Free-to-play games make me feel like Jack Thompson

What do a longtime Mortal Kombat fan and the poster boy for wrong-headed crusades against violent games have in common? Maybe more than they'd like to admit.

by

Mention Jack Thompson to any longtime gamer and you're likely to get a reflexive scowl in response, or perhaps a hearty roll of the eyes. Thompson was the Florida attorney who launched a crusade against violent video games, calling them "murder simulators" and doing interviews with anyone who would listen in order to enlighten people to the spiritually corrosive cultural waste children were consuming for entertainment.

When you get right down to it, is this really that much different from Smurf's Village? (Yes, but still…)

Thompson led the charge against Grand Theft Auto, saying the game's creators were "mentally molesting minors for money." After three police officers were killed by a professed Grand Theft Auto: Vice City player in Alabama, Thompson represented their families in a civil lawsuit to hold Take-Two responsible. Later on, he sicced the police on the creators of webcomic Penny Arcade for harassment after they made a charitable donation in his name. You don't hear much about Thompson these days, because he was disbarred in 2008, and his ability to attract headlines apparently went along with his license to practice law.

But recently I found myself reaching an uncomfortable understanding of Thompson's point-of-view, and I had the Smurfs to blame. I was looking over an English version of the slideshow accompanying Capcom's latest financial results, and one factoid from the file stood out to me. The company's mobile gaming business--primarily the Beeline division that made Smurfs' Village for mobile platforms and Facebook--reported an average revenue per paying user (ARPPU, in one of the best abbreviations ever) of $25. That would be fine if the game cost $25, but it's actually a free-to-play game. People get access to the basic game for free, but can speed up progress and improve their own village by purchasing Smurf Berries. A handful of Smurf Berries costs $1, while a wagon of Smurf Berries costs $100. There are buckets and barrels and bushels and wheelbarrows full of the fictional fruit for decidedly non-fictional denominations in between.

"As much as I might want to rationalize a separation between the games I play and Smurfs' Village, the differences are ultimately slight, and--when viewed from the outside--inconsequential."

So even though most people who play Smurfs' Village will never spend a dime on it, those who do are blowing an average of $25 on the social gaming treadmill. Even if they just drop $5 a week on the game, that adds up to $260 a year for a depth-free diversion designed to do nothing more than keep suckers feeding their Smurf Berry addiction. They will blow that money compulsively parting with real money to buy fake money to improve their fake village. And in the end, they'll get tired of the game and move on, or Capcom will just pull the plug on it when it stops being profitable. Either way, all the time and money they spent on that free-to-play game will be gone forever, pathetically wasted with nothing to show for it.

And then I thought of what I've done with my free time for the last few weeks, how I killed hours upon hours playing The Pinball Arcade on the PlayStation Vita, trying to get the last trophy on the Ripley's Believe It Or Not table. "That's different," I thought at first. "That has gameplay and challenge, and I'll always be able to play the game because it's not tied to servers that have to be online." While those things are true, they are also things that wouldn't matter to a non-gamer. They were not factors my parents considered when I was younger, when I spent summer vacations with Street Fighter II or The Guardian Legend. To them, I was just throwing away precious time on an activity that offered no enrichment, no personal development, nothing to make me a better human being.

Economists agree the Smurf Berry is not a strong currency on which to build a marketplace.

But I didn't care then, because I was having fun. I was being entertained by a medium that resonated with me in a way my parents didn't understand. But as much as I might want to rationalize a separation between the games I play and Smurfs' Village, the differences are ultimately slight, and--when viewed from the outside--inconsequential.

So now I realize how my parents felt watching me spend my days in front of the TV, saving virtual princesses and winning World Series that never were. I understand how one's disapproval of the entertainment another engages in can sap the activity of meaning or purpose, can frame it as wasted time of no benefit to anyone. And understanding that, I realize that the way my stomach turns when I see free-to-play schemes profit by playing on simple compulsions is really no different from what Thompson must have felt watching Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto sell millions by appealing to base impulses. The most uncomfortable part is that this understanding, this identification of hypocrisy at work, hasn't really changed the way I feel. Not about free-to-play games, not about my own gaming, and not about Thompson.

