Only timed battle passes manipulate you into playing it more than you enjoy it for. The ones in Helldivers 2 never expire so if you were to get bored of the game you can just stop playing. Then come back to the game a year later and continue on where you left off.
They have rewards tied to grinding out the game’s content as opposed to just buying the rewards directly to play with in the game’s content, right? I’d say that’s the difference. In Magicka, I bought costumes that had different gameplay mechanics tied to them, and I could use them right away. But for business reasons, live service games create incentives to keep you playing longer than you would otherwise.
They have rewards tied to… playing the game. Just like every other video game ever made. That’s how video games work. The only way for there to be “an incentive to keep playing beyond when you want to” is by making the additional content limited in time to generate FOMO or worry that you’ll have wasted your money… which in this case is not happening at all. There is no FOMO because you can buy any of the war bonds whenever you want, and complete them whenever you want. You paid money for something you will keep forever. That’s how it’s supposed to be. That is literally the best possible approach to new content. By your reasoning, every video game ever made is manipulative because they made the game and put… content in it to get you to play the game more than before you bought the game.
“Buying the rewards directly to play in the game” on the other hand is the wrong approach. Why would you prefer to play the game less? If you don’t want to be playing the game why are you spending more money on it?
Just because they removed the FOMO part doesn’t mean it isn’t manipulative, and this game is also online only, so by design, you will not keep it forever, once again, because that’s the business model of a live service game.
The game I’ve put the most time into, on Steam at least, is Skullgirls. It has no progression whatsoever. I play the same content over and over because I enjoy it. If you enjoy playing the same Helldivers II content over and over, awesome. These systems are designed to get people to play less content for more time though. Perhaps not you, if that content hasn’t worn out its welcome for you yet, but the person who would have otherwise put the game down earlier.
The person who put the game down earlier because they are bored of the game is not going to spend money on additional content that they aren’t interested in playing. And if they do, and have fun, then they aren’t being manipulated. They’re having fun with a product they purchased (just like all video games). Removing the FOMO part absolutely means it isn’t manipulative because that is quite literally the only thing that makes battle passes manipulative in the first place. For you to argue against this is to argue that all video games are manipulative because they were all created to get you to play them more than before you were before you bought them.
The game I’ve put the most time into, on Steam at least, is Skullgirls. It has no progression whatsoever.
Not true, there are a couple of characters you unlock story modes for after beating it with other characters. Guess you’re being manipulated into playing the game more, huh?
This argument of yours is completely devoid of any rational thought.
No characters’ story modes are locked in Skullgirls. What are you talking about? You’re choosing not to see the game you like as having a manipulative business model. Why do you think the costumes in Magicka didn’t have a battle pass tied to them but Helldivers II does?
I’m forced to see the game’s lack of a manipulative business model due to the objective absence of any and all manipulation in the business model. I cannot choose to see something that isn’t there, in much the same way that I can’t choose to see the earth as being flat.
No characters’ story modes are locked in Skullgirls.
Both Double and Valentines story modes are locked until you complete the story mode of every single other non-dlc character.
Why do you think the costumes in Magicka didn’t have a battle pass tied to them but Helldivers II does?
Because progression and rewards are an integral part of video games and their appeal and have been since the early days of gaming. You unlock weapons, upgrades, and cosmetics in the base game of Helldivers 2 because it’s fun. Why on earth would they remove the progression systems for new content? Paid instant-unlock content for games is cheap and devalues the content itself. The gratification of using a cool skin you worked to unlock is intrinsically tied to the appeal of video games.
What you’re telling me here is that you would actually balk at one of the Skyrim DLCs like Dragonborn because in order to access the content inside of it you have to actually play the game that you like enough to pay for more content for, but when they released the “horse armor” DLC you looked at that and just said “Hell yeah”? If that is truly your opinion then so be it. But you need to understand that you are one of very few people who would hold it.
