Shadow of War infested by writhing mass of microtransactions

[moni32]

On 8/6/2017 at 1:09 AM, Redgrave said:

I just wanted Necromancers in my army. I still want to get the game but I hope this isn't something you wind up having to use to get anywhere.

I played the entire game almost now and havent had to buy anything with money you earn plenty of the currency anyways. they have challanges that give you the premium currency as well. its not as bad as people are making it out to be.

[Dangisuckatgamin]

6 minutes ago, moni32 said:

I played the entire game almost now and havent had to buy anything with money you earn plenty of the currency anyways. they have challanges that give you the premium currency as well. its not as bad as people are making it out to be.

Probably the people complaining are the ones who praise GTAV which is way worse...

[rdhight]

On 10/16/2017 at 10:55 AM, Lance_87 said:

I wonder where's TC now. "Duhhh cancel all preorders"

 

Still here.

[Paige-ID]

15 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Man - your brand of "trickle down" economics is just nauseating to me. 

 

 

Agreed. There is this strange conflation of "good business" and "microtransactions", and I just don't see it. I continue to think that microtransactions are not a sustainable system, and honestly, I am unconvinced that the revenue streams from them are even possible to scale to the level these companies hope.

 

It's not an opinion - it's a factual chain of events. Whether or not you find it important enough or whether or not you like it is up for debate. That doesn't change the simple, documented truth of how a business works and how generating more money out of existing titles is not a bad thing. ESPECIALLY when said methods are 100% optional. We'll agree to disagree and continue to not purchase micro transactions, meaning neither of us are affected negatively by them. Perhaps a good way to benefit from the industry and their "dastardly" ways of generating revenue is to simply purchase stock in a gaming company. Take Two and Activision-Blizzard are good choices.

 

The micro transactions are, from an economical standpoint, a valuable business asset. Mobile gaming has been making a fortune with them. EA, Sony, Activision, etc all have statistical data to back up the existence of micro transactions and their monetary benefits. You only have to take a look at Take Two's GTA V and their micro transactions to see how successful the system can become. You just look at it from an emotional standpoint, and you invalidate the practice purely because you disagree with it on an emotional level. It's a far better alternative to generate extra income as opposed to raising the price of a game to roughly $100, which it would be if the prices of games had kept up with inflation since 1995.

 

The games do not become grindier than otherwise. Games have been grindy since the beginning of time. Battlefield is a grind to get to level 50. It's a grind to unlock all loadouts. You can buy them, however, if you please. Nobody seems to have a problem with that though. Games from Assassin's Creed to Final Fantasy incorporate large grinds to obtain 100%. Gran Turismo on PlayStation 1 was grindy. Sim City 2000 was grindy. Diablo on PC was grindy. Don't act like grinding is a newly introduced gameplay mechanic to promote micro transactions. Grinding has been around forever to introduce an artificial way of extending gameplay/longevity. Some people don't want that kind of time commitment so there's micro transactions to circumvent an already existing time hurdle. I don't use them, but their existence has never hindered me.

[AJ_Radio]

12 minutes ago, Paige-ID said:

The games do not become grindier than otherwise. Games have been grindy since the beginning of time. Battlefield is a grind to get to level 50. It's a grind to unlock all loadouts. You can buy them, however, if you please. Nobody seems to have a problem with that though. Games from Assassin's Creed to Final Fantasy incorporate large grinds to obtain 100%. Gran Turismo on PlayStation 1 was grindy. Sim City 2000 was grindy. Diablo on PC was grindy. Don't act like grinding is a newly introduced gameplay mechanic to promote micro transactions. Grinding has been around forever to introduce an artificial way of extending gameplay/longevity. Some people don't want that kind of time commitment so there's micro transactions to circumvent an already existing time hurdle. I don't use them, but their existence has never hindered me.

 

You speak the mind of an older individual who has seen a lot of changes in the industry. I respect that, since there is a general lack of people who have the time to make well thought up, detailed responses like these.

 

If you want to go further back into history, RPGs of the 1980s and early 1990s were grindy. Some were fairly straight forward and fairly short, others not so much.

 

From what I've heard from others, Shadow of War is completely doable with a platinum without ever spending a single cent on lootboxes. I hear the average time to platinum is around 30 - 50 hours, which is quite reasonable given it's RPG elements. Other games take a lot more time. Star Ocean 4 can take up to 1000 hours. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is generally around 100 hours, 200+ if you want to experience all the DLC and optional activities it has to offer.

 

Kudos to you for mentioning Simcity 2000 and Diablo. Two of my childhood favorites.

