Does TFP like to create S-storms?

[pApA^LeGBa]

I don´t care a bit, but i just saw that outfit dlc´s are planned for this year. Roughly a year before they plan on having an actual V1.0. You guys do know how that will end, right? And it doesn´t matter if they are free or not. If they aren´t free the storm will just be a lot bigger.

 

No need to give me the logic behind it. Loegic doesn´t  work in those situations and it´s not me complaining, i just see that S storm coming from miles away. I can basically smell the torches and see the pitchforks already.

 

And you may ask now, but why isn´t there already one if it is on the roadmap? Propably because half of the players don´t even know it exists and the other half looked at it like 10 times and a lot still didn´t see it.

 

Why is there such a @%$#ty resolution roadmap pic posted on their website btw? I had to zoom out to 300% and could barely read the small text due to the low resolution making it blurry. 

Edited August 15 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[InfiniteWarrior]

52 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

I don´t care a bit

Then...why are you posting about it?

I do care because I think "in game store"(s) and micro/macrotransactions but, especially, so-called "live service" is ruining what was once a fun and interesting hobby and sincerely hope TFP don't plan to go that way. They've got to make money just to stay in business, of course, ntm make enough of a salary not to have to go back to the corporate daily grind. I totally get that, but don't think "paid DLCs," unless they're actually extensive expansions to the game (as "DLC" once was known), is the way to go. 

The game is designed to run on community run servers as opposed to a central server with all the psyops in place to make playing video games nothing more than an exercise in self-defense. Now, Rick has said he doesn't like what some of the publishers and triple As are doing in this department. That'd be putting it mildly for me. They're literally preying on people's psychological vulnerabilities and genuine love for various franchises to make obscene levels of profit for execs and investors without putting forth much of any effort whatsoever. Even so-called "cosmetic" stuff, like skins and these new armor models, don't require as much work to produce as is being overcharged for such things. So, they fall into the category of ideas that have been normalized in the industry to the detriment of both players and studios in my book.

It's their business. They can run it however they like, but -- given that they've not not lowered themselves to that kind of psychological warfare to date and developer-community (especially modding community) relations are pretty good -- the backlash is bound to be pretty massive if they do. May wisdom prevail.

Edited August 15 by InfiniteWarrior (see edit history)

[theFlu]

1 hour ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

No need to give me the logic behind it.

The only "acceptable" logic I can come up with would be something like the console publishing refusing updates, but being fine with DLC. I doubt that's the case.

 

Outfit DLC sounds like one of those "relatively harmless" ways to earn a couple extra thousand bucks; so I can't really blame them for not leaving free money on the table, it'd be stupid. But it does taste ... a lil funky. Not quite like zombie bear, but a bit like lake water...

[Vaeliorin]

2 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

Roughly a year before they plan on having an actual V1.0.

I said when they decided alpha 22 was going to be 1.0 that one of the possible reasons was that they didn't want to pull an Ark and sell DLC before actual release, so I can't really say I'm surprised.

[Roland]

2 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

You guys do know how that will end, right? And it doesn´t matter if they are free or not. If they aren´t free the storm will just be a lot bigger.

Why are you so bad at predicting supposed s-storms? I’m sure the reaction to outfit DLCs will be similar to the tempests in a tea kettle of “1.0” and “$44.99”. Even the s-storms of “lbd no more” and “empty jars bye bye” and “learn by reading” were just s-drizzles in the overall perception of the game. 
 

Will there be negative posts about the outfit DLC when it comes? Undoubtedly. All the people who don’t care will come to rage about it just like all the people who already owned the game came to rage about the price increase but it will be a drop in the overall bucket of players who will happily pay for the new outfits and make it a great success. A success storm. 
 

The people who will be the most angry are the PvPers who will call it a pay to win DLC but for the rest of the player base who play solo or cooperatively they’ll get it if they want it or ignore it as it won’t really matter how they compare with other players. 

