Every Take-Two game will have microtransactions from now on

[Madmick]

I'm waiting for hackers to turn from hacking DRM to hacking microtransactions.

Already have. Eventually they find you and kick you off the service for good. So it only works with a shell identity, and it's not so easy to tie those to a credit card. It forces uncomfortably serious crimes as a prelude to the hacking.

That's the problem. No more "air-gap" hacking.

 

[Rod1]

You can say the same of online servers for Playstation and Xbox servers, but that doesn't stop @thulsadoom from bitching about it above like the gaming companies owed him a costly ongoing service for free.

PS and Xbox never ran their own servers for multiplayer games, agreed on the rest.

 

[Rod1]

Already have. Eventually they find you and kick you off the service for good. So it only works with a shell identity, and it's not so easy to tie those to a credit card. It forces uncomfortably serious crimes as a prelude to the hacking.

That's the problem. No more "air-gap" hacking.

The good thing is the accesibility of games is at an all time high, so its not like these companies can run virtual monopolies like before.

At this point, more than oppression is just customer masochism.

 

[hillelslovak87]

People need to start rejecting this shit. I've been switching to playing indie games more each year, due to the shitty, rinse and repeat (unlock/climb tower, find intel, take outpost with drone marking, repeat) crap in most all open world games. This seems a further impetus.

 

[Madmick]

PS and Xbox never ran their own servers for multiplayer games, agreed on the rest.

Microsoft runs its own server farms. Sony rents. In neither case is this relevant. Both cost money, and in both cases, I was referring to the fact that registration to their services began requiring a Credit Card a long time ago (I forget when exactly, but it wasn't a necessity at the outset).

 

[MacDuffle]

Paid DLC is normal, and extending game features with add-ons after their release doesn't deserve our petty flabberghastery

The alternative is either extending a game's content after release for zero profit and full dev cost, or not releasing anything new after the release, ever.

Remember when you bought an N64 game, a ps1 or ps2 game, gamecube game, a sega dreamcast game, and there was zero content added after release? Fuck you

 

[ThulsaDooom]

Re: your TT list above. I certainly forgot about Firaxis but also, a lot of those games are two generations ago, and had extremely bumbled development like the last two Mafia games.

You can say the same of online servers for Playstation and Xbox servers, but that doesn't stop @thulsadoom from bitching about it above like the gaming companies owed him a costly ongoing service for free.

The corporate defense is sickening in this post. Sickening!

Never said anything about owing me a thing. Funny how I can play for free on PC but poor little Microsoft and Sony have big server bills to pass onto the consumer. I'll give MS credit because Games with Gold seems like a hell of a better bargain than the shit PS Plus routinely vomits out. I barely play console games anymore and I seriously doubt I'll be getting a PS5 or XboxXtreme next gen.

Spoiler

Bloodborne 2 on PS5 would have me eating crow though

 

[Madmick]

Re: your TT list above. I certainly forgot about Firaxis but also, a lot of those games are two generations ago, and had extremely bumbled development like the last two Mafia games.



The corporate defense is sickening in this post. Sickening!

Never said anything about owing me a thing. Funny how I can play for free on PC but poor little Microsoft and Sony have big server bills to pass onto the consumer. I'll give MS credit because Games with Gold seems like a hell of a better bargain than the shit PS Plus routinely vomits out. I barely play console games anymore and I seriously doubt I'll be getting a PS5 or XboxXtreme next gen.

Spoiler

Bloodborne 2 on PS5 would have me eating crow though

Do you not understand that this isn't a valid argument-- that it has no bearing on the reality of the cost to the gaming companies to run servers? It costs money. That money has to come from somewhere.

If you don't pay for that service directly out of pocket, then they have to monetize something else to cover the cost. Why do you think business tactics like microtransactions come to be?

 

[The Diplomat]

Paid DLC is normal, and extending game features with add-ons after their release doesn't deserve our petty flabberghastery

The alternative is either extending a game's content after release for zero profit and full dev cost, or not releasing anything new after the release, ever.

