Monetization of our time is evil. Gamers regroup !

michaelx

Banned
Sep 2, 2013
231
0
0
Croatia
These are upcoming/newly released.
Ryse: Son of Rome
Forza Motorsport 5
Gran Turismo 6
Crimson Dragon
Bravely Default: Flying Fairy
Grand Theft Auto V
FIFA
NBA 2k games
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag

Other:
Dead Space 3
Battlefield 3
Mass Effect 3
Diablo 3



Feel free to expand the list!
Updated with Black Flag, top of the page so everyone sees it.
 
Dec 31, 2008
2,005
0
0
Buying the game and not buying the "upgrades" sends a stronger message than not buying the game at all.
I think buying it secondhand would be a good compromise. I buy all my games new but if a new game I just can't do without comes out with microtransactions I'll get it used instead.
 

Polioliolio

Member
Aug 30, 2012
7,213
1
0
Sorry to hear about Bravely Default.

Well, my will is stronger than the need to play a video game, so I can live.
For shame, Square Enix. I knew you did that shit on mobile, but I'm terribly disappointed.
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
Jun 16, 2013
8,576
0
0
Could somebody make a list of games practicing these horrible policies and put it in a "Do not buy these games |OT|? Keep it updated and all that jazz.
Yes we definitely need that.

Sorry to hear about Bravely Default.

Well, my will is stronger than the need to play a video game, so I can live.
For shame, Square Enix. I knew you did that shit on mobile, but I'm terribly disappointed.
They want to bring that shit to consoles. FFXV and KHIII are going to be abused.
 

bjork

Member
Jun 8, 2004
47,260
2
0
This is definitely a trend that I won't support. DLC as far as a replacement for expansion packs, I understand. But to get rest XP or whatever in a paid form? I can grind, thanks.

If something is locked behind a pay wall that's cosmetic, I think that's fair and depends on how you want to play a game. But if it's intentionally done in a way keep me from completing the game's story or season without paying more than the retail price, I feel like that's a poor design choice.
 

EGM1966

Member
Aug 5, 2011
10,354
0
0
UK
I "re-grouped" a while back and started voting with my wallet against this shit (and DRM) - hopefully stuff like the MTs in Forza 5 will get more people voting with their wallet too rather than just taking this stuff on the chin "because you can't fight it" which is just pure horseshit.
 

DieEnteWurzel

Member
Jun 23, 2013
206
0
0
Totally agree, I wont buy any game with these mechanics.
I don't have enough time to play half the games I want to anyway, so in this case good riddance, you'll get my money next time when you start caring about my experience.

I'll also never buy DLC I don't see it's worth the price tag (like Forza). Some old school expansion style 20$ DLC, sure if it's any good I'm in.
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
Jun 16, 2013
8,576
0
0
You don't HAVE to unlock stuff. If the game is fun, just play it. If you unlock stuff during normal play, great. If you are no longer having fun, quit.
No. The fact the stuff is there in the first place is absolute exploitation and ruins the products. You put down money for a game it should be complete like a book or film.

You can bet they're designing these games with this shit in mind and not tacking it on after. That's an even scarier thought.
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,333
0
0
Sorry to hear about Bravely Default.

Well, my will is stronger than the need to play a video game, so I can live.
For shame, Square Enix. I knew you did that shit on mobile, but I'm terribly disappointed.
microtransaction dlc ruined SMTIV for me. I really wanted to play Bravely Default, but I know this will have ruined for me, so I'll just save my $40.

Does anyone know if Etrian Odyssey 5 has cheat dlc/microtransactions?
 

michaelx

Banned
Sep 2, 2013
231
0
0
Croatia
These are upcoming/newly released.

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
Bravely Default: Flying Fairy
Crimson Dragon
FIFA
Forza Motorsport 5
Gran Turismo 6
Grand Theft Auto V
Ryse: Son of Rome
NBA 2k games


Other:
Assassin's Creed 3
Battlefield 3
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Dead Space 3
Diablo 3
Dragon's Dogma
Mass Effect 3
Shin Megami Tensei IV


Well, the lists expands. :)
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,333
0
0
Could somebody make a list of games practicing these horrible policies and put it in a "Do not buy these games |OT|? Keep it updated and all that jazz.
This thread would be great for that. It needs to be at the top of the OP though.
 