[starcrunch061]

9 hours ago, Paige-ID said:

It's not an opinion - it's a factual chain of events. Whether or not you find it important enough or whether or not you like it is up for debate. That doesn't change the simple, documented truth of how a business works and how generating more money out of existing titles is not a bad thing.

 

Clown leap of logic. It is not at all clear to me that squeezing consumers who have already bought your product for still more isn't a bad thing. In fact, there are numerous examples where consumers have left companies, en masse, for precisely this thing.

 

See? THAT'S the debate here. It's not whether I "like it" or find it "important enough". It's whether such practice is a sustainable business model in the console industry.

 

You cite the success in mobile gaming, but this isn't mobile gaming. And while the FTP model has shown some success on consoles, it hasn't nearly had the impact here as it does for mobile gamers, and there are plenty of good reasons why one would expect this.

 

Further, companies like Square who have dived into mobile haven't seen massive rises in profits or anything (in fact, Square continues to be a rather underwhelming investment, given their flat stock price over the past 15 years or so). And again, this is for gaming on a object that was built for many things besides gaming. 

 

And just to be clear - it doesn't matter whether this argument comes from a consumer that worries about the future of his chosen hobby, or an employee that worries whether his division will be intact in a decade should this practice become ubiquitous.

Edited October 19, 2017 by starcrunch061

[Paige-ID]

3 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Clown leap of logic. It is not at all clear to me that squeezing consumers who have already bought your product for still more isn't a bad thing. In fact, there are numerous examples where consumers have left companies, en masse, for precisely this thing.

 

See? THAT'S the debate here. It's not whether I "like it" or find it "important enough". It's whether such practice is a sustainable business model in the console industry.

 

You cite the success in mobile gaming, but this isn't mobile gaming. And while the FTP model has shown some success on consoles, it hasn't nearly had the impact here as it does for mobile gamers, and there are plenty of good reasons why one would expect this.

 

Further, companies like Square who have dived into mobile haven't seen massive rises in profits or anything (in fact, Square continues to be a rather underwhelming investment, given their flat stock price over the past 15 years or so). And again, this is for gaming on a object that was built for many things besides gaming. 

 

And just to be clear - it doesn't matter whether this argument comes from a consumer that worries about the future of his chosen hobby, or an employee that worries whether his division will be intact in a decade should this practice become ubiquitous.

Square is a shit company for all sorts of reasons and their stock, Japan only - not NYSE/NASDAQ or anything, has been stagnant for reasons other than micro transactions not working out for them. It's also incredibly small. A volume of 300 is considered a "heavy day" for Square, lol. EA at 2,000,000 volume is "average". Regardless, Take Two, EA, and every other company have been doing micro transactions for years now, to great success. Shark Cards in GTA 5 are just one example. Any investment 8 years ago in either EA, Activision, or Take Two would yield tremendous returns. They know how to make money in this industry, and the industry is still in great shape.

 

Nobody is squeezing anything from anybody. They are offering extras at a cost, which are optional. Squeezing more would be telling you that for an extra $5, we'll give you access to the last boss of the game. They're not doing that at all. You get the full game, as promised for $60. Then you get to voluntarily purchase items that are fully available in-game to save time, if you choose to do so. This time constraint was always going to be there in an open world game like this, but if you're impatient/busy, then you now have an alternative.

Uncharted has micro transactions. GTA has this. Battlefield has this. World of Warcraft has it. Diablo has it. The Last of US has it. Metal Gear Solid 5 has it. Pokemon has it. Most JRPGs have it. Hundreds of games have it. And now Shadow of War has it as well, though it's being treated as if it somehow introduced the system. (even though Micro Transactions are really just DLC packs - another thing that's been around since the 80s.) Reports are already coming in that you can achieve the 100%/Platinum through normal gameplay without an unrealistic demand, so all the people saying you NEED these micro transactions to fully enjoy the game were already factually wrong.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Paige-ID

[Lance_87]

33 minutes ago, Paige-ID said:

Diablo has it.

 

Please don't tell me you consider buying gear from third-party sellers for Diablo II as "microtransactions".

 

Unless you mean the Chinese version of Diablo III which does indeed have microtransactions... and hopefully it'll stay there.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Lance_87

[Paige-ID]

4 hours ago, Lance_87 said:

 

Please don't tell me you consider buying gear from third-party sellers for Diablo II as "microtransactions".

 

Unless you mean the Chinese version of Diablo III which does indeed have microtransactions... and hopefully it'll stay there.

