Support NeoGAF

[OléGunner]

This interview is valuable to me because of Roberts' statement that the game is balanced and playtested to be played without microtransactions. (Only way he could make a stronger statement is if he were to say the microtransactions have been designed independently by a separate designer who has no input on the underlying design.)

That's a factual statement, it doesn't have wiggle room like discussion of motivations of the design. Either he's telling the truth and in that case you can simply ignore the microtransactions, or he's very explicitly lying, which I think reviewers would be able to observe with reasonable certainty from the final game. I doubt he'd choose to tell that lie when he could surely dress up the truth in a relatively inoffensive form.

Hmm interesting take but I got the opposite from that part specifically.
Sounds like the designer hasn't bothered to play them game by spending money on micro's, so does he even understand how his own economy works?

Does the system get broken when a $50 or $100 is spent on loot box bullshit?
He should have the answers to such questions.

 

[Syysch]

Dead Space 3 actually had MT's that had zero impact on my enjoyment of the game. I don't see how this game will be any different. Will the game feel like you're playing an under-powered character unless you buy into loot boxes? If not, i'll still enjoy this as much as i enjoyed Dead Space 3.

Because this game features an online mode akin to Metal Gear Solid V where you're raiding other peoples' bases, where these MTs can have you buying advantages.

If you're not going to play that mode, that's fair, but other people presumably will.

 

[Maledict]

No game developer has ever said that their system relies on micro transactions. They always claim they aren’t necessery, they just speed things up for players who don’t have time. It’s always a lie.

They are never going to come out and tell you that yes, without paying money you’ll be screwed in multiplayer and find the single player less fun.

 

[hemo memo]

https://youtu.be/ks-olDp9bWc

 

[Sky87]

Because this game features an online mode akin to Metal Gear Solid V where you're raiding other peoples' bases, where these MTs can have you buying advantages.

If you're not going to play that mode, that's fair, but other people presumably will.

Didn't know that. If this actually impacts gameplay with other people then it's pretty shitty. I have no problems with loot boxes in singleplayer games if it pays for free DLC in some form though.

 

[SJRB]

Davs or publishers trying to rationalize greed is always as entertaining as it is depressing.

 

[Gormenghast]

Bob Roberts: Yeah, in the game you earn resources at a regular pace and the systems are tuned to that so you don't need another option. At the same time, it's there as a player choice. 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.

This doesn't address the question, not strictly.

Game cheats and trainers weren't invented in 2017. What's new is that you pay for them.

So the question isn't whether they are an option or not, but why they need an additional fee.

 

[Heckler456]

No game developer has ever said that their system relies on micro transactions. They always claim they aren’t necessery, they just speed things up for players who don’t have time. It’s always a lie.

They are never going to come out and tell you that yes, without paying money you’ll be screwed in multiplayer and find the single player less fun.

I can think of numerous example of microstransactions that aren't necessary for enjoyment or progression. Quite easily, in fact.

 

[shimon]

What a load of crap...At least have the balls to admit what you're doing.They really think someone will buy this explanation??

 

[CecilRousso]

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.

- These are the people who's wallets we never ever want to leave, who will we do our best milk for every penny, despite asking for $60 upfront. Isn't that nice of us?

 

[Van Bur3n]

This is fine. WB has spent more money advertising/marketing Shadow of War than any other game in its history (at least according to WB). That takes serious investment.

With lootboxes WB shareholders can recoup their investment over time, publisher gets more money to invest into new IP/new games/new Middle-earth projects, devs update the game for free, game has longer tail and can last 1-2 years with steady stream of content.

Plus I'd like to think the more money Shadow of War makes, the more developers get paid. So I'm fine with optional loot boxes in the long run.

Will someone think of the BIG GAME COMPANIES! Games have become EXPENSIVE!

Goodness me, I cannot believe this mentality is still a thing.

 

[OléGunner]

Been thinking about this since the Sixth Axis/NBA fiasco last week but do reviewers get free in game currency with their review codes?

What a load of crap...At least have the balls to admit what you're doing.They really think someone will buy this explanation??

WB and the game designer know we'll call bullshit to their hapless explanation.
They just don't care because all the negative news is worth the extra cash they'll make.

 

[2blackcats]

The only reason I am not buying this game is because of this business practice, the is no room for Loot crates in a single player game. Stupid thing is... WB must think that I'm the only one. We will see how that works out for you. Sad thing is... we might not see another because of this. I miss Dead Space.

