Shadow of War infested by writhing mass of microtransactions

[GoldenShaka]

37 minutes ago, Paige-ID said:

I'm going to be perfectly honest and say that I understand where these people are coming from. I don't agree with it, however. I believe that it also stems from the fact that they feel their personal achievements are undermined if said achievements can be achieved by someone else flaunting a dollar or two. I get that. I don't feel that way, but I see why someone else would.

Once you learn that your own efforts are not trivialized because someone else took a shortcut, you relieve yourself in a way and learn to appreciate yourself a lot more. When you start a business and finally make your first million, you don't get angry at the guy who inherited 10 million from mom and dad. You learn that your own accomplishment is the only thing that matters, not the fictitious competition you create(d) within your own head.

Hmm, well, that depends on the type of gamer you are.

I totally understand the gamer that says: I do whatever I want with my money, purchase the game throw a couple of dozen of hours, beat the game and sell it next week.

Or in other of your examples keep the game because the multiplayer content to play from time to time. They'll never be bothered with the microtransactions.

This is a single player game, no multiplayer like Diablo 2, Call of duty or Uncharted.

I would valid all your economic references if the game only had one edition, but it has many, and none of them include the season pass.

And if we consider, as been told for many reviewers, a grind between 40 to 60 hours is needed to get the real ending in the game, then those lootboxes are intrusive.

I'm not even thinking about achievements/trophies, I've abandoned some RPG platinums due the classic spend 100 more hours to get the platinum. But those games have no tricky ways to make play more to get 100% of the content. So I'm fine.

Finally, for what I know, many statistics constantly say that most of gamers are in their thirties, so it's not like it's just a bunch of teenagers with zero knowledge of the industry is complaining. 

[Yrva]

Unless using micro-transactions lets a player reach an area where those who haven't used micro-transactions can't reach, then I think it's not that big a deal. It is pretty lame of them still, especially since I expected a game like this to have zero reason for micro-transactions.

[GoldenShaka]

5 minutes ago, angelgrievous said:

I too understand where some of them are coming from in a competitive environment, but to call for a crash of the market is a bit far fetched.  

 

You mentioned entitlement and I touched on that as well.  To think that developers owe anyone anything other than a game they think we might enjoy is simply ignorant.  From a business point of view I would think a developer would want to create a game that people want, be it a remake or an ode to a beloved franchise, but to limit creativity to what people want is disingenuous and harmful to the creative process.  Imagine if the developers behind Journey decided to not make the game they wanted and instead followed the market trend.  

 

I don't have any stock in this industry.  I am simply a life long fan.  I couldn't imagine what it is like to be a video game developer.  It's one of those no win scenarios.  The old saying that you can't please everyone.  On one hand you have people that don't mind paying for a leg up in a MP game, or dulling out extra cash to get the better gear early on in a SP game.  Then you have the people that don't want to pay to compete on a level playing field when they've already paid full retail price for the game.  I can understand this.  I get it to a tee.  However,  there isn't a day that goes by that I don't read comments on how people won't buy this game or that game day one and will wait for deep discounts or until it is free.  Do these people get to vote?  If you buy a game used do you have the right to complain about paid post content?  

 

How about PS+?  How many times have we had a PS+ free games thread where half the people complain that it's the worst thing ever?  I get it, it sucks that we have to pay Sony to play our games online, especially when we already pay our ISP's, but we do, that's the reality we live in.  

 

Actually, I've got to stop here man.  I'm sitting here trying to make some points and then I'm second guessing my own feelings on the matter.  This is me free speaking (typing).  I honestly don't care what people do.  I posted in the Sonic Mania Platinum thread awhile back and got, probably, the most likes on a post I have ever gotten on this forum.  I said it was silly for people to not buy or play a game because it didn't have a platinum trophy.  I now regret that post because I simply don't really care why people buy games.  

 

I guess I'm just content on enjoying the things I enjoy the way I do and I don't really care how anyone else want's to enjoy their games or spend their money or whatever else they do.  I'm tired of trying to fight people on these issues.  I know I'll go to bed tonight and I'll wake up tomorrow.  If you (not you Paige) want the video game market to crash then more power to you I guess.  I'll just plug in my Xbox and play Knights of the Old Republic, or play some PS1 game on my Vita.  

 

-john

 

 

 

  

I like to support developers buying always new games, as you said there are gamers that overeact but

I think the complaint is fair in this case about the microtransactions.