You can purchase gear, from whoever, to avoid the long grind of finding it yourself. You can also buy Gold. Let's not even bring up the Auction House on PC Diablo 3 had at launch, because that was a disaster for all sorts of reasons.

 

Though seemingly far-fetched, it shares the exact same principles as "micro transactions (DLC)". A purely optional purchase that exists solely to save you time. Who offers said shortcut should be irrelevant unless you discuss ethics, but if we discuss the effect it has on the game itself the comparison is very legitimate. The argument that the game becomes purposely grindy to promote these lootboxes is nothing more than a conspiracy theory cleverly disguised as "fact", while no concrete evidence is provided. Just speculation and fear mongering.

 

Is it ethical to have micro transactions? Though this is opinion based, some opinions come across as very hypocritical/uninformed by nature considering the other things they do tolerate/endorse.

 

Does it have an effect on the actual game itself, and on your gameplay? Absolutely not. The existence of shortcuts via monetary compensation, the existence of DLC, the existence of add-ons/special items has been a part of gaming since its inception. A lot of people are just naturally against big corporations making money because that's considered evil, so any changes that inject this into their beloved medium are considered cancerous. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Paige-ID

[Sypher-KoS]

I find it funny how people are outraged by this as if it is something new.  This form of micro transaction/ DLC has been around for nearly ten years.  Before that it was something else and before that it was another thing.  Anyone remember the Nintendo Power Hotline?  Just a dollar and a half per minute and you can get tips and tricks to your favorite games.  These companies are not a charity, they are trying to make money.  They have always tried to make money.

[Lance_87]

8 hours ago, Sypher-KoS said:

Anyone remember the Nintendo Power Hotline?  Just a dollar and a half per minute and you can get tips and tricks to your favorite games.

 

And hopefully now you can get them for free and legally... oh well, the "Cheats" section on GameFAQs is just for listing achievements/trophies now lol.

 

FFS what the f**k am i reading in this thread.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Lance_87

[starcrunch061]

18 hours ago, Paige-ID said:

Square is a shit company for all sorts of reasons and their stock, Japan only - not NYSE/NASDAQ or anything, has been stagnant for reasons other than micro transactions not working out for them. It's also incredibly small. A volume of 300 is considered a "heavy day" for Square, lol. EA at 2,000,000 volume is "average". Regardless, Take Two, EA, and every other company have been doing micro transactions for years now, to great success. Shark Cards in GTA 5 are just one example. Any investment 8 years ago in either EA, Activision, or Take Two would yield tremendous returns. They know how to make money in this industry, and the industry is still in great shape.

 

Nobody is squeezing anything from anybody. They are offering extras at a cost, which are optional. Squeezing more would be telling you that for an extra $5, we'll give you access to the last boss of the game. They're not doing that at all. You get the full game, as promised for $60. Then you get to voluntarily purchase items that are fully available in-game to save time, if you choose to do so. This time constraint was always going to be there in an open world game like this, but if you're impatient/busy, then you now have an alternative.

Uncharted has micro transactions. GTA has this. Battlefield has this. World of Warcraft has it. Diablo has it. The Last of US has it. Metal Gear Solid 5 has it. Pokemon has it. Most JRPGs have it. Hundreds of games have it. And now Shadow of War has it as well, though it's being treated as if it somehow introduced the system. (even though Micro Transactions are really just DLC packs - another thing that's been around since the 80s.) Reports are already coming in that you can achieve the 100%/Platinum through normal gameplay without an unrealistic demand, so all the people saying you NEED these micro transactions to fully enjoy the game were already factually wrong.

 

Blah blah blah.

 

Let's get this straight (since you keep bouncing between ideas): you started this whole debacle by claiming that it was OK for big companies to use microtransactions, because of 401Ks and the like. It was a ridiculous argument, and you got called out on it. If you had just said, "Fair enough - I still don't think microtransactions are a bad idea", that would have been the end of it. But no - you THEN claimed that your argument was equivalent to the unassailable position that businesses making money is good. Again, yet ANOTHER ridiculous clown leap of logic. 

 

You still play fast and loose with facts, by the way. What- EA has done well, and that's because of microtransactions, but Square has not, yet that has nothing to do with customer dissatisfaction at their current direction? What a marvel of motivated reasoning! Of course, you probably know that EA did a MAJOR restructuring about 8 years ago, when investors fled from them in droves. 

 

And then, as if to throw in the towel, you say it's all OK, because after all, nothing was hurt here. Then you make up some more stuff about other successful games implementing microtransactions, once again cherry-picking your results.