[InfiniteWarrior]

2 hours ago, theFlu said:

"relatively harmless"

I'm sure someone somewhere (or, more probably, a lot of someones somewheres) had that to say about the $10 horse armor that started the ignomious trend in mainstream games in the first place. The "free to play" mobile game influence has been huge as well as the MMO gold rush of slot machine style "RNG". As long as players stick their heads in the sand and continue to allow the plague of institutionalized greed that's taken over the industry to prevail, it will. I'd like to see some studios stand up to the "higher ups" calling these shots as well, though that's far less likely to happen. Larian and, I think, CD Projekt Red have made statements to the effect that they will not be doing it themselves, but the pressure from "on high" is tremendous, I'm sure, and studios are cracking under it. Personally, I think they could do with some moral support from players themselves. Without a budget, no game is made, but without the games, the publishers and console manufacturers would have nothing to exploit. And there we are at what I think is a critical juncture for video game development and the future of gaming in general. 

[Krougal]

Yeah, I fail to see what the big crisis is here. That ship sailed long ago with the horse armor like the guy above me said.

Blame @%$#house Bethesda, home of incompetent coders and greedy @%$#s, although I gotta give them props for content.

I mean even if they make the DLC some overpowered crap that does make it pay to win, the highly modable nature of this game means individual server owners could nerf it as they please.

[Arez]

12 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

plague of institutionalized greed

That's called "business". Companies need to make money. And if they're public, they need to make even more. Companies would fail if they weren't greedy.  There's no way around it. This is something that does not change overnight. And even if it does, like with a revolution, it still ends up going back to the way it was...or sometimes worse. Though I do believe there is a more utopian future for us. But we, our kids and even our grandkid's grandkids probably won't be alive long enough to see it. 

4 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

S storm

Everything causes a s#!t storm with gamers now. There are too many entitled little b@$tards infesting the internet with their mountain-out-of-molehill complaints. Personally, I don't give a flying fudge about DLCs. I make my own DLCs. And I got one coming up that is going to knock my own socks off. 

[InfiniteWarrior]

3 minutes ago, Krougal said:

Blame Bethesda

It's obviously not just Bethesda, which is why I call it institutionalized greed. It's baked into the economic system itself. CEOs must show a profit to shareholders; If they don't show a profit, they're fired, but so-called "consumers" (human beings, actually) are largely struggling just to get by. Any sense of personal responsibility -- from publishers/console manufacturers to shareholders to studios to players -- is "lost in the impersonal anonymity of the corporate economic system," to quote a seminal essay by David Loy on the grander scheme of things. Doesn't mean it can't change.

8 minutes ago, Arez said:

That's called "business".

It's not ethical business. Make no mistake. You'll not find any diatribes against capitalism, for example, anywhere in my personal repetoir because capitalism isn't the problem. Ideologies in themselves are never, ever the problem. The problem is that "human consiousness has become so diffused as to be lost in the impersonal anonymity of the corporate economic system," as Loy put it.

[Old Crow]

6 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

Why is there such a @%$#ty resolution roadmap pic posted on their website btw? I had to zoom out to 300% and could barely read the small text due to the low resolution making it blurry. 

 

Yeah, it almost feels like they don't want people to read it. Or just didn't bother thinking "hey, people might want to read it."

[Arez]

21 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

It's not ethical business.

Ethics are subjective. "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs", as François de Charette put it.

If an asteroid slammed into Earth and killed everybody tomorrow, would you say that asteroid was unethical? No. You would say that it was nature. But aren't we part of nature? 

[theFlu]

6 hours ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

continue to allow the plague of institutionalized greed

That's a bit of a stretch for my abilities thou; already gave them my 10 bucks and I ain't buying DLC. But without me buying em, there's always someone who will anyway. There's nothing I can do to disallow it.

 

Profit skews the actions of corpos, certainly; I do agree with you on the corrupt nature of such "sales". But to frame it as exploiting the already struggling, well, if you're struggling, your situation won't improve via 7dtd DLC, one could even argue 7dtd shouldn't be on your radar, much less in your shopping cart. The target audience is people with expendable income, not the homeless.

