GTA V should be added to the list aswell.
This has nothing to do with DLC cars. For one, controversially, you cant just buy a DLC car pack and own the cars. You still have to buy them with earned, in-game credits after you buy the DLC. So this is not something that is designed to encourage DLC sales at all.I hear you and certainly respect your opinion as well.
I don't feel that Turn 10 would skew the monetary income rewarded from races in the single player component of the game to entice gamers to spend additional funds on DLC vehicles.
The lack of the LaFerrari in the base game however is a major disappointment for me and I'll be waiting until all of the vehicles which I consider core to the experience are included in a single version of the game.
Can't I play the game for any fucking reason I choose? I didn't realize I had to get approval from others to play a game in the fashion I enjoy most.
I think you mean GTAO. I am unaware of micro transactions in GTAV.
Just stick it to them by buying the game used, refusing to purchase tokens, and complaining via social media. It's all we can really do but that's pretty shitty.
They are not inherently evil, they are inherently anti-consumer. Just because people fall for it, doesn't mean it is a healthy thing that gets supported. If you cant see why people are against this, just on principle alone, I dunno what else to tell you, as to why this isnt just an "over reaction".
Can't I play the game for any fucking reason I choose? I didn't realize I had to get approval from others to play a game in the fashion I enjoy most.
60% is several hundred cars, man! lolUp until this generation, I was very much a 'gotta catch 'em all' guy when it came to racers. If it was on the roster, it would end up in my garage. DLC kinda ruined that for me. I can understand that if you only want access to 60% of the cars, the credits given for racing are largely sufficient.
I wouldn't put Gold in the same category with tokens whatsoever. Gold, for me, was pretty essential. I would agree that without it, Forza definitely loses a lot of what it does best. But the tokens? Completely insignificant.I didn't put much time in with FM4 because I was kinda soured on the franchise by 3. Also, I cancelled my Gold membership which meant I couldn't buy custom liveries and that dampened my enthusiasm. Glad to hear they made it more generous though.
I think, for me, the series is the poster child of how things changed for the worse last gen (Buy game. Now buy DLC. Now buy Gold subscription. Now buy tokens to buy cars). I understand that much of that stuff is optional, but when you opt out of it all you can end up feeling like you're playing a shell of a game, with all the best bits withheld from you.
More power to those that enjoy the series though, it's certainly got a lot going for it.
I can't help but feel that the protest would carry more symbolic moral weight if you didn't actually purchase and play the game at all.
You don't care about companies making a game nearly impossible to progress through without spending additional money?
I think this is getting massively, massively overblown.
Nothing stated in the OP(series netting about 110,000 credits, some cars costing millions) is any different from previous Forza's.
Seriously, this is pretty ridiculous and you can clearly see who plays Forza and who doesn't.
They are not inherently evil, they are inherently anti-consumer.
To be fair, so is selling a game commercially when it could be given away for free. Where do you draw the line, philosophically?
Either way they don't make any money off of me so I'd rather not deprive myself the experience of playing the game just to make a symbolic gesture. The end result is the same either way.
Come on man: ... you can do better than that.
You might have heard of a thing called "cost", and another thing called "price".
Well: the line comes after...
Its not pay-to-win. You don't know what you're talking about. You really don't. I'm not trying to be high and mighty here. I'm just having to point that out.
I can see that point to a degree, but not many games just offer up whatever content they want without having to work for it. I don't think having some rewards for longer-term players is such a bad thing at all. I think its much more meaningful to reward people with a super rare and valuable car for playing a lot than some useless Xbox achievement, ya know?Ah fair call. I think we're on the same page here. If there is parity in the progression of monetary reward vs time vs skill as per the previous iterations of the series, then I'm not personally bothered with the purchasable tokens available on the Marketplace as I'd never use them.
I'm sympathetic to those that would like to play the game in that manner however and are effectively getting charged extra for it.
That's a bit of a complicated question to answer. And a weird way to look at things from a Forza standpoint. Again, I wish people here knew something about the franchise to understand this stuff.As a frame of reference: How many hours of play would you expect to have to do to unlock a given high-level car in a prior Forza? The implication from the Eurogamer review is that we're looking at 9 hours.
Yeah, it's not pay-to-win. It's pay-to-not-suck. One of the most toxic game design approaches ever.
.Don't blame the publishers, Blame the gamers who keep buying this rubbish
Wrong again. Just completely and utterly wrong its not even funny.Yeah, it's not pay-to-win. It's pay-to-not-suck. One of the most toxic game design approaches ever.
