FarCry 5 is getting fairly postive reviews

[Canadamus Prime]

As much fun as it would be to utterly destroy an extremist American cult there's no way I'm paying $80 for the privilege.
Also fuck season passes and fuck microtransactions.
Basically I'm boycotting AAA games.

 

[RonHiler]

To set the record straight about the micro-transactions. Yes, they are there. No, you don't have to use them. You can get everything in the game (even the premium items) without spending any extra real world dollars, and without excessive in-game grinding (in-game money, contrary to what some are saying, is plentiful in the game). Further, those items which are for sale for silver bars are just reskins of other items you get for in-game money, so they are very much cosmetic (and, to reiterate, can also be bought with in-game money as well, you don't need to spend real money to buy them).

Sorry but why does this count as a "fake" reason for disliking something? It certainly affects how the dev's designed the game and impacts my enjoyment of it.

How so, exactly? Given that you can completely ignore microtransactions entirely, and can still buy those items, how is this affecting your enjoyment of the game?

 

[jademunky]

To set the record straight about the micro-transactions. Yes, they are there. No, you don't have to use them. You can get everything in the game (even the premium items) without spending any extra real world dollars, and without excessive in-game grinding (in-game money, contrary to what some are saying, is plentiful in the game). Further, those items which are for sale for silver bars are just reskins of other items you get for in-game money, so they are very much cosmetic (and, to reiterate, can also be bought with in-game money as well, you don't need to spend real money to buy them).

Sorry but why does this count as a "fake" reason for disliking something? It certainly affects how the dev's designed the game and impacts my enjoyment of it.

How so, exactly? Given that you can completely ignore microtransactions entirely, and can still buy those items, how is this affecting your enjoyment of the game?

Because the game's design and general balance will be built around encouraging me to do so. Examples for this being Diablo 3 at launch (what with the real-money auction-house) or Dead Space 3.

I've not played this particular game but I can probably guess how it plays out: Yes, I can get that objectively superior gun or item that expands my inventory slots by spending hours grinding 200 whatevers or I can simply open up my wallet and get it now. Devs will make things just a little extra time-consuming or a little less enjoyable to grind just to encourage you, the player, to pay a little bit extra.

 

[RonHiler]

Because the game's design and general balance will be built around encouraging me to do so. Examples for this being Diablo 3 at launch (what with the real-money auction-house) or Dead Space 3.

I've not played this particular game but I can probably guess how it plays out: Yes, I can get that objectively superior gun or item that expands my inventory slots by spending hours grinding 200 whatevers or I can simply open up my wallet and get it now. Devs will make things just a little extra time-consuming or a little less enjoyable to grind just to encourage you, the player, to pay a little bit extra.

Except you're wrong
1) Every single item that can be purchased for real money (in addition to in-game money) is simply a reskin of items that exist as non-premium items (exactly the same stats, just a different look). They are entirely cosmetic. There is nothing balanced around those cosmetic items.
2) I've played something like 8 or 10 hours total, maybe as much as 15. I currently have around $10K (more than enough to buy any single item in the game, including the premium items, which run around $2-3K). And I've bought quite a bit of stuff already (including a couple cars and a helicopter, some of the more spendy items). There is no "200 hour grind". Unless you think playing the game itself is a grind, that's a different argument.

You're jumping to conclusions, probably based on the BS a lot of people have posted in this thread, and what they (AAA publishers in general, Ubisoft in particular) have done in the past. Understandable. But I'm telling you, the micro-transactions in this game are completely ignorable and they won't change the experience a whit.

Honestly, I don't know why they bothered to put them in. Anyone that spends real world money on the items in this game is a fool, IMO.

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

 

[TheFinish]

To set the record straight about the micro-transactions. Yes, they are there. No, you don't have to use them. You can get everything in the game (even the premium items) without spending any extra real world dollars, and without excessive in-game grinding (in-game money, contrary to what some are saying, is plentiful in the game). Further, those items which are for sale for silver bars are just reskins of other items you get for in-game money, so they are very much cosmetic (and, to reiterate, can also be bought with in-game money as well, you don't need to spend real money to buy them).

Sorry but why does this count as a "fake" reason for disliking something? It certainly affects how the dev's designed the game and impacts my enjoyment of it.

