-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gears of War 4 has microtransactions for cosmetic loot crates
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Right. There is no reason these games should be full price games and then have the nerve to ask for more money from the get go.Games like this and Halo 5 should have been repriced at $40 or less considering the amount of microtransactions
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Epic made a killing on those weapon skins in Gears 3. So of course this was gonna happen.
Megatron
Member
Eh. I would be more interested if it wasnt random. I could see buying a really sick weapon skin, but not so interested in buying random bundles that may have skins I dont like or for weapons or characters I dont use. But cool that its a choice. Would be a nice pre order bonus...
Ban Puncher
Member
Okay.
Nope.
It has a singleplayer and multiplayer, why not 60 bucks? Once again things purchased can be unlocked supposedly in game. No need to spend money if one chooses not to. 40 dollars for single player plus multiplayer. Nah you trippin.
Its getting crazy in here im out smh.
PetulantChild
Banned
It doesn't seem to be the exact same in that there seems to be a way to open crates without having to pay. Or at least I hope it isn't because I spent like 5 bucks on skins in CSGO and could already see it becoming addicting so I just stopped immediately.
Ricky Ricardo
Member
Outrun
Member
Doesn't make it any less true tho
NullPointer
Member
The tortured logic in these explanations is always wince inducing. They're using cards and RNG not because of some magic feeling, but because it will bring in far more revenue than simple cosmetic item purchases because it makes every purchase a gamble.
And nowhere in the OP or article does it state that microtransactions will fund free maps. Is that idea coming from somewhere else?
And nowhere in the OP or article does it state that microtransactions will fund free maps. Is that idea coming from somewhere else?
It kind of does have free maps, but the method they are using sounds shit.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1207726
Salty Rice
Member
It seems like Microsoft really isnt against microtransactions like loot crates and stupid cards in their first party games. Cant stand this stuff.
The fact that Halo players still defend the shitty ReqPacks existence with arguments like "But the money goes to a giant prize pool for pro players" is just funny.
The fact that Halo players still defend the shitty ReqPacks existence with arguments like "But the money goes to a giant prize pool for pro players" is just funny.
joecanada
Member
its all about want/need. I'm still perfectly happy I never bought BF4 DLC or season pass.... I actually did it because of the messed up launch but even now I realize I can enjoy the base game and I am betting the base game has the healthiest population anyway.... let people buy cosmetics if they want or even map packs, not me.
Im_So_Pringles
Member
Paid cosmetics are 100% fine with me, as long as the maps stay free. Halo 5 did things perfectly.
NullPointer
Member
They did it right in Arena, definitely, but they req'd Warzone imho.
Just as a point of comparison, do you know how many free maps 343 has added to Arena since launch?
Outrun
Member
Thou speaketh the truth.
Microsoft is really aggressive with all these microtransactions stuff in their 1st party games this gen, hu? First it was Forza 5 then Halo 5 and now Gears 5 (eh 4 sry). Glad that Sony don't follow this trend too much (yet). Uncharted 4 will be the first game with these "loot" crates. Thanks CoD I guess
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Regarding the "why can't I just buy what I actually want instead of this lottery?"
It's foolish to release a game where your players can reach a state where you don't need to spend any more money. If you want to make money, always have something in the store that someone can buy. If you can spend $900 and still not have everything, and keep going, you're doing it right, from a publisher's perspective.
If you let people buy what they want, you put a ceiling on how much they can spend. Ideally you don't want that ceiling to ever be seen. That's how you make money.
It's foolish to release a game where your players can reach a state where you don't need to spend any more money. If you want to make money, always have something in the store that someone can buy. If you can spend $900 and still not have everything, and keep going, you're doing it right, from a publisher's perspective.
If you let people buy what they want, you put a ceiling on how much they can spend. Ideally you don't want that ceiling to ever be seen. That's how you make money.
Outrun
Member
Nicely put, Vincent K McMahon.
I think it's just the outside confirmation that all the new maps are put in matchmaking rotation without needing to buy them. For private games, they're free initially then purchase-only. So compared to before, they're basically free.
MMaRsu
Banned
And thats a horrible thought from a consumers perspective/outlook.
Imagine a pack of collectible trading cards - Magic The Gathering let's say. Each pack comes with a bunch of common cards, a few uncommon cards and a rare card. Sometimes, one of those cards is a special foil card that looks really cool. Each card has a resale value dependant on the market i.e. not all rares are worth the same. So an especially good card might go for ten bucks at a shop vs five for an entire pack and a chance at getting that card or any combination of other cards.
People buy packs for the rare and foil cards, not common or uncommon ones. Hell - people buy boxes and even CASES to do so.
Now let's say that Wizards, who own Magic, decide that they will sell individual cards at low and regulated prices. Do you think that people will still buy packs, boxes and cases in the same volume that they do for the current random chance? Furthermore, do you think that this would be a smart business decision?
MMaRsu
Banned
Haha fun analogy, but i dont care about this from a business standpoint. The industry is way too bloated with extraenous bullcrap and it needs to take a good look at itself.
Im in it from a consumers ( you know the people who buy the damn games ) perspective. I just want a complete product for a fair price that will offer a certain amount of entertainment. I understand why from a publisher and perhaps developer viewpoint this is an interesting way to do it. But it lacks total respect for the customer.
Whatever happened to, you do some cool shit you get a cool reward.
Oh right that went away with cheats and it brought us an industry and general perception that its all fine and dandy to nickle and dime your customers.
im not saying all games do this in a bad way but mostly these ( especially rng focussed ) paid content in a 60 dollar product is imo terrible.
Im in it from a consumers ( you know the people who buy the damn games ) perspective. I just want a complete product for a fair price that will offer a certain amount of entertainment. I understand why from a publisher and perhaps developer viewpoint this is an interesting way to do it. But it lacks total respect for the customer.