 

By that sound logic, I hereby declare that the US should shred its Constitution and adopt an authoritarian, communist-inspired regime. After all, it's working for China! And don't try to tell me about the Soviet Union - their failure had NOTHING to do with their form of government. They were screwed up in so many other ways!

 

I've had enough of this "debate", though, so here is the final tally:

1. It is absolutely opinion that microtransactions are a sustainable business model among console premium-cost games. My personal opinion, given the somewhat sketchy track record of recent companies attempting to implement them, is that they are not. You are welcome to take the other side, basing your argument on two of the biggest companies success, and pinning most of that success on this single item. (also,  I am unclear that the "freemium" model will work in large scale on consoles, personally, after having some optimism on that, but this is something else).
2. Big companies have no more right to, or say on, microtransactional processes than do little companies, despite your pitiful corporate shilling. 401Ks and health care are not the domain of "big companies"

Again, you are welcome to think that microtransactions in a $60 game don't constitute a squeeze of the customer. I will disagree with that, but of course, you can hold whatever view you want. But stop trying to conflate your opinions with unassailable truths.

 

And enough with the predicting the past nonsense! You remind me of an old day trader who always claimed that he picked the perfect stock at the perfect time.

 

I'm choking on my own rage here! 

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Paige-ID said:

Is it ethical to have micro transactions? Though this is opinion based, some opinions come across as very hypocritical/uninformed by nature considering the other things they do tolerate/endorse.

 

LOL! Do you understand anything about capitalism? As the consumer, I have the fundamental right to choose what I "endorse" with my wallet. Period. And none of my other opinions become "uninformed" because of it.

 

As far as "hypocritical", what a classic internet straw man. 

Edited October 20, 2017 by starcrunch061

[starcrunch061]

7 hours ago, Sypher-KoS said:

I find it funny how people are outraged by this as if it is something new.  This form of micro transaction/ DLC has been around for nearly ten years.  Before that it was something else and before that it was another thing.  Anyone remember the Nintendo Power Hotline?  Just a dollar and a half per minute and you can get tips and tricks to your favorite games.  These companies are not a charity, they are trying to make money.  They have always tried to make money.

 

Yet more delightful reasoning. Strategy guides? THOSE ARE JUST MICROTRANSACTIONS! Action figures from movies? MICROTRANSACTIONS! How dare that restaurant bring out a dessert menu after dinner. MICROTRANSACTIONS! And they're all equivalent!

 

I swear - can anyone have an honest debate here? No one is saying that it's bad for companies to make money. 

[rdhight]

1 hour ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

No one is saying that it's bad for companies to make money. 

 

No! Games cost a lot to make, more so now than ever. I don't expect game companies to behave like nonprofits. I want them to fund their 401ks and health care. I want their shareholders to be happy. If big companies can't make money, you end up with a very unhealthy industry — one where young guys eat ramen for two years so they can make their indie dream game, but eventually they have to get a real job making tax software so they can have a place to live. I work for a big company, too. I'm not saying eat the rich!

 

BUT, I still want, let's say, good movies that care about their own characters and mythology to be more profitable than apathetic movies made by heartless focus-grouping. That doesn't mean I want the guys at the production company to starve, but I take care to see good movies and not bad ones. I still don't want to be cheated; I don't want to consume garbage. And I'm not obligated to say I like garbage on the grounds of some strawman argument that GarbageCo might lose money if I don't, and therefore to not accept the garbage means I don't understand business!

[Paige-ID]

5 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Blah blah blah.

 

Let's get this straight (since you keep bouncing between ideas): you started this whole debacle by claiming that it was OK for big companies to use microtransactions, because of 401Ks and the like. It was a ridiculous argument, and you got called out on it. If you had just said, "Fair enough - I still don't think microtransactions are a bad idea", that would have been the end of it. But no - you THEN claimed that your argument was equivalent to the unassailable position that businesses making money is good. Again, yet ANOTHER ridiculous clown leap of logic. 

 

You still play fast and loose with facts, by the way. What- EA has done well, and that's because of microtransactions, but Square has not, yet that has nothing to do with customer dissatisfaction at their current direction? What a marvel of motivated reasoning! Of course, you probably know that EA did a MAJOR restructuring about 8 years ago, when investors fled from them in droves. 

 

And then, as if to throw in the towel, you say it's all OK, because after all, nothing was hurt here. Then you make up some more stuff about other successful games implementing microtransactions, once again cherry-picking your results.