How so, exactly? Given that you can completely ignore microtransactions entirely, and can still buy those items, how is this affecting your enjoyment of the game?

Because the game's design and general balance will be built around encouraging me to do so. Examples for this being Diablo 3 at launch (what with the real-money auction-house) or Dead Space 3.

I've not played this particular game but I can probably guess how it plays out: Yes, I can get that objectively superior gun or item that expands my inventory slots by spending hours grinding 200 whatevers or I can simply open up my wallet and get it now. Devs will make things just a little extra time-consuming or a little less enjoyable to grind just to encourage you, the player, to pay a little bit extra.

And you'd be guessing entirely wrong. I've beaten the game, and there's no grind. You unlock stuff by just liberating zones (which you're doing anyway) and by doing side missions. You can't actually use Silver Bars (the premium currency) to get better weapons, except for like, 4, only one of which is actually powerful, none of which are unique except for their paintjob. For nearly every other weapon, you have to play the game, because you can't buy them (with cash or bars) until you get enough Resistance Points by playing the game.

Other than that, Silver Bars can only be used for outfits and skins. And everything you can buy with them, you can buy with in-game cash. Cash you'll be swimming in by the end game if you just explore, hunt and fish a bit.

There's bad things with the game: the out-of-left-field ending, the pitiful weapon variety, the unbalanced vehicles. But the premium currency? The poster above me is right: I've no idea why they put them in at all.

 

[jademunky]

Because the game's design and general balance will be built around encouraging me to do so. Examples for this being Diablo 3 at launch (what with the real-money auction-house) or Dead Space 3.

I've not played this particular game but I can probably guess how it plays out: Yes, I can get that objectively superior gun or item that expands my inventory slots by spending hours grinding 200 whatevers or I can simply open up my wallet and get it now. Devs will make things just a little extra time-consuming or a little less enjoyable to grind just to encourage you, the player, to pay a little bit extra.

Except you're wrong
1) Every single item that can be purchased for real money (in addition to in-game money) is simply a reskin of items that exist as non-premium items (exactly the same stats, just a different look). They are entirely cosmetic. There is nothing balanced around those cosmetic items.
2) I've played something like 8 or 10 hours total, maybe as much as 15. I currently have around $10K (more than enough to buy any single item in the game, including the premium items, which run around $2-3K). And I've bought quite a bit of stuff already (including a couple cars and a helicopter, some of the more spendy items). There is no "200 hour grind". Unless you think playing the game itself is a grind, that's a different argument.

You're jumping to conclusions, probably based on the BS a lot of people have posted in this thread, and what they (AAA publishers in general, Ubisoft in particular) have done in the past. Understandable. But I'm telling you, the micro-transactions in this game are completely ignorable and they won't change the experience a whit.

Honestly, I don't know why they bothered to put them in. Anyone that spends real world money on the items in this game is a fool, IMO.

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

I see. Alright, fair enough, I have judged Ubisoft too harshly. They do seem a far better bunch than EA or Activision.

As to why they even bothered to include them at all (which TheFinish also mentioned), it has been argued by some people that it allows a tiny amount of very-rich people to subsidize gaming for the rest of us. This is then passed off as an explaination for why the industry was oh-so-gracious in never raising the base price of the games.

 

[RonHiler]

I see. Alright, fair enough, I have judged Ubisoft too harshly. They do seem a far better bunch than EA or Activision.

As to why they even bothered to include them at all (which TheFinish also mentioned), it has been argued by some people that it allows a tiny amount of very-rich people to subsidize gaming for the rest of us. This is then passed off as an explaination for why the industry was oh-so-gracious in never raising the base price of the games.

As good an explanation as any I honestly don't know. Maybe they just thought they needed them because every other game has them?

I do agree with you, badly done micro-transactions can ruin an otherwise good game. Any game that balances around forced micro-transaction items goes directly on my no-play list.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

To set the record straight about the micro-transactions. Yes, they are there. No, you don't have to use them. You can get everything in the game (even the premium items) without spending any extra real world dollars, and without excessive in-game grinding (in-game money, contrary to what some are saying, is plentiful in the game). Further, those items which are for sale for silver bars are just reskins of other items you get for in-game money, so they are very much cosmetic (and, to reiterate, can also be bought with in-game money as well, you don't need to spend real money to buy them).