Zing

Banned
Apr 12, 2009
5,701
0
0
Canada
backloggery.com
No. The fact the stuff is there in the first place is absolute exploitation and ruins the products. You put down money for a game it should be complete like a book or film.

You can bet they're designing these games with this shit in mind and not tacking it on after. That's an even scarier thought.
So don't buy them.

There are literally more playable games already in existence than any one of us could play in our lifetime. I have a closet with about 100 NES/SNES/PS1 games I can play. Nintendo brand systems alone could probably tide you over until death. Plus, there are uncountable games on a variety of computer systems.

I find modern movies to be pretty much intolerable. I've seen maybe three movies made in the past year. I don't stress about the current state of cinema. I let people who want to pay for that stuff pay for it. Meanwhile, I am still discovering movies made over the past 100 years that are enjoyable for me.

I agree that F2P and DLC based games have a design philosophy at odds with end-user value and enjoyment. As was mentioned earlier, arcade games are similar, which is why I don't play MAME other than for nostalgic reasons. Arcade and F2P games are not designed to be enjoyed, they are designed to be played as much as possible. However, these aren't the only games out there. Older games didn't suddenly stop existing nor become unenjoyable.
 

michaelx

Banned
Sep 2, 2013
231
0
0
Croatia
So don't buy them.
Still though, many other who don't support don't know about it until very end (release of the game) and then they regret the purchase.

There are people like that on gaf, as seen from other threads.

They should be informed.
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
Jun 16, 2013
8,576
0
0
So don't buy them.

There are literally more playable games already in existence than any one of us could play in our lifetime. I have a closet with about 100 NES/SNES/PS1 games I can play. Nintendo brand systems alone could probably tide you over until death. Plus, there are uncountable games on a variety of computer systems.

I find modern movies to be pretty much intolerable. I've seen maybe three movies made in the past year. I don't stress about the current state of cinema. I let people who want to pay for that stuff pay for it. Meanwhile, I am still discovering movies made over the past 100 years that are enjoyable for me.

I agree that F2P and DLC based games have a design philosophy at odds with end-user value and enjoyment. As was mentioned earlier, arcade games are similar, which is why I don't play MAME other than for nostalgic reasons. Arcade and F2P games are not designed to be enjoyed, they are designed to be played as much as possible. However, these aren't the only games out there. Older games didn't suddenly stop existing nor become unenjoyable.
I actually think exactly the same as you about classic games and films.

But my biggest worry is if the games I love start to become infected with this crap. All this mainstream fluff is bad enough, but I'm scared that FFXV or MGSV will get this treatment as well.

Don't buy it is a good point. But there has to be some form of responsibility beyond "if people are buying it that's their problem".
 

sponk

Member
Jul 27, 2009
2,899
994
690
please excuse my bad english
Games get more and more expensive. Console nowadays are not build by game companies like in the 90s instead the are being made by big corporations. Considering one and the other, it is a logical consequence that pubs and devs will try to reach a break even as fast and easy as possible and (beware!) are trying to make a healthy profit.
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
Jun 16, 2013
8,576
0
0
Games get more and more expensive. Console nowadays are not build by game companies like in the 90s instead the are being made by big corporations. Considering one and the other, it is a logical consequence that pubs and devs will try to reach a break even as fast and easy as possible and (beware!) are trying to make a healthy profit.
They were big corporations then too. In fact with the PS4 specifically it was the first time a console seems to have been made by explicitly consulting developers.

However I agree with your sentiment. They've moved away from building the game, and moved towards building the buck.
 
Feb 27, 2008
18,022
0
810
So don't buy them.

There are literally more playable games already in existence than any one of us could play in our lifetime. I have a closet with about 100 NES/SNES/PS1 games I can play. Nintendo brand systems alone could probably tide you over until death. Plus, there are uncountable games on a variety of computer systems.

I find modern movies to be pretty much intolerable. I've seen maybe three movies made in the past year. I don't stress about the current state of cinema. I let people who want to pay for that stuff pay for it. Meanwhile, I am still discovering movies made over the past 100 years that are enjoyable for me.