I wonder how many loot boxes they expect to sell.


I know several irl friends who have from day to wait for sake.

 

[hbkdx12]

Serious question

Why do people feel like a line is being crossed now that lootboxes have shown up in a single player game? Other than the fact that, as far as I can tell, they're the first ones to incorporate lootboxes into single player and the fact that this incentivizes an "always online" connection (Which other SP games already do with various systems and content tied to being online) why is the caveat being made that they are way worse when put into single player.

Anyone?

 

[Jack Videogames]

Instead they followed what Nintendo did with FE Heroes and Miitomo

False equivalence, those are free mobile games and SoW is a full-price AAA release

 

[2blackcats]

Anyone?

Because it is a line being crossed?

It's new for single player games.

Personally I'm not too bothered. I'll just do what I do with Multiplayer games, never spend a cent on them.

 

[firebricks3]

My worry is that the game is in any way balanced around the loot boxes which would harm my experience. It could also be instead a mankind divided situation where you could buy praxis points with real money but it didn't matter cause the game handed them out like candy

 

[OléGunner]

Anyone?

Dead Space 3 had micro's first as a single player (and potential co-op experience).

Secondly, loot box cosmetics make sense in long form multiplayer games where you can maybe argue that the game needs long term support to be viable.

[I find this excuse hard to swallow personally when some billion dollar publisher is crying for micro implementation.]

For SP games, we expect our $60/£50 to be one and done for the experience we signed up for. Sure some people are willing to spend extra on DLC regarding story expansions or extra costumes that cost just a little, but for the most part it should be one simple transaction in the first place.

Throwing micro's in the mix for an SP game, with the intent of a gamble on an RNG system is simply over the top greed.
It's a Free to Play model being infused into another business model which makes no fucking sense to me beyond once again, greed.

 

[Razmos]

So basically his point boils down to "If you don't like it, don't buy it" and is a lame way to completely sidestep the question

 

[Water]

Hmm interesting take but I got the opposite from that part specifically.
Sounds like the designer hasn't bothered to play them game by spending money on micro's, so does he even understand how his own economy works?

Does the system get broken when a $50 or $100 is spent on loot box bullshit?
He should have the answers to such questions.

It's pretty much impossible to design a game experience to be nice and tight regardless of how much you spend with pay-to-win microtransactions. It's similar to having a sliding difficulty scale instead of a low amount of discrete difficulty settings/modes. So my guess is very little design effort goes to single player microtransactions and what the end result is for the experience - they just want to give the whales an opportunity to spend. Even if that trivializes or messes up the intended experience of the game, it's on those players, and most of those players probably expect it in the same way as people playing with cheat codes expect it.

 

[oti]

So basically his point boils down to "If you don't like it, don't buy it" and is a lame way to completely sidestep the question

The only straight answer would be "because we want and need to make more money".
Imagine how all the Youtubers and people on GAF would react to that answer.

 

[hbkdx12]

Because it is a line being crossed?

It's new for single player games.

Personally I'm not too bothered. I'll just do what I do with Multiplayer games, never spend a cent on them.

I get that it's never been done before but as someone who hates the fact that lootboxes exist in the first place, I don't see why it's inclusion in single player is more nefarious than the fact that they exist in the first place

I don't know how they inherently make sp worse in a way that they don't in mp to somehow make the distinction that they're crossing a line by putting it in sp

 

[Salty Rice]

Such a bullshit answer.

The real answer is Warner and MORE MONEY.

Dont talk about fucking time saving and compare it to difficult modes like wtf.

 

[2blackcats]

I get that it's never been done before but as someone who hates the fact that lootboxes exist in the first place, I don't see why it's inclusion in single player is more nefarious than the fact that they exist in the first place

I don't know how they inherently make sp worse in a way that they don't in mp to somehow make the distinction that they're crossing a line by putting it in sp

What makes it different is that balancing a single player game is a different thing completely from balancing a multi player game.


Tbh, this instance doesn't really seem like it affects the game at all. The worry is that now "that the line has been crossed" another game will try to do it in the future and make a balls of it.

