Heroes of the Storm

Discussion in 'Now Playing' started by Fenrir, Nov 9, 2013.

  1. Fenrir

    Fenrir Well-Known Member

  2. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    It looks intriguing. But I'll hold till its actually released to see how it fares. It seems like a shinnier, brighter LoL.
  3. ratxt1

    ratxt1 Well-Known Member

    Where games last 15 minutes.

    Honestly they had me sold on that line. The rest I was kind of unimpressed with.
    Mililani likes this.
  4. CWheezy

    CWheezy Well-Known Member

    Time to get paid
  5. tataki

    tataki Well-Known Member

    15 minute matches, no last hits and splitting the reward among the whole party for kills...

    I want to try this.
    Kdansky and EnDevero like this.
  6. pkt-zer0

    pkt-zer0 Well-Known Member

    Interested in this just to see if they can make a DOTA variant that doesn't cause me immeasurable pain and/or boredom. Then again, I had the same approach to D3, and that didn't work out, haha. Any details on the game, besides the short trailers?

    Also: Murloc Diablo, what the hell.

    Better still: Diablo riding a rainbow unicorn.
  7. Fenrir

    Fenrir Well-Known Member

    MultIple maps. Yes! Sub maps within the main map! Yes! Maps with gameplay relevant interactive features! Yes!

    Willingness to try new things in the genre is good.
    -Y- likes this.
  8. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    Also no BS last-hitting. Just because of this I hope it succeeds. I know last hit is pointless, now there will be a game that proves me right.
  9. keithburgun

    keithburgun Well-Known Member

    Is there a word that means "the opposite of ambitious"? That's the word that would describe Blizzard post 2002, and it becomes more and more clear every day. The word I like best for them is "cynical". Anyway, you know how most decent videogame companies are a business and they also want to make great, interesting new games? Well, Blizzard is officially just a business now.
  10. pkt-zer0

    pkt-zer0 Well-Known Member

    Unambitious.

    Also, they're solving unsolved problems! Isn't that the "innovation" thing that makes you all warm and fuzzy inside, Keithy-poo?
    MajinSweet and Decepticle like this.
  11. Decepticle

    Decepticle Active Member

    I like the mount idea in terms of getting around the map, returning to your lane after buying/being killed, and just getting a group to get back together and coordinate faster. I can only assume there is a cast time so its not a viable escape options as well. Granted this is speculation but it seems that's the goal of this addition and I welcome it.
  12. keithburgun

    keithburgun Well-Known Member

    Pkt-Zero: <3

    If they're solving problems with this game and innovating, I'll be the first one to give them credit for it. If matches are 15 minutes but they don't gut the entire concept of any of its original value(as was the case with Solstice Arena for example), that'd be great.
  13. banewlf

    banewlf Well-Known Member

    Do you have some evidence or reason to believe that they are gutting the concept?
  14. Star Slayer

    Star Slayer Well-Known Member

    Huh, never heard of this game before, but it seems that they have presented an early version in 2010 already. The ideas and mechanics sound interesting, but throwing those three different franchises together seems weird. Tyrael fighting against Zerg? Tauren fighting against Space Marines? Maybe the crazy fun factor makes up for the total lack of immersion?
  15. tataki

    tataki Well-Known Member



    And as if 2 characters hanging around mindless creeps and not fighting because just being there magically gets them stronger has any immersion to begin with...
  16. Eji1700

    Eji1700 Well-Known Member

    The ideas seem interestingish? I agree with Keith here that blizzards mostly phoning things in these days(and it does seem that way with this), but it'll mostly be about how they handle it after release.
  17. pkt-zer0

    pkt-zer0 Well-Known Member

    Hmm, selectable talents locked behind grind? Ruh-roh.
    Eji1700 likes this.
  18. CWheezy

    CWheezy Well-Known Member

    It has to be that way in today's world
  19. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Does it shit on the spirit of competition by having a forced grind to unlock gameplay-relevant objects? I would assume yes, given that they just released Hearthstone, a game that shits on the spirit of competition by having an uneven playfield mode where can pay to have stronger cards.

