QDP2's Avatar

QDP2 profile

863

QDP2 has recently been playing PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

Currently Playing
Most played
Dark Souls III icon

Dark Souls III

4 days 23 hours


Braneman Avatar
Braneman responded to QDP2's comment in
5 Days ago
Battlefront 2 once featured an Overwatch-style mode with cosmetic loot boxesBattlefront 2 once featured an Overwatch-style mode with cosmetic loot boxes
QDP2 Avatar

I'm not trying to defend the decision to put statistical buffs behind micro-transactions. They made BF2 the literal definition of pay-to-win (the main reason I haven't considered buying the game).


The decision to drop loot box sales (and income) to repair the community backlash though? I'll give credit where it's due. This was the best scenario possible for gamers at the moment. This is the end of my complements for EA though, and the beginning of my skepticism.


If you read my original comment you'll notice I still think they'll put themselves first in the long run, but they won't be as blatant as they were on release.


The entire idea of loot boxes over DLC is a good way for them to earn more money. More people will start to invest if the first barrier is lower (1, 5, I assume 10 loot boxes are still cheaper than an average DLC these days). The lower the price and the greater the reward, the more likely people return and pay more. Addicted investors will keep buying the loot boxes till they have everything (far more income than DLCs) whilst those that previously didn't want to invest £40+ on Expansion Passes will now be tricked into spending more slowly through £2-£10 packages.


Statistically speaking its a flat-out win for EA. It would have been a win for customers too, if only they hadn't imbalanced the game to give payers a literal advantage. Give them skins, or let them unlock kit faster. But don't allow their rockets to shoot further, to come off cool-down faster, or deal more damage. By giving abilities 'levels' to progress through forces people who dont want to invest to either specify into 1 roll or to be at a disadvantage to others. The ideal way to remove satisfying competition from the game.


We can hope customer complaints continue to the point that they re-balance to remove the stronger P2W aspects, but odds are against it. Either they find a way to earn their money, or costs will be cut with DLCs being shortened/rushed out the doors.

Reply
Braneman Avatar

Somebody calculated that to get everything you would have to spend thousands of hours or 2100$. How is that a better deal than 50$ for last year's season pass?

sign in to comment
QDP2 Avatar
QDP2 commented on
6 Days ago
PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds takes PC Game of the Year at the Golden JoysticksPlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds takes PC Game of the Year at the Golden Joysticks
QDP2 Avatar
From a general perspective (and I understand I may get shot for saying this on a PC website) I'd argue that GOTY is split between Super Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild. Nintendo really smashed the park this year, and this is from the opinion of someone who doesn't own a Switch.

Looking at the mainline consoles + PC market; AC:O is more of the same no matter how you look at it. Refreshing changes, but its still Assassin's Creed. Same goes for Dishonored 2 and RE7. PUBG is pretty much H1Z1 if it had been built correctly from the start. Still waiting for a title with higher server tick-rates, but that's still a fair decade away based off server and internet restrictions.

Then we can turn across to Nintendo's offerings. BotW reworks Zelda into a true open-world environment. It steps outside of key characteristics of the series, yet keeps its adventure heritage (almost as if they turned back to the original Zelda's freedom of choice). Interactivity between elements is stronger than any other RPG we've seen.

These strengths also carried over to the latest Mario. It's worth looking at GMTK's video on the tools Nintendo employed in the latest title even if, like me, you're not a fan of Mario. Their ability to build a consistent world with simple tools, no overloading menus or tool-wheels, but still give you so much creative freedom how you approach each task; is truly incredible.

Nothing on the mainstream market has been able to compete with the ingenuity Nintendo brought to the table this year. Depressingly I see PUBG having more of a chance to win thanks to its current popularity (although BotW did turn may heads on release, it stands a chance). Either way, I look forward to the live stream!
sign in to comment
Braneman Avatar
Braneman responded to QDP2's comment in
6 Days ago
Battlefront 2 once featured an Overwatch-style mode with cosmetic loot boxesBattlefront 2 once featured an Overwatch-style mode with cosmetic loot boxes
QDP2 Avatar
Probably the best move they could have made right now. Gonna cost them hard, but a strong show they'll put the gamer first.

Awesome to see they'll vacuum the room, take away the air to put out the fire; and that'll work whilst they're still living off game sales profits. Damage is dealt already with the bad publicity, but this should help a bit.