 

[Eumi]

I get that it's never been done before but as someone who hates the fact that lootboxes exist in the first place, I don't see why it's inclusion in single player is more nefarious than the fact that they exist in the first place

I don't know how they inherently make sp worse in a way that they don't in mp to somehow make the distinction that they're crossing a line by putting it in sp

Who cares whether it’s better or worse than adding them into a multiplayer game? People don’t want lootboxes in this game.

 

[Sjefen]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. They can't just come out and say "It's because our goal as a developer is to remain solvent and as profitable as possible", but people keep asking the question, so... What do you want them to do?

They're trying to sell a product, and last I heard, it isn't really illegal or at all unusual to embellish an uglier truth. Happens all the time in fact.

Easy dont do loot boxes, there are numerous other ways to make money. Many devs dont need MS in their games and still manage to turn a profit.

 

[Evil Monkey DTT]

At what point is enough enough, the only answer I ever hear to justify microtranactions that are abused like this are usually people telling me how needed and close to bankrupt game companies are now. Look games are a business I get it, the goal is to make the most profit.

But when that goal gets in the way of the product then I have the right to call that product bullshit because that's how the free market works. If your telling me their optional then hide them from my view, I actually think gta 5 does this incredibly well.

 

[hbkdx12]

Dead Space 3 had micro's first as a single player (and potential co-op experience).

Secondly, loot box cosmetics make sense in long form multiplayer games where you can maybe argue that the game needs long term support to be viable.

[I find this excuse hard to swallow personally when some billion dollar publisher is crying for micro implementation.]

For SP games, we expect our $60/£50 to be one and done for the experience we signed up for. Sure some people are willing to spend extra on DLC regarding story expansions or extra costumes that cost just a little, but for the most part it should be one simple transaction in the first place.

Throwing micro's in the mix for an SP game, with the intent of a gamble on an RNG system is simply over the top greed.
It's a Free to Play model being infused into another business model which makes no fucking sense to me beyond once again, greed.

I'm familiar with dead space 3s MTs and as unfortunate as it is, that basic system is more fair to the player as it lets you buy the exact thing you want for an exact currency amount. Lootboxes are a far more insidious form of MT just because of the RNG. So in terms of lootboxes in sp I think shadow of war is the first.

As for the bolded, I feel like that's the stance we used to have with games in general. I guess what I'm saying is that I feel like we're moving the goalposts to actually make it easier for shit like this to happen by making distinctions that otherwise would be unnecessary.

 

[2blackcats]

Easy dont do loot boxes, there are numerous other ways to make money. Many devs dont need MS in their games and still manage to turn a profit.

I do wonder how how often this conversation happens :

Dev:We have a great idea for a single player game.

Publisher: Great, you get funding as long as you add Multiplayer that we can monetise.



Not that that's what happened here but maybe the future of big budget single player games is gonna be something like this.

 

[AusRoachman]

If only Gandalf could have affforded the loot box to ride a balrog straight to the volcano. Would have saved so much death and destruction .

 

[OléGunner]

I'm familiar with dead space 3s MTs and as unfortunate as it is, that basic system is more fair to the player as it lets you buy the exact thing you want for an exact currency amount. Lootboxes are a far more insidious form of MT just because of the RNG. So in terms of lootboxes in sp I think shadow of war is the first.

As for the bolded, I feel like that's the stance we used to have with games in general. I guess what I'm saying is that I feel like we're moving the goalposts to actually make it easier for shit like this to happen by making distinctions that otherwise would be unnecessary.

Oh thanks for the clarification between Dead Space 3 and this game for micro's.
It's a better system I guess being able to pay for exactly what you want but it's still feels a dirty practice for SP games specifically.

RNG though, yeah that just seems too much.

Also, the thing is with SP games there is some room for publishers to manoeuvre and monetise in ways that aren't harmful to the SP experience and can actually give extra value to the customer.

Story DLC is that, costume DLC less so as per my example.

Thing is 2017 seems to have been the year of the microtransactions crossing the line and stuff like this is where we have to have limits.

I can't throw Shadow of War under the bus yet as it's not out, but give these publishers an inch and you end up with NBA 2K18 virtual currency implementation.

 

[zoodoo]

This is fine. WB has spent more money advertising/marketing Shadow of War than any other game in its history (at least according to WB). That takes serious investment.

With lootboxes WB shareholders can recoup their investment over time, publisher gets more money to invest into new IP/new games/new Middle-earth projects, devs update the game for free, game has longer tail and can last 1-2 years with steady stream of content.

