So this is the power of indie game dev?

So this is the power of indie game dev?

400 dollars is a macrotransaction

>three years later he's still tweeting

I swear Twitter is some kind of hellish purgatory from which people are unable to leave

yes i'm aware of the irony of saying this on Sup Forums

>ishmael
fucking stupid akmeds

Twitter circlejerks go into 4+Sup Forums

Get mad, kike

Who’s this shitskin and why is he shilled on Sup Forums?

ah yes, yet another twitter screencap thread with a literal who nobody cares about. sage

hes an akmed that lives in the netherlands, why would a kike be mad about it when thats what they want?

>Micro-transaction
>400 dollars for generation of technology lasting product.

Okay, but weirdly he isn't wrong. I'm still fucking pissed that due to back door dealing bullshit that I had to purchase an obligatory $300 Nintendo Box to play my favorite game series, Monster Hunter. I wouldn't have bought a Nintendo Box otherwise, but they made me do it.

He's implying that every video game to ever exist that isn't a console on its own requires microtransactions.

What the fuck does he want, for us to use tiger electronics?

one half of Vlambeer indie dev studio

>but they made me do it.

no they didn't. nothing but your own impulsive desires made you buy that nintendo box.

Rami "I can't find the framerate slider" Ismail

why do retards like this exist?

>buying a console
>microtransaction
>micro

people are paying thousands of dollars for singular virtual ships and land in scam citizen

But my favorite game series, Monster Hunter, should have just stayed on Sony systems, or in an ideal world, been on all systems including the system I primarily play on, PC.

i am triggered by the use of the word "literally"

>shitting on consolefags

Every broken clock is right twice a day.

Holy fuck it's literally a checkbox in game maker. All he had to do was change 30 to 60. You could go the extra mile and make the game logic independent of the actual frames but if you're going to be lazy at least let your fast paced screen shake simulator run at 60fps.

That's literally the opposite of a microtransaction

>buy a console
>you now have access to all the games on that console

vs

>buy a game
>keep putting money in the game if you want more stuff from the game, sucker

If anything, the console is the purchase and the games themselves are the microtransactions

Shit, he's basically saying "buying a car is a microtransaction for when you want to buy a tank of gas"

How would you have expected to play it without buying a console?

to be fair, gamemaker puts all roomspeed to 30 by default, pain in the ass how you can't set a standard roomspeed for a whole project

you're really, good, at using commas, user, did anyone tell you, that?

life must be a series of microtransaction, it's pretty deep life lesson

From my point of view the games are the microtransactions

Should have come out on PC instead of Nintendo/Sony paying the company to make it exclusive to their platform when in the modern age, all platforms are basically the fucking same. Just shittier PCs, except the Switch which has some fucking worth because it's portable.

from my point of view, the hospital visit for my birth was the macrotransaction and everything else after that has just been microtransactions, even when I bought a house

>but they made me do it

>But my favorite game series, Monster Hunter, should have just stayed on Sony systems,

Holy shit. You're fucking with me right? This is some parody right? I'm only asking because I refuse to believe that someone can so entitled and retarded to think that a company making a game for another console is forcing you, a consumer, to purchase that console. You wanted to play the game, you made a choice, no one forced you to do anything. You understand that right?

>oh my god someone replied to me but im not going to refute what they said but ill pretend that they are wrong anyway

>hurr durr i'm going to take an extreme viewpoint and call everyone else an idiot to make my point like i'm still shitposting on Sup Forums
i'm glad not every game devloper is a mentally stunted manchild like this
just the ones that make shit games nobody plays

Woah there bud you sound dangerously racist.
Not everyone is some kind of programming nerd or has time to understand the video game engine they are using. They have lives and stuff you know?

You're right and it should just work, but it's still such a stupid mistake.

Please tell me you're joking, if you are earning your livelihood based on making games (maybe not so much for him but the other half of Vlambeer) then you should at least know how to make your >>>PC

Rami is an important figure head in the indie dev industry man, he obviously doesn't can't spend all his time learning inane shit. Hes out trying to change the industry for the better.

There is no alternative to purchasing this required console to play a game that could easily be available on the platform of my choice if the developers had not been paid off by the console company. If I want to play my game, I am FORCED to buy a console that I otherwise wouldn't have bought and don't fucking care for.

