how about a thread to highlight some good mobile games?
Lol no. Most mobile shitshows are ignored for the right reasons, most of them are bad in every aspect of their design the only ones that get played are the ones on the paid section of the AppStore or google play store or whatever other store your system uses>>18798
Those games are on the front page and they cost actual money because the developers actually put in effort to not make them complete shit that’s how you’ll know those games are good
I remember playing with this game but gave up because it was basically gambling, the stats barely mattered it is pure luck.
I'm pretty sure mobile games are the most played/profitable ones, that's why they fucking make so many
Lmao for like the fraction of the fraction of mobile games that actually get played, for the one multibillion profit producing candy crush you see on the AppStore there’s thousands of shitty clones that likely costed more to make and got forgotten hours after release
But if mobile games werent profitable there wouldn't be so many same-ass mobile clones shitted out. 'Clan Clash' probably won't make as much money as 'Clash of Clans' but they'll most likely recoup investment and make at least a bit of money
Oh well that may be true but for as scummy and micro transaction rampant the mobile game scene none are as scummy and rampant as diablo immortal. I know it’s beating a dead and diseased horse but it’s shocking knowing that game lived up to everyone’s horrendous expectations of it and still came out worse than what people thought it would be
Mobile games aren't taken seriously because the field is crowded by market-tested lab-perfected skinner boxes designed to effortlessly separate you from your money more effectively than any other platform. They're the most profitable games in the industry because they're the most abusive. Doesn't help that constant system updates make older games obsolete within a couple years unless devs continually update it.>>18798
Desktop Dungeons was really good until the devs stopped updating it, but at least there's still a PC version. Roguelikes in general make for good mobile games imo
anybody ever hear about this game called angry birds star wars?
All 'good' mobile games can be boiled down to things you can play elsewhere. It's like when people list worthwhile 360/ps3 exclusives they include some shmup when there's 100s of shmups on other platforms. Having said that, mobile games do stand-out on their production values (at times) these are of such high quality there's no real pay-once game equivalent with similar assets. I don't feel bad for devs however. I feel bad for genuinely great musicians that are stuck with 1k-10k views on Youtube that get overtaken by rappers with the same stage name despite coming earlier. Artists that release an album once a decade. Real tight shit.
Rather than divide games by platform. Divide them by genre. Having said that, there's some good games stuck on the mobile platform, but I won't tell them to you because you're not interested in playing games on genre. People listing ports also miss the point.
Mobile games are designed to release dopamine, but Switch games are much the same. Games became all about performing quick and easy tasks for short releases of it. SMO has 900 moons, sm64 has 120. Botw has 1200 turds etc etc. The best mobiles games would be even better if they weren't gacha but had real challenge and variety to overcome rather than grind until you get past it.
Porn cannot provide the same dopamine-attachment relationship a gacha game offers. I'm not watching your garbage youtube essay
>>18861>Porn cannot provide the same dopamine-attachment relationship a gacha game offers.
Why would you want that?
Don't assume I would?
If you don't, then why bring it up?
Ayy a fellow DoL enjoyer!
Lilith's Throne is better.
>>18928>this wasn’t created for money.
Behold what people will be motivated to produce when capital is no longer a thing.>Some asshole of a game dev
There is a half-dozen devs working on it now.>>18929
Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle.
I didn't bring my desires into the conversation at all. I'm simply stating that what was said is false.
>>18931>I'm simply stating that what was said is false.<Or porn.
Why I should feel bad for mobile game devs?
1: Ruined the industry with their shitty microtransactions and P2W shit.
2:They make way more money than console/pc game devs (especially in Japan) every retard wants to make a mobile game with anime girls, make cash with gacha shit and close the game when its not profitable anymore, that happens almost every time
A lot of the gamedev industry is just actual sweat shops. It's not particular to mobile shit. You regularly have people working 100+ hour weeks, even if it's not crunch time. You often have to remake assets over and over again not just because it's an iterative process but because you often see major changes happening out of the blue that invalidates months of work on something that no longer fits into the game.
How the hell is that the fault of the developers that mobile gamers are retarded children that’ll pay their way through every problem in a game that requires thinking? Sure you can fucking hate studios like activision for their god awful annual release microtransactional policies but don’t forget there are retards that keep buying the same(to a literal extent now that modern warfare 2 has been made remastered and made a fucking-gain) every few fucking years
The developers are the ones who created that malicious skinnerbox in the first place, sure you can blame people for being dumb that fell for it but that's pointless, we can't remove dumb people from existence, we should build a better world where people's worst tendencies aren't exploited. If you say 'it's their fault for falling for it' you may as well be a Reaganite or whatever.