Plus I'd like to think the more money Shadow of War makes, the more developers get paid. So I'm fine with optional loot boxes in the long run.

lol

 

[Clarkus Darkus]

Just give people cheat codes like back in the day.

 

[hbkdx12]

Who cares whether it’s better or worse than adding them into a multiplayer game? People don’t want lootboxes in this game.

thats my whole point, they suck just being in the game period but if you look at the backlash to it in this game, people seem more offended by the idea that this is crossing over into sp under the guise that it's somehow worst and I find that interesting.

I do wonder how how often this conversation happens :

Dev:We have a great idea for a single player game.

Publisher: Great, you get funding as long as you add Multiplayer that we can monetise.



Not that that's what happened here but maybe the future of big budget single player games is gonna be something like this.

I honestly can't imagine that conversation going much differently than that. All the trends that came before this have directly influenced where we are

Pubs were threatened by the used game market so mp became a bigger emphasis to get gamers to hold onto the game longer

Then they created online passes to play mp thus if you bought the game used you'd have to fork over money directly to the pub to get a code. I think this right here (along with season passes which came shortly after) is probably the genesis of them being bold enough to incorporate MTs as it was direct money in their pocket that circumvented retailers and the used game market. So now even when someone buys the game used where the pub gets no money from that sale, that consumer is still liable to fall prey to the MTs that's go directly to the pub.

 

[Innolis]

I can't really fault the guy, what do we expect him to say? "the people writing our checks wanted this in, so its in"?

At least he's trying to re-assure consumers that it really wont affect gameplay. I'm mad as hell about this shit but we can't kill the messenger

 

[2blackcats]

I can't really fault the guy, what do we expect him to say? "the people writing our checks wanted this in, so its in"?

At least he's trying to re-assure consumers that it really wont affect gameplay. I'm mad as hell about this shit but we can't kill the messenger

The most reassuring thing is him saying that the loot boxes weren't active during play testing.

Still sucks though.

 

[moltonasty]

Back in the day they used to be called cheat codes, and they were free. Fuck this garbage ass BS answer. I would prefer honesty: "Our publisher wants to maximize the profits of this game so we had no choice but to put this in."

 

[Sjefen]

I do wonder how how often this conversation happens :

Dev:We have a great idea for a single player game.

Publisher: Great, you get funding as long as you add Multiplayer that we can monetise.



Not that that's what happened here but maybe the future of big budget single player games is gonna be something like this.

Well, who knows, I guess there is alot of discussion going on negotiating how to fund a game. All I wish was they didnt include loot boxes.

 

[Kamina]

Is this game always online now or not? And if it is, then only on PC right?

 

[2blackcats]

Is this game always online now or not? And if it is, then only on PC right?

No.

 

[LAA]

Well I'm sure devs/publishers looking at NBA 2k18 won't want to balance their games to rely on microtransactions and I think it's likely Shadow of war will be balanced to not rely on them (perhaps I'm being unwise thinking that).

However, again, I feel this is a case of solving a problem that didn't exist or need to be solved. Or well if they truly feel it's a problem, they're making it seem microtransactions are the only solution...how convenient that it also provides them more money.
As someone said earlier, chest codes are a possibility, But an even better solution... better game design. There are tons of ideas I can think of. Unlockable skill that gives resources every x kills, even just give more resources through game activities.
If a creative team of multiple people can't think of a better solution other than concluding at microtransactions, thats quite alarming.

We all know the real reason though, likely WB just want more money and wanted this shoehorned in to supply it, but wish they were at least honest about it, they're getting called out either way, and rightfully so, but it'd at least get rid of voices calling them liars.

 

[Vashu]

This interview is valuable to me because of Roberts' statement that the game is balanced and playtested to be played without microtransactions. (Only way he could make a stronger statement is if he were to say the microtransactions have been designed independently by a separate designer who has no input on the underlying design.)

That's a factual statement, it doesn't have wiggle room like discussion of motivations of the design. Either he's telling the truth and in that case you can simply ignore the microtransactions, or he's very explicitly lying, which I think reviewers would be able to observe with reasonable certainty from the final game. I doubt he'd choose to tell that lie when he could surely dress up the truth in a relatively inoffensive form.

