RDR 2 affected by Star Wars

[Stargazer2600]

So because Star Wars is in a lot of crap because of the microtransactions. Games like Red Dead Redemption 2 Which will be coming out are also being affected because they also contain microtransactions. In short because of the backlash that EA has received, every other developer is afraid for their own games that also contain microtransactions. Developers like Rockstar aren't sure how we are going to take it. I have linked the video below for you all to watch. How do you guys think this is going to affect the upcoming video games?

 

 

Link

[Dr_Mayus]

People will bitch and moan like they always do but in the end they will all still buy the games they want. Might I remind you of a thing called Horse Armor...that was supposed to kill the industry and yet here we are 

 

 

Now you can argue that Horse Armor led to the death of the industry because while Video Games are more profitable that ever it is really just a bubble waiting to burst...but that is a lesson that companies won't learn for another few years

 

[Dav9834]

I still stand that not all microstransactions are bad. If it's cosmetic, I don't care, I may or may not give a little. Destiny 2 did great with this. There's not a single thing you can buy to make you "better". Not to mention you can get it all without paying if you lvl up enough. 

 

But pay to win? 

NO

That is not ok. Not unless that's the whole game. 

Keep that on mobile games i don't care. 

 

I will be picking up battlefront 2 at redbox for $3 to play the 8-9 hour campaign and that's it. And for $3 that's more than fair. Not to mention EA gets no extra money sense redbox already bought the games/leased them. 

 

No reason to ignore a good part of a game that had no hand in a greedy part. 

 

If rdr2 is the same, then I would recommend the same. 

 

That's my thoughts on the matter. 

And hopefully in time they'll see it wasn't worth it. 

[Yrva]

Just now, Dav9834 said:

I still stand that not all microstransactions are bad. If it's cosmetic, I don't care, I may or may not give a little. Destiny 2 did great with this. There's not a single thing you can buy to make you "better". Not to mention you can get it all without paying if you lvl up enough. 

 

But pay to win? 

NO

That is not ok. Not unless that's the whole game. 

Keep that on mobile games i don't care. 

 

I will be picking up battlefront 2 at redbox for $3 to play the 8-9 hour campaign and that's it. And for $3 that's more than fair. Not to mention EA gets no extra money sense redbox already bought the games/leased them. 

 

No reason to ignore a good part of a game that had no hand in a greedy part. 

 

If rdr2 is the same, then I would recommend the same. 

 

That's my thoughts on the matter. 

And hopefully in time they'll see it wasn't worth it. 

I agree completely, if there are dozens of different kinds of microtransactions that don't directly make another player better than me, why should I care? It's optional for a reason. But if there are blatant pay to win garbage, then that's a problem.

[nyonmyan]

22 minutes ago, Dr_Mayus said:

People will bitch and moan like they always do but in the end they will all still buy the games they want.

Except it's politicians that are bitching right now, not just regular gamers.

 

Horse armor was not a gambling scheme, unlike lootboxes.

[Bullstomp]

EA had a target of moving 14mm units by years end. Physical sales in the UK dropped 60% from the release of Battlefront 1 but this doesn't take into account any shifts from physical to digital though.

 

Bottom line: The bigger the variance between that target and net result, the more drastic the response will be.

 

https://gamerant.com/star-wars-battlefront-2-sales-down/

Edited November 25, 2017 by Bullstomp

[ChickenExotic]

2 minutes ago, Bullstomp said:

EA had a target of moving 14mm units by years end. Physical sales in the UK dropped 60% from the release of Battlefront 1 but this doesn't take into account any shifts from physical to digital though.

 

Bottom line: The bigger the variance between that target and net result, the more drastic the response will be.

 

They expected to ship 14Million units in 7 weeks?? very ambitious, even without this controversy, there is no way they would have moved that many. COD doesnt even get that anymore by years end. 

[AJ_Radio]

1 hour ago, HARD_ANGEL_FAN said:

 

They expected to ship 14Million units in 7 weeks?? very ambitious, even without this controversy, there is no way they would have moved that many. COD doesnt even get that anymore by years end. 

 

Only a Grand Theft Auto game or a real smash hit is going to hit those numbers. That is very rare even with all the multi million dollar budget AAA games coming out these days.

