How a mediocre online multiplayer can spoil a good game

[SonicMTD]

Without a doubt Red Dead Redemption 2 was an emotionally gripping single-player experience.

Red Dead Online however... well you'll see...

 

 

[OmegaRejectz]

Really didn't spoil it for me. If you don't care about the awful Online, don't play it. It doesn't ruin the phenomenal singleplayer.

[SonicMTD]

13 hours ago, OmegaRejectz said:

Really didn't spoil it for me. If you don't care about the awful Online, don't play it. It doesn't ruin the phenomenal singleplayer.

That’s a flawed stance to take. While Red Dead Online doesn’t change the fact Red Dead Redemption 2 is a great single player campaign, it was sold as part of the overall experience. As a reviewer I can’t let it slide.

 

Red Dead Online is a broken disjointed mess that once again will prey on kids with their parents credit card and those who might have addictive personality traits. In the grander scheme of things this is another problematic addition for publisher Take Two Interactive whose revenue in micro transactions alone was over half of what they earned annually in 2019.

 

The reason why I bring this up is because a lot of major game studios are trying to focus more on multiplayer experiences that are filled with this form of aggressive psychological monetizing. How much more can we bleed out of the player? What can we do to set record profits for our shareholders?

 

If I don’t critique the glaring flaws and problematic portions of an entire work then I can’t really call myself a reviewer. At that point I’m a fluffer.

[BrandedBerserk]

21 minutes ago, SonicMTD said:

That’s a flawed stance to take. While Red Dead Online doesn’t change the fact Red Dead Redemption 2 is a great single player campaign, it was sold as part of the overall experience. As a reviewer I can’t let it slide.

 

Red Dead Online is a broken disjointed mess that once again will prey on kids with their parents credit card and those who might have addictive personality traits. In the grander scheme of things this is another problematic addition for publisher Take Two Interactive whose revenue in micro transactions alone was over half of what they earned annually in 2019.

 

The reason why I bring this up is because a lot of major game studios are trying to focus more on multiplayer experiences that are filled with this form of aggressive psychological monetizing. How much more can we bleed out of the player? What can we do to set record profits for our shareholders?

 

If I don’t critique the glaring flaws and problematic portions of an entire work then I can’t really call myself a reviewer. At that point I’m a fluffer.

 

Well he's not wrong, when the game launched multiplayer was not part of the experience. I disliked the multiplayer myself but treated it as just a separate mode for those that do enjoy it.

 

As for micro transactions, sooner or later gamers are gonna have to start holding themselves accountable because no one is being forced to spend money on any of it. They make billions off monetization not because gamers are forced to partake but because they're willingly deciding to spend. Sure it can be enticing at times but if you're responsible enough with your money or credit card, you shouldn't be picking up this sort of addiction. 

[B1rvine]

The multiplayer experience really isn't that bad.

 

I wouldn't say it's groundbreaking either, but it was at least enjoyable. It's a lot better than RDR1's online mode, since there's actually a multiplayer campaign to complete. My only issue is that lower ranked levels seem extremely underpowered in PvP modes, but it's easy enough to level up and earn money, without spending real money. It's really not that hard to spend about an hour doing daily objectives to earn about 2 gold bars a day.

 

Micro-transactions are everywhere, at least this game's options are mostly cosmetic, or non-essential. If you're an adult, then simply don't buy stuff, or don't save your credit card on the system so your kids can't buy things.

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by B1rvine

[SonicMTD]

13 minutes ago, BrandedBerserk said:

 

Well he's not wrong, when the game launched multiplayer was not part of the experience. I disliked the multiplayer myself but treated it as just a separate mode for those that do enjoy it.

 

As for micro transactions, sooner or later gamers are gonna have to start holding themselves accountable because no one is being forced to spend money on any of it. They make billions off monetization not because gamers are forced to partake but because they're willingly deciding to spend. Sure it can be enticing at times but if you're responsible enough with your money or credit card, you shouldn't be picking up this sort of addiction. 

The fact that they didn’t release RDO at launch but still had the balls to release it as broken makes my opinion of them way worse. Cause at that point they could have made RDO not have the bugs and glitches it came with.

