Assuming you're strictly speaking about 3D games (cuz there are a lot of beautiful 2D ones), then the ones who have aged well are those with pre-rendered backgrounds. FFVIII have some of the nicest towns ever, even though I don't like the game. But if you want to get even more restrictive and you want me to chose from those games that were fully 3D, then it gets complicated. I guess some of my choices would be:
-Vagrant Story, still beautiful to this day despite the muddy textures. Illumination and architecture makes the visuals very appealing.
IS Internal section: not "beautiful" per se but rock solid graphics that look almost like a PS2, helped by abstract, futuristic graphics, the then "hi-res" definition of the game and the 60fps.
-Lots of ported arcade SEGA games to the Saturn, but that's because I immensely enjoy that SEGA aesthetic, blue skies and summer.
-Speaking about SEGA, Panzer Dragoon titles hold somewhat well to this day, beautiful scenery.
-Mario 64 still looks good to me due to the vibrant colors
-Ridge Racer Type 4 not only has great graphics that have hold well, but it's also pleasant looking; moody colors, lush horizons, nice urban sorroundings
Generally any games with high quality pre rendered backgrounds can still look great today, like the 5th gen resident evil and final fantasy titles. Special shout out to the first two oddworld games though. The art direction is really strong, the FMVs still look great and the 3d models fit in particularly well with the backgrounds, maybe because they're smaller on screen than the zombies in RE and the lack of detail is disguised.
They've always been the same. My opinion has not changed on the graphics since when those games were new. The same goes for many others. Don't try to shit up this good thread. If you don't agree, don't post here. Simple as that.
>>2923725 I don't understand why people underrate the PS2. Especially the whole "muddy" thing. I feel like that is a stereotype of the console that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
The games ran at a higher resolution than PS1, the textures were better, way more polygons, and no jiggle, warp or order glitches. There is no way the games should look worse than PS1 whether technically or artstyle wise.
I'm guessing it's because people have been sharing cherry picked emulator screenshots.
>>2923787 I think it's because of the more popular games on PS2. When I think of the PS2, I think of GTA:San Andreas, and while I enjoyed that game, it was one of the first "let's make everything brown and orange" games that I know of.
>>2923714 >It's like saying an Atari or NES game had good graphics.
I played a bunch of Atari and early arcade games for the first time as a part of a collection on PS2 and I was actually wowed by the graphics. Some of the effects they use are just plain awesome and very appealing aesthetically. Graphically, one of my favorite games of all time is actually the arcade version of Defender.
I'm not underage, I'm in my 20s, but I didn't grow up with Atari or early arcade games before anyone wonders why I played them so late.
That's one of my all-time favorite games. You should play the OG Xbox version. It's the best version and it looks amazing. They updated many of the textures, improved the draw distance, etc. It's certainly not brown and orange.
>>2923846 What makes you think that? I have a SNES, Master System, Mega Drive, Dreamcast, Playstation, and I have a Saturn on the way. Just because I enjoy the games, doesn't mean I have to think primitive 3D looked good. I personally enjoy the charm of early PS1 games and stuff, and appreciate how cool they were at the time, but being honest, if I showed footage of a fifth gen 3D game to any normal person today, somebody who's not into old games like us on /vr/, they would say it looks like garbage.
>>2923714 It's funny how you mention Atari or NES because apart from a few NES games, I also don't like the NES graphics very much, I much, much, much prefer SNES standard. It's just something subjective, I can't help it. I can see why people would find those graphics beautiful.
Again, we're not talking about "good graphics", we're talking about "beautiful graphics". You seem to be leaning back towards as if there's some technological achievement to it that we have to consider when we already clarified that's not what we're doing at all. We're going on visuals. And yes, fifth gen graphics could be beautiful, particularly N64 games. PSone graphics aren't my cup of tea so much, but N64 graphics most of them are incredible. To this day, the crocodile kremlins in Donkey Kong 64 and the bosses and environments in Turok 2 jump out and hit me as being perfect and beautiful.
You should really stop thinking of things as subjective. If you've come here from /v/, fine, but try to adapt to this board's culture. We try to be much more friendly towards one another here. We respect one another's opinions.
