Devil May Cry 5 has multiplayer and microtransactions

[Conor]

The "durr of course they're gonna want to make more money" argument is perhaps the most lazy and idiotic defense of this scummy practice, you've basically bought the corporate bile and become a mouthpiece. Like I said, even if this is truly just an "option" and normal gameplay is totally unaffected in any way, it still helps set a precedent that enables the worse implementations of it in other games. They're one and the same to me. I truly, honestly can't believe what I'm seeing here right now, I'd have thought with all the controversy over the last two years that people would be more sick of it and willing to take a stand. Guess not. I may be new to the site but I'm certainly not new to gaming or the internet and I for one am weary of the truly despicable nature of "Triple-A" gaming these days. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by LepreCon1991

[Feral]

2 minutes ago, LepreCon1991 said:

The "durr of course they're gonna want to make more money" argument is perhaps the most lazy and idiotic defense of this scummy practice, you've basically bought the corporate bile and become a mouthpiece. Like I said, even if this is truly just an "option" and normal gameplay is totally unaffected in any way, it still enables the worse implementations of it in other games. They're one and the same to me. I truly, honestly can't believe what I'm seeing here right now, I'd have thought with all the controversy over the last two years that people would be more sick of it and willing to take a stand. Guess not. I may be new to the site but I'm certainly not new to gaming or the internet and I for one am weary of the truly despicable nature of "Triple-A" gaming these days. 

The way you take a stand is not buying it. Jumping up and down on some site won't make anything happen.

[Conor]

10 minutes ago, Feral said:

The way you take a stand is not buying it. Jumping up and down on some site won't make anything happen.

 

Really? Gosh golly I hadn't thought of that, I was really banking on the idea of whinging online but then going out and buying the game Day One anyway.

[Feral]

1 minute ago, LepreCon1991 said:

 

Really? Gosh golly I hadn't thought of that, I was really banking on the idea of whinging online but then going out and buying the game Day One anyway.

Your constant whinging is less productive than that.

 

Anyway I meant not buying anything the microtransactions are selling.

[majob]

9 hours ago, jrdemr said:

 

I have a lot of trouble believing DLC is mere "supplemental material" when it is announced months before the game comes out or even alongside the game itself. If you know you're going to make that content that much in advance, then stick it in the main game.

If you still have troubling believing that, here's a video showing not one, not two, but eight examples of games that had the gall to sell the true ending as DLC (and I'm pretty sure there's more - Dead Rising 4 comes to mind).

 

 

 

You have also (repeatedly) ignored my point that if a game is designed around microtransactions, there is a very real possibility (not certainty) that it will be made much grindier than it would have had those microtransactions not been present. Companies don't generally put additional purchases into something and then expect you not to use them.

 

I have no doubt that the game was sold to me the way it was meant to. That is not to say that it couldn't have been better. If there's a really stupid directorial decision in a game, whether it's designed to make you spend more money or otherwise (i.e. just a creative directorial decision) I will complain about it just the same. But unlike merely creative directorial decisions, microtransactions are, more often than not, borne of greedy publisher decisions that will never impact the game in a positive way. So they're giving us the option... to skip the normal progression of the game? By extension, that means the normal progression of the game is a grindy and boring experience. If the game was designed as it should have been, the progression would have been made fun and hence there would have been no need for us to skip it.

That's why we hate the mere principle of microtransactions. Because they never bode anything positive. Their mere presence in a game strongly implies two things: the publisher is a greedy fuck who is not content simply charging us the base price of the game and the game is a grindy mess that requires you to pay extra to be made even remotely enjoyable.

AGAIN, I'm not saying that will be the case in DMC5. The game could be just as enjoyable and balanced as every other game in the series. But that is the best case scenario (and the one I'm hoping for). Microtransactions never bring anything positive to a game. The best we can hope for is that they don't do any damage.