[Krougal]

7 hours ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

It's obviously not just Bethesda, which is why I call it institutionalized greed. It's baked into the economic system itself. CEOs must show a profit to shareholders; If they don't show a profit, they're fired, but so-called "consumers" (human beings, actually) are largely struggling just to get by. Any sense of personal responsibility -- from publishers/console manufacturers to shareholders to studios to players -- is "lost in the impersonal anonymity of the corporate economic system," to quote a seminal essay by David Loy on the grander scheme of things. Doesn't mean it can't change.

It's not ethical business. Make no mistake. You'll not find any diatribes against capitalism, for example, anywhere in my personal repetoir because capitalism isn't the problem. Ideologies in themselves are never, ever the problem. The problem is that "human consiousness has become so diffused as to be lost in the impersonal anonymity of the corporate economic system," as Loy put it.

We're all part of it though, and if you aren't yet, someday you will be when you grow-up and get your life together.

Who are the greedy shareholders? We are. Anyone with a 401k. I am not investing in who I think are nice people or because of their carbon footprint or any other bull@%$#, I don't GAF. I hope to turn my savings into something to retire on. I am investing in you to make a profit and nothing else. With the current rate of inflation, that means saving as much as I can, squeezing as much profit out of it, and likely moving to some poor Eastern European country where I might be able to live decently.

Everybody shouting about how bad corporate greed is or who think communism is such a wonderful thing (and let me tell you it ain't)

 

As far as DLC, if they want anymore money from me, they need to make a mod to the gyrocopter to play "Ride of the Valkyries" and maybe mount a machine gun. Oh, and rockets. Definitely rockets. I would buy that.

 

Edited August 15 by Krougal (see edit history)

[meganoth]

Bethesda's horse armor created a small hole in the dam, but ultimately all AAA companies including Bethesda destroyed that dam completely with further actions and new payment models. And lets not forget the players who supported this trend with their hunger for loot boxes and >100 mio. graphics monsters at the same price as last century.

 

Cosmetic mini-DLCs are a practice that anyone from smallest indie developer to AAA does nowadays, generally the "front" of acceptable behaviour for games companies has long moved past that point.

Sure, TFP is doing it at a time when they talk about release version 1.0 on one side and "still unfinished alpha" when it suits them. But I would assume that someone showed them statistics that DLCs will only sell well a few months after release. And for the majority of console players that release would have been 1 month ago. So it may be a case of do it now or never.

 

7D2D was an unexpected and huge success. But it also has acrued a huge development bill in its 10 years and in hindsight it was available at a bargain price for too long. Most players probably payed less than $10 at a steam sale for it.

 

In short, I may not like this move but I also got this game too cheap for what I got out of it, and I hesitate to demand moral standards from TFP that would cost them an opportunity to make money and that the industry as a whole does not follow anymore, including most of the players.

 

 

[8_Hussars]

2 hours ago, Krougal said:

As far as DLC, if they want anymore money from me, they need to make a mod to the gyrocopter to play "Ride of the Valkyries" and maybe mount a machine gun. Oh, and rockets. Definitely rockets. I would buy that.

And sharks with friken laser beams attached to their heads...

Edited August 15 by 8_Hussars (see edit history)

[Urban Blackbear]

DLC Outfits don't really bother me. Nobody is forced to buy them and they have little impact on the game itself. What bothers me is when companies close support for games and all those DLCs and add-ons just vanish like a $10 whore into the night. I have a GOTY Fallout 3 Edition for the XBox and the @%$#ing DLC disc doesn't work anymore. The DLC is still there in the store but the disc doesn't give it to me any longer. That's some @%$#. Games as a service is a model that I believe will eventually bite the gaming industry in the ass. I don't bother with any kind of special editions anymore because the stuff they come with, especially "digital extras" will disappear on you eventually. It's a toss up on whether or not the game itself will be available in 10 or 20 years.

[Slingblade2040]

Not shocked by the outfit stuff but this means that transmogs are possible or it could be new armor with buffs that if you want you better pay up. 

 

Seriously what do they mean by outfits if currently we have no outfits in the game aside from the armor we have which has buffs. 

 

I'm hoping this means we can transmog outfits but considering this is TFP I won't be shocked if it's paid DLC gear. 

[Arez]

Games used to cost the same now, or even more, all the way back in the 80s. That means the average game would cost over $170 now. 