If you don't like NES graphics, then hey, that's fine. But don't insult those who do or act like they are objectively shit. There are many people who love the NES aesthetic and indeed find it beautiful.
>>2923941 >If you've come here from /v/, fine, but try to adapt to this board's culture. We try to be much more friendly towards one another here. We respect one another's opinions.
I've been here since the board opened, and it's the only board I visit regularly. In the past couple years, however, this board has just become /v/ 2, so the way I see it, if you can't beat em, join em.
This is a really bad philosophy. Don't you miss the way /vr/ used to be? You should try to stimulate quality discussion instead of furthering /vr/'s downfall. I'm really confused at why you would purposely shit up the board.
>>2924112 >which were starting to look really nice. I disagree. We've already saw the full potential of 2D games around the 4th gen. In my opinion, I thought it was the most apt thing to start experimenting more with an element that has already been tinkered around with a little since the early 80's (at least for video games). Anyways, 3D games started hitting that sweet spot around the end of the 5th gen.
>>2923054 >Vagrant Story >muddy textures What the fuck? Are you playing it on an emulator with filters of something? It has a pixelated aesthetic, and if was rebuilt from the ground up on modern hardware, with no shaking, no warping, no shitty texture-scaling that makes everything in the background pixelated as fuck, and a high resolution, it would look fantastic.
You're both crazy. 2D games have not reached their full potential. In fact there will always be room for improvements what 2D platformers can do. Even in recent times 2D games have been getting major advancements compared to previous generations, such as the Retro Studios DKC games, Rayman Origins/Legends, Yoshi's Wooly World etc... I know this is /vr/ but you still have to admit we couldn't have gotten 2D games that looked this good in the 5th gen.
>>2922970 They have their charm. The Dreamcast has my absolute favorite "level" of 3D graphics. Advanced enough to offer nice textures and decent models, but still nowhere near the uncanny valley that the rest of the 6th gen and 7th gen kicked off. Makes it easy to see why Dreamcast is considered /vr/ when you look at it like that.
>>2923881 >if I showed footage of a fifth gen 3D game to any normal person today, somebody who's not into old games like us on /vr/, they would say it looks like garbage. I know at least one person, showed them Tomb Raider 1 and Tomb Raider Anniversary. They really liked 1, but didn't like TRA, saying TR1 looks like a video game, but TRA doesn't, it's "too realistic". That person is definitely not representative, but there are people out there who associate a certain "artificial" look with games, and are kind of annoyed by modern development
>>2925501 Most mobile games are made by tiny teams of people compared to most "big name" games that got full boxed releases. Of course most of them aren't going to look as good. Expecting some ground of 10 dudes in an office somewhere to make graphics on par with 90's era Square or Nintendo is crazy.
Also, when did things flip from everyone saying "graphics aren't important, all that matters is the game" for years and years to "that looks like shit, so it's shit" that we get today.
>>2925554 >when did things flip from everyone saying "graphics aren't important, all that matters is the game" for years and years to "that looks like shit, so it's shit" that we get today. Since the publishers decided that games should be prettier over functional.
That said, the modern gaming market is oversaturated, and the vast majority of the market is happy enough with basic gameplay. That has two consequences. One, gameplay is not being developed. In fact experimental or new gameplay is avoided as a risk factor. Established gameplay is heavily reused, and occasionally tweaked a little. And two, the player's time is still limited. Combined with the increased number of games that means the competition for the player's time is increased. Since publishers decided demos are evil, the only way to get into the wallet of the player is through marketing. That includes screenshots, which hence need to look good.
Note that the gameplay statement does not apply to mobile gaming. Freemium uses a far more sinister model
>>2925816 But that's the opposite of what I'm talking about. That guy was talking about how modern games look ugly. Party line used to be graphics aren't important, gameplay is what matters. Now we get a shit ton of "that looks like shit, so it's shit."