Doesn't change anything. They still put microtransactions in the game so they can still take those microtrnasactions and shove them someplace unpleasant.

 

[sXeth]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

They went out of their way to add a system for buying the stuff with real money, so out of their way as to embed an online store page into a offline (for many) campaign mode.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

Or there's the future case. Which is hypothetical, but Ubisoft has been dabbling in that for awhile now. Anytime they open their mouth to investors, or in business interviews outside their games, they are constantly banging on about wanting games as long-running service platforms. They added microtransactions onto Ghost Recon post-release already, and Rainbow Six (or tried, I've heard some of that one got walked back to). There's reason to be skeptical of the game, when they've already shown a trend towards messing with this stuff post-release, and the framework literally is already there in the game.

 

[RonHiler]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

Okay...yes. There's the potential they could patch in something that breaks the balance. True of any game, micro-transactions or not. Does that mean you are going to stop playing games because of what "might" happen? I'm really not sure I see what your point is here.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

What's the blatant lie? I don't see it.

 

[sXeth]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

Okay...yes. There's the potential they could patch in something that breaks the balance. True of any game, micro-transactions or not. Does that mean you are going to stop playing games because of what "might" happen? I'm really not sure I see what your point is here.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

What's the blatant lie? I don't see it.

"Cosmetics only". You can probably even find the thread on it down the page here a bit. It was kind of obvious, since they added on a comment about xp boosters or something immediately.

Yes, any game could hypothetically be patched to do whatever. But not every game comes from a developer who's stated intent (over and over) to do so, actually done so with their other games, and not every game already has the framework to do so embedded in its default version. There's even contrast to other Ubisoft games. AC : Origins and Child of Light both had similar inconsequential micro-transactions, but they didn't have a second currency set up, or the store page embedded into the regular gameplay.

 

[TheFinish]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

Okay...yes. There's the potential they could patch in something that breaks the balance. True of any game, micro-transactions or not. Does that mean you are going to stop playing games because of what "might" happen? I'm really not sure I see what your point is here.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

What's the blatant lie? I don't see it.

"Cosmetics only". You can probably even find the thread on it down the page here a bit. It was kind of obvious, since they added on a comment about xp boosters or something immediately.

Yes, any game could hypothetically be patched to do whatever. But not every game comes from a developer who's stated intent (over and over) to do so, actually done so with their other games, and not every game already has the framework to do so embedded in its default version. There's even contrast to other Ubisoft games. AC : Origins and Child of Light both had similar inconsequential micro-transactions, but they didn't have a second currency set up, or the store page embedded into the regular gameplay.

Uh, what? AC:Origins definitely has a second currency (Helix Credits) set up, and the store page, while not embedded into regular gameplay (by which I think you mean, when you open in-game stores?) is far from unobstrusive. And it was like this from day one. And unlike FC5, AC:O has actual grind, because you need materials for all your upgrades, which does incentivise you to spend real money to bypass it (although the free Helix Credits you get are enough to get quite a few resource timesavers).

Also, you can find Silver Bars in the game world in FC5. Enough for a few guns/outfits/skins. So there's that too.

Also, I don't know about Rainbow Six: Siege, but the microtransactions in Ghost Recon are basically in the same ball park as FC5: completely unneeded to the point I don't even know why they're in there.

 

[sXeth]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

Okay...yes. There's the potential they could patch in something that breaks the balance. True of any game, micro-transactions or not. Does that mean you are going to stop playing games because of what "might" happen? I'm really not sure I see what your point is here.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

What's the blatant lie? I don't see it.

"Cosmetics only". You can probably even find the thread on it down the page here a bit. It was kind of obvious, since they added on a comment about xp boosters or something immediately.

Yes, any game could hypothetically be patched to do whatever. But not every game comes from a developer who's stated intent (over and over) to do so, actually done so with their other games, and not every game already has the framework to do so embedded in its default version. There's even contrast to other Ubisoft games. AC : Origins and Child of Light both had similar inconsequential micro-transactions, but they didn't have a second currency set up, or the store page embedded into the regular gameplay.

