Support NeoGAF

[BrassDragon]

Bloody hell, Monolith... I love you, your pedigree and your creativity but can you stop treating your audience like dolts for a moment?

You want Shelob to be a sexy, scantily clad woman because you like a little spice in your trailers and narrative, not because you have a dazzlingly original insight into Tolkien's concept of mythic morality.

You want paid lootboxes in your game because whales and clueless kids are more vulnerable to insidious gambling psychology while they're zoning out in a videogame leading to huge additional profit, not because you're so considerate of your players' time.

These are your design choices. Own it, shut up about it or, if you must talk about it, extend us the courtesy of being open and honest about it.

 

[2blackcats]

Milestones and community challenges give in "small amounts".

That's kinda cool.

 

[Scirm_Layton]

Amazing! Nowadays developers are caring about our spare time by creating an option to spent money on features available in the game. So this begs a question:

Why not godmode_on or give_gold("xxx"), why not motherlode?

Of course I understand why, I simply remember times when I could use cheats, and even buy whole book filled with cheats and nice graphics.

 

[Falchion]

I just wish the singleplayer games wouldn't mess with the loot crates at all.

 

[Mooreberg]

I hope Dyling Light 2 isn't a complete mess with this stuff. This crap is showing up in every WB published game.

 

[LowRoller]

Warner brothers is awlfu with this stuff and I won't be supporting any more game releases from them.

Locking all the fatalities away in MK should have been the final straw for everyone.

But they didn't lock away any fatalities?

 

[Legend of Aims]

Sometimes it's better not answering these questions. You like to play games, they like to make money. There, that's all you need to know.

 

[Steroyd]

But they didn't lock away any fatalities?

No but they made it easier for those who don't like pressing more than one button combination... IN A FIGHTING GAME .

 

[staticneuron]

It's in the menu every time you open it. In games like MGSV it alters the game design by gating items and weapons behind a grind and a timer that can be alleviated with real life money, whereas in past games that grind and timer didn't exist in the first place.

I sadly don't have a lot of personal examples to pull from because I learned my lesson from wasting my money on MGSV and don't play games with bullshit systems like that anymore.

Certainly wasn't needed. I beat game completed all side ops, maximum bond with D horse and others. And I didn't spend any money to speed process up.

No other MGS before that had an open world structure either. So comparing it to previous entries would have been a failed attempt even outside MT or DLC complaints.

Games like Dead Space 3 or the new 2K18 were examples of the most offensive. Things like This gens assassins creed, battlefield 3, even Destiny 2 have them but are ignorable. Like I pointed out before, they have been around for a long time but the amount that actually is a negative influence on game itself are very few. Their existence doesn't make it bad, the implementation does.

They actually buy into the narrative that the billionaire publishers put out about how "they need to make money somehow" apparently.

Apparently you like to push the narrative they do it for charity. Publishers put the money upfront. Kept the game cost the same while production costs rose year over year. The end result is pubs needing more copies to be sold to break even, which leads them to take fewer risks, and push DLC and MT as a source of additional revenue even if game doesn't hit larger sales target. Like any "Billionaire" companies, they pay for buildings, employees, manufacturing, insurance and many other concerns. The idea that they have money already, so that they don't try to turn a profit off of the products they fund and release is rather ridiculous.

So their argument is that people want to play video games but they don't actually want to play the video games?

Either the gameplay is fun and that's why you're buying that game or you're trying to skip gameplay because it isn't fun. There's no other way I can look at it.

Go into any thread complaining about backlog and you have the answer. Many people may have children and family, yet spend alot on games they want to play but do not have time to finish. For some games people use time savers so they don't have to collect items, level up, or what ever other mechanic they use to pad playtime. Normally these type of DLC are included in games that have RPG mechanics or material collecting mechanics. This doesn't take away the game mechanics as in interaction, but it takes away the extra grind. It's existence may be welcome to some people even if it is not your cup of tea.

 

[drotahorror]

If I was a gameplay designer I'd just be straight:

"Look, we need additional revenue. We don't dare to price the product more, so we're look at additional revenue streams. Because lootboxes are the standard we're jumping on that too."