>>18967>The developers are the ones who created that malicious skinnerbox in the first place, sure you can blame people for being dumb that fell for it but that's pointless, we can't remove dumb people from existence, we should build a better world where people's worst tendencies aren't exploited.
Okay so what happens when those dumb games idiots comprise the majority of the mobile gaming space and can have been seen openly attacking or ignoring games without micro transactional policy that require skill to play? Shouldn’t there be more effort towards repairing the gaming community on a general basis so that these horrendous games stop receiving attention to begin with so we can maintain standards? I mean fuck the cynacism and constant hostility PC gamers have is what’s allowed monetization policies in pc games to commonly be restricted to skins only, coincidentally why most of the best games of all time are PC ones
users are shaped by software far more than vice-versa. reshaping the userbase without reshaping the software is essentially impossible, except by splitting off a small segment into a new userbase/community/cult which will almost inevitably lack sticking power or the ability to hold itself separate from the wider body.
programmers who make bad software should be held personally and entirely liable for their complicity in making the world a worse place and making mankind a worse species. "oh, our analytics showed users would prefer…" is cope spewed by people who live only to destroy under the auspices of creation.
give me dictatorial control of the games industry and a mineshaft big enough to fit all the corpses and i'll have gamers looking like cute animal tumblr accounts in a year.
>>18859>All 'good' mobile games can be boiled down to things you can play elsewhere
Any 'good' game can be boiled down to things you can play elsewhere.
lmao most mobile games don't require any thinking, they're not even designed as puzzle shit, they are created with the purpose of getting boring after a while unless you pay (Genshin) or trick you into buying overpriced shit for your waifu.
Modern Mobile games are absolute cancer that should be boycotted by every actual gamer alive.
The sad thing is that it wasnt always that way, back in 2010 or so mobile gaming was quite decent, developers were trying to imitate console gaming of the time and the results were good sometimes, gameloft for example copied almost every console game and even ported some PC games likw Prince of Persia to mobile, I also remember their CoD clones fondly, they had no microtransaction shit and the multiplayer was good as hell and a proper CoD style game on mobile.
think about it, you can have a game that isn't a lot of fun but costs you money to play. or you can have a game that isn't a lot of fun but costs you even more money to play BUT you might walk away in profit. i think the market for that will grow as more people get over the learning curve of the whole crypto thing. and isn't it exciting
Somebody is gonna make a shitload of money when they figure out how to teach a neural network how to make a mobile game from scratch.
i think the holy grail for gaming is where the game is fun but you can actually make decent money if you're good at it. whether that is even possible remains to be seen. someone has to lose money for you to make money in the game, if everyone is winning then you're entirely dependent on new players buying in to fuel the profit for existing players like a pyramid scheme. but at the same time new players have to be able to win sometimes too or you won't get any and established players have to win more or they won't bother progressing by dumping money back into the game. it's all a fine economical balance that needs to be struck, good game design must merge with meticulous economical planning with decentralized safeguards. nobody has achieved this yet
ok so thats not the holy grail for gaming, pure gaming doesnt need a for profit element to get people to play, but its a model where most of the money going into the game goes back to the players. with the developers still making as much as a traditional game simply because so much more money is going into the game because of the profit incentive to play it. so it's a holy grail of videogame funding and economics and needs a good actually decent game that integrates the economics well to pull it off. and to make is sustainable for years is a big ask. we're years away from that. but if it turns out to be possible i think we'll eventually see a lot of that and it will become smoothly integrated enough that people who don't care about crypto or profit will still play it like it was a normal game.
>>18984>the holy grail for gaming is … money
players owning the means of production within the games built in economy. decentralized autonomous organizations allocating resources and making the rules. play to earn isn't just the holy grail for gaming but also the holy grail for leftist economic ideals made workable through technology.
How about we just make a game that's fun? How about that, Billy?
i like shopping in video games and it would be fun if the money i spent on a new suit of armor went to another player. playing minecraft on economy servers is great, i like to run little shops and deal with customers. but now that the technology exists to make it real that's even more fun.
the moment it's real it ceases to be a game
if you want to destroy a man, first introduce commercial economic incentives.
you might be right, but i guess we'll have to wait and see when the first legitimately fun aaa p2e games come out whether they will remain fun or become dreadful by way of profit incentive. we should know within 10 years
So you're looking forward to having to whip out your credit card every time you want to buy something in game?
people already do that, and they never see that money ever again it goes straight to the game company. but with p2e now you're paying another player or maybe even getting paid. and when you're done playing the game you can sell off all your assets and use that money to buy into a new game if you like.
