Middle-Earth: Shadow of War Will Sell Loot Boxes as Microtransactions

Xorph

New member
Aug 24, 2010
295
0
0
Well, here's hoping it ends up like Deus Ex where it wasn't until I beat the story that I realized the microtransactions extended beyond the Breach mode because the story's balance basically made them pointless.
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,890
422
88
UK
"Remember when Sauron was defeated by a legendary orc found in a box?" -- Some Twitter comment I saw

But seriously, doesn't this kind of defeat the point of the game? I thought the whole story was about you going around converting orcs to make them join your army? Kinda weird that they can let you just enter your credit card information and seeimingly avoid that whole section, and their signiature nemesis system.

To me, Microtransactions are fine, and are a necessary evil if we get some extra content for free in return, such as free maps in a multiplayer game. Can't say I can expect anything like that from this game.

It would seem that the Shadow of Mordor games are destined to have some form of bad press just before the game comes out.
 

Cid Silverwing

Paladin of The Light
Jul 27, 2008
3,134
0
0
Aaaaand now WB lost a shitload of sales on this statement alone.

Seriously, kill off this fucking cancer that is loot crates already. They are TOXIC and add NOTHING to the industry.
 

Darth Rosenberg

New member
Oct 25, 2011
1,288
0
0
Vinsin said:
There never is a valid reason for lootboxes in singleplayer based games.
In your opinion. Is is arguably a bad fit? Sure, but that doesn't stop some people finding enjoyment in the culture of such systems being included in SP games.

...it maybe sound cynical (it's just practical), but if gamers are collectively too dumb to be able to principally reject business practices like these (and pre-order culture), then more fool them. They only have themselves to blame.

If someone doesn't have the 'time' to invest in getting better at the game naturally through progression then there should be easier difficulty settings!
That still doesn't give players an optional shortcut, so it can't fulfill the same need.

You want lootboxes in Middle Earth? Charge $5 for the game at launch and rely on those lootboxes for the remaining $60 if your game happens to even be -worth- that. Do that and I really love your game I just might buy the lootboxes not because I need them, but because, eh, developers did a damn epic job and I want to support that.
I assume that's a joke? For a triple-A release that would be tantamount to commercial suicide. You may as well go the 'In Rainbows' route and let people decide to pay what they want... and rely on the 'good will' of the userbase to make a profit against a substantial investment.

erttheking said:
Publishers want people to spend money, they don't put microtransactions in full price games because they don't want people to spend money. They won't force me to spend my money. But they will try to pressure me. My resolve will be put to the test if I play the game. And that makes games less fun for me.
Isn't having a weak will your problem, not the developers or publishers?

It is a different business model and development cycle, but I play Elite Dangerous and it has a shedload of cosmetic micros. They're so often - I feel - a cheeky and lazy rip-off, but I still keep buying 'em every now and then anyway. I'd rather FDev either put more effort into some of their cosmetic content, or lowered the prices, but I can't blame them - it's me being the gullible idiot buying palette swapped suit packs.

Boredor--- sorry, Mordor's lootboxes so far seem relatively insignificant.

It's fine if people don't care about microtransactions but for the love of god, don't act like they're the publisher doing anyone a favor, because only they benefit from it.
Very little in life is simple, so no, I'm not suggesting WB are implementing micros simply as a favour - but it is and can be both, i.e. exploitative (this is a business, after all) and an optional convenience for some.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Darth Rosenberg said:
Vinsin said:
There never is a valid reason for lootboxes in singleplayer based games.
In your opinion. Is is arguably a bad fit? Sure, but that doesn't stop some people finding enjoyment in the culture of such systems being included in SP games.

...it maybe sound cynical (it's just practical), but if gamers are collectively too dumb to be able to principally reject business practices like these (and pre-order culture), then more fool them. They only have themselves to blame.

If someone doesn't have the 'time' to invest in getting better at the game naturally through progression then there should be easier difficulty settings!
That still doesn't give players an optional shortcut, so it can't fulfill the same need.

