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.
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.
Do we know anything about the balance yet? Is this all as insidious as we'd feared?
Yep, that's what they always say... then you end up grinding.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.
Is this blowing up anywhere else or just here?
Obviously Eurogamer seem interested.
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.
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.
Little problem with that. The DLC is paid, not free.Deeke[VRZ];249936858 said: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.
Do we know anything about the balance yet? Is this all as insidious as we'd feared?
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
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 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.i would love to ask them why would ANY PC player spend anything if they can just use a trainer/save edit or anything like that.
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 I close my eyes and pretend does the randomised gambling go away? Or do I have to click my heels three times first?...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.
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.
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 I close my eyes and pretend does the randomised gambling go away? Or do I have to click my heels three times first?
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?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?
...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.
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.
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.
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?!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.
Read the OP. Lol, what bullshit. You could just implement an even easier mode. You are under WB and they want to make as much money as they can. Stop trying to bullshitting people with excuses from a decade ago.
"Our game is not worth playing so here you can buy a shortcut", is what you are saying.
Edit: I literally never ever heard of a person or read about it that said, "I have no time so I will buy this to get through it faster". Like, never.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is this blowing up anywhere else or just here?
Obviously Eurogamer seem interested.
It doesn't affect balance according to interview.
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.
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?
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).