Discussion

227 comments
moonlightwolf01
moonlightwolf01

Games have the potential to be truly meaningful even self-improving however that potential is often squandered by the publisher dominated market. take an indie game like Super Meat Boy on the surface its just a really difficult platformer underneath though you have meat boy and bandage girl providing a deep and meaningful conversation about the nature of relationships. Then look at COD MW3 which is basically a crytofacists fantasy of what happens if those liberals in the government go soft on the terrorists. Both of these games can be enjoyable and have you sink hours of your life into them but one is trying to have a conversation with you and the other just wants you to shoot stuff. I'm not saying a shooter can't be meaningful but lets face it COD isn't.

Free2Play social games are definitely the worst for this since they don't want to have a conversation or even keep you more than vaguely entertained all they really care about is hovering money out of the wallets of less than savy players, this makes them a blight on the industry that should be shunned but instead similar business practices are being adopted on triple A titles. The publisher dominated market as I mentioned before is corrupting game's ability to be meaningful. Take the mass effect series, the first two game focused heavily on dialogue, presenting the player with a world that asked them to challenge their perceptions. It dealt with big themes: racism, forgiveness, the nature of good and evil. Yet in the third game the focus became action, set pieces and multiplayer. Dialogue took a back seat and with it the games ability to really have a conversation with its players, no wonder that players felt so angry about the ending, the series had stopped talking to them so what understanding could there be. Basically what I'm saying is you might not have wasted all your hours of gameplay because sometimes those games were improving you as a person we can only hope that future games will do the same.

soeppel
soeppel

Yes, yes, no different - if it weren't for the fact that Smurf Village is an elaborate scam that target kids to get into their parents wallets: If your going to let your kid play this game on your iPhone/iPad - with no intention of letting them buy smurf berries - and enter your password to your iTunes account (to dowload an update or whatever) before you hand it over, they're free to buy smurf berries to their hearts content within the next 15 minutes. And the game make damn sure that a prompt for buying berries pops up all the time - you can hardly blame a 5 year old for clicking it.

 

You sure picked a bad example.

Falzonn
Falzonn

I think there IS a distinction between certain F2P games, and more AAA (ie: quality) ones.  As others have said, It has to do with bang for your buck.  People are free to spend whatever money they want on something they enjoy, but it gets to a point where you're stupid to pay for it when there are cheaper alternatives you could easily play and get the same 'value'.  This is true because many F2P games provide subpar quality that even at the maximum subscription rate, you're getting less than you'd get from other games that cost less.

 

Also, I think there's a lot which non-gamers don't think of when they look down on video games.  Okay sure video games probably are contributing to a few bad areas in our culture such as lazy behaviour (which I myself am guilty of), or perhaps excessive violence, or promoting bad language or behaviour what with the cliche foul-mouthed, racist xbox live Halo teenager.  This is a valid concern.  This shouldn't dismerit the values of gaming in any way either though, since there are good arguments that games promote emotion responses, thinking, cognative stuff (insert science terms here), etc,  many of which are simply a good thing to promote & have.

 

In the end, I do agree that time wasted isn't always wasted time.  Can be damn good at wasting money though.  Especially when money better spent would be more efficient at providing you with MORE hobbies to waste your time on.

Wolfkcing
Wolfkcing

I long ago noticed a distinction between some of the games I played. I realized how much I really disliked the Zelda games. I played through the first Nintendo 64 version of the game and felt nothing of the sense of adventure I felt when playing The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. I felt like all I did was move this polygon-made, mute through a world full of people that didn't matter. It really did seem pointless. Where was the character and story? There was a little of both these in the game but not enough to make me care. The A Link to the past had about as much story, true but it benefited from the fact that I was young and hadn’t played a game like it before.