You want lootboxes in Middle Earth? Charge $5 for the game at launch and rely on those lootboxes for the remaining $60 if your game happens to even be -worth- that. Do that and I really love your game I just might buy the lootboxes not because I need them, but because, eh, developers did a damn epic job and I want to support that.
I assume that's a joke? For a triple-A release that would be tantamount to commercial suicide. You may as well go the 'In Rainbows' route and let people decide to pay what they want... and rely on the 'good will' of the userbase to make a profit against a substantial investment.

erttheking said:
Publishers want people to spend money, they don't put microtransactions in full price games because they don't want people to spend money. They won't force me to spend my money. But they will try to pressure me. My resolve will be put to the test if I play the game. And that makes games less fun for me.
Isn't having a weak will your problem, not the developers or publishers?

It is a different business model and development cycle, but I play Elite Dangerous and it has a shedload of cosmetic micros. They're so often - I feel - a cheeky and lazy rip-off, but I still keep buying 'em every now and then anyway. I'd rather FDev either put more effort into some of their cosmetic content, or lowered the prices, but I can't blame them - it's me being the gullible idiot buying palette swapped suit packs.

Boredor--- sorry, Mordor's lootboxes so far seem relatively insignificant.

It's fine if people don't care about microtransactions but for the love of god, don't act like they're the publisher doing anyone a favor, because only they benefit from it.
Very little in life is simple, so no, I'm not suggesting WB are implementing micros simply as a favour - but it is and can be both, i.e. exploitative (this is a business, after all) and an optional convenience for some.
I'm sure casinos use the same logic. It's not their fault costumers have weak wills. They just exploit it and pocket the money.

Yeah, it's a lot more scummy and anti consumer. You can accurately describe that as "different." In the same way my house would be different if someone fired a fire hose connected to the sewer at it. I fail to see how their removal and not being forced to grind wouldn't lead to anything but a better experience. Insignificant? It's possible to gain extremely powerful orcs from this, the main selling point of the game and something we all know is going to be a pain in the ass to get from grinding. If that's insignificant, what's significant?

It's only convienent because WB made things inconvenient. A convienence is not someone making things harder and then extorting you for content.

Show of hands. Is there actually anyone who prefers paying money for content instead of just having getting the content not being a hassle of grinding?
 

Xorph

New member
Aug 24, 2010
295
0
0
erttheking said:
I'm sure casinos use the same logic. It's not their fault costumers have weak wills. They just exploit it and pocket the money.

Yeah, it's a lot more scummy and anti consumer. You can accurately describe that as "different." In the same way my house would be different if someone fired a fire hose connected to the sewer at it. I fail to see how their removal and not being forced to grind wouldn't lead to anything but a better experience. Insignificant? It's possible to gain extremely powerful orcs from this, the main selling point of the game and something we all know is going to be a pain in the ass to get from grinding. If that's insignificant, what's significant?

It's only convienent because WB made things inconvenient. A convienence is not someone making things harder and then extorting you for content.

Show of hands. Is there actually anyone who prefers paying money for content instead of just having getting the content not being a hassle of grinding?
You seem to be assuming the drop rate of orcs/etc is going to be automatically skewed to intentionally push players to buy the boxes.

While it's certainly a valid concern that they may do that, we won't know for sure until the game is out, and it's a bit unfair to assume they will when multiple games (some by the same publisher, even) have had similar microtransactions that didn't compromise the game balance. Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Mortal Kombat X, Dead Space 3, and Injustice 2 all come to mind as games that just tacked MTs on without actually messing with drop rates/ease of farming/etc, and two of those were published by WB.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Xorph said:
I have no reason to give WB the benefit of the doubt, particularly after the appalling state they released the PC port of Arkham Knight in. They're a dev that has not earned my trust, and seeing as how the system they're suggesting is suspiciously similar to phone games like Fire Emblem Heroes, where there are "tiers" of allies you can get, as well as introducing mechanics where you have to grind to get stuff, why exactly should I be giving them a chance?