[Tesla_Rules]

People will bitch and moan about it but if they really want the game, they will buy it.  I agree about some microtransactions aren't too bad if you want the bling.  But the loot boxes might be a bit much.  I'm glad people are coming down on the games and it is getting more attention.  The fact that you shell out $60-$120 US for the game, and then we are expected to support the developer with dinging us to death, that is crap.  GTA5 was great.  They brought out more vehicles and DLCs to keep our interest.  If you wanted more bling and stuff, buy a shark card.  That was a good balance.

[PooPooBlast]

I don't remember what the article exactly was but an EA rep spoke about the backlash for Star wars and said that MTX aren't as crazy as people making it out to be. He went along with saying things like if a person plays 2ish hours per day and pays X amount of money to get boosts or whatever ( can't remember the amount he mentioned), then this only averages out to about 30-40 cents per year. Then he tried comparing it to other entertainment services and how it's actually not expensive but yea goes to show that no shits are given..

Edited November 25, 2017 by Garbodor

[Soufwar]

Only a Rockstar game will ship 14 million copies in 7 weeks, not Star Wars, not The Witcher, not nothing can ship copies as much as a Rockstar game, Red Dead Redemption 2 can make you pay for the bullets you shoot in game and make you spend real money to get in game money with no way around it and it will still sell like hot cakes, no RDR2 wont be affected by this talk. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Soufwar

[Undead Wolf]

Oh man, these poor publishers making money hand over fist are "afraid" of a little backlash by the consumers they're exploiting, what a shame. 

 

I highly doubt Rockstar give a fuck about what's happening to EA. They've been taking advantage of kids with the Shark Cards in GTAV for years and nobody seemed to care about that. You can rest assured that Rockstar will do their utmost to squeeze as much money out of you as possible in RDR2 as well. 

[Gwendly]

1 hour ago, Garbodor said:

I don't remember what the article exactly was but an EA rep spoke about the backlash for Star wars and said that MTX aren't as crazy as people making it out to be. He went along with saying things like if a person plays 2ish hours per day and pays X amount of money to get boosts or whatever ( can't remember the amount he mentioned), then this only averages out to about 30-40 cents per year. Then he tried comparing it to other entertainment services and how it's actually not expensive but yea goes to show that no shits are given..

 

 

I think that article also expected someone to spend 900 hrs or something crazy like that on the game...

 

If I buy a DVD for $5 then watch if for 900 hrs my cost per hour is pretty low ?‍♂️

[Otonio_Bruno]

I think the backlash regarding lootboxes is here to 'stay', it had a negative impact in both sales and general public reception. That said, if R* does the same with microtransactions on Red Dead Redemption 2 they have been doing for almost 5 years now with GTA V, they're not going to see this same backlash from Battlefront II, simply because most microtransactions in GTA: Online didn't affect the gameplay per se giving people who bought more shark cards an unfair advantage over people who didn't. Of course there was some vehicles that could easily be a little overpowered (talking about military jets and choppers released with heists back in 2015), but that barely changed anything in free roam since people were stealing jets from military air base much before that.

 

I will just wait and see. I think R* is in this 'game' for the money, but I also think they're smart enough to learn from other competitors mistakes.

[Nihiris-]

Microtransactions have literally been keeping Rockstar going for 5 years with GTAV. They're here to stay because people still buy them and seemingly have no problem with them either unless they're directly affecting gameplay, like Battlefront II. 

[Lawless_Llama]

Personally, I am fine with the inclusion of microtransactions for cosmetic items and customizable as well as there inclusion for items like new weapons AS LONG AS those weapons or items can still be unlocked through normal gameplay and are not OP in comparison to the original items included with the game. This could include a fan service item that has a new look and sound when it is used, but performs the same or has the same statistics as the normal variety. There just needs to be a line drawn between what is acceptable as far as microtransactions go. 

 

However, I would say it is also up to the individual gamer as far as the success of these future games that include microtransactions. If a gamer, who has never played a certain game, jumps the bandwagon and hates on the game since it has microtransactions purely for cosmetics or silly items, then there is just an issue with the credibility that the gamer brings forth in his arguments. Taking an issue in a game at face value without truly evaluating it leads to these misconceptions easily. Otherwise, the hate is justified if microtransactions create a pay 2 win model like we have seen recently and beforehand.

 

[Gibbo_0113]

The controversy was more around those loot boxes i.e gambling. Red Dead wont have any problem if its the same concept as shark cards in GTA. Microtransactions for ingame currency to buy a horse or something. Its only when you start getting into the pay to win territory when the gamers start to riot.

[Senbon Kaguya]

All I have to say is I don't really mind Microtransactions if they aren't too intrusive. Let me earn a bunch of stuff already in the game and maybe make some special hats or gear on the side available for some money. I don't mind those.