    It didn't even occur to me to complain about Blizzard's lack of innovation. That's not a complaint of mine at all. Meanwhile, one of the best game companies in the world at creating competitive games just created a fraudulently competitive one. If this one is fraudulently competitive one as well, then I don't even know what to say. I would never ever support a game that shits on what competition should be about. It really makes me sad inside to see anyone support forced grinds or collectable barriers in a competitive game.
    Dr.Starky, keithburgun and asdfer like this.
  20. Polari

    Polari Well-Known Member

    I finally found this too. From the FAQ:

    Q: Heroes of the Storm is free-to-play—what is available for sale and what can be earned in game?

    A: We'll discuss more details about how the business model works in the future. What we can say is that you will be able to unlock heroes and other content just by playing the game. Cosmetic upgrades like skins, equipment, and mounts will be available. New heroes will also be released over time, along with new battlegrounds, though battlegrounds will probably be freely available to all players. It's also possible that additional talent options for existing heroes could be available as unlockable content.


    Sounds like I'm going to stick to Dota.
    Bodknocks, Xom and Eji1700 like this.
  21. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    I would be extremely shocked if it wasn't like that, pretty sure Valve would have if they could and DotA2 only avoided it because of the grandfather clause.
  22. Polari

    Polari Well-Known Member

    HoN had (has?) a quite fair F2P model with no forced grind and reasonable prices. I have a tiny bit of hope left that HotS will be like that.
    Eji1700 and Sirlin like this.
  23. pkt-zer0

    pkt-zer0 Well-Known Member

    Why is "ignore that mode if you want to take competition seriously" not an option? I'm not saying its inclusion is a good thing, but as long as there is also a mode that is free from all that nonsense, you can just play that an have fun still. I mean, otherwise I don't think you can justify the planned super-evil 1P modes for Yomi, either. Technically, that would not be shitting on the spirit of competition, but shitting on people in general. If you want to argue that's a necessary evil, you could just as easily consider Play mode in Hearthstone a necessary evil. (For my part, I'm hoping neither evil is actually necessary in the long term, but for the time being, I can concede they might be.)

    As for supporting forced grinds and collectible barriers, your usually proposed solution there would be to boycott the game, correct? That seems overly idealistic, if the game in question is well-designed otherwise. I think what would actually happen is that people will choose to put up with some amount of bullshit, instead of playing a worse game. Magic still being a popular competitive game underlines that pretty heavily.

    The way you can break out of this is by showing that you don't have to choose between "no bullshit" and "good design", give people something that has both. With Hearthstone/Magic, Codex aims to do exactly that, which is a major reason why I'd personally really like to help make it happen. But if you're going to say that people are morally obligated to work on that, instead of playing the currently existing good (but exploitative) games, I don't think that's going to go down well.

    I suppose the short version of that would be that I wholeheartedly agree with your goals, but I don't see some of your methods as conducive towards them.
    N-A-F-T-W and ntillerman like this.
  24. Fenrir

    Fenrir Well-Known Member



    Full match video for your perusal.

    Things I like:

    A map objective that gives you vision over a large area. Jungle camps that give you mercenary creeps which join your team. Instead of giving you a long gold benefit you get a temporary benefit in gameplay. Like local slippery slope. And of course the skulls objective.

    I really like that they're giving real incentives to get into fights. There're things on the map which you have to fight over and that kind of forces a much less passive game. Seems like there's never a reason to just hang around and last hit. Which, of course there isn't because there's no gold, or items.

    Also, no gold, or items. This is great. It really cuts back on the slippery slope, lame duck nonsense which I think is a huge draw back to this whole genre.

    Also, also. "Uther walks away."
    -Y- and pkt-zer0 like this.
  25. Ehrgeix

    Ehrgeix Well-Known Member

    This looks awful. Everything seems so not-smooth. More 0.5+ second attack animations argh. Hope I am wrong. I wonder what kind of stuff they have to allow people to mechanically outplay opponents.

    e: It just looks so *clunky* compared to d3 gameplay, or LoL.
  26. Fenrir

    Fenrir Well-Known Member

    I don't think that it looks any clunkier than LoL. I'll grant you that Diablo 3 is much more smooth.
  27. Dogmantra

    Dogmantra Well-Known Member

    wow I was excited because it's another game that tries to do away with farming etc and I like them... then I'm like ten seconds into the match and all the characters just blend into the background

    seriously, can devs start making games where you can actually see what's going on
    vivafringe and Waterd103 like this.
  28. Ehrgeix

    Ehrgeix Well-Known Member

    http://www.ongamers.com/videos/doublelift-shares-his-thoughts-on-blizzcon-and-her/2300-95/

