Share your unfiltered, unpopular gaming opinions and let’s dive into some real discussions. If you come across a view you disagree with, feel free to (respectfully) defend your perspective. I don’t want to see anyone say stuff like “we’re all entitled to our own opinions.” Let’s pretend like gaming is a science and we are all award winning scientists.

My Unpopular Opinion:

I believe the criticism against battle royales is often unwarranted. Most complaints revolve around constant content updates, microtransactions, and toxic player communities

Many criticize the frequent content updates, often cosmetic, as overwhelming. However, it’s optional, and no other industry receives flak for releasing more. I’ve never seen anyone complain about too many Lays or coke flavors.

Pay-to-win concerns are mostly outdated; microtransactions are often for cosmetics. If you don’t have the self control to not buy a purple glittery gun, then I’m glad you don’t play the games anymore, but I don’t think it makes the game bad.

The annoying player bases is the one I understand the most. I don’t really have a point against this except that it’s better to play with friends.

Overall I think battle royale games are pretty fun and rewarding. Some of my favorite gaming memories were playing stuff like apex legends late at night with friends or even playing minecraft hunger games with my cousins like 10 years ago. A long time ago I heard in a news segment that toy companies found out that people are willing to invest a lot of time and energy into winning ,if they know there will be a big reward at the end, and battle royales tap into that side of my brain.

This is just my opinion

  • conciselyverbose
    link
    fedilink
    388 months ago

    I have no issue with battle royales.

    I have a huge issue with literally all microtransactions in every context. Cosmetics are not a justification. The only valid way to unlock cosmetics is to earn them with gameplay.

    If you have microtransactions in any format in your game, you are a bad human being. There is no scenario where it is forgivable. If you have lootboxes, you should go to prison for the blatant unregulated gambling operation you are running.

    • @thantik
      link
      English
      19
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      On TOP of this, the companies know that their market demographic is the under 18 segment, who isn’t mature and lacks the self-control of a fully fledged adult. They bank on this immaturity and use it to further entrench gambling addiction in young adults. The people who excuse this as “oh if you don’t like it then just don’t buy it!” have the absolute most trash opinions of all.

      • conciselyverbose
        link
        fedilink
        68 months ago

        I personally enjoy gambling. Since it’s been legalized here, I have a budget I place at the start of the NFL season and treat it as entertainment. I know I’ll win some and lose some, and I know it’s unlikely I’m ever going to end up up a lot, because almost no one ever is.

        I would have no issue with a game actually openly calling itself gambling and being regulated appropriately and restricted to adults. But there’s a very good reason they’re strictly regulated, and poorly developed frontal lobes (even though 21 isn’t fully developed either) in teenagers/younger are a big part of that. Building those addictive patterns (whether a casino or a hard drug) at a young age is extremely hard to overcome.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      48 months ago

      If not microtransactions for cosmetics, then what would be a better business model in your opinion?

      • conciselyverbose
        link
        fedilink
        108 months ago

        Step 1: You buy a game. There is no step 2.

        Actual meaningful additional content (which never under any circumstances removes old content) as an expansion is fine. Paid cosmetics cannot be. Microtransactions in any format cannot be.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          68 months ago

          Would that actually be sustainable for a game that’s constantly changing? The ones I’m familiar with are League of Legends and TFT, so I’ll use those as examples. These games rely on having a large playerbase, or else matchmaking will be all over the place and it wouldn’t be any fun for anyone. Having to pay for the game would shrink that playerbase considerably. Having to pay for updates makes this essentially a subscription model, since it’s makes no sense to maintain old versions of the game and further fracturing the playerbase that is already small to begin with, and subscriptions will also deter a lot of people from playing the game.

          If it’s one of those single player story-based games that you play once and never touch again, then yeah, the model makes sense. Though I don’t see the harm in having the option to buy cosmetics. It’s not something I’m personally interested in so I just don’t touch that stuff, but I like that we’re valuing the work of artists more.

          • all-knight-party
            link
            fedilink
            58 months ago

            I didn’t like MTX like OP until someone told me MOBAs only really work that way because people have to play similar content constantly and the only way to keep that novel for a wide playerbase is consistently added content, and that only works if the company can continue a revenue stream, and for a free to play model to allow a constant influx of new players to sustain the playerbase.

            And to say that MOBAs don’t deserve to exist would be insane, Heroes of the Storm is one of my favorite games of all time now since I can play VS AI with no toxicity, and even though it’s frozen on maintenance mode now I can only enjoy it so thoroughly from the sheer amount of characters and content allowed by the free to play MTX model that brought it all there.

          • conciselyverbose
            link
            fedilink
            -28 months ago

            If it’s not sustainable, your game doesn’t deserve to exist.

            Microtransactions are unconditionally a purely evil business model with no redeeming qualities under any circumstances. There is no circumstance where they can theoretically be forgivable.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              98 months ago

              What about microtransactions makes them evil? Is your gripe just about loot boxes? Or paying for art? Or is it the middleman? I don’t understand how charging for art in the context of a video game can be inherently evil.

              • conciselyverbose
                link
                fedilink
                -28 months ago

                Everything. Parting out core elements of a proper game into separate purchases is a fundamentally abusive business model, designed for the sole purpose of manipulating dopamine to rob whales blind.