And as you say a little more complicated if we go to console scenarios, pc gamers has better discount than us, don't pay extra for mp, many times have modes to avoid buy cosmetic stuff, etc.

 

[AJ_Radio]

23 minutes ago, angelgrievous said:

You mentioned entitlement and I touched on that as well.  To think that developers owe anyone anything other than a game they think we might enjoy is simply ignorant.  From a business point of view I would think a developer would want to create a game that people want, be it a remake or an ode to a beloved franchise, but to limit creativity to what people want is disingenuous and harmful to the creative process.  Imagine if the developers behind Journey decided to not make the game they wanted and instead followed the market trend.  

 

I don't have any stock in this industry.  I am simply a life long fan.  I couldn't imagine what it is like to be a video game developer.  It's one of those no win scenarios.  The old saying that you can't please everyone.  On one hand you have people that don't mind paying for a leg up in a MP game, or dulling out extra cash to get the better gear early on in a SP game.  Then you have the people that don't want to pay to compete on a level playing field when they've already paid full retail price for the game.  I can understand this.  I get it to a tee.  However,  there isn't a day that goes by that I don't read comments on how people won't buy this game or that game day one and will wait for deep discounts or until it is free.  Do these people get to vote?  If you buy a game used do you have the right to complain about paid post content?  

 

How about PS+?  How many times have we had a PS+ free games thread where half the people complain that it's the worst thing ever?  I get it, it sucks that we have to pay Sony to play our games online, especially when we already pay our ISP's, but we do, that's the reality we live in. 

 

I am definitely not in the wrong when I say a lot of gamers are some of the most self entitled people out there. What we expect to see out of games doesn't fully go eye to eye with what the developers expect to see out of them.

 

I've seen a lot of gamers over the years, especially younger gamers who feel they want everything handed to them on a silver platter. When something doesn't go their way, they have to go and complain. It's quite sad really.

 

I myself have paid a leg up in a multiplayer game, Runescape for example and a couple other MMOs. I even paid for something trivial like the Tank Suit in Dead Space to make my Impossible difficulty playthrough a little easier. Neither broke the game. But with how outspoken gamers are these days they'll complain about anything and everything that they feel is slightly offcolor. It's one of the biggest flaws of the internet, anybody today can write about how bad Shadow of War is and how we shouldn't be buying the game until we see a huge price drop. I don't know how much the microtransactions will affect the game play or how much faster they increase XP.

 

To me, in my mind, there is little doubt that Shadow of War will be just as good as Shadow of Mordor was. That along with Assassins Creed Origins and Wolfenstein II The New Colossus should make October a great month for new promising AAA games. Those three games should keep me busy for a while.

 

Paying for playing online games is nothing new. Microsoft has done it for over a decade with their consoles, and Sony only just required gamers to pay for online play at the launch of the Playstation 4. I put in a couple years worth of subscription fees for World of Warcraft ($300+) and around 10 entire years worth of Runescape monthly membership fees ($500 - $1000). Sony is not asking a lot for Playstation Plus, in fact I consider it quite cheap compared to other online services out there.

 

People want everything handed to them, and things only get worse as the years go on.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Spaz

[angelgrievous]

3 minutes ago, Spaz said:

 

I am definitely not in the wrong when I say a lot of gamers are some of the most self entitled people out there. What we expect to see out of games doesn't fully go eye to eye with what the developers expect to see out of them.

 

I've seen a lot of gamers over the years, especially younger gamers who feel they want everything handed to them on a silver platter. When something doesn't go their way, they have to go and complain. It's quite sad really.

 

I myself have paid a leg up in a multiplayer game, Runescape for example and a couple other MMOs. I even paid for something trivial like the Tank Suit in Dead Space to make my Impossible difficulty playthrough a little easier. Neither broke the game. But with how outspoken gamers are these days they'll complain about anything and everything that they feel is slightly offcolor. It's one of the biggest flaws of the internet, anybody today can write about how bad Shadow of War and how we shouldn't be buying the game until we see a huge price drop. I don't know how much the microtransactions will affect the game play or how much faster they increase XP.

 

To me, in my mind, there is little doubt that Shadow of War will be just as good as Shadow of Mordor was. That along with Assassins Creed Origins and Wolfenstein II The New Colossus should make October a great month for new promising AAA games. Those three games should keep me busy for a while.

