this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
552 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
59622 readers
2980 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I truly detest the "review bombing" culture, but in the same breath - Blizzard has really screwed up on OW2.
OW was honestly one of my two most played games of all time - and I loved it. The loot boxes were annoying, but hey...if I wanted to, or chose to - I could buy more and got a decent chance of getting what I wanted. The issue was that I had nearly everything by the end, and rarely bought loot boxes. The content wasn't there to keep people buying cosmetics.
The new shop/token/battle pass stuff is really really toxic to gaming. I will admit that I have bought a few battle passes. When the content is there, I will pay. I would totally buy skins if they were in the vein of $5-7usd, and were for a hero I liked... but there is no way in the world that they are getting me to pay 20-25 on a skin. Its honestly so disgusting.
I really was unaffected by the single player stuff, because I only enjoy multiplayer games - but the way it was done showed disregard for the loyal players so it makes me lose trust in the company. I am honestly just sad about what happened to the OW universe. The only way for people to voice that feeling/emotion is to vent and move on. I guess the reviews serve as a good warning to potential new players.
I love review bombing culture. Because companies always (always) push to have more money. Ten years ago we wouldn't think that loot boxes would be so common. Now lootboxes are more common and games more shittier.
And sometimes people snap and just bury the game that crosses some lines. Imo those lines were crossed long ago. Now we notice it when the game is both bad and have loot boxes.
But it's funny to look at overwatch because they also gambled to push as much shit into the game and lost (at least I hope so, the game still have 50000+ players)
Steams reviews have a much higher weight in regard to a games success than any other form of review. The new Battlefront games came to Steam way later, when EA Play got introduced and a big chunk of EAs exclusive library moved to Steam. By that point the Battlefront games got all patched up and were somewhat beloved. But a native Steam release like BF2042 was met with harsh criticism, which ultimately let to the game's failure. There is a reason why AAA studios like Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft or Microsoft prefer not to release their games on Steam and each have their own launchers. The lack of transparency is also why the Epic Games Store is an attractive alternative for publishers. I'd like to think that Steam has the most solid review system one could ask for, something that other launchers are severely lacking. An "overwhelmingly positive" status for a game is an automatic success and everything below "mixed" is nearly a death sentence. Even games that are successfull, like the recent CoD titles start out "negative" or "mixed" on Steam release. But that doesn't matter anymore, because the publisher already got his money from their own launcher and console releases.
So... steam reviews come with words... you don't have to guess why something is rated poorly. You just scroll right down to the words and hundreds of people will tell you if they were "butthurt" or if the game just sucks.
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about
I have never even heard of anyone reviewing BF2 for the movies. Everything I saw and heard were for loot boxes, the levelling system, the guns, skins, or pride and accomplishment.
EA BFII released before TLJ (Nov 17, 2017 vs Dec 15, 2017). And the controversy for BFII happened before it's release, more than a month before anybody had the chance to see TLJ. On top of that, because of the extreme amounts of negative press, all paid loot boxes were removed from BFII within like a week of its release, and all future content would be entirely free. So while sometimes review bombing may be people clamoring about 'wokeness' or just ineffective, BFII is not the example to use as it's probably the singular hardest pivot in game direction in modern AAA due to player outcry.
Is it really review bombing though? Or is it just people reviewing a game poorly because it's bad? Like seriously this is the whole point of reviews.
I do not agree that the game is bad. The gamplay, mechanics, and feel is near perfect. The design, art, and sound is amazing. I am not happy with the current state from a monetization standpoint, but to say it is a bad game - objectively, that is wrong. The reviews of the original game before the new monitization strategies were all great, and the core gameplay still exists. I still play, and still have a great time when I do. I just protest with my wallet. If it was a bad game, there would not be so many people playing it and shelling over money for skins.
Uh, no? It's been proven time and again that people who buy skins don't buy it out of love for the game, but because it's effectively gambling and triggers the same spots in your brain that dopamine does.
I would love to learn more. Any links to reputable sources on that research?
OW no longer has loot boxes or random chance, so plenty of people shell put for ridiculous skins for their favorite heroes, so this is a bit different of a case
I disagree on review bombing. It's the public's way of ensuring publishers 'find out' when they fuck around.
Payday 2's devs added pay 2 win loot boxes. They got review bombed. They changed their course.
If the bombing isn't valid you can read the reviews. If what they described doesn't concern you as a consumer you can likely assume that it won't color your experience with the game.
Not the best example. Payday 2 happens to be my most played game of all time. They did get review bombed when they added stat improvements on unlockables, and that was reversed, but they also got review bombed when they started microtransactions after very clearly saying they would never do so (drills/safes). That was never reversed, and only got worse with time. The fact that it is PvE co-op only, makes "pay 2 win" way less important, and I could still "win" very easily without any of those minor stat increases. The original vision was that players just pay for new heists, and anyone could play any heist - just not host unless they owned the content.