RDR 2 affected by Star Wars

[FawltyPowers]

I'm old fashioned, if I've paid for a game I expect to be able to earn everything in the game through natural play like we used to. No one should be able to buy an advantage or obtain better looking costumes not available without purchase. 

 

As this isn't the real world anymore I only agree with microtransactions if you know what you're getting for your money, for example costume X = £1.00.

 

I do not condone microtransactions that give you randomised items. I don't care if it's cosmetic or items that give you an advantage because that is then gambling. Most of us can make rational decisions but others can't and they need protecting. 

 

Gambling has no place in games. If companies have to rethink their strategies that's all good in my eyes.

[wackt1]

solution=get rid of loot boxes and microtransactions in a paid game, all together no one should get a free pass. FTP games are a different story entirely.  

[Bartolomeus]

I agree that Shark Cards are much better than lootboxes, it's something that I and many others haven't bothered with. The big downside with the Shark Cards though is that it drives the prices for everything up, meaning much more grinding required for those of us who do not want to buy in-game money. I remember when GTA V came out and the Bugatti Veyron was the expensive car. 1 million dollars. That's pocket money compared to some of the new stuff added later.

[Yadilie]

19 hours ago, Dav9834 said:

 

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. 

 

 

This is Rockstar. They've made more money off of Shark Cards by now than the actual game sales. They haven't released a game in years and are just rolling off shark card sales. They massively tweaked not only experience gain but destroyed money gain in the game and then added in content that had base costs of a million dollars.

This is going to bleed over into RDR2. You think Take Two doesn't want to make boatloads of money with very little effort put into it? You make models in the original design of the game and just release them every couple months at exorbitant in game prices. RD Online is going to be a shit show.

 

14 hours ago, SnowxSakura said:

Although it really started with counter strike global offensive 

 

No, it started with UEFA by EA. It all started with FUT.

[SnowxSakura]

26 minutes ago, Yadilie said:

 

This is Rockstar. They've made more money off of Shark Cards by now than the actual game sales. They haven't released a game in years and are just rolling off shark card sales. They massively tweaked not only experience gain but destroyed money gain in the game and then added in content that had base costs of a million dollars.

This is going to bleed over into RDR2. You think Take Two doesn't want to make boatloads of money with very little effort put into it? You make models in the original design of the game and just release them every couple months at exorbitant in game prices. RD Online is going to be a shit show.

 

 

No, it started with UEFA by EA. It all started with FUT.

Actually team fortress 2 had loot boxes a year before fifa ultimate team

[XInactiveAccountX]

15 hours ago, Gibbo_0113 said:

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.

This

33 minutes ago, Yadilie said:

 

This is Rockstar. They've made more money off of Shark Cards by now than the actual game sales. They haven't released a game in years and are just rolling off shark card sales. They massively tweaked not only experience gain but destroyed money gain in the game and then added in content that had base costs of a million dollars.

 

And this.

 

 

Battlefront 2 and open-world sandboxes like RDR are radically different games. Battlefront is primarily based upon competitive matches in small and focused maps. RDR (and GTA) are much more loose in approach; you're in a huge sprawling world where you're free to run around and do whatever you want in terms of vehicles and weaponry. And according to the sales numbers, people really want those a lot. Sure, you could say GTA and Battlefront aren't too different because the in-game money they buy can assist them in matches with the weapons or vehicles available for purchase, but online folks who compete in matches make up only so much of the overall numbers of people playing online. Many people like myself exclusively like going around doing random crap in the city, and not deathmatch or anything. Maybe you find a rival or foe in the game and you spend the next hour trying to mess with each other. The incentive to buy Shark Cards is there, because of the random fun you can have with all of the crazy vehicles and weapons without being restrained by the confines of a timed match.

 

But with Battlefront, you're FORCED to only compete against other players. There is no freedom or roaming around an open map, only competitive matches. No one wants to be stuck losing matches and earning very little credits because all their opponents have bought all the best stuff and consistently dominate matches.

 

Rockstar is going to profit off of micro-transactions til the end of time.

[Happy]

The current meta to avoid controversy like this seems to be only implementing microtransactions 1-2 months after the launch of your game. In fact that’s how they did it with GTA V and it worked out pretty well for them. 