>>2925829 it's pretty well understood that mobile gaming offers no gameplay in any useful sense. So one might as well discuss the only saving grace of these products, their graphics. And they, despite the platform and the developer being capable, are not that stellar. People have a pretty good sense about the personal investment of developers in a game. If a developer is passionate but unskilled, they can get away with lackluster graphics, because people understand the developer focused on what really matters for the game. If a developer is highly capable, yet turns out mediocre graphics, it smells of a throwaway job, which people don't take kindly, and, often correctly, assume the gameplay is equally shallow
>>2925840 >it's pretty well understood that mobile gaming offers no gameplay in any useful sense.
Mobile games are more momentary little games than the kinds of things you would sit down and put your full attention towards. To say their only saving grace is graphics is overly simplistic. You might not like or want to play Peggle or Angry Birds, but they do what they set out for pretty well. The people they were made to appeal to enjoyed them, which is really all that matters.
>>2925842 Mobas, Minecraft (and it's offshoots) and Tower Defense come to mind. Also Dwarf Fortress was born out of roguelikes, but is something else of it's own and now the start of it's own genre.
>>2925862 >they do what they set out for pretty well They set out to generate revenue. Full stop. That's all they do. Their "gameplay" is a means to that, not more. Be it a "building" game, or a puzzle game, or something MMO, these mechanics are always shallow and adapted in order to introduce waiting periods and frustration. The developers of these games are not innovating in terms of gameplay. They are taking established mechanics, and wrapping them in revenue generating mechanisms. These mechanisms are the focus of development.
>Peggle or Angry Birds Both not exactly fair examples of Mobile games. One started out as an indie standalone game on the desktop, the other as a flash time waster, also on the desktop. They have been ported to mobile platforms, but they don't follow the mobile typical freemium model, or at least last time I checked, which is long ago, they didn't.
>>2925869 >They set out to generate revenue. To be fair, that's the basic purpose of every single video game. But as I say, they're not really made for people like you or I who are more interested in sitting down to a full, deep gaming experience. They're made for people commuting or killing time waiting in lines, which is where I see most people playing them.
I don't think a game necessarily needs to be complex or deep to be successful. Solitaire is almost a purely time wasting activity with virtually no real "game" to it, but has been popular for years and years specifically because sometimes that's what someone wants out of a game.
The freemuium model is just their way of selling it. It's easier to give a game for free and then try to incentivize someone to spend some money once they're invested than it is to try and get them to shell out up front.
>>2925893 >that's the basic purpose of every single video game Heavily disagreed. On top of that, a lot of games used to, or still don't have, any revenue generating mechanisms. There's the initial sale, which is fair compensation for the product provided, but the game itself is not doing anything to drain money from the player, except maybe being a good advertisment for a successor or the developer
>you or I who are more interested in sitting down to a full, deep gaming experience Don't assume. I like portable games, to the point that I actively do not want to see living room games on a portable system. Mobile games just aren't games. They may look the part, but their purpose is entirely different.
>I don't think a game necessarily needs to be complex or deep to be successful I did not imply that. I said that any gameplay in mobile games is just the means to further the revenue generating function.
>Solitaire is almost a purely time wasting activity with virtually no real "game" to it, but has been popular for years and years specifically because sometimes that's what someone wants out of a game. And solitaire without cooldown periods (which can be overridden using money), dead ends (which can be bypassed using money), or constant reminders to buy cards and layouts, is a perfectly fine and fair game. I used to play it for years, unironically.
>The freemuium model is just their way of selling it Wrong way round. Freemium is the purpose, the business goal.
>It's easier to give a game for free No, it's necessary to give the game away for free, because the game merely exists to generate desire and impatience, through achievements, unlockables and cooldowns. In order to use all these mechanisms to get money from the user, it's necessary to get the user hooked. Even dealers know that the first hit is free.
