Support NeoGAF

[Nheco]

You are acting naive and gullible for proclaiming "lootboxgate" ( where did u even come up with this lol ) is just a few people screaming, when some people are trying to have a discussion about it.

Handwaving people who have legitimate complaints about the use of MT and locking features behind an online wall, is naive and gullible.

I have already said the game itself looks cool. Some of you are acting like we hate the game instead of hating the microtransactions.

You make it sound like people just want to hate on this game because it has MT's. For me personally that's not the case at all.

Well, surprisingly I play games to have fun, and I'm having a lot of it playing Shadow of War. If something on a title really turns me off, I just move away and go play something else.
¯\_(&#12484_/¯

You should try it, you have a two hour window to refund it.

 

[wesleyshark]

lol...even after the lootbox uproar

Outside of gaf, and maybe reddit, that roar is more of a whisper. Lootboxes aren't going anywhere, whether you love em, are indifferent about em, or hate em. The bulk of gamers either don't care or dabble in buying them.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Do you think the excuse of "games development has gone up so we need to recoup costs by making these microtransactions" or what exactly made you accept then? Generally interested in your opinion by the way, in no way trying to be an ass.

Hasn't it? What method of monetization would you prefer they follow? I'm trying to burrow down into what specific issue you have with Mordor and how you would have done it differently.

 

[Arkeband]

I'm afraid I haven't written down their names. I just remember seeing plenty of people saying it would bomb during the height of the "Lootboxes! Lootboxes! Lootboxes!" thing over here.

It wasn’t going to bomb, why would it? The most predatory AAA games always make massive bank every year and drag the industry down another rung.

Little Timmy bought horse armor back when that was a laughingstock, and now Little Timmy Jr. got 50 bucks of Xbox Cash from Little Timmy Sr. to spend on lootboxes for his 150 dollar special edition game. It’s an industry catered toward morons, we’re just spectating.

 

[RichiRamjag]

So now you need to have an intention to play a game before you can criticize one of its aspects?

Do I need to get a Samsung tablet before I can judge its ability to explode in your pocket as well?

Do I need to have an Apple iPhone before I can say that no 3.5mm jack is a dumb and customer unfriendly decision?

Nah, I dont. So your argument is bs.

You don’t, but at some point, the dead horse has been beaten enough. Lootboxes are here to stay and personally, I just don’t support games where it’s predatory in nature. If I keep seeing reports from people who played the game specifying that they never needed or felt enticed to purchase, then I’ve got nothing to complain about unless your problem is with their simple inclusion. In any case, at some point, you realize the game isn’t for you and you move on though. Everyone doesn’t need a constant reminder (not that this is what you’ve personally done).

 

[Sami+]

All the people saying "DONT BUY IT BECUZ LOT BOXZ" don't realize that if the game didn't sell, companies aren't going to draw the conclusion that loot boxes were truly the cause. They aren't going to parse NeoGAF or a few Kotaku articles for a singular correlation of sales data. People don't buy games for a whole host of reasons, loot box fuckery possibly included. But there's no way for them to be like, yeah, the cause was definitely loot boxes if the game failed. All the crying about the end on a video game message board is the minority, whether you like it or not.

If you really want to show them how much you don't like loot boxes, buy the game if you enjoy it, and don't spend real cash. That's it. That's the secret. That's where they can draw correct data from and say, hmm, these dudes don't even like interacting with the money side of things. Doesn't help with the loot box problem as a whole, because unless you use a PC trainer it'll probably come into view at some point, but not spending cash is a good line to draw in the sand.

You are absolutely correct, these multi-billion dollar international corporations are all just a bunch of incompetent dummies who definitely don't have the money to hire a few market analysts whose job it is to know why people did or did not buy the video game they are selling. When a game bombs they probably just throw darts on a board and decide to stick with the reasoning they land on. Ha, what a bunch of idiot. What even is market analysis anyway? Social media team? What do they do? Lol, probably just write a couple tweets, hit send and call it a day. No way they interact with fans and research what people are saying about the game before and after release to provide important data for review, I mean why would they? Lol.

