Jump to content

Random Game Talk (are you really a gamer if you aren't playing BG3?)


skywindO2

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, KManX89 said:

NBA 2K18 for one. GTA:O is another game marred by them. Or hell, how about MGSV's online, charging players insurance for unlocks being stolen?

(You asked.)

NBA 2K18 isn't ruined by micro-transactions.  The game sucks.  I'm in a all-time team fantasy.  I have Wilt Chamberlain and Ibaka protecting the paint and this guy just scored 63 on me with Giannis.  He just dunked constantly and nothing I could do to stop it.  I tried to man defend him myself, nothing.  I tried to control the center and contest his dunks, nothing.  The game is just so broken and bad.

GTA is ruined by micro-transactions?  Uh, GTA is great.

Most games that have heavy micro-transactions are really good.  Like, what's wrong with the micro-transactions in Fortnite, CS:GO, Dota 2, Overwatch, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, Call of Duty has really sucked the past like 7 or so years (except the Black Ops games)  Treyarch is by far the best dev, so I'm still holding out hope Black Ops 4 will be fun.  When I read this, seems like it's off to a great start.

This year’s Call of Duty will buck tradition and ship without a traditional single-player campaign, developer Treyarch confirmed today. Instead, the focus for Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 will be almost exclusively on competitive multiplayer and cooperative Zombies mode.

Excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, showtime said:

NBA 2K18 isn't ruined by micro-transactions.  The game sucks.  I'm in a all-time team fantasy.  I have Wilt Chamberlain and Ibaka protecting the paint and this guy just scored 63 on me with Giannis.  He just dunked constantly and nothing I could do to stop it.  I tried to man defend him myself, nothing.  I tried to control the center and contest his dunks, nothing.  The game is just so broken and bad.

GTA is ruined by micro-transactions?  Uh, GTA is great.

Most games that have heavy micro-transactions are really good.  Like, what's wrong with the micro-transactions in Fortnite, CS:GO, Dota 2, Overwatch, etc?

The games that you mentioned as an example are either completely free or are not full $60 games. Fortnite constantly churns out new updates, and you can totally enjoy the game without spending a single cent. All of the stuff that you might want to pay for is completely cosmetic and doesn't change how the game plays at all. 

When people hate on microtransactions it's because of games that cost full price then take steps to encourage the player to spend more money by throwing in progression systems that are based more on luck and spending money than anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people remember when you had to pay full price for a game with zero or very limited reviews, and there was zero chance of future updates, bug fixes or additional content? All the advances in post-launch support is a huge boon for consumers. 

Microtransactions and DLC are additional and optional content. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Having that option available in no way harms you. Now, if developers add in items that alter the competitive balance of the game, that is poor design, but not an indictment on the concept of DLC itself.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heimdallr said:

Do people remember when you had to pay full price for a game with zero or very limited reviews, and there was zero chance of future updates, bug fixes or additional content? All the advances in post-launch support is a huge boon for consumers. 

Microtransactions and DLC are additional and optional content. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Having that option available in no way harms you. Now, if developers add in items that alter the competitive balance of the game, that is poor design, but not an indictment on the concept of DLC itself.

No, because I was a dumb kid who would love anything given to him haha. Mystic Heroes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Heimdallr said:

Do people remember when you had to pay full price for a game with zero or very limited reviews, and there was zero chance of future updates, bug fixes or additional content? All the advances in post-launch support is a huge boon for consumers. 

Microtransactions and DLC are additional and optional content. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Having that option available in no way harms you. Now, if developers add in items that alter the competitive balance of the game, that is poor design, but not an indictment on the concept of DLC itself.

My problem comes with the $60 games that are essentially incomplete on release, whether intentional or not, and only become "complete" upon additional purchases of DLCs. Being afforded this luxury, to basically continue working on a game after it's release, is clearly abused by some companies and only done to cover their tails rather than enrich our experience.

 

As for micro-transactions, they've paved the way for amazing free games like Fortnite or Warframe. They obviously can be problematic (*cough* Battlefront 2 *cough*) but I think the gaming community's backlash will keep companies from pulling stunts like that for a long time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe there's a universe where people defend micro transactions and that I'm in that universe.  Micro transactions are not normal, and they are not something that should be defended. 

They harm the overall quality of games.  Instead of focusing on creating the best game possible, developers will start focusing on how to get the most money out of micro transactions.  Sports games are a perfect example of this.  Why does the NBA game suck?  Why does Madden suck?  Because they can charge full price each and every year for changing menus, music and a few tiny details and gameplay mechanics, lose some buyers and make that up and more by people paying for MUT cards or haircuts on a damn video game character. 

The bottom line in any industry or company is money.  That's it.  If a company can make more money off micro transactions, their biggest focus will be on that.  In no world, solar system, galaxy or universe should anybody ever defend micro transactions.  A micro transaction is the equivalent to paying 10 dollars to see the latest Marvel movie and then paying an extra dollar to be able to sit for the after credits scene.  If you defend micro transactions, you are a sad, strange person. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

My problem comes with the $60 games that are essentially incomplete on release, whether intentional or not, and only become "complete" upon additional purchases of DLCs. Being afforded this luxury, to basically continue working on a game after it's release, is clearly abused by some companies and only done to cover their tails rather than enrich our experience.