Remember when you bought an N64 game, a ps1 or ps2 game, gamecube game, a sega dreamcast game, and there was zero content added after release? Fuck you

Back in the 90's and early 2000's, before "DLC", they were called expansion packs. They added more than just cosmetic upgrades - they usually added whole new maps, missions, enemies, weapons, etc. in one bundle. Now they are gouging you to spend 2-5 here and there, and eventually what would have been a whole $20 expansion pack ends up being over $100 for shit that doesn't matter. Obviously nobody needs to buy these extras, but it's still a racket. Oblivion's horse armor was a gigantic slap in the face and a joke when it happened - now it's the norm.

The issue is that companies are releasing half-finished games in the hope that people will continue to spend money on fixes and DLC. It's certainly not a gamer-friendly trend, but I also understand that a business is a business.

 

[Bob Gray]

Back in the 90's and early 2000's, before "DLC", they were called expansion packs. They added more than just cosmetic upgrades - they usually added whole new maps, missions, enemies, weapons, etc. in one bundle. Now they are gouging you to spend 2-5 here and there, and eventually what would have been a whole $20 expansion pack ends up being over $100 for shit that doesn't matter. Obviously nobody needs to buy these extras, but it's still a racket. Oblivion's horse armor was a gigantic slap in the face and a joke when it happened - now it's the norm.

The issue is that companies are releasing half-finished games in the hope that people will continue to spend money on fixes and DLC. It's certainly not a gamer-friendly trend, but I also understand that a business is a business.

I don't think you can really compare old school expansions to modern DLC, though. Often it's a personal choice of whether or not buying a tuxedo for your character for 1.99 is worth it.

The Xcom series has done some expansive DLC that is for all intents and purposes expansion packs. Despite them being fantastic (imo), people just bitched that it was too expensive and started down voting it before it was even released.

Witcher 3 has also done large, more expensive DLC that's basically expansions. So, they still exist.

I find most DLC to be fairly worthless and overpriced, but at the same time not the game breaking cheat codes people often think they are. Or even "cut content" pieced out to buy as DLC. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't think it happens as often as people might believe.

 

[MacDuffle]

Back in the 90's and early 2000's, before "DLC", they were called expansion packs. They added more than just cosmetic upgrades - they usually added whole new maps, missions, enemies, weapons, etc. in one bundle. Now they are gouging you to spend 2-5 here and there, and eventually what would have been a whole $20 expansion pack ends up being over $100 for shit that doesn't matter. Obviously nobody needs to buy these extras, but it's still a racket. Oblivion's horse armor was a gigantic slap in the face and a joke when it happened - now it's the norm.

The issue is that companies are releasing half-finished games in the hope that people will continue to spend money on fixes and DLC. It's certainly not a gamer-friendly trend, but I also understand that a business is a business.

I get where you're coming from but I don't see DLC ever roadblocking players from playing the factory game

Look at Fallout's expansions, Red Dead Zombies, Witcher 3, Mass Effect's bonus missions, nearly every modern game expansion pack was optional, and ran side by side the main game.

You'd have a much stronger case with The Walking Dead and Life Is Strange slapping a price tag on what happens next, but those paid "chapter" based games are few and far between, most games today don't punish players in game progression for not buying the extra

 

[Striderxdj]

I wouldnt mind if AAA titles took the approach Path of Exile did... the game is free, the content is free, mtx are all cosmetic with the exception of stash space, but that is strictly a convenience and wont prevent you from doing anything in the game, content wise.

I have 0 problem paying for mtx on a game where its honest and upfront, the developers give a shit and the new content is regular and of good quality. Id prefer that to paying $60+ for a buggy, short, featureless shell of a disappointment... THEN being assured the next few 15-20$ "expansions" will fix the problem.

 

[Madmick]

I wouldnt mind if AAA titles took the approach Path of Exile did... the game is free, the content is free, mtx are all cosmetic with the exception of stash space, but that is strictly a convenience and wont prevent you from doing anything in the game, content wise.