>''oh my god I just literally...'''
I think we're reaching the next stage of the evolution of the nu-male. First they were acting like semi-retarded girls, now they begin to speak as ones.

Paying your electric bill is a microtransaction

buying solar panels is pay to win

Here's what this retard is saying poorly:

People/journalists keep citing first-party games without in-game purchases as the example by which third-party/indie games should follow. Journalists claim that these titles, like Zelda, sell on their merit alone and don't need in-game purchases to generate revenue for their publishers. This Retard, however, claims that what they lack in microtransactions, they generate revenue for publishers by selling the console to which they maintain exclusivity. The consumer is required to purchase this console, a $300-$400 investment, in order to enjoy any of the titles that publisher puts out. He's saying that third-party titles using microtransactions to generate more revenue is the same as first-party publishers making console exclusive games. They are both using different schemes with the same goal. His terribly worded analogy is saying that all software uses some underhanded tactic to milk more revenue from consumers. First-party exclusivity may be the most harmful, but the most widely accepted.

You could have just not bought the game. It's not like because the new one is out that the old ones stop existing.

Current solar panels are win-more. They are good if you are way ahead already.

>If I want to play my game, I am FORCED to buy a console that I otherwise wouldn't have bought

First, it's not your fucking game- You have no right to that game, you did not make the game, you do not own the IP, you are a consumer. It's Capcoms game, not yours so stop thinking you deserve something you don't. Second, you want it that's cool, you're allowed to want something. Wanting something and being forced to get something are completely different concepts. Here is the exact definition of the word forced: "obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power." tell me what person coerced you or physically threatened you to buy the game, spoiler: No one did. You wanted it, so you bought it and the console. You made a choice, deal with that. It's not the game companies fault that you enjoy something and want to buy it, it's yours so stop being an entitled faggot and get over it.

And you know what user, if you can't find any other game to enjoy on an entire fucking console, that's your fault to.

That would be a fair point if
A) Consoles could only play exclusive first party games
B) Consoles couldn't do anything besides playing games
That's like saying e-mail comes with a $400 microtransaction because you need a computer or phone to check them with.

>buying a nintendo switch or playstation 4 gives you an advantage over other people
advantage over who, people who don't own one? How fucking retarded is this person?

I don't understand why this is controversial. Games that are in part funded by console sales have more money to burn than games that aren't. And games that aren't made by console manufacturers get that extra money with micro-transactions. He's typing bitchily but thats it.

I think he is saying first party games don't need micro transactions because their objective it's different from a third party that has a smaller margin per unit sold

>yes i'm aware of the irony of saying this on Sup Forums

there's no irony there, Twitter and other social media is literally a drug for attention whores

you're writing Sup Forums posts anonymously and the posts need to be taken at face value instead of attributing them to famout people or ecelebs. there's absolutely nothing to gain for posting there and you're doing it for leisure or to read other interesting posts.

A true Monster Hunter fan does not care for console wars and petty arguments. They go where the hunting is, this means they are forced to pay for overpriced, shitty consoles they don't enjoy, as they have the innate desire to hunt.

Or you could buy the PC version?

>you will never be this stupid

>A true Monster Hunter fan does not care for console wars and petty arguments

And yet here you are, taking part in a petty argument. If you hate the idea of Ips changing consoles so much that don't buy them, companies only understand one language and that's money. You're not a true fan, you're a sheep, and sheep like you will keep getting milked because you're too spineless and stupid to understand that you're responsible for your own choices. Fuck off.

I hate these willfully ignorant fuckers who use every opportunity to engage in political shitflinging. You know he's talking about in-game advantage you anus stop being a faggot.

He's not arguing that when people mention Zelda "Oh, you're forgetting you have to buy the console and the TV!" but he's saying that people criticize microtransactions as a shitty way to make more revenue for publishers and then point to first-party titles as being these bastions of ethical business practices made only to sell games on their merit alone. He's saying that Nintendo makes Zelda to sell Nintendo consoles, not to sell copies of Zelda. If Nintendo wanted to sell more Zelda, it would be multiplatform. Instead, they create their own console and require a large investment to continue to enjoy the games they release. The point is that game is being used to sell the console to generate revenue for Nintendo. Internet service and internet-enabled devices do not generate revenue for e-mail service providers.