 

I avoided Zelda games since then. I thought it must be a sense of role-play I needed. If they say "I'm the hero" I need something to save. I need the world to come alive and I need the characters to come alive. I played and beat Final Fantasy 3 (this was after I beat the first Nintendo 64 version of Zelda too) because I had nothing else to play at the time and while the story and characters were exactly what I was looking for, I actually can't stand turn based combat. Thus, I became a huge fan of the elusive Action RPG with a good story. There weren’t many in those days and for a long time after.

 

Even Resident Evil games made me feel like I was a hero and role playing, even though these games had b-level writing and characterization. Another gem was the Soul Reaver  and Blood Omen series. The game play in some of these games was actually pretty bad but I played through just for the incredible story. Another great game that really let me feel like I was taking the role of the character was that first Spider Man game for the first Playstation. The story was pretty good and you actually felt like Spider Man. I haven’t kept up with this series (too busy) but looking at the reviews, most of the games in this series still seem to be doing well.

 

I later realized that there are games I do play for the thrill of playing though. Games where I realize I don't care about the story. The act of playing them is so addicting and rewarding. Games like God of War and Bayonetta. Left 4 Dead is another one. I've also grown attached to fighting games. I don't know why really. Perhaps it’s the possibility of pulling off that last minute, from out of no-where win maybe? Or dominating the match and wining without taking a single hit. They do have some interesting characters in fighting games that I do love but, of course, they are hardly ever developed or wrapped an around an original, thought provoking plot.

 

So. You can get the richness out of games you get from other media. They are rare but there are some great characters and stories in games that you will think about even when you aren't playing them. Why not just read a book? Because you can't influence the story in a book aside from maybe throwing the book out a window. Games offer an alternative take on the story telling format and while many may believe story and strong narrative have no place in games, this article clearly shows and interest in getting more out of our games. At least on occasion.

 

There really is no reason we can't have choose your adventure games made up mostly of cinematics if there are people who will pay to enjoy it. Don't call it a game if you want but that doesn't mean it shouldn’t exist. This was suggested for the Mass Effect games by one of the writers. Why not? I wouldn’t likely use it. The Mass Effect game play is too much fun but it could just be an option. The Walking Dead Game is almost an example of this. There are still puzzle elements and action sequences in that game but they are minimal.

 

There is also the social component to many games. Left 4 Dead is just almost a different game when you play with others. You end up telling stories about the silly things that occur. My brother turned a corner and the Tank was just standing there. My brother made an audible noise of alarm and made his character take off away from the threat. The Tank pursed. My brother happened to look down while running for a second and Zoey came rolling up under his character's feet because the Tank had tossed her. It was awfully damn funny.

 

Surely that's about as good as something that might happen when you and a buddy go fishing? There are also games you can play with your family. Games about dancing. Casual online games are a good way to spend an hour or two with friends and relatives living in other states.

dannyodwyer
dannyodwyer staff

I imagine a lot of those people spending $25 are children with weak parents.

neuroboy
neuroboy

@001011000101101 "I'm seriously considering giving up gaming when this generation of consoles reaches the end. It all just seems so pointless, and while I am having fun while it lasts, many of today's games really do feel like a waste of time."

God, I so relate to this. Life is passing me by as I stare at a screen consuming other people's creativity whilst mine goes stale, whithers and dies... But it's soooo hard to give up a hobby and a habit you've had since the early 1980s, especially as games are soooooo good these days, no matter what every other gaming old timer says about the golden age of gaming.

I think my problem is that I just can't resist Steam, GOG and retail store sales, as well as Humble Bundles and Playstation Plus downloadable freebies - and they are all piling up waiting to be played. Check out my Wishlist, which is actually a list of 47 games I own and haven't yet started... On top of the dozen or so I'm currently playing, and not including all the games currently on my iPad.

No matter how much I enjoy an individual game, this hobby is starting to feel like work, and particularly pointless work to boot...