Uh, what? AC:Origins definitely has a second currency (Helix Credits) set up, and the store page, while not embedded into regular gameplay (by which I think you mean, when you open in-game stores?) is far from unobstrusive. And it was like this from day one. And unlike FC5, AC:O has actual grind, because you need materials for all your upgrades, which does incentivise you to spend real money to bypass it (although the free Helix Credits you get are enough to get quite a few resource timesavers).

Also, you can find Silver Bars in the game world in FC5. Enough for a few guns/outfits/skins. So there's that too.

Also, I don't know about Rainbow Six: Siege, but the microtransactions in Ghost Recon are basically in the same ball park as FC5: completely unneeded to the point I don't even know why they're in there.

You're right, the store page (which is a separate tab you have no reason to ever go to in the regular course of gameplay, unlike Far Cry 5's that you have to open to perform the ingame transactions) does use "Helix Credits". I'd forgotten since I never had reason to touch it. Far CRy has grinding for guns, Origins has grinding for upgrades. Prior Far Cry's also did grinding for guns (and levels, and the garbage fire hunting mechanics for pouches). Notably in Origins though, there was no weird overlay of the Helix stuff into the game proper. Bayek didn't go to blacksmith and have the option to pay him in Helix credits instead of drachmas flashed up on the screen next to the drachma price.

(Don't mistake the use as an example for an endorsement of Origins either. I wouldn't have touched that one either if it hadn't been given to me. And has all the Ubisoft usuals of too much space, not enough ideas, and not enough work or talent on the ideas it does have)

 

[RonHiler]

"Cosmetics only". You can probably even find the thread on it down the page here a bit. It was kind of obvious, since they added on a comment about xp boosters or something immediately.

You're going to have to be more specific. As far as I can tell (and I've played the game) every premium item is entirely cosmetic. So I'm not sure what you are referring to as being a blatant lie.

Yes, any game could hypothetically be patched to do whatever. But not every game comes from a developer who's stated intent (over and over) to do so, actually done so with their other games, and not every game already has the framework to do so embedded in its default version. There's even contrast to other Ubisoft games. AC : Origins and Child of Light both had similar inconsequential micro-transactions, but they didn't have a second currency set up, or the store page embedded into the regular gameplay.

So you don't like the developer/publisher. Okay, that's a fair argument, I can respect that. However, this particular game (developer/publisher aside) does not have intrusive micro-transactions, so I think it's unfair to paint it as evil with that particular brush. Maybe it will in the future, who knows? But right now I can play it and have a good time and not have to buy a single thing with real money (beyond the initial $60-100 price tag) and still get every item in the game, including the premium ones.

 

[Veldel]

I beat the game AMA

 

[TheFinish]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

Okay...yes. There's the potential they could patch in something that breaks the balance. True of any game, micro-transactions or not. Does that mean you are going to stop playing games because of what "might" happen? I'm really not sure I see what your point is here.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

What's the blatant lie? I don't see it.

"Cosmetics only". You can probably even find the thread on it down the page here a bit. It was kind of obvious, since they added on a comment about xp boosters or something immediately.

Yes, any game could hypothetically be patched to do whatever. But not every game comes from a developer who's stated intent (over and over) to do so, actually done so with their other games, and not every game already has the framework to do so embedded in its default version. There's even contrast to other Ubisoft games. AC : Origins and Child of Light both had similar inconsequential micro-transactions, but they didn't have a second currency set up, or the store page embedded into the regular gameplay.

Uh, what? AC:Origins definitely has a second currency (Helix Credits) set up, and the store page, while not embedded into regular gameplay (by which I think you mean, when you open in-game stores?) is far from unobstrusive. And it was like this from day one. And unlike FC5, AC:O has actual grind, because you need materials for all your upgrades, which does incentivise you to spend real money to bypass it (although the free Helix Credits you get are enough to get quite a few resource timesavers).

Also, you can find Silver Bars in the game world in FC5. Enough for a few guns/outfits/skins. So there's that too.

Also, I don't know about Rainbow Six: Siege, but the microtransactions in Ghost Recon are basically in the same ball park as FC5: completely unneeded to the point I don't even know why they're in there.