Now i apologize if this is somewhat off topic but i can’t help but wonder why a game like GTA V needs microtransactions in the first place. Now i understand that the general reasoning is that the extra cash from microtransactions can help with the long term support of the game. But GTA has been at the top of the sales charts non stop since the day of its release, i can’t imagine that Rockstar is lacking the funds to keep the servers up and develop extra content. Now with RDR2 being confirmed to have microtransactions at launch i’m starting to feel a little disillusioned about the sheer transparent greed going on here.

[Valyrious]

Assassin's Creed Origins dealt with microtransactions admirably. In a way where most of it is cosmetic and new weapons with unique perks, which you could still earn through in-game currency.

People are stupid and will automatically villainize a game because it has microtransactions in it. Doesn't matter in what way to them, they'll still boycott the game.

As far as I'm concerned, good. We need less stupid people enjoying these wonderful games anyway.

1 hour ago, Happy said:

Now i apologize if this is somewhat off topic but i can’t help but wonder why a game like GTA V needs microtransactions in the first place. Now i understand that the general reasoning is that the extra cash from microtransactions can help with the long term support of the game. But GTA has been at the top of the sales charts non stop since the day of its release, i can’t imagine that Rockstar is lacking the funds to keep the servers up and develop extra content. Now with RDR2 being confirmed to have microtransactions at launch i’m starting to feel a little disillusioned about the sheer transparent greed going on here.

Keeps costs down. Let's say you worked at R*, specifically on GTA Online. Would you be compelled to do your job if you weren't getting paid for it? Probably not, right. But if the money they pull from microtransactions goes back into your own pocket in some way, I'm pretty damn sure you'll be more motivated to create better updates. 

I think that's just the way of the world. 

[Parker]

3 hours ago, Happy said:

The current meta to avoid controversy like this seems to be only implementing microtransactions 1-2 months after the launch of your game. In fact that’s how they did it with GTA V and it worked out pretty well for them. 

Now i apologize if this is somewhat off topic but i can’t help but wonder why a game like GTA V needs microtransactions in the first place. Now i understand that the general reasoning is that the extra cash from microtransactions can help with the long term support of the game. But GTA has been at the top of the sales charts non stop since the day of its release, i can’t imagine that Rockstar is lacking the funds to keep the servers up and develop extra content. Now with RDR2 being confirmed to have microtransactions at launch i’m starting to feel a little disillusioned about the sheer transparent greed going on here.

 

I may be mistaken because I didn't play any GTA: Online (I tried when the game first launched on PS3, but I think we all remember how that turned out...) but didn't Rockstar release quite a bit of free content for GTA: Online as well? I am personally fine with cosmetic microtransactions, especially if the developer then uses that money to produce free content for everyone else. That being said, I don't know if the GTA: Online microtransactions were more than just cosmetic items so that may be a bad example. 

 

Hopefully, microtransactions in RDR 2 (since we know they are in the game) are completely limited to multiplayer. I'd also prefer Rockstar use the money they make from those microtransactions to fund an actual substantial single player DLC as well, something that was sorely missing from GTA V. 

 

 

Parker

[Bartolomeus]

40 minutes ago, Parker said:

 

I may be mistaken because I didn't play any GTA: Online (I tried when the game first launched on PS3, but I think we all remember how that turned out...) but didn't Rockstar release quite a bit of free content for GTA: Online as well? I am personally fine with cosmetic microtransactions, especially if the developer then uses that money to produce free content for everyone else. That being said, I don't know if the GTA: Online microtransactions were more than just cosmetic items so that may be a bad example. 

 

Hopefully, microtransactions in RDR 2 (since we know they are in the game) are completely limited to multiplayer. I'd also prefer Rockstar use the money they make from those microtransactions to fund an actual substantial single player DLC as well, something that was sorely missing from GTA V. 

 

 

Parker

All of the new content was added for free, but the in-game prices for new stuff are quite high now. The only type of microtransaction is to purchase GTA dollars for real money, so nothing is hidden behind a microtransactive wall. The free content came at the price of more grinding required to buy new stuff, unless you buy money through the Shark Cards.
 

I guess for people with little time on their hands (work, children etc) buying Shark Cards is the only viable option. If you only have an hour a day to play, you'd have to play for weeks in order to buy some of the new stuff otherwise.
 

 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Bartoulum

[SnowxSakura]

38 minutes ago, Parker said:

 

I may be mistaken because I didn't play any GTA: Online (I tried when the game first launched on PS3, but I think we all remember how that turned out...) but didn't Rockstar release quite a bit of free content for GTA: Online as well? I am personally fine with cosmetic microtransactions, especially if the developer then uses that money to produce free content for everyone else. That being said, I don't know if the GTA: Online microtransactions were more than just cosmetic items so that may be a bad example. 