And you'd probably lose your fuckin job. I'm sure there's plenty of NDA's signed to not shit on your publisher for forcing microtransactions.


No telling how much this game's budget is, no doubt 50+ million, probably well over $100m. Microtransactions suck but they're here to stay folks. Deal with it or get the fuck out.

 

[Ricker]

I hope this trend that they think gamers like dies quicker then Horse Armor DLC and the like...

 

[lastplayed]

It's there, from my perspective, for people who are protective of their spare time and scared when a massive game comes along that they're not getting to see the full experience.

I'm just not going to buy it. There, I saved myself a lot of time and stress by the sounds of it.

 

[frontovik]

I understand it's your job to do damage control, but loot boxes are still lousy business schemes that's not getting my support.

 

[Son Of Sparda]

This is such a BS answer.

So they made "random" loot boxes in the game so it would be easier for people to buy the things that they wanted to? Like, couldn't you just sell the DLCs in bundle packs that specifically tells you what contents your gonna get and how much you have to pay for them?

But no, It had to be loot boxes, right?

Fuck off with that BS answer. At least be honest and say that your going for that loot box money.

 

[jdmonmou]

Brilliant spin by saying microtransactions put the control back in the players hands. No it’s not when you charge for random loot boxes.

I never understand who exactly are the people that buy this crap. If I really don’t have time to play a game, I would really consider not buying it at all. Paying $60 up front and then having to pay additional money for loot boxes? Who does that appeal to?

 

[Steroyd]

Go into any thread complaining about backlog and you have the answer. Many people may have children and family, yet spend alot on games they want to play but do not have time to finish. For some games people use time savers so they don't have to collect items, level up, or what ever other mechanic they use to pad playtime. Normally these type of DLC are included in games that have RPG mechanics or material collecting mechanics. This doesn't take away the game mechanics as in interaction, but it takes away the extra grind. It's existence may be welcome to some people even if it is not your cup of tea.

Okay, then why randomised loot boxes and not adding in a "Story" difficulty if they're so concerned about those who value their time, they're taking away one grind that spends someones time and replacing it with another grind of someone spending an unlimited amount of cash, AND we're talking about a family man with mouths to feed so why the fuck are they spending this extra cash ontop of the initial game purchase when they've got billz n' shit?

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Certainly wasn't needed. I beat game completed all side ops, maximum bond with D horse and others. And I didn't spend any money to speed process up.

No other MGS before that had an open world structure either. So comparing it to previous entries would have been a failed attempt even outside MT or DLC complaints.

Games like Dead Space 3 or the new 2K18 were examples of the most offensive. Things like This gens assassins creed, battlefield 3, even Destiny 2 have them but are ignorable. Like I pointed out before, they have been around for a long time but the amount that actually is a negative influence on game itself are very few. Their existence doesn't make it bad, the implementation does.



Apparently you like to push the narrative they do it for charity. Publishers put the money upfront. Kept the game cost the same while production costs rose year over year. The end result is pubs needing more copies to be sold to break even, which leads them to take fewer risks, and push DLC and MT as a source of additional revenue even if game doesn't hit larger sales target. Like any "Billionaire" companies, they pay for buildings, employees, manufacturing, insurance and many other concerns. The idea that they have money already, so that they don't try to turn a profit off of the products they fund and release is rather ridiculous.



Go into any thread complaining about backlog and you have the answer. Many people may have children and family, yet spend alot on games they want to play but do not have time to finish. For some games people use time savers so they don't have to collect items, level up, or what ever other mechanic they use to pad playtime. Normally these type of DLC are included in games that have RPG mechanics or material collecting mechanics. This doesn't take away the game mechanics as in interaction, but it takes away the extra grind. It's existence may be welcome to some people even if it is not your cup of tea.

https://youtu.be/SFKnv1YzI3k
Please go watch this before you continue to spout this 'publishers need to make more money because of rising dev costs' rhetoric again. The big publishers are making more money, generating more profit, than ever before, while funding less projects than ever, and reinvesting less of that money into development. They hide the money in overseas shell companies, don't pay tax on it, and don't reinvest it into projects. Publishers like EA, Activision, and WB don't need lootboxes to continue to fund games. They want to add them because they make a ton of money for very little effort compared to actual, worthwhile content.