SauhlGood
SauhlGood

its a hobby imo, but f2p scoial games takes advantage of people who never played mmo's or mmo-like games and dont know how to unplug, and also i would argue they dont know the value of their money in the video game world, anybody whos played mmo's knows that 15-16$ is the norm or a sub,  and anything above that, the dev better make a damn good point of why a person should fork over 20$ or 25$ instead of 15$ which should encompass server costs and profit margins.

 

The pricing on f2p games is a lil out of balance with the quality of the games, they can ask for as much as 30$ a month for the best subscription type, some of which you have to renew to continue enjoying the benefits, and offer a game that is typically of poorer quality.

 

The public needs an education in some standards, just like you wouldnt buy a hotdog from a street vendor for 15$, unless your new to the country and customs, or just dont know the norm for a street dog.... or the fact that its prolly not technically food

001011000101101
001011000101101

I think the reason why my family always considered videogames a waste of time (they still do, as far as I'm concerned), was that every time they entered my room while I was playing games, all they could hear and see was always just a bunch of shooting and yelling. I can see why all this seems pointless to many. Because honestly, there really is no point to most videogames. Especially not these days. 

 

Most AAA titles are immature, compared to most good movies  (not all though, since there are a few gems that lies above all this). They're childish, with bad writing, cliche plots, violence for the sake of violence etc. Why would anyone take that seriously? The more I look at these games I spend my time on, the more I realize how stupid this hobby actually is. Why spend my time shooting a million bad guys and saving the world for the 104th time, when I could be watching a movie or reading a book that actually teaches me something about life? It just seems so, so pointless. 

 

The older I get, the easier it becomes for me to understand he viewpoints of all these videogame critics. These people grew up in the 70's or 80's. That's when some of the best damn movies of all time came out! Really great stories with fantastic acting and beautiful pictures! To see the children of today grow up with all those awful F2P  and pointless shooters, really must be painful. 

 

I'm seriously considering giving up gaming when this generation of consoles reaches the end. It all just seems so pointless, and while I am having fun while it lasts, many of today's games really do feel like a waste of time.

 

dbzpranav
dbzpranav

Thought provoking..and a bit disheartening, I've spent the last 2-3 years convincing my parents of the merits of gaming and how it is a form of art, now I sorta feel like I wasted time

oria
oria

Most of human endeavor is a waste of time. All of it, probably. You could spend your life studying, curing cancer, creating great and timeless works of art, and someday everything will be consumed by an expanding sun just the same. Your ashes will be absorbed into the fiery furnace from whence you came just like someone who spent all of his time blowing money playing F2P nonsense. 

jubdeidamasta
jubdeidamasta

How is that example any different when a subscription based mmo pulls the plug or becomes f2p? The whole concept of mmos or F2P is a treadmill. This editor realizes his's own argument is a moot point, yet still gets published?

darkouer
darkouer

if people are not smart enough to draw the line, they deserve to be ripped-off...

I for one, don´t spend anything on that avengers facebook game, as a result I cannot reach a good enough level, and they think that´ll be enough to make me spend real money in digital garbage... I say f**k them. That´s why I only buy phisical copies of games, and very rarely I buy DLC for some of those games. At least I´m receiving goods for my money, and have a nice collection i like to behold once in a while... Man, I suck too...

edjos
edjos

people don't get the plot, and the feeling of the writer here. it was a good editorial, made to make readers think.

MonkerzX
MonkerzX

I put money into F2P when it's maybe a one time thing... I paid around £15 for Tribes: Ascend, which got me most of the stuff I need and I think is a decent price to pay fora  good game. I will never however repeatedly sink money into any game, or play a subscription MMO. They do not provide enough entertainment for the price they are asking.

majema007
majema007

Personally, I don't care for the people playing these "Free-to-play" games as long as they're having a good time. Problem is that comparing a violent video game to those few individuals who throw money in a game that doesn't offer any moral values. Games I've played like Mass Effect, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Assassin's Creed 2, Demon's Souls don't throw in a BS statement to the player saying "To kill this enemy, you must buy this set of equipment to stand a chance" but can actually improve yourself as a human being if you can find the moral or theme. How are we are like Jack Thompson for simply trying to convince the people who use real life currency to purchase fake products for a game, a waste of resources? This practice encourages corporate greed and screwing over the consumer more times that we can count? That and and practices like these tend to encourage companies to affect long-time gamers as well, not just the casual market. Simply put it we have a reason to be upset with "Free-to-play" to games, as to Jack Thompson who said video games are the anti-christ of all things without looking into other mediums like books, movies, music, etc.