 

Paying for online games is nothing new. Microsoft has done it for over a decade, and Sony only just required gamers to pay for online play at the launch of the Playstation 4. I put in a couple years worth of subscription fees for World of Warcraft ($300+) and around 10 entire years worth of Runescape monthly membership fees ($500 - $1000). Sony is not asking a lot for Playstation Plus, in fact I consider it quite cheap compared to other online services out there.

 

People want everything handed to them, and things only get worse as the years go on.

Yeah, I agree, "gamers" absolutely want everything handed to them the way they want.  Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Sony for charging for online services.  I've been a happy PS+ subscriber for years now.  I can also see how it is a bit ridiculous given that I already pay my ISP a monthly fee for online capabilities.  

 

So I buy a game at $60 dollars, I pay X amount of dollars to my internet service provider of online capabilities, now I have to pay Sony more money to play the game I've already bought, online, on an online infrastructure I already pay for.

 

Here's the kicker, I do so knowing full well what I'm doing.  

 

I choose to pay for these things the way I do because I am an adult making these decisions on my own.  I don't expect anyone to give me anything for free.  I don't expect developers to make games catered to my taste or budget.  I don't expect Sony to give me free games that they should know I already own.  I take what they give me and I pay for the rest.  

 

I'll never call a developer lazy, I'll never criticize a game because it fails to meet whatever expectations I created, I'll never not buy a game because it doesn't have a platinum trophy, I won't jeopardize my enjoyment of a game because it doesn't cater to everyone else's needs.  If you don't like it, don't buy it.  

 

I'm old enough to know that what others say about things is as useful as a $2 dollar bill.  It's too bad that most people today take things written on Facebook or videos on Youtube as gospel.  

 

Loot boxes/micro-transactions are not the end of the world nor are they the end of video games.  They're just a market trend the will either fade away or become the norm in big budget triple A games. In fact, I'm willing to bet that in a months time, no one will be talking about them and will instead be talking about how good the new Assassins Creed game is, or some other stupid shit that seems to be the flavor of the month.  

 

“To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's.” 

-Fyodor Dostoyevsky

 

 

[rdhight]

3 hours ago, Paige-ID said:

I'm going to simply say that your view on the industry, and business as a whole, is extraordinarily limited; perhaps due to lack of understanding. I encourage you to read up on how a business operates behind the scenes, their monetary obligations, their influence in the economy, and how their performance affects not just daily life, but the future of thousands of people who depend on a business' success and perseverance. Do you know what happens when Time Warner fails to produce positive cash flow to cover maturity of bonds? What happens if Time Warner suddenly cuts their 401k matching program? What happens if their quarterly earnings suffer tremendously due to lack of growth in an area of increasing competition? Not only do their employees/shareholders/bond owners/option exercisers suffer, you suffer next because games becoming $100 is next. Just like they were in the 90's.

 

It's funny to hear someone try to take that tack with me. Usually I'm the one on the side of defending a company's need and responsibility to make money. Not long ago, there was an argument about Sony denying crossplay; I was on the side of it being a smart business move, and people like me who saw Sony's point were the ones getting asked, "Geez dude, do you own Sony stock or something?" Believe me, I understand that a company cannot just decide to make less money. It's not responsible. People are depending on you for work.

 

That's why I think some kind of moral panic targeting microtransactions would be desirable. They cannot help themselves as long as we're buying the loot boxes; we are the drug dealer here. We have to fix it from outside. If the ever-shifting gamer hivemind makes an example — something like what happened with Bethesda's infamous horse armor, but bigger and more destructive — companies might again face an environment where selling good, complete games is a better route to profit than selling loot boxes.

 

Let's say a car company comes out with a model that has a credit card reader on the dashboard. You want heat or air conditioning? You slide your card and buy it by the mile. The car company would justify it in those same terms — gotta make more money. You don't like it, don't buy it. But I would hope that that car would be a legendary failure and no one would ever try that again. Likewise, if some games failing or some companies failing is what it takes to change the market and make microtransactions the path to ruin instead of the path to profit, then I think that would be a good thing.