I agree that F2P and DLC based games have a design philosophy at odds with end-user value and enjoyment. As was mentioned earlier, arcade games are similar, which is why I don't play MAME other than for nostalgic reasons. Arcade and F2P games are not designed to be enjoyed, they are designed to be played as much as possible. However, these aren't the only games out there. Older games didn't suddenly stop existing nor become unenjoyable.
There's more media in every form of entertainment and art than any single person could ever consume, so there's absolutely no reason to care about anyone ever producing anything ever again? Stop writing books guys, well never catch up anyway. What a silly argument.
 

Polioliolio

Member
Aug 30, 2012
7,213
1
0
They were big corporations then too. In fact with the PS4 specifically it was the first time a console seems to have been made by explicitly consulting developers.

However I agree with your sentiment. They've moved away from building the game, and moved towards building the buck.
The Nintendo from the era was intense.
Sure there were plenty of shitty games, but it also seemed like the big companies wanted to appeal directly to, dare I say, the hardcore gamer. They knew people wanted to buy awesome games, so they generally made awesome games.
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
Jun 16, 2013
8,576
0
0
The Nintendo from the era was intense.
Sure there were plenty of shitty games, but it also seemed like the big companies wanted to appeal directly to, dare I say, the hardcore gamer. They knew people wanted to buy awesome games, so they generally made awesome games.
There was less corporate culture back then (even though games were still being made by big corporations). The vibe was much more like Indie studios of today.
 

sponk

Member
Jul 27, 2009
2,899
994
690
please excuse my bad english
The Nintendo from the era was intense.
Sure there were plenty of shitty games, but it also seemed like the big companies wanted to appeal directly to, dare I say, the hardcore gamer. They knew people wanted to buy awesome games, so they generally made awesome games.
I disagree. The call of duty of the 16 bit era was the platformer, so companies developed shitty platformers like hell. We have to take off the nostalgia googles here. Companies back then just had to deal with much worse hardware and the ecosystem simply did not provide the options to make money like modern systems do.

And I am not saying that I like the fact that devs implement these microtransactions. But it is the way things go and I don't blame them for trying it. It's a legitimate business opportunity to take.
 

Tertullian

Member
Feb 24, 2013
3,560
0
0
I'm always amazed when someone claims that these kinds of microtransactions don't affect design or gameplay at all, and you can ignore them and have no less lovely an experience than you would have had if this predatory business model had never reared its ugly head.

Sure, right: the designers don't design for microtransactions at all. They don't build in any incentives to spend more money. They tweak progression just perfectly so that the rate at which you acquire new stuff is just perfect, and it wouldn't be any more fun to get stuff faster. They're totally optional, guys! BTW, would any of you gentleman like to buy one of the many fine bridges I have for sale?

There is no such thing as a game with microtransactions whose design is not tainted by them. There is no such thing. Every game with microtransactions builds in incentives to spend more money; every game with microtransactions is designed to ensure that the optimal experience is one in which the publisher gets more of your money. It's just that it's acceptable in games which are free up front because hey, they're free up front. But in a $60 retail game? Come on.

"Pay so that you don't have to play" microtransactions are particularly odious, because they reveal the underlying bad design of any game they're in. If I'm paying so that I don't have to play the game, what does that say about the minute to minute gameplay? It says it's not fun. It says it's a slog, something negative, something I endure rather than enjoy so that I can get the arbitrary rewards I have been conditioned to want. It says that the game has little to offer besides a skinner box, at least past a certain number of hours.

Can you imagine if Super Mario 3D World had microtransactions that allowed you to buy green stars for $1, so that you can get out of the chore of actually playing the levels? Would anyone buy that? Of course not, because playing the level to get the stars is the game, and it's extremely fun. If I'm paying for cars in a racing game because, man, I don't want to race for one more hour, what does that say? It says that the moment-to-moment gameplay is not fun, at least after a certain number of hours, and it says that the game was designed so that I would not acquire cars as fast as I want to, so that I would rather spend real money to get something than actually play the game I already paid $60 for.
 

Polioliolio

Member
Aug 30, 2012
7,213
1
0
I disagree. The call of duty of the 16 bit era was the platformer, so companies developed shitty platformers like hell. We have to take off the nostalgia googles here. Companies back then just had to deal with much worse hardware and the ecosystem simply did not provide the options to make money like modern systems do.