LoG-Sacrament
LoG-Sacrament

i think the saying goes "time you enjoyed wasting, was wasted by other judgemental bastards."

filmboy85
filmboy85

A good number of the people criticising this article seem to have missed the point. Sinclair is actually being critical of his own judgement of free to play social games (a sentiment shared by many gamers), saying that just because he doesn't understand the value doesn't mean that there is anything different between enjoying a free to play game and one with a more standard payment model, hence the comparison of himself and Jack Thompson: on the subject of free to play games, he, like Thompson on violent games, is critical of others for investing time and money in something that he personally doesn't find valuable. He explicitly states that he realises that his feelings are hypocritical; calling him out for it is redundant and contributes nothing to the discussion he was obviously trying to generate with this article. People aren't infallible: they can be hypocritical, and by this writer noting an instance where he demonstrated hypocrisy, his desire was probably to get others to notice their own hypocrisy and assess how they judge others for how they invest their time and money. Unfortunately, it seems as though people didn't read the article carefully enough and as such are now just dedicated to calling out the writer for sentiments he himself criticised in the article. 

system_xn
system_xn

 I like FREE games. With that said, can't wait for the new F2P Gundam later this month on the Japanese PSN! I would say something more in line with the article i just read but...meh

 

RaddaRaddaRadda
RaddaRaddaRadda

While I agree that it's certainly disconcerting, to butcher a John Lennon quote, money you enjoy wasting isn't wasted money.

maverick_jones
maverick_jones

I used to conduct due diligence for an investor in F2P online gaming companies, and came to similar conclusions when examining their financials. A lot of these low-profile knock-off "casual" "social" "mmo"  games - the kind you only find advertised on video streaming sites - can report ARPU (not per paying user) far higher than $25, simply off the back of a minority group of kids who have access to parental credit cards and who blow $100s either out of compulsion or for genuine competitive advantage. What's insidious about the Smurfs' Village model is that it doesn't burn out as fast as the games hideously unbalanced by micropayment systems. And what's amusing is there's really no difference whatsoever between the mechanics underlying the Smurfs' Village model and the subscription payment model of World of Warcraft et al - they just capture a different market share. Activision Blizzard was (proportionately) the most valuable company in the business a few years ago (though in part due to Guitar Hero revenues) because it's widely recognised that these online grind-fest cash cows are as addictive as crack cocaine, but a lot less risky to peddle to kids. It is clear that you can extend these normative ethics to most games, but some do seem impervious to me. On the other hand, what does it really matter, as long as some pleasure is derived? A balanced attitude to consuming this entertainment is what's key.

 

maverick_jones
maverick_jones

I used to conduct due diligence for an investor in F2P online gaming companies, and came to similar conclusions when examining their financials. A lot of these low-profile knock-off "casual" "social" "mmo"  games - the kind you only find advertised on video streaming sites - can report ARPU (not per paying user) far higher than $25, simply off the back of a minority group of kids who have access to parental credit cards and who blow $100s either out of compulsion or for genuine competitive advantage. What's insidious about the Smurfs' Village model is that it doesn't burn out as fast as the games hideously unbalanced by micropayment systems. And what's amusing is there's really no difference whatsoever between the mechanics underlying the Smurfs' Village model and the subscription payment model of World of Warcraft et al - they just capture a different market share. Activision Blizzard was (proportionately) the most valuable company in the business a few years ago (though in part due to Guitar Hero revenues) because it's widely recognised that these online grind-fest cash cows are as addictive as crack cocaine, but a lot less risky to peddle to kids. It is clear that you can extend these normative ethics to most games, but some do seem impervious to me. On the other hand, what does it really matter, as long as some pleasure is derived? A balanced attitude to consuming this entertainment is what's key,