[angelgrievous]

nvm.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by angelgrievous

[Paige-ID]

3 hours ago, rdhight said:

 

It's funny to hear someone try to take that tack with me. Usually I'm the one on the side of defending a company's need and responsibility to make money. Not long ago, there was an argument about Sony denying crossplay; I was on the side of it being a smart business move, and people like me who saw Sony's point were the ones getting asked, "Geez dude, do you own Sony stock or something?" Believe me, I understand that a company cannot just decide to make less money. It's not responsible. People are depending on you for work.

 

That's why I think some kind of moral panic targeting microtransactions would be desirable. They cannot help themselves as long as we're buying the loot boxes; we are the drug dealer here. We have to fix it from outside. If the ever-shifting gamer hivemind makes an example — something like what happened with Bethesda's infamous horse armor, but bigger and more destructive — companies might again face an environment where selling good, complete games is a better route to profit than selling loot boxes.

 

Let's say a car company comes out with a model that has a credit card reader on the dashboard. You want heat or air conditioning? You slide your card and buy it by the mile. The car company would justify it in those same terms — gotta make more money. You don't like it, don't buy it. But I would hope that that car would be a legendary failure and no one would ever try that again. Likewise, if some games failing or some companies failing is what it takes to change the market and make microtransactions the path to ruin instead of the path to profit, then I think that would be a good thing.

A car company comes with all the features advertised included (like the game does), but if you want Sirius XM you have to pay more. If you want more horsepower afterwards you'll have to spend extra money on extras. I don't mind that because I got the car I paid for initially.

I also wouldn't recommend stock in Sony, but shares of TakeTwo/Activision are VERY lucrative thus far! 

[FielVeredus]

I just want to share my point of view.

 

- For me, this situation they are trying to test the water how much they can get away with it. If gamers accepted it, it could be move to next step until they hit the backlash.

- In term of CDPR, i don't think their developement cost is less than big company provided that they have time spent on project and quality it delivers you can't get those from random indie developer imo. Dying Light also provide free update and even big expansion that worth money even after game launched long time ago.

- I am all for any microtransaction as long as I know what i am getting (old time dlc/content) so this is really player choice, the situation right now is simply gambling and i hope it hit one of child's governer so law is write to handle this.

*If loot box is excuse for cover the cost; how about release post content for free (no gold edition/season pass etc.) and you can put lootbox and i am sure if you explain that this is help fund post content, there will be less backlash, right now they double dip.

*I can understand why F2P game has it and i have no complain but in single player game(with no real multiplayer mode), it is not really make sense, it is just here so it MAYBE design to make the game (which you paid $60 upfront) tedious like farming in online game so someone got tired and use their quick hotheaded to bait it. So it has/or may have negative impact in the game quality/pacing. It is kind of disrespected approach to me as old time gamer.

- I don't want everything handed to me for free, but i want thing handed to me at reasonable trade-off.

- Honorable mention : Titanfall 2,AC Unity/Syndicated,Ghost Recon Wildlands etc. (i know what i am getting) these game handle Microtransaction right.

Edited October 8, 2017 by FielVeredus

[MMDE]

This is the kind of thing that makes me not play the game. I probably won't ever, but they don't really care about that, because they earn back so many sales from microtransactions.

 

In the case of FIFA, EA probably earn many times as much on each sale in average over it. If the game sells 3 million copies, they probably earn money as if they sold 10 million copies.  

Edited October 8, 2017 by MMDE

[Cleggworth]

Micro transactions have never bothered me particularly. These companies need to make money somewhere and I'm just thankful that for the time being they are doing that by selling premium cosmetic items or time saving packages rather than adding £20 to the base price of the game

[Paige-ID]

8 hours ago, MMDE said:

This is the kind of thing that makes me not play the game. I probably won't ever, but they don't really care about that, because they earn back so many sales from microtransactions.

 

In the case of FIFA, EA probably earn many times as much on each sale in average over it. If the game sells 3 million copies, they probably earn money as if they sold 10 million copies.  

If you can't beat them, join them!

[AJ_Radio]

From what I've seen so far the only multiplayer are the online vendettas (as far as I'm aware work the same as they did in the first game) and the online conquests, which is a asynchronous multiplayer mode where you customize and upload your own fortress for others to invade. It isn't a full blown multiplayer experience like you get in Destiny 2, Battlefield 1 or Overwatch.