To be honest, I don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye on this subject. You clearly want to view publishers as sensible companies that respect their customers and would do nothing to undermine their enjoyments of the base experience. I've just been around long enough that my confidence in the goodness of the suits behind the AAA industry has long been eroded. I'm even considered to be an extremely positive person, but regarding the AAA industry, to me, they're all guilty until proven innocent. I've seen too many negative news to believe otherwise.

It's still supplemental material regardless simply because you still get the base experience of the game, you were never deprived of that pleasure. It doesn't matter if it's before, during, or after game development. And I won't be the one to say they should stick it into the game for free, it would be nice to be sure, but they determine what they do with their product, not I. I vote with my wallet and that influence will speak for itself.

 

And your point still operates off PRESUMPTIONS, I don't like jumping to conclusions, that breeds fallacies and delusions. And come off the "greedy" claims, a company exists to make profit, not make you happy. Their primary goal is to seek revenue and new means to acquire it and increase market share, which requires revenue to do. That's the entire point of business. It becomes a sore point if they have means to force you to buy their wares and control prices which game companies do not.

 

I've never claimed MCT bring a positive but that their existence is in no way detrimental to you or your game, especially since you have the choice to buy them or not.

 

And yeah, we won't see eye to eye, we agree to disagree for sure, but don't presume that I think highly of companies, I don't. What I do however, is acknowledge what they are, how they operate, and my CHOICES in the matter. 

[Gamer-Girl-Noire]

this better be a joke or something as alot of games i know of that sell you in game currency related to upgrades make the in game rates so small to the point micro-transactions are the only way to avoid the said endless grind. 

 

this is also quite shocking as they did not have any in mh worlds and that game was fun and well received because everything you had was from hard work and skill not your wallet.

[Zenpai]

35 minutes ago, majob said:

It's still supplemental material regardless simply because you still get the base experience of the game, you were never deprived of that pleasure. It doesn't matter if it's before, during, or after game development. And I won't be the one to say they should stick it into the game for free, it would be nice to be sure, but they determine what they do with their product, not I. I vote with my wallet and that influence will speak for itself.

 

And your point still operates off PRESUMPTIONS, I don't like jumping to conclusions, that breeds fallacies and delusions. And come off the "greedy" claims, a company exists to make profit, not make you happy. Their primary goal is to seek revenue and new means to acquire it and increase market share, which requires revenue to do. That's the entire point of business. It becomes a sore point if they have means to force you to buy their wares and control prices which game companies do not.

 

I've never claimed MCT bring a positive but that their existence is in no way detrimental to you or your game, especially since you have the choice to buy them or not.

 

And yeah, we won't see eye to eye, we agree to disagree for sure, but don't presume that I think highly of companies, I don't. What I do however, is acknowledge what they are, how they operate, and my CHOICES in the matter. 

 

More power to you.

 

I could try and rebuke your arguments (yet again), but we can all see this would just go on forever.

[ProfBambam55]

I would quote some of the above posts but previous experience has taught me that this just leads to hostility rather than discussion...

 

I recently took interest in this whole microtransaction stuff and I'm not sure what the future has in store in terms of gaming...i think it's a bit complicated, that opinions are strong, and facts are hard to draw conclusions from...i found these three articles amongst others kind of interesting...

 

https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/economics-of-microtransactions/

 

what caught my attention in this one was the mention of whales who account for 0.15% of players (on mobile) contributing to 50% of revenue...

 

https://www.gamesradar.com/microtransactions-and-loot-boxes-in-video-games-are-they-pure-greed-or-a-modern-necessity/

 

i like the use of concrete numbers showing the cost of development and the inflation over time...also the entertainment value numbers...

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinanderton/2018/03/07/the-on-going-controversy-of-microtransactions-in-gaming-infographic/

 

I found the data in the graphs interesting and like the conclusion sentence of :

"We have not seen the last of “play-to-win” but hopefully, it will evolve in a direction that is more acceptable." 