>than it is to try and get them to shell out up front. It's what worked very reliable for decades, and produces games which actually respect the player
>>2925869 There's tons of great full length mobile games. See Riptide, Pixel Dungeon, dead trigger, NFS series, plants vs zombies, baldurs gate, WmW and others.. To simplify it like that isn't fair and a little absurd. Just because there is a lot of shovelware doesn't mean there isn't any great games. There's even plenty of ports of gen 5 and 6 games on Android. Also look at the excellent sonic ports. That said, a lot of games do follow the freemium model. But no one is forcing you to play them, or buy anything in them. To expect them to make a game for nothing is what's absurd
>>2925914 >shovelware If it was shovelware, it would be fine. It's deliberately user-abusing mechanisms.
>plenty of ports of gen 5 and 6 games on Android I'm distinguishing between games that happen to exist on a mobile platform (especially ports), and games that are developed for a mobile platform, especially the freemium model.
>no one is forcing you to play them, or buy anything in them That's a bullshit excuse. These programs are deliberately designed to undermine rationality.
>expect them to make a game for nothing Where did I do that? I consider the freemium model hostile. In fact I mentioned open support for the regular payment model.
>>2925926 I pointed out several franchises that have full length mobile games. And in addition many f2p games play fine without buying anything. Provided you don't play for hours on end. I play a couple of f2p 4x4 games every day on mobile and just go do something else while my turns recharge. It isn't really a big deal, I don't need that instant gratification. You're missing out on some great stuff I'd you don't try it.
>>2925906 >There's the initial sale, which is fair compensation for the product provided,
I think both are fair, they're just different. The vast majority of people who play freemium games never pay a dime. They're bankrolled by the small number of people who put a lot in.
If the people I see on the train each morning playing games on their phones are enjoying their time with them, that's good enough for me. I don't want to be playing the games they're playing, but they also probably don't want to be playing Monster Hunter which is more likely what I'm doing. I just see different games made for different people. It's all good to me.
>>2925940 Again, just to clarify: I see nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with the game mechanics of these games. I specifically value portable games, which are designed to be portable (short sessions, small context, easy to interrupt or cancel, not subject to shaking or unstable environment). I see a lot, if not everything wrong with the freemium model, as it involves player hostile practices within the game mechanics.
>>2925941 The games aren't meant to be played that way. Just like go outside or get some food. Or god forbid play something different. It's not forcing you to do anything. Even in the most jew of f2p games Candy Crush your lives recharge after 45 minutes and you get some free powerups. Just stop acting like a petulant little child.
>>2925947 >It's not forcing you to do anything It isn't. Just using dirty tricks to strongly encourage you, nag you, make the negativity go away. A game that is deliberately negative, and then offering a solution for money, is bad, no, evil design.
>>2925941 It only triggers impatience in some people. Most just go with the timer or play something else for the mean time. The statistic is something like only 1 in a hundred people put money into any of these games.
I personally enjoyed a fair amount of Candy Crush. Sure it was just a bejeweled clone, but it did some interesting things here and there and was overall fairly enjoyable. I played it for several months on and off, never put any money into it but enjoyed the time I spent with it.
On the other hand, if it was even a dollar I never would have touched it. I have no problem with how they "sold" it.
>>2925959 >It only triggers impatience in some people It is deliberately designed to. How people deal with it is different, that's the gamble they take. Does not change their intention and design one bit.
>>2925954 Most people who play these games just pull them out on the toilet or something like that though. The timers don't mean anything to them because they're not permanently invested in it. Next time they need to shit, it will have recharged and they can spend five minutes raising a dragon or poking a kitten or whatever else the game has you doing.
>That stuff might be fine on the toilet or killing time but that's about it, not for actual gaming.
Which is exactly the point. These aren't full, deep games. They're 5 minutes mini games to kill some time.
>>2925965 >because they're not permanently invested in it Another common exploit mechanic is "rewards", stuff for starting the game at least once a day. It increases the personal time investment, sense of responsibility, keeps the program in the user's memory (brain, not computer) and lowers the threshold to shelling out actual money
>>2925962 >How people deal with it is different, that's the gamble they take.
That is their gamble, and I think it's their prerogative to make. I do see how it can lead to games with lackluster gameplay, but I don't see anything inherently wrong about someone wanting to do that. Sure they want you to get hooked and spend money, but they know the vast majority of people won't.