    LoL pro on HotS, thought this was a decent interview.

    e: Summary (not in order) -

    * No items
    * No last hits
    * Completely different game to LoL/dota2
    * Fun casual game, he enjoyed playing with friends
    * Customization/talents are fun, but there will always be a best build and people will just use those (?)
    * Levels/xp are shared between teams, no individual xp, so carrying games is harder than in LoL/dota
    * Thinks it will be very very snowbally, because everything is global, so when a team gets ahead they can stay ahead.
  29. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    pkt: Uh yes of course I advocate boycotting fraudulent competitive games. The alternative, not boycotting and instead supporting them, is unthinkable to me. Shame on you for not boycotting them.

    The Yomi 1p thing you are referring to is totally unrelated. It has nothing to do with shitting on the spirit of competition. Having ways to monetize that don't involve ruining level playfields is fine. Even mentioning that is you shifting the conversation off of the important thing: forced grinds and collectible barriers in competitive games are bad things that you shouldn't support or condone.

    Hearthstone having another mode is not good enough. That mode benefits from the unfair mode existing, and they're able to make their money in the fair mode because the unfair mode exists, so even playing that condones what they are doing.

    Have some higher standards, people. Forced grinds in a competitive game should be auto-reject. Being "otherwise well designed" is not good enough because the bad effect is so toxic to the central concept of what competition is about, and we are losing that in today's world. That said, if even you guys DON'T boycott that stuff, I guess it's fine to start implementing uneven playfield modes in my games so we can shit on competition too. Seems like your standards are so low that you don't even care about that. Or maybe I shouldn't make competitive games given that the world doesn't really want them anyone, only offensive, fraudulently competitive ones. Super disappointing.
    dansal likes this.
  30. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    This sounds like it combines the great unit control of Sc2, the mounted travel of Wow, the long poking foghts of Lol, the in your face mindless aggression from mmo arenas and the ability to only accel as a team no matter your individual performance. I am SO excited especially given Blizzard's great competitive game innovations of the last few years.
    Ehrgeix and banewlf like this.
  31. ntillerman

    ntillerman Well-Known Member


    By fraudulently competitive, do you mean ridiculously overpriced? I don't like random distribution either, but both Hearthstone and MtG include ways to get specific cards guaranteed (crafting, and buying them from a dealer). I agree that these games exploit 12 year olds and people with impulse control issues, but most competitive players just buy the cards outright or spend enough money to be guaranteed to get enough "arcane dust" to craft them. Basically, I see random distribution as a way to make extra money off the game, but it doesn't stop anyone from playing MtG competitively any more than needing to buy an XBox and Starcraft stops someone from playing Starcraft competitively. The difference is MtG costs more.

    If booster packs cost 50 cents, thus bringing the secondary market in check and making constructed deck prices reasonable, would you still think MtG's business model is completely evil and unfair?
    deluks917 likes this.
  32. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    To clarify, I actually didn't mean ridiculous price. For example, if Street Fighter 5 came out and it cost $1000, I'd just say "it's expensive." I mean if the price tag literally said "$1000" on it. If you chose to play that game, that would be fine with me. It means you felt the high cost was worth it because the game is so good. This example isn't "fraudulent" to me, just expensive, and up to you if you would buy it. If you think it's a really really good game then supporting it at that price is saying "good design is worth paying for," which I would support.

    What I actually meant were two things. First, when the price is crazy high AND obfuscated by booster packs. The feelings surrounding mtg would be much different if you went to the store and saw a small box of cards for the game Fluxx that cost $10 and then another right next to it, in offical WotC packaging that cost $500 for the same number of pieces of cardboard. Obfuscating it lets them get away with it. Second, there's the separate idea of not even letting people have the gameplay relevant objects no matter how much they would pay. Saying "you must play 100 hours to get all the pieces, and you can't even pay to skip that."

    Both examples above are "fraudulent competitive games" imo because of the second order effects. While the collectible barrier and forced grinds are themselves bad, it's the consequence of them that's as bad or worse: that they create uneven playfields. Instead of it being impossible to play gimped stuff vs strong stuff, it's now easily possible and common. Instead of having one game that everyone gets to participate in, you have a very large set of junky games with pieces missing that you have to learn. Imagine if you wanted to play chess and the only makers of chess said you have to play a bunch with no bishops or rooks first (which is a weired, gimped, non-chess game) in order to access the bishops. Then you get to play a still gimped non-chess game (no rooks) before you finally get the real game. That whole thing just has no respect for what competitive games are about (even playfields) and it comes from the nature of the idea "we're going to withhold some pieces from you and make you think that's a) somehow acceptable and b) actually good."