And I am not saying that I like the fact that devs implement these microtransactions. But it is the way things go and I don't blame them for trying it. It's a legitimate business opportunity to take.
Not saying their weren't shitty games. There were. But the big companies had the best stuff.

Now the big companies have the most neutered mainstream boring ass content AND they have the nerve to be in the driver seat for this monetization catastrophe.
 

flyinpiranha

Member
Aug 25, 2009
11,261
0
0
Games that required almost no grind to "win", will require a bit more grind, so they can justify in-game purchases.

Games that already had grind, will simply have even more grind, to justify in-game purchases.

Everyone who thinks otherwise (as in, the grind will stay the same, they'll just add a new feature to their games) is fooling themselves. And unfortunately reading discussions regarding this issue implies a lot of people do...
I was fooled. Up until very recently with 2K14 I figured it was a time saver is all. But now I realize how much is locked and how much grinding is actually needed. I also read tnat Forza does not have the Ring? Is that correct?

I have changed my tune from what it was at the beginning of this thread, I was uneducated on the topic but have seen it first hand now.
 

bjork

Member
Jun 8, 2004
47,260
2
0
I disagree. The call of duty of the 16 bit era was the platformer, so companies developed shitty platformers like hell. We have to take off the nostalgia googles here. Companies back then just had to deal with much worse hardware and the ecosystem simply did not provide the options to make money like modern systems do.

And I am not saying that I like the fact that devs implement these microtransactions. But it is the way things go and I don't blame them for trying it. It's a legitimate business opportunity to take.
^ this is pretty much spot-on. I remember old tales of the early PC days, where companies would call one another to make sure they weren't releasing similar games at similar times. But other than that, it's always had every indication of being a business with the focus on profit and expansion. There wasn't some point where an entire industry went, "hey, we can milk extra money out of people by being shady." Someone tried it first, it succeeded enough to work, and others followed suit.

It only goes away if we don't buy in.
 

Freeman

Banned
Aug 23, 2013
5,612
0
0
People buy into this bullshit, this battle is already lost, and we lost it 8 years ago.

I liked how things worked on GT5 I hope this doesn't affect players who don't pay for bullshit, but I pretty sure it will have an impact.
 

params7

Banned
Feb 13, 2010
7,270
0
0
30
Central New Jersey
I'm always amazed when someone claims that these kinds of microtransactions don't affect design or gameplay at all, and you can ignore them and have no less lovely an experience than you would have had if this predatory business model had never reared its ugly head.

Sure, right: the designers don't design for microtransactions at all. They don't build in any incentives to spend more money. They tweak progression just perfectly so that the rate at which you acquire new stuff is just perfect, and it wouldn't be any more fun to get stuff faster. They're totally optional, guys! BTW, would any of you gentleman like to buy one of the many fine bridges I have for sale?

There is no such thing as a game with microtransactions whose design is not tainted by them. There is no such thing. Every game with microtransactions builds in incentives to spend more money; every game with microtransactions is designed to ensure that the optimal experience is one in which the publisher gets more of your money. It's just that it's acceptable in games which are free up front because hey, they're free up front. But in a $60 retail game? Come on.

"Pay so that you don't have to play" microtransactions are particularly odious, because they reveal the underlying bad design of any game they're in. If I'm paying so that I don't have to play the game, what does that say about the minute to minute gameplay? It says it's not fun. It says it's a slog, something negative, something I endure rather than enjoy so that I can get the arbitrary rewards I have been conditioned to want. It says that the game has little to offer besides a skinner box, at least past a certain number of hours.

Can you imagine if Super Mario 3D World had microtransactions that allowed you to buy green stars for $1, so that you can get out of the chore of actually playing the levels? Would anyone buy that? Of course not, because playing the level to get the stars is the game, and it's extremely fun. If I'm paying for cars in a racing game because, man, I don't want to race for one more hour, what does that say? It says that the moment-to-moment gameplay is not fun, at least after a certain number of hours, and it says that the game was designed so that I would not acquire cars as fast as I want to, so that I would rather spend real money to get something than actually play the game I already paid $60 for.

Link this post in the OP. When developers design a game with microtransactions in mind from scratch, its a flawed/incomplete/handicapped game without those microtransactions objects in those games. The manual progression to get those objects was not engineered with rewarding experience in mind, but cues towards the online store.