 

What really bugs me is what EA did and the dumb lootboxes. I really don't like lootboxes in games, no matter if they're cosmetic only or not but a lot of people bought into them so EA decided they wanted to go a step further and put Pay2Win mechanics in Battlefront 2. I was actually interested in the game until I found out all the shit that revolved around it.

 

And with Activisions new patents that involve microtransactions, one can hope this doesn't turn into even more of an issue. "Oh you got killed by that guys weapon? We'll let you buy it right away during the match! Special discount too!" Makes me sad man, I know companies have to make money but there's better ways then the dumb shit EA pulled.

[wackt1]

4 hours ago, Dav9834 said:

I still stand that not all microstransactions are bad. If it's cosmetic, I don't care, I may or may not give a little. Destiny 2 did great with this. There's not a single thing you can buy to make you "better". Not to mention you can get it all without paying if you lvl up enough. 

 

But pay to win? 

NO

That is not ok. Not unless that's the whole game. 

Keep that on mobile games i don't care. 

 

I will be picking up battlefront 2 at redbox for $3 to play the 8-9 hour campaign and that's it. And for $3 that's more than fair. Not to mention EA gets no extra money sense redbox already bought the games/leased them. 

 

No reason to ignore a good part of a game that had no hand in a greedy part. 

 

If rdr2 is the same, then I would recommend the same. 

 

That's my thoughts on the matter. 

And hopefully in time they'll see it wasn't worth it. 

I'm pretty sure Blizzard's Overwatch set the trend for loot boxes being in everything. Count games that have loot boxes between now and when Overwatch was released and compare it to the time between infinite warfare and overwatch.

[SnowxSakura]

1 minute ago, wackt1 said:

I'm pretty sure Blizzard's Overwatch set the trend for loot boxes being in everything. Count games that have loot boxes between now and when Overwatch was released and compare it to the time between infinite warfare and overwatch.

Although it really started with counter strike global offensive 

[Katt]

5 hours ago, Stargazer2600 said:

In short because of the backlash that EA has received, every other developer is afraid for their own games that also contain microtransactions.

That's great. They better be afraid.

I want to see them going down because of their greedy acts. Last time I truly enjoyed an EA game was in PS2.

[Dav9834]

2 minutes ago, wackt1 said:

I'm pretty sure Blizzard's Overwatch set the trend for loot boxes being in everything. Count games that have loot boxes between now and when Overwatch was released and compare it to the time between infinite warfare and overwatch.

Ya the loot boxes left a sour taste in my mouth for overwatch even though it's only cosmetic, because there's not much else to the game besides that. I think it was the ~$800 video where the guy wanted to show and find out how much it would cost to get everything that did me in. But I still am not against it because they could take skins/etc out of the game and nobody would play differently. It's faster to lvl in destiny 2 imo though, at least mentally sense you're never really thinking about it. I usually lvl twice in the raid. 

 

7 minutes ago, SnowxSakura said:

Although it really started with counter strike global offensive 

Ya counter strike definitely is the start. The economy in that game is nuts apparently. My nephew got an item he could sell for $100, that's crazy. But I guess you can't complain sense you're more likely to make money than spend it if you play enough. 

[SnowxSakura]

30 minutes ago, Dav9834 said:

Ya the loot boxes left a sour taste in my mouth for overwatch even though it's only cosmetic, because there's not much else to the game besides that. I think it was the ~$800 video where the guy wanted to show and find out how much it would cost to get everything that did me in. But I still am not against it because they could take skins/etc out of the game and nobody would play differently. It's faster to lvl in destiny 2 imo though, at least mentally sense you're never really thinking about it. I usually lvl twice in the raid. 

 

Ya counter strike definitely is the start. The economy in that game is nuts apparently. My nephew got an item he could sell for $100, that's crazy. But I guess you can't complain sense you're more likely to make money than spend it if you play enough. 

Some of the skins go over $3,000 it is insane

[KingGuy420]

If Rockstar has proven anything it's that they handle micro transactions very well. Look at GTAV, that games still getting free content thanks to the micro transactions.

 

I'm a firm believer that micro transactions can be a benefit if done right and GTAV is living proof of that. I have 0 fears going into RDR2.

[ddracarys]

Considering GTAVs microtransactions were not that major, and were still very much manageable without purchase, I have faith that RDR2 will be alright. Though this may create some complications within the development team, so I’m already expecting this game will be delayed.