YuriLowell
Member
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.
-
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.
[Eurogamer] Shadow of War developer talks about loot boxes
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
Gotdatmoney
Member
Developers shouldnt have to answer this. Publisher should. Cause you know they mandated it.
I need publishers to understand how much this sort of "offering" obliterates my interst in their single-player games. If it's in any way pushed to the top in terms of visibility, and if the economy around your game tells me that not playing the game could have a dollar-amount value to a player, it's not a game for me. Even if it would have been a game for me.
I really feel for developers stuck in this situation.
I really feel for developers stuck in this situation.
Do we know anything about the balance yet? Is this all as insidious as we'd feared?
2blackcats
Member
Is this blowing up anywhere else or just here?
Obviously Eurogamer seem interested.
It doesn't affect balance according to interview.
Obviously Eurogamer seem interested.
It doesn't affect balance according to interview.
Yep, that's what they always say... then you end up grinding.
Safe to say general public will neither know nor care. If NBA 2K18 can still sell millions (and that's a game that literally does seem ruined by the microtransactions), this will be fine.
Okami Haundo
Member
I'll start by saying that in no way did I mean to imply that I think people should stop discussing this. If nothing else, I'm glad that we're all paying attention so that we don't fall into the scenario you mentioned.
In spite of what the developer said in this interview, I fully expect reviewers to be on high alert when it comes to how the core single player experience "feels" without these loot boxes. I wouldn't personally boycott the game without in-depth impressions though.
2blackcats
Member
Cool. Seems like we're on the exact same page. Looking forward to the review thread.
fabricated backlash
Member
Why not just allow me to unlock shit for free if you are protecting peoples spare time...
Seriously just fucking say that you want to milk your audience like the spineless sheep you see them as.
The more you try to defend this bollocks the more you'll sound like an absolute tool.
Seriously just fucking say that you want to milk your audience like the spineless sheep you see them as.
The more you try to defend this bollocks the more you'll sound like an absolute tool.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Little problem with that. The DLC is paid, not free.Deeke[VRZ];249936858 said:
Yeah, to be clear, i think implementing micro transactions in a way that breaks the game is a bad thing. But I also feel like a bunch of people here are hilariously ignorant to the fact that development costs are ballooning, competition is fiercer than it's ever been, and companies still want to make money. It's was to just point to The Witcher 3 as the golden child, but the fact remains that that's the exception, not the rule, and the community doesn't rally around most games like they do for CDPR.
So until I play the game (or hear impressions) and see that these micro transactions truly make the experience worse, I'm going to go in with the benefit of the doubt. There are hundreds of people working on the game, and none of them want to put out something that will turn fans off, so I hope good sense won out in the end.
So until I play the game (or hear impressions) and see that these micro transactions truly make the experience worse, I'm going to go in with the benefit of the doubt. There are hundreds of people working on the game, and none of them want to put out something that will turn fans off, so I hope good sense won out in the end.
YuriLowell
Member
I read this Interview this morning that says it was balanced with the loot boxes turned off.
http://www.usgamer.net/articles/shadow-of-war-dev-explains-loot-boxes-microtransactions
dragonflys545
Member
Oh right this shit has a season pass and freaking micro-transactions lol... That's just shady as fuck.
Sleight of Jam
Banned
For anyone defending stuff like this remember... these "spare time" savers used to be called cheat codes!!
Yeah, and the same $60 I spend on a game used to get me like 10% of the content with 10% of the complexity as most modern games do.
Those games were state of the art at the time so I don't get what your point is here
JigglesBunny
Banned
I didn't expect him to outright say "It's a shit business practice mandated by our publisher and we're sorry" but comparing offering microtransactions to including a difficulty option is the most ridiculous and ignorant horseshit I have heard a developer utter this year and Randy Pitchford still uses his Twitter account.
If Warner Brothers Interactive had to ruin a game this year, why did it have to be one I genuinely wanted? Not bothering with the game whatsoever at this point. I don't support companies that treat me like an idiot.
If Warner Brothers Interactive had to ruin a game this year, why did it have to be one I genuinely wanted? Not bothering with the game whatsoever at this point. I don't support companies that treat me like an idiot.
Tertullian
Member
Oh won't somebody please think of the workaholic bankers!? lol.