    Hearthstone, mtg, and League of Legends are all fraudulently competitive by this standard, and they personally offend me. It hurts that they are cementing the death of even playfields and increasing mindshare around the idea "uneven playfields are totally fine in a competitive game." And btw, saying that pros are fine with it is no defense. a) they shouldn't be fine with it, b) even if they were, the bad mindset that uneven playfields are ok is still inflicted upon the masses, and their thinking shaped by it all. Our culture is losing out on even understanding competition. Because competition (not fraudulent, but real competition) has enriched my life so much, it's especially sad to me.
    Dr.Starky, Effay, dansal and 7 others like this.
  33. Flak Maniak

    Flak Maniak Super Moderator Staff Member

    Couple questions: Are we certain that the talents will be behind some kind of grind or grind/pay system? The quote from the website seems ambiguous.

    Second: What of playing objectionable games without (meaningfully) monetarily supporting them? When I did play LoL, I never directly paid Riot any money. I guess you could say I loaded ads on their website when I read their forums, and I contributed to the ability of others to play and pay for the game, and maybe I even benefited their player base in other ways by causing others to play (Games like LoL tend to sweep friend groups). I don't regret playing LoL because I met a lot of great people through it, but I do regret not quitting sooner. It was a bad game and not even for these competitive reasons.

    Also, a minor point about the LoL example: Doesn't Riot give tournament players full accounts during tournaments? This doesn't excuse the rest of it, because a) the ladder is important, not just tournament results, and b) even if every tournament has the full game, not being able to practice with everything is pretty indefensible. But at least it's something, I guess? (Really they should just take away the ability to play the game at all outside of tournaments, pre-release Divekick style.)

    Lastly, there are some games that I feel should be able to exist, and benefit from certain trappings of competition, that shouldn't be regarded as competitive games. My example is Scrolls. If taken from the starting point of being a competitive game, obviously you throw it out immediately. But what if the starting point is scratching that TCG itch? It's really good at that. It's there because collecting cards and deckbuilding are fun. Also the game mechanics are engaging. And then, oh, wouldn't this be more fun if there were matchmaking? Wouldn't a ranking system make this more enjoyable? And to all those questions that edge it towards "fake competitive game", I'd answer yes, those things do make Scrolls more fun. The problem is that people will then think it's a real competitive game. What I'm saying is that it can come at these attributes from a completely different angle, from some casual thing that then gains the trappings of competition because those give people goals and enhance their fun.

    P.S. Bloodline Champions never forget

    P.P.S. A ton of the things Blizzard has said about departures from the genre's conventions seem excellent. No last-hitting, shared reward for kills, blah blah. They know what they're doing, at least in some respects.
    Drakir, pkt-zer0, N-A-F-T-W and 2 others like this.
  34. Dogmantra

    Dogmantra Well-Known Member

    liked for this
    Xom, Decepticle, N-A-F-T-W and 2 others like this.
  35. keithburgun

    keithburgun Well-Known Member

    Sirlin is completely right on this - also I would go even further to say that having thousands of bits of content, hundreds of heroes, items, cards, whatever - tons more than it needs, is an acutely bad quality for a game to have. It isn't to say that you can't have a well-designed game with ten billion components - the way to word it is that the likelihood of having a strong, well designed, balanced game goes down dramatically the more content you have. I know that "Heroes of the Storm" (AWESOME name btw, holy shit, what a good name that is) is a dotalike and therefore will probably have dotalike amounts of content, which itself is kind of a requirement for having these kinds of pricing schemes and screwed up playing field.

    So, this whole CCG/IAP/unfair pricing thing is both bad for competition, and it's bad for game design, because such a model pushes the designer towards having more content than his system needs.
    Waterd103, Xom and Flak Maniak like this.
  36. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    Heroes of the Storm seems like a pretty derpy title when they HAVE a HotS by the same company out already.
    Xom and ratxt1 like this.
  37. Fenrir

    Fenrir Well-Known Member

    You can abbreviate it to Hot Storm. Which, is just amazing.
    Xom, ratxt1 and Lemmingrad like this.
  38. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    On topic of shitting on competition. I don't see this (Heroes of the Storms) game doing that so far.