 

An incredible amount of micro transactions are from kids who have access to their parents credit cards and have no idea what they’re doing. Many parents might leave their payment information saved on their console only to find their children blew through hundreds of dollars because they were only thinking of short term rewards. The fact that the first thing to show up in a lot of these games is usually the in game storefront, and a culture where kids bully others because they walk around in generic cosmetic items makes me think there needs to be more safeguards in place and that the industry cannot effectively police itself.

[SonicMTD]

36 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

The multiplayer experience really isn't really that bad.

 

I wouldn't say it's groundbreaking either, but it was at least enjoyable. It's a lot better than RDR1's online mode, since there's actually a multiplayer campaign to complete. My only issue is that lower ranked levels seem extremely underpowered in PvP modes, but it's easy enough to level up and earn money, without spending real money. It's really not that hard to spend about an hour doing daily objectives to earn about 2 gold bars a day.

 

Micro-transactions are everywhere, at least this game's options are mostly cosmetic, or non-essential. If you're an adult, then simply don't buy stuff, or don't save your credit card on the system so your kids can't buy things.

The stance that micro transactions are everywhere isn’t a good thing. You understand why that isn’t a good thing right?
 

Consider me an old schooler but I remember a time where micro transactions weren’t a thing. Games from the 2000’s; while they were indeed not as well made as today’s still were overwhelmingly fun and creative. It was about making a complete experience and since there wasn’t an online storefront, developers and publishers had to make sure their games were properly QA Tested or risk it hurting their profits/reputation.

 

Over the past few years companies have gotten lax in their actual content and decided to focus on making strategies to create addictive habits. How do we get the most money out of our fan base on top of paying $70 at launch? The fact you yourself are just casually shrugging off this monetizing is proof that there’s a problem.
 

Sidebar: NBA 2K21 is trying to push an extra $10 price for next gen titles because essentially “games are so much more expensive to make”. Unless there’s a group of people willing to call them out, then gaming could be something that excludes the working class. In the event games increase in price you pulling the devils advocate stance of “it’s everywhere...” is not a good look. Dare I say we kinda need to push back because if you give them an inch, they’ll take a yard and then it becomes the new normal.

 

Edit: While it is true that you can easily get gold if you choose to grind, kids won’t want to do that. They’ll skip it and spend cash. Also it’s a massive problem that tedious grinding is commonly accepted. Companies are selling “time savers” which make you not have to wait and it’s just... next level doucebaggery.

Edited April 10, 2021 by SonicMTD
Had another point I wanted to get across.

[DrBloodmoney]

21 minutes ago, SonicMTD said:

Consider me an old schooler but I remember a time where micro transactions weren’t a thing. Games from the 2000’s; while they were indeed not as well made as today’s still were overwhelmingly fun and creative. It was about making a complete experience and since there wasn’t an online storefront, developers and publishers had to make sure their games were properly QA Tested or risk it hurting their profits/reputation.

 

Over the past few years companies have gotten lax in their actual content and decided to focus on making strategies to create addictive habits. How do we get the most money out of our fan base on top of paying $70 at launch? The fact you yourself are just casually shrugging off this monetizing is proof that there’s a problem.
 

Sidebar: NBA 2K21 is trying to push an extra $10 price for next gen titles because games are so much more expensive to make. Unless there’s a group of people willing to call them out, then rgaming could be something that excludes the working class. In the event games increase in price you pulling the devils advocate stance of “it’s everywhere...” is not a good look. Dare I say we kinda need to push back because if you give them an inch, they’ll take a yard and then it becomes the new normal.

 

While I can see the sentiment in a lot of what you say - I feel like you are looking at gaming history with some rather rose-tinted glasses.

 

If you are an old-school gamer, surely you must know that the idea that the ‘working class’ is priced out of gaming has never been less true than it is right now.

 

AAA Games are expensive now, yes, but they have never been as expensive as back in the SNES/ Genesis days, where some of the bigger cartridge games could run to £90 (here in the uk) - and that was in 1990’s money.

And remember - those games had dev teams in the dozens, not the hundreds like nowadays. You were paying for the physical media more than supporting the company that made it.

 

Back then, there was no real concept of the indie game (on console at least) and any independent games that did exist, were still prohibitively expensive due to the requirements for cartridge manufacture etc, as well as the availability only being via brick-and-mortar stores.