Man. Thank God you cracked the code. Now I can show how unhappy I am with their piece of shit game by giving them my money.

 

[shanafan]

They hate that a game is successful despite featuring something they dislike, so they position it so that it's the end of the industry so they can point at whoever doesn't mind it, or can ignore it, and call them out as being part of the problem. It gives them a sense of moral superiority.

True that. Remember when the Infinite Warfare trailer received one of the most disliked videos ever on YouTube? The game was still one of the best-selling games last year, and surprisingly, still has a healthy online PC population - which says a lot for a game.

 

[PhantomThief]

Well, surprisingly I play games to have fun, and I'm having a lot of it playing Shadow of War. If something on a title really turns me off, I just move away and go play something else.
¯_(&#12484_/¯

You should try it, you have a two hour window to refund it.

I never stated I'm not interested in the game. In fact the first one is a very good game and I really enjoyed it. I will purchase this game second hand and not spend a dime on its microtransactions.

But I am not one to just ignore this type of behaviour from Publishers. They are pushing this more and more. In the future more and more singleplayer games will contain f2p crappy practices, lootboxes, season passes and all that jazz. You can be happy to have a full game experience for 200$. Not now, but in the future for sure .

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Man. Thank God you cracked the code. Now I can show how unhappy I am with their piece of shit game by giving them my money.

My god the overreactions here are ridiculous.

 

[Gamegeneral]

I actually dove back into the first game last week because I never finished it, and while I'll probably be too fatigued to do two of them in a row, I'll probably pick up the GOTY or Gold or complete package whatever they call it in a year from now.

If it's more of the same plus a p2w system that looks pretty easy to ignore, I'm down, just not when I've got three or four upcoming titles to play.

 

[Sami+]

My god the overreactions here are ridiculous.

Sorry Bronx, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to add my impression of the game to my post.

 

[Nheco]

I'm one of those who haven't tried it, have no plans to do it, but I reserve the right to have an opinion about it. This is about much more then this one game, it's about something that's becoming a trend, that I don't like at all.

You totally have this right. I don't think it's a good opinion, but hey: in my book, if everyone agrees in a matter there is probably something wrong about it.

I'm not kind on lootboxes, but it's clearly something that came to stay. Yes, you could vote with your wallet like you are doing, but I don't think you are making any difference, most of people simple will buy a game if it's is any good. And you are just not having some great experiences, like in Shadow of War's case.

And that's my take on the matter.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Sorry Bronx, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to add my impression of the game to my post.

Sorry Sami, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to add my impression of your post to my post

 

[RichiRamjag]

I never stated I'm not interested in the game. In fact the first one is a very good game and I really enjoyed it. I will purchase this game second hand and not spend a dime on its microtransactions.

But I am not one to just ignore this type of behaviour from Publishers. They are pushing this more and more. In the future more and more singleplayer games will contain f2p crappy practices, lootboxes, season passes and all that jazz. You can be happy to have a full game experience for 200$. Not now, but in the future for sure .

What behaviour? A full priced game that people who have actually played continually keep telling you that you don’t need to spend an extra cent nor will you feel like you have to. If anything, it’s one of the more tame inclusions of lootboxes I’ve seen. I’m honestly surprised it wasn’t more predatory.

 

[wesleyshark]

Sorry Bronx, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to add my impression of the game to my post.

What makes this game a "piece of shit" exactly?

 

[Hero]

Guess the loot crate stuff didn't really have an impact on sales after all.

 

[Zojirushi]

Seems like a solid game lootboxgate aside.

I warmed up to Shadow of Mordor after a while once the combat started getting fun after a couple of upgrades so I'll check this out at some point down the road when they release a complete edition or something.

Hoping for some alternative playable character like in the first game, that white dude seems really boring.