    Anyway as far as using exploitative mechanics like Skinner's boxes and random distribution to lock out content are they have a really good reason why they are there. The effect of random packs on a game design are profound but it does enhance the experience and in some aspects its better than having to buy individual elements.

    If you remove it, you need to fill the void left with something else. Something that will keep players coming. Also from what I understand there is a mode in Hearthstone that unlocks all cards, right?

    What does this refer to?
  39. Eji1700

    Eji1700 Well-Known Member

    On them breaking genre norms- That's fine. While I don't think you could ever just rip last hitting out of dota without completely reworking a game, building one from the ground up with that in mind is a good idea. That said I really hope they understand why it's actually in the game, and replace it well. I'm not super excited by what I see so far.

    On pay walls and shit- Dota does fine without it, but they get the whole "comes with steam" advantage(although that's somewhat offset by dota being one of the most unforgiving games of the genre). I don't know if valve wanted to monetize the way Lol and now possibly this will, but the simple fact is they decided not to(i know ice was probably involved in that, but if they really wanted to they could've). Either way the proof of concept is there, and blizzard has little excuse in my eyes to copy the WORST aspects of LoL IMO(runes/masteries/summoner spells/unlocking heroes). Each system has some potential(except the unlocking part really), but I don't have much faith in blizzard to handle this well after D3.

    Finally commenting on keiths minimalist approach- i actually feel very odd about this. Items serve a purpose in all of these games, and it's...an ok one. I do much prefer dota's system for reasons I don't need to get into, but the idea is they let you customize your base kit from game to game. Now it's true there's issues where X item will NEVER be bought on Y hero because of mechanics or whatever(lol's mana items for manaless heroes comes to mind), but I think beyond that it can work.

    Further i VASTLY prefer it to this "LOOK TALENT TREES" shit. Again the idea can work, but I'm hesitant to say it will. You want each hero to fill a role, and you want that role to somehow being a little more flexible. Dota/hon/lol do this with items. Looks like they've got talent tress. If you're going to do that you're going to spend even more time(or should) balancing them out to actually have REAL choices. Not every hero in dota or lol has multiple skill/item builds, but a majority do, and I actually think it's easier with a skill system+items than it's going to be with a talent tree system.
  40. Flak Maniak

    Flak Maniak Super Moderator Staff Member

    I agree. Loads of games, especially CCG-ish ones, feel the need to have a million components for the sake of it, and loads of bad ones. And even if they don't try to have loads of bad stuff (Magic I'm lookin' at you), they do end up with a lot of dross because you just simply can't balance that much shit! And you get a bunch of overlapping things, and just generally a bloated game with many more elements than you need. See: LoL and its business need to keep releasing characters, and the fact they have MORE THAN A HUNDRED. Good balance will be impossible. Imagine MvC4, with a hundred characters and five-character teams.

    I know a lot of people that really like having a million things in the game, whether for more supposed variety, or so that new content can keep arriving, but it frustrates the hell out of me. I just want them to get right what exists and if it's good I'll play it for ages without needing new content. Why did Chrono Phantasma have to include a bunch of new characters? Hype factor I guess. Somehow that really draws people in. But it pisses me off when people act like it's an unmitigated good thing. They act like wanting fewer options is somehow bad and not just practical. The default way of thinking about improving a multiplayer game should not be "Oh let's add way more options!" And this isn't to say that I want everything to be Ryu vs. Ryu. Clearly some variety is good but you can hit all the archetypes and playstyles you need to with fairly few characters. And then if you have a great idea for another character, sure, go for it. But don't tell me you need a new character every two weeks, and that you need them to fill the same roles, in very similar ways, as old characters. (At least LoL has slowed down on character design and it seems they're learning to make them a bit more interesting and distinct.)
    Xom and keithburgun like this.
  41. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    Blizzard's great feature set like um...
    Well they have built in streaming.. err... Well live public spectat.. I mean in game tournament support... Er team branding or well whatever forget it.
    Ehrgeix likes this.
  42. zem

    zem Super Moderator Staff Member

    The big reasons I'm aware of are that it's psychologically addictive (good to keep an active player base) and that it makes a lot of money (good to make a lot of money). Those are good for the company more than the individual player though.
    The aspects in which random packs are better than buying individual components are: you can potentially get high value stuff at any time, which fuels the psychological addictiveness. On average, though, you don't.