 

By that sound logic, I hereby declare that the US should shred its Constitution and adopt an authoritarian, communist-inspired regime. After all, it's working for China! And don't try to tell me about the Soviet Union - their failure had NOTHING to do with their form of government. They were screwed up in so many other ways!

 

I've had enough of this "debate", though, so here is the final tally:

1. It is absolutely opinion that microtransactions are a sustainable business model among console premium-cost games. My personal opinion, given the somewhat sketchy track record of recent companies attempting to implement them, is that they are not. You are welcome to take the other side, basing your argument on two of the biggest companies success, and pinning most of that success on this single item. (also,  I am unclear that the "freemium" model will work in large scale on consoles, personally, after having some optimism on that, but this is something else).
2. Big companies have no more right to, or say on, microtransactional processes than do little companies, despite your pitiful corporate shilling. 401Ks and health care are not the domain of "big companies"

Again, you are welcome to think that microtransactions in a $60 game don't constitute a squeeze of the customer. I will disagree with that, but of course, you can hold whatever view you want. But stop trying to conflate your opinions with unassailable truths.

 

And enough with the predicting the past nonsense! You remind me of an old day trader who always claimed that he picked the perfect stock at the perfect time.

 

I'm choking on my own rage here! 

 

 

LOL! Do you understand anything about capitalism? As the consumer, I have the fundamental right to choose what I "endorse" with my wallet. Period. And none of my other opinions become "uninformed" because of it.

 

As far as "hypocritical", what a classic internet straw man. 

We'll agree to disagree. There's a lot of things you assume about me that are incorrectly interpreted from my posts, but I'll chalk that up to me wording things poorly. I'll let you have the last word because I think you're getting a little too worked up here, calling me things I'm sure you wouldn't otherwise.  

 

I respect your input and your opinions, which is why I've liked your posts a while ago. I also never called you hypocritical per se. I merely state that if one tolerates/endorses DLC then they technically shouldn't be opposed to micro transactions, as I feel the two have striking similarities. Hopefully you can see my point of view as well and you'll be able to continue enjoying great games even if they implement features you disagree with. 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Paige-ID

[AJ_Radio]

14 hours ago, Sypher-KoS said:

I find it funny how people are outraged by this as if it is something new.  This form of micro transaction/ DLC has been around for nearly ten years.  Before that it was something else and before that it was another thing.  Anyone remember the Nintendo Power Hotline?  Just a dollar and a half per minute and you can get tips and tricks to your favorite games.  These companies are not a charity, they are trying to make money.  They have always tried to make money.

 

Nintendo Power magazines came out in the 1980s. There were a couple PC titles from Lucasarts (Indiana Jones) released back in 1989 - 1990 that listed a hotline for tips. Since there was no World Wide Web to give us any guides or walkthroughs, you had to rely on tips and tricks to get past a certain section. If you couldn't figure them out on our own, then you were stuck.

 

The Legend of Zelda II, released in 1988, had a few cryptic solutions in some areas so Nintendo Power was really the only way to get any tips for the game. I can definitely imagine a lot of kids back in the day had trouble beating the game, because my older sister rented it for a while and goddamn was it hard. A dollar and a half per minute was a lot of money back then. Thankfully with guides out now it's not nearly as bad.

 

7 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

By that sound logic, I hereby declare that the US should shred its Constitution and adopt an authoritarian, communist-inspired regime. After all, it's working for China! And don't try to tell me about the Soviet Union - their failure had NOTHING to do with their form of government. They were screwed up in so many other ways!

 

America is already and has long been heading in that direction.

 

Maybe instead of outsourcing jobs and leaving millions of people to fend for poor minimum wage jobs, the government should create jobs that have sustainability.

 

The way it is now, Baby Boomers are applying for jobs that 16 - 30 year olds are also trying to apply for, because there's nothing else available for them. That's a great model don't you think?

 

And with how screwed up Congress and the Trump administration are, it's going to be a long, long time before sustainability will come back to the United States. That's if it ever comes.

 

Someone from the Soviet Union back in the 1980s predicted the downfall of the States. That our highway infrastructure, cheap gas and livelihood were going to backfire on us. Turns out he's nearly on point.

[DesertBluebird]

I absolutely loved Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor it was one of my favorite games ever made because I
because i'm a pretty big J. R. R. Tolkien fan and the game was so fun.
I was excited for Middle Earth Shadow of War but unfortunately I refuse to buy it  for the following  reasons.

