$80,000 For DLC?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
$80k is an experiment in the psychology of monetisation? What a bargain, where do we get this fantastic item? :rolleyes:

An iron chisel for 59p (a buck) is 10 times more powerful than tapping, and it runs all the way up to a unique, one-off diamond chisel costing £50,000 (about $78,000). Will one player buy the diamond chisel outright, or a group, or no one? Whatever happens, Molyneux insists, "This is not a money-making exercise; it is a test about the psychology of monetisation."
Click to expand...
 
Claiming it isn't a money making exercise, doesn't make it not a money making exercise.
 
Molyneux? So when it's finally released, it'll be nothing like he states now?
 
Who gives a shit what's in the cube? I'd much rather someone spend $78,000 for a hitman.


Peter Molyneux is to gaming as Uwe Boll is to film making. :rolleyes:
 
temujin987 said:
do people still buy his crap?
Click to expand...
In social competitive games in particular, yes.

Its quite shameful as they are knowingly exploiting people with psychological issues, similar to casinos, all for profit.

Many of these freemiums are recognizing the fact that if they can create an addictive and competitive online game to attract tens of thousands to even millions of players, there will be some with a mental disorder just like chronic gamblers that will blow their whole life savings for a digital item that has no value outside the game. The game World of Tanks that I'm playing for example is increasingly trying to monetize the "free" game, and there are plenty of freaks that admit openly on the forum to spending hundreds monthly on the game for the competitive advantage it affords them. They are addicted and HAVE to win, and will pay anything to get the advantages to do so.

IMO, they need a swift kick in the nuts for trying to milk this phenomenon to its extreme.
 
Molyneux's games are not the like Uwe Boll's videos. But I guess they are both stupid about their product. And not in a good persistent way, more like the bad insistent way.
 
Melon said:
Peter Molyneux is to gaming as Uwe Boll is to film making. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Perhaps now. I admit that I really liked Black & White, and it's a shame that B&W 2 sucked so bad.

Fable I could never get into.
 
At one point, for some completely unknown reason, my creature in Black and White started shitting grain. Talk about some happy villagers.
 
God I loved that game, it was so wacky some of the things you could do.

I wish they had made a B&W 3 that didn't suck like 2 did.
 
Well if it isn't about the money then they're going to give it all back after the "experiment", right? ;)
 
EvanH said:
Precisely. As we all know, Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Black & White, and Fable were just atrocious, horrible games. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Fable II/III and Black and White II were terrible. I'm not interested in games that came out almost 15+ years ago. (Dungeon Keeper)
 
Eh, I personally loved Fable 2. The ending was lousy, but for the most part it was quite awesome.
 
I'll give you a hint, someone will probably buy it. for 8K there's no question someone would buy it. The free to play model lives by exploiting whales who from as much as industry experts can tell, will spend whatever you let them spend. To my knowledge, they haven't found the upper limit yet. This is just another step in that direction.
 
A test about the psychology of monetization you say?

How about the psychology of "Go fuck yourself," Molyneux.
 
Crap, there's only 1, I wanted 2.



I like the idea though.
 
In Games the real payoff for expensive items is what you can do with it.
Same in Life.
In Life there is nothing more that can be done with the same hammer that costs $7 dollars or $70,000 dollars.
Same in Gaming.
 
Hasn't this been done before... just seems too much like playing the lottery to me.
 
Ducman69 said:
In social competitive games in particular, yes.

Its quite shameful as they are knowingly exploiting people with psychological issues, similar to casinos, all for profit.

Many of these freemiums are recognizing the fact that if they can create an addictive and competitive online game to attract tens of thousands to even millions of players, there will be some with a mental disorder just like chronic gamblers that will blow their whole life savings for a digital item that has no value outside the game. The game World of Tanks that I'm playing for example is increasingly trying to monetize the "free" game, and there are plenty of freaks that admit openly on the forum to spending hundreds monthly on the game for the competitive advantage it affords them. They are addicted and HAVE to win, and will pay anything to get the advantages to do so.

IMO, they need a swift kick in the nuts for trying to milk this phenomenon to its extreme.
Click to expand...

It was bound to happen. You have an activity that can be extremely addictive, and it was only a matter of time before people found ways to milk the addicts for all they've got.

You can't really complain about the developers. They're a business and they're trying to do what they can to be profitable. Compulsive gaming/addiction on the other hand is vastly under-reported.
 
Thought this thread would be about Railworks DLC. I am disappoint.

:D
 
You can Guarantee if some numb nuts buys that damn chisel, EA will use that as an even more valid reason to charge you $60+ for the game and the additional cost for every part of the DLC that they ripped from the finished product.
 
Wow wtf is wrong with that company? Its fucked up to take advantage of someone with a problem like that. I think its a damn shame how anyone can get away with stuff like this
 
Ducman69 said:
In social competitive games in particular, yes.

Its quite shameful as they are knowingly exploiting people with psychological issues, similar to casinos, all for profit.

Many of these freemiums are recognizing the fact that if they can create an addictive and competitive online game to attract tens of thousands to even millions of players, there will be some with a mental disorder just like chronic gamblers that will blow their whole life savings for a digital item that has no value outside the game. The game World of Tanks that I'm playing for example is increasingly trying to monetize the "free" game, and there are plenty of freaks that admit openly on the forum to spending hundreds monthly on the game for the competitive advantage it affords them. They are addicted and HAVE to win, and will pay anything to get the advantages to do so.

IMO, they need a swift kick in the nuts for trying to milk this phenomenon to its extreme.
Click to expand...

Or you could simply say that people natural selection is taking place.
 
This is news how? This has been done for ages, even before video games. Think about what Nike does. Buy Air Jordans, they will make you dunk like Mike! Drink this drink and you will be cool! Games like this have been around for a long time. I played a web game called Pimp Wars back in the day and you could buy extra turns to make more money and attack rival pimps.

K said it best in MIB, humans are smart, people are stupid. When you get people together in a competitive environment, they will do anything and everything they can to win. Even if winning has no tangible value, they will dump time, energy and hard earned cash to win. This is a known fact, so no study is needed. Its just a cash grab with a "positive" spin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top