randomness

[rodeje25]

well.... phoenix is back to his original way of posting

[Phoenixwarrior141]

well.... phoenix is back to his original way of posting

Hah, you think I change over time.

[Dammasta]

Gone with the Blastwave, a webcomic I enjoyed a lot.
Short, with a grim sense of humour, in a post-apocaliptic world.
Give it a shot if you are free for 30 minutes.



http://www.blastwave-comic.com/index.php?p=comic&nro=1

(Sorry for the out of the blue post, but this is the randomness thread, so I guessed it'd be fine)

I read it and enjoyed it
The artwork was quite impressive, but the humor seemed a bit off to me somehow... It didn't seem as gut-punchingly funny as it could have been.

[rodeje25]

well.... phoenix is back to his original way of posting

Hah, you think I change over time.

yes like everyone does.

[PrincessCelestia]

Refunds are generally good for the free market. If a developer can't produce something that is up to snuff, they aren't going to have money. Keeps products quality up.

[Glabbit]

well.... phoenix is back to his original way of posting

Hah, you think I change over time.

"Ha ha, you think I grow as a person"
This made me chuckle.
Phoenix do you even realise what you're saying?

[rodeje25]

well.... phoenix is back to his original way of posting

Hah, you think I change over time.

"Ha ha, you think I grow as a person"
This made me chuckle.
Phoenix do you even realise what you're saying?

hahahahaha!

[Endoperez]

Yay, randomness aiten't dead!

Isn't that a load of crap because it gets refunded to your credit card and NOT your steam wallet? Unless they changed that and I'm just an idiot.

Yes, it seems I made a mistake. The Steam Wallet is the default, but not the only option. Sorry about that.

The simple solution: Make games that people won't want to toss away after an hour or 2. And try to support your game.

The refunds seem to be a good thing for small time developers who make good products. It also loosens the burden on the consumer (They can be a tad more reckless with their spending).

I disagree slightly - that's not the answer to this problem. This change encourages developers to create games which people want to play for two hours. That's different from developers making games that are good. Making an absolutely fantastic and great game a player can't put down is hard (otherwise most games would be like that), but making a game that the player won't quit for the first two hours is much more manageable... even if it doesn't make the game,as a whole, better.

Stretching the starting quest for ~2 hours? Putting the first town, the first "breather" space, two hours from the start? Having several ~3s to ~30s unskippable cutscenes which stretch the early game out by ~20 mins total, because the playtests showed that most people took the first break at 2 hours 45 minutes?

This can be considered to be similar to customer retention on F2P — in fact, I'll just quote the article. http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/5/8732571 ... either-way

When Steam users learn to behave like installs, which they will because everyone wants free stuff and no one likes buyer’s remorse and Steam is telling them to, Steam developers will have to start thinking with funnels. They’ll have to spend the first 2 hours of their game convincing players to convert. That is, they’ll have to convince them not to ask for a refund on the game.

If you haven’t designed a F2P game yet, you will find building this onboarding process challenging, rewarding, and creatively stifling.

F2P has lots of platforms and storefronts it already happily dominates. Steam is somewhat unique in that paid games can still thrive there. Any platform change that penalizes paid games should be considered more delicately and with more developer input than what Steam developers were treated to with this refund program’s surprise launch.

Basically, this change might affect the developers' ability to follow their artistic vision. I understand it's a big deal for some guys.

---

Oh noes, I've only replied to Phoenixwarrior again! Don't worry guys, I read the rest of it, these just happen to be two things that I have something to say about.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

well.... phoenix is back to his original way of posting

Hah, you think I change over time.

"Ha ha, you think I grow as a person"
This made me chuckle.
Phoenix do you even realise what you're saying?

Yes, do you realize that was a joke?

Because that was the joke.

Yes, it seems I made a mistake. The Steam Wallet is the default, but not the only option. Sorry about that.

Holy fuck I was right about something?

We're in the fucking Twilight Zone.

I disagree slightly - that's not the answer to this problem. This change encourages developers to create games which people want to play for two hours.

1: And more games with more content is a bad thing? I get what you're going for, but this seems like it's a win for consumers.