In any case, at least there ARE games and publishers which don't practice DLC/Microtransactions. They need all the support in the world. And if you want to play a game which practices DLC, get it used. There are lots of copies.
 

jwhit28

Member
Feb 27, 2010
6,102
0
0
North Carolina
Does Bravely Default go out of its way to make the exp boost more desirable (extremely high experience requirements to level up or something like that)?

I don't think the paid cheat codes option is all that terrible in itself because it is easy to ignore (especially in single player games). If a change to a long running series like say the item shop in A Link Between Worlds is included just to make DLC Rupee packs more desirable it is more of a problem.

It all makes me think of a SNES or Genesis where you buy the games and still have to put quarters into some slots.
 

SneakyStephan

Banned
Jan 23, 2011
18,402
0
0
I'm always amazed when someone claims that these kinds of microtransactions don't affect design or gameplay at all, and you can ignore them and have no less lovely an experience than you would have had if this predatory business model had never reared its ugly head.

Sure, right: the designers don't design for microtransactions at all. They don't build in any incentives to spend more money. They tweak progression just perfectly so that the rate at which you acquire new stuff is just perfect, and it wouldn't be any more fun to get stuff faster. They're totally optional, guys! BTW, would any of you gentleman like to buy one of the many fine bridges I have for sale?

There is no such thing as a game with microtransactions whose design is not tainted by them. There is no such thing. Every game with microtransactions builds in incentives to spend more money; every game with microtransactions is designed to ensure that the optimal experience is one in which the publisher gets more of your money. It's just that it's acceptable in games which are free up front because hey, they're free up front. But in a $60 retail game? Come on.

"Pay so that you don't have to play" microtransactions are particularly odious, because they reveal the underlying bad design of any game they're in. If I'm paying so that I don't have to play the game, what does that say about the minute to minute gameplay? It says it's not fun. It says it's a slog, something negative, something I endure rather than enjoy so that I can get the arbitrary rewards I have been conditioned to want. It says that the game has little to offer besides a skinner box, at least past a certain number of hours.

Can you imagine if Super Mario 3D World had microtransactions that allowed you to buy green stars for $1, so that you can get out of the chore of actually playing the levels? Would anyone buy that? Of course not, because playing the level to get the stars is the game, and it's extremely fun. If I'm paying for cars in a racing game because, man, I don't want to race for one more hour, what does that say? It says that the moment-to-moment gameplay is not fun, at least after a certain number of hours, and it says that the game was designed so that I would not acquire cars as fast as I want to, so that I would rather spend real money to get something than actually play the game I already paid $60 for.

Such a beautiful post, especially the first half
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,333
0
0
:)

& sneaky steven is right, this is a brilliant explanation of how ingame microtransactions ruin games.

I'm always amazed when someone claims that these kinds of microtransactions don't affect design or gameplay at all, and you can ignore them and have no less lovely an experience than you would have had if this predatory business model had never reared its ugly head.

Sure, right: the designers don't design for microtransactions at all. They don't build in any incentives to spend more money. They tweak progression just perfectly so that the rate at which you acquire new stuff is just perfect, and it wouldn't be any more fun to get stuff faster. They're totally optional, guys! BTW, would any of you gentleman like to buy one of the many fine bridges I have for sale?

There is no such thing as a game with microtransactions whose design is not tainted by them. There is no such thing. Every game with microtransactions builds in incentives to spend more money; every game with microtransactions is designed to ensure that the optimal experience is one in which the publisher gets more of your money. It's just that it's acceptable in games which are free up front because hey, they're free up front. But in a $60 retail game? Come on.

"Pay so that you don't have to play" microtransactions are particularly odious, because they reveal the underlying bad design of any game they're in. If I'm paying so that I don't have to play the game, what does that say about the minute to minute gameplay? It says it's not fun. It says it's a slog, something negative, something I endure rather than enjoy so that I can get the arbitrary rewards I have been conditioned to want. It says that the game has little to offer besides a skinner box, at least past a certain number of hours.