The only reason it is in there is to take the money out of the wallets of people with an addictive personality, or whales/dolphins etc. There is no other reason. Now, he can try to smooth talk his way out of it, but either way he's complicit in implementing it and trying to make it sound not as bad.

This bugs me a lot, because I've seen plenty of people spend 300 dollars a month on an inane F2P game only for that game to ultimately shut down because it didn't generate enough cash for the publisher. That's what people with addictive personalities do, no matter what.

Sure, you could say Shadow of War is a finite singleplayer game. It has an ending, but that doesn't matter if the replay value is high enough for them and they want to get that specific piece of gear or that one orc, so they're willing to pay a tremendous amount of cash to get it. It's gambling and the only ones getting rich on that are the board and shareholders since the developers themselves will not see any of that money (because fixed contracts and milestone bonuses etc) and it is appalling.

If you, as a publisher, can't create a singular Triple A single-player game for a set budget (and allowing some leeway to up the budget by taking certain risks into account) and deliver the game within said budget, you're doing something wrong. You can always ask for DLC, expansions etc after the release of that game, if it is successful and people are clamoring for more content. But to throw in some addictive gambling shit like loot boxes just to make even more money, that's just scummy.

 

[hbkdx12]

Well, who knows, I guess there is alot of discussion going on negotiating how to fund a game. All I wish was they didnt include loot boxes.

Microtransactions are are too easy for them to implement for them to abandon it.

As far as lootboxes specifically, there isn't an alternative that's both fair to the player while at the same time brings them the same amount of money that loot boxes garner thanks to the RNG.

 

[Okami Haundo]

I found it really reassuring that they playtested the entire game with loot boxes turned off. Of the complaints I've seen, the idea that the game was "padded" to encourage these additional purchases seemed to be the biggest one.

I really don't think there's ever going to be a valid reason for stuff like this in a single player game besides bringing in extra profit. That certainly explains the weird answer given in the OP because that's just not something you say while trying to sell a product. Personally, I don't have a problem with that approach until it affects the overall design/balancing of the game.

 

[Novocaine]

False equivalence, those are free mobile games and SoW is a full-price AAA release

Yes I know. The point I was making was that Nintendo is not above micro transactions. Doesn’t really matter if it’s a big AAA or a mobile game.

 

[Cess007]

Plus I'd like to think the more money Shadow of War makes, the more developers get paid.

lmao I got bad news for your pal. If they're lucky, the devs get a bonus for the reception of the game (meta score); the extra money goes directly to WB

 

[killroy87]

If a game can't make its money back by selling millions of copies + premium editions + season passes + DLC across three platforms - to the point where they have to turn the whole thing into a paid free-to-play game - that makes Warner look worse than it already does. That's beyond incompetence.

This might blow your mind, but companies generally want to do more than just make their money back. This isn't all in an effort to recoup their investment lol.

Look at the marketing campaign for this game, it's been non stop. Warner wants this game to make a LOT of fucking money.

 

[GenericUser]

Wow, they are really bending time and space to justify that shit. Lmao. I love people.

 

[2blackcats]

I found it really reassuring that they playtested the entire game with loot boxes turned off. Of the complaints I've seen, the idea that the game was "padded" to encourage these additional purchases seemed to be the biggest one.

I really don't think there's ever going to be a valid reason for stuff like this in a single player game besides bringing in extra profit. That certainly explains the weird answer given in the OP because that's just not something you say while trying to sell a product. Personally, I don't have a problem with that approach until it affects the overall design/balancing of the game.

Agreed. But it's the frog slowly boiling in water scenario. Will we notice the point where single player games have changed to accommodate this stuff. I think it's justified to be annoyed at every step in this direction.

 

[dragonflys545]

Dead Space 3 had micro's first as a single player (and potential co-op experience).

Secondly, loot box cosmetics make sense in long form multiplayer games where you can maybe argue that the game needs long term support to be viable.

[I find this excuse hard to swallow personally when some billion dollar publisher is crying for micro implementation.]

For SP games, we expect our $60/£50 to be one and done for the experience we signed up for. Sure some people are willing to spend extra on DLC regarding story expansions or extra costumes that cost just a little, but for the most part it should be one simple transaction in the first place.

Throwing micro's in the mix for an SP game, with the intent of a gamble on an RNG system is simply over the top greed.
It's a Free to Play model being infused into another business model which makes no fucking sense to me beyond once again, greed.

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