2: That's a slight misinterpretation of what I said. If gamers don't want to toss it away after 2 hours (Most people aren't assholes you know), you've made a good game. How long it is isn't exactly important, it's a factor but it's not entirely important.

That's different from developers making games that are good.

This conflicts with what you just said.
If it's not good or they don't like it, nothing is stopping a customer from not playing the full 2 hours before refunding. There isn't a minimal time you know.

Making an absolutely fantastic and great game a player can't put down is hard (otherwise most games would be like that), but making a game that the player won't quit for the first two hours is much more manageable... even if it doesn't make the game,as a whole, better.

This is a valid point, but if your game loses it's charm after 2 hours odds are it's not gonna get favorable reviews and you're still screwed.

I question a developer who can make an amazing first 2 hours and then screw the rest of the game up as well, but I'm probably radically missing the point.

Stretching the starting quest for ~2 hours? Putting the first town, the first "breather" space, two hours from the start? Having several ~3s to ~30s unskippable cutscenes which stretch the early game out by ~20 mins total, because the playtests showed that most people took the first break at 2 hours 45 minutes?

People who play past this can still leave negative reviews, and if the gameplay doesn't interest them during this period of time in the intro (That lasts two hours) they won't finish it and simply get the refund.
So you're still screwed.

Basically, this change might affect the developers' ability to follow their artistic vision. I understand it's a big deal for some guys.

It's a BIG deal for me, and I don't see a problem with the refund system. If your game is good you don't have much to worry about, not every gamer is a greedy asshole.

[Endoperez]

1: And more games with more content is a bad thing? I get what you're going for, but this seems like it's a win for consumers.

2: That's a slight misinterpretation of what I said. If gamers don't want to toss it away after 2 hours (Most people aren't assholes you know), you've made a good game. How long it is isn't exactly important, it's a factor but it's not entirely important.

This conflicts with what you just said.
If it's not good or they don't like it, nothing is stopping a customer from not playing the full 2 hours before refunding. There isn't a minimal time you know.

This is a valid point, but if your game loses it's charm after 2 hours odds are it's not gonna get favorable reviews and you're still screwed.

I question a developer who can make an amazing first 2 hours and then screw the rest of the game up as well, but I'm probably radically missing the point.

You gave these three (four?) opinions on one point of mine. I have no idea how to answer them, or which ones I should answer. I don't know if this clarifies things at all...

My point: this system might encourage developers to change the first two hours in a specific way, IN ADDITION TO anything else they might do. They gain a benefit from it (less players can refund the game), and lose nothing easily measurable (the early game is now designed using different standards).

People who play past this can still leave negative reviews, and if the gameplay doesn't interest them during this period of time in the intro (That lasts two hours) they won't finish it and simply get the refund.
So you're still screwed.

No, because the game isn't necessarily bad. It just has a different early game.

It will make a potential difference in a situation where a player plays only a part of a game, before deciding it's not his or her thing. Which may be up to 30% of the time. There's too little data for proper conclusions, but it's hinting that devs might want to change up their games' early game in some way.

If your game is good you don't have much to worry about, not every gamer is a greedy asshole.

Besides the "it will affect all games, not just bad games" thing, I think gamers do have more inclinations to cheat the system in this way. Gamers are really good at optimizing systems and finding bugs and cheats, and might look at this the same way.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

You gave these three (four?) opinions on one point of mine. I have no idea how to answer them, or which ones I should answer. I don't know if this clarifies things at all...

Am I winning an argument? Did the universe break down?

My point: this system might encourage developers to change the first two hours in a specific way, IN ADDITION TO anything else they might do. They gain a benefit from it (less players can refund the game), and lose nothing easily measurable (the early game is now designed using different standards).

Then they'll get negative reviews, hence why the system exists.

No, because the game isn't necessarily bad. It just has a different early game.

They WILL put that in the review then. It's definitely worth noting.

It will make a potential difference in a situation where a player plays only a part of a game, before deciding it's not his or her thing. Which may be up to 30% of the time. There's too little data for proper conclusions, but it's hinting that devs might want to change up their games' early game in some way.