1.  Monolith Productions clearly did not want any of these microtransactions these where  Warner Brothers  ideas   and I believe in creative freedom.
2.   I refuse to support business practices like this on principle because practices like this are unethical vote with your wallet.
3.  This games  unethical business practices spits on the legacy  of  J. R. R. Tolkien.
4. Loot boxes   and gotcha games are  gambling  and are designed to get people  addicted to gambling   and exploit people that are addicted to gambling so  I believe they should have the same legal  restrictions as gambling.
5. There are many  other good games out there that  don't have this nonsense that I can give them my 60$ to instead.
6.  The  Fotorg the Orc   DLCs initial   marketing   was    misleading in an attempt to scam people out of the money using a Dead Man's Legacy.
My father  had cancer so that DLC  nonsense made me incredibly angry because my life was  personally affected by cancer and the only reason Warner Brother backed down  was the  severe backlash they received .
If that's not  the most  cynical thing a corporation has  ever done I don't know what is.
7. The cancerous amount of pre-order DLC if I'm going to give you money  for a game before it comes out I better at least get the complete game.

To  anyone who defends this games unethical business practices/buys it.
Practices like these are what is leading to the Western Triple A video game industry being complete cancer and game publishers not respecting their consumers.
If you are a  game developer/publisher and you do unethical business practices yet  you  still make a lot of money.
Why  would you ever feel the need to improve and treat your consumers with respect?
DO SUPPORT OR  DEFENDED THESE  BUSINESS PRACTICES EVER!!!
The reason  Japanese video game companies are not stupid enough to pull this  crap anymore is because Japanese consumers will destroy a company  that does this crap by word of mouth and other boycotts.

Right   now video games are a buyers market because there are so  many  amazing video games coming out constantly   so there's always another company that   actually  treat  there consumers with respect or another well made game  that is fun.
We need  to remind  video game publishers who puts the food  on their  plates and who pays their bills.
Because if one or two of these  games that have these unethical business practices  sold incredibly poorly these practices would disappear overnight .
Vote  with your wallet.

I would swear the people defending these practices  have Stockholm Syndrome or battered wife syndrome.
Corporations don't care about you they only care about your money this is why it's stupid to be a fan of a  corporation but  ok to be a fan of a product.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Rexmon18
Wording.

[rdhight]

2 hours ago, Rexmon18 said:

video games are a buyers market because there are so  many  amazing video games coming out constantly

 

Preach it, brudda!

[A12]

I just want to say to everyone who didn't get the game because of the "micro-transactions":

First: Welcome to 2007.

Second: You missed a 10/10 game.

Good job.

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

The controversy is a crock of shit. The end game is pitifully easy unless you were the type of person to leave your forts a broken mess in the first place; and there is plenty of premium currency you can earn through challenges.

On 10/20/2017 at 11:38 PM, Rexmon18 said:

I absolutely loved Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor it was one of my favorite games ever made because I
because i'm a pretty big J. R. R. Tolkien fan and the game was so fun.
I was excited for Middle Earth Shadow of War but unfortunately I refuse to buy it  for the following  reasons.

1.  Monolith Productions clearly did not want any of these microtransactions these where  Warner Brothers  ideas   and I believe in creative freedom.
2.   I refuse to support business practices like this on principle because practices like this are unethical vote with your wallet.
3.  This games  unethical business practices spits on the legacy  of  J. R. R. Tolkien.
4. Loot boxes   and gotcha games are  gambling  and are designed to get people  addicted to gambling   and exploit people that are addicted to gambling so  I believe they should have the same legal  restrictions as gambling.
5. There are many  other good games out there that  don't have this nonsense that I can give them my 60$ to instead.
6.  The  Fotorg the Orc   DLCs initial   marketing   was    misleading in an attempt to scam people out of the money using a Dead Man's Legacy.
My father  had cancer so that DLC  nonsense made me incredibly angry because my life was  personally affected by cancer and the only reason Warner Brother backed down  was the  severe backlash they received .
If that's not  the most  cynical thing a corporation has  ever done I don't know what is.
7. The cancerous amount of pre-order DLC if I'm going to give you money  for a game before it comes out I better at least get the complete game.

To  anyone who defends this games unethical business practices/buys it.
Practices like these are what is leading to the Western Triple A video game industry being complete cancer and game publishers not respecting their consumers.
If you are a  game developer/publisher and you do unethical business practices yet  you  still make a lot of money.
Why  would you ever feel the need to improve and treat your consumers with respect?
DO SUPPORT OR  DEFENDED THESE  BUSINESS PRACTICES EVER!!!
The reason  Japanese video game companies are not stupid enough to pull this  crap anymore is because Japanese consumers will destroy a company  that does this crap by word of mouth and other boycotts.