 

[diablogod]

https://youtu.be/SFKnv1YzI3k
Please go watch this before you continue to spout this 'publishers need to make more money because of rising dev costs' rhetoric again. The big publishers are making more money, generating more profit, than ever before, while funding less projects than ever, and reinvesting less of that money into development. They hide the money in overseas shell companies, don't pay tax on it, and don't reinvest it into projects. Publishers like EA, Activision, and WB don't need lootboxes to continue to fund games. They want to add them because they make a ton of money for very little effort compared to actual, worthwhile content.

Interesting video and not at all surprising. I mean most of the US government seems run like this. The future of US internet is about to go down the tubes with who Trump appointed as head of the FCC.

 

[gschmidl]

Shadow of War

Spoiler

fake

dev here. You know, we cleared this with the Tolkien Estate, which agrees the source material never states Shelob does NOT take the form of loot boxes. I think we are in the clear here.

 

[OléGunner]

Didn't DS3 bomb hard and kinda destroyed the developers ability to create new IP's or continue the DS series?

Yeah it completely bombed.
But I'd say DS3 failed mainly because the franchise lost what gave it's identity in the first place; being a lonely psychological sci-fi horror game and not some action title set in space to play with your friend.

The microtransactions were just the cherry on top of a shit cake.

 

[BrassDragon]

https://youtu.be/SFKnv1YzI3k
Please go watch this before you continue to spout this 'publishers need to make more money because of rising dev costs' rhetoric again. The big publishers are making more money, generating more profit, than ever before, while funding less projects than ever, and reinvesting less of that money into development. They hide the money in overseas shell companies, don't pay tax on it, and don't reinvest it into projects. Publishers like EA, Activision, and WB don't need lootboxes to continue to fund games. They want to add them because they make a ton of money for very little effort compared to actual, worthwhile content.

Thanks for calling attention to this analysis. The most eye opening thing for me is the doubling of Activision Blizzard's revenue due to in-game purchases from 2014 on.

I thought DLC/lootboxes/microtransactions just formed the cherry on top but now realize it's half the cake as far as these publishers are concerned.

Fuck. It's going to get so much worse.

 

[Budi]

No but they made it easier for those who don't like pressing more than one button combination... IN A FIGHTING GAME .

Oh the horror, they already won the match fair and square if they get to do a fatality. Do I personally find it silly to pay for one button fatalities, yes I do. Does having that option harm the game in any way, no it doesn't.

 

[adversarial]

No but they made it easier for those who don't like pressing more than one button combination... IN A FIGHTING GAME .

This helps disabled gamers immensely.

How does it negatively affect you at all?

Some of the people in this thread are just yelling to yell.

 

[Aikidoka]

This helps disabled gamers immensely.

How does it negatively affect you at all?

Some of the people in this thread are just yelling to yell.

But isn't charging money for an accessibility option really scummy?

 

[Diancecht]

Bloody hell, Monolith... I love you, your pedigree and your creativity but can you stop treating your audience like dolts for a moment?

You want Shelob to be a sexy, scantily clad woman because you like a little spice in your trailers and narrative, not because you have a dazzlingly original insight into Tolkien's concept of mythic morality.

You want paid lootboxes in your game because whales and clueless kids are more vulnerable to insidious gambling psychology while they're zoning out in a videogame leading to huge additional profit, not because you're so considerate of your players' time.

These are your design choices. Own it, shut up about it or, if you must talk about it, extend us the courtesy of being open and honest about it.

Do you think devs like, Monolith, who love playing and making video games, would want this? These kinds of fuckeries are always on the publishers. The suited up company men, who never touched a controller in their lives that think YEAH BROTHER THIS IS GOOD GAME. BUT HOW CAN WE CAN MAKE MORE ON THIS SHIT?

