blazeadeel Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) with MGSV coming up I was looking forward to getting it on release day. I am not a big MGS fan, played MGS4 2/3 of the way nothing before that. I like stealth games and with 10/10 reviews everywhere I was going to pick it up, but I read on Gamespot that Multiplayer FOB is locked behind a paywall. I know Konami told that you get your first base free (so what about the second one) and you can use microtransactions to strengthen your base but "you dont need to" but thats yet to see. To strengthen your FOB base you can spend real money meaning if you spend more money then that gives you an unfair advantage in MP I dont have a problem with mircrotransactions in SP but in MP there should not be any microtransactions because that gives you an unfair advantage (imo) this modern trend of microtransactions and way too much DLC(Evolve,Batman MK), Always online(NFS Division) is making me lose faith in the gaming industry I mean they always say "player comes first" but they never show it (except may be CD Projekt Red) I am now holding off till there is clarification regarding the FOB paywall and how much microtransactions interfere, I know MGSV is SP experience predominantly but I wont support a company that wants us to pay them so we can pay them again (after considering how things will turn out) whats your take on this ? are you ok with microtransactions? way too much DLC ? and always online? Edited August 31, 2015 by blazeadeel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Couldn't care less about microtransactions, especially if I can get the content during gameplay. If someone wants to pay to skip hours of gameplay by throwing some money at their screen, that is their prerogative. Multiplayer is very rarely fair, someone will generally always have a better gun, gear, higher level or whatever else, so I don't see the point in complaining about that either. Parker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPisTolman Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) I wont support a company that wants us to pay them so we can pay them again (after considering how things will turn out) Grand Theft Auto V is in your play history. Please tell me how this is different to Grand Theft Auto Online. Edited August 30, 2015 by LastPisTolman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindMango Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) Having companies that even put actual microtransactions in a full $60 game can be a problem. Some developers do it better than others but overall I think it's just a negative thing overall. Even though a developer may say that it doesn't affect gameplay, I usually doubt it. Either way, it has the potential to become a really bad trend across the gaming industry and just be more and more poorly implemented if unchecked. Jim Sterling recently did a good episode on this: Edited August 30, 2015 by BlindMango 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawler Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I don't care about them. If somebody wants to pay to win, let 'em. My only gripe with them is when they take the place of unlockable content. I don't want to purchase things like costumes, but unlocking them and using them is kind of fun. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy_Oglop Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Eaarrgghhh this debate again, it goes on forever. The only outcome is that some people vent about how much they hate them. Others don't mind. Then both groups argue with eachother for a about 30 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A12 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Welcome, to 2006...We've known of this for quite some time now (MGO IGT).Oh, and this "modern trend" of DLC/IGT are here to stay. You can thank Free to Play games for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPisTolman Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Having companies that even put actual microtransactions in a full $60 game can be a problem. Some developers do it better than others but overall I think it's just a negative thing overall. Even though a developer may say that it doesn't affect gameplay, I usually doubt it. Either way, it has the potential to become a really bad trend across the gaming industry and just be more and more poorly implemented if unchecked. Jim Sterling recently did a good episode on this: It only has the capacity to become a trend if the market allows it. Companies will always chance their arm at new techniques of maximising revenue potential of any product that they make. Case in point, Online passes came and went - because their actual effectiveness at drawing profit from second hand sales was largely in vain. Season passes are here to stay, because people like to be under the impression that they are "saving money" - the age old "it's in a sale paradox". Micro-transactions are the next experiment, and the market will speak. M<y earlier reference to GTAV is relevant, because Take Two don't seem to have signed off on single player DLC because they're raking in money hand over fist with their online micro-transactions. The doom-saying becomes very trite, in that its presented as if we don't have a choice yet we all do. The market will speak, it's as simple as that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExHaseo Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Oh look, this again. Let me guess. There's going to be one side for it that says, "I'm ok with paying because I don't have time to unlock everything," there's going to be one side that's neutral that says, "Who cares, let people pay if they want." and then there's going to be a side against it that says, "These ways of thinking are what's hurting the industry." Around and around it goes until it gets out of hand and has to be locked. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPisTolman Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Oh look, this again. Let me guess. There's going to be one side for it that says, "I'm ok with paying because I don't have time to unlock everything," there's going to be one side that's neutral that says, "Who cares, let people pay if they want." and then there's going to be a side against it that says, "These ways of thinking are what's hurting the industry." Around and around it goes until it gets out of hand and has to be locked. You forgot the fourth side - the high and mighties, who think they are so far above such discussion they can cast their judgments from their ivory towers and laugh at how the inferior ants trouble themselves with such petty considerations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Shadow170 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Meh i have money so i'm fine with it however same as every discussion buy it or not talk with wallets you do have power over these companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuelito Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) Micro-transactions are the next experiment, and the market will speak. M<y earlier reference to GTAV is relevant, because Take Two don't seem to have signed off on single player DLC