about Tarkov

[Muuh]

I'm aware that this can be a sensitive topic for some - so I try not to focus on the game or the devs itself but rather the bigger picture - which many seem to have missed:

 

First: I don't get why so many even argue about it. Look at other studios and how they fund thier current development! Also: It's not the 90s anymore - we don't own our games anymore!

 

My point is this: The game industry shifted quite a lot over the past 30 years. Back then a studio developed a game from start to finish and released it in hope to get back what they spent - kind of like how movies work. You went to the next store and picked up a physical copy of the game which the target platform was able to fully play without the requirement of registration or other requirements for rely on the user have a stable internet connection.

Today this changed quite signifcantly: We don't OWN our games anymore - all we get is a limited and revocable license to play a game for some unspecified in only a certain way. When the publisher or even the dev decides a game is end of life and kills the servers required to play the game - it's thier right to do so. And if they don't bother to release the server software or a patch which enables offline-play or some local-/p2p-networking - it's thier right as well. And we all accepted these terms on purchase.

 

Also: Why is it such a big deal between "DLC" and "feature"? Anybody here remember Add-Ons or Expansion Packs? I'm not sure when, where or how the term DLC got big (according to wikipedia late-2000s) - but it's part how games funded and developed these days: It's cash flow! The same goes for Early Access (which got big by Steam Greenlight) and public betas: It's yet another way for studios to fund further development while giving the community something to play around with before the release, like Bohemia did with Arma:Reforger: it's merely a tech demo and still doesn't feature everything the new enfusion engine is said to offer in its final form - but it's a way the Arma community can play around with what the devs got so far while Bohemia can use the money to fund their devs. It's a win-win for both!

 

Tarkov currently has no other cash flow than one-time purchase. So, when you have a player base of 100k players and they all already bought the game - now what? How do they fund your further development? They don't! Only new players do. So there're only two options: Go the WoW way with a subscription - which, funny enough, is they way even printer manufactures now go on-top of selling us over-priced ink and limited number of pages - or have your players pay again for new features - it's as simple as that!

 

It would be the very same discussion when popular games all of the sudden would close to a monthly subscription. Or it already was when GTA6 got leaked and so many ranted about unfinished graphics and so many other studios showed thier pre-release quality to show those who obviously not understand how games are developed these days that just because GTA6 looks like crap right doesn't mean that will be the final product we may get. It was the very same 20 years ago when Half-Life 2 got leaked.

 

Just because ONE studio now did something many studios likey would love to they now get all the shitstorm - while others doing it for decades, namely blizzard with WoW, nobody cares.

Or how about "privacy"? Today we all rant about windows being one of the worst ever - but we all happily use steam and uplay and other services which does this for decades already and we all cool with it.

 

To me all this negative press just shows how many just don't understand the real reason behind it and mistake it for greed. LMG itself is a very good example: We have two sponsor blocks and at least one store reference - and often a reference to floatplane - IN EVERY DAMN VIDEO as if the just the base YT ad reveneu wouldn't cut it. Why? Because this BEGGING for "like, share, comment, subscribe" is as old as YT itself - and we all just got used to it over the past 2 decades. Ranting about the Tarkov devs that they need some new cash flow is about the same as to force Linus to stop his crap store and sunkenship references - but the latter noone really does - so stop doing the first one, too!

[SansVarnic]

-= Moved to PC Gaming =-

[DeerDK]

On 4/28/2024 at 5:09 PM, Muuh said:

Also: Why is it such a big deal between "DLC" and "feature"? Anybody here remember Add-Ons or Expansion Packs? I'm not sure when, where or how the term DLC got big (according to wikipedia late-2000s) - but it's part how games funded and developed these days: It's cash flow! The same goes for Early Access (which got big by Steam Greenlight) and public betas: It's yet another way for studios to fund further development while giving the community something to play around with before the release, like Bohemia did with Arma:Reforger: it's merely a tech demo and still doesn't feature everything the new enfusion engine is said to offer in its final form - but it's a way the Arma community can play around with what the devs got so far while Bohemia can use the money to fund their devs. It's a win-win for both!

Bear in mind that i don't play Tarkov or live service games. Im a singleplayer gamer.

BUT - The issue here is false advertisement. If you sell a very expensive edition with the promise that all future DLC is included, and then a few years later release a new and bigger edition (and according to Luke only have release one cosmetic package - I may recall wrong, but in any case, very little of value under the original edition), and use semantics to argue why its not a DLC but a feature and you therefore don't have to uphold your end of the deal, then its scummy marketing.

Its like trying to get around cheating on your partner by saying you didn't "Sleep" with anyone else as it all happend in the shower.

 

In short - if you sell premium version and tell all future stuff is included, then don't be surprised that people get angry when you try to weasle yourself out by saying this isn't stuff, this is a feature. 

After all, DLC just means downloadable content. 
And yes, I grew up when that was called Expansions. And i play a ton of Paradox games, including DLCs/Expansions ect, but guess wha: They are open about what buying Passes means in terms of what you get in the future.

[Stahlmann]

They just screwed up by offering a "includes all future DLC" bundle in the first place. That was destined to bite them in the ass (cash flow wise) no matter what. Especially when making such a niche game with a limited reach and potential player base. They have created a situation where they can only lose in the long run.

 

Their customers have every right to be upset. When the developers changed the deal and suddenly decided that the next piece of content wasn't going to be included, they actually broke the law. It's simply false advertising at that point.

 

It's not the customer's responsibility to think about the developer's cash flow. And ultimately, it is the developer's responsibility to offer a value incentive to get a potential customer to give them money. It is insane to me how high on copium some of their customers are that they actually try to justify this ugly behavior and find reasons why they have to pay more money.

 

Frankly, the only way I can see this going through is either to refund the difference in price between the regular version of the game and the "all included" version at the time of purchase, or to refund the entire purchase, depending on the customer's choice. Otherwise I see a class action lawsuit with similar demands coming their way.

[Theminecraftaddict555]

Why do I feel like OP is trying to make bad excuses for BSG's decisions and that OP doesn't actually understand the actual issues?

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

On 4/28/2024 at 5:09 PM, Muuh said:

Linus to stop his crap store and sunkenship references - but the latter noone really does - so stop doing the first one, too!

truth is ltt would probably do just fine without that, on a smaller scale probably but still... your comparison(s) don't even make sense.

 

this is more like a phone provider changing conditions mid-term or disable your phone altogether,  ie outright fraud...

 

you cant compare that with a yt channel merchandise or regular dlc lol.

 

not the same thing at all.

 

On 4/28/2024 at 5:09 PM, Muuh said:

so I try not to focus on the game or the devs

yeah, i have my doubts on that, unknown person. 

[DeerDK]

 

I like Frost's take. He acknowledges the need for a studio to make money, while also pointing out the inconsistency in the Dev's messaging. 

 

And a note on journalism. This guy does not uncover new stuff or exposes scandals. He provides commentary and collects what is already out there, including statements from the Dev, so no need to reach out, as he is not exposing new information they have not had a chance to comment on. 

All is already known, he just provides his take. A Cold Take