Jump to content


TSS Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


KHCast last won the day on July 8

KHCast had the most liked content!

About KHCast

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Keyblade's,light, samurai armor
  • Gender
  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

601,399 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by KHCast

  1. There are people actually upset and annoyed that the “war on lootboxes” resulted in them being negatively stigmatized? And call it censorship??? Wtf?

    1. WittyUsername


      People find some of the weirdest reasons to get upset. "War on Christmas," for instance.

    2. Polkadi~☆


      Huh...? This isn't even about a group of people, considering it's an argument against money-grubbing tactics.

    3. Tara


      Give me your credit card information.

      Wow, I just made an art.

    4. KHCast


      I’m gonna guess this mindset stems from the “developers need to put them in cause they need to make money somehow” crowd, cause I really don’t see a reason why one should be mad at companies psychologically manipulating people less, and making more rewarding and satisfying games that aren’t effected by these tactics 

    5. Dr. Detective Mike

      Dr. Detective Mike

      Right, because it takes a ton of artistic integrity to hold back pieces of said art so that you can randomly ransom it back to the people who've already bought it. At least that's what that means.

      "At some point, video games have to make money" is a response one executive said when it came to the backlash against loot boxes.

      I say, if that POINT where video games make money isn't happening when the game is released and put on store shelves, then you've failed and you suck at selling video games to people. Do something else you hacks.

    6. DanJ86


      I'm not sure I fully understand. Lootboxes are like a form of gambling and taking more money from gamers and fans, right?

      So are some developers getting pissed because they want to take more of our money and can't stand that they are being labelled as c**ts? If that's the case, I'm glad those greedy f*ckers are upset. Screw 'em! You get what you pay for and I ain't paying for bullsh*t.

      Pardon my language. I'm so tired of hearing the self righteous, b*tch about something or another. ^^;

    7. Balding Spider

      Balding Spider

      @KHCast War on Lootboxes huh? *sigh* Fuck it, burn the industry down, lets start this shit over.

    8. Strickerx5


      This is admittedly an issue I'm sort of mixed on. While I do hate lootboxes for the most part and locking ANYTHING behind pure rng, I can't help but look at things from an economic standpoint.

      Here me out here. Pretty much since video games were a thing, they've pretty much stuck to the same price throughout the medium's life. That's 30+ years of a price remaining largely the same. I honestly can't think of anything that shares such a trait. You could get a soda a little over 20 years back for a dollar but now you'll be hard pressed to find anything for less than $2. The overall value of currency has lowered and yet the base price of a game has stayed pretty much the same. I'm no economics major or anything but really... I think that's something to look at.

      I'm in no way defending the actions of companies like EA here but I really do have to wonder about the other end here. Or simply how the medium has been able to keep things like this. I also have to wonder if people would be willing to up the price of games to, say, $90 if it meant no more micro-transactions; period. How many of us would be ok with that?

      Of course this all gets muddy when you know that companies like Activision make bank while not even paying taxes so... eh. Though does that mean we can hold the smaller publishers and devs to a similar standard? Idk, these are just my shower thoughts really. Can't really say I have enough knowledge to really speak critically one way or the other here so I guess I'm just rambling.

    9. KHCast


      “Games never raised in prices”

      special editions, silver and gold editions, dlc, sponsorships, re-releasing of older versions of games, cross marketing, etc. and that’s before micro-transactions. Games never rose price, but the value you get for a game in the AAA space is certainly not equivalent to before at base value. That’s /admission/ for the /base/ game. And given all the venues regarding how these massively wealthy companies acquire money and cut costs, I really don’t see them “needing” to put them in vs wanting to.(don’t forget EA admitted to being able to do fine in battlefront 2 without microtransactions) Keep in mind, the excessive monetizing comes usually comes from these big publishers and companies. Not the smaller ones that could make the case better for why they possibly would dabble in microtransactions.(though I’d still argue if they’re gonna go that route, do free to play)


      And this isn’t even going into the moral ethics of it all with them purposely making the games revolve around those systems to drive players towards them, looking for ways to psychologically manipulate you, unbalancing games that were perfectly fine beforehand, making them less enjoyable for the sake of profit, or just shoving them in for no reason aside from it being the norm

    10. Strickerx5


      Tbh man, I don't think these various editions we've been seeing are enough to equal the sheer drop in value the dollar has seen over these last three decades. This is just me speaking, but I almost never buy anything above the standard edition for games. A lot of the time even when it's a game I'm looking forward to, I rarely ever go above the standard price.

      Most of the time those special editions only come with minor things like character skins or the occasional real world trinket (the later of which do cut into the overall cost of the actual game from that sale). Basically stuff most people aren't going to miss. Most of the time, 99% of the game can be experienced through the standard edition from what I've seen.

      Outside of my own buying habits, I can really only look back at my time with GS where you could almost always count on one hand the number of special editions people would buy for a title.

      Now DLC is something else. For a lot of companies, yes, I can see how that would bring up the overall price to a modern day equivalent. Though, what about the multiple other devs who release such content well after the point of release because that content legit wasn't apart of the original plan and budget of the game? For example, a majority of Nintendo's dlc really.

      I just feel like a lot of these things, for a lot of devs, aren't a clear cut monetary equalizer.

    11. KHCast


      You’re also forgetting the season pass which most of these AAA by way of normalization also have, so I’d still argue most AAA games feel like empty starter kits. Certainly in the way of most non console exclusives. Especially when again, companies blatantly admit to shareholders they can survive no problem without microtransactions. 

      You seem to be arguing by way of smaller publishers, publishers that aren’t the ones with grossly excessive controversial monetization on the level of a Warner Bros, Activision, Ubisoft, EA, etc. 

      Regarding Nintendo, they have consoles to sell so create console experiences that look enticing that draw people to buy a system. Occasional dlc is one thing, but why buy a switch for a game no different from fortnite, something I could play on my phone for free? 


      I wholeheartedly believe that if we’re heading towards monetizing strategies being the norm, games should just be free-to-start. Companies already go on about how much money they make from monetization, look at take two interactive bragging about GTAV online breaking records for them 

    12. Strickerx5


      Fair point, though I'd still argue that extra costs and effort still have to be put into that season pass content for a majority of devs, negating a lot of that gain. Sort of see it as merely a way to keep money coming in for a lot of devs while they're able to execute on a pre-established base. Though, of course, that's still extra money going into that one game so hey.

    13. KHCast


      It’s really a speculative point of argument at that point regarding the costs and justifications. I feel like if devs really did need these practices and instead didn't cave into consumer and legal pressures so easily regarding loot boxes, the thing they strongly defended for the longest time, they’d have by now given us concrete numbers and evidence to argue the case for them. But they haven’t. So it doesn’t look well for them, especially when even game developers admit these decisions usually come from upper management to the lower staffs grief. (Especially considering those profits don’t trickle down, they usually go to the higher ups. So it’s not to their benefit or the benefit of the company itself.)

  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.