 

Hopefully, microtransactions in RDR 2 (since we know they are in the game) are completely limited to multiplayer. I'd also prefer Rockstar use the money they make from those microtransactions to fund an actual substantial single player DLC as well, something that was sorely missing from GTA V. 

 

 

Parker

All of the GTA online content is free, the shark cards fund it. Everything from new vehicles, weapons, homes, bunkers, new missions etc

[Dreakon13]

All I know is I'm glad MT's haven't started to invade indie games or the shorter, linear single player AAA's.  Because that's generally where I wander.

 

Though even if they did/when they do... I'll likely buy whatever games I'm interested in regardless (as I do now), play whatever content isn't behind the paywall, and judge the game accordingly.  I'd suspect the vast majority of cases, I'm not missing out on anything... but it doesn't matter what it is or when it's releases, if it's content for a game they bought, someone will complain and think they're entitled to it for free.  It's just the age we live in.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Dreakon13

[Happy]

1 hour ago, Parker said:

 

I may be mistaken because I didn't play any GTA: Online (I tried when the game first launched on PS3, but I think we all remember how that turned out...) but didn't Rockstar release quite a bit of free content for GTA: Online as well? I am personally fine with cosmetic microtransactions, especially if the developer then uses that money to produce free content for everyone else. That being said, I don't know if the GTA: Online microtransactions were more than just cosmetic items so that may be a bad example. 

 

Hopefully, microtransactions in RDR 2 (since we know they are in the game) are completely limited to multiplayer. I'd also prefer Rockstar use the money they make from those microtransactions to fund an actual substantial single player DLC as well, something that was sorely missing from GTA V. 

 

 

Parker

 

Yeah GTA Online has been receiving constant free updates on a regular basis since its launch, i was just questioning if the money gained from microtransactions was actually necessary to provide that support in this case. I recommend taking a quick look at GTAs sales figures, it's quite impressive just how hard they blow the rest of the competition out of the water. No matter how you do the math, dudes should be swimming in money even without the extra payments.

[GlennRhee]

On 11/25/2017 at 4:46 PM, 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..

 

It also shows how disconnected reps are from the gaming world, since most gamers aren't going to stick with a single game for long enough to make microtransactions "cheap".

[PooPooBlast]

2 hours ago, GlennRhee said:

 

It also shows how disconnected reps are from the gaming world, since most gamers aren't going to stick with a single game for long enough to make microtransactions "cheap".

Yea Ikr. I had the same thought. I mean yea I do know some busy people who literally buy one game a year and stick to playing online only but that's certainly just a portion of the audience.

 

Eh I honestly don't really care about all of this fiasco and thank goodness the Star wars franchise never appealed to me in general. If there's a game riddled with MTX, I just ignore it and move on. Their loss. There will always be plenty of other respectable releases 

[yellowwindow7]

it's a simple job, stop being greedy and don't made your freaking games revolves around micro transactions and lot boxes, look at Horizon Zero Dawn and Zelda Breath of the Wild, two game that have zero micro transaction and easily won the ultimate GOTY.

 

well, I guess greedy publishers will remain and stay greedy to the bitter end.

Edited December 1, 2017 by yellowwindow7
made some correction.

[ddracarys]

On 11/27/2017 at 1:39 PM, PooPooBlast said:

Eh I honestly don't really care about all of this fiasco and thank goodness the Star wars franchise never appealed to me in general. If there's a game riddled with MTX, I just ignore it and move on. Their loss. There will always be plenty of other respectable releases 

 

Yasssss, preach boii. Was never into Star Wars either. 

[PooPooBlast]

15 minutes ago, ddracarys said:

 

Yasssss, preach boii. Was never into Star Wars either. 

Lol I was waiting to get a lot of hate from everyone because seriously man, all of my friends have a star wars craze and seems like many people here too, but then here I am just staring blankly, feeling left out

[ddracarys]

On 11/30/2017 at 1:34 AM, PooPooBlast said:

Lol I was waiting to get a lot of hate from everyone because seriously man, all of my friends have a star wars craze and seems like many people here too, but then here I am just staring blankly, feeling left out

 

No need to feel left out anymore!  Haha. I was never into all of those scifi series such as Star Wars, Star Trek and Back to the Future. So I barely know anything about any of these myself! 

