Sure, and if you remove games like Fortnite, it would skew the numbers the other way. It strikes me as an arbitrary distinction.
But, I think what you point out is important, because based on the above replies it seems most people are interpreting this as their desire to play rpg games is what they are saying is more popular, when what is likely really happening is that there are just a lot of casual gamers playing CC type games.
That’s basically what happened to me. I still love pvp games, I just don’t have the time. It’s much more conducive to my lifestyle to play a game I can just pause at any moment and switch to something I need to do.
I can’t think of many things I care less about than fictional things being reworked. They’re fiction. “There has to be this truth to this fiction!” is something that will never keep me awake at night and is completely foreign to me. It’s like the same shit when people started whining that the ghost busters are girls, and that Ariel can’t be black. is it entertaining, is the only question I care about.
And don’t get me wrong, I get upset when I watch my sports teams so I’m not, by any stretch of the imagination, above getting upset over stupid shit. Lol
You know it’s funny how many times I’ve heard that “it’s just predictive text algorithms!” As a dismissal that I’m beginning to think we’re just predictive text algorithms.
Character creation in single player games is often a big thing and considered in a lot of reviews. I played a lot of midnight suns, and while I would never actually buy any cosmetic stuff, I definitely liked unlocking the skins and had ones I particularly liked. I even changed up once in a while. I would think even in multiplayer games, people aren’t generally buying the skins for other people, but because they like to look that way.
It comes as no surprise that single player cosmetics is a source of revenue.
A crowd of 10,000 people means fuck all compared to 158,429,631.
I agree that it would be a bad data set, but not because it is too small. That size would actually give you a pretty good result if it was sufficiently random. Which is, of course, the problem.
But you’re missing the point: just because something is obvious to you does not mean it’s actually true. The model could be trained in a way to not be biased by our number choice, but to actually be pseudo-random. Is it surprising that it would turn out this way? No. But to think your assumption doesn’t need to be proven, in such a case, is almost equivalent to thinking a Trump rally is a good data sample for determining the opinion of the general public.
“we don’t need to prove the 2020 election was stolen, it’s implied because trump had bigger crowds at his rallies!” -90% of trump supporters
Another good example is the Monty Hall “paradox” where 99% of people are going to incorrectly tell you the chance is 50% because they took math and that’s how it works.
Just because something seems obvious to you doesn’t mean it is correct. Always a good idea to test your hypothesis.
You missed Goldilocks zone for watching it, apparently.
Rtfa.
Call of Duty, for instance, is criticized for rewarding players with gun and attachment unlocks, which the suit calls “a form of operant conditioning,” as well as for featuring “fast-paced play, satisfying graphics, sounds, and other dopamine lifts.” Minecraft’s multiplayer features are said to “addict players to connecting with others in the Minecraft world” and the suit warns that players with ADHD “can become easily hyper focused and addicted to building worlds.” Grand Theft Auto 5, the suit says, “includes endless arrays of activities and challenges to continually engage users and ensure they are never bored.”
Windows bad, ai bad. Upvote. Thought isn’t a big consideration here.
People are able to tell apart BS, though.
Please help me be optimistic. Why do you think this is the case? No matter where I go I see mostly confirmation bias and the lack of even the most basic level of critical thought.
I was going to joke “wow, a whole 4 years?”
And the free adds content too?
The season is a battle pass.
I’m not sure what this means, as I suspect it means different things for each game. However, a quick look at the way Diablo 4, it does look like they add content with the pass, and I don’t see anything about having to purchase it, but I could be wrong. But if I was getting a constant stream of content for free and the only penalty is that I couldn’t get some meaningless cosmetic item, I would be happy not furious.
Also, I don’t recommend paying full price for any* game because they all go on sale eventually. I just drop any game I want into my wish list and then when it eventually drops under 20 bucks on steam, I buy it.
I, admittedly, don’t play Diablo 4. But I know they have “seasons.” Is there new content released with each season that you don’t have to pay for? If so, I would thank microtransactions for that and the people who pay so you get new content without paying.
All I did is point out why the comment is incorrect. The only one whining about sarcasm here is you.
Again, my response took the sarcasm into account. Its more likely that you don’t understand the sarcasm.
And how dead and devoid its updates have been, with a robust and full shop?
This is still pretty vague. Compared to previous diablos pre micro transactions, are there more or fewer updates? Were all of the expansions pay?
Do you grasp how poorly your argument looks when youre having to bring up iphone games as your shining example?
I’m sorry but I didn’t realize that these massively popular games don’t count. Can you give me the criteria for what counts so I don’t make the same mistake in the future?
I play daily and I don’t recall ever seeing this. The one caveat is that they’ll do something like, on the first line, the four boxes will be fresh, prince, bel, air. But then it’s just obvious that is not what they meant.
But that being said, it’s a tough game. I only have an 85% win rate. Often words I’ve never heard of and plenty of the purple groups I can’t figure out even after I’ve eliminated all the other groups.