You're right, the store page (which is a separate tab you have no reason to ever go to in the regular course of gameplay, unlike Far Cry 5's that you have to open to perform the ingame transactions) does use "Helix Credits". I'd forgotten since I never had reason to touch it. Far CRy has grinding for guns, Origins has grinding for upgrades. Prior Far Cry's also did grinding for guns (and levels, and the garbage fire hunting mechanics for pouches). Notably in Origins though, there was no weird overlay of the Helix stuff into the game proper. Bayek didn't go to blacksmith and have the option to pay him in Helix credits instead of drachmas flashed up on the screen next to the drachma price.

(Don't mistake the use as an example for an endorsement of Origins either. I wouldn't have touched that one either if it hadn't been given to me. And has all the Ubisoft usuals of too much space, not enough ideas, and not enough work or talent on the ideas it does have)

Far Cry 5 doesn't have grinding for guns. Guns are unlocked in the shop when you reach certain Resistance Point thresholds in the zones you can liberate (each Zone has 3 Points, so there's 9 total. You have gun unlocks for each point, but the big one comes at 5 Points, aka mid game). And the way to reach those thresholds is just to play the game, mostly doing story/side missions and outposts. So, you know, I don't have to stop playing the game for twenty minutes to go hunt down tapirs to have a bigger ammo pouch or whatever.

And even if we consider "playing the game" to be grinding (instead of just a progression system), you're still wrong because guess what? You can't actually use Silver to buy any of the guns you unlock. It's all in-game cash. And there's no way to turn Silver into in-game cash either. You can only buy 5 weapons with silver :a shovel, a .50 cal sniper, an m79 grenade launcher, the game's AR-knockoff and a 1911. Only the sniper and the grenade launcher aren't available from the start to your character anyway, and it's not a gigantic power boost (particularly because the ammo for them is expensive, which paradoxically would mean you have to grind hunting animals for money if you want to use them regularly).

This is what I meant when I said I've no idea why they've put them in the game in the first place. There's no incentive to spend real money in the game, since you can't get tangible power boosts from it and everything else you can get by just playing. It took me about 35 hours to finish the game (except for a few collectathon missions) and I unlocked every gun/vehicle/outfit I was interested in, and I still have 20,000 in-game cash to unlock more stuff if I wanted to.

 

[EternallyBored]

It's fine if you don't like the game. Not everyone likes every game, and that's cool. But don't blame the micro-transactions. They are changing nothing about the gameplay. Period.

There's the potential "Yet" attached to that statement. Or an "Anymore" thats similarly feasible.

Okay...yes. There's the potential they could patch in something that breaks the balance. True of any game, micro-transactions or not. Does that mean you are going to stop playing games because of what "might" happen? I'm really not sure I see what your point is here.

So either there was a backpedal, note that they hastily threw out the "Only cosmetics" line, which has been the quick standard fallback post-Battlefront 2, even though that's blatantly an actual lie in this case.

What's the blatant lie? I don't see it.

"Cosmetics only". You can probably even find the thread on it down the page here a bit. It was kind of obvious, since they added on a comment about xp boosters or something immediately.

Yes, any game could hypothetically be patched to do whatever. But not every game comes from a developer who's stated intent (over and over) to do so, actually done so with their other games, and not every game already has the framework to do so embedded in its default version. There's even contrast to other Ubisoft games. AC : Origins and Child of Light both had similar inconsequential micro-transactions, but they didn't have a second currency set up, or the store page embedded into the regular gameplay.

Uh, what? AC:Origins definitely has a second currency (Helix Credits) set up, and the store page, while not embedded into regular gameplay (by which I think you mean, when you open in-game stores?) is far from unobstrusive. And it was like this from day one. And unlike FC5, AC:O has actual grind, because you need materials for all your upgrades, which does incentivise you to spend real money to bypass it (although the free Helix Credits you get are enough to get quite a few resource timesavers).

Also, you can find Silver Bars in the game world in FC5. Enough for a few guns/outfits/skins. So there's that too.

Also, I don't know about Rainbow Six: Siege, but the microtransactions in Ghost Recon are basically in the same ball park as FC5: completely unneeded to the point I don't even know why they're in there.