And even if it's not skewed, microtransactions can still piss off, because Shadow of War isn't a F2P game. It's charging sixty dollars, will most likely be pushing a season pass, and is pushing pre order bonuses and special editions. They're making all the money from that and they're still trying to triple down with microtransactions. To hell with that. Also, Dead Space 3 had to bolt on a crafting system that wasn't in the previous games in order to justify its microtransaction nonsense, and Shadow of War is taking a pretty similar approach, because I don't recall there being weekly events in the first Shadow of Mordor game, because it wasn't a god damn smart phone game. Yet we can look forward to that in Shadow of War. Tacked on crap to make things more cluttered just so we can justify the precious microtransactions.

TL;DR: Big publishers are not my friend and they have done nothing to earn my trust and everything to make me think this is just unchecked greed.
 

Darth Rosenberg

New member
Oct 25, 2011
1,288
0
0
erttheking said:
I'm sure casinos use the same logic. It's not their fault costumers have weak wills. They just exploit it and pocket the money.
Quite; they do have weak wills, and it's their lookout. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and behaviour. Same with micros in games.

Yeah, it's a lot more scummy and anti consumer.
So giving more choices to the consumer is anti-consumer? You may feel the weight of your own pressure, but that doesn't negate the potential value having paid-for shortcuts may represent to others.

Insignificant? It's possible to gain extremely powerful orcs from this, the main selling point of the game and something we all know is going to be a pain in the ass to get from grinding. If that's insignificant, what's significant?
Have any stats been released on the drop rates of certain items and tiers? If not, then it's just speculation regarding its impact.

Though sure, paying gains you a bit of an advantage via speeding up things. That's the point - that's the service you're giving money over for, and it's something I don't particularly have an issue with for the reasons I've already covered.

It's only convienent because WB made things inconvenient. A convienence is not someone making things harder and then extorting you for content.
Again, speculation. As far as I know (someone can correct me if there is info to confirm it one way or t'other), no one's aware of exactly when this marketplace was added, i.e. whether it's simply an addition - for the sake of pro-consumer choice and convenience - or whether the game's rigged, so to speak. Perhaps that'll never be known, in which case we'll have to judge the progression system relative to the micros out of the box by ourselves. Well, everyone else will, I loathe the series... Frankly for a violently exploitative, arguably sexist (or at least creatively bankrupt, bar the nemesis system) dudebro take on Tolkien, micros are a cultural hand-in-glove fit.

Btw, I'm not keen on WB, given I found their approach to Arkham Knight rather horrid (I eventually got the GotY dirtcheap in a digital sale), and I'm not overly keen on pre-order culture or micros as a whole. But this ain't my business or medium, and I do believe certain approaches to micros can be pro-consumer. Plus, just as importantly, if others deem paying for convenience to have value, then who am I to object. The market functions on services provided as well as needs. As I said, if pre-order and micros culture persists or grows, it'll be because gamers supported it. They can vote with their wallets.

Is there actually anyone who prefers paying money for content instead of just having getting the content not being a hassle of grinding?
That's a knowingly prejudiced question. Firstly, the definition of grinding is subjective. Secondly, some actively enjoy it, and I'd say most are fine with various examples of it from game to game or genre to genre.
 

TomBombadil

New member
Jan 18, 2017
1
0
0
And? Bioware did the same shit with ME3, and i did not spend anything... i mean, it is just a stuff for single player game right? So they basically are selling cheats... i see no problem about that, not like it is a day one DLC or something as degenerate as that...
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Darth Rosenberg said:
Once again, I'm sure casinos say the exact same thing. Say it's their problem for weak willed while stacking things against them and pocketing all the cash. I'm not going to accept "oh they just need to be strong willed" when there's a million dollar company profiting off of it. And you're acting like only weak willed people have their experience negatively affected. What about strong willed people like me, who will hold out against the temptation but didn't want to be tempted in the first place? Hm? What about people like me, who don't buy microtransactions but, nevertheless, want them to piss off?

