It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dothedew
Who's up for a boycott?
originally posted by: ketsuko
They are a little more time intensive, but ultimately, they can be just as fun and they are imminently interactive.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DerBeobachter
Nah, you get character sheets, fill them out in pencil, theres a book of rules, and one person at the table is running the game, the others playing it! Dice are rolled to determine the success or failure of combat and other elements of the game.
originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Edumakated
I under the basics of economics, and I don't necessarily have an issue with such a system.
My problem comes in when quality suffers, and the normal route of "talking with my money" is completely negated. Call of Duty is a prime example of this.
If you are mainly a single player campaign type of gamer (as I am, depending on game), then I wouldn't be surprised if you have already run into decreasing quality. Single player is mainly an afterthought, since it is more difficult to motivate spending without having to compete with others that spend large sums.
In my mind, this is a market that intersects a lot of different arenas. I struggle to pigeonhole all of it under standard capitalistic ideologies.
I mean, I don't feel capitalism is flawless and perfect anyway, but if things are monetized correctly I could absolutely see the gaming market split. There would be the large companies that cater only to those who are willing to spend thousands of dollars on a single game, and smaller companies who struggle to make ends meet while catering to the "casual" gamer.
In essence, not necessarily the worst thing, but the software to make the games would likely follow suit. So, there would be graphically astounding games that require something like $1,000 as initial buy in, but that didn't have any quality beyond graphics. And then, there would be the games with rough visuals, but would at least be inventive with enjoyable storylines. To be honest, this is exactly what I expect to happen, eventually.
I'd really rather have the best of both worlds, but I've always been a bit odd. I can see very little good coming from such a split, even if it does have a foundation in basic economics.