You can't trade or sell items from loot boxes, there is no profit to be gained by anyone besides Blizzard; the drop rate percentage for the different tiers of items you can get from loot boxes has actually been released by Blizzard and everyone can see for themselves what the chances are. If parents don't want their kids to be buying loot boxes it is completely on the parents to stop them, you shouldn't let your kids have access to money if you don't want them to spend it. People who are older should be smart enough not to risk a bunch of money on virtual items if they don't know what they are risking.
+bob bobby Keep up that disturbing mentality and it will be even worse. I guess you forgot about Shadows of War and EA's Battlefront 2 though as better more recent examples of this bullshit. Especially since SoW is a fucking single player game. There's no excuse for this besides greed. Don't play into it.
I'm not buying into it, loot boxes are easily obtained items that can be gained by simply playing the game, loot boxes also give no game play advantage and are purely cosmetic, you can easily acquire items that you want, either by getting enough coins to buy them or pure luck. This is no way similar to first day DLC, and unfair advantages that can be gained by using real money.
At this point publishers are just seeing what all they can get away with when it comes to micro transactions. Look at Shadow of War, (As good as that game might be) and how they shoved in micro transactions into a single player game. The Activision patent is a disgusting way to make players into payers, and it only shows that (At least for sure Activision) has no respect or care for the players that play their games.
CptAceMaverick Then if you don't need it then there is no reason to have micro transactions in the first place. It is still trying to exploit players into essentially paying to skip the game and just buy all the best stuff with no feeling of accomplishment.
You can just use the in game currency to easily get what someone pays with real money in shadow of war and usually the weapons or armor you get from,killing orcs is way better then the ones from the crates
Around 32:00 Lawrence is correct. A friend and I have on multiple occasions checked our activity logs and found that we have liked pages like Coca Cola etc at times when we're least active. Although this was a while back I'm sure now they've done it so it doesn't actually show in your log so there's no other way to prove it.
There will always be "whales and dolphins". I saw like three "whales" in Destiny 2 on PC last night absolutely destroying the notification feed by buying and opening Bright Engrams. The sad thing is that the game (Destiny 2) probably raked in more money in microtransactions over the past week (including yesterday, the PC launch date) than they have on actual game sales.
Suggestion for next Hard Netting segment: There is a Facebook page “Dank Recovery Meme” They regularly post dark, morbid memes about addiction and suicide, but the page is suppose to be dedicated to those that have either been through, or are going to through addiction. The founder was an addict of heavy drugs, and has been clean. He, along with other admins, use the page to reflect on their messed up pasta and laugh at it. Realizing how much they have improved. A community like this would have never existed if it were for the internet.
Man I've hit a brick wall with sp7, I'm starting to really dislike them for some reason. I can't really seem to explain it. Anyway just spewing I guess on a perfectly fine comment sorry.
Hmm the important difference between playing against bots unknowingly vs playing against humans, and what this patent is all about, is that the bots are made to get you to spend more money. So they're not just replacing humans, they are made to influence you based on what they can know about you. And in the case of fake clans that can get real crazy. Bot 1 in clan: Hey wouldn't it be fun if we all start wearing armor in the clan's colors? Bot 2: Yeah! That's a great idea! Bot 3: Oh, that does cost $2.50 I see. Bot 1: No, there's a sale going on right now, we can all get it for $2.00 if we buy today. Bot 3: Ok! Let's all do this for the raid tonight! or Bot 1: Have you guys ever used the Volcanogun? That thing is OP! Bot 2: Yeah just take a look at my (fake) stats. Bot 3: Wow I should get that too! I've been using the (player weapon) all this time... If only I was smart like you. That sort of stuff. But most influential methods are much less obvious than something like that. This is just something I put together in 10 seconds. I'm not a team, 20 man strong, paid millions to study for years how to f with your brain. But if something like this gets implemented, you can forget about the idea that consumers still have control over their money, cause they are being deceived with so much experience and one-way information behind it, that consumers don't stand much of a chance.
You know James, now that I think back on Attack of the Show the only other person I knew watching it was my brother! So thanks for the shoutout to us, the only two AOTS Fans!
To the consumer, is there even any beneficial factors to the system? I can't imagine why anyone would agree with this unless you're Activision. It's a great system to make people purchase microtransactions.
Theoretically it can also craft an experience where you feel powerful and satisfied (provided you spend money). I imagine the non-payers will be kept on the statistical edge of win/loss percentages to keep them playing.
I love the discussion about how marketing has evolved and what it is because that's what I'm studying at college and just enjoy hearing about how people decide what to buy or what to play based on advertisements or other things that convinced to choose that product.