 

[PhantomThief]

True that. Remember when the Infinite Warfare trailer received one of the most disliked videos ever on YouTube? The game was still one of the best-selling games last year, and surprisingly, still has a healthy online PC population - which says a lot for a game.

You know why it had such a bad reception on Youtube? Because it used a horrible disrespectful cover of a David Bowie song. Also lots of cod fans didnt want futute war.

Surprisingly, Call of Duty is one of the biggest titles in gaming, and a trailer with a horrible music choice getting a lot of dislikes honestly means jack shit as it translates to sales impact.

So I'm not sure what your point is here. A bad commercial does not equal lootboxes and locking features behind an online wall.

 

[PhantomThief]

What behaviour? A full priced game that people who have actually played continually keep telling you that you don’t need to spend an extra cent nor will you feel like you have to. If anything, it’s one of the more tame inclusions of lootboxes I’ve seen. I’m honestly surprised it wasn’t more predatory.

The behaviour of keep pushing to see how far they can take it. If you don't see that then I'm not sure what to say.

 

[Sami+]

Sorry Sami, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to add my impression of your post to my post

Cute! :^)

What makes this game a "piece of shit" exactly?

It's a full priced single player game with lootboxes.

Also the first one was one of the most mediocre, bluntly uninteresting focus tested checkbox games I've ever played in my life but more importantly it's a single player game with lootboxes.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

There was a 10 page thread of people gloating about how their righteous stance on loot boxes had killed their hype for the game. I think it's reasonable to assume some of them expected the game to suffer from the controversy.

I played and enjoyed the first game, didn't buy this one as a direct result of all of this loot crate shit, but I absolutely didn't expect the game to be anything other than massively successful. I can't imagine reaching that conclusion when we have so much evidence of the masses being fine with this stuff already. I hope everyone who bought the game is happy with it, and I'll continue to feel good about not supporting it, and the extra $60 in my pocket. We all win!

 

[RichiRamjag]

The behaviour of keep pushing to see how far they can take it. If you don't see that then I'm not sure what to say.

We’re already there though. Many games already have predatory microtransactions shoehorned in. Of course I see a slippery slope, but why wouldn’t I reward games that don’t go down it? This one doesn’t.

When I thought it did, I planned on not buying it. I waited until release and saw it was not the case and now I’m having a blast playing a game I really dig (when not doing those missions).

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Cute! :^)

I mean, I don't get your point. I was calling your sentiment an overreaction, not telling you that you shouldn't be sharing it in the discussion.

It's a full priced single player game with lootboxes.
Also the first one was one of the most mediocre, bluntly uninteresting focus tested checkbox games I've ever played in my life but more importantly it's a single player game with lootboxes.

You're not saying anything about why you think that's bad, just stating what it is.

 

[Springy]

You are absolutely correct, these multi-billion dollar international corporations are all just a bunch of incompetent dummies who definitely don't have the money to hire a few market analysts whose job it is to know why people did or did not buy the video game they are selling. When a game bombs they probably just throw darts on a board and decide to stick with the reasoning they land on. Ha, what a bunch of idiot. What even is market analysis anyway? Social media team? What do they do? Lol, probably just write a couple tweets, hit send and call it a day. No way they interact with fans and research what people are saying about the game before and after release to provide important data for review, I mean why would they? Lol.

They can't gather data on customers they don't have. Cut the snark and elaborate on your opinions civilly.

 

[Arkeband]

Cute! :^)



It's a full priced single player game with lootboxes.

Also the first one was one of the most mediocre, bluntly uninteresting focus tested checkbox games I've ever played in my life but more importantly it's a single player game with lootboxes.

Don’t forget that the first had a pretty shitty PC port that required a nonsensical amount of GPU RAM to use the highest texture packs because they made virtually no optimizations porting it from its console code.

And, it had locked on-disc DLC that restricted players from entire modes.

 

[RichiRamjag]

I mean, I don't get your point. I was calling your sentiment an overreaction, not telling you that you shouldn't be sharing it in the discussion.