 

[opticalmace]

I'd respect these companies more if they just said straight up it makes them a lot of money.

Answers like this turn me off. Probably going to avoid shadow of war.

 

[Shinjica]

Go into any thread complaining about backlog and you have the answer. Many people may have children and family, yet spend alot on games they want to play but do not have time to finish. For some games people use time savers so they don't have to collect items, level up, or what ever other mechanic they use to pad playtime. Normally these type of DLC are included in games that have RPG mechanics or material collecting mechanics. This doesn't take away the game mechanics as in interaction, but it takes away the extra grind. It's existence may be welcome to some people even if it is not your cup of tea.

In the past, for people who want to speed up things we had cheat code who were completely free

 

[NullPointer]

Yeah, well maybe they should sell the other difficulty levels if that's what they believe. Even better, sell these new difficulty modes in some kind of RNG system so you don't know which one you'll get!

Having lootboxes is one thing, but the disingenuous explanations that surround these kinds of offers is just the worst.

I hope Dyling Light 2 isn't a complete mess with this stuff. This crap is showing up in every WB published game.

Isn't the current Dying Light being supported with new, *free* DLC over the next year?

Don't think you'll have to wait for Dying Light 2 to see some of this stuff.

 

[Plague Doctor]

I'd said it before and will say it again. There is a defender for literally everything.

Want me to be okayish with this? Make it a straight purchase. You want this orc. Here's the price. You want this specific item? Here's the price. Hell, want to gain x amount of levels and skip the full game cause you are a busy banker or whatever, here's the price. I am not happy with this and it really defeats the purpose of even playing the game but.. whatever, there you go. It's transparent and a direct sale.

This psuedo gambling to bilk people, plays upon addictive tendencies, and acts as a shameless cash grab to increase revenues while simultaneously saying it's to empower players without much time and then have people defend it is ludicrous.

 

[killroy87]

In the past, for people who want to speed up things we had cheat code who were completely free

Lol we act like every game in existence up until PS4 generation had cheat codes! You do realize cheat codes haven't been truly prevalent past like 1995, right?

 

[KarmaCow]

But isn't charging money for an accessibility option really scummy?

That's where it breaks down completely. You can't spin it as doing people a favour when you're selling it at an additional charge. It's even worse when it's not a one time purchase but something temporary.

 

[mnannola]

Just come out and fucking say "Because it's an optional thing that will make us more money". Would have much more respect for that than this bullshit answer.

 

[Steroyd]

Oh the horror, they already won the match fair and square if they get to do a fatality. Do I personally find it silly to pay for one button fatalities, yes I do. Does having that option harm the game in any way, no it doesn't.

This helps disabled gamers immensely.

How does it negatively affect you at all?

Some of the people in this thread are just yelling to yell.

My point is you're combing, dashing, special cancelling, grabbing and blocking your way to victory in the first place, how the heck is a one button fatality make any sense especially for a disabled gamer who did more complicated stuff to get to that point in the first place, who is this function for!?

 

[Thewonandonly]

Remember when free cheat codes were a thing? If people wanted to get to the "good stuff" fast you would put in a cheat code or unlock it in-game, or even share save files.

Now instead of digging out your cheat notebook, it's digging out your debit/credit card and giving them unnecessary money.

This industry now, disgusting.

Fuck ow man reading this hurt. I loved cheat codes in games like Turok or GTA but now no one bothers. We just have to pay for the same think just look at dead space 3 and now this...

 

[eXistor]

What a load of shit. It's there to make you money. Full stop.

 

[yanipheonu]

So their PR is really bad? It's getting embarassing.

 

[Bronetta]

If the game is balanced around not having to buy loot boxes I don't have a single issue with people wasting their money on them.

Heres the thing though, every game with loot boxes and microtransactions is designed around them. Drop rates, unlock rates, progress bars, all that stuff gets modified to subliminally push consumers towards loot boxes for instant unlocks.