 

With digital sales, a thriving indie scene, discounts by the truckload, the emerging return of the ‘mid-market’ B-game at £30-£40, and the rise of Free-to-Play games, coupled with the fact that consoles have remained in the £300-£500 range, bucking 30 years of inflation, it has never been easier to game on a budget.

 

I agree with you that the rise of our new friend - Mr. Michael Transaction - is a pain, but he is a necessary evil, and can be ignored. 
Frankly, I’d rather companies used him to make up the required additional revenue, rather than raising the base game price, since I never buy any micro transactional stuff.
Using them means my gaming is being subsidised by the people who do buy them, and that’s cool with me ?

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[dannyswfc9]

After the success of gta online its hard to top that in your next game when your limited in what you can do in a wild west scenario.

I agree with @B1rvine, its really not as bad as people made out. 

But if it was as bad as alot of multiplayer games out there it wouldnt have made me dislike this game because 1) I dont really care for multiplayer games these days and

2) The single player experience was one of my best moments in gaming.

 

Could have been that the single player was a broken mess and then they cancelled multiplayer and still charged 50 quid. Yep im looking at you projectred

8 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

If you are an old-school gamer, surely you must know that the idea that the ‘working class’ is priced out of gaming has never been less true than it is right now.

 

AAA Games are expensive now, yes, but they have never been as expensive as back in the SNES/ Genesis days, where some of the bigger cartridge games could run to £90 (here in the uk) - and that was in 1990’s money.

And remember - those games gad dev teams in the dozens, not the hundreds like nowadays. You were paying for the physical media more than supporting the company that made it.

 

Cant agree more. Theres been alot of threads bout how expensive ps5 games are but im 32 and remember how expensive n64 games were. They wernt much cheaper than ps5 games are now if not more expensive for the big AAA games 25 years ago

[SonicMTD]

16 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

While I can see the sentiment in a lot of what you say - I feel like you are looking at gaming history with some rather rose-tinted glasses.

 

If you are an old-school gamer, surely you must know that the idea that the ‘working class’ is priced out of gaming has never been less true than it is right now.

 

AAA Games are expensive now, yes, but they have never been as expensive as back in the SNES/ Genesis days, where some of the bigger cartridge games could run to £90 (here in the uk) - and that was in 1990’s money.

And remember - those games gad dev teams in the dozens, not the hundreds like nowadays. You were paying for the physical media more than supporting the company that made it.

 

Back then, there was no real concept of the indie game (on console at least) and any independent games that did exist, were still prohibitively expensive due to the requirements for cartridge manufacture etc, as well as the availability only being via brick-and-mortar stores.

 

With digital sales, a thriving indie scene, discounts by the truckload, the emerging return of the ‘mid-market’ B-game at £30-£40, and the rise of Free-to-Play games, coupled with the fact that consoles have remained in the £300-£500 range, bucking 30 years of inflation, it has never been easier to game on a budget.

 

I agree with you that the rise of our new friend - Mr. Michael Transaction - is a pain, but he is a necessary evil, and can be ignored. 
Frankly, I’d rather companies used him to make up the required additional revenue, rather than raising the base game price, since I never buy any micro transactional stuff.
Using them means my gaming is being subsidised by the people who do buy them, and that’s cool with me

 

Huh didn’t know the UK was that overpriced back then. I’m looking at this through my ignorant Canadian sunglasses but I suppose I should have looked up game prices outside of North America.

 

I made an entire video about why we still need physical media as opposed to digital:

 

 

in the event you want to skip that. I highlighted how physical gives you more options as in: I can go to the local library and pick up a game, I can trade with my friends. Back during the years of just physical sales I could spend a fraction of the price to rent a game from a Blockbuster Video. Having online storefronts works if the games can depreciate in price and make them accessible to those who can’t normally afford it.

 

If we eliminated those options and went to digital storefronts there is no way I would have been able to afford gaming since I relied so heavily on second hand games and rentals in order to get them.

 

Hell going back to game ownership, your game essentially can become unplayable in the event something like a DRM license expires, which is what happened with Tron Legacy.

 

Microtransactions work in free to play games but including them in a $70 game is lunacy. You can’t have your cake and f**k it too. I will not budge on that stance.