 

The death of a game is inevitable. Even if it's a physical copy. The only difference is one takes longer than another. Discs get scratched, degrade, won't read, cartridge connections get corroded, etc. And most people are not storing their stuff under optimal conditions. 

 

Transformers Devastation was amazing. I had it for the 360. Two years later I got a gaming PC and wanted to buy it on Steam. It was literally delisted a week prior. The game only lasted for 2 years. Activision's Transformers license expired.

 

Friday the 13th: The Game had a 7 year run. For a Jason fan, the game was great. Their license expired last year. The game was delisted. At the end of this year, the servers are going to shut down. Now, I stopped playing PvP a long time ago. But playing as Jason against bots every so often was enough for me. Their servers control a player's progress. So when they go down, even against bots, you could only play as two Jasons. All the others will be locked because you initially had to unlock them with your progress. 

 

There's some petition for not letting games die. It's gotten a lot of attention. Pirate Software (the game developer and streamer/Youtuber) doesn't like it and says it would basically kill the gaming industry. 

 

For any of this stuff to change like a lot of people want it to, society would need to be rewritten. Things at that scale do not change anywhere close to quick. Think of a boat. The bigger it is, the slower it turns. It could never do a split second 180.

3 minutes ago, Arez said:

Games used to cost the same now, or even more, all the way back in the 80s. That means the average game would cost over $170 now. 

 

The death of a game is inevitable. Even if it's a physical copy. The only difference is one takes longer than another. Discs get scratched, degrade, won't read, cartridge connections get corroded, etc. And most people are not storing their stuff under optimal conditions. 

 

Transformers Devastation was amazing. I had it for the 360. Two years later I got a gaming PC and wanted to buy it on Steam. It was literally delisted a week prior. The game only lasted for 2 years. Activision's Transformers license expired.

 

Friday the 13th: The Game had a 7 year run. For a Jason fan, the game was great. Their license expired last year. The game was delisted. At the end of this year, the servers are going to shut down. Now, I stopped playing PvP a long time ago. But playing as Jason against bots every so often was enough for me. Their servers control a player's progress. So when they go down, even against bots, you could only play as two Jasons. All the others will be locked because you initially had to unlock them with your progress. 

 

There's some petition for not letting games die. It's gotten a lot of attention. Pirate Software (the game developer and streamer/Youtuber) doesn't like it and says it would basically kill the gaming industry. 

 

For any of this stuff to change like a lot of people want it to, society would need to be rewritten. Things at that scale do not change anywhere close to quick. Think of a boat. The bigger it is, the slower it turns. It could never do a split second 180.

  

14 minutes ago, Slingblade2040 said:

I'm hoping this means we can transmog outfits but considering this is TFP I won't be shocked if it's paid DLC gear. 

What evidence of their business practices do you have to think that?

 

15 minutes ago, Slingblade2040 said:

Not shocked by the outfit stuff but this means that transmogs are possible or it could be new armor with buffs that if you want you better pay up. 

 

Seriously what do they mean by outfits if currently we have no outfits in the game aside from the armor we have which has buffs. 

 

I'm hoping this means we can transmog outfits but considering this is TFP I won't be shocked if it's paid DLC gear. 

 

Why can I only edit a post once? 

This needs to change or I'm writing my congress person!

Wait, but I can keep adding to the same post?

What's going on here?!?!

 

This post is so sloppy.

Some please delete the whole thing. It's making me sick.

 

Now there's a typo I can't fix. 

Where's my medication?

[Suxar]

12 minutes ago, Arez said:

The death of a game is inevitable. Even if it's a physical copy. The only difference is one takes longer than another. Discs get scratched, degrade, won't read, cartridge connections get corroded, etc. And most people are not storing their stuff under optimal conditions. 

 

I still play Master of Orion II sometimes. It came out in 1996.
Just because you can't save a copy doesn't mean others can't.