 

[Hjod]

Heres the thing though, every game with loot boxes and microtransactions is designed around them. Drop rates, unlock rates, progress bars, all that stuff gets modified to subliminally push consumers towards loot boxes for instant unlocks.

Exactly, this game will be grindy as fuck. Of course they'll try to push people towards MTs.

But I will be protective of my free time and skip this game.

 

[opticalmace]

Exactly, this game will be grindy as fuck. Of course they'll try to push people towards MTs.

But I will be protective of my free time and skip this game.

I would be "fine" with lootboxes if they meant a cheaper retail product. Paying $60 for a game that also has lootboxes rubs me the wrong way, so I don't buy them.

Boxes in something like Rocket League I think is pretty much done right. With one checkbox I can ignore them completely and the game is already damn cheap for how good it is. I got it for $14 and have almost 700 hours in it. Occasionally I'll purchase a fancy car or two because I want to send some cash their way. Totally different feeling than buying a $60 game that has them, for me anyway.

Ninja edit: not even to mention the effect it'll have on the game balance, as you've mentioned. I don't have any confidence in general of the premise that lootboxes do not affect game design.

 

[Budi]

My point is you're combing, dashing, special cancelling, grabbing and blocking your way to victory in the first place, how the heck is a one button fatality make any sense especially for a disabled gamer who did more complicated stuff to get to that point in the first place, who is this function for!?

I have no idea, not for me. It's very bad value proposition too since it's not even a one time deal so you can run out of the one button fatalities and need to buy more. But still, it really has no negative impact on the game, at it's worst it's just useless extra. I'd be interested to know how much revenue the feature has brought to them, since it's hard for me too to see who wants to buy those. If it's indeed intended for disabled gamers, which I think it's not (you explained why not). That would be gross imo, it should absolutely just be a toggle if it was an accessibility option for those who couldn't play the game otherwise. All I can think of is, that it's for people who want to make sure they get the crown on their win by seeing a cool finishing move.

 

[Dark-Cloudz]

If it's about respecting people's time, then make the loot boxes free.

BUt it's not about that is it. it's about getting your grubby little hands on more of people's hard earned fucking money.

Fuck you WBI.

 

[NullPointer]

I don't have any confidence in general of the premise that lootboxes do not affect game design.

Its hard to have that trust when we're also being sold on these lines about how they're only there for convenience.

 

[Budi]

If it's about respecting people's time, then make the loot boxes free.

BUt it's not about that is it. it's about getting your grubby little hands on more of people's hard earned fucking money.

Fuck you WBI.

Yeah, loot boxes really have nothing to do with respect of someone's time or otherwise, that's for sure. More respectful would be to let me buy what I want instead of paying for a chance.

 

[Dark-Cloudz]

Yeah, and the same $60 I spend on a game used to get me like 10% of the content with 10% of the complexity as most modern games do.

This little chestnut again.

Most Single player campaigns in AAA games nowadays run under 10 hours.

Loads of old games were massive in length - think of any real time strategy game, like AOE or C&C (which had big budget FMV), or RPGS like Chrono Trigger, or sports titles like ISS, which are more feature heavy than their current contemporary versions, or games like Thief or System Shock, which I spent 100s of hours playing and replaying.


But no, new games need more money from you because of CONTENT.

Sure buddy.

 

[killroy87]

This little chestnut again.

Most Single player campaigns in AAA games nowadays run under 10 hours.

Loads of old games were massive in length - think of any real time strategy game, like AOE or C&C (which had big budget FMV), or RPGS like Chrono Trigger, or sports titles like ISS, which are more feature heavy than their current contemporary versions, or games like Thief or System Shock, which I spent 100s of hours playing and replaying.


But no, new games need more money from you because of CONTENT.

Sure buddy.

Realistically, how many AAA games can you think of these days that are $60, single player only, and less than 10 hours long? I'm not saying there are none, but I honestly can't think of many.

Even the Shadow of Mordor campaign was like 16 hours, and well over 20 if you wanted to do everything.