This is what it always fucking boils down to: butthurt leftists who want to drag everything into politics. Let's just fucking kill them already.

Only ecelebs deal in absolutes

And those are macrotransactions too.
Something being even more costly doesn't mean a console isn't a macrotransaction.

You could have just played MHXX on the fucking 3DS you presumably already owned as a "true Monster Hunter fan" instead of buying a Switch
You are literally bitching about an optional purchase

>a pizza is microtransactions

stop giving stupid people attention

>Making a product more attractive by providing your own high quality incentives is the same thing as loading a product with additional purchases
The difference is that once I've paid for BotW or Uncharted or whatever, even if you want to factor in the console, that's it. I'm not the the bitch of the person that paid slightly more than me.

Thanks for translating that valley-girl speak for me, user. While what he says may make sense to those unfamiliar with video games once it's put under scrutiny it begins to fall flat as an argument. I find it intrinsically unscrupulous when you not only engage in the nickle and diming of goods but defend the right to do it. You simply cannot purchase anything anymore, everything comes with strings attached. In order to play everything in this game we now have to buy boosters so it won't take a thousand hours to unlock content for just playing the game, or a gun is behind a paywall or locked in a box and the devs are expecting us to pay for it. I understand that what it is is capitalism at it's finest, being able to exploit consumers in such a way, but it's still dishonest isn't it? Call me old fashioned but if I want a video game I should only pay once for it unless the game demands an online subscription like an MMO would. Give me expansion packs or substantial DLC's that provide loads of content on it instead of dividing it all up and pricing them more individually than bundled. All of it just sits wrong with me. I know I can't be the only one.
Right but exclusivity for the sake of selling a console is not the same as making a game multiplatform, expecting it to sell by the merits of it's name (say Call of Duty, Battlefront 2, etc.) but then still practicing the microtransactions that ultimately make players pay more for less in the up-front purchase of the game. You may have to buy a console for Zelda, but the multiplatform game is sold on at least twice as many systems, potentially tripling profits, but still argues the need to continue fleecing their customers when their profits already match that of Nintendo and their exclusive title if not moreso even before microtransaction profits are added.

tl;dr, just because you can doesn't mean you should

The vector of your argument didn't change. You're still implying that exclusives come with a price tag of the console they're attached to as if a console is only capable of playing one game. For every game you bought you'd effectively be splitting the cost of this "microtransaction" between them until the amount became negligible. You're also ignoring that Nintendo putting games on platforms like PS4 or Xbone would have to pay their competitors Sony and Microsoft for the privilege, which is just bad business sense. It isn't exactly an open market like it is for a game publisher.
>do not generate revenue for e-mail service providers
I think you're forgetting that the two largest providers of e-mail, hotmail and gmail are also the creators of the two most prolific operating systems in existence. Windows and Android.
If you think they don't make money from the sale of hardware that contains those operating systems you're crazy.

That's the crux of it. They aren't asking you to pay $400 for an Uncharted box. They're asking you to buy their $400 box over someone else's roughly similarly priced box. Then they're putting their own software on the thing to try and make it more appealing than the competitor's box. If you bought a Switch just to play Breath of the Wild and nothing else, that's on you. Not Nintendo.

this is more true than people might realize, the thing about Twitter and reddit and whatnot is that it can very easily suck you in and you'll be wasting your time arguing about bullshit you don't really care that much about with people you've never met and never will meet and in the end neither one of you gains fucking anything from the conversation

I had to deactivate my accounts for both because I kept reacting to that inborn urge to tell strangers they're wrong for reasons and it just snowballed into a shitton of wasted time I could have spent writing or exercising or taking care of my own shit that I actually fucking care about

at least here the discussion itself is the focus and not tribalistic "my side is right" bullshit because you can never even really be sure how many people are having the conversation here, it's just the words not the people

This is not my argument.