You're right, the store page (which is a separate tab you have no reason to ever go to in the regular course of gameplay, unlike Far Cry 5's that you have to open to perform the ingame transactions) does use "Helix Credits". I'd forgotten since I never had reason to touch it. Far CRy has grinding for guns, Origins has grinding for upgrades. Prior Far Cry's also did grinding for guns (and levels, and the garbage fire hunting mechanics for pouches). Notably in Origins though, there was no weird overlay of the Helix stuff into the game proper. Bayek didn't go to blacksmith and have the option to pay him in Helix credits instead of drachmas flashed up on the screen next to the drachma price.

(Don't mistake the use as an example for an endorsement of Origins either. I wouldn't have touched that one either if it hadn't been given to me. And has all the Ubisoft usuals of too much space, not enough ideas, and not enough work or talent on the ideas it does have)

Far Cry 5 doesn't have grinding for guns. Guns are unlocked in the shop when you reach certain Resistance Point thresholds in the zones you can liberate (each Zone has 3 Points, so there's 9 total. You have gun unlocks for each point, but the big one comes at 5 Points, aka mid game). And the way to reach those thresholds is just to play the game, mostly doing story/side missions and outposts. So, you know, I don't have to stop playing the game for twenty minutes to go hunt down tapirs to have a bigger ammo pouch or whatever.

And even if we consider "playing the game" to be grinding (instead of just a progression system), you're still wrong because guess what? You can't actually use Silver to buy any of the guns you unlock. It's all in-game cash. And there's no way to turn Silver into in-game cash either. You can only buy 5 weapons with silver :a shovel, a .50 cal sniper, an m79 grenade launcher, the game's AR-knockoff and a 1911. Only the sniper and the grenade launcher aren't available from the start to your character anyway, and it's not a gigantic power boost (particularly because the ammo for them is expensive, which paradoxically would mean you have to grind hunting animals for money if you want to use them regularly).

This is what I meant when I said I've no idea why they've put them in the game in the first place. There's no incentive to spend real money in the game, since you can't get tangible power boosts from it and everything else you can get by just playing. It took me about 35 hours to finish the game (except for a few collectathon missions) and I unlocked every gun/vehicle/outfit I was interested in, and I still have 20,000 in-game cash to unlock more stuff if I wanted to.

The special tab aren't the only guns you buy with silver. If you look under the other tabs at the bottom, each category has additional late game guns that can be unlocked with silver. Notably, the SPAS-12, an AK-MS (2 different ones in fact), a different 1911, an LMG, as well as a premium flamethrower.

The main incentive for buying silver would be getting those guns at the very beginning of the game, though given you can still buy them with cash and how easy cash is to get, I would agree the ability to buy silver seems largely pointless.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

I've been playing the game for about 12 hours and I've been able to buy several ''premium'' weapons and outfits, I don't even know why they put microtransactions in the game when you can easily just play and buy them with the in-game currency. Might be in their contracts like previously mentioned but it still makes no sense to buy skins for a singleplayer game that you can easily get by just playing it normally.

 

[TheFinish]

but it still makes no sense to buy skins for a singleplayer game that you can easily get by just playing it normally.

Honestly, elephant in the room, it doesn't make sense to buy clothes for a first person game to begin with. Especially since far cry games keep the first person perspective in cutscenes.

But I admit I have enjoyed playing dress up

Well it's got more oomph now because there's co-op, so your buddy can see your dress up, but yeah. Although, you can see your pants and boots if you look down!

EDIT: And your gloves!

 

[sageoftruth]

I'm getting it. I really just like the idea of a Far Cry in a setting like the area where I live, virtually killing survivalist/cultist assholes like the ones that infest the area where I live. I won't buy on day 1, I don't give any AAA release a buy on day 1 just on principle. Those release day sales are an important metric for publishers so that's my vote against the publisher. But I imagine I'll pick it up a week or so later. I may even buy it on Uplay as opposed to Steam just so I don't have to run 2 frontends.

True. I'd heard someone mention something similar about the game's setting. He mentioned how it seemed underwhelming at first that this was taking place in a familiar, non-exotic setting, but then went on to say how the fact that it was familiar, helped to emphasize that something wasn't right here. No one bats an eye at seeing a war breaking out in a place like Kirat, but here in the US, especially among the American player base, there's something charmingly unsettling about seeing this stuff happening.