 

I really do not like microtransactions but I don't think corporate greed is necessarily to blame for them...i think companies are looking for legal ways to increase their revenue and that microtransactions have been the easiest and simplest way to maximize profits...i think that almost by definition, billion dollar corporations do this sort of thing...i hear the point of it being unethical but, whether we agree or not, I think in business the law is the line of what is seen as ethical...legal is fair game...illegal is out of bounds...ethics can be quite subjective so best to rely on law...

 

one stat I like to look at is profit annually/employee...for reference, in my business, I make roughly $6 500/employee/year...my company ranks in the top 2% nationwide in our field based on a variety of factors including customer service, quality, etc...i would like to think my employees and clients are very satisfied and that I am not at all a greedy person...as a matter of fact, a portion of my profit goes to charity...but it is neither here nor there...

 

let's look at some of the top CEO's...

"As Chief Executive Officer at ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., ANDREW WILSON made $35,728,764 in total compensation. Of this total$1,141,731 was received as a salary, $2,500,000 was received as a bonus, $0 was received in stock options, $32,025,759 was awarded as stock and $61,274 came from other types of compensation."

 

number of employees for 2017, 8 800...if we do the math without tax (10% if using loopholes; why companies are avoiding tax is a potential political debate so best to just leave it at that) we get about $4 060/employee annually...nothing too crazy...not to mention 8 800 jobs created...already up 500 for 2018...good for the economy...

 

"Activision-Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick’s compensation for 2017 was $28,698,375."

 

at 9800 employees that makes just under $3 000/employee...they've also been named one of the best companies to work for both internationally and in america...pretty decent numbers too...

 

but then we have ethics...to me,  microtransactions and particularly loot boxes, are the closest thing to gambling we have seen in video games...i like to think of them as comparable to lottery tickets...whether buying a lottery ticket is ethical or not to me is an individual choice...i think loot boxes are the same...until legislation is passed disallowing them or companies are forced to get gambling licenses to offer them, I think they are here to stay...how can we get rid of them?...well, if we look at the whale stat in the first linked article, we probably can't...ouch!....

 

as far as season passes and withholding content upon release...i don't know if enough people would buy games at $150 which might be the actual cost of developing them...so if a company combines this practice with loot boxes and vanity items, it almost guarantees profit...with shareholders investing huge sums into ceos, profit and growth are essential and yes, are a huge motivator...

 

my point?...despite having disposable income, i strongly dislike microtransactions as a gamer and don't support them...this is likely because I remember a time when they didn't exist...i also own a business, so I feel that just blaming corporate greed is a kind of a lazy way of voicing a strong disagreement...the numbers I've seen are kind of conflicting and hard to draw concrete conclusions from...i do think that some of the business practices can be seen as unethical but that by existing, big companies do more good for society with relation to economics than bad...meaning yes, big businesses are more concerned with economical decisions than ethical ones...i would argue that that's how they grew to be and maintain their status as big businesses...to bring out a classic...1% percent of the population controls 97% of the wealth...loopholes or not, where does most of the tax money in a given country come from?...well, here in Canada :

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/how-much-of-a-fair-share-do-canadas-top-earners-pay-you-might-be-surprised

 

if we catch on to the game they are trying to play for profit, as consumers, we should be able to stop it, right?...it's our money they're after...this is where I'm going to have to say "I don't know"...if those who strongly disagree with microtransactions stop buying into them, will it be enough to stop the whales?...probably not...so to me, it might have the opposite effect and we might actually see an increase in the type of microtransactions within a given title...but if we buy into microtransactions, we're supporting them...so what do we do?...stop buying games?...we could but then we might miss out on games that we actually want to play where microtransactions don't necessarily affect our experience (like dmc 5 here seems to be) other than making achieving items a longer grind or having access to all content through a season pass a bit more expensive (but possibly the actual value of developing them)...if companies profit less, we lose content, and possibly companies, which could lead them to developing even lazier content (i.e. more bloody microtransactions)...