[Riamus]

I don't really see the problem with cosmetic DLC.  So what if they make some armor that you can buy?  If you don't want to spend the money, don't.  No one will force you to do so.  You can mod armor in this game, which means if you see new armor that offer bonuses that you want, just put those bonuses on the existing armor instead of buying new armor.  Sure, it means you need to use a mod instead of a DLC.  Sure, it means you don't get to wear that specific outfit and look that way, but if you don't want to spend the money, that's the choice to have to make.  And yes, console doesn't get to use mods, so they have little choice if they want the armor bonuses, but that's also the reality of playing on console instead of PC and that is also a choice.

 

I do start to have issues with paid DLC that feel required and aren't actual expansions.  But that's not what TFP is talking about here.

 

As far as games disappearing over time... yeah, it happens.  If you buy a game that requires any form of online connection, you're probably going to lose access to that game in the future.  But that isn't new.  Go back to a game requiring an online connection/server from the developers that was made in the 90s and unless they made it possible to create your own servers or removed the online requirement before stopping the game, you can't play that anymore either.  I think developers should remove online requirements and allow creation of player run servers when they stop supporting their games, but very often, they are going under themselves at that point and can't afford even that much development cost.

[Urban Blackbear]

There are plenty of people and organizations that practice game preservation. It's simply not in any of the big publishers or platforms interests. Why continue to keep an OG game preserved, when they can sell new versions of it every couple of years. Look at how many editions of Skyrim have been published. I myself have nearly the entire NES, SNES, SEGA, PSX, and PS2 library and I still play them as frequently as I play modern games. Possibly more frequently since modern games have become so homogenized that entire genres have disappeared. All of those consoles still work as well. I even have them archived and play them on emulators as well.  It's only modern consoles that seem to brick every other year. Games that do not have a physical release are doomed to nonexistence far quicker than any other type of published game. You also cannot preserve a game that checks in with a server whether it needs to or not if there is no longer am authentication server.

[ElCabong]

No matter what they do there's always going to be a certain number of people who  hate the changes and want to go back to the old way of doing things.

 

I hope that with next release we finally a snowstorm in the forest biome and that comes from somebody who hates getting rained on even when it doesn't really do anything for now

[Syphon583]

Hmm, this is fairly simple. If it's free, I'll download it. Otherwise I'm not touching it. Same with every other game out there. And that's not going to change my opinion of the game because I couldn't give two Fs about extra outfits. It's likely cosmetic, and even if it isn't, I still don't care.

 

Editing to say that, in general, I have no issue with developers who charge money for DLCs. That's their choice and if gamers find value in the content, more power to them if that's what they want to spend money on. Developers spent resources to make the content and deserve to benefit from that work. The only caveat I have is that the DLC should not be paid if it is part of base/promised gameplay features (in that case, it shouldn't be labeled as DLC at all). As far as I'm concerned, "outfits" are not a core gameplay feature of 7DTD and they already have stated that a new "wardrobe" system is coming in a future update that I don't believe was labeled as DLC.

 

This is not nearly as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

Edited August 15 by Syphon583 (see edit history)

[YourMirror]

No, but you do.

[InfiniteWarrior]

9 hours ago, Arez said:

Ethics are subjective.

Business ethics are social as they involve "employees, customers, society, the environment, shareholders and stakeholders" (actually, human beings all), not personal moral codes. The comparison of human beings to asteroids is...well, too absurd to approach, really. Not saying you're absurd, just the asteroid example.

 

5 hours ago, Krougal said:

Everybody shouting about how bad corporate greed is or who think communism is such a wonderful thing (and let me tell you it ain't)

 

Not getting into so-called "politics" here. As I specifically stated, you'll hear no such diatribes about ideologies from me. Politics as practiced today is a symptom of the dis-ease, not the dis-ease itself and proof positive in my sight of what Jean Gebser termed the deficient mode of the "mental consciousness structure." (Just in case anyone cares to read up on that, Gebser's magnum opus is titled 'The Ever-Present Origin'.) I'm convinced that it will take a transformation of human consciousness -- a leap in the maturation or evolution of the human species -- to resolve our "issues", a transformation or evolution of human consciousness that's always been in the works, is never complete and may very well abort, as Gebser warned. You can keep the attempted personal insults, of course. I say, attempted, because they failed.