Was having a shitty day; bad midterm, had to listen to Foucault for an hour then got lost and had to walk 10 blocks... Put on the podcast and couldn't stop smiling. Good job guys Shout out to Lawrence. Btw what if you guys were bots?
Benson stories should be a first member bonus, cause boy the temptation to get a first membership to hear the Benson story in the post show is consuming me.
Halfway through when eternal sunshine of the spotless mind was mentioned I went on to Netflix and watched the whole movie and now I'm back to finish this video. Can only recommend
I’m surprised there hasn’t been a group or someone atleast who has put their foot down on these micro transactions, or atleast someone who’s made a slight difference
Gordzilla247 ™ I don't think that's going to happen. People that have the power to put there foot down are the RU-vid gamer/commentators and they won't because without the micro transaction where would they get new content almost every week. I.e shark cards in gta
Gordzilla247™ I stopped buying DLC after Mass Effect 2, then stopped buying game that has a significant amount of content as DLC after Mass Effect 3. It doesn't matter though. Because for every one of me there are 20 people who are willing to pay for the DLC or micro transactions.
Nintendo try with mario run, but people prefer their mobile game with microtransaction, at least in nintendo case their microtransaction are for impatience people since you can do everything but it will take time, example that kirby free to play game in the 3DS
Was playing Junkenstein's Revenge last night in Overwatch and spent 25 minutes in the lobby because a 12 yr old didn't want to pick Ana.He wanted my character and since I wasn't giving it up we could "carry on waiting ". I eventually left because 2am and sleep but woke up to a "gg". He sure got me!! .....Give me bots.
That Heavy weapon Jacob is using looks really good and really cool huh guys? Time to buy Destiny 2 PC everybody! Oh shit it's already begun... (fuck bots and Activision I'm gonna retire their asses)
I very much enjoy your guy's podcast as it is real discussion which is hard to find on YT and this episode in particular is very interesting. Thanks. Shoutout to James from Charlotte, NC.
While I'm on a philosophy kick that basically amounts to talking to myself, this actually reminded me a lot more of Nozick's happiness machine than it did Plato's allegory of the cave.
I love the fact that my feed shows a video from The Know titled "EA done with single player games?" and right under it Funhaus has a video titled "The end of multiplayer games?"
For the record, I believe that orangutan magic trick wasn't really a magic trick. It's just not a glass wall, it's a TV monitor which is why the orangutan barely reacts.
About that Overwatch matchmaking and 50:50 winrate. It's a common misconception (and a conspiracy theory). It doesn't actually try to make you lose if you are doing "too good". 50:50 is a natural outcome of a working matchmaker. If you win more than you lose then you are playing with people worse than you. The matchmaker will then put you against better players until you can't keep up and lose more than you win. Then it'll put you against easier players to find your exact level. When you are playing with equal players you will have 50% winrate over a large amount of games.
I love these styles of podcasts (movie podcast and dude soup etc.) keep them up. Sad to see these people or bots immediately disliking the video which they obviously haven't watched...Hail Funhaus!
This makes you wonder, how many amazing algoritms and sophisticate software can exist, with the only shallow and pointless purpose of selling you stuff?? How much of that smart creative power can be use to solve other world problems?? It amazes me, really. I know, money is in everyones agenda...but how can a system be developed with such complexity, only to make more money??? This is one of my favorite podcast so far. So well informed and in point. Thank you so much Lawrence for going through all the patents. I like when you guys get all philosophical and question your own realities. You guys have amazing PoVs
Damn this podcast really grabbed my attention. I usually have it playing in the background but this time I was so intrigued. Thanks for the ~games journalism~ you guys just helped me find a research paper topic!!!
There is literally no situation where its OK to present a false illusion with its sole premise to trick users into spending money. "its not like someones holding a gun to your head." But yet consumers are stripped of making a conscious decision in spending their money.
The big problem with generating NPCs is that when it comes to competitive play you will never know where you actually stand against other players so long as you play against the NPCs. I really hope they don't wind up implementing this kind of system, or at least I hope that most of the games I play never wind up implementing this system because I want a genuine experience against players that are actual people that way I know I am better than people in the world. They can make bots that simulate human skill, but not to the level that a human would actually think. For example, when I play Overwatch, there are certain people that would switch heroes in order to counter me and some that wouldn't. At bot doesn't get to make that decision upon it's own volition. Additionally, what if the human player switched to a hero that is countered even worse by me because that hero is his/her favorite to play? A bot would never do that. It's small things like these that really anger me when I think about playing against AI. It won't ever make you better because adapting to a programmatic play style is easier than adapting to an erratic human playstyle. Additionally, that whole catfishing thing is a legitimate issue. Majority of my friends online who are married met on the internet, hell even James met Elyse on the internet. Imagine the implications of finding your significant other online and it actually being a robot. If that doesn't send someone into a spiraling depression, I don't know what would.
