At least its not P2W since theres no multiplayer?
Unless you have trouble progressing without buying...design that this kind of encouraged.
At least its not P2W since theres no multiplayer?
Because the world doesn't operate like how GAF's users do. If that was the case, MC's would be dead in the water
Then how would they enforce locally hacking your save files to get loot boxes?
Edit: And here is the official confirmation
https://community.wbgames.com/t5/General/The-Market-Thread/m-p/1611280#M10912
Not on my watch, WB.
I'll just use a trainer or cheat engine to dump enough currency into my inventory to buy all the in-game purchases like I did with MGS V.
No multiplayer = no guilt for me.
Ahahahahah, what a fucking lunatics. I'm sorry for devs who spent time on this game, but i hope it'll bomb hard because this shit is ridiculous. Loot boxes AND always online? Fuck off WB, what a garbage publisher.Then how would they enforce locally hacking your save files to get loot boxes?
Edit: And here is the official confirmation
https://community.wbgames.com/t5/General/The-Market-Thread/m-p/1611280#M10912
See the post above yours
We'll see. I don't day 1 buy games anyways and I didn't like the first game at all but what I've seen of this new one looks promising.
If the trainers indicate it's possible, it'll be less of an incentive (than it already is) to wait for a $20 GOTY/sale.
Then how would they enforce locally hacking your save files to get loot boxes?
Edit: And here is the official confirmation
https://community.wbgames.com/t5/General/The-Market-Thread/m-p/1611280#M10912
In some you canYou can use a trainer with an always online game?
Then how would they enforce locally hacking your save files to get loot boxes?
Edit: And here is the official confirmation
https://community.wbgames.com/t5/General/The-Market-Thread/m-p/1611280#M10912
I wonder how long before we get the headline "video game publisher bans users from full price single player game for cheating".
holy shit
fuck this game, went from being my most anticipated game to me not caring much about it at all now
Don't really care about the loot boxes. So long as the game isn't made obvious that they basically become a necessity rather than a extra.
The current Online Only shit needs to go though.
I honestly half expect the delay wasn't for the game itself but for the incorporation of these features.
Visual representation of Shadow of War's hype since reveal
Then how would they enforce locally hacking your save files to get loot boxes?
Edit: And here is the official confirmation
https://community.wbgames.com/t5/General/The-Market-Thread/m-p/1611280#M10912
So if the grind is long and boring and you don't want to put in the effort... they are putting a price on that. Either take it or don't, but don't bemoan the option.
I think in hindsight everyone can agree it just would have been better for the LotR rights to revert to Christopher Tolkien after Return of the King released. We wouldn't have had to put up with the horrible Hobbit movies and financially predatory fan fiction video games.
Then how would they enforce locally hacking your save files to get loot boxes?
Edit: And here is the official confirmation
https://community.wbgames.com/t5/General/The-Market-Thread/m-p/1611280#M10912
Yo WTF??Then how would they enforce locally hacking your save files to get loot boxes?
Edit: And here is the official confirmation
https://community.wbgames.com/t5/General/The-Market-Thread/m-p/1611280#M10912
online only just to stop people from circumventing paid loot boxes in a singleplayer $60 game with a season pass and CEs
Then how would they enforce locally hacking your save files to get loot boxes?
Edit: And here is the official confirmation
https://community.wbgames.com/t5/General/The-Market-Thread/m-p/1611280#M10912
Yeah, I'm curious how this will work out. Seems like Warner was surprised by the reception the first one got and now believes they can go all the way.
Always online and loot boxes in a single player game, I hope more gaming sites cover this story.
It has to bomb.
But what's the downside of implementing it? I mean for them, i know what the downsides are, from a design standpoint.
This is the new normal, and i don't think "anyone" is going to pass on a game they care about, because it features this stuff... at worst they'll be subjected to some light mockery from fringes of hardcore gamer communities (like GAF).
It's not always online and lootboxes in a singleplayer game is a good thing if handled correctly. See Injustice 2.
I'm an old git. I remember when the option for those who wanted to bypass certain aspects of the game was to enter a cheat code. Now you have to pay for the (random) privilege. Disgraceful, what little interest I had in the game is gone.
Ubi, Activision and EA rightly get lambasted for their shady shit, but WB is amongst the worst offenders.
There's an argument in this thread game prices should go up, but do we honestly believe that these shitty practices would stop if a game was 80 instead of 60?
This isn't done for the benefit of players at all, i don't see why anyone would defend this. I can't think of any defense for microtransactions that actually makes sense and seems reasonable, especially not in a full-price singleplayer-only game. Just giving players the option to pay to skip playing the actual game seems outright absurd in the first place, but basing your game around it not being fun for players to try to get more money out of them is just pathetic and should never be defended regardless of it it's "optional purchases!".
It's definitely not for the benefit of players, but all DLC strategies exist as efforts to increase the price of games without increasing the sticker price. Games have been sitting at $50-60 since the PS1 era (or even gone down if you compare to some cartridge based ones), while the value of a dollar deprecates slowly over time and budgets are steadily climbing, with player expectations along with them. From a fiscal perspective, this means that to produce a top-tier game in 2017 you need either more sales or people spending more money per unit. The market is no-longer experiencing significant growth, so the burden increasingly falls on the latter. Now, the Call of Duties of the world will still be comfortably generating profits like a motherfucker with or without micro-transactions, map packs or expansions. For franchises that aren't quite juggernauts, though, they're operating closer to the margin. I think most people would prefer horse armor DLC and multiplayer microtransactions to there being a smaller number of games made every year, but I don't want to present this as something that the poor penniless publishers are doing only because they can't make ends meet - greed is absolutely a prime motivator and companies pioneered this stuff on games that were already highly profitable.
Loot boxes specifically are something I revile because it's basically the worst form of it. It's everything bad about regular micro-transactions but with the certainty taken out and variable rate reinforcement scheduling put in. You're outsourcing the cost of new map packs and updates to the people prone to developing gambling habits.