You're not saying anything about why you think that's bad, just stating what it is.

It just being there is enough for some I guess.

 

[PhantomThief]

They can't gather data on customers they don't have.

Actually, they can and they do ( basically every company does this by the way, regardless of industry ).

 

[Crankshaft]

Guess the loot crate stuff didn't really have an impact on sales after all.

Gaf is the "old man yelling at cloud" of gaming. You can't look at what is posted here as being indicative of the market. Everybody I know IRL plays games. I've never heard anyone ever say out loud "loot box" or "microtransaction". Theres a whole big world out there outside of Gaf rants.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

It just being there is enough for some I guess.

Still, they should be able to articulate why that existence is an issue for them.

 

[Sami+]

They can't gather data on customers they don't have. Cut the snark and elaborate on your opinions civilly.

Are you serious? If NeoGAF hobbyists like literally everyone in this thread can keep up to date enough with the conversation to know what the "controversy" is in the first place, then yes, people whose job it is to do that are perfectly capable of doing the same.

What do you even think they do over there? Just leave everything to the developers and not look into anything people are saying until the game is out?

 

[RichiRamjag]

Still, they should be able to articulate why that existence is an issue for them.

Oh I definitely agree.

Gaf is the "old man yelling at cloud" of gaming. You can't look at what is posted here as being indicative of the market. Everybody I know IRL plays games. I've never heard anyone ever say out loud "loot box" or "microtransaction". Theres a whole big world out there outside of Gaf rants.

Oh yeah. Gaf is not the best indicator. It’s something that people expected this to flop because of those lootboxes.

 

[Springy]

Actually, they can and they do ( basically every company does this by the way, regardless of industry ).

Tell me the last time you were asked by a publisher why you had zero interaction with their game, and if you know how they got your contact details.

 

[PhantomThief]

Tell me the last time you were asked by a publisher why you had zero interaction with their game, and if you know how they got your contact details.

That they do not interact with consumers directly does not mean they do not do any market research. Like seriously dude?

 

[CecilRousso]

You totally have this right. I don't think it's a good opinion, but hey: in my book, if everyone agrees in a matter there is probably something wrong about it.

I'm not kind on lootboxes, but it's clearly something that come to stay. Yes, you could vote with your wallet like you are doing, but I don't think you are making any difference, most of people simple will buy a game if it's is any good. And you are just not having some great experiences, like in Shadow of War's case.

And that's my take on the matter.

What's not a good opinion? That loot boxes is a worrying trend, and that the next step will be one step to far?

About missing out, every single AAA action game isn't important for me. I played Shadows of Mordor during the free weekend on Steam, so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm missing out on.

If it was the single greatest game ever made, in a genre I really like, would loot boxes make me boycott it? Probably not. But you can buy it, play it, and have a negative opinion about this aspect in it. "Bought your game, don't like this, please don't continue with it."

 

[Sami+]

Still, they should be able to articulate why that existence is an issue for them.

Because it affects the game design and I've played enough free to play games to understand this. It's a predatory business tactic that has no place in any game at all as far as I'm concerned (I don't believe in not knowing what you're paying for), but it's been a part of the free to play space for so long that it feels like a lost cause. It has no place in fully priced titles.

Even in Shadow of War, a case where it is "not that bad" (it shouldn't be "bad" at all), the orc collecting system has been designed around the inclusion of lootboxes. It's a grind that was introduced only to incentivize the spending of extra money on loot.

 

[kc44135]

What's rotten exactly? A tacked on part of the game that can be ignored?

The game is awesome, it's fun to play, and the market seems to be responding positively to it.

It can't really be ignored, as I understand it. Look, I loved the original (I bought it twice to show my support for a sequel), and I was really excited for this game. But what they've done here is abominable. Here is a $60 single-player game where, in order to actually finish it and see the ending, you have to pay to win by buying lootcrates or else suffer an endless, tedious grind to the finish line. That's horrible, and I won't ever support something like that.