Can you imagine if Super Mario 3D World had microtransactions that allowed you to buy green stars for $1, so that you can get out of the chore of actually playing the levels? Would anyone buy that? Of course not, because playing the level to get the stars is the game, and it's extremely fun. If I'm paying for cars in a racing game because, man, I don't want to race for one more hour, what does that say? It says that the moment-to-moment gameplay is not fun, at least after a certain number of hours, and it says that the game was designed so that I would not acquire cars as fast as I want to, so that I would rather spend real money to get something than actually play the game I already paid $60 for.
 
May 14, 2010
493
0
540
After sitting here for a while trying to put my thoughts into words, I've managed to summarize everything I feel about these practices into a single sentence:

Fuck Microtransactions.

They are a cancer for our industry, and many of the practices currently employed are so disrespectful and exploitative for the consumer that in an ideal world they'd already be illegal.

I can understand to some extent (but never justify) how mobile gaming has shifted to this model since there's a massive market of (lets face it, not very smart) people for whom addictive gaming is a new concept and are thus easily exploited emotionally into paying for that crap, but when it comes to console gaming it's simply inexcusable to sully the purity of the experience in exchange for a quick buck.

Trying to get people hooked on your game and then practically blackmailing them into paying ransom for features you've already made is pure greed, and speaks volume about the quality of the people behind such decisions.

It's disrespectful to gamers and it's disrespectful to the medium. Games deserve better than this.
 

Polioliolio

Member
Aug 30, 2012
7,213
1
0
Does Bravely Default go out of its way to make the exp boost more desirable (extremely high experience requirements to level up or something like that)?
Even if it doesn't, this is a bad trend, and buying the game means we support it.
They're trying to pull the rug out from under us without us realizing it. It only gets worse from here, and now that we've recognized it, we need to fight it.

We either make a stand or pull out our wallets and embrace this kind of design, and there's no way I'm giving up my principles.

If you simply must play it, please buy it used.
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,333
0
0
Even if it doesn't, this is a bad trend, and buying the game means we support it.
They're trying to pull the rug out from under us without us realizing it. It only gets worse from here, and now that we've recognized it, we need to fight it.

We either make a stand or pull out our wallets and embrace this kind of design, and there's no way I'm giving up my principles.

If you simply must play it, please buy it used.
It's much easier for me because I already know I wont enjoy the game. It really does what Tertullian said.
 

noobasuar

Banned
Nov 2, 2008
2,999
0
0
I remember clifffy b talking about how people were going to eat up the micro transactions in the new Gears of War because of all the market research. Well turns out that game sold like fucking shit so it kinda goes to show that people aren't going to put up with this crap forever which is good.

Anyways I'm more than happy to see this entire industry burn to the ground. It's fucking pathetic what games have turned into.
 
Dec 31, 2008
2,005
0
0
I was fooled. Up until very recently with 2K14 I figured it was a time saver is all. But now I realize how much is locked and how much grinding is actually needed. I also read tnat Forza does not have the Ring? Is that correct?

I have changed my tune from what it was at the beginning of this thread, I was uneducated on the topic but have seen it first hand now.
We should put this and Tertullian's post in the OP.

Maybe a section in the OP titled something like "Microtransactions explained" linking to Jim Sterling's video, Eurogamer's article and Tertullian's elegant summation of the issue. "Still not convinced? You were not alone": flyinpiranha's post:)
 

Solal

Member
Dec 19, 2009
927
0
640
We should put this and Tertullian's post in the OP.

Maybe a section in the OP titled something like "Microtransactions explained" linking to Jim Sterling's video, Eurogamer's article and Tertullian's elegant summation of the issue. "Still not convinced? You were not alone": flyinpiranha's post:)
Done.
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,333
0
0
I was watching the Ryse QuickLook on GB and I was amazed when they pulled up the microtransaction page and it was all like a F2P game down to buying virtual gold with real money instead of just buying the upgrades

This is Pay2Pay2Play. What the fuck
I think we have our hashtag:

#NoPay2Pay2Play
 
Sep 2, 2011
15,640
0
0
It's not broken though, it's just like every other game that's come before it. The $10 DLC was to skip a portion of the game that would have been there regardless. Yesterday's cheat codes are today's $10 DLC. Maybe that gets you worked up too, but duders, there are far greater injustices in the world today that are more worthy of your time and energy. Stuff like this just gives people like me the option to skip some of the unpleasantries inherent in video game progression. If you prefer to trade your time rather than your money, you can. I appreciate at least having the option though.
Let me put it another way for you.