    I don't think these things are good for players, except in the sense that gambling is dangerously fun, which we knew already.
  43. Dogmantra

    Dogmantra Well-Known Member

    well, that and 1. it's a port of one of the most popular "videogames" (quotations cos it's a mod/map not because I'm saying it's so bad it doesn't count as a game) of all time and 2. valve can do no wrong in the eyes of most gamers (except for not releasing half life 3)
  44. Eji1700

    Eji1700 Well-Known Member

    While that's all true, it gained popularity being free and wall-less as well. Once that popularity was there they found a way to monetize that didn't involve kicking competitive players in the teeth. I'm not quite sure how the "valve can do no wrong" thing factors in(i mean fuck the diretide stuff sure makes it seem otherwise).
  45. tataki

    tataki Well-Known Member

    I'd say the real damage only comes from people who are communicating the message of "grind/pay to win is good", not from people enjoying the game for the multiplayer diablo that it is.

    I think most people are NOT looking for depth and skill in their multiplayer games so obviously they'll have no problem with grinding bringing results.

    Regarding HOTS- I don't know all the details yet but technically they can easily get the Sirlin Seal of Approval by adding an "unlock all for X$" option.

    I never understood this logic. "Our game is good because guy X, who gets paid to play it, is fine with it".
    That's like paying a hooker to sleep with you and then using that as "proof" that you're great in the sack.
  46. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    HotS gets what HotS has. Heroes of the Storm is just a Blizzard tweaking Sc2 engine. So it probably has whatever SC2 has. And SC2 has some pretty nifty stuff - like jump into a replay, observers and replays. Also HotS seems to be going for a lot more friendlier, lot more casual version of Hero Brawler or MOBA or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

    As for the mechanics of how random decks, etc work I do agree they are exploitative, but the JC Penny fiasco reminds me that removing these mechanics because they are BAD™ doesn't work and they need to be filled with a similarily interesting mechanic. So I'm all for removing Skinner boxes, just make sure you can replace them with something less exploitative perhaps. Maybe randomized packs of skins?

    /sorry was sleepy when writting this.
  47. Majidah

    Majidah Well-Known Member


    Can I ask why LOL is on that list? Is it just because runes are not purchaseable? The other two definitely have the "pay money-->get stuff you didn't want," thing going on, but LOL is just expensive of money and time, you never pay for a hero and then don't get it. I can also envision an objection related to the rapid expansion of the cost that accompanies it.

    I think there are three relevant parameters: Total price (in $ and hours), price derivative (higher in chance-based and rapidly expanding games), and secondary market, and then you have a level you'll tolerate. I don't think that it's clear that standing on principle is best. LOL has created a MASSIVE competitive gaming scene, larger than street fighter, in part because of it's novel pricing.
  48. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    Two issues here. Runes are one of them. The other is if you pay the sticker price for every character in the game, you still won't own the game because they'll just release more champions.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, and there's a third issue where you need to spend 100+ hours grinding masteries before it even lets you play Ranked.
  49. Majidah

    Majidah Well-Known Member


    These are excellent reasons not to like the game, but none are fraudulent in the sense that you are explicitly or implicitly promised something in exchange for money which is then not delivered.

    I, personally, think that standing on a single clear principle will exclude lots of good games, and include lots of mediocre ones, and so I prefer to see it as a fuzzy, quantitative thing (though I'm interested in discussions of alternative opinions, which is why I asked the question). I'm just querying what constitutes fraud since LOL says "each hero costs $5, there are 100 of them, plus one new one every fortnight month, also you can buy some cosmetic stuff, or pay with time," and gets raked into the same category as Hearthstone which says: pay "$1 for a chance to get a thing (but probably nothing)."

    To me the former is pricy, but the later is just trying to cleverly circumvent gambling laws, and I thought that was the line Sirlin was drawing, so I asked for clarification.
  50. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    Actually, there's a bit of that too.

    Buying a character doesn't mean I get to play the character I bought. It means I get to play the character I bought if the other team decides to let me.

    But I think what Sirlin means by "fraudulent" is "marketed as a competitive game while not being suitable for competitive play"

Share This Page