Question is what comes next. Since they're not selling DLC, the packs need to come back at some point, and fairly hard. My first guess would be a re-release of boxes at cheaper prices, to then over the following months decrease the % drop rates of mid-high tear cards. That would avoid the bad publicity (stats would check and find all is fine) but over time drive up sales again, keeping the game profitable.

On the other side of this depressing coin, all games development companies will have taken note of this. EAs grand attempt to replace DLC charges with micro-transactions didn't work, so DLCs and Expansion passes are here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.Reply
Braneman Avatar

They aren't putting the gamer first. If they were putting the gamer first they wouldn't have to try and put out this dumpster fire in the first place.

sign in to comment
QDP2 Avatar
QDP2 responded to Ali Jones comment in
1 Week ago
You earn League of Legends' new currency faster than you thinkYou earn League of Legends' new currency faster than you think
Ali Jones Avatar

As far as I can tell, the 'random champion' token can only sell you champions you don't own, much the same as the re-roll system could only roll you champions you didn't own. It seems like a pretty good idea, especially for people who'll only want to buy the newest champ, but it's definitely annoying that they've removed re-rolls.

QDP2 Avatar

They left a note in the warning panel 2-3 days ago saying they raised the price of the mystery champion token, also raising the minimum IP value of these mystery champions. Whilst I can't remember the exact wording anymore, they said it in such a way as to clarify it's limited to champions you don't own. Good news.


The way league has worked before with these deals (previously if you re-rolled 3 champs when you owned all champs) is to give you an unlocked champion shard of a random champion that you do own. I've assumed it's the same with the mystery champion token in the store now, but after a BE spending spree I don't have enough to mess around buying champ tokens (Riot have previously stated champ tokens and boxes content are decided on moment of purchase, so buying a token now wouldn't get me Zoe come her release).


I feel more confident now that champs will still be cheap enough to keep unlocking on release, but I'll return and say for certain come her release.

sign in to comment
Ali Jones Avatar
Ali Jones responded to QDP2's comment in
1 Week ago
You earn League of Legends' new currency faster than you thinkYou earn League of Legends' new currency faster than you think
QDP2 Avatar
They've successfully melted the pockets of heavy-LoL players. By offering high-priced Emotes, Wards, Skins, Chromas, random wards and icons; they're burning through most stockpiles that've been build. When combining that with the reduced income at higher levels, I presume they're hoping that the lack of IP will persuade people to spend money on similar packet drops like the Urfwick this year?

Owning all of LoL's champion pool, my main worry at the moment is the removal of champ shard re-rolls. I hadn't heard this till the patch hit unfortunately, so the 3 shards I was saving to reroll into Zoe were wasted shards now being worth less BE than before (note for those who didn't know, re-rolling 3 champ shards guaranteed a champion you didn't own, was the cheapest way to unlock any champion over 5100 IP). I hope that the 'random champion' bundle guarentees a champion you don't own, but I can't really check it until Zoe releases. If it's not the case then new champions will be more expensive for high-level players to unlock than before now. Maybe another money venture, hoping medium-level players will spend RP to play new champions now that they've burned there BE on wards icons and emotes? Only time will tell.Reply
Ali Jones Avatar

As far as I can tell, the 'random champion' token can only sell you champions you don't own, much the same as the re-roll system could only roll you champions you didn't own. It seems like a pretty good idea, especially for people who'll only want to buy the newest champ, but it's definitely annoying that they've removed re-rolls.

sign in to comment
QDP2 Avatar
QDP2 commented on
1 Week ago
EA cut your Star Wars: Battlefront 2 campaign reward to account for cheaper heroesEA cut your Star Wars: Battlefront 2 campaign reward to account for cheaper heroes
QDP2 Avatar
I'm not sure what sense of achievement or satisfaction EA think you'll get in spending hours upon hours of gameplay currency on a hero that others could unlock in under 10 minutes with money.
I tried to find validity through comparison: League of Legends champions take similar lengths of time (would estimate anywhere between 3-20 hours for a specific champion). Main difference is that you cannot learn every champion in LoL, there is literally too much. You need to stick to a few, so limiting the play pool encourages mastery (also, from a personal perspective I held no sense of achievement unlocking a new champion in LoL, only excitement to get to play it).
How about CoD weapons? They're locked behind in-game levels so you need to work towards them. That said, there's no way (to my knowledge) to buy the leveling weapons. It also displays your rank/level so people can still see your investment into the game.
Theres only 1 category of items I can attach a sense of achievement too, end-game unpurchasable equipment. This pay-to-earn method would be like if Bungie made Destiny's latest veteran raid gear available in the shop for £15. Way to insult those who work hard for their gear by saying they're equal to those with deep pockets.
If you want to give a sense of achievement then put content behind quests, missions or actual achievements! EA know this but they'll ignore it for the basis of money. They won't change it much either, since they need this increased income to be able to give away DLC for free.
sign in to comment
Anakhoresis Avatar
Anakhoresis responded to QDP2's comment in
1 Week ago
RPG players don't like paying for their DLC, according to a survey from ObsidianRPG players don't like paying for their DLC, according to a survey from Obsidian
QDP2 Avatar