Somehow, someway, they really "got" what DLC is supposed to be about and even though they are new to that game, they are one of the top makers of DLC.
You can still get all from Forza without buying, that's not the point.You could count that as microtransaction, but actually you could get pretty much anything in Hard difficulty without resorting to said DLC. It reduces the grindiness nature for building up a streetpass team. And we are not counting that the said map isn't available from get go as it is released much later unlike most microtransaction option. I would look forward to next Fire Emblem installment whether or not this particular practice affect the core design in anyway. If I can't plow through the main chapters without grinding with free battles or spotpass teams, then Nintendo indeed have jumped the boat.
Seriously, do you guys not remember what it was like playing GT2/F1? I remember spending hours and HOURS doing the same race over and over and over again just to afford some super car I wanted.
In my mind, it's about feeling like you got sixty-dollars-worth of game after you paid $60. If you do, I don't care what additional DLC or microtransactions are available on day one. I'll still feel like I got my moneys worth, and I'll buy more if I feel like there's more fun to be had.
This is of course provided that the microtransactions aren't applied in a way that makes you feel like they've deliberately made the game less fun until you pay more.
Couldn't you already buy "tickets" or something like that in Forza Horizon?They can have other games, just please don't take Forza from us...
AssCreed4 is disgusting in that regard.
What are those games doing? I think one of the most annoying things about the microtransactions is that you usually just learn about them when you play the game. Reviewers somehow never mention this stuff.yeah, Arkham Origins does the EXACT SAME THING.
GAF is overreacting.
As GAF often does.
The funny thing is that I seem to be nearly alone among people I know in this regard. Lots of my friends play games like Candy Crush Saga, and even the ones who don't buy anything are constantly defending the practice by telling me that 'oh, you don't have to buy anything to win!' while playing the same level they've been stuck on for 3 weeks yet again.
I also didn't mention Crimson Dragon, which apparently is also ruined by microtransactions.
DLC has always been a way publishers to hide the true cost of a game. Somehow the market has established that AAA games should cost no more than $60 at retail. Since that standard was established, development costs and inflation have gone up, so the price of AAA games should rise in accordance. But, because we refuse to pay more than $60 for a complete game, publishers instead sell us 80% of a complete game and then upcharge for the rest via microtransactions and DLC; the theory being that we're more likely to pay, say, $60 up front and then make three smaller payments of $20 than we are to pay $120 up front (the true price needed to make a profit on some of these games).
The longer we hold onto that $60 requirement, the more dishonest and abusive these DLC and microtransaction practices will be. I agree it sucks that these practices are ruining game balance, but OP and the other people complaining about this can only fix it if they show they are willing to pay more than $60 for a complete game.
now I know why jeff gerstmann is upset
I dunno about balanced around harder difficulties. Hard seems to be the legitimate difficulty level and then the curve goes a bit crazy. I've only played the GBA and Radiant FE games but Lunatic and Lunatic+ require pretty soul crushing "tactics" and resetting for better RNG rolls and even the random encounters on the world map are all maxed stat monstrosities straight away. Free spotpass battles on higher difficulties only give 1 EXP per action/kill so that's not viable as a leveling method either. The older game's Hector Hard mode or Maniac or what not just don't compare.More than that, the game is still balanced around not using DLC in the harder difficulties. There's a ton of content even without it (more total chapters than any previous FE game) and the game isn't grindy at all.
The grinding DLC is really only good for preparing for other DLC, so it's all kind of self contained for the people who want to spend more for more content. I think Fire Emblem did a great job of handling DLC in that regard (though I still think most of it is a poor value).
Ugh. I think the problem is that a lot of people just read a quick snippet of something and then respond without understanding the full context of what's being said. Somewhat understandable, because people cant always read through entire threads to figure this stuff out, but it would still be nice if people refrained from commenting when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about....I have now read Rob Ford and microtransaction defence force posts in the same day.
I ll buy GT6 second hand... F2P model in a game that I payed? Fuck no !
Why is gaming the only entertainment medium, where I can't decide how I want to enjoy the product? If I'm feeling bored in a particular chapter in a book, I can just skip ahead. Don't want to sit through the lovey dovey scenes in an action film? Hit the fast forward button. There are games I've paid full price for that I haven't fully played through, because I'm either bored, stuck, or keep dying in a particular spot. I should be able to skip ahead without being penalised, or in most cases, being blocked from doing so in the first place.