No, you’re misunderstanding my position entirely if you think Skyrim DLC applies here. Lots of games, especially multiplayer games, are built around repeating content but changing the variables in the middle of it. Eventually, and naturally, that will run out of gas for most, but you’ll still have die-hards stick around. The live service model, including battle passes, is meant to keep you playing past the point you’d have run out of gas because you’re so close to the next carrot on a stick.
When you buy Dragonborn, you’re getting new content that wasn’t there before, not just changing the variables in the middle of the same thing you’ve played. It doesn’t enhance the value of a new civilization in Civilization if I have to grind to unlock the thing I bought first; why would it enhance the value of a gun in Helldivers? If you want to play more Helldivers without that gun before they give you that gun, you can do that, and no one will stop you. The reason no one championed the horse armor in Skyrim is because it’s a horrendous value for the customer. To turn your own analogy back at you, would you be saying, “Hell yeah” if you had to grind more of the game you already had before it let you equip the horse armor? Does it suddenly become more valuable when they attach an objective to it that you wouldn’t have done before?
The totally benign reason to unlock content as you go in a game, when the business model doesn’t interfere with it, is to gradually introduce mechanics to the player. When you’re already at the point where you’re looking for expansion content, you’re choosing which content to add and at what pace. The grind is superficial, to keep more bodies logged into their server at once, because the live service model depends on it.
This has been a good discussion, and I agree a bit with both of you.
On one hand I agree that it’s part part of the game design to either have unlockables stuff or have access directly to it. And it can alter greatly how each designer and player approaches the game.
I don’t think it’s wrong either way but there are several examples in the industry where the design turns on greed mode and the gameplay feels second tought if at all. But that doesn’t mean if they are charging you, or you need to unlock it it’s automatically unfair.
I haven’t played Helldivers but for what I understand is a pve game in which you teamup to advance trough levels. For me it sounds fine that the progression is behind a grind. Although It could be even better to have it all unlocked, it could change the complete feeling of the game
On the other hand pvp games like Civilization, skull girls, should have either everything unlocked or a way to easily unlock it trough a little play. Since the appeal for me is for everyone to be on equal footing and just a display of skill.
Only timed battle passes manipulate you into playing it more than you enjoy it for. The ones in Helldivers 2 never expire so if you were to get bored of the game you can just stop playing. Then come back to the game a year later and continue on where you left off.
They have rewards tied to grinding out the game’s content as opposed to just buying the rewards directly to play with in the game’s content, right? I’d say that’s the difference. In Magicka, I bought costumes that had different gameplay mechanics tied to them, and I could use them right away. But for business reasons, live service games create incentives to keep you playing longer than you would otherwise.
They have rewards tied to… playing the game. Just like every other video game ever made. That’s how video games work. The only way for there to be “an incentive to keep playing beyond when you want to” is by making the additional content limited in time to generate FOMO or worry that you’ll have wasted your money… which in this case is not happening at all. There is no FOMO because you can buy any of the war bonds whenever you want, and complete them whenever you want. You paid money for something you will keep forever. That’s how it’s supposed to be. That is literally the best possible approach to new content. By your reasoning, every video game ever made is manipulative because they made the game and put… content in it to get you to play the game more than before you bought the game.
“Buying the rewards directly to play in the game” on the other hand is the wrong approach. Why would you prefer to play the game less? If you don’t want to be playing the game why are you spending more money on it?
Just because they removed the FOMO part doesn’t mean it isn’t manipulative, and this game is also online only, so by design, you will not keep it forever, once again, because that’s the business model of a live service game.
The game I’ve put the most time into, on Steam at least, is Skullgirls. It has no progression whatsoever. I play the same content over and over because I enjoy it. If you enjoy playing the same Helldivers II content over and over, awesome. These systems are designed to get people to play less content for more time though. Perhaps not you, if that content hasn’t worn out its welcome for you yet, but the person who would have otherwise put the game down earlier.