                Cosmetics aren’t any different than anything else. The only possible valid way for them to exist is to have them be earned in game. You’re the exact same piece of shit if you charge money for a shotgun as you are if you charge for a shotgun skin. “Premium” classes of players based on spending are not, and cannot theoretically, be OK.

                “My game needs an unforgivable business model to exist” (ignoring that that has never once had any basis in reality) is not a justification for being a piece of shit.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  88 months ago

                  It sounds like we just disagree on what constitutes a core element of a game. I’m very happy to not have to pay for things I don’t care about, but I can understand that it sucks when you do care about it and there aren’t as many people to split the costs with.

                  • conciselyverbose
                    link
                    fedilink
                    08 months ago

                    Everything is core.

                    There is only one thing that is permissible to charge for in any context: actual playable content. That’s not a multiplayer character, it’s not any cosmetic, it’s not anything but new maps, new stories, or new game modes.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Na, I don’t agree here. I have played a lot of Free to Play games that rely on microtransactions for cosmetics and spent so many hours in these games and never, ever spent a dollar. Probably wouldn’t have bought them if they were not F2P either. Only game I’ve ever bought a cosmetics pack was a Support pack for Deep Rock Galactic, because that game is so fucking good (yeah I know, not F2P).

          If your game is Free to Play and you get money by microtransactions for cosmetics, I have no issues with that. Because I am someone who usually loses interest in games pretty fast or like to play many different games with my friends, so I personally am spending way, way less money this way.

    • @CleoTheWizard
      link
      38 months ago

      Oh, well, I understand this sentiment but I’d ask everyone here to reevaluate why you hate them and then listen to these points to consider.

      1. Cosmetic items are created mostly by artists. Artists are only needed during certain time of development. So this is a way to keep them on a project consistently or to salary them.

      2. Most cosmetics are optional and add nothing to the game. In a single player game, just don’t pay for it. Evaluate each games value on the inclusions or exclusion of micro transactions. It’s not necessary to say “if it has them, it’s a worse game” because I’ve been ignoring them for awhile and my games are fine. Just evaluate the game as if they didn’t exist or as if they’re part of the price.

      3. Micro transactions support ongoing development. These offers keep projects going. I like playing games like Deep Rock Galactic and Hell Let Loose which are both smaller games by smaller studios. They keep their community alive with OPTIONAL content while producing free updates. It’s a great deal.

      And lastly 4. People who buy plenty of these cosmetics and other transactions, often called whales, are subsidizing games for you. It’s cheap money for a development team for someone who wants to buy boosts or cosmetics or whatever. So why wouldn’t they do it?

      • conciselyverbose
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        If there are different classes of people based on being stupid enough to waste money, it’s by definition evil and exploitive. This model is designed for the sole purpose of breaking people’s brains to spend more than they should.

        There is no valid way to distribute any cosmetic that isn’t earning it in game. The exact same game, with literally nothing changed but the addition of a purchase of a cosmetic, is worse for the mere existence of purchase bait. It’s the same thing as taking a TV show I bought and injecting ads.

        “Free” content supported by these extremely invasive ads is worse than not having those updates.

        They’re not subsidizing games for me. They’re taking games away by making them unconditionally unplayable. Charge a fair price. You’re worth it or you’re not. “We need to be disgusting shitbags for our game to exist” is evidence that your game shouldn’t exist, not that it’s possible for your behavior to be acceptable.

        • @CleoTheWizard
          link
          38 months ago

          Loot boxes break people’s brains. Micro transactions aren’t inherently exploitative. They’re just cheat products. It’s like saying movie theater drink prices are exploitative. They are a bit. But then you also don’t have to buy them.

          And the second part, yes and no. A lot of games that use those systems are free to play. It’s more like ads in a YouTube video. But say you did pay, cool, consider if it’s worth it or not. In some games with ongoing development like the ones I mentioned, I gladly pay the cosmetics price because I know that’s how I can support the devs while also getting a cool costume. If that’s not worth it to you, cool, doesn’t hurt you at all and you often still get free content. You just don’t get a cool hat. Guess the game is ruined.

          It’s just such a simplistic way to look at it. It’s like gamers who whine incessantly about DLC in games. Like cool, if the game isn’t worth it don’t buy it?

        • all-knight-party
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          Your arguments make sense for almost every kind of game except long lived competitive multiplayer and MMOs that simply can’t survive without MTX or free to play based models, and if you don’t think they deserve to exist for that, well… Be grateful you’re not the kind of player who likes those genres.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      I disagree. I don’t think that micro transactions make the developers bad people. I also don’t think they’re bad at all

      The thing about these games is that they aren’t meant to be played once then put down. It’s kinda like going out with friends. My friends and I have a bar we go to for food and drinks, and because of the new drinks, food, or activities they add every once in a while, it makes it more interesting for us. I know that a drink that costs me $5 doesn’t cost them $5 to make, but I know the extra money is going towards those new activities, drinks, food, employees, rent, and their profit.

      The micro transactions are going towards the artists, developers, servers, etc. Not even mentioning that because of the long lifespan of these games, things like compatibility, hacks, and bugs, are found more often and they do have to be fixed to keep the player base happy. If they don’t adapt then they won’t keep their players. That’s why we don’t see games that were released at the same time as fortnite with as many players. They already went through most of the content the games have to offer.