Again, this led to a situation where I played and enjoyed Candy Crush without ever spending a penny. Might they have been able to make a better Bejeweled clone without needing to design it around the freemium model? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Either way, all I really care about is that there was a game I enjoyed.
>>2925970 But again, if someone doesn't care or that doesn't bother them then how is that bad necessarily? You're acting like the developer wanting the played to enjoy the game enough that they spend some money on it is this dirty practice.
I look at it more like these are super extended demos. The basic game is free, if you get super invested in it or want to play a ton then you pay a bit and you can. It's different from the game being $5 up front, but I don't think it's necessarily worse.
>>2925972 >I think it's their prerogative to make And I'll call it out as the abusive tactic that it is.
>it can lead to games with lackluster gameplay The gameplay is not being developed. It's the means, not the goal.
>I don't see anything inherently wrong about someone wanting to do that That's kind of sad.
>all I really care about is that there was a game I enjoyed And confirmed the freemium model as viable on the platform, keeping it active and alive for a long time to come, encouraging programmers to specifically design programs with the sole reason to exploit psychological effects to drain money from your wallet. Whether you personally are able to resist or not is secondary. The program's available, and successfully suffocates less abuse models, as you yourself admitted.
>>2925982 >Whether you personally are able to resist or not is secondary.
I don't think it's secondary at all. I also disagree that the traditional game model has been suffocated. But I also disagree that any of this is inherently abusive in any way. So really at this point we disagree almost completely on everything it would seem.
>>2925978 >if someone doesn't care or that doesn't bother them then how is that bad necessarily? It is bad because the mechanic itself is hostile towards the user. Instead of providing entertainment to the player, the purpose is exclusively to drain money, by any means necessary, including heavy disrespect towards user agency. It's bad, because, as some anons already said, it works against more ethical models (why pay for a game, when you can get a "game" for free?)
>You're acting like the developer wanting the played to enjoy the game enough that they spend some money on it is this dirty practice. The developers are not wanting the player to enjoy the game. They want the player to want to continue the game, so they can put up roadblocks that frustrate the player, and provide a convenient solution for money. The freemium model is actively designed against entertainment, not for it.
>super extended demos A demo advertises a full product, in particular a product where the developer gets out of the way of the player, and especially doesn't set up intentionally negative interruptions and reminders. A product that can be purchased, or rented as a whole, removing the incentive of the developer to abuse the player.
>>2925990 >I don't think it's secondary at all These products are put on the market because they work. Whether they work on you in particular, does not affect the overall result, these products being on the market.
>I also disagree that the traditional game model has been suffocated Several anons said they'd not pay for mobile games when there are free options, ignoring that the free options are unethical in their mechanisms. In other words, the mere existence of these products discourages actual sales of games.
>>2925991 >Instead of providing entertainment to the player, the purpose is exclusively to drain money,
Except as I pointed out, I got entertainment without having my wallet drained. In fact, of everyone I know who plays those kinds of games (my mom, wife's parents, aunts etc) I don't know anyone who has ever spent money on them.
These games are designed to try and make money but they're not successful with the vast majority of people.
It's also not really impacting game sales, because the people playing them were unlikely to ever buy a game in the first place.
Anyways, I think I'm done with this. I see where you're coming from, but we're never going to see eye to eye on it. I don't love the freemium model, but I don't think it's nearly as inherently awful as you. We'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.
>>2926009 >Except as I pointed out, I got entertainment without having my wallet drained Except as I pointed out, that's a coincidence, not a development goal.
>but they're not successful with the vast majority of people Frankly, I don't care. They are designed to. That they fail is secondary. Actual games do not try to, and are not designed to. They provide entertainment without the dirty tricks. Why should I care that the dirty tricks rarely work? Does not make them any less dirty.
>It's also not really impacting game sales, because the people playing them were unlikely to ever buy a game in the first place. The only reason they'd never buy a game in first place is that the market established these things are available for free. These products broke the mobile game market quite badly.
>>2926023 >They provide entertainment without the dirty tricks.
I don't see the developer hoping that I pay for the game if I like it as a dirty trick. It's way easier to get burned buying something you hope will be good at full price and then find disappointing than it is from a free game.