Apologies but I’m not entirely sure if I follow you correctly, I presume when you talk about gameplay-less DLCs you mean patches/updates that add micro-transaction content to the game?

Whilst technically speaking skins or updates are a form of content, I’d argue that these micro-transactions are nothing more than that, places for people to invest into the game. These would include things like Destiny 1 (and 2 I believe)’s Silver, Star Wars: Battlefront 2’s loot boxes, AC Origins shops weapons/armour and League of Legends skins. It’d also argue they’re not DLC, as rarely do you have to download any files to open/use the microtransaction items (instead being locked files already in the game).

I’ve never really worried over these micro-transactions either, as I’ve managed to resist purchasing any packs I regret. There are always prices you look at and question ‘why’, but others who love the game decide they want to invest that much into the title they really enjoy. For purchasable rewards to exist at the higher boundaries makes sense for me, so long as they don’t disadvantage those that don’t pay (something that the community has recently picked up on and started to complain about).

I believed that the community (and gaming companies) had reached a consensus in this decision, and had also adjusted their usage of the term ‘DLC’, reserving it to cover ‘Expansion Packs’ only. Am I wrong in this assumption? Off the top of my head I can’t think of any companies that are happy to name their small updates and skins as DLCs, but I’m all-ears to titles or names.

Reply
Anakhoresis Avatar

I'm just going off that it's all categorised as "DLC" under Steam, and I know I've read news releases that will say "New DLC for [game]" and it's a skin pack (Rocket League is an example of this). I'm not aware that there's been some sort of official categorisation.


As to whether it 'actually' has to be downloaded or not is up to the developer, really, there are plenty of games that download the content regardless of whether you've paid to 'add' it, so I wouldn't think that's a good metric for classification. I believe Forza Horizon 3 does this with its expansions (could be wrong, I'll find out tomorrow), as an example.

sign in to comment
Adarion29 Avatar
Adarion29 responded to QDP2's comment in
1 Week ago
Assassin's Creed Origins' anti-tamper tech has "no effect" on performanceAssassin's Creed Origins' anti-tamper tech has "no effect" on performance
QDP2 Avatar

Cracks bypass features. Being encoded in binary there's no way to literally remove the DRM (short of hacking into Ubisoft's servers and stealing a DRM-free version of the game). Instead it'll do the same as all the rest of the Denuvo-cracked titles, avoid the security switch from picking up the copy is stolen. It'll still run in the background and slow down the PC just as much as it does in a legitimate copy of the game. Whether or not that is the suggested 40% is hard to tell.


Entertainingly Ubisoft replied saying there's no problems for frame-rate when accounting the games goal of a steady 30fps experience (which is true, most CPUs rarely hurt the frame-rate further than an average 30fps). At the same time they posted on the Bugs post that they're researching into the CPU consumption and are looking into/working on a fix.


Not sure why it's setting out to contradict itself, saying there's no problem but we're working on it anyway. Their approach feels like a car mechanic telling the owner that the tire hasn't got a puncture, the car still drives perfectly fine at 30mph. We'll send out a mechanic next week to take a look anyway, but I don't see any problems.

Reply
Adarion29 Avatar

I Guess we have to wait for physical decacore processor, this optimisation is a shame. Ac origin is one of the few recent games that can crash your entire pc (personnally it happened to 4 or 5 times mostly because I was playing a video at the same time) , so Ubisoft's post is a really bad joke

sign in to comment
QDP2 Avatar
QDP2 commented on
1 Week ago
RPG players don't like paying for their DLC, according to a survey from ObsidianRPG players don't like paying for their DLC, according to a survey from Obsidian
QDP2 Avatar
People's opinion in paper and statistics behind them do vary quite heavily. Take Question 5 from the report; "How important is each of the following factors in your decision to purchase a given DLC?", Over 60% of players state that a "Short time between base game launch and DLC release" is not important to them. But statistics say otherwise. There's a reason large companies plan out small DLC packs so soon after release. It drags people back into the game if they'd turned away for a bit. Notable DLCs get media-space, increasing sales where the game already holds lots of popularity and attention.

