What things in games or applications make you mad?

[Kawaki]

Badge catcher is rather ridiculous in my oppinion. They want you to pay, $1 for 5 plays...what can you even do with plays, get badges? Sure it is nice to have them, but this is just their way of not giving you anything and receiving money at the same time. I just wait until I get bonus plays from practice catcher, or the rabbit just gives them away. I seem to be really good at the claw machine so I get badges fast!

 

[Leviathinian]

I also dislike the idea of in-game purchases, especially when they are required like with the Nintendo Badge Arcade.
I get that it's a free game, but I don't want to feel like I'm being restricted because I don't want to pay for extra goes or a boosting item. Sadly, I don't think this will go away anytime soon. It seems to work, and that means more people will use it in their apps and games until any good game you want to play will have in-game purchases to do what actually makes the game fun. DLC is different, though. It's an extra thing that doesn't restrict your gameplay at all. It's just an optional thing you can buy if you want, no pressure.

 

[Eric Cartman]

One of the things that makes me mad is when people hack and cheat just to get good. It's annoying cause people actually want to achieve getting good at one of their favorite games. Like overwatch for example, people are using aimbots in game which makes me angry cause of competitive. Good thing blizzard is working to distinguish this issue.

 

[Eric Cartman]

I'm only angry about in- game purchases is when they either force you too like when the level is too difficult or the entire Rusty's real deal baseball game and badge arcade.

 

[Leaandro15]

What I really hate is having to pay for pokebank just to transfer or place pokemon in boxes it dosen't make sense it should just be free because many people play pokemon and it comes in handy when you are going to restart the pokemon games Pokemon X,Y,Omega Ruby, and Alpha Sapphire.

 

[Ace]

Capcom had that DLC (not Downloadable Content, Disc Locked Content.) in some of their games for a spell. To me: the idea they'd send you a game with extra stuff already in it but have to pay to use is tremendously ridiculous.

 

[Blue Knight]

Capcom had that DLC (not Downloadable Content, Disc Locked Content.) in some of their games for a spell. To me: the idea they'd send you a game with extra stuff already in it but have to pay to use is tremendously ridiculous.

Well, unlike the other kind of paid content; the consumer has no right to object on this one.

A clarification; a a publisher sells you a game; they're selling exactly that, the game experience as-is and nothing more (besides the usual manual, case and whatever) they're not selling you the game's code, they're not selling you the game's assets, not selling you the game's license nor anything of the sort: all you own from your purchase is what the developer grants you access to.

 

[MindzEye]

Well, unlike the other kind of paid content; the consumer has no right to object on this one.

A clarification; a a publisher sells you a game; they're selling exactly that, the game experience as-is and nothing more (besides the usual manual, case and whatever) they're not selling you the game's code, they're not selling you the game's assets, not selling you the game's license nor anything of the sort: all you own from your purchase is what the developer grants you access to.

Actually, I'd argue that they are selling you a game, and the content therein, and whatnot. Not the license, mind you. Or copyright. Those are rights to the manufacturer and director and soforth.

Content in the disc is content bought. That it's built-in the game means the buyer ought be allowed to have what they paid for. That they have to pay to access something right in their hands is dubious.
Think of it like this: You buy yourself a package of water, thirty bottles or so. The manufacturer has hidden five extras in the packaging, and you have to pay a small fee to have them, but... they're right there in your hands! That it was advertised 30c, but revealed itself to be 35c is arbitratry. You bought the product, you have a right to its contents right in the packaging.

 

[JuicyFlare]

I hate everything ψ(｀∇´)ψ jk.

One of the things that makes me mad is when people hack and cheat just to get good.

Yea, it is so annoying when people hack. I guess the only reason is, of course, they suck at the game. So, to fill that insecurity, they cheat.

 

[Blue Knight]

Actually, I'd argue that they are selling you a game, and the content therein, and whatnot. Not the license, mind you. Or copyright. Those are rights to the manufacturer and director and soforth.

Content in the disc is content bought. That it's built-in the game means the buyer ought be allowed to have what they paid for. That they have to pay to access something right in their hands is dubious.
Think of it like this: You buy yourself a package of water, thirty bottles or so. The manufacturer has hidden five extras in the packaging, and you have to pay a small fee to have them, but... they're right there in your hands! That it was advertised 30c, but revealed itself to be 35c is arbitratry. You bought the product, you have a right to its contents right in the packaging.

However, that is simply not how it works on the game industry. It IS a popular opinion, but it's also a misconception. The consumer is purchasing only what the developer is making available for purchase, that is the game as a experience and exactly what they made accessible. Say, you buy a game running on the Unity engine. By purchasing this product; you own only the game, not the engine; as only the game is what was sold.

There is a reason why fan mods are illegal and viable to be taken down; if someone buys Super Mario Bros; they still cannot make a fan game using assets from the game unless the developer grants permission, this is why so many romhacks and fan games get taken down and why the developer is completely justified in doing so.

Instead of the water example, an amusement park example would explain better; you pay for a ride, but you don't own the facilities you use while on it.

 

[MindzEye]

However, that is simply not how it works on the game industry. It IS a popular opinion, but it's also a misconception. The consumer is purchasing only what the developer is making available for purchase, that is the game as a experience and exactly what they made accessible. Say, you buy a game running on the Unity engine. By purchasing this product; you own only the game, not the engine; as only the game is what was sold.

There is a reason why fan mods are illegal and viable to be taken down; if someone buys Super Mario Bros; they still cannot make a fan game using assets from the game unless the developer grants permission, this is why so many romhacks and fan games get taken down and why the developer is completely justified in doing so.

Instead of the water example, an amusement park example would explain better; you pay for a ride, but you don't own the facilities you use while on it.

If we were actually talking about a carnival ride, or an arcade game, or one of those netflix rent-a-game services, I could only agree. This is not the case. It's a home-console game, which I buy expecting to play all of it with one easy payment. (Correct definition DLC I may purchase later if the game is good enough.)

Can we at least agree it's a lazy-as-chuck alternate to DLC, holding all the excess content of a game for ransom right in your living room? Can we drop this whole "it's what the dev wants you to play,"façade? If what the dev wants is to rob the lunch-monies of kids everywhere for in-game in-disc content, forget that dev. Can we at least agree games were simpler when after buying, you never had to pay extra to see it through to the end? I hate misdirection above all else. People line up to pay and pay again to have access to the game they bought, and I am further and further away from those suckers.

Know what? It's like buying a house with locked doors. The realtor has a locksmith, but insist you pay extra to have that guest bedroom, that hall closet, that upstairs washroom. It's not like I want to go in between the freaking walls, I just want to have all the rooms of the house I paid for.

I paid for that house. They have no right to lock me out of parts of the house I paid for. That's the point. I don't want to rewire the whole thing: if I had to, then I'd pay: it's a service I can't do myself, and will pay for official outside parties and tools to do the work. All I want from my house is to walk about without paying tolls for it.