>>2926023 >The only reason they'd never buy a game in first place is that the market established these things are available for free.
Except no. Because all the people I mentioned had been around a long before video games existed at all. Free mobile games didn't stop my wife's mom from buying regular games and move to only playing free ones.
It took someone who never, ever played games and turned her nose up at them into someone who plays, enjoys and appreciates games. I think that's pretty great.
On the other side there's me. I play and pay for normal full games as well. The freeware games I play don't stop me from doing that at all.
>>2926039 >If I play a game I have no clue how much more I'm going to struggle or grind for not continuing to buy more garbage
Games are pretty easy to research now that we have this fancy "internet" at our disposal. In the absence of actually checking out a game first to see if I would like it, I prefer the option to only pay $5 upfront instead of $15.
>Why exactly are you against a company offering the option to unlock the full game?
Nothing. As I've mentioned several times, I like buying games that way. I simply have no problem with other models as well.
>>2926062 Also someone else who apparently couldn't even read two whole sentences. lol I was saying that I research games before I buy them. In the event that I didn't do that, it's easier to get burned spending $5 than $15. lol
>>2926073 That's a theoretical situation we're discussing. That if a game was theoretically available as either a $15 single purchase, or sold in three "chapters" for $5 each, I think the piecemeal model is a viable one. Not necessarily what I would choose depending on the game, but an option I would not mind seeing.
In actual practice, as I said pretty clearly neither I nor anyone I know has actually paid anything at all for any game with a freemium / pay to play model. Ever.
>>2926192 It is not possible to purchase a freemium game. Freemium games use money in exchange for limited in-game resources that deplete. That can be a fuel mechanism, it can be cooldown overrides, it can be a boost. As such, constant payment is required to maintain these features. It's kind of related to a lease model, with the major (VERY major) difference that depletion can be accelerated, it's not a simple exchange of money for time. For example you can use all the purchased resources nearly instantly and in rapid succession, or draw them out over a very long period.
A developer offering a free part of the game with a purchase option, and the purchased game being free of recurring costs or nagging, is simply the demo model, or better, a blend of the demo and shareware model. Only, shareware was usually exchanged freely, while apps have the central store component. The design of the game though, a part of the game + advertising for free, and the full game for a price, is almost a carbon copy of shareware design, whereas demos in the traditional sense are custom built and do not necessarily include any level or aspect of the actual game.
>>2926212 >A developer offering a free part of the game with a purchase option, and the purchased game being free of recurring costs or nagging, is simply the demo model, or better, a blend of the demo and shareware model.
Finally we agree on something. Except I like it.... Not as the only option. But as another potential way of selling a game I think it's just fine.
>>2926234 >You are not paying for the game in the freemium system
That's a real stretch of semantics. Is that really what you were talking about? Either way it's the dev hoping you give them some money for playing their game. Instead of buying it outright it's free. If you want some bonuses or to keep playing a lot at one time you can pay a bit to do that. If you don't, you don't.
>>2926212 Not the guy you're talking to but the problem with the freemium model is that so few people pay anything. At it's height only 3% of people playing Farmville paid for anything and it was considered one of the most successful freemiums ever. Unless your game is massive it won't make any money at all.
>>2926240 >it's the dev hoping you give them some money for playing their game No, it's the dev tricking you into giving them some money. The game does not rely on any of these mechanisms, and these mechanisms are by design disruptive and "annoying". You can think of it in terms of a) taking a game (that's the simple part), b) adding an addiction mechanism or two (daily rewards, unlockables, achievements), and c) adding an annoyance mechanism (progress hindered by cooldown, lack of crucial resources, or alternatively, tune the progression of the game towards grinding (which is also annoying) and offer a mechanism to bypass it. I have no problem with the first step, and plenty of freemium programs are fairly good in that regard. I have big problems with the remaining parts. They are unrelated to playing a game, and designed to disturb or damage the game. As such, I consider it hostile towards the user. Maybe to clarify the usage of "annoying" here: I'm trying to use it in the sense of something that is designed to run counter the mechanisms of the game. For example a game may have a "just one more round" formula to it. A cooldown prevents this from working, it solely exists to annoy or upset the player, and then give them an instant resolve in form of a temporary and depleting resource. Compare with a shareware game, where, for example, you may get an upfront limit of rounds, that can not be extended. It's clearly communicated that this is part of it being a shareware or demo. After purchasing the game, this "damage" of the game is completely gone, the developer won't repeatedly nag the player about it, and has no particular reason to make the game extra addictive, in order to lure them into further purchases. That is, the whole customer-developer relationship becomes one of a mutual business, instead of a con-mark situation.