I have 0 problem paying for mtx on a game where its honest and upfront, the developers give a shit and the new content is regular and of good quality. Id prefer that to paying $60+ for a buggy, short, featureless shell of a disappointment... THEN being assured the next few 15-20$ "expansions" will fix the problem.

I sense a dig a well-placed dig aimed at (most specifically) Bungie.

 

[GhostZ06]

I wouldnt mind if AAA titles took the approach Path of Exile did... the game is free, the content is free, mtx are all cosmetic with the exception of stash space, but that is strictly a convenience and wont prevent you from doing anything in the game, content wise.

I have 0 problem paying for mtx on a game where its honest and upfront, the developers give a shit and the new content is regular and of good quality. Id prefer that to paying $60+ for a buggy, short, featureless shell of a disappointment... THEN being assured the next few 15-20$ "expansions" will fix the problem.

you've been going so hard on that game brother. ive seen you only playing that, when you gonna join us on other games

 

[KidBaize]

I didn't really understand what "games as a service" meant so had to look it up. Uncertain costs and shitty performance? Do not want.

" The term encapsulates a server-side deployment model where functionality is centrally hosted and made available to the masses via easy to use interfaces (APIs and SDKs). However, it encapsulates more than software deployment, it also encapsulates the business models that underpin how it is provided. The ‘as a Service’ term implies a utility model where people pay as they go and pay based on what they use. "

 

[Shadowthrone]

The state of Hawaii announces action to address predatory practices at Electronic Arts and others.
Belgium also trying to get loot box shit banned in Europe.

 

[treelo]

I guess if you dont like the way the games companies are pricing games/expansions/DLC...then dont fucking buy them

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a buy

I declined on buying FIFA this year, and next year will see me leave Xbox Live as i dont like the way it is heading, i stick a catridge into my switch now and play those games instead

You wanted an online world....well you have one, all the plus points you have being online are changing how companies work...and people love being online but dont like the flip side....

It's called TOUGH SHIT

 

[Madmick]

I guess if you dont like the way the games companies are pricing games/expansions/DLC...then dont fucking buy them

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a buy

I declined on buying FIFA this year, and next year will see me leave Xbox Live as i dont like the way it is heading, i stick a catridge into my switch now and play those games instead

You wanted an online world....well you have one, all the plus points you have being online are changing how companies work...and people love being online but dont like the flip side....

It's called TOUGH SHIT

Einstein, what the hell do you think the point of threads like this are?

To educate people to the harm they do to themselves in the long term by making these purchases. It's conversations like these that are why Battlefront 2 physical sales are down 60% compared to the previous game.

 

[treelo]

Einstein, what the hell do you think the point of threads like this are?

To educate people to the harm they do to themselves in the long term by making these purchases. It's conversations like these that are why Battlefront 2 physical sales are down 60% compared to the previous game.

You are talking to a generation of people who know no different, you are preaching to people who think you are talking utter shit as they do not understand what you are saying, it is all they know

And i can probably give you a little bit of info on why the game is doing shit, it was because the first game was not very good, you can blame it on microtransactions all you like 'Einstein'....its a fucking shit game....

You think the majority of 10-17 year olds who play the games read internet forums and take notice of what is said......you do not have children(and probably never will)

Me and my sons all bought the first one, and gave up on it pretty quickly because the game was pretty bad compared to other online games, not because of the transactions element, but because the game was poor, which is why people are not purchasing this

 

[Bob Gray]

I didn't really understand what "games as a service" meant so had to look it up. Uncertain costs and shitty performance? Do not want.

" The term encapsulates a server-side deployment model where functionality is centrally hosted and made available to the masses via easy to use interfaces (APIs and SDKs). However, it encapsulates more than software deployment, it also encapsulates the business models that underpin how it is provided. The ‘as a Service’ term implies a utility model where people pay as they go and pay based on what they use. "

To be fair, the earliest I ever heard the term was from Gabe Newell regarding Valves outlook on game development. it's all in how you do it. I don't feel like loot boxes are a problem per se, so much as what they put into them. Valves been doing them for like going on ten years now, with little to no criticism for their "hat simulator". The key is no one ever felt ripped off.