Rami is saying that Nintendo makes Zelda to sell Nintendo consoles, EA publishes Battlefront to sell lootboxes. Both are a means of generating revenue beyond the initial $60 transaction. As for splitting the cost, it doesn't spread as thin as you may think. The average consumer DOESN'T buy every exclusive that comes out for a console. Most are content to pad their library with shovelware. At most, the average consumer maybe gets the top 3 exclusives for their console over its lifespan. Even if you're a competent consumer and go out of your way to experience the most out of your console, lets say you get a good 10 exclusives out of it that you buy and enjoy. That still ends up being an additional $30 investment per game. I think most third-party publishers would be satisfied with getting $30 in microtransaction sales from each purchase of their software.

Even if you suggest that consoles have way more exclusives than the meager 10 I suggested, remember that Sup Forums does not paint the picture of the average consumer. Consider it from the publisher's perspective, selling tons of consoles this holiday season to children. They get their console and their 1-3 games. 2 of those will probably third-party titles. But kids want Mario, and in order to play Mario, they can't use the XB1 their brother has, or the perfectly good gaming PC they've got in the other room. Instead they've got to drop $350 on a brand new Nintendo Switch.

Personally, I couldn't care less about exclusivity. I think Rami is saying its a bit hypocritical to say publishers only want to sell lootboxes and should be more like Nintendo and sell complete experiences, when Nintendo isn't trying to sell you just a copy of Zelda.

>implying the cost of porting a game is insignificant
>implying a console manufacturer who also makes games wouldn't be sabotaging themselves by porting shit to other platforms
Exclusives intended to be multiplat that get bought out to only release on one platform are scummy but your actual first party exclusives, your zeldas, halos, uncharteds, whatever; there is absolutely no reason they should be expected to be multiplat. It's just whiny fucking babies pretending that releasing everything on every platform is viable and makes sense from a business perspective.

it's the power of forgetting that Twitter broadcasts your thoughts to all of Twitter and far beyond that as well so when you muse about some highly specific vidya business model/monetizaion viability thing using generic terms it can come across as completely fucking retarded for those who don't have the context you think you're framing it in

still think he's wrong because games like Hollow Knight prove that you can be successful with no microtransactions and a low price point

Microtransactions are cancer when they start interfering with the game design.

Personally, I don't give a crap about the new Middle Earth or Assassin's Creed, but I have to wonder why people don't get annoyed when developers start shoving p2w bullshit in their face, it's disgusting especially when these games sell well enough on their own with their DLC later on.

Well yes, but complaining about it like it's a publisher's duty to put it on everything makes as much sense as complaining that HBO's shows aren't being shown on free-to-air or that Netflix doesn't let everyone run their programs. They make it so people buy their shit. There's nothing untoward or underhanded about it. To pretend it's even close to the same tier of scum as microtransactions is bizarre.

Which is why Rami is saying that if you are ok with platform exclusivity, you cannot condemn, or at the very least you must be sympathetic to the introduction of microtransactions. Nintendo offsets their costs by selling a console with the software. EA offsets their costs by selling in-game content in addition to the $60 price tag. If you condemn one you must see the problem with the other.

fuck off

But it's absolutely not the same thing. One's a question of what you can play a game on, who funded it and how it got made. The other's a question of fundamentally altering the games themselves for further profit-seeking.

Gamers complain about microtransactions but pay for electricity

PGE didn't build houses to sell you utility bill.

I played Ass Creed Origins and haven't bought anything besides the base game. I enjoyed the game thoroughly. Knowing other people could pay for good weapons doesn't bother me; it's a single player game. I can get plenty of great weapons in the base game and I feel better for earning them rather than just purchasing them.

Which is still stupid because completely ignores third party games without microtransactions, imples that giants like EA, Ubi and Activision don't have as much money as Nintendo, and that consoles are sold on a loss at first. Italso ignores that a lot of games get canceled and studios get closed down because projected sales aren't high enough. Not over an actual net loss. And that multiplats have the advantage of being on multiple systems and reach more people, even taking into consideration porting costs (which is now easier than ever compared to having to deal with say the cell processor on the PS3) they don't require secondary funding.

Except EA makes record profits while not increasing the wages of their employees at all, the only increase in cost is the larger workforce which in no way is keeping pace with their sales growth. It's easy to complain about "skyrocketing costs" when your upper management are fleecing all the cash.

There's also the niggling little detail that microtransactions inherently compromise the design and integrity of the game itself while platform exclusivity does not. And quality should matter more to the consumer than a company's profitability.

this is some "the human eye can't see past 30fps" bullshit

Ok well every game needs a platform so is he going to give me a free computer with each purchase of his game? Or can we only have self contained games now, are we going back to nothing but fucking Tiger Handhelds?