You paid $10 for a cheat code.

Nobody is knocking your lack of time. I totally understand as a working adult. But you shouldnt have to pay.
 

Polioliolio

Member
Aug 30, 2012
7,213
1
0
I think one reason people are defending it is because they haven't yet encountered it themselves.

I also didn't think it was THIS bad. I play PC games like Dark Souls, and am excited to get a 3DS back and play WiiU this christmas. I can't remember the last EA game I've played and I avoid mobile games...

It's no wonder I haven't been exposed to it much, and I assume the same it for many gamers. We pride ourselves on good taste, and we already tend to avoid that kind of shit because it's associated with bad games, particularly on mobile platforms.

Now it's coming out of the woodwork, and it's popping up in a large percentage of mainstream not f2p CONSOLE games and I'm just becoming aware of how wide spread this already is. I had no idea it was in SMT and Bravely Default.. Maybe even in Fire Emblem?

It's shocking and I take offense that it's now becoming standard fare on 'my turf'.


Let's keep exposing these games AND publishers and putting them in the OP.

I still begrudge most DLC... this is far more devious.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
29,419
0
0
I think one reason people are defending it is because they haven't yet encountered it themselves.
I posted this is in the other thread, but it seemed to have been forgotten pretty quickly. In regards to my defending this in the case of Forza:

After learning a bit more about how Forza 5 works, I must say, they definitely have made some changes that are, without a doubt, designed to encourage people to buy cars with real money to the detriment of the game experience.

Seems like earning potential and car prices haven't changed. That's the good news.

But these few things all combine to make a pretty big and noticeable difference:

- No cars unlocked as you level. There is no logical, game-enhancing reason this was taken out. Its something that most everyone enjoyed. Some tweaks could have been to the 'progression' of cars you unlocked, but certainly no one wanted the whole system taken out.

- Manufacturer affinity is gone. This was something that also could have used some tweaking, but was otherwise a very good idea. Before, you could basically get free upgrades quite quickly. That could have used changing. It was definitely too quick. But again, people liked the system and it didn't warrant taking out. The fact that you can use tokens to buy upgrades now makes it blatantly obvious what the intentions were here.

- Free Play no longer allows you to drive any car in the game. Before, while some cars were quite expensive, it didn't stop people from the enjoyment of driving them if they wanted to. You just wouldn't own the car, couldn't customize it or race it in career. This was a fantastic compromise, as you could test drive anything you wanted and even if you couldn't afford an expensive car you really liked, you could still get to experience it out on-track. With that gone, it really pushes at the car collector types to pay real money.

- No buying/selling paints/setups/vinyls. You can still make some money off of this, but there will clearly not be any sort of ecosystem built around this like before. No reason for this to have happened. People *loved* the way it was.

- Buying cars and upgrades, the game definitely treats 'car tokens' as an equally viable way of bartering. Every step of the way, prices are given in credits and tokens, with equal font size and all, even going as far as having a little pop-up menu to 'confirm' whether you're going to buy with credits or tokens.

It all amounts to a blatant attempt at encouraging people to spend more money. All at the detriment of the game from several important angles.

So I was wrong here guys for defending this. I didn't realize it was going to be that bad. Its definitely not like previous Forza's at all and is totally shameful.

All that said, I still don't feel microtransactions are inherently evil. Previous Forza's were fine. Other games do ok with it, too.
 
Sep 2, 2011
15,640
0
0
Hi I'm a game developer. Please buy my iOS game for $20.


Oh, you don't want to pay that much?


Well then you leave us no choice but to add in app purchases and monetize in other ways.
Not that this anything to do with the issue at hand, but I can count on one hand the amount of iOS games that are worth $20 that ive played.

If you said apps in general, i might of agreed.
 

Polioliolio

Member
Aug 30, 2012
7,213
1
0
Hi I'm a game developer. Please buy my iOS game for $20.


Oh, you don't want to pay that much?


Well then you leave us no choice but to add in app purchases and monetize in other ways.
Well now I definitely won't buy it.

Plenty of indie developers are making good games in the 5-10 dollar range. And I mean truly inspiring, amazing games, and if Phil Fish's steam sale graph is anything to go by, they're making money.