Why core gamers hate free to play

To protect your illusion of accomplishment. You keep implying the same right wing my yard my rules boycotts and the market solve everything argument. Are the vegans gonna crush the beef industry?

You think not voting is gonna change anything? Etc etc. A way to con reformers into self marginalizing. As you have clearly done. By definition. As explained in the original post. The ONLY thing that keeps tryhards from annihilating all casual versions of the games they enjoy is their lack of power to do so.

Casuals given that same power by definition would care insufficiently to use it not least because that camps wants to expand options, not constrain them. All IPL wrapped games are authoritarian. Even the open source ones typically have profit prohibitions.

Which is the difference between open source and public domain. I can identity as an apache attack helicopter. Actions define. The profit motive demands what amounts to a wide net and free samples at first. Granted some examples persist, like your candy crush, but really, those games seek to exploit a different sort of hardcore, like say how path of exile aims at gambling addicts and market manipulators.

Yes casuals outnumber tryhards. Religious fanatics of every stripe share this ratio. By definition the fanatic will always be in the minority. Like genius, or height.

Once they become the norm new fanatics evolve and the overton window moves. Again double think. Oscillate though you may. Yay for the overton window being cleverly dragger right since the mid 30s. First, they are a form of art and entertainment, two things which have great cultural importance. For humans, play is serious business. Granting them so much importance that I base my judgments of people based on their gaming habits seems excessive to me. It would be like insulting someone for only listening to music while they do other things instead of really absorbing the music.

The problem is that our disagreements go MUCH deeper than games. Stop telling me what I mean, what I think, and what I am. As an example of my thought process in regards to a social problem, I am in favor of gun regulation. Unfortunately, in the united states, the zeitgeist is in support of owning firearms just for the sake of enjoyment. People will find ways to hurt each other, but guns make it easier. If we were to ban guns, how many lives would really be saved?

So practically, how do we limit firearm related crime? We could start by destroying all unregistered guns found by the police, tightening regulations on how guns are sold. Another problem is that a large portion of gun violence in the US is related to gang activity, which exists largely because of the culture which has developed in the underprivileged ghettos of many cities because of lack of opportunity, quality education, or legal means of earning money.

So how might we limit gun violence in the united states? Alleviating poverty in cities, decriminalizing drugs, providing better public education, and of course, regulating guns. So yes I guess so. Though as a competitive gamer we likely have conflict in the area of suffering. The idea of participating in a system that arbitrarily creates suffering for the enjoyment of others is toxic to me. Or the gladiatorial games of fiction. The historic reality is up for debate.

Beef for example. I literally cannot wait for lab grown meat. At least not without deep mockery. The very terms hardcore and softcore in a community of mostly males is clearly insulting.

To a tryhard, the perceived value of a win, and the win itself, is more important than fun. Whatever that takes. To a casual fun is the only thing that matters. The chess analogy is perfect imo. There is of course variation among tryhards, an ethical tryhard would theoretically be one who for whatever reason works very hard at winning, but has no desire to restrict access to the game for casuals.

They are profoundly rare in my experience. It seems impossible for a human to invest emotionally in the value of a hierarchy and not also begin to defend that hierarchy.

Stockholm syndrome comes to mind. But then again maybe it is, the unbounded potential of emotion is like a black hole for logical evaluation. Which I am just now looking at directly thanks to your replies. So thanks. True, ish… I mean fair enough. I do question the value of democracy, and I certainly see the need for regulation generally. They are deeply, sadly, underused now thanks to IPL and the profit motive.

I agree, like I said about memory licensing. A cultural showdown is coming. IPL is gonna force a choice between profit and innovation. Time will tell. At least without some contradictions. You need that lesson. Tryhards inherently dismiss the suffering of others. Suffering is a feature, not a bug, for tryhards. They are inherently hierarchical and exploitative.