[StrickenBiged]

Based on R*'s previous implementation, I have faith that RDR2 will be fine. GTAO recently had it's most profitable month ever, yet on the few occasions where I have played GTAO I have never felt the need to spend money on MTX. 

 

There is also the point that MTX in GTAO are completely fair and transparent. Your real-world money buys you in-game $ - done. There's no loot boxes so you always know what you're buying. 

 

If they stick to that system, they'll still make the crazy money they always have and I'll still be happy with it. 

[ddracarys]

34 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

Based on R*'s previous implementation, I have faith that RDR2 will be fine. GTAO recently had it's most profitable month ever, yet on the few occasions where I have played GTAO I have never felt the need to spend money on MTX. 

 

There is also the point that MTX in GTAO are completely fair and transparent. Your real-world money buys you in-game $ - done. There's no loot boxes so you always know what you're buying. 

 

If they stick to that system, they'll still make the crazy money they always have and I'll still be happy with it. 

 

This. I really don't think yall should be worried. Sure, MTXs suck ass. But at least these will not affect your gameplay at all.

[madbuk]

47 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

Based on R*'s previous implementation, I have faith that RDR2 will be fine. GTAO recently had it's most profitable month ever, yet on the few occasions where I have played GTAO I have never felt the need to spend money on MTX. 

 

There is also the point that MTX in GTAO are completely fair and transparent. Your real-world money buys you in-game $ - done. There's no loot boxes so you always know what you're buying. 

 

If they stick to that system, they'll still make the crazy money they always have and I'll still be happy with it. 

When was the last time you played GTAO? They keep arbitrarily raising the prices of new items so that you either waste hours of your time grinding out money (and afaik they keep nerfing how much money you get too), or you spend real money to get the items. Rockstar aren't innocent in this.

[PooPooBlast]

Just now, madbuk said:

When was the last time you played GTAO? They keep arbitrarily raising the prices of new items so that you either waste hours of your time grinding out money (and afaik they keep nerfing how much money you get too), or you spend real money to get the items. Rockstar aren't innocent in this.

I had the same initial thoughts as @StrickenBiged but then I realized that I only platinumed/ 100%ed the ps3 version and so idk how far he prices went up with things on ps4.  Now that I think about it you have a point. We'll just have to wait and see

[StrickenBiged]

33 minutes ago, madbuk said:

When was the last time you played GTAO? They keep arbitrarily raising the prices of new items so that you either waste hours of your time grinding out money (and afaik they keep nerfing how much money you get too), or you spend real money to get the items. Rockstar aren't innocent in this.

 

Haven't played GTAO since they brought in Heists. I've always played in private lobbies with friends, so haven't felt pressured by seeing online players who have paid or grinded for the high-end stuff. (That's another important point - GTAO allows you to do this too.)

 

I don't think this affects my argument tho. My ambivalence towards R*'s implementation is because they tell you what you're getting when you buy the in-game currency. If the in-game currency is not worth it to you, don't buy it. 

 

My objection is mostly to loot boxes, and especially where they contain items which affect gameplay or player power, because you don't know what you are buying in advance. All companies would have to do is tell you the odds of winning (and whether the odds are affected by anything such as data about your gameplay habits) the item you actually want and I would be happy with these too though.

 

What I object to, fundamentally, is consumers not being told about what they're paying for and/or being psychologically manipulated by Skinner-box-esque techniques. 

 

There will always be more games in the pipeline which treat the customer fairly. If RDR2 turns out to have loot boxes or an in-game economy that I'm not happy with, I simply won't buy it and will put my money and time somewhere else. I'll be disappointed in R* and the game, sure. But there will be other games to play. 

[starcrunch061]

13 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

If RDR2 turns out to have loot boxes or an in-game economy that I'm not happy with, I simply won't buy it and will put my money and time somewhere else. I'll be disappointed in R* and the game, sure. But there will be other games to play. 

 

I think this is the real point here. Week in, week out, there are always new releases, which means there are always alternatives. And if someone doesn't buy the game in week 1 (and maybe even day 1), they will most likely hold until there is a massive price drop.

 

I agree with Mayus above that people will buy the game. However, I think with the budgets that go into these games nowadays, simply having people buy it isn't enough. Maybe those people can be further squeezed with mtx (and other dlc), maybe not. But I remain firm in my belief that premium+mtx model is pretty much doomed to failure, and maybe more quickly than I thought before.