Edited April 10, 2021 by SonicMTD

[DrBloodmoney]

11 minutes ago, SonicMTD said:

Microtransactions work in free to play games but including them in a $70 game is lunacy. You can’t have your cake and f**k it too. I will not budge on that stance.

 

I'm essentially in agreement with you on this one - the only difference is, you refuse to buy them, and wish they were gone, I refuse to buy them, and don't care if they exist or not - and if it is a binary choice between raising the base price and removing them, or keeping them? I know which side my bread is buttered on ?

[SnowxSakura]

36 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

While I can see the sentiment in a lot of what you say - I feel like you are looking at gaming history with some rather rose-tinted glasses.

 

If you are an old-school gamer, surely you must know that the idea that the ‘working class’ is priced out of gaming has never been less true than it is right now.

 

AAA Games are expensive now, yes, but they have never been as expensive as back in the SNES/ Genesis days, where some of the bigger cartridge games could run to £90 (here in the uk) - and that was in 1990’s money.

And remember - those games had dev teams in the dozens, not the hundreds like nowadays. You were paying for the physical media more than supporting the company that made it.

 

Back then, there was no real concept of the indie game (on console at least) and any independent games that did exist, were still prohibitively expensive due to the requirements for cartridge manufacture etc, as well as the availability only being via brick-and-mortar stores.

 

With digital sales, a thriving indie scene, discounts by the truckload, the emerging return of the ‘mid-market’ B-game at £30-£40, and the rise of Free-to-Play games, coupled with the fact that consoles have remained in the £300-£500 range, bucking 30 years of inflation, it has never been easier to game on a budget.

 

I agree with you that the rise of our new friend - Mr. Michael Transaction - is a pain, but he is a necessary evil, and can be ignored. 
Frankly, I’d rather companies used him to make up the required additional revenue, rather than raising the base game price, since I never buy any micro transactional stuff.
Using them means my gaming is being subsidised by the people who do buy them, and that’s cool with me

 

Let's not forget the neo geo where cartridges routinely ran from $150-$250

 

I am eternally grateful for the average cost of games nowadays

[SonicMTD]

16 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

I'm essentially in agreement with you on this one - the only difference is, you refuse to buy them, and wish they were gone, I refuse to buy them, and don't care if they exist or not - and if it is a binary choice between raising the base price and removing them, or keeping them? I know which side my bread is buttered on 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

I can’t really be mad at someone who understands their point of view. I will say that I did enjoy talking with you on this matter. :3

 

37 minutes ago, dannyswfc9 said:

After the success of gta online its hard to top that in your next game when your limited in what you can do in a wild west scenario.

I agree with @B1rvine, its really not as bad as people made out. 

But if it was as bad as alot of multiplayer games out there it wouldnt have made me dislike this game because 1) I dont really care for multiplayer games these days and

2) The single player experience was one of my best moments in gaming.

 

Could have been that the single player was a broken mess and then they cancelled multiplayer and still charged 50 quid. Yep im looking at you projectred

Cant agree more. Theres been alot of threads bout how expensive ps5 games are but im 32 and remember how expensive n64 games were. They wernt much cheaper than ps5 games are now if not more expensive for the big AAA games 25 years ago

 

Games were reasonably priced in Canada. New releases were like $50 CAD but you could still just rent the game for a week rather than buying it outright. If you really wanted it after the rental you could wait for it to drop in price (I normally waited for it to drop to $30. That was the sweet spot).

 

I can’t really side with your stance on micro transactions and that’s because it comes from a place where you weren’t exposed to it as a kid. If we had micro transactions back when we were in grade school I don’t think you’d take the same point of view. We don’t care about that stuff because we’ve grown, matured and understand what’s going on. Most kids currently don’t have that understanding and as a result of it can cause financial damage to their families.

 

8 minutes ago, SnowxSakura said:

Let's not forget the neo geo where cartridges routinely ran from $150-$250

 

I am eternally grateful for the average cost of games nowadays

Holy smokes. I wonder if that’s a result of how much it costs to make and distribute as opposed to today’s standards. In a pre internet age supply and demand was incredibly wonky which lead to some insane prices.

Edited April 10, 2021 by SonicMTD

[B1rvine]

1 hour ago, SonicMTD said:

The stance that micro transactions are everywhere isn’t a good thing.