You do realize that Japanese business culture is absolutely cancerous, right? you do realize that Japanese video game publishers are the absolute WORST with their practices? Square E, anyone? this weaboo nonsense of Japanese developers somehow being more ''honorable'' or w/e than western developers is a joke. Japan has pioneered the art of shitty business practice.

 

Also Tolkien was incredibly money minded. Like half his letters are about him pondering how rich he'll be if he gets a movie deal lmao.

[Ric]

On 23-10-2017 at 1:50 AM, A12 said:

I just want to say to everyone who didn't get the game because of the "micro-transactions":

First: Welcome to 2007.

Second: You missed a 10/10 game.

Good job.

 

For me it was one of the reasons not to get this game,  but there are plenty of other reasons to not support them.

 

First: Thank you!

 

Second: No I didn't... Maybe a 7 at best. (scores are subjective you know, but glad you liked it)

 

Thank you, did I win a cookie?

Edited October 25, 2017 by Ric

[A12]

10 hours ago, Ric said:

Maybe a 7 at best. (scores are subjective you know, but glad you liked it)

 

Thank you, did I win a cookie?

Since I did not link to a source it should be assumed it was based on my opinion. (the definition of the word subjective...)

It's a 7 cause you never played it. But I mean how would you really know, since you didn't play it?

You win the word of the day - Ultracrepidarian.

[DesertBluebird]

16 hours ago, HaSoOoN-MHD said:

The controversy is a crock of shit. The end game is pitifully easy unless you were the type of person to leave your forts a broken mess in the first place; and there is plenty of premium currency you can earn through challenges.

You do realize that Japanese business culture is absolutely cancerous, right? you do realize that Japanese video game publishers are the absolute WORST with their practices? Square E, anyone? this weaboo nonsense of Japanese developers somehow being more ''honorable'' or w/e than western developers is a joke. Japan has pioneered the art of shitty business practice.

 

Also Tolkien was incredibly money minded. Like half his letters are about him pondering how rich he'll be if he gets a movie deal lmao.

You  are thinking of Square Enix America separate company from Square Enix Japan lol
Calls me a weeb when i am talking about  Japanese companies selling games in Japan.
  No Japanese  companies are not   more honorable  it's Japanese consumers  standing up for themselves more than western  consumers so,
standing up for themselves more than westen  consumers I don't think JRR Tolkien was pro gambling lol
You  are  defending microtransactions in a $60 game.
Bethesda doesn't need to do this crap.
DID YOU NOT SEE THE CANCER DLC?
I remember when I bought a video game  for 60$ and I got the complete game.
 Fine if you want to defend shirty  business practices.

16 hours ago, HaSoOoN-MHD said:

The controversy is a crock of shit. The end game is pitifully easy unless you were the type of person to leave your forts a broken mess in the first place; and there is plenty of premium currency you can earn through challenges.

You do realize that Japanese business culture is absolutely cancerous, right? you do realize that Japanese video game publishers are the absolute WORST with their practices? Square E, anyone? this weaboo nonsense of Japanese developers somehow being more ''honorable'' or w/e than western developers is a joke. Japan has pioneered the art of shitty business practice.

 

Also Tolkien was incredibly money minded. Like half his letters are about him pondering how rich he'll be if he gets a movie deal lmao.

Also I refuse to buy Square Enix games  after the amount of nonsense they have pulled  lol

[Ric]

5 hours ago, A12 said:

Since I did not link to a source it should be assumed it was based on my opinion. (the definition of the word subjective...)

It's a 7 cause you never played it. But I mean how would you really know, since you didn't play it?

You win the word of the day - Ultracrepidarian.

 

Cool thank you! At leat you have a little self reflection, but now you're assuming I didn't play it because I didn't buy it?

 

And if you want my subjective opinion. The gameplay is dull, the "open world" is full of boring busywork and the story is mediocre at best. The only redeeming factor for this game is the nemesis system, and it so happens I don't care enough about that to warrant a purchase from my part. So I'm going ahead and give it a subjective 6.5 out of 10.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Ric

[ZombieLover84]

Holy shit there is a lot of ignorance in this thread, and thankfully a few knowledgeable posts as well.

 

So I'm going to tackle the biggest question of all, and hopefully this will shine some light into some young eyes. I'm old lol. I'm going to tell you exactly why DLC and Microtransactions exist, and why it's made it's way into almost every game made today.