But thinking more about it like eating meat and the zero constraint of emotional possibility creates pause for me. So you simultaneously strongly value enough to complete and try hard and yet totally disregard freedom for all casuals and no looking down on them?

Anything is possible with regard to emotions. You feel both love and apathy for your victory? Or is it more like a necessary evil? Like someone cursed with sadism? I did change my tone. I realized the discussion was a bit hostile, but even though I disagree with you, I think you have a very interesting and unique personal philosophy, so I really wanted to talk about ideas more than trading insults.

If we say that physical pain is a form of suffering, then it should be judged based on the reason for it was inflicted, and the effects of it. I will use three examples here to illustrate a contrast. First, a man is stabbed. He was stabbed because there was another man on a knifing spree.

Second, a man is terminally ill with a disease which causes him great pain every day, but there is a procedure which could extend his life and lessen or eliminate the pain he experiences.

Unfortunately, the procedure itself causes a great deal of pain and suffering. In this scenario, the value of the suffering can only be properly judged afterward, because if it works, then it would most likely be considered a net good.

Third, A man is overweight and feels terrible about it. To do this, he restricts his diet, the frequency of his meals, and begins to exercise regularly. The dietary restrictions cause him hunger and angst for quite some time, and the strain of exercise causes him physical pain. Eventually, he loses much of his excess weight, builds muscle, improves his endurance, lowers his blood pressure, lowers his cholesterol, and his psychological state improves.

He voluntarily put himself through pain and suffering in order to improve his physical and mental wellbeing.

In each of these scenarios, there is suffering. One is clearly bad, One is potentially bad, and one is good. Another factor involved is the severity of the suffering. The people who play them overall enjoy the experience of playing them, and so they will risk suffering for a chance that they will enjoy themselves. If they do not, they can opt out once it becomes clear that the reward is not worth the suffering involved.

This is fairly close to the truth. Winning matters a bit, but only if the activity itself is engaging. I assume the majority of people who play competitive games are unconsciously or consciously weighing these options when they queue up for a match. Additionally, competition is a very human desire.

People wish to be challenged, be it physically, mentally, or emotionally. Humans naturally seek both conflict and companionship by nature, and games are an effective tool to allow for that conflict without major stakes is, at least right now, a good thing overall in my opinion.

Pay up to not waste it grinding. Core gamers are a smart, plugged-in bunch that does its research. Valve has spent nearly 20 years treating gamers right and making billions of dollars in the process. Valve rewarded this consumer trust with balanced and reasonable money-making mechanisms in both titles. This trust isn't something that can be bought or faked.

A game maker's only option is to form a genuine relationship with its customers, instead of wallets from which to squeeze as much short term revenue per user as possible. Core gamers are increasingly coming around to the idea that freemium game design can actually gasp benefit them in a few key ways, and isn't always a pay-to-win scam.

No arm-twisting is necessary. If the game were free, but monetized in a way other than player-sold drops, the temptation to sell a fun gun for a few bucks goes away, and the integrity and player trust in the experience could potentially be restored. A free-to-play Borderlands 2 could feature randomly-dropped keys that are used to unlock new areas of Pandora, or players could pay up to unlock them early.

Slots for a 5th weapon or 2nd relic could be sold. Free raid bosses could reset once per day, or players could pay a small fee to reset them early. Loading Even more DLC is imminent Just charge one price and include all the classes and levels. Pay to win games are extremely hated in the gaming community because they offer an unfair advantage to those who can afford it and leave the other players struggling to catch up with the privileged ones.

These opportunists are so toxic and slothful that they make their team work twice as hard, constantly dragging them back with their aloofness.

Lazy gamers are probably the most hated type of players, making their colleagues go mental every time they sit around, doing nothing. Feast at a castle banquet, swim in zero gravity at an orbiting space station, or visit a virtual theme park. Stake your claim, build your own home world, and connect to others. Want to make your own game? Core makes it possible by giving beginners and pros alike the power of Unreal in an accessible interface.