>>2926259 >For example a game may have a "just one more round" formula to it. A cooldown prevents this from working, it solely exists to annoy or upset the player, and then give them an instant resolve in form of a temporary and depleting resource. Compare with a shareware game, where, for example, you may get an upfront limit of rounds, that can not be extended. It's clearly communicated that this is part of it being a shareware or demo. After purchasing the game, this "damage" of the game is completely gone, the developer won't repeatedly nag the player about it, and has no particular reason to make the game extra addictive, in order to lure them into further purchases.
Guy who's been talking to you the most here. I see those as both equally valid. You see the freemuim model as more annoying, I do not. I look at the cooldown as an excuse to do something else. By that method, so long as I don't want to rush through the whole thing, I can play the whole game for free. I like that better than a demo and then having to pay for the rest actually.
>>2926257 The freemium mechanism relies on so called whales. Few people that actually pay, but pay unreasonably large sums. We're talking straight up large 3-digit sums, or 4-digit sums, stuff that would never fly on a full price game. In a way, the freemium model acts like spam. The vast majority of people won't fall for it, but it doesn't matter, because distribution is practically free (to the creator). All you need is a victim or two, that lacks judgement, and milk them for all their worth. That "for all their worth" is where all the dirty tricks step in, the impatience, annoyance, limited but buyable ressources, etc. And to get these few heavy weight victims, you need the spread. The best a freemium developer can hope for is that their product goes viral. The more people install it, the more likely they find a whale or two. Again, the actual distribution is practically free for them, so there's no "risk" in being as widely installed as possible.
>>2926263 >You see the freemuim model as more annoying I see it as deceptive.
>I look at the cooldown as an excuse to do something else And for every ten-thousand people like you, there's one that's gonna end up with crippling debt because they fell for it. Not cool.
>I can play the whole game for free Including constant nagging, excessive grind, peer pressure (MMO design), or in short, a damaged product.
>I like that better than a demo and then having to pay for the rest actually. With the demo model the developer has no interest to lure or deceive you after the purchase (they may during the demo, but it tends to hurt them in the long run). In fact, their highest interest is in actually making the whole thing enjoyable, in order to recommend themselves for your next purchase. These games rely on fun over addiction (You, and many anons on this board, know quite well how to deal with the addictive aspects of freemium games, they're not aimed at us. That they exist, is, in my opinion, a very bad thing. A business model that relies on an abusive relationship with the customer
>>2926278 One in a couple of thousands does, and when they do, they usually do so with large amounts of money. It may be dozens of dollars, hundreds, thousands, depending on how "lucky" the dev is. There's no cost in giving their product to everyone, but there's reward in giving it to the right person.
>>2926264 Exactly. Harry Connick jr says he spent over a hundred grand on Candy Crush. Dude basically bankrolled the game for me, and he was happy cause he gives two shits about 100k here or there. Works fine for me!
>>2926286 Okay? So one in a hundred wants to drop some money on the game. Why should I be upset is some rich fuck wants to blow a wad on some game? Do you hang around arcades and tell people they're not really having fun because they're not buying the games they're playing? lol.
I probably put hundreds of bucks in Street Fighter over the years. Am I a whale?
>>2922970 There were some amazingly gorgeous PS1 and Saturn games, but that was because of the systems being able to display 2D art so well. 3D graphics on all of those systems were far too weak to make any of those games genuinely beautiful though.
Thread replies: 160 Thread images: 29
Thread DB ID: 438675
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.