This isn't a choice. This is an ultimatum. It's "pay us money, or suffer through the grind." It's only a short cut because they made the main road tedious and tiring. Hey I've got an idea. If we're talking about giving consumers choice, where's the choice to buy Shadow of War without microtransactions, because that's the choice I want. BTW I'm still waiting on people who actually like spending money on games, instead of just being able to easily access the in game content. In other news, I'm still waiting for people to prove that Leprechauns exist too. I mean for the love of God, acting like microtransactions in full price give anyone who isn't the publisher something positive...for God's sake. Jim talked about how this mindset was playing into the thralls of corporations three years ago.


This is WB we're talking about. The people who released Arkham Knignt PC port in the unacceptable state that it was. Who has regulated massive chunks of content to pre-order bonuses. They have done nothing to earn my trust and everything to earn my distrust. I legit have no idea why you're giving them the benefit of the doubt. They have done nothing to earn it.

See above. And stop acting like this is pro-consumer. Microtransactions are never, EVER pro-consumer. You want pro-consumer? You want more choice for the players? Put in cheat codes. When I was a kid, you could get more lives in a game if you punched in a code, more weapons, access levels, all that stuff, and it didn't cost me a dime. Now game companies are trying to nickle and dime me, and you have the gall to claim it's pro-consumer? I'm sorry, but I have no patience for that mindset. Microtransactions in sixty dollar games add nothing positive to games. At all. They are not pro-consumer, they are anti-consumer, because they're not a "choice." There's no "choice," when it comes to them. They're a ball and shackle that you have to deal with. And when you have to deal with a ball and shackle, deciding whether or not you'll saw through it or pay a locksmith is not a "choice," unless you consider having a problem forced upon you and having to deal with it receiving more "choices." An acceptable approach to micros? Here's an acceptable approach to micros. In F2P games. That is it. End of discussion. So let me know if Shadow of War goes F2P, because then and ONLY then will this crap be justified. If either grow, it'll be because publishers keep forcing it on people. "Vote with their wallets" is a nice little phrase, but people can and often do do more. Like let their outrage be known, which plenty of people are doing now. People didn't just "vote with their wallets" with augment your pre-order for Dues Ex. They had their outrage known. And what happened to augment your pre-order? It fucked off and died. So I'm not going to be quiet on this one, not when making outrage known can get results.

So is "So giving more choices to the consumer is anti-consumer?" so I don't want to freaking hear it. Walk the walk if you want to take the moral high ground. And really? People enjoy having microtransactions in their game? You're arguing that there are people out there that say "Oh boy, I get to pay this game even more money!" Forgive me if I have a hard time swallowing that, because the overall reaction I've seen for this game getting microtransactions is anger and contempt. Very few people are celebrating it.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
TomBombadil said:
And? Bioware did the same shit with ME3, and i did not spend anything... i mean, it is just a stuff for single player game right? So they basically are selling cheats... i see no problem about that, not like it is a day one DLC or something as degenerate as that...
And it could fuck off then too. Your point? And I can see a problem. Put in cheats for free. Selling cheat codes is scummy. Not that these are cheat codes because cheat codes would give you exactly what you want, not give you a spin on a slot machine.
 

Darth Rosenberg

New member
Oct 25, 2011
1,288
0
0
erttheking said:
And you're acting like only weak willed people have their experience negatively affected. What about strong willed people like me, who will hold out against the temptation but didn't want to be tempted in the first place? Hm? What about people like me, who don't buy microtransactions but, nevertheless, want them to piss off?
Newsflash: not everything's about you. This isn't your medium, industry, or society. So yes indeed, what about you? What makes you so special as one individual consumer with a subjective perspective?

This isn't a choice.
It quite literally - objectively, factually - is, no matter how you perceive it.

It's only a short cut because they made the main road tedious and tiring.
Eh... I'm getting a little tired of stressing the point, but once more with feeling: care to cite how you know they're making a system tedious and tiring in order to pump weak willed people for money?