Henrique2324
Henrique2324

Free-to-play games are cancer. Decreasing the quality of our entertainment should never become the future of this industry.

leop4rd
leop4rd

there are free to play games with a lot more depth though, what about tribes and the upcoming end of nations. I haven't spent a dime on tribes but i still enjoy it and although i may not be contributing financially to the company having players like me will keep the servers full and fun for those that do pay.to say that playing games doesn't add character to you is a bit much too, it depends completely on the type of game, strategy games like SC2 have a lot to offer intellectually beyond "just" playing the game, watching the game and reading the stories about the people involved in the scenes does enrich a person. 

Rocthepanther89
Rocthepanther89

That's the final straw for me, Brendan. This is the final article of yours I will read. This is terrible, absolutely pathetic journalism. Are you a marytr or are you just blatantly hypocritical? Entertainment is for just that. Entertainment. How is paying $10 on a bundle of berries any different from the $8 a month people pay to watch outdated movies (that weren't box office hits) on netflix? Or the $50 a month DirecTV charges for NFL Sunday Ticket? The $34 a month subscribers pay HBO to watch True Blood instead of waiting 2 months and buying the season box set on blu ray for $30? For that matter, why do Yankee fans pay (literally) boat loads of money for season tickets? Why do SiriusXM customers pay a monthly subscription fee to hear radio with "NO" (reduced, but still present) commercials? Why would I pay $12 for two tickets to see Sherlock Holmes when I can wait a couple of weeks and buy it on DVD for $20? How do you think pornographic websites make their money?

 

This is a very easy lesson to be learned. Enterainment. Always has and always WLL have value. It is NOT your place to tell people which entertainment they should see has value. In case you haven't realised, what you may like, others may not. What others may like, you may not. 

 

... then again I guess I shouldn't dig too deep into this, as you aren't a real journalist anyway. You work for gamespot.

Wolfkcing
Wolfkcing

damn. A lot of typos. I can delete it but not edit it? 0_e

 

x-TwilighT-x
x-TwilighT-x

 @001011000101101 It's true that most games this generation have experienced an epic downfall. The idea was never that it was, or wasn't a waste of time. It was your time, not theirs.

ArcherRO
ArcherRO

 @dbzpranav It's not a waste of time.Some games have higher standards than others.You can't compare Smurf's Village to games like Shadow of the colossus,Alice or Heavy rain for example.

x-TwilighT-x
x-TwilighT-x

 @oria I disagree, nothing that you enjoy doing is a waste of time, if you spent it how you enjoyed it. Isn't that why we are really here, to enjoy the time we have. Isn't that the purpose of life, the ideal that it's in fact precious. You may as well spend it how you enjoy, if you do that, you won't have many regrets.

BUTT-MAN
BUTT-MAN

 @filmboy85 well stated. I was a bit perturbed by the article but after reading it feel the same way as the writer  hypocrisy and all. I hate games made in the Farmville vein but I would be no better judging them than my friends and famly are when they judge me for gaming while they watch 8 straight hours of tv or spend countless time and money on sports played by strangers while they pretend to be on the team. In the end to each his own.

Rocthepanther89
Rocthepanther89

 @maverick_jones

 Agreed. If somebody enjoys these games enough to spend their money on them, who are we...I'm sorry... Who is Sinclair to judge? It isn't his money, why does he care so much what other people are doing?

robfield
robfield

 @Henrique2324 

"Decreasing the quality of our entertainment"

 

I don't know how you arrived at that statement, but entertainment is not universal. It's not OUR entertainment as everyone can be entertained by different things.