The person who put the game down earlier because they are bored of the game is not going to spend money on additional content that they aren’t interested in playing. And if they do, and have fun, then they aren’t being manipulated. They’re having fun with a product they purchased (just like all video games). Removing the FOMO part absolutely means it isn’t manipulative because that is quite literally the only thing that makes battle passes manipulative in the first place. For you to argue against this is to argue that all video games are manipulative because they were all created to get you to play them more than before you were before you bought them.
Not true, there are a couple of characters you unlock story modes for after beating it with other characters. Guess you’re being manipulated into playing the game more, huh?
This argument of yours is completely devoid of any rational thought.
No characters’ story modes are locked in Skullgirls. What are you talking about? You’re choosing not to see the game you like as having a manipulative business model. Why do you think the costumes in Magicka didn’t have a battle pass tied to them but Helldivers II does?
I’m forced to see the game’s lack of a manipulative business model due to the objective absence of any and all manipulation in the business model. I cannot choose to see something that isn’t there, in much the same way that I can’t choose to see the earth as being flat.
Both Double and Valentines story modes are locked until you complete the story mode of every single other non-dlc character.
Because progression and rewards are an integral part of video games and their appeal and have been since the early days of gaming. You unlock weapons, upgrades, and cosmetics in the base game of Helldivers 2 because it’s fun. Why on earth would they remove the progression systems for new content? Paid instant-unlock content for games is cheap and devalues the content itself. The gratification of using a cool skin you worked to unlock is intrinsically tied to the appeal of video games.
What you’re telling me here is that you would actually balk at one of the Skyrim DLCs like Dragonborn because in order to access the content inside of it you have to actually play the game that you like enough to pay for more content for, but when they released the “horse armor” DLC you looked at that and just said “Hell yeah”? If that is truly your opinion then so be it. But you need to understand that you are one of very few people who would hold it.
No, you’re misunderstanding my position entirely if you think Skyrim DLC applies here. Lots of games, especially multiplayer games, are built around repeating content but changing the variables in the middle of it. Eventually, and naturally, that will run out of gas for most, but you’ll still have die-hards stick around. The live service model, including battle passes, is meant to keep you playing past the point you’d have run out of gas because you’re so close to the next carrot on a stick.
When you buy Dragonborn, you’re getting new content that wasn’t there before, not just changing the variables in the middle of the same thing you’ve played. It doesn’t enhance the value of a new civilization in Civilization if I have to grind to unlock the thing I bought first; why would it enhance the value of a gun in Helldivers? If you want to play more Helldivers without that gun before they give you that gun, you can do that, and no one will stop you. The reason no one championed the horse armor in Skyrim is because it’s a horrendous value for the customer. To turn your own analogy back at you, would you be saying, “Hell yeah” if you had to grind more of the game you already had before it let you equip the horse armor? Does it suddenly become more valuable when they attach an objective to it that you wouldn’t have done before?
The totally benign reason to unlock content as you go in a game, when the business model doesn’t interfere with it, is to gradually introduce mechanics to the player. When you’re already at the point where you’re looking for expansion content, you’re choosing which content to add and at what pace. The grind is superficial, to keep more bodies logged into their server at once, because the live service model depends on it.
This has been a good discussion, and I agree a bit with both of you.
On one hand I agree that it’s part part of the game design to either have unlockables stuff or have access directly to it. And it can alter greatly how each designer and player approaches the game.
I don’t think it’s wrong either way but there are several examples in the industry where the design turns on greed mode and the gameplay feels second tought if at all. But that doesn’t mean if they are charging you, or you need to unlock it it’s automatically unfair.
I haven’t played Helldivers but for what I understand is a pve game in which you teamup to advance trough levels. For me it sounds fine that the progression is behind a grind. Although It could be even better to have it all unlocked, it could change the complete feeling of the game
On the other hand pvp games like Civilization, skull girls, should have either everything unlocked or a way to easily unlock it trough a little play. Since the appeal for me is for everyone to be on equal footing and just a display of skill.