 

It depends on what the micro transactions are for. If it's a Pay-to-Win scheme in an "extreme" competitive game only, then that's a bad thing. Otherwise, cosmetic items, time savers, and similar options are fine. RDR2 Online has plenty of co-op and solo activities, and the PvP is "light" and not entirely about combat either. Basically, any micro transactions don't really give an edge.

 

1 hour ago, SonicMTD said:

Sidebar: NBA 2K21 is trying to push an extra $10 price for next gen titles because essentially “games are so much more expensive to make”. 

 

While I'm not going to push for more expensive games, to be fair, the price for games today is generally very low. I remember back in 1985 when I saved my allowance from my parents to buy Nintendo games every few months, at $49.99. AAA games today are generally $59.99. If we look at what the actual inflation is, then the cost of that $49.99 game would be $119.99 today. That's in US dollars, at least. So, yeah, having a few micro-transactions on things that don't negatively affect other online players isn't really a bad thing.

 

I played the game first in 2020, so I can't speak for the launch, or bugs/glitches, but I didn't really find anything broken. I played co-op missions with some people, did some solo events on my own, fought against the NPCs, did a few races against others, and a few PvP free roam events. Having a campaign to do and enough variety of other modes was enjoyable enough.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by B1rvine

[SnowxSakura]

On 4/10/2021 at 10:00 AM, SonicMTD said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

I can’t really be mad at someone who understands their point of view. I will say that I did enjoy talking with you on this matter. :3

 

 

Games were reasonably priced in Canada. New releases were like $50 CAD but you could still just rent the game for a week rather than buying it outright. If you really wanted it after the rental you could wait for it to drop in price (I normally waited for it to drop to $30. That was the sweet spot).

 

I can’t really side with your stance on micro transactions and that’s because it comes from a place where you weren’t exposed to it as a kid. If we had micro transactions back when we were in grade school I don’t think you’d take the same point of view. We don’t care about that stuff because we’ve grown, matured and understand what’s going on. Most kids currently don’t have that understanding and as a result of it can cause financial damage to their families.

 

Holy smokes. I wonder if that’s a result of how much it costs to make and distribute as opposed to today’s standards. In a pre internet age supply and demand was incredibly wonky which lead to some insane prices.

Well neo geo carts were pretty much straight up arcade carts put into a home shell, with 2 PCBs, very expensive to manufacture. They were huge too

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by SnowxSakura

[UlvenFenrir]

17 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

It depends on what the micro transactions are for. If it's a Pay-to-Win scheme in an "extreme" competitive game only, then that's a bad thing. Otherwise, cosmetic items, time savers, and similar options are fine. RDR2 Online has plenty of co-op and solo activities, and the PvP is "light" and not entirely about combat either. Basically, any micro transactions don't really give an edge.

 

 

While I'm not going to push for more expensive games, to be fair, the price for games today is generally very low. I remember back in 1985 when I saved my allowance from my parents to buy Nintendo games every few months, at $49.99. AAA games today are generally $59.99. If we look at what the actual inflation is, then the cost of that $49.99 game would be $119.99 today. That's in US dollars, at least. So, yeah, having a few micro-transactions on things that don't negatively affect other online players isn't really a bad thing.

 

I played the game first in 2020, so I can't speak for the launch, or bugs/glitches, but I didn't really find anything broken. I played co-op missions with some people, did some solo events on my own, fought against the NPCs, did a few races against others, and a few PvP free roam events. Having a campaign to do and enough variety of other modes was enjoyable enough.

 

 

Dont agree. If theres time savers in a video game that you have to pay for then part of the game wouldve been designed around that to artificially make the game longer because of unnecessary grinds because why else would you need a time saver pack for?

[SonicMTD]

2 hours ago, B1rvine said:

 

It depends on what the micro transactions are for. If it's a Pay-to-Win scheme in an "extreme" competitive game only, then that's a bad thing. Otherwise, cosmetic items, time savers, and similar options are fine. RDR2 Online has plenty of co-op and solo activities, and the PvP is "light" and not entirely about combat either. Basically, any micro transactions don't really give an edge.

 

 

While I'm not going to push for more expensive games, to be fair, the price for games today is generally very low. I remember back in 1985 when I saved my allowance from my parents to buy Nintendo games every few months, at $49.99. AAA games today are generally $59.99. If we look at what the actual inflation is, then the cost of that $49.99 game would be $119.99 today. That's in US dollars, at least. So, yeah, having a few micro-transactions on things that don't negatively affect other online players isn't really a bad thing.