I was one of the two that watched attack of the show, but all I remember is the episode where Olivia Munn jumped into a pool of pudding in a maids outfut haha
Bruce, there's a comment you made that disagrees with me. You were talking about touring Blizzard, and you said you had a 50/50 win ratio, the developer said that's what they're aiming for. I think you misunderstood what they meant. You took it as "they're wanting me to lose 50% of the time". No, I think they meant they're wanting you placed in evenly skilled matches, which would result in a 50/50 split if the matches you're being placed in are consistently at your skill level.
The allegory of the cave is a reasonable reference though you omit the purpose of the allegory, that being Plato's example of progressive knowledge. If players were or are being match-maked into servers with bots, it may serve their objective reality for a time but it is, in the context of the analogy, not reality. It is therefore right for you as a VIDEOGAME JOURNALIST to decry this patent as disturbing, unless we succumb to the notion that true knowledge is no longer the source of the good, that reality has objectively changed and we are all chained to capitalism at its most exploitative. Dw, I know I'm waxing lyrical and being an armchair philosodick. P.S if you read this Lawrence, I recommend The Cave by Jose Saramago
Doesn't the allegory of the cave also pair with the idea that truth is unattainable? Or, that no matter what, reality passes through your perceptive lens and is always altered. In that case, there is no progression toward truth or divinity, just relative experiences. To wit: reality is just a second-level matrix that even smarter machines made.
And the lens makes us myopic, right? I wonder, what would a pure experience be, how would we perceive anything without the lens that each of us has developed? I'm reminded of some meta-textual prose by Italo Calvino on the nature of being a (self-aware) character, that I think resonates with your argument: "I would like to erase the consequences of certain events and restore an initial condition. But every moment of my life brings with it an accumulation of new facts, and each of these new facts brings with it its consequences; so the more I seek to return to the zero moment from which I set out, the further I move away from it." I wanted to provide something of a foil to your narrative but I'm in agreement with you, though Plato may have believed that philosophers held the key to true knowledge and rational governance, though I'm not sure. P.S You are wonderfully eloquent and it has been a delight to gently spar with you.
This may just be me, but I appreciate when you guys do like a quick overview of what'll be discussed this podcast like you did with the PowerPoint or whatever it was
I guess my question for you guys would be if you think the satisfaction one gets from winning comes from just being told you won, or actually coming out on top. My first experience with multiplayer games was getting my absolutely demolished by my brothers in Halo 2. The feeling of losing over and over was one of the most frustrating feelings of my childhood, but my desire to win grew with every loss. Eventually I began to watch all the cool stuff my brothers did when they played, and I took those things and worked them into my game plan. Getting absolutely destroyed pushed me to get better, and The feeling I got when I finally won one game is still what drives me to play multiplayer games today. Maybe I'm masochistic, but playing against people that are better than me makes me excited because I see how much better I can become and all the cool stuff I might be able to do in future games. Playing bots who are told to win or lose x% of the time completely defeats the purpose for me as it basically turns into a system of self gratification. I understand that at the core of everyone who plays video games, they play to have a good time, but I feel like basing enjoyment purely off winning or losing is an immature way to gauge pleasure.
"For some reason were scouring patent filings", yeah, sure, it was investigative reporter going deep on patent filings. As if it was not a tip-off from someone working with those in some capacity. :D
I loved bots ever since perfect dark. You could have the easybot, hardbot, all the way up to darkbot and perfect bot which could annihilate your eyeball if it peeked around the corner.
1 question, 1 thing to clear stuff up for Bruce, I don't know how familiar you are with classical Elo systems but Elo systems for perfect information games (chess, go, shogi, etc, which most modern multiplayer games use a version of that system) are designed to put you into a 50/50 winrate by increasing your rating until you're perfectly matched against people of equal skill, not by saying "make him play a bronze team this game and a grandmaster/top 500 team next game." It's a great system for games with no teammates and no randomness, but there's flaws in games like overwatch, League, Dota, etc. 2, I thought Neo got those magical powers at the end of the series because they're several matrices deep and they machines knew humans wouldn't accept life unless they had to struggle for it like Smith mentioned in the first movie?