You know, games used to have these things for people who wanted to get more resources or skip content. They were called "cheat codes." They worked just as well as microtransactions for people like the hypothetical banker. I wonder why this publisher decided to go with microtransactions instead of cheat codes? If they're doing all this for the players' benefit, there must be some reason. What could it be? Some benefit that microtransactions provide that cheat code$ don't. Some kind of business $ynergy that would explain the decision. Some je ne $ais quoi that microtransactions provide that cheat codes don't. I just can't quite put my finger on it...
You know, games used to have these things for people who wanted to get more resources or skip content. They were called "cheat codes." They worked just as well as microtransactions for people like the hypothetical banker. I wonder why this publisher decided to go with microtransactions instead of cheat codes? If they're doing all this for the players' benefit, there must be some reason. What could it be? Some benefit that microtransactions provide that cheat code$ don't. Some kind of business $ynergy that would explain the decision. Some je ne $ais quoi that microtransactions provide that cheat codes don't. I just can't quite put my finger on it...
2blackcats
Member
The point is they cost a 100 times more to make yet games price has stayed nearly the same.
Shadow of Mordor cost the same as Aladdin on the mega drive. Cheaper if you take inflation in to account.
Ok.
If the current business model is unsustainable at a $60 MSRP they should bump that up, just like they did from $50 a few years ago.
...if you're okay paying more for a game, then wouldn't buying the game and buying some DLC/microtransactions just be that? lol
just close your eyes and pretend haha.
JigglesBunny
Banned
If I recall correctly, the PC version will be offered through the Windows 10 store and the Steam version will most likely utilize Denuvo. They're trying their best to make sure your nickels and dimes belong to them regardless of your platform.
2blackcats
Member
Maybe.
I quite like the game + pass system. I know it's not particularly popular though and lots of people seem to prefer the Mt approach.
If I close my eyes and pretend does the randomised gambling go away? Or do I have to click my heels three times first?
Correct me if i am wrong but, Denuvo is Anti Temper right? it should not stop trainers messing with the memory and the same should apply to save editing no?
Okami Haundo
Member
I would 100% prefer micro-transactions be present in all single-player games over MSRP going up across the board... I'd also wager a bet that raising MSRP would lead to more "missed" sales than moves like this. Also: I don't have the exact # of years, but it was more than "a few" years ago that MSRP raised from $50 to $60.
It's just crazy to me that this thread is full of people who are absolutely convinced this will ruin the game for them, without having played it (or even heard from people who have played it in context of the final game). But then, this is Gaf.
So people shouldnt criticise a game until its out? Or is your issue that people have decided not to buy the game with the information they have about it?
I mean, I don't think people should criticize a game until it's out and we know how it plays, and how all these decisions affect the experience, no. Obviously be informed, and be mindful of everything that's going on, but I personally don't think it's fair to make my mind up about something until I know it will affect me in a negative way. Is that a weird stance to have? That seems level headed to me, lol.
And people can absolutely decide what to do with their money, that's a given. I just personally think that some arguments here are being slightly ignorant of how game development works today, in 2017, and the costs that are associated with it. People keep associating these with cheat codes, and how cheat codes used to be free. But if we are keeping with that analogy, then cheat codes were never necessary, they were a fun goof at best. You could still play and enjoy the game, as intended, without ever acknowledging cheat codes. So if the cost of keeping games at $60 (less, if you consider inflation) despite MASSIVE increases in production costs, is monetizing one of the most superfluous traditions in games, I dunno, that won't make me lose sleep at night.
Because I'm not paying more for content that is concretely defined a la DLC expansions. The developer is instead selling a game for $60, then insisting that this $60 isn't enough and going on to balance single player content around a gambling minigame that requires real money.
Movie tickets charge more now than they did 30 years ago and guess what? It's fucking fine. Maybe the theaters should lower the ticket prices but gate off some deleted scenes, the snack section and the nicer seats behind a ludicrously priced roulette wheel.
staticneuron
Member
Timesaver DLC has been around for years. People just like making a stink every now and then. My issue is when the game changes to force you to buy DLC. It is all about the implementation, such as Dead space 3, or the new version of 2k18 that is getting the flack.