 

I played the game first in 2020, so I can't speak for the launch, or bugs/glitches, but I didn't really find anything broken. I played co-op missions with some people, did some solo events on my own, fought against the NPCs, did a few races against others, and a few PvP free roam events. Having a campaign to do and enough variety of other modes was enjoyable enough.

 

 

You and I are probably not going to see eye to eye on this, if you want to see issues with charging for cosmetics then I recommend you play Fortnite where kids are bullied for their lack of skins/emotes to the most recent Dead or Alive game where you have to pay to change your characters hair colour back after paying for it the first time.

 

If you want to play a game where they made it a slog by design so you use time savers try out 2017’s LotR shadow of war.

 

The only time I’ve seen DLC monetizing as a bonus was when The Witcher 3 offered new campaigns like Blood and Wine.

 

Then there’s Star Wars Battlefront 2 which was essentially a pay to win scam with loot boxes.

 

At this point the game industry is in dire need of regulation because they obviously can’t do it themselves.

While the cost of the games themselves are cheaper compared to the 80’s-90’s they also didn’t have paid subscriptions to play games such as PS+/Xbox Online and various other things like game pass/PS Now.

 

The cost of goods are increasing while wages are staying the same in places like the US. (Where some places pay $8 an hour and have to work multiple jobs to pay rent). 
 

So yeah I am pretty much against monetizing.

 

If you didn’t experience any issues with RDO then I consider you incredibly lucky. Either way, I’m done with the game.

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by SonicMTD

[DrBloodmoney]

1 hour ago, UlvenFenrir said:

Dont agree. If theres time savers in a video game that you have to pay for then part of the game wouldve been designed around that to artificially make the game longer because of unnecessary grinds because why else would you need a time saver pack for?

I’m not quite sure where I personally stand on ‘time saver’ type MT’s - I have yet to find a game to definitely push me towards one point of view or the other - but, I think there is a natural counterpoint to your argument here - shortcuts.

 

Do you think that the existence of Star Road in Super Mario World, or the Warps in Super Mario Bros 3 means that all the levels that you bypass using those are just ‘artificial padding’?

I mean, those are essentially the NES / SNES era version of ‘time savers’ - they just didn’t cost money. 

 

Back then, a lot of games had level skip cheat codes, often times written right into the game manual, or at the very least, freely available in magazines etc.

 

 

I’m not arguing that what you are suggesting here never happens - Lord knows, free phone games are rife with it - all I’m saying is that I think there are almost certainly perfectly good games out there, where the ‘grind’ or the loop is fun and engaging, that also happen to offer a ‘time-saver’ pack for a few bucks for people to do if they want to experience end game stuff without putting in the hours to get it - and while I might once have baulked at that notion, getting older and having more responsibilities and demands on my time, and less gaming time to whittle away, I can understand the impetus behind those. 

[B1rvine]

2 hours ago, UlvenFenrir said:

Why else would you need a time saver pack for?

 

Not all time-savers are to avoid grind-by-design, or labeled as such. Most are for single player "instant-god mode enabling" and while "technically" avoiding some kind of grind, it's more about making the experience easier or more enjoyable. Example : RE2 Unlimited Weapons, to avoid the trials and tribulations of spending massive time to master hard-mode. In other cases, where the word "grind" is more applicable, its again, more about making things easier than actually saving time, e.g Assassin Creed IV's Jackdaw instant upgrades to make an extremely early over-powerful ship, rather than slowly over the course of the game.

 

However, even for cases where it does just avoid a grind, even on multiplayer, who cares? As long as the purchases aren't giving one player an advantage in a strict competitive PvP mode, then it doesn't matter. Some people really want this or that item NOW, so it's not really harmful to let them have it. 

 

Again, where I draw the line as harmful is when there's an extremely competitive exclusive PvP mode / game, and one person will have a decisive advantage over another player when buying things, but that does not apply to RDR2. 