The games where you have to keep paying for stuff are shit though. The obsession with nickel and diming creates a worse game overall. The best games are the ones where you can just fucking play it without being basically bullied by game mechanics into buying things.
some games are good about it and you don't actually need to pay to win. further payments are for optional niceties you could buy in game by grinding instead if you wanted to. lets the initial cost of the game be cheap or even free while still allowing for funding for future game features and expansion.
some of these high end games, especially mmos (where buying and selling between players is seen as a fun feature not a bug), are so expensive to produce that a one time purchase price would be too high for most players, face it if a game costs over a hundred dollars all at once its not going to sell well. so you either have to make a less expensive and ambitious game or find a new funding model.
basically the guys buying expensive shit they don't need subsidizes the price in a way allowing less wealthy players to get in as well for cheaper. if the game is balanced and fun and get by purely on their skill and still win.
if you want to play star citizen for example you can just enter the game using the cheapest ship and buy the other ships with money made in game. the best ship for pvp right now, the gladius, cost a million credits and thats easily obtainable in game. lots of guys flying the top ships in the game never had to buy them with real money, others chose to do so.
really the only difference with potential future aaa p2e games is that the in game currency is redeemable for real money and the in game items can be sold as nfts. that process done well will be smooth enough that a person only interested in playing the game and not buying things or making money won't need to worry about it.
This, people forget that monetization doesn't exist in parallel with the regular game as if you could treat them as totally separate. Adding microtransactions changes the design of the game, because it's in the interests of the developers to get you spending money wherever possible. In SWTOR your xp rate slows down after level 20 and you're cut off from basic functionality of the game like using a fucking bank unless you pay for a subscription, and in ESO subscribers get unlimited space for the endless crafting materials the game throws at you while free players have to juggle mats and throw most of them away because it's completely unmanageable otherwise. If you don't pay up your experience is made intentionally worse.
>>19000>really the only difference with potential future aaa p2e games is that the in game currency is redeemable for real money and the in game items can be sold as nfts. that process done well will be smooth enough that a person only interested in playing the game and not buying things or making money won't need to worry about it.
There's literally yet to be a single good NFT game, and they've had at least 2 years to work on it. There's no such thing as 'playing to earn', playing videogames is a non productive activity, the only way for money to enter the ecosystem is for people to shovel it in. If you start playing a videogame hoping to get money from it, then you are being scammed, sorry. It's just another pyramid scheme like all crypto related activities.
2 years isn't enough time to produce a truly aaa title, I wouldn't expect one for years yet. i share your concern about the pyramid aspect and even mentioned that and attempted to address it here>>18984
and i admit you might be right, it may be a fundamentally flawed concept. but i'm not convinced it is, i think it would be a massive challenge but it could be doable without being a pyramid scheme provided the game is actually fun and has people buying in just to play it AND if there are winners and losers and its enticing enough to keep people trying to win.
if everyone wins and buying more wins you more and the only money is coming from speculators because no one would play the game otherwise then yeah it's a scam and will collapse
>>19007>2 years isn't enough time to produce a truly aaa title
What about COD? 2 years is enough, for any competent studio, to make a fully-fledged 5 hour long singleplayer campaign with all its voice acting, and mocapping and big set-pieces and bombastic soundtrack.
That is ignoring the multiplayer and zombie modes. Or is cod not AAA enough?
COD games take 3 or 4 years to make, but they have a system of rotation between two giant developer teams. That makes it possible to release a COD every year or two.
I mean, yeah. AAA games like God of War, BOTW or Halo Infinite take 5 years or more.
False. CoD games by Treyarch and Infinity Ward were done on a cycle of 2 years, but Activision decided to simply add a 3rd studio to the mix, resulting in giving developers a 3 year working schedule. I don't know what you get out of fucking lying about it. CoD games do absolutely not take 3-4 years. They can be done in 2. They just are that willing to invest enough to give them 3 years. If only Pokemon had that amount of dedication put into it. There has never been a 4 year cycle. Though they have added a 4th studio so it might point towards that in the future. 2 years is enough for any competent studio. There's no reinventing of any wheels needing done.
Unique IPs: 30