If you have no proof - and let's face is, no one seems to, or will likely ever know for sure - then surely you need to dial back the certainty and just admit you're just speculating wildly. You are simply assuming malicious intent.

If we're talking about giving consumers choice, where's the choice to buy Shadow of War without microtransactions, because that's the choice I want.
...again, you have exactly that if you choose not to engage with them.

BTW I'm still waiting on people who actually like spending money on games, instead of just being able to easily access the in game content.
Not quite BTW, given you shifted the goalposts; "Is there actually anyone who prefers paying money for content instead of just having getting the content not being a hassle of grinding?" - so you've dropped "hassle of grinding" for just everything being "easily" accessible?

Care to try to impose a definition of what, exactly, equates to easy access in a game? Where and how are you drawing the line?

I mean for the love of God, acting like microtransactions in full price give anyone who isn't the publisher something positive...for God's sake.
You've ignored something I said previously: life isn't simple or binary, it's not just this or that, left or right, up or down. I said it's easy for micros to be both a negative and a positive, especially when value for money comes into it.

I legit have no idea why you're giving them the benefit of the doubt. They have done nothing to earn it.
Perhaps I don't want to take any critical position until we know exactly how the system plays out? Maybe that? It doesn't matter that I already have a low opinion of the company, or that I already loathe this very IP. Punters need to get their hands on it properly, and see how the progression system pans out first.

...of course given the biases of so many people it's a given that some will simply claim it's been intentionally nerfed in order to incentivise micros. And, as I've said a few times now, the grind is subjective as it is, so various people will have very different thresholds, which will then impact where they perceive the micros to come into potential play.

And stop acting like this is pro-consumer. Microtransactions are never, EVER pro-consumer.
Clearly we disagree on that.

You want pro-consumer? You want more choice for the players? Put in cheat codes. When I was a kid, you could get more lives in a game if you punched in a code, more weapons, access levels, all that stuff, and it didn't cost me a dime.
Really? 'Back in my day this was all fields'?

The landscape of the entire medium has changed, so it's not productive to compare what's happening now to ye olde consoles or computers.

And you remember that this is a business, right? They are well within their rights - in every sense of the word - to try to monetise their products. If reviewers take against what WB are implementing, and punters react to that, then the market will dictate what happens and WB will abandon the idea, and likely look at other opportunities.
 

Ironclash

New member
May 6, 2012
10
0
0
Quick thing that I didn't see in the thread yet.

Didn't they also say there was going to be a multiplayer mode where you could build/invade strongholds and permanently kill or capture each others captains (if playing ranked)?

If so, this may be the MGSV mother base thing all over again. Whales paying for premium items, leading to quicker gathering of better resources (Captains with higher chances of legendary buffs in this case, as well as better armor and a bunch of xp boosts for powerleveling). Then they throw all the overpowered store bought crap at your fort/stronghold/whatever to break it down, causing you to lose progress to someone who isn't better, or plays more and is patient enough to grind but instead just throws cash at boxes.

Just for clarity though: I've only really read that the attacking player can permalose captains, but you'd still end end up smashing headfirst into premium fortresses, depending on how much info is available before starting the Invasion match.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Darth Rosenberg said:
erttheking said:
And you're acting like only weak willed people have their experience negatively affected. What about strong willed people like me, who will hold out against the temptation but didn't want to be tempted in the first place? Hm? What about people like me, who don't buy microtransactions but, nevertheless, want them to piss off?
Newsflash: not everything's about you. This isn't your medium, industry, or society. So yes indeed, what about you? What makes you so special as one individual consumer with a subjective perspective?

This isn't a choice.
It quite literally - objectively, factually - is, no matter how you perceive it.

It's only a short cut because they made the main road tedious and tiring.
Eh... I'm getting a little tired of stressing the point, but once more with feeling: care to cite how you know they're making a system tedious and tiring in order to pump weak willed people for money?