 

[Springy]

That they do not interact with consumers directly does not mean they do not do any market research. Like seriously dude?

Right. The other (belligerent, now ignored) member seemed to indicate this gives them an element of clairvoyance. Market research is not precise; it is often inaccurate. The most concrete data the industry has regarding loot boxes is: they sell. If SoW bombed and WB wanted to find out why, I'd be skeptical they would come to the conclusion that loot boxes were to blame, especially when their competitors have all reached different conclusions.

 

[Heckler456]

It wasn’t going to bomb, why would it? The most predatory AAA games always make massive bank every year and drag the industry down another rung.

Little Timmy bought horse armor back when that was a laughingstock, and now Little Timmy Jr. got 50 bucks of Xbox Cash from Little Timmy Sr. to spend on lootboxes for his 150 dollar special edition game. It’s an industry catered toward morons, we’re just spectating.

Uhu. Alright.

Meanwhile, I'm just playing a pretty great game that I bought for 55 dollars. What reality do you live in?

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

They can't gather data on customers they don't have. Cut the snark and elaborate on your opinions civilly.

The idea that you should give them data by buying the game, but not buying loot crates is beyond ludicrous. They don't give a fuck. They are already aware that it's only a small percentage of people who will buy into them, and that a smaller percentage of that percentage will go crazy on them. If the same number of people bought this game as the first, but this one has loot boxes, they are guaranteed more money than the first because SOMEONE will buy into those loot boxes. They aren't going to look at the numbers and think "fuck it, not enough people bought them, we'll not include them next time." They look at those numbers and figure out how to get them higher next time.

And saying that articles and forum posts bitching about this stuff gets no attention is absolute nonsense (I realize that wasn't you who said that). If that were true, studios would never respond to this stuff publicly, whereas in the last month we have gotten responses about Battlefront 2, Assassin's Creed Origins, and Forza 7 rather quickly after an internet uproar. Two of those three games aren't even out yet, so they certainly don't have any data from the "buy, but don't support loot crates" crowd. And yet, we still heard from them. If you think something is shitty, the answer is rarely to remain silent about it.

 

[wesleyshark]

Cute! :^)



It's a full priced single player game with lootboxes.

Also the first one was one of the most mediocre, bluntly uninteresting focus tested checkbox games I've ever played in my life but more importantly it's a single player game with lootboxes.

So you played Shadow of War then?

I don't see how you can deem a game as being a piece of shit solely based on knowing that there are optional and inconsequential lootboxes, without having played the actual game itself to judge how it is.

 

[Usobuko]

Success is a very powerful tool to keep sustaining itself.

At the very least, the games avoided the bomba tag that plague many recent AAA releases.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

It can't really be ignored, as I understand it. Look, I loved the original (I bought it twice to show my support for a sequel), and I was really excited for this game. But what they've done here is abominable. Here is a $60 single-player game where, in order to actually finish it and see the ending, you have to pay to win by buying lootcrates or else suffer an endless, tedious grind to the finish line. That's horrible, and I won't ever support something like that.

Considering the majority of posts from people playing the game indicate that it very much can be ignored I'm not sure why you're ignoring them all in favour of continuing to bleat this tired line. By all accounts it's completely ignorable, not necessary for the end game nor do people feel an urge to purchase them because of the grind.

 

[Carlius]

You do not need to spend a penny over the $60 base game price to see everything the game has to offer, full stop.

Lootboxes are absolutely and entirely optional. The "true ending" is for folks who want to keep playing beyond the ending of Act III, and can be achieved by just playing the game.

Come on man, while the lootboxes shit is true u cant seriously defend a true ending being locked behind them. Jesus

 

[wesleyshark]

Come on man, while the lootboxes shit is true u cant seriously defend a true ending being locked behind them. Jesus

The ending is not locked behind lootboxes. Why do people keep pushing this falsehood?

 

[Heckler456]

The ending is not locked behind lootboxes. Why do people keep pushing this falsehood?