Whatever happened to, you do some cool shit you get a cool reward.
Oh right that went away with cheats and it brought us an industry and general perception that its all fine and dandy to nickle and dime your customers.
im not saying all games do this in a bad way but mostly these ( especially rng focussed ) paid content in a 60 dollar product is imo terrible.
Yeah I understand the need for studios to make money in order to have everyone keep a job after the game launches, but at the end of the day I'm still a consumer and what is important to me is that the game can still function offline in 5-10 years when I'm hosting a LAN at a gathering or something. It sounds like Coalition is doing everything right here in terms of making that happen. I'm not a fan of the rotating map because eventually somebody's favorite won't be playable in general matchmaking (which sucks) but at least the maps are all free to everyone, without segmenting the player base.
Paying money for random card packs is fine as long as it is just visual flair. If it were weapons and important gameplay stuff like in Halo, then its a different story. Thank God they're not taking that route though. Gears will still be Gears.
Paying money for random card packs is fine as long as it is just visual flair. If it were weapons and important gameplay stuff like in Halo, then its a different story. Thank God they're not taking that route though. Gears will still be Gears.
EVA UNIT 01
Member
Best friends?
To be completely fair, the nickel and diming is our own fault. The rise of the used game market, whether or not people want to admit it and no matter how much people try to justify it, has hurt the video game industry. And that's on us, as consumers, wanting to get a better deal and not pay full retail/not pay the people who actually made the game to play it. In order for games to stay at 59 bucks new, they have to put something out that can't be resold via third party and will go directly into their coffers.
As I said earlier in the thread - gaming is cheaper than it was in the past. Games used to be 69 bucks or more for a fraction of the content that we get for today's releases (some exceptions apply on both ends, but it's true in general). Adjust for inflation and we're talking maybe a 100 dollars a game if prices increased over time. But they have gone down instead. Now developmental costs haven't gone down - they've gone way up (especially on your bigger games). That money has to be made up somewhere. And since gamers make it abundantly clear that they only want to pay 59 dollars for a game (if they even buy it new), then we get DLC and microtransactions.
Fantastic point. It's just a gamble.
As for REQs/Micro transactions funding maps. Halo 5 shipped with series staples missing and drip feed them back under the guise of free DLC and new core content is pretty laughable. It's all look at these new REQs but just a gamble if you get them. They've pulled the wool over people's eyes.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
To be fair most consumers want this and don't waffle over a hundred bucks or so
Samurai G0SU
Member
What level do you have to reach to get that again?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Is "Vintage" meaning "found at the bottom of the sea"?
Live Free or Die
Banned
Just going to remind everyone. no one is forcing you to buy any DLC.
dragonflys545
Member
No one is forced to buy the game either. So what are you trying to say?
I mean, it sounds disgusting to me since I'm so used to these games selling map packs/season passes as their DLC model. Is that being changed with games these days, or is it a case of these developers wanting even more money on top of what they've always gotten?
TheFurizzlyBear
Member
Uhh, they have released new maps for free along with the best versions of these returning modes. What wool was pulled over people's eyes?
Mass Effect
Member
wait, what? Really? That's lame.
Given how popular MS' games have been on PC lately, I don't think I want to invest in a Season Pass for this game if the community is going to be dead in a month. I was hoping they'd just give the maps for free in light of these microtransactions, but I guess not.
MMaRsu
Banned
I agree that the nickel and diming is on us, because we bought into it from the start with the Oblivion Horse armor.
But not because of the used game market. The used game market actually improved and is improving the gaming industry. Because if people all keep their games, people with less income wont be able to purchase say a second hand game, or maybe just buy one game a year unstead of 4. And the people selling their old games wont be able to fund new games they are buying using cash from their old games.
That the used game market has caused this downward spiral into season pass dlc, microtransaction based industry is ridiculous.
Its the rise of mobile gaming and dlc in general, in which research has shown if you hold the carrot in front of the gamer, he will be all too eager to click that buy button and see what awaits him/her.
Gaming is also in no way cheaper then it used to be, sorry friend. When I bought FF7 for my PSX for instance you got an amazing full experience, and were not expexted to pay more after the fact.
Almost every game these days expect you to pay more after the fact.
Hamster Plugin
Member
Uncharted 3 and The Last of Us multiplayer modes have pay-to-win weapon DLC. No crates though, glad about that. If Uncharted 4 crates start out as cosmetic only, you can expect weapons to be part of them later - Sony has a history here and I'm sure they have seen Black Ops 3 rake in the cash.
FunkyDealer
Banned
As long as it keeps maps and modes free
Aztechnology
Member
Wait correct me if I'm wrong but Gears Of War 4 is still selling maps. They just rotate in and out each month and you lose them after if you don't pay right?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ltiplayer-changes-things-up-in-some-cool-ways
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1207726
Like Quantum Break right? Oh wait...
BibiMaghoo
Member
Then you should know that CS:GO doesn't sell crates, it only gives them out as drops.
keys is where it's at
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
I'm stunned anyone could have an issue with this.
It's allowed maps to become free for multiplayer games and is the most optional of optional DLC models you could ask for.
I expect Titanfall 2 will implement the exact same system for their burn cards. Which is more than fine.
It's allowed maps to become free for multiplayer games and is the most optional of optional DLC models you could ask for.
I expect Titanfall 2 will implement the exact same system for their burn cards. Which is more than fine.
TheFurizzlyBear
Member
From the way I understand it, you are just paying for em in private matches. I don't think that if you buy em you will be able to matchmake in em since they are rotating em in and out of the playlists. They dont want to fragment the userbase.