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by B1rvine

[DrBloodmoney]

11 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

Not all time-savers are to avoid grind-by-design, or labeled as such. Most are for single player "instant-god mode enabling" and while "technically" avoiding some kind of grind, it's more about making the experience easier or more enjoyable. Example : RE2 Unlimited Weapons, to avoid the trials and tribulations of spending massive time to master hard-mode. In other cases, where the word "grind" is more applicable, its again, more about making things easier than actually saving time, e.g Assassin Creed IV's Jackdaw instant upgrades to make ship battles easier, rather than over time as designed.

 

However, even for cases where it does just avoid a grind, even on multiplayer, who cares? As long as the purchases aren't giving one player an advantage in a strict competitive PvP mode, then it doesn't matter. Some people really want this or that item NOW, so it's not really harmful to let them have it. 

 

Again, where I draw the line as harmful is when there's an extremely competitive exclusive PvP mode / game, and one person will have a decisive advantage over another player when buying things, but that does not apply to RDR2. 

 

I think this is exactly right.

 

In a competitive mode, allowing people to purchase an edge is sleazy. 
 

In single player though? Don’t tell people how to enjoy their games.
If they want to buy a God Mode and that will help them enjoy their hard won free time more? That’s no skin off my balls, and more power to them.

 

(Literally in this case, and for a small amount of cash  )

Edited April 10, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[JohnlMatrix]

I don't wanna get into a microtransaction rant, just a quick statement: I really don't like it, especially when predatory tactics are in place.

 

Regarding RDR2:

 

Really liked the singleplayer, the rather slow start of the game didn't bother me at all. The online however...... What really pissed me off is how they implemented it. Everything felt kinda backwards compared to its predecessor GTAO. Statements like "the online just launched, give it some time" or "GTAO also didn't provide that much replay value at its launch compared to now" are somewhat faulty in my opinion.

 

The reason for this is the following: I didn't expect RDRO to launch and have the same amount of content that GTAO had 5 years into its life cycle. Obviously that would be unrealistic to say the least. But RDRO launching and missing key features that have been Rockstar standards for years at this point? Come on.

 

No private lobby, no invite-only lobby, no passive mode. Implementing two currencies. The latter could be seen as an improvement, I, however, don't. In GTAO you could buy shark cards, grind or sign in ever so often to claim a reward. All of that revolves around the same currency: GTA $. While already predatory in the way of how they were handled, RDRO takes it even further. You can grind, sign in and whatever to claim ingame money but the new thing you want or "need" (maybe a role, a better horse, upgrades etc.) can only be obtained my spending relativly hard to come by gold, therefore locking you out of those things or triggering another grind.

 

Please keep in mind that my opinion of RDRO is based on the state of the game when I last played it. It was around 2019 I think. I don't know what they improved, screwed up or added since then.

 

I remember when the roles came out along with the battle pass. It was quite fun for a while. Digging up treasures, bounty hounting and so on was kinda cool but got stale after a while. I never bothered to even check via youtube or gaming forums what the plans for the game were after that and what new roles, businesses and so on might be implemented. That just goes to show you how unsatisfying I found the online in the long run.

[NxtDoc]

7 hours ago, BrandedBerserk said:

 

Well he's not wrong, when the game launched multiplayer was not part of the experience. I disliked the multiplayer myself but treated it as just a separate mode for those that do enjoy it.

 

As for micro transactions, sooner or later gamers are gonna have to start holding themselves accountable because no one is being forced to spend money on any of it. They make billions off monetization not because gamers are forced to partake but because they're willingly deciding to spend. Sure it can be enticing at times but if you're responsible enough with your money or credit card, you shouldn't be picking up this sort of addiction. 

 

I can't believe this bullshit stance.  It totally rings as tone deaf.  You miss the whole point.

 

These Publisher's and Developer's are creating a problem.  And selling the solution.  For younger generations of gamers that there 1st console was a PS3 or 360, they won't notice how this is bullshit.  Because it's their norm.  

 

And as a fortunate gamer who grew up playing the NES, and on.  Owning a console from every generation I have seen just how far the greed has reached.  

 

For example, my friend and I play RDO.  Racked up some challenges doing a bunch of boring monotonous trash.  I quit, because it was boring.  He continued.  He has over 800 Gold.  And nothing to do with it.  Because he found a few outfits he likes, has his horse and saddle.  He even got a couple Outlaw Passes.  He's set, good to go.