 

As for micro-transactions, they've paved the way for amazing free games like Fortnite or Warframe. They obviously can be problematic (*cough* Battlefront 2 *cough*) but I think the gaming community's backlash will keep companies from pulling stunts like that for a long time.

This. 

 

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I can't believe there's a universe where people defend micro transactions and that I'm in that universe.  Micro transactions are not normal, and they are not something that should be defended. 

They harm the overall quality of games.  Instead of focusing on creating the best game possible, developers will start focusing on how to get the most money out of micro transactions.  Sports games are a perfect example of this.  Why does the NBA game suck?  Why does Madden suck?  Because they can charge full price each and every year for changing menus, music and a few tiny details and gameplay mechanics, lose some buyers and make that up and more by people paying for MUT cards or haircuts on a damn video game character. 

The bottom line in any industry or company is money.  That's it.  If a company can make more money off micro transactions, their biggest focus will be on that.  In no world, solar system, galaxy or universe should anybody ever defend micro transactions.  A micro transaction is the equivalent to paying 10 dollars to see the latest Marvel movie and then paying an extra dollar to be able to sit for the after credits scene.  If you defend micro transactions, you are a sad, strange person. 

And this. 

Hell, we're now at the point where we're being charged $10 just to start a new game with a second character (guess which company did this in what game?), and I've seen some people actually go and defend that as well all in the name of "player choice". I'm sorry, but unless you want to start paying an entry fee for online matches or paying just to load the menu screen, nobody in their right mind should be defending this. This is how we ended up with P2W loot boxes in $60 games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have a huge problem with preorder bonuses and day one DLC but people seem to have accepted them. They're every bit as bad as mircotransactions and probably even worse IMO. 

Mass Effect 2 managed to actually do day one DLC correctly though but it seemed mostly a way to combat secondhand sales. 

Edited by skywindO2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because some companies abuse micro-transactions doesn't mean its always terrible.  

For example, Rainbow Six Siege has micro-transactions.  You can buy skins, operators, etc. through them, but they don't do anything to give you an advantage and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.  And if anything, they are helpful because some people don't want to wait to gather all the coins.  Plus, R6's DLC is free anyway and they constantly update the game.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it micro-transactions when done correctly.  Preferably could I do without them?  Sure, but it isn't the worst thing in the world when done right.

As far as GTA V goes, I don't get the criticism.  For $60, you got a single-payer experience that lasts at least (assuming the bare minimum you do is the main story and nothing else) 30 hours and a massive online that constantly churns out free updates.  The game was well worth the selling price and then some.  If they then want to offer micro-transactions, who cares?  And really, what do you "win" in GTA anyway to make it pay-for-win?  Maybe I'm ignorant to the online because I don't play it that much, but it isn't a traditional shooter or a competitive game.  I could understand if they were charging you for the updates, but they don't.  You get them for free.  There is nothing you can't get by not just playing the game, unlike in COD where you could play 24/7 and still not get the gun you want from a supply drop (I heard in WW2 though they let you pick the gun you want, which is cool).

Quote

 I'm sorry, but unless you want to start paying an entry fee for online matches or paying just to load the menu screen, nobody in their right mind should be defending this.

Quite the hyperbole

Edited by iknowcool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic has been rehashed far too often on here. Anyone who knows anything will understand that there are companies who do games as a service right, and those who are just greedy turds. But anyone who rages the moment the term "loot box" is brought up has no idea what they're talking about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iknowcool said:

Quite the hyperbole

Yeah, just like when people ignored the slippery slope detractors of the paid horse armor in ESIV desperately tried to warn the "Don't like it? Don't buy it!" camp about, yet here we are. 

Likewise, if I told you some company out there would have the nerve to charge for something as basic as a second save slot, you would've called me insane, yet again here we are:

Metal-gear-survive-save-slot.png

This needs to be derided to the nth degree-like the BF II MTXs were-before other companies start getting ideas from it like they did the horse armor.

That being said, I don't mind DLC as long as it's used to enrich a complete game that's worthy of the $60 price tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortnite made $126 million in February alone, according to some report I read and that number is obviously increasing every month.  I don't understand why more companies don't go the free-to-play route for certain games.  It doesn't work for some games, but just imagine a game like Black Ops 4 doing that. 

For example

* . They announce that the new CoD game is free to play and will be supported for at least 5 years minimum with constantly updates, new guns, new maps, etc.  All of these new maps and guns will be free.

* . The game has a non-stop ish ton of new character skins, gun skins, C4 skins, etc anything you can put a skin on.  

People would play the F out of CoD and they would also buy skins and stuff as well.

What's the downside to doing this?  Why wouldn't Activision do it?  I know the game is extremely successful, but over the past 4-5 years it has taken a hit and probably isn't as popular as it used to be.  

Just a different discussion than micro-transactions lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...