Larger companies realised that time-restricted content is an even better way to hook players. There's a reason AC;Origins has the Trials of the Gods so soon after launch. Not only does it give a reason for people to buy the game now, but it gives retention to the playerbase of the game. It makes owners desire to continue playing regularly enough to beat all the time-exclusive bosses, by which point there'll be paid DLC out. If DLC releases for a title you're actively playing, you are far more likely to be willing to shell out cash to enjoy it, rather than wait 6 months for it to turn up on discount.

I reckon (although I can't back the following up with any data or facts) that the DLC complaint is also just as flawed as the DLC-delay question. I mean when you ask the public about there ideals and desires, they'll always tell you that they want a fully-fleshed out game, lots of content to enjoy and expansion passes to be offered free. Being a single-player and RPG-heavy review crowd, I'd suggest there dislike for DLC is based off the genre's almost-enforcement of DLCs over the last few years. Players are split whether or not they want it (good games get arguments over why there isn't DLC, vs poor games get shredded for charging too much in expansion passes). When looking generally people will always say that prices are too high and content is too little, but that's how greed works.

Being in the UK, I personally relate game-value to its hour count. I get that length does by no-way mean that I'll enjoy a video game any more, but it allows me to stop myself from buying games too short to feel satisfied from (if I'll get fewer hours of fun than pounds I spent, I'll generally avoid it until it's on discount within my desires). The other advantage of this viewpoint is it lets me directly compare value of game to DLC. Sure, it may not cost the same to make 20 hours of DLC onto a 20 hour-long game (the former costing more to design the game-engine, sort shaders, lighting, development tools, etc.) but from a player perspective it is literally twice the game. By definition games are designed to be enjoyed, should a developer add 20 hours of content to their title (and reviews read positive) I will feel confident that it will be 20 hours of fun with the level of entertainment being at the least equal to the main game's offering. With this it's easy again to draw a line and say the DLC is worth X much then, and over the last year I've personally found DLCs and Expansion Packs to be fairly good value. Especially when you account for the discount purchasing game + DLC together. There are always outliers to this general opinion, some companies will keep trying to abuse wallets with a quick cash-grab, but in general I'd argue we're in a satisfactory place for content prices at the moment.

EDIT: Oops, I realise now I wrote more than the article itself :P Shout out to those who read this in it's entirety and apologies to any comments that get hidden behind this Thesis of a post. Maybe a suggestion to a future comment update: Hide parts of comments when they're too long (and add a 'Read More' button)? Not exactly important a feature, but could be a good QoL improvement to the website.
sign in to comment
QDP2 Avatar
QDP2 commented on
1 Week ago
Here's every new rune coming to League of LegendsHere's every new rune coming to League of Legends
QDP2 Avatar
AP champs feel broken this patch thanks to MR runes being so expensive to spec into. My last game I was up against a 4-AD team (with only a Sona support) yet she could do 1/3+ of my health bar with A Q-AA against my HP-scaling Camille build (all the damage she had was Ardent...)

It was bad enough mid-late when you had 45-50MR, now ADCs average 37 with MR being so expensive to place points into. Add Sorc. boots and that drops to 21 (with Void staff + Sorc boots effective MR drops to 4; basically dealing true damage!)
sign in to comment
QDP2 Avatar
QDP2 replied to 8 questions on the Surgeon Simulator 2013 Review
1 Year ago
Surgeon Simulator 2013 review snippet How gory is Surgeon Simulator 2013?
Not bad after the 1st couple of transplants.
sign in to comment
QDP2 Avatar
QDP2 replied to 8 questions on the League of Legends Review
2 Years ago
League of Legends review snippet Which characters would you recommend to starting players?
Support is great if you have a friend who can play a crucial and talk you through your mistakes, but you'll have to be good friends and willing to accept where you're wrong to learn fast.
sign in to comment
QDP2 Avatar
QDP2 replied to 2 questions on the Broforce Review
2 Years ago
Broforce review snippet Does Broforce respect the military?
If you are questioning this game being offensive you probably shouldn't be playing it, as it certainly isn't meant to be taken seriously, or ever to be considered like real-life xD
sign in to comment
QDP2 Avatar
QDP2 replied to 9 questions on the Antichamber Review
2 Years ago
Antichamber review snippet What are gamers first impressions of Antichamber
By far my favourite mind game, brilliant challenge!
sign in to comment