Ironically, Chrono Trigger can be beaten in less than 16 hours pretty easily

Sorry, I keep making edits but this post keeps getting dumber. How does International Superstar Soccer have more features than current soccer games? I had to look it up, because that sounded way off, and this is literally the feature list from the IGN review;

Open Game: 1 to 4 player competivive matches or teamwork play
International Cup: A series of matches for 1 to 4 player teamwork play
World League: A series of 70 games for 1 to 4 player teamwork play
P.K. shoot-outs: Penalty kick shoot-out for 1 to 4 players
Scenarios: Play in matches under assigned conditions for 1 to 4 players
Training: Train a variety of techniques in either free training, goal or corner kicks.

You don't think FIFA 18 has an comparable set of modes to this? It has a legitimate story mode lol!

 

[De_Legend]

This game is gonna bomb a lil I feel.

It doesn't even look as good as the first one, how?

 

[BigEmil]

The people who buy this game at least please don't support their microtransactions shit don't buy those no matter how much you get tempted it's not worth it

 

[Dark-Cloudz]

Realistically, how many AAA games can you think of these days that are $60, single player only, and less than 10 hours long? I'm not saying there are none, but I honestly can't think of many.

Even the Shadow of Mordor campaign was like 16 hours, and well over 20 if you wanted to do everything.

Ironically, Chrono Trigger can be beaten in less than 16 hours pretty easily

So your argument is, as there's a multiplayer mode, loot boxes are fine? Old games are short so the developers didn't need more money back then - but now games are all sooo long, they have to milk us dry until our nipples fall off?

This argument that budgets have sky rocketed is also wrong. Here's a list of budgets from prominent games:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

How many were developed in the era of microtransactions (Last 3 or 4 years?) I'll save you the bother - Star Wars Battlefront, Destiny, The Witcher 3 and MGSV. Out of the top 30. At least 3 games were before 2000.

Budgets have not suddenly shot up in the last few years and Microtransactions are not necessary.

Sorry, I keep making edits but this post keeps getting dumber. How does International Superstar Soccer have more features than current soccer games? I had to look it up, because that sounded way off, and this is literally the feature list from the IGN review;

That was a bad example and badly worded- was more getting at the iterative releases of sports games that have no real change to them. Pro evolution soccer and ISS have changed quite a bit over 15-20 years - sure, but if you look at the year on year releases, they release a new version each year with almost no changes, except rosters. Does all that extensive development time mean Konami HAVE to put in their shitty currency system? No. Fuck them.

 

[killroy87]

So your argument is, as there's a multiplayer mode, loot boxes are fine? Old games are short so the developers didn't need more money back then - but now games are all sooo long, they have to milk us dry until our nipples fall off?

This argument that budgets have sky rocketed is also wrong. Here's a list of budgets from prominent games:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

How many were developed in the era of microtransactions (Last 3 or 4 years?) I'll save you the bother - Star Wars Battlefront, Destiny, The Witcher 3 and MGSV. Out of the top 30. At least 3 games were before 2000.

Budgets have not suddenly shot up in the last few years and Microtransactions are not necessary.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make here, it seems different than your first post and this is really incoherent. First you said that most single player AAA games are under 10 hours long, which I asked what specifically you were talking about and you didn't answer (I guess you may have been referring to games like Call of Duty, but that's ignoring the fact that the campaign is like a third of the available content in any COD, so that's not really fair.)

But now you seem to be speaking to a different point, that budgets may or may not have gone up as much as people think because there were in fact older games that cost a lot of money (which, duh).

To be clear, I'm not, and never have been, in favor of predatory micro transactions. Clearly that blows. I'm just saying that I'm going to withhold my judgment until I see for sure if they're implemented in a way that hampers my enjoyment of the game. And maybe they are! And that would suck. But none of us can say that for sure yet, and the devs sure do be trying to get out there and say they won't. Maybe that will blow up in their face and they'll be called out as liars, but I'm not going to just lose my fucking mind at the sheer thought of it yet, because I have played and enjoyed MANY games that have micro-transactions without spending a dime.

 

[ronaldthump]

Yeah nah.


Won’t be buying this game. And neither should you.