See above, the reviews are a second fail safe.

[Glabbit]

You gave these three (four?) opinions on one point of mine. I have no idea how to answer them, or which ones I should answer. I don't know if this clarifies things at all...

Am I winning an argument? Did the universe break down?

Only if you count being completely incomprehensible as a victory, in which case, why are you even bothering forming words when you couldasasfkljhasadnjavlnamlacfluhmafhf?

Incidentally, there's really no such thing as 'winning' an argument. There's three different possible types of cases: one where you're right to begin with, and patiently explain why, which almost never happens to anyone, a second where you're wrong or partially wrong, and you learn from the argument, either through self-reflection or other's words, and become slightly less wrong, which is more common.
The third and, sadly, most common form is the case where no one learns anything, or worse, people learn the wrong things*, and it's generally a huge waste of time for everyone involved.

*For example, they somehow learn it's possible or even desirable to "win" an argument, which they then start to envision as forcibly imposing their own opinion on someone else, which is rather rude, and arguably a form of violence.

[Endoperez]

Am I winning an argument? Did the universe break down?

No, you are not making any sense. I was right and what I said conflicted with itself and it was kinda wrong, but I was only saying a single thing.

Then they'll get negative reviews, hence why the system exists.

Show me a review that discusses Witcher 3's tutorial, then, or its first two hours, compared to Witcher 2. Here it's skipped in a single sentence. That's hardly going to be the thing which people decide on. Witcher 3 is open world, 2 isn't, so the games should teach the gameplay in different ways. If that difference doesn't come across in a review, I suppose that a less noticeable difference won't be mentioned either.

http://ign.com/articles/2015/05/12/the- ... unt-review

Re: Glabbit's "winning the argument"

There are other possibilities too, like you both being wrong and realizing it, or you being wrong and convincing the guy who was right he was wrong after all, and you both learning about why the other person thinks like they do while not actually changing the opinions.

I might even go as far as to claim that truth is irrelevant to winning an argument. Argument is "won" when you benefit from it by convincing someone or by learning or by changing your own opinion, and truth isn't necessary for any of those.

[Glabbit]

Re: Glabbit's "winning the argument"

There are other possibilities too, like you both being wrong and realizing it,

I strongly disagree. I find this example falls under category two: Being wrong and learning from it. Note that this category does not say anything about the other party. Thusly, your example is a case where the second case I described is true for both participants.
Additionally, learning from something and becoming less wrong doesn't mean your new opinion is right.

or you being wrong and convincing the guy who was right he was wrong after all, and you both learning about why the other person thinks like they do while not actually changing the opinions.

Tricksy hobbitses, that's a category three and a two, respectively. In the example where exhibit A convinced exhibit B that A's opinion is true, despite this not being the case, then for A this is a case where he learns nothing at all (case three, first subtype), whilst B learns an untruth; the wrong thing which is also a case three (second subtype).
The example where both parties learn more about each other but do not advance in the matter of the argument is still a form of learning, which I'd still count as becoming slightly less wrong, regardless of what you're becoming less wrong about.
Thus things have been learnt, and it is evident that it is a category two argument for all participants.
QED.

I might even go as far as to claim that truth is irrelevant to winning an argument. Argument is "won" when you benefit from it by convincing someone or by learning or by changing your own opinion, and truth isn't necessary for any of those.

This... is ostensibly in conflict with what I've been saying, but I actually agree. You're just redefining 'winning' as something that is attainable and desirable. I was however previously working with the definition of 'winning' as we understand it in common banter, i.e., a different definition altogether, which actually makes this a moot, perhaps even irrelevant point.
That is to say, yes, it is possible and desirable to positively benefit from exchanges such as disputes and arguments, and indeed, what truth is is not a part of that question, but that is all an aside to the statement I made earlier, which is that 'winning' arguments in the same manner that one 'wins' a game of chess, is in no way beneficial in and of itself, and does not make you a better person.

Boom.
I am can words.

[Endoperez]

You am can words. I am can concur only. Bows and symbols of gratitude.