They were there in the last few AC's, the previous entries for battlefield and other games which only have them for cosmetics. Some people are just irked by the mere presence of them. They are going to be there so, I would rather they be there for cosmetic and not gameplay purposes. Also if timesaver DLC seems like an option not a necessity to beat game.
Broken analogy already. Movie theaters in US raised ticked prices and gouge customers on cost of food you can get in theater. They also don't allow food from outside to try to get as much as possible. And theaters are still closing.
Games on the other hand have stayed around the same prices for decades now, the only thing that is happening is timed DLC and microtransactions. That is why if it is implemented in a way they can be ignored, then people who don't like them should ignore them.
Agent_4Seven
Tears of Nintendo
The fuck is this shit? So what, long games is bad now and there must be an option to pay more to save some time? Are they fucking serious?!
There's so many long (or even extremely long) games out there and i haven't seen someone complaining that "Daaamn, this game is too fucking long... i'm too old for this shit and don't have time. If only a had an option to sold my house, car, my life, family and spend all my money to finish the game faster....".
P.S. Monolith fucking sucks. Fuck them. I won't be buying their games anymore.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Meet me. I do this all the time. I can still enjoy some of the experience, I just don't need the grind.
The only way I find it acceptable is if I know what I'm paying for. This is how transactions work in any business that isn't gambling (or gaming apparently). If the developer thinks their game is worth more than $60, then they should sell it for more than that. If they don't have confidence in that pitch, than they should have used a lower budget. The $60*** (but not really) business model is toxic and only serves to prey on those with addictive personalities.
With stuff like Ratchet, Hellblade, and Sonic all being multi-million sellers this year and last year, it's obvious that there's room for variable pricing in the industry. Hell, I paid about $80 for the complete Dark Souls 3 experience and I was more than happy with that purchase because I knew what the fuck I was paying for when I took my credit card out. The game plus the DLC - which is exactly what I got. I didn't have to pay $2.99 for a chance to get the fucking Moonlight Greatsword, or whatever other bullshit these publishers are trying to peddle.
A few years might be a stretch depending on your definition I guess. I remember PS2 games being $50 and then PS3 came around and everything was $60.
The food prices have absolutely zero bearing on the film being played in the theater, but you're right in that the situations aren't that similar (that's kind of my point btw). If I decide that $15 isn't worth it to see IT in theaters, I won't see it. If I do, then I pay $15 and get to see IT in theaters. If I decide that $7 for popcorn or whatever tf it is now isn't worth it, then I don't get popcorn. If I do think it's worth it, I pay $7 and get popcorn.
Maybe AMC should just have a little notification pop up in the bottom right corner of the screen every 10 minutes asking if I want to buy a snack. Then at the snack bar I can spin the wheel of food for $2.99 and I might maybe get popcorn. That's a winning idea.
Salty Rice
Member
To be fair Shadow of Wars loot box bullshit is more public and talked about by now than NBA 2k18.
Didnt even know about NBA´s microtransactions until it was out.
Its still gonna sell good but there gonna be people like me that wait at least until its in the bargain bin.
staticneuron
Member
So um.... how do you know this isn't how this works for the game? Do you get notifications to buy content in timesaver games? I am convinced after reading this thread that alot of people complaining don't even realize how many games have had this since last generation. Most game with time saver DLC may let you know there is a store but thankfully have not beaten you over the head with it. From what I seen of the gameplay, is nothing like you are describing.
Audioboxer
Member
Have you seen how rich the average publisher is these days? Game costs may have gone up, but the audience market has boomed tenfold. So has opportunities with marketing game IPs.
Why do some gamers keep peddling the devs/pubs are struggling line as if they aren't swimming in cash around these big/multi-million selling titles?
Preorders are ahead of Arkham Knight so no, not at all.
bigbaldwolf86
Banned
This answer is such bullshit. So you're saying your game isn't worthplaying as intended and maybe you can just skip it. Or you basically want to say that you're charging for difficulties
Either way WB are assholes
Either way WB are assholes
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.
They actually buy into the narrative that the billionaire publishers put out about how "they need to make money somehow" apparently.
2blackcats
Member
Anyone know if we get any for free?
Like a daily login bonus or whatever? Not that that would make much sense for a single player game (like loot boxes themselves).
Like a daily login bonus or whatever? Not that that would make much sense for a single player game (like loot boxes themselves).
Milestones and community challenges give in "small amounts".