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.
Haha, beat me to it. They are both a bit right, and these questions have been hammered out by game designers for years with no definitive answers in sight.
I figure, so long as the design was purely for the “artistic intent/integrity” of the game and not to manipulate players into spending more money, the rest can just be left up to each player to pick whatever game suits their fancy. Mass grind, no grind, or Tony Hawks Pro-Skater grind.
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.
Haha, beat me to it. They are both a bit right, and these questions have been hammered out by game designers for years with no definitive answers in sight.
I figure, so long as the design was purely for the “artistic intent/integrity” of the game and not to manipulate players into spending more money, the rest can just be left up to each player to pick whatever game suits their fancy. Mass grind, no grind, or Tony Hawks Pro-Skater grind.