 

The gold is obviously for the people who don't want to actually play the fuckin boring ass online, and are impatient.  Just like the rest of the short attention span gamers who just continue to buy Battle Passes and skins repeatedly.  They have no connection to them because they are not earned.  

 

During the better 5th, 6th and even early part of the 7th Gen, when you actually unlocked content by playing and doing challenging tasks in games, you felt a connection to the unlocked content.  And proud to represent it by wearing it in online.  Example: Hyabusa Armor in Halo 3.  

 

They truly are creating a problem, to sell the solution.  And the whole bullshit "they aren't being forced" nonsense misses the point.  A lot of games now are built around the micro/macro-transactions instead of being built around a robust, fun experience with the addition of purchasable DLC.  I have no issues with purchasable DLC.  Examples being Dragon Age: Origins, or Dragon Age 2, or Witcher III.   

 

Tired of the nonsense no one is forcing you.  It's such an ignorant stance.  And you are just as much part of them problem as the idiots, and children taking part in buying the bullshit

 

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by NxtDoc
Add info

[BrandedBerserk]

26 minutes ago, NxtDoc said:

I can't believe this bullshit stance.  It totally rings as tone deaf.  You miss the whole point.

 

The gold is obviously for the people who don't want to actually play the fuckin boring ass online, and are impatient.  Just like the rest of the short attention span gamers who just continue to buy Battle Passes and skins repeatedly.  They have no connection to them because they are not earned.  

 

Tired of the nonsense no one is forcing you.  It's such an ignorant stance

 

Wether someone wants to earn in game rewards by playing the game normally or willingly spending money to do so what effect does it have on you exactly?

 

I've played a ton games with micro transactions yet I've never spent a single dollar on anything other than dlcs or season pass. You don't need em, you can fully enjoy whatever game it is you're playing without spending anything extra. Pay to win monetization ill agree is shitty but battle passes, skins or time savers won't have any impact on you whatsoever. 

[Darling Baphomet]

7 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I agree with you that the rise of our new friend - Mr. Michael Transaction - is a pain, but he is a necessary evil, and can be ignored. 
Frankly, I’d rather companies used him to make up the required additional revenue, rather than raising the base game price, since I never buy any micro transactional stuff.
Using them means my gaming is being subsidised by the people who do buy them, and that’s cool with me

 

Is there any actual data supporting the idea that triple A games need microtransactions in order to do well? Sure, games are cheap, but the gaming market has also expanded exponentially. It's not like games are a product with solely physical value where there's a set cost for every item sold - once the actual games are made, disk costs are practically irrelevant. Publishers like 2K and EA aren't hurting for lack of money - they're rolling in profits; it's less a matter of survival so much as ever expanding profit margins.

 

Ultimately these corporations will do whatever you let them get away with - see disasters such as Battlefront 2 locking Vader behind dozens of hours of grinding, or loot boxes in every other multiplayer game. I'd wager people who complain about microtransactions do just as much, if not more, to ensure the quality of games, by making it less profitable to stuff every game full of microtransactions. If they could get away with it, EA and 2K would be making every game like the NBA games in terms of predatory microtransactions.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Darling Baphomet

[DrBloodmoney]

2 minutes ago, BrandedBerserk said:

 

Wether someone wants to earn in game rewards by playing the game normally or willingly spending money to do so what effect does it have on you exactly?

 

I've played a ton games with micro transactions yet I've never spent a single dollar on anything other than dlcs or season pass. You don't need em, you can fully enjoy whatever game it is you're playing without spending anything extra. Pay to win monetization ill agree is shitty but battle passes, skins or time savers won't have any impact on you whatsoever. 

I’m with you on this one.

 

I just think people are the best judges of what their own time is worth, and how best to spend their own money

If that’s on a micro transaction? Fair enough. It’s their call - and doesn’t affect me one little bit unless it’s in one of the specific examples of competitive games where ‘pay-to-win’ is an issue.

I find it kinda weird that people get so wound up about the fact that the option exists to buy, for example, the top tier weapons in Resident Evil 2 Remake for a few bucks - making one or two trophies in an already great game a bit easier (and potentially more fun for some people) to earn, but have no issue with paying the same amount of money for a game like Legends of Talia: Arcadia, where that cash is just literally buying a couple of full platinums, with no game at all to play for it?

 

?‍♂️