 

instead of complaining or justifying microtransactions I can't help but wonder "where are we headed?"...perhaps the new generation who grew up with them will consider them normal and eventually tell all the "old farts" to just stop whining...haha...i'm curious to see what the next decade has in store for us avid gamers...my guess would be that microtransactions are here to stay but I hope I'm wrong and that companies find more pleasant ways to maximize revenue...

Edited September 28, 2018 by ProfBambam55

[FawltyPowers]

I don't think there's anyone on here yet posted that they like to see MTX in games, the issue is that some people don't see it as a problem and others see the potential for them to escalate from "they can be ignored as they have no impact" to eventually the mobile market of "if I don't spend X it's going to take me X hours longer to do".

 

Years ago I was happy to buy a game at release and I was excited to do so. How has all the activity in the past years impacted me, have I just ignored it? No.

 

I will never pre-order a game, I will never buy a game day one, quite simply because I have no idea how the game on day one will resemble the final complete product. Standard Edition, Gold Edition, Deluxe Edition, Complete Edition, Legendary Edition, GOTY Edition, Season Pass, DLC, Add-On Packs. I don't understand what they mean. What do I need for the full game? Standard Edition + Season Pass? Sometimes and sometimes the season pass is not all DLC content (as I've just learned recently).

 

Games are released unfinished and require patches to fix. I am not their guinea pigs, I'm not there to help them get their product working.

 

Loot Boxes. I've had one experience with loot boxes so far and that's in Rocket League and I only got this game because my friends wanted me to. Every now and then when items drop after a match it would be a locked loot box, sitting in your inventory. They couldn't be unlocked unless you spent £1.19 on a key, talk about rubbing it in your face. There is a trophy called "Certifiable" which required you to get a certified item to veteran level. In the 20 hours I played this I got one to drop and it was a category I couldn't have completed. Luckily as it was Christmas you could earn snowflake points, if you got 50 you could buy a decryptor that opened a loot box, up to a maximum of 5. Well guess what happened when I used all 5 decryptors? I got 1 painted item and 3 certified items. So I could play the game for X hours for an item or get it next to immediately from paying money. Absolutely vile.

 

MTX. Not purchased any but have seen shark cards in GTA V. Whilst not needing them because I'm with a great crew with more money than I know what to do with I can see why people buy them. Why? When levelling up I read that the best way to do this solo is to do missions. Completing missions gains you XP and money. How do you get more XP and money, in most games it would be for completing a mission as efficiently and effectively as possible, awarding you for your skill. Not in this game. In this game it's how long it takes you to complete a mission. Basically complete the requirements and then go and wait for 10 minutes to hand it in. Your time and patience is the reward and not skill, not hard to figure out why people would prefer to pay instead of wait.

 

In short, I no longer trust the industry, I research each and every game I buy so I know what I'm letting myself in for and if there's extra's I have to buy I will wait for a big sale. My backlog is now consisting more and more of indie titles which while not exempt are certainly closer to what a game should be - interesting and new concepts, addictive gameplay and for the most part - what you see is what you get. The only beaming light this year I've noticed has been God of War, after everything I've read I trust that this is a standalone game and as such I've paid more for this game then I have any in the past years.

 

So Yes I don't just complain, I vote with my wallet. I spend less now than I used to because I don't trust what I buy.

 

EDIT: Thanks @jrdemr for the Jim Sterling links, I watch his videos from time to time and I agree with a lot of what he says, he has a great way of putting his point of view across.

Edited September 28, 2018 by FawltyPowers

[Zenpai]

9 hours ago, ProfBambam55 said:

as far as season passes and withholding content upon release...i don't know if enough people would buy games at $150 which might be the actual cost of developing them...

 

You made a very interesting post but I just wanted to comment on this part right here.