It's hard to argue in good faith when you don't have a foot to stand on.

 

[Nheco]

What's not a good opinion? That loot boxes is a worrying trend, and that the next step will be one step to far?

About missing out, every single AAA action game isn't important for me. I played Shadows of Mordor during the free weekend on Steam, so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm missing out on.

If it was the single greatest game ever made, in a genre I really like, would loot boxes make me boycott it? Probably not. But you can buy it, play it, and have a negative opinion about this aspect in it. "Bought your game, don't like this, please don't continue with it."

An opinion about something that is appreciated trough experience coming from someone who doesn't experienced it.

However, I can totally understand your point against lootboxes, I also don't think it's a good idea in paid titles. The difference is that I just don't instantly turn away from a game because of it. And in Shadow of War's case it's basically a non issue that most people keeps repeating because "reasons" and youtubers.

 

[Springy]

The idea that you should give them data by buying the game, but not buying loot crates is beyond ludicrous. They don't give a fuck. They are already aware that it's only a small percentage of people who will buy into them, and that a smaller percentage of that percentage will go crazy on them. If the same number of people bought this game as the first, but this one has loot boxes, they are guaranteed more money than the first because SOMEONE will buy into those loot boxes. They aren't going to look at the numbers and think "fuck it, not enough people bought them, we'll not include them next time." They look at those numbers and figure out how to get them higher next time.

And saying that articles and forum posts bitching about this stuff gets no attention is absolute nonsense (I realize that wasn't you who said that). If that were true, studios would never respond to this stuff publicly, whereas in the last month we have gotten responses about Battlefront 2, Assassin's Creed Origins, and Forza 7 rather quickly after an internet uproar. Two of those three games aren't even out yet, so they certainly don't have any data from the "buy, but don't support loot crates" crowd. And yet, we still heard from them. If you think something is shitty, the answer is rarely to remain silent about it.

Well stated, and I agree. I didn't agree with the 'buy the game, don't buy loot boxes, influence future design' argument, but I my point was I don't think en masse voting with your wallet ever works. Like you said, making an actual complaint dispenses with ambiguity, and has shown itself to be effective in the past.

 

[Durrzerker]

The ending is not locked behind lootboxes. Why do people keep pushing this falsehood?

They just regurgitate something they heard on the internet without checking if it is true. I absolutely blazed through Act 4 without opening a single loot box or even grinding at all on Nemesis difficulty. All you have to do is dominate the Orcs that attack your Fortress while you were defending it and they are more than sufficient to help you fend off the next invasion.

 

[FairXchange]

I'm having a blast with the game, further to that the loot boxes haven't once felt required or needed. I play the game as if their not even there. Glad to see its selling well on Steam, the PC build runs awesome.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Shadow of Mordor was released on 30 September on Steam. Let's see on October.
Peak Players: 48,518
Avg Players: 14,469
Those are the numbers of October

SteamCharts numbers

Shadow of War released 7 days ago, 400.000 units SteamSpy.
Peak Players: 67,943
Avg Players: 10,311.

It's safe to assume that Shadow of War sold more than Shadow of Mordor with a +20k peak player. So, yes this is a valid evidence imo.

Again, you're making a leap. There are any number of reasons for Shadow of Mordor to sell more/less than a previous game. You can't conclusively say that one variable had no effect one way or the other. Different games, different times, many variables, and you're attributing something happening a certain way with one specific variable.

That isn't proof, it is conjecture. You can theorize about it all you want, you can't prove it.

And hey, I don't care about the lootbox thing either way, just saying your evidence does not prove your conclusion, at all. You would have been better off saying the game still sold well, even with the controversy. Heck for all we know that controversy raised awareness for the game and perhaps caused it to sell even more copies than it would have. Stuff like this is very hard/impossible to prove because you can't test them multiple times while removing all the other variables. The best that can be done, imho, is surveys, but it isn't easy to find good survey groups who were genuinely interested in your product but didn't buy it.