 

I completely understand why companies will issue out microtransactions for multiplayer because a lot of people don't want to fully commit themselves to the work involved to reach max level or whatever for a few trophies. I'm guessing online servers are much more expensive now to maintain than they used to be so these companies need to make their money. But this also tells me that gamers in general have gotten more and more lazy as the years went on. If something takes a tad too long or is too difficult, they have to go and complain about it.

 

Shadow of War hasn't been released for the masses yet. A lucky few already own the game, including Brian (PS4Trophies) and Powerpyx because the companies ship them copies of the games a week or two ahead of time so they can upload their video guides for said games just in time for release day.

 

I will buy this game but I will wait a week or two for initial reviews and thoughts to come around.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Spaz

[tezgamer]

On 06/08/2017 at 9:48 AM, FilmFanatic said:

Actually reading the link I see that purchasing Gold via the PS Store is simply quicker than getting items in the game the natural way. There is nothing that can be obtained by spending real money that can't also be acquired playing the game the way it's meant to be played. I really don't know what the OP is getting so worked up about. Personally I'd rather earn my gear myself than pay real money for something that could be outclassed before you know it.

That kinda sums it up. 

[ZombieLover84]

This post it usually the initial reaction when any game has DLC, be it micro transactions or maps to expansions.

 

They are also entirely ignorant and wrong most if not all of the time.

 

I'm just going to use this game since that's what the post is, but, there are multiple currencies in the game. All can be acquired by playing the game absolutely normal. There is nothing that cannot be obtained by not buying micro-transactions, and the game provides consistent ways to obtain the same chests and currency through gameplay.

 

Even the time saving aspect isn't really a thing as evidenced by the reviews. It seems that playing properly will always result in better items and Orcs then gambling on loot boxes.

 

However, the loot boxes do serve a particular need in the gaming market - people who want to get by because they do not have the time to properly spend playing this game.

 

Same idea in Overwatch. There are tons of costumes and items you can unlock by buying loot boxes. If you are a regular player that can spend time with the game, nothing is stopping you from unlocking everything by playing it.

 

However, for someone who loves the game but because of work or kids only have so much time to set aside for playing, it is attractive to spend a little money to try and get some cool costumes or other items.

 

Same here for this game.

 

Now for other DLC, it's dependant on the publisher and developer. But usually DLC is completely on a separate budget.

 

For instance, Injustice 2 has a Season Pass with upcoming additional fighters. Many argue the they should be in the base game and were stripped out to make more money. But that isn't how it works.

 

When a developers proposes a game to a publisher, in this case Netherrealm Studio's to Warner Bros., the developer shows off thier ideas via early art work or even some video demos. Then the publisher and developer decide how much money this will cost to make and, in this instance, this decides just how much content and character's they could make for Injustice 2 while still making a profit on game sales alone. This has many factors including the genre, the success of the studio on previous games they have made, or in this case, a sequel, how many more customers could they reach based on sells data for the first game. This is why sequels across gaming, including Shadow of Mordor, become so much larger in scope and gameplay variety. It's not like they didn't have certain ideas for Shadow of War they didn't have for Shadow of Mordor, it's more likely they were rewarded with a budget they could actually implement and test these original ideas in the sequel. 

 

Once that is finalized and contracts are signed, almost all of the development team go to work on the game and the basic vision they have, knowing thier limitations on content and new gameplay ideas they would have to implement and test.

 

Meanwhile, the management and usually the game director and a few other top members discuss what they could do with DLC. In the case if fighters, new character's that just didn't fit thier budget can be implemented. So a new contract is made on a completely separate budget. This isn't to make sure the game makes money, that's already signed and done. This is to propose additional ideas the first budget didn't have the funds for, while also keeping it in line with expectations that the DLC will sell so many downloads. In the Injustice 2 case, they decided that 9 brand new character's, complete with new voice acting, model's, and fighting mechanics be made, as well as additional funds for voice actors in the initial budget to do voice work that interacts with the dlc character's.

 

Many suggest that developers work on DLC and take away from the main games development, and this is just simply not the case. The only time DLC is worked on during the main games development is to make sure additional content can be implemented. Usually these are called "hooks" that the game uses to recognize new content and where to place it code wise into the main game. This is usually seen on the disc because it has to be there for everything made after the game is done. It's also not really time consuming or expensive. Plus the DLC budget pays for this.

 

A lot of bitching was done when Netherrealm showed off the first few DLC character's for Injustice 2 the same time the game was released, mistakenly thinking they had these done and just didn't ship them with the game.