The solution to this is very simple: making games under a cheaper budget. The best-selling consoles of all-time, the Playstation 2 and the Nintendo DS, had nothing nowhere near HD graphics with ultra-realistic textures and models, and yet, they both sold by far more than any other console in existence. Hell, if you go down the list of best-selling consoles of all time, the first one to have any kind of HD capabilities is the Xbox 360, at #6, very closely followed by the Playstation 3 at #7.

Hell, if Nintendo's good at something, it's showing us that you can make games a ground-breaking success with very simple but appealing graphics. And back in the days of the Playstation 2, even as graphically weak as the console was by today's standards, we had games that looked absolutely phenomenal - Square Enix's come to mind, as does Ookami. All you had to do is throw away the idea of an ultra-realistic style and make something simpler, just with some flair and personality.

I just don't think all of these solutions are the way to go for gaming. If you need to announce season passes at the same time as the game itself or implement microtransactions, or, God forbid, loot boxes just because your game was insanely expensive to make... then just make a cheaper, more stylized game.

 

I find these videos by Extra Credits to be particularly enlightening on the subject.
 

 

 

 

[ProfBambam55]

3 hours ago, jrdemr said:

I find these videos by Extra Credits to be particularly enlightening on the subject. 

although I hear the messages, I don't think aesthetics vs graphics are necessarily the saving grace for video games...both linked videos don't have any numbers associated with them so it just comes across as someone's opinion...if one could present potential profit margins to a ceo or dev they might listen...are there any concrete numbers?...

 

as far as leading consoles there are a number of factors worth considering aside from just graphics or hardware...yes, I think the Wii nailed graphics vs aesthetics in many cases but was also the first console to do motion sensor controls/games right...the ps2 came at a time when console gaming was huge and the mobile market was non-existent...is it possible the ds was like half the cost of a vita with a much larger and more appealing library of games?...its portability and seeming indestructibility may have added to it's popularity...it's also possible that the game boy which was without question the best handheld for its time of any generation added to consumers trust for nintendo and handhelds...the super Mario and Pokemon series alone also likely boosted ds sales...i'm a bit too lazy to look up sales demographics and whatnot but I'm not convinced that just spending less on aesthetics or graphics is 1 - what most consumers in this day and age want...or 2 - enough to offset the profits of microtransactions...so my questions would be : what is the reduction in % of production costs?...what data indicates that aesthetics and graphics take precendence over things like series/franchise popularity, innovation, etc. for the average consumer in the current generation?...if we look at the list of top-selling ps4 games it's worth asking is it simply the aesthetics that make them popular?...

 

i think for topics like this relevant numbers are important...just saying this one sold better and this is the reason why, when there are a ton of factors/variables involved is a good conversation starter and a step in the right direction in terms of finding solutions but drawing conclusion of off data and facts are an equally important part of the process...i think in the videos you've linked in this thread, despite being very strong in one direction, the opinions are very valid but the numbers are greatly underrepresented...to state the obvious : in business, people's money speaks much louder than their opinions...i don't find it surprising that devs are going to make changes based on trends of the former rather than the latter...

 

personally, I feel like I'm kind of a minority voice in the grand scheme of things and am able to acknowledge this...from the data I've seen and the evolution in society and the industry I've witnessed in my lifetime I feel kind of helpless...i open my wallet carefully but it seems to have little impact...as I said in my previous post, I can't help but wonder what the future has in store for us gamers...it seems like the course we're on is irreversible...no, it's not an attempt at a lame cop out...i guess that despite not liking the numbers, they make sense to me so it leads to a sort of conflict...i really love gaming but am really not a fan of current microtransaction trends...i'm not really sure what the best course of action is as a consumer...i do know that I don't plan on not playing video games anytime soon and would consider myself somewhat delusion if I thought I could control how other people spend their money...hard pill to swallow?...a bit, yes...

Edited September 28, 2018 by ProfBambam55