If you have no proof - and let's face is, no one seems to, or will likely ever know for sure - then surely you need to dial back the certainty and just admit you're just speculating wildly. You are simply assuming malicious intent.

If we're talking about giving consumers choice, where's the choice to buy Shadow of War without microtransactions, because that's the choice I want.
...again, you have exactly that if you choose not to engage with them.

BTW I'm still waiting on people who actually like spending money on games, instead of just being able to easily access the in game content.
Not quite BTW, given you shifted the goalposts; "Is there actually anyone who prefers paying money for content instead of just having getting the content not being a hassle of grinding?" - so you've dropped "hassle of grinding" for just everything being "easily" accessible?

Care to try to impose a definition of what, exactly, equates to easy access in a game? Where and how are you drawing the line?

I mean for the love of God, acting like microtransactions in full price give anyone who isn't the publisher something positive...for God's sake.
You've ignored something I said previously: life isn't simple or binary, it's not just this or that, left or right, up or down. I said it's easy for micros to be both a negative and a positive, especially when value for money comes into it.

I legit have no idea why you're giving them the benefit of the doubt. They have done nothing to earn it.
Perhaps I don't want to take any critical position until we know exactly how the system plays out? Maybe that? It doesn't matter that I already have a low opinion of the company, or that I already loathe this very IP. Punters need to get their hands on it properly, and see how the progression system pans out first.

...of course given the biases of so many people it's a given that some will simply claim it's been intentionally nerfed in order to incentivise micros. And, as I've said a few times now, the grind is subjective as it is, so various people will have very different thresholds, which will then impact where they perceive the micros to come into potential play.

And stop acting like this is pro-consumer. Microtransactions are never, EVER pro-consumer.
Clearly we disagree on that.

You want pro-consumer? You want more choice for the players? Put in cheat codes. When I was a kid, you could get more lives in a game if you punched in a code, more weapons, access levels, all that stuff, and it didn't cost me a dime.
Really? 'Back in my day this was all fields'?

The landscape of the entire medium has changed, so it's not productive to compare what's happening now to ye olde consoles or computers.

And you remember that this is a business, right? They are well within their rights - in every sense of the word - to try to monetise their products. If reviewers take against what WB are implementing, and punters react to that, then the market will dictate what happens and WB will abandon the idea, and likely look at other opportunities.
First of all, you're kidding yourself if you think I'm making this all about me. I've pointed out how pissed people are. Second, what makes the people who think microtransactions improve a game so special? Because the people who hate them actually exist outside of insignificant isolated pockets.

It's a choice in the same way it's a choice to choose whether you want to lose your right eye or a left eye. A bullshit one that doesn't help the person making it

Tell me why I should give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust them. They burned my trust s long time ago by being a typical AAA publisher. That's my evidence that they'll try to fuck me. It's what they do. It's more than the nothing suggesting they won't try to fuck me. They're bringing in daily quests to get resources, games with microtransactions that do that have a bad history of being stingy with in game money,because they're pushing microtransactions

Where's the choice to play the game without it? Where's the choice to buy the microtransaction free version? For all your talk about player choice, there seems to little meaningful choices

Legit question. What's the difference? In my mind, there isn't. Lack of grinding is easy access

How about something that doesn't feel like overwatch' loot boxes for a start? Something that gives you a bountiful supply of good stuff, and not just piles of junk with the occasional thing you want, given out in painfully small intervals. Not being too radical am I?

Show me a game where they improved anything. A full price game where my above suggested system wouldn't have worked just as well. Because I struggle to think of any game that's full priced that justified having them without making it hard to get in game content.

Once again, precedent. This is WB and they're adopting quite a few microtransaction staples. Nothing about this looks good.

Pretty sure you're in the minority.