 

Truth is games discs are usually "pressed" (manufactured) 1-2 months prior to the release of the game. So Netherrealm has had about two months to make character models and start testing initak dlc character's while waiting for the release date to come. This actually keeps the development team together and also allows QA to keep testing the game, which is usually why games now have day one patches. 2 months is a lot of time to find bug or glitches you had not found in the initial testing up to the disc check, and sometimes even bugs that went as what is considered "Not Able To Replicate", which means a bug happened but the QA team could not figure out how to trigger it again, are found.

 

Anyway, since Netherrealm has already done the meat of the work on the game itself, extra character's take a lot less time to implement as well. 2 months is plenty of time to not only decide on some character's, usually one's the team already wanted to do but maybe didn't fit into thier story or we're not as popular of a character, but to make art, model's, etc. With Injustice, the first dlc trailers didn't have any gameplay footage, which tells me while they had completed what they wanted the character to look like, gameplay was still being worked on so no moves or combos were shown because they may have to tweak or even remove a move that isn't working.

 

So that's a lesson for all of you on DLC. Also, really quick, the price point if the character's Netherrealm decided on. Some think it's too expensive. $5.99 for a new fighter does seem high, until you factor in that fighting games aren't monster sellers, and they have a popular, but niche' market. So they must charge enough to make a profit from the estimated number of people they think will download the character, which also factors in the cost to make a new character. When you realize this, it becomes seems relatively at a proper price point considering the market.

[wackt1]

 

 

 

 

 

just leaving links here why microtransactions are bad

they are anti consumer

 

 

 

[yellowwindow7]

since the day it was announced and was never interested on this game, not even thinking of getting especially now that hearing the game is raided with micro transaction and loot boxes.

[SkyMason]

If you put in a paid loot box thing in your game to speed up progression, you aren't "helping people short on time", you're purposefully padding something to encourage that kind of behaviour in the first place. If people are having trouble getting to the end of the game, then do the simplest thing in the world - add an easy mode. Penalizing people who don't have the time or patience to grind endlessly and adding a random element to it all stinks of sleaziness. It's preying on people with addictive personalities, and is just a lazy way to get more profit from no content. If you've specifically programmed something to reward a player with a loot box or the means to get one (with a random element) after 5 hours of play/20 raids or whatever, or give the option to get one for a $1, which one are people going to get?

 

It's gambling-lite and it's a lazy, predatory way to squeeze more money from people by purposefully designing the game around it.

[wackt1]

16 hours ago, ZombieLover84 said:

This post it usually the initial reaction when any game has DLC, be it micro transactions or maps to expansions.

 

They are also entirely ignorant and wrong most if not all of the time.

 

I'm just going to use this game since that's what the post is, but, there are multiple currencies in the game. All can be acquired by playing the game absolutely normal. There is nothing that cannot be obtained by not buying micro-transactions, and the game provides consistent ways to obtain the same chests and currency through gameplay.

 

Even the time saving aspect isn't really a thing as evidenced by the reviews. It seems that playing properly will always result in better items and Orcs then gambling on loot boxes.

 

However, the loot boxes do serve a particular need in the gaming market - people who want to get by because they do not have the time to properly spend playing this game.

 

Same idea in Overwatch. There are tons of costumes and items you can unlock by buying loot boxes. If you are a regular player that can spend time with the game, nothing is stopping you from unlocking everything by playing it.

 

However, for someone who loves the game but because of work or kids only have so much time to set aside for playing, it is attractive to spend a little money to try and get some cool costumes or other items.

 

Same here for this game.

 

Now for other DLC, it's dependant on the publisher and developer. But usually DLC is completely on a separate budget.

 

For instance, Injustice 2 has a Season Pass with upcoming additional fighters. Many argue the they should be in the base game and were stripped out to make more money. But that isn't how it works.

 

When a developers proposes a game to a publisher, in this case Netherrealm Studio's to Warner Bros., the developer shows off thier ideas via early art work or even some video demos. Then the publisher and developer decide how much money this will cost to make and, in this instance, this decides just how much content and character's they could make for Injustice 2 while still making a profit on game sales alone. This has many factors including the genre, the success of the studio on previous games they have made, or in this case, a sequel, how many more customers could they reach based on sells data for the first game. This is why sequels across gaming, including Shadow of Mordor, become so much larger in scope and gameplay variety. It's not like they didn't have certain ideas for Shadow of War they didn't have for Shadow of Mordor, it's more likely they were rewarded with a budget they could actually implement and test these original ideas in the sequel. 

