well i dont buy gay shit call of duty so.
LOL at thinking only Activision is doing this...
well i dont buy gay shit call of duty so.
LOL at thinking only Activision is doing this...
100% feels like overwatch already does this being in the Activision family.
100% feels like overwatch already does this being in the Activision family.
It means he's bad at Overwatch. Not rocket science.Has anyone found out what the hell this statement even means?
It's not so much about getting people to buy loot boxes right after a match has ended, as it is keeping people playing so they'll buy loot boxes over time, especially during the events.I guess, but Overwatch items are all cosmetic. Blizzard does a good job cycling through event skins that people actually want and providing an avenue to achieve Loot Crates that feels easy enough, but also juust annoying enough to make you want to drop some cash now and then.
Indeed, this is a larger issue that I'm seeing across the board. I've had suspicions that certain games suddenly make it harder to get wins in F2P models when wins are the fastest way to acquire meaningful game currency just before you've acquired enough currency for a big new purchase (ex. a locked hero, a major upgrade, a new item or talent, etc.) This capitalizes on the brain reward system they've all been manipulating. It capitalizes on those most vulnerable to the "immediate gratification" stimulus.It's not so much about getting people to buy loot boxes right after a match has ended, as it is keeping people playing so they'll buy loot boxes over time, especially during the events.
Pairing potatoes with people who are far more skilled in order to keep some people thinking they are getting better and progressing when in truth they're not. That way the potatoes are less frustrated and think they are doing way better than they actually are.
I am sure there are many creative methods a game can use to try to keep their gamers coming back.. casinos have been doing it for years and so have some phone apps.
For ow it would be more about keeping players addicted and trying to pry money out of them in the long run.
But obviously it wouldn't be exactly like the one example given in the article, I am sure they have lots of ideas to generate more money from their game as a service product.
Exactly!! Things are changing Now that games have gone from being a one time sale that only gets companies money one time when the game is sold, to a service that continues to offer things available for purchase for years after the initial game is sold.Indeed, this is a larger issue that I'm seeing across the board. I've had suspicions that certain games suddenly make it harder to get wins in F2P models when wins are the fastest way to acquire meaningful game currency just before you've acquired enough currency for a big new purchase (ex. a locked hero, a major upgrade, a new item or talent, etc.) This capitalizes on the brain reward system they've all been manipulating. It capitalizes on those most vulnerable to the "immediate gratification" stimulus.
That's exactly how casinos think, and how game companies will (or already do) too. We're going to see more and more symmetry between those industries. They are, after all, in essence, exactly the same.
Microtransactions aren't the source of the "disease", here, so to speak.To everyone who said microtransactions were optional and could just be ignored - eat a dick.
well shadow of mordor or whatever that new game is is a single player with f*cking microtransactions as well, I hope all games don't become like this one day.I gave up on multiplayer a long time ago and the state of things as it is today makes me believe i made the right choice for my sanity and wallet.