 

First things first: We all need to agree that a Developer and Publishers job is to create a product that makes them money. It is absolutely like every other industry we have.

 

Just like every industry pretty much, the cost of making a movie increases due to inflation and other various reasons. Movies cost more to make, ticket sales cost more money. Concert Tickets are higher, which is normally how big bands make thier money. Also their merchandise costs more. Comics cost more to buy.

 

You get my point. Video Games on the other hand have for the most part not been able to increase the prices on the actual product. In the 1980s and early 1990s, hell games were way more expensive. Games like Donkey King Country would release anywhere from 70-90 bucks. Most gamers now simply don't remember because they weren't born yet, or were kids that didn't buy the products themselves.

 

But I remember. Then we had what I would call the "Golden Age" for videogame companies and why now we have these companies like EA and Activision.

 

This ten year or so period, from the PS1 to the end of the PS2, saw huge AAA games being made with what we would call now small studio's, at a $50 price point. Hell during this time if your game sold just a Million copies (which now would be considered a complete failure for any AAA game) you were a "Greatest Hits" title and Sony would sell your game for $20 bucks.

 

So what the hell happened? The game industry started to get bigger and cost more money, but consumer pressure sort of hampered thier ability to raise the cost of a game.

 

Give you a perfect example. Grand Theft Auto III on the PS2. Go look at the reviews for it the days after it actually launched. It was highly positive. And was a best seller.

 

So how many people made Grand Theft Auto III? The Core Development Team was 23 people. 23 fucking people. Go back and read how this game was so huge and "open world". Now go back and replay it. It's ridiculously small compared to most games now in size and art and texture assets, even those of other genres. 

 

What about the games sales? It sold right around 2 Million copies at the $50 dollar price point. It became a Greatest Hits title and was sold at $19.99, and was also ported to many various systems. Six years after release, it had 14.5 million units sold. Of course most of that was not at the $50 price point.

 

So, how much did it cost to make the game? Well there are no concrete numbers, but Grand Theft Auto Vice City, released a year later, was Rockstar North's most expense game with a budget of $5 million. Yep only five million. So you could probably cut that in half for GTA III.

 

Fast Forward to 2013. Grand Theft Auto V baby.

 

Budget? A mere 265 Million Dollars....

 

Vice City, 5 Million.

 

GTAV, 265 million.

 

Vice City? 50 bucks for the consumer.

 

Grand Theft Auto V? A mere ten dollars more at $60 dollars for a game that cost 260 million dollars more...

 

How many people made Grand Theft Auto III? Let's give them 30 people.

 

GTA V? It was worked on by over a thousand people. That's 1,000.

 

Did it make it's money back? Fuck yes. In three days it had over a billion dollars in sales.

 

But my point is, if you are not Grand Theft Auto, you are still selling your product at $60 bucks, despite the facts that:

 

AAA Games now take hundreds of people to make.

 

Voice Acting is almost mandatory.

 

Millions have to be spent on marketing.

 

You have to buy or rent licenses for your game engine. Ever notice when you load up a game it has a good amount of company logos? Think Havoc Engine and those things? Yea they have to pay to use those. And creating thier own is usually a terrible idea. Costs to much and you usually can't make your own system/engine do whatever it is you would rent better anyway.

 

The market itself has more games and options then ever before. Including the AAA market.

 

So what am I saying? Despite the increase cost of making games, and the increase of gamers in general, the fact is they can't raise the price of thier product despite the need to do it. 

 

A production the size of Shadow of War was unimaginable just 15 years ago, yet, not only do we expect this game to be light-years ahead of the technical specs of older AAA games,  like Grand Theft Auto III, we expect them to do it at around the same price tag to us.

 

The fact is the competitive market is now so large, and the cost of making these types of games so high, that even with the rise of the population of people who play games higher then ever, it still isn't really enough in most cases to get the types of profits these companies have made in the past and continue to want to make.

 

That's why we have dlc. And loot boxes. And Microtransactions.

 

Because most of the gaming market still refuses to want to increase the cost of buying a game, despite the very noticeable fact the price of games have not kept up with inflation.

 

It's really that simple. If we allowed them to make a new standard price tag, probably $69.99 or $74.99, I would bet you would see a LOT less DLC and Microtransactions for games priced that.

 

Because let's face it. You wouldn't pay $50 bucks for Grand Theft Auto III in it's original form if it released on the same day as Shadow of War in 2017. No matter what we thought of it in 2002, it just wouldn't work or happen. The game would be absolutely critically and commercially destroyed.

Edited October 26, 2017 by ZombieLover84