 

Once that is finalized and contracts are signed, almost all of the development team go to work on the game and the basic vision they have, knowing thier limitations on content and new gameplay ideas they would have to implement and test.

 

Meanwhile, the management and usually the game director and a few other top members discuss what they could do with DLC. In the case if fighters, new character's that just didn't fit thier budget can be implemented. So a new contract is made on a completely separate budget. This isn't to make sure the game makes money, that's already signed and done. This is to propose additional ideas the first budget didn't have the funds for, while also keeping it in line with expectations that the DLC will sell so many downloads. In the Injustice 2 case, they decided that 9 brand new character's, complete with new voice acting, model's, and fighting mechanics be made, as well as additional funds for voice actors in the initial budget to do voice work that interacts with the dlc character's.

 

Many suggest that developers work on DLC and take away from the main games development, and this is just simply not the case. The only time DLC is worked on during the main games development is to make sure additional content can be implemented. Usually these are called "hooks" that the game uses to recognize new content and where to place it code wise into the main game. This is usually seen on the disc because it has to be there for everything made after the game is done. It's also not really time consuming or expensive. Plus the DLC budget pays for this.

 

A lot of bitching was done when Netherrealm showed off the first few DLC character's for Injustice 2 the same time the game was released, mistakenly thinking they had these done and just didn't ship them with the game.

 

Truth is games discs are usually "pressed" (manufactured) 1-2 months prior to the release of the game. So Netherrealm has had about two months to make character models and start testing initak dlc character's while waiting for the release date to come. This actually keeps the development team together and also allows QA to keep testing the game, which is usually why games now have day one patches. 2 months is a lot of time to find bug or glitches you had not found in the initial testing up to the disc check, and sometimes even bugs that went as what is considered "Not Able To Replicate", which means a bug happened but the QA team could not figure out how to trigger it again, are found.

 

Anyway, since Netherrealm has already done the meat of the work on the game itself, extra character's take a lot less time to implement as well. 2 months is plenty of time to not only decide on some character's, usually one's the team already wanted to do but maybe didn't fit into thier story or we're not as popular of a character, but to make art, model's, etc. With Injustice, the first dlc trailers didn't have any gameplay footage, which tells me while they had completed what they wanted the character to look like, gameplay was still being worked on so no moves or combos were shown because they may have to tweak or even remove a move that isn't working.

 

So that's a lesson for all of you on DLC. Also, really quick, the price point if the character's Netherrealm decided on. Some think it's too expensive. $5.99 for a new fighter does seem high, until you factor in that fighting games aren't monster sellers, and they have a popular, but niche' market. So they must charge enough to make a profit from the estimated number of people they think will download the character, which also factors in the cost to make a new character. When you realize this, it becomes seems relatively at a proper price point considering the market.

I do agree with you partially with DLC as it introduces new content to the game. However, there's a point when DLC becomes a problem when they lock existing content or content that should of already be in the game behind a paywall, EA's star wars battlefront basically sold half of the game at the price of $60 and the season pass at $60 before the season pass became free, Bungie's Destiny had on disc DLC and was blocked off with pay wall and that day one players had to suffer since the complete edition came at last year while the day one players had to shell out an extra $100 just to keep up with the game. EA and Bioware's mass effect 3 had two DLC, "leviathan" and "from ashes" which were very very very important story locked behind the paywalls, they provided revelations to the story. EA and visceral games Dead Space 3 basically locked the true ending behind DLC. Rainbow six siege, overwatch and Warframe on the other hand release free updates while the latter is F2P.

 

Loot boxes and microtransactions are anti consumer, it's why many gamers do not like mobile games, look at the videos I posted below to see why. With shadow of war, would you rather grind an extra 20-30 hours for a cutscene or drop $10+ to skip the grind. In EA's battlefront 2, would grind out to get star cards, weapon, and character upgrades or keep dropping money on loot boxes until you get tier 4 upgrades to skip the grind and become unstoppable. There is a point to when microtransactions makes a game pay-to-win which does not belong in a triple AAA full priced game. You typically see those in free 2 play or mobile games. In overwatch btw, all lootbox contents are entirely cosmetic and don't effect gameplay unless you really want a skin. Warframe does microtransactions very well, you can buy frames and weapons or grind for them, with me I never bought anything off warframe and I own 9 warframes with two more on the way (the new warframes can be obtained through quest) and 11 weapons.