because they're raking in money hand over fist with their online micro-transactions.Micro-transactions aren't a problem in GTA.They become a problem when u can buy something that other user can't unlock whit the normal game and that make u stronger. OP: I think micro-transactions aren't a problem if they are speed up items or just esthetic things. DLCs are good if they add something new to the game like Undead Nightmare in RDR or the DLCs on GTA4 They become a bit of a problem if they are like Hustle king exhibition pack. I don't see how people can be against online only games Edited August 30, 2015 by pese-97 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hpknight Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I heard that you can use GMP (in-game money) to build your first FOB, and if you want to build more (maximum of 4 i think) you will have to use MB coins which you can only get for real money. What is the benefit of having more FOB's? Maybe you'll get more resources for you Mother Base, or maybe more invaders which means more pvp action at your Mother Base. I have no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satoshi Ookami Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Well, it's not like they would remove reason why Kojima decided to cut ties with Konami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotAFoxAnymore Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I'll say an abbreviated version of what I say the many other times that this thread gets posted - There's nothing wrong with them, as long as they're implemented right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPisTolman Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Micro-transactions aren't a problem in GTA. They become a problem when u can buy something that other user can't unlock whit the normal game and that make u stronger. I didn't write that they were. I merely observed their existence, in a thread where a dog pile is forming on this game's micro-transactions when they are exactly the same. I also don't share your definition of what makes them a problem. I think a game should take the leap forward and see how its userbase reacts to a purchased power item. We have some that have skimmed the surface with double experience boosters, but I want to see power ups such as being invisible to radar or unique rocket launchers. If only to get ride of this overbearing fear of the apocalypse everyone has of pay to win. I don't see an inherent problem with it if its advertised honestly, clearly and priced fairly. No different to any other DLC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacemonkey3k Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Do keep in mind that FOBs are a completely optional part of the game. I doubt I'll even give them a second look once I get around to playing this, and therefore couldn't give two shits about the microtransactions associated with them. Now if they start this sort of thing with the proper MGO mode out in December (I think?) it might be a different story but I would think that Konami knows better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 If you ask me, there's no justification for these microtransactions. They should not be in the game in thefirst place, regardless of whether i can earn the currency in other ways. That being said, we can't really do anything about it since Konami has made it clear they don't care about consumer feedback. In a way we were lucky that they weren't implemented in a worse fashion so all we can do is not buy them and endure for Kojima. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPisTolman Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 If you ask me, there's no justification for these microtransactions. They should not be in the game in thefirst place, regardless of whether i can earn the currency in other ways. That being said, we can't really do anything about it since Konami has made it clear they don't care about consumer feedback. In a way we were lucky that they weren't implemented in a worse fashion so all we can do is not buy them and endure for Kojima. If the stories about Kojima's complete disregard for budget is anything to go by, he could be the main reason Konami found it necessary to add micro-transactions. It's certainly because of that that we got Ground Zeroes. There is no denying that Konami have acted out of turn, but that is not mutually exclusive of Kojima acting poorly also. I agree on one point, I doubt Konami care about consumer feedback before any consumers have actually played the game themselves to form an actual opinion and not one based solely on conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazeadeel Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 I don't see how people can be against online only games My gripe with online only games is that when you are paying 60$ for a game you should have ownership of that game,for e.g NFS is coming out and requies always online so after 5-6 when the servers are shut down that disk is useless. so basically you are renting their game not buying it . In contrast to NFSMW that came out in 7-8 years ago and you can still play it. and please dont say "I'll have better games to play then than playing a game from 5-6 years" I am talking about sense of ownership and not whether the game would interest me in 5-6 years Also this is my opinion and I stand by it if you are ok with "renting" games and paying full price for it then all the power to you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_Amaz1ng Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Couldn't care less about microtransactions, especially if I can get the content during gameplay. If someone wants to pay to skip hours of gameplay by throwing some money at their screen, that is their prerogative. Multiplayer is very rarely fair, someone will generally always have a better gun, gear, higher level or whatever else, so I don't see the point in complaining about that either. Parker This is why I preferred to play CS, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3 and some TPS like Red Alert 2-3 in MP. It's absolutely skill-based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrickenBiged Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Microtransactions in full price games are coming. If you want to fight back then (1) don't buy the microtransactions, and (2) even better, don't buy the base game. I'm guessing that enough people will buy MGSV and its microtransactions that this will not be the game that convinces the industry not to do this anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLski4XS Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Having companies that even put actual microtransactions in a full $60 game can be a problem. Some developers do it better than others but overall I think it's just a negative thing overall. Even though a developer may say that it doesn't affect gameplay, I usually doubt it. Either way, it has the potential to become a really bad trend across the gaming industry and just be more and more poorly implemented if unchecked. Jim Sterling recently did a good episode on this: Beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now