Yeah you're right. There's even more freedom today. They could put in cheats if they wanted. They care more about money though. "It's a business" yeah I know. They only care about their bottom line. Not helping you. So which argument are you going with? "Oh it helps people" or "it's their right to make money (like I care about them fattening up the bottom line, not my job)" it can't be both
 

Xorph

New member
Aug 24, 2010
295
0
0
erttheking said:
Tell me why I should give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust them. They burned my trust s long time ago by being a typical AAA publisher. That's my evidence that they'll try to fuck me. It's what they do. It's more than the nothing suggesting they won't try to fuck me. They're bringing in daily quests to get resources, games with microtransactions that do that have a bad history of being stingy with in game money,because they're pushing microtransactions

Where's the choice to play the game without it? Where's the choice to buy the microtransaction free version? For all your talk about player choice, there seems to little meaningful choices
Please, elaborate on how exactly WB burned your trust by being a "typical AAA publisher" because the only bad thing on their track record that comes to mind is bungling Arkham Knight PC and it seems like a pretty big jump in logic to go "this company really fucked up that one PC port, spent months trying to fix it and even offered full refunds, they're just the WORST"

Also, the choice to play the game without MTs is right there. You just... play the game without using the MTs? Unless they intentionally skew the game to push for MTs, which again, we have -evidence suggesting they won't because they haven't with their MTs in the past-, it doesn't make a lick of sense to say "why can't I play an MT-free version" because said version would be completely identical sans the ability to spend $ to speed shit up.

Also, daily quests have been around -long- before F2P mobile shit picked them up, they date all the way back to World of Warcraft, if not earlier, as a means to get you to keep playing the game every day. The intent is to keep player count higher over time by giving everyone incentive to constantly boot the game up, it has nothing to do with "pushing MTs".
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Xorph said:
erttheking said:
Tell me why I should give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust them. They burned my trust s long time ago by being a typical AAA publisher. That's my evidence that they'll try to fuck me. It's what they do. It's more than the nothing suggesting they won't try to fuck me. They're bringing in daily quests to get resources, games with microtransactions that do that have a bad history of being stingy with in game money,because they're pushing microtransactions

Where's the choice to play the game without it? Where's the choice to buy the microtransaction free version? For all your talk about player choice, there seems to little meaningful choices
Please, elaborate on how exactly WB burned your trust by being a "typical AAA publisher" because the only bad thing on their track record that comes to mind is bungling Arkham Knight PC and it seems like a pretty big jump in logic to go "this company really fucked up that one PC port, spent months trying to fix it and even offered full refunds, they're just the WORST"

Also, the choice to play the game without MTs is right there. You just... play the game without using the MTs? Unless they intentionally skew the game to push for MTs, which again, we have -evidence suggesting they won't because they haven't with their MTs in the past-, it doesn't make a lick of sense to say "why can't I play an MT-free version" because said version would be completely identical sans the ability to spend $ to speed shit up.

Also, daily quests have been around -long- before F2P mobile shit picked them up, they date all the way back to World of Warcraft, if not earlier, as a means to get you to keep playing the game every day. The intent is to keep player count higher over time by giving everyone incentive to constantly boot the game up, it has nothing to do with "pushing MTs".
Not working on the buggy Arkham Origins because they were too busy working on DLC, sectioning off playable characters via pre orders, easy fatalities, the fact that they should've known Arkham knight was a mess and shouldn't have put it up in the first place, only pulling it when it was clear they weren't going to get away with it, putting it back up when it's STILL a mess, shit like that.

Oh, does that mean there's a version without the bullshit freemium currency that got slapped into the game to justify microtransactions, constantly putting my will to the test and making the game less fun? Oh wait no there isn't. And if you think they'll put them in and not skew it towards them, your expectations are unrealistically optimistic. They haven't done it in the past? In the past they didn't put in dual currency either, a staple of blood sucking F2P games, so pardon me if I don't share your bountiful, misplaced optimism. And even if you're right, the game is asking for sixty bucks and is pimping limited editions, MTs can still fuck off because they're unfettered greed.