Polybren
Polybren

 @Rocthepanther89 The article is actually about me recognizing the hypocrisy in looking down my nose at free-to-play games. I'm still skeeved out by them and the exploitative skinner box tactics they use, but I'm not going to judge the people who play them. At the risk of being "that guy," let me just say that some of my best friends play Facebook games.

Tazzman1000
Tazzman1000

 @Rocthepanther89

but seriously harsh words at the end of your comment. I agree with you that entertainment is entertainment but it's stupid that a FREE to play game is the highest grosing game (i know the artical says the devision that makes these games was the highest grosing but all the games they make are free to play) and this speed up building using some berry nonsense has to stop. This is why i'm not fond of free to play games.

 

ArcherRO
ArcherRO

 @Wolfkcing Copy what you wrote and edit it on a notepad.Then just delete this post.

dbzpranav
dbzpranav

 @ArcherRO I know I know and I agree completely! I'll never stop gaming, just meant to say that this article made me realize maybe I was wasting my time trying to change other's perspectives on gaming. Probably did not succeed in convincing them that gaming is not a waste of time.

travo0159
travo0159

 @x-TwilighT-x its a refreshing change of pace to see post talking about life instead of mindless rabble.

Henrique2324
Henrique2324

 @robfield No, my point is that degrading our actual PC~Console games to browser-based shovelware is wrong.

Rocthepanther89
Rocthepanther89

 @Tazzman1000

 No. I don't play Smurf Village or any other free-to-play game for that matter. I personally don't care for them, but I am not about to sit here and watch this goon single out a specific group of gamers and pin them down, making them look ignorant and stupid. Especially when said goon is guilty of the same exact "crime" he is bashing these people for doing. Look, I have no problem with the developers of these games allowing their players to propel themselves by spending a few bucks. Nobody is FORCING anyone to pay. But to watch this guy who probably has that netflix account and HBO and SiriusXM make his own people look bad just because they are into something else, is just sickening. Seriously, Sinclair, stop writing these backward articles, basically downing a different group of people you disagree with one at a time, and work on getting yourself a real job, because you have clearly failed as a journalist.

Wolfkcing
Wolfkcing

 @ArcherRO 

 Thanks. I was thinking that but was hoping there was an edit button i just wasn't seeing.

 

x-TwilighT-x
x-TwilighT-x

 @dbzpranav Did you know that the last MLG event was viewed by enough people to fill 8 and 1/2 yankee stadiums?

 

That hardly seems like a waste of time.

Rocthepanther89
Rocthepanther89

@RaddaRaddaRadda @Rocthepanther89 My goal was never to be the hero of gamespot, rather to help make others aware of this "journalist's" hypocrisy and maybe help halt his articles in the process. Either way, as I said, this is it for me. I'm done with him and in turn I'm done with gamespot. To IGN it is for me, now I can finally get real gaming news and not some punk's twisted backward views. Peace

RaddaRaddaRadda
RaddaRaddaRadda

 @Rocthepanther89 Well, let me know when you become the Hero of Gamespot, weeding out all the bad journalists. I'm sure someone's hard at work to prepare this guys pink slip, just because your opinion carries that much weight.

Rocthepanther89
Rocthepanther89

 @RaddaRaddaRadda

 Because it will truly pain me to see this jerk down yet another specific group of gamers he "disagrees" with and get away with it. I don't like free to play games but I'm not about to sit here and let this guy trash them and have no one stand up to him. People find enjoyment in all kinds of things. I don't like using facebook, but I'm not going to go write an article about how everyone who uses facebook is a mindless idiot with nothing better to do with their time. I understand his point in the article, but he doesn't know how to present it without being offensive to someone. I would let it slide if this was first article of his I read where he is blatantly offensive to some, but it seems everytime I find myself reading, it gets worse. This is NOT good journalism.

Henrique2324
Henrique2324

@robfield

And I definitely agree that it's not much of a problem right now, but this f2p may spread over to regular gaming sometime in the future, given this growing number of MMOs that recycle people's currency into stuff much worse than any DLC in this world.