[Wavergray]

I feel bad for all the people who instantly believe this anti consumer narrative that people keep pushing.

 

Game wasn't even out and people who haven't played the game were making 20+ minute videos about "Having to play a game for 20+ hours to get the ending."  Most of the info for these videos came from one source who credibility has been shaky for years. Aren't these are the same people who condemn games that are under 10 hours? So what, do all games have to hit this undefined "sweet spot" for gameplay time?

 

Then you get into the gameplay ability of the average game reviewer. We know most of them do not 100% games before they review them so to instantly believe someone who doesn't 100% games, complaints about how long it takes to 100% the game makes very little sense.

 

Then we get into the slippery slope fallacy that revolves around the loot boxes. The fact that almost every argument about loot boxes are just slippery slope arguments is just sad.

Yes loot boxes could turn into something really scummy, but until this actually happens there is no point in screaming out "lootboxes are anti consumer".
I know Deus ex Mankind Divided's Breach mode loot boxes and The COD points system are pretty scummy, but trying to say all lootboxes in non-mobile games are anti consumer falls under the hasty generalization fallacy which really weakest the argument.

[tpepper1985]

Just going to skip all these fall games for now, I have zero interest in supporting full priced games that include Microtransactions, especially if they are change game balance, or double dip with season passes. If it turns out you can Plat the games without buying in to the microtransactions within a reasonable time frame I will get them in a sale 1-2 years from now.

 

I still have to play Persona 5, Horizon Zero Dawn, Nier Automata, Nioh. Still plenty of AAA games around that do not feel the need to implement the casino lootbox system into thier game, I'm actually more interested to see how things will look next year ... We all know that EA / Activision / WB have hard ons for loot boxes but I'm wondering if it's going to be literally everywhere. Ubisoft and Bethesda have not really gone down that road yet but who knows maybe they will start introducing them too.

 

Elder Scrolls 6/Fallout 5 seem ripe for lootbox implementation since they are loot based games, apparently this years Assassin's Creed does not have them but if all your competitors are making loads of money with them it must be pretty tempting to add them in to your own games. 

 

The worst thing about all this is despite the huge backlash and nagative PR they are getting this year I doubt it's going to make any difference, it will not suprise me in the slightest if they make more money this year than they did last year due to the lootboxs. There are too many uninformed consumers who will buy these games having no idea that these systems are in them, and those consumers are the ones who will end up buying the microtransactions. Unless you visit gaming sites there's no way average joe knows that Battlefront 2 is pay2win, he probably doesn't even know what pay2win means. 

Edited October 12, 2017 by tpepper1985

[Lance_87]

Well guys apparently someone already unlocked the true ending and posted the video on YouTube lol. Looks like the grinding is not really heavy.

 

Also people really didn't bother about "microtransactions" and the game already sold 200k copies on Steam alone and 60k players.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Lance_87

[GoldenShaka]

47 minutes ago, Lance_87 said:

Well guys apparently someone already unlocked the true ending and posted the video on YouTube lol. Looks like the grinding is not really

 

Also people really didn't bother about "microtransactions" and the game already sold 200k copies on Steam alone and 60k players.

Game sold well on pc because days ago dropped to forties (and even less) in some places, with steam policies and having this backlash those places won't take the risk to keep it at 60. It's something almost impossible to happen on consoles.

[DFuzed]

There are many good arguments here, but I think this point has to be made:

 

A DLC for Forthog Orc-Slayer, which was made in honour of Mike Forgey, the former Executive Producer at Monolith, was originally going to be a $5 cost, with WB donating $3.50 of each purchase to his family. BUT only those who bought it in the US, not any other country, and this also excluded six states because of how charity laws worked in those states.  

 

Now, I am not sure what happened, if it was WB seeing how much negative PR they were receiving that they decided to scrap the idea, or they decided it was a douche move, but they changed their mind and made it a free DLC for everyone and just gave a lump sum to the Forgey family.

Edited October 12, 2017 by DFuzed

[Lance_87]

Fun fact: in the credits after the true ending, the game is not dedicated to his memory, but to some other woman who passed away...