But you're still implying that consoles are only capable of playing games and exclusive games at that. How much is being able to play multiplats worth? How much is being able to watch Netflix worth? How much is being able to chat to your friends worth? How much is being able to watch Blu-rays worth? What about surf the internet?
Is someone going to their friend's and playing a game they want on that system a net loss? What about giving the console away to someone else?
Second hand console sales?
If it was designed as a $400 microtransaction for exclusives it wouldn't be able to do anything else and you wouldn't be able to give it to anyone else or sell it second hand.
It's a total bullshit argument.

Good for you, feel free to share your opinion.
I think it's a shame that Ubisoft aren't making more games like Rahman Legends though, probably because it's way harder to nickel and dime the player in a non-open world game.

Is he cool with me pirating Nuclear Throne then? I feel as if I shouldn't have to exchange money for the labor of him and his colleagues because it puts me at a 12 dollar deficit. I'll go do that right now then. Thanks, Rami.

>at least here the discussion itself is the focus and not tribalistic "my side is right" bullshit

this shit happens here too

>Nintendo makes Zelda to sell Nintendo consoles, EA publishes Battlefront to sell lootboxes
Nintendo consoles are a platform, Battlefront is not. The purpose of Nintendo consoles is to play video games, the purpose of Battlefront isn't to buy lootboxes.

Is he saying that a $400 console is a microtransaction? Fucking indie devs have far too much money.

>its okay as long as it doesn't affect the game design
>a couple years later it becomes normalized and they start letting it affect the game design to sucker in more people
>suddenly the series is unplayable without microtransactions and every other big budget game follows suit
You'd think people would recognize this process by now, especially with all the lootbox controversy. "oh its okay because it's cosmetics", a couple years later every single mobile game has gachashit out the ass and they're trying to implement them into full priced AAA games.

>First-party exclusivity may be the most harmful
Hahahahahaha

Rami is saying that they're both means of generating revenue and it is a misunderstanding to say that first party games "don't need" microtransactions because they sell on their merit. First party titles "don't need" microtransactions because they also come with a mandatory $300-$400 investment.

I'm not sure if Rami is even saying they're ethically comparable. I didn't read his blog, but I can gleam his argument from the mess of tweet. He's an indie developer who is overly sympathetic to those in the industry. He doesn't think it's right to criticize alternate forms of generating revenue and act like first-party titles don't do the same. They do the same thing differently and somehow that's better or more ethically justifiable.

It's ironic that you mention all those features, because the Switch pretty much removed every feature beyond playing games that you listed there. So, yes, that is what Nintendo wants. They're trying to make a machine you only play exclusives on.

Why do you keep making these twitter screencap threads?

>the purpose of Battlefront isn't to buy lootboxes
Found the EA shill

>dev
he doesn't do anything. he's vlambeers PR guy. he only exists to go to cons and get the company name out there

>Found the EA shill
What did he mean by this?

He is wrong. You need a platform, whatever console it may be or computer, to play ANY game on, even ones with microtransactions, so bringing it up as an argument against single player games is beyond retarded.

You are retarded for not figuring this out as well.

That's still a really dumb comparison.

One of those is a platform from a platform manufacturer and the other is just software.

Demanding you get constant revenue as if your software were a game platform is totally unreasonable.

So is the argument that every game needs to be developed for every single platform? What if a certain platform lacks the power or features to run a game? What if the fanbase of a given platform is too small to make it financially viable to make it for it?
What he is advocating is basically the communism of video games.

He's so fucking stupid. Not only does he not know what the term microtransaction means, but his post is basically saying that buying a bicycle gives you an advantage over the other cyclists, mereley because you buy a bicycle.

But thats not how it works. Everybody has to invest in the first place to get a bicycle. They're all on the same page. Nobody is a cyclist by default.

>want to play Crash Remaster
>PS4 has no other exclusives that interest me
>no way to justify to myself to make a $250 purchase to play a single game
>I just have to be ok with this because capitalism and never get to play the game I want to play
>would be completely ok with paying full $60 retail to play it on any of the platforms available to me