 

Henrique2324
Henrique2324

 @robfield I get frustrated at the people who waste their money on stuff like that. When I say "degraded", I aim at those developers who support the casual route, saying it's the future of this industry. But in the end there are actually developers moving over to f2p, most notably Crytek, which used to have some incredibly innovative tech back when Crysis first came out.

robfield
robfield

 @Henrique2324 

You're still being quite selfish. The industry will most likely be determined by where money is going. If suddenly developers start seeing much more money being spent on "time-wasters" or "shovel-ware" then lots of developers will target that part of the market.

 

There was a time when shooters - specifically first person - were more popular on PC. Then a game like Halo came along and the market for shooters heavily leaned towards consoles (Goldeneye didn't quite get it there). Lots of exclusive PC users were most likely annoyed by this, but in the end there are still shooters on PC.

 

I do not like shallow free-to-play games, but I won't deprive other people of them just because of that. If another person spends more money on a free-to-play game than I spend on a conventional console game I won't get angry at a developer for spending time trying to make money on free-to-play games. I will only be disappointed if the developer abandons one part of the market for another. Your  "actual PC~Console games" are still there in full so I wouldn't agree that they are being degraded.

Tazzman1000
Tazzman1000

 @Rocthepanther89  

 I don't really see that in his words but its the mind that interprits it i guess. From what i can tell he's the EA or activision of the journalists on his sight, all suffer from deep hatred that i don't get (i knw these componies do bad things but hey live and let live i say) and he seems to be one that tackles controversial subjects. Ehh i guess theres nothing more to say then choa.

Rocthepanther89
Rocthepanther89

@Tazzman1000 I fully understand the point he is trying to make, and actually have no problem with it at all. It's how he manages to find a way to make people look bad, almost like he purposely looks down his nose at them and expects you to join him. That is more disrespectful than me calling him a bad journalist. He's extremely rude and has a certain cockyness in his words that makes him sound so much better than he is, and too many people buy into it. As for Seb and Jane, I can live without. But word to Danny O, if I do decide to come back it will be because of him.

Tazzman1000
Tazzman1000

 @Rocthepanther89

 So what your saying is that Seb Ford, Jane dougless, and Danny O'Dweyer are failed jurnalist because they work for gamespot aswell.I don't know what Brendan has done to you in the past, maybe he took your job on this site but i doubt that, but to insult him on writing a good article is just rude. Also your msiing the point he's making. These games are free to play, no-one should have to spend a penny on these games. But people still do, unless they like waiting six hours doing nothing, and they are being robbed by the developers. He's not saying "oh look at these lowlives, paying for to play game, now excuse me while i rent a film, buy a new car exhaust, and wash my offroader beforetaking the dirt track home". Just calm down a wee tad will you

RaddaRaddaRadda
RaddaRaddaRadda

 @Rocthepanther89 You don't understand the journalism business. Or any business apparently. It's all about the bottom line.

 

What puts digits in the bottom line for web-based publications? Pageviews. What did you give by reading the article? A pageview. Plus every pageview when you come to post a comment. And every pageview of the folks like me who respond to the comment. That brings revenue. Revenue brings success.

 

If you told someone about how terrible this article is, they might come read it themselves to see just how awful. More pageviews. More comments. More revenue.

 

It got you talking which, in turn, has me here responding. That is success in journalism my friend. You know not of what you speak.

Rocthepanther89
Rocthepanther89

 @RaddaRaddaRadda  @Tazzman1000

 Right. Give this guy the Pulitzer Prize. He wrote a bunch of horse **** in an article and attached a Grand Theft Auto picture to it to draw attention. Well he got people to read it and talk about it, even though it isn't good, it's a success. I think you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.

RaddaRaddaRadda
RaddaRaddaRadda

 @Rocthepanther89  @Tazzman1000 Actually, content of his article aside, he's done pretty well. You read the article. You're talking about it. That's success in journalism. You don't know what you're talking about.