And if this was an MMO, that would mean something. It isn't. It's a single player game with microtransactions
 

Xorph

New member
Aug 24, 2010
295
0
0
erttheking said:
Not working on the buggy Arkham Origins because they were too busy working on DLC, sectioning off playable characters via pre orders, easy fatalities, the fact that they should've known Arkham knight was a mess and shouldn't have put it up in the first place, only pulling it when it was clear they weren't going to get away with it, putting it back up when it's STILL a mess, shit like that.

Oh, does that mean there's a version without the bullshit freemium currency that got slapped into the game to justify microtransactions, constantly putting my will to the test and making the game less fun? Oh wait no there isn't. And if you think they'll put them in and not skew it towards them, your expectations are unrealistically optimistic. They haven't done it in the past? In the past they didn't put in dual currency either, a staple of blood sucking F2P games, so pardon me if I don't share your bountiful, misplaced optimism. And even if you're right, the game is asking for sixty bucks and is pimping limited editions, MTs can still fuck off because they're unfettered greed.

And if this was an MMO, that would mean something. It isn't. It's a single player game with microtransactions
Uh, Injustice 2 has dual currencies (If not four, but iirc 3 are non-MT)?

Also, plenty of non-MMO games have dailies. Even single-player shit like Binding of Isaac and Deus Ex.

Also Also, thanks for bringing up Easy Fatalities, because they only help prove my point. The fatality inputs in MKX were no more complicated than any other MK game, the Easys were included as a "if you don't feel like learning the fatality inputs you can buy some of these instead". You can even earn like 10-20 of them for free from the Krypt.

Also also also, if you're going to hate a fighting game based on it having a free-for-preorders character, then enjoy playing Street Fighter V, King of Fighters 14, and literally nothing else, because unfortunate though it may be that's basically standard practice now, but thank god that nearly every recent fighting game (Streets V being the one exception, go figure!) has been solid enough to be worth $60.

Also once again, if the game's systems are in no way skewed to try to get you to buy currency, how is it "making the game less fun"? The game is -exactly the fucking same-, you just have the -option- to spend extra money to get extra edge.

If just the notion that you could maybe decide to drop $5 on a box of epik loot is testing your will -that much-, to the point that the game is actively unfun to play, you may wish to consider that the problem may come from somewhere inward, rather than outward as you seem so convinced.

And finally, to address your claim that MTs are "unfettered greed", you seem to have a total lack of understanding of the economic side of this industry. Is it unfortunate that AAA devs elect to charge for what are essentially cheat codes? Sure. But on the same note, back in the era of cheat codes, you could make an AAA game on less than $500k and still sell it for $60 a pop. Nowadays, -especially- in the case of these big open world sandbox type games, your budget can run a minimum of $100 million, -plus- marketing. Considering that they need to not only make back the money they spent on the game, but -also- make the profit necessary to fund the next game, something had to give at some point.

Consider that AAA releases have been $60 for something like the past 10+ years. If your game sells 3 million copies, that's $180 million, minus distributor cuts (in this case, let's use Steam's 30% cut as an assumed cost), which leaves you with around $126 million, when you need to make -at least- $200 mil to stay afloat. Even if you add in a $30 season pass and assume literally everyone buys it you -still- only have $189 mil. And let's not even forget that $200 mil is the absolute bear minimum. A big AAA dev can afford to have that happen from time to time, but numbers that low would be unsustainable in the long term due to all of the other costs that the company will have. So devs had a choice. Either they raise the price of their games, or they add an alternative method to make extra income, and WB chose the latter. They decided to add microtransactions so that they could make up that needed cash gap, and with luck they won't have compromised the balance of the game to do so, and it's perfectly well-placed optimism to think they won't fuck it up considering that they haven't done so with any of their past games that had MTs so far.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
Shitty practices remain shitty and I could take more complainers seriously if games like these stopped being profitable.
"Ooh..aah..so bad!" -Yes, yes it is.

"I would cancel pre-order but..excuse."
"I cancelled pre-order, will buy after launch."
"Won't buy until price has